[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69665-69672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3421]
RIN No. 2127-AH60


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a 
final rule amending Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior 
Impact, to permit, but not require, the installation of dynamically 
deploying upper interior head protection systems. These systems are 
currently being used by some vehicle manufacturers to provide added 
head protection in lateral crashes. Since compliance with the upper 
interior head protection requirements of the standard as originally 
adopted would often not be practicable at points located at or near the 
places where these dynamic systems are stored, the final rule allowed 
vehicles equipped with the systems to meet slightly reduced 
requirements at those points. However, these vehicles were also 
required to meet new requirements in a side crash into a pole to ensure 
that the systems enhance safety.
    This document grants two petitions, and amends Standard No. 201 
accordingly. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) 
requested that NHTSA delete a humidity range specification for 
calibration of the test device used in the car-to-pole test on the 
basis that the specification was both unnecessary and difficult to 
meet. Noting that the final rule specified a broad range of potential 
impact speeds for the car-to-pole test, the Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) requested that the 
agency specify a narrower speed range for this test.
    This document also denies two other petitions. Mercedes-Benz of 
North America (Mercedes) argued that the reduced requirements should 
apply not only to points near the stored dynamic systems, but also to 
points covered by those systems when they are deployed. Chrysler 
Corporation (Chrysler) objected to a requirement that manufacturers 
choosing one of the compliance test options must select which option it 
is using at the time of certification and may not, after selecting one 
test option, rely on a different test option to demonstrate compliance.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
February 14, 2000.

    Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received 
by NHTSA no later than January 28, 2000.

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: For legal issues: Mr. Otto Matheke, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh

[[Page 69666]]

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Matheke's telephone number is 
(202) 366-5253. His facsimile number is (202) 366-3820. For non-legal 
issues: Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NPS-11, 
Dr. Fan's telephone number is (202) 366-4922. His facsimile number is 
(202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Standard No. 201 requires passenger cars, trucks, buses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less to provide 
head protection during a vehicle crash when the occupant's head strikes 
either the dashboard area or the upper vehicle interior, i.e., pillars, 
side rails, headers, or the roof of the vehicle. The upper interior 
impact protection requirements were added by a final rule issued by 
NHTSA in August 1995. Compliance with the upper interior impact 
protection requirements was required to be achieved in a 24 kilometers 
per hour (km/h) (15 miles per hour (mph)) in-vehicle component impact 
tests in which a free-motion headform (FMH) is propelled into specified 
target points. In response to that final rule, the agency received a 
number of petitions for reconsideration. NHTSA announced that it was 
treating those petitions relating to dynamically deployed head impact 
protection systems as petitions for rulemaking.
    On March 7, 1996, the agency published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to assist the agency in evaluating the 
issues raised by dynamically deployed upper interior head protection 
systems (61 FR 9136). In the ANPRM, the agency noted that the areas in 
which dynamically deployed head impact protection systems may be stored 
may coincide with Standard No. 201 target points. Use of dynamic 
systems might be precluded by the upper interior impact protection 
requirements of Standard No. 201 since the padding or other 
countermeasures needed to meet those requirements could interfere with 
the design and operation of dynamic systems. To address inflatable 
dynamic systems, the agency discussed the possibility that if it could 
develop a clear, precise definition for determining which points are 
protected by inflatable devices, it might propose subjecting vehicles 
equipped with these systems to a less severe test with 19 km/h (12 mph) 
headform impacts at all points that would be covered by the devices 
when inflated. These tests would be conducted with the devices in their 
undeployed state. The performance of the devices while deployed would 
be tested in a side impact test into a fixed rigid pole at 30 km/h 
(18.6 miles per hour) or a side impact with a moving deformable barrier 
representing a motor vehicle at 50 km/h (31 miles per hour).
    Following consideration of the comments submitted in response to 
the ANPRM, the agency issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on 
August 26, 1997. (62 FR 45202). The NPRM proposed adding alternative 
performance requirements and test procedures to Standard No. 201 to 
accommodate development of various types of dynamically deployed upper 
interior head protection systems, including inflatable ones. Under the 
agency's proposal, manufacturers would have the option of demonstrating 
compliance with Standard No. 201 by choosing one of three options. 
Option 1 specified performing free motion headform (FMH) impacts at 24 
km/h (15 mph) at all test points specified in the August 1995 final 
rule. Options 2 and 3 specified FMH testing at reduced impact speeds at 
those areas located directly over a stowed dynamic system. To ensure 
that these systems offered safety benefits when deployed, options 2 and 
3 specified testing of the deployed system at impact speeds above 24 
km/h (15 mph). Option 2 would have required FMH impact testing against 
target points at 29 km/h (18 mph) with the system deployed. Option 3 
employed a full scale side impact at 29 km/h (18 mph) into a fixed 
pole. The NPRM further stated that manufacturers electing one of these 
options would have to do so not later than the time when the vehicle is 
certified.
    On August 4, 1998, NHTSA published a final rule (63 FR 41451--
Docket Number NHTSA-98-3847) amending Standard No. 201 to provide new 
compliance options allowing vehicles to be equipped with inflatable 
dynamically deployed head impact protection systems. These systems are 
similar in operation to frontal air bags, i.e., in the event of a 
crash, a sensor triggers an inflator which rapidly fills a stowed air 
bag with gas. As the gas expands, the air bag deploys from its stowed 
position and interposes itself between the occupant and other areas of 
the vehicle. However, unlike frontal air bags, the systems addressed in 
the amendments to Standard No. 201 are deployed in side impacts. When 
deployed, they provide protection to the head and upper torso of 
occupants by inflating between the occupant and the vehicle's side 
window opening or A- and B-Pillars.
    After careful consideration of the comments received in response to 
the NPRM, the agency decided to drop one of the test options discussed 
in the NPRM, Option 2, and adopted a refined version of Option 3, a 
vehicle-to-pole test. The modification to the vehicle-to-pole test 
included an expansion of the area over a stowed dynamic system subject 
to testing at the reduced 19 km/h (12 mph) FMH impact speed, changed 
specifications for the rigid pole, minor changes to the specifications 
for vehicle test attitude to accommodate different vehicle propulsion 
systems, and a modification to the proposed seating procedure for the 
SID/HIII dummy used in the test. The final rule also stated that a 
manufacturer choosing a particular test option must select the option 
by the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a 
different test option for compliance purposes.

