45202 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 92–28; Notice 8]

RIN 2127–AG07

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Head Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the upper interior impact

requirements of Standard No. 201,

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,

to permit, but not require, the

introduction of dynamic head

protection systems currently being

developed by vehicle manufacturers to

provide added lateral crash protection.

Target points in those areas of the upper

interior occupied by these dynamic

systems would be allowed, with the

systems undeployed, to meet slightly

reduced requirements. To ensure that

these dynamic systems would enhance

safety, the proposal would add

procedures and performance

requirements for testing the systems,

while deployed, through in-vehicle

component tests or a combination of

such in-vehicle tests and vehicle crash

testing.

DATES: Comment closing date:

Comments on this notice must be

received by NHTSA no later than

October 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Any comments should refer

to the docket and notice number of this

notice and be submitted (preferably in

10 copies) to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590:

For non-legal issues: Dr. William Fan,

Office of Crashworthiness Standards,

NPS–11, telephone (202) 366–4922,

facsimile (202) 366–4329, electronic

mail ‘‘bfan@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office

of the Chief Counsel, NCC–20,

telephone (202) 366–5253, facsimile

(202) 366–3820, electronic mail

‘‘omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Safety Problem

II. Background

A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper

Interior Impact Protection

B. Petitions for reconsideration

C. March 1996 ANPRM on dynamic head

protection systems

D. Comments on ANPRM

III. Analysis of Comments

IV. Proposed Test Procedure

A. Option 2—FMH Impact into Deployed

Dynamic System

1. Impact Speed

2. System Deployment

3. Target Angles

B. Option 3—Full Scale Side Impact into

Fixed Pole

1. Impact Speed

2. Rigid Pole

3. Impact Angle

4. Propulsion System

5. Impact Point

6. SID/H3 Dummy

7. Biofidelity

8. Repeatability and Reproducibility

V. Performance Requirements

VI. Costs

VII. Benefits

VIII. Effective Date

IX. Risk of Injury

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal

Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. National Environmental Policy Act

D. Executive Order 12866 (Federalism)

XI. Submission of Comments

I. The Safety Problem

In an August 18, 1995 final rule (60

FR 43041) adding requirements for

upper interior impact protection to

Standard No. 201, ‘‘Occupant Protection

in Interior Impact,’’ NHTSA estimated

that even with air bags installed in all

cars and LTVs, head impacts with the

pillars, roof side rails, windshield

header, and rear header would result in

1,591 annual passenger car occupant

fatalities and 575 annual LTV occupant

fatalities. The agency also stated that it

believed such head impacts also result

in nearly 13,600 moderate to critical

(but non-fatal) passenger car occupant

injuries (MAIS 2 or greater), and more

than 5,200 serious LTV occupant

injuries. (The AIS or Abbreviated Injury

Scale is used to rank injuries by level of

severity. An AIS 1 injury is a minor one,

while an AIS 6 injury is one that is

currently untreatable and fatal. The

Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale or

MAIS is the maximum injury per

occupant.)

Manufacturers may choose the means

that they use to meet the requirements

of the August 18, 1995 final rule. One

method of compliance is through the

installation of static energy absorbing

materials like padding, which will

reduce the number and severity of these

injuries. In that final rule, the agency

estimated that the new requirements

would prevent 675 to 768 AIS 2–5 head

injuries and 873 to 1,045 fatalities. The

development of dynamic head

protection systems offers the potential

for additional injury reduction.

II. Background

A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper

Interior Impact Protection

The August 1995 final rule issued by

the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) amended

Standard No. 201 to require passenger

cars, and trucks, buses, and

multipurpose passenger vehicles

(collectively, passenger cars and LTVs)

with a gross vehicle weight rating

(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, to

provide protection when an occupant’s

head strikes upper interior components,

including pillars, side rails, headers,

and the roof, during a crash. This final

rule, which requires compliance

beginning on September 1, 1998,

significantly expands the scope of

Standard 201. Previously, the standard

applied only to the portion of the

vehicle interior in front of the front seat

occupants. The amendments added

procedures and performance

requirements for a new in-vehicle

component test.

B. Petitions for Reconsideration

The agency received nine timely

petitions for reconsideration of the final

rule. The issues raised by the petitions

can be divided into five categories—(1)

application of the new requirements to

dynamic head protection systems, (2)

influence of systems variables, (3) lead

time and phase-in, (4) exclusion of

certain vehicles, and (5) test procedure.

Insofar as the petitions addressed the

last four categories of issues, NHTSA

responded by issuing amendments to

the August 18, 1995 final rule in a

notice dated April 7, 1997 (62 FR

16718). In the April 7, 1997 notice,

NHTSA modified the final rule to

exclude certain vehicles from the

requirements of Standard 201, changed

the phase-in requirements by providing

manufacturers with the option of

complying with an additional schedule

for meeting the requirements of the

standard and amended other sections of

the standard to address concerns about

test procedures.

Since the first category of issues,

dynamic head protection systems, was

outside the scope of the rulemaking that

led to the August 18 final rule, the

agency considered it not a proper
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45203

subject for a petition for

reconsideration. Therefore, the agency

announced that it was treating the

requests relating to these issues as

petitions for rulemaking, and was

granting those petitions.

C. March 7, 1996 ANPRM on Dynamic

Head Protection Systems

On March 7, 1996, NHTSA published

an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) to assist the

agency in evaluating the issues raised by

dynamic head protection systems (61 FR

9136). In the ANPRM, the agency noted

that the only existing accommodation in

Standard 201 of vehicles equipped with

dynamic restraint systems is a provision

concerning vehicles with frontal

automatic protection systems meeting

S5.1 of Standard No. 208, ‘‘Occupant

Crash Protection.’’ The head impact area

on instrument panels need only meet

the performance requirements of

Standard 201 when impacted at a

relative velocity of 19 kilometers per

hour (km/h) (12 mph) rather than the 24

km/h (15 mph) requirement imposed on

vehicles not meeting S5.1 of Standard

208. This exception to the 24 km/h (15

mph) requirement is premised on the

agency’s belief that the tests contained

in Standard 208 for dynamic systems

provided adequate assurance that these

systems perform well enough to protect

occupants in the event of a crash.

However, the dynamic systems

described in the petitions for

reconsideration are intended to

supplement other dynamic restraints

and protect the heads of occupants in

side impacts and rollovers. They are not

used to comply with the frontal

protection requirements of S5.1 of

Standard 208. Neither Standard 208 nor

any other Standard contained

comparable requirements for side

impact protection systems intended to

provide head protection to occupants.

Thus, there was no readily available

way of providing for the testing of these

systems or providing adequate

assurance that they would yield

sufficient safety benefits to justify a

similar reduction in the relative impact

velocity of 24 km/h (15 mph) afforded

for vehicles with dynamic systems

providing protection in frontal impacts.

The agency noted that two categories

of dynamic systems were then under

consideration by manufacturers—

dynamically deployed padding and

dynamically deployed air bags or other

inflatable devices. NHTSA stated that

both of these systems potentially

provided greater protection to occupants

than design features likely to be used in

meeting the requirements contained in

the August 18, 1995 final rule.

Accordingly, the agency suggested the

possibility of developing test procedures

to assure that the protection afforded by

the systems is a suitable substitute for

the protection provided by that final

rule. The ANPRM suggested that

dynamically deployed padding and

dynamically deployed inflatable devices

be subjected to different tests. In the

case of dynamically deployed padding,

the agency suggested that existing

targets specified in the final rule

protected by the dynamic system be

impacted at 19 km/h (12 mph) prior to

the deployment of the padding and then

be impacted at 32 km/h (20 mph) with

the padding deployed. This test would

accommodate the limitations of

dynamic padding systems in their

undeployed state while providing

assurance that deployed padding

provided additional protection to

occupants. In the case of inflatable

devices, the ANPRM discussed the

possibility that the agency might

propose subjecting vehicles equipped

with these systems to 19 kilometer per

hour (12 mph) impacts at all points

covered by the inflatable device with

the device in its undeployed state. The

performance of the device as deployed

would be tested in a side impact test

into a fixed rigid pole at 30 km/h (18.6

miles per hour) or a side impact with a

moving deformable barrier at 50 km/h

(31 miles per hour). The ANPRM also

requested responses to 17 questions

relating to the design, performance,

evaluation and testing of dynamic head

protection systems.

D. Comments on the ANPRM

The agency received a total of ten

comments on the ANPRM. Five

automobile manufacturers (Ford, Volvo,

BMW, VW, and Mercedes), one restraint

system supplier (Autoliv), three safety

organizations (Automotive Occupant

Restraint Council (AORC), Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

(AHAS)), and one manufacturers’

association (American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA),

submitted comments in response to the

ANPRM. The comments received from

Volvo and Ford indicated that these

commenters did not support the

adoption of mandatory full scale crash

tests for dynamic systems. Ford

indicated its belief that existing tests

incorporated in Standards 201 and 214

were adequate for measuring the

performance of dynamic systems.

Additional testing, in Ford’s view,

would be redundant and unduly

burdensome. Volvo contended that full

scale crash testing would impose a

greater testing burden on cars arguably

equipped with safer systems and

questioned the fairness of this burden.

Volvo also objected to full scale testing

as such testing, if restricted to one test

configuration, would not be useful in

evaluating head impacts that may occur

throughout the vehicle. The use of a

single test configuration, Volvo argued,

would also lead to the development of

systems geared to provide optimum

protection in specific areas of a vehicle

rather than throughout the interior of

the car. Volvo and Autoliv

recommended the combination of a 19

km/h (12 mph) FMH impact test prior

to system deployment and a 24 km/h

(15 mph) FMH impact test with the

system fully deployed. Autoliv

indicated that dynamic systems would

deploy in crashes resulting in head

speeds above 19 km/h (12 mph) and that

the protection these systems provide

would be adequate at 24 km/h (15 mph).

Autoliv further submitted that the

systems would offer significant

collateral benefits such as ejection

mitigation, protection against intrusion

and protection against impacts with

windows. Volvo indicated that a 24 km/

h (15 mph) impact was appropriate as

it was similar to the requirements for

other head injury mitigating measures.

Mercedes and Volkswagen indicated

that dynamic systems be tested only at

a 24 km/h (15 mph) impact speed. In

Volkswagen’s view, testing at this speed

in conjunction with a requirement that

the dynamic system stay inflated for a

time period sufficient to assure

protection against subsequent crash

induced impacts would be sufficient to

ensure that the systems provided

adequate protection. Mercedes

supported the use of a single 24 km/h

(15 mph) impact into a deployed system

as there would be no loss of benefits

compared to static systems and greater

collateral benefits in the form of ejection

mitigation and protection from impacts

with wider areas of the interior.

