[Federal Register: February 27, 2004 (Volume 0, Number 0)]
[Page 9217-9229]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27fe04-11]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 00-7145; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AH61
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the upper interior impact requirements of
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on occupant protection in
interior impact to increase the minimum separation distance between
tested areas on vertical surfaces of a motor 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 circles
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). This final rule expands this minimum separation distance for
certain target locations through the use of an FMH-shaped ``exclusion
zone'' to alleviate concerns that the striking of one target would
affect compliance at other nearby targets in the same vehicle. This
final rule also adds targets for pillar-like structures that do not
meet the definition of ``pillar,'' i.e., certain door frames and
freestanding vertical seat belt mounting structures.
DATES: Effective Date: August 25, 2004.
Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received
by NHTSA no later than April 12, 2004.
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 non-legal issues, you may call Dr.
William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-4922.
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
G. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
H. Comments in Response to the NPRM
III. Agency Analysis of Comments
A. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
B. Bornemann Products
IV. Final Rule
V. Effective Date
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132
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)
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 such head impacts also result in nearly 13,600
[[Page 9218]]
moderate to critical (but non-fatal) passenger car occupant injuries
(MAIS 2 or greater), and more than 5,200 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 with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs.) or less to provide protection when an
occupant's head strikes upper interior components, including pillars,
side rails, headers, and the roof, during a crash. This final rule,
which required compliance through a number of phase-in schedules
beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the scope of
Standard No. 201. Previously, the standard applied only to the portion
of the vehicle interior in front of the front seat and to 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) leadtime 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 on August 4, 1998 (63 FR 41451).
The remaining issues were addressed through a final rule published
on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718). The April 1997 final rule amended
Standard No. 201 to add another phase-in option to the existing phase-
in requirements, allowed manufacturers to carry forward credits for
vehicles certified to the new requirements prior to the beginning of
the phase-in period, excluded buses with a GVWR of more than 3,860
kilograms (8,500 pounds), specified that all attachments to the upper
interior components are to remain in place during compliance testing,
and clarified the test procedure.
An issue considered in both the petitions for reconsideration and
the April 8, 1997 final rule was the appropriate minimum separation
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 150 mm (6 inch)
distance provided in the Standard was inadequate, particularly in those
instances in which the installed countermeasure did not use padding,
but instead relied on another means. However, because the petitioners
did not submit any data substantiating their claim that the 150 mm (6
inch) distance was inadequate, NHTSA rejected their request to increase
this distance when it issued the April 1997 final rule.
C. Petitions for Reconsideration
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and ASC,
Incorporated (ASC) filed petitions for reconsideration of the April 8,
1997 final rule. 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 excluded from the FMH test requirements, as we concluded
that it was feasible to pad these components. The April 1998 notice
also explained that AAMA's concern regarding the location of CG-F had
been resolved by an amendment to Standard No. 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 separation distance between two target areas. Without providing
supporting test data, AAMA argued that the existing 150 mm (6 inch)
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
inch) separation distance was adequate. As the 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
No. 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 was not any test data indicating
that such a limitation was realistic and necessary.
As noted below, AAMA sent 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.
[[Page 9219]]
D. March 31, 1998 Letter
On March 31, 1998, AAMA sent a letter to the agency expressing
concern about the laboratory test procedure for Standard No. 201. In
order to provide guidance and assistance to agency contractors
performing compliance tests, the agency produces laboratory test
procedures outlining recommended practices for performing compliance
tests for the various 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 No. 201 testing using the laboratory test procedure
could create uncertainty about the ability of particular
countermeasures to meet the Standard. The letter included test data
from testing on prototype countermeasures that, in AAMA's view,
supported its contention that multiple impacts and chin contacts
compromised the ability of countermeasures to perform adequately when
adjacent target circles were subject to successive impacts. AAMA
requested that the agency's test procedure include a restriction on
testing adjacent target circles and also contain a provision stating
that any test failure should be carefully scrutinized to determine if
and when chin contact occurred. AAMA suggested that the test procedure
provide that, if early chin contact occurred, the test be run again
with the headform rotated to a new position in which 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 No. 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 No. 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 plastic
trim were deformed up to 150 mm (6 inches) below the impact area.
Representatives of AAMA, the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, 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
circles on or near the secondary impact area 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 that, 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 doors latch
together without an intervening pillar. Similar designs have also been
employed in passenger cars. 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.
We are also aware of other designs used in soft-top light utility
vehicles that involve the use of a freestanding 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 No. 201.
This final rule addresses the safety consequences of these new
designs. Because these door frames and seat belt mounting structures
did not fit within the existing definitions of ``pillar,'' ``roll bar''
or ``stiffener'' found in Standard No. 201, they did not previously
have to meet the head impact protection criteria.
G. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
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, NHTSA proposed amendments to
Standard No. 201 in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in
the Federal Register on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17842). The agency
proposed to enlarge the minimum separation distance between pillar
target areas to prevent testing to target areas that suffered damage
from an impact overlap from a previous test impact, and to include
pillar-like structures within the standard. To address impact overlap,
the agency proposed adding a 200 mm (8 inch) minimum separation
distance for certain vertically oriented target locations. To address
the performance of newer vehicle designs with structures that are
functionally equivalent to pillars, roll bars and braces, our proposal
sought to add new sections to S3 and S10 that defined pillar-like
structures and established procedures for locating target areas on
those structures.
