[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17842-17852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8008]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571

[Docket No. 00-7145]
RIN No. 2127-AH61


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the upper interior impact 
requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior 
Impact, to modify the minimum distance between certain target points on 
vertical surfaces inside a vehicle. Compliance with the upper interior 
impact requirements is determined, in part, by measuring the forces 
experienced by a test device known as the Free Motion Headform (FMH) 
when it is propelled into certain target points in the vehicle 
interior. To ensure that tests conducted within the same vehicle do not 
affect each other, the standard specifies that tested targets be at 
least a certain distance apart; currently 150 mm (6 inches). We are 
proposing to expand this minimum distance to 200 mm (8 inches) for 
tests performed on certain vertical surfaces in order to alleviate 
concerns that the current distance is not large enough to prevent FMH 
impact overlap to nearby target points in the same vehicle. We are also 
proposing to add target points for pillar-like structures that do not 
meet the definition of ``pillar,'' i.e., certain door frames and 
vertical seat belt mounting structures.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than June 5, 2000.

ADDRESS: You should mention the docket number of this document in your 
comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Dr. 
William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-4922, 
facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic mail ``[email protected]''
    For legal issues, you may call Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, at 202-366-5263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Safety Problem
II. Background
    A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper Interior Impact Protection
    B. April 1997 Final Rule
    C. Petitions for Reconsideration
    D. March 31, 1998 Letter
    E. August 1998 Meeting
    F. New Vehicle Configurations
III. Agency Proposal
    A. Minimum Distance Between Tested Targets on Pillars
    B. Pillar Surrogates
    1. Door Frames
    2. Seat Belt Mounting Structures
IV. Costs and Benefits

[[Page 17843]]

V. Effective Date
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) and Unfunded Mandates Act
    C. Executive Order 13045
    D. Executive Order 12778
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. National Environmental Policy Act
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
VII. Submission and Availability of Comments

I. Safety Problem

    In an August 18, 1995 final rule (60 FR 43031) adding requirements 
for upper interior impact protection to Standard No. 201, ``Occupant 
Protection in Interior Impact,'' NHTSA estimated that even with air 
bags installed in all passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (collectively, passenger cars and LTVs) with a gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or 
less, head impacts with the pillars, roof side rails, windshield 
header, and rear header would result in 1,591 annual passenger car 
occupant fatalities and 575 annual LTV occupant fatalities. We also 
stated that we believed such head impacts also result in nearly 13,600 
moderate to critical (but non-fatal) passenger car occupant injuries 
(MAIS 2 or greater), and more than 5,200 serious LTV occupant injuries. 
(The AIS or Abbreviated Injury Scale is used to rank injuries by level 
of severity. An AIS 1 injury is a minor one, while an AIS 6 injury is 
one that is currently untreatable and fatal. The Maximum Abbreviated 
Injury Scale or MAIS is the maximum injury per occupant.) In the August 
18, 1995 final rule, we estimated that the new requirements would 
prevent 675 to 975 AIS 2-5 head injuries and 873 to 1,192 fatalities 
per year.

II. Background

A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper Interior Impact Protection

    The August 1995 final rule amended Standard No. 201 to require 
passenger cars and LTVs to provide protection when an occupant's head 
strikes upper interior components, including pillars, side rails, 
headers, and the roof, during a crash. This final rule, which required 
compliance beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the 
scope of Standard 201. Previously, the standard applied only to the 
portion of the vehicle interior in front of the front seat and the 
backs of the front seats.

B. April 1997 Final Rule

    NHTSA received nine timely petitions for reconsideration of the 
August 1995 final rule. These petitions raised a number of issues, 
including: (1) Application of the new requirements to dynamic (i.e., 
crash-deployed) head protection systems, (2) variability of test 
results attributed to width of the drop test calibration corridor for 
the FMH, (3) lead time and phase-in, (4) exclusion of certain vehicles, 
and (5) test procedures. We considered dynamic head protection systems 
to be beyond the scope of the original rulemaking and addressed the 
petitions filed on this issue in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register in August 1998. The remaining issues were addressed through a 
final rule published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718). The April 1997 
final rule amended Standard 201 to establish another phase-in option, 
allow manufacturers to carry forward credits for vehicles certified to 
the new requirements prior to the beginning of the phase-in period, 
exclude buses with a GVWR of more than 3,860 kilograms (8,500 pounds), 
specify that all attachments to the upper interior components are to 
remain in place during compliance testing, and make some clarifying 
changes to the test procedure.
    An area of concern considered in both the petitions for 
reconsideration and the April 8, 1997 final rule was the appropriate 
minimum distance between tested target areas within the same vehicle. 
S8.14(c) of the Standard provides that in the event that target areas 
are located in near proximity to each other, no test impact may occur 
within 150 mm (6 inches) of any other impact. This provision forbids 
testing of target areas that are so close together that the FMH would 
impact two or more targets in a single impact and that damage resulting 
from the one test impact may impair countermeasures located at the 
nearby target area. In the petitions submitted in response to the 
August 1995 rule, manufacturers argued that the 150mm (6 inches) 
distance provided in the Standard was inadequate, particularly in those 
instances in which the installed countermeasure did not use padding but 
relied on another means. However, because the petitioners did not 
submit any data substantiating their claim that the 150 mm (6 inches) 
distance was inadequate, NHTSA rejected their request to increase this 
distance when it issued the April 1997 final rule.

