[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45202-45216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22574]
[[Page 45202]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 92-28; Notice 8]
RIN 2127-AG07
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the upper interior impact
requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact, to permit, but not require, the introduction of dynamic head
protection systems currently being developed by vehicle manufacturers
to provide added lateral crash protection. Target points in those areas
of the upper interior occupied by these dynamic systems would be
allowed, with the systems undeployed, to meet slightly reduced
requirements. To ensure that these dynamic systems would enhance
safety, the proposal would add procedures and performance requirements
for testing the systems, while deployed, through in-vehicle component
tests or a combination of such in-vehicle tests and vehicle crash
testing.
DATES: Comment closing date: Comments on this notice must be received
by NHTSA no later than October 27, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Any comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590:
For non-legal issues: Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329,
electronic mail bfan@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-5253, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail
omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Safety Problem
II. Background
A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper Interior Impact Protection
B. Petitions for reconsideration
C. March 1996 ANPRM on dynamic head protection systems
D. Comments on ANPRM
III. Analysis of Comments
IV. Proposed Test Procedure
A. Option 2--FMH Impact into Deployed Dynamic System
1. Impact Speed
2. System Deployment
3. Target Angles
B. Option 3--Full Scale Side Impact into Fixed Pole
1. Impact Speed
2. Rigid Pole
3. Impact Angle
4. Propulsion System
5. Impact Point
6. SID/H3 Dummy
7. Biofidelity
8. Repeatability and Reproducibility
V. Performance Requirements
VI. Costs
VII. Benefits
VIII. Effective Date
IX. Risk of Injury
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. National Environmental Policy Act
D. Executive Order 12866 (Federalism)
XI. Submission of Comments
I. The Safety Problem
In an August 18, 1995 final rule (60 FR 43041) adding requirements
for upper interior impact protection to Standard No. 201, ``Occupant
Protection in Interior Impact,'' NHTSA estimated that even with air
bags installed in all cars and LTVs, head impacts with the pillars,
roof side rails, windshield header, and rear header would result in
1,591 annual passenger car occupant fatalities and 575 annual LTV
occupant fatalities. The agency also stated that it believed such head
impacts also result in nearly 13,600 moderate to critical (but non-
fatal) passenger car occupant injuries (MAIS 2 or greater), and more
than 5,200 serious LTV occupant injuries. (The AIS or Abbreviated
Injury Scale is used to rank injuries by level of severity. An AIS 1
injury is a minor one, while an AIS 6 injury is one that is currently
untreatable and fatal. The Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale or MAIS is
the maximum injury per occupant.)
Manufacturers may choose the means that they use to meet the
requirements of the August 18, 1995 final rule. One method of
compliance is through the installation of static energy absorbing
materials like padding, which will reduce the number and severity of
these injuries. In that final rule, the agency estimated that the new
requirements would prevent 675 to 768 AIS 2-5 head injuries and 873 to
1,045 fatalities. The development of dynamic head protection systems
offers the potential for additional injury reduction.
II. Background
A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper Interior Impact Protection
The August 1995 final rule issued by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended Standard No. 201 to require
passenger cars, and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles
(collectively, passenger cars and LTVs) with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, to provide protection when an
occupant's head strikes upper interior components, including pillars,
side rails, headers, and the roof, during a crash. This final rule,
which requires compliance beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly
expands the scope of Standard 201. Previously, the standard applied
only to the portion of the vehicle interior in front of the front seat
occupants. The amendments added procedures and performance requirements
for a new in-vehicle component test.
B. Petitions for Reconsideration
The agency received nine timely petitions for reconsideration of
the final rule. The issues raised by the petitions can be divided into
five categories--(1) application of the new requirements to dynamic
head protection systems, (2) influence of systems variables, (3) lead
time and phase-in, (4) exclusion of certain vehicles, and (5) test
procedure.
Insofar as the petitions addressed the last four categories of
issues, NHTSA responded by issuing amendments to the August 18, 1995
final rule in a notice dated April 7, 1997 (62 FR 16718). In the April
7, 1997 notice, NHTSA modified the final rule to exclude certain
vehicles from the requirements of Standard 201, changed the phase-in
requirements by providing manufacturers with the option of complying
with an additional schedule for meeting the requirements of the
standard and amended other sections of the standard to address concerns
about test procedures.
Since the first category of issues, dynamic head protection
systems, was outside the scope of the rulemaking that led to the August
18 final rule, the agency considered it not a proper
[[Page 45203]]
subject for a petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the agency
announced that it was treating the requests relating to these issues as
petitions for rulemaking, and was granting those petitions.
C. March 7, 1996 ANPRM on Dynamic Head Protection Systems
On March 7, 1996, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) to assist the agency in evaluating the issues raised
by dynamic head protection systems (61 FR 9136). In the ANPRM, the
agency noted that the only existing accommodation in Standard 201 of
vehicles equipped with dynamic restraint systems is a provision
concerning vehicles with frontal automatic protection systems meeting
S5.1 of Standard No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection.'' The head
impact area on instrument panels need only meet the performance
requirements of Standard 201 when impacted at a relative velocity of 19
kilometers per hour (km/h) (12 mph) rather than the 24 km/h (15 mph)
requirement imposed on vehicles not meeting S5.1 of Standard 208. This
exception to the 24 km/h (15 mph) requirement is premised on the
agency's belief that the tests contained in Standard 208 for dynamic
systems provided adequate assurance that these systems perform well
enough to protect occupants in the event of a crash.
However, the dynamic systems described in the petitions for
reconsideration are intended to supplement other dynamic restraints and
protect the heads of occupants in side impacts and rollovers. They are
not used to comply with the frontal protection requirements of S5.1 of
Standard 208. Neither Standard 208 nor any other Standard contained
comparable requirements for side impact protection systems intended to
provide head protection to occupants. Thus, there was no readily
available way of providing for the testing of these systems or
providing adequate assurance that they would yield sufficient safety
benefits to justify a similar reduction in the relative impact velocity
of 24 km/h (15 mph) afforded for vehicles with dynamic systems
providing protection in frontal impacts.
The agency noted that two categories of dynamic systems were then
under consideration by manufacturers--dynamically deployed padding and
dynamically deployed air bags or other inflatable devices. NHTSA stated
that both of these systems potentially provided greater protection to
occupants than design features likely to be used in meeting the
requirements contained in the August 18, 1995 final rule. Accordingly,
the agency suggested the possibility of developing test procedures to
assure that the protection afforded by the systems is a suitable
substitute for the protection provided by that final rule. The ANPRM
suggested that dynamically deployed padding and dynamically deployed
inflatable devices be subjected to different tests. In the case of
dynamically deployed padding, the agency suggested that existing
targets specified in the final rule protected by the dynamic system be
impacted at 19 km/h (12 mph) prior to the deployment of the padding and
then be impacted at 32 km/h (20 mph) with the padding deployed. This
test would accommodate the limitations of dynamic padding systems in
their undeployed state while providing assurance that deployed padding
provided additional protection to occupants. In the case of inflatable
devices, the ANPRM discussed the possibility that the agency might
propose subjecting vehicles equipped with these systems to 19 kilometer
per hour (12 mph) impacts at all points covered by the inflatable
device with the device in its undeployed state. The performance of the
device as deployed would be tested in a side impact test into a fixed
rigid pole at 30 km/h (18.6 miles per hour) or a side impact with a
moving deformable barrier at 50 km/h (31 miles per hour). The ANPRM
also requested responses to 17 questions relating to the design,
performance, evaluation and testing of dynamic head protection systems.
D. Comments on the ANPRM
The agency received a total of ten comments on the ANPRM. Five
automobile manufacturers (Ford, Volvo, BMW, VW, and Mercedes), one
restraint system supplier (Autoliv), three safety organizations
(Automotive Occupant Restraint Council (AORC), Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS), and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(AHAS)), and one manufacturers' association (American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA), submitted comments in response to the
ANPRM. The comments received from Volvo and Ford indicated that these
commenters did not support the adoption of mandatory full scale crash
tests for dynamic systems. Ford indicated its belief that existing
tests incorporated in Standards 201 and 214 were adequate for measuring
the performance of dynamic systems. Additional testing, in Ford's view,
would be redundant and unduly burdensome. Volvo contended that full
scale crash testing would impose a greater testing burden on cars
arguably equipped with safer systems and questioned the fairness of
this burden. Volvo also objected to full scale testing as such testing,
if restricted to one test configuration, would not be useful in
evaluating head impacts that may occur throughout the vehicle. The use
of a single test configuration, Volvo argued, would also lead to the
development of systems geared to provide optimum protection in specific
areas of a vehicle rather than throughout the interior of the car.
Volvo and Autoliv recommended the combination of a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH
impact test prior to system deployment and a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH
impact test with the system fully deployed. Autoliv indicated that
dynamic systems would deploy in crashes resulting in head speeds above
19 km/h (12 mph) and that the protection these systems provide would be
adequate at 24 km/h (15 mph). Autoliv further submitted that the
systems would offer significant collateral benefits such as ejection
mitigation, protection against intrusion and protection against impacts
with windows. Volvo indicated that a 24 km/h (15 mph) impact was
appropriate as it was similar to the requirements for other head injury
mitigating measures. Mercedes and Volkswagen indicated that dynamic
systems be tested only at a 24 km/h (15 mph) impact speed. In
Volkswagen's view, testing at this speed in conjunction with a
requirement that the dynamic system stay inflated for a time period
sufficient to assure protection against subsequent crash induced
impacts would be sufficient to ensure that the systems provided
adequate protection. Mercedes supported the use of a single 24 km/h (15
mph) impact into a deployed system as there would be no loss of
benefits compared to static systems and greater collateral benefits in
the form of ejection mitigation and protection from impacts with wider
areas of the interior. However, BMW supported the 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH
impact tests in combination with a 29 km/h (18 mph) side crash test
into a fixed, rigid pole. Of the comments received from associations
and safety organizations, those from the AAMA indicated that AAMA did
not favor a mandatory full scale test requirement. AAMA indicated its
belief that testing conducted pursuant to Standard 214 was sufficient
to evaluate the ability of a vehicle to protect occupants in a side
impact. AORC, IIHS and AHAS did not oppose the use of full scale crash
testing, but raised concerns about reducing the existing requirements
of Standard 201 to accommodate dynamic systems. The
[[Page 45204]]
comments received by NHTSA are summarized below.