The head impact protection provisions of Standard No. 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 any speed
up to and including 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 in S10 of the Standard. Some of these targets are
located such that when the forehead impact area of the FMH contacts the
intended target, the chin or lower portions of the FMH may approach, or
perhaps even contact, another target area on the same component.
[[Page 9220]]
As Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for a number
of target areas within a vehicle, S8.14(a) provides that, subject to
certain limitations, a single vehicle component 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 300 mm (12 inches) of each other may not
occur less than 30 minutes apart. To prevent damage caused by one
impact from impairing the performance of a nearby target, S8.14(c)
specifies that no impact may occur within 150 mm (6 inches) of any
other impact. Given that S8.14(d) says that the distance between
impacts is the distance between the centers of the target for each
impact, S8.14(c) means that if the centers of two target circles are
within 150 mm (6 inches) of each other, only one of the two targets may
be impacted.
The 150 mm (6 inch) distance was based on the maximum width of the
FMH and not its height. To address the potential impact overlap damage
caused by the height of the FMH instead of its width, the NPRM proposed
increasing the 150 mm (6 inch) minimum separation distance to 200 mm (8
inches) for certain targets to preclude impact overlap damage caused by
impacts to targets below the intended target.
The NPRM also proposed adding new target locations to door frames
and seat belt mounting structures. The proposal sought to add two new
sections to S10 of Standard No. 201 that would specify target locations
on frames of pairs of adjacent side doors that are not separated by an
intervening pillar and proposed to add definitions of ``door frame''
and ``other door frame'' to S3.
Finally, the NPRM proposed to amend S3 to include a definition of
``Seat Belt Mounting Structure'' and to amend S10 to add a new target
location procedure for locating three targets on these structures.
H. Comments in Response to the NPRM
The agency received two comments in response to the April 5, 2000
NPRM. Comments were submitted by a trade association, the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), and by Bornemann Products (Bornemann),
a seat manufacturer. Both commenters were generally supportive of the
agency's proposal, although AAM voiced a number of concerns regarding
the means of attaining the proposal's objectives and Bornemann offered
more global objections concerning the costs that compliance with
Standard No. 201 imposes on final stage manufacturers.
AAM addressed five issues: (1) The minimum separation distance for
targets, (2) the definition of, and target locations on, seat belt
mounting structures, (3) vertical approach angles, (4) targets on other
door frames and door frames, and (5) leadtime.
AAM argued that the agency's proposal to increase the separation
distance between targets on vertical surfaces from 150 mm (6 inches) to
200 mm (8 inches) was inadequate. According to AAM, the distance from
the bottom of the chin to the top of the forehead impact zone of the
FMH, measured along the mid-sagittal plane of the FMH head skin, is 250
mm (10 inches). AAM contended that this distance represents the minimum
separation distance between two impacts when the top boundary of the
forehead impact zone and the lowest point of the FMH contact the
interior during a test.
AAM also noted that NHTSA's proposal that sought to extend the
minimum separation distance between tested targets was limited to
targets on pillars and vertical components of roll bars, braces, and
stiffeners. AAM characterized this approach as a component-based method
and offered a number of comments. In AAM's view, component-based
criteria would not include all components where FMH chin contact could
compromise performance at a nearby target. The organization stated that
the upper roof target is as much at risk for impact overlap as pillar
targets. Moreover, AAM contended that certain targets on or near
pillars would not be located on a portion of the vehicle that meets the
NHTSA's definition of ``pillar.'' AAM stated that targets AP1, BP1 and
RP1 are often not located on pillars, even though they are labeled as
pillar targets.
To address these concerns, AAM recommended that the method for
preventing impact overlap proposed by the agency be replaced with an
alternative method. The alternative offered by AAM specifies that no
impact may occur within the ``Keep Out Zone'' of any other target. The
AAM ``Keep Out Zone'' is derived through use of a procedure in which a
sphere with a radius of 250 mm (10 inches) is centered on a target. Two
vertical planes parallel to a vertical plane perpendicular to the
target are then placed not more than 150 mm (6 inches) from either side
of the target center. The aforementioned vertical planes, in
conjunction with the outer edge of that portion of the sphere projected
onto the vehicle interior that lies between the vertical planes,
establishes the outer boundaries of AAM's ``Keep Out Zone.''
The organization also offered comments in regard to the agency's
proposed definition of ``seat belt mounting structures'' and the target
location procedures used in placing targets on them. AAM commented that
the definition of ``seat belt mounting structure'' in the regulatory
text of the NPRM could easily be construed to include areas of the
vehicle that are not within the agency's view of what constitutes a
seat belt mounting structure as explained in the preamble. AAM provided
pictures of a number of 2-door convertibles where the upper anchorage
for the shoulder belt provided for front seat occupants is located in
the quarter panel behind the door opening. Application of the agency's
proposed definition to these vehicles would, in AAM's view, lead to the
conclusion that the entire interior rear quarter was a seat belt
mounting structure. Since NHTSA's proposal calls for targets to be
located on seat belt mounting structures, including belt anchorages,
these rear quarter areas would be subjected to FMH impact tests even
though they are too low in the vehicle (in AAM's view) to present a
significant risk of head injury. AAM recommended that the pillar-like
structures the agency intended to regulate be defined by describing
them as components projecting above the vehicle beltline (i.e., lower
edge of the side daylight opening). The organization also recommended
that any definition of a seat belt mounting structure specify that any
seat belt anchorage located on the structure must not be lower than
one-quarter of the height of an adjacent daylight opening measuring
from the vehicle beltline and that any targets on the seat belt
mounting structure are not lower than the same height.