C. Petitions for Reconsideration

    Petitions for reconsideration of the April 1997 final rule were 
filed by the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and 
ASC, Incorporated (ASC). ASC's petition expressed concerns about the 
impact of the final rule on the integrated convertible roof and frame 
designs and requested a further amendment to the definition of 
``convertible roof frame system.'' AAMA's petition requested that NHTSA 
reconsider and modify the final rule in reference to approach angles, 
moveable side glazing, multiple impacts, the procedure for locating CG-
F (a reference point corresponding to the location of a front seat 
occupant's head), and the definition of ``forehead impact zone.''
    In a notice published on April 22, 1998, ( 63 FR 19839) we denied 
these petitions for reconsideration. In regard to approach angles, 
NHTSA rejected AAMA's request for the exclusion of targets that cannot 
be tested using the existing approach angles contained in S8.13.4. We 
concluded that targets that cannot be tested using the existing 
approach angles can be relocated under the protocols found in S10(b) or 
S10(c). Thus, excluding the targets would not be necessary. We denied 
AAMA's request that hinges and latches for sunroofs and moveable side 
glazing be exempted from the 24 km/h (15 mph) test requirements, as we 
concluded that it was feasible to pad these components. The April 22 
notice also explained that AAMA's concern regarding the location of CG-
F had been resolved by an amendment to Standard 201 and that we 
believed that the organization's concerns about the proper definition 
of the forehead impact zone resulted from a misunderstanding of the 
terms of that definition. Accordingly, we declined to modify the 
definition.
    The April 1998 notice also set forth our reasoning for rejecting 
AAMA's request that we reconsider our decision not to expand the 
minimum distance between two target areas. Without providing supporting 
test data, AAMA argued that the existing 150 mm (6 inches) distance was 
not sufficient because test damage to one target could affect the 
performance of a nearby target, depending on the type of 
countermeasure, the target location, the size of the target component, 
the approach angles used and the effects of chin loading on one target 
when another is struck. We rejected AAMA's arguments, explaining that 
we were satisfied that existing evidence showed that the 150 mm (6 
inches) exclusion distance was adequate. As the

[[Page 17844]]

maximum width of the FMH is 150 mm (6 inches) and the forehead impact 
zone on the FMH was smaller, we concluded that the existing difference 
was sufficient to prevent FMH impact overlap between targets. We also 
noted that Standard 201 allowed testing of targets on both the right 
and left side of the vehicle interior and that manufacturers could use 
this as an opportunity to ensure that target areas were much farther 
apart from each other than 150 mm (6 inches) when actual testing is 
performed.
    AAMA also requested that we consider limiting impacts to one impact 
per component. Again, AAMA did not submit any data indicating that 
limiting tests to one impact per component was necessary. We therefore 
rejected this request because there were no test data indicating that 
such a limitation was realistic and necessary.
    As noted below, AAMA forwarded a letter to NHTSA on March 31, 1998 
which discussed several of the issues addressed in the agency's April 
22, 1998 notice denying the AAMA and ASC petitions for reconsideration. 
As this letter arrived shortly before the agency issued the April 22, 
1998 notice, the issues raised by AAMA in this letter were not 
considered or discussed in that notice. They are addressed below.

D. March 31, 1998 Letter

    On March 31, 1998, AAMA forwarded a letter to the agency expressing 
concern about the laboratory test procedure for Standard 201. In order 
to provide guidance and assistance to agency contractors performing 
compliance tests, the agency produced laboratory test procedures 
outlining recommended practices for performing compliance tests for 
different safety standards. These test procedures are not surrogates 
for the safety standards--they are merely used by NHTSA to facilitate 
testing by its contractors.
    AAMA expressed its belief that multiple impacts and chin contacts 
during Standard 201 testing using the laboratory test procedure could 
create uncertainty about the ability of certain countermeasures to meet 
the Standard. The letter included test data from testing on prototype 
countermeasures which, in AAMA's view, supported its contention that 
multiple impacts and chin contacts compromised the ability of 
countermeasures to perform adequately when adjacent target points were 
subject to successive impacts. AAMA requested that the agency's test 
procedure include a restriction on testing adjacent target points and 
should also contain a provision stating that any test failure should be 
carefully scrutinized to determine if and when chin contact occurred. 
If chin contact occurred, AAMA suggested that the test procedure 
require that the test be run again with the headform rotated to a new 
position where early chin contact would not occur.

E. August 1998 Meeting

    On August 19, 1998, AAMA staff persons and representatives of AAMA 
member companies met with NHTSA officials to discuss ongoing concerns 
regarding test issues in Standard 201. These issues included multiple 
impacts on the same component, headform chin and cheek contact during 
HIC calculations, and window position during testing. In this meeting, 
AAMA members displayed samples of prototype A- and B-pillar trim pieces 
being developed to meet Standard 201. They also presented data 
generated from tests in which individual trim components were subjected 
to multiple impacts. The trim samples showed that instead of using 
padding as a countermeasure, AAMA members were developing energy 
absorbing plastic trim composed of conventional plastic trim with ribs 
on the reverse side. Test data submitted by Ford showed the results of 
a series of impacts on simulated pillar structures in which one test 
impact was followed by a second test impact 150 mm (6 inches) below the 
first. The trim used in these tests was constructed of plastic with a 
smooth facing and ribs cast into the backside. Data presented by Ford 
showed that trim that had been subjected to impacts at the upper 
location suffered a degradation in performance at the lower impact site 
ranging from 7.3 percent to 32.1 percent. On average, when a trim 
component equipped with countermeasures was tested at the lower 
location after an upper location of the same trim had been tested, the 
HIC scores were 19.2 percent higher than those resulting from impacts 
at the same point into identical trim components that had never been 
impacted. The Ford data also showed that the rib structures on the 
backside of the trim were deformed up to six inches below the impact 
area. Representatives of AAMA, AIAM, Chrysler, GM, Ford and Mitsubishi 
indicated that secondary impacts by the chin and lower portion of the 
FMH after primary impacts by the FMH forehead impaired the ability of 
target points on or near the secondary impact to meet the requirements 
of the Standard when subjected to testing.