Petitions for Reconsideration of August 1998 Final Rule

The Mercedes Petition for Reconsideration

    Mercedes submitted a petition for reconsideration of the August 
1998 final rule, arguing that the reduced requirements should apply not 
only to the target points near the stored dynamic systems, but also to 
points covered by those systems when they are deployed. As set forth in 
S6.2:

    * * * targets that are over any point inside the area measured 
along the vehicle interior within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery 
of the stowed system * * * shall be impacted by the free motion 
headform specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and including 19 km/h 
(12 mph).

Mercedes argued that this definition should be expanded by replacing 
the existing language in S6.2 with the following:

    Take a silhouette of a fully inflated dynamic system in side 
view. Reduce this silhouette to areas consisting of inflated 
chambers. Reduce these areas further by a 25 mm (1.0'') border. 
Perpendicularly project the remaining area of the silhouette onto 
the vehicle's inner surface. Target points within this projection 
shall be considered to be protected by the dynamic system. Quilted 
seams between two inflated chambers would not be considered to 
interrupt the protected area.

In support of this definition, Mercedes argued that its language more 
properly reflected the function of a dynamic system by ensuring that 
those target points that are shielded by the system, as well as those 
that are merely over the stowed system, are allowed to comply with the 
reduced impact speeds in in-vehicle testing.

[[Page 69667]]

