[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43031-43061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20407]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Parts 571, 572, and 589

[Docket No. 92-28; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AB85


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection 

[[Page 43032]]
in Interior Impact, to require passenger cars, and trucks, buses and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 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. The amendments add procedures 
and performance requirements for a new in-vehicle component test. 
Insofar as this rulemaking applies to passenger cars, it is required by 
the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).

DATES: Effective date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
on September 18, 1995.
    Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of 
the material listed in this document is approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of September 18, 1995.
    Petition date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received 
by NHTSA no later than September 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Fan, Side and Rollover Crash 
Protection Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-4922); or Mary Versailles, Rulemaking 
Division, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-
2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Basis for Rulemaking.
II. Safety Problem.
III. Summary of the NPRM.
    A. Proposed Performance Requirement.
    B. Proposed Test Procedure.
    1. Headform.
    2. Impact Zones.
    3. Conditions and Procedures.
    a. Impact Speed.
    b. Free Motion Impact.
    c. Impact Parameters.
    C. Costs and Benefits.
    D. Leadtime.
    IV. Summary of the Comments.
    V. Summary of NPRM/Final Rule Differences.
    VI. Final Rule.
    A. Performance Requirement.
    B. Headform.
    C. Targets and Angles.
    D. Impact Speed.
    E. Visibility.
    F. Requested Exclusions.
    1. Non-passenger Areas.
    2. Aisles.
    3. Rear Seating Areas.
    4. Vehicles.
    5. A-pillars and Front Headers.
    6. Roof.
    7. Convertible Roofs.
    G. Components Currently Subject to Standard No. 201.
    H. Costs and Benefits.
    I. Leadtime.
VII. OVSC Laboratory Test Procedure.
VIII. Correction.
IX. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices.
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures.
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act.
    D. National Environmental Policy Act.
    E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism).
    F. Civil Justice Reform.

I. Statutory Basis for Rulemaking

    This final rule responds to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 
(sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act (``ISTEA''), Pub. L. 102-240). ISTEA requires NHTSA to address 
several vehicle safety matters through rulemaking. One of these 
matters, set forth in section 2503(5), is improved head impact 
protection from interior components (i.e., roof rails, pillars, and 
front headers) of passenger cars.
    Section 2502 of ISTEA generally directed NHTSA to initiate 
rulemaking on improving head impact protection and other matters not 
later than May 31, 1992. Rulemaking was to be initiated by the 
publication of either an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Section 2502 provided that, 
if the agency was unable to publish such a notice by May 31, 1992, the 
agency had to publish, by that date, a notice announcing that the 
rulemaking will begin by a date that was not later than January 31, 
1993. On June 5, 1992, NHTSA published a notice of intent announcing 
that it would publish an NPRM on improved head impact protection by 
January 31, 1993. (57 FR 24008) The NPRM was published on February 8, 
1993 (58 FR 7506).
    Section 2502(b)(2)(B)(iii) of ISTEA generally provides that this 
rulemaking action, as it applies to passenger cars, must be completed 
within 24 months of the NPRM. NHTSA may delay the date for completion 
for not more than six months. Under ISTEA, the rulemaking will be 
considered completed when the agency promulgates a final rule with 
standards on improved head injury protection.

II. Safety Problem

    Head impacts with the upper interior components of vehicles are the 
leading cause of head injury for non-ejected occupants killed in a 
crash. Counting only each fatally injured occupant's most severe injury 
as the cause of death, NHTSA estimates that 2,430 occupants of 
passenger cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
(LTVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or 
less are killed annually when the occupant's head strikes the upper 
structures in the interior compartment of the vehicle. These head 
impacts also result in nearly 60,000 occupant injuries, 4,070 of which 
are serious injuries, rated AIS 3 or greater. (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.) Accident data show that occupant head injuries 
result primarily from head contact with a vehicle's pillars, side 
rails, headers and other components during a crash.
    NHTSA has several Federal motor vehicle safety standards that 
improve crash protection to the occupant's head in a crash. These 
include Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which limits the 
forces and accelerations that are imposed on the head of a crash dummy 
in a frontal, 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash test. Standard No. 208 has 
been highly effective at reducing actual fatality risk, and, together 
with the nationwide effort to increase safety belt use, has 
significantly reduced fatality risk, resulting in thousands of lives 
saved annually. (``Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Occupant 
Protection,'' NHTSA Interim Report, June 1992, DOT-HS-807 843.) 
However, Standard No. 208's effectiveness in reducing the potential for 
head injury due to impacts with upper interior components is limited. 
Only rarely does the test dummy in Standard No. 208's crash test strike 
the windshield header and/or A-pillar of the vehicle. Similarly, NHTSA 
observed in dynamic side impact tests for passenger cars that high head 
injury criterion (HIC) readings were not found for the test dummies. 
Crash test films for 90 degree car-to-car crash tests indicated that 
the dummy used in the side impact tests typically did not hit its head 
on areas that cause head injury in real world crashes; i.e., upper 
interior components.
    The main safety standard that directly addresses head impacts is 
Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 
201 took effect for passenger cars on January 1, 1968 and 

[[Page 43033]]
was extended to LTVs on September 1, 1981. The standard sets 
requirements for instrument panels, interior compartment doors, seat 
backs, sun visors, and armrests to lessen injuries to persons thrown 
against them in crashes. Performance of the instrument panel and seat 
backs is measured by impacting those components at a speed of 15 mph 
with a head form. The deceleration of the head form cannot exceed 80g's 
for more than 3 milliseconds. In a 1988 evaluation report on occupant 
protection in frontal interior impact, NHTSA found that improvements 
that manufacturers made to the vehicle interior during 1965-75, 
particularly to the instrument panel, reduced the risk of fatality and 
serious injury in frontal crashes by about 25 percent for unrestrained 
right front passengers of cars. These improvements may be saving 400 to 
700 lives per year in frontal crashes. (``An Evaluation of Occupant 
Protection in Frontal Interior Impact for Unrestrained Front Seat 
Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks,'' January 1988, DOT HS 807 203.)
    While those numbers are significant, a large number of occupant 
injuries and fatalities result from head impacts with upper interior 
components not covered by Standard No. 201. In 1970, NHTSA proposed to 
require force-distributing material (padding) on the door pillars, roof 
interiors and windshield headers (35 FR 14936). However, the agency 
terminated the action in 1979, along with a number of other rulemaking 
actions, citing as a reason the agency's limited resources. (See, 
NHTSA's five year plan for motor vehicle safety rulemaking, 44 FR 
24591; April 26, 1979.) In the mid-1980's, NHTSA initiated a research 
program to support upgrading Standard No. 201 to provide occupant 
protection from head injuries in upper interior impacts. The findings 
of that program provided the basis for the NPRM leading to today's 
rule.

III. Summary of the NPRM

    The NPRM proposed amendments to Standard No. 201 to set specific 
performance criteria for the pillars, side rails, headers, and roof of 
passenger cars and LTVs. NHTSA proposed to evaluate the ability of 
these components to limit occupant head injury by impacting the 
components with a headform at a specified speed. To measure the 
magnitude of injury threat resulting from the impact, the proposed 
headform contains accelerometers that measure head impact responses in 
a crash. The notice proposed performance criteria for tested 
components, and a test procedure simulating an occupant's head striking 
the vehicle interior.

A. Proposed Performance Requirement

    The agency tentatively determined that the head injury criterion 
(HIC) is an appropriate injury criterion for the proposed rule since 
NHTSA considers the HIC to be the best currently available head injury 
indicator. This is especially true for injuries produced by contact 
with an object, such as in a head-to-interior component impact. Many of 
NHTSA's impact protection standards use the HIC to measure head injury, 
such as Standard No. 208, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, 
and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash 
Protection. Each of these standards use a HIC limit of 1000 because 
research has shown that prohibiting the HIC from exceeding 1000 would 
prevent or reduce serious injuries in actual crashes.
    The NPRM proposed two alternatives for the performance limits. The 
first was an across-the-board limit of HIC(d) 1000 for all specified 
components. HIC is calculated using the acceleration readings from an 
instrumented free motion headform (FMH), and transforming it to a dummy 
equivalent HIC(d). It represents the HIC that would be experienced by a 
full dummy or actual vehicle occupant. The second was a two-tiered 
limit of HIC(d) 1000 for the forward and rearward upper interior 
components (front and rear headers and A-pillar) and HIC(d) 800 for 
side upper interior components (side rails and pillars other than the 
A-pillars) and the upper roof. The agency proposed the lower HIC limit 
for the side upper interior components because research indicated that 
the side of the head is more susceptible to injury than the front of 
the head; i.e., the head injury tolerance threshold is lower in lateral 
impacts than in frontal impacts.

B. Proposed Test Procedure

1. Headform
    Since the proposed test procedure was to simulate the striking of 
an occupant's head against a vehicle's upper interior, a test device 
was needed to represent and simulate the responses of a human head in 
an impact. NHTSA proposed to use a modified Hybrid III dummy head as 
this test device. The modifications included replacing the Hybrid III 
skull cap with a steel skullcap plate. The plate would, among other 
things, allow the headform to be mounted by means of a magnet to the 
device that propels the headform against the target component. The 
modified headform lacked the nose of the Hybrid III head, to eliminate 
interference from the nose during testing. The proposed headform is 
instrumented with tri-axial accelerometers, positioned to measure the 
acceleration at the headform's center of gravity. These measurements 
are used to calculate the magnitude of the potential for injury 
resulting from the impact; i.e., HIC.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the agency tentatively concluded that the 
headform performed well in terms of its biofidelity, repeatability and 
reproducibility. Biofidelity is a measure of how well a test device 
duplicates the responses of a human in an impact. The agency compared 
the biofidelity of the headform with that of the head of the Hybrid III 
dummy specified in subpart E of 49 CFR part 572. The Hybrid III dummy 
is used in Standard No. 208 compliance tests, and the biofidelity of 
the dummy in frontal impacts is well accepted, particularly for 
forehead impacts. NHTSA found that the headform duplicated the 
performance of the Hybrid III dummy very well. Repeatability refers to 
the repetition of similar impact responses by the same test device, and 
reproducibility refers to the variation of impact responses among 
different dummies. NHTSA believed the repeatability and reproducibility 
of the headform to be within acceptable ranges.
    The NPRM proposed amending NHTSA's regulation for anthropomorphic 
test dummies (49 CFR Part 572) to add specification and qualification 
provisions for the headform. The proposed specifications consisted of a 
drawing package containing all of the technical details of the headform 
parts and assembly. The proposed specifications included a user's 
manual establishing inspection and assembly procedures and calibration 
procedures to assure the uniformity of the headform's assembly, and the 
reliability of its readings.
2. Impact Zones
    The purpose of the NPRM was to regulate (i.e., set performance 
criteria for) those areas of a vehicle's upper interior that are likely 
to be impacted by an occupant's head in a crash. The proposed areas 
were the pillar impact zones, front and rear header impact zones, side 
rail impact zones, and upper roof impact zone. Each of these impact 
zones was defined in the NPRM. All portions of those zones were subject 
to testing and had to meet the proposed performance criteria when 
impacted by the headform in accordance with specified conditions and 
procedures.
    The proposed test procedure was an in-vehicle component test. In 
real world crashes of all types (frontal, side, rear and rollover), 
occupants' heads sometimes contact upper interior 

[[Page 43034]]
components. However, in a laboratory simulation of a particular crash 
mode (e.g., Standard No. 208's frontal crash), the head of a full test 
dummy often does not contact an upper interior component. Using an in-
vehicle component test and only the head of a test dummy, the agency 
could test different components, all of which may not be contacted by a 
full test dummy in a particular, simulated crash. In the NPRM, the 
agency proposed to test any area that the head could contact in a 
crash, provided that area was within the pillar, header, side rail and 
upper roof impact zones.
    However, certain areas of these regulated zones where head impacts 
were unlikely in real world crashes were excluded from the performance 
requirements. For example, NHTSA proposed excluding the portion of the 
cargo area of vans that is not close to any designated seating 
position.
3. Conditions and Procedures
    The NPRM proposed a compliance test that was intended to replicate 
the circumstances of actual crashes.
    a. Impact Speed. The NPRM proposed that the tested upper interior 
component be impacted by the headform at a speed of 15 mph. The 15 mph 
test speed was chosen because it is the current test speed used in 
Standard No. 201 to test the instrument panel and seat backs of 
vehicles, and it is the average speed at which the onset of serious 
injuries occur. The 15 mph speed represents the velocity at which the 
headform contacts the upper interior component and is lower than the 
actual speed at which the vehicle is impacted. The agency also 
tentatively determined that there may be a practicability problem with 
higher test speeds, since it may not be possible to meet the proposed 
limit on HIC without using unacceptably thick padding.
    b. Free Motion Impact. NHTSA proposed that the flight of the 
headform be ``free motion'' (as opposed to guided). The advantage of a 
free motion headform (FMH) over a guided one is that the FMH can 
simulate the glancing and non-perpendicular impacts experienced in real 
world crashes. Also, a FMH can be equipped with rotational 
accelerometers, if desired, although none is currently specified by 
NHTSA. The NPRM did not propose to specify a specific method for 
propelling the headform, since the means of propulsion does not affect 
test results.
    c. Impact Parameters. The NPRM stipulated the manner in which the 
headform impacted the tested vehicle component. For each impact zone, 
the proposed test procedure defined a range of angles (``approach 
angles'') at which the free motion headform would strike any point in 
that zone. The specific point to be impacted by the headform (i.e., any 
part of a tested zone), would be marked with a solid target circle 0.5 
inch in diameter. The headform could be launched from any location 
inside the vehicle, provided that the specified approach angles and the 
following restrictions were met. The headform had to travel through the 
air for a distance of at least one inch before contacting the vehicle 
interior surface. At the time of initial contact between the headform 
and the vehicle, a specified portion of the headform's forehead must 
contact some portion of the target circle, and no portion of the 
headform may contact any part of the vehicle outside of the specified 
impact zone. If the headform cannot strike a portion of a specified 
impact zone without interference from another part of the vehicle 
(e.g., the windshield or instrument panel), that portion of the zone 
would be excluded from the performance requirements.

