(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, with amendments and interpretations"

MmHv*! SaptMibar 1, 197S 






MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 

Bus Window Retention and Release 
(Dockst No. 2-10; NoNc* 3) 



The purpose of this amendment to § 571.21 of 
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is to add 
a new motor vehicle safety standard that estab- 
lishes minimum requirements for bus window 
retention and release to reduce the likelihood of 
passenger ejection in accidents and enhance pas- 
senger exit in emergencies. 

A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub- 
ject was published on August 15, 1970 (35 F.R. 
13025). The comments received in response to 
the notice have been considered in this issuance 
of a final rule. 

For reasons of clarification, the requirements 
paragraph has been reorganized and the demon- 
stration procedures paragraph has been replaced 
by a test conditions paragraph. Some of the 
specifications of the demonstration procedures 
paragraph are incorporated under the require- 
ments paragraph, and the remainder are retained 
under the test conditions paragraph. With the 
exception of the changes discussed below, the 
reorganization does not affect the substance of 
the standard. 

In altering the window retention requirements, 
the final rule lowers the force application limit, 
provides more precise glazing breakage and 
glazing yield limits, and exempts small windows. 
With respect to the emergency exit requirements, 
the standard permits devices other than push-out 
windows to be used for emergency exits, permits 
buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to 
utilize devices other than emergency exits for 
emergency egress, and permits an alternate roof 
exit when the bus configuration precludes pro- 
vision of a rear emergency exit. It also raises 
the force limits for release and extension of 
emergency exits, deletes the inertial load require- 
ment for the release mechanism, and requires 
that emergency exit location markings be lo- 



cated within each occupant space adjacent to 
an exit. 

A few changes have been made in the diagram 
accompanying the standard. Figure 1, "Adja- 
cent Designated Seating Position, Occupant 
Spaces, and Push-Out Window Relationship," 
has been deleted from the final rule because the 
relationship is sufficiently described in the text 
of the standard. Accordingly, Figures 2 and 3 
have been renumbered as Figures 1 and 2, re- 
spectively. A new Figure 3, indicating access 
regions for emergency exits which do not have 
adjacent seats, has been added. For reasons of 
clarification. Figures 2a and 2b and Figures 3a 
and 3b in the proposed rule have been placed 
beside each other to form Figures 1 and 2 re- 
spectively. 

The torque in Figures 2a and 2b of the pro- 
posed rule has been transferred to the text and 
has been explained to indicate that the force 
used to obtain the torque shall not be more than 
20 pounds. In addition, the clearance specifica- 
tions in Figures 1 and 2 have been clarified in 
the text to require that the lower edge of the 
force envelope shall be located 5 inches above 
the seat, or 2 inches above the armrest, if any, 
whichever is higher. In several instances, minor 
changes have been made in the labeling without 
altering the substance of the diagrams. 

A number of comments sought changes in the 
window retention requirements. Two comments 
requested an exemption for intra-city buses be- 
cause the probability of rollover accidents would 
be minimal in slow-speed operation. Urban 
transit buses are subjected to risks of rollover 
accidents within the city when they travel at 
moderate to high speed on intra-urban express- 
ways, and should therefore be covered by the 



PART 671; S 217— PRE 1 



Effactivs: S«pramb*r 1, 1973 



standard. Accordingly, the request for this 
exemption is denied. 

Several comments requested an exemption for 
small windows. Since there is little likelihood 
of passenger ejection or protrusion from window 
openings whose minimum surface dimension 
measured through the center of the area is less 
than eight inches, an exemption for windows of 
this size has been granted. 

Two comments asked that the 2,000 pound 
force application limit in the window retention 
requirement be lowered. The data indicates that 
a 1,200-poand limit would be more compatible 
with the glazing strength. Accordingly, the 
2,000-pound force application limit has been 
lowered to 1,200 pounds. 

Several manufacturers stated that they en- 
countered difficulties in ascertaining when the 
proposed head form penetration limit of the 
window retention requirement had been reached. 
After observation of window retention testing, 
the XHTSA has concluded that the penetration 
limit as specified in the notice of proposed rule- 
making is difficult to determine. For this reason 
the head form penetration limit has been re- 
phrased in terms of the development of cracks 
in the glazing and the amount of depression of 
the glazing surface in relation to its original 
position. 

A number of comments objected to the require- 
ment that at least 75% of the glazing be retained 
in the window mounting during window reten- 
tion testing. The NHTSA has determined that 
the intent of this requirement is already accom- 
plished by the requirement that each window be 
retained during testing by its surrounding struc- 
ture in a manner which would prevent passage 
of a 4-inch sphere, and the requirement is ac- 
cordingly deleted from, the final rule. 

With respect to the emergency exit require- 
ments, the standard permits devices other than 
push-out windows to be used for emergency 
exits. Upon review of the requirements, it has 
been determined that devices such as panels and 
doors which meet the emergency exit require- 
ments would be as effective as push-out windows 
for emergency egress. Because the Administra- 
tion has concluded that passenger egress is en- 
hanced when several emergency exits are pro- 



vided, the standard requires tliat in computing 
whether a bus meets the unobstructed openings 
area requirements, no emergency exit, regardless 
of its area, shall be credited with more than 520 
square inches of the total area requirement. 

A number of motor vehicle manufacturers 
sought exemption from the emergency exit re- 
quirements for smaller vehicles weighing 10,000 
pounds or less G\^VR, such as limousines and 
station wagons, which are designed to carry 
more than 10 persons and are therefore consid- 
ered to be buses under XHTSA regulations (49 
CFR 571.3). Such vehicles are usually provided 
with numerous doors and windows which pro- 
vide sufficient unobstructed openings for emer- 
gency exit. Therefore the Administration has 
concluded that the configuration of these vehicles 
satisfies the intent of the standard with respect 
to provision of emergency exits, and they are 
exempted from the emergency exit openings re- 
quirements. 

The emergency exit requirements ha\e been 
changed to permit installation of an alternate 
roof exit when the bus config^aration precludes 
provision of a rear exit, provided that the roof 
exit meets the release, extension, and identifica- 
tion requirements. The XHTSA has established 
this alternative in order to allow design flexi- 
bility while providing for emergency egress in 
rollover situations. 

A number of comments expressed concern that 
the proposed maximum force level for release 
and extension of emergency exits in Figures 2a 
and b and 3a and b were too low to inhibit in- 
advertent operation by passengers and suggested 
that the required maximum force level be raised. 
After consideration of the goals of facilitating 
emergency egress and preserving the integrity 
of the passenger compartment under nonnal 
operation, it has been determined that the maxi- 
mum force levels should be raised from 10 and 
30 pounds to 20 and 60 pounds respectively. 

One comment submitted the results of testing 
which indicated that the 30g inertial load re- 
quirement for the release mechanism was un- 
necessarily high. The testing also revealed that 
the engineering concepts upon which the inertial 
load requirement is based are not generally ap- 
plied in the industry and that the requirement 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 2 



EllKtlv*: S«pl*mb*r 1, 1973 



would be impracticable. Moreover, an increase 
in maximum force levels for emergency exit op- 
eration in the rule should improve latch integ- 
rity. For these reasons, the requirement has 
been deleted. 

The standard requires emergency exit location 
markings to be placed in certain occupant spaces 
because of a possible contradiction under the 
proposed standard between the requirement that 
the identification markings' be located within 6 
inches of the point of operation and the require- 
ment that the markings be visible to a seated 
occupant. The NHTSA has concluded that 
emergency egress could be hindered if the pas- 
senger has difficulty in finding the marking, and 
that location of the marking outside of an occu- 
pant space containing an adjacent seat, which 
would be permitted under the proposed standard, 
could create this problem. At the same time it 
is desirable for the identification and instructions 
to be located near the point of release. There- 
fore the final rule requires that when a release 
mechanism is not located within an occupant 
space containing an adjacent seat, a label indi- 
cating the location of the nearest release mech- 
anism shall be placed within that occupant space. 