    To further support its position, Mercedes stated that in its cars, 
the belt anchorage D-ring on the B-pillar (target point BP2) is usually 
covered by the B-pillar trim. The company believes that this design is 
safer than adjustable belt anchorages with the belt anchorage D-ring 
outside the B-pillar trim. However, Mercedes claims that the adjustable 
D-ring inside the trim needs free moving space, making installation of 
the padding required to comply with the 24 km/h (15 mph) impact 
requirement extremely difficult. The company submitted that use of a 
less restrictive definition of target points subject to the lower in-
vehicle impact speeds would recognize the actual function of inflatable 
systems and prevent Mercedes from having to install a more aggressive 
adjustable belt anchorage with the D-ring outside the B-pillar trim to 
meet the existing requirements of Standard No. 201.
    Following the publication of the August 1997 NPRM, Mercedes, Volvo, 
Volkswagen of America (VW), BMW of North America (BMW), Toyota , 
Autoliv, and the American Automobile Manufacturers' Association (AAMA) 
commented that those target points protected by the deployed system 
should also be tested at the 19 km/h (12 mph) impact speed. While 
encouraging the agency to adopt this definition, those commenters did 
not, in NHTSA's view, provide any additional insights or assistance in 
formulating a definition for target areas that are, in fact, 
``protected'' by a dynamic system. The agency declined to adopt any 
definition of ``protected'' target points when it issued the August 
1998 final rule. As we explained at the time, we found a practicable 
and comprehensive definition of target points ``covered'' or 
``protected'' by a dynamic system to be elusive. We also noted that 
excluding ``protected'' target points may result in a target area being 
protected for one class or size of occupant and not for another. 
Another matter of concern for the agency was the fact that dynamic 
systems may provide vastly different degrees of impact protection 
depending on the system configuration and design. Based on these 
difficulties, as well as our interest in expediting issuance of the 
final rule, we decided not to alter the definition of target points 
subject to lower impact speeds that was proposed in the NPRM.
    Mercedes suggests a definition of ``protected'' target points based 
on making a lateral projection of a reduced silhouette of an inflated 
system. All target points within the projection would be presumed to be 
shielded by an inflated system, and therefore pose a reduced threat to 
occupants. The scheme is suitable for dynamic system designs similar to 
the one Mercedes now employs--an inflatable curtain that issues from 
the roof rails and expands downward over the window openings. As this 
design covers a relatively large area, the definition urged by Mercedes 
could arguably be appropriate for that design.
    Nevertheless, we are denying the Mercedes petition. The agency 
believes that inflatable curtain systems and similar devices, including 
the BMW Inflatable Tubular Structure (ITS), may offer significant 
safety benefits in side impacts. The actual benefits and performance of 
such systems, particularly in protecting the head in impacts other than 
side impacts, have not yet been ascertained or evaluated by NHTSA. The 
agency is concerned that inflatable curtains and similar systems may 
not perform well in impacts other than side impacts--which accounted 
for over 90 percent of fatal and 75 percent of injury-producing crashes 
in 1997. In order to ensure that countermeasures perform adequately in 
a range of impacts, Standard No. 201 provides that the FMH may be fired 
at target areas within a range of vertical and horizontal approach 
angles. In the case of B-pillar targets, range of permissible 
horizontal approach angles spans 150 degrees. We are concerned that 
Standard No. 201 does not now incorporate requirements sufficient to 
ensure the performance of dynamic systems in impacts other than direct 
side impacts. Depending on the system design and the sensors employed, 
a dynamic system may not even deploy in an oblique crash. Furthermore, 
if the system were to deploy, it may not ``protect'' a target point 
(and vehicle occupants) when struck at a 15 degree angle as it would 
when struck at a 90 degree angle. In promulgating the final rule 
allowing dynamic head protection systems, the agency's intent was to 
modify the existing provisions of Standard No. 201 to allow the 
installation and use of those systems. In regards to benefits, costs, 
and performance, the agency focused on what modifications needed to be 
made to Standard No. 201 to accommodate dynamically deployed systems 
and what benefits, if any, could be shown if such systems were allowed.
    This led to an examination of the principal obstacle posed by 
Standard No. 201 to the use of dynamic systems--the potential for 
interference between padding and other countermeasures with a deploying 
dynamic system--and dynamic system performance in side impacts, 
particularly in side impacts against a rigid pole. Using the data 
available at the time, we were able to determine, based on the 
assumption that a dynamic system would be stored in an area alongside 
or in the roof rails, or in the A-pillars and B-pillars, that the 
safety benefits offered by dynamic systems in side impacts into poles 
outweighed the possible safety consequences of reducing padding or 
other countermeasures in those areas. An analysis of the costs and 
benefits of allowing lower impact speeds in all areas that may be 
``protected'' by a dynamic system was not performed. Most 
significantly, the agency does not possess, nor did Mercedes submit, 
any data establishing the benefits, if any, from the ``protection'' 
provided by a dynamic system in crash modes other than a side rigid 
pole impact.
    This is not to say that dynamically deployed head protection 
devices like the Mercedes inflatable curtain will not have the 
potential to offer significant safety benefits. Nonetheless, NHTSA 
believes that significant issues must be resolved before the agency 
could adopt modifications to Standard No. 201 similar to those 
suggested by the Mercedes petition. One obstacle which must be resolved 
is the method of determining which points are ``protected'' by an 
inflatable device.
    The issue raised by the Mercedes petition has been repeatedly 
examined by the agency. In its August 1997 NPRM, the agency expressed 
its view of the proper methodology for selecting target points that 
would be impacted at lower speeds in vehicles with dynamic systems. In 
addition to proposing that target points located over undeployed 
systems be subject to lower impacts in the in-vehicle test portion of 
Option 3, the agency also discussed the agency's efforts to derive a 
methodology for determining target points ``protected'' by a deployed 
dynamic system. Since a deployed system could conceivably shield 
occupants from those ``protected'' target points, the agency said that 
it might be appropriate to allow these points, regardless of their 
proximity to a stowed dynamic system, to be subject to lower impact 
speeds in the in-vehicle test. To that end, NHTSA discussed alternative 
means for attempting to define which target points are ``protected.'' 
While the methodology suggested by Mercedes--using a perpendicular 
projection within the perimeter of the outline of the inflated device--
may be suitable for vehicles using inflatable curtain systems, it has 
limitations when applied to vehicles with other types of dynamically 
deployed systems. For example, the BMW ITS covers a narrower portion of 
the window opening and B-pillar when

