5484 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1 Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143. 

2The target population reflects a very minimal 

incorporation of ESC in the vehicle fleet. As 

discussed later in this SNPRM, the final regulatory 

analysis will be adjusted to reflect full 

incorporation of ESC into the vehicle fleet. ESC will 

significantly reduce the number of rollover 

fatalities, and further reduce the roof crush target 

population. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: January 22, 2008. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Federal Insurance Administrator of the 

National Flood Insurance Program, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. E8–1650 Filed 1–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0015] 

RIN 2127–AG51 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Roof Crush Resistance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document supplements 

NHTSA’s August 2005 proposal to 

upgrade the Federal motor vehicle 

safety standard on roof crush resistance. 

We issued that proposal as part of a 

comprehensive plan for reducing the 

serious risk of rollover crashes and the 

risk of death and serious injury in those 

crashes. 

In this document, we ask for public 

comment on a number of issues that 

may affect the content of the final rule, 

including possible variations in the 

proposed requirements. We are also 

announcing the release of the results of 

various vehicle tests conducted since 

the proposal and are inviting comments 

on how the agency should factor this 

new information into its final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–366–9826. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy 

Act heading under Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical issues: Mr. Christopher 

Wiacek, Office of Rulemaking, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–4801. 

For legal issues: Mr. Edward Glancy, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–2992. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Overview of Standard 216 

B. Target Population of Standard 216 

C. Summary of 2005 Proposal 

D. Purpose of this SNPRM 

II. Release of Vehicle Test Results 

A. Single-Sided Tests 

B. Two-Sided Tests 

III. Discussion 

A. Pass/Fail Rate of the Vehicle Fleet 

B. Impact of Electronic Stability Control 

Safety Standard on Potential Benefits 

C. Revised Cost and Weight Estimates 

D. Two-Sided Testing Implications 

E. Other Factors 

IV. Comments Sought 

V. Public Participation 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

VII. Proposed Regulatory Text 

I. Introduction 

On August 23, 2005, NHTSA 

published in the Federal Register (70 

FR 49223) a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.1 As 

discussed in the NPRM, this ongoing 

rulemaking is part of a comprehensive 

plan for reducing the serious risk of 

rollover crashes and the risk of death 

and serious injury in those crashes. In 

addition to roof crush, other strategies 

in the comprehensive approach include 

crash-avoidance initiatives such as 

electronic stability control which will 

significantly reduce the number of 

rollovers, as well as crashworthiness 

efforts such as ejection mitigation and 

improved door lock strength which will 

lower the probability of ejection when 

rollovers do occur. 

A. Overview of Standard 216 

FMVSS No. 216 seeks to reduce 

deaths and serious injuries resulting 

from the roof being crushed and pushed 

into the occupant compartment when 

the roof strikes the ground during 

rollover crashes. The standard currently 

applies to passenger cars, and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 

kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. 

The standard requires that when a 

large steel test plate (sometimes referred 

to as a platen) is placed in contact with 

the roof of a vehicle and then pressed 

downward, simulating contact of the 

roof with the ground during a rollover 

crash, with steadily increasing force 

until a force equivalent to 1.5 times the 

unloaded weight of the vehicle is 

reached, the distance that the test plate 

has moved from the point of contact 

must not exceed 127 mm (5 inches). The 

criterion of the test plate not being 

permitted to move more than a specified 

amount is sometimes referred to as the 

‘‘platen travel’’ criterion. Under S5 of 

the standard, the application of force is 

limited to 22,240 Newtons (5,000 

pounds) for passenger cars, even if the 

unloaded weight of the car times 1.5 is 

greater than that amount. 

B. Target Population of Standard 216 

Due to the complex nature of a 

rollover event and the particularlized 

effect of each element of the 

comprehensive and systematic approach 

taken by the agency to address these 

crashes, each element addresses a 

specific segment of the total rollover 

problem. 

Table 1 below shows the target 

population that could potentially 

benefit from roof crush improvements.2

The target population for all light 

vehicles is stratified by injury severity. 

The table demonstrates how the final 

target population is derived from the 

broad category of rollovers by 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5485 

3Note that in the most recent agency testing, 

headroom reduction had been assessed using a head 

positioning fixture in lieu of a 50th percentile 

dummy. Reports on these tests explain the 

procedure and type of fixture used to assess 

headroom reduction. (As explained elsewhere in 

this document, these test reports are being made 

available to the public through the agency’s internet 

vehicle crash test database.) Please note further that 

the agency is considering whether this fixture 

should be specified in the final rule. 

eliminating cases in which roof strength 

improvements would not be effective. 

The final target populations are shown 

in bold at the bottom of the table. 

Numbers in the table shown in 

parenthesis are deducted from previous 

values to arrive at the final target 

population shown in bold. All other 

numbers represent the values that result 

from the restrictions noted in the left 

column. A full discussion of the basis 

for the target population is included in 

the August 2005 Preliminary Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (PRIA). 

One modification to that basis should 

be noted. In the PRIA, it was assumed 

that in cases in which there were fatal 

injuries which involved both the head 

and another body region at the highest 

MAIS level, the head injury was the 

cause of death. More recent analysis 

indicates that only about 2⁄3’s of these 

deaths were attributable to the head 

injury. Based on this, the ‘‘not sole 

injury’’ category for fatalities was 

adjusted to reflect the assumption that 

67% of these cases would be attributed 

to head injury, leaving a total of 476 

fatalities as the final target population 

applicable for roof crush. 

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

AIS 1 AIS 2 AIS 3–5 Fatalities 

Non-Convertible Light Vehicles in Rollovers ........................................... 199,549 37,661 21,933 9,011 

Roof-Involved Rollover ............................................................................ 164,007 32,862 19,520 7,679 

No Fixed Object Collision on Top ........................................................... 153,324 29,346 18,029 6,712 

Not Totally Ejected .................................................................................. 149,632 25,949 12,638 3,227 

Using Safety Restraints ........................................................................... 116,135 14,234 9,204 1,835 

Front Outboard Seats .............................................................................. 103,320 13,457 8,653 1,658 

Not 12 Years Old or Younger .................................................................. 101,581 13,418 8,635 1,650 

Roof Component Intrusion ....................................................................... 64,123 10,339 6,747 1,125 

Head, Neck, or Face Injury from Intruding Roof Component ................. 23,147 6,508 3,027 731 

Injury—Not MAIS * ................................................................................... (0 ) (1,872 ) (1,382 ) (209 ) 

Injury at MAIS—Not Sole Injury .............................................................. (17,128 ) (289 ) (250 ) (46 ) 

Sole MAIS Injury ...................................................................................... 6,019 4,346 1,395 476 

* This means that the most serious injury was to a portion of the body other than the head, neck or face. 