The temperature condition has been reworded 
to make it clear, in light of the explanation of 



usage in § 571.4, that the vehicle must be capable 
of meeting the performance requirements at any 
temperature from 70° F. to 85° F. 

Effective date: September 1, 1973. After 
evaluation of the comments and other informa- 
tion, it has been determined that the structural 
changes required by the standard will be such 
that many manufacturers will require an effec- 
tive date of at least fifteen months after issuance. 
It is therefore found, for good cause shown, that 
an effective date more than one year from the 
date of issuance is in the public interest. 

In consideration of the above. Standard No. 
217, Bus Window Retention and Release, is 
added to § 571.21 of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below. 

This rule is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 
1401, 1407, and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on May 3, 1972. 

Douglas TV. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 9394 
Mgy 10, 1972 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 3-4 



I 



EffKtIv*: $«ptomb«r 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 

Bus Window Retention and Release 
(Docket 2-10; Notic* 4) 



The purpose of this notice is to respond to 
petitions for reconsideration of Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Reten- 
tion and Release, in § 571.217 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations. The standard was is- 
sued on May 10, 1972 (37 F.R. 9394). 

International Harvester stated that it manu- 
factures an 18-passenger airport limousine, the 
"Stageway Coach Conversion", weighing 10,700 
pounds GVWR and requested that it be ex- 
empted from the requirements of S5.2.1, "Buses 
with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds." 
They emphasized that the 18-passenger model is 
equipped with 10 side doors, two more than is 
provided by a 15-passenger, 10,000-poimd, ver- 
sion of a similar airport limousine vehicle which 
they manufacture. The NHTSA has concluded 
that vehicles which provide at least one door for 
each three passenger seating positions afford 
sufficient means of emergency egress regardless 
of their weight. S5.2.1 has accordingly been 
amended to provide that buses with a GVWR of 
more than 10,000 pounds may alternatively meet 
the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2 
by providing at least one door for each three 
passenger spaces in the vehicle. The "Stageway 
Coach Conversion" falls into the category of 
vehicles covered by this amendment and thus 
International Harvester's request is granted. 

International Harvester, Greneral Motors, and 
Chrysler all requested a clarification of the S5.1 
window retention requirements because thsy felt 
it was possible to interpret the paragraph as 
prohibiting the use of tempered glass for window 
glazing. Ford also submitted a request for ex- 
emption from the window retention requirements 
for buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR based on 
its interpretation of S5.1 as precluding the use 



of tempered glass. The petitioners stated that 
tempered glass would shatter under the applica- 
tion of pressure required, and were not certain 
whether S5.1(b), describing the development of 
cracks in the glazing, would cover this occur- 
ence. The NHTSA did not intend to prohibit 
the use of tempered glass, and in order to correct 
this possible ambiguity, S5.1(b) has been 
amended to include shattering of the window 
glazing. 

Greneral Motors also requested an interpreta- 
tion of the method of measuring whether 80 
percent of the glazing thickness has developed 
cracks as described in S5.1(b). The paragraph 
refers to a measurement through the thickness 
of glass and not a measurement of the glazing 
surface area, as GM suggests it could mean. GM 
also doubted that the percentage of glazing thick- 
ness which develops cracks could be measured. 
The NHTSA has determined that the intent of 
the language is clear and that performance of 
this measurement is within the state of the art, 
so that no change in the language is necessary. 
The request is therefore denied. 

General Motors requested a clarification of the 
term "minimum surface dimension" in paragraph 
S5.1(c). The NHTSA agrees that a clarification 
is necessary to prevent interpretations which may 
not meet the intent of this standard, and the 
paragraph has been accordingly amended to 
specify that the dimension is to be measured 
through the center of the area of the sheet of 
glazing. 

General Motors stated that it interpreted the 
head form travel rate specified in S5.1.1 of two 
inches per minute as a "nominal value" require- 
ment, since no tolerances are given in the stand- 
ard. The test conditions in a safety standard 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 5 



KNcMv*! S«plMnb«r 1, 1973 

represent the performance levels that the product 
must be capable of meeting. They are not in- 
structions either to the manufacturers' or the 
government's test laboratories, or a i-equirement 
that the product should be tested at "exactly" 
those levels. The manufacturers' testa in this 
case should be designed to demonstrate that the 
vehicle would meet the stated requirements if 
tested at two inches per minute. If that is what 
Greneral Motors means by a "nominal value", its 
interpretation is correct. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No, 217, Bus Window 



Retention and Release, 49 CFR 671.217, is 
amended 

Effective date : September 1, 1973. 

This notice is issued under the authority of 
sections 103, 112, and 119 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 16 U.S.C. 1392, 
1401, 1407, and the delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.61. 

Issued on August 30, 1972. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

37 F.R. 18034 
S«ptamb*r 6, 1972 



I 



PART 871; S 217— PRE 9 



I 



MmHv*! Saptombar I, If 73 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 

Bus Window Retention and Release 
(Docket No. 2-10; NoNc* 51 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window 
Retention and Release, 49 CFR § 571.217, in re- 
sponse to petitions received. Several minor 
amendments for purposes of clarification have 
also been made. The standard was published 
initially on May 10, 1972, (37 F.R. 9394), and 
amended September 6, 1972 (37 F.R. 18034). 

Wayne Corporation has petitioned that the 
torque limit of 20 inch-pounds for the actuation 
of rotary emergency exit releases in S5.3.2(a) (3) 
of the standard is impractical. The Blue Bird 
Body Company also objected to the requirement, 
requesting that the limit be raised to 225 inch- 
pounds in order to avoid inadvertent openings. 
The NHTSA has decided, based on these peti- 
tions, that a maximum torque requirement is 
redudant, since the force magnitude generally is 
limited in S5.3.2 to not more than twenty pounds. 
Accordingly the torque requirement is deleted 
from the rule. 

Blue Bird also requested that Figure 3A, 
which depicts access region for roof and side 
emergency exits without adjacent seats in both 
an upright and overturned bus, be made more 
explicit. 

In response to this request. Figure 3A is being 
replaced by two figures, one of which depicts 



a side emergency exit (Figure 3A), and the other 
n roof emergency exit (Figure 3B). Existing 
Figure 3B, depicting access regions for a rear 
exit with a rear shelf or other obstruction behind 
the rearmost seat, becomes Figure 3C. A new 
Figure 3D is added to depict rear seat access 
regions in buses not having a rear shelf or other 
obstruction behind the rearmost seat, a config- 
uration common to school buses. Paragraph 
S5.2.1, regarding provision of emergency exits, 
is amended to make it clear that a required rear 
exit must meet the requirements of S5.3 through 
S5.5 when the bust is overturned on either side, 
with the occupant standing facing the exit, as 
well as when the bus is upright. 

In consideration of the above, Standard No. 
217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 
571.217, is amended .... 

Elective date: September 1, 1973. 

(Sec. 103, 112, 119, P.L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) and the delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51. 

Issued on February 28, 1973. 

Douglas W. Toms 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 6070 
March 6, 1973 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 7-8 



i 



l«hcHv«! Jwn« 3, If 74 




PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 

Bus Window Retention and Release 

(Docket No. 2-10; NoHco 7) 




This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Reten- 
tion and Release" (49 CFR § 571.217), to exempt 
from the standard buses manufactured for the 
purpose of transporting persons under physical 
restraint. The amendment is based on a notice 
of proposed rulemaking published October 1, 
1973 (38 F.R. 27227), following petitions re- 
ceived from the Bureau of Prisons, United States 
Department of Justice. 