[[Page 69668]]

it inflates. If the definition of ``protected'' target points urged by 
Mercedes were applied to this system, ``protected'' target areas could 
be approached and struck from directions other than those perpendicular 
to the outline of the inflated system, particularly in the case of 
smaller or out of position occupants. While this limitation is 
particularly telling in the example of the BMW ITS, it illustrates that 
the Mercedes methodology assumes that occupants and their heads will be 
moving along a plane perpendicular to the inflated system. While the 
agency could adopt a particular methodology for determining which 
points are protected and to limit its application to those types of 
systems for which it is suitable, e.g., to inflatable curtain systems, 
the agency is mindful that manufacturers may choose any number of types 
and configurations of dynamically deployed head protection systems. We 
are concerned that were we to adopt a methodology suitable for one 
system, but not suitable for others, we would potentially place 
ourselves in the position of having to modify Standard No. 201 on a 
case-by-case basis. This would add to the complexity of Standard No. 
201 and would further strain agency resources.
    We are also concerned that if we were to grant the Mercedes 
petition, we would not be in a position to assess the performance of an 
inflated dynamic system in protecting occupants in any impact other 
than a side impact into a rigid pole. As noted above, the August 1998 
final rule was intended to allow the installation of dynamically 
deployed head protection systems based on our conclusion that the 
safety benefits offered by those systems in a single crash mode were 
sufficient to outweigh any safety losses associated with reducing the 
impact speed requirements for target points directly over an undeployed 
system. The Mercedes petition requests NHTSA to assume that all target 
points ``protected'' by a deployed dynamic system will, when impacted, 
present a lesser threat of injury than the same points would under the 
existing standard. The agency does not believe that this assumption is 
justifiable, particularly since a test for gauging the performance of 
dynamic systems in protecting the head against impacts with specific 
targets in the vehicle interior has not yet been developed. While the 
agency proposed a test in the August 27, 1997 NPRM which could be 
adapted for this purpose, that test, described in the agency proposal 
as Option 2, presented many technical challenges. The Option 2 
proposal, which called for firing the FMH into an inflated dynamic 
system, could be used as performance test for dynamic systems in 
protecting ``covered'' target points. However, as reflected by the 
comments received in response to the NPRM, a large number of complex 
issues that would have had to be resolved if Option 2 or a variant of 
Option 2 were to be employed. These issues cannot be resolved quickly.
    Mercedes also urged the agency to adopt its suggested definition of 
``protected'' target areas based on an example of the difficulties in 
attempting to meet certain requirements of Standard No. 201. According 
to Mercedes, it currently places the D-Ring of the B-Pillar belt 
anchorage underneath the B-Pillar trim. In order to meet the seat belt 
anchorage adjustment requirements found in S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, 
``Occupant Crash Protection,'' the D-Ring and anchorage move inside an 
open space underneath the surface trim. According to Mercedes, adding 
padding or other countermeasures to meet the 24 km/h (15 mph) impact 
requirement now applicable to this target area, BP2, would make this 
design impracticable and require the company to install ``a more 
aggressive adjustable belt anchorage,'' i.e., one whose D-Ring is not 
covered by the B-Pillar trim.
    We are not convinced that this example supports the relief Mercedes 
seeks. As noted above, the August 1998 Final Rule modified Standard No. 
201 to the extent needed to allow the introduction of dynamic systems. 
The B-Pillar belt anchorage design employed by Mercedes may have 
particular characteristics having safety significance, but it is not a 
component that serves any function in either the storage, deployment or 
inflation of dynamic systems. Unlike those target locations now subject 
to reduced in-vehicle-test impact speeds, the use of thicker padding or 
other countermeasures at this anchorage location would not prevent the 
installation of a dynamic head protection system.
    We also observe that the Mercedes request that the B-Pillar belt 
anchorage target, BP2, be tested at 19 km/h (12 mph) in the undeployed 
test, is identical to its prior request in its comments on the NPRM. We 
note that, in repeating this request, Mercedes has not submitted any 
new data or arguments to support the relief it seeks. As we indicated 
when we adopted the August 1998 final rule, NHTSA is concerned that an 
adequate definition of points ``protected'' by a dynamic system would 
be difficult to develop. Moreover, the agency is concerned that 
Standard No. 201 cannot now adequately test the ability of dynamic 
systems to ``protect'' certain target points. It should also be noted 
that Mercedes has not contended that it cannot install other 
countermeasures on its adjustable belt anchorage that would allow its 
vehicles to comply.

