Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41451

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 48 CFR Chapter 15 which was

published at 63 FR 10548–10549 on

March 4, 1998, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Dated: July 20, 1998.

Betty L. Bailey,

Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

[FR Doc. 98–20770 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3847]

RIN 2127–AG07

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Head Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

upper interior impact requirements of

Standard 201, Occupant Protection in

Interior Impact, to permit, but not

require, the installation of dynamically

deploying upper interior head

protection systems currently being

developed by some vehicle

manufacturers to provide added head

protection in lateral crashes.

Compliance with those requirements is

tested at specified points called ‘‘target

points.’’ Since compliance is often not

practicable at target points located near

the places where these dynamic systems

are stored before they are deployed,

vehicles equipped with the dynamic

systems will be allowed to meet slightly

reduced requirements at those points.

However, these vehicles will also be

required to meet new requirements to

ensure that these dynamic systems

enhance safety. This final rule adds

procedures and performance

requirements for testing the deployment

of these systems and their protective

capability through a combination of invehicle tests and a full scale vehicle

crash test. In a separate final rule being

published today, the agency is

establishing specifications and

qualification requirements for a newlydeveloped anthropomorphic test

dummy to be used in determining

compliance with the dynamic crash test

requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective

September 1, 1998.

Petition Date: Any petitions for

reconsideration must be received by

NHTSA no later than September 18,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590:

For non-legal issues: Dr. William Fan,

Office of Crashworthiness Standards,

NPS–11, telephone (202) 366–4922,

facsimile (202) 366–4329, electronic

mail ‘‘bfan@nhtsa.dot.gov’’

For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of

the Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone

(202) 366–5253, facsimile (202) 366–

3820, electronic mail

‘‘omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper

Interior Impact Protection

B. Petitions for Reconsideration

C. March 1996 ANPRM on Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head Protection

Systems

D. August 1997 NPRM on Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head Protection

Systems

E. Comments Submitted in Response to

the NPRM

II. Final Rule

A. Deletion of the Proposed In-vehicle

Test

B. Vehicle-to-Pole Test

C. Rigid Pole

D. SID/HIII Dummy

E. Rear Seat Dummy

F. Impact Speed and Conditions

G. Target Locations

H. Safety Concerns

I. Other Issues

J. Dummy Seating Position

K. Selection of Options

L. Effective Date

III. 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 12612 (Federalism)

and Unfunded Mandates Act

E. Civil Justice Reform

Regulatory Text

I. 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 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 4,536

kilograms (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

pursuant to a phase-in schedule

beginning on September 1, 1998,

significantly expands the scope of

Standard 201. Previously, the standard

applied mainly to the portion of the

vehicle interior in front of the front seat

occupants, i.e., the instrument panel.

The amendments added procedures and

performance requirements for a new invehicle 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

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems, (2) influence of

systems variables, (3) lead time and

phase-in, (4) exclusion of certain

vehicles, and (5) test procedure.

With respect to the last four categories

of issues raised by the petitions, NHTSA

responded by issuing amendments to

the August 18, 1995 final rule in a

notice dated April 8, 1997 (62 FR

16718). In the April 8, 1997 notice,

NHTSA modified the final rule to

exclude certain vehicles from the upper

interior impact requirements of

Standard 201, allowed carry-forward

credits, changed the phase-in

requirements by providing

manufacturers with the option of

complying with an additional

alternative schedule for meeting the

upper interior impact requirements of

the standard and amended other

sections of the standard to address

concerns about test procedures.

Since the first category of issues,

those relating to dynamically deployed

upper interior head protection systems,

was outside the scope of the rulemaking

that led to the August 18, 1995 rule, the

agency announced that it was treating

the requests relating to these issues as

petitions for rulemaking, and was

granting those petitions.

C. March 1996 ANPRM on Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head

Protection Systems

On March 7, 1996, NHTSA published

an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) to assist the
41452 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

agency in evaluating the issues raised by

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems (61 FR 9136).

In the ANPRM, the agency noted that

vehicles with inflatable frontal

automatic protection systems (i.e., air

bags) meeting S5.1 of Standard No. 208,

‘‘Occupant Crash Protection’’ 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

fact that the padding thickness required

for surfaces to meet higher impact

requirements interferes with the

deployment of airbags. NHTSA allowed

this exception based 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 at a

speed higher than 19 km/h (12 mph).

At the time of the ANPRM, there was

no comparable way of accommodating

the dynamically deployed upper

interior head impact systems since

neither Standard 208 nor any other

Standard contained performance

requirements or test procedures for

assessing the performance of those

systems. Without such requirements or

procedures, there was no readily

available way of providing adequate

assurance that the systems would yield

sufficient safety benefits to justify

reducing the upper interior impact

requirements for vehicles with

dynamically deployed upper interior

protection systems.

The ANPRM suggested that

performance requirements and test

procedures be developed for those

systems. Given the differences in design

and performance between two of the

best known types of such systems,

dynamically deployed padding and

dynamically deployed inflatable

devices, the agency suggested further

that those two types of systems 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 provides additional protection

to occupants. In the case of inflatable

devices, the agency discussed the

possibility that it might propose

subjecting vehicles equipped with these

systems to 19 km/h (12 mph) headform

impacts at all points that would be

covered by the devices when inflated.

These tests would be conducted with

the devices in their undeployed state.

The performance of the devices 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

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems.

The agency received a total of ten

comments on the ANPRM. Five

automobile manufacturers (Ford, Volvo,

BMW, VW, and Mercedes), one restraint

system suppler (Autoliv), two safety

organizations (Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety (IIHS), and Advocates

for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS)),

and one manufacturers’ association

(American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA)) and a trade group

(Automotive Occupant Restraint

Council (AORC)), submitted comments

in response to the ANPRM.

D. August 1997 NPRM on Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head

Protection Systems

NHTSA’s analysis of the comments

received in response to the ANPRM is

contained in a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the

Federal Register on August 26, 1997.

(62 FR 45202). The NPRM proposed

adding two test procedures to Standard

201 to accommodate development of

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems. Under the

agency’s proposal, manufacturers would

have the option of demonstrating

compliance with Standard 201 in

accordance with the requirements and

procedures specified in the August 1995

final rule tests or with one of the two

new test procedures. The first option,

referred to as Option 1, specified

performing free-motion headform (FMH)

impacts at 24 km/h (15 mph) at all test

points and target angles specified in the

August 1995 final rule. The second and

third options, referred to as options 2

and 3, respectively, proposed employing

FMH testing at a reduced impact speed

at those points located directly over a

stowed dynamic system and its inflation

and attachment hardware. To ensure

that these systems offer safety benefits

in the deployed mode commensurate

with the reduction in protection

provided in the undeployed mode as a

result of the lower impact speed,

options 2 and 3 required testing of the

deployed system at impact speeds above

24 km/h (15 mph).

As proposed in the NPRM, 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 test the

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 proposal

also set forth that once triggered, the

system would have to reach full

deployment in 30 milliseconds (ms) or

less.

The other proposed optional test

procedure, Option 3, employed a full

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

into a fixed pole. Under this procedure,

those target points likely to be struck in

a crash, notwithstanding the

deployment of the dynamically

deployed device, would be tested at a

higher speed than target points likely to

be shielded by the deployed device.

More specifically, 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.

The agency noted 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41453

standard. The NPRM requested

comments on whether a dynamic

system which, when deployed and

observed in a side view, completely

covers the 95th percentile eyellipse as

defined in SAE Recommended Practice

J941—Motor Vehicle Driver’s Eye

Locations (June 92), would provide

protection against impacts with targets

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

As proposed, Option 3 would test the

effectiveness of the dynamic system in

the deployed mode, in a full scale 29

km/h (18 mph) side impact into a 254

millimeter (10 inch) diameter fixed rigid

pole. 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. In this proposed test, 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. However, the agency

recognized that the use of this seating

procedure might result in interference

between the head of the test dummy and

B-pillar when used in certain vehicles.

Therefore, NHTSA proposed

modifications to the seating procedure

and asked for comments regarding seat

adjustment. The NPRM also indicated

that NHTSA was continuing to consider

the use of a second dummy in the rear

outboard seating position of the struck

side.

Option 3 specified that the vehicle

would strike the rigid pole at an angle

of 90 degrees. The agency solicited

comments on whether other impact

angles would result in a test procedure

better suited for evaluating performance

in a crash and if the use of these other

angles would present technical

challenges in testing. The proposal

indicated that 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. The agency requested comments

on the degree of difficulty of achieving

an impact within this range.

The agency also proposed a new test

dummy for use in the Option 3 test.

This test dummy is a SID dummy

modified to accept the Hybrid III head

and neck. The proposed performance

requirements for Option 3 were

identical to those found in the first and

second options; the HIC(d) value would

not exceed 1000.

NHTSA also solicited comments

regarding potential safety concerns

related to any possible effects of

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems on out-ofposition occupants.

E. Comments Submitted in Response to

the NPRM

All commenters generally supported

the agency’s proposal, with a few

exceptions on some issues. The

commenters consisted of seven

automobile manufacturers (BMW, Land

Rover, Volvo, Nissan, Volkswagen,

Mercedes and Toyota), two

manufacturers’ associations, the

American Automobile Manufacturers’

Association (AAMA) and the

Association of International Automobile

Manufacturers (AIAM), two safety

groups, the Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety (IIHS) and Advocates

for Highway and Auto Safety

(Advocates), one supplier (Autoliv) and

one trade group, the Automotive

Occupant Restraints Council (AORC).

BMW made several comments on

target locations, rear seat protection, test

repeatability, out-of-position occupants,

and other subjects. BMW concurred

with the proposal that those targets

directly over the stowed dynamic

system should be tested at 19 km/h (12

mph) with the system undeployed.

However, BMW commented that the

definition of target exclusion specified

in S6.1(c) and S6.2(c) is too narrow. In

BMW’s view, a 50 mm (2 inch)

transition area between the 24 km/h (15

mph) padding and the 19 km/h (12

mph) padding is needed for design

purposes. The company indicated that

its dynamic head protection system, the

ITS (Inflatable Tubular System) deploys

mainly out of the roof liner joint along

the side rail and not directly through the

area that covers it. Therefore, BMW

submitted that a transition zone around

the area where the system is stowed is

necessary to ensure that

countermeasures that would otherwise

be required to meet the 24 km/h (15

mph) FMH impact tests would not

interfere with ITS deployment. BMW

also commented that all target locations

covered or protected by the deployed

system should be tested at 19 km/h (12

mph) when the system is in its

undeployed mode and that the SAE

95th percentile eyellipse should not be

used as a sole criterion to determine

target exemption.

BMW enclosed a recent safety benefit

study by K. Digges and Associates with

its comments as evidence of the

effectiveness of its system in protecting

rear seat occupants. This study

projected that for the rear seat

occupants, the number of AIS 3–5 head/

face injuries prevented by the ITS

would be much larger than the baseline

number of AIS 3–5 injuries resulting

from head-to-side rail contacts. In view

of this, BMW argued that target

locations ‘‘protected’’ or ‘‘covered’’ by

the ITS, notably the SR3 target location,

should be subject to the 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH impact, instead of a 24 km/

h (15 mph) FMH impact test as

proposed in the NPRM under Option 3.