The comments received in response to the pro- 
posal agreed that buses manufactured for the 
specified purpose should not be provided with 
the emergency exits required by Standard No. 
217. The standard specifies that buses contain 
emergency exits operable by bus occupants, re- 
quirements which the NHTSA considers ob- 
viously incompatible with the need to transport 
prison inmates. The National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) commented, however, that 
compensatory measures should be taken to mini- 
mize the likelihood of fire in prison buses, since 
the probability of safely evacuating a prison bus 
is less than that of any other type of bus. The 
NTSB urged that the exemption be limited to 
diesel-fueled buses, since diesel fuel is lees likely 
to ignite than gasoline. 

The NHTSA recognizes the desirability of 
minimizing the likelihood of fire in buses. How- 



ever, at the present time it is not practical to 
expect that all newly manufactured prison buses 
be equipped with diesel engines, given the ap- 
parent immediate need for the exemption. Ap- 
propriate rulemaking action can be taken in the 
future if it appears necessary to mitigate from 
a safety standpoint the loss of emergency exits 
in prison buses. 

In light of the above, paragraph S3 of section 
571.217, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations 
(Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217), is 
amended. . . . 

Effective date : June 3, 1974. This amendment 
imposes no additional burdens on any person and 
relieves restrictions found to be unwarranted. 
Accordingly, good cause exists and is hereby 
found for an effective date less than 180 days 
from the day of issuance. 

(Sees. 103, 112, and 119, Pub. L. 89-563; 80 
Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1491, 1407; delegations 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on April 26, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 15274 
May 2, 1974 




PART 571; S 217— PRE 9-10 



I 



Effective: October 16, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 

Bus Window Retention and Release 
(Docket No. 75-6; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 217, Bv^ Window Reten- 
tion and Release^ 49 CFR 571.217, to clarify the 
marking requirements for emergency exits on 
buses. The amendment requires certain mark- 
ings on all bus emergency exits except manually- 
operated windows of sufficient size and doors in 
buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

The amendment was proposed in a notice 
published April 18, 1975 (40 FR 17266). Com- 
ments were received from Chrysler Corporation 
and General Motors. Chrysler concurred with 
the proposal. GM, while also concurring, sug- 
gested that the wording of the amendment be 
modified somewhat. The amendment has been 
reworded to reflect more clearly the intent of 
this amendment, distinguishing between emer- 
gency exits that require markings and those that 
do not. The NHTSA has determined that special 
emergency exit markings are unnecessary for 
doors and manually-operated windows in buses 
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. This 
amendment does not exempt buses with a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or less from complying with 
the unobstructed openings requirements of S5.2. 



It only provides that the openings do not have 
to be marked as emergency exits. However, 
specially-installed emergency exits in such buses, 
such as push-out windows, are not exempted 
from the marking requirements, 

The amendment also allows bus manufacturers 
the option of designating an emergency door as 
"Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." This 
will bring Standard No. 217 into conformity 
with current NHTSA interpretations of the 
emergency exit marking requirements. How- 
ever, any emergency exit other than a door must 
have the designation "Emergency Exit." 

Accordingly, S5.5.1 of 49 CFR 571.217, Bus 
Window Retention and Release, is amended .... 

Effective date: October 16, 1975. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) ; delegations of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.51). 

Issued on October 8, 1975. 

Gene G. Mannella 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 48512 
October 16, 1975 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 11-12 



I 



i 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 

Bus Window Retention and Release 
(Docket NO. 75-3; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Reten- 
tion and Release, 49 CFR 571.217, to specify 
requirements for emergency doors for school 
buses pursuant to the provisions of section 202 
of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety 
Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-492, 88 
Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392). It responds to the 
congressional mandate to establish standards 
concerning school bus emergency exits (15 U.S.C. 
§1392(i) (1) (A) (i)). 

Section 202 requires that certain school bus 
safety standards be published within 15 months 
of the passage of the 1974 amendments on 
October 27, 1974. In addition, these statutory 
provisions remove the otherwise discretionary 
authority of the NHTSA to establish lead times 
for compliance under the general rulemaking 
provisions of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act by specifying an effective 
date for the amendment of 9 months from the 
date of publication of this notice (15 U.S.C. 
§ 1392(i) (1) (B)). The proposed amendments 
upon which this notice is based were published 
on February 28, 1975 (40 F.R. 8569). 

Many comments were received in response to 
the proposal to require either one rear emergency 
door or two side emergency doors in the rear 
half of the bus passenger compartment. Many 
objected that the proposal provided for too few 
emergency doors, and requested requirements for 
additional side doors and roof exits. Some com- 
menters suggested that push-out windows and 
the "California" rear exit be required. The 
agency does not discourage the inclusion of ad- 
ditional emergency exits in school buses so long 



as they comply with the requirements applicable 
to non-school bus emergency exits. The NHTSA 
believes that "California" rear window emer- 
gency exits may be preferable in certain circum- 
stances and proposes in this issue of the Federal 
Register to amend this rule to permit the use of 
the "California" rear window along with a side 
door emergency exit in place of the rear door 
emergency exit. In the alternative, it is pro- 
posed to allow this option only on rear-engine- 
powered school buses. Under either proposal 
the requirements of the standard would not be 
met by providing two sidedoor emergency exits. 
In addition, the subject of roof exits is being 
considered and could be the subject of future 
rulemaking. However, roof exit requirements 
cannot be included in this rulemaking action 
because of the statutorily imposed deadline on 
promulgation of these amendments. 

A number of comments were received opposing 
the proposed interlock requirement on the ground 
that it would prevent restarting the engine after 
the school bus stalls in a dangerous intersection 
or a railroad crossing and panicky passengers 
jam the release mechinism. The intent of this 
requirement is to prevent the initial starting of 
the bus engine until the doors have been un- 
locked, by a key, combination, or the operation 
of a remote switch at the beginning of the day. 
The deletion of the phrase "or otherwise inoper- 
able" excludes inadvertent jamming of the door 
release mechanism from the requirement. The 
word "locked" has been defined for this purpose 
as not releasable at the door except by a key or 
combination. It would include doors openable 
by a remote switch. 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 13 



EffacMv*: Octebar 26, 1976 



Six comments supported the proposal to re- 
qiure an audible alarm when the ignition is on 
and the release mechanism of any emergency 
door is not closed. Five of these, however, ob- 
jected that an alarm at each door in addition to 
one in the driver's compartment would be un- 
necessary and unduly costly. The NHTSA does 
not agree. The purpose of audible alarms at 
each door is to indicate which release mechanism 
is not closed. This is especially critical while 
the vehicle is in motion, as it will serve to warn 
the passengers in the area of the possibility that 
an emergency door could open. In addition, it 
will serve as a deterrent to tampering by children 
with the emergency door release mechanisms. 
Therefore, the requirement that an audible alarm 
be positioned at each emergency door and at the 
driver's position has been retained. 

Objectives were received to the requirement 
that the magnitude of force required to activate 
the emergency door release mechanism be not 
more than 40 pounds. The NHTSA does not 
consider that the 40 pound force limit is too 
high in light of the location and access require- 
ments of this standard. If the maximum force 
level were substantially lowered, there would be 
a significant likelihood that emergency door re- 
lease mechanisms would be inadvertently acti- 
vated by a passenger. 

In addition, the NHTSA has noted the possi- 
bility of ambiguity with respect to the wording 
of paragraph S5.4 of the old standard and 
85.4.2 of the proposal. The intent of these para- 
graphs is to specify conditions applicable to the 
opening of the exit after the release mechanism 
has been activated. Accordingly, the wording 
of the two paragraphs has been modified to 
clearly reflect this intent. 



Many school districts and manufacturers ob- 
jected to the parallelepiped clearance require- 
ment for the emergency doors because of the 
number of seats that would be eliminated and 
the costs of redesigning van-type school buses to 
meet the clearance requirements. In addition, 
many commenters pointed out that the 12-inch 
aisle in most school buses precludes effective use 
of a large exit meeting the proposed require- 
ments. 