The Chrysler Petition for Reconsideration

    Chrysler submitted a petition for reconsideration objecting to 
provisions in S6.1 and S6.2, which state that a manufacturer choosing 
one of the compliance test options must select, not later than the time 
of certification, which option it is using and may not, after selecting 
one test option, rely on a different test option to demonstrate 
compliance. The company argues that the regulatory text in the final 
rule contains new requirements concerning the selection of options and 
that the omission of these new requirements from the NPRM deprived 
Chrysler of an opportunity to comment. Chrysler further alleges that 
NHTSA, in specifying that a manufacturer must irrevocably select one 
test option, has not considered the case in which a manufacturer has 
elected to certify a vehicle to both test options. Chrysler contends 
that if it chose to present evidence of compliance with both test 
options to the agency, NHTSA could not refuse to conduct an alternative 
test. In the company's view, a failure to comply under one test option 
cannot constitute a noncompliance if the vehicle complies with another 
optional test.
    In our August 1997 NPRM, we proposed that manufacturers of vehicles 
equipped with dynamically deployed head impact protection systems would 
be able to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 201 through the use 
of one of three optional tests. In that proposal, the test options were 
set forth in S6.1 and S6.2. These two sections differ only to the 
extent that S6.1 is applicable to vehicles manufactured after September 
1, 1998 and before September 1, 2002, and S6.2 applies to vehicles 
manufactured after September 1, 2002. Both sections proposed that 
vehicles ``shall conform, [to one of the proposed optional performance 
tests] at the manufacturer's option with said option selected prior to, 
or at the time of, certification of the vehicle.''
    We did not receive any comments objecting to the proposal that 
manufacturers would have to select one of the test options before or at 
the time that it certifies the vehicle. As we noted in our discussion 
in the final rule of situations involving multiple options,

[[Page 69669]]

the agency needs to know which option has been selected by a 
manufacturer so it can perform the appropriate compliance test. We also 
noted that the regulatory text in the final rule differed from that 
contained in the NPRM, as the final rule clarified the requirement that 
manufacturers selecting a specific test option at the time of 
certification could not later select a different test option to 
establish compliance. Accordingly, S6.1 and S6.2 of the regulatory text 
in the final rule both provide that ``The manufacturer shall select the 
option by the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter 
select a different option for the vehicle.''
    Chrysler contends that the addition of language to the proposed 
rule indicating that manufacturers may not later rely on a different 
test option constitutes a significant departure from the regulatory 
text in the proposed rule. We believe that examination of the language 
in both the proposed rule and the final rule demonstrates that the 
proposal and the final rule are, for all practical purposes, identical. 
As proposed in the NPRM, S6.1 and S6.2 indicated that vehicles must 
conform to one of the proposed test options (emphasis added) and that 
the selection of the test option must be made prior to or at the time 
of certification. The final rule substituted the phrase ``the option'' 
for the proposal's directive that manufacturers must use ``one of the 
following'' test options. In regard to time at which the single option 
must be selected, the proposed versions of S6.1 and S6.2 indicated that 
the selection must be made ``prior to, or at the time of,'' 
certification while the final rule directed that the option must be 
selected ``by the time it [the manufacturer] certifies the vehicle.'' 
To further clarify the agency's position regarding the use of a single 
test option for certification, S6.1 and S6.2 of the final rule provided 
that manufacturers ``may not thereafter select a different option for 
the vehicle.''
    The language of the proposed rule specified two conditions: 
manufacturers could choose only one test option when certifying a 
vehicle and manufacturers must make this choice before or at the time 
they certify their vehicle. Implicit in the proposal was the 
irrevocability of that choice. The two proposed conditions did not 
allow for the reliance on a second test option at any time. In both 
instances, only one test option could be relied upon for certification, 
and no allowance was made for manufacturers to rely upon another test 
option after the vehicle was certified.
    Chrysler also argues that we have failed to consider the case in 
which a manufacturer elects to certify a vehicle to both of the options 
contained in S6.1 and S6.2 of the final rule. In that event, the 
company contends that if the manufacturer presents evidence of 
compliance with both test options to the agency, we could not refuse to 
conduct both tests to determine compliance. The company reasons that 
failure to comply with one test option would be immaterial if the 
vehicle complied with another option.
    We disagree with Chrysler's view. We note that both the proposed 
rule and the final rule explicitly state that a manufacturer may only 
choose one option in certifying a vehicle. While nothing in the final 
rule prevents a manufacturer from attempting to build vehicles that 
satisfy both options, we note that the primary reason for allowing the 
pole test option was the assertion by several manufacturers that it 
would be impossible for vehicles with dynamically deployed head 
protection systems to meet the FMH test requirements set out in the 
1995 amendments to the standard. Conversely, vehicles without 
dynamically deployed head protection systems cannot meet the 
requirements of the vehicle-to-pole test. For certification purposes, 
the agency needs to know which single option the manufacturer has 
chosen.
    In providing optional test procedures in this rule, the agency 
intended to facilitate the efforts of some manufacturers to use new 
safety technologies to protect the public. In offering these test 
options, we did not intend to increase the agency's test burden or, for 
that matter, those of the manufacturers. Nor did we intend to allow 
manufacturers to escape the consequences of their failure to comply 
with an intended compliance option by getting a ``second bite at the 
apple.'' We fail to see how expanding the test burdens of the agency 
would represent a sensible allocation of public resources.
    Chrysler's position also assumes that NHTSA has the authority to 
create test options, but does not have the authority to establish 
reasonable limitations on their use. The agency believes it to be 
eminently reasonable to expect that certification be done responsibly 
and accurately. Indeed, the Vehicle Safety Act provides that a person 
may not issue a certificate if, exercising reasonable care, the person 
has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material 
respect. 15 U.S.C. 30115. Moreover, certification of a vehicle to a 
particular test option creates certain expectations of performance in 
both the agency and among consumers. In any event, Chrysler's argument 
presents a hypothetical question, as vehicles designed to meet one 
option do not meet the other and, accordingly, a manufacturer would not 
be able to switch options.
    Thus, for the reasons stated above, NHTSA adheres to its view that 
when a vehicle has been certified to one option, a failure to comply 
with the requirements of that option establishes not only that the 
vehicle has been falsely or improperly certified, but that it also 
fails to comply with the standard. Of course, the manufacturer of such 
a noncompliant vehicle may file a petition for an exemption from the 
recall requirements of the statute (49 U.S.C. 30118-30120) on the basis 
that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (see 
49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR Part 556). However, we note 
that compliance test procedure options are offered for a variety of 
reasons, and that vehicles or equipment meeting one test option may not 
provide the same safety benefits as those meeting another test option. 
See the discussions of safety concerns (II. H) and other issues (II. I) 
in the August 1998 final rule.