The target population relevant to 

FMVSS No. 216 in Table 1 is thus a 

relatively small subset of the occupants 

injured in rollovers. For fatalities, the 

estimated total for the target population 

is 5 percent of all non-convertible light 

vehicle rollover fatalities (476/9,011). 

For nonfatal injury categories, the 

estimated total ranges from 3 to 12 

percent. The most significant exclusions 

resulted from requirements that 

fatalities occurred in rollovers in which 

(1) the roof was damaged in a rollover, 

(2) the damage was not caused by 

collision with a fixed object, (3) the 

fatally injured occupants were not 

ejected, and (4) those occupants were 

belted. 

It is important to understand what 

this Table indicates about the safety 

potential of addressing roof crush. Even 

if there were some way to prevent every 

single rollover death resulting from roof 

crush, the total lives saved would be 

476, not the approximately 10,000 

deaths that result from rollover each 

year. This is why each initiative in 

NHTSA’s comprehensive program to 

address the different aspects of the 

rollover problem is so important. Each 

initiative has a different target 

population. We have initiatives in place 

to: 

1. Reduce the occurrence of rollover 

crashes (e.g., the requirement for 

Electronic Stability Control on all light 

vehicles and the NCAP rollover ratings), 

2. Keep occupants inside the vehicle 

when rollovers occur (e.g., NHTSA’s 

unstinting commitment to get 

passengers to buckle their seat belts 

every time they ride in a vehicle, as well 

as the requirement for enhanced door 

latches and the forthcoming new 

requirement for ejection mitigation), and 

3. Better protect the occupants kept 

inside the vehicle during the rollover 

(this rule to require enhanced roof crush 

resistance). 

Each of these three initiatives must 

work together to address the various 

aspects of the rollover problem. 

However, it is important to understand 

which portion of the rollover problem 

can be addressed by each of these three 

initiatives, so that there is a clear and 

correct understanding of the safety 

benefits potentially associated with each 

of the different types of actions to 

reduce rollover deaths and injuries. 

C. Summary of 2005 Proposal 

To better address fatalities and 

injuries occurring in roof-involved 

rollover crashes, we proposed in 2005 to 

extend the application of the standard to 

vehicles with a GVWR of up to 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds), and to 

strengthen the requirements of FMVSS 

No. 216 by mandating that the vehicle 

roof structures withstand a force 

equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded 

vehicle weight, and eliminating the 

22,240 Newtons (5,000 pounds) force 

limit for passenger cars. Further, in 

recognition of the fact that the pre-test 

distance between the interior surface of 

the roof and a given occupant’s head 

varies from vehicle model to vehicle 

model, we proposed to regulate roof 

strength by requiring that the crush not 

exceed the available headroom. Under 

the proposal, this requirement would 

replace the current limit on test plate 

movement. 

The proposed new limit would 

prohibit any roof component from 

contacting the head of a seated 50th 

percentile male dummy when the roof 

is subjected to a force equivalent to 2.5 

times the unloaded vehicle weight. We 

note that this value is sometimes 

referred to as the strength-to-weight 

ratio (SWR), e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.5, and 

so forth. 

D. Purpose of This SNPRM 

The agency has been carefully 

analyzing the numerous comments it 

received on its proposal. In addition, it 

has been analyzing the various 

additional vehicle tests, including both 

single-side tests and two-sided tests,3

conducted since the NPRM. In this 

document, we are inviting comments on 

how the agency should factor this new 

information into its decision. While the 

NPRM focused on a specified force 

equivalent to 2.5 times the unloaded 

vehicle weight, the agency could adopt 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
5486 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

a higher or lower value for the final rule. 

With respect to two-sided vehicle 

testing, we believe that, with the 

additional tests conducted by the 

agency, there is now sufficient available 

information for the agency to consider a 

two-sided requirement as an alternative 

to the single-sided procedure described 

in the NPRM. The agency plans to 

evaluate both the single-sided and twosided testing alternatives for the final 

rule. We are requesting comments that 

will help us reach a decision on that 

issue. 

In developing a final rule, the agency 

will consider the comments submitted 

on both the August 2005 NPRM and this 

document. Thus, there is no need for 

persons to re-submit the comments they 

provided for the NPRM. We note that 

we are generally not discussing the 

comments in this document, except for 

a few brief references that are relevant 

to the potential economic impact of our 

proposal. We also note that the 

proposed regulatory text in this 

document includes both the singlesided and two-sided test requirement 

alternatives. The fact that the proposed 

regulatory text for the two alternatives 

does not reflect other changes suggested 

by commenters on the NPRM does not 

mean that we will not consider those 

recommended changes in developing a 

final rule. 

We are providing a 45-day comment 

period. We believe this is appropriate 

given that this is an SNPRM with a more 

limited focus than the NPRM, and given 

the need to comply with a statutory 

deadline. 

II. Release of Vehicle Test Results 

The test reports for the additional 

vehicle tests conducted by NHTSA are 

being made available to the public 

through the agency’s internet vehicle 

crash test database. We are placing a 

memorandum in the docket which 

provides the Web address for that 

database and lists the vehicle models 

and test numbers that are needed to 

reference the information in the 

database. The agency incorporates by 

reference these test reports as part of the 

record for this rulemaking. 

A. Single-Sided Tests 

Since the publication of the NPRM, 

the agency has conducted 35 additional 

single-sided tests. In this testing, the 

force was applied to one side of the roof 

over the front seat area. Force was 

applied until there was 127 mm (5 

inches) of platen travel, unless head 

contact occurred first. The strength of 

the roof was measured prior to any 

subsequent testing the agency may have 

conducted on the second side. The 

agency is releasing these data to the 

public in conjunction with this 

document. 

A summary of the test results is 

presented in the Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2.—SINGLE-SIDED TEST RESULTS

Vehicle 

Unloaded vehicle weight 

(kg) 

Peak strength within 127 mm Peak strength prior to head 

contact 

Platen displacement at 

head contact 

(mm) N SWR N SWR 

2006 VW Jetta ......................................... 1,443 72,613 5.1 72,613 5.1 158 

2007 Scion tC .......................................... 1,326 59,749 4.6 59,749 4.6 113 

2006 Volvo XC90 ..................................... 2,020 90,188 4.6 N/A N/A N/A 

2006 Honda Civic .................................... 1,251 55,207 4.5 55,207 4.5 177 

2007 Toyota Tacoma ............................... 1,489 64,441 4.4 64,441 4.4 123 

2006 Mazda 5 .......................................... 1,535 66,621 4.4 66,621 4.4 155 

2007 Toyota Camry ................................. 1,468 62,097 4.3 62,097 4.3 N/A 

2007 Toyota Yaris .................................... 1,038 41,073 4 41,073 4 115 

2006 Ford 500 ......................................... 1,657 63,181 3.9 63,181 3.9 150 

2007 Nissan Frontier ............................... 1,615 62,828 3.9 62,828 3.9 167 

2006 Subaru Tribeca ............................... 1,907 72,306 3.9 72,306 3.9 112 

2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse ........................... 1,485 51,711 3.6 51,711 3.6 127 

