[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45202-45216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22574]



[[Page 45202]]

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

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2949494b4f48476947415d5a48074d465d074e465f">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="741612151a341a1c0007155a101b005a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>''.
    For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-5253, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f393939c9e92879b969896b39d9b878092dd979c87dd949c85">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf4f6faeff3fef0fedbf5f3efe8fab5fff4efb5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>''.

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 45204]]

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 B-pillar 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 45206]]

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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 45208]]

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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 45210]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 45212]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

[[Page 45214]]

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.

Sec. 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

[[Page 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU97.000


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

[[Page 45216]]

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>