C. Costs and Benefits

    The NPRM discussed tentative conclusions about the impacts (e.g., 
costs and benefits) of a final rule. Based on tests done on current 
production vehicles, the agency anticipated that some vehicles would be 
able to meet the proposed criteria for some components, as presently 
designed. For vehicles that had to be redesigned to meet the proposed 
criteria, NHTSA determined that added padding would be a feasible and 
effective countermeasure to improve upper interior head impact 
protection. NHTSA did not believe that the required amount of increased 
padding would reduce visibility and/or be unacceptable to consumers, or 
would increase the risk of neck injury.
    The NPRM estimated the average cost of padding needed to meet the 
two alternatives for the proposed injury criteria (across-the-board HIC 
1000 versus HIC 800/1000). NHTSA estimated that, under the first 
alternative, the total per vehicle average cost, including the average 
cost and weight of needed padding, lifetime fuel penalty cost and 
secondary weight cost, was $29 for passenger cars and $45 for all LTVs. 
Under the second alternative (HIC 800/1000), the estimated total per 
vehicle average cost was $49 for passenger cars and $68 for LTVs.
    The agency used two models (i.e., Lognormal, Prasad/Mertz) to 
calculate the estimated benefits of the two alternative performance 
proposals. Under the first alternative (HIC 1000), NHTSA estimated that 
AIS 2-5 injuries for passenger cars and LTVs would be reduced by 824 
under the Lognormal model, and by 683 under the Prasad/Mertz model. 
Fatalities for passenger cars and LTVs would be reduced by 1,143 under 
the Lognormal model, and by 1,390 under Prasad/Mertz. Under the second 
alternative performance proposal (HIC 800/1000), AIS 2-5 injuries for 
passenger cars and LTVs would be reduced by 841 under the Lognormal 
model, and by 1,478 under Prasad/Mertz. Fatalities for passenger cars 
and LTVs would be reduced by 1,365 under the Lognormal model, and by 
1,614 under Prasad/Mertz.

D. Leadtime

    The agency believed that the earliest possible effective date for 
the rule would be the first September 1 approximately two years after 
issuance of a final rule. The agency sought comments on whether a 
phase-in requirement would be appropriate, starting one to two years 
after issuance of a final rule.

IV. Summary of the Comments

    The agency received over 70 comments in response to the NPRM. Many 
commenters submitted more than one comment. No commenter disputed that 
ISTEA mandates NHTSA to promulgate a final rule to improve head impact 
protection of passenger cars. However, some commenters believed the 
passenger car proposal inappropriately exceeded the scope of ISTEA. For 
example, the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) 
believed that, in contrast to the NPRM, ISTEA does not require A-
pillars and windshield headers to be included in a rule for increased 
head impact protection. Volkswagen commented that ISTEA included no 
mandate to improve the protection of the rear header and roof of 
passenger cars, or any interior component of LTVs. On the other hand, 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) commented that it 
does not believe ISTEA provides NHTSA discretion to exclude any rails 
or pillars from the rule.
    Commenters diverged widely in their support of, or opposition to, 
specific aspects of the proposal. Consumer groups and a coalition of 
insurance groups generally favored all aspects of the NPRM that would 
have imposed the most stringent performance requirements (e.g., the 
two-tiered 800/1000 HIC criteria; setting impact speed at 20 mph) on 
the greatest portion of the vehicle interior. They supported extending 
the requirements to as many vehicle types as possible and favored 
having the requirements become effective in the shortest time possible, 
opposing a phased-in effective date. The 

[[Page 43035]]
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety believed the NPRM greatly 
underestimated the potential benefits of the rule.
    In contrast, vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and associations 
generally sought to considerably narrow the scope of the rule. They had 
concerns about the proposed two-tiered HIC criteria of 800/1000, 
believing that an across-the-board HIC of 1000 is superior to a HIC of 
800. They argued that the latter could not be supported by 
biomechanical or accident data. Many manufacturers had concerns about 
specific aspects of the proposed test procedure, such as the 
appropriateness of the headform, the impact speed for the headform, and 
the feasibility of meeting the proposal that any portion of a target 
impact zone had to meet the performance criteria of the standard. Since 
the NPRM placed few limits on the points at which the headform was to 
contact the tested component and on the approach angles at which the 
headform was to be launched at the component from inside the vehicle, 
some manufacturers believed it would be virtually impossible, under the 
NPRM, for them to locate and certify all of the potential impact 
locations of a targeted upper interior component. Commenters suggested 
excluding various interior components, and types of vehicles from the 
rule. In contrast to the proponents of the NPRM, these commenters 
believed NHTSA vastly overestimated the safety benefits of the rule and 
underestimated the costs.
    Numerous comments addressed the issue of leadtime. The domestic 
manufacturers were unanimously opposed to an implementation date 
earlier than September 1, 1998. These companies stated that, regardless 
of cost, most companies could not implement the required changes for 
this rule for any model, even with the phase-in suggested in the NPRM. 
The reasons given were, first, that the designs to meet the proposed 
requirements are not bookshelf technologies. Second, the design 
concepts have to be tested and evaluated for feasibility and 
implementation readiness. Third, these concepts have to meet the 
requirements while providing acceptable visibility and interior 
spaciousness that meet the customer needs, and be manufacturable with 
tooling that in some cases may have yet to be developed. To meet all 
these demands, the industry contended that a rule that begins by 
September 1, 1998 with a phase-in period of four years with the rule 
becoming 100 percent effective no earlier than September 1, 2002, is 
essential.
    On October 20, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a 
notice of a public meeting. In that notice, the agency announced that 
it was reopening the comment period to respond to the NPRM by an 
additional 30 days (58 FR 54099). On November 15, 1993, a public 
meeting was held in Washington, D.C., to discuss the various issues 
raised by the commenters. Representatives from AAMA, General Motors, 
Ford, Chrysler, Liability Research Group, and Advocates repeated many 
concerns expressed in earlier comments and submitted supplemental 
information to support those comments. Additionally, a private citizen 
gave a presentation concerning FMH impact speed and neck injury risks.
    The four main concerns expressed by the commenters in seventeen 
submissions received during the additional comment period related to; 
(1) The magnitude of the safety problem, (2) the appropriateness of the 
proposed test device and test conditions, (3) the anticipated safety 
benefits from this rulemaking, and (4) the need for an extended 
leadtime with phase-in and carry-forward provisions. No new issues were 
brought up in these comments or in the discussions at the public 
meeting.

V. Summary of the NPRM/Final Rule Differences
    The main differences between the provisions of this final rule and 
those of the NPRM relate to the following matters. The NPRM proposed a 
test procedure that would have required any portion of the upper 
interior components (e.g., pillar, side rail or header) to meet 
specified performance criteria. This rule requires specific targets on 
those components to meet the criteria and adds procedures for locating 
those targets. The NPRM proposed two alternatives regarding performance 
requirements--a single, across-the-board limit of HIC(d) 1000 for all 
upper interior components or a two-tiered limit of HIC(d) 1000 for the 
forward and rearward upper interior components and HIC(d) 800 for side 
upper interior components. This rule adopts a single, across-the-board 
limit of HIC(d) 1000 for all specified components. The NPRM proposed 
that the new requirements would become effective on the first September 
1 that occurred approximately two years after issuance of the final 
rule. This rule adopts a five year phase-in period, which will begin 
September 1, 1998. In addition, this rule allows manufacturers to carry 
forward credits from previous years during the phase-in period. Each of 
these changes is fully discussed, together with all other relevant 
issues, in section VI.

VI. Final Rule

A. Performance Requirements

    As explained in section III-A, the agency proposed two alternative 
versions of the performance requirements. While many commenters agreed 
that, for impacts of the same severity, there is a higher risk of 
injury to the side of the head than the forehead, most commenters did 
not support the two-tiered requirement for HIC(d). The most common 
rationale cited for disagreeing with the HIC(d) 800 requirement for 
side components was a lack of sufficient biomechanical data to support 
that particular level of requirement. In addition to submitting 
comments on the HIC(d) limit, some commenters suggested other 
performance measures in addition to, or instead of, HIC(d). Of the 
alternatives suggested, the most common was a peak acceleration limit 
to measure the risk of neck injury. One individual questioned the 
validity of using HIC determined from the accelerations measured from 
the FMH as the sole measurement of impact severity. He was concerned 
about the variability in the measurements obtained from the Hybrid III 
headform. He also raised questions about the effect of FMH rotation on 
measured impact severity which could be very different from the 
rotation of a human head constrained by a neck in real world impact 
conditions. Finally, one manufacturer suggested that a 36 ms time limit 
be included for HIC calculation.
    With respect to a HIC(d) 800 requirement for side components, NHTSA 
has concluded that, although the proposal is directionally correct, 
such a requirement should not be adopted at this time. The data to 
support the HIC(d) 800 requirement was scarce and NHTSA believes it 
should do testing to acquire additional biomechanical data. In 
addition, NHTSA is concerned that compliance with such a requirement 
may not be feasible for side components because of interior space 
limitations. The agency's research on head injury, including side head 
impacts, continues. The agency will reexamine the HIC(d) 800 
requirement, along with other possible head injury criteria, if 
research advances to a point that it indicates a revised limit would be 
sufficiently beneficial, achievable at reasonable cost, and feasible.
    With respect to a peak acceleration limit, NHTSA considers such a 
supplement to the proposed HIC(d) 

[[Page 43036]]
limit unnecessary because the principal effect of any countermeasure on 
head impacts is effectively to reduce both the peak head acceleration 
and the HIC. Further, it is not clear how the acceleration limits 
suggested by commenters were selected, or what the biomechanical bases 
for those limits are. Since the HIC is considered a better measure than 
acceleration for evaluating head injury potential, NHTSA believes that 
adding a peak FMH acceleration limit to the HIC(d) 1000 requirement is 
redundant. The suggestion that limiting head acceleration would 
eliminate neck injuries does not take into account the effect of torso 
motion on neck injury. None of the commenters provided any data to 
substantiate the claim that addition of acceleration limits to HIC(d) 
would reduce the potential for neck injuries.
    NHTSA has conducted many tests of simulated and production upper 
interior components of vehicles with the FMH. The free flight of the 
FMH in all cases is less than six inches and during the period of FMH 
primary contact, the observed FMH rotation is less than ten degrees in 
most cases. Therefore, it is the agency's belief that this small amount 
of rotation has no appreciable effect on the HIC value. It is widely 
recognized that no biomechanical criteria are available for head 
rotation. As and when such criteria become available, the agency would 
certainly consider the addition of other criteria or adoption of 
another test device to evaluate potential for neck injuries. However, 
the agency does not see a need to delay adopting HIC as a criterion in 
the interim to assess head impact protection in interior impacts.
    With respect to the 36 ms limit for HIC calculation, agency testing 
indicates that the FMH acceleration pulse is less than 20 ms in 
duration. The 36 ms time limit is used in Standard No. 208 frontal 
crash tests in which the dummy head acceleration pulses are often wide. 
For that standard, the objective of limiting the time period to 36 ms 
is to eliminate unrealistic HIC calculations from non-contact head 
acceleration pulses that are wide. Because a FMH impact test is not 
valid unless contact occurs, the pulse is generally narrow. In 
addition, the agency's test data indicate that the rebound pulse during 
FMH testing is insignificant. However, to allay any concerns and to 
achieve consistency with other HIC calculations, NHTSA has retained the 
36 ms limit it proposed in the NPRM for FMH HIC calculation in the 
final rule.

B. Headform

    The NPRM proposed using the FMH for determining compliance with the 
new requirements. The FMH is essentially a modified Hybrid III dummy 
head. The modifications include replacing the Hybrid III skull cap with 
a steel skullcap plate, which allows the FMH to be mounted to the 
propulsion unit by means of a magnet. The skullcap plate also serves to 
hold the headskin in place during testing. In addition, the nose of the 
Hybrid III head is removed to eliminate interference during testing. 
The FMH is instrumented with a set of tri-axial accelerometers, 
positioned to measure the acceleration of the center of gravity, which 
permit the measurement of HIC. The HIC value is then transformed to an 
equivalent HIC for the dummy (HIC(d)) using a transfer function.
    Ford recommended that the vehicle's upper interior component tests 
be performed using the Ford hemispherical impactor, because Ford 
believes that it is simpler and yields more repeatable test results 
than the FMH. Ford's hemispherical impactor was developed in 1991 
specifically for vehicle upper interior impact tests. Other 
manufacturers and manufacturer associations supported the use of Ford's 
hemispherical impactor. Volvo recommended that the ``lateral load 
sensing head'' developed jointly by Volvo and Collision Safety 
Engineering be incorporated into the FMH impactor for lateral head 
impact tests. In addition to suggestions for alternative headforms, 
commenters raised questions regarding whether the headform should be 
free-motion or guided, its potential to assess neck injury, and the 
effect of early chin contact on HIC(d).
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided to specify the 
FMH in this final rule, with one amendment. The amendment relates to 
the vertical angles to be used in launching the FMH in testing. The 
angles have been adjusted to reduce the potential for early chin 
contact with the vehicle's interior during a test.
    The agency considers the FMH to be superior to a guided headform 
impactor, because unlike the guided impactor, which only simulates a 
single impact, the FMH's movement is more likely to simulate the 
variety of impacts that occur in real world crashes. In addition, while 
this rule does not require head rotational acceleration measurements, 
it is possible that a 9-accelerometer array, which the FMH could 
accommodate, would allow both the calculation of HIC and the recording 
of the head rotational accelerations. It is believed that, when 
biomechanics research on head rotational acceleration has advanced 
sufficiently to permit establishing suitable criteria, the FMH could be 
modified and used to measure head rotational acceleration to assess the 
potential for brain injury.
    While neither the FMH nor Ford's hemispherical impactor has a neck 
component, the FMH has the shape of a human head so that it can 
simulate forehead impacts against vehicle interior components. Further, 
because the FMH is essentially a Hybrid III headform, a modified 
headform could be developed with the addition of a neck in the future, 
if suitable injury criteria become available. With respect to adopting 
load sensing technology for lateral head impacts, NHTSA believes that 
additional research is needed before it could be considered for 
adoption.
    Several manufacturers recommended that Ford's hemispherical 
impactor be adopted for this rulemaking because of its asserted 
superior test repeatability. The results of NHTSA's FMH repeatability 
study were presented in Section 12, Chapter III of the PRIA. The 
primary findings of this study are that the repeatability of the HIC 
and peak-g's are excellent (+/-5 percent) for simulated structure tests 
and very good (+/-10 percent) for vehicle component tests. These 
results are comparable to the repeatability of Ford's hemispherical 
impactor. In view of the potential for additional measurements in the 
future, NHTSA has retained the FMH for this final rule.
    In response to concerns about early chin contact, the agency is 
amending the proposed test procedure by providing that, after the FMH 
is aimed at a target within the corresponding range of vertical 
approach angles, the FMH is tilted forward a specified number of 
degrees. The new test procedure allows for a 5 degree chin offset for 
targets on the A-pillar and the rearmost pillar and a 10 degree offset 
for any other pillar. Tilting the head creates a chin offset clearance 
that will delay chin contact beyond the time of the HIC calculation, 
which was less than 20 ms in duration in agency testing. The agency is 
amending the vertical angle ranges proposed in the NPRM to expand the 
range to accommodate the new chin offsets. For example, for B-pillars 
the proposed vertical angle range of 0 to 50 degrees has been increased 
to -10 to 50 degrees.