F. New Vehicle Configurations

    As light trucks continue to grow in popularity and consumers expect 
greater versatility from their vehicles, manufacturers are responding 
by introducing designs that differ from the traditional sedan. A number 
of manufacturers are now producing pickup trucks with 3- and 4-door 
designs which, unlike the established ``crew cab'' design, do not have 
pillars between doors. In these vehicles, the rearmost door is hinged 
at the rear rather than the front. The front and the rear door latch 
together without an intervening pillar. A similar design has also 
recently been introduced in a 3-door coupe manufactured by Saturn. If 
this design is successful in the marketplace, other passenger vehicles 
with this feature may appear in the future. In these vehicles, the 
frames of the two doors, when closed and latched, form a structure that 
presents a surface that may be viewed as the structural equivalent of a 
pillar. However, because these door frames are not pillars as defined 
in Standard 201, they are not subject to the requirements of the 
Standard.
    We are also aware of other designs used in soft top light utility 
vehicles that involve the use of a vertical structure to provide an 
attachment point for the upper anchorage of a lap and shoulder belt. 
This structure, which must be relatively stiff in order to ensure the 
stability of the belt anchorage, is necessarily located near the head 
of the occupant of the seating position for which the belt is provided. 
However, because this structure does not support the roof of the 
vehicle and is not a stiffener or a roll bar, it does not, by 
definition, have any target areas that would be subject to the 
requirements of Standard 201.
    We are concerned about the potential safety consequences of these 
new designs. Because these door frames and seat belt mounting 
structures do not fit within the existing definitions of ``pillar,'' 
``roll bar'' or ``stiffener'' found in Standard 201, there are no 
target areas located on these structures and they need not meet the 
head impact protection criteria. However, these door frames and seat 
belt mounting structures provide the same potential for head injury as 
a pillar, roll bar, or stiffener.

III. Agency Proposal

    After consideration of the issues raised by the petitions for 
reconsideration, the March 31, 1998 AAMA letter, and the information 
presented in the August 1998 meeting, the agency has decided to propose 
amendments to Standard 201 to modify the existing test procedure. The 
agency proposes to enlarge the minimum distance between pillar target 
areas to

[[Page 17845]]

prevent testing to areas that suffered damage from an impact overlap 
from a previous test impact, and to include pillar surrogates within 
the standard. To address the former, we are proposing to amend S8.14 to 
add a 200 mm (8 inches) minimum spacing exclusion for certain 
vertically oriented target locations to prevent FMH impact overlap from 
earlier impacts impairing the performance of the vehicle when other 
target points are tested. To address the performance of newer vehicle 
designs with structures that are functionally equivalent to pillars, 
roll bars and braces, we are proposing to add new sections to S3 and 
S10 defining pillar surrogates and establishing procedures for locating 
target areas on those pillar surrogates.

A. Minimum Distance Between Tested Targets on Pillars

    The head impact protection provisions of Standard 201 set minimum 
performance requirements for vehicle interiors by establishing target 
areas within the vehicle that must be properly padded or otherwise have 
energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a 
crash. Compliance with these performance requirements is tested by 
launching the FMH within a specified angle range at either 18 km/h or 
24 km/h (12 mph or 15 mph) at a specific target area. Target locations 
are identified through use of the procedures contained in S10 of the 
Standard. Some of these targets are located on vertically oriented 
surfaces such as the A-pillar (S10.1), B-Pillar (S10.2), rearmost 
pillar (S10.4) and, if they exist, other pillars (S10.3). Therefore, 
when the FMH is launched at a target area located on one of these 
pillars and the forehead impact area contacts the intended target, the 
chin or lower portions of the FMH may contact another target area lower 
on the same pillar.
    As Standard 201 sets performance requirements for a number of 
points and areas within the vehicle, S8.14(a) provides that, subject to 
certain limitations, a vehicle being tested may be impacted multiple 
times. S8.14(b), which was included in the standard to allow sufficient 
time for resilient countermeasures to recover after impacts, provides 
that impacts within 300mm (12 inches) of each other may not occur less 
than 30 minutes apart. S8.14(c) specifies that no impact may occur 
within 150 mm (6 inches) of any other impact. The latter provision is 
intended to prevent damage caused by the overlap of one impact from 
impairing the performance of countermeasures for a nearby target in a 
second impact. The selection of the 150mm (6 inches) distance was based 
on the maximum width of the FMH.
    The 150 mm (6 inches) distance currently in S8.14(c) does not, 
however, address the potential impact overlap damage caused by the 
height of the FMH rather than its width. Information and test data 
presented to the agency by AAMA and others indicate that contact 
between the lower portions of the FMH and target points below a test 
target on vertically oriented surfaces could substantially impair the 
performance of countermeasures on or near those lower target points. 
For vertical pillar targets, increasing the 150mm (6 inches) minimum 
spacing distance to 200 mm (8 inches) would, in our view, preclude 
impact overlap damage caused by impacts to target points below the 
intended target. Our belief is based on the fact that the 
characteristics of the principal structure of the FMH--the metal 
skull--are such that the lowest point of the device likely to contact 
the interior in a test, is less than 200 mm (8 inches) from any point 
within the forehead impact zone. As contact between the forehead impact 
zone and the intended target area is required in a valid test, the 
proposed 200 mm (8 inches) distance should be sufficient to ensure that 
target areas located in areas impacted by earlier tests will not be 
subject to testing.
    We believe that this proposed spacing exclusion is consistent with 
our past actions in creating Standard 201. While we are concerned that 
multiple impacts can and will occur in the event of a crash, we have 
never required that a target point be subjected to multiple impacts or 
that targets located in or over an area already tested be tested again. 
As noted above, S8.14, which we inserted in Standard 201 after 
consideration of data developed using foam countermeasures, already 
provided that impacts may not occur within 150 mm (6 inches) of each 
other. Because we believed that resilient foam would be used to meet 
Standard 201's requirements, S8.14 also specifies that impacts located 
within 300 mm (12 inches) of each other may not occur less than 30 
minutes apart. The proposal to create a similar exclusion for 
vertically oriented surface target locations less than 200 mm (8 
inches) apart simply recognizes that materials other than resilient 
foam may be used to protect occupants and that these materials may 
perform differently while providing an equivalent level of safety.
    The proposed exclusion would not result in any decrease in safety. 
We wish to emphasize that excluding target locations located on 
vertical components that are less than 200 mm (8 inches) apart does not 
mean that an excluded point will not be subject to testing. If, for 
example, the B-pillar target point known as BP2 is located within 200 
mm (8 inches) of another B-pillar target location such as BP1, BP2 
would be excluded only if the BP1 on the same side of the vehicle had 
been impacted in a test. Because pillar target locations are available 
on both sides of the vehicle, we believe that by alternately locating 
targets on opposite sides of the vehicle, all target locations are 
likely to be available for testing. In the event that target locations 
are so near to each other that the use of alternate sides of a vehicle 
does not provide access to all target locations, additional vehicles 
may be used for testing. Adoption of the proposed exclusion would 
therefore provide manufacturers with some assurance that target 
locations contacted by the FMH during a test of another location on the 
same side of the vehicle would not be subjected to a second impact. At 
the same time, we would retain the ability to test all pillar target 
points by using both sides of the vehicle for compliance tests.