BMW also commented that there is no

justification for the inclusion of a rear

seat dummy in the pole impact test.

BMW, which has used pole tests in

the development of the ITS, concurred

with the proposed specifications for the

pole test outlined in Option 3. Based on

its own test data, BMW concluded that

the NPRM proposed test location

tolerance limit of ±38 mm (1.5 inches)

is reasonable. The company also noted

that the ITS system is tailored to protect

the head of an adult occupant in the

front seat and is, therefore, relatively

small and deploys with minimal energy.

In view of this, it would not present a

threat to vehicle occupants. Lastly,

BMW recommended that the final rule

be published by March 1998 and

become effective 30 days after its

publication.

Land Rover submitted comments

relating to the size of its vehicles. The

company indicated that its

multipurpose passenger vehicles are all

over the GVWR limit of 2,722 kilograms

(6,000 pounds) applicable to LTVs

under Standard 214 and therefore do

not need to pass the side impact

requirements of that standard. Land

Rover submitted that it is not reasonable

for the company to conduct a Standard

214 side impact test in order to certify

the 30 ms full-deployment requirement

specified in the Option 2 test. Land

Rover requested that the Standard 301

lateral moving barrier crash test be an

optional test to certify the 30 ms fulldeployment requirement, if needed.

AAMA commented on the proposed

test procedures, including Option 1, 2,

and 3 tests. In regard to Option 1 test

procedures, AAMA requested

clarification in the wording in S6.1(a).

AAMA believed that it was not clear

from the proposal whether a vehicle not

equipped with a dynamic system or one

whose system components are not

stored in the A-pillar, side rails or areas

otherwise covered by Standard 201

must comply with the 24 km/h (15 mph)

FMH impact requirement.

AAMA also commented on a number

of issues concerning the proposed

Option 2 test. The comments noted that

AAMA member companies did not

understand what types of dynamic

systems would be tested under this

proposed test and that to AAMA’s

knowledge, no system existed that

would use the proposed Option 2 test

procedure. The AAMA comments also

took issue with the approach angles
41454 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

proposed for this test option as, in

AAMA’s view, it is possible that a

deployed system would not be

interposed between the FMH and the

existing target locations. As a result,

AAMA argued that the approach angles

proposed in the S8.13.4 are not practical

for FMH impact tests when the dynamic

system is deployed. AAMA also

contended that, under the proposed

Option 2 test, S8.13.3 indicates that

initial forehead contact is not necessary

when conducting 29 km/h (18 mph)

FMH impact tests against a fully

deployed system. AAMA questioned the

intent of this exclusion and relevance of

FMH HIC calculated from an impact in

which forehead initial contact will most

likely not occur between the forehead

impact zone and the target circle. The

organization also commented that the

proposed target area for 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH impact tests was too narrow.

According to AAMA, this makes the

determination of which targets do or do

not lie over the undeployed system

extremely difficult and impractical

because the system will be covered by

the same piece of trim. Recognizing that

those targets are to be protected by the

deployed system, AAMA recommended

that any target locations that are

protected by the system in the deployed

mode be qualified for 19 km/h (12 mph)

FMH impact tests. AAMA also

commented that coordination of

inflation timing with FMH impacts

would be necessary, especially if

multiple impacts are required for

certification or compliance tests. In

addition, AAMA voiced concerns that

the 29 km/h (18 mph) FMH impact

requirement proposed for the deployed

mode may discourage the development

of such systems. AAMA also

commented that any specification of a

maximum on the time needed for a

system to inflate is unwarranted, that

imposing an arbitrary time requirement

is design restrictive, and that specifying

a short inflation time would result in an

aggressive system. AAMA commented

that the inflation time should be

determined based on the specific

system/vehicle designs and that the

definition of ‘‘full-deployment’’ needs

clarification.

Several aspects of the proposed

Option 3 test created concerns for

AAMA. AAMA indicated that the full

scale crash test specified in S6.1(c) and

S6.2(c) is burdensome, redundant, and

without additional safety benefits.

AAMA also argued against use of the

proposed modified SID dummy (SID/

HIII). The AAMA comments stated that

the SID/HIII has a biofidelity rating of

3.8, which is below the ISO

recommended acceptable level of 4.0.

According to the AAMA, the SID is

insensitive to padding stiffness. Further

AAMA said that its tests confirmed that

EuroSID–1 was a better dummy than the

SID in discriminating change in door

padding. AAMA also believes that other

dummy test devices would be more

appropriate and more biofidelic. AAMA

stated that the EuroSID–1, an improved

EuroSID dummy, has a biofidelity rating

of 4.2. Other biofidelity ratings cited by

AAMA in arguing against use of the

SID/HIII are 5.9 for the BioSID, 4.2 for

EuroSID–1, 3.8 for the SID/HIII, 3.2 for

EuroSID and 2.3 for SID. In addition to

concerns about biofidelity, AAMA

commented that for international

harmonization purposes, the EuroSID–1

is the most appropriate dummy. While

AAMA requested that the International

Standards Organization (ISO) make

specific modifications to the EuroSID–1

dummy, AAMA strongly urged NHTSA

to specify the EuroSID–1, with proper

modifications as suggested by AAMA,

as an interim dummy for Standard 201.

AAMA also indicated it had concerns

regarding the 254 mm rigid pole

proposed for use with the Option 3 test.

AAMA recommended that NHTSA

specify a 350 mm pole in the final rule

instead of the NPRM proposed 254 mm

pole. According to the AAMA, a 254

mm pole was initially considered by

ISO for its own side impact pole test but

was rejected on the basis that the 254

mm pole is not representative of real

world obstacles that cause serious

injuries. AAMA also stated that neck

loading has not been adequately studied

by NHTSA and recommended that the

topic be entered on the agenda of the

Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory

Committee and the programs of the

International Harmonization Research

Agenda. In regard to potential injury

caused by the deployment of

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems, AAMA

recommended that an attempt be made

to evaluate the impairment caused by

head injuries and by potential hearing

loss. AAMA suggested that a threshold

for dynamic head protection system

deployment be established at the

crossover point between impairment

caused by head injury and that caused

by hearing loss. Due to the lack of actual

test data on injuries from system

deployment, AAMA recommended that

this topic be a candidate topic for a

special NHTSA study.

AIAM commented that some of its

members have planned early

introduction of dynamic systems to

provide enhanced interior head impact

protection and urged NHTSA to

complete this rule as soon as practical,

preferably no later than March 1998.

Volvo indicated its strong support for

the proposed test procedures and

recommended that all three options be

included in the final rule. Volvo

recommended that the final rule be

published as soon as possible,

preferably no later than March 1998.

Volvo indicated that it is planning to

install an inflatable curtain (IC) system

in its production vehicles. Based on its

current knowledge, Volvo concluded

that the IC system would not only

reduce head injuries but also prevent

ejections through side windows. Results

of its out-of-position occupant tests

indicated that injuries of a greater

severity level are not likely to occur as

a result of an occupant, child or adult,

being too close to, or in an undesirable

position relative to the system. Volvo

commented that the 30 ms fulldeployment requirement contained in

the Option 2 proposal appears

appropriate. In regard to Option 3,

Volvo supported the reduction of FMH

impact speed from 24 km/h (15 mph) to

19 km/h (12 mph) for target locations

above the stowed system, with the

system undeployed. However, Volvo

commented that all target locations

covered by the deployed system should

be also tested only up to 19 km/h (12

mph) and that the SAE 95th percentile

eyellipse should not be used as a sole

criterion to determine protection against

head impacts against A/B-pillars and

side rails. Volvo also indicated that

clarification is needed in regard to those

targets contiguous to the system’s

mounting and inflation components, but

which are not within the 24 km/h (15

mph) impact target areas. Volvo

commented that due to inadequate

information it could not see any utility

in the use of a rear seat dummy in pole

impact tests.

Nissan offered comments on the

proposed Option 2 and Option 3.

Apparently, Nissan understood S6.1(b)

‘‘ * * * but exclusive of any cover or

covers, * * * ’’ to mean that testing

would take place with cover or covers

removed and commented that testing

dynamic systems with full components

in place would be more representative.

In addition, Nissan commented that the

agency has not provided a clear

justification for specifying the 29 km/h

(18 mph) FMH impact requirement.

Nissan questioned whether the increase

in the FMH impact speed from 24 km/

h (15 mph) to 29 km/h (18 mph) would

actually result in safety benefits as

projected by the agency. In regard to the

Option 3 test procedure, Nissan

commented that the Option 2 test is

sufficient and the Option 3 test is
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41455

1Advocates evidently misread NHTSA’s

evaluation of additional deaths and injuries. The

agency estimate was in fact far lower—4 fatalities.

unnecessary. Nissan also believed that

the agency has not provided a clear

cost/benefits assessment for the new

pole impact test. Nissan commented

that the SID/HIII is a dummy without

proven biofidelity characteristics and

that biofidelity of the test dummy as a

whole system must be approved before

promulgating a regulation. In addition,

Nissan commented that the use of the

SID/HIII is in conflict with international

harmonization efforts since ISO is

considering the EuroSID–1 as the side

impact dummy on the global basis.

IIHS supported the proposal

contained in the NPRM. IIHS

commented that two advanced side

impact air bag systems (ITS and IC)

might have to be excluded from the U.S.

market in the near future if the Standard

201 requires 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH

impact tests for all vehicle upper

interior components. In addition, IIHS

commented that the proposed 29 km/h

(18 mph) pole impact test provides a

reasonable demonstration of the

effectiveness of such dynamic systems.

However, IIHS commented that NHTSA

should be more concerned about the

seating height of the dummy test device

since the baseline pole impact test is

configured to ensure a significant head

contact with the pole. Based on its test

data, IIHS suggested that a taller dummy

(SID with the Hybrid III head/neck

system instead of SID/HIII (using a

modified neck bracket)) may provide a

more reliable test. In addition, IIHS

commented that the 350 mm diameter

pole would produce a more repeatable

test.

Advocates supported the proposed

amendments while offering several

comments regarding the factual basis for

the agency’s tentative conclusions as set

forth in the NPRM. Advocates argued

that the quality of the administrative

record for the NPRM was poor and that

many public respondents were

compelled to rely on the opinion of

NHTSA about the value of the advanced

dynamic systems. Advocates also

argued that the agency was relying on

manufacturer claims about the

impossibility of complying with FMH

impact speeds higher than 19 km/h (12

mph) for target SR3 without interrupting

smooth interior trim design. In

Advocates’ view, the alleged marketing

impact of discontinuous interior trim

surfaces is a very poor reason for

NHTSA to grant an exemption from a

prevailing safety standard that could

lead to additional injuries, especially

when many young children would be

placed in the rear seat. Advocates

indicated that by exempting SR3 from

24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact, NHTSA

has begun to descend a slippery slope

of exemptions. Advocates suggested that

this is the second time in the last few

years in which NHTSA has been willing

to trade increases in certain types of

injuries for a claimed greater reduction

in overall injuries and in their severity.