C. Targets and Angles

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed to require that vehicles meet 
specified HIC(d) limits when any portion of a number of specified upper 
interior 

[[Page 43037]]
surface areas was impacted by the FMH, at any of a range of specified 
angles. To achieve this, the agency defined a number of impact zones 
within the vehicle. Due to the difficulty in clearly differentiating 
among the various impact zones, the agency proposed to require any area 
of the interior surface within two or more zones to comply with the 
requirements for all such zones. For each impact zone, the proposed 
test procedure defined a range of angles at which the FMH could strike 
that zone. These angles were referred to as approach angles, and were 
expressed using a specified orthogonal reference system. The direction 
of travel by the FMH would have been required to be within the 
specified ranges.
    Manufacturers uniformly criticized this aspect of the NPRM. Almost 
all the manufacturers and their organizations stated that they would be 
unable to certify compliance without doing an infinite number of tests. 
These commenters stated that it was virtually impossible to determine 
the worst potential combinations of locations and angles, and that 
therefore, they would be required to test every point at every angle 
before they could be certain that a vehicle complied. Manufacturers 
suggested that the agency instead specify a limited number of specific 
impact locations and a specific approach angle for each such location.
    With regard to the infinite testing argument, NHTSA disagrees that 
it is impossible or even unduly burdensome to determine worst case 
combinations for testing. NHTSA testing indicates that higher HIC 
readings are achieved when the underlying vehicle structure (not trim) 
is stiffer or harder. For example, the joints where more than one 
component meet had higher HIC readings than mid-points on components, 
due to the additional stiffness or rigidity at the joint. Manufacturers 
are in a better position than NHTSA to know exactly where these 
stiffer/harder areas are as they are often disguised by the trim in 
production vehicles. Further, at any given point, a higher HIC reading 
is achieved when the impact is normal to the surface of the underlying 
structure. Again, manufacturers are in a better position to know this 
angle because the trim disguises the surface of the underlying 
structure.
    However, in the interest of administrative simplicity and of 
allaying manufacturer concerns, the agency is specifying target 
locations throughout the upper interior of the vehicle for all 
components other than the roof (discussed below). NHTSA believes that 
specifying these targets will not reduce the safety benefits of this 
rule. There are several reasons for that belief.
    First, the targets were selected on the basis of NHTSA's experience 
with the location of the hard points in vehicles. While it may be 
theoretically possible for manufacturers to take the approach of 
changing their designs and moving the existing hard points out of the 
designated target locations as a way of meeting the requirements, NHTSA 
does not believe this can or will be done. For example, a target is 
specified at the joint between each pillar and the side rail and/or 
header. This joint could not be easily moved without radical changes in 
current designs. Other targets are specified in a way that they will be 
approximately 6 inches from the joints, measured along a component like 
a pillar or side rail. NHTSA's experience shows that the overlap of the 
materials of two or more components is, on average, located at this 
distance. While it may be possible to move the overlap a few inches, 
NHTSA does not believe it would be economical to do so. Other targets 
are described in a way that is unaffected by the actual location of the 
component which the agency seeks to test. For example, whenever there 
is a seat belt anchorage on a pillar, there is a target on the seat 
belt anchorage, regardless of where a seat belt anchorage is located on 
the pillar.
    Second, for a number of reasons, NHTSA believes that manufacturers 
will pad (or install other countermeasures) uniformly on the covered 
components rather than simply protect the target locations. These 
reasons include liability concerns, styling, and manufacturing cost. 
For example, NHTSA believes that it will be cheaper to install one 
continuous piece of padding on the B-pillar rather than four separate, 
small, carefully tailored pieces just covering the four targets on that 
pillar. The upper interior components are sufficiently covered by 
targets that the cost of the pad to cover the non-target locations 
should be cheaper than the labor costs in carefully sculpting the 
padding to just cover the target locations.
    Illustrations 1 and 2 show the possible locations of the targets on 
one side of a passenger car and a minivan.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 43038]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.039



[[Page 43039]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.040



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 43040]]

    In addition, NHTSA has decided to include a procedure which may 
limit the horizontal angles for testing some components. (For a 
discussion of vertical angles see Section V-A, Headform.) If the 
maximum angle located by the procedure is lower than the maximum angle 
in the range of possible angles, it becomes the new maximum angle. 
Similarly, if the minimum angle located by the procedure is greater 
than the minimum angle in the range of possible angles, it becomes the 
new minimum angle. NHTSA has concluded that the new specification of 
horizontal angles would not likely compromise the safety benefits 
available from any of the interior components or reduce the 
effectiveness of any countermeasures that are likely to be used by 
manufacturers. Since the new angle ranges include the most severe 
impact angles possible and exclude only certain glancing head impacts, 
they would not affect significantly the safety benefits. However, 
narrowing the range of angles will help reduce the possibility of 
excessively padding the pillars, thus preventing the loss of visibility 
from padding the pillars.
    For an A-pillar, the minimum and maximum horizontal angles are 
determined by extending the shortest line from the pillar to the center 
of gravity (c.g.) of a 50th percentile male head at the rearmost seat 
position of the front seat on the same side of the vehicle and the 
shortest line from the opposite pillar to the c.g. of the head at the 
forwardmost seat position. These lines would simulate the direct line 
of travel that a person's head would take in striking the respective A-
pillars at maximum severity and therefore, would also simulate the 
impacts most likely to result in severe head injuries.
    The procedure to determine the range of angles for the B-pillar is 
similar, using angles created by a line extending from the pillar to 
the c.g. of a 50th percentile male head located in the rear seat 
adjacent to the pillar and another line extending from the pillar to 
the c.g. of the head located in the rearwardmost seat position of the 
seat forward of the pillar on the same side of the vehicle. 
Illustration 3 shows how the horizontal approach angles for the left A-
pillar and the left B-pillar are determined.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 43041]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.041



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 43042]]

    In addition to generally criticizing the proposal, manufacturers 
commented that the definition of one zone, the upper roof impact zone 
was unclear. To define where the other impact zones end and the upper 
roof impact zone begins, the NPRM defined an upper roof zone plane. All 
interior surfaces of the vehicle above this plane were included in the 
upper roof impact zone. The upper roof zone plane was defined as the 
horizontal plane passing through a point 0.5 inch below the highest 
point of the vehicle roof interior. The agency requested comments on 
whether this proposed definition distinguished the other upper interior 
components from the middle area of the roof and on the practicability 
of demarcating these regions.
    Many vehicle manufacturers stated that the definition should be 
clarified. For example, commenters noted that some components installed 
in the roof (e.g., sun roofs) may protrude below the proposed upper 
roof zone plane and therefore, that it was not clear whether some or 
all of those components were covered by the rule.
    To address concerns about the definition of the upper roof zone, 
the agency has changed the definition. The new definition delineates 
four vertical planes (two longitudinal and two transverse) intersecting 
the interior roof. The upper roof is any area on the upper roof within 
the area bounded by those four planes. Illustration 4 shows how the 
upper roof is defined.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 43043]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.042



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 43044]]


D. Impact Speed

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed that vehicles would have to meet 
the new requirements when a vehicle's upper interior components were 
impacted by the FMH at any speed up to and including 15 mph. The 15 mph 
speed was chosen because agency research indicated that it is 
approximately the onset speed for an average injury level between AIS 2 
and AIS 3, or essentially the threshold at which serious injury can be 
expected. In addition, 15 mph is the test speed that is generally 
specified for the existing requirements of Standard No. 201. Finally, 
the agency's testing indicated that there might be a practicability 
problem with complying with the injury criterion at higher test speeds, 
such as 20 mph, since it may not be possible to meet the proposed 
performance limits at such speeds without using unacceptably thick 
padding.
    Six comments were received on the proposed impact speed. Advocates 
did not support the 15 mph impact speed for testing of A-pillars and 
front headers since they do not consider the test speed to be 
representative of head impact speeds seen in real world accidents. 
Instead, they suggested a 20 mph impact test for all frontal components 
without providing any supporting data. Manufacturers suggested lower 
impact speeds, particularly for frontal components in dual-airbag 
vehicles. A private individual commented on the possibility of 
increased risk of ``body induced'' neck injuries when impacting padded 
components. He contended that current biomechanics research indicates 
that impacts above 7 mph would tend to increase the potential for neck 
injuries and therefore, any device used at speeds above that limit 
should incorporate means to evaluate neck loading.
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has concluded that the 
proposed 15 mph FMH impact test is appropriate for all components, 
regardless of their locations. The agency conducted several accident/
crash data analyses to determine the average head impact speed for 
various components. While the average impact speed is generally higher 
in frontal impacts than in side impacts, the onset of serious head 
injury (AIS 2-3) occurs at approximately the same speed (15 mph) for 
all components. An examination of head/face injury cases in the 1982-
1989 NASS data files indicates that the average vehicle delta-v's in 
accidents vary by injury category. The delta-v's in accidents range 
from approximately 13 mph for maximum AIS (MAIS) 2 to 27 mph for MAIS 
5. An analysis of laboratory crash test data was used to estimate an 
appropriate head impact speed, given the delta-v derived from accident 
data. However, the contact velocities for head injuries range from 10 
mph to 20 mph for AIS 1 and AIS 5 respectively.
    Even though, as raised by one commenter, cadaver drop tests on 
rigid and padded plates indicate potential for neck injuries above 7 
mph, the injury mechanism in such tests is likely to be very different 
from head impacts against upper interior components in real world 
crashes. In drop tests, the head comes to rest upon contact, while the 
remaining mass continues to move, pinching the neck between the head 
and the rest of the body. In real world head impacts against upper 
interior components, the kinematics of the torso are different in 
different crash modes, especially when knee restraints interact with 
the legs. The pinching action of the neck as seen in cadaver drop tests 
is unlikely in crashes and therefore, the 7 mph threshold for neck 
injury based on drop tests is not valid for upper interior head 
contacts in accidents.
    Therefore, NHTSA sees no justification to lower the impact speed 
for frontal components. Were the agency to adopt a lower impact speed, 
it would be addressing a much smaller safety problem than that seen in 
accidents. The agency estimated that the proposed 15 mph test speed is 
the average speed at which the onset of AIS 2 and AIS 3 injuries are 
likely to occur. It is also the current test speed for testing other 
interior components included in the existing standard. In addition, 
since no commenters have submitted new data to support a 20 mph impact 
speed, NHTSA finds no justification in adopting such an impact speed 
for this rule.

E. Visibility

    In the NPRM, NHTSA stated that it had tentatively concluded that 
countermeasures used to meet the new requirements could be selected and 
designed so that they would not have a significant effect on 
visibility. The agency invited comment on these tentative conclusions.
    Manufacturers who commented on this issue believed that padding 
would affect visibility, particularly the padding for frontal 
components. One manufacturer stated that the range of horizontal impact 
angles for the A-pillar was too large and would lead to the 
installation of padding in locations where it would affect the driver's 
forward vision. Safety groups did not believe that visibility was an 
issue since padding is not the only countermeasure choice that is 
available to automobile manufacturers.
    NHTSA believes that a number of changes in this final rule resolve 
any concerns about visibility. First, as explained in VI-C, Targets and 
Angles, NHTSA has added a new procedure to limit the range of 
horizontal impact angles for the pillars, thereby reducing the likely 
area of the pillar which must be padded. Second, as is discussed later 
in this notice, NHTSA has extended the leadtime for the new 
requirements so that manufacturers could make structural modifications 
to reduce the HIC values in those components. Recently, NHTSA conducted 
a simple structural analysis of A-pillars of two production vehicles. 
(Docket No. 92-28-N02-52) The results of the analysis indicate that, 
with the additional leadtime that is available, alternative A-pillar 
designs can be developed in some vehicles to accommodate increased 
padding thickness without significant changes in component weight or 
forward vision, since the original A-pillar shape was not modified 
appreciably. NHTSA believes that, with sufficient leadtime, other 
interior components also can be redesigned to obtain optimal results 
that would not affect significantly the driver's vision.