The AAMA Petition for Reconsideration

    Section S8.27.4 of the August 1998 final rule provides both 
temperature and humidity specifications for the test dummy used in the 
side-to-pole test. AAMA submitted a petition for reconsideration 
requesting that NHTSA consider eliminating the humidity specification 
for the vehicle-to-pole crash test option found in Standard No. 201. 
The organization argued that this provision, which specifies a humidity 
range at which the test dummy must be maintained during the crash test, 
should be eliminated due to the difficulty of controlling humidity in 
the environment in which a full scale test must take place. AAMA 
explained that it had overlooked this provision in its review of the 
NPRM and thus failed to indicate in its comments that this particular 
provision is impracticable. The organization asked that we reconsider 
our decision to include the humidity range provision in the option. The 
organization submitted that it would be difficult or impossible for 
manufacturers to maintain a specific humidity range for the test dummy 
in the large open spaces where full scale crash testing is performed. 
AAMA noted that there is no humidity range requirement for similar 
crash tests in Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 214.
    We believe that AAMA's objection is well founded. The temperature 
and the humidity ranges proposed in the NPRM

[[Page 69670]]

and incorporated into the final rule were derived from the Hybrid III 
dummy head/neck certification test procedure. This humidity range 
specification is not incorporated into other agency full scale crash 
tests using the Hybrid III dummy head and neck because maintaining a 
specific humidity range in such testing is not practicable and was 
inadvertently inserted in the August 1998 final rule. Accordingly, we 
are removing the humidity range requirement in S8.27.4. Of course, 
consistent with the agency's longstanding interpretation that when a 
standard is silent with respect to a particular test condition, 
vehicles must be able to comply under all conditions (except where the 
language or the context of the standard indicates otherwise), vehicles 
must be able to comply with the requirements of the Standard at any 
humidity level. Therefore, while NHTSA does not expect humidity to have 
a significant impact on test results, the fact that a manufacturer has 
conducted a test at one humidity level in which the performance 
requirements are met will not necessarily be determinative if an 
agency-conducted test at another humidity level indicates that a 
vehicle does not comply.