However, BMW supported the 19 km/h

(12 mph) FMH impact tests in

combination with a 29 km/h (18 mph)

side crash test into a fixed, rigid pole.

Of the comments received from

associations and safety organizations,

those from the AAMA indicated that

AAMA did not favor a mandatory full

scale test requirement. AAMA indicated

its belief that testing conducted

pursuant to Standard 214 was sufficient

to evaluate the ability of a vehicle to

protect occupants in a side impact.

AORC, IIHS and AHAS did not oppose

the use of full scale crash testing, but

raised concerns about reducing the

existing requirements of Standard 201 to

accommodate dynamic systems. The
45204 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

comments received by NHTSA are

summarized below.

BMW indicated that the agency

should specify multiple test procedures

for gauging compliance with Standard

201 in order to give manufacturers

flexibility to offer a variety of head

protection systems in their product

lines. The company also suggested that

dynamic systems be tested in the

undeployed condition with 19 kilometer

per hour (12 mph) FMH impacts into

the A-pillar, certain points on the Bpillar and roof rails. In conjunction with

FMH testing at 19 km/h (12 mph), BMW

supported testing of dynamic systems

with a full scale side impact test

consisting of a 29 km/h (18 mph) side

impact into a fixed pole using a EuroSid

dummy. BMW provided test data

generated from its development of the

Inflatable Tubular System (ITS)

indicating that the suggested pole test

generated, in the absence of

countermeasures, HIC scores above

2000. Based on its testing, BMW stated

that such a dynamic test would

establish the performance of dynamic

systems and assure that these systems

offered sufficient safety benefits to

justify use of lower impact speeds when

testing them in their undeployed

condition.

BMW’s suggested test specifies that

all targets on the A/B-pillars (except

BP4) and side rails (including SR3 on

the rear side rail) be tested with a FMH

impact of 19 km/h (12 mph) in

conjunction with the full scale pole test.

BMW indicated that its system would

provide head protection for all of these

points except for SR3. BMW indicated

that SR3 should be tested at 19 km/h (12

mph) even though it is not protected by

the ITS as it believed that padding

thickness along the side rails should

remain constant. In regard to the

remaining points that would be

protected by ITS, BMW indicated that

limitations imposed by dynamic

systems forbid padding the entire side

rail to meet the existing 24 km/h (15

mph) requirement.

Ford indicated its belief that the

existing requirements of Standard 201

and Standard No. 214 ‘‘Side Impact

Protection’’, already provide a means of

evaluating the performance of advanced

dynamic systems and, therefore, any

additional tests are not necessary.

However, Ford would not object to the

ANPRM’s suggestion for adjusting the

FMH impact speed from 24 km/h (15

mph) to 19 km/h (12 mph) for vehicles

that provide a lap-shoulder belt and a

side impact head (or head/chest)

supplemental air bag for each front

outboard occupant.

Mercedes indicated its support for

revisions to Standard 201 to

accommodate dynamic systems. The

company indicated its belief that

inflatable dynamic systems presented

the best means to meet the requirements

of the Standard with existing

technology. Mercedes further stated that

it was developing such a system and

recommended a test procedure with a

24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact into a

fully deployed system for those targets

protected by the inflatable device. The

comments submitted by Mercedes also

stated that dynamic systems should be

tested to ensure that they are fully

deployed within 30 ms after triggering.

Mercedes indicated that the design it

was considering offered superior

protection against hazards other than

impacts with the interior points

specified in Standard 201. Because of

this superior performance, Mercedes

contended that revisions to the standard

requiring a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH

impact into a deployed dynamic device

are more than sufficient to ensure that

the goals of Standard 201 are achieved.

Volkswagen recommended that

dynamic systems be tested only in the

deployed mode through a 24 km/h (15

mph) FMH impact. Volkswagen also

indicated its belief that system

deployment should be tested through

use of a rollover simulation identical to

that contained in S5.3 of Standard 208

and a lateral or side impact as specified

in S6.3 of Standard 301. In its

comments, Volkswagen stated that to

protect occupants adequately, a

dynamic system should remain inflated

for a period of time sufficient to

represent foreseeable crash events.

Testing in this manner, according to

Volkswagen, would eliminate the need

to test those areas protected by a

dynamic system at a lower impact speed

with the system undeployed. In

Volkswagen’s view, if a dynamic system

remains deployed for a sufficient period

of time to protect occupants against

foreseeable impacts and a combination

of rollover and lateral/side impact tests

provide assurances that the system will

deploy, testing in an undeployed mode

is not required. In addition, Volkswagen

indicated that if a dynamic system is

tested through a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH

impact alone, testing at higher impact

speeds is not necessary as the inflated

dynamic system would then meet the

performance criteria established for

Standard 201 in the August 18, 1995

final rule.

Volvo’s comments indicated the

company’s belief that dynamic systems

would be used to provide occupant

protection beyond the levels specified

in Standard 201. In Volvo’s view, these

systems would require unyielding

components in areas covered by

Standard 201, making the dynamic

systems and the existing requirements

incompatible. To accommodate

dynamic systems, Volvo suggested that

dynamic systems be subject to a 19 km/

h (12 mph) FMH impact test for affected

targets with the system inactivated, a 24

km/h (15 mph) FMH impact test into the

activated system and a 24 km/h (15

mph) FMH impact test for all targets not

protected by the system. Volvo stated its

opposition to full scale dynamic testing

for compliance with Standard 201. In

Volvo’s view, the use of one specific test

configuration would place undue

emphasis on those areas likely to be

involved in that single test rather than

the wide number of targets specified in

the standard. Volvo believes that

adopting a single full scale dynamic test

would provide an unfair advantage to

vehicles with dynamic systems in that

they would only be tested in one crash

mode.

Autoliv stated that dynamic systems

would offer benefits that could not be

evaluated by the existing tests contained

in Standard 201. However, Autoliv

commented that the FMH test is a

sufficient means for assessing the

performance of dynamic systems and

supported a test procedure in which a

19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact is

conducted against those points covered

by an undeployed system with a 24 km/

h (15 mph) FMH impact against a

deployed system. Autoliv stated that

such a test procedure should be

sufficient to meet the goals of Standard

201 and that other testing at higher

impact speeds would not necessarily

gauge the safety benefits of dynamic

systems in the variety of crash modes in

which the systems would offer safety

benefits.

AAMA indicated that it believed that

the existing Standard 201 requirements

were adequate to gauge the performance

of dynamic systems and opposed

additional full scale testing. AAMA

believes that such testing would be

burdensome and would not produce any

safety benefits particularly in light of its

view that, in conjunction with Standard

No. 214, ‘‘Side Impact Protection,’’

Standard 201 provided for adequate

protection of occupants in side impacts

without the requirement of further tests.

Proper testing of dynamic systems, in

AAMA’s view, could be accomplished

through a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH

impact into a deployed system. AAMA

also stated that testing at impact speeds

above 24 km/h (15 mph) would be

unjustified and stated its position that

the challenges involved in designing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45205

components to meet the 24 km/h (15

mph) FMH impact test are formidable.

AORC also indicated that the agency

should consider the existing

requirements of Standard 214 and the

side impact benefits that will result

from that standard when contemplating

changes to Standard 201. Due to its

belief that dynamic designs intended to

accommodate Standard 214 would

result in additional occupant head

protection, AORC indicated that it did

not believe additional full scale testing

was required. Instead, AORC supports

testing dynamic head protection

systems as follows: for those points

protected when the system is deployed,

the points would be impacted by the

FMH at 19 km/h (12 mph) with the

system undeployed; and for those points

unprotected when the system is

deployed, the points would be impacted

by the FMH at 24 km/h (15 mph). In the

event that NHTSA adopted full scale

tests, AORC stated that it would seem

reasonable that the MDB height should

be raised to address head protection

problems if a side impact test with the

barrier was employed. However, due to

the severity of the pole test proposed in

the ANPRM, AORC did not consider

that the side-to-pole crash test is an

appropriate tool for evaluating

compliance of FMVSS No. 201.

IIHS indicated that its preeminent

concern was that Standard 201 be

amended to accommodate dynamic

systems as soon as possible in order that

the safety benefits of the systems be

made available to the public. IIHS

agreed with the suggestions set forth in

the ANPRM and further cautioned the

agency to consider all instances where

compliance with Standard 201 could

preclude the availability of the benefits

offered by dynamic systems. In

particular, IIHS stated that some

dynamic systems may have difficulty

meeting the requirements of Standard

201 at certain impact points both before

and after deployment. In the view of

IIHS, the inability to meet these criteria

at these impact points should not stand

as a barrier to their development and

use due to the dramatic increase in

protection such systems will offer in a

variety of crash modes.

AHAS stated that it believed that

dynamic systems offered great potential

increases in occupant protection.

However, in AHAS’s view, the

purported benefits of such systems

should be gauged by testing at higher

impact speeds. Accordingly, AHAS

suggested that for dynamic systems

appropriate target points should be

tested for compliance at an impact

speed of 32 km/h (20 mph). AHAS

expressed concern that lowering impact

speeds or excluding certain areas from

testing when dynamic systems are

employed could seriously erode the

overall benefits offered by Standard 201.

AHAS stated that the agency should

establish separate but complementary

standards for dynamic systems that

would require them to meet the existing

requirements of Standard 201 in the

undeployed mode and greater

requirements in the case of a deployed

system. AHAS believes that such testing

would avoid potential pitfalls in

accepting lower impact speeds as a

means of accommodating dynamic

systems.

III. Analysis of Comments

The agency’s review of the comments

submitted by manufacturers and other

interested groups revealed several areas

of concern. AAMA, AORC, Ford and

Volvo all voiced an opposition to the

use of mandatory full scale crash tests.

AHAS indicated its opposition to the

abandonment or revision of existing

Free Motion Headform (FMH) impact

testing of vehicles that are equipped

with a dynamic system. AAMA, AORC,

Volvo, VW, Mercedes and Autoliv all

argued that any proposed test specifying

FMH impacts above 24 km/h (15 mph)

would be impracticable, while AHAS

stated that FMH impacts into deployed

systems should be conducted at 32 km/

h (20 mph). BMW supported the use of

a full scale test with a 29 km/h (18 mph)

side impact into a fixed pole. Volvo

stated that such a full scale test would

not adequately assess the performance

of dynamic systems because of the

limited area of impact.