F. Requested Exclusions

    In the NPRM, the agency proposed excluding from the new 
requirements certain areas of the upper vehicle interior or certain 
types of vehicles because of lower likelihood of head injuries in real 
world crashes. The particular exclusions discussed in the NPRM were:
    (1) Components located 36 inches rearward of the vehicle's rearmost 
designated seating position.
    (2) Components along the side walkway of passenger vans.
    (3) Components behind a vehicle's front seat area.
    (4) Particular types of vehicles, such as walk-in vans.
    NHTSA received a number of comments on these exclusions and 
suggestions for other exclusions. Each type of exclusion raised by 
commenters is discussed below.
1. Non-passenger Areas
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed to exclude the portion of a 
vehicle that is well to the rear of the rearmost designated seating 
position. Specifically, the agency proposed that a vehicle need not 
meet the proposed HIC(d) limits for any part of the vehicle located 
rearward of a vertical transverse plane 36 inches behind the seating 
reference point (SgRP) of the vehicle's 

[[Page 43045]]
rearmost designated seating position. The 36 inch value was based on 
the normal position of the head relative to the SgRP and the extent of 
possible movement of the head rearward in a crash. The agency requested 
comment on whether this or another distance would be more appropriate 
or cost-effective. The agency also requested comment on whether the 36 
inch distance would ensure that protection is provided by a vehicle's 
upper interior areas that an occupant's head is likely to impact, while 
avoiding requiring padding in areas that are so far behind occupant 
seating positions that they are very unlikely to be struck by 
occupants.
    Some commenters who addressed this issue, while agreeing that 
components to the rear of any seating position should be excluded, 
questioned whether the 36 inch cut-off was justified. Some commenters 
suggested alternate limits, including 12 inches, and all components 
rearward of the B-pillar (for vehicles with no rear seats).
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided to exclude any 
target located more than 24 inches to the rear of the SgRP of the 
rearmost seating position. NHTSA has reviewed the 36 inch cut-off 
proposed in the NPRM and decided that it was excessive for planar rear 
crashes. This conclusion is based on front seat-back angle rotation 
since the amount of rotation affects the extent of rearward travel of a 
front seat occupant in a rear crash. Previous research that reviewed 
front seat-back angle rotation in rear impact compliance testing for 
Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, indicates that over 70 percent 
of the vehicles had rotation of less than 30 degrees. (See, Summary of 
Safety Issues Related to FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, Docket No. 89-
02-N03.) These tests were of small cars. Because vehicle accelerations 
are lower for large cars and LTVs, NHTSA believes that seat-back 
rotation would be lower. For belted occupants in seats with seat back 
rotations of 20 degrees and 30 degrees, the amount of rearward head 
excursion would be 8.5 inches and 12.5 inches, respectively. When a 
seat back rotates much more than 30 degrees, the occupant's head would 
not contact the vehicle upper interior components. While the rearward 
head excursion could be increased by an occupant sliding up the seat 
(ramping), further review of Standard No. 301 test films showed no 
indication of ramping of belted occupants in rear impacts. Because the 
average location of the back of the head relative to the SgRP is 10 
inches rearward, this indicates that the back of the head might travel 
18.5 inches to 22.5 inches rearward of the SgRP. Therefore, NHTSA has 
concluded that a 24 inch cut-off is sufficient.
    NHTSA disagrees that the B-pillar should be used for the cut-off 
point. The relationship among the SgRP, the head, and the B-pillar is 
not consistent between vehicles. The B-pillar may be slightly in front 
of the head in one vehicle or behind the head in another and therefore, 
does not ensure that areas that might be impacted by the head are 
protected. NHTSA also believes a 12 inch cut-off is insufficient. This 
distance is only two inches behind the typical head location. 
Consequently, any accident as in an oblique side collision which caused 
rearward and lateral excursion of the head of more than two inches 
could result in contact with an unprotected B-pillar. As explained 
above, most accidents which resulted in rearward excursion would exceed 
this amount.
2. Aisles
    In the NPRM, NHTSA also requested comments on whether components 
along the side walkway of passenger vans should be excluded from the 
new requirements, since occupants are not seated directly next to such 
components.
    Two commenters addressed the issue of excluding walkways. One 
commenter supported such an exclusion, while the other did not support 
the exclusion.
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA has decided not to exclude 
targets located along a side walkway. Inclusion of these targets will 
be beneficial to unbelted passengers in particular. A higher proportion 
of second and third seat occupants than of front seat occupants are 
unbelted. One of the targets which would have been excluded is the 
target on a sliding door track. Because vehicles are often narrower at 
the roof than at the floor of the walkway, these components are closer 
to the head and therefore, there is a potential for head contact with 
this component. In addition, NHTSA agrees with the commenter that 
contact with side components is possible in some crash scenarios (i.e., 
side impacts or rollovers) even with a typical 12 inch aisle.
3. Rear Seating Areas
    In the NPRM, NHTSA suggested that it might exclude components in a 
vehicle's rear seating area. The agency noted that, of the 
approximately 1,143 to 1,389 fatalities that would be prevented by the 
new requirements, only 28 to 36 would involve rear seat occupants.
    While some manufacturers and manufacturer associations supported 
excluding rear seat areas because of low occupancy rates and a high 
cost per equivalent life saved, other commenters opposed their 
exclusion. Opponents of exclusion cited a number of reasons, including: 
an equal potential for injury when the rear seats are occupied; a high 
proportion of children among rear seat occupants; and a belief that 
increased car pooling in the future will increase rear seat occupancy 
rates.
    As explained in the Final Economic Assessment (FEA) prepared for 
this final rule, the target population used in the current analysis has 
been adjusted based on more recent accident data, the current (higher) 
safety belt usage rate, and the phase-in of airbags into the on-road 
vehicle fleet. The new analysis showed that about 873 to 1,045 
fatalities would be prevented by the new requirements, 575 to 711 in 
passenger cars and 298 to 334 in LTVs. As in the NPRM analysis, the 
bulk of the benefits in the new analysis would accrue from padding 
upper interior components in the front seating areas. Based on 
currently available accident data, the agency estimates about 97 to 122 
of the fatalities prevented in passenger cars and about 7 to 8 of the 
fatalities prevented in LTVs would be in the rear seating areas.
    Based on current cost estimates included in the FEA's new analysis, 
the cost per equivalent life saved in passenger cars is $0.5 to $0.6 
million for all seating positions, $0.3 to $0.4 million for front 
seating positions, and $1.7 to $2.1 million for rear seating positions. 
The cost per equivalent life saved in LTVs is $1.3 to $1.4 million for 
all seating positions, $0.7 to $0.8 million for front seating 
positions, and $24.2 to $26.8 million for rear seating positions.
    Although these cost figures appear to disfavor regulating rear seat 
areas in LTVs, they rest on a current discrepancy between the fatality 
and injury data for front and rear seating areas. A large discrepancy 
exists between the number of rear seat fatalities in passenger cars and 
those in LTVs. NHTSA estimates that about 229 fatalities occurred in 
the rear seating areas of passenger cars while only 13 fatalities 
occurred in the rear seating areas of LTVs. This represents about 14 
percent of the total fatalities in passenger cars but only 2 percent of 
the total fatalities in LTVs.
    NHTSA believes that basing cost estimates on that current 
discrepancy leads to a high cost per equivalent life saved for rear 
seating areas of LTVs but that discrepancy will diminish in the future. 
The agency anticipates that the proportion of LTVs in the vehicle fleet 
will increase in the future and thus the 

[[Page 43046]]
proportion of rear seat fatalities involving LTVs occupants will also 
increase.
    The agency's belief about the forthcoming changes in the underlying 
data is supported by two apparent trends. First, the distribution of 
rear seat fatalities between these two classes of vehicles is likely to 
be different by the time 100 percent compliance with this rule is 
achieved as the proportion of passenger cars and of LTVs in the fleet 
changes. In recent years, there have been significant changes in the 
composition of the light vehicle fleet. The percentage of passenger 
vans and sport utility vehicles in the fleet has increased 
significantly because of consumer preferences for these vehicles for 
personal transportation. If this trend continues, the annual benefits 
estimate for LTVs based on the incidence of fatalities and serious 
injuries for previous years would change substantially by the time all 
vehicles in the fleet meet the new standard. Second, the occupancy rate 
of the rear seating area of all LTVs is also likely to increase because 
of the increased use of vans and sport utility vehicles for family 
transportation.
    To evaluate the effect of these two trends on the new analysis, 
NHTSA further revised the new estimate of benefits for passenger cars 
and LTVs to reflect the mix of those vehicles in the future vehicle 
fleet. NHTSA anticipated that the proportion of LTVs in the light 
vehicle fleet would increase from 29 percent to 46 percent. This would 
result in an increase in the target population of light trucks and a 
decrease in the target population of passenger cars, and a 
corresponding change in the benefits for this rule. By contrast, the 
agency's original cost estimate in the FEA assumed that the current mix 
of passenger cars and LTVs would not change.
    The assumption of mix shifts was considered in the context of two 
different scenarios including additional assumptions to estimate 
benefits. In the first scenario, a change in the relative proportion of 
LTVs and passenger cars was assumed in addition to fleet growth, 
resulting in a directly proportional change in benefits. However, this 
scenario does not account for the steady decline in fatality and injury 
rates over the past twenty years due to improvements in motor vehicles 
and highway systems.
    In the second scenario, it was assumed that the injury and fatality 
rates would continue to decline, but be offset by increased exposure 
due to fleet growth, resulting in a constant number of injuries and 
fatalities for the entire fleet. As in the first scenario, it was 
assumed that a shift would occur in registration percentages and thus 
in the percentage of injuries and fatalities in passenger cars and 
LTVs.
    For each of these scenarios, the agency has revised its estimates 
of fatalities prevented and injuries reduced. NHTSA also revised its 
estimate of the cost per equivalent life saved in 1993 dollars, using 
each of the scenarios.
    These revisions produced significant, and in some cases dramatic, 
changes in the estimates of relative benefits and costs per equivalent 
life saved for passenger cars and LTVs. Based on those revisions, it is 
estimated that the cost per equivalent life saved in passenger cars may 
increase to $0.6 to $0.9 million. However, for LTVs, the cost per 
equivalent life saved is reduced to $0.7 to $0.9 million. The breakdown 
for front and rear seating areas also shows that the cost per 
equivalent life saved in passenger cars increased slightly while that 
in LTVs decreased significantly. The cost per equivalent life saved in 
the front seating area of passenger cars increased to $0.4 to $0.5 
million. For LTVs, the cost per equivalent life saved in the front 
seating area decreased to $0.4 to $0.5 million. The cost per equivalent 
life saved in the rear seating areas of passenger cars increased to 
$2.0 to $2.9 million. The most significant change is in the rear 
seating areas of LTVs, where the cost decreased substantially to $7.5 
to $10.1 million, approximately a two-thirds reduction.
    While the costs per equivalent life saved still vary according to 
seating position, the conclusive factor in determining whether to 
regulate a particular seating position should not be the existence of 
such variations, but the reasonableness of the cost for that particular 
position. Calculating the cost per equivalent life saved by seating 
position would never yield the same figures for each seating position. 
For example, while an occupant is always present in the driver's 
seating position, the same occupancy rate cannot be expected for the 
right front passenger seating position or any rear seating position. 
Therefore, cost based on the degree of occupancy in each seating 
position will almost certainly lead to uneven estimates of cost per 
equivalent life saved. So long as the cost per equivalent life is 
reasonable, NHTSA believes that a vehicle should be designed to offer 
the same level of protection to all occupants, regardless of the 
occupant's choice of seat.
    In addition, the agency believes that the decision whether to 
regulate rear seating areas must take into consideration any special 
populations at risk. It is particularly necessary to protect children, 
who are often seated in the rear and who will be susceptible to head 
injuries unless the rear seating areas are included in this rule. For 
all vehicles, 37 percent of injuries and fatalities in rear seating 
areas are children ranging in age up to 17 years.
4. Vehicles
    In the NPRM, the agency also requested comments on whether any 
particular types of vehicles, such as walk-in vans, should be excluded. 
NHTSA received a number of comments recommending that various types of 
vehicles be excluded from the new requirements. Recommendations 
included: walk-in vans, ambulances, motor homes, vehicles produced in 
two or more stages, school buses, and vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating above either 6,000 pounds or 8,500 pounds.
    With regard to walk-in vans which have upper interior components 
located much higher in comparison to other vehicles, head contacts 
against those components are unlikely for belted occupants and 
therefore, NHTSA has decided to exclude these vehicles from this rule. 
NHTSA has excluded these vehicles from other safety standards in the 
past (i.e., Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection) because these 
vehicles are typically driven at low speeds. Therefore, these vehicles 
are generally involved in low severity crashes and any impact with the 
upper interior components would be less severe in these vehicles.
    In addition, NHTSA is excluding targets in ambulances and motor 
homes which are located more than 24 inches rearward of the seating 
reference point of the driver. These vehicles often have special 
equipment in these areas which would be difficult to redesign for 
compliance with these requirements. Definitions of both these vehicles 
have been added to the regulatory text.
    With regard to other requested exclusions, NHTSA is not excluding 
any other vehicles. None of the comments provided a convincing reason 
why any of these vehicles would not benefit from being required to 
offer the same level of protection as other vehicles or why it is not 
practicable for these vehicles to comply. However, as explained below 
in section V-I, Leadtime, NHTSA is allowing vehicles manufactured in 
two or more stages to delay compliance until the final year of the 
phase-in. 

[[Page 43047]]

5. A-pillars and Front Headers
    Manufacturers also requested exclusion of the A-pillar and front 
header. Manufacturers expressed their belief that there is no safety 
need justifying inclusion of these components since recent amendments 
to Standard No. 208 would require air bags in all vehicles affected by 
these requirements before the effective date of this rule. Further, the 
manufacturers argued that it is impossible for front seat occupants to 
contact these components during a crash in a vehicle with air bags.
    The agency disagrees that air bags will eliminate or even 
significantly mitigate all head injuries caused by contacts with A-
pillar/front header components and that protecting these components is 
therefore unnecessary. Air bags and seat belts are safety devices that 
are primarily effective in frontal impacts. While it is true that they 
will mitigate head injuries in full frontal and oblique crashes in 
terms of both the frequency and severity of occurrence, it is also true 
that secondary contacts in frontal crashes or A-pillar/front header 
contacts in other crash modes could also cause head injuries that 
cannot be prevented by air bags.
    Before issuing the NPRM, NHTSA analyzed 24 National Accident 
Sampling System (NASS) airbag cases to assess the impact of air bags on 
head injury prevention. However, no reliable conclusions could be made 
because of insufficient airbag data. After issuing the NPRM, NHTSA 
conducted an additional analysis using the NASS and Air Bag Management 
Information System (AIRMIS) data files. (Docket No. 92-28-N02-52) Even 
though the NASS/AIRMIS air bag data are sparse and not statistically 
representative of real world injury distribution, they show that 
frontal upper interior components were still being struck, even when 
belt-air bag restraints were used. For this final rule, NHTSA has re-
estimated the target population of injuries and fatalities involving A-
pillar and front header impacts. This re-estimation still showed 
substantial numbers of injuries and fatalities from occupants striking 
these components, even after the agency adjusted these figures to 
reflect 100 percent air bag installation (see Chapter IV of the FEA). 
Therefore, NHTSA is not excluding these components from the final rule.
6. Roof
    Many vehicle manufacturers stated that the upper roof zone should 
not be included in this rulemaking. Manufacturers stated inclusion of 
the roof will not significantly reduce injuries or fatalities from 
contact with the roof since the test procedure does not simulate 
situations in which the roof is being pushed towards the occupant (roof 
crush) or rollovers in which contact occurs when the roof is reinforced 
by the ground. Other commenters stated that the test procedure should 
include placing a rigid surface on the exterior of the roof to simulate 
the effect of ground contact.
    While NHTSA agrees that the test procedure does not simulate the 
accident scenarios mentioned by the commenters, NHTSA has decided not 
to exclude the upper roof. For most areas of the upper roof (sheet 
metal), the HIC(d) requirements are easily met without additional 
countermeasures. However, including the upper roof will require 
manufacturers to protect areas (e.g., sun roof frames) that are hard 
even when the roof is not reinforced by the ground. The inclusion of 
those areas will be particularly likely to provide some benefits. 
However, in view of the variety of components in a roof, NHTSA is 
unable to define a specific target(s) for the upper roof. Therefore, 
any target on the upper roof may be impacted. NHTSA testing indicates 
that only components added to the sheet metal or the sheet metal 
reinforced by such components may not meet the HIC(d) requirements. 
Therefore, NHTSA does not believe manufacturers will have difficulty in 
determining and testing worst case scenarios for the upper roof.
7. Convertible Roofs
    Both AAMA and the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers (AIAM) stated that convertibles should be excluded from 
the final rule because of the difficulties associated with padding the 
movable components of the roof. American Sunroof Company, Automobile 
Specialty Company, and Aeromotive Systems Company (all convertible top 
manufacturers), while agreeing that padding movable components would be 
difficult, stated that only convertible tops and frames, but not other 
upper interior components (e.g., pillars), needed to be excluded.
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA agrees that countermeasures 
would not be feasible on convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms 
because the presence of a countermeasure such as padding would 
interfere with their movement. Therefore, NHTSA has decided to exclude 
from the new requirements any target which would be located on those 
components. Definitions of the terms ``convertible roof frame'' and 
``convertible roof linkage mechanism'' have been added to the final 
rule. NHTSA is not excluding all targets in convertibles from this 
final rule as AAMA and AIAM suggested. These commenters did not provide 
any justification to suggest that it was not practicable to install 
countermeasures on any components other than the targets in 
convertibles NHTSA has decided to exclude.