B. Pillar Surrogates

    The target location requirements currently specified in Standard 
201 envision vehicles having more than one door on a side will also 
have a pillar between those doors. However, as noted above, there are a 
number of recent designs that do not conform to that expectation. These 
vehicles, including the Saturn 3-door coupe and pickup trucks with 3- 
and 4-door configurations, have more than one door on a side but do not 
have a pillar between the doors. In these designs, the door frames 
where the two doors meet are, from a safety standpoint, the equivalent 
of a pillar. The door frames are stiff like pillars and are located 
close to an occupant's head. If proper countermeasures are not provided 
on these structures, occupants of these vehicles would have less 
protection in a crash than those occupying more conventional vehicles. 
The agency is also aware of other vehicle designs in which stiff 
structures that are not pillars, roll bars, or braces are used as 
mounts for upper belt anchorages. Like the door frames discussed above, 
these structures provide the same safety risks for occupants as pillars 
do, but are not currently covered by the Standard.
1. Door Frames
    We are proposing to add two new sections to S10 of Standard 201 
that will specify target locations on frames of

[[Page 17846]]

pairs of adjacent doors that are not separated by an intervening 
pillar. Specifying these target locations would necessitate the 
addition of definitions of ``door frame'' and ``other door frame'' to 
S3. The proposed definitions of ``door frame'' and ``other door frame'' 
encompass the structure rearward of the daylight opening of a forward 
door and the structure forward of the daylight opening of a rear door 
where the doors are adjacent side doors with opposing hinges that latch 
together without engaging or contacting an intervening pillar. As 
defined in the proposal, ``door frame'' is distinguished from ``other 
door frame'' by the relationship of each of these structures to other 
pillars. A ``door frame'' refers to the perimeter structure of doors 
located rearward of an A-pillar and forward of any other pillars, while 
``other door frame'' refers to the perimeter structure of doors 
rearward of the B-pillar.
    The proposed target location procedure for these door frames takes 
into account that seat belt anchorages may be located on these door 
frames and that the frames themselves are two structures. We are 
proposing that four targets be located on the door frames.
    The first of these, which would be known as DF1, would be located 
in a fashion similar to that presently used for locating the B-Pillar 
target known as BP1. We propose that DF1 be located on a reference 
point, DFR. Under the proposal, DFR would be located on the vehicle 
interior at a point along the intersection of the interior roof surface 
and a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear edge of the forward 
door when the adjacent rear door is in the open position. The location 
of DFR would be determined by finding the midpoint, along the 
intersection line, between the nearest edge of the upper roof and the 
point at which a horizontal plane passing through the highest point of 
the highest adjacent daylight opening intersects with the transverse 
vertical plane and the vehicle interior. We propose that the second 
door frame target, DF2, be located at any point on any seat belt 
anchorage located on the door frame. Target DF3 would be located on the 
interior surface of the door frame. As proposed, DF3 would be located 
in the horizontal plane midway between DFR and a horizontal plane 
passing through the lowest point of the lowest adjacent daylight 
opening and would be the point on the door frame that is closest to the 
head center of gravity of an occupant in the seating position whose 
seating reference point is immediately forward of the transverse 
vertical plane tangent to the rear edge of the forward door. To protect 
occupants in any seats whose seating reference point is immediately 
rearward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear edge of 
the forward door, we are proposing to locate another target, DF4, at a 
point on the interior surface of the door frame. As proposed, DF4 would 
be located in the horizontal plane midway between DF3 and the 
horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the lowest 
daylight opening of an adjacent door. DF 4 would be the point inside 
this plane that is closest to the head center of gravity of an occupant 
in the seat whose seating reference point is immediately rearward of 
the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear edge of the forward 
door.
    For ``other door frame'' targets, we are proposing a target 
location procedure similar to that already being used for the two 
existing other pillar targets. An ``other door'' reference point, ODR, 
is a point on a line formed by the intersection of the roof interior 
surface and a transverse vertical plane passing through the vertical 
center line of the width of the door frame, as viewed laterally with 
the doors closed, and is the midpoint between the nearest edge of the 
``upper roof'' and the point at which a horizontal plane passing 
through the highest daylight opening of the adjacent door intersects 
with the vertical center line of the width of the door frame. If no 
seat belt anchorage is located on the door frame, ODR serves as target 
OD1. If a seat belt anchorage is located on the door frame, target OD1 
is located on the anchorage. The second other door frame target, OD2, 
is located on the interior surface of the door frame inside the 
longitudinal horizontal plane midway between the horizontal planes 
passing through the ODR and the lowest points in the daylight openings 
of the door frames. As proposed, OD2 would be that point within this 
plane and on the vertical center line of the width of the door frame, 
as viewed laterally with the doors closed.
    The proposed procedure for locating these target areas is intended 
to be similar to that used for locating B-pillar and other pillar 
targets. The same approach angles are specified for the door frame and 
other door frame targets as are currently employed for the B-pillars 
and other pillars. We also note that as is the case with the existing 
specifications for targets that are seat belt anchorages, the vertical 
approach angle specified for seat belt anchorages differs from that for 
other targets on the same pillar or door frame. The selection of the 
approach angle for anchorage targets reflects the agency's judgement 
that such angles are more appropriate for anchorages--which commonly 
project above the nominal surface of a pillar or door frame. Further, 
in specifying distinct approach angles for seat belt anchorages, NHTSA 
intends that the approach angles specified generally for pillars and 
door frames do not apply to anchorage targets.
    We have tentatively concluded that these proposed target procedures 
are the most appropriate target locating procedures for door frames 
that are, from a safety perspective, similar to B-pillars and other 
pillars. Nonetheless, we may also consider alternative target location 
schemes, including simply providing that the entire interior surface of 
the door frame should be considered to be a target location. We also 