The NHTSA has determined that these argu- 
ments have merit. As a result, the proposed 
paralellepiped requirements have been modified 
by reducing the height from 48 inches to 45 
inches, reducing the depth from 24 to 12 inches 
for rear exits in buses over 10,000 lbs GVWK, 
and to 6 inches for rear exits in buses under 
10,000 lbs GVWR. For side exits the depth has 
been eliminated altogether. Additionally, the 
forward edge of the side door now coincides 
with a vertical transverse plane tangent to the 
rearmost point of the adjacent seat, thus permit- 
ting simultaneous exiting of two occupants, be- 
tween the seat backs and over the seat cushion. 

In light of the above, 49 CFR § 571.217, Bus 
Window Retention and Release^ is amended .... 

Effective date: October 26, 1976. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 
718; Sec. 202, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484 (15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on January 22, 1976. 

Howard J. Dugoff 
Acting Administrator 
41 F.R. 3871 
January 27, 1976 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 14 



Effectiva: October 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 



Bus Window Retention and Release 
(Docket No. 75-3; Notice 4) 

This notice amends Standard No. 217, Bus 
Window Retention and Release, to modify the 
emergency exit requirements of the standard in 
response to a petition for reconsideration of re- 
cent amendments and after consideration of 
comments on the agency's proposal to specify 
new performance options and labeling for emer- 
gency exits. 



PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
OF NOTICE 2 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration (NHTSA) recently amended Standard 
No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) to provide emergency 
exit requirements for school buses (41 FR 3871, 
January 27, 1976 (Notice 2)). Section S5.2.3.1 
of the standard (as it becomes effective for school 
buses on October 26, 1976) specifies that a rear 
emergency door shall be hinged on the right side. 
Chrysler Corporation has petitioned for recon- 
sideration of this provision, asking that a manu- 
facturer option be provided so that the rear 
emergency door or doors on van-type school buses 
may be hinged on the right or left. 

The purpose of specifying that the rear emer- 
gency door hinge to the right is based on the 
NHTSA finding that school buses often operate 
on rural highways that are bordered by drainage 
ditches, and that a school bus that leaves the 
highway and rolls over is likely to come to rest 
in the right-hand ditch on its right side. When 
a bus comes to a rest on its side, the emergency 
door on the rear of the bus is easier to operate, 
particularly by small children, if it is hinged so 
that its operation is assisted by gravity. 

Chrysler pointed out that the rear emergency 
door on van-type school buses is often used rou- 
tinely for loading and unloading passengers. 
For this reason, Chrysler offers a single rear 



door that hinges at the left side, so that the door 
swings out of the way to safely accommodate 
curb-side loading. In the case of larger buses, 
routine loading and unloading does not occur 
through the rear emergency door. 

The NHTSA agrees with Chrysler that the 
common practice of curb-side loading through 
the rear door of van-type school buses justifies a 
manufacturer option in selecting the side of the 
door which should be hinged. On balance, the 
agency considers that the increase in safety for 
routine curb-side loading through a left-hinged 
door would outweight any potential loss of safety 
benefit for emergency evacuation from a van-type 
bus that comes to rest on its right side. Accord- 
ingly, S5.2.3.1 of the standard is appropriately 
amended. The agency also takes the opportunity 
to correct an inadvertent reference to emergency 
"exit" in S5. 2.3.2 when the requirements are 
actually intended to apply only to an emergency 
"door." 

In a matter unrelated to the Chrysler petition, 
some uncertainty has arisen over the form of 
S5.4 as it was revised in Notice 2 to become effec- 
tive October 26, 1976. Also, the division between 
buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and 
those with a greater GVWR was imperfectly 
stated in amending S5.4. For this reason, the 
amendment of S5.4 is republished in the correct 
form in this notice. No substantive changes are 
made in this republication of S5.4. 

EMERGENCY EXIT AND LABELING 
PROPOSAI^NOTICE 3 

At the time the amendments just discussed 
were published, the NHTSA published a pro- 
posal to clarify certain emergency exit labeling 
for all buses, and to replace the established op- 
tion for school bus emergency exits with a new 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 15 



Effective: Ocrober 26, 1976 



option (41 FR 3878, January 27, 1976; Notice 
3). Comments were received from the Lanai 
Road Elementary School Parent -Teachers Asso- 
ciation, Gillig Brothers (Gillig), Chrysler Cor- 
poration. Mr. Allen Braslow. Crown Coach 
Corporation (Crown), and International Har- 
vester (IH). No connnent was received from 
manufactui-ers of transit or intercity buses, or 
from the manufacturers of body-on-chassis school 
buses. The National Motor Vehicle Safety 
Council did not comment on this proposal. 

With regard to emergency exit labeling, Mr. 
Braslow suggested two labeling changes intended 
to assist bus occupants, as well as a requirement 
for regular testing of emergency exits in buses 
in highway service. ^\liile the latter suggestion 
lies beyond the authority of the agency under 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act (1.5 U.S.C. §1391, et seq.), the agency will 
consider for future action the suggestion to label 
all bus exits in the same manner as school bus 
exits, as well as the suggestion to develop a uni- 
versal emergency exit insignia with diagramatic 
instructions. For the moment, the agency is 
limited by the extent of its proposal, and accord- 
ingly, makes final the changes as proposed. 

Standard No. 217 requires (effective October 
26, 1976) school buses to provide either a rear 
emergency door or two side emergency doors in 
satisfaction of the emergency exit requirements. 
In Notice 3, the agency proposed to modify this 
option to require either provision of a rear emer- 
gency door or, at the option of the manufacturer, 
provision of a left-side emergency door and a 
"California rear window'' exit at the rear of the 
bus. This type of rear window exit provides a 
large (16 by 48 inch) opening which is more 
easily utilized than a side emergency door if a 
bus has rolled onto its side. In the alternative, 
the agency proposed that the option to use a 
rear window exit only be allowed in rear-engine 
buses. 

The two manufacturers of transit-type school 
buses supported the new option, but objected to 
the alternative jiroposal that would limit use of 
the option to rear-engine buses. Both Gillig and 
Ci'own build mid-engine school buses with essen- 
tially the same configuration as rear-engine buses 
and considei' the lear window exit e(jually useful 
in tliese buses. Tiie agency has considered the 



mid-engine design and agrees with the argument 
made by Crown and Gillig. Accordingly, the 
agency amends the standard as proposed to apply 
the option to all school buses. Crown Coach 
pointed out that the NHTSA proposal to limit 
rear-window-exit release mechanisms to a single 
release would necessitate a change in existing 
hardware. The NHTSA has investigated the 
available hardware (consisting in all cases of two 
release mechanisms that are located within 36 
inches of each other) and concludes that the only 
significant safety hazard in some of the designs 
is that some require simultaneous operation for 
release. For this reason, the agency will allow 
not more than two release mechanisms, provided 
that the two mechanisms do not have to operate 
sinudtaneously to effect release. If new designs 
present a problem of any nature, further rule- 
making will be undertaken. 

In accordance with recently enunciated De- 
partment of Transportation policy encouraging 
adequate analysis of the consequences of regula- 
tory action (41 FR 16201, April 16, 1976), the 
agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of the 
economic and other consequences of this proposal 
on the public and private sectors, including pos- 
sible loss of safety benefits. The option to hinge 
some rear emergency doors on the right or left, 
and the option to use a "California rear window" 
do not involve additional expenditures. The 
agency estimates that these additional exit ar- 
rangements will not significantly reduce the level 
of safety provided in the affected bus categories. 
The new requirements for more specific operating 
instructions for school bus emergency exits are 
calculated to involve annual costs of about 
$67,000. Although the agency is unable to quan- 
tify tlie benefit of clearer exit labeling, it is esti- 
mated that better instructions will serve to reduce 
the possibility of death and injury involved in 
an attempt to use the emergency exits. There- 
fore, the agency concludes that the amentlments 
should issue as set fortli in this notice. 