G. Components Currently Subject to Standard No. 201

    The NPRM requested comments on the desirability of amending the 
test procedure for components currently subject to Standard No. 201 to 
provide for using the FMH in testing those components. These comments 
were requested not because of any identifiable benefits, but because a 
uniform test procedure might simplify compliance testing for the 
industry. The only commenters who addressed this issue were 
manufacturers or manufacturer associations, all of whom opposed such a 
change.
    NHTSA does not believe that the extension of the FMH test 
procedures to instrument panels, seat backs, interior compartment 
doors, sun visors, and armrests would serve a safety purpose because 
these components are very soft relative to the upper interior 
components. Thus, it is not likely that any of the components currently 
tested under Standard No. 201 would exceed the HIC(d)-1000 limit when 
tested at 15 mph using the FMH. For that reason and because none of the 
manufacturers believed there was any safety benefit associated with 
amending the current requirements, NHTSA has not done so.

H. Costs and Benefits

    In the NPRM, NHTSA estimated that, for a performance requirement of 
HIC(d) 1000, the per vehicle cost associated with designing and making 
the necessary modifications needed to meet the proposed performance 
requirements would be $29 for passenger cars and $45 for LTVs (in 1991 
dollars).
    After reviewing the comments and the changes made in this final 
rule, NHTSA estimates that the per vehicle cost associated with 
designing and making the modifications needed to meet the new 
requirements is $33 for passenger cars and $51 for LTVs (in 1993 
dollars). In addition, NHTSA estimates that the cost of a new FMH is 
approximately $3,000 and the cost of a propulsion unit is approximately 
$35,000. On a per vehicle model basis, NHTSA estimates that total 
testing costs are $1,870 to $3,740.
    A detailed discussion of these estimates can be found in the Final 
Economic Assessment (FEA) which has 

[[Page 43048]]
been prepared for this final rule. In the FEA, costs have been updated 
to 1993 economics. Further, more baseline data have now become 
available for additional analysis. These analyses indicate that a 
higher percentage of vehicles would require padding.
    As to benefits, NHTSA estimated in the NPRM that, for a performance 
requirement of HIC(d) 1000, the annual reduction of AIS 2-5 head 
injuries would be 683 to 824, and that the annual reduction in 
fatalities would be 1,143 to 1,389. Based on more recent accident data, 
adjustment for current safety belt use (66 percent) and assuming all 
passenger cars and LTVs would have air bags, additional baseline and 
padded vehicle test data, and trends indicating future fleet changes, 
NHTSA has revised these estimates to 675 to 975 AIS 2-5 head injuries 
reduced and 873 to 1192 fatalities prevented. A study of the 1988-1992 
NASS data estimated that about 28 percent of the serious injuries from 
contacting vehicle interior components, such as pillars, headers, side 
rails, and the roof occur in rollover accidents. Padding of these 
interior components should be of substantial benefit in preventing 
serious injuries and fatalities as well as in reducing minor injuries. 
If 28 percent of the benefits of this standard are in rollover crashes, 
it is estimated that, in implementing the Secretary's comprehensive 
rollover plan, 189-273 AIS 2-5 injuries and 244-334 fatalities would be 
averted in rollovers as a direct result of this rule. A detailed 
discussion of these estimates can also be found in the FEA.

I. Leadtime

    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that the new requirements would become 
effective on the first September 1 that occurred approximately two 
years after issuance of the final rule. NHTSA's proposal was based on 
previous estimates that, for ``padding only'' countermeasures, the 
normal leadtime to design, tool, and test is approximately 14 to 18 
months. In the NPRM the agency recognized that it was possible that a 
longer leadtime might be necessary for this rulemaking because of the 
large number of vehicles that would be affected (the previous estimates 
had not been for a rule applicable to both passenger cars and LTVs) and 
because of the large number of components in each model which might 
require changes. Further, countermeasures other than padding might be 
required and/or desirable. Therefore, the agency requested comments on 
whether a longer leadtime was necessary and/or whether a phase-in was 
desirable.
    Manufacturers uniformly commented that the agency's leadtime 
estimates were inadequate. Further, manufacturers almost uniformly 
believed that a phase-in of the final rule was desirable, with some 
commenters suggesting that small volume manufacturers be allowed to 
defer compliance until later in the phase-in schedule. Manufacturer 
estimates of how much leadtime was necessary prior to the beginning of 
a phase-in schedule ranged from three to five years. Manufacturers also 
suggested phase-in schedules of four years (similar to previous phase-
in schedules for Standard No. 208 or Standard No. 214, Side Impact 
Protection) or five years (10 percent, 25 percent, 40 percent, 70 
percent, and 100 percent). As an alternative, one commenter suggested 
that the agency require 25 percent of each vehicle to comply within two 
years, 50 percent of each vehicle within three years, and 100 percent 
within five years. Manufacturers did not appear to believe that 
separate phase-in schedules for passenger cars and LTVs would be 
helpful. However, some commenters suggested that the agency should 
allow carry-forward or carry-back credits to provide additional 
flexibility.
    The manufacturers provided a number of rationales to support their 
belief that additional leadtime was necessary. Some manufacturers 
provided test data that indicated none of the affected vehicles 
currently comply with the requirements for all the covered components 
and that many vehicles do not comply with respect to any of the covered 
components. Manufacturers also indicated that padding may not be 
sufficient to enable some of the covered components to comply with the 
standard. Manufacturers also indicated that, even if padding alone were 
sufficient to comply with the proposed requirements, this would not be 
the preferred option as padding decreases visibility (a safety concern) 
and interior roominess (a customer satisfaction concern). Manufacturers 
indicated that they believed that changes to the vehicle structure 
(greenhouse) would be necessary (to the extent that a component could 
not comply with padding alone) or desirable (to compensate for loss in 
visibility or interior roominess). Manufacturers also explained that 
such changes had to be made early in a design cycle and that the 
typical design cycle was four to six years for passenger cars and eight 
to ten years for LTVs.
    In contrast, the safety groups that commented on leadtime believed 
that the proposed leadtime was sufficient. However, these safety groups 
did not provide any specific information to support their belief.
    After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has determined that the 
leadtime proposed in the NPRM was not sufficient. NHTSA has found only 
one vehicle currently in production (tested at only 4 locations) that 
would comply with all aspects of the new requirements and that, for 
over 50 percent of the components tested will require changes. NHTSA 
also agrees with comments that padding alone will not be sufficient for 
some components in some vehicles. In addition, NHTSA agrees that other 
countermeasures may be preferable to padding, even if padding alone 
might be sufficient to meet the new requirements. To the extent that 
these other countermeasures require additional leadtime, NHTSA is 
concerned that the leadtime proposed in the NPRM would require 
manufacturers to use padding alone for some components, and that such 
padding might have a negative side effect as far as its effect on 
visibility is concerned. For example, while NHTSA believes many 
visibility concerns were addressed by the reduction in horizontal 
approach angles, it still may be possible that the safety benefits 
resulting from the padded components could be partially offset by an 
increased accident rate if the padding were added in a way that caused 
a significant decrease in visibility.
    NHTSA also agrees that some countermeasures which would offset some 
of the problems (e.g., interior roominess) associated with padding 
alone must be done early in the design process (i.e., increasing the 
size of the greenhouse or structure of pillars to offset the decrease 
in visibility or interior roominess). Those countermeasures would, 
therefore, require much more leadtime to accomplish than simply padding 
components. NHTSA is also aware that a number of other significant new 
safety requirements have been issued in recent years (e.g., Standards 
Nos. 208, 214, etc.), placing a significant cumulative burden on 
manufacturer's resources.
    Finally, NHTSA is convinced that because all vehicles will require 
some redesign to meet the new requirements, a phase-in is necessary and 
desirable. Manufacturers will have to design and make the necessary 
modifications to meet the new requirements for each of their models. 
However, the same engineering resources and testing facilities may be 
needed for all of the models and cannot be used simultaneously. Given 
this, NHTSA has decided that the phase-in period for these new 
requirements will begin 

[[Page 43049]]
September 1, 1998. In the first year of the phase-in, 10 percent of 
each manufacturer's vehicles will be required to comply with the new 
requirements. In the second year, 25 percent of all vehicles must 
comply; in the third year, 40 percent; and in the fourth year, 70 
percent. All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 must 
comply with the new requirements. NHTSA is aware that this phase-in is 
one year longer than previous phase-in requirements. However, NHTSA 
believes that this is justified. Unlike previous phase-ins, available 
evidence (which amounts to testing of 32 different models) indicates 
that only one vehicle model as currently manufactured could comply with 
the new requirements for all covered components. In addition, unlike 
previous phase-ins, the new requirements are being phased-in for two 
types of vehicles (passenger cars and LTVs) at the same time.
    For manufacturers with few vehicle lines, NHTSA has decided to 
allow an alternative phase-in. The alternative phase-in allows a 
manufacturer to delay compliance in the first year of the phase-in. 
However, manufacturers which take this option must certify all vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 as complying with the new 
requirements.
    NHTSA also has decided to allow manufacturers of vehicles 
manufactured in two or more stages to delay compliance until the final 
year of the phase-in. Since final stage manufacturers and alterers have 
no control over the year of the phase-in in which a particular vehicle 
will be certified as complying with the new requirements, NHTSA is 
allowing these manufacturers until the final year of the phase-in to 
certify that their vehicles meet the new requirement. NHTSA has taken 
this approach previously with the phase-ins for Standards Nos. 208. 
However, NHTSA is not allowing additional leadtime beyond the end of 
the phase-in, because individual components can be tested outside the 
vehicle. This will enable a final stage manufacturer or an alterer to 
verify that the changes it intends to make to a vehicle's compliant 
interior will not affect the vehicle's compliance.
    Finally, NHTSA has decided to allow carry-forward credits. NHTSA 
believes that this will encourage manufacturers to exceed the 
requirements in early years, by concentrating initial efforts on either 
vehicles which present fewer redesign problems or high volume vehicles. 
This will benefit consumers by accelerating the availability of 
vehicles which comply with the new requirements and will benefit 
manufacturers by providing them with flexibility for the later years of 
the phase-in. NHTSA notes, however, that carry-forward credits can not 
be used to delay the beginning of 100 percent compliance beyond 
September 1, 2002.

VII. OVSC Laboratory Test Procedure

    A number of manufacturers have asked NHTSA when the Office of 
Vehicle Safety Compliance's (OVSC) Laboratory Test Procedure for the 
new requirements in Standard No. 201 would be available. For interested 
parties, a copy of the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedure has been placed 
in the docket for this notice. NHTSA would like to emphasize that the 
OVSC Laboratory Test Procedure is prepared for use by independent 
laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the agency. 
The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures are not intended to change the 
requirements of the applicable safety standard.

VIII. Correction

    NHTSA is amending S3.4.2 of Standard No. 201 to replace the word 
``contractable'' with the word ``contactable.'' NHTSA finds for good 
cause that notice and opportunity to comment are not required. This 
amendment does not substantively change a requirement, as it merely 
corrects a typographic error.

IX. 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 rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to 
be ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. NHTSA has prepared a Final Economic Assessment 
(FEA) for this final rule. As explained in the FEA, NHTSA estimates the 
consumer costs of this rule to be $641 million annually.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. As explained in the FEA, while there are a substantial number 
of small businesses that would be affected by this final rule, the 
agency does not believe there would be a significant economic impact. 
The agency believes general testing on worst case components can be 
carried out at low cost and be used as a basis for compliance by using 
the same thickness of padding on similar components.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The reporting requirements associated with this rule have been 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval in 
accordance with 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. Administration: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration; Title: Head Protection Phase-in 
Reporting Requirements; Need for Information: To report manufacturer's 
annual production for the first four years of the phase-in period.; 
Proposed Use of Information: To determine compliance with phase-in 
requirements.; Frequency: Annual; Burden Estimate: 1260 hours/year; 
Respondents: 35; Form(s): Written report; Average Burden Hours for 
Respondent: 36 hours/year.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a 
significant impact on the human environment.

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule 
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, 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. 30161 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.
    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Parts 571, 572, and 589 
are amended as follows: 

[[Page 43050]]


List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

49 CFR Part 572

    Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety.