note that because the door frames are two separate components, that it 
may be appropriate to specify additional target locations to adequately 
ensure that both the front and the rear frames provide adequate 
protection, particularly in light of the fact that the present proposal 
does not locate any target on the rear door frame at the upper portion 
of the frame. Unlike the case of a B-pillar, the trim and the 
countermeasures on door frames will not be a single component, but two 
separate components. These separate components are, in our view, likely 
to be less susceptible to damage caused by other impacts. Therefore, we 
believe that the minimum distances between targets now specified in 
S8.14 as well as the current proposal to extend these distances for 
pillar targets may not be necessary in the case of door frames.
    We request that those submitting comments in response to this 
proposal provide their views on the following issues: Is the proposed 
location procedure for DF1 appropriate? Are the proposed location 
procedures for the other door frame target locations appropriate? 
Should additional target locations be specified to assure the 
performance of countermeasures located in the rear door frame? Is the 
proposed definition of ``door frame'' appropriate?
2. Seat Belt Mounting Structures
    Certain vehicle designs, particularly those with removable or 
convertible tops, may provide manufacturers with few options for 
mounting and locating upper anchorages for the shoulder portion of Type 
II safety belts. In those instances in which it is not possible or 
desirable to locate this upper anchorage on the seat itself and the 
particular design does not readily offer another mounting location, the 
manufacturer may choose to incorporate a dedicated structure into the 
vehicle to serve as the shoulder belt anchorage. If this structure, 
which by necessity must be stiff and relatively near the occupant

[[Page 17847]]

served by the belt, does not fit within the definition of pillar, roll 
bar, or stiffener, currently contained in Standard 201, it need not 
meet the Standard's requirements.
    We are proposing to amend S3 to include a definition of ``Seat Belt 
Mounting Structure'' and to amend S10 to add a new target location 
procedure for placing target areas on these structures. The proposed 
definition describes a ``Seat Belt Mounting Structure'' as follows:

    Seat Belt Mounting Structure means a component of the vehicle 
body or frame, including trim, to which an upper seat belt anchorage 
conforming to the requirements of S4.2.1. and S4.3.2 of Standard No. 
210 is attached. The term does not include a pillar, roll bar, brace 
or stiffener, side rail, seat, or part of the roof.

We tentatively conclude that this definition would provide adequate 
guidance to manufacturers in identifying which components are covered 
by the Standard.
    We are proposing to locate three target areas on seat belt mounting 
structures in an effort to maintain consistency with the target 
locations for pillars. This is appropriate because, in the agency's 
view, pillars most closely approximate seat belt mounting structures in 
terms of safety and safety countermeasures. However, we are proposing 
that fewer target locations be specified for these structures than are 
presently specified for testing pillars. Our view is that manufacturers 
are likely only to use a purpose-built seat belt anchorage structure in 
those instances in which the design of the vehicle precludes more 
conventional alternatives such as the pillars or seat. We also believe 
that such structures are not likely to be integrated into roofs, which 
are usually not as rigid or strong as other areas of the vehicle such 
as the sides or floors. Therefore, our proposal does not call for 
locating any targets higher than the head center of gravity of 
occupants in nearby seating positions unless the seat belt anchorage 
itself is higher.
    We propose that the first target point, known as SB1, be located on 
the seat belt anchorage attached to the seat belt mounting structure. 
The remaining two target points, SB2 and SB3, would be located in 
reference to the head CG of occupants nearest to the seat belt mount in 
question. We propose that target SB2 be the point on the nominal 
surface of the seat belt mounting structure that is closest to CG-F2 of 
the nearest front outboard designated seating position and is on the 
intersection of the seat belt mounting structure and the horizontal 
plane passing through that CG-F2. If the seating reference point of any 
rear outboard seating position is forward of the transverse vertical 
plane passing through the vertical center line of the seat belt 
mounting structure, SB2 would be the point that is closest to the CG-R 
nearest the seat belt mounting structure and is at the intersection of 
the seat belt mounting structure and the horizontal plane passing 
through that CG-R. The proposed location for SB3 is fixed in a similar 
fashion. SB3 is the point nearest to CG-R that is 225 mm (8.6 inches) 
below the intersection of the surface of the seat belt mounting 
structure and the horizontal plane passing through the CG-R of the 
designated seating position whose seating reference point is rearward 
of the transverse vertical plane passing through the vertical center 
line of the seat belt mounting structure.
    The proposal also contains approach angles for the seat belt 
mounting structures that are similar to the approach angles currently 
employed for B-pillar targets. We have tentatively concluded that these 
approach angles are appropriate because the specification of single 
approach angle or a narrow range of approach angles would preclude 
testing of the proposed target areas. We also note that, as is the case 
with the existing specifications for targets that are seat belt 
anchorages, the vertical approach angle specified for seat belt 
anchorages differs from that for other targets on the seat belt 
mounting structure. It is the agency's judgement that such angles are 
more appropriate for anchorages--which commonly project above the 
nominal surface of a seat belt mounting structure. Further, in 
specifying an approach angle for anchorage targets, it is the agency's 
intention that the approach angles specified generally for pillars and 
door frames do not apply to anchorage targets.
    While the location of the seat belt anchorage attached to such a 
structure will be fixed, to some extent, by the requirements of 
Standard 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, the remaining 
characteristics of such structures are not well known. Since the 
ability to test target areas on seat belt mounting structures may be 
limited by their configuration, i.e., the ability to properly strike a 
target area with the forehead impact zone of the FMH, we tentatively 
conclude that specifying a range of approach angles is in the best 
interest of safety.
    We also tentatively conclude that the definition of a seat belt 
mounting structure allows identification of the target locations and 
that the proposed target locations are both appropriate and readily 
identified. However, we ask for comments on the definition and its 
utility. Comments on the proposed location of the targets and the 
procedure used to locate them would also, in our view, assist us in 
formulating an appropriate final rule.