Advocates also criticized the agency’s

tentative conclusion that the

effectiveness of dynamic systems

justified testing the target points near

the undeployed systems at lower impact

speeds. In Advocates’ view, NHTSA’s

benefit estimate is based on some

hypothetical assumptions, including the

use of unproven levels of dynamic

system effectiveness, two different

injury curves, and manufacturer

generated sled test data. Advocates also

contends that the proposals in the

NPRM do not sufficiently address safety

concerns relating to rear seat occupants.

The organization believes that the

agency has ignored the fact that a

massive displacement of young children

from the front seats to rear seats will

occur as frontal air bags become the

norm. In particular, Advocates cited the

agency’s estimate of additional loss of

only 17 lives and 230 non-fatal injuries

contingent on exemption of SR3 from a

24 km/h (15 mph) compliance test as

exceedingly optimistic.1

Advocates also noted that the

dynamic head protection test options

contained in the NPRM provide no

specification for sensor performance. It

is possible, Advocates states, that the

number and rate of more severe injuries

due to a system malfunction would be

considerably larger than NHTSA

expects. In addition, Advocates also

contends that it is inappropriate for

NHTSA to argue for or rely on antiejection benefits in its benefit estimate

in support of the installation of dynamic

systems when no rollover test was

conducted by NHTSA, nor by any

manufacturers, to verify these benefits.

Advocates made numerous comments

related to the proposed pole impact test.

Advocates commented that the rigidity

of the pole is not specified and that the

yaw, pitch and roll behavior of the

vehicle is controlled in such a way that

the proposed pole impact test would not

be representative of the real world crash

condition. To evaluate the effect of

dynamic systems (including side thorax

air bags) on out-of-position children in

rear seats, Advocates supported the use

of instrumented dummies in this seating

position to determine the extent to

which the head of occupants of various

sizes would impact target points lying

over the stowed dynamic system.

Advocates also expressed concerns

about head pocketing and neck injury

that could potentially occur when

occupants encounter an inflated

dynamic system. In addition, Advocates

voiced concerns that the SID/HIII test

dummy proposed for use with the pole

test may not be a reliable test device.

VW expressed concerns regarding

harmonization, test procedures, and the

effective date of the final rule. VW

argued that any differences between

NHTSA’s proposed Option 3 test

procedure and the ISO recommended

pole test is contrary to international

harmonization. In particular, VW argued

that the pole used in the Option 3 test

should be 350 mm in diameter and the

EuroSID–1 should be used rather than

the SID/HIII. VW pointed out that

significant changes have been made to

EuroSID since 1990 and that the

EuroSID–1 has adopted the head of the

Hybrid III dummy. Accordingly, VW

believes that the EuroSid–1 would meet

the requirements of the Option 3 pole

test. VW stated that the proposed

definition for the 19 km/h (12 mph)

impact target areas is too restrictive. The

company believes deployment

requirements would involve system

packaging and cover design that

precludes the use of the padding needed

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

within the areas adjacent to the

undeployed system. VW contended that

the dynamic system, in its fulldeployment mode, would continue to

provide protection by preventing head

contacts with interior structural

components. Therefore, VW believes

that those target points that are covered

by the deployed system should be also

tested at 19 km/h (12 mph) impact

speed. In regard to the proposed 30 ms

maximum time period for reaching full

deployment, VW stated that specifying

a maximum time for full deployment is

not necessary. VW urged NHTSA to

issue a final rule with an immediate

effective date to allow manufacturers to

implement dynamically deployed upper

interior head protection systems as soon

as possible.

Mercedes offered comments on the

proposed Option 2 and 3 test

procedures. In regard to the Option 2

test procedure, Mercedes indicated that

it at present is not considering its

original design concept of a dynamic

padding system and decided to adopt an

inflatable curtain (IC) system. In

Mercedes’ view, none of the currently

known dynamic systems (the ITS/IC

systems) can be certified using the

Option 2 test procedure. Mercedes

commented that the maximum 30 ms

time for full-deployment may be

inappropriate but is sufficient for both
41456 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Option 2 and Option 3 tests. In addition,

Mercedes requested that NHTSA

address the procedure for maintaining

system pressure during multiple

impacts, when using Option 2 test.

Mercedes also commented that the

definition for exempted target points

should include the area about 25 to 50

mm (1.0 inch to 2.0 inches) wide

surrounding the stowed dynamic

systems.

Mercedes’ comments indicated its

agreement with the proposed Option 3

test. Although Mercedes had no

experience with pole tests other than

the 90 degree impact using a EuroSID

dummy, it supported the agency’s

concept that the 90 degree impact

represents the possible worst case

condition. Mercedes commented that

target locations BP2 and BP3, being

protected by the dynamic system in its

deployed mode, should be tested at 19

km/h (12 mph) in its undeployed mode.

Mercedes also indicated that the

definition for exempted target points

should include the area about 25 to 50

mm (1.0 inch to 2.0 inches) wide

surrounding the stowed dynamic

systems. In addition, Mercedes stated

that the proposed SID/HIII dummy is

not used in the ISO pole test procedure.

The company believes that use of the

SID/HIII is contrary to harmonization

goals and that other dummies, such as

EuroSID–1, should be allowed as an

optional alternative to the SID/HIII

during the phase-in period.

Autoliv, a safety equipment

manufacturer and supplier, indicated

that all three options should be

maintained in the final rule. In addition,

Autoliv offered specific comments on

options 2 and 3. Autoliv stated that

determining full-deployment is very

difficult and manufacturers should be

given an opportunity to provide clear

data to describe that specific state. In

addition, Autoliv commented that the

29 km/h (18 mph) FMH impact speed

specified in Option 2 should be reduced

to 24 km/h (15 mph). In reference to the

Option 3 proposed test procedure,

Autoliv argued that the 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH impact tests in the

undeployed mode should be applicable

to all target points that are covered or

protected by the deployed system.

While supporting the 90 degree pole

impact using one front seat dummy,

Autoliv recommended that the 350 mm

pole be adopted for the purpose of

enhancing test repeatability.

Toyota also offered comments on the

Option 2 and Option 3 proposals.

Toyota argued that the proposed options

are excessive and unjustified when

compared with the original 24 km/h (15

mph) FMH impact test. The company

stated that the development of its air

curtain system was based on 19 km/h

(12 mph) FMH impact tests in its

undeployed mode and 24 km/h (15

mph) pole impact tests using a

EuroSID–1 dummy. However, Toyota

indicated that it prefers the Option 2

test with a 24 km/h (15 mph) speed in

the full-deployment mode since the

FMH test, in spite of its relatively high

HIC results, is more repeatable than the

pole test. Toyota also noted that for

Option 2 the 30 ms full-deployment

requirement is restrictive and

unnecessary. Toyota believes that it is

more reasonable to require fulldeployment prior to dummy head

contacts with the side structure in a

Standard 214 side impact test.

Toyota indicated that for Option 2

compliance tests, NHTSA should

require that the system full-deployment

condition be maintained throughout the

testing and that impact angles be the

same as those used for testing regular

padding countermeasures. Toyota

commented that all target areas that are

covered by deployed system should

only be required to meet 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH impact tests when

undeployed.

Toyota raised several issues

concerning Option 3 test. Toyota

supported the use of the EuroSID–1

dummy and preferred the moving poleto-vehicle test instead of the vehicle-topole test. Toyota commented that the +/

¥38 mm (1.5 inches) impact location

tolerance is not acceptable because it is

larger than 10% of the pole diameter.

Toyota argued that the 29 km/h (18

mph) pole test is not acceptable and that

Toyota has developed its air curtain

system on the basis of 24 km/h (15 mph)

pole impact tests. In addition, Toyota

commented that all target areas that are

covered or protected by deployed

system are qualified for 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH impact test in its

undeployed mode.

AORC supported the proposed Option

2 test procedure and recommended that

the definition of the target points

directly over the stowed system be

expanded to include any area that

would be protected by the system in its

deployed mode. AORC supported the

requirement of conducting a Standard

214 side impact test to evaluate the full

system deployment condition. However,

AORC commented that the 30 ms

requirement does not measure the

variance of vehicle design parameters

and is, therefore, unnecessary. In its

comments directed to the Option 3 test

procedure, AORC supported the

proposed test. However, AORC

recommended the use of a 350 mm

diameter pole and an existing test

dummy with a proper biofidelity rating

for the purpose of international

harmonization. In regard to potential

injuries associated with dynamically

deployed upper interior head protection

systems, AORC commented that sled

test data, including tests on

unrestrained, small or child seat

occupant dummies, do not show

increased neck loads or other injuries.

In addition, AORC commented that

NHTSA should conduct a benefit

evaluation to determine the use of a rear

seat dummy in pole testing.

II. Final Rule

After review of the comments

submitted in response to the NPRM and

further consideration of test and other

data, NHTSA is adopting the proposed

amendments with some modifications.

The most significant of these

modification is the abandonment, at the

present time, of the in-vehicle test set

forth as Option 2 in the NPRM. The

agency has also concluded that certain

modifications to the Option 3 proposal

are appropriate. These modifications

include an expansion of the area over a

stowed dynamic system that is subject

to testing at the reduced 19 km/h (12

mph) FMH impact speed, modifications

to the specifications for the rigid pole,

minor changes to the specifications for

vehicle test attitude to accommodate

different vehicle propulsion systems,

and a modification to the proposed

seating procedure for the SID/HIII

dummy. Explanation of these changes is

provided below.

A. Deletion of the Proposed In-Vehicle

Test

Two commenters, Nissan and Toyota,

indicated a preference for the Option 2

test over the Option 3 vehicle-to-pole

test. Otherwise, none of the comments

received in response to the NPRM

indicated that any manufacturers

intended to rely on the proposed test

specified in Option 2. Mercedes

indicated that, at present, none of the

known dynamically deployed systems

can be certified using the Option 2 test

procedure. AAMA also commented that

it do not know of any system that would

be tested using this optional test

procedure.

Following the publication of the

August 1995 final rule, several

manufacturers presented information to

NHTSA regarding the development of

advanced dynamically deployed

systems. Ford indicated it was

developing a new side impact air bag

system for both chest and head

protection. BMW and Volvo disclosed

their development of the ITS and the IC,

respectively. Mercedes indicated that it
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41457

was studying a ‘‘dynamically deployed

padding’’ system. Mercedes described

this system as special materials used for

the molding and trim of the A- and/or

B-pillars and side rails. In a side impact,

those materials would be energized and

enlarged to provide greater cushioning

and improved head protection.