49 CFR Part 589

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 571.201  [Amended]

    2. Section 571.201 is amended by adding a new S2.1, revising S3 and 
S3.4.2, and adding new S4 through S8.13, to read as follows:
    S2.1  Definitions.
    A-pillar means any pillar that is, in whole or part, forward of a 
transverse vertical plane passing through the seating reference point 
of the driver's seat.
    Ambulance means a motor vehicle designed exclusively for the 
purpose of emergency medical care, as evidenced by the presence of a 
passenger compartment to accommodate emergency medical personnel, one 
or more patients on litters or cots, and equipment and supplies for 
emergency care at a location or during transport.
    B-pillar means the forwardmost pillar on each side of the vehicle 
that is entirely rearward of a transverse vertical plane passing 
through the seating reference point of the driver's seat, unless there 
is only one pillar rearward of that plane and it is also a rearmost 
pillar.
    Brace means a fixed diagonal structural member in an open body 
vehicle that is used to brace the roll-bar and that connects the roll-
bar to the main body of the vehicle structure.
    Convertible roof frame means the metal frame of a convertible roof.
    Convertible roof linkage mechanism means any anchorage, fastener, 
or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame.
    Daylight opening means, for openings on the side of the vehicle, 
other than a door opening, the locus of all points where a horizontal 
line, perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent 
to the periphery of the opening. For openings on the front and rear of 
the vehicle, other than a door opening, daylight opening means the 
locus of all points where a horizontal line, parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the periphery of the opening. If 
the horizontal line is tangent to the periphery at more than one point 
at any location, the most inboard point is used to determine the 
daylight opening.
    Door opening means, for door openings on the side of the vehicle, 
the locus of all points where a horizontal line, perpendicular to the 
vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the periphery of the 
side door opening. For door openings on the back end of the vehicle, 
door opening means the locus of all points where a horizontal line, 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the 
periphery of the back door opening. If the horizontal line is tangent 
to the periphery at more than one point at any location, the most 
inboard point is the door opening.
    Forehead impact zone means the part of the free motion headform 
surface area that is determined in accordance with the procedure set 
forth in S6.10.
    Free motion headform means a test device which conforms to the 
specifications of Part 572, Subpart L of this Chapter.
    Mid-sagittal plane of a dummy means a longitudinal vertical plane 
passing through the seating reference point of a designated seating 
position.
    Motor home means a motor vehicle with motive power that is designed 
to provide temporary residential accommodations, as evidenced by the 
presence of at least four of the following facilities: cooking; 
refrigeration or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air 
conditioning; a potable water supply system including a faucet and a 
sink; and a separate 110-125 volt electrical power supply and/or an LP 
gas supply.
    Other pillar means any pillar which is not an A-pillar, a B-pillar, 
or a rearmost pillar.
    Pillar means any structure, excluding glazing and the vertical 
portion of door window frames, but including accompanying moldings, 
attached components such as safety belt anchorages and coat hooks, 
which (1) supports either a roof or any other structure (such as a 
roll-bar) that is above the driver's head, or (2) is located along the 
side edge of a window.
    Roll-bar means a fixed overhead structural member, including its 
vertical support structure, that extends from the left to the right 
side of the passenger compartment of any open body vehicles and 
convertibles. It does not include a header.
    Seat belt anchorage means any component involved in transferring 
seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited 
to, the attachment hardware, but excluding webbing or straps, seat 
frames, seat pedestals, and the vehicle structure itself, whose failure 
causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.
    Sliding door track means a track structure along the upper edge of 
a side door opening that secures the door in the closed position and 
guides the door when moving to and from the open position.
    Stiffener means a fixed overhead structural member that connects 
one roll-bar to another roll-bar or to a header of any open body 
vehicle or convertible.
    Upper roof means the area of the vehicle interior that is 
determined in accordance with the procedure set forth in S6.15.
* * * * *
    S3  Requirements for instrument panels, seat backs, interior 
compartment doors, sun visors, and armrests. Each vehicle shall comply 
with the requirements specified in S3.1 through S3.5.2.
* * * * *
    S3.4.2  Each sun visor mounting shall present no rigid material 
edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a 
spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form.
* * * * *
    S4  Requirements for upper interior components. Except as provided 
in S4.1 through S4.3, each vehicle manufactured on or after September 
1, 1998, except walk-in van-type vehicles, shall, when tested under the 
conditions of S6, comply with the requirements specified in S5 at the 
target locations specified in S8 when impacted by the free motion 
headform specified in S6.8 at any speed up to and including 24 
kilometers per hour. The requirements do not apply to any target that 
cannot be located using the procedures of S8.
    S4.1  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and 
before September 1, 2002. Except as provided in S4.1.5, vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 2002 
shall comply with S4.1.1 through S4.1.4.
    S4.1.1  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and 
before September 1, 1999. For vehicles manufactured by a manufacturer 
on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 1999, the amount 
of vehicles complying with S5 shall be not less than 10 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 
1999, or 

[[Page 43051]]

    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 1998 and 
before September 1, 1999.
    S4.1.2  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 and 
before September 1, 2000. Subject to S4.1.6(a), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 1999 and before 
September 1, 2000, the amount of vehicles complying with S5 shall be 
not less than 25 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1, 
2000, or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 1999 and 
before September 1, 2000.
    S4.1.3  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and 
before September 1, 2001. Subject to S4.1.6(b), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2000 and before 
September 1, 2001, the amount of vehicles complying with S5 shall be 
not less than 40 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 
2001, or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2000 and 
before September 1, 2001.
    S4.1.4  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 and 
before September 1, 2002. Subject to S4.1.6(c), for vehicles 
manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2001 and before 
September 1, 2002, the amount of vehicles complying with S5 shall be 
not less than 70 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 
2002, or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2001 and 
before September 1, 2002.
    S4.1.5  Alternative phase-in schedules.
    (a) Alternative phase-in schedule for all manufacturers. A 
manufacturer may, at its option, comply with the requirements set forth 
in S4.1.5(a)(1) and S4.1.5(a)(2) instead of complying with the 
requirements set forth in S4.1.1 through S4.1.4.
    (1) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before 
September 1, 1999 are not required to comply with the requirements 
specified in S5.
    (2) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 shall 
comply with the requirements specified in S5.
    (b) Alternative phase-in schedule for final stage manufacturers or 
alterers. A final stage manufacturer or alterer may, at its option, 
comply with the requirements set forth in S4.1.5(b)(1) and S4.1.5(b)(2) 
instead of complying with the requirements set forth in S4.1.1 through 
S4.1.4.
    (1) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before 
September 1, 2002 are not required to comply with the requirements 
specified in S5.
    (2) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 shall 
comply with the requirements specified in S5.
    S4.1.6  Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of complying with S4.1.2, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, but before 
September 1, 2000, and
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S4.1.1.
    (b) For the purposes of complying with S4.1.3, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, but before 
September 1, 2001, and
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S4.1.1 or S4.1.2.
    (c) For the purposes of complying with S4.1.4, a manufacturer may 
count a vehicle if it:
    (1) Is manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, but before 
September 1, 2002, and
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S4.1.1, S4.1.2, or 
S4.1.3.
    S4.1.7  Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
    S4.1.7.1  For the purpose of calculating average annual production 
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles 
manufactured by each manufacturer under S4.1.1 through S4.1.4, a 
vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a 
single manufacturer as follows, subject to S4.1.7.2.
    (a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the 
importer.
    (b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one 
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be 
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
    S4.1.7.2  A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 589, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S4.1.7.1.
    S4.2  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002. Except 
as provided in S4.3, vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2002 shall comply with the requirements specified in S5.
    S4.3  A vehicle need not meet the requirements of S4.1 through S4.2 
for:
    (a) Any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible 
roof linkage mechanism.
    (b) Any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind 
the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating 
position.
    (c) Any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind 
the seating reference point of the driver's seating position in an 
ambulance or a motor home.
    S5.  Performance Criterion. The HIC(d) shall not exceed 1000 when 
calculated in accordance with the following formula:
    (a) HIC(d) = 0.75446 (free motion headform HIC) + 166.4.
    (b) The free motion headform HIC is calculated in accordance with 
the following formula:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.043

Where the term a is the resultant acceleration expressed as a multiple 
ofg (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.
    S6  Test conditions.
    S6.1  Vehicle test attitude.
    (a) The vehicle is supported off its suspension at an attitude 
determined in accordance with S6.1(b).
    (b) Directly above each wheel opening, determine the vertical 
distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the 
test vehicle's body under the conditions of S6.1(b)(1) through 
S6.1(b)(3).
    (1) The vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its 
rated cargo and luggage capacity or 136 kg, whichever is less, secured 
in the luggage area. The load placed in the cargo area is centered over 
the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.
    (2) The vehicle is filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities.
    (3) All tires are inflated to the manufacturer's specifications 
listed on the vehicle's tire placard.
    S6.2 Windows. Movable vehicle windows are placed in the fully open 
position.
    S6.3 Convertible tops. The top, if any, of convertibles and open-
body type vehicles is in the closed passenger compartment 
configuration.
    S6.4 Doors. 

[[Page 43052]]

    (a) Except as provided in S6.4(b), doors, including any rear 
hatchback or tailgate, are fully closed and latched but not locked.
    (b) Any side door on the opposite side of the longitudinal 
centerline of the vehicle from the target to be impacted may be open or 
removed.
    S6.5 Sun visors. Each sun visor either is placed in any of the 
following positions:
    (a) Any position where one side of the visor is in contact with the 
vehicle interior surface (windshield, side rail, front header, roof, 
etc.), or;
    (b) Removed.
    S6.6 Steering wheel and seats. The steering wheel and seats may be 
removed from the vehicle.
    S6.7 Seat belt anchorages.
    (a) If a target is on a seat belt anchorage, and if the seat belt 
anchorage is adjustable, tests are conducted with the anchorage 
adjusted to a point midway between the two extreme adjustment 
positions. If the anchorage has distinct adjustment positions, none of 
which is midway between the two extreme positions, tests are conducted 
with the anchorage adjusted to the nearest position above the midpoint 
of the two extreme positions.
    (b) If a target is not on a seat belt anchorage, the seat belt 
anchorage may be removed to test the component on which the anchorage 
is mounted.
    S6.8 Temperature and humidity.
    (a) The ambient temperature is between 19 degrees C. and 26 degrees 
C., at any relative humidity between 10 percent and 70 percent.
    (b) Tests are not conducted unless the headform specified in S6.9 
is exposed to the conditions specified in S6.8(a) for a period not less 
than four hours.
    S6.9 Headform. The headform used for testing conforms to the 
specifications of Part 572, Subpart L of this chapter.
    S6.10 Forehead impact zone. The forehead impact zone of the 
headform is determined according to the procedure specified in (a) 
through (f).
    (a) Position the headform so that the baseplate of the skull is 
horizontal. The midsagittal plane of the headform is designated as 
Plane S.
    (b) From the center of the threaded hole on top of the headform, 
draw a 69 mm line forward toward the forehead, coincident with Plane S, 
along the contour of the outer skin of the headform. The front end of 
the line is designated as Point P. From Point P, draw a 100 mm line 
forward toward the forehead, coincident with Plane S, along the contour 
of the outer skin of the headform. The front end of the line is 
designated as Point O.
    (c) Draw a 125 mm line which is coincident with a horizontal plane 
along the contour of the outer skin of the forehead from left to right 
through Point O so that the line is bisected at Point O. The end of the 
line on the left side of the headform is designated as Point a and the 
end on the right as Point b.
    (d) Draw another 125 mm line which is coincident with a vertical 
plane along the contour of the outer skin of the forehead through Point 
P so that the line is bisected at Point P. The end of the line on the 
left side of the headform is designated as Point c and the end on the 
right as Point d.
    (e) Draw a line from Point a to Point c along the contour of the 
outer skin of the headform using a flexible steel tape. Using the same 
method, draw a line from Point b to Point d.
    (f) The forehead impact zone is the surface area on the FMH 
forehead bounded by lines a-O-b and c-P-d, and a-c and b-d.
    S6.11 Target circle. The area of the vehicle to be impacted by the 
headform is marked with a solid circle 12.7 mm in diameter, centered on 
the targets specified in S8, using any transferable opaque coloring 
medium.
    S6.12 Location of head center of gravity.
    (a) Location of head center of gravity for front outboard 
designated seating positions (CG-F).
    (1) Location of rearmost CG-F (CG-F2). For front outboard 
designated seating positions, the head center of gravity with the seat 
in its rearmost adjustment position (CG-F2) is located 160 mm rearward 
and 660 mm upward from the seating reference point.
    (2) Location of forwardmost CG-F (CG-F1). For front outboard 
designated seating positions, the head center of gravity with the seat 
in its forwardmost adjustment position (CG-F1) is located horizontally 
forward of CG-F2 by the distance equal to the fore-aft distance of the 
seat track.
    (b) Location of head center of gravity for rear outboard designated 
seating positions (CG-R). For rear outboard designated seating 
positions, the head center of gravity (CG-R) is located 160 mm rearward 
and 660 mm upward from the seating reference point.
    S6.13 Impact configuration.
    S6.13.1 The headform is launched from any location inside the 
vehicle which meets the conditions of S6.13.4. At the time of launch, 
the midsagittal plane of the headform is vertical and the headform is 
upright.
    S6.13.2 The headform travels freely through the air, along a 
velocity vector that is perpendicular to the headform's skull cap 
plate, not less than 25 mm before making any contact with the vehicle.
    S6.13.3 At the time of initial contact between the headform and the 
vehicle interior surface, some portion of the forehead impact zone of 
the headform contacts some portion of the target circle.
    S6.13.4 Approach Angles. The headform launching angle is as 
specified in Table 1. For components for which Table 1 specifies a 
range of angles, the headform launching angle is within the limits 
determined using the procedures specified in S6.13.4.1 and 6.13.4.2, 
and within the range specified in Table I, using the orthogonal 
reference system specified in S7.