IV. Costs and Benefits

    The proposed amendments would change performance requirements, test 
procedures and revise definitions to include structures that are the 
equivalents to the pillars that are already subject to Standard 201's 
requirements. Because these structures, door frames and seat belt 
mounting structures, are very similar in design, construction and 
location to existing pillars, we have decided that the cost and benefit 
methodology prepared for the August 1995 final rule will not change. 
The four proposed door frame target points are substitutes for the 
existing four B-pillar targets points that would be located on the B-
pillar that the door frames replace. Similarly, the three proposed seat 
belt mounting structure target points would be in-place of, rather than 
in addition to, existing targets such as those located on the rear 
pillar (RP1, RP2), rear header (RH) and rear side rail (SR3) target 
points not present in some soft top sport utility vehicles.
    Based on data in the June 1995 Final Economic Assessment on Upper 
Interior Head Protection, it is estimated that the cost of padding the 
two B-pillars of a passenger car and light truck would be $5.80/vehicle 
and $9.71/vehicle, respectively. This is the cost of the padding 
material countermeasure. Adjusting these figures to 1998 values and for 
the slightly greater amount of padding that would be needed for LTVs, 
the average cost per vehicle is estimated to be not more than $6 per 
vehicle for 3-door passenger cars similar to the 3 door Saturn sedan 
and $10 per 4-door crew cab LTV. A 3 door crew cab LTV would already 
have one padded B-pillar so costs would be less, possibly as low as $5 
per vehicle. For soft top sport utility vehicles with 3 newly target 
points per vertical belt mounting structure, the cost per vehicle would 
be less than that required to install countermeasures on two B-
pillars--approximately $6-$10 per vehicle.
    The addition of the proposed new door frame and seat belt mounting 
structure targets would, in our view, not require further benefits 
analysis. Our original June 1995 Final Economic Assessment did not 
envision pillarless designs such as 3-door coupes, crew cab LTVs or 
soft top LTVs with seat belt mounting structures as being part of the 
U.S. vehicle fleet. The overall cost/

[[Page 17848]]

benefit calculations performed in that assessment assumed that all 
vehicles had conventional pillars, roll bars, or stiffeners. The 
current proposal brings vehicles without conventional pillars, roll 
bars, or stiffeners within the scope of Standard 201 and, as noted 
above, at approximately the same cost as other vehicles. Therefore, our 
earlier benefits analysis is merely brought up to date by the inclusion 
of these vehicles in Standard 201.

V. Effective Date

    The agency is proposing that the final rule become effective 180 
days after it is published.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is also not 
considered to be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    This document proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571.201 by modifying 
existing test procedures to increase the minimum distance between 
tested targets. It would also specify targets on certain door frames 
and seat belt mounting structures not previously covered by the 
Standard. The agency notes that these structures, i.e., door frames and 
freestanding seat belt mounting structures, are surrogates for pillars 
and are not, to NHTSA's knowledge, present in vehicles with more 
conventional configurations. In particular, seat belt mounting 
structures appear to be used only in soft top vehicles where no roof 
structure, pillars (except the A pillar), roll bars or stiffeners 
exist.
    The agency's previous economic analysis was based on the assumption 
that all vehicles would have conventional pillar layouts. As a result 
of that assumption, vehicles that actually had pillar surrogates were 
mistakenly included in that analysis and were treated, for the purpose 
of estimating costs, as though they had conventional pillar layouts. 
The number of pillars that these vehicles were assumed to have is the 
same as the total number of pillars and pillar surrogates that they 
actually have.
    The agency has tentatively concluded that the costs of installing 
countermeasures on these pillar surrogates will not differ appreciably 
from installing the same countermeasures on pillars. Thus, despite the 
erroneous assumptions, the previous economic analysis correctly 
estimated the compliance costs for vehicles with pillar surrogates, and 
included those costs in the overall estimate of the costs of the upper 
interior head protection requirements. Since the economic costs of 
extending those requirements to vehicles with surrogate pillars have 
already been accounted for, we believe that the economic impacts of 
this proposal do not warrant further regulatory evaluation.