While the Option 3 test procedure

was intended to be used for certifying

the ITS, IC and other side impact air bag

systems, the Option 2 test procedure

was conceived by the agency as

potentially appropriate for certifying

potential dynamic padding designs such

as the system once under development

by Mercedes. Mercedes is presently not

considering the inflatable padding

concept and adopted an IC design.

However, Toyota, which is also

developing an IC design, indicated that

it preferred to test this design through

use of the Option 2 test with an FMH

impact of 24 km/h (15 mph) against a

deployed system rather than the Option

3 vehicle to pole test. The company’s

comments indicated that it believed the

Option 2 test would be more repeatable

and realistic. Toyota did not, however,

elaborate on these points other than to

express its view that Option 2 testing

would be representative of a variety of

crash modes while the Option 3 test

represents a single crash mode. Nissan

expressed its preference to the Option 2

test on the basis of cost, indicating that

it believed the Option 3 test was not

needed and would be a higher cost

alternative to Option 2. Nissan did not,

however, submit any data indicating

that this belief was based on any testing

it had performed or that its preference

for the Option 2 test was based on any

system it was developing.

NHTSA is concerned that the Option

2 test presents a number of technical

challenges which indicate that it may

not be as repeatable or reliable as the

Option 3 test. For instance, the validity

of the HIC transfer function specified in

S7(a) is in question when it is applied

to FMH impacts against a dynamically

deployed system. In addition, there may

be other technical problems with the

test related to the flexibility of deployed

dynamic systems and the behavior of

the FMH when it makes contact with

the system. The agency notes that it

does not have any experience in

conducting tests with the FMH against

a deployed system and further observes

that, with the exception of Toyota,

which conducted 15 mph FMH impacts

against a deployed system, no other

manufacturers appear to have attempted

such testing. This lack of experience

and test data make it difficult or

impossible for the agency to fully

evaluate the Option 2 proposal at this

time.

NHTSA is aware that the Option 2 test

has the potential to evaluate system

performance in a greater variety of crash

modes than the Option 3 vehicle to pole

test. However, the rapid development of

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems necessitates

immediate changes to Standard 201 to

allow manufacturers the opportunity to

place these systems in production

vehicles. The agency is confident that

the Option 3 test provides a valid means

for assessing the performance

characteristics of dynamic head

protection devices. Unfortunately, the

absence of data and experience in

performing the proposed Option 2 test

does not allow NHTSA to have the same

degree of confidence in the Option 2

test. The agency may reconsider use of

the Option 2 test in the future, but has

concluded that Option 2 must be

deleted from this final rule.

The agency’s decision to delete the

Option 2 proposal from the final rule

renders further discussion of the

comments relating to Option 2

unnecessary. However, several issues

which are germane to both Option 2 and

Option 3 are addressed in the

discussion below relating to Option 3.

B. Vehicle-to-Pole Test

The agency is adopting the Option 3

Test Procedure with one modification.

This modification, which expands the

area over an undeployed dynamic

system which is subject to the 19 km/

h (12 mph) FMH impact test, does not

substantially modify the Option 3

proposal set forth in the NPRM. The

agency notes that BMW, Volvo, IIHS,

and AORC substantially supported the

Option 3 test procedure as outlined in

the NPRM. IIHS commented that the

NPRM proposed pole test provided a

good demonstration of the additional

head protection offered by systems such

as the ITS and IC. Three commenters,

Toyota, Nissan and AAMA, do not

support the full scale pole impact test

on the basis that the Option 3 test is

redundant, burdensome and provides

no additional safety benefits.

NHTSA observes that the 29 km/h (18

mph) vehicle-to-pole test was suggested

by BMW and supported by several

European manufacturers who have

already installed or are planning to

install dynamically deployed upper

interior head protection systems in their

production vehicles. The agency is

employing this optional test procedure

to accommodate dynamic systems,

which testing has shown to have

substantial safety benefits.

Toyota, which has been using a 24

km/h (15 mph) pole test itself in the

development of a dynamic system,

appears to be objecting to the 29 km/h

(18 mph) impact speed of the Standard

201 pole test. As discussed elsewhere in

this notice, NHTSA believes that the 29

km/h (18 mph) impact speed is

necessary to provide assurance that

dynamic systems will provide safety

benefits. Nissan’s principal objection to

the Option 3 pole test was based on its

view that the test was redundant when

the proposed Option 2 test was also

available. However, now that the Option

2 test has been withdrawn from

consideration, Nissan’s objection is not

valid. AAMA’s objection that the Option

3 test was unduly burdensome was not

supported by any further explanation.

Several commenters raised various

questions concerning the test procedure.

These questions included ones relating

to the size and configuration of the rigid

pole, the suitability of the SID/HIII

dummy, inclusion of a dummy in the

rear seat during testing, impact speeds,

impact tolerances, out of position

occupants, target points subject to

reduced FMH impact speeds, benefit

analyses, and the effective date of the

final rule.

C. Rigid Pole

In regard to the size of the rigid pole

struck in the Option 3 test, IIHS, VW,

Nissan, Autoliv and AORC commented

that the pole should be 350 mm in

diameter, rather than the 254 mm pole

proposed in the NPRM. IIHS also

commented that the 350 mm pole

impact test is less severe, but has higher

test repeatability, than the 254 mm pole

test. AAMA commented that the 254

mm pole was initially considered, but

was rejected by ISO working groups

because the 254 mm pole was not

representative of real world obstacles

that would produce serious injuries. In

addition, AAMA pointed out that two

recent ISO draft technical reports

(issued in May 1997) concerning the

performance of side air bags

recommended the use of 350 mm pole.

These 6 commenters support the use of

the ISO 350 mm pole for international

harmonization purposes.

NHTSA began research to develop a

test procedure for certifying the

advanced dynamic systems after the

agency received information on the

advanced dynamically deployed upper

interior head protection systems from

Ford, BMW, Mercedes and Volvo in

1995. The agency carefully examined

the draft ISO Technical Report ‘‘Road

Vehicles—Test Procedures for

Evaluating Various OccupantInteractions with Deploying Side Impact
41458 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

2French data show that the distribution of the

tree/pole fatal impacts (excluding impacts with

other fixed objects) is 18 percent to trees with a

diameter of 300–400 mm, 24 percent to poles (this

may include trees since there is no mention of trees

with a diameter of less than 300 mm in the French

crash data) with a diameter of 150–300 mm. The

French data seem to support using a 254 mm pole

instead of a 350 mm pole because it shows a larger

percent of fatalities occurring in impacts against

150–300 mm poles than in impacts against 300–400

mm diameter trees.

Air Bags’’ (ISO/TC 22/SC 10/WG 3

N100; Oct. 19, 1995) and attempted to

replicate, to the greatest possible extent,

the test procedures outlined in the draft

report. Section 3.5 of the ISO report

provided the following specifications

for the pole:

A vertically-oriented circular, rigid polelike metal structure, beginning no more than

100 mm above the ground, and extending

above the roof of the impacting vehicle. The

pole should be 200–380 mm in diameter and

set off from any vertical mounting surface by

at least 1500 mm.

NHTSA decided to adopt a 254 mm pole

for the Option 3 test because it is within

the ISO recommended pole diameter

range, results in a more severe impact,

and because the 254 mm pole is more

representative of impacts occurring in

the United States. The agency also notes

that the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) of the

Department of Transportation has

accumulated extensive experience on

side impact tests against a 254 mm pole.

FHWA’s test experience enabled

NHTSA to develop a practical test

procedure in a relatively short period of

time.

In 1989, FHWA published a technical

paper (SAE Paper 890377 ‘‘A Summary

of Recent Side Impact Research

Conducted by the Federal Highway

Administration’’) on the subject. The

paper indicated that each year

approximately 12,000 fatalities occurred

in single vehicle crashes against fixed

objects and about 2,700 of the 12,000

fatalities occurred in side crashes.

About 60 percent of the 2,700 fatalities

in single vehicle side crashes were

associated with impacts against trees,

utility poles, and other poles. FHWA

concluded that the pole diameter at the

window sill level for most poles is

approximately 254 mm. NHTSA

conducted a review of National

Automotive Sampling System (NASS)

data in an effort to determine if the 254

mm diameter object is representative of

trees struck as well as poles.

Unfortunately, the available NASS data

do not allow the agency to determine if

the 254 mm pole is representative of

trees struck in crashes in the United

States. Nonetheless, the 254 mm

diameter pole does represent an

important injury source responsible for

a significant percentage of fatalities

occurring in single vehicle side crashes

against fixed objects in the United

States. The ISO decision to reject the

254 mm pole was based on French crash

data indicating that a larger pole more

appropriately reproduced crashes in

France. However, the French data also

show that pole impacts are an important

source of occupant fatalities/injuries in

side crashes with fixed objects.

After review of the available data,

NHTSA does not agree with AAMA’s

contention that the 254 mm diameter

pole is not representative of real world

obstacles producing severe head

injuries. The agency notes that FHWA

data, summarized and presented in SAE

paper 890377, show that side impacts to

poles constitute a serious highway

safety problem in the United States. It

should also be observed that the AAMA

comments are based on the French crash

data. However, the French data shows

that the poles of 150–300 mm in

diameter are an important injury source

in side crashes with fixed objects.2

NHTSA has determined that a 254

mm pole, a size within the range

recommended in the 1995 draft ISO

technical report, simulates a real world

crash condition corresponding to a

known highway safety problem in the

United States. As the 254 mm pole is

representative of conditions in the U.S.,

the agency has performed testing and

research using this pole size in

developing the Option 3 test procedure.

The 254 mm pole used in this test was

first described in the agency’s March 7,

1996 ANPRM describing proposals for

testing dynamic systems. NHTSA did

not receive any comments regarding

pole size in response to the ANPRM.

The agency was aware, however, that

some manufacturers were using the 254

mm pole for vehicle-to-pole impact tests

while the agency pursued its own

testing to validate the proposed test

procedure. When the two ISO draft

technical reports that rejected the 254

mm pole were issued in May 1997, the

agency had already taken a considerable

number of steps toward finalizing its

test procedure. It should also be noted

that those manufacturers who currently

plan to install advanced dynamic

systems in their vehicles do not oppose

the use of 254 mm pole. In addition,

adoption of the 350 mm pole size,

which has not been finally adopted by

the ISO working groups, would result in

a significant delay of this rulemaking,

since additional testing would be

necessary.

NHTSA has concluded that testing

with the 254 mm diameter pole is

practical, that this test is repeatable, and

that the test is a valid means for

assessing the performance of dynamic

systems. NHTSA is, however, modifying

the specifications for the rigid pole. The

diameter of the pole remains at 254 mm,

but NHTSA is adding a tolerance of ±3

mm to the pole diameter specification.