               Table 1--Approach Angle Limits (In Degrees)              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Vertical
         Impact zones                  Horizontal angle           angle 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Header..................  180...........................      0-50
Rear Header...................  0 or 360......................      0-50
Left Side Rail................  270...........................      0-50
Right Side Rail...............  90............................      0-50
Left A-Pillar.................  195-255.......................     -5-50
Right A-Pillar................  105-165.......................     -5-50
Left B-Pillar.................  195-345.......................    -10-50
Right B-Pillar................  15-165........................    -10-50
Other Left Pillars............  270...........................    -10-50
Other Right Pillars...........  90............................    -10-50
Left Rearmost Pillar..........  270-345.......................    -10-50
Right Rearmost Pillar.........  15-90.........................    -10-50
Upper Roof....................  Any...........................      0-50
Overhead Rollbar..............  0 or 180......................      0-50
Brace or Stiffener............  90 or 270.....................      0-50
Seat Belt.....................  Any...........................      0-50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S6.13.4.1  Horizontal Approach Angles for Headform Impacts.
    (a) Left A-Pillar Horizontal Approach Angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F1 for the left seat and the right A-pillar. The maximum 
horizontal approach angle for the left A-pillar equals 360 degrees 
minus the angle formed by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle, 
measured counterclockwise.
    (2) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the left seat and the left A-pillar. The minimum 
horizontal approach angle for the left A-pillar impact equals the angle 
formed by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle, measured 
counterclockwise.
    (b) Right A-Pillar Horizontal Approach Angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F1 for the right seat and the left A-pillar. The minimum 
horizontal approach angle for the right A-pillar equals 360 degrees 
minus the angle 

[[Page 43053]]
formed by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle, measured 
counterclockwise.
    (2) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the right seat and the right A-pillar. The maximum 
horizontal approach angle for the right A-pillar impact equals the 
angle formed by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle measured 
counterclockwise.
    (c) Left B-Pillar Horizontal Approach Angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the left seat and the left B-pillar. The maximum 
horizontal approach angle for the left B-pillar equals the angle formed 
by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle measured counterclockwise, 
or 270 degrees, whichever is greater.
    (2) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-R for the left seat and the left B-pillar. The minimum 
horizontal approach angle for the left B-pillar equals the angle formed 
by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle measured counterclockwise.
    (d) Right B-Pillar Horizontal Approach Angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the right seat and the right B-pillar. The minimum 
horizontal approach angle for the right B-pillar equals the angle 
formed by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle measured 
counterclockwise, or 90 degrees, whichever is less.
    (2) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-R for the right seat and the right B-pillar. The maximum 
horizontal approach angle for the right B-pillar equals the angle 
between that line and the X-axis of the vehicle measured 
counterclockwise.
    S6.13.4.2  Vertical Approach Angles.
    (a) Position the forehead impact zone in contact with the selected 
target at the prescribed horizontal approach angle. If a range of 
horizontal approach angles is prescribed, position the forehead impact 
zone in contact with the selected target at any horizontal approach 
angle within the range which may be used for testing.
    (b) Keeping the forehead impact zone in contact with the target, 
rotate the FMH upward until the lip, chin or other part of the FMH 
contacts the component or other portion of the vehicle interior.
    (1) Except as provided in S6.13.4.2(b)(2), keeping the forehead 
impact zone in contact with the target, rotate the FMH downward by 5 
degrees for each target to determine the maximum vertical angle.
    (2) For all pillars except A-Pillars, keeping the forehead impact 
zone in contact with the target, rotate the FMH downward by 10 degrees 
for each target to determine the maximum vertical angle.
    S6.14  Multiple impacts.
    (a) A vehicle being tested may be impacted multiple times, subject 
to the limitations in S6.14(b) and (c).
    (b) As measured as provided in S6.14(d), impacts within 300 mm of 
each other may not occur less than 30 minutes apart.
    (c) As measured as provided in S6.14(d), no impact may occur within 
150 mm of any other impact.
    (d) For S6.14(b) and S6.14(c), the distance between impacts is the 
distance between the centers of the target circle specified in S6.11 
for each impact, measured along the vehicle interior.
    S6.15  Upper Roof. The upper roof of a vehicle is determined 
according to the procedure specified in S6.15(a) through (h).
    (a) Locate the transverse vertical plane A at the forwardmost point 
where it contacts the interior roof (including trim) at the vehicle 
centerline.
    (b) Locate the transverse vertical plane B at the rearmost point 
where it contacts the interior roof (including trim) at the vehicle 
centerline.
    (c) Measure the horizontal distance (D1) between Plane A and Plane 
B.
    (d) Locate the vertical longitudinal plane C at the leftmost point 
at which a vertical transverse plane, located 275 mm rearward of the A-
pillar reference point described in S8.1(a), contacts the interior roof 
(including trim).
    (e) Locate the vertical longitudinal plane D at the rightmost point 
at which a vertical transverse plane, located 275 mm rearward of the A-
pillar reference point described in S8.1(a), contacts the interior roof 
(including trim).
    (f) Measure the horizontal distance (D2) between Plane C and Plane 
D.
    (g) Locate a point (Point M) on the roof interior surface, midway 
between Plane A and Plane B along the vehicle longitudinal centerline.
    (h) The upper roof zone is the area of the vehicle upper interior 
surface bounded by the four planes described in S6.15(h)(1) and 
S6.15(h)(2):
    (1) A transverse vertical plane E located at a distance of (.35 D1) 
forward of Point M and a transverse vertical plane F located at a 
distance of (.35 D1) rearward of Point M, measured horizontally.
    (2) A longitudinal vertical plane G located at a distance of (.35 
D2) to the left of Point M and a longitudinal vertical plane H located 
at a distance of (.35 D2) to the right of Point M, measured 
horizontally.
    S7.  Orthogonal Reference System. The approach angles specified in 
S6.13.4 are determined using the reference system specified in S7.1 
through S7.4.
    S7.1  An orthogonal reference system consisting of a longitudinal X 
axis and a transverse Y axis in the same horizontal plane and a 
vertical Z axis through the intersection of X and Y is used to define 
the horizontal direction of approach of the headform. The X-Z plane is 
the vertical longitudinal zero plane and is parallel to the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The X-Y plane is the horizontal 
zero plane parallel to the ground. The Y-Z plane is the vertical 
transverse zero plane that is perpendicular to the X-Y and Y-Z planes. 
The X coordinate is negative forward of the Y-Z plane and positive to 
the rear. The Y coordinate is negative to the left of the X-Z plane and 
positive to the right. The Z coordinate is negative below the X-Y plane 
and positive above it. (See Figure 1.)
    S7.2  The origin of the reference system is the center of gravity 
of the headform at the time immediately prior to launch for each test.
    S7.3  The horizontal approach angle is the angle between the X axis 
and the headform impact velocity vector projected onto the horizontal 
zero plane, measured in the horizontal zero plane in the counter-
clockwise direction. A 0 degree horizontal vector and a 360 degree 
horizontal vector point in the positive X direction; a 90 degree 
horizontal vector points in the positive Y direction; a 180 degree 
horizontal vector points in the negative X direction; and a 270 
horizontal degree vector points in the negative Y direction. (See 
Figure 2.)
    S7.4  The vertical approach angle is the angle between the 
horizontal plane and the velocity vector, measured in the midsagittal 
plane of the headform. A 0 degree vertical vector in Table I coincides 
with the horizontal plane and a vertical vector of greater than 0 
degrees in Table I makes a upward angle of the same number of degrees 
with that plane.
    S8  Target Locations.
    (a) The target locations specified in S8.1 through S8.12 are 
located on both sides of the vehicle and, except as specified in S8(b), 
are determined using the procedures specified in those paragraphs.
    (b) Except as specified in S8(c), if there is no combination of 
horizontal and vertical angles specified in S6.13.4 at which the 
forehead impact zone of free motion headform can contact one of 

[[Page 43054]]
the targets located using the procedures in S8.1 through S8.12, the 
center of that target is moved to any location within a circle with a 
radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and 
measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can 
contact at one or more combination of angles.
     (c) If there is no point within the circle specified in S8(b) 
which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact 
at one or more combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified 
in S6.13.4, the radius of the circle is increased by 25 mm increments 
until the circle contains at least one point that can be contacted at 
one or more combination of angles.
    S8.1  A-pillar targets.
    (a) A-pillar reference point and target AP1. On the vehicle 
exterior, locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) which contacts 
the rearmost point of the windshield trim. The intersection of Plane 1 
and the vehicle exterior surface is Line 1. Measuring along the vehicle 
exterior surface, locate a point (Point 1) on Line 1 that is 125 mm 
inboard of the intersection of Line 1 and a vertical plane tangent to 
the vehicle at the outboardmost point on Line 1 with the vehicle side 
door open. Measuring along the vehicle exterior surface in a 
longitudinal vertical plane (Plane 2) passing through Point 1, locate a 
point (Point 2) 50 mm rearward of Point 1. Locate the A-pillar 
reference point (Point APR) at the intersection of the surface of the 
vehicle ceiling and a line that is perpendicular to the vehicle 
exterior surface at Point 2. Target AP1 is located at point APR.
    (b) Target AP2. Locate the horizontal plane (Plane 3) which 
intersects point APR. Locate the horizontal plane (Plane 4) which is 88 
mm below Plane 3. Target AP2 is the point in Plane 4 and on the A-
pillar which is closest to CG-F2 for the nearest seating position.
    (c) Target AP3. Locate the horizontal plane (Plane 5) containing 
the highest point at the intersection of the dashboard and the A-
pillar. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 6) half-way between Plane 3 
and Plane 5. Target AP3 is the point on Plane 6 and the A-pillar which 
is closest to CG-F1 for the nearest seating position.
    S8.2  B-pillar targets.
    (a) B-pillar reference point and target BP1. Locate the point 
(Point 3) on the vehicle interior at the intersection of the horizontal 
plane passing through the highest point of the forwardmost door opening 
and the centerline of the width of the B-pillar, as viewed laterally. 
Locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 7) which passes through Point 
3. Locate the point (Point 4) at the intersection of the surface of the 
vehicle ceiling, Plane 7, and the plane, described in S6.15(h), 
defining the nearest edge of the upper roof. The B-pillar reference 
point (Point BPR) is the point located at the middle of the line from 
Point 3 to Point 4 in Plane 7, measured along the vehicle interior 
surface. Target BP1 is located at Point BPR.
    (b) Target BP2. If a seat belt anchorage is located on the B-
pillar, Target BP2 is located at any point on the anchorage.
    (c) Target BP3. Target BP3 is located in accordance with this 
paragraph. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 8) which intersects Point 
BPR. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 9) which passes through the 
lowest point of the daylight opening forward of the pillar. Locate a 
horizontal plane (Plane 10) half-way between Plane 8 and Plane 9. 
Target BP3 is the point located in Plane 10 and on the interior surface 
of the B-pillar, which is closest to CG-F(2) for the nearest seating 
position.
    (d) Target BP4. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 11) half-way 
between Plane 9 and Plane 10. Target BP4 is the point located in Plane 
11 and on the interior surface of the B-pillar which is closest to CG-R 
for the nearest seating position.
    S8.3  Other pillar targets.
    (a) Target OP1.
    (1) Except as provided in S8.3(a)(2), Target OP1 is located in 
accordance with this paragraph. Locate the point (Point 5), on the 
vehicle interior, at the intersection of the horizontal plane through 
the highest point of the highest adjacent door opening or daylight 
opening (if no adjacent door opening) and the centerline of the width 
of the other pillar, as viewed laterally. Locate a transverse vertical 
plane (Plane 12) passing through Point 5. Locate the point (Point 6) at 
the intersection of the surface of the vehicle ceiling, Plane 12 and 
the plane, described in S6.15(h), defining the nearest edge of the 
upper roof. The other pillar reference point (Point OPR) is the point 
located at the middle of the line between Point 5 and Point 6 in Plane 
12, measured along the vehicle interior surface. Target OP1 is located 
at Point OPR.
    (2) If a seat belt anchorage is located on the pillar, Target OP1 
is any point on the anchorage.
    (b) Target OP2. Locate the horizontal plane (Plane 13) intersecting 
Point OPR. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 14) passing through the 
lowest point of the daylight opening forward of the pillar. Locate a 
horizontal plane (Plane 15) half-way between Plane 13 and Plane 14. 
Target OP2 is the point located on the interior surface of the pillar 
at the intersection of Plane 15 and the centerline of the width of the 
pillar, as viewed laterally.
    S8.4  Rearmost pillar targets.
    (a) Rearmost pillar reference point and target RP1. Locate the 
point (Point 7) at the corner of the upper roof nearest to the pillar. 
The distance between Point M, as described in S6.15(g), and Point 7, as 
measured along the vehicle interior surface, is D. Extend the line from 
Point M to Point 7 along the vehicle interior surface in the same 
vertical plane by (3*D/7) beyond Point 7 or until the edge of a 
daylight opening, whichever comes first, to locate Point 8. The 
rearmost pillar reference point (Point RPR) is at the midpoint of the 
line between Point 7 and Point 8, measured along the vehicle interior. 
Target RP1 is located at Point RPR.
    (b) Target RP2.
    (1) Except as provided in S8.6(b)(2), Target RP2 is located in 
accordance with this paragraph. Locate the horizontal plane (Plane 16) 
through Point RPR. Locate the horizontal plane (Plane 17) 150 mm below 
Plane 16. Target RP2 is located in Plane 17 and on the pillar at the 
location closest to CG-R for the nearest designated seating position.
    (2) If a seat belt anchorage is located on the pillar, Target RP2 
is any point on the anchorage.
    S8.5  Front header targets.
    (a) Target FH1. Locate the contour line (Line 2) on the vehicle 
interior trim which passes through the APR and is parallel to the 
contour line (Line 3) at the upper edge of the windshield on the 
vehicle interior. Locate the point (Point 9) on Line 2 that is 125 mm 
inboard of the APR, measured along that line. Locate a longitudinal 
vertical plane (Plane 18) that passes through Point 9. Target FH1 is 
located at the intersection of Plane 18 and the upper vehicle interior, 
halfway between a transverse vertical plane (Plane 19) through Point 9 
and a transverse vertical plane (Plane 20) through the intersection of 
Plane 18 and Line 3.
    (b) Target FH2.
    (1) Except as provided in S8.5(b)(2), target FH2 is located in 
accordance with this paragraph. Locate a point (Point 10) 275 mm 
inboard of Point APR, along Line 2. Locate a longitudinal vertical 
plane (Plane 21) that passes through Point 10. Target FH2 is located at 
the intersection of Plane 21 and the upper vehicle interior, halfway 
between a transverse vertical plane (Plane 22) through Point 10 and a 
transverse vertical plane (Plane 23) through the intersection of Plane 
21 and Line 3.
    (2) If a sunroof frame is located forward of the front edge of the 
upper roof and intersects the mid-sagittal 