The AIAM Petition for Reconsideration

    AIAM submitted a petition for reconsideration requesting that the 
agency consider modifying the impact speed specified in the final rule 
for the vehicle-to-pole test. This impact speed, which is set forth in 
S6.1(b)(3) and S6.2(b)(3), indicates that the vehicle impact with the 
rigid pole shall take place ``at any velocity up to and including 29 
kilometers per hour (18 mph).'' AIAM argues that this requirement is 
unduly burdensome in that it requires testing at all potential vehicle 
impact speeds of 29 km/h (18 mph) and below, including speeds below 
those where dynamic head protection systems are intended to deploy and 
that this burden is so great as to dissuade manufacturers from 
introducing dynamic head protection systems. AIAM suggested two 
alternative vehicle test speeds: 27  1.6 km/h (17 
 1 mph), or any velocity between 26 and 29 km/h (16-18 
mph).
    We agree that sections S6.1(b)(3) and S6.2(b)(3) of the August 1998 
final rule require vehicles that are certified to the vehicle-to-pole 
test to satisfy the performance requirements at any vehicle velocity up 
to and including 29 km/h (18 mph). Upon further review, NHTSA believes 
it is appropriate for the agency to modify this impact speed 
requirement to reduce test burdens and to reflect the fact that dynamic 
systems would not deploy at lower speeds where they would be of 
doubtful utility.
    The agency's goal in selecting a maximum impact speed for the 
vehicle-to-pole test was to assure that dynamic head protection systems 
would provide an appropriate level of benefits in side crashes. As 
packaging of these systems limited the countermeasures that could be 
installed in areas directly over an undeployed system, accommodating 
dynamic systems required that the FMH impact speed for target points 
located in those areas be reduced. In order to ensure that dynamic head 
protection systems offered safety benefits that exceeded the reduction 
in safety represented by these reduced FMH impact speeds, NHTSA 
specified that they would have to satisfy the applicable injury 
criteria in a 29 km/h (18 mph) lateral crash of a vehicle into a fixed, 
narrow object.
    The impact speed requirement for the vehicle-to-pole test must be 
high enough to ensure that a dynamic system offers demonstrable safety 
benefits. At the same time, testing at impact speeds below which a 
dynamic head protection system would deploy or offer any meaningful 
safety benefits would serve no purpose.
    We have concluded that instead of requiring compliance at all 
vehicle speeds up to 29 km/h (18 mph) in the vehicle-to-pole test, the 
agency should specify a range for this impact speed. Accordingly, we 
are responding to the AIAM petition for reconsideration by amending the 
impact speed requirement currently found in S6.1(b)(3) and S6.2(b)(3) 
to specify that the vehicle must satisfy the injury criteria of 1000 
HIC in vehicle impacts with the rigid pole at any velocity between 24 
km/h (15 mph) and 29 km/h (18 mph). In specifying this range, the 
agency is continuing to ensure that dynamic head protection systems 
offer meaningful safety benefits in relatively severe crashes while 
simultaneously placing a lower limit on the test impact speed that 
reduces test burdens and is consistent with facilitating the 
introduction and use of dynamic systems. The 24 km/h (15 mph) lower 
limit is, in NHTSA's view, appropriate for ensuring that dynamic 
systems will deploy and provide safety benefits when they are needed. 
Use of the 24 km/h (15 mph) speed as a lower bound provides greater 
assurance that dynamic systems will provide adequate protection in 
lower speed crashes.
    Research conducted prior to the issuance of the August 1995 final 
rule establishing Standard No. 201's head impact requirements revealed 
that when a vehicle experiences an abrupt change in velocity, the head 
of an occupant of that vehicle experiences, during an interior impact, 
a smaller change in velocity. For example, when a vehicle experiences a 
20.1 km/h (13 mph) change in velocity, an occupant's head experiences a 
16.1 km/h (10 mph) change in velocity. In the August 1995 final rule, 
the agency established a FMH impact speed--a head speed--of 24 km/h (15 
mph) as an appropriate impact speed because that speed represented the 
point at which occupants experience moderate to serious (AIS 2 and AIS 
3) injuries. If a vehicle experiences a 24 km/h (15 mph) change in 
velocity when striking a rigid pole, an occupant will experience a 
smaller change in head velocity of approximately 19.3 km/h (12 mph) in 
an interior impact. At this speed, impact with an upper interior 
component would be likely to result in moderate or no injury, i.e., AIS 
2 or less. We have therefore concluded that setting a lower limit of 24 
km/h (15 mph) in the rigid pole test is sufficient to ensure that 
dynamic head protection systems offer safety benefits in relatively 
severe crashes, while not inappropriately detracting from safety in 
less severe impacts (i.e., those below 24 km/h (15 mph)).