AAMA indicated that any additional

mandated full scale testing beyond

FMVSS No. 214 would be unwarranted

and unproductive since the existing

tests specified in Standard 214 were

sufficient to gauge performance in a side

impact. AAMA’s comments also stated

that additional mandatory tests were

unnecessary as its member companies

did not consider dynamic head

protection systems to be incompatible

with the August 18, 1995 final rule.

Ford commented that the present

requirements of FMVSS Nos. 201 and

214 already provide a means of

evaluating the performance of dynamic

systems and, therefore, additional tests

are not necessary. Volvo would not

support the inclusion of any full scale

dynamic tests because a specific test

configuration will be of limited use in

evaluating head impacts that occur in a

wide range of vehicle upper interior.

AORC supported the continuous review

and refinement of FMVSS No. 214

combined with the use of SID dummy

with the Hybrid III head/neck system as

a means of measuring head injury

potential.

The March 7, 1996 ANPRM sought

comment on two alternatives to the

upper interior impact protection

requirements established in the August

1995 final rule. The first alternative,

which the ANPRM indicated would be

applicable to dynamically deployed

padding, consisted of a 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH test prior to the deployment

of the dynamic system and a 32 km/h

(20 mph) FMH test after the deployment

of the device. The second alternative,

which the ANPRM indicated was

intended for use in evaluating

dynamically deployed air bags,

consisted of a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH

test prior to the system deployment and

a full scale side crash test employing

either a 30 km/h (18.6 mph) rigid pole

or a 50 km/h (31 mph) moving barrier

test. In suggesting these alternatives,

NHTSA intended that a manufacturer

would have three choices, compliance

with the requirements established in

August 1995 or with one of the two

alternatives. No consideration was given

to the possibility of subjecting all

vehicles, regardless of the presence or

absence of dynamic side impact

systems, to additional mandatory

testing.

In response to concerns raised by

AAMA and Ford that additional crash

testing would be redundant in light of

the existing tests specified in Standard

214, the agency notes that while FMVSS

No. 214’s dynamic side crash test is

excellent for evaluating the reduction of

chest injury potential, it is not

appropriate for assessing the head injury

potential of upper interior components

because the dummy’s head would not,

except for some rare cases, strike any

vehicle interior components. In view of

this, NHTSA disagrees with AAMA’s

and Ford’s contention that FMVSS No.

214’s dynamic side impact test

requirements are adequate to evaluate

the head protection offered by a

dynamically deployed system.

Similarly, the agency also rejects

AORC’s suggestion that FMVSS No. 214

be upgraded to include head injury

criterion. NHTSA believes that

extensive modifications of FMVSS No.

214 would be required to incorporate

the head injury criterion into the

standard. Time constraints preclude an

upgrade of Standard 214 at this time.

Moreover, the agency believes that

unless substantial changes were made to

Standard 214, including modification of

the MDB to ensure impact with the

dummies’ heads, the standard’s test

procedures are not appropriate for

evaluating dummy HIC and occupant

head protection. However, for reasons
45206 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

explained below, the agency agrees with

AORC’s suggestion that the SID dummy

with the Hybrid III head/neck is

appropriate for assessing the protection

provided by dynamically deployed

systems in lateral impacts. Accordingly,

NHTSA has developed a new test

dummy combining the head and neck of

the Hybrid III with the SID torso. The

agency is preparing an NPRM to amend

Part 572 to add a new subpart—subpart

M—which will contain the

specifications for this new dummy.

AHAS strongly opposed a complete

exclusion of vehicles equipped with a

dynamic system and an exclusion of

targets arguably protected by dynamic

systems. The agency notes that it did

not propose either of these alternatives

in the ANPRM and agrees that exclusion

of vehicles equipped with a dynamic

system from Standard 201 is not an

acceptable option. However, the agency

does not agree with AHAS’s suggestion

that dynamic systems be tested through

a 32 km/h (20 mph) FMH impact into

a deployed system. As noted below, the

agency tentatively concludes that a 29

km/h (18 mph) FMH impact test would

provide adequate protection to

occupants.

NHTSA also does not agree with those

commenters who indicated that testing

of deployed systems be limited to FMH

impacts of 24 km/h (15 mph). NHTSA

believes that dynamic systems are not

likely to deploy in all crash modes nor

to achieve a 100 percent deployment

rate in one crash mode. If FMH impact

speeds were limited to 24 km/h (15

mph) into a deployed system and 19

km/h (12 mph) into an undeployed

system, a vehicle equipped with a

dynamic system would offer 24 km/h

(15 mph) head protection in certain

crashes and 19 km/h (12 mph) head

protection in other crashes, depending

on the sensor design. In comparison

with vehicles with traditional

countermeasures providing 24 km/h (15

mph) head protection in all crash

scenarios, vehicles with advanced

dynamic systems would not provide 24

km/h (15 mph) head protection in all

the same scenarios. The result would be

a net reduction in safety. This would

defeat the purpose of amending

Standard 201 to facilitate the efforts of

manufacturers to install advanced

dynamic systems.

The March 7, 1996 ANPRM suggested

two full scale crash tests for evaluating

head protection by dynamic systems: (1)

a 30 km/h (18.6 mph) side crash test

into a fixed, rigid pole of 254

millimeters (10 inches) in diameter (in

combination with 19 km/h (12 mph)

FMH tests prior to system deployment)

and (2) a 50 km/h (31 mph) side impact

test using the International Standard

Organization (ISO) 10997 MDB fitted

with a rigid surface (in combination

with 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH tests prior

to system deployment). AAMA and its

member companies, apparently

mistakenly believing that the ANPRM

contemplated that full scale testing

would be mandatory for all vehicles,

opposed the use of either test and stated

that no other full scale tests should be

employed. Volvo also did not support

inclusion of full scale dynamic tests in

amended Standard 201. BMW

supported alternative tests using a 19

km/h (12 mph) FMH impact into an

undeployed system with certain points

exempted in combination with a 29 km/

h (18 mph) side impact into a fixed,

rigid pole 254 millimeters (10 inches) in

diameter. A EuroSid dummy or a SID

dummy with a Hybrid III head and neck

could be used in this test, with an upper

limit of a HIC less than or equal to 1000.

Under the test suggested by BMW,

system deployment would be tested at

a FMVSS No. 214 equivalent barrier

speed of 24 km/h (15 mph).

As noted above, NHTSA believes that

AAMA and its member companies

misunderstood the intent of the test

procedures discussed in the ANPRM.

The two alternative tests outlined in the

ANPRM were intended to be optional

not mandatory. In demonstrating

FMVSS No. 201 compliance for vehicles

equipped with a dynamically deployed

inflatable device, a manufacturer could

choose, at its own option, to comply

with either the standard 24 km/h (15

mph) FMH impact tests or with one of

the two alternative tests outlined in the

ANPRM.

Volvo opposed inclusion of any full

scale crash tests. It argued that a specific

test configuration would be of limited

use in evaluating head impacts that

occur in a wide range of vehicle

interiors. While the agency

acknowledges that employing the rigid

pole test by itself would leave many

areas of the vehicle untested at the

higher impact speed, NHTSA has

conducted a safety benefit analysis and

concluded that a dynamic system that

complies with the ANPRM proposed 29

km/h (18 mph) side-to-pole test would

further reduce head injuries beyond the

level attained by designs solely meeting

the requirements of the August 18, 1995

final rule. NHTSA believes it is

appropriate to propose the 29 km/h (18

mph) side-to-pole test allowing

flexibility in the test procedure so that

manufacturers may install, as they wish,

an advanced head protection system in

their vehicles.

NHTSA concurs in BMW’s suggestion

that a test involving a 29 km/h (18 mph)

side impact of a moving vehicle into a

rigid pole is appropriate for measuring

the performance of certain dynamic

systems. The pole test is relatively

severe and, in the absence of

countermeasures, results in HIC scores

well above 1000. The test is also well

suited to evaluate those systems that,

because of the manner in which they

deploy, would not be in a position to

attenuate impacts occurring through the

use of the FMH but would still provide

protection to the heads of occupants in

crashes.

However, the agency believes that the

combination of SID with Hybrid III

head/neck is a better dummy test device

than the EuroSid dummy because of its

higher biofidelity rating. The Hybrid III

head and neck are used in the BioSID

dummy, whose biofidelity was

compared with the Eurosid and the SID

by two GM researchers (Mertz and

Irwin) in 1990. Using an ISO scale for

determining biofidelity, these

researchers determined that the

biofidelity for the Hybrid III head was

within the numeric range equivalent to

‘‘good’’ and the neck was ‘‘fair.’’ The

EuroSid head and neck were found to

have scored lower and were rated as

‘‘marginal.’’

IV. Proposed Test Procedure

After considering the comments on

the ANPRM and other available

information, NHTSA has decided to

propose amendments to Standard 201’s

test procedure to allow manufacturers

greater flexibility in offering dynamic

systems to provide interior impact

protection. Given the characteristics of

these systems, which include the use of

relatively stiff and hard components in

areas including target points specified

in the test procedure contained in the

August 18, 1995 final rule, the agency

has decided to propose modifications to

the Standard and its test procedures so

that manufacturers may, at their option,

choose one of three test procedures to

demonstrate compliance with this

Standard. The first option, hereinafter

referred to as option 1, which may be

most suitable for vehicles without

dynamic systems or systems that deploy

from seat backs or door panels, is to

perform FMH impacts at 24 km/h (15

mph) at all test points and target angles

now specified in the August 1995 final

rule. The second and third options,

hereinafter referred to as options 2 and

3, respectively, are intended to

accommodate dynamically deployed

systems by employing FMH testing at a

reduced impact speed at those points

located directly over a stowed dynamic

system and its inflation and attachment

hardware. However, to ensure that these
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45207

systems offer safety benefits in the

deployed mode commensurate with the

reduced protection provided in the

undeployed mode, both options specify

testing of the deployed system at impact

speeds above 24 km/h (15 mph).