B. 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.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not involve 
decisions based on environmental, safety or health risks having a 
disproportionate impact on children.

D. Executive Order 12778

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it would not have such 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.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) 
and certifies that this

[[Page 17849]]

proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. We estimate that there are at most five small 
manufacturers of passenger cars in the U.S., producing a combined total 
of at most 500 cars each year. We do not believe small businesses 
manufacture even 0.1 percent of total U.S. passenger car and light 
truck production each year.
    The primary cost effect of the proposed requirements would be on 
manufacturers of passenger cars and LTVs. Final stage manufacturers, 
those who use incomplete vehicles produced by larger manufacturers to 
produce specialty products, are generally small businesses. However, 
NHTSA believes that the proposed requirements would not be burdensome 
for final stage manufacturers. The amendments proposed in this 
rulemaking impose additional mandatory requirements only on those 
vehicles with specific door configurations or specialized seat belt 
mounting structures. We note that vehicles with these configurations 
presently represent only a small percentage of annual production. 
Further, a final stage manufacturer could test, or could sponsor a 
test, of a padded component outside of the vehicle on a test fixture, 
to the extent such testing may be needed to support certification. 
Manufacturer associations could also sponsor generic tests to determine 
the amount and type of padding or design needed for basic structures 
that would be used by a number of final stage manufacturers, to reduce 
certification costs.
    Other entities which would qualify as small businesses, small 
organizations and governmental units would be affected by this rule to 
the extent that they purchase passenger cars and LTVs. They would not 
be significantly affected, since the potential cost increases 
associated with this action should only slightly affect the purchase 
price of new motor vehicles. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a 
preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposal does 
not propose any new information collection requirements.

H. National Technology Transfer And Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. We note that there are no 
available voluntary consensus standards that are equivalent to Standard 
201.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative 
was not adopted.
    This proposal would not result in costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

VII. Submission and Availability of Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESS.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESS. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business

[[Page 17850]]

information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESS. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:

A. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department 
of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
B. On that page, click on ``search.''
C. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the last four 
digits of the docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
D. On the next page, which contains docket index and summary 
information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. 
You may view or download the comments. However, since the comments are 
imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.

    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended 
as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415, 21417, and 21466; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.201 would be amended by adding, in alphabetical 
order, definitions of Door Frame and Seat Belt Mounting Structure to 
S3; by revising S8.13.4, S8.13.4.2(b)(2), S8.14, and S10(a) through 
(b); and by adding S8.13.4.1(e) through (h), S10.14, S10.15 and S10.16 
to read as follows:
    S3. * * *
* * * * *
    Door Frame means the rearmost perimeter structure, including trim 
but excluding glass, of the forward door and the forwardmost perimeter 
structure, including trim but excluding glass, of the rear door of a 
pair of adjacent side doors that:
    (a) Have opposing hinges;
    (b) Latch together without engaging or contacting an intervening 
pillar;
    (c) Are forward of any pillar other than the A-pillar on the same 
side of the vehicle; and
    (d) are rearward of the A pillar.
* * * * *
    Other Door Frame means the rearmost perimeter structure, including 
trim but excluding glass, of the forward door and the forwardmost 
perimeter structure, including trim but excluding glass, of the rear 
door of a pair of adjacent side doors that:
    (a) Have opposing hinges;
    (b) Latch together without engaging or contacting an intervening 
pillar; and
    (c) Are rearward of the B-pillar.
* * * * *
    Seat Belt Mounting Structure means a component of the vehicle body 
or frame, including trim, that has an upper seat belt anchorage 
conforming to the requirements of S4.2.1. and S4.3.2 of Standard No. 
210 attached to it and that is not a pillar, roll bar, brace or 
stiffener, side rail, seat, or part of the roof.
* * * * *
    S8.13.4  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 S8.13.4.1 and S8.13.4.2, 
and within the range specified in Table 1, using the orthogonal 
reference system specified in S9.

                     Table 1.--Approach Angle Limits
                              [In degrees]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Horizontal
           Target component                  angle       Vertical  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 Sliding Door Track...............             270             0-50
Right Sliding Door Track..............              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
Left Door Frame.......................         195-345           -10-50
Right Door Frame......................          15-165           -10-50
Other Left Pillars....................             270           -10-50
Other Right Pillars...................              90           -10-50
Other Left Door Frame.................             270           -10-50
Other Right Door Frame................              90           -10-50
Left Rearmost Pillar..................         270-345           -10-50
Right Rearmost Pillar.................           15-90           -10-50
Upper Roof............................             Any             0-50

[[Page 17851]]