As proposed in the NPRM, S8.25

specified that the rigid pole must begin

at a point not more than 102 mm (4

inches) off the ground and extend to a

minimum height of 80 inches. As

certain devices used for transporting a

vehicle into the pole during a test may

require that the vehicle be raised off of

the ground, NHTSA has concluded that

the dimensions proposed in the NPRM

might result in a pole configuration

where the pole does not extend above

the roof of the vehicle or at its lowest

point could interfere with carriage of the

test vehicle into the pole. Accordingly,

the final rule has modified S8.25 to

specify that the lowest point of the pole

be not more than 102 mm (4 inches)

above the lowest point of the tires of the

test vehicle and that the highest point of

the pole extend above the highest point

of the roof of the test vehicle.

In addition, the agency notes that, as

proposed, S8.25 specified that the test

vehicle not strike any portion of the

pole mount at any time during the test.

After conducting several tests, NHTSA

has concluded that this specification is

unrealistic and has modified it to state

that the test vehicle may not contact any

part of the pole support structure within

100 milliseconds of the initial vehicle to

pole contact.

D. SID/HIII Dummy

Although the agency published a

separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) on December 8, 1997 (62 FR

64546) outlining proposed specification

for the SID/HIII dummy, it also

addressed the SID/HIII in the NPRM

preceding this final rule. As the NPRM

proposing the SID/HIII was not issued

simultaneously with the proposed

changes to Standard 201, some

commenters offered their views

regarding the SID/HIII in response to

August 26, 1997 Standard 201 NPRM.

Mercedes and VW commented that

significant changes to EuroSID have

been made since 1990 and that the ISO

pole test procedure specifies the new

EuroSID–1 dummy with the Hybrid III

head. These commenters recommended

that NHTSA adopt the EuroSID–1 for

international harmonization purposes.

Nissan commented that the SID/HIII

dummy does not have a proven

biofidelity rating and is in conflict with

harmonization. Toyota also supported

the use of the EuroSID–1. AORC
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41459

commented that the dummy test device

should have a proper biofidelity rating

and be capable of harmonization with

the ISO standard. The organization also

stated that an existing dummy should be

specified as an option pending further

evaluation of the SID/HIII dummy.

AAMA argued against use of the SID/

HIII on the basis that the proposed

dummy has a much lower biofidelity

rating than the EuroSID–1 and the

BioSID and that the EuroSID–1 is better

in discriminating changes in door

padding. Therefore, AAMA

recommended that NHTSA adopt a

modified EuroSID–1 as an interim

dummy instead of the SID/HIII. IIHS

raised the issue concerning the seating

height of the dummy, stating that a

taller dummy seating height provides

for a better test configuration. Advocates

commented that it is waiting to see if

the SID/HIII is a reliable dummy test

device.

The commenters raise two significant

issues. The first is that the SID/HIII has

a lower biofidelity rating than the

BioSID and the EuroSID–1. Secondly,

the use of any dummy other than the

EuroSID–1 conflicts with international

harmonization.

With respect to the dummy

biofidelity, AAMA commented that the

ISO biofidelity ratings (5.9, 4.2 and 3.8

for the BioSID, EuroSID–1 and SID/HIII

dummies, respectively) demonstrate

that the SID/HIII is not a proper choice

for a pole impact test. The agency does

not agree that the SID/HIII is not a

proper choice for head-to-pole impact

tests because the SID/HIII has a head

and neck system similar to the BioSID.

The biofidelity ratings cited by AAMA

are ‘‘overall’’ ratings, not just for the

head/neck complex. However, the

critical component for the purposes of

the Option 3 test is the head and neck.

AAMA also commented that the

NHTSA’s biofidelity rating for the SID/

HIII is high because the agency did not

combine the neck and shoulder

components into an integrated assembly

for proper rating. Since the SID/HIII

does not have a metal skeletal shoulder

structure and is not sensitive to door

padding stiffness, the ISO working

group gave the SID shoulder assembly a

‘‘zero’’ rating. NHTSA has concluded

that this rating is not relevant to use of

the SID torso in the SID/HIII dummy

proposed for the Option 3 test. The

agency observes that no relevant data on

pole (or high, rigid wall) impact tests

were considered in the development of

the ISO biofidelity rating for side impact

dummies. In high speed lateral impacts

against high, rigid walls, the shoulder of

human cadaver test subjects collapse in

a movement towards the spine. In a

rigid pole impact (similar to a high,

rigid wall impact), the dummy shoulder

component should, like the shoulder of

a human cadaver, collapse without

shielding the head and neck from

impacts with intruding objects such as

a rigid pole. The agency notes that the

current biofidelity rating scheme used

by the ISO working group does not

recognize this important factor. Further,

NHTSA believes that existing data

demonstrate that the SID shoulder,

which collapses as a human cadaver

shoulder does in side impact tests,

should receive at least a 2.5–3.0 rating

for pole impacts. With this 2.5–3.0

rating, the SID/HIII receives a 4.2 overall

biofidelity rating. This rating is above

the ISO recommended 4.0 acceptable

level.

The BioSID shoulder is rigidly

attached to a stiff clavicle component

and the EuroSID–1 shoulder is a rigid

component with limited forward

rotation capability upon contact. The

agency believes that the shoulders of

those two dummies would not collapse

and move out of the way under various

lateral impact conditions. In contrast,

the SID/HIII shoulder is made of foam

materials and will collapse upon an

impact. The ISO working group does not

acknowledge that this special shoulder

design makes the SID/HIII a desirable

dummy test device for the 90 degree

pole impact test. The agency notes that

the BioSID that has the highest

biofidelity rating among all five existing

side impact dummies (new ratings from

the ISO working group; BioSID=5.9,

EuroSID–1=4.2, SID/HIII=3.8,

EuroSID=3.2, and SID=2.3.), but that

BioSID proved to be unsuitable in one

of the 29km/h (18 mph), 90 degree pole

impact tests conducted at IIHS in

accordance with the NPRM proposed

test procedures. In a test of a 1997 BMW

528i vehicle, the BioSID shoulder joint

contacted the intruding side structure

and failed to collapse. This failure to

collapse, which is inconsistent with

human cadaver tests, prevented head-topole contact. This unhuman-like

response of the BioSID shoulder

demonstrates a possible deficiency in

the ISO biofidelity rating scheme. In a

subsequent IIHS pole test using a SID

with the Hybrid III head/neck assembly,

the shoulder collapsed in a

representative fashion and the test was

successful. In its comments, IIHS

pointed out that the vehicle-to-pole

impact test is highly repeatable when

the SID with a Hybrid III head/neck

assembly is used.

NHTSA does not agree with those

commenters urging use of the EuroSID–

1 dummy for the Option 3 test. It is

anticipated that the kinematics of the

EuroSID–1 shoulder, if it does not

prevent head-to-pole contact, may

induce fore and aft head motion prior to

head impact. NHTSA believes that such

fore and aft head motion of the

EuroSID–1 would be difficult to control.

A 1988 report regarding the EuroSID

(Proceedings of the Seminar held in

Brussels, Dec. 11, 1988) indicated that

the EuroSID shoulder rotation

mechanism produces a force ranging

from 2.0 to 3.4 kN (450 to 760 pounds)

during a series of 4.3 m/s (9.6 mph)

impacts using a 23.4 kg (51.5 pounds)

impactor. The peak force occurs within

10 to 15 ms upon impact. NHTSA does

not know if the performance of the

EuroSID–1 is improved in this area and

those urging use of the EuroSID–1 have

not supplied any data on this point. The

agency suspects that the head impact

location tolerance for pole impact tests

may be very difficult to define if the

EuroSID–1 is used as the dummy test

device. The EuroSID–1 has also not

been generally accepted by the testing

community as a valid test device.

Modifications to this dummy are

ongoing and an intensive evaluation

program of the EuroSID–1 is expected to

begin in 1999. NHTSA cannot seriously

consider the EuroSID–1 as a test device,

particularly for the 90 degree pole tests,

until this device becomes generally

accepted and sufficient data become

available to assess its performance.

NHTSA, as well as IIHS and several

interested manufacturers, have

conducted vehicle-to-pole impact tests

using the SID/HIII dummy (or

SID+Hybrid III head/neck/neck bracket)

for the purposes of evaluating proposed

Option 3 test procedure. The agency has

concluded that the SID/HIII is an

appropriate dummy test device for this

test. The BioSID is not acceptable and

the EuroSID–1 is not yet ready. Given

the fact that NHTSA must promulgate a

final rule to accommodate dynamically

deployed upper interior head protection

systems and that the SID/HIII offers

adequate performance using existing

and proven components, the agency

concludes that the SID/HIII is the best

test device available for the Option 3

test.

With respect to the international

dummy harmonization, the agency

supports the goal of developing a global

dummy test device. The agency will

evaluate the global dummy test device

after its completion and then decide

what to do. At present, the agency has

decided to adopt the SID/HIII dummy

for head-to-pole impact evaluation.

In reference to the IIHS’s concern on

dummy seating height, the agency

concludes that current test data show

that the seating height of the SID/HIII
41460 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

dummy is sufficient. With respect to the

Advocates’ concern on dummy

reliability, the agency concludes that the

SID/HIII, which is constructed from

known components with sufficient

durability, is a reliable dummy test

device for the 90 degree pole test.

E. Rear Seat Dummy

A number of commenters discussed

the use of a rear seat occupant dummy

in the Option 3 test. AORC, Volvo and

BMW each indicated that placing a

dummy in the rear seat would not

produce meaningful data and would

add cost and complexity to the test

procedure. After consideration of these

comments and after performing several

Option 3 vehicle to pole tests, NHTSA

has concluded that placing a dummy in

the rear seat of the struck side in a

vehicle to pole test is unnecessary. Both

the pole test data and a recent safety

benefit analysis (Benefits Analysis of the

Inflatable Tubular Structure (ITS),

August 19, 1997) submitted by BMW

indicate that a rear seat dummy is not

needed. NHTSA conducted five 29 km/

h (18 mph) pole impact tests using 1995

Hondas to verify the proposed dummy

seating procedure and other aspects of

the proposed Option 3 test. In the first

two tests, the dummy head impacted the

B-pillar without really contacting the

pole. The HIC readings for those two

tests were in the 500–600 range, far

below the 1,000 limit. These results

indicate that in a 29 km/h (18 mph) side

impact with a 254 mm pole, HIC scores

near or above 1000 are not likely to be

encountered unless the dummy’s head

makes direct contact with the pole itself.

The agency believes that the head of a

rear seat dummy will not contact the

intruding pole aimed at the front

occupant’s head and is likely to contact

some components more forgiving than

the B-pillar, resulting in a low HIC

reading. A recent safety benefit analysis

submitted by BMW estimates that, for

rear seat occupants, the overall number

of AIS 3–5 injuries saved by its ITS

system would be larger than the

baseline number of AIS 3–5 injuries

from side rail contacts. Inflatable curtain

systems now under development protect

both the front seat and the rear seat

occupants. In view of these factors, it

appears that dynamic systems offer

considerable safety benefits for rear seat

occupants and the addition of a test

dummy to the rear seat in the Option 3

test is unwarranted.