AAM's comments also referred to an apparent inconsistency between
the description of the maximum vertical angle for door frame targets in
the NPRM preamble and the proposed regulatory text. According to AAM,
the preamble indicated that NHTSA intends to specify a FMH downward
rotation of 10 degrees for the door frames, other door frames and seat
belt mounting structures. However, the proposed amendments to the
regulatory text stated that the amount of downward rotation used to
determine the vertical approach angle should be five degrees. AAM's
view is that this text incorrectly leads to the conclusion that door
frames and seat belt mounting structures use a maximum vertical angle
similar to that of the A-pillar, which is 5 degrees.
AAM also indicated concern about the methodology employed in the
proposal for locating door frame targets.
[[Page 9221]]
First, AAM is concerned that the proposed method for determining the
location of a proposed target--OD2 (Other Door 2)--is not clear when
the side doors are a pair of symmetric doors. In AAM's view, use of the
proposed method will invariably place the OD2 target circle into the
gap between the front and rear door trim panels. As target OD2 in such
a location could not be contacted by the FMH and would have to be
relocated using the procedure described in S10(b) and (c), AAM
requested that NHTSA confirm the methods for locating targets on door
frames.
The organization also indicated its concern that the method
proposed for determining the location of the door frame reference point
(DFR) was inappropriate. The agency's proposal set forth that NHTSA
would use the rearmost edge of the forward door opening as a reference
point to locate the point ``DFR.'' AAM pointed out that the rearward
edge of the forward door opening could be located at any height,
including a point well below the vehicle beltline. Since the purpose of
the head impact protection provisions of the standard is to reduce
deaths or injury due to head impacts with the upper interior, AAM
believes that using a reference point below the vehicle beltline is
contrary to that purpose. The organization suggested two options to
correct this situation. First, the AAM recommended that the definition
of ``Door Frame'' be modified to include portions of the door above the
horizontal plane passing the lowest point of the door's daylight
opening(s). Second, the AAM recommended that S10.14(a) be amended to
read:
S10.14(a) Target DF1--Locate the point 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. When identifying
the rearmost edge of the forward door tangent to Plane 32, the point
tangent to Plane 32 should be located by only utilizing the rearmost
edge of the front door above a horizontal plane (Plane DFT) passing
through the lowest point of the front door's daylight opening(s).
Locate the point. * * *
Finally, AAM expressed serious concerns about the effective date of
the proposed amendments. In AAM's view, the new requirements proposed
for door frames, other door frames and seat belt mounting structures
would require a minimum leadtime of three years.
Mr. Paul N. Wagner, President of Bornemann Products, Inc.,
responded to the April 5, 2000 NPRM on head impact protection.
Bornemann Products is a small volume manufacturer of seating systems
and other equipment for multi-stage vehicle manufacturers. Mr. Wagner's
comments did not directly address the issues raised by the agency's
proposal. Instead, Mr. Wagner argued for extending the phase-in
requirements for all manufacturers for an additional two years, claimed
a need for alternative testing methods for small volume manufacturers,
and asked NHTSA to reassess international harmonization of FMVSS No.
201 and the compliance costs of small volume manufacturers.
III. Agency Analysis of Comments
A. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
NHTSA has carefully reviewed the comments filed in response to the
NPRM. The discussion below sets forth the agency's response to these
comments beginning with those filed by AAM. As noted above, AAM was
generally supportive of NHTSA's proposal. However, the organization
provided specific comments and suggestions directed toward the agency's
proposal for establishing a minimum separation distance between target
circles, the definition of, and target locations on, seat belt mounting
structures, vertical approach angles to targets, leadtime and the
location of targets on door frames.
In regard to the minimum separation distance required between
targets to prevent impact overlap, AAM recommended that NHTSA abandon
its proposal to establish a 200 mm minimum separation distance between
allowable impacts on vertical components. Instead, AAM suggested that
NHTSA adopt a ``Keep Out Zone'' method designed by its member
companies. After a careful review, NHTSA concludes that the ``Keep Out
Zone'' suggested by AAM is unnecessarily large and would exclude
targets that would not be compromised by impact overlap when the target
centered in the ``Keep Out Zone'' is tested. We note first that the AAM
``Keep Out Zone'' is based on the belief that a 250 mm (10 inch)
distance is necessary to prevent overlap between targets. This 250 mm
(10 inch) distance is based on measurement of the distance along the
mid-sagittal plane of the FMH from the upper boundary of the forehead
impact zone to the lower tip of the chin. In suggesting this distance,
AAM assumes that after the initial contact, the FMH will maintain
contact with the interior of the vehicle and ``roll'' along the surface
of the FMH skin until the lowest part of the chin makes contact. It is
extremely unlikely that the FMH could behave in this fashion during an
impact test, as explained below. Moreover, AAM did not provide any data
to substantiate that such motion can or would occur in a compliance
test.