BMW indicated that the agency should specify multiple test
procedures for gauging compliance with Standard 201 in order to give
manufacturers flexibility to offer a variety of head protection systems
in their product lines. The company also suggested that dynamic systems
be tested in the undeployed condition with 19 kilometer per hour (12
mph) FMH impacts into the A-pillar, certain points on the B-pillar and
roof rails. In conjunction with FMH testing at 19 km/h (12 mph), BMW
supported testing of dynamic systems with a full scale side impact test
consisting of a 29 km/h (18 mph) side impact into a fixed pole using a
EuroSid dummy. BMW provided test data generated from its development of
the Inflatable Tubular System (ITS) indicating that the suggested pole
test generated, in the absence of countermeasures, HIC scores above
2000. Based on its testing, BMW stated that such a dynamic test would
establish the performance of dynamic systems and assure that these
systems offered sufficient safety benefits to justify use of lower
impact speeds when testing them in their undeployed condition.
BMW's suggested test specifies that all targets on the A/B-pillars
(except BP4) and side rails (including SR3 on the rear side rail) be
tested with a FMH impact of 19 km/h (12 mph) in conjunction with the
full scale pole test. BMW indicated that its system would provide head
protection for all of these points except for SR3. BMW indicated that
SR3 should be tested at 19 km/h (12 mph) even though it is not
protected by the ITS as it believed that padding thickness along the
side rails should remain constant. In regard to the remaining points
that would be protected by ITS, BMW indicated that limitations imposed
by dynamic systems forbid padding the entire side rail to meet the
existing 24 km/h (15 mph) requirement.
Ford indicated its belief that the existing requirements of
Standard 201 and Standard No. 214 ``Side Impact Protection'', already
provide a means of evaluating the performance of advanced dynamic
systems and, therefore, any additional tests are not necessary.
However, Ford would not object to the ANPRM's suggestion for adjusting
the FMH impact speed from 24 km/h (15 mph) to 19 km/h (12 mph) for
vehicles that provide a lap-shoulder belt and a side impact head (or
head/chest) supplemental air bag for each front outboard occupant.
Mercedes indicated its support for revisions to Standard 201 to
accommodate dynamic systems. The company indicated its belief that
inflatable dynamic systems presented the best means to meet the
requirements of the Standard with existing technology. Mercedes further
stated that it was developing such a system and recommended a test
procedure with a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact into a fully deployed
system for those targets protected by the inflatable device. The
comments submitted by Mercedes also stated that dynamic systems should
be tested to ensure that they are fully deployed within 30 ms after
triggering. Mercedes indicated that the design it was considering
offered superior protection against hazards other than impacts with the
interior points specified in Standard 201. Because of this superior
performance, Mercedes contended that revisions to the standard
requiring a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact into a deployed dynamic device
are more than sufficient to ensure that the goals of Standard 201 are
achieved.
Volkswagen recommended that dynamic systems be tested only in the
deployed mode through a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact. Volkswagen also
indicated its belief that system deployment should be tested through
use of a rollover simulation identical to that contained in S5.3 of
Standard 208 and a lateral or side impact as specified in S6.3 of
Standard 301. In its comments, Volkswagen stated that to protect
occupants adequately, a dynamic system should remain inflated for a
period of time sufficient to represent foreseeable crash events.
Testing in this manner, according to Volkswagen, would eliminate the
need to test those areas protected by a dynamic system at a lower
impact speed with the system undeployed. In Volkswagen's view, if a
dynamic system remains deployed for a sufficient period of time to
protect occupants against foreseeable impacts and a combination of
rollover and lateral/side impact tests provide assurances that the
system will deploy, testing in an undeployed mode is not required. In
addition, Volkswagen indicated that if a dynamic system is tested
through a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact alone, testing at higher impact
speeds is not necessary as the inflated dynamic system would then meet
the performance criteria established for Standard 201 in the August 18,
1995 final rule.
Volvo's comments indicated the company's belief that dynamic
systems would be used to provide occupant protection beyond the levels
specified in Standard 201. In Volvo's view, these systems would require
unyielding components in areas covered by Standard 201, making the
dynamic systems and the existing requirements incompatible. To
accommodate dynamic systems, Volvo suggested that dynamic systems be
subject to a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact test for affected targets with
the system inactivated, a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact test into the
activated system and a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact test for all targets
not protected by the system. Volvo stated its opposition to full scale
dynamic testing for compliance with Standard 201. In Volvo's view, the
use of one specific test configuration would place undue emphasis on
those areas likely to be involved in that single test rather than the
wide number of targets specified in the standard. Volvo believes that
adopting a single full scale dynamic test would provide an unfair
advantage to vehicles with dynamic systems in that they would only be
tested in one crash mode.
Autoliv stated that dynamic systems would offer benefits that could
not be evaluated by the existing tests contained in Standard 201.
However, Autoliv commented that the FMH test is a sufficient means for
assessing the performance of dynamic systems and supported a test
procedure in which a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact is conducted against
those points covered by an undeployed system with a 24 km/h (15 mph)
FMH impact against a deployed system. Autoliv stated that such a test
procedure should be sufficient to meet the goals of Standard 201 and
that other testing at higher impact speeds would not necessarily gauge
the safety benefits of dynamic systems in the variety of crash modes in
which the systems would offer safety benefits.
AAMA indicated that it believed that the existing Standard 201
requirements were adequate to gauge the performance of dynamic systems
and opposed additional full scale testing. AAMA believes that such
testing would be burdensome and would not produce any safety benefits
particularly in light of its view that, in conjunction with Standard
No. 214, ``Side Impact Protection,'' Standard 201 provided for adequate
protection of occupants in side impacts without the requirement of
further tests. Proper testing of dynamic systems, in AAMA's view, could
be accomplished through a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact into a deployed
system. AAMA also stated that testing at impact speeds above 24 km/h
(15 mph) would be unjustified and stated its position that the
challenges involved in designing
[[Page 45205]]
components to meet the 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact test are formidable.
AORC also indicated that the agency should consider the existing
requirements of Standard 214 and the side impact benefits that will
result from that standard when contemplating changes to Standard 201.
Due to its belief that dynamic designs intended to accommodate Standard
214 would result in additional occupant head protection, AORC indicated
that it did not believe additional full scale testing was required.
Instead, AORC supports testing dynamic head protection systems as
follows: for those points protected when the system is deployed, the
points would be impacted by the FMH at 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system
undeployed; and for those points unprotected when the system is
deployed, the points would be impacted by the FMH at 24 km/h (15 mph).
In the event that NHTSA adopted full scale tests, AORC stated that it
would seem reasonable that the MDB height should be raised to address
head protection problems if a side impact test with the barrier was
employed. However, due to the severity of the pole test proposed in the
ANPRM, AORC did not consider that the side-to-pole crash test is an
appropriate tool for evaluating compliance of FMVSS No. 201.
IIHS indicated that its preeminent concern was that Standard 201 be
amended to accommodate dynamic systems as soon as possible in order
that the safety benefits of the systems be made available to the
public. IIHS agreed with the suggestions set forth in the ANPRM and
further cautioned the agency to consider all instances where compliance
with Standard 201 could preclude the availability of the benefits
offered by dynamic systems. In particular, IIHS stated that some
dynamic systems may have difficulty meeting the requirements of
Standard 201 at certain impact points both before and after deployment.
In the view of IIHS, the inability to meet these criteria at these
impact points should not stand as a barrier to their development and
use due to the dramatic increase in protection such systems will offer
in a variety of crash modes.
AHAS stated that it believed that dynamic systems offered great
potential increases in occupant protection. However, in AHAS's view,
the purported benefits of such systems should be gauged by testing at
higher impact speeds. Accordingly, AHAS suggested that for dynamic
systems appropriate target points should be tested for compliance at an
impact speed of 32 km/h (20 mph). AHAS expressed concern that lowering
impact speeds or excluding certain areas from testing when dynamic
systems are employed could seriously erode the overall benefits offered
by Standard 201. AHAS stated that the agency should establish separate
but complementary standards for dynamic systems that would require them
to meet the existing requirements of Standard 201 in the undeployed
mode and greater requirements in the case of a deployed system. AHAS
believes that such testing would avoid potential pitfalls in accepting
lower impact speeds as a means of accommodating dynamic systems.
III. Analysis of Comments
The agency's review of the comments submitted by manufacturers and
other interested groups revealed several areas of concern. AAMA, AORC,
Ford and Volvo all voiced an opposition to the use of mandatory full
scale crash tests. AHAS indicated its opposition to the abandonment or
revision of existing Free Motion Headform (FMH) impact testing of
vehicles that are equipped with a dynamic system. AAMA, AORC, Volvo,
VW, Mercedes and Autoliv all argued that any proposed test specifying
FMH impacts above 24 km/h (15 mph) would be impracticable, while AHAS
stated that FMH impacts into deployed systems should be conducted at 32
km/h (20 mph). BMW supported the use of a full scale test with a 29 km/
h (18 mph) side impact into a fixed pole. Volvo stated that such a full
scale test would not adequately assess the performance of dynamic
systems because of the limited area of impact.