Based on information contained in the

comments received in response to the

ANPRM and other data, NHTSA has

tentatively concluded that padding and

other passive countermeasures required

to meet the existing Standard 201

requirements are incompatible with

dynamic systems. Such dynamic

systems are likely to employ either air

bags, inflatable padding or other designs

that remain covered inside the trim of

B-Pillars, side rails or other structures

until activated by a crash. Once

activated, the systems will be inflated

either by compressed gas or a

pyrotechnic device and must deploy

rapidly without interference from

padding or other soft structures. These

devices may also require relatively stiff

components in their anchorages and

inflation systems and may be relatively

inflexible as stored. As such, the

characteristics of these devices make

compliance with the existing Standard

201 requirements difficult.

The impact of padding on air bag

deployments was previously considered

by NHTSA in a prior rulemaking in

which the head impact protection

requirements for instrument panels

were amended to reduce the impact

speed of test headforms from 24 km/h

(15 mph) to 19 km/h (12 mph) in air bag

equipped cars. In the July 18, 1990

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

proposing this change, (55 FR 29238),

the agency noted that optimal

deployment of top mounted air bag

systems required that the air bag should

not be located more than one inch

below the top of the instrument panel

while compliance with the 24 km/h (15

mph) head impact test mandated the use

of energy absorbing material that was

approximately two inches thick (55 FR

29239). In order to encourage the greater

use of frontal air bags and obtain a net

safety benefit, NHTSA issued a final

rule on June 6, 1991 (56 FR 26036)

reducing the impact speed requirements

for air bag equipped cars.

In regard to the present rulemaking,

comments received from Volvo and

BMW indicated that meeting the 24 km/

h (15 mph) FMH impact requirement set

forth in the August 18, 1995 final rule

would require the use of energy

absorbing material at least one inch

thick. In the view of these commenters,

as well as Mercedes, employing padding

sufficiently thick to meet the 24 km/h

(15 mph) FMH impact requirement

would preclude the use of inflatable

systems or severely limit their

effectiveness. The use of padding, in

BMW’s view, raises particular concerns

in inflatable systems that deploy from

the roof rails because such systems

cannot deploy through one inch of

padding. The agency agrees that

compliance with the 24 km/h (15 mph)

FMH impact requirement through the

use of padding alone may require

padding as thick as one inch and that

padding this thick may interfere with

the deployment of dynamic systems.

The agency has tentatively concluded

that while the design and performance

requirements of these systems may

preclude compliance with Standard 201

at an impact speed of 24 km/h (15 mph),

they may be designed to provide

adequate protection against impact in

the undeployed mode at an impact

speed of 19 km/h (12 mph). NHTSA

estimates that where padding would be

required to provide adequate protection

in a 19 km/h (12 mph) impact would

not be thicker than one-half inch. The

agency calculates that this impact speed

would accommodate development of

dynamic systems because the 19 km/h

(12 mph) impact would not place a

significant additional burden in terms of

padding or other measures. An analysis

of the effect of different padding

thicknesses on existing passenger cars

and LTVs contained in the agency’s

June 1995 Final Economic Assessment

(FEA), FMVSS No. 201, Upper Interior

Head Protection, determined that all of

the sampled passenger cars and LTVs

could meet the 19 km/h (12 mph)

impact speed with one-half inch of

additional padding on the A-pillars,

side rails and B-pillars. As the vehicles

examined by the agency and designed

prior to the August 1995 amendments to

Standard 201 would require additional

padding of a half inch or less to provide

adequate protection in a 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH impact, NHTSA believes

that the 19 km/h (12 mph) impact speed

would not present obstacles to the

development and employment of

dynamic systems.

One procedure, option 2, would use

the existing FMH to simulate an

occupant’s head striking the interior of

the vehicle in a crash. In this test, the

headform would be propelled into

specified targets within the vehicle at

differing impact speeds. For those

points that are not directly over a

dynamic system or its attachment or

inflation hardware, the specified impact

speed would be 24 km/h (15 mph). For

points directly over an undeployed

dynamic system (including attachment

points and inflation mechanisms), the

headform would be propelled at the

target at 19 km/h (12 mph) with the

system in the undeployed mode and 29

km/h (18 mph) with the system

deployed. In order to assure deployment

of the system, the triggering mechanism

would be tested through use of the

lateral crash test contained in S6.12 of

Standard 214. The agency is proposing

that once triggered, the system would

have to reach full deployment in 30

milliseconds (ms) or less.

The other optional test procedure now

being proposed, option 3, employs a full

scale side impact at 29 km/h (18 mph)

into a fixed pole. In this test, any test

points or targets inside the vehicle that

do not intersect with a line oriented

along any of the approach angles

described in S8.13.4 and passing

through an undeployed dynamic system

or any of its components (excluding

trim) would be subjected to a 24 km/h

(15 mph) FMH impact at the target

angles and conditions now contained in

the Standard. For those targets that

intersect with a line oriented along any

of the approach angles described in

S8.13.4 and passing through an

undeployed dynamic system or any of

its components (excluding trim), FMH

impacts at a speed of 19 km/h (12 mph)

would be employed to test the system in

its undeployed condition. To test the

effectiveness of the dynamic system in

the deployed mode, a full scale 29 km/

h (18 mph) side impact into a fixed rigid

pole would be used. The point of impact

would be aligned with the center of

gravity of the head of a dummy seated

in a designated front outboard seating

position on the struck side. Initially, the

seat would be positioned as directed in

S6.3 and S6.4 of Standard 214 and the

dummy located as directed in S7 of

Standard 214. If this positions the

dummy such that the point at the

intersection of the rear surface of its

head and a horizontal line parallel to

the longitudinal centerline of the

vehicle passing through the head’s

center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2

inches) forward of the front edge of the

B-pillar at that same horizontal location,

then the dummy is tested in this

position. If not, the seat back angle is to

be adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees,

until the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar

clearance is achieved. If this is not

sufficient to produce the desired

clearance, the seat is to be moved

forward to achieve that result. The

agency recognizes that these

modifications to the Standard 214

seating procedure will likely make it

necessary to adjust other specifications

of that procedure, such as the allowable

pelvic angle range, the target H-point

location, and lower extremity positions.
45208 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The agency asks for comments regarding

seating procedure issues.

This pole test is nearly identical to the

proposed ISO test procedure found in

the ISO/TC22/SC10/WG3 draft ISO

Technical Report Road Vehicles, Test

Procedure for Evaluating Various

Occupant Interactions with Deploying

Side Impact Air Bags (February 9, 1995).

The seating procedure for the pole test

was designed to adhere to the extent

possible to the proposed ISO test

procedure which states to ‘‘Seat the

dummy so that its head is sufficiently

within the front window opening that

the striking pole is unlikely to contact

the A- or B-pillar’’. NHTSA notes that

use of this test furthers the goal of

international harmonization of

standards and test procedures.

In order to accurately gauge the

performance of the system in protecting

the head, neck and torso, the test

dummy would be a SID dummy

modified to accept the Hybrid III head

and neck. As is the case with the first

and second options, the HIC value

would not exceed 1000. In the proposed

test, the one dummy would be placed in

the front outboard seat of the struck side

of the vehicle. However, the agency is

continuing to consider the use of a

second dummy in the rear outboard

seating position of the struck side.

The March 7, 1996 ANPRM contained

a suggestion that dynamically deployed

devices be tested by the use of a side

impact test employing a Moving

Deformable Barrier (MDB). The

proposed MDB test consisted of a 50

km/h (31 mph) lateral impact by an ISO

#10997 MDB not less than 1270 mm (50

inches) high. However, even with the

use of an MDB of sufficient height to

simulate a high hooded striking vehicle,

the resulting changes in velocity to the

head and HIC scores are insufficient to

assure real benefits from the use of

dynamically deployed systems. While

the use of this test was supported by

AORC, the agency is not proposing this

test.

NHTSA made this decision based on

examination of crash test data submitted

by BMW in which a 90 degree lateral

moving barrier crash test using the MDB

employed in Standard 301 testing

produced HIC scores far below 1000.

The agency then calculated that

increasing the impact speed from 32

km/h (20 mph) to 48 km/h (30 mph)

would not result in appreciable

increases in HIC scores. Based on the

data described above, NHTSA

tentatively concludes that the MDB test

would not be severe enough to promote

safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has

dropped consideration of this test.

The agency also examined the

possibility of using the Standard 214

test procedure to evaluate dynamically

deployed systems. Since manufacturers

are already conducting Standard 214

tests, the testing of dynamically

deployed systems could, theoretically,

be pursued simultaneously through the

use of a SID dummy with a Hybrid III

head/neck. The agency examined

several series of crash tests conducted

pursuant to Standard 214. As is the case

with testing using the MDB,

examination of the data from Standard

214 testing indicates that these tests do

not produce changes in head velocity

sufficient to gauge the performance of

systems intended to provide head

protection in interior impacts. As the

greatest loads experienced in Standard

214 testing are applied to the torso,

contacts between the head and the

vehicle interior or other structures are

rare. In addition, test dummies are

secured in the vehicle by belts during

testing. HIC scores near or above 1000

occur only when the head strikes the

MDB, which NHTSA believes to occur

in eighteen percent of the Standard 214

type tests. Therefore, NHTSA tentatively

concludes that using a Standard 214 test

with the standard barrier height would

not be appropriate.

Alternatively, as an attempt to adapt

the Standard 214 test for use in

evaluating head protection, another

approach would be to conduct a lateral

impact test with the Standard 214 MDB

with a modified rigid face. The barrier

face would be high enough to intrude

into the upper interior parts of the

greenhouse. However, even though head

contact with the vehicle interior or

barrier would occur, the agency

calculates that the resulting HIC scores,

in the absence of countermeasures,

would be in the range of 225–300 for the

driver and 250–325 for a rear seat

passenger. Therefore, the head impacts

and resulting HIC scores would be too

moderate to promote improvements in

head protection. The agency also

considered employing a test using the

FMVSS No. 301 ‘‘Fuel System Integrity’’

barrier at 32 km/h (20 mph) or 48 km/

h (30 mph) to achieve higher lateral

kinetic energy levels. While such a test

would be more severe than the test

specified in Standard 214, the agency

has tentatively concluded that this

approach also would not promote the

introduction of highly efficient and

effective dynamically deployed systems.

In addition to considering use of

moving deformable barrier tests,

NHTSA also examined the possibility of

using a moving pole rather than a

barrier to impact a stationary test

vehicle. While such a test would be

more severe than those involving a

moving barrier, the agency has decided

not to propose this test. When the test

vehicle is propelled into a stationary

pole, the vehicle will be free to interact

dynamically with the pole and the

resulting motion of the head and thorax

are more likely to represent conditions

encountered in actual crashes. While

NHTSA is aware that a car-to-pole test

procedure poses certain technical

challenges, the agency believes that

these are simpler to resolve in the short

term compared to those involved in a

moving pole test.