Within the FMH approach angle limits specified in Standard No. 201
(See Table 1 of FMVSS No. 201), the upper boundary of the forehead
impact zone of the FMH is not intended to be an impact point for
compliance tests. An impact on this upper boundary, if it were to
occur, would likely produce an extremely poor, glancing impact without
significant head rotation. In order for the AAM distance to be valid,
an extraordinary amount of FMH rotation would have to occur. The height
(vertical distance) between the upper boundary of the forehead impact
zone and the forward most point of the FMH chin is less than 215 mm
(8.5 inches). If the soft skin of the FMH is removed, the height
between the two corresponding points on the metal skull is
approximately 200 mm (8 inches). For practical purposes, the agency's
compliance tests are performed using the worst possible test condition.
The middle and lower portions, and not the top, of the forehead impact
zone are the contact points that will strike a target in a worst
possible test condition. Since those portions of the FMH provide a more
direct impact on the target and result in a higher HIC, the proposed
200 mm (8 inch) separation distance is sufficient to prevent impact
overlap between two targets.
In addition to the excessively large distance between targets
suggested by AAM, the organization's suggested ``Keep Out Zone'' method
raises several problematic issues. We note that the AAM procedure for
defining the ``Keep Out Zone'' specifies that the zone shall be bound
on either side of the target by two vertical planes--one to the left of
the target and the other to the right. Each of these planes would be
located not more than 150 mm (6 inches)--as measured on a horizontal
line along the surface of the vehicle interior--to either side of the
target circle. Under the AAM procedure, the vertical plane is located
at the furthest point possible along the vehicle interior from the
target circle. Therefore, if the target circle is located on a pillar,
the vertical planes defining the width of the AAM ``Keep Out Zone''
would be located either 150 mm (6 inches) from the target center or
where the vehicle interior meets a daylight opening, depending on which
point is closer to the center of the target. Applying this procedure to
a slender component such as an A-pillar would, because of the
requirement that the
[[Page 9222]]
vertical planes be located at a point on a line on the vehicle surface,
produce a very narrow ``Keep Out Zone.'' Using the AAM method, the
``Keep Out Zone'' determined for a pillar target such as AP2 could be
very narrow--as little as 75 mm (3 inches) to 100 mm (4 inches) wide.
On a pillar that is likely to be mounted at an angle backward and have
targets distributed at different heights along its length, the AAM
exclusion zone would not cover other targets on the pillar. For
example, target AP3 is located on the A-pillar halfway between the
intersection of the dashboard and the A-pillar reference point known as
APR. Since APR is likely to be located on the vehicle roof above where
the upper portion of the A-pillar joins the roof and AP2 is between APR
and AP3, the AAM exclusion zone for AP2 would not cover APR and/or AP3
unless the A-pillar was either very wide or nearly vertical. However,
the resulting ``Keep Out Zone'' would nonetheless still be
approximately 500 mm (20 inches) high. This high and narrow ``Keep Out
Zone'' would do little to mitigate impact overlap.
In addition to voicing concerns about the distance needed to
prevent impact overlap, AAM also questioned our proposal to limit the
application of the 200 mm (8 inch) exclusion zone to pillars and
vertical components of roll bars, braces and stiffeners. AAM first
noted that a number of ``pillar'' targets, such as AP1, are not likely
to actually be located on a pillar. In AAM's view, these targets, as
well as the upper roof target, are very likely to be located in
proximity to other targets that could be damaged by impact overlap.
However, AAM observed that our proposal would not apply to these
targets. In addition, AAM indicated that our proposal would apply the
proposed 200 mm (8 inch) separation distance to vertical components of
roll bars, braces and stiffeners without providing adequate guidance as
to what a ``vertical'' component is.
We agree with AAM's observation that certain pillar targets, such
as AP1, BP1, and RP1 are likely not to be located on pillars. These
targets are, however, as far as the nomenclature of Standard No. 201 is
concerned, ``pillar'' targets. Each of these targets are located on
reference points for locating other targets on a particular pillar. For
example, the target known as BP1 is located on the B-pillar reference
point, BPR. BPR is used as a reference point for locating other B-
pillar targets such as BP3 and BP4. We recognize that BPR and BP1 will,
on most vehicles, be above the highest daylight opening on either side
of the B-pillar and therefore above rather than ``on'' the B-pillar.
Because BP1 is located on the B-pillar reference point and is one of a
series of B-pillar targets located through the use of that reference
point, it is named as a B-pillar target even though it is unlikely to
actually be located on the B-pillar.