2006 Hummer H3 .................................... 2,128 70,264 3.4 70,264 3.4 185 

2006 Hyundai Sonata .............................. 1,505 46,662 3.2 46,662 3.2 131 

2007 Dodge Caravan ............................... 1,759 52,436 3 52,436 3 N/A 

2006 Chrysler Crossfire ........................... 1,357 38,179 2.9 38,179 2.9 107 

2004 Honda Accord ................................. 1,413 38,281 2.8 38,281 2.8 140 

2007 Saturn Outlook* .............................. 2,133 57,222 2.7 57,222 2.7 N/A 

2006 Ford Mustang .................................. 1,527 40,101 2.7 41,822 2.8 132 

2005 Buick Lacrosse ............................... 1,590 40,345 2.6 40,345 2.6 126 

2006 Sprinter Van* .................................. 1,946 49,073 2.6 N/A N/A N/A 

2004 Cadillac SRX ................................... 1,961 50,346 2.6 50,346 2.6 138 

2007 Honda CRV ..................................... 1,529 38,637 2.6 38,637 2.6 N/A 

2007 Chrysler 300 ................................... 1,684 41,257 2.5 41,257 2.5 N/A 

2005 Buick Lacrosse ............................... 1,588 37,196 2.4 37,196 2.4 123 

2006 Honda Ridgeline ............................. 2,036 47,334 2.4 47,334 2.4 172 

2007 Ford F–150* .................................... 2,413 54,829 2.3 54,829 2.3 N/A 

2007 Buick Lucerne ................................. 1,690 38,268 2.3 38,268 2.3 N/A 

2004 Chevrolet 2500 HD* ........................ 2,450 55,934 2.3 56,294 2.3 171 

2007 Pontiac G6 ...................................... 1,497 33,393 2.3 33,393 2.3 124 

2007 Chevrolet Express* ......................... 2,471 55,038 2.3 55,038 2.3 N/A 

2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee .................... 1,941 41,582 2.2 41,582 2.2 117 

2007 Chevrolet Tahoe* ............................ 2,462 49,878 2.1 49,878 2.1 N/A 

2006 Dodge Ram* ................................... 2,287 37,596 1.7 42,578 1.9 158 

2003 Ford F–250* .................................... 2,658 44,776 1.7 44,776 1.7 205 

*GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5487 

We observed from this recent testing 

that the range of SWRs for vehicles with 

a GVWR of 6,000 pounds (2722 

kilograms) or less tended to be higher 

than the range of SWRs for vehicles 

with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds 

(2722 kilograms). The SWR of many late 

model vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 

pounds (2722 kilograms) or less was 

substantially higher than the 2.5 value 

the agency focused on in the NPRM. 

Conversely, only two vehicles we tested 

with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds 

(2722 kilograms) exceeded the 2.5 value. 

We note that the data presented in 

these tables do not factor in the full 

spectrum of weight ranges for the 

models tested. The SWR for each model 

was calculated using the unloaded 

vehicle weight (UVW) of the tested 

vehicle rather than the maximum 

vehicle weight. In comments on the 

NPRM, manufacturers said that vehicles 

would have to be designed to comply in 

their maximum weight configuration. 

NHTSA agrees with this comment and 

will reflect maximum weight 

configurations in the final rule analysis. 

We request comments on any other 

steps the agency should take in factoring 

these new test data into its decisions for 

the final rule. 

B. Two-Sided Tests 

In the NPRM, the agency summarized 

the testing it had conducted to evaluate 

the strength of the second side of the 

roof of vehicles whose first side had 

already been tested. In this testing, after 

the force was applied to one side of the 

roof over the front seat area of a vehicle, 

the vehicle was repositioned and force 

was then applied on the opposite side 

of the roof over the front seat area. In 

performing these tests on both sides of 

a vehicle, the agency used the platen 

angle currently specified in FMVSS No. 

216 (5° × 25°). We concluded that the 

strength of the roof on the second side 

of some vehicles may have been 

increased or decreased as a result of the 

deformation of the first side of the roof. 

The agency indicated that it planned to 

conduct further research before 

proposing rulemaking in this area. 

The agency has expanded the series of 

two-sided roof crush tests discussed in 

the NPRM. The agency has now 

conducted a total of 26 sequential twosided tests, as part of its evaluation, and 

is also releasing these data to the public 

in conjunction with this document. 

A summary of the test results is 

presented in the following Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—RESULTS OF 2-SIDED TESTING (5° × 25° PLATEN ANGLE) 

Vehicle 

Peak SWR prior to 127 

mm of platen travel or 

head contact 

Peak force 

change 

(percent) 

1st side 2nd side 

2007 Chevrolet Express 4 ........................................................................................................................ 2.3 1.7 ¥27.3 

2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee .................................................................................................................... 2.2 1.6 ¥27.1 

2007 Pontiac G6 ...................................................................................................................................... 2.3 1.7 ¥23.8 

2005 Lincoln LS * ..................................................................................................................................... 2.6 2.0 ¥21.3 

2007 Saturn Outlook ................................................................................................................................ 2.7 2.2 ¥20.8 

2003 Ford Crown Victoria * ...................................................................................................................... 2.0 1.7 ¥19.5 

2007 Ford F–150 ..................................................................................................................................... 2.3 1.9 ¥19.0 

2007 Chevrolet Tahoe ............................................................................................................................. 2.1 1.7 ¥16.4 

2007 Toyota Yaris ................................................................................................................................... 4.0 3.4 ¥15.8 

2005 Buick LaCrosse .............................................................................................................................. 2.6 2.2 ¥13.5 

2007 Toyota Tacoma ............................................................................................................................... 4.4 3.9 ¥12.2 

2007 Buick Lucerne ................................................................................................................................. 2.3 2.1 ¥10.8 

2003 Chevrolet Impala * .......................................................................................................................... 2.9 2.5 ¥9.9 

2004 Lincoln LS * ..................................................................................................................................... 2.5 2.2 ¥8.7 

2006 Subaru Tribeca ............................................................................................................................... 3.9 3.5 ¥8.3 

2007 Scion tC .......................................................................................................................................... 4.6 4.3 ¥6.7 

2006 Chrysler Crossfire ........................................................................................................................... 2.9 2.7 ¥5.6 

2007 Dodge Caravan .............................................................................................................................. 3.0 2.9 ¥5.3 

2007 Honda CRV .................................................................................................................................... 2.6 2.5 ¥4.9 

2005 Buick LaCrosse .............................................................................................................................. 2.4 2.3 ¥3.4 

2004 Nissan Quest * ................................................................................................................................ 2.8 2.7 ¥3.0 

2001 GMC Sierra * ................................................................................................................................... 1.9 1.9 ¥1.3 

2007 Chrysler 300 ................................................................................................................................... 2.5 2.5 1.6 

2004 Chrysler Pacifica * ........................................................................................................................... 2.2 2.4 7.0 

2007 Toyota Camry ................................................................................................................................. 4.3 4.7 9.0 

2004 Land Rover Freelander * ................................................................................................................ 1.7 2.0 19.2 

* Crush of first side stopped at windshield cracking. 