A. Option 2: Testing Deployed Dynamic

Systems in FMH Impacts

1. Impact Speed

In order to assure that the goals of

Standard 201 are not compromised by

the proposed amendments, dynamic

systems tested under this option would

be subjected to 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH

impacts in the undeployed state at target

points directly over an undeployed

dynamic system (including attachment

points and inflation mechanisms), and a

29 km/h (18 mph) FMH impact into the

same target points with the system

deployed. While none of the

manufacturers or suppliers who

provided comments in response to the

ANPRM supported the use of impact

speeds above 24 km/h (15 mph) for

testing of a deployed dynamic system,

NHTSA believes that such an impact

speed would result in a net increase in

safety and would not place an undue

burden on manufacturers. The agency

notes that the selection of this impact

speed provides important assurances

that vehicles equipped with dynamic

systems would, with the systems

deployed, provide safety benefits

commensurate with the decrease in the

level of impact protection provided in

less severe crashes where the dynamic

system might not deploy.

2. System Deployment

As proposed, testing under option 2

would require FMH impacts into a

deployed dynamic system. In order to

ensure that dynamic systems would

deploy in the event of a side impact, the

agency is proposing that manufacturers

choosing this option must also test the

sensor and inflation system to

determine that it will function in the

event of a side impact. The agency is

proposing that the lateral barrier test set

forth in S6.12 of FMVSS No. 214, ‘‘Side

Impact Protection’’ provides appropriate

conditions for the testing of the

triggering and inflation systems for

dynamic head protection devices.

Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45209

under option 2, manufacturers must test

the triggering and inflation systems of

dynamic head protection systems as

part of testing conducted for

certification to Standard 214. The

agency notes that this test would not

measure the performance of dynamic

systems intended to provide head

protection in frontal or rearward

impacts and solicits comments on what

test procedures, including those now

contained in Standard 208 and Standard

301, might be used for this purpose.

As this proposed test would not

actually measure the performance of

dynamic head protection systems in

protecting against impacts, the agency is

also proposing that the system must

reach full deployment within 30

milliseconds of the initial contact with

the barrier. NHTSA believes that this

time period is sufficiently brief to

ensure that systems will deploy fully

before they are contacted by occupants

in a side impact but requests comments

on this issue. The agency also requests

comments on what means may be used

to determine if a system has reached full

deployment.

The agency is also aware that future

dynamic head protection systems may

be designed to provide protection to

occupants in front and rear impacts.

NHTSA solicits comments on what tests

would be appropriate for evaluating

deployment of such systems.

3. Target Angles

NHTSA is proposing that testing

conducted under option 2, with the

exception of the differing impact speeds

for deployed and undeployed systems

for target points where a deployed

system would be interposed between

the FMH and the target point, be

identical to testing conducted under

option 1. Under this proposal, the target

angles now specified in the Standard

would be used for testing under option

2, and for 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH

impact testing under option 3. The

agency believes that the use of these

target angles is appropriate for both

deployed and undeployed devices, but

solicits comments on the question of

whether the design of particular

dynamic systems, i.e., inflatable

padding (or larger side air bags), would

require modifications to the existing

target angles.

B. Option 3—Testing Deployed Dynamic

Systems in Full Scale 29 km/h (18 mph)

Side Impact Into Fixed Pole

NHTSA recognizes that some

dynamic head protection systems now

under consideration may deploy from

the roof rail in a downward direction

and interpose themselves between an

occupant’s head and the window

opening. As these systems would

provide head protection by preventing

or cushioning impacts between the head

or upper torso and the vehicle interior

in side impacts without necessarily

having any effect on the FMH impacts

specified in the August 18, 1995 final

rule, testing either under that standard

or the proposed option 2 would

preclude employment of these designs.

However, preliminary reviews of the

performance of these systems in testing

reveals that they may offer significant

safety benefits. In an effort to provide

maximum flexibility to manufacturers

in developing dynamic head protection

systems, the agency is proposing to offer

manufacturers the option of

demonstrating compliance with

Standard 201 through an optional test

procedure combining the existing 24

km/h (15 mph) FMH impact, a 19 km/

h (12 mph) FMH impact in the

undeployed mode for points directly

over an undeployed dynamic system

(including attachment and inflation

mechanisms) and a full scale side

impact test with a 29 km/h (18 mph)

side impact into a 254 mm (10 inch)

rigid pole. In the latter test, the subject

vehicle would be propelled into the

pole so that the pole would impact at

the center of gravity of the head of a

seated dummy positioned on the

designated front outboard seating

position of the struck side. Since the

FMH cannot be used for evaluating HIC

in such an impact and the Hybrid III

head and neck assembly appears to be

the most biofidelic test device currently

available, the agency is also proposing

that the Hybrid III head and neck be

used with the existing SID dummy for

this test.

Although the agency is considering

the use of test dummies in both front

and rear outboard seating positions in

the pole test, it is currently proposing

that a dummy be positioned in the front

seat alone. NHTSA believes that a single

dummy will be adequate to measure the

effectiveness of dynamic systems in the

pole test. Nonetheless, the agency is

concerned that certain systems may

only protect front seat occupants. This

concern becomes heightened by the

possibility that some designs may be, in

the undeployed mode, located under

target points that may be encountered

by a rear seat occupant in a crash. As

these target points would only be

required to provide protection against a

19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact, rear

seat occupants who are not protected by

the deployed system may encounter an

increased risk of injury. The agency

requests comments on the capability of

dynamic systems to provide protection

to rear seat occupants as well as the

efficacy and consequences of placing an

instrumented dummy in the rear

outboard position on the struck side for

the pole test.

In the March 7, 1996 ANPRM, the

agency indicated that it was considering

proposing the use of either a Moving

Deformable Barrier (MDB) impact test

with an impact speed of 50 km/h (31

mph) or a 30 km/h (18.6 mph) pole test

as one of the options for testing dynamic

head protection systems. After

reviewing the comments received in

response to the ANPRM and other

available data indicating that the use of

the MDB would not result in impacts

severe enough to assess head protection,

the agency is now proposing adoption of

the pole test. The agency believes that

the pole test is a more appropriate

choice. Crash data reveals that serious to

fatal injuries in side impacts are most

likely to involve the head, chest and

abdomen. These data also reveal that

while vehicle-to-vehicle impacts, those

simulated by MDB impacts, represent

over 80 percent of side impact crashes

with serious to fatal injuries, the much

smaller percentage of impacts with

narrow objects result in a

disproportionately high rate of fatalities

and injuries. These impacts with narrow

objects, which are represented by the

pole test, also present a serious safety

concern. Use of the pole test, which

simulates head impacts found in

accident scenarios that cannot be

reproduced using the MDB, provides a

means for evaluating head protection

systems and, in conjunction with the

requirements of Standard 214, would

promote a higher level of safety in side

impacts. Accordingly, the agency has

decided to propose under Option 3 that

a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact test for

those points directly over an

undeployed system and 29 km/h (18

mph) pole test be employed rather than

the 50 km/h (31 mph) barrier test.

NHTSA notes that under option 3,

manufacturers choosing to employ

dynamic systems whose components are

not stored in roof rails or other areas

covered by Standard 201 would be

required to meet the 24 km/h (15 mph)

FMH impact test even though such a

system, in its deployed state, may

provide head protection against impact

with the target points specified in this

standard. The agency, therefore,

requests comments on whether a

dynamic system which, when deployed

and observed in a side view, completely

covers the 95th percentile ellipse as

defined in SAE Recommended Practice

J941—Motor Vehicle Driver’s Eye

Locations (June 92) would provide
45210 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

protection against impacts with targets

on the A-pillar, B-pillar and side rails.

1. Impact Speed

NHTSA believes that a 29 km/h (18

mph) impact speed is appropriate for

the pole test. The agency notes that

existing test data indicate that impacts

into a rigid pole aligned with the center

of gravity of the dummy’s head will, in

vehicles without dynamic systems,

result in severe impacts with interior

structures and/or the pole itself

resulting in HIC values equivalent to

fatal or near fatal injury. While this test

is a severe test, review of test data from

prototype dynamic systems indicates

that these systems have the capability to

provide sufficient protection to the head

so that the HIC score resulting from

such an impact is at or near the current

standard. In the agency’s view, the

severity of this test and the anticipated

safety benefit of systems that meet it, are

such that any decrease in safety benefits

resulting from the specification of a 19

km/h (12 mph) FMH impact instead of

a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact into

the undeployed system would be offset

by the reduction of severe or fatal injury

in higher speed impacts where the

deployed system would provide

superior protection, particularly in

collisions with narrow fixed objects.

2. Rigid Pole

The agency is proposing that the rigid

pole shall be a vertically oriented metal

structure beginning no more than 102

millimeters (4 inches) off the ground

and extending to a minimum height of

2032 millimeters (80 inches). The pole

would be 254 millimeters (10 inches) in

diameter and mounted so that no part of

its supporting structure would contact

the test vehicle at any time after the

vehicle’s initial contact with the pole.

3. Impact Angle

The agency is currently proposing

that the striking vehicle would strike the

pole at an angle of 90 degrees. However,

crash data indicates that impacts within

the range of 30 to 60 degrees may be

more representative of actual impacts.

NHTSA therefore solicits comments on

whether such impact angles would

result in a test procedure better suited

for evaluating performance in a crash.

The agency is also concerned that the

use of angles smaller than 90 degrees

may present technical challenges in

testing and solicits comments on this

issue as well.

4. Propulsion System

NHTSA is not proposing to specify

the manner in which a vehicle is

propelled into the pole. As outlined in

the PRE, the agency has examined a

variety of test configurations for moving

test vehicles sideways into the rigid

pole, including mounting the vehicle on

a test cart or employing low friction

pads under the test vehicle’s tires, and

believes that such a test can be

performed with sufficient accuracy,

repeatability and reproducibility.

Nonetheless, the agency has concerns

about the effects of differing means of

propelling test vehicles sideways while

controlling pitch, yaw and roll and

solicits comments on overcoming

friction and controlling vehicle attitudes

while conducting the proposed option 3

test.