AAMA indicated that any additional mandated full scale testing
beyond FMVSS No. 214 would be unwarranted and unproductive since the
existing tests specified in Standard 214 were sufficient to gauge
performance in a side impact. AAMA's comments also stated that
additional mandatory tests were unnecessary as its member companies did
not consider dynamic head protection systems to be incompatible with
the August 18, 1995 final rule. Ford commented that the present
requirements of FMVSS Nos. 201 and 214 already provide a means of
evaluating the performance of dynamic systems and, therefore,
additional tests are not necessary. Volvo would not support the
inclusion of any full scale dynamic tests because a specific test
configuration will be of limited use in evaluating head impacts that
occur in a wide range of vehicle upper interior. AORC supported the
continuous review and refinement of FMVSS No. 214 combined with the use
of SID dummy with the Hybrid III head/neck system as a means of
measuring head injury potential.
The March 7, 1996 ANPRM sought comment on two alternatives to the
upper interior impact protection requirements established in the August
1995 final rule. The first alternative, which the ANPRM indicated would
be applicable to dynamically deployed padding, consisted of a 19 km/h
(12 mph) FMH test prior to the deployment of the dynamic system and a
32 km/h (20 mph) FMH test after the deployment of the device. The
second alternative, which the ANPRM indicated was intended for use in
evaluating dynamically deployed air bags, consisted of a 19 km/h (12
mph) FMH test prior to the system deployment and a full scale side
crash test employing either a 30 km/h (18.6 mph) rigid pole or a 50 km/
h (31 mph) moving barrier test. In suggesting these alternatives, NHTSA
intended that a manufacturer would have three choices, compliance with
the requirements established in August 1995 or with one of the two
alternatives. No consideration was given to the possibility of
subjecting all vehicles, regardless of the presence or absence of
dynamic side impact systems, to additional mandatory testing.
In response to concerns raised by AAMA and Ford that additional
crash testing would be redundant in light of the existing tests
specified in Standard 214, the agency notes that while FMVSS No. 214's
dynamic side crash test is excellent for evaluating the reduction of
chest injury potential, it is not appropriate for assessing the head
injury potential of upper interior components because the dummy's head
would not, except for some rare cases, strike any vehicle interior
components. In view of this, NHTSA disagrees with AAMA's and Ford's
contention that FMVSS No. 214's dynamic side impact test requirements
are adequate to evaluate the head protection offered by a dynamically
deployed system.
Similarly, the agency also rejects AORC's suggestion that FMVSS No.
214 be upgraded to include head injury criterion. NHTSA believes that
extensive modifications of FMVSS No. 214 would be required to
incorporate the head injury criterion into the standard. Time
constraints preclude an upgrade of Standard 214 at this time. Moreover,
the agency believes that unless substantial changes were made to
Standard 214, including modification of the MDB to ensure impact with
the dummies' heads, the standard's test procedures are not appropriate
for evaluating dummy HIC and occupant head protection. However, for
reasons
[[Page 45206]]
explained below, the agency agrees with AORC's suggestion that the SID
dummy with the Hybrid III head/neck is appropriate for assessing the
protection provided by dynamically deployed systems in lateral impacts.
Accordingly, NHTSA has developed a new test dummy combining the head
and neck of the Hybrid III with the SID torso. The agency is preparing
an NPRM to amend Part 572 to add a new subpart--subpart M--which will
contain the specifications for this new dummy.
AHAS strongly opposed a complete exclusion of vehicles equipped
with a dynamic system and an exclusion of targets arguably protected by
dynamic systems. The agency notes that it did not propose either of
these alternatives in the ANPRM and agrees that exclusion of vehicles
equipped with a dynamic system from Standard 201 is not an acceptable
option. However, the agency does not agree with AHAS's suggestion that
dynamic systems be tested through a 32 km/h (20 mph) FMH impact into a
deployed system. As noted below, the agency tentatively concludes that
a 29 km/h (18 mph) FMH impact test would provide adequate protection to
occupants.
NHTSA also does not agree with those commenters who indicated that
testing of deployed systems be limited to FMH impacts of 24 km/h (15
mph). NHTSA believes that dynamic systems are not likely to deploy in
all crash modes nor to achieve a 100 percent deployment rate in one
crash mode. If FMH impact speeds were limited to 24 km/h (15 mph) into
a deployed system and 19 km/h (12 mph) into an undeployed system, a
vehicle equipped with a dynamic system would offer 24 km/h (15 mph)
head protection in certain crashes and 19 km/h (12 mph) head protection
in other crashes, depending on the sensor design. In comparison with
vehicles with traditional countermeasures providing 24 km/h (15 mph)
head protection in all crash scenarios, vehicles with advanced dynamic
systems would not provide 24 km/h (15 mph) head protection in all the
same scenarios. The result would be a net reduction in safety. This
would defeat the purpose of amending Standard 201 to facilitate the
efforts of manufacturers to install advanced dynamic systems.
The March 7, 1996 ANPRM suggested two full scale crash tests for
evaluating head protection by dynamic systems: (1) a 30 km/h (18.6 mph)
side crash test into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 millimeters (10 inches)
in diameter (in combination with 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH tests prior to
system deployment) and (2) a 50 km/h (31 mph) side impact test using
the International Standard Organization (ISO) 10997 MDB fitted with a
rigid surface (in combination with 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH tests prior to
system deployment). AAMA and its member companies, apparently
mistakenly believing that the ANPRM contemplated that full scale
testing would be mandatory for all vehicles, opposed the use of either
test and stated that no other full scale tests should be employed.
Volvo also did not support inclusion of full scale dynamic tests in
amended Standard 201. BMW supported alternative tests using a 19 km/h
(12 mph) FMH impact into an undeployed system with certain points
exempted in combination with a 29 km/h (18 mph) side impact into a
fixed, rigid pole 254 millimeters (10 inches) in diameter. A EuroSid
dummy or a SID dummy with a Hybrid III head and neck could be used in
this test, with an upper limit of a HIC less than or equal to 1000.
Under the test suggested by BMW, system deployment would be tested at a
FMVSS No. 214 equivalent barrier speed of 24 km/h (15 mph).
As noted above, NHTSA believes that AAMA and its member companies
misunderstood the intent of the test procedures discussed in the ANPRM.
The two alternative tests outlined in the ANPRM were intended to be
optional not mandatory. In demonstrating FMVSS No. 201 compliance for
vehicles equipped with a dynamically deployed inflatable device, a
manufacturer could choose, at its own option, to comply with either the
standard 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact tests or with one of the two
alternative tests outlined in the ANPRM.
Volvo opposed inclusion of any full scale crash tests. It argued
that a specific test configuration would be of limited use in
evaluating head impacts that occur in a wide range of vehicle
interiors. While the agency acknowledges that employing the rigid pole
test by itself would leave many areas of the vehicle untested at the
higher impact speed, NHTSA has conducted a safety benefit analysis and
concluded that a dynamic system that complies with the ANPRM proposed
29 km/h (18 mph) side-to-pole test would further reduce head injuries
beyond the level attained by designs solely meeting the requirements of
the August 18, 1995 final rule. NHTSA believes it is appropriate to
propose the 29 km/h (18 mph) side-to-pole test allowing flexibility in
the test procedure so that manufacturers may install, as they wish, an
advanced head protection system in their vehicles.
NHTSA concurs in BMW's suggestion that a test involving a 29 km/h
(18 mph) side impact of a moving vehicle into a rigid pole is
appropriate for measuring the performance of certain dynamic systems.
The pole test is relatively severe and, in the absence of
countermeasures, results in HIC scores well above 1000. The test is
also well suited to evaluate those systems that, because of the manner
in which they deploy, would not be in a position to attenuate impacts
occurring through the use of the FMH but would still provide protection
to the heads of occupants in crashes.
However, the agency believes that the combination of SID with
Hybrid III head/neck is a better dummy test device than the EuroSid
dummy because of its higher biofidelity rating. The Hybrid III head and
neck are used in the BioSID dummy, whose biofidelity was compared with
the Eurosid and the SID by two GM researchers (Mertz and Irwin) in
1990. Using an ISO scale for determining biofidelity, these researchers
determined that the biofidelity for the Hybrid III head was within the
numeric range equivalent to ``good'' and the neck was ``fair.'' The
EuroSid head and neck were found to have scored lower and were rated as
``marginal.''
IV. Proposed Test Procedure
After considering the comments on the ANPRM and other available
information, NHTSA has decided to propose amendments to Standard 201's
test procedure to allow manufacturers greater flexibility in offering
dynamic systems to provide interior impact protection. Given the
characteristics of these systems, which include the use of relatively
stiff and hard components in areas including target points specified in
the test procedure contained in the August 18, 1995 final rule, the
agency has decided to propose modifications to the Standard and its
test procedures so that manufacturers may, at their option, choose one
of three test procedures to demonstrate compliance with this Standard.
The first option, hereinafter referred to as option 1, which may be
most suitable for vehicles without dynamic systems or systems that
deploy from seat backs or door panels, is to perform FMH impacts at 24
km/h (15 mph) at all test points and target angles now specified in the
August 1995 final rule. The second and third options, hereinafter
referred to as options 2 and 3, respectively, are intended to
accommodate dynamically deployed systems by employing FMH testing at a
reduced impact speed at those points located directly over a stowed
dynamic system and its inflation and attachment hardware. However, to
ensure that these
[[Page 45207]]
systems offer safety benefits in the deployed mode commensurate with
the reduced protection provided in the undeployed mode, both options
specify testing of the deployed system at impact speeds above 24 km/h
(15 mph).
Based on information contained in the comments received in response
to the ANPRM and other data, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that
padding and other passive countermeasures required to meet the existing
Standard 201 requirements are incompatible with dynamic systems. Such
dynamic systems are likely to employ either air bags, inflatable
padding or other designs that remain covered inside the trim of B-
Pillars, side rails or other structures until activated by a crash.