For the benefit of interested persons, it is noted 
that Docket 7.5-6 concerning labeling of bus 
emergency exits is related to this rulemaking. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard 
No. 217 (49 (^FR .571.217) as it is amended to 
become efFective for school buses on October 26, 
1976, is revised. . . . 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 16 



^ 



Effective: October 26, 1976 

Effective date; October 2Q,W7Q. The eflfective (Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 

date of the amendments numbered 1, 2, 3 and 5 (15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 202, Pub. L. 93-492, 

is established as 9 months after the date of issu- 88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392) ; delegation of 

ance of the amendments on which they are based, authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

as required by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus -, , a/t op; iq7r 

Safety Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492, Issued on May 25, 197b. 

section 202 (15 U.S.C. 1397(i) (1) (A) ). The j^^^^ ^ 

effective date of the amendment numbered 4 is Arl ' ' t f ■ 
also established as October 26, 1976, although a 

manufacturer can meet the requirements at an 41 F.R. 22356 

earlier date if the manufacturer so chooses. June 3, 1976 



I 



» 



PART 571; S 217— PRE 17-18 



i 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 

Bus Window Retention and Reiease 
(Docket No. 75-03; Notice 7) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMIMARY: This notice makes permanent an 
interim final rule that modified the agency's 
school bus emergency exit standard. The interim 
final rule, which was issued in February 1979, was 
implemented immediately to increase the 
availability of passenger vans for use as small 
school buses at reasonable costs. The interim rule 
slightly altered several emergency exit 
requirements in a manner that made it easier to 
mass produce small buses without significantly 
affecting the level of safety achieved by those 
vehicles. Concurrent with the issuance of the 
interim final rule, the agency solicited comments 
on the amendments to the standard. This notice 
responds to the comments and makes the interim 
rule permanent. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Since this notice makes 
permanent an existing interim final rule, it is 
effective immediately. 

SUPPLEIVIENTARY INFORMATION: On February 
8, 1979, the agency published an interim final rule 
and a proposal (44 F.R. 7961) to modify the school 
bus emergency exit safety standard, Standard 
No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In 
that notice, the agency made effective immediately 
some modifications to the school bus emergency 
exit standard to increase the supply of reasonably 
priced vehicles suitable for school bus conversion. 
Among the changes implemented by the interim 
final rule were a slight decrease in the size of rear 
emergency exits for vehicles (typically passenger 
vans) with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) 
less than 10,000 pounds, and increased flexibility 
in the location requirements for release 
mechanisms on the emergency exits of small school 



buses. The agency concluded at the time the 
interim rule was issued that the level of safety 
achieved by small buses would not be diminished 
by these changes and that the changes would 
allow more small buses to be mass produced, 
thereby lowering their prices. The agency also 
asked in the interim final rule for comments on 
the advisability of these changes. 

In response to the agency's request. Ford, 
Chrysler, the Center for Auto Safety, and the 
California Highway Patrol (CHP) submitted 
comments. The two manufacturers, Ford and 
Chrysler, both supported the agency's action. The 
Center and the CHP both opposed the action. 

The Center and the CHP both argued that the 
rear emergency exit in small school buses 
(passenger vans which have GVWR's less than 
10,000 pounds and are used as school buses) 
should not be reduced in size. The Center stated 
that the exit should be broad enough for two 
students to exit simultaneously in case of an 
emergency. The CHP stressed that reducing the 
size of the exit would make it too small to permit 
the exiting of children in wheelchairs. 

With respect to the argument that the size of 
the rear exit should allow room to exit students 
two abreast, the agency stated in the proposal 
that this argument, while valid for larger school 
buses, is not meritorious for school vehicles with 
GVWR's less than 10,000 pounds. Larger school 
buses frequently transport 60 or more school 
children. Accordingly, rapid evacuation of those 
vehicles in an emergency requires that the 
students be able to exit two abreast. In order to 
accomplish this, the agency has required that 
some space be provided behind the rearmost seat 
in these buses so that students exiting through 
the narrow center aisles will have room at the 
exits to get out two abreast. 



PART 571; S217- PRE 19 



In small school buses where the number of 
students carried frequently is 16 or less, the need 
for exiting two abreast to achieve rapid evacuation 
is significantly reduced. In recognition of this 
factor, the agency has never required bus 
manufacturers to provide space behind the rear 
seat of small buses that would allow students to 
exit two abreast. As a result, the rear seats of 
small buses are frequently quite near or are against 
the rear bus wall. Students exiting down a bus 
aisle, which is normally around 12 inches in width, 
reach an exit where no space is provided to exit 
two abreast. Accordingly, any requirement that 
an exit in small buses be large enough to facilitate 
exiting two abreast would not accomplish that 
goal. Small bus manufacturers would need to 
redesign their bus seat plans in some fashion to 
provide space behind the rear seat in order to 
allow exiting two abreast. Such a redesign would 
significantly decrease the available seating in 
small buses. Given the fact that evacuating small 
buses has not been a safety problem, the agency 
concludes that the cost resulting from the 
reduced vehicle seating that would be required to 
accomplish the Center's objectives would far 
outweigh the benefits. Accordingly, the agency 
concludes that a broader rear exit is not needed 
in small school buses. 

The CHP objected to the same requirement 
stating that the new exit door would be too 
narrow for wheelchairs. The CHP further stated 
that California has always required wider exits so 
that wheelchairs can be used in the vehicles. 

The agency's new exit requirement is a minimum 
size requirement for standard school buses. In 
special instances in which larger exits are desired, 
such as in buses for carrying the handicapped, the 
States may require that their buses have such exits. 
The agency deems that approach to be preferable 
to its requiring larger exits in all vehicles. The 
situation with respect to rear door size is 
analogous to that involving seat back height. The 
agency requires a minimum seat back height. 
New York mandates a seat back height greater 
than the Federal specification. The NHTSA has 
no objection to the New York requirement and 
will not object to requirements by other States 
for wider rear emergency exits. The agency also 
notes that buses designed for the handicapped 
constitute a small portion of all buses and usually 
are equipped with special doors and larger aisles. 



The Center also objected to the agency's 
interpretation that the parallelipiped device used 
for measuring rear door size could be lifted up to 
1-inch to overcome small protrusions near the 
floor. The agency issued an interpretation 
permitting this at the time of the implementation 
of the standard. This interpretation simply 
reflects real-world conditions. Many doors in 
vehicles have small door sills or other minor 
protrusions that sometimes serve necessary 
functions in the proper operation of the door. 
These minor protrusions play no significant role 
in the ability of students to exit from a vehicle in 
an emergency. Therefore, the agency will not 
reconsider its interpretation. 

The Center objected to the agency's removal of 
exit release mechanism location and force 
application requirements for small school buses. 
The Center agreed that the existing requirements 
are more appropriate for larger buses, but it 
insisted that the agency should develop another 
set of location requirements for smaller buses 
instead of abandoning the requirements entirely. 

The agency is sympathetic to the Center's 
concerns about this issue. The location of the 
release mechanism for small school buses in an 
easily accessible location is important for the 
rapid evacuation of these vehicles in an emergency. 
However, the mere setting of location requirements 
would not ensure that the release mechanisms 
would be accessible. Due to the limited space in 
the rear of small buses and the variability of 
design in those areas, the agency could not readily 
specify a location which would provide the 
necessary accessibility. The agency believes that 
allowing manufacturers the option of locating the 
release mechanism in any easily accessible 
location on or near the exit will be more beneficial 
to achieving the intended safety results than any 
rigid inflexible location requirement. NHTSA 
anticipates that product liability concerns and the 
agency's authority to declare inaccessible release 
mechanisms to be safety-related defects will 
suffice to induce the manufacturers to select 
accessible locations. The agency will closely 
monitor the location and accessibility of the 
release mechanisms and, if necessary, use both its 
defects and rulemaking authority to take 
corrective action. 

Finally, the Center objected to the fact that the 
agency permitted pull-type release mechanisms. 



