[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 46 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9136-9138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5292]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571 and 572
[Docket No. 92-28; Notice 6]
RIN 2127-AG07
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants four petitions to commence rulemaking to
amend upper interior head protection requirements to accommodate
vehicles equipped with a dynamic head protection device which is
activated in a side impact (e.g., a side air bag). This document
requests information on various issues NHTSA must evaluate before
issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking for these petitions.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments must refer to the docket and notice number set
forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to the Docket
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400
Seventh Street S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590:
For non-legal issues:
Dr. William Fan, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-14,
telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic mail
bfan@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
For legal issues:
Mary Versailles, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, telephone
(202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail
mversailles@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 18, 1995, NHTSA published a final
rule amending Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,
to require passenger cars, trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000
pounds to incorporate measures to prevent or reduce injury when a
vehicle occupant's head strikes upper interior components during a
crash. The covered components include pillars, side rails, headers, and
the roof. The amendments add procedures and performance requirements
for a new in-vehicle component test (60 FR 43031). The period for
submittal of petitions for reconsideration closed September 19, 1995.
NHTSA received nine petitions for reconsideration of the final
rule. Four of those petitions (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and
Volvo) asked for a variety of changes to the final rule if a vehicle is
equipped with a dynamic head protection countermeasure which is
activated in a crash (i.e., a side air bag, hereafter referred to as
dynamic systems). In addition, four manufacturers (BMW, Ford, Mercedes-
Benz, and Volvo) requested meetings with the agency to discuss the
impact of the final rule on dynamic systems. The petitions requested a
variety of changes to the rule, including:
A complete exclusion of any vehicle equipped with a
dynamic system,
An exclusion of targets protected by a dynamic system,
For targets protected by a dynamic system, a reduction of
the free motion headform (FMH) impact speed from 15 miles per hour
(mph) to 12 mph when tested without the dynamic system activated,
The inclusion of a dynamic test in the standard, and
Testing with the dynamic system activated.
Because these issues are outside the scope of the rulemaking that
led to the August 18 final rule, it is not a proper subject for a
petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the agency is treating the
Mercedes-Benz petition, and the related portions of the BMW, Volkswagen
and Volvo petitions as petitions for rulemaking, and is granting those
petitions. Before publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, the
agency wishes to conduct some evaluations. To assist the agency in
conducting these evaluations, this notice requests comments on the
issues identified above.
[[Page 9137]]
Performance Evaluation
Currently, Standard No. 201 requires that a vehicle's instrument
panel meet the Standard when impacted at a relative velocity of 15
miles per hour, with one exception. The exception is for vehicles that
meet the occupant protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208,
``Occupant Crash Protection,'' by means of an inflatable restraint.
Those vehicles need only meet the performance requirement when impacted
at a relative velocity of 12 miles per hour.
The agency notes that while this exception appears to be similar to
one of the changes requested by the petitions, there is an important
distinction. The existing exception is premised upon the existence of a
dynamic performance test that provides an objective evaluation of the
protection provided by the inflatable restraint. That test provides
assurance that the inflatable restraint provides protection that is a
suitable substitute for the protection otherwise afforded by the
Standard. However, the exception sought by the petitioners is not
necessarily premised on the existence of such a test for evaluating the
performance of dynamic systems. NHTSA believes that before it considers
any changes in the requirements of the August 18 final rule, it should
have a method of testing dynamic systems for a minimum level of
performance. Since such a method does not now exist, one must be
developed. Either there must be a single testing method appropriate for
evaluating the performance of the wide range of dynamic systems under
development, or there must be a variety of test methods that, together,
are sufficient for testing all systems and ensuring that they provide
equivalent protection.
NHTSA is aware of two categories of dynamic systems that are under
consideration by the manufacturers. The first category is dynamically
deployed padding. The dynamically deployed padding would provide
improved protection for head impacts with the upper interior components
already covered by the final rule. However, the dynamically deployed
padding is anticipated to provide protection in higher severity impacts
than that provided by the static padding which would otherwise be
utilized to meet the requirements of the final rule. The second
category includes dynamically deployed air bags or other inflatable
devices such as BMW's Inflatable Tubular Structure. This technology
provides head protection for impacts with various vehicle upper
interior components. It also potentially affords protection for side
impacts with external objects such as trees and poles or the front high
hooded areas of a colliding vehicle.
Since the dynamic systems may have the potential to provide
improved head protection beyond that provided by the final rule, the
agency is considering rulemaking to allow them. However, as noted
above, the agency believes that test procedures must be developed to
evaluate the dynamic systems in order to assure that the protection
afforded by the dynamic systems is a suitable substitute for that
provided by the final rule.
A number of test procedures have been suggested. These include:
Procedures for Dynamically Deployed Padding
For targets protected by dynamically deployed padding, impact the
targets with the FMH at 12 mph, prior to the deployment of the padding.
The targets would be located using the existing procedures. Impact
these same target locations again, this time at 20 mph, after
deployment of the padding. The higher speed for testing the deployed
padding is intended to assure that increased head protection is
provided by the advanced technology. (For an explanation of the 20 mph
test speed, see the questions below regarding benefits.) Conduct crash
tests at 15-20 mph to ensure that sensors activate the deployment of
the advanced padding under those conditions.