Once activated, the systems will be inflated either by compressed gas
or a pyrotechnic device and must deploy rapidly without interference
from padding or other soft structures. These devices may also require
relatively stiff components in their anchorages and inflation systems
and may be relatively inflexible as stored. As such, the
characteristics of these devices make compliance with the existing
Standard 201 requirements difficult.
The impact of padding on air bag deployments was previously
considered by NHTSA in a prior rulemaking in which the head impact
protection requirements for instrument panels were amended to reduce
the impact speed of test headforms from 24 km/h (15 mph) to 19 km/h (12
mph) in air bag equipped cars. In the July 18, 1990 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing this change, (55 FR 29238), the agency noted that
optimal deployment of top mounted air bag systems required that the air
bag should not be located more than one inch below the top of the
instrument panel while compliance with the 24 km/h (15 mph) head impact
test mandated the use of energy absorbing material that was
approximately two inches thick (55 FR 29239). In order to encourage the
greater use of frontal air bags and obtain a net safety benefit, NHTSA
issued a final rule on June 6, 1991 (56 FR 26036) reducing the impact
speed requirements for air bag equipped cars.
In regard to the present rulemaking, comments received from Volvo
and BMW indicated that meeting the 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact
requirement set forth in the August 18, 1995 final rule would require
the use of energy absorbing material at least one inch thick. In the
view of these commenters, as well as Mercedes, employing padding
sufficiently thick to meet the 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact requirement
would preclude the use of inflatable systems or severely limit their
effectiveness. The use of padding, in BMW's view, raises particular
concerns in inflatable systems that deploy from the roof rails because
such systems cannot deploy through one inch of padding. The agency
agrees that compliance with the 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact requirement
through the use of padding alone may require padding as thick as one
inch and that padding this thick may interfere with the deployment of
dynamic systems.
The agency has tentatively concluded that while the design and
performance requirements of these systems may preclude compliance with
Standard 201 at an impact speed of 24 km/h (15 mph), they may be
designed to provide adequate protection against impact in the
undeployed mode at an impact speed of 19 km/h (12 mph). NHTSA estimates
that where padding would be required to provide adequate protection in
a 19 km/h (12 mph) impact would not be thicker than one-half inch. The
agency calculates that this impact speed would accommodate development
of dynamic systems because the 19 km/h (12 mph) impact would not place
a significant additional burden in terms of padding or other measures.
An analysis of the effect of different padding thicknesses on existing
passenger cars and LTVs contained in the agency's June 1995 Final
Economic Assessment (FEA), FMVSS No. 201, Upper Interior Head
Protection, determined that all of the sampled passenger cars and LTVs
could meet the 19 km/h (12 mph) impact speed with one-half inch of
additional padding on the A-pillars, side rails and B-pillars. As the
vehicles examined by the agency and designed prior to the August 1995
amendments to Standard 201 would require additional padding of a half
inch or less to provide adequate protection in a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH
impact, NHTSA believes that the 19 km/h (12 mph) impact speed would not
present obstacles to the development and employment of dynamic systems.
One procedure, option 2, would use the existing FMH to simulate an
occupant's head striking the interior of the vehicle in a crash. In
this test, the headform would be propelled into specified targets
within the vehicle at differing impact speeds. For those points that
are not directly over a dynamic system or its attachment or inflation
hardware, the specified impact speed would be 24 km/h (15 mph). For
points directly over an undeployed dynamic system (including attachment
points and inflation mechanisms), the headform would be propelled at
the target at 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system in the undeployed mode
and 29 km/h (18 mph) with the system deployed. In order to assure
deployment of the system, the triggering mechanism would be tested
through use of the lateral crash test contained in S6.12 of Standard
214. The agency is proposing that once triggered, the system would have
to reach full deployment in 30 milliseconds (ms) or less.
The other optional test procedure now being proposed, option 3,
employs a full scale side impact at 29 km/h (18 mph) into a fixed pole.
In this test, any test points or targets inside the vehicle that do not
intersect with a line oriented along any of the approach angles
described in S8.13.4 and passing through an undeployed dynamic system
or any of its components (excluding trim) would be subjected to a 24
km/h (15 mph) FMH impact at the target angles and conditions now
contained in the Standard. For those targets that intersect with a line
oriented along any of the approach angles described in S8.13.4 and
passing through an undeployed dynamic system or any of its components
(excluding trim), FMH impacts at a speed of 19 km/h (12 mph) would be
employed to test the system in its undeployed condition. To test the
effectiveness of the dynamic system in the deployed mode, a full scale
29 km/h (18 mph) side impact into a fixed rigid pole would be used. The
point of impact would be aligned with the center of gravity of the head
of a dummy seated in a designated front outboard seating position on
the struck side. Initially, the seat would be positioned as directed in
S6.3 and S6.4 of Standard 214 and the dummy located as directed in S7
of Standard 214. If this positions the dummy such that the point at the
intersection of the rear surface of its head and a horizontal line
parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle passing through
the head's center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2 inches) forward of
the front edge of the B-pillar at that same horizontal location, then
the dummy is tested in this position. If not, the seat back angle is to
be adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until the 50 mm (2 inches) B-
pillar clearance is achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the
desired clearance, the seat is to be moved forward to achieve that
result. The agency recognizes that these modifications to the Standard
214 seating procedure will likely make it necessary to adjust other
specifications of that procedure, such as the allowable pelvic angle
range, the target H-point location, and lower extremity positions.
[[Page 45208]]
The agency asks for comments regarding seating procedure issues.
This pole test is nearly identical to the proposed ISO test
procedure found in the ISO/TC22/SC10/WG3 draft ISO Technical Report
Road Vehicles, Test Procedure for Evaluating Various Occupant
Interactions with Deploying Side Impact Air Bags (February 9, 1995).
The seating procedure for the pole test was designed to adhere to the
extent possible to the proposed ISO test procedure which states to
``Seat the dummy so that its head is sufficiently within the front
window opening that the striking pole is unlikely to contact the A- or
B-pillar''. NHTSA notes that use of this test furthers the goal of
international harmonization of standards and test procedures.
In order to accurately gauge the performance of the system in
protecting the head, neck and torso, the test dummy would be a SID
dummy modified to accept the Hybrid III head and neck. As is the case
with the first and second options, the HIC value would not exceed 1000.
In the proposed test, the one dummy would be placed in the front
outboard seat of the struck side of the vehicle. However, the agency is
continuing to consider the use of a second dummy in the rear outboard
seating position of the struck side.
The March 7, 1996 ANPRM contained a suggestion that dynamically
deployed devices be tested by the use of a side impact test employing a
Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB). The proposed MDB test consisted of a
50 km/h (31 mph) lateral impact by an ISO #10997 MDB not less than 1270
mm (50 inches) high. However, even with the use of an MDB of sufficient
height to simulate a high hooded striking vehicle, the resulting
changes in velocity to the head and HIC scores are insufficient to
assure real benefits from the use of dynamically deployed systems.
While the use of this test was supported by AORC, the agency is not
proposing this test.
NHTSA made this decision based on examination of crash test data
submitted by BMW in which a 90 degree lateral moving barrier crash test
using the MDB employed in Standard 301 testing produced HIC scores far
below 1000. The agency then calculated that increasing the impact speed
from 32 km/h (20 mph) to 48 km/h (30 mph) would not result in
appreciable increases in HIC scores. Based on the data described above,
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the MDB test would not be severe
enough to promote safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has dropped consideration
of this test.
The agency also examined the possibility of using the Standard 214
test procedure to evaluate dynamically deployed systems. Since
manufacturers are already conducting Standard 214 tests, the testing of
dynamically deployed systems could, theoretically, be pursued
simultaneously through the use of a SID dummy with a Hybrid III head/
neck. The agency examined several series of crash tests conducted
pursuant to Standard 214. As is the case with testing using the MDB,
examination of the data from Standard 214 testing indicates that these
tests do not produce changes in head velocity sufficient to gauge the
performance of systems intended to provide head protection in interior
impacts. As the greatest loads experienced in Standard 214 testing are
applied to the torso, contacts between the head and the vehicle
interior or other structures are rare. In addition, test dummies are
secured in the vehicle by belts during testing. HIC scores near or
above 1000 occur only when the head strikes the MDB, which NHTSA
believes to occur in eighteen percent of the Standard 214 type tests.
Therefore, NHTSA tentatively concludes that using a Standard 214 test
with the standard barrier height would not be appropriate.
Alternatively, as an attempt to adapt the Standard 214 test for use
in evaluating head protection, another approach would be to conduct a
lateral impact test with the Standard 214 MDB with a modified rigid
face. The barrier face would be high enough to intrude into the upper
interior parts of the greenhouse. However, even though head contact
with the vehicle interior or barrier would occur, the agency calculates
that the resulting HIC scores, in the absence of countermeasures, would
be in the range of 225-300 for the driver and 250-325 for a rear seat
passenger. Therefore, the head impacts and resulting HIC scores would
be too moderate to promote improvements in head protection. The agency
also considered employing a test using the FMVSS No. 301 ``Fuel System
Integrity'' barrier at 32 km/h (20 mph) or 48 km/h (30 mph) to achieve
higher lateral kinetic energy levels. While such a test would be more
severe than the test specified in Standard 214, the agency has
tentatively concluded that this approach also would not promote the
introduction of highly efficient and effective dynamically deployed
systems.
In addition to considering use of moving deformable barrier tests,
NHTSA also examined the possibility of using a moving pole rather than
a barrier to impact a stationary test vehicle. While such a test would
be more severe than those involving a moving barrier, the agency has
decided not to propose this test. When the test vehicle is propelled
into a stationary pole, the vehicle will be free to interact
dynamically with the pole and the resulting motion of the head and
thorax are more likely to represent conditions encountered in actual
crashes. While NHTSA is aware that a car-to-pole test procedure poses
certain technical challenges, the agency believes that these are
simpler to resolve in the short term compared to those involved in a
moving pole test.