4Between the first and second side tests, the front door on the tested side was opened. Because of damage to the vehicle during the first side 

test, the door would not properly close. The door was clamped until the latch engaged, locking the door in place. This may have compromised 

the structural integrity of the roof and reduced the measured peak load on the second side. 

For the first eight tests (those with 

asterisks in the table), testing of the first 

side of the vehicle was conducted until 

the windshield cracked. This occurred 

between 90 and 100 mm (3.54 and 3.94 

inches) of platen travel for all vehicles 

except the Nissan Quest which required 

135 mm (5.31 inches) of platen travel 

before the windshield cracked. The 

second side was then tested for 254 mm 

(10 inches) of platen travel. For all other 

tests, the first side was conducted to 127 

mm (5 inches) of platen travel unless 

head contact occurred first. The second 

side was then tested for 254 mm (10 

inches) of platen travel. We note that in 

all 26 tests, the windshield cracked 

before completion of the first side test. 

In the first eight tests, the peak SWR 

was recorded at the time the windshield 

cracked on the first side. For all other 

testing, the SWR was recorded prior to 

127 mm (5 inches) of platen travel or 

prior to head contact, whichever 

occurred first. 

The two-sided test results show that 

the first side test generally produces a 

weakening of the structure. This is 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
5488 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

5 66 FR 17236. 6See Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143–249. 

shown by the fact that the recorded 

SWR for the second side is generally 

lower than for the first side. On average, 

the peak strength for the second side 

was reduced by 8.7 percent. However, 

for several of the vehicles, we observed 

considerably higher reductions in peak 

strength. Of the 25 vehicles tested, 

excluding the Chevrolet Express, six 

experienced reductions in strength of 19 

percent or greater. 

With respect to two-sided vehicle 

testing, we believe that the post-NPRM 

tests provide the agency with sufficient 

additional information for the agency to 

now consider a two-sided test 

requirement for the final rule. However, 

as discussed in the following sections, 

the agency seeks comment on the 

relative trade offs between the singlesided and two-sided test procedures. 

III. Discussion 

Based upon the results of the testing 

described above, the agency is 

contemplating various alternatives for a 

final rule. Each of the alternatives will 

directly affect the current fleet failure 

rate estimates, vehicle design changes 

and vehicle content necessary to meet 

those alternatives, and consequent 

benefits and costs. The agency has not 

completed cost/benefit analyses for 

these various alternatives, however, the 

agency will ensure that its decisions 

about these alternatives result in a final 

rule that is cost beneficial, as 

contemplated by Executive Order 

12866. 

Public comments submitted in 

response to the NPRM and research 

conducted by NHTSA indicate some 

general conclusions that can be drawn 

regarding the directional impact of these 

alternatives, as well as subsequent 

changes in vehicle content and other 

factors that may influence the final rule. 

The August 2005 PRIA examined the 

proposed SWR of 2.5 and the alternative 

SWR of 3.0 times the unloaded vehicle 

weight. Estimated costs ranged from $88 

to 95 million for the 2.5 SWR alternative 

and $1.2 to $1.3 billion for the 3.0 SWR 

alternative. Benefits were estimated to 

be 13 to 44 fatalities and 498 to 793 

nonfatal injuries prevented for the 2.5 

alternative, and 49 to 135 fatalities and 

1540 to 2151 nonfatal injuries prevented 

for the 3.0 alternative. The estimated 

impacts of the final rule will be changed 

by a number of factors. These include: 

A. Pass/Fail Rate of the Vehicle Fleet 

In response to the NPRM, 

manufacturers commented that 

NHTSA’s estimates underestimated the 

portion of the vehicle fleet that would 

require changes. The manufacturers 

noted that NHTSA’s estimates were 

based on individual vehicles’ actual 

weights, but that manufacturers would 

have to design roof structures to meet 

the maximum weight that each body 

design would be required to carry. Thus, 

for example, test results from a vehicle 

with a four-cylinder engine and manual 

transmission might not be indicative of 

the same vehicle with a six-cylinder 

engine and automatic transmission 

option, even though they share the same 

body design and roof structure. The 

agency agrees with this comment and 

will make appropriate adjustments in its 

revised analysis for the final rule. In the 

NPRM, the agency estimated that 32 

percent of the vehicle fleet would have 

to be changed to meet the 2.5 proposal, 

whereas manufacturers commented that 

the portion was over 80 percent. Based 

on the agency’s testing, more recent 

vehicle designs tested appear to have 

stronger roofs. Therefore, it is not yet 

clear what the actual failure rate will be. 

However, at this time, it appears likely 

that the impact of this adjustment will 

be to increase both the costs and 

benefits of the rule. 

B. Impact of Electronic Stability Control 

Safety Standard on Potential Benefits 

The PRIA for the August 2005 NPRM 

to amend FMVSS No. 216 examined the 

model year (MY) 2005 fleet. During MY 

2005, Electronic Stability Control (ESC) 

was voluntarily installed on roughly 

18% of the new light vehicle fleet, and 

the PRIA took this into account. 

However, NHTSA published a 

proposal in September 2006 and a final 

rule 5 in April 2007 requiring ESC on 

100% of passenger cars and of light 

trucks, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, and vans (LTVs), effective 

September 1, 2011. Therefore, the FRIA 

for the final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 

216 will adjust the target population for 

this rulemaking to reflect the ESC 

mandate. Since ESC is a highly effective 

countermeasure, preventing roughly 

half of all rollovers in passenger cars 

and LTVs, this adjustment will 

significantly reduce both the target 

population and the safety benefits 

associated with FMVSS No. 216. 