Procedures for Dynamically Deployed Air Bags and Other Inflatable
Devices
(1) For targets protected by an air bag or other inflatable device,
conduct FMH impacts at 12 mph. The advanced systems are not deployed
for these tests. All other targets are tested at 15 mph.
(2) Conduct a side impact crash test of the vehicle into a 250 mm
diameter rigid pole at 30 kph. The vertical centerline of the pole is
aligned with the center of gravity of the dummy's head. The dummy's
seat is positioned forward of the mid-seating location such that the
dummy's head is sufficiently within the front window opening that the
striking pole will not contact the B-pillar.
(3) Conduct a side impact crash test at 50 kph using the ISO 10997
moving deformable barrier (MDB) fitted with a rigid face whose top edge
is not less than 1250 mm above the ground. The dummy's seat is
positioned forward of the mid-seating location such that the dummy's
head is sufficiently within the front window opening that the striking
MDB can make direct head contact. The second and third test procedures
for the ``dynamically deployed air bags and other inflatable devices''
were presented by the U.S. delegation to the ISO/TC 22/SC 10/WG 3 in
its draft technical report, Document N100, ``Road Vehicles--Test
Procedures of Evaluating Various Occupant Interactions with Deploying
Side Impact Air Bags.''
To assist the agency in developing possible ways of evaluating
performance, the agency requests answers to the following questions:
1. What test procedures could be used to measure the performance of
a dynamic system?
2. What performance criteria would assure that advanced systems,
when deployed, provide protection equivalent to that provided by
countermeasures that meet the requirements of the final rule?
3. Are there other test methods appropriate for dynamic systems
using full scale crash tests and an anthropomorphic test device?
4. If the agency were to propose a lower impact speed for targets
protected by a dynamic system, are there components of the dynamic
system which are not protected by the system but which could not meet
the upper interior requirements at the current impact speed (15 mph)?
Benefits
The majority of dynamic systems known to NHTSA would offer occupant
protection only in side impacts. The final rule was intended to provide
head impact protection in frontal, side, and rollover crashes. Before
deciding whether to propose amendments to accommodate vehicles with
dynamic systems, NHTSA wishes to explore the nature and extent of any
tradeoffs. To do this, it must compare the benefits provided by these
dynamic systems with the benefits afforded by the final rule. Excluding
targets or reducing the impact speed for targets would reduce the
benefits for those targets in crashes which do not cause the dynamic
system to deploy. Conversely, the dynamic systems may offer increased
benefits when they do deploy. To assist the agency in evaluating the
relative benefits of possible proposals, the agency requests answers to
the following questions:
5. What effect would reducing test speeds have on injuries in non-
deployment crashes?
6. What is the effectiveness of each dynamic system in reducing
fatalities and injuries? What percent reduction in the various injury
criteria (e.g., HIC) would result if these technologies were installed?
Would this reduction vary by delta-V? If so, specify the relationship
[[Page 9138]]
between delta-V and injury criteria reduction for the specific system.
7. Could the dynamic systems cause increases in neck injuries? If
so, what data are available to quantify this impact? What criteria can
be used to determine whether lateral neck motion is increasing or
causing injury?
8. Some advanced technologies appear to offer potential reductions
in the likelihood of ejection. What would the effectiveness of dynamic
systems be in reducing ejection in side or other impact modes or in a
subsequent collision?
9. The dynamic systems known to NHTSA will deploy and protect the
near-side occupant in a side impact. Will the dynamic system for the
far-side occupant deploy in a side impact or in rollovers to protect
against possible rebound effects or subsequent collision?
10. Do MY 1996 vehicles meet 12 mph test requirements? Do any MY
1996 vehicles meet 15 mph test requirements?
11. Should an impact speed higher than 15 mph be used in FMH
testing of the system in order to compensate for the loss in benefits
because the system does not deploy in rollover and frontal crashes? If
so, is 20 mph an appropriate impact speed?
12. Are there existing accident data analyses concerning head
injuries as a function of crash modes and target components?
Miscellaneous Questions
To allow NHTSA to become better acquainted with the dynamic systems
under development, the agency requests answers to the following
questions:
13. Are dynamic systems compatible with the B-pillar mounted
shoulder anchorage point? Are integrated restraint seats (IRS), which
have shoulder belt anchorages attached to the upper backseat, more
compatible with the dynamic systems?
14. How much would the dynamic systems add to the price and weight
of the vehicle?
15. What are the performance criteria for the sensor system
designs? What is the time interval necessary for full deployment of the
dynamic system?
16. If changes were made to the August 18 final rule, what is the
anticipated time frame for introduction of dynamic systems? Are any
dynamic systems being introduced prior to the requirements of the
August 18 final rule?
17. Will the systems be introduced as optional or standard
equipment?
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Further, this action has been
determined to be ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures because of
anticipated public interest. Any anticipated rulemaking resulting from
this notice would provide manufacturers with an alternative to the
requirements in the August 18 final rule. A decision by a manufacturer
to avail itself of the alternative would entail use of technology
(i.e., dynamic systems) that may well be more costly than the padding
which could be used to comply with the final rule. The agency solicits
information from the manufacturers concerning those cost of those
dynamic systems.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this notice in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that it does
not have significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. It is requested
but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CAR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the
closing date will also be considered. Comments will be available for
inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine
the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)
Issued on March 1, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-5292 Filed 3-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