A. Option 2: Testing Deployed Dynamic Systems in FMH Impacts
1. Impact Speed
In order to assure that the goals of Standard 201 are not
compromised by the proposed amendments, dynamic systems tested under
this option would be subjected to 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impacts in the
undeployed state at target points directly over an undeployed dynamic
system (including attachment points and inflation mechanisms), and a 29
km/h (18 mph) FMH impact into the same target points with the system
deployed. While none of the manufacturers or suppliers who provided
comments in response to the ANPRM supported the use of impact speeds
above 24 km/h (15 mph) for testing of a deployed dynamic system, NHTSA
believes that such an impact speed would result in a net increase in
safety and would not place an undue burden on manufacturers. The agency
notes that the selection of this impact speed provides important
assurances that vehicles equipped with dynamic systems would, with the
systems deployed, provide safety benefits commensurate with the
decrease in the level of impact protection provided in less severe
crashes where the dynamic system might not deploy.
2. System Deployment
As proposed, testing under option 2 would require FMH impacts into
a deployed dynamic system. In order to ensure that dynamic systems
would deploy in the event of a side impact, the agency is proposing
that manufacturers choosing this option must also test the sensor and
inflation system to determine that it will function in the event of a
side impact. The agency is proposing that the lateral barrier test set
forth in S6.12 of FMVSS No. 214, ``Side Impact Protection'' provides
appropriate conditions for the testing of the triggering and inflation
systems for dynamic head protection devices. Accordingly, NHTSA
proposes that,
[[Page 45209]]
under option 2, manufacturers must test the triggering and inflation
systems of dynamic head protection systems as part of testing conducted
for certification to Standard 214. The agency notes that this test
would not measure the performance of dynamic systems intended to
provide head protection in frontal or rearward impacts and solicits
comments on what test procedures, including those now contained in
Standard 208 and Standard 301, might be used for this purpose.
As this proposed test would not actually measure the performance of
dynamic head protection systems in protecting against impacts, the
agency is also proposing that the system must reach full deployment
within 30 milliseconds of the initial contact with the barrier. NHTSA
believes that this time period is sufficiently brief to ensure that
systems will deploy fully before they are contacted by occupants in a
side impact but requests comments on this issue. The agency also
requests comments on what means may be used to determine if a system
has reached full deployment.
The agency is also aware that future dynamic head protection
systems may be designed to provide protection to occupants in front and
rear impacts. NHTSA solicits comments on what tests would be
appropriate for evaluating deployment of such systems.
3. Target Angles
NHTSA is proposing that testing conducted under option 2, with the
exception of the differing impact speeds for deployed and undeployed
systems for target points where a deployed system would be interposed
between the FMH and the target point, be identical to testing conducted
under option 1. Under this proposal, the target angles now specified in
the Standard would be used for testing under option 2, and for 19 km/h
(12 mph) FMH impact testing under option 3. The agency believes that
the use of these target angles is appropriate for both deployed and
undeployed devices, but solicits comments on the question of whether
the design of particular dynamic systems, i.e., inflatable padding (or
larger side air bags), would require modifications to the existing
target angles.
B. Option 3--Testing Deployed Dynamic Systems in Full Scale 29 km/h (18
mph) Side Impact Into Fixed Pole
NHTSA recognizes that some dynamic head protection systems now
under consideration may deploy from the roof rail in a downward
direction and interpose themselves between an occupant's head and the
window opening. As these systems would provide head protection by
preventing or cushioning impacts between the head or upper torso and
the vehicle interior in side impacts without necessarily having any
effect on the FMH impacts specified in the August 18, 1995 final rule,
testing either under that standard or the proposed option 2 would
preclude employment of these designs. However, preliminary reviews of
the performance of these systems in testing reveals that they may offer
significant safety benefits. In an effort to provide maximum
flexibility to manufacturers in developing dynamic head protection
systems, the agency is proposing to offer manufacturers the option of
demonstrating compliance with Standard 201 through an optional test
procedure combining the existing 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact, a 19 km/h
(12 mph) FMH impact in the undeployed mode for points directly over an
undeployed dynamic system (including attachment and inflation
mechanisms) and a full scale side impact test with a 29 km/h (18 mph)
side impact into a 254 mm (10 inch) rigid pole. In the latter test, the
subject vehicle would be propelled into the pole so that the pole would
impact at the center of gravity of the head of a seated dummy
positioned on the designated front outboard seating position of the
struck side. Since the FMH cannot be used for evaluating HIC in such an
impact and the Hybrid III head and neck assembly appears to be the most
biofidelic test device currently available, the agency is also
proposing that the Hybrid III head and neck be used with the existing
SID dummy for this test.
Although the agency is considering the use of test dummies in both
front and rear outboard seating positions in the pole test, it is
currently proposing that a dummy be positioned in the front seat alone.
NHTSA believes that a single dummy will be adequate to measure the
effectiveness of dynamic systems in the pole test. Nonetheless, the
agency is concerned that certain systems may only protect front seat
occupants. This concern becomes heightened by the possibility that some
designs may be, in the undeployed mode, located under target points
that may be encountered by a rear seat occupant in a crash. As these
target points would only be required to provide protection against a 19
km/h (12 mph) FMH impact, rear seat occupants who are not protected by
the deployed system may encounter an increased risk of injury. The
agency requests comments on the capability of dynamic systems to
provide protection to rear seat occupants as well as the efficacy and
consequences of placing an instrumented dummy in the rear outboard
position on the struck side for the pole test.
In the March 7, 1996 ANPRM, the agency indicated that it was
considering proposing the use of either a Moving Deformable Barrier
(MDB) impact test with an impact speed of 50 km/h (31 mph) or a 30 km/h
(18.6 mph) pole test as one of the options for testing dynamic head
protection systems. After reviewing the comments received in response
to the ANPRM and other available data indicating that the use of the
MDB would not result in impacts severe enough to assess head
protection, the agency is now proposing adoption of the pole test. The
agency believes that the pole test is a more appropriate choice. Crash
data reveals that serious to fatal injuries in side impacts are most
likely to involve the head, chest and abdomen. These data also reveal
that while vehicle-to-vehicle impacts, those simulated by MDB impacts,
represent over 80 percent of side impact crashes with serious to fatal
injuries, the much smaller percentage of impacts with narrow objects
result in a disproportionately high rate of fatalities and injuries.
These impacts with narrow objects, which are represented by the pole
test, also present a serious safety concern. Use of the pole test,
which simulates head impacts found in accident scenarios that cannot be
reproduced using the MDB, provides a means for evaluating head
protection systems and, in conjunction with the requirements of
Standard 214, would promote a higher level of safety in side impacts.
Accordingly, the agency has decided to propose under Option 3 that a 19
km/h (12 mph) FMH impact test for those points directly over an
undeployed system and 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test be employed rather
than the 50 km/h (31 mph) barrier test.
NHTSA notes that under option 3, manufacturers choosing to employ
dynamic systems whose components are not stored in roof rails or other
areas covered by Standard 201 would be required to meet the 24 km/h (15
mph) FMH impact test even though such a system, in its deployed state,
may provide head protection against impact with the target points
specified in this standard. The agency, therefore, requests comments on
whether a dynamic system which, when deployed and observed in a side
view, completely covers the 95th percentile ellipse as defined in SAE
Recommended Practice J941--Motor Vehicle Driver's Eye Locations (June
92) would provide
[[Page 45210]]
protection against impacts with targets on the A-pillar, B-pillar and
side rails.
1. Impact Speed
NHTSA believes that a 29 km/h (18 mph) impact speed is appropriate
for the pole test. The agency notes that existing test data indicate
that impacts into a rigid pole aligned with the center of gravity of
the dummy's head will, in vehicles without dynamic systems, result in
severe impacts with interior structures and/or the pole itself
resulting in HIC values equivalent to fatal or near fatal injury. While
this test is a severe test, review of test data from prototype dynamic
systems indicates that these systems have the capability to provide
sufficient protection to the head so that the HIC score resulting from
such an impact is at or near the current standard. In the agency's
view, the severity of this test and the anticipated safety benefit of
systems that meet it, are such that any decrease in safety benefits
resulting from the specification of a 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact
instead of a 24 km/h (15 mph) FMH impact into the undeployed system
would be offset by the reduction of severe or fatal injury in higher
speed impacts where the deployed system would provide superior
protection, particularly in collisions with narrow fixed objects.
2. Rigid Pole
The agency is proposing that the rigid pole shall be a vertically
oriented metal structure beginning no more than 102 millimeters (4
inches) off the ground and extending to a minimum height of 2032
millimeters (80 inches). The pole would be 254 millimeters (10 inches)
in diameter and mounted so that no part of its supporting structure
would contact the test vehicle at any time after the vehicle's initial
contact with the pole.
3. Impact Angle
The agency is currently proposing that the striking vehicle would
strike the pole at an angle of 90 degrees. However, crash data
indicates that impacts within the range of 30 to 60 degrees may be more
representative of actual impacts. NHTSA therefore solicits comments on
whether such impact angles would result in a test procedure better
suited for evaluating performance in a crash. The agency is also
concerned that the use of angles smaller than 90 degrees may present
technical challenges in testing and solicits comments on this issue as
well.
4. Propulsion System
NHTSA is not proposing to specify the manner in which a vehicle is
propelled into the pole. As outlined in the PRE, the agency has
examined a variety of test configurations for moving test vehicles
sideways into the rigid pole, including mounting the vehicle on a test
cart or employing low friction pads under the test vehicle's tires, and
believes that such a test can be performed with sufficient accuracy,
repeatability and reproducibility. Nonetheless, the agency has concerns
about the effects of differing means of propelling test vehicles
sideways while controlling pitch, yaw and roll and solicits comments on
overcoming friction and controlling vehicle attitudes while conducting
the proposed option 3 test.