C. Revised Cost and Weight Estimates 

In the PRIA, NHTSA based its cost 

estimates on 4 vehicles: The 1997 

Plymouth Neon, the 1999 Ford E–150 

Van, the 1997 Dodge Caravan, and the 

1998 Chevrolet S–10 pickup. These 

vehicles were used because they were 

the only vehicles for which the agency 

had finite element models which could 

be used to simulate the impact of roof 

design changes on roof strength. The 

agency used these vehicles to impute 

costs for the overall fleet based on the 

relative roof strength of a sample of 

tested vehicles. A similar procedure was 

used for vehicle weight changes. The 

PRIA estimated that the average cost per 

affected vehicle would be 

approximately $11 to meet the 2.5 SWR 

alternative and $51 for the 3.0 SWR 

alternative, with individual model costs 

as high as $16 for the 2.5 alternative and 

$84 for the 3.0 alternative. The PRIA 

also estimated average weight increases 

ranging from 2 to 14 kilograms (4 to 30 

pounds). Weight is a factor in the 

analysis because it influences both fuel 

economy, and the vehicle’s center of 

gravity which can influence the 

vehicle’s tendency to roll over. 

In response, the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) 

submitted an analysis of costs and 

weights for 2 vehicle types—a large SUV 

and a large pickup truck.6 The Alliance 

estimates were based on engineering 

studies from a variety of manufacturers 

and represented a range of results for 

each vehicle type. The Alliance 

estimated that variable unit costs for a 

large SUV would range from $38 to $58 

to meet a 2.5 SWR alternative, $60 to 

$90 to meet a 3.0 SWR alternative and 

$110 to $130 to meet a 3.5 SWR 

alternative. Based on NHTSA cost 

studies, total costs including overhead, 

markup and profit could be 50 percent 

higher than these variable costs. The 

Alliance estimated the corresponding 

weight increases for these scenarios to 

be 27 to 30 kilograms (60 to 67 pounds) 

for the 2.5 SWR, 68 to 122 kilograms 

(150 to 270 pounds) for the 3.0 SWR, 

and 113 to 245 kilograms (250 to 540 

pounds) for the 3.5 SWR. For the large 

pickup truck the Alliance estimated that 

variable unit costs would range from 

$55 to $185 to meet a 2.5 SWR 

alternative, $100 to $200 to meet a 3.0 

SWR alternative and $165 to $525 to 

meet a 3.5 SWR alternative. The 

Alliance estimate for corresponding 

weight increases for these scenarios 

were 17 to 31 kilograms (38 to 68 

pound) for the 2.5 SWR, 39 to 118 

kilograms (85 to 260 pounds) for the 3.0 

SWR, and 54 to 236 kilograms (120 to 

520 pound) for the 3.5 SWR. 

The Alliance also contracted an 

independent study by Magna Steyr on 

the feasibility of modifying a crew cab 

pickup for compliance with the NPRM 

proposal (2.5 SWR). The study 

concluded that meeting the proposal in 

a 3-year lead time was feasible, but 

would add 33 kilograms (73 pounds) 

and $76 to $98 in variable costs. It also 

found that if enough leadtime were 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5489 

7Available in the docket of this notice: Hutter, 

Erin E., ‘‘Improving Roof Crush Performance of a 

Sport Utility Vehicle,’’ The Ohio State University, 

2007. 

8Available in the docket of this notice: ‘‘Cost, 

Weight, and Lead Time Analysis Roof Crush 

Upgrade,’’ Task Order No. 007. 

9Refers to vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less 

than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). 

10Refers to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds). 

provided to allow implementation 

during a new production cycle, higher 

strength materials were feasible in 

conjunction with new tooling and this 

could result in a 5 kilogram (11 pound) 

savings in weight relative to the base 

vehicle. The Alliance data represent 

industry estimates of costs and weight 

impacts for the two types of vehicles—

large SUVs and large pickup trucks—for 

which higher SWRs are likely to pose 

the most difficult challenges and result 

in the largest cost and weight penalties. 

However, these types of vehicles 

represent only a small portion of new 

vehicle sales (approximately 9 percent) 

and their design challenges are unlikely 

to be representative of the bulk of the 

vehicle fleet. The Alliance did not 

provide estimates for other vehicle 

types—passenger cars, light pickups, 

crossover SUVs, etc. The agency 

believes that meeting a higher SWR may 

be significantly easier for the vehicle 

types not submitted by the Alliance 

based upon our fleet results. The agency 

will consider the Alliance estimates and 

results from its own research when 

developing the Final Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, but at this time it is unclear 

whether unit costs will change 

significantly for vehicles other than 

large pickups and large SUVs. 

The agency has also conducted 

additional tear down studies. A study 7

conducted by The Ohio State University 

examined the Volvo XC90 and the Ford 

Explorer. The study found that the XC–

90 roof had roughly 1⁄3 more structural 

parts than the Explorer, and that 

implementing some of the XC–90 design 

concepts in the Ford Explorer would 

increase material and tooling costs by 

$81 and weight by 15 kilograms (33 

pounds). Additional work based on 

finite element models and cost 

teardown studies conducted by Ludtke 

Associates and the National Crash 

Analysis Center 8 found that 

strengthening the 2003 Ford Explorer to 

3.0 SWR would raise the vehicle’s price 

by $33 to $35 and increase its weight by 

5 to 10 kilograms (10 to 23 pounds). 

They also examined a 2000 Ford 

Taurus. The study indicated that raising 

the Taurus to a 3.0 SWR would increase 

its price by $175 to $204, and increase 

its weight by 7 to 12 kilograms (15 to 27 

pounds). 

D. Two-Sided Testing Implications 

The two-sided testing conducted by 

NHTSA thus far indicate an average 

difference of approximately 8 percent 

lower peak force for the second side in 

vehicles under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 

pounds) GVWR9 and 17 percent lower 

peak force for the second side in 

vehicles over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 

pounds) GVWR.10 Thus, the adoption of 

a two-sided alternative would result in 

some increase in the portion of the fleet 

that would fail the roof crush 

requirements beyond the portion 

estimated in the NPRM. This would 

increase the benefits as well as the costs 

of this rulemaking. 

We have conducted an analysis to 

examine the relative impact of onesided testing vs. two-sided testing, 

based primarily on the results of the 

agency’s own FMVSS No. 216 testing 

program. Since the publication of the 

October 2001 request for comment (66 

FR 53376), the agency has conducted 

roof strength testing on 69 vehicles. 

Although these tests were conducted on 

specific vehicles, for this exercise, the 

results were adjusted to reflect the 

maximum unloaded vehicle weight 

configuration for each make/model. The 

agency tested 21 vehicles with GVWRs 

less than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 

pounds) under a two-sided test regime. 

Eleven of these vehicles passed a 2.5 

SWR on both the first and second side 

tested. Only five vehicles passed a 3.0 

SWR on both sides and only four passed 

a 3.5 SWR. The agency also conducted 

two-sided tests on five vehicles with 

GVWRs over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 

pounds). None of these vehicles passed 

a 2.5 or greater SWR. The agency also 

has single-sided testing data on 32 

vehicles with GVWRs less than 2,722 

kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 11 

vehicles with GVWRs over 2,722 

kilograms (6,000 pounds). 