[[Page 43055]]
plane of a dummy seated in either front outboard seating position, 
target FH2 is the nearest point that is forward of a transverse 
vertical plane (Plane 24) through CG-F(2) and on the intersection of 
the mid-sagittal plane and the sunroof opening.
    S8.6  Targets on the side rail between the A-pillar and the B-
pillar.
    (a) Target SR1. Locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 25) 150 
mm rearward of Point APR. Locate the point (Point 11) at the 
intersection of Plane 25 and the upper edge of the forwardmost door 
opening. Locate the point (Point 12) at the intersection of the surface 
of the vehicle ceiling, Plane 25 and the plane, described in S6.15(h), 
defining the nearest edge of the upper roof. Target SR1 is located at 
the middle of the line between Point 11 and Point 12 in Plane 25, 
measured along the vehicle interior.
    (b) Target SR2. Locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 26) 275 
mm rearward of the APR or 275 mm forward of the BPR. Locate the point 
(Point 13) at the intersection of Plane 26 and the upper edge of the 
forwardmost door opening. Locate the point (Point 14) at the 
intersection of the surface of the vehicle ceiling, Plane 26 and the 
plane, described in S6.15(h), defining the nearest edge of the upper 
roof. Target SR2 is located at the middle of the line between Point 13 
and Point 14 in Plane 26, measured along the vehicle interior.
    S8.7  Other side rail target (target SR3).
    (a) Except as provided in S8.7(b), target SR3 is located in 
accordance with this paragraph. Locate a transverse vertical plane 
(Plane 27) 150 mm rearward of either Point BPR or Point OPR. Locate the 
point (Point 15) as provided in either S8.7(a)(1) or S8.7(a)(2), as 
appropriate. Locate the point (Point 16) at the intersection of the 
interior surface of the vehicle ceiling, Plane 27 and the plane, 
described in S6.15(h), defining the nearest edge of the upper roof. 
Target SR3 is located at the middle of the line between Point 15 and 
Point 16 in Plane 27, measured along the vehicle interior surface.
    (1) If Plane 27 intersects a door or daylight opening, the Point 15 
is located at the intersection of Plane 27 and the upper edge of the 
door opening or daylight opening.
    (2) If Plane 27 does not intersect a door or daylight opening, the 
Point 15 is located on the vehicle interior at the intersection of 
Plane 27 and the horizontal plane through the highest point of the door 
or daylight opening nearest Plane 27. If the adjacent door(s) or 
daylight opening(s) are equidistant to Plane 27, Point 15 is located on 
the vehicle interior at the intersection of Plane 27 and either 
horizontal plane through the highest point of each door or daylight 
opening.
    (b) Except as provided in S8.7(c), if a grab handle is located on 
the side rail, target SR3 is located at any point on the anchorage of 
the grab-handle. Folding grab-handles are in their stowed position for 
testing.
    (c) If a seat belt anchorage is located on the side rail, target 
SR3 is located at any point on the anchorage.
    S8.8  Rear header target (target RH). Locate the point (Point 17) 
at the intersection of the surface of the upper vehicle interior, the 
mid-sagittal plane (Plane 28) of the outboard rearmost dummy and the 
plane, described in S6.15(h), defining the rear edge of the upper roof. 
Locate the point (Point 18) as provided in S8.8(a) or S8.8(b), as 
appropriate. Except as provided in 8.8(c), Target RH is located at the 
mid-point of the line that is between Point 17 and Point 18 and is in 
Plane 28, as measured along the surface of the vehicle interior.
    (a) If Plane 28 intersects a rear door opening or daylight opening, 
then Point 18 is located at the intersection of Plane 28 and the upper 
edge of the door opening or the daylight opening (if no door opening).
    (b) If Plane 28 does not intersect a rear door opening or daylight 
opening, then Point 18 is located on the vehicle interior at the 
intersection of Plane 28 and a horizontal plane through the highest 
point of the door or daylight opening nearest to Plane 28. If the 
adjacent door(s) or daylight opening(s) are equidistant to Plane 28, 
Point 18 is located on the vehicle interior at the intersection of 
Plane 28 and either horizontal plane through the highest point of each 
door or daylight opening.
    (c) If Target RH is more than 112 mm from Point 18 on the line that 
is between Point 17 and Point 18 and is in Plane 28, as measured along 
the surface of the vehicle interior, then Target RH is the point on 
that line which is 112 mm from Point 18.
    S8.9  Upper roof target (target UR). Target UR is any point on the 
upper roof.
    S8.10  Sliding door track target (target SD). Locate the transverse 
vertical plane (Plane 29) passing through the middle of the widest 
opening of the sliding door, measured horizontally and parallel to the 
vehicle longitudinal centerline. Locate the point (Point 19) at the 
intersection of the surface of the upper vehicle interior, Plane 29 and 
the plane, described in S6.15(h), defining the nearest edge of the 
upper roof. Locate the point (Point 20) at the intersection of Plane 29 
and the upper edge of the sliding door opening. Target SD is located at 
the middle of the line between Point 19 and Point 20 in Plane 29, 
measured along the vehicle interior.
    S8.11  Roll-bar targets.
    (a) Target RB1. Locate a longitudinal vertical plane (Plane 30) at 
the mid-sagittal plane of a dummy seated in any outboard designated 
seating position. Target RB1 is located on the roll-bar and in Plane 30 
at the location closest to either CG-F2 or CG-R, as appropriate, for 
the same dummy.
    (b) Target RB2. If a seat belt anchorage is located on the roll-
bar, Target RB2 is any point on the anchorage.
    S8.12  Stiffener targets.
    (a) Target ST1. Locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 31) 
containing either CG-F2 or CG-R, as appropriate, for any outboard 
designated seating position. Target ST1 is located on the stiffener and 
in Plane 31 at the location closest to either CG-F2 or CG-R, as 
appropriate.
    (b) Target ST2. If a seat belt anchorage is located on the 
stiffener, Target ST2 is any point on the anchorage.
    S8.13  Brace target (target BT). Target BT is any point on the 
width of the brace as viewed laterally from inside the passenger 
compartment.


Sec. 571.201  [Amended]

    3. Section 571.201 is amended by adding new Figure 1 and Figure 2 
at the end of the section as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 43056]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.044



[[Page 43057]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.045



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 43058]]


PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES

    1. The authority citation for Part 572 of Title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

PART 572--[REVISED]

    3. The title of Part 572 is revised to read as set forth above.
    4. Section 572.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 572.1  Scope.

    This part describes the anthropomorphic test devices that are to be 
used for compliance testing of motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment with motor vehicle safety standards.
    5. Part 572 is amended by adding a new subpart L, consisting of 
Secs. 572.100 through 572.103, to read as follows:

Subpart L--Free motion headform

Sec.
572.100  Incorporation by Reference.
572.101  General description.
572.102  Drop test.
572.103  Test conditions and instrumentation.

Subpart L--Free motion headform


Sec. 572.100  Incorporation by Reference.

    (a) The drawings and specifications referred to in Sec. 572.101 are 
hereby incorporated in subpart L by reference. These materials are 
thereby made part of this regulation. The Director of the Federal 
Register approved the materials incorporated by reference in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the materials may be 
inspected at NHTSA's Docket Section, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., room 
5109, Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
    (b) The incorporated material is available as follows:
    (1) Drawing number 92041-001, ``Head Form Assembly,'' (November 30, 
1992); drawing number 92041-002, ``Skull Assembly,'' (November 30, 
1992); drawing number 92041-003, ``Skull Cap Plate Assembly,'' 
(November 30, 1992); drawing number 92041-004, ``Skull Cap Plate,'' 
(November 30, 1992); drawing number 92041-005, ``Threaded Pin,'' 
(November 30, 1992); drawing number 92041-006, ``Hex Nut,'' (November 
30, 1992); drawing number 92041-008, ``Head Skin without Nose,'' 
(November 30, 1992, as amended March 6, 1995); drawing number 92041-
009, ``Six-Axis Load Cell Simulator Assembly,'' (November 30, 1992); 
drawing number 92041-011, ``Head Ballast Weight,'' (November 30, 1992); 
drawing number 92041-018, ``Head Form Bill of Materials,'' (November 
30, 1992); drawing number 78051-148, ``Skull-Head (cast) Hybrid III,'' 
(May 20, 1978, as amended August 17, 1978); drawing number 78051-228/
78051-229, ``Skin- Hybrid III,'' (May 20, 1978, as amended through 
September 24, 1979); drawing number 78051-339, ``Pivot Pin-Neck 
Transducer,'' (May 20, 1978, as amended May 14, 1986); drawing number 
78051-372, ``Vinyl Skin Formulation Hybrid III,'' (May 20, 1978); and 
drawing number C-1797, ``Neck Blank, (August 1, 1989); drawing number 
SA572-S4, ``Accelerometer Specification,'' (November 30, 1992), are 
available from Reprographic Technologies, 1111 14th Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20005.
    (2) A user's manual entitled ``Free-Motion Headform User's 
Manual,'' version 2, March 1995, is available from NHTSA's Docket 
Section at the address in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, OCT 1988, ``Instrumentation for 
Impact Tests,'' Class 1000, is available from The Society of Automotive 
Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.


Sec. 572.101  General description.

    (a) The free motion headform consists of the component assembly 
which is shown in drawings 92041-001 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec. 572.100), 92041-002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 
92041-003 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 92041-004 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 92041-005 (incorporated 
by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 92041-006 (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec. 572.100), 92041-008 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec. 572.100), 92041-009 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 
92041-011 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 78051-148 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 78051-228/78051-229 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 78051-339 (incorporated 
by reference; see Sec. 572.100), 78051-372 (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec. 572.100), C-1797 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec. 572.100), and SA572-S4 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec. 572.100).
    (b) Disassembly, inspection, and assembly procedures, and sign 
convention for the signal outputs of the free motion headform 
accelerometers, are set forth in the Free-Motion Headform User's Manual 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100).
    (c) The structural properties of the headform are such that it 
conforms to this part in every respect both before and after being used 
in the test specified in Standard No. 201 of this chapter 
(Sec. 571.201).
    (d) The outputs of accelerometers installed in the headform are 
recorded in individual data channels that conform to the requirements 
of SAE Recommended Practice J211, OCT 1988, ``Instrumentation for 
Impact Tests,'' Class 1000 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec. 572.100).


Sec. 572.102  Drop test.
    (a) When the headform is dropped from a height of 14.8 inches in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the peak resultant 
accelerations at the location of the accelerometers mounted in the 
headform as shown in drawing 92041-001 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec. 572.100) shall not be less than 225g, and not more than 275g. The 
acceleration/time curve for the test shall be unimodal to the extent 
that oscillations occurring after the main acceleration pulse are less 
than ten percent (zero to peak) of the main pulse. The lateral 
acceleration vector shall not exceed 15g (zero to peak).
    (b) Test procedure.
    (1) Soak the headform in a test environment at any temperature 
between 19 degrees C. to 26 degrees C. and at a relative humidity from 
10 percent to 70 percent for a period of at least four hours prior to 
its use in a test.
    (2) Clean the headform's skin surface and the surface of the impact 
plate with 1,1,1 Trichloroethane or equivalent.
    (3) Suspend the headform, as shown in Figure 50. Position the 
forehead below the chin such that the skull cap plate is at an angle of 
28.5  0.5 degrees with the impact surface when the 
midsagittal plane is vertical.
    (4) Drop the headform from the specified height by means that 
ensure instant release onto a rigidly supported flat horizontal steel 
plate, which is 2 inches thick and 2 feet square. The plate shall have 
a clean, dry surface and any microfinish of not less than 8 microinches 
203.2 X 10-6 mm (rms) and not more than 80 microinches 2032 X 
10-6 mm (rms).
    (5) Allow at least 3 hours between successive tests on the same 
headform.


Sec. 572.103  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    (a) Headform accelerometers shall have dimensions, response 
characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing 
SA572-S4 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100) and be mounted 
in the headform as shown in drawing 92041-001 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec. 572.100). 

[[Page 43059]]

    (b) The outputs of accelerometers installed in the headform are 
recorded in individual data channels that conform to the requirements 
of SAE Recommended Practice J211, OCT 1988, ``Instrumentation for 
Impact Tests,'' Class 1000 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec. 572.100).
    (c) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity conform to the 
sign convention shown in the Free-Motion Headform User's Manual 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 572.100).
    (d) The mountings for accelerometers shall have no resonant 
frequency within a range of 3 times the frequency range of the 
applicable channel class.
    6. Part 572 is amended by adding a new Figure 50 at the end of 
subpart L as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
      

[[Page 43060]]
    [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR18AU95.046
    


BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 43061]]


PART 589--UPPER INTERIOR COMPONENT HEAD IMPACT PROTECTION PHASE-IN 
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    1. Part 589 is added to read as follows:

Sec.
589.1  Scope.
589.2  Purpose.
589.3  Applicability.
589.4  Definitions.
589.5  Response to inquiries.
589.6  Reporting requirements.
589.7  Records.
589.8  Petition to extend period to file report.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 589.1  Scope.

    This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger 
cars and trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less to respond to NHTSA 
inquiries, to submit a report, and maintain records related to the 
report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the upper 
interior component head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 
201, Occupant protection in interior impact (49 CFR 571.201).


Sec. 589.2  Purpose.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to aid the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer of passenger cars and trucks, buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds 
or less has complied with the upper interior component head impact 
protection requirements of Standard No. 201.


Sec. 589.3  Applicability.

    This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars and trucks, 
buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less. However, this part does not apply to 
any manufacturers whose production consists exclusively of walk-in 
vans, vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and vehicles that 
are altered after previously having been certified in accordance with 
part 567 of this chapter.


Sec. 589.4  Definitions.

    (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their 
statutory meaning.
    (b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in 
Sec. 571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.


Sec. 589.5  Response to Inquiries.

    During the production years ending August 31, 1999, August 31, 
2000, August 31, 2001, and August 31, 2002, each manufacturer shall, 
upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide 
information regarding which vehicle make/models are certified as 
complying with the requirements of S4 of Standard No. 201.


Sec. 589.6  Reporting requirements.

    (a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of 
the production years ending August 31, 1999, August 31, 2000, August 
31, 2001, and August 31, 2002, each manufacturer shall submit a report 
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its 
compliance with the upper interior component head impact protection 
requirements of Standard No. 201 for its passenger cars, trucks, buses 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles produced in that year. Each report 
shall--
    (1) Identify the manufacturer;
    (2) State the full name, title, and address of the official 
responsible for preparing the report;
    (3) Identify the production year being reported on;
    (4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer 
complied with the upper interior component head impact protection 
requirements of the amended Standard No. 201 for the period covered by 
the report and the basis for that statement;
    (5) Provide the information specified in Sec. 589.5(b);
    (6) Be written in the English language; and
    (7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each 
manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars and trucks, 
buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds 
or less manufactured for sale in the United States for each of the 
three previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's option, for 
the current production year. A new manufacturer that has not previously 
manufactured passenger cars and trucks, buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less for sale in the 
United States must report the number of such vehicles manufactured 
during the current production year. However, manufacturers are not 
required to report any information with respect to those vehicles that 
are walk-in van type vehicles, vehicles manufactured in two or more 
stages, and/or vehicles that are altered after previously having been 
certified in accordance with part 567 of this chapter.
    (2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production 
year for which the report is filed the number of passenger cars and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less that meet the upper interior component head impact 
protection requirements (S4) of Standard No. 201.
    (3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each 
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more 
of the express written contracts permitted by S4.1.7.2 of Standard No. 
201 shall:
    (i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of 
all parties to the contract, and explain how the contract affects the 
report being submitted.
    (ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.


Sec. 589.7  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each passenger car, multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck and bus for which information is reported under 
Sec. 589.5(b)(2) until December 31, 2003.


Sec. 589.8  Petition to extend period to file report.

    A petition for extension of the time to submit a report must be 
received not later than 15 days before expiration of the time stated in 
Sec. 589.5(a). The petition must be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The filing of a petition does not 
automatically extend the time for filing a report. A petition will be 
granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension and 
if the extension is consistent with the public interest.

    Issued on August 14, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-20407 Filed 8-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P