F. Impact Speed and Conditions

Toyota commented that the pole

impact speed should be 24 km/h (15

mph) instead of 29 km/h (18 mph) and

the proposed impact tolerance limit of

±38 mm (±1.5 inches) that is more than

10 percent of the pole diameter is not

acceptable. In contrast, BMW

commented that the proposed impact

location tolerance limit is reasonable. In

its comments, Advocates indicated that

it supports the proposed pole test

procedure because it represents the

possible worst-case crash condition,

although it does not conform with real

crashes given that the roll, yaw and

pitch angles are controlled in the test.

Further, Advocates expressed concerns

that many manufacturers will avoid the

pole test since the agency proposed two

alternative test procedures (e.g., Options

2 and 3). Volvo commented that the

pitch angle does not seem to have any

effect, but the yaw angle appears to be

a sensitive factor, to the proposed 90

degree pole impact test.

The agency has concluded that the 29

km/h (18 mph) impact speed specified

for Option 3 is appropriate. Discussion

of this issue in the NPRM indicated that

this speed was selected in an attempt to

ensure that any safety losses incurred by

allowing manufacturers to test certain

target points at 19 km/h (12 mph) would

be offset by a safety benefit of similar or

greater magnitude. Benefit analyses

performed by the agency and by others

indicate that the 29 km/h impact speed

specified for Option 3 is appropriate to

ensure a net increase in safety.

In regard to minimum tolerances for

pole contact with the test vehicle, the

agency does not agree with Toyota’s

contention that the ±38 mm (±1.5

inches) tolerance limit is not acceptable

because it is greater than 10 percent of

the pole diameter. The tolerance is

measured from the longitudinal

centerline of the pole to ensure a square

head impact and is based on the head

contacting the pole within a segment

that is relatively perpendicular to the

head velocity. In selecting this

tolerance, the agency does not believe

that the pole diameter is particularly

relevant. Testing has revealed, however,

that the tolerance is necessary to assure

practicability. Accordingly, the agency

has concluded that it will retain the

impact tolerance proposed in the NPRM

for the final rule.

NHTSA is also incorporating the

requirement contained in the Option 3

proposal that the test vehicle strike the

pole at an angle of 90 degrees with an

impact tolerance of ±3 degrees. The

agency has concluded that this

specification is sufficient and that roll,

yaw and pitch angles do not need be

specified. NHTSA agrees with Volvo’s

comment that yaw angle may alter the

impact location. However, the purpose

of controlling those angles in a pole

impact test is to determine a practical

impact location tolerance level. The

pole impact tests conducted by the

agency and other interested

manufacturers indicate that the impact

location tolerance proposed in the

NPRM is reasonable. In view of this,

NHTSA has concluded that it is not

necessary to specify roll, pitch and yaw

angles in the final rule and that the

NPRM proposed impact angle, with a

tolerance limit of +3 degrees, will be

incorporated in the final rule.

G. Target Locations

A number of commenters offered their

views on target locations for the 19 km/

h (12 mph) FMH impact test in Option

3. Mercedes, Volvo, VW, BMW, Toyota,

Autoliv, and AAMA stated that the 19

km/h (12 mph) impact requirements for

target locations over a stowed dynamic

system is desirable and that target

locations protected by the deployed

dynamic system should also be tested at

19 km/h (12 mph) impact speed. In

addition, Mercedes, VW, BMW and

AAMA commented that the proposed 19

km/h (12 mph) target impact area is too

narrow since the required system

deployment would involve system

packaging and cover designs. These

commenters argued that the definition

of 19 km/h (12 mph) targets should

include the peripheral area surrounding

the dynamic system in its stowed

position. Mercedes commented

specifically that this peripheral area

include a 25 to 50 mm (1.0 to 2.0 inch)

surrounding area. However, BMW

suggested a 50 mm (2.0 inch)

surrounding area. Both Volvo and BMW

commented that the 95th percentile SAE

eyellipse can not be the sole criterion to

determine protection on head impacts

against the A/B-pillars and side rails.

BMW also commented that the range of

occupant heads extends well above and

behind the SAE eyellipse. Some

manufacturers and AAMA indicated

that target exemptions should be

determined using the potential head

protection capability of the deployed

system.

The foregoing comments raise three

issues: first, whether target locations

covered or protected by the deployed

system should be tested at 19 km/h (12

mph); second, whether the 19 km/h (12

mph) target location area should be

expanded to include the peripheral area

surrounding the stowed system; and

third, whether the SAE 95th percentile

eyellipse is a suitable measure for

determining head protection. With

respect to targets ‘‘protected’’ by a

dynamic system, the agency proposed

that all target locations that are located

over a stowed dynamic system,

including mounting and inflation
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41461

components, but exclusive of cover and

covers, are excluded from the 24 km/h

(15 mph) FMH impact requirements.

However, those target locations must

comply with the 19 km/h (12 mph)

FMH impact requirements. Recognizing

that a deployed system would prevent

head contacts with some additional

target locations other than those covered

by the stowed system, the agency

solicited comments on how to define

the exclusion coverage. The commenters

indicated that all target locations

covered by the deployed system should

be excluded from 24 km/h (15 mph)

FMH impact tests. NHTSA notes that

this definition is very subjective and

would certainly create problems in

testing and enforcement. However, the

agency has found a more comprehensive

definition of target points ‘‘covered’’ or

‘‘protected’’ by a dynamic system to be

elusive. A point that may be protected

from one class of occupant may not be

protected from another. Similarly, the

points protected and the extent of that

protection may vary with system design.

In the interests of expediting issuance of

the final rule, the agency has concluded

that the definition of target points

subject to the reduced 19 km/h (12 mph)

FMH impact requirements is the best

definition available at this time and that

no additional target locations should be

excluded from 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH

impact tests.

A number of manufacturers asked that

the definition of the target locations

subject to the 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH

impact requirements be expanded to

include an area 25 to 50 mm (1.0 to 2.0

inch) around the periphery of the

undeployed system and its components.

These commenters argued that dynamic

systems do not simply deploy through

the cover directly over the stowed

system. Moreover, the manufacturers

indicated that additional space is

needed to provide the necessary

transition between the ‘‘24 km/h (15

mph)’’ padding and the ‘‘19 km/h (12

mph)’’ padding.

NHTSA concludes that this is a valid

concern. An inflatable system may not

deploy directly through the area over

where it is stowed. These systems may

go through the surrounding area. In

order to allow system deployment with

minimum interference, it may be

important to provide a transition area

where padding is reduced. BMW

indicated that target SR2 is slightly off

the stowed ITS position and must be

tested, according to the current

proposal, at 24 km/h (15 mph) impact

speed. Since the roof liner/trim is a

continuous piece, the whole roof liner/

trim must be redesigned to comply with

the 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact

requirements. BMW contends that this

defeats the original purpose of

exempting target locations from 24 km/

h (15 mph) tests to allow manufacturers

to install enhanced head protection

systems, such as ITS and IC, in their

production vehicles. The company

suggested that an additional 50 mm (2.0

inch) area that surrounds the periphery

of the stowed system be included in the

definition of the exempted target

locations. The agency does not agree

with BMW’s contention that compliance

with the 24 km/h (15 mph) impact

requirement in areas near a stowed

system is difficult or impossible if the

two areas share common trim, but it

does acknowledge that the requirements

of different dynamic systems may

require that an area around the outside

of the stowed system must be subject to

the 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact

requirement to allow a variety of

systems an opportunity to deploy

upward or downward as well as directly

through the trim covering the device.

NHTSA observes that the agency’s

benefit estimate assumed that SR1, SR2

and SR3 targets would be exempt from

24 km/h (15 mph) compliance tests.

Accordingly, this modification, which

may exclude these points depending on

system design, would not alter the

agency’s prior safety benefit estimate.

The final rule modifies the Option 3

proposal to add areas around the

periphery of an undeployed system to

those target points subject to the 19 km/

h (12 mph) FMH impact requirements.

Commenters also offered their views

regarding the use of the SAE 95th

percentile eyellipse to define those

targets that would be subject to FMH

testing at reduced impact speeds.

NHTSA agrees with Volvo and BMW

that the eyellipse should not be used as

a sole criterion to determine target

location exemption. The agency

entertained the possibility of using the

eyellipse to accommodate side air bag

systems installed inside the seat bolster

or outer edge of the seat back. However,

AAMA did not comment on this

specific item but suggested, as did some

foreign manufacturers, that any target

locations where head contacts are

protected by the deployed system

should be excluded from the 24 km/h

(15 mph) FMH impact test. As noted

above, NHTSA believes this suggestion

to be impractical. Since the agency’s

existing definition allows the

installation of dynamic systems, there is

insufficient justification for excluding

additional target locations. NHTSA

concludes that the SAE 95th percentile

eyellipse is, by itself, not an appropriate

mechanism for determining targets

subject to lower impact speeds.

H. Safety Concerns

A number of commenters offered their

views on safety concerns associated

with the deployment of dynamically

deployed upper interior head protection

systems. Toyota, offering its view that

the 29 km/h (18 mph) impact proposed

for testing deployed systems was

excessive, argued that the 29 km/h (18

mph) impact requirement would result

in dangerously aggressive dynamic

systems. Advocates commented that as

frontal air bag concerns displace

children from front seat to rear seats,

reducing impact requirements for any

rear seat area target points should be

regarded with suspicion. In addition,

Advocates commented that by

excluding the SR3 target point without

adequate justification, NHTSA is

deferring to the wishes of manufacturers

without any justification. Volvo

commented that their out-of-position

occupant tests indicate that injuries of a

greater severity level are not likely to

occur as a result of an occupant, child

or adult, being too close to, or in an

undesirable position relative to, the

system. BMW commented that the ITS

system, tailored to protect the head of

an adult occupant, is very small and

deploys with a minimum amount of

energy. According to BMW, the ITS

does not present an ‘‘aggressive’’ threat

to vehicle occupants. In its comments,

AORC indicated that sled tests,

including tests on unrestrained, small or

child seat dummies, do not show

increased neck loads or other injuries

resulting from the deployment of

dynamic systems.

While NHTSA agrees with Advocates

that many young children will be seated

in rear seats instead of front seats, the

agency does not agree that this

phenomenon, in conjunction with the

exclusion of SR3 from the 24 km/h (15

mph) compliance test, creates a safety

concern. In a non-rollover crash, the

head of a child in the rear seat is not

likely to be in a position to contact SR3.

In addition, NHTSA’s analysis of 1992–

1996 NASS, rollover/non-ejection data

indicates that the head/face of 719

second-seat occupants, including 154

children of 10 years of age or younger,

contacted the rear side rails resulting in

five AIS–1 or greater head/face injuries,

including one AIS–5 or greater injury

and that no child of 10 years of age or

younger sustained any head/face injury.