PART 571: S217-PRE 20 



The Center stated that release mechanism 
standardization is helpful in assuring the safe 
evacuation of vehicles. 

While the agency agrees that standardization 
has value in this instance, there are competing 
ways for achieving standardization in the case of 
small school buses. One way is to require that 
small school buses have releases that operate with 
an upward motion as in larger school buses. 
Another way is to permit small school buses 
(which, as noted before, are passenger vans) to 
have the same pull-type releases that are found in 
other vans and some cars. The agency doesn't 
believe that either basis for standardization is 
clearly superior from a safety standpoint to the 
other. Further, permitting the use of the pull- 
type releases will enable the manufacturers to 
achieve cost savings. Accordingly, the agency 
declines to adopt the Center's recommendation. 

Since this notice makes permanent an existing 
amendment, it is effective immediately. The 
agency has reviewed the amendment in 
accordance with E.O. 12291 and concludes that 
the rule is not significant under the Department 
of Transportation's regulatory procedures. In 
fact, by permitting these changes, more buses can 
be mass produced, which may result in a small 
decrease in the cost of complying with the 



standard. Since the economic impact of this rule is 
minimal, a regulatory evaluation is not required 
for this amendment. 

The agency has also considered the effect of this 
rule in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and certifies that it would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The only economic impact might be a 
reduction in bus prices. There would similarly be 
no significant impact on a substantial number of 
small government jurisdictions and small 
organizations. 

Finally the agency has analyzed this rule for 
purposes of the National Environmental Policy 
Act and has determined that it would have no 
significant impact on the human environment. 

Issued on February 10, 1982. 



Diane K. Steed 
Acting Administrator 

47 F.R. 7255 
February 18, 1982 



PART 571; S217-PRE 21-22 



i 



<i 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217 
Bus Window Retention and Reiease 



51. Scope. This standard establishes require- 
ments for the retention of windows other than 
windshields in buses, and establishes operating 
forces, opening dimensions, and markings for 
push-out bus windows and other emergency exits. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to minimize the likelihood of occupants being 
thrown from the bus and to provide a means of 
readily accessible emergency egress. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose 
of transporting persons under physical restraint. 

54. Definitions. 

"Push-out window" means a vehicle window 
designed to open outward to provide for emer- 
gency egress. 

"Adjacent seat" means a designated seating 
position located so that some portion of its occu- 
pant space is not more than 10 inches from an 
emergency exit, for a distance of at least 15 
inches measured horizontally and parallel to the 
exit. 

"Occupant space" means the space directly 
above the seat and footwell, bounded vertically 
by the ceiling and horizontally by the normally 
positioned seat back and the nearest obstruction 
of occupant motion in the direction the seat 
faces. 

55. Requirements. 

S5.1 Window Retention. Except as provided 
in S5.1.2, each piece of window glazing and each 
surrounding window frame, when tested in ac- 
cordance with the procedure in S5.1.1 under the 
conditions of S6.1 through S6.3, shall be re- 
tained by its surrounding structure in a manner 
that prevents the formation of any opening large 
enough to admit the passage of a 4-inch diameter 
sphere under a force, including the weight of 



the sphere, of 5 pounds until any one of the 
following events occurs: 

(a) A force of 1200 pounds is reached. 

(b) At least 80% of the glazing thickness has 
developed cracks running from the load contact 
region to the periphery at two or more points, or 
shattering of the glazing occurs. 

(c) The inner surface of the glazing at the 
center of force application has moved relative to 
the window frame, along a line perpendicular to 
the undisturbed inner surface, a distance equal 
to one-half of the square root of the minimum 
surface dimension measured through the center 
of the area of the entire sheet of window glazing. 

55.1.1 An increasing force shall be applied 
to the window glazing through the head form 
specified in Figure 4, outward and perpendicular 
to the undisturbed inside surface at the center 
of the area of each sheet of window glazing, with 
a head form travel of 2 inches per minute. 

55.1.2 The requirements of this standard do 
not apply to a window whose minimum surface 
dimension measured through the center of its 
area is less than 8 inches. 

S5.2 Provision of Emergency Exits. Buses 
other than school buses shall provide unob- 
structed openings for emergency exit which col- 
lectively amount, in total square inches, to at 
least 67 times the number of designated seating 
positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the 
total required area of unobstructed openings, 
computed in the above manner, shall be provided 
on each side of a bus. However, in determining 
the total unobstructed openings provided by a 
bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, 
shall be credited with more than 536 square 
inches of the total area requirement. School 



PART 571; S 217-1 



buses shall provide openings for emergency exits 
that conform to S5.2.3. 

55.2.1 Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 
pounds. Except as provided in S5.2.1.1, buses 
with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall 
meet the unobstructed openings requirements by 
providing side exits and at least one rear exit that 
conforms to S5.3 through S5.5. The rear exit shall 
meet the requirements when the bus is upright and 
when the bus is overturned on either side, with the 
occupant standing facing the exit. When the bus 
configuration precludes installation of an accessi- 
ble rear exit, a roof exit that meets the re- 
quirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is 
overturned on either side, with the occupant stand- 
ing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear 
half of the bus. 

S5.2.1 .1 A bus with GVWR of more than 10,000 
pounds may satisfy the unobstructed openings 
requirement by providing at least one side door 
for each three passenger seating positions in the 
vehicle. 

55.2.2 Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less. Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less 
may meet the unobstructed openings requirement 
by providing: 

(a) Devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 
through S5.5 without using remote controls or cen- 
tral power systems; 

(b) Windows that can be opened manually to a 
position that provides an opening large enough to 
admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis 
horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by 
rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a 
major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 
inches; or 

(c) Doors. 

55.2.3 School buses. 

S5.2.3.1 Each school bus shall comply with 
either one of the following minimum emergency 
exit provisions, chosen at the option of the 
manufacturer: 

(a) One rear emergency door that opens out- 
ward and is hinged on the right side (either side in 
the case of a bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less); or 



(b) One emergency door on the vehicle's left side 
that is in the rear half of the bus passenger com- 
partment and is hinged on its forward side, and a 
push-out rear window that provides a minimum 
opening clearance 16 inches high and 48 inches 
wide. This window shall be releasable by operation 
of not more than two mechanisms which are 
located in the high force access region as shown in 
Figure 3C, and which do not have to be operated 
simultaneously. Release and opening of the win- 
dow shall require force applications, not to exceed 
40 pounds, in the directions specified in S5.3.2. 

S5.2.3.2 The engine starting system of a school 
bus shall not operate if any emergency door is 
locked from either inside or outside the bus. For 
purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that 
the release mechanism cannot be activated by a 
person at the door without a special device such as 
a key or special information such as a combination. 



S5.3 Emergency exit release. 

55.3.1 Each push-out window or other 
emergency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall be 
releasable by operating one or two mechanisms 
located within the regions specified in Figure 1, 
Figure 2, or Figure 3. The lower edge of the region 
in Figure 1, and Region B in Figure 2, shall be 
located 5 inches above the adjacent seat, or 2 
inches above the armrest, if any, whichever is 
higher. 

55.3.2 When tested under the conditions of S6, 
both before and after the window retention test re- 
quired by S5.1, each emergency exit not required 
by S5.2.3 shall allow manual release of the exit by a 
single occupant using force applications each of 
which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, 
either to (a) or (b). The release mechanism or 
mechanisms shall require for release one or two 
force applications, at least one of which differs by 
90 to 180° from the direction of the initial push-out 
motion of the emergency exit (outward and 
perpendicular to the exit surface). 

(a) Low-force application. 

Location: As shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3. 

Type of Motion: Rotary or straight. 

Magnitude: Nor more than 20 pounds. 



PART 571; S 217-2 



(b) High force application. 

Location: As shown in Figure 2 or Figure 3. 

Type of Motion: Straight, perpendicular to the 
undisturbed exit surface. 

Magnitude: Not more than 60 pounds. 