The roof strength results for this 

sample of 69 vehicles were then sales 

weighted to estimate the relative passfail rates that might result for singlesided and two-sided test procedure 

alternatives. The estimates show nearly 

100 percent of vehicles over 2,722 

kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR failed 

under all scenarios. The vehicles with 

GVWR under 2,722 kilograms (6,000 

pounds) had higher failure rates for the 

two-sided tests when compared to the 

single-sided procedure. At a SWR of 2.5, 

the lighter vehicles are estimated to 

have a failure rate of 45 percent for 

single-sided and 67 percent for twosided tests. The failure rate increases 

with higher SWR scenarios. A summary 

of the results is presented in the 

following Table 4. 

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED FLEET FAILURE RATES BASED ON GVWR 

GVWR 2.5 SWR 3.0 SWR 3.5 SWR 

Two-Sided Testing 

< 2,722 kg GVWR ....................................................................................................................... 67.2% 78.6% 85.0% 

> 2,722 kg GVWR ....................................................................................................................... 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 75.1% 83.7% 88.6% 

Single-Sided Testing 

< 2,722 kg GVWR ....................................................................................................................... 44.5% 76.9% 80.9% 

> 2,722 kg GVWR ....................................................................................................................... 98.9% 100.0% 100.0% 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 57.6% 82.5% 85.5% 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
5490 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

11This range reflects two different methodologies 

that were examined. 

12Available in the docket of the notice: Strashny, 

Alexander, ‘‘The Role of Vertical Roof Intrusion and 

Post-Crash Headroom in Predicting Roof Contact 

Injuries to the Head, Neck, or Face during FMVSS 

216 Rollovers.’’

13Under a 7% and 3% discount rate, respectively. 

14See 49 CFR 553.21. 

15Optical character recognition (OCR) is the 

process of converting an image of text, such as a 

scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into 

computer-editable text. 

E. Other Factors 

In the NPRM, the agency estimated 

benefits based on post-crash headroom, 

the only basis for which a statistical 

relationship with injury reduction had 

been established. In that analysis, the 

agency estimated that the proposed 2.5 

SWR requirement would prevent 13 to 

44 fatalities.11

More recently, the agency has 

estimated benefits based on the 

relationship between intrusion and the 

probability of injury. This relationship 

was not established when the NPRM 

was published, but with the additional 

years of data available, a statistically 

significant relationship between 

intrusion and injury for belted 

occupants has since been established. A 

study regarding this relationship has 

undergone peer review and is available 

in the docket.12 This broader 

relationship, together with other factors, 

including the higher failure rates 

resulting from adjustments for 

maximum vehicle weight and the higher 

effective SWRs that result from this 

same issue will likely lead to slightly 

higher benefits than was estimated in 

the NPRM. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA estimated the 

cost of meeting the proposed 2.5 SWR 

single-sided test requirement at $16–

$17 13 for vehicles that do not already 

meet the standard, consisting of roughly 

$11 for design changes and $5–$6 for 

added lifetime fuel consumption. 

The agency believes that these cost 

estimates may increase for several 

reasons. The first is that manufacturers 

stated that vehicle body platforms must 

be designed to their heaviest possible 

design configuration. This means that a 

body platform that supports several 

different engine, transmission, and 

suspension options must be strong 

enough to pass the test requirements 

under the maximum weighted 

combination of these options. This 

could increase the effective SWR of the 

entire body platform and this would 

increase the average cost and weight 

impact of the required design changes. 

This would primarily be an issue for 

large trucks and SUVs, which are 

designed with a wide range of optional 

performance packages. It would be 

much less of a factor for passenger cars. 

A second reason costs might rise is 

that predicted gasoline prices may be 

higher than prices predicted in the 

NPRM. The NPRM fuel cost estimates 

were based on forecasts from the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA), 

which predicted an average pump price 

of roughly $1.46/gallon (2002 dollars) in 

2007. The final rule will be based on 

EIA’s latest predictions. It is expected 

that EIA’s predictions will be higher 

than its earlier ones. 

A third reason costs may rise is that 

the cost estimates NHTSA used for the 

NPRM assumed single-sided tests. For 

the two-sided testing program 

alternative, the agency found an average 

difference of approximately 8–17 

percent lower peak force for the second 

side (depending on vehicle weight 

class). Thus, some vehicle designs may 

need added strengthening to meet a twosided test relative to a single-sided test. 

Regardless of which alternative is 

adopted in the final rule, the agency 

will ensure that the final rule is cost 

beneficial, as contemplated by 

Executive Order 12866. 

IV. Comments Sought 

The agency requests comments on the 

costs of meeting the single-sided and 

two-sided testing alternative 

requirements for different types of 

vehicles for the proposed SWR of 2.5, as 

well as the alternatives of 3.0 and 3.5. 

1. In the single-sided test results, the 

agency observed that vehicles under 

6,000 pounds achieved higher SWR 

levels than did those vehicles over 6,000 

pounds. Should the agency consider 

different stringency requirements for 

vehicles according to their weight class? 

Will different design strategies be 

necessary to meet the requirements for 

vehicles under or over 6,000 pounds? 

What are the cost implications 

associated with different stringency 

requirements and different design 

strategies? 

2. In the agency’s two-sided testing, 

an average reduction of about 8% was 

observed in the second side SWR 

compared to the first side for vehicles 

under 6,000 pounds, compared to an 

average 17% reduction for those over 

6,000 pounds. Table 4 also indicates a 

much higher failure rate for two-sided 

testing compared to a single-sided 

requirement, and appears to indicate 

that fleet failure rates (and consequently 

benefits) for a two-sided test at a 2.5 

SWR would be comparable to a singlesided test at a higher SWR. What are the 

relative costs associated with, for 

example, a two-sided requirement at 2.5 

SWR versus a single-sided test at 3.0 

SWR? If comparable benefits can be 

achieved with a single-sided test at a 

higher SWR requirement compared to a 

two-sided test at a lower SWR level, are 

there other considerations the agency 

should include in the FRIA? 

3. If a two-sided alternative is pursued 

in the final rule, will different design 

strategies be required to meet the 

requirements for vehicles under or over 

6,000 pounds? What are the cost 

implications associated with these 

strategies? 

V. Public Participation 

How Do I Prepare and Submit 

Comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. Your comments must not be 

more than 15 pages long.14 We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit your comments by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

If you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we 

ask that the documents submitted be 

scanned using Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing the agency to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions.15

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5491 

16See 49 CFR 512. 

dmses.dot.gov/submit/ 

DataQualityGuidelines.pdf. 