5. Impact Point

The agency is proposing that the

impact specified in option 3 occurs with

the center line of the rigid pole aligned

with the impact reference line on the

struck side of the vehicle, passing

through, in the lateral direction, the

center of gravity of the head of the

dummy located in the front outboard

seating position. This dummy, and the

vehicle seat, would be positioned in

accordance with the procedures

specified in Standard 214, if this

positions the dummy’s head such that

the point at the intersection of the rear

surface of its head and a horizontal line

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of

the vehicle passing through the head’s

center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2

inches) forward of the front edge of the

B-pillar at that same horizontal location.

If not, the seat back angle is to be

adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until

the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar clearance

is achieved. If this is not sufficient to

produce the desired clearance, the seat

is to be moved forward to achieve that

result. The initial pole-to-vehicle

contact must occur within an area

bounded by two transverse vertical

planes located 38 mm (1.5 inches)

forward and aft of the impact reference

line. NHTSA notes that experience in

conducting this type of test is, compared

to Standard 214 tests, somewhat

limited. Based on its knowledge gained

in conducting Standard 214 tests, the

agency believes that a tolerance of +/-38

mm (1.5 inches) is sufficient for the pole

test. The agency requests comments on

the degree of difficulty of achieving an

impact within the ranges specified

above and the feasibility of using the

existing-Standard 214 seat positioning

and dummy seating procedures and/or

the proposed modifications to those

procedures.

6. SID/H3 Test Dummy

NHTSA is proposing specifications

and qualification requirements for the

SID/H3 dummy, which would be set

forth in subpart M of part 572. The

specifications consist of a drawing

package containing all of the technical

details of the redesigned neck bracket.

NHTSA believes that these drawings

and specifications would ensure that the

resulting SID/H3 dummies vary little in

their construction. Performance criteria

would serve as calibration checks and

further assure the uniformity of dummy

assembly, construction, and

instrumentation. As a result, the

repeatability of performance in impact

testing would be ensured.

The SID/H3 combination was

developed as part of NHTSA’s research

program, and is essentially a Hybrid III

dummy head and neck mounted to a

modified SID torso. The modifications

include replacing the existing SID neck

bracket with a new neck bracket.

Without this modification, the use of the

Hybrid III head and neck with the SID

torso results in a head center of gravity

that is 38 mm (1.5 inches) higher than

that of the SID head mounted on the SID

torso. In order to retain the same neck

alignment and head profile as the

existing SID, the new neck bracket,

when used to mount the Hybrid III head

and neck, results in the CG of the

Hybrid III head being 19 mm (0.75

inches) higher than the CG of the SID

head when mounted on the SID torso.

In addition, adoption of the Hybrid III

neck component and the new neck

bracket would add a negligible amount

of weight, 0.59 kilograms (1.3 pounds),

to the SID dummy. NHTSA believes that

the resulting head CG height and neck

weight would not pose any obstacle to

the use of the SID/H3 dummy because

the new dummy seating height is nearly

identical to that of the SID and the

weight is still less than that of the

Hybrid III. The Hybrid III head is

instrumented with a tri-axial

accelerometer package, positioned to

measure the acceleration of the center of

gravity. This permits the measurement

of HIC.

The agency believes that this SID/H3

combination, which joins proven

components of existing dummies

through the use of a redesigned neck

bracket, is the best configuration

currently available for evaluating head

and neck behavior in side impacts.

7. Biofidelity

Biofidelity is a measure of how well

a test device duplicates the responses of

a human being in an impact. The Hybrid

III dummy is specified in Standard No.

208. Its biofidelity in frontal impacts is

well accepted, particularly for forehead

impacts. SID, or the Side Impact

Dummy, is specified for use in Standard
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45211

214. Its biofidelity in assessing damage

to the thorax and pelvis in side impacts

is also well accepted. Therefore,

NHTSA’s concern, in developing a

component test using the SID/H3

combination, was whether the Hybrid III

head and neck responses for lateral

acceleration could provide a valid basis

for the evaluation of human injury in

such impacts.

The agency notes that the biofidelity

of the Hybrid III head and neck in

lateral impacts has been evaluated by

the international biomechanics

community, as well as by NHTSA.

NHTSA conducted a review of research

in which the Hybrid III head and neck

were subjected to head drop and neck

pendulum tests. The results and

methodology of this drop testing were

compared with data obtained on head

impact tests performed on cadavers. A

comparison of the relationship between

acceleration and HIC scores for both the

cadavers and the Hybrid III head

indicates that the lateral impact

responses of the Hybrid III head is

representative of human cadavers up to

HIC scores of 2500. Since lateral

impacts with dynamic head protection

systems or other interior components

are likely to produce accelerations and

HIC scores within this range, the agency

has concluded the Hybrid III head may

be used to assess these impacts. The

biofidelity rating for the Hybrid III head

and neck and the SID torso, based on

existing data, is far beyond the

minimum acceptable level for side

impact evaluation.

8. Repeatability and Reproducibility

NHTSA has evaluated the

repeatability and reproducibility of the

proposed test procedure, with particular

focus on the HIC responses.

Repeatability refers in this context to the

control of variation of SID/H3 responses

in replicate tests using the same

dummy, while reproducibility refers to

control of variation of SID/H3 responses

in replicate tests using different

dummies.

The agency considers +/¥10 percent

to be an acceptable range of variability

and a measure of good repeatability or

reproducibility, while +/¥5 percent is

considered to be highly acceptable

variability and an indicator of excellent

repeatability or reproducibility.

As a starting point, the agency notes

that it has previously determined that

the Hybrid III head, as a component of

the full Hybrid III dummy, has highly

acceptable variability or excellent

repeatability and reproducibility in

frontal crashes. NHTSA also notes that

the biofidelity of the Hybrid III head and

neck in lateral impact was examined in

a series of head drop tests and head/

neck assembly pendulum impact tests

by two GM researchers in 1990. In

addition to examination of the GM tests,

NHTSA conducted a series of drop tests

on the Hybrid III head and pendulum

tests on the Hybrid III head and neck

assembly. These tests were designed to

provide a controlled impact

environment so that any variability was

limited to the Hybrid III components

and the test procedure.

The agency found that the average

percent variation for peak head resultant

acceleration for the Hybrid III head in

lateral drop tests is highly acceptable.

The degree of variation encountered

indicated that repeatability and

reproducibility for the tests were

excellent. Lateral pendulum impact

tests on the head/neck assembly

indicated that the average percent

variation for occipital moment was

excellent for both repeatability and

reproducibility. The average percent

variation for neck rotation was excellent

for repeatability and good (nearly

excellent) for reproducibility. In

addition, the SID/H3 combination was

tested through a series of 29 km/h (18

mph) sled lateral impact tests. Two

vertical, rigid plates were mounted

perpendicular to the direction of motion

of the sled, at the head and the torso

heights, respectively. During the test,

the head and the torso would impact the

plates. Two test series, each with three

tests, were conducted using a SID/H3

dummy with the standard or the new

neck brackets. The test results show

nearly the same average HIC values

(within 4 percent) and the average

percent variations indicating that

repeatability for HIC is excellent.

Based on the above tests and analyses,

which are described in more detail in

the PRE, NHTSA has tentatively

concluded that the repeatability and

reproducibility of the proposed SID/H3

are sufficient for this rulemaking.

V. Performance Requirements

In this rulemaking, NHTSA is

proposing to require passenger cars and

LTVs not to exceed specified HIC(d)

limits when any of the specified upper

interior components are impacted by the

FMH in accordance with the specified

test procedure or specified HIC limits

when SID/H3 dummies are employed in

the side impact crash test outlined in

option 3. As indicated in the present

version of Standard 201, HIC(d) is

calculated when using the FMH and

represents the HIC that would be

experienced by a full dummy or actual

vehicle occupant.

The agency is proposing a single,

across-the-board limit of HIC(d) 1000 for

all specific upper interior components

whether protected by a dynamic system

or not and regardless of whether the

system is deployed or undeployed.

When testing of a dynamic system is

undertaken under option 3, involving

the full side impact pole test and a SID/

H3 dummy, the upper limit would also

be a HIC(d) of 1000.

VI. Costs

Evaluation of costs associated with

this proposed rule is conditioned by

several factors. The proposed

amendments would not impose any new

performance requirements. Instead,

these changes are being instituted to

enable vehicle manufacturers to use

innovative technologies to further

occupant protection. Only those

manufacturers deciding to install those

technologies would be subject to the

new requirements. Since no new

requirements are included in the

proposal, the costs incurred would be

compliance test costs and expenses

rather than vehicle costs relating to the

design and implementation of safety

countermeasures. Since the proposed

optional test procedures are still under

development, a complete accounting of

test costs cannot be produced at this

time.

The compliance costs for the

proposed option 1 would be the same as

those for the August 1995 final rule.

Compliance costs for the proposed

option 2 test would only be slightly

higher due to the additional

requirement of testing system

deployment through employment of the

Standard 214 lateral moving barrier

crash test. Assuming that a Standard

214 lateral crash test was performed

solely for the purpose of testing system

deployment, NHTSA estimates that each

test would cost approximately $10,000,

plus the cost of the test vehicle.

The agency believes that proposed

test option 3 would require the greatest

expenditure among all the test options.

NHTSA estimates that the pole test

would cost in the range of $10,000 to

$13,000 (excluding the cost of the test

vehicle) with an additional $1,750 for

calibration tests for the head, neck,

lumbar spine, thorax, and pelvis. The

cost of fabricating a new neck bracket

for joining the Hybrid III head to the SID

torso is estimated to be approximately

$200 to $300. Due to the use of existing

SID torsos, Hybrid III head/neck

hardware and standard laboratory

calibration equipment, NHTSA believes

that there would be little or no extra

costs for the pole test beyond the test

itself. The severity of the pole test

would not create a need for more rib

replacements than currently
45212 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

experienced in side crash testing.

Further, most, if not all, crash test

facilities have a fixed frontal barrier

with a pole crash test hardware that can

be installed as an option. Pole tests

using both fixed and moving poles have

been conducted by manufacturers for

research and development purposes for

30 years. Some of the roll, pitch and

yaw specifications (to be determined),

needed to control the relationship of the

pole centerline to head CG, may add

cost to the existing Tow cable and rail

systems. For example, a pair of above

ground stabilization rails and trollies

may cost an added $15,000 to $20,000

per facility to build, fabricate and

install. Roll, pitch and yaw

instrumentation may be needed to

measure compliance with the test

procedure boundaries.