S5.3.3 When tested under the conditions of S6., 
both before and after the window retention test re- 
quired by S5.1, each school bus emergency door 
shall allow manual release of the door by a single 
person, from both inside and outside the bus 
passenger compartment, using a force application 
that conforms to paragraphs (a) through (c) [ex- 
cept a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less does not have to conform to paragraph (a). (47 
F.R. 7255-February 18, 1982. Effective: 
February 18, 1982).] Each release mechanism shall 
operate without the use of remote controls or tools, 
and notwithstanding any failure of the vehicle's 
power system. When the release mechanism is not 
in the closed position and the vehicle ignition is in 
the "on" position, a continuous warning sound 
shall be audible at the driver's seating position and 
in the vicinity of the emergency door having the 
unclosed mechanism. 

(a) Location: Within the high force access region 
shown in Figure 3A for a side emergency door, and 
in Figure 3D for a rear emergency door. 

(b) Type of motion: Upward from inside the bus; 
at the discretion of the manufacturer from outside 
the bus. (Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less shall provide interior release mechanisms that 
operate by either an upward or pull-type motion. 
The pull-type motion shall be used only when the 
release mechanism is recessed in such a manner 
that the handle, lever, or other activating device 
does not protrude beyond the rim of the recessed 
receptacle. (47 F.R. 7255-February 18, 1982. Ef- 
fective: February 18, 1982)1 

(c) Magnitude of force: Not more than 40 
pounds. 

The present S5.4 is renumbered S5.4.1, and the 
phrase "Each push-out window or other emer- 
gency exit shall, after the release mechanism has 
been operated," is replaced by the phrase "After 
the release mechanism has been operated, each 
push-out window or other emergency exit not re- 
quired by S5.2.3," at the beginning of the 
paragraph. 

S5.4 Emergency exit extension. 
S5.4.1 After the release mechanism has been 
operated, each push-out window or other emer- 



gency exit not required by S5.2.3 shall, under the 
conditions of S6, before and after the window 
retention test required by S5.1, using the reach 
distances and corresponding force levels specified 
in S5.3.2, be manually extendable by a single occu- 
pant to a position that provides an opening large 
enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a 
major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid 
generated by rotating about its minor axis an 
ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor 
axis of 13 inches. 

S5.4.2 School bus emergency exit extension. 

S5.4.2.1 School bus with a GVWR of more than 
10,000 pounds. After the release mechanism has 
been operated, the emergency door of a school bus 
with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall, 
under the conditions of S6, before and after the 
window retention test required by S5.1, using the 
force levels specified in S5.3.3, be manually 
extendable by a single person to a position that 
permits— 

(a) In the case of rear emergency door, an open- 
ing large enough to permit unobstructed passage 
of a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 
inches wide, and 12 inches deep, keeping the 
45-inch dimension vertical, the 24-inch dimension 
parallel to the opening, and the lower surface in 
contact with the floor of the bus at all times; and 

(b) In the case of a side emergency door, an 
opening at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide. 
A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear- 
most point of a seat back shall pass through the 
forward edge of a side emergency door. 

S5.4.2.1 School Buses Less Than 10,000 Pounds 
or Less. A school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of 
S5.4.2 except that the parallelepiped dimension for 
the opening of the rear emergency door or doors 
shall be 45 inches high, 22 inches wide, and 6 inches 
deep. 

S5.5 Emergency exit identification. 

S5.5.1 In buses other than school buses, except 
for windows serving as emergency exits in accord- 
ance with S5.2.2(b) and doors in buses with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, each emergency 
door shall have the designation "Emergency 
Door" or "Emergency Exit" and each push-out 
window or other emergency exit shall have the 
designation "Emergency Exit" followed by con- 
cise operating instructions describing each motion 
necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located 
within 6 inches of the release mechanism. 



(Rev. 2/18/82) 



PART 571; S 217-3 






POINT OF 
DIMENSION 




W«^ 2 INCHES' - / . '■■/.\ 
1 '// ..' ■■ / / . . '/A 

5 INCHES I 



ADJACENT SEAT 




71 INCHES 




FLOOH BENEATH EMERGENCV EXIT 
VIEW PARALLEL TO SEAT BACK 



■CLEARANCE AREA AROUND 
SEAT BACK. ARM RESTS. 
AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS 



FLOOR BENEATH EMERGENCY EXIT 

VIEW PERPENDICULAR TO SEAT BACK 

ACCESS REGION IS THE SPATIAL VOLUME CREATED 
BY THE INTERSECTION OF THE PROJECTIONS OF THE 
AREAS SHOWN IN THE TWO VIEWS 



FIGURE 1 LOW-FORCE ACCESS REGION FOR EMERGENCY EXITS HAVING ADJACENT SEATS 




POINT OF 
DIMENSION 

2 INCHES 



s I 



ADJACENT SEAT 








Y''l HEGION A 



|-» 23 INCHES fc-j 



\2INCHES' ^^X^^'^.N 

lSMj 




^ 



,^ 



POSSIBLE 
ARM REST 



T 



ADJACENT SEAT 



FLOOR BENEATH EMERGENCY EXIT 



VIEW PARALLEL TO SEAT BACK 



FLOOR BENEATH EMERGENCY EXIT 
VIEW PERPENDICULAR TO SEAT BACK 



■CLEARANCE AREA AROUND 
SEAT BACK ARM RESTS 
AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS 



FIGURE 2 HIGH FORCE ACCESS REGIONS FOR EMERGENCY EXITS HAVING ADJACENT SEATS 

PART 571; S 217-4 



^ LOW AND HIGH-FORCE ACCESS REGIONS FOR EMERGENCY EXITS WITHOUT 



ADJACENT SEATS 




NSIOE CEILIMC 



INSIDE WALL 



i±ll 



INSIDE fLOOR- 



3A. SIDE EMERGENCY EXIT 



INSIDE WALI. 



ACCESS REGION 
FOR HIGH f ORCES 




INSIDE CEILING 



3B. ROOF EMERGENCY EXIT 

PART 571; S 217-5 



INSIDE WALL 



23 IMCH RAOItit 



ACCCGt MCOIOM 
FOR LOM PORCCS 



ACCESS 

■ CGIOM 

f Oft HIGH 62 INCHES 

FORCES 




INSIDE FLOOR OF UPRIGHT BUS 



•TYPICAL CLEARANCE AROL>N0 OASTRUCTIONS 



3C. REAR EMERGENCY EXIT WITH REAR OBSTRUCTION 



ACCESS REGION 
FOR LOW FORCES 




ACCESS REGION 
FOR HIGH FORCES 



INSIDE FLOOR 



INSIDE WALL 




3D. REAR EMERGENCY EXIT WITHOUT REAR OBSTRUCTION 

PART 571; S 217-6 



'-^ 



1/ 



V~ "/^ fORCE ' ~ ~^ 



\ 



ISO" 0» SYNTHETIC UNOEBLAV 
no! 15 tm TENSILE STUENCTH 
So! lOK ELONGATION 

NAPA COAT SKIN WET CHAMOIS OH 

OaO* 003 SYNTHETIC SKIN 
1000' SO Bf TENSILE STRENGTH 

loo! S% ELONGATION 




FIGURE 4 HEAD FORM 

Examples: (1) Lift to Unlatch 
Push to Open 

(2) Lift Handle and 
Push out to Open 

When a release mechanism is not located within 
an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label 
meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates 
the location of the nearest release mechanism 
shall be placed within the occupant space. 

Example: Emergency exit instructions located 
next to seat ahead. 

S5.5.2 In buses other than school buses, ex- 
cept as provided in S5.5.2.1, each marking shall 
be legible, when the only source of light is the 
normal night-time illumination of the bus in- 
terior, to occupants having corrected visual 
acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) seated in the 
adjacent seat, seated in the seat directly ad- 
joining the adjacent seat, and standing in the 
aisle location that is closest to that adjacent seat. 
The marking shall be legible from each of these 
locations when the other two corresponding lo- 
cations are occupied. 