We do not agree with AAM's contention that the proposal is too
vague in regard to targets on vertical components of stiffeners, braces
and roll bars. Nonetheless, the final rule modifies our original
proposal by eliminating stiffener, brace and roll bar targets from the
list of targets for which the ``exclusion zone'' applies. We have done
so because we believe that there is no practical likelihood that an
impact with a tested target on one of these components will result in
collateral damage to a nearby target. A brace has only one target. A
stiffener is basically a horizontal component with one target, ST1, and
a potential second target, ST2, if a seat belt anchorage is on the
stiffener. Both ST1 and ST2 are on the same horizontal component and,
therefore, the existing 150 mm (6 inch) minimum separation distance is
adequate. Roll bars usually consist of two vertical components and a
horizontal component. Two targets are specified for roll bars--RB1 and
RB2. RB1 is located in a vertical longitudinal plane passing through
the seating reference point, SgRP, of any outboard designated seating
position. When striking RB1, the FMH lower face/chin should not rotate
into any vertical components as it is extremely unlikely that these
components would be located adjacent to the SgRP. Similarly, since RB2
is a seat belt anchorage target, it exists only if there is a seat belt
anchorage located on a roll bar. If RB2 is located on a horizontal
component, then the 150 mm (6 inch) minimum separation distance
criterion is adequate. If RB2 is located on the vertical component, it
would be the only target on that vertical component. Given the
configurations of roll bars, stiffeners and braces and that no more
than two targets, which would not be oriented vertically with respect
to each other, would be located on them, we believe that there is no
need to apply the ``exclusion zone'' defined in the final rule to these
targets.
AAM also submitted comments indicating that the proposed definition
of a seat belt mounting structure was too broad and that the procedure
for locating targets on such a structure was flawed. The organization
indicated that the proposed definition of seat belt mounting structures
would include seat belt anchorages on convertibles and similar vehicles
that are not mounted on separate structures, but are instead integrated
into quarter panels. AAM suggested that this problem of over-inclusion
could be resolved by setting a minimum height for any targets located
on a seat belt mounting structure. We agree that our proposal was
primarily intended to create a definition for ``stand-alone''
structures rising from the floor of a vehicle and that the proposed
definition for seat belt mounting structures is broader than necessary
to accomplish that purpose. However, we do not agree with AAM's
suggestion that any belt anchorage target on a seat belt mounting
structure must be located at a point above one-quarter of the vertical
space of an adjacent daylight opening. Seat belt mounting structures
are employed primarily in open body vehicles where no other suitable
structure, including any pillar, is available for mounting a seat belt
upper anchorage. NHTSA believes that defining the daylight opening for
these vehicles may be uncertain or difficult. For example, an open body
vehicle with a soft roof assembly and detachable side doors (like a
military jeep) does not have a well-defined daylight opening. In
addition, an open body vehicle does not necessarily have a roof and/or
side door assembly. Accordingly, it seems more appropriate to describe
the structure height in reference to the head CG of the Hybrid-III 50th
percentile male dummy or an alternative fixed point inside the vehicle.
The final rule defines the seat belt mounting structure as a vehicle
component incorporating an upper seat belt anchorage that extends above
a horizontal plane 200 mm (8 inches) below the head CG of a seated
Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy in the closest adjacent
designated seating position. Since the dummy head CG is 660 mm (26
inches) above the seating reference point (SgRP), the definition states
that the seat belt mounting structure is a component of the vehicle
body, including trim that extends 460 mm (18 inches) above the SgRP.
Although we do not agree with AAM's suggestion that target heights
on seat belt mounting structures should be dependent on the location
and height of the nearest daylight opening, AAM's examination of these
heights is worthy of consideration. AAM indicated that target locations
for seat belt mounting structures should not be lower than other target
locations and suggested that BP4, a B-pillar target, serve as a
benchmark. The NPRM proposed three potential targets for the seat belt
mounting structure, SB1 (seat belt anchorage), SB2 and SB3. SB1 is
located on the belt anchorage. Its height will be
[[Page 9223]]
determined by the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210.
It is unlikely that the top of the mounting structure would reach the
height of the head CG of the seated 50th percentile male Hybrid-III
dummy. For mounting structures that do not reach that height, target
SB2, which, as proposed, is at the same height of the head CG, would be
located in open space above the top of the structure and, therefore,
not exist. The third target, SB3, would, if located as proposed, be on
the surface of the seat belt mounting structure 225 mm (9 inches) below
a horizontal plane passing through the structure and the head CG of a
Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy seated at the adjacent rear
outboard seating position. This target height is about 25 mm (1 inch)
lower than that of other targets established by the Standard. NHTSA
believes that it would be appropriate to elevate the target SB3 by at
least 25 mm (1 inch) and to make the proposed definition of seat belt
mounting structures more restrictive by incorporating a reference to a
fixed height.
AAM's comments also noted that the NPRM contained an inconsistency.
According to AAM, NHTSA indicated in the NPRM preamble that the
approach angles used for door frame targets would be similar to those
prescribed for B-pillars. However, AAM observed that the proposed
regulatory text allows a downward rotation of 5 degrees when
determining the proper offset to the vertical approach angle when the
preamble and existing provisions for B-pillars indicate that the amount
of downward rotation should be 10 degrees. AAM's observation is
correct. The regulatory text is revised in this final rule for
consistency.
AAM raised two issues related to the agency's proposed target
locations for door frames. First, the organization indicated that if
the proposed target OD2 were located on a pair of symmetric door
frames, the target would fall into the gap where the two doors meet
when closed. As such a target location would not be contactable by the
FMH, AAM requested that NHTSA ``confirm'' that such a target would have
to be relocated using the procedures specified in S10(b) and (c). AAM
also indicated that a reference point used in the target location
procedure for door frames, DFR, might be located below the beltline of
the vehicle. The AAM observed that locating this reference point is
inconsistent with reducing injuries caused by impact with the upper
interior of the vehicle.