5. Impact Point
The agency is proposing that the impact specified in option 3
occurs with the center line of the rigid pole aligned with the impact
reference line on the struck side of the vehicle, passing through, in
the lateral direction, the center of gravity of the head of the dummy
located in the front outboard seating position. This dummy, and the
vehicle seat, would be positioned in accordance with the procedures
specified in Standard 214, if this positions the dummy's head such that
the point at the intersection of the rear surface of its head and a
horizontal line parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle
passing through the head's center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2
inches) forward of the front edge of the B-pillar at that same
horizontal location. If not, the seat back angle is to be adjusted, a
maximum of 5 degrees, until the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar clearance is
achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the desired clearance,
the seat is to be moved forward to achieve that result. The initial
pole-to-vehicle contact must occur within an area bounded by two
transverse vertical planes located 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and aft
of the impact reference line. NHTSA notes that experience in conducting
this type of test is, compared to Standard 214 tests, somewhat limited.
Based on its knowledge gained in conducting Standard 214 tests, the
agency believes that a tolerance of +/-38 mm (1.5 inches) is sufficient
for the pole test. The agency requests comments on the degree of
difficulty of achieving an impact within the ranges specified above and
the feasibility of using the existing-Standard 214 seat positioning and
dummy seating procedures and/or the proposed modifications to those
procedures.
6. SID/H3 Test Dummy
NHTSA is proposing specifications and qualification requirements
for the SID/H3 dummy, which would be set forth in subpart M of part
572. The specifications consist of a drawing package containing all of
the technical details of the redesigned neck bracket. NHTSA believes
that these drawings and specifications would ensure that the resulting
SID/H3 dummies vary little in their construction. Performance criteria
would serve as calibration checks and further assure the uniformity of
dummy assembly, construction, and instrumentation. As a result, the
repeatability of performance in impact testing would be ensured.
The SID/H3 combination was developed as part of NHTSA's research
program, and is essentially a Hybrid III dummy head and neck mounted to
a modified SID torso. The modifications include replacing the existing
SID neck bracket with a new neck bracket. Without this modification,
the use of the Hybrid III head and neck with the SID torso results in a
head center of gravity that is 38 mm (1.5 inches) higher than that of
the SID head mounted on the SID torso. In order to retain the same neck
alignment and head profile as the existing SID, the new neck bracket,
when used to mount the Hybrid III head and neck, results in the CG of
the Hybrid III head being 19 mm (0.75 inches) higher than the CG of the
SID head when mounted on the SID torso. In addition, adoption of the
Hybrid III neck component and the new neck bracket would add a
negligible amount of weight, 0.59 kilograms (1.3 pounds), to the SID
dummy. NHTSA believes that the resulting head CG height and neck weight
would not pose any obstacle to the use of the SID/H3 dummy because the
new dummy seating height is nearly identical to that of the SID and the
weight is still less than that of the Hybrid III. The Hybrid III head
is instrumented with a tri-axial accelerometer package, positioned to
measure the acceleration of the center of gravity. This permits the
measurement of HIC.
The agency believes that this SID/H3 combination, which joins
proven components of existing dummies through the use of a redesigned
neck bracket, is the best configuration currently available for
evaluating head and neck behavior in side impacts.
7. Biofidelity
Biofidelity is a measure of how well a test device duplicates the
responses of a human being in an impact. The Hybrid III dummy is
specified in Standard No. 208. Its biofidelity in frontal impacts is
well accepted, particularly for forehead impacts. SID, or the Side
Impact Dummy, is specified for use in Standard
[[Page 45211]]
214. Its biofidelity in assessing damage to the thorax and pelvis in
side impacts is also well accepted. Therefore, NHTSA's concern, in
developing a component test using the SID/H3 combination, was whether
the Hybrid III head and neck responses for lateral acceleration could
provide a valid basis for the evaluation of human injury in such
impacts.
The agency notes that the biofidelity of the Hybrid III head and
neck in lateral impacts has been evaluated by the international
biomechanics community, as well as by NHTSA. NHTSA conducted a review
of research in which the Hybrid III head and neck were subjected to
head drop and neck pendulum tests. The results and methodology of this
drop testing were compared with data obtained on head impact tests
performed on cadavers. A comparison of the relationship between
acceleration and HIC scores for both the cadavers and the Hybrid III
head indicates that the lateral impact responses of the Hybrid III head
is representative of human cadavers up to HIC scores of 2500. Since
lateral impacts with dynamic head protection systems or other interior
components are likely to produce accelerations and HIC scores within
this range, the agency has concluded the Hybrid III head may be used to
assess these impacts. The biofidelity rating for the Hybrid III head
and neck and the SID torso, based on existing data, is far beyond the
minimum acceptable level for side impact evaluation.
8. Repeatability and Reproducibility
NHTSA has evaluated the repeatability and reproducibility of the
proposed test procedure, with particular focus on the HIC responses.
Repeatability refers in this context to the control of variation of
SID/H3 responses in replicate tests using the same dummy, while
reproducibility refers to control of variation of SID/H3 responses in
replicate tests using different dummies.
The agency considers +/-10 percent to be an acceptable range of
variability and a measure of good repeatability or reproducibility,
while +/-5 percent is considered to be highly acceptable variability
and an indicator of excellent repeatability or reproducibility.
As a starting point, the agency notes that it has previously
determined that the Hybrid III head, as a component of the full Hybrid
III dummy, has highly acceptable variability or excellent repeatability
and reproducibility in frontal crashes. NHTSA also notes that the
biofidelity of the Hybrid III head and neck in lateral impact was
examined in a series of head drop tests and head/neck assembly pendulum
impact tests by two GM researchers in 1990. In addition to examination
of the GM tests, NHTSA conducted a series of drop tests on the Hybrid
III head and pendulum tests on the Hybrid III head and neck assembly.
These tests were designed to provide a controlled impact environment so
that any variability was limited to the Hybrid III components and the
test procedure.
The agency found that the average percent variation for peak head
resultant acceleration for the Hybrid III head in lateral drop tests is
highly acceptable. The degree of variation encountered indicated that
repeatability and reproducibility for the tests were excellent. Lateral
pendulum impact tests on the head/neck assembly indicated that the
average percent variation for occipital moment was excellent for both
repeatability and reproducibility. The average percent variation for
neck rotation was excellent for repeatability and good (nearly
excellent) for reproducibility. In addition, the SID/H3 combination was
tested through a series of 29 km/h (18 mph) sled lateral impact tests.
Two vertical, rigid plates were mounted perpendicular to the direction
of motion of the sled, at the head and the torso heights, respectively.
During the test, the head and the torso would impact the plates. Two
test series, each with three tests, were conducted using a SID/H3 dummy
with the standard or the new neck brackets. The test results show
nearly the same average HIC values (within 4 percent) and the average
percent variations indicating that repeatability for HIC is excellent.
Based on the above tests and analyses, which are described in more
detail in the PRE, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the
repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed SID/H3 are sufficient
for this rulemaking.
V. Performance Requirements
In this rulemaking, NHTSA is proposing to require passenger cars
and LTVs not to exceed specified HIC(d) limits when any of the
specified upper interior components are impacted by the FMH in
accordance with the specified test procedure or specified HIC limits
when SID/H3 dummies are employed in the side impact crash test outlined
in option 3. As indicated in the present version of Standard 201,
HIC(d) is calculated when using the FMH and represents the HIC that
would be experienced by a full dummy or actual vehicle occupant.
The agency is proposing a single, across-the-board limit of HIC(d)
1000 for all specific upper interior components whether protected by a
dynamic system or not and regardless of whether the system is deployed
or undeployed. When testing of a dynamic system is undertaken under
option 3, involving the full side impact pole test and a SID/H3 dummy,
the upper limit would also be a HIC(d) of 1000.
VI. Costs
Evaluation of costs associated with this proposed rule is
conditioned by several factors. The proposed amendments would not
impose any new performance requirements. Instead, these changes are
being instituted to enable vehicle manufacturers to use innovative
technologies to further occupant protection. Only those manufacturers
deciding to install those technologies would be subject to the new
requirements. Since no new requirements are included in the proposal,
the costs incurred would be compliance test costs and expenses rather
than vehicle costs relating to the design and implementation of safety
countermeasures. Since the proposed optional test procedures are still
under development, a complete accounting of test costs cannot be
produced at this time.
The compliance costs for the proposed option 1 would be the same as
those for the August 1995 final rule. Compliance costs for the proposed
option 2 test would only be slightly higher due to the additional
requirement of testing system deployment through employment of the
Standard 214 lateral moving barrier crash test. Assuming that a
Standard 214 lateral crash test was performed solely for the purpose of
testing system deployment, NHTSA estimates that each test would cost
approximately $10,000, plus the cost of the test vehicle.
The agency believes that proposed test option 3 would require the
greatest expenditure among all the test options. NHTSA estimates that
the pole test would cost in the range of $10,000 to $13,000 (excluding
the cost of the test vehicle) with an additional $1,750 for calibration
tests for the head, neck, lumbar spine, thorax, and pelvis. The cost of
fabricating a new neck bracket for joining the Hybrid III head to the
SID torso is estimated to be approximately $200 to $300. Due to the use
of existing SID torsos, Hybrid III head/neck hardware and standard
laboratory calibration equipment, NHTSA believes that there would be
little or no extra costs for the pole test beyond the test itself. The
severity of the pole test would not create a need for more rib
replacements than currently
[[Page 45212]]
experienced in side crash testing. Further, most, if not all, crash
test facilities have a fixed frontal barrier with a pole crash test
hardware that can be installed as an option. Pole tests using both
fixed and moving poles have been conducted by manufacturers for
research and development purposes for 30 years. Some of the roll, pitch
and yaw specifications (to be determined), needed to control the
relationship of the pole centerline to head CG, may add cost to the
existing Tow cable and rail systems. For example, a pair of above
ground stabilization rails and trollies may cost an added $15,000 to
$20,000 per facility to build, fabricate and install. Roll, pitch and
yaw instrumentation may be needed to measure compliance with the test
procedure boundaries.