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments 

Were Received? 

If you submit your comments by mail 

and wish Docket Management to notify 

you upon its receipt of your comments, 

enclose a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard in the envelope containing 

your comments. Upon receiving your 

comments, Docket Management will 

return the postcard by mail. 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business 

Information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. When you send a comment 

containing information claimed to be 

confidential business information, you 

should include a cover letter setting 

forth the information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation.16

In addition, you should submit a 

copy, from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

Will the Agency Consider Late 

Comments? 

We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, we will also consider 

comments received after that date. 

Therefore, if interested persons believe 

that any new information the agency 

places in the docket affects their 

comments, they may submit comments 

after the closing date concerning how 

the agency should consider that 

information for the final rule. 

If a comment is received too late for 

us to consider in developing a final rule 

(assuming that one is issued), we will 

consider that comment as an informal 

suggestion for future rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read the Comments 

Submitted By Other People? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

Docket Management Facility by going to 

the street address given above under 

ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 

Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. The Office of Management 

and Budget reviewed this rulemaking 

document under E.O. 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’

This rulemaking action has been 

determined to be significant under 

Executive Order 12866 and the DOT 

Policies and Procedures because of 

Congressional and public interest. 

Our current understanding of the 

benefits and costs of this rulemaking is 

set forth on the pages above. 

NHTSA will prepare a Final 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) 

describing the costs and benefits of this 

rulemaking action for the final rule. The 

FRIA will analyze alternatives 

considered by the agency and the final 

rule as issued, and will reflect 

consideration of comments addressing 

costs and benefits. The agency invites 

comments concerning how the 

alternatives to the proposal discussed in 

today’s document could affect costs and 

benefits. 

B. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

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) or you 

may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

In the August 2005 NPRM, the agency 

discussed relevant requirements related 

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the 

Unfunded Mandates Act, Civil Justice 

Reform, the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act, and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

variations in the proposal discussed in 

this document do not affect the agency’s 

analyses in those areas. NHTSA will 

address comments in these areas in 

connection with the final rule. 

VII. Proposed Regulatory Text 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

571 as follows: 

PART 571—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation of Part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Alternative 1 (Two-Sided Test) 

2. Amend § 571.216 by: 

a. Revising S3 to read as set forth 

below; 

b. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, 

new definitions of ‘‘Convertible’’ and 

‘‘Roof component;’’

c. Revising S5 to read as set forth 

below; 

d. Removing S5.1; 

e. Revising S7.1 through S7.6 to read 

as set forth below; 

f. Adding S7.7 to read as set forth 

below; and 

g. Removing S8 through S8.4. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.216 Standard No. 216; Roof crush 

resistance. 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. 

However, it does not apply to—

(a) School buses; 

(b) Vehicles that conform to the 

rollover test requirements (S5.3) of 

Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) by means 

that require no action by vehicle 

occupants; 

(c) Convertibles, except for optional 

compliance with the standard as an 

alternative to the rollover test 

requirement (S5.3) of Standard No. 208; 

or 

(d) Vehicles manufactured in two or 

more stages, other than chassis cabs, 

that conform to the roof crush 

requirements (S4) of Standard No. 220 

(§ 571.220). 

S4. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Convertible means a vehicle whose Apillars are not joined with the B-pillars 

(or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, rigid 

structural member. 

* * * * * 

Roof component means the A-pillar, 

B-pillar, roof side rail, front header, rear 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
5492 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

header, roof, and all interior trim in 

contact with these components. 

* * * * * 

S5. Requirements. When the test 

device described in S6 is used to apply 

a force to a vehicle’s roof in accordance 

with S7, first to one side of the roof and 

then to the other side of the roof, no roof 

component or portion of the test device 

may contact the head or the neck of the 

seated Hybrid III 50th percentile male 

dummy specified in 49 CFR Part 572, 

Subpart E. The maximum applied force 

in Newtons is any value up to and 

including 2.5 times the unloaded 

vehicle weight of the vehicle, measured 

in kilograms and multiplied by 9.8. 

* * * * * 

S7.1 Secure the vehicle in accordance 

with S7.1(a) through (d). 

(a) Support the vehicle off its 

suspension at a longitudinal vehicle 

attitude of 0 degrees ± 0.5 degrees. 

Measure the longitudinal vehicle 

attitude along both the driver and 

passenger sill. Determine the lateral 

vehicle attitude by measuring the 

vertical distance between a level surface 

and a standard reference point on the 

bottom of the driver and passenger side 

sills. The difference between the vertical 

distance measured on the driver side 

and the passenger side sills shall not 

exceed ± 1 cm. 

(b) Secure the vehicle with four 

stands. The locations for supporting the 

vehicle are defined in S7.1(c) or (d). 

Welding is permissible. The vehicle 

overhangs are not supported. Chains 

and wire rope are not used to secure the 

vehicle. Fix all non-rigid body mounts 

to prevent motion of the body relative 

to the frame. Close all windows, close 

and lock all doors, and secure any 

moveable or removable roof structure in 

place over the occupant compartment. 

Remove roof racks or other nonstructural components. 

(c) For vehicles with manufacturer’s 

designated jacking locations, locate the 

stands at or near the specified location. 

(d) For vehicles with undefined 

jacking locations, generalized jacking 

areas, or jacking areas that are not part 

of the vehicle body or frame, such as 

axles or suspension members, locate 

two stands in the region forward of the 

rearmost axle and two stands rearward 

of the forwardmost axle. All four stands 

shall be located between the axles on 

either the vehicle body or vehicle frame. 

S7.2 (a) Adjust the seats and steering 

controls in accordance with S8.1.2 and 

S.8.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208. 

(b) Place adjustable seat backs in the 

manufacturer’s nominal design riding 

position in the manner specified by the 

manufacturer. Place any adjustable 

anchorages at the manufacturer’s 

nominal design position for a 50th 

percentile adult male occupant. Place 

each adjustable head restraint in its 

lowest adjustment position. Adjustable 

lumbar supports are positioned so that 

the lumbar support is in its lowest 

adjustment position. 

S7.3 Position the Hybrid III 50th 

percentile male dummy specified in 49 

CFR Part 572, Subpart E in accordance 

with S10.1 through S10.6.2.2 of 49 CFR 

571.208, in the front outboard 

designated seating position on the side 

of the vehicle being tested. 

S7.4 Orient the test device as shown 

in Figure 1 of this section, so that—

(a) Its longitudinal axis is at a forward 

angle (in side view) of 5 degrees below 

the horizontal, and is parallel to the 

vertical plane through the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline; 

(b) Its transverse axis is at an outboard 

angle, in the front view projection, of 25 

degrees below the horizontal. 