It appears that the Advocates’ comment

that excluding SR3 will result in greater

injuries to children is not borne out by

data on real world crashes.
41462 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

With respect to out-of-position child

problems, the agency does not have its

own studies and relies, at present, on

the manufacturers’ test data to evaluate

the problem. Based on the comments

from Volvo, BMW and AORC, it appears

that out-of-position occupants,

including children and adults, would

not be placed at risk by dynamically

deployed upper interior head protection

systems. The agency notes that side air

bags and dynamically deployed upper

interior head protection systems are

relatively small and less aggressive

compared to front passenger air bags,

and that the design of these systems has

benefitted from the experience gained

from frontal air bag systems. However,

the agency will continue to monitor and

test dynamically deployed upper

interior head protection systems as they

become available.

NHTSA has also concluded that

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems would not

present a risk of additional neck

injuries. The results of the BMW 528i

car-to-pole tests conducted at IIHS

indicated that dummy neck loads in the

test with the ITS system are either lower

than, or at least remain approximately

the same as those in the baseline test

without the ITS system. In view of this,

NHTSA concludes that despite the

concerns voiced by Advocates, the ITS

system or the IC system is not likely to

increase the risk of neck injury.

However, the agency agrees with AAMA

that further exploration of the risk of

neck injury should be conducted. With

respect to potential auditory system

injury, the existing data are not

sufficient for NHTSA to explore the

issue at this time. The agency notes that

the SAE is currently studying the

problem of air bag noise. At this time,

NHTSA is declining to incorporate any

limits relating to auditory injury in the

final rule, but will continue to monitor

air bag data and study occupant injuries.

I. Other Issues

Several commenters also asked that

certain issues in the proposal be

explained or clarified. Volvo requested

the agency to more fully define those

target points contiguous to the system’s

mounting and inflation components

subject to the 24 km/h (15 mph) impact.

AAMA requested that S6.1 (b) and (c) be

redrafted or explained as it believed that

these sentences are incomplete. The

organization also asked for clarification

of S8.13.3 concerning the exclusion of

the initial FMH forehead-to-target

contact found in Option 1 when testing

a deployed system under proposed

Option 2. VW commented that testing

laboratory contractors must confirm

target locations and impact speeds with

manufacturers before conducting the

test.

With respect to Volvo’s comments

requesting clarification of target points

subject to the 24 km/h (15 mph) impact,

the final rule excludes target points that

are within the 50 mm (2.0 inch) areas

surrounding the stowed system

including its mounting and inflation

units. This change from the Option 3

proposal should address Volvo’s

concern. With respect to the AAMA’s

concern on the text of S6.1 (b) and (c)

and S6.2 (b) and (c), NHTSA has

redrafted and reorganized the text of the

section in order to clarify them. With

respect to AAMA’s comment regarding

excluding initial FMH forehead-to-target

contact (S8.13.3) in testing the deployed

system, clarification of S8.13.3 is not

needed because the Option 2 test

procedure has been removed from the

final rule. NHTSA disagrees with VW’s

position that a NHTSA testing

contractor should confirm target

locations and impact speed before

conducting a compliance test. It is

NHTSA’s position that such a procedure

would provide manufacturers with too

much control over compliance testing.

As with other safety standards, if any

information is needed prior to a

compliance test, NHTSA will ask for,

and manufacturers will provide, that

information.

Advocates commented that the data

used by NHTSA to justify the 19 km/h

(12 mph) FMH impact test were not

available for public review and that the

administrative record of the NPRM does

not support the reduction of the FMH

impact speed from 24 km/h to 19 km/

h (15 mph to 12 mph) for target points

that are located over a stowed system.

Advocates also commented that since

no sensor design specification is given

to ensure the sensor performance, the

number of severe injuries due to sensor

malfunction may be considerably larger

than the agency’s expectation. In

addition, Advocates questioned the

validity of the agency’s benefit analysis

because it was based on the ITS sled

tests generated by manufacturers and

because not a single ITS test was

conducted simulating rollover crashes.

Advocates further stated that it is

improper for NHTSA to argue for or rely

on anti-ejection benefits that have not

been tested. Both AAMA and Advocates

raised questions on the potential risk of

neck injury and urged that the topics be

entered on the agenda of the Motor

Vehicle Safety Research Advisory

Committee and the program of

International Harmonization Research

Agenda. AAMA also raised questions on

the potential risk of other injuries such

as auditory system injuries and other

injuries related to the system

deployment.

NHTSA does not agree with allegation

made by Advocates regarding the

administrative record and justification

for the reduction of FMH impact speed

from 24 km/h to 19 km/h (15 mph to 12

mph) for targets located over the stowed

system. The BMW test data, although

confidential, were used by the agency to

justify the reduction of FMH impact

speed. NHTSA believes that an adequate

explanation of this data, given in the

PRE supporting the NPRM, exists in the

administrative record of this

rulemaking. The safety benefit analysis

by K. Digges & Associates, recently

submitted by BMW in its comments to

the NPRM, provides further justification

on the subject.

Advocates questioned the validity of

the agency’s benefit analysis because the

analysis was based on ITS performance

in manufacturer-generated sled tests, the

ejection prevention capability of the ITS

was projected without testing, and the

proposed rule did not contain

specifications for sensor performance.

With respect to the validity of the BMW

sled test data, NHTSA observes that the

agency’s safety benefit estimate was

based on all available data, including

crash test data and sled test data. While

NHTSA recognizes the limitations of

sled tests, the agency believes that sled

tests can be a useful tool for the

development of safety countermeasures

and are valid in this instance. With

respect to the projections regarding

ejection mitigation, NHTSA notes that it

is true that neither the agency nor any

manufacturers had conducted any

rollover tests using the ITS system prior

to issuance of the NPRM. However, the

agency examined the limited rollover

test data and the real world crash data

and, relying on its judgment and

experience, made an appropriate benefit

estimate in support of the NPRM. At

present, the agency has completed three

rollover tests at 48.3 km/h (30 mph)

using the Standard 208 rollover cart.

The test vehicles were Ford Explorers

equipped with several different ITS

designs. In each test, two Hybrid III

dummies were seated in the outboard

front seating positions. All dummies,

except one right front seat passenger

dummy, were unbelted. The test results

showed that head ejections and

complete ejections through side

windows did not occur and that five out

of the six test dummies had their hands/

arms outside the windows after those

rollover tests. These test results support

the agency’s assumption that the ITS

system would greatly reduce the side

window ejection casualties. In addition,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41463

a recent safety benefit analysis by K.

Digges & Associates provides further

information on the subject. Based on

those recent studies, it is concluded that

the ITS and similar head protection

systems will reduce side window

ejections. However, the agency will

continue investigation on this subject.

With respect to the lack of sensor

specifications in the proposed rule,

NHTSA believes that such

specifications are not required. The

agency notes that it did not issue a

sensor specification for the frontal air

bag systems and that manufacturers

have gained considerable field

experience in sensor designs since the

introduction of the air bag systems

nearly 10 years ago. In addition, many

manufacturers have already installed

side air bags in their production cars. In

view of this, it appears that a sensor

specification would be superfluous.

J. Dummy Seating Position

Agency testing has revealed that the

dummy seating position proposed in the

NPRM would result in interference

between the B-pillar and the head of the

test dummy in certain vehicles.

Therefore, the final rule modifies the

seating position to further increase the

chance that a 2-inch head/window

frame clearance will exist between the

dummy head and the forward edge of

the B-pillar/door window frame

combination. Accordingly, S8.28 has

been modified to specify that in those

instances where the seating procedure

and seat position procedures of S6.3,

S6.4 and S7 of Standard 214 result in

the back of the dummy head being less

than 50 mm (2 inches) forward of the

front edge of the B-pillar/door window

frame combination, the seat is to be

further adjusted to achieve the desired

clearance. The first specified adjustment

is to move the seatback forward a

maximum of five degrees. If this does

not result in sufficient clearance, the

seat itself is to be moved forward until

clearance is obtained or interference

occurs between the dummy’s knees and

the dashboard or knee bolster. If forward

adjustment of the seat does not produce

the desired clearance, the seat back is

adjusted again until clearance is

obtained or until the seat is in its full

upright locking position.

K. Selection of Options

NHTSA notes that, where a safety

standard provides manufacturers more

than one compliance option, the agency

needs to know which option has been

selected in order to conduct a

compliance test. The agency is aware

that a manufacturer confronted with an

apparent noncompliance for the option

it has selected (based on a compliance

test) may argue that its vehicles would

comply with a different option for

which the agency has not conducted a

compliance test. This could create

difficulties in assessing the vehicle’s

compliance.

To address this problem, the proposed

rule stated that manufacturers must

select a test option prior to, or at the

time of, certification. NHTSA did not

receive any comments on this proposed

provision. The final rule requires that

where manufacturer options are

specified, the manufacturer must select

the option by the time it certifies the

vehicle and may not thereafter select a

different option. This will mean that

failure to comply with the selected

option will constitute a noncompliance

with the standard regardless of whether

a vehicle complies with another option.

L. Effective Date

Volvo and BMW commented that the

final rule should be issued by March

1998 and become effective 30 days after

its issuance. VW commented that the

final rule should be issued as soon as

possible with an immediate effective

date. In the NPRM, the agency proposed

that the final rule become effective 30

days after publication to facilitate the

early introduction of dynamic systems

that may be in an advanced stage of

development or actually in production.

However, NHTSA notes that the

changes incorporated into the final rule

are intended to allow the introduction

of dynamic systems and more

conventional countermeasures needed

to meet the head impact protection

requirements. As the phase-in of the

head impact protection requirements

begins on September 1, 1998, the agency

notes that it is not legally necessary to

establish an earlier effective date in

order for manufacturers to take

advantage of the amendments made by

this final rule. Accordingly, the effective

date of the amendments is September 1,

1998. NHTSA is aware, however, that

production of vehicles with dynamic

systems began prior to the effective date

of the final rule and is allowing

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) as promulgated in the final rule.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this final rule under E.O. 12866 and the

Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rule was not reviewed under E.O.

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review’’ and is not considered

significant under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures.

The agency has prepared a Final

Regulatory Evaluation describing the

economic and other effects of this

rulemaking action. 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 final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that it will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. While the cost

of new passenger cars or light trucks

equipped with dynamically deployed

upper interior head protection systems

will be slightly increased by the

amendments, the rule establishes

optional test procedures which

manufacturers need only use in the

event they equip their vehicles with a

dynamically deployed head impact

protection system. Further, the

amendments primarily affect passenger

car and light truck manufacturers which

are not small entities under 5 U.S.C.

§ 605(b). The Small Business

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR

Part 121 define a small business, in part,

as a business entity ‘‘which operates

primarily within the United States.’’ (13

CFR § 121.105(a)). The agency estimates

that there are at most five small final

stage manufacturers of passenger cars in

the U.S. and no small manufacturers of

light trucks, producing a combined total

of at most 500 cars each year.