VII. Benefits
NHTSA's analysis of benefits is presented in the PRE. This analysis
is necessarily incomplete due to the fact that the design, research and
development of dynamic head protection systems is still in its infancy.
Nonetheless, the agency was able to provide a benefits estimate through
the use of prior analyses prepared for the existing version of Standard
201 and test data provided by BMW obtained from testing of the
Inflatable Tubular System (ITS). Estimates of the effectiveness of the
ITS system were applied to a baseline HIC distribution prepared for the
August 1995 final rule. Use of this analysis indicated that if systems
whose effectiveness was equivalent to the BMW ITS were employed in the
existing passenger car and light truck fleet there would be 572-655
fewer fatalities and 640-990 fewer moderate to critical nonfatal
injuries each year.
NHTSA also recognizes that the proposed modifications to Standard
201 might also increase the risk of injury in lower speed crashes. As
noted above, those manufacturers availing themselves of option 2 to
test dynamic systems would perform FMH impact tests at 19 km/h (12 mph)
into an undeployed system and 29 km/h (18 mph) into a deployed system.
The agency calculates that reducing the impact speed for the FMH under
options 2 and 3 to 19 km/h (12 mph) from the 24 km/h (15 mph) impact
used under the August 18, 1995 final rule would result in 1075 more
MAIS 1-3 injuries. However, increasing the impact speed from 24 to 29
km/h (18 mph) when the FMH is impacted into a deployed system would, in
NHTSA's estimation (using the Mertz-Prasad method), result in systems
that would prevent 119 fatalities and 125 MAIS 4 and 5 injuries.
(Calculations using the Lognormal method show an increase of 1,273 MAIS
1 injuries but 311 fewer fatalities as well as 512 fewer MAIS 2-5
injuries).
Since NHTSA is not proposing to mandate systems meeting either
option 2 or option 3 (such as the BMW ITS), it is difficult to predict
which manufacturers would choose to install dynamic systems and what
the effectiveness of each system would be. The agency's preliminary
analysis, however, makes it clear that these systems would reduce fatal
and near fatal injuries.
VIII. Effective Date
The agency is proposing that the final rule become effective 30
days after it is published. NHTSA is proposing that the final rule's
effective date be less than 180 days after publication in an effort to
facilitate the early introduction of dynamic systems that may be in an
advanced stage of development or actually in production. As production
of vehicles with dynamic systems may begin prior to the effective date
of the final rule, NHTSA will allow manufacturers of such vehicles to
include them in their calculation of complying vehicles under S6.1.5 if
such vehicles meet the requirements of S6.1(b) or S6.1(c) as
promulgated in the final rule.
IX. Risk of Injury
In the request for comments contained in the March 7, 1996 ANPRM,
the agency requested information on the potential, if any, for
increased neck injury as the result of the deployment of dynamic head
protection systems. Commenters responding to this inquiry indicated
either that there was insufficient information to address this concern
or, in the case of Mercedes and BMW, preliminary evaluations of dynamic
systems indicated that they did not increase stress on the neck. NHTSA
has not performed any significant research or testing on this issue.
Therefore, the agency requests comments on the issue of whether the use
of dynamic head protection systems would increase neck loads and
potential injuries in a crash.
The agency is also concerned that the use of dynamic head
protection systems such as inflatable padding, side air bags or similar
systems that deploy across window openings, might pose other risks to
occupants. One concern is that the use of pyrotechnic inflators, and to
a lesser extent compressed gas inflators, may be a source of auditory
pain or injury. NHTSA notes that dynamic head protection devices may
require placement of inflators in relatively close proximity to the
ears of vehicle occupants. In addition, deployment of the dynamic
systems themselves may have the potential for exposing the ear to noise
and pressure, particularly if the occupants are out-of-position. The
agency solicits comments on the issue of whether dynamic systems have
the potential to cause injury to the ear and auditory system of
occupants.
Unlike conventional air bag systems designed to protect occupants
in frontal crashes, side impact air bags and dynamic head protection
systems are in a comparatively early stage of development. In addition,
the agency anticipates that these systems may exist in a variety of
configurations, each offering specific advantages and disadvantages.
Under these conditions, NHTSA recognizes that knowledge of the
characteristics of dynamic systems may be limited. Nonetheless, the
agency is concerned that dynamic systems may have the potential to
cause injury to particular classes of vehicle occupants, particularly
those who are unrestrained and out of position at the time of
deployment. The agency solicits comments regarding the possibility of
increased injury, if any, posed to occupants by dynamic systems
including unrestrained occupants, occupants small in size or weight and
children secured in child seats and infant carriers.
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a
safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is
not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the
State requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies
only to vehicles procured for the State's use. Section 105 of the
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a procedure for judicial review
of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This
[[Page 45213]]
rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' and is considered significant under the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
The agency has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation
describing the economic and other effects of this rulemaking action.
Summary discussions of many of those effects are provided above. For
persons wishing to examine the full analysis, a copy is being placed in
the docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the effects of this rulemaking action
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The cost of new passenger cars or light trucks would not be
affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment would
primarily affect passenger car and light truck manufacturers which are
not small entities under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR Sec. 121.105(a)).
The agency estimates that there are at most five small
manufacturers of passenger cars in the U.S., producing a combined total
of at most 500 cars each year. The agency does not believe small
businesses manufacture even 0.1 percent of total U.S. passenger car and
light truck production each year. The primary cost effect of the
proposed requirements would be on manufacturers of passenger cars and
LTVs. Final stage manufacturers are generally small businesses.
However, NHTSA believes that the proposed requirements would not be
burdensome for final stage manufacturers. The amendments proposed in
this rulemaking do not impose any additional mandatory requirements on
manufacturers or final stage manufacturers but rather provide these
manufacturers with a means for evaluating advanced dynamic head
protection systems should they choose to install such systems. Further,
since two of the options the agency is proposing are component tests, a
final stage manufacturer could test, or could sponsor a test, of a
padded component or dynamic system outside of the vehicle on a test
fixture, to the extent such testing may be needed to support
certification. Manufacturer associations could also sponsor generic
tests to determine the amount and type of padding or design of dynamic
system needed for basic structures that would be used by a number of
final stage manufacturers, to reduce certification costs.
Other entities which would qualify as small businesses, small
organizations and governmental units would be affected by this rule to
the extent that they purchase passenger cars and LTVs. They would not
be significantly affected, since the potential cost increases
associated with this action should only slightly affect the purchase
price of new motor vehicles. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a
preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) and Unfunded Mandates Act
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA
has determined that the amendment does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
In issuing this proposal to permit optional testing to accommodate
dynamic head protections systems, the agency notes, for the purposes of
the Unfunded Mandates Act, that it is pursuing the least cost
alternative. As noted above, any manufacturer may choose one of three
options to test for compliance with Standard 201, including the test
procedure established in the August 18, 1995 final rule. As this
rulemaking does not require manufacturers to meet new minimum
performance requirements but sets minimum performance criteria for
optional systems, it does not impose new costs.
E. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed amendment does not have any retroactive effect. Under
49 U.S.C. 21403, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 21461 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
XI. Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
[[Page 45214]]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended
as follows:
PART 571.201--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415, 21417, and 21466;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.201 [Amended]
2. Section 571.201 would be amended by adding a definition of
Dynamically deployed interior protection system to S3, revising S6.1,
S6.2 and S7, and by adding S8.13.3 and S8.16 through S8.28 as follows:
S3. Definitions
* * * * *
Dynamically deployed interior protection system means a protective
device or devices which are integrated into a vehicle and which, when
activated by an impact to or by the vehicle, provides, through means
requiring no action from occupants, protection against head impacts
with interior structures and components of the vehicle in crashes.
* * * * *
S6.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and
before September 1, 2002. Except as provided in S6.3, for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1,
2002, a percentage of the manufacturer's production, as specified in
S6.1.1, S6.1.2, S6.1.3, or S6.1.4, shall conform, at the manufacturer's
option with said option selected prior to, or at the time of,
certification of the vehicle, to one of the following:
(a) When tested under the conditions of S8, comply with the
requirements specified in S7 at the target locations specified in S10
when impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any
speed up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). The requirements do not
apply to any target that cannot be located using the procedures of S10.
(b) When equipped with a Dynamically Deployed Interior Protection
system and tested under the conditions of S8, comply with the
requirements specified in S7 at the target locations specified in S10
when impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any
speed up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). For target locations
specified in S10 that, when the Dynamically Deployed Interior
Protection system is not deployed, are, when viewed from any of the
angles specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed system, including mounting
and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, comply
with the requirements specified in S7 when impacted by the free motion
headform specified in S8.9 and tested under the conditions of S8 at any
speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed.
For target locations specified in S10 that, when the Dynamically
Deployed Interior Protection system is not deployed, are, when viewed
from any of the angles specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed system,
including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover
or covers, comply with the requirements specified in S7 when impacted
by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 and tested under the
conditions of S8 at any speed up to and including 29 km/h (18 mph) with
the system fully deployed. The requirements do not apply to any target
that can not be located using the procedures of S10. The dynamic system
shall, when tested under the lateral impact of S6.12 of Standard No.
214, 49 CFR 571.214, deploy fully within 30 milliseconds.
(c) When equipped with a Dynamically Deployed Interior Protection
system and tested under the conditions of S8, comply with the
requirements specified in S7 at the target locations specified in S10
when impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any
speed up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). For those target locations
specified in S10 that when the Dynamically Deployed Interior Protection
system is not deployed, are over the stowed system, including mounting
and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, when
viewed from any of the angles specified in S8.13.4, comply with the
requirements specified in S7 when impacted by the free motion headform
specified in S8.9 and tested under the conditions of S8 at any speed up
to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed. The
requirements do not apply to any target that can not be located using
the procedures of S10. Each vehicle shall, when equipped with a dummy
test device specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart M, and tested under
conditions of S8.16 through S8.28, comply with the requirements
specified in S7 when laterally crashed into a fixed, rigid pole of 254
mm in diameter, at any velocity up to and including 29 kilometers per
hour.