The agency agrees that if a designated target point is not
contactable by the forehead impact zone of the FMH, then the target
point must be relocated using the procedure specified in S10(b) and
(c). Therefore, if the OD2 target circle were located in the ``gap''
between two doors and could not be struck by the FMH, it would have to
be relocated. NHTSA does not agree with AAM's position that a reference
point used to determine target locations must be located above the
vehicle beltline. We note that other reference points used in Standard
No. 201 are below the vehicle beltline. For instance, the seating
reference point, SgRP, is used as a reference point for locating
several target points and is below the vehicle beltline.
Finally, AAM requested that NHTSA set the effective date for the
proposed door frame and seat belt mounting structure requirements not
less than three years from the publication date of the final rule,
instead of 180 days from publication of the final rule. AAM observed
that the August 1995 final rule establishing the upper interior head
protection requirements allowed a minimum lead of three years before
the first year of a phase-in. The organization argued that a similar
leadtime would be needed for the new target areas in our proposal. The
agency does not agree. We note that manufacturers have gained
significant knowledge and expertise in developing and employing the
countermeasures required to meet the upper interior head impact
protection requirements since the promulgation of the final rule in
1995. The components affected by the agency's proposal, door frames and
seat belt mounting structures, are similar to pillars and other
components that must now comply. Countermeasures currently in use can
be readily adapted and applied to door frames and seat belt mounting
structures. Thus, a leadtime of 18 months is adequate.
B. Bornemann Products
The comments submitted by Bornemann are general in nature and
directed toward the overall impact of the upper interior head
protection requirements on small manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles
and other companies that supply components for those vehicles.
Bornemann suggested that the phase-in period for all manufacturers
should be extended for an additional two years beyond the current final
phase-in date of September 1, 2002 due to the limited availability of
testing facilities and the agency proposal to add new requirements. In
addition to requesting an extension of the existing phase-in, Bornemann
commented that the cost of testing each vehicle was high, and that
NHTSA had placed an undue burden on multi-stage and small volume
manufacturers. Bornemann suggested that NHTSA should either provide a
``reasonable'' means of alternative testing for compliance, or exclude
multi-stage and small volume manufacturers from the headform impact
test requirements of FMVSS No. 201. In support of this request,
Bornemann indicated that the current cost of compliance testing was
approximately $48,000 per vehicle model and that designing some
vehicles with outside engineering firms could cost up to $600,000 per
vehicle. Finally, Bornemann asserted that NHTSA should reconsider the
need to harmonize the Standard No. 201's requirements with other
countries.
We note first that the comments submitted by Bornemann requested
changes that are beyond the scope of the agency's proposal and with the
exception of additional costs imposed by that proposal, which
Bornemann's comments do not specifically address, have only an indirect
bearing on this final rule. However, the comments submitted by
Bornemann are virtually identical to the allegations contained in
petitions for rulemaking filed by the Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association (RVIA) on October 4, 2001 and the National Truck Equipment
Association (NTEA) on November 27, 2001. Both petitions requested that
NHTSA extend the existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-stage
vehicles (i.e., the fourth one described above) from September 1, 2002
to March 1, 2004. By letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002, NHTSA
indicated it was granting the petitions. On August 28, 2003, the agency
published an interim final rule in the Federal Register (68 FR 51706)
postponing the date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or
more stages must comply with the upper interior head protection
requirements of Standard No. 201. Accordingly, we have determined that
Bornemann's concerns have been more properly addressed in our response
to the RVIA and NTEA petitions.
With respect to Bornemann's suggestion that FMVSS No. 201 be
harmonized with the requirements of other countries, the agency has
worked through the United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe, and
World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations to harmonize head
protection requirements. FMVSS No. 201 is currently being examined as a
basis for development of a global regulation.
[[Page 9224]]
IV. Final Rule
After careful consideration of the comments submitted by AAM and
Bornemann, NHTSA is adopting the proposal contained in the NPRM with
several modifications. These modifications include changing the method
used to determine the appropriate distance for excluding impacts on
adjacent targets to prevent impact overlap, modifying the proposed
definition of seat belt mounting structures, modifying the definition
of ``B-pillar,'' and establishing the correct offset for the vertical
approach angle used for door frame targets.
In regard to preventing impact overlap, the agency has examined its
original proposal, the method suggested by AAM, and a modified version
of the AAM method developed by NHTSA. All of these methods have certain
limitations. In an effort to seek an effective resolution, NHTSA
examined whether a 200 mm (8 inch) separation distance would be
adequate to eliminate impact overlap. The results of this examination
indicated that the 200 mm (8 inch) distance originally proposed is
adequate to prevent impact overlap. Comparison of a modified version of
the AAM method and the agency's original proposal led NHTSA to
determine that a modified version of the AAM proposal would provide the
most practicable method. The final rule specifies that no impact on any
target may occur within the ``exclusion zone'' of any pillar target
(including those not actually located on pillars but designated as
pillar targets), door frame target, upper roof target or seat belt
mounting structure target. The ``exclusion zone'' is to be determined
by first locating a 200 mm (8 inch) sphere and a 150 mm (6 inch) sphere
centered on the designated target. After the spheres are located, two
vertical planes are located 150 mm (6 inches) on either side of the
intended target. The horizontal angles of the two aforementioned planes
are parallel to, and determined by, the horizontal approach angle used
in testing the intended target within the ``exclusion zone.'' The two
spheres are then projected onto the vehicle interior and the exclusion
zone is that area of the vehicle interior located between the vertical
planes below the boundary of the smaller sphere and above the boundary
of the larger sphere. The result is an oval shape representative of the
outline of the FMH.
As indicated above, a 200 mm (8 inch) distance is, in our view,
sufficient to prevent impact overlap caused by the impact of the lower
portion of the FMH with targets other than the intended target.
Similarly, the left, right, and upper boundaries of the ``exclusion
zone,'' which are not less than 150 mm (6 inches) from the center of
the intended target circle, will prevent impact overlap on targets
above and to the sides of the intended target. Targets whose centers
are located within the ``exclusion zone'' will not be tested. Targets
whose centers are on or outside the boundary of the ``exclusion zone''
will remain subject to testing.
The final rule also expressly specifies that the ``exclusion zone''
would apply to all designated pillar targets, upper roof targets, door
frame targets and seat belt mounting structure targets. This alleviates
concerns that the component-based approach used in our proposal would
prevent application of the exclusion zone to impacts on targets that
are not located on specific components such as pillars.
The final rule also clarifies the definition of ``seat belt
mounting structure'' in order to address concerns that the agency's
proposed definition would include seat belt anchorages located on rear
quarter panels. The revised definition establishes that a seat belt
mounting structure is a component of the vehicle that is not a pillar
or part of the roof, serves as a mounting point for an upper seat belt
anchorage and is located above a horizontal plane 460 mm (18 inches)
above the seating reference point of the closest adjacent designated
outboard seating position. In addition, the final rule modifies the
prior definition of ``B-pillar'' in order to clarify the status of
pillars immediately behind ``door frame'' targets. As the agency
considers door frames to be pillar surrogates, NHTSA believes that any
door frame aft of the A-pillar and forward of any other pillars is the
equivalent of the B-pillar. However, as defined prior to the issuance
of this final rule, ``B-pillar'' would have included any pillar
immediately behind a door frame. The final rule modifies the definition
of ``B-pillar'' to make it clear that where a door frame occupies the
position of the B-pillar, pillars behind that door frame are not B-
pillars.
The final rule also corrects typographical errors. The agency's
proposal incorrectly referred to SB2 rather than SB3 in the final
sentence of S10.16(c) and, in proposing revisions to S8.13.4.2(b)(2),
incorrectly stated that the FMH is rotated downward by five degrees,
instead of ten degrees, to determine the maximum vertical approach
angle.
V. Effective Date
The agency does not agree with AAM's view that a three year
leadtime is necessary for the new targets on door frames and seat belt
mounting structures. The agency's proposal indicated that the new
requirements would become effective 180 days from the date of
publication of the final rule. NHTSA recognizes that new tooling and
molds will likely be necessary to manufacture countermeasures for the
door frames and other surfaces encompassed by this rule even though
technologies already developed for other target areas inside vehicles
can be readily adapted to the new target areas. Therefore, we believe
that the principal challenge in implementing these countermeasures will
be found in production rather than design and development. The final
rule adds a provision to S6.3 providing that the door frame and seat
belt mounting structure requirements will become effective for the
first model year that occurs 18 months or more after the publication of
the final rule. We believe that this effective date serves the public
interest by providing manufacturers sufficient time to design and
produce countermeasures for these target areas without imposing undue
economic burdens. (As with other safety standards, we construe model
years to begin on September 1 of the preceding calendar year.) The
amendments addressing the revisions to S8.14 governing multiple impacts
will become effective 180 days after publication of this final rule.
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
[[Page 9225]]
(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 amends 49 CFR Part 571.201 by modifying existing test
procedures to increase the minimum separation distance between tested
targets. It also adds 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 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 economic analysis prepared by NHTSA in conjunction with our
August 1995 final rule was based on the assumption that all vehicles
would have conventional pillar layouts. As a result of that assumption,
vehicles that had pillar-like structures instead of pillars 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-like structures that
they actually have.
The agency has concluded that the costs of installing
countermeasures on these pillar-like structures 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-like
structures, 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 final rule do not warrant further regulatory
evaluation.
B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. This
final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
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 final rule will have any retroactive
effect. We conclude that it will 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. 601 et seq.) and
certifies that this final rule will 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 requirements will 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 this final rule is not burdensome for final stage
manufacturers. The amendments 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 and are typically not used as
base vehicles by final stage manufacturers. Accordingly, the agency has
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
F. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this final rule amendment for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will 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
[[Page 9226]]
collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule does
not adopt 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
No. 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 final rule will 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 final rule 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 21411, 21415, 21417, and 21466;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising the definition of B-pillar in
S3 and adding, in alphabetical order, definitions of B-pillar, Door
frame, Other door frame, and Seat belt mounting structure to S3; by
adding S6.3(e) and SB.13.4.1(e) through (h); revising S8.13.4.2(b),
S8.14, and S10(a) through (b); and by adding S10.14, S10.15 and S10.16
to read as follows:
Sec. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact.
* * * * *
S3. * * *
* * * * *
B-pillar means the forwardmost pillar on each side of the vehicle
that is, in whole or in part, rearward of a transverse vertical plane
passing through the seating reference point of the driver's seat,
unless:
(1) There is only one pillar rearward of that plane and it is also
a rearmost pillar; or
(2) There is a door frame rearward of the A-pillar and forward of
any other pillar or rearmost pillar.
* * * * *
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:
(1) Have opposing hinges;
(2) Latch together without engaging or contacting an intervening
pillar;
(3) Are forward of any pillar other than the A-pillar on the same
side of the vehicle; and
(4) 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:
(1) Have opposing hinges;
(2) Latch together without engaging or contacting an intervening
pillar; and
(3) Are rearward of the B-pillar.
* * * * *
Seat belt mounting structure means a component of the vehicle body
or frame, including trim, extending above a horizontal plane 460 mm
above the seating reference point, SgRP, of the closest outboard
designated seating position, with an upper seat belt anchorage
conforming to the requirements of S4.2.1. and S4.3.2 of Standard No.
210 (49 CFR 571.210) attached to it, and is not a pillar, roll bar,
brace or stiffener, side rail, seat, or part of the roof.
* * * * *
S6.3 A vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2
for:
* * * * *
(e) Any target located on the seat belt mounting structures, door
frames and other door frames before September 1, 2005.
* * * * *
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target component Horizontal Angle Vertical angle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Header................... 180................ 0-50
[[Page 9227]]
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
Overhead Rollbar............... 0 or 180........... 0-50
Brace or Stiffener............. 90 or 270.......... 0-50
Left Seat Belt Mounting 195-345............ -10-50
Structure.
Right Seat Belt Mounting 15-165............. -10-50
Structure.
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
formed by 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. If the seat belt mounting structure is below a horizontal
plane passing through CG-F2 for the left seat, locate the point 200 mm
directly below CG-F2 and locate a line formed by the shortest
horizontal distance between that point 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. If the seat belt mounting structure is below a horizontal
plane passing through CG-R for the left seat, locate the point 200 mm
directly below CG-R and locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal
distance between that point 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. If the CG-R does not exist, or is
forward of the seat belt mounting structure, the maximum horizontal
approach angle is 270 degrees.
(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. If the seat belt mounting structure is below a horizontal
plane passing through CG-F2 for the right seat, locate the point 200 mm
directly below that CG-F2 and locate a line formed by the shortest
horizontal distance between that point 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. If the seat belt mounting structure is below a horizontal
plane passing through CG-R, locate the point 200 mm directly below CG-R
and locate a line formed by the shortest horizontal distance between
that point and the right seat belt mounting structure. The maximum
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. If the CG-R does not exist, or is forward of
the seat belt mounting structure, the maximum horizontal approach angle
is 90 degrees.
S8.13.4.2 Vertical approach angles.
* * *
* * *
[[Page 9228]]
(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), (d) and (e).
(b) As measured as provided in S8.14(d), impacts within 300 mm of
each other may not occur less than 30 minutes apart.
(c) As measured as provided in S8.14(d), no impact may occur within
150 mm of any other impact.
(d) For S8.14(b) and S8.14(c), the distance between impacts is the
distance between the center of the target circle specified in S8.11 for
each impact, measured along the vehicle interior.
(e) No impact may occur within the ``exclusion zone'' of any pillar
target specified in S10.1 through S10.4, door frame target specified in
S10.14 and S10.15, upper roof target specified in S10.9, or seat belt
mounting structure target specified in S10.16. The ``exclusion zone''
is determined according to the procedure in S8.14(f) through S8.14(k).
(f) Locate the point, Point X, at the center of the target circle
specified in S8.11 for the tested target.
(g) Determine two spheres centered on Point X. Radii of these
spheres are 150 mm and 200 mm, respectively.
(h) Locate a horizontal plane passing through Point X. Determine
the intersection points, if they exist, of the small sphere surface,
the horizontal plane, and the vehicle interior surface. Relative to
Point X, the point on the left is Point L and the point on the right is
Point R.
(i) Locate a vertical plane, Plane Z, passing through Point X and
coincident (within 5) with the
horizontal approach angle used or intended for use in testing the
target centered on Point X.
(j) If either Point L or Point R does not exist, extend Line LX
and/or Line RX, as appropriate, perpendicular to Plane Z beyond Point X
by 150 mm. The end of the line is designated as Point L or Point R, as
appropriate.
(k) Locate a vertical plane, Plane ZL, passing through Point L and
parallel to Plane Z. Locate another vertical plane, Plane ZR, passing
through Point R and parallel to Plane Z. The ``exclusion zone'' is the
vehicle interior surface area between Plane ZL and Plane ZR below the
upper boundary of the smaller sphere and above the lower boundary of
the larger sphere. Points on the intersection of the vehicle interior
surface and the large sphere below the target, the small sphere above
the target, Plane ZL and Plane ZR are not included in the ``exclusion
zone.''
* * * * *
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) that passes
through the lowest point of the adjacent daylight opening forward of
the door frame. Locate a 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 that 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. Locate a horizontal plane (Plane 43) 200
[[Page 9229]]
mm below Plane 42. Target SB3 is located on the seat belt mounting
structure and in Plane 43 at the location closest to CG-R, as
appropriate.
Issued on February 23, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-4277 Filed 2-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P