VII. Benefits

NHTSA’s analysis of benefits is

presented in the PRE. This analysis is

necessarily incomplete due to the fact

that the design, research and

development of dynamic head

protection systems is still in its infancy.

Nonetheless, the agency was able to

provide a benefits estimate through the

use of prior analyses prepared for the

existing version of Standard 201 and

test data provided by BMW obtained

from testing of the Inflatable Tubular

System (ITS). Estimates of the

effectiveness of the ITS system were

applied to a baseline HIC distribution

prepared for the August 1995 final rule.

Use of this analysis indicated that if

systems whose effectiveness was

equivalent to the BMW ITS were

employed in the existing passenger car

and light truck fleet there would be

572–655 fewer fatalities and 640–990

fewer moderate to critical nonfatal

injuries each year.

NHTSA also recognizes that the

proposed modifications to Standard 201

might also increase the risk of injury in

lower speed crashes. As noted above,

those manufacturers availing themselves

of option 2 to test dynamic systems

would perform FMH impact tests at 19

km/h (12 mph) into an undeployed

system and 29 km/h (18 mph) into a

deployed system. The agency calculates

that reducing the impact speed for the

FMH under options 2 and 3 to 19 km/

h (12 mph) from the 24 km/h (15 mph)

impact used under the August 18, 1995

final rule would result in 1075 more

MAIS 1–3 injuries. However, increasing

the impact speed from 24 to 29 km/h (18

mph) when the FMH is impacted into a

deployed system would, in NHTSA’s

estimation (using the Mertz-Prasad

method), result in systems that would

prevent 119 fatalities and 125 MAIS 4

and 5 injuries. (Calculations using the

Lognormal method show an increase of

1,273 MAIS 1 injuries but 311 fewer

fatalities as well as 512 fewer MAIS 2–

5 injuries).

Since NHTSA is not proposing to

mandate systems meeting either option

2 or option 3 (such as the BMW ITS),

it is difficult to predict which

manufacturers would choose to install

dynamic systems and what the

effectiveness of each system would be.

The agency’s preliminary analysis,

however, makes it clear that these

systems would reduce fatal and near

fatal injuries.

VIII. Effective Date

The agency is proposing that the final

rule become effective 30 days after it is

published. NHTSA is proposing that the

final rule’s effective date be less than

180 days after publication in an effort to

facilitate the early introduction of

dynamic systems that may be in an

advanced stage of development or

actually in production. As production of

vehicles with dynamic systems may

begin prior to the effective date of the

final rule, NHTSA will allow

manufacturers of such vehicles to

include them in their calculation of

complying vehicles under S6.1.5 if such

vehicles meet the requirements of

S6.1(b) or S6.1(c) as promulgated in the

final rule.

IX. Risk of Injury

In the request for comments contained

in the March 7, 1996 ANPRM, the

agency requested information on the

potential, if any, for increased neck

injury as the result of the deployment of

dynamic head protection systems.

Commenters responding to this inquiry

indicated either that there was

insufficient information to address this

concern or, in the case of Mercedes and

BMW, preliminary evaluations of

dynamic systems indicated that they did

not increase stress on the neck. NHTSA

has not performed any significant

research or testing on this issue.

Therefore, the agency requests

comments on the issue of whether the

use of dynamic head protection systems

would increase neck loads and potential

injuries in a crash.

The agency is also concerned that the

use of dynamic head protection systems

such as inflatable padding, side air bags

or similar systems that deploy across

window openings, might pose other

risks to occupants. One concern is that

the use of pyrotechnic inflators, and to

a lesser extent compressed gas inflators,

may be a source of auditory pain or

injury. NHTSA notes that dynamic head

protection devices may require

placement of inflators in relatively close

proximity to the ears of vehicle

occupants. In addition, deployment of

the dynamic systems themselves may

have the potential for exposing the ear

to noise and pressure, particularly if the

occupants are out-of-position. The

agency solicits comments on the issue of

whether dynamic systems have the

potential to cause injury to the ear and

auditory system of occupants.

Unlike conventional air bag systems

designed to protect occupants in frontal

crashes, side impact air bags and

dynamic head protection systems are in

a comparatively early stage of

development. In addition, the agency

anticipates that these systems may exist

in a variety of configurations, each

offering specific advantages and

disadvantages. Under these conditions,

NHTSA recognizes that knowledge of

the characteristics of dynamic systems

may be limited. Nonetheless, the agency

is concerned that dynamic systems may

have the potential to cause injury to

particular classes of vehicle occupants,

particularly those who are unrestrained

and out of position at the time of

deployment. The agency solicits

comments regarding the possibility of

increased injury, if any, posed to

occupants by dynamic systems

including unrestrained occupants,

occupants small in size or weight and

children secured in child seats and

infant carriers.

This proposed rule would not have

any retroactive effect. Under section

103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C.

1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the State requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. Section 105 of the

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a

procedure for judicial review of final

rules establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45213

rulemaking document was reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review’’ and is considered

significant under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures.

The agency has prepared a

Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation

describing the economic and other

effects of this rulemaking action.

Summary discussions of many of those

effects are provided above. For persons

wishing to examine the full analysis, a

copy is being placed in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

effects of this rulemaking action under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that it would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The cost of new passenger cars or light

trucks would not be affected by the

proposed amendment. The proposed

amendment would primarily affect

passenger car and light truck

manufacturers which are not small

entities under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The

Small Business Administration’s

regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a

small business, in part, as a business

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within

the United States.’’ (13 CFR

§ 121.105(a)).

The agency estimates that there are at

most five small manufacturers of

passenger cars in the U.S., producing a

combined total of at most 500 cars each

year. The agency does not believe small

businesses manufacture even 0.1

percent of total U.S. passenger car and

light truck production each year. The

primary cost effect of the proposed

requirements would be on

manufacturers of passenger cars and

LTVs. Final stage manufacturers are

generally small businesses. However,

NHTSA believes that the proposed

requirements would not be burdensome

for final stage manufacturers. The

amendments proposed in this

rulemaking do not impose any

additional mandatory requirements on

manufacturers or final stage

manufacturers but rather provide these

manufacturers with a means for

evaluating advanced dynamic head

protection systems should they choose

to install such systems. Further, since

two of the options the agency is

proposing are component tests, a final

stage manufacturer could test, or could

sponsor a test, of a padded component

or dynamic system outside of the

vehicle on a test fixture, to the extent

such testing may be needed to support

certification. Manufacturer associations

could also sponsor generic tests to

determine the amount and type of

padding or design of dynamic system

needed for basic structures that would

be used by a number of final stage

manufacturers, to reduce certification

costs.

Other entities which would qualify as

small businesses, small organizations

and governmental units would be

affected by this rule to the extent that

they purchase passenger cars and LTVs.

They would not be significantly

affected, since the potential cost

increases associated with this action

should only slightly affect the purchase

price of new motor vehicles.

Accordingly, the agency has not

prepared a preliminary regulatory

flexibility analysis.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The agency

has determined that implementation of

this action would not have any

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

and Unfunded Mandates Act

The agency has analyzed this

rulemaking action in accordance with

the principles and criteria set forth in

Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has

determined that the amendment does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

In issuing this proposal to permit

optional testing to accommodate

dynamic head protections systems, the

agency notes, for the purposes of the

Unfunded Mandates Act, that it is

pursuing the least cost alternative. As

noted above, any manufacturer may

choose one of three options to test for

compliance with Standard 201,

including the test procedure established

in the August 18, 1995 final rule. As this

rulemaking does not require

manufacturers to meet new minimum

performance requirements but sets

minimum performance criteria for

optional systems, it does not impose

new costs.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed amendment does not

have any retroactive effect. Under 49

U.S.C. 21403, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

State may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the state requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 21461 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

XI. Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available for inspection

in the docket. The NHTSA will continue

to file relevant information as it

becomes available in the docket after the

closing date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.
45214 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 would be amended as

follows:

PART 571.201—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 571

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415,

21417, and 21466; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

§ 571.201 [Amended]

2. Section 571.201 would be amended

by adding a definition of Dynamically

deployed interior protection system to

S3, revising S6.1, S6.2 and S7, and by

adding S8.13.3 and S8.16 through S8.28

as follows:

S3. Definitions

* * * * *

Dynamically deployed interior

protection system means a protective

device or devices which are integrated

into a vehicle and which, when

activated by an impact to or by the

vehicle, provides, through means

requiring no action from occupants,

protection against head impacts with

interior structures and components of

the vehicle in crashes.

* * * * *

S6.1 Vehicles manufactured on or

after September 1, 1998 and before

September 1, 2002. Except as provided

in S6.3, for vehicles manufactured on or

after September 1, 1998 and before

September 1, 2002, a percentage of the

manufacturer’s production, as specified

in S6.1.1, S6.1.2, S6.1.3, or S6.1.4, shall

conform, at the manufacturer’s option

with said option selected prior to, or at

the time of, certification of the vehicle,

to one of the following:

(a) When tested under the conditions

of S8, comply with the requirements

specified in S7 at the target locations

specified in S10 when impacted by the

free motion headform specified in S8.9

at any speed up to and including 24 km/

h (15 mph). The requirements do not

apply to any target that cannot be

located using the procedures of S10.

(b) When equipped with a

Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system and tested under the

conditions of S8, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 at the

target locations specified in S10 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and

including 24 km/h (15 mph). For target

locations specified in S10 that, when

the Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system is not deployed, are,

when viewed from any of the angles

specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed

system, including mounting and

inflation components but exclusive of

any cover or covers, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 and tested under the

conditions of S8 at any speed up to and

including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the

system undeployed. For target locations

specified in S10 that, when the

Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system is not deployed, are,

when viewed from any of the angles

specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed

system, including mounting and

inflation components but exclusive of

any cover or covers, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 and tested under the

conditions of S8 at any speed up to and

including 29 km/h (18 mph) with the

system fully deployed. The

requirements do not apply to any target

that can not be located using the

procedures of S10. The dynamic system

shall, when tested under the lateral

impact of S6.12 of Standard No. 214, 49

CFR 571.214, deploy fully within 30

milliseconds.

(c) When equipped with a

Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system and tested under the

conditions of S8, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 at the

target locations specified in S10 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and

including 24 km/h (15 mph). For those

target locations specified in S10 that

when the Dynamically Deployed

Interior Protection system is not

deployed, are over the stowed system,

including mounting and inflation

components but exclusive of any cover

or covers, when viewed from any of the

angles specified in S8.13.4, comply with

the requirements specified in S7 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 and tested under the

conditions of S8 at any speed up to and

including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the

system undeployed. The requirements

do not apply to any target that can not

be located using the procedures of S10.