The primary effect of the final rule

will be on manufacturers of passenger

cars and LTVs. If LTVs are produced

with these systems some time in the

future and provided as incomplete

vehicles to final stage manufacturers,

which are generally small businesses,

these final stage manufacturers may

have to certify compliance. However, as

noted above, the amendments in this

final rule do not impose any additional

mandatory requirements that all

manufacturers or final stage

manufacturers must meet. Instead, these

amendments provide a means for

evaluating advanced dynamically

deployed upper interior head protection

systems where manufacturers choose to

install them.

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 will be used by a number

of final stage manufacturers, to reduce
41464 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

certification costs. Final stage

manufacturers may also avoid any

additional certification or compliance

costs by relying on the certification

provided by the manufacturer of the

incomplete vehicle.

Other entities which qualify as small

businesses, small organizations and

governmental units will be affected by

this rule to the extent that they purchase

passenger cars and LTVs. They will not

be significantly affected, since the

potential cost increases associated with

this action should only slightly affect

the purchase price of new motor

vehicles.

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 will 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 final rule 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 two 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 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.

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 is amended as follows:

PART 571.201—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 571

continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 571.201 is amended by

adding a definition of Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head

Protection System to S3, revising S6.1,

S6.2, S7, and S8.13.3 and by adding

S8.16 through S8.28 as follows:

§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant

protection in interior impact.

* * * * *

S3. Definitions.

* * * * *

Dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection system means a

protective device or devices which are

integrated into a vehicle and which,

when activated by an impact, provide,

through means requiring no action from

occupants, protection against head

impacts with upper 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,

to either S6.1(a) or S6.1(b). The

manufacturer shall select the option by

the time it certifies the vehicle and may

not thereafter select a different option

for the vehicle.

(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 upper interior

head protection system and tested under

the conditions of S8, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 at the

target locations specified in S10 as

follows:

(1) Targets that are not located over

any point inside the area measured

along the contour of the vehicle surface

within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the

periphery of the stowed system

projected perpendicularly onto the

vehicle interior surface, including

mounting and inflation components but

exclusive of any cover or covers, shall

be 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

targets that can not be located by using

the procedures of S10.

(2) Targets that are over any point

inside the area measured along the

contour of the vehicle interior within 50

mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery of the

stowed system projected

perpendicularly onto the vehicle

interior surface, including mounting

and inflation components but exclusive

of any cover or covers, when the

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection system is not deployed,

shall be impacted by the free motion

headform specified in S8.9 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.

(3) Each vehicle shall, when equipped

with a dummy test device specified in

part 572, subpart M, and tested as

specified in S8.16 through S8.28,

comply with the requirements specified

in S7 when crashed into a fixed, rigid

pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any

velocity up to and including 29

kilometers per hour (18 mph).

* * * * *

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,

to either S6.2(a) or S6.2(b). The

manufacturer shall select the option by

the time it certifies the vehicle and may

not thereafter select a different option

for the vehicle.

(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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41465

(b) When equipped with a

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection system and tested under

the conditions of S8, comply with the

requirements specified in S7 at the

target locations specified in S10 as

follows:

(1) Targets that are not located over

any point inside the area measured

along the contour of the vehicle surface

within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the

periphery of the stowed system

projected perpendicularly onto the

vehicle interior surface, including

mounting and inflation components but

exclusive of any cover or covers, shall

be 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

targets that cannot be located by using

the procedures of S10.

(2) Targets that are over any point

inside the area measured along the

contour of the vehicle interior within 50

mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery of the

stowed system projected

perpendicularly onto the vehicle

interior surface, including mounting

and inflation components but exclusive

of any cover or covers, when the

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection system is not deployed,

shall be impacted by the free motion

headform specified in S8.9 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 cannot be located using the

procedures of S10.

(3) Each vehicle shall, when equipped

with a dummy test device specified in

part 572, subpart M, and tested as

specified in S8.16 through S8.28,

comply with the requirements specified

in S7 when crashed into a fixed, rigid

pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any

velocity up to and including 29

kilometers per hour (18 mph).

* * * * *

S7 Performance Criterion. The

HIC(d) shall not exceed 1000 when

calculated in accordance with the

following formula:

HIC

t t

adt t t

t

t

= ( ) −















 ( ) − ∫ 1

2 1

2 5

2 1

1

2

.

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 part 572, subpart M,

anthropomorphic test dummy;

HIC(d)=HIC.

S8 Target location and test

conditions.

* * * * *

S8.13 Impact configuration.

* * * * *

S8.13.3 At the time of initial contact

between the headform and the vehicle

interior surface, some portion of the

forehead impact zone of the headform

must contact some portion of the target

circle.

* * * * *

S8.16 Test weight—vehicle to pole

test. Each vehicle shall be loaded to its

unloaded vehicle weight, plus 136

kilograms (300 pounds) or its rated

cargo and luggage capacity (whichever

is less), secured in the luggage or loadcarrying area, plus the weight of the

necessary anthropomorphic test

dummy. Any added test equipment

shall be 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

shall be centered over the longitudinal

centerline of the vehicle. The pretest

vehicle attitude shall be the same as

either the ‘‘as delivered’’ or ‘‘fully

loaded’’ attitude or is between the ‘‘as

delivered’’ attitude and the ‘‘fully

loaded’’ attitude. If the test

configuration requires that the vehicle

be elevated off the ground, the pretest

vehicle attitude must be maintained.

S8.18 Adjustable seats—vehicle to

pole test. Initially, adjustable seats shall

be adjusted as specified in S6.3 of

Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).

S8.19 Adjustable seat back

placement—vehicle to pole test.

Initially, position adjustable seat backs

in the manner specified in S6.4 of

Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214).

S8.20 Adjustable steering wheels—

vehicle to pole test. Adjustable steering

controls shall be 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 shall be placed in the fully

open position. Any sunroof shall 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 shall be in

the closed passenger compartment

configuration.

S8.23 Doors—vehicle to pole test.

Doors, including any rear hatchback or

tailgate, shall be 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

and a transverse vertical plane passing

through the center of gravity of the head

of the dummy seated in accordance with

S8.28, in the front outboard designated

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) above the lowest

point of the tires on the striking side of

the test vehicle when the vehicle is

loaded as specified in S8.16 and

extending above the highest point of the

roof of the test vehicle. The pole is 254

mm ±3 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 within

100 milliseconds of the initiation of

vehicle to pole contact.

S8.26 Impact configuration—vehicle

to pole test. The rigid pole shall be

stationary. The test vehicle shall be

propelled sideways so that its line of

forward motion forms an angle of 90

degrees (±3 degrees) with the vehicle’s

longitudinal center line. The impact

reference line shall be 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 shall

conform to the requirements of subpart

M of part 572 of this chapter (49 CFR

part 572, subpart M). In a test in which

the test vehicle is striking its left side,

the dummy is to be configured and

instrumented to strike on its left side, in

accordance with subpart M of part 572.
41466 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

In a test in which the test vehicle is

striking its right side, the dummy is to

be configured and instrumented to

strike its right side, in accordance with

subpart M of part 572.

S8.27.2 The 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 shall be 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 shall be at any temperature

between 20.6 degrees C. and 22.2

degrees C., and 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 practices set

forth in 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 part 572,

subpart M, test dummy shall be initially

positioned in the front outboard seating

position on the struck side of the

vehicle in accordance with the

provisions of S7 of Standard 214, 49

CFR 571.214, and the vehicle seat shall

be positioned as specified in S6.3 and

S6.4 of that standard. The position of

the dummy shall then be measured as

follows. Locate the horizontal plane

passing through the dummy head center

of gravity. Identify the rearmost point on

the dummy head in that plane.

Construct a line in the plane that

contains the rearward point of the front

door daylight opening and is

perpendicular to the longitudinal

vehicle centerline. Measure the

longitudinal distance between the

rearmost point on the dummy head and

this line. If this distance is less than 50

mm (2 inches) or the point is not

forward of the line, then the seat and/

or dummy positions shall be adjusted as

follows. First, the seat back angle is

adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until

a 50 mm (2 inches) distance is achieved.

If this is not sufficient to produce the 50

mm (2 inches) distance, the seat is

moved forward until the 50 mm (2

inches) distance is achieved or until the

knees of the dummy contact the

dashboard or knee bolster, whichever

comes first. If the required distance

cannot be achieved through movement

of the seat, the seat back angle shall be

adjusted even further forward until the

50mm (2 inches) distance is obtained or

until the seat back is in its full upright

locking position.

* * * * *

Issued on July 29, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–20700 Filed 7–30–98; 3:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3144]

RIN 2127–AG74

Side Impact Anthropomorphic Test

Dummy

AGENCY: NHTSA, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice establishes

specifications and qualification

requirements for a newly developed

anthropomorphic test dummy. The

dummy will be used in compliance

testing under amendments made to

Standard 201 ‘‘Occupant Protection in

Interior Impact’’ in a separate final rule

being published today. The upper

interior impact protection requirements

of Standard 201 are being amended to

facilitate the introduction of

dynamically deployed interior head

protection systems. Vehicles equipped

with those dynamic systems will be

permitted to comply with alternative

reduced requirements. As a condition of

being permitted to do so, however, the

vehicle must also meet a new dynamic

crash test that assesses the protection

offered by the dynamic systems. The

new dummy is used in conducting that

test.

DATES: The amendments are effective

September 1, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of the

material listed in this document is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of September 1, 1998.

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration

must be received by September 18,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the docket number of

this rule and be submitted 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:

Stan Backaitis, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, NPS–

11, telephone (202) 366–4912,

facsimile (202) 366–4329, electronic

mail ‘‘sbackaitis@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues:

Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief

Counsel, NCC–20, telephone (202)

366–5253, facsimile (202) 366–

3820, electronic mail

‘‘omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This final rule is issued in

conjunction with a final rule amending

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 201, Head Impact

Protection. The amendments to

Standard 201 facilitate the introduction

of dynamically deploying interior head

protection systems by permitting

vehicle manufacturers to comply with

alternative performance requirements.

To demonstrate compliance with those

requirements, those amendments

specify a dynamic crash test. Before the

test, an anthropomorphic test dummy is

placed in the outboard front seat on the

struck side of the test vehicle. The

vehicle is then propelled sideways at a

speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) into a 254

mm (10 inch) rigid pole. This final rule

establishes the specifications and

calibration requirements for that test

dummy.

The dummy specified in this notice is

based on two existing dummies, the Part

572, Subpart F anthropomorphic test

device (Side Impact Dummy or SID) that

is used in testing under FMVSS 214,

Side Impact Protection, and the Part

572, Subpart E anthropomorphic test

device (Hybrid III or HIII) that is used

in testing under FMVSS 208, Occupant

Crash Protection. The new dummy

combines the head and neck of the

Hybrid III (HIII) with the torso and

extremities of the Side Impact Dummy

(SID) through the use of a redesigned

neck bracket. The agency has concluded

that the resulting SID/HIII dummy is

appropriate for use in the new test.

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) published in the Federal

Register on December 6, 1997 (62 FR

64546), NHTSA outlined the

specifications for the proposed side

impact dummy. The NPRM contained,

or incorporated references to, (1) a