* * * * *
S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002. Except
as provided in S6.3, vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2002 shall, when tested under the conditions of S8, conform, at the
manufacturer's option with said option selected prior to, or at the
time of, certification of the vehicle, to one of the following:
(a) When tested under the conditions of S8, comply with the
requirements specified in S7 at the target locations specified in S10
when impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any
speed up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). The requirements do not
apply to any target that cannot be located using the procedures of S10.
(b) When equipped with a Dynamically Deployed Interior Protection
system and tested under the conditions of S8, comply with the
requirements specified in S7 at the target locations specified in S10
when impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any
speed up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). For target locations
specified in S10 that, when the Dynamically Deployed Interior
Protection system is not deployed, are, when viewed from any of the
angles specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed system, including mounting
and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, comply
with the requirements specified in S7 when impacted by the free motion
headform specified in S8.9 and tested under the conditions of S8 at any
speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed.
For target locations specified in S10 that, when the Dynamically
Deployed Interior Protection system is not deployed, are, when viewed
from any of the angles specified in S8.13.4, over the stowed system,
including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover
or covers, comply with the requirements specified in S7 when impacted
by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 and tested under the
conditions of S8 at any speed up to and including 29 km/h (18 mph) with
the system fully deployed. The requirements do not apply to any target
that can not be located using the procedures of S10. The dynamic system
shall, when tested under the lateral impact of S6.12 of Standard No.
214, 49 CFR 571.214, deploy fully within 30 milliseconds.
(c) When equipped with a Dynamically Deployed Interior Protection
system and tested under the conditions of S8, comply with the
requirements specified in S7 at the target locations specified in S10
when impacted by the free motion headform
[[Page 45215]]
specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph).
For those target locations specified in S10 that when the Dynamically
Deployed Interior Protection system is not deployed, are over the
stowed system, including mounting and inflation components but
exclusive of any cover or covers, when viewed from any of the angles
specified in S8.13.4, comply with the requirements specified in S7 when
impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 and tested under
the conditions of S8 at any speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph)
with the system undeployed. The requirements do not apply to any target
that can not be located using the procedures of S10. Each vehicle
shall, when equipped with a dummy test device specified in Part 572,
Subpart M, and tested under conditions of S8.16 through S8.28, comply
with the requirements specified in S7 when laterally crashed into a
fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any velocity up to and
including 29 kilometers per hour.
* * * * *
S7 Performance Criterion. The HIC(d) shall not exceed 1000 when
calculated in accordance with the following formula:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU97.000
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Where the term a is the resultant head acceleration expressed as a
multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two
points in time during the impact which are separated by not more than a
36 millisecond time interval.
(a) For the free motion headform; HIC(d) = 0.75446 (free motion
headform HIC) + 166.4.
(b) For the 49 CFR part 572, subpart M, anthropomorphic test dummy;
HIC(d) = HIC
* * * * *
S8 Test conditions.
* * * * *
S8.13 * * *
S8.13.3 At the time of initial contact between the headform and
the vehicle interior surface, except for the testing of a fully
deployed dynamic system, some portion of the forehead impact zone of
the headform contacts some portion of the target circle.
* * * * *
S8.16 Test weight--vehicle to pole test. Each vehicle is loaded to
its unloaded vehicle weight, plus 136 kilograms of its rated cargo and
luggage capacity (whichever is less), secured in the luggage or load-
carrying area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test
dummy. Any added test equipment is located away from impact areas in
secure places in the vehicle.
S8.17 Vehicle test attitude--vehicle to pole test. Determine the
distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the
test vehicle's body, directly above each wheel opening, when the
vehicle is in its ``as delivered'' condition. The ``as delivered''
condition is the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100
percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the
manufacturer's specifications listed on the vehicle's tire placard.
Determine the distance between the same level surface and the same
standard reference points in the vehicle's ``fully loaded condition.''
The ``fully loaded condition'' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance
with S8.16. The load placed in the cargo area is centered over the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The pretest vehicle attitude is
the same as either the ``as delivered'' or ``fully loaded'' attitude or
is between the ``as delivered'' attitude and the ``fully loaded''
attitude.
S8.18 Adjustable seats--vehicle to pole test. Adjustable seats are
placed in the adjustment position so that the 49 CFR part 572, subpart
M dummy is situated, when positioned as specified in S8.28, so the
point at the intersection of the rear surface of the dummy's head and a
horizontal line parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle
passing through the head's center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2
inches) forward of the front edge of the B-pillar at that same
horizontal location.
S8.19 Adjustable seat back placement--vehicle to pole test. Place
adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding
position in the manner specified by the manufacturer, or in a position
no more than 5 degrees forward from this nominal design riding
position, as specified in S8.28. If the manufacturer's nominal design
riding position is not specified, set the seat back at the first detent
rearward of 25 [degrees] from the vertical, or in a position no less
than 20 degrees from the vertical, as allowed by S8.28. Place each
adjustable head restraint in its highest adjustment position. Position
adjustable lumbar supports so that they are set in their released,
i.e., full back position.
S8.20 Adjustable steering wheels--vehicle to pole test. Adjustable
steering controls are adjusted so that the steering wheel hub is at the
geometric center of the locus it describes when it is moved through its
full range of driving positions.
S8.21 Windows and sunroof--vehicle to pole test. Movable windows
and vents are placed in the fully open position. Any sunroof will be
placed in the fully closed position.
S8.22 Convertible tops--vehicle to pole test. The top, if any, of
convertibles and open-body type vehicles is in the closed passenger
compartment configuration.
S8.23 Doors--vehicle to pole test. Doors, including any rear
hatchback or tailgate, are fully closed and latched but not locked.
S8.24 Impact reference line--vehicle to pole test. On the striking
side of the vehicle, place an impact reference line at the intersection
of the vehicle exterior side structure and a transverse vertical plane
passing through the center of gravity of the head of the dummy seated
in accordance with S8.28, in a designated front outboard seating
position.
S8.25 Rigid Pole--vehicle to pole test. The rigid pole is a
vertical metal structure beginning no more than 102 millimeters (4
inches) off the ground and extending to a minimum height of 2,032
millimeters (80 inches). The pole is 254 mm (10 inches) in diameter and
set off from any mounting surface, such as a barrier or other
structure, so that the test vehicle will not contact such a mount or
support at any time before or after impact with the pole.
S8.26 Impact configuration--vehicle to pole test. The rigid pole
is stationary. The test vehicle is propelled sideways so that its line
of forward motion forms an angle of 90 degrees with the vehicle's
longitudinal center line. The impact reference line is aligned with the
center line of the rigid pole so that, when the vehicle-to-pole contact
occurs, the center line of the pole contacts the vehicle area bounded
by two transverse vertical planes 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and aft of
the impact reference line.
S8.27 Anthropomorphic test dummy--vehicle to pole test. S8.27.1
The anthropomorphic test dummy used for evaluation of a vehicle's head
impact protection conform to the requirements of subpart M of part 572
of this chapter. In a test in which the test vehicle is to be struck on
its left side, the dummy is to be configured and instrumented to be
struck on its left side, in accordance with subpart M of part 572. In a
test in which the test vehicle is to be struck on its right side, the
dummy is to be configured and instrumented to be
[[Page 45216]]
struck on its right side, in accordance with subpart M of part 572.
S8.27.2 The 49 CFR part 572, subpart M, test dummy specified is
clothed in form fitting cotton stretch garments with short sleeves and
midcalf length pants. Each foot of the test dummy is equipped with a
size 11EEE shoe, which meets the configuration size, sole, and heel
thickness specifications of MIL-S-13192 (1976) and weighs 0.57 +/-0.09
kilograms (1.25 +/-0.2 pounds).
S8.27.3 Limb joints are set at between 1 and 2 g's. Leg joints are
adjusted with the torso in the supine position.
S8.27.4 The stabilized temperature of the test dummy at the time
of the side impact test is at any temperature between 20.6 degrees C.
and 22.2 degrees C., at any relative humidity between 10 percent and 70
percent.
S8.27.5 The acceleration data from the accelerometers installed
inside the skull cavity of the test dummy are processed according to
the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J211, March 1995,
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests,'' Class 1000.
S8.28 Positioning procedure for the Part 572 Subpart M Test
Dummy--vehicle to pole test.
The 49 CFR part 572, subpart M test dummy shall be positioned in
the front outboard seating position on the struck side of the vehicle
in accordance with the provisions of S7 of Standard No. 214, 49 CFR
571.214, and the vehicle seat shall be positioned as specified in S6.3
and S6.4 of that same standard. If this does not position the dummy
such that the point at the intersection of the rear surface of its head
and a horizontal line parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the
vehicle passing through the head's center of gravity is at least 50 mm
(2 inches) forward of the front edge of the B-pillar at that same
horizontal location, then the seat and/or dummy positions may be
adjusted. First, the seat back angle is to be adjusted, a maximum of 5
degrees, until the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar clearance is achieved. If
this is not sufficient to produce the 50 mm (2 inches) clearance, the
seat is to be moved forward to achieve that result. If the seat is
moved from the position specified in S6.3 of Standard No. 214, 49 CFR
571.214, the target H-point location is to be moved from that specified
in S7.2.1 of that standard. The horizontal and vertical distances moved
must be equal to those necessary to reposition the vehicle seat to
achieve the 50 mm (2 inches) B-pillar clearance described in this
section.
Issued on August 19, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-22574 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