 
Overhead Rollbar......................        0 or 180             0-50
Brace or Stiffener....................       90 or 270             0-50
Left Seat Belt Mounting Structure.....         195-345           -10-50
Right Seat Belt Mounting Structure....          15-165           -10-50
Seat Belt Anchorages..................             Any             0-50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    S8.13.4.1  Horizontal approach angles for headform impacts.
* * * * *
    (e) Left door frame horizontal approach angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the left seat and the left door frame. The maximum 
horizontal approach angle for the left door frame 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 door frame. The minimum 
horizontal approach angle for the left door frame equals the angle 
formed by that line and the X-axis of the vehicle measured 
counterclockwise.
    (f) Right door frame horizontal approach angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the right seat and the right door frame. The minimum 
horizontal approach angle for the right door frame 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 door frame. The maximum 
horizontal approach angle for the right door frame equals the angle 
between that line and the X-axis of the vehicle measured 
counterclockwise
    (g) Left seat belt mounting structure horizontal approach angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the left seat and the left seat belt mounting 
structure. The maximum horizontal approach angle for the left seat belt 
mounting structure 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 seat belt mounting 
structure. The minimum horizontal approach angle for the left seat belt 
mounting structure equals the angle formed by that line and the X-axis 
of the vehicle measured counterclockwise.
    (h) Right seat belt mounting structure horizontal approach angles.
    (1) Locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance 
between CG-F2 for the right seat and the right seat belt mounting 
structure. The minimum horizontal approach angle for the right seat 
belt mounting structure 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 seat belt mounting 
structure. The maximum horizontal approach angle for the right seat 
belt mounting structure equals the angle between that line and the X-
axis of the vehicle measured counterclockwise
    S8.13.4.2  Vertical approach angles.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) For all pillars except A-pillars and all door frames and seat 
belt mounting structures, 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.
    S8.14  Multiple impacts.
    (a) A vehicle being tested may be impacted multiple times, subject 
to the limitations in S8.14(b), (c) and (d).
    (b) As measured as provided in S8.14(e), impacts within 300 mm of 
each other may not occur less than 30 minutes apart.
    (c) As measured as provided in S8.14(e), no impact may occur within 
150 mm of any other impact.
    (d) As measured as provided in S8.14(e), no impact on any pillar or 
vertical component of a roll bar, brace, stiffener, door frame or seat 
belt mounting structure may occur within 200 mm of any other impact.
    (e) For S8.14(b), S8.14(c), and S8.14(d), the distance between 
impacts is the distance between the centers of the target circle 
specified in S8.11 for each impact, measured along the vehicle 
interior.
* * * * *
    S10 * * *
    (a) The target locations specified in S10.1 through S10.16 are 
located on both sides of the vehicle and, except as specified in 
S10(b), are determined using the procedures specified in those 
paragraphs.
    (b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of 
horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the 
forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the 
targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.16, the 
center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a 
radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target, which 
the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of 
angles.
* * * * *
    S10.14  Door frame targets.
    (a) Target DF 1. Locate the point (Point 21) on the vehicle 
interior at the intersection of the horizontal plane passing through 
the highest point of the forward door opening and a transverse vertical 
plane (Plane 32 ) tangent to the rearmost edge of the forward door, as 
viewed laterally with the adjacent door open. Locate the point (Point 
22) at the intersection of the interior roof surface, Plane 32, and the 
plane, described in S8.15(h), defining the nearest edge of the upper 
roof. The door frame reference point (Point DFR) is the point located 
at the middle of the line from Point 21 to Point 22 in Plane 32, 
measured along the vehicle interior surface. Target DF1 is located at 
Point DFR.
    (b) Target DF2. If a seat belt anchorage is located on the door 
frame, Target DF2 is located at any point on the anchorage.
    (c) Target DF3. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 33) which 
intersects Point DFR. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 34) which passes 
through the lowest point of the adjacent daylight opening forward of 
the door frame. Locate a

[[Page 17852]]

horizontal plane (Plane 35) half-way between Plane 33 and Plane 34. 
Target DF3 is the point located in Plane 35 and on the interior surface 
of the door frame, which is closest to CG-F2 for the nearest seating 
position.
    (d) Target DF4. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 36) half-way 
between Plane 34 and Plane 35. Target DF4 is the point located in Plane 
36 and on the interior surface of the door frame which is closest to 
CG-R for the nearest seating position.
    S10.15  Other door frame targets.
    (a) Target OD1.
    (1) Except as provided in S10.15(a)(2), target OD1 is located in 
accordance with this paragraph. Locate the point (Point 23), 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 there is no adjacent door opening) and the center line of 
the width of the other door frame, as viewed laterally with the doors 
in the closed position. Locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 37) 
passing through Point 23. Locate the point (Point 24) at the 
intersection of the interior roof surface, Plane 37 and the plane, 
described in S8.15(h), defining the nearest edge of the upper roof. The 
other door frame reference point (Point ODR) is the point located at 
the middle of the line between Point 23 and Point 24 in Plane 37, 
measured along the vehicle interior surface. Target OD1 is located at 
Point ODR.
    (2) If a seat belt anchorage is located on the door frame, Target 
OD1 is any point on the anchorage.
    (b) Target OD2. Locate the horizontal plane (Plane 38) intersecting 
Point ODR. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 39) passing through the 
lowest point of the daylight opening forward of the door frame. Locate 
a horizontal plane (Plane 40) half-way between Plane 38 and Plane 39. 
Target OD2 is the point located on the interior surface of the door 
frame at the intersection of Plane 40 and the center line of the width 
of the door frames, as viewed laterally, with the doors in the closed 
position.
    S10.16  Seat belt mounting structure targets.
    (a) Target SB1. Target SB1 is located at any point on the seat belt 
anchorage mounted on the seat belt mounting structure.
    (b) Target SB2. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 41), containing 
either CG-F2 or CG-R, as appropriate, for any outboard designated 
seating position whose seating reference point, SgRP, is forward of and 
closest to, the vertical center line of the width of the seat belt 
mounting structure as viewed laterally. Target SB2 is located on the 
seat belt mounting structure and in Plane 41 at the location closest to 
either CG-F2 or CG-R, as appropriate.
    (c) Target SB3. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 42), containing 
CG-R for any outboard designated seating position rearward of the 
forwardmost designated seating position or positions whose seating 
reference point, SgRP, is rearward of and closest to, the vertical 
center line of the width of the seat belt mounting structure, as viewed 
laterally. Measuring along the nominal surface of the seat belt 
mounting structure locate a horizontal plane (plane 43) 225 mm below 
Plane 42. Target SB2 is located on the seat belt mounting structure and 
in Plane 43 at the location closest to CG-R, as appropriate.
* * * * *

    Issued on March 28, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-8008 Filed 4-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P