Conclusion

    For the reasons stated above, the petitions for reconsideration 
submitted by Mercedes and Chrysler are denied. The petitions submitted 
by AAMA and AIAM are granted and Standard No. 201 is amended 
accordingly.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 
and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. This rule was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review'' and is not considered significant under the 
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
    The agency has not prepared a Final Regulatory Evaluation 
describing the economic and other effects of this rulemaking action as 
it believes that the amendments in this final rule will reduce costs 
and that this cost reduction will be minimal. One effect of this action 
is to eliminate a requirement that a test dummy be maintained at a 
specified humidity during a full scale crash test. The agency has 
doubts that any vehicle manufacturer or test facility would, had this 
requirement remained

[[Page 69671]]

in effect, actually have had the capability to meet the humidity 
requirements. We believe that elimination of the requirement will not 
have a significant impact on costs as NHTSA believes that few, if any, 
manufacturers or test facilities actually attempted to meet the 
humidity requirement. Similarly, the agency also believes that the 
reductions in cost associated with the remaining change to the 
standard, are also minimal. This action changes the required impact 
speed for a full scale crash test from a wide range--0 to 29 km/h--to a 
narrower range. While this change clearly reduces the range of speeds 
at which the test could be run, it is not likely to change how this 
test would be run. Manufacturers, and the agency itself, are most 
likely to run compliance tests at the speed or speeds which will most 
severely test a vehicle's compliance with the standard. In fact, it is 
most likely that manufacturers will choose to test at or near the test 
speed used by the agency in its own laboratory test procedure. The 
narrowing of the test speed set forth in the regulation itself, is not 
likely to change this practice.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The amendments contained in this final rule will simplify test 
procedures and reduce test burdens and costs. Further, the amendments 
primarily affect passenger car and light truck manufacturers which are 
not small entities under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The Small Business 
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small 
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily 
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). The agency estimates 
that there are at most five small final stage manufacturers of 
passenger cars in the U.S. and no small manufacturers of light trucks, 
producing a combined total of at most 500 cars each year.
    The primary effect of the final rule will be on manufacturers of 
passenger cars and LTVs. If LTVs are produced with these systems some 
time in the future and provided as incomplete vehicles to final stage 
manufacturers, which are generally small businesses, these final stage 
manufacturers may have to certify compliance. However, as noted above, 
the amendments in this final rule are limited to changes in test 
procedures which should reduce test burdens and costs.
    Other entities which qualify as small businesses, small 
organizations and governmental units will be affected by this rule to 
the extent that they purchase passenger cars and LTVs. They will not be 
significantly affected, as the slight potential cost reductions 
associated with this action should not affect the purchase price of new 
motor vehicles.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) and Unfunded Mandates Act

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. NHTSA 
has determined that the amendment does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant application of the requirements of section 6 of 
the Executive Order to this rule.
    In issuing this final rule to simplify test procedures and 
requirements for the optional test procedures for dynamic head 
protections systems, the agency notes, for the purposes of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act, that it is reducing or eliminating costs. As this 
rulemaking does not require manufacturers to meet new minimum 
performance requirements, but modifies aspects of existing optional 
test procedures, it does not impose new costs.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This amendment does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 21403, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 21461 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.'' This action modifies requirements for a test 
procedure that does not currently have any counterpart, in a final 
form, promulgated or accepted by any voluntary consensus bodies.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any collection of information 
requirements requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-13).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended to 
read as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.1(b)(3), S6.2(b)(3), 
and S8.27.4 as follows:
* * * * *
    S6.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before 
September 1, 2002.
* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Each vehicle shall, when equipped with a dummy test device 
specified in Part 572, Subpart M, and tested as specified in S8.16 
through S8.28, comply with the requirements specified in S7 when 
crashed into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any velocity 
between 24 kilometers per hour (15 mph) and 29 kilometers per hour (18 
mph).
* * * * *
    S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002.
* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Each vehicle shall, when equipped with a dummy test device 
specified in Part 572, Subpart M, and tested as specified in S8.16 
through S8.28, comply with the requirements specified in S7 when 
crashed into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any

[[Page 69672]]

velocity between 24 kilometers per hour (15 mph) and 29 kilometers per 
hour (18 mph).
* * * * *
    S8.27 Anthropomorphic test dummy--vehicle to pole test.
* * * * *
    S8.27.4 The stabilized temperature of the test dummy at the time of 
the side impact test shall be at any temperature between 20.6 degrees 
C. and 22.2 degrees C.
* * * * *
    Issued on December 6, 1999.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-32132 Filed 12-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P