S7.5 Maintaining the orientation 

specified in S7.4—

(a) Lower the test device until it 

initially makes contact with the roof of 

the vehicle. 

(b) Position the test device so that—

(1) The longitudinal centerline on its 

lower surface is within 10 mm of the 

initial point of contact, or on the center 

of the initial contact area, with the roof; 

and 

(2) The midpoint of the forward edge 

of the lower surface of the test device is 

within 10 mm of the transverse vertical 

plane 254 mm forward of the 

forwardmost point on the exterior 

surface of the roof, including 

windshield trim, that lies in the 

longitudinal vertical plane passing 

through the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline. 

S7.6 Apply force so that the test 

device moves in a downward direction 

perpendicular to the lower surface of 

the test device at a rate of not more than 

13 millimeters per second until reaching 

the force level specified in S5. Guide the 

test device so that throughout the test it 

moves, without rotation, in a straight 

line with its lower surface oriented as 

specified in S7.4(a) and S7.4(b). 

Complete the test within 120 seconds. 

S7.7 Repeat the test on the other side 

of the vehicle. 

* * * * * 

Alternative 2 (Single-Sided Test) 

3. Amend § 571.216 by: 

a. Revising S3 to read as set forth 

below; 

b. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, 

new definitions of ‘‘Convertible’’ and 

‘‘Roof component;’’

c. Revising S5 to read as set forth 

below; 

d. Removing S5.1; 

e. Revising S7.1 through S7.6 to read 

as set forth below; and 

f. Removing S8 through S8.4. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.216 Standard No. 216; Roof crush 

resistance. 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. 

However, it does not apply to—

(a) School buses; 

(b) Vehicles that conform to the 

rollover test requirements (S5.3) of 

Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) by means 

that require no action by vehicle 

occupants; 

(c) Convertibles, except for optional 

compliance with the standard as an 

alternative to the rollover test 

requirement (S5.3) of Standard No. 208; 

or 

(d) Vehicles manufactured in two or 

more stages, other than chassis cabs, 

that conform to the roof crush 

requirements (S4) of Standard No. 220 

(§ 571.220). 

S4. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Convertible means a vehicle whose Apillars are not joined with the B-pillars 

(or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, rigid 

structural member. 

* * * * * 

Roof component means the A-pillar, 

B-pillar, roof side rail, front header, rear 

header, roof, and all interior trim in 

contact with these components. 

* * * * * 

S5. Requirements. When the test 

device described in S6 is used to apply 

a force to a vehicle’s roof in accordance 

with S7, no roof component or portion 

of the test device may contact the head 

or the neck of the seated Hybrid III 50th 

percentile male dummy specified in 49 

CFR Part 572, Subpart E. The maximum 

applied force in Newtons is any value 

up to and including 2.5 times the 

unloaded vehicle weight of the vehicle, 

measured in kilograms and multiplied 

by 9.8. A particular vehicle need not 

meet the requirements on the second 

side of the vehicle, after being tested at 

one location. 

* * * * * 

S7.1 Secure the vehicle in accordance 

with S7.1(a) through (d). 

(a) Support the vehicle off its 

suspension at a longitudinal vehicle 

attitude of 0 degrees ± 0.5 degrees. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5493 

Measure the longitudinal vehicle 

attitude along both the driver and 

passenger sill. Determine the lateral 

vehicle attitude by measuring the 

vertical distance between a level surface 

and a standard reference point on the 

bottom of the driver and passenger side 

sills. The difference between the vertical 

distance measured on the driver side 

and the passenger side sills shall not 

exceed ± 1 cm. 

(b) Secure the vehicle with four 

stands. The locations for supporting the 

vehicle are defined in S7.1(c) or (d). 

Welding is permissible. The vehicle 

overhangs are not supported. Chains 

and wire rope are not used to secure the 

vehicle. Fix all non-rigid body mounts 

to prevent motion of the body relative 

to the frame. Close all windows, close 

and lock all doors, and secure any 

moveable or removable roof structure in 

place over the occupant compartment. 

Remove roof racks or other nonstructural components. 

(c) For vehicles with manufacturer’s 

designated jacking locations, locate the 

stands at or near the specified location. 

(d) For vehicles with undefined 

jacking locations, generalized jacking 

areas, or jacking areas that are not part 

of the vehicle body or frame, such as 

axles or suspension members, locate 

two stands in the region forward of the 

rearmost axle and two stands rearward 

of the forwardmost axle. All four stands 

shall be located between the axles on 

either the vehicle body or vehicle frame. 

S7.2 (a) Adjust the seats and steering 

controls in accordance with S8.1.2 and 

S.8.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208. 

(b) Place adjustable seat backs in the 

manufacturer’s nominal design riding 

position in the manner specified by the 

manufacturer. Place any adjustable 

anchorages at the manufacturer’s 

nominal design position for a 50th 

percentile adult male occupant. Place 

each adjustable head restraint in its 

lowest adjustment position. Adjustable 

lumbar supports are positioned so that 

the lumbar support is in its lowest 

adjustment position. 

S7.3 Position the Hybrid III 50th 

percentile male dummy specified in 49 

CFR Part 572, Subpart E in accordance 

with S10.1 through S10.6.2.2 of 49 CFR 

571.208, in the front outboard 

designated seating position on the side 

of the vehicle being tested. 

S7.4 Orient the test device as shown 

in Figure 1 of this section, so that—

(a) Its longitudinal axis is at a forward 

angle (in side view) of 5 degrees below 

the horizontal, and is parallel to the 

vertical plane through the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline; 

(b) Its transverse axis is at an outboard 

angle, in the front view projection, of 25 

degrees below the horizontal. 

S7.5 Maintaining the orientation 

specified in S7.4—

(a) Lower the test device until it 

initially makes contact with the roof of 

the vehicle. 

(b) Position the test device so that—

(1) The longitudinal centerline on its 

lower surface is within 10 mm of the 

initial point of contact, or on the center 

of the initial contact area, with the roof; 

and 

(2) The midpoint of the forward edge 

of the lower surface of the test device is 

within 10 mm of the transverse vertical 

plane 254 mm forward of the 

forwardmost point on the exterior 

surface of the roof, including 

windshield trim, that lies in the 

longitudinal vertical plane passing 

through the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline. 

S7.6 Apply force so that the test 

device moves in a downward direction 

perpendicular to the lower surface of 

the test device at a rate of not more than 

13 millimeters per second until reaching 

the force level specified in S5. Guide the 

test device so that throughout the test it 

moves, without rotation, in a straight 

line with its lower surface oriented as 

specified in S7.4(a) and S7.4(b). 

Complete the test within 120 seconds. 

* * * * * 

Issued: January 24, 2008. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 08–392 Filed 1–25–08; 12:22 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS