SUMMARY: On August 18, 1995, NHTSA published a final rule amending 
Standard No. 201, ``Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,'' to 
require passenger cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or 
less, to provide protection when an occupant's head strikes upper 
interior components, including pillars, side rails, headers, and the 
roof, during a crash. In response to petitions for reconsideration, 
NHTSA is amending that final rule to include 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 8,500 pounds, specify that all 
attachments to the upper interior components are to remain in place 
during compliance testing, and make other changes to the test procedure 
to clarify some areas of confusion.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective 
May 8, 1997.
    Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received 
by NHTSA no later than May 23, 1997.

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: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590:

For non-legal issues:
    Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness, NPS-11, telephone (202) 
366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic mail 
``bfan@nhtsa.dot.gov''.
For legal issues:
    Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, telephone (202) 
366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
``swood@nhtsa.dot.gov''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. FMH Drop Test Calibration Corridor
III. Lead time/Credits
    A. Lead time
    B. Credits
IV. Exclusion of Certain Vehicles
    A. School Buses
    B. Police Vehicles
V. Test Procedure
    A. Definitions
    1. Convertibles
    2. Pillars
    3. Windshield Trim/Surface of the Vehicle Ceiling
    B. Test Conditions
    1. Targeting Conditions
    2. Removal of Attachments on Vehicle Interior Surface
    3. Securing Vehicle That is Not Resting on Its Suspension
    4. Removal of Windows
    5. Rear Doors
    6. Sun Visors
    7. Location of Head Center of Gravity
    8. Initial Contact
    9. Approach Angles
    10. Minimum Impact Distance
    C. Targets
    1. Issues Related to Multiple Targets
    2. A-pillar Targets
    3. B-Pillar Targets
    4. Other Pillar Targets
    5. Front Header Targets
    6. Side Rail Targets
    7. Upper Roof Targets
    8. Sliding Door Track Targets
    9. Roll-bar Targets
VI. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices.
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures.
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act.
    D. National Environmental Policy Act.
    E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism).
    F. Civil Justice Reform.

I. Background

    On August 18, 1995, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule amending Standard No. 
201, ``Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,'' to require passenger 
cars and trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (these 
vehicles are collectively referred to as LTVs) with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, to provide protection 
when an occupant's head strikes upper interior components, including 
pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof, during a crash (60 FR 
43031). The amendments added performance requirements and test 
procedures for a new in-vehicle component test. The new requirements 
will be phased-in over a four-year period beginning September 1, 1998.
    The agency received nine timely petitions for reconsideration of 
the final rule. The issues raised by the petitions can be divided into 
five categories--(1) Application of the new requirements to dynamic 
(i.e., crash-deployed) head protection systems, (2) variability of test 
results attributed to width of the free motion headform (FMH) drop test 
calibration corridor, (3) lead time and phase-in, (4) exclusion of 
certain vehicles, and (5) test procedures.
    The first category of issues is outside the scope of the rulemaking 
that led to the August 1995 final rule and thus is not a proper subject 
for a petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the agency announced 
that it was treating the requests concerning these issues as petitions 
for rulemaking, and granted those petitions. On March 7, 1996, the 
agency published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to assist the 
agency in assessing those issues (61 FR 9136). Further agency action on 
those issues will be taken in the context of that separate rulemaking 
proceeding. Therefore, those issues will not be addressed in this 
notice.

II. FMH Drop Test Calibration Corridor

    The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) attached a 
copy of SAE Paper #950882, ``Influence of System Variables in Interior 
Head Impact Testing,'' to its original petition for reconsideration. 
The paper discusses the percentage of test variability attributable to 
various factors in the agency's new test procedure. Citing this paper, 
AAMA requested that the drop test calibration corridor for the free 
motion headform (FMH) be reduced since it was said to account for 26 
percent of the variability. The current corridor is 225 to 275 g's. 
AAMA suggested that the width of the corridor be reduced from 50 g's to 
no more than 25 g's (250 to 275 g's). This issue was also raised by 
Honda in one of its comments.
    NHTSA assumes that the analysis of the SAE paper #950882 is 
appropriate and the conclusions are accurate. The SAE paper shows a 
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) range from 2,095 to 1,611 for the 27 FMH 
tests discussed. This HIC range indicates a potential variability of 30 
percent. Of this, eight percent,  four percent, is 
attributed to variability in FMH calibration. The agency disagrees with 
AAMA that this is excessive, as dummy response variability of 
 five percent is generally considered ``excellent.''
    There are additional reasons for not adopting the requested change 
to the corridor. Neither AAMA nor Honda submitted any data to substantiate 
their comments that a 25 g calibration corridor width would be 
practicable. Further, the agency notes that manufacturers can chose to 
use a FMH at the upper end of the calibration corridor when testing 
their own vehicles. By choosing this worst-case scenario, manufacturers 
could be assured their vehicles would comply when tested by the agency, 
regardless of the location of the agency's FMH within the calibration 
corridor. Therefore, the agency is not amending the calibration 
corridor for the FMH.

III. Lead Time/Credits

A. Lead Time

    The final rule specifies three phase-in schedules, the earliest of 
which begins with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998. 
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) submitted a petition asking that the 
phase-in schedules begin on September 1, 1997. AAMA and Volkswagen 
submitted petitions asking that the beginning of the phase-in schedules 
be delayed until September 1, 1999. Toyota asked the agency to delay 
the beginning of the phase-in schedules to compensate for the time 
needed to clarify the test procedure in the final rule.
    With regard to the CAS petition, the agency is not reducing the 
lead time prior to the beginning of the phase-in schedules. In the 
final rule, the agency noted that manufacturers had uniformly commented 
that a lead time period longer than that proposed (approximately 2 
years) and a phase-in schedule were necessary. Manufacturer estimates 
of the time needed prior to the beginning of a phase-in schedule ranged 
from three to five years. After reviewing these comments, NHTSA decided 
to begin the phase-in schedules slightly more than three years after 
the publication of the final rule. This period of lead time was at the 
lower end of the range of manufacturer lead time requests. NHTSA noted 
that its analysis showed that all but one existing vehicle model would 
need some degree of redesign to comply with the new requirements. CAS 
disagreed with this assessment. However, even after a post-petition 
request by the agency, CAS did not provide any information identifying 
additional vehicle models that do not need to be redesigned. In 
addition, the NHTSA decision on lead time was based on its conclusion 
that padding alone might not be sufficient for some components, that 
other countermeasures might be preferable (i.e., to prevent reduction 
in visibility), and that additional lead time was necessary to 
implement these other countermeasures. CAS did not dispute these 
conclusions.
    NHTSA is also not increasing the lead time prior to the beginning 
of the phase-in schedules. NHTSA regulations clearly state that the 
filing of a petition for reconsideration does not delay the effective 
date of the rule (49 CFR 553.35(d)). Therefore, manufacturers should 
have been preparing for the beginning of the phase-in since August of 
1995. While NHTSA has made some changes to the final rule, they are not 
so extensive that manufacturers should have to redesign vehicles again. 
Further, if the manufacturers' contemplated method of compliance is, as 
it should be, the uniform application of energy absorbing materials 
over the entire upper interior of their vehicles, the decisions by the 
agency in this notice regarding the specific location of particular 
target points should have relatively limited implications for the 
manufacturers' compliance efforts. Finally, the agency's adoption of 
another alternative phase-in option will provide some flexibility (see 
the next section).

B. Credits

    In the final rule, NHTSA allowed manufacturers to earn carry-
forward credit during the phase-in for producing complying vehicles in 
excess of the percentage of production required in the earlier years of 
the phase-in. In its petition, Ford stated that it would have trouble 
meeting the 10 percent requirement during the first year of the phase-
in, and asked that a carry-back allowance of up to three percent be 
allowed for that year. In its petition, Honda asked that manufacturers 
be allowed to earn carry-forward credits for vehicles which are 
produced prior to the beginning of the phase-in period and which comply 
with the new requirements.
    In allowing the earning and carrying-forward of credits during the 
phase-in, NHTSA stated:

    this will encourage manufacturers to exceed the requirements in 
early years, by concentrating initial efforts on either vehicles 
which present fewer redesign problems or high volume vehicles. This 
will benefit consumers by accelerating the availability of vehicles 
which comply with the new requirements and will benefit 
manufacturers by providing them with flexibility for the later years 
of the phase-in.

    NHTSA believes this rationale is equally applicable to vehicles 
manufactured prior to the phase-in. Standard No. 208, ``Occupant Crash 
Protection,'' encouraged early installation of automatic protection 
systems by allowing the earning of carry-forward credits for passenger 
cars that complied with the automatic protection requirement and were 
produced in the year prior to the beginning of the phase-in. Such 
credits were not allowed for the phase-in of the dynamic testing 
requirement in Standard No. 214, ``Side Impact Protection,'' because of 
the high percentage of vehicles that did not need to be redesigned in 
order to comply. As stated previously, NHTSA was aware of only one 
production vehicle at the time of the final rule which would not 
require some redesign to comply with the new upper interior head 
protection requirements, and no additional information has been 
received to indicate that this assessment was incorrect. Therefore, 
NHTSA has decided to allow carry-forward credits for vehicles certified 
to the new requirement prior to the beginning of the phase-in. To 
accomplish this, NHTSA has amended the regulatory language to allow 
manufacturers the option of certifying to the new requirements prior to 
September 1, 1998.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This change in the regulatory language required a change in 
the numbering of all subsequent sections. To aid the reader, the 
preamble refers to the previous section number, and includes the new 
section number, where appropriate in parentheses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA did not specifically address carry-back credits in the 
preamble to the final rule. While Ford did submit confidential 
information to support its assertion that it could not achieve 10 
percent compliance in the first year of the phase-in, the agency does 
not believe that carry-back credits would be appropriate as such 
credits would delay the introduction of complying vehicles. Instead, 
the agency has decided to add another phase-in option for all 
manufacturers. Under this option, manufacturers could certify 
compliance with seven percent of their vehicle fleet in the first year, 
31 percent the second year, 40 percent the third year, 70 percent the 
fourth year, and 100 percent the final year. The figure for the first 
year is based on Ford's indication that its shortfall would be up to 
three percent in that year. While this schedule will result in fewer 
vehicles in the first year, it will require a greater number of 
vehicles to comply in the second year. The cumulative number of 
vehicles produced in compliance with the new requirements in the first 
two years of this phase-in will be greater than under the original 10/
25/40/70/100 phase-in. IV. Exclusion of Certain Vehicles

A. School Buses

    Three school bus manufacturers petitioned NHTSA to exclude school 
buses from the final rule. The manufacturers indicated that the final 
rule did not address a number of issues associated with school buses, 
including:
    (1) Differences in implementation cost for small school buses,
    (2) Inappropriateness of many target location procedures for small 
school buses,
    (3) Negative economic impact on school bus manufacturers, many of 
which are small businesses, and,
    (4) Lack of technical expertise and engineering support.
    In reviewing these petitions, NHTSA contacted the petitioning 
manufacturers and the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) to 
obtain additional information on buses, including school buses, with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.
    All small school buses currently in production have a GVWR of more 
than 8,500 pounds. There were approximately 6,566 small school buses 
manufactured annually in 1993 and 1995. Of these, approximately 5,000 
were Type-A buses (a school bus body on a van chassis), the remaining 
were van conversions. In the same years, 1,800 to 2,000 small (non-
school) buses with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds and less than or 
equal to 10,000 pounds were produced, respectively. Finally, 
approximately 40,000 to 60,000 vans with a GVWR of more than 8,500 
pounds and less than or equal to 10,000 pounds (these vehicles are 
classified as buses by NHTSA because of their passenger carrying 
capacity) are produced annually. Thus, the total number of small buses 
(buses with a GVWR of less than or equal to 10,000 pounds) produced 
annually is approximately 48,000 to 69,000.
    Examination of fatality statistics shows that approximately 28 
fatalities occur annually in buses with a GVWR of more than 8,500 
pounds and less than or equal to 10,000 pounds. This figure represents 
occupant fatalities from all causes, not just those associated with 
impacts with upper interior components. In the Final Economic 
Assessment (FEA) for the final rule, NHTSA estimated that improvements 
to LTVs of all types and sizes would produce a fatality reduction of 
289 to 334. Based on the assumption that the fatality reduction would 
be evenly distributed among the various types and sizes of LTVs, the 
reduction for buses with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds and less than 
10,000 pounds would be very small. Given the ratio of the total annual 
production of LTVs (5,600,000 units in 1995) to the total annual 
production of small buses (48,000 to 69,000 units), the estimated 
fatality reduction for those buses would be one.
    The FEA also indicates that the cost of compliance for vans is 
$72.29. The National Association of State Directors of Pupil 
Transportation Services indicated in a submission to Docket 95-98, 
Notice 1, that the cost of compliance for all small school buses would 
be $1,000 to $2,000. However, NHTSA developed a cost estimate of $507 
to $926 per small school bus. NHTSA assumes the same cost for all small 
buses. Using these estimates for the appropriate numbers of small buses 
with a GVWR of more than 8,500 pounds results in an estimated cost of 
approximately $7 million.
    Many vans which are classified as ``buses'' and vans which are 
classified as ``mpvs'' are manufactured using the same chassis and 
vehicle body construction. Since all vans below 8,500 pounds GVWR must 
comply with these requirements, it is expected that the manufacturers 
will provide complying interiors for all their vans. Thus, it is likely 
that some of the ``buses'' in the 8,500 to 10,000 pound GVWR range will 
have padded interiors despite an exclusion. Therefore, the actual 
benefit for buses in this weight range is much smaller than one life 
saved per year.
    The school buses in this weight range already have to comply with a 
number of regulations in addition to the regulations for buses. Because 
school buses are more costly than regular buses, some schools use 
vehicles which are not ``school buses'' to transport children, or would 
not replace their old buses. These vehicles would not have the 
additional safety features of a ``school bus.'' NHTSA is increasingly 
concerned that requiring these vehicles to absorb a large additional 
cost with little benefits would cause more schools to delay purchase of 
new vehicles or to use non-school buses. This would result in a loss of 
benefits in other areas that would offset the extremely small benefits 
of this rule.
    Finally, all of the multistage buses in this class are produced by 
small businesses. This increases NHTSA's concerns about the large costs 
of this rule for this class of vehicles.
    Therefore, NHTSA has decided to exclude buses with a GVWR of more 
than 8,500 pounds from the new requirements. This will have minimal 
impact on the benefits estimate in the final rule. However, requiring 
these vehicles to comply would have a significant impact on this 
portion of the industry.

Police Vehicles

    In a supplement to its petition for reconsideration, AAMA asked the 
agency to exclude police vehicles from the final rule. AAMA stated that 
police vehicles require special modifications for the installation of 
interior lighting, A-pillar-mounted spotlights, and roof-mounted 
beacons and sirens, and that such equipment would be difficult to 
redesign for compliance.
    NHTSA is not excluding police vehicles in the final rule. NHTSA 
believes that many of the concerns underlying AAMA's request for 
exclusion are similar to concerns regarding attachments generally. 
Because of this, these concerns should be addressed by NHTSA's 
treatment of all attachments (see below). AAMA did not present evidence 
to indicate that police equipment required different treatment from 
other attachments.

V. Test Procedure

    The fifth category of issues (test procedure) generated a large 
number of questions. In the final rule, the agency responded to 
comments objecting to the proposed broad requirements for universal 
compliance of the upper interior vehicle surface by narrowing the 
amendments to require compliance at specific targets only. To 
accommodate that change, however, the agency had to adopt a complex new 
test procedure to define and locate the targets on the vehicle 
interior. Because manufacturers had not seen the test procedure prior 
to the final rule, there were a large number of questions and concerns 
regarding the test procedure. To enable interested parties and NHTSA 
personnel to discuss the questions concerning the test procedure, and 
to aid petitioning parties in narrowing and refining those questions, 
NHTSA decided to hold a technical workshop on the test procedure.
    The focus was on the location of target points. Interested parties 
were invited to submit questions in writing prior to the workshop (60 
FR 53280; October, 13, 1995). The workshop was held on December 13-14, 
1995 at the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, 
Ohio. The workshop was attended by about 55 individuals representing 
the automobile and school bus manufacturers as well as automotive 
compliance test facilities. The procedures used to locate 12-15 
headform impact target points were discussed relative to each of three 
demonstration vehicles: (1) A 1996 Ford Mustang GT (convertible), (2) a 
1996 Saab 900 (4 door sedan with sun roof), and (3) a 1987 Nissan Van. 
Participants at the meeting were invited to supplement their petitions 
for reconsideration with discussions of any remaining target location 
issues. Both the submissions regarding workshop content and post-
workshop supplements to the petitions are available in the docket. The 
specific questions and concerns raised in the petitions and at the 
workshop are addressed in this section. The section is arranged to 
parallel the regulatory text of the final rule. Because the same 
concerns and/or questions were raised by numerous parties, they are not 
attributed to any specific party.

A. Definitions

1. Convertibles
    Manufacturers asked for changes to the definitions of ``convertible 
roof frame'' and ``convertible roof linkage mechanism.'' Manufacturers 
stated that the first definition presumes a metal frame for convertible 
roofs and that manufacturers are beginning to use other materials. Some 
manufacturers also asked the agency to exclude the entire convertible 
roof, while one manufacturer stated that hard top convertible roofs 
should be included. Finally, manufacturers asked for clarification of 
the particular components of a convertible that were excluded from the 
final rule, in particular, whether only components on the roof itself 
were excluded.
    NHTSA agrees that the inclusion of the word ``metal'' in the 
definition of ``convertible roof frame'' is design restrictive and is 
removing that word from the definition.
    NHTSA is not excluding the entire convertible roof. This issue was 
addressed in the final rule. In the final rule, NHTSA agreed to exclude 
``convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms because the presence 
of a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with their 
movement'' (60 FR 43031, at 43047). NHTSA did not exclude all targets 
on convertible roofs because commenters did not provide any 
justification suggesting that countermeasures could not be installed on 
other parts of the convertible roof. NHTSA notes that, while some 
convertible roofs are made of cloth or other soft material, many are 
not. While the former are unlikely to produce head injuries, the latter 
could. NHTSA believes that protection should be provided for all the 
hard areas in the upper interior of vehicles, unless it is not 
practicable to do so.
    With regard to which components in convertibles are excluded, 
``convertible roof linkage mechanism'' is defined as ``any anchorage, 
fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame.'' 
This definition is not limited to components on the roof itself. Some 
convertibles include anchor points on the front header and/or A-pillar 
for the convertible roof. These components are included in the 
definition of ``convertible roof linkage mechanism'' and thus were 
excluded from the final rule.
2. Pillars
    Some manufacturers asked for changes to the definitions for various 
pillars because they have difficulty applying the definitions to the 
unusual designs of their vehicles. For example, Toyota stated that one 
of its vehicles has an unusual side window design which is cut-out 
lower at the front edge of the window. Toyota believes that, for this 
design, the definition of Plane 9 (a horizontal plane passing through 
the lowest point of the daylight opening forward of the B-pillar) 
results in a target BP3 which is lower on the B-pillar than NHTSA 
intended, or even below the B-pillar.
    NHTSA has decided not to make any changes to these definitions 
based on these designs. Unless NHTSA were to write a unique set of 
target location provisions for each vehicle model in production, it is 
inevitable that use of a test procedure based on specific targets will 
not succeed in locating all target points on some vehicles. Even if 
NHTSA were to write unique provisions for each vehicle model currently 
in production, the procedures might no longer ensure that all targets 
could be located once a vehicle model was redesigned or a new vehicle 
model introduced. For this reason, NHTSA examined a wide number of 
vehicles when selecting targets and attempted to write the target 
location procedures in a way that would make it possible to locate all 
points on a majority of vehicles and a sufficient number of points on 
all vehicles. Section S4 (S6.1 and S6.2) states that ``(t)he 
requirements do not apply to any target that cannot be located using 
the procedures of S8 (S10).'' This provision adequately addresses the 
problem of unusual vehicle designs. NHTSA will not amend the 
definitions or change the target provisions absent information 
indicating that they are not workable for a significant number of 
target points on a wide variety of vehicle models.
3. Windshield Trim/Surface of the Vehicle Ceiling
    Manufacturers also asked for definitions for the phrases 
``windshield trim'' and ``surface of the vehicle ceiling.'' These 
phrases are used in the procedures to locate some targets. NHTSA agrees 
that these phrases are susceptible to more than one interpretation. 
Accordingly, the agency has added a definition of ``windshield trim.'' 
It has also replaced the phrase ``surface of the vehicle ceiling'' with 
the phrase ``interior roof surface'' to clarify that it is a reference 
to the interior surface only.

B. Test Conditions

1. Targeting Conditions
    Section S4 (S6) requires vehicles to comply when tested under the 
conditions specified in S6 (S8). Section S8 (S10) does not indicate 
whether or not targets are located under the same conditions. 
Manufacturers asked whether the test conditions applied only during 
testing or also during the locating of the targets.
    In the final rule, NHTSA did not specify whether or not the test 
conditions applied during target location as well as during testing. 
Most of the test conditions replicate conditions that would exist 
during vehicle use. However, some test conditions are intended to 
facilitate testing, and do not represent conditions that would arise 
during vehicle use. For example, seats and steering wheels may be 
removed to facilitate placing test equipment used to provide air 
pressure for and launch the FMH in the vehicle. NHTSA believes that 
these parts should be present when the targets are located. If, during 
target location, the seat or steering wheel prevents the FMH from 
contacting the target, it is also likely that an occupant could not 
impact that area. NHTSA has amended the regulatory language to specify 
which test conditions apply during the locating of the targets.
2. Removal of Attachments on Vehicle Interior Surface
    Manufacturers asked NHTSA to prohibit the removal of any items that 
are attached to the upper interior of the vehicle. Currently, removal 
of some such attachments is explicitly permitted, allowing NHTSA to 
test a target on or near such attachments with or without the 
attachment in place. Some attachments may be in a variety of positions, 
and therefore may or may not be in the target location when the vehicle 
is in use. Thus, for example, S6.5 specifies that sun visors may be removed. Other attachments are a target, and removal makes it easier to 
contact other targets. Thus, for example, S6.7 allows a seat belt 
anchorage to be removed to test the component on which it is mounted if 
the target is not on the anchorage. Other attachments are not 
explicitly addressed.
    Manufacturers argued that companies may wish to use attachments as 
some of the countermeasures to meet the rule. Removal of the 
attachments would remove those countermeasures. Manufacturers also 
argued that removal of attachments could adversely affect the material 
on the component on which the attachment is mounted, and cause the 
vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of the rule.
    It is possible that manufacturers could use attachments as part of 
the countermeasures to meet the new requirements. In addition, the 
means by which some attachments are anchored to the upper interior 
components could make it difficult or impossible to remove the 
attachment without adversely affecting the surrounding material. 
Finally, the agency notes that the attachments would be present in the 
vehicle during a crash, even if not in the specific target location 
NHTSA is testing. Therefore, the agency is specifying that no 
attachments, including sun visors and seat belt anchorages, are removed 
for testing.
3. Securing Vehicle That is Not Resting on its Suspension
    Section S6.1 (S8.1) specified that a vehicle being tested is 
supported so that it is not resting on its suspension. Manufacturers 
asked whether the vehicle was clamped down when not resting on its 
suspension.
    The regulatory text does not specify whether or not the vehicle is 
clamped down when not resting on its suspension. Therefore, NHTSA could 
test the vehicle either clamped or not. NHTSA notes that clamping would 
make the vehicle body stiffer, and thus is likely to be a worst case 
condition for manufacturers when they are doing certification testing. 
NHTSA does not believe it is necessary to specify one of these 
conditions in the final rule.
4. Removal of Windows
    Section S6.2 (S8.2) requires windows to be open. Section 6.4 (S8.4) 
allows side doors on the opposite side of the vehicle from the target 
to be impacted to be open. Manufacturers asked whether windows could be 
removed for testing.
    In some vehicles (e.g., vans), it may be necessary to remove 
windows to allow placement of the test equipment inside the vehicle to 
aim the FMH at some targets. These vehicles may not have doors in the 
rear portion of the vehicle and may have windows in this area which do 
not open, or which do not open sufficiently to allow placing test 
equipment in the vehicle. The regulatory text has been amended to allow 
removal of windows on the opposite side from a target during testing of 
that target.
5. Rear Doors
    Section S6.4 (S8.4) allows side doors on the side of the vehicle 
not be impacted during a particular test to be open. Manufacturers 
asked whether a rear hatch or rear door could be opened for testing.
    The regulatory language only allows side doors to be open. NHTSA 
decided to allow doors to be open to allow test equipment to access the 
targets. Because an open door could change the stiffness of adjacent 
vehicle components, NHTSA only allowed side doors on the opposite side 
of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle from the target to be 
open. For some targets, it may be difficult or impossible to reach the 
target with test equipment from a side door. Therefore, NHTSA has 
decided to allow rear windows or doors to be open for testing of any 
target except those on the rear header, the rearmost pillars, and the 
rearmost side rail target SR3 on each side of the vehicle. The agency 
believes that the performance of these targets could be affected by an 
open rear door or window.
6. Sun Visors
    Section S6.5 (S8.5) allows sun visors to be placed in any 
adjustment position as long as one side is in contact with the vehicle 
interior surface. Manufacturers asked NHTSA to specify a single 
position for testing. NHTSA is not changing this test condition because 
the sun visor could be in any position when in use.
7. Location of Head Center of Gravity
    Section S6.12 (S8.12) specifies the location of the head center of 
gravity in reference to the seating reference point (SgRP). The agency 
was asked to change the reference to the H-point. The SgRP is defined 
at 49 CFR 571.3 in reference to the design H-point with the seat in its 
rearmost normal design driving or riding position. Therefore, the 
agency does not believe a change is necessary.
    Manufacturers noted that target RP2 is located on the rearmost 
pillar with reference to the center of gravity of the head for the 
rearmost designated seating position. Manufacturers asked how this is 
determined for vehicles in which the rearmost seat is rearward facing. 
NHTSA is amending the procedures to specify that the rearward 
measurement used to locate the head center of gravity is made relative 
to the seat orientation and not the vehicle orientation.
8. Initial Contact
    Section S6.13.3 (S8.13.3) specifies that some portion of the 
forehead impact zone is to contact some point of the target circle 
defined in S6.11 at the time of initial contact. If this does not 
occur, manufacturers asked if the FMH were to be moved, or the target 
circle, or both. Manufacturers also asked NHTSA to include the 
prohibition proposed in the NPRM that ``no portion of the headform 
contacts any part of the vehicle outside the impact zone.''
    Section S8(b) (S10(b)) provides for the relocation of any target 
point which cannot be contacted by some portion of the forehead impact 
zone at some combination of impact angles. The relocated point is the 
point used for testing. If, for some reason, a portion of the forehead 
impact zone is not the point of initial contact when the testing is 
repeated at the relocated point, the test is considered an incomplete 
test. The target is not relocated again.
    With regard to the second request, the final rule eliminated the 
impact zone concept and substituted targets. The procedures ensure that 
the initial contact is between the target and the forehead impact zone. 
Because there no longer are impact zones, the NPRM prohibition on 
impacts outside the zone is not appropriate or necessary.
9. Approach Angles
    Section S6.13.4.1 (S8.13.4.1) describes a procedure to determine 
maximum and minimum horizontal approach angles. Manufacturers asked 
whether the component surface or the attachment is used in determining 
the shortest horizontal line when an attachment is in the same 
horizontal plane as the head center of gravity.
    NHTSA does not believe that the selection of either distance would 
result in a significantly different approach angle. However, since the 
agency is specifying that the attachments are to remain in place, the 
measurements will be made to the attachment if that is the shortest 
distance.
    Pursuant to S6.13.4.2(a) (S8.13.4.2(a)), the maximum vertical 
approach angle for each target is determined by rotating the FMH upward 
until a portion of the FMH outside the forehead impact zone contacts 
the vehicle and then rotating the FMH downward five degrees. Some 
manufacturers petitioned for the amount of downward rotation to be 
increased because chin contact could still occur during testing.
    In the final rule, the agency added the five degree offset in 
response to manufacturer concerns about chin contact. NHTSA never 
stated that this amount was sufficient to prevent chin contacts, only 
that it would delay chin contact. Because NHTSA continues to believe 
this amount is sufficient for this purpose, it is not making any 
further changes.
10. Minimum Impact Distance
    Section S6.14 (S8.14) prohibits multiple impacts when the distance 
between the targets is less than 150 mm. This distance was determined 
during NHTSA testing of various types of padding as an expected 
countermeasure. Manufacturers expressed concern that for other types of 
countermeasures, performance will be degraded for multiple impacts on 
the same component, regardless of the distance between the targets.
    While NHTSA appreciates that its testing was done only using 
padding, manufacturers did not submit any data indicating that the 150 
mm distance was not adequate for any other countermeasure. Absent such 
information, NHTSA is not changing this test condition.

C. Target Locations

1. Issues Related to Multiple Targets
    Section S8(b) (S10(b)) describes a procedure for relocating targets 
when no portion of the forehead impact zone can contact the target. 
Manufacturers asked NHTSA to delete this, arguing that it allowed for 
infinite test possibilities. Manufacturers also asked what is done when 
contact is prevented by interference from attachments.
    NHTSA is not deleting the relocation procedures. The forehead 
impact zone is approximately fifteen inches square. It is likely that 
the forehead impact zone will contact the entire area within the 1.5 
inch target circle specified in S8(b) (S10(b)). Even if multiple 
impacts are possible, it is not different than other targets which 
allow options. In addition, it is unlikely that the injury measurements 
would differ significantly between the possible targets in such a small 
area.
    With regard to the interference of attachments, NHTSA is making one 
change. Section S8(b) (S10(b)) is amended to allow relocation within a 
sphere rather than a circle. As noted above, NHTSA has decided that 
attachments should not be moved. Allowing relocation within a sphere 
when there is interference by an attachment will allow the target to be 
relocated onto the attachment. This will limit the need for increasing 
the relocation area due to interference. The agency also notes that, 
unless otherwise specified, movable attachments may be moved to any 
position for the purpose of testing. This will also reduce the 
incidence of interference.
2. A-Pillar Targets
    Manufacturers indicated concerns that the A-pillar reference point 
(APR) and target AP1 could not be located in some vehicles, 
particularly convertibles, and the points would be located in space. 
NHTSA does not agree that this is the case. NHTSA is not aware of any 
vehicles that do not have some type of roof to protect occupants from 
rain and snow. Section S6.3 (S8.3) states that convertible vehicles are 
tested with their tops closed. Therefore, even in these vehicles there 
would be an exterior roof surface to use in locating APR. If APR is on 
the soft cloth of a roof, it is unlikely that NHTSA would actually 
conduct a test (since such a surface would not produce a high injury 
measurement), but there would also be a target AP1.
    Manufacturers also asked whether measurements were made along each 
convolution of the outside weather stripping or rain gutter. NHTSA 
would not take measurements in such a manner, but would instead follow 
the nominal vehicle surface. By following the nominal surface, NHTSA 
means that the measurement is made as though the weather stripping or 
rain gutters were not present.
    Manufacturers also asked whether weather stripping was included in 
the determination of the ``outboardmost point * * * with the vehicle 
side door open.'' The answer is yes. Viewed perpendicular to the top of 
the test vehicle (or the plan view) with the side door open, the 
``outboardmost point'' is the outermost edge of the door opening 
(including uncompressed weather stripping, trim, or rain gutter).
    Manufacturers also noted that some vehicles have split or dual A-
pillars and asked whether such vehicles would have multiple AP2 and AP3 
target points. If the pillars are not part of the door structure, they 
are treated as separate pillars. Thus, it is possible to have multiple 
AP2 and AP3 target points. To clarify this, the definition of A-pillar 
is amended to specify ``* * * any pillar that is entirely forward of a 
transverse vertical plane passing through the seating reference point 
of the driver's seat.'' In addition, the definition of B-pillar is 
amended to specify ``* * * the forwardmost pillar on each side of the 
vehicle that is, in whole or part, rearward of a transverse vertical 
plane passing through the seating reference point of the driver's 
seat.''
    Finally, manufacturers noted that the highest point at the 
intersection of the dashboard and the A-pillar is not always apparent, 
because in some vehicles there is a small gap between the two 
components. Manufacturers also stated that this point could be one 
height on one side of the vehicle and another height on the other side. 
NHTSA has re-examined current production vehicles and agrees that there 
is often a small gap or depression between the dashboard and the A-
pillar. However, this is equivalent to the convolutions at edges of 
trim discussed above. Again, NHTSA would measure along the nominal 
surface, as if the small gap did not exist. Section S8(a) (S10(a)) 
provides that targets are located on each side of the vehicle using the 
specified procedures. Therefore, if the point of intersection is at 
different heights on each side of the vehicle, there is a different 
plane 5 defined on each side of the vehicle. Manufacturers should not 
simply transfer points from one side of the vehicle to the other.
3. B-pillar Targets
    Manufacturers asked a number of questions concerning belt 
anchorages on the B-pillar. Manufacturers asked the location of target 
BP2 for an anchorage which is covered by trim such that only the 
webbing is visible through a slot in the trim. Manufacturers also asked 
whether a stalk would be considered part of the anchorage and thus a 
possible target.
    The seat belt anchorage is defined in S2.1 (S3). The regulation 
states that the target is any point on the anchorage. Thus, 
manufacturers must certify that all portions of the anchorage comply 
with the requirements. Targets can be located on decorative trim 
covering the anchorage or a portion of the anchorage.
    Manufacturers also asked whether the centerline of the width of the 
B-pillar is determined by viewing the pillar laterally. The answer is 
yes.
    Finally, one manufacturer noted that, for location of target BP3, 
Plane 9 passes ``through the lowest point of the daylight opening 
forward of the pillar. The manufacturer stated that one of its vehicle 
designs has an unusual window design. The manufacturer believed that 
Plane 9 would not be located in that vehicle as intended by NHTSA. As 
stated previously, NHTSA acknowledges that not all points can be 
located in every vehicle, and that not all points will be located on 
the hardest points of every vehicle. This result is inherent in using a test 
procedure applicable to all vehicles, rather than a procedure 
individually tailored for each vehicle model. However, NHTSA will not 
change the specification for a target unless it is not appropriate for 
a large number of vehicles.
4. Other Pillar Targets
    Manufacturers asked whether vehicles with multiple ``other 
pillars'' have multiple other pillar targets. The answer is yes. The 
procedures do not specify a single ``other pillar.'' In addition, there 
would be multiple SR3 targets since they are located relative to the 
other pillar reference point (OPR).
5. Front Header Targets
    Manufacturers noted that the term ``sunroof frame'' was not 
defined. NHTSA agrees that this term could be confusing and is changing 
it to ``interior sunroof opening.'' Manufacturers also asked whether 
the sunroof is open or closed during testing. NHTSA believes that 
sunroofs are similar to windows and has, therefore, added language to 
indicate that they are treated in the same manner.
    Manufacturers also asked whether a ``Targa'' roof, which contains a 
considerable amount of glass and is larger than most sun roofs, is 
considered a sunroof. Other standards (e.g., Standard No. 216, ``Roof 
Crush Resistance'') use the term ``convertible.'' In previous 
interpretations of that term, NHTSA stated that a Targa roof is a 
convertible. In these interpretation letters, NHTSA has consistently 
stated that a convertible is ``a vehicle whose A-pillars or windshield 
peripheral support is not joined with the B-pillars (or rear roof 
support rearward of the B-pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural 
member.'' A comparable definition has been included in the amended 
final rule.
6. Side Rail Targets
    Manufacturers noted that some side rail targets (SR1 and SR2) are 
less than six inches apart. Since S6.14 (S8.14) specifies that impacts 
are not to occur less than six inches apart, they stated that they 
might have to use more than one vehicle to complete the tests for all 
possible combinations of targets on left and right sides. NHTSA is 
changing the procedure to locate target SR2 so that it is either 12 
inches rearward of APR or 12 inches forward of the B-pillar reference 
point (BPR). This will provide at least six inches between targets SR1 
and SR2 as measured from the APR reference.
    Manufacturers also noted that some vehicles (such as pickup trucks) 
have only two pillars on either side of the vehicle and asked whether 
the rear pillar is treated as a B-pillar, a rearmost-pillar, or both, 
for the purpose of locating side rail targets. In the 1995 final rule, 
the rearmost pillar in a vehicle with two pillars on each side is 
defined as a ``rearmost pillar'' and not as a ``B-pillar.'' Therefore, 
there is no ``side rail between the A-pillar and the B-pillar'' (S8.6 
(S10.6)). For ``other side rails'' (S8.7 (S10.7)), targets are located 
in reference to BPR or OPR, neither of which exists in the vehicles. 
NHTSA did not intend that there would be no side rail targets in these 
vehicles, and is amending the procedures for locating target SR2 for 
these vehicles.
    One manufacturer asked whether grab handles located on the upper 
interior in locations other than the side rail are targets. Section 
S8.7 (S10.7) states that if there is no seat belt anchorage on the side 
rail, but there is a grab handle, target SR3 is located on the grab 
handle. Since there are not similar specifications for other interior 
components, grab handles in other locations are not targets unless the 
procedures locate them there.
7. Upper Roof Targets
    The procedures for defining planes C and D for the upper roof 
specify that the planes are tangent to outermost points on the 
``interior roof (including trim)'' at a distance of 12 inches rearward 
of the APR. Manufacturers asked for clarification of how those points 
on the interior roof are to be determined. Those points are determined 
by closing the doors and marking where the door parts (with or without 
weather stripping) intersect the roof parts (with or without weather 
stripping), at a horizontal distance of 12 inches behind the APR.
    Manufacturers also asked whether, in establishing transverse 
vertical planes A and plane B, the rear view mirror and the center high 
mounted stop light (CHMSL), respectively, are considered part of the 
trim. The rearview mirror and the center high mounted stop light 
(CHMSL) are not considered trim. An example of trim would be weather 
stripping. The rearview mirror and CHMSL are considered 
``attachments.''
8. Sliding Door Track Targets
    Manufacturers noted that target SD is not necessarily located on 
the sliding door track at the door opening edge, and asked whether this 
is the intent of the test procedure. The answer is yes.
    Manufacturers also noted that horizontal and vertical approach 
angles were not specified for target SD in the final rule, and asked 
whether the side rail angles apply. This was the intent of the final 
rule. Horizontal and vertical approach angles for the sliding door 
track will be added to Table 1.
9. Roll-Bar Targets
    Manufacturers asked whether there is a target on a deployable roll-
bar. Since the definition of ``roll-bar'' does not include deployable 
roll-bars, there are no targets on a deployable roll bar.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to 
be ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. The changes implemented in this final rule do 
not appear to add further significant economic impact over the existing 
requirements. The only apparent economic impact appears to be relief of 
$7 million dollars for small school bus manufacturers, as discussed 
earlier in this notice.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and for those small entities likely to be affected, specific 
relief has been accorded in the notice. The changes made in this final 
rule do not substantially alter the final rule published on August 18, 
1995.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), the agency notes that there are no requirements for information 
collection associated with this final rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

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

E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

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

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.
    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Ch. V is amended as 
follows:

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and 589

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

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

    2. Section 571.201 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 571.201  Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact.

    S1. Purpose and scope. This standard specifies requirements to 
afford impact protection for occupants.
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 
kilograms or less, except that the requirements of S6 do not apply to 
buses with a GVWR of 3,860 kilograms or less.
    S3. Definitions.
    A-pillar means any pillar that is entirely forward of a transverse 
vertical plane passing through the seating reference point of the 
driver's seat.
    Ambulance means a motor vehicle designed exclusively for the 
purpose of emergency medical care, as evidenced by the presence of a 
passenger compartment to accommodate emergency medical personnel, one 
or more patients on litters or cots, and equipment and supplies for 
emergency care at a location or during transport.
    B-pillar means the forwardmost pillar on each side of the vehicle 
that is, in whole or part, rearward of a transverse vertical plane 
passing through the seating reference point of the driver's seat, 
unless there is only one pillar rearward of that plane and it is also a 
rearmost pillar.
    Brace means a fixed diagonal structural member in an open body 
vehicle that is used to brace the roll-bar and that connects the roll-
bar to the main body of the vehicle structure.
    Convertible means a vehicle whose A-pillars are not joined with the 
B-pillars (or rearmost pillars) by a fixed, rigid structural member.
    Convertible roof frame means the frame of a convertible roof.
    Convertible roof linkage mechanism means any anchorage, fastener, 
or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame.
    Daylight opening means, for openings on the side of the vehicle, 
other than a door opening, the locus of all points where a horizontal 
line, perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent 
to the periphery of the opening. For openings on the front and rear of 
the vehicle, other than a door opening, daylight opening means the 
locus of all points where a horizontal line, parallel to the vehicle 
longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the periphery of the opening. If 
the horizontal line is tangent to the periphery at more than one point 
at any location, the most inboard point is used to determine the 
daylight opening.
    Door opening means, for door openings on the side of the vehicle, 
the locus of all points where a horizontal line, perpendicular to the 
vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the periphery of the 
side door opening. For door openings on the back end of the vehicle, 
door opening means the locus of all points where a horizontal line, 
parallel to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the 
periphery of the back door opening. If the horizontal line is tangent 
to the periphery at more than one point at any location, the most 
inboard point is the door opening.
    Forehead impact zone means the part of the free motion headform 
surface area that is determined in accordance with the procedure set 
forth in S8.10.
    Free motion headform means a test device which conforms to the 
specifications of part 572, subpart L of this chapter.
    Mid-sagittal plane of a dummy means a longitudinal vertical plane 
passing through the seating reference point of a designated seating 
position.
    Motor Home means a motor vehicle with motive power that is designed 
to provide temporary residential accommodations, as evidenced by the 
presence of at least four of the following facilities: Cooking; 
refrigeration or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air 
conditioning; a potable water supply system including a faucet and a 
sink; and a separate 110-125 volt electrical power supply and/or an LP 
gas supply.
    Other pillar means any pillar which is not an A-pillar, a B-pillar, 
or a rearmost pillar.
    Pillar means any structure, excluding glazing and the vertical 
portion of door window frames, but including accompanying moldings, 
attached components such as safety belt anchorages and coat hooks, 
which:
    (1) Supports either a roof or any other structure (such as a roll-
bar) that is above the driver's head, or
    (2) Is located along the side edge of a window.
    Roll-bar means a fixed overhead structural member, including its 
vertical support structure, that extends from the left to the right 
side of the passenger compartment of any open body vehicles and 
convertibles. It does not include a header.
    Seat belt anchorage means any component involved in transferring 
seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited 
to, the attachment hardware, but excluding webbing or straps, seat 
frames, seat pedestals, and the vehicle structure itself, whose failure 
causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.
    Sliding door track means a track structure along the upper edge of 
a side door opening that secures the door in the closed position and 
guides the door when moving to and from the open position.
    Stiffener means a fixed overhead structural member that connects 
one roll-bar to another roll-bar or to a header of any open body 
vehicle or convertible.
    Upper roof means the area of the vehicle interior that is 
determined in accordance with the procedure set forth in S8.15.
    Windshield trim means molding of any material between the 
windshield glazing and the exterior roof surface, including material 
that covers a part of either the windshield glazing or exterior roof 
surface..
    S4  Requirements
    S4.1  Except as provided in S4.2, each vehicle shall comply with 
either:
    (a) The requirements specified in S5, or,
    (b) The requirements specified in S5 and S6.
    S4.2  Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 shall 
comply with the requirements of S5 and S6.
    S5  Requirements for instrument panels, seat backs, interior compartment doors, sun visors, and armrests. Each vehicle shall comply 
with the requirements specified in S5.1 through S5.5.2.
    S5.1  Instrument panels. Except as provided in S5.1.1, when that 
area of the instrument panel that is within the head impact area is 
impacted in accordance with S5.1.2 by a 6.8 kilogram, 165 mm diameter 
head form at--
    (a) A relative velocity of 24 kilometers per hour for all vehicles 
except those specified in paragraph (b) of this section,
    (b) A relative velocity of 19 kilometers per hour for vehicles that 
meet the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of 49 CFR 
571.208 by means of inflatable restraint systems and meet the 
requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of 49 CFR 571.208 by means of a Type 2 
seat belt assembly at the right front designated seating position, the 
deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80g continuously for 
more than 3 milliseconds.
    S5.1.1  The requirements of S5.1 do not apply to:
    (a) Console assemblies;
    (b) Areas less than 125 mm inboard from the juncture of the 
instrument panel attachment to the body side inner structure;
    (c) Areas closer to the windshield juncture than those statically 
contactable by the head form with the windshield in place;
    (d) Areas outboard of any point of tangency on the instrument panel 
of a 165 mm diameter head form tangent to and inboard of a vertical 
longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel; 
or
    (e) Areas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to 
the rearmost surface of the panel.
    S5.1.2  Demonstration procedures. Tests shall be performed as 
described in Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J921, 
``Instrument Panel Laboratory Impact Test Procedure,'' June 1965, using 
the specified instrumentation or instrumentation that meets the 
performance requirements specified in Society of Automotive Engineers 
Recommended Practice J977, ``Instrumentation for Laboratory Impact 
Tests,'' November 1966, except that:
    (a) The origin of the line tangent to the instrument panel surface 
shall be a point on a transverse horizontal line through a point 125 mm 
horizontally forward of the seating reference point of the front 
outboard passenger designated seating position, displaced vertically an 
amount equal to the rise which results from a 125 mm forward adjustment 
of the seat or 19 mm; and
    (b) Direction of impact shall be either:
    (1) In a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis; 
or
    (2) In a plane normal to the surface at the point of contact.
    S5.2  Seat Backs. Except as provided in S5.2.1, when that area of 
the seat back that is within the head impact area is impacted in 
accordance with S5.2.2 by a 6.8 kilogram, 165 mm diameter head form at 
a relative velocity of 24 kilometers per hour, the deceleration of the 
head form shall not exceed 80g continuously for more than 3 
milliseconds.
    S5.2.1  The requirements of S5.2 do not apply to seats installed in 
school buses which comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222, 
School Bus Passenger Seating and Occupant Protection (49 CFR 571.222) 
or to rearmost side-facing, back-to-back, folding auxiliary jump, and 
temporary seats.
    S5.2.2  Demonstration procedures. Tests shall be performed as 
described in Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J921, 
``Instrument Panel Laboratory Impact Test Procedure,'' June 1965, using 
the specified instrumentation or instrumentation that meets the 
performance requirements specified in Society of Automotive Engineers 
Recommended Practice J977, ``Instrumentation for Laboratory Impact 
Tests,'' November 1966, except that:
    (a) The origin of the line tangent to the uppermost seat back frame 
component shall be a point on a transverse horizontal line through the 
seating reference point of the right rear designated seating position, 
with adjustable forward seats in their rearmost design driving position 
and reclinable forward seat backs in their nominal design driving 
position;
    (b) Direction of impact shall be either:
    (1) In a vertical plane parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis; 
or
    (2) In a plane normal to the surface at the point of contact.
    (c) For seats without head restraints installed, tests shall be 
performed for each individual split or bucket seat back at points 
within 100 mm left and right of its centerline, and for each bench seat 
back between points 100 mm outboard of the centerline of each outboard 
designated seating position;
    (d) For seats having head restraints installed, each test shall be 
conducted with the head restraints in place at its lowest adjusted 
position, at a point on the head restraint centerline; and
    (e) For a seat that is installed in more than one body style, tests 
conducted at the fore and aft extremes identified by application of 
subparagraph (a) shall be deemed to have demonstrated all intermediate 
conditions.
    S5.3  Interior compartment doors. Each interior compartment door 
assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, 
or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall remain 
closed when tested in accordance with either S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b) or 
S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c). Additionally, any interior compartment door 
located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when 
the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S5.1 and 
S5.2. All interior compartment door assemblies with a locking device 
must be tested with the locking device in an unlocked position.
    S5.3.1  Demonstration procedures.
    (a) Subject the interior compartment door latch system to an 
inertia load of 10g in a horizontal transverse direction and an inertia 
load of 10g in a vertical direction in accordance with the procedure 
described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, ``Passenger 
Car Side Door Latch Systems,'' May 1965, or an approved equivalent.
    (b) Impact the vehicle perpendicularly into a fixed collision 
barrier at a forward longitudinal velocity of 48 kilometers per hour.
    (c) Subject the interior compartment door latch system to a 
horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in 
accordance with the procedure described in section 5 of SAE Recommended 
Practice J839b, ``Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,'' May 1965, or 
an approved equi