Each vehicle shall, when equipped with

a dummy test device specified in 49

CFR part 572, subpart M, and tested

under conditions of S8.16 through

S8.28, comply with the requirements

specified in S7 when laterally crashed

into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm in

diameter, at any velocity up to and

including 29 kilometers per hour.

* * * * *

S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or

after September 1, 2002. Except as

provided in S6.3, vehicles manufactured

on or after September 1, 2002 shall,

when tested under the conditions of S8,

conform, at the manufacturer’s option

with said option selected prior to, or at

the time of, certification of the vehicle,

to one of the following:

(a) When tested under the conditions

of S8, comply with the requirements

specified in S7 at the target locations

specified in S10 when impacted by the

free motion headform specified in S8.9

at any speed up to and including 24 km/

h (15 mph). The requirements do not

apply to any target that cannot be

located using the procedures of S10.

(b) When equipped with a

Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system and tested under the

conditions of S8, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 at the

target locations specified in S10 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and

including 24 km/h (15 mph). For target

locations specified in S10 that, when

the Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system is not deployed, are,

when viewed from any of the angles

specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed

system, including mounting and

inflation components but exclusive of

any cover or covers, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 and tested under the

conditions of S8 at any speed up to and

including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the

system undeployed. For target locations

specified in S10 that, when the

Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system is not deployed, are,

when viewed from any of the angles

specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed

system, including mounting and

inflation components but exclusive of

any cover or covers, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 and tested under the

conditions of S8 at any speed up to and

including 29 km/h (18 mph) with the

system fully deployed. The

requirements do not apply to any target

that can not be located using the

procedures of S10. The dynamic system

shall, when tested under the lateral

impact of S6.12 of Standard No. 214, 49

CFR 571.214, deploy fully within 30

milliseconds.

(c) When equipped with a

Dynamically Deployed Interior

Protection system and tested under the

conditions of S8, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 at the

target locations specified in S10 when

impacted by the free motion headform
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 45215

specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and

including 24 km/h (15 mph). For those

target locations specified in S10 that

when the Dynamically Deployed

Interior Protection system is not

deployed, are over the stowed system,

including mounting and inflation

components but exclusive of any cover

or covers, when viewed from any of the

angles specified in S8.13.4, comply with

the requirements specified in S7 when

impacted by the free motion headform

specified in S8.9 and tested under the

conditions of S8 at any speed up to and

including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the

system undeployed. The requirements

do not apply to any target that can not

be located using the procedures of S10.

Each vehicle shall, when equipped with

a dummy test device specified in Part

572, Subpart M, and tested under

conditions of S8.16 through S8.28,

comply with the requirements specified

in S7 when laterally crashed into a

fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm in diameter,

at any velocity up to and including 29

kilometers per hour.

* * * * *

S7 Performance Criterion. The HIC(d)

shall not exceed 1000 when calculated

in accordance with the following

formula:

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

Where the term a is the resultant head

acceleration expressed as a multiple of

g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1

and t2 are any two points in time during

the impact which are separated by not

more than a 36 millisecond time

interval.

(a) For the free motion headform;

HIC(d) = 0.75446 (free motion headform

HIC) + 166.4.

(b) For the 49 CFR part 572, subpart

M, anthropomorphic test dummy;

HIC(d) = HIC

* * * * *

S8 Test conditions.

* * * * *

S8.13 * * *

S8.13.3 At the time of initial contact

between the headform and the vehicle

interior surface, except for the testing of

a fully deployed dynamic system, some

portion of the forehead impact zone of

the headform contacts some portion of

the target circle.

* * * * *

S8.16 Test weight—vehicle to pole

test. Each vehicle is loaded to its

unloaded vehicle weight, plus 136

kilograms of its rated cargo and luggage

capacity (whichever is less), secured in

the luggage or load-carrying area, plus

the weight of the necessary

anthropomorphic test dummy. Any

added test equipment is located away

from impact areas in secure places in

the vehicle.

S8.17 Vehicle test attitude—vehicle

to pole test. Determine the distance

between a level surface and a standard

reference point on the test vehicle’s

body, directly above each wheel

opening, when the vehicle is in its ‘‘as

delivered’’ condition. The ‘‘as

delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as

received at the test site, filled to 100

percent of all fluid capacities and with

all tires inflated to the manufacturer’s

specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire

placard. Determine the distance

between the same level surface and the

same standard reference points in the

vehicle’s ‘‘fully loaded condition.’’ The

‘‘fully loaded condition’’ is the test

vehicle loaded in accordance with

S8.16. The load placed in the cargo area

is centered over the longitudinal

centerline of the vehicle. The pretest

vehicle attitude is the same as either the

‘‘as delivered’’ or ‘‘fully loaded’’ attitude

or is between the ‘‘as delivered’’ attitude

and the ‘‘fully loaded’’ attitude.

S8.18 Adjustable seats—vehicle to

pole test. Adjustable seats are placed in

the adjustment position so that the 49

CFR part 572, subpart M dummy is

situated, when positioned as specified

in S8.28, so the point at the intersection

of the rear surface of the dummy’s head

and a horizontal line parallel to the

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle

passing through the head’s center of

gravity is at least 50 mm (2 inches)

forward of the front edge of the B-pillar

at that same horizontal location.

S8.19 Adjustable seat back

placement—vehicle to pole test. Place

adjustable seat backs in the

manufacturer’s nominal design riding

position in the manner specified by the

manufacturer, or in a position no more

than 5 degrees forward from this

nominal design riding position, as

specified in S8.28. If the manufacturer’s

nominal design riding position is not

specified, set the seat back at the first

detent rearward of 25 [degrees] from the

vertical, or in a position no less than 20

degrees from the vertical, as allowed by

S8.28. 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.

S8.20 Adjustable steering wheels—

vehicle to pole test. Adjustable steering

controls are adjusted so that the steering

wheel hub is at the geometric center of

the locus it describes when it is moved

through its full range of driving

positions.

S8.21 Windows and sunroof—

vehicle to pole test. Movable windows

and vents are placed in the fully open

position. Any sunroof will be placed in

the fully closed position.

S8.22 Convertible tops—vehicle to

pole test. The top, if any, of convertibles

and open-body type vehicles is in the

closed passenger compartment

configuration.

S8.23 Doors—vehicle to pole test.

Doors, including any rear hatchback or

tailgate, are fully closed and latched but

not locked.

S8.24 Impact reference line—vehicle

to pole test. On the striking side of the

vehicle, place an impact reference line

at the intersection of the vehicle exterior

side structure and a transverse vertical

plane passing through the center of

gravity of the head of the dummy seated

in accordance with S8.28, in a

designated front outboard seating

position.

S8.25 Rigid Pole—vehicle to pole

test. The rigid pole is a vertical metal

structure beginning no more than 102

millimeters (4 inches) off the ground

and extending to a minimum height of

2,032 millimeters (80 inches). The pole

is 254 mm (10 inches) in diameter and

set off from any mounting surface, such

as a barrier or other structure, so that the

test vehicle will not contact such a

mount or support at any time before or

after impact with the pole.

S8.26 Impact configuration—vehicle

to pole test. The rigid pole is stationary.

The test vehicle is propelled sideways

so that its line of forward motion forms

an angle of 90 degrees with the vehicle’s

longitudinal center line. The impact

reference line is aligned with the center

line of the rigid pole so that, when the

vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the

center line of the pole contacts the

vehicle area bounded by two transverse

vertical planes 38 mm (1.5 inches)

forward and aft of the impact reference

line.

S8.27 Anthropomorphic test

dummy—vehicle to pole test. S8.27.1

The anthropomorphic test dummy used

for evaluation of a vehicle’s head impact

protection conform to the requirements

of subpart M of part 572 of this chapter.

In a test in which the test vehicle is to

be struck on its left side, the dummy is

to be configured and instrumented to be

struck on its left side, in accordance

with subpart M of part 572. In a test in

which the test vehicle is to be struck on

its right side, the dummy is to be

configured and instrumented to be
45216 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

struck on its right side, in accordance

with subpart M of part 572.

S8.27.2 The 49 CFR part 572,

subpart M, test dummy specified is

clothed in form fitting cotton stretch

garments with short sleeves and midcalf

length pants. Each foot of the test

dummy is equipped with a size 11EEE

shoe, which meets the configuration

size, sole, and heel thickness

specifications of MIL-S–13192 (1976)

and weighs 0.57 +/¥0.09 kilograms

(1.25 +/¥0.2 pounds).

S8.27.3 Limb joints are set at

between 1 and 2 g’s. Leg joints are

adjusted with the torso in the supine

position.

S8.27.4 The stabilized temperature

of the test dummy at the time of the side

impact test is at any temperature

between 20.6 degrees C. and 22.2

degrees C., at any relative humidity

between 10 percent and 70 percent.

S8.27.5 The acceleration data from

the accelerometers installed inside the

skull cavity of the test dummy are

processed according to the requirements

of SAE Recommended Practice J211,

March 1995, ‘‘Instrumentation for

Impact Tests,’’ Class 1000.

S8.28 Positioning procedure for the

Part 572 Subpart M Test Dummy—

vehicle to pole test.

The 49 CFR part 572, subpart M test

dummy shall be positioned in the front

outboard seating position on the struck

side of the vehicle in accordance with

the provisions of S7 of Standard No.

214, 49 CFR 571.214, and the vehicle

seat shall be positioned as specified in

S6.3 and S6.4 of that same standard. If

this does not position the dummy such

that the point at the intersection of the

rear surface of its head and a horizontal

line parallel to the longitudinal

centerline of the vehicle passing

through the head’s center of gravity is at

least 50 mm (2 inches) forward of the

front edge of the B-pillar at that same

horizontal location, then the seat and/or

dummy positions may be adjusted.

First, the seat back angle is to be

adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until

the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar clearance

is achieved. If this is not sufficient to

produce the 50 mm (2 inches) clearance,

the seat is to be moved forward to

achieve that result. If the seat is moved

from the position specified in S6.3 of

Standard No. 214, 49 CFR 571.214, the

target H-point location is to be moved

from that specified in S7.2.1 of that

standard. The horizontal and vertical

distances moved must be equal to those

necessary to reposition the vehicle seat

to achieve the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar

clearance described in this section.

Issued on August 19, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–22574 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P