S5.5.2.1 If the exit has no adjacent seat, the 
marking must meet the legibility requirements 
of S5.5.2 for occupants standing in the aisle 
location nearest to the emergency exit, except 
for a roof exit, which must meet the legibility 
requirements for occupants positioned with their 
backs against the floor opposite the roof exit. 

S5.5.3 School Bus. Each school bus emer- 
gency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 
shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or 
"Emergency Exit," as appropriate, in letters at 
least 2 inches high, of a color that contrasts with 
its background, located at the top of or directly 
above the emergency exit on both the inside and 
outside surfaces of the bus. Concise operating 
instructions describing the motions necessary to 
unlatch and open the emergency exit, in letters 
at least three-eights of an inch high, of a color 
that contrasts with its background, shall be lo- 
cated within 6 inches of the release mechanism 
on the inside surface of the bus. 

Example: (1) Lift to Unlatch 
Push to Open 

(2) Lift Handle 

Push Out to Open. 



S6. Test conditions. 

56.1 The vehicle is on a flat, horizontal sur- 
face. 

56.2 The inside of the vehicle and the outside 
environment are kept at any temperature from 
70° to 85° Fahrenheit for 4 hours immediately 
preceding the tests, and during the tests. 

56.3 For the window retention test, windows 
are installed, closed, and latched (where latches 
are provided) in the condition intended for 
normal bus operation. 

56.4 For the emergency exit release and ex- 
tension tests, windows are installed as in S6.3, 
seats, armrests, and interior objects near the 
windows are installed as for normal use, and 
seats are in the upright position. 

37 F.R. 9394 
May 10, 1972 



PART 571; S 217-7-8 



Effacliva: March I, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 218 

Motorcycle Helmets 
(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 2) 



The purpose of this amendment to Part 571 
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is to 
add a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
218, Motorcycle Helmets, 49 CFR § 571.218, that 
establishes minimum performance requirements 
for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by 
motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. 

A notice of proposed rulemaking on this sub- 
ject was published on May 19, 1972 (37 F.R. 
10097). The comments received in response to' 
the notice have been carefully considered in this 
issuance of a final rule. 

In the previous notice, the NHTSA proposed 
that, effective September 1, 1974, the perform- 
ance levels for the impact attenuation require- 
ments be upgraded to that of the Head Injury 
Criterion (HIC) required by Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 208. A number of com- 
ments on this subject sought to defer a final 
determination until further research and addi- 
tional tests could be conducted. The agency has 
carefully reviewed the issues raised by these 
comments and has determined that technical data 
presently being generated on this matter by 
several investigations should be considered in up- 
grading the impact attenuation requirements. 
Accordingly, a decision on the upgrading will 
be deferred until after this research has been 
completed and the results evaluated, and after 
any appropriate data have been reviewed. 

Comments to the docket on the initial impact 
attenuation requirement ranged from abolishing 
the time duration criteria of 2.0 milliseconds and 
4.0 milliseconds at the 200g and 150g levels, re- 
spectively, to increasing these criteria to 2.8 
milliseconds at the 200g level and 5.6 milliseconds 
at the 150g level. One approach taken in regard 
to this requirement contends that the available 
test data are insufficient for quantifying time 



limits for the relatively short duration accelera- 
tions which are involved in helmet testing. Sev- 
eral comments questioned the validity of the 
proposed time duration limits, since these limits 
were based on the optional swing-away (as op- 
posed to fixed anvil) test of the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 
Z90. 1-1966, which was omitted from the most 
recent issues of the Z90.1 Standard (1971 and 
1973) and was not contained in the proposed 
motorcycle helmet standard. An additional com- 
ment points out that helmets designed to meet 
higher energy impacts than the initial impact 
attenuation requirement occasionally have diffi- 
culty meeting a 2.0 millisecond requirement at 
the 200g level. 

A review of available biomechanical data indi- 
cates that the head impact exposure allowed by 
the 2.0 and 4.0 millisecond limits at the 200g 
and 150g levels, respectively, is greater than that 
allowed by other measures of head injury po- 
tential. It is the agency's view, moreover, that 
the best evidence indicates that an increase in 
the time duration criteria would permit a sub- 
stantial reduction in the protection provided to 
the helmet wearer. Since the comments to the 
docket did not provide any new data or suf- 
ficiently compelling arguments which would 
justify relaxing the proposed limits for tolerable 
liead impact exposure, the 2.0 and 4.0 millisecond 
criteria are retained as part of the initial im- 
pact attenuation criteria. 

In response to comments recommending that 
the allowable weight of the supporting assembly 
for the impact attenuation drOp test be changed 
to 20% instead of the proposed 10% of the 
weight of the drop assembly, the NHTSA has 
determined that such a change would enable 
more durable testing equipment to be used with- 



PART 571; S 218— PRE 1 



Effective: Morch 1, 1974 



out any significant effect on test results. Accord- 
ingly, this ^^ eight limitation has been raised to 
20%. 

Se\eral comments expressed concern that the 
proposed 0.04-inch indentation limit included 
under the penetration test would create problems 
of measurement. The agency has determined 
that the intent of this 0.04-inch indentation limit 
is sufficiently accomplislied by the requirement 
that the striiier not contact the surface of the 
test headform, and the 0.04-inch indentation 
limit is therefore deleted from the tinal rule. 
Further, in consideration of the need to readily 
detect any contact by the striker, the agency has 
determined that the contactable surfaces of the 
penetration test head forms should be constructed 
of a metal or metallic alloy which will insure 
detection. Several minor changes in the test 
conditions for the penetration test have also been 
made, without altering the substance of those 
conditions. 

A number of comments recommended that 
where the retention system consists of components 
which can be independently fastened without 
securing the complete assembly, such compo- 
nents should not have to individually meet the 
retention test requirements. Since helmets have 
a tendency to be thrown off by a crash and 
motorcyclists sometimes only partially fasten the 
retention system where such an option exists, the 
agency has concluded that retention components 
as well as the entire assembly should meet the 
test requirements in every fastening mode as 
specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

A number of comments requested that the 105° 
minimum peripheral vision clearance to each side 
of the midsagittal plane be increased to 120°. 
The 105° minimum requirement was proposed 
because it satisfies a demand by the public for 
the availability of some helmets which provide 
added protection to the temporal areas in ex- 
change for a minimal reduction in peripheral 
vision capability witliout compromising the safe 
limits of peripheral vision clearance. A review 
of available field-of-vision studies and the lack 
of any evidence to the contrary indicate that 105° 
minimum clearance to each side of tie midsagittal 
plane provides ample periphera. vision capa- 
bility. Since the requests for increasing the 



minimum clearance to 120° were not accompanied 
by any supporting data or arguments, the 
agency has concluded that the standard should 
allow the additional protection which the 105° 
minimum clearance would permit and, accord- 
ingly, this requirement is retained. 

With respect to providing important safety 
information in the form of labeling, one com- 
ment recommended that, due to possible label 
deterioration, both the manufacturer's identifica- 
tion and the helmet model designation should be 
permanently marked by etching, branding, 
stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior 
of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached 
component so as to be visible when the helmet 
is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the 
practical effect of this recommendation is accom- 
plished by requiring each helmet to be perma- 
nently and legibly labeled. The method to be 
used to permanently and legibly affix a label for 
each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of 
the manufacturer. However, in order that there 
may be some external, visual evidence of con- 
formity to the standard, the labeling requirement 
has been further modified to require manufac- 
turer certification in the form of the DOT 
symbo' to appear in permanent form on the 
exterior of the helmet shell. 

One comment recommended that the prelimi- 
nary test procedures include the application of a 
10-pound static test load to the apex of a helmet 
after it is placed on the reference headform and 
before the "test line" is drawn to insure that the 
reference marking will be relatively uniform, 
thus reducing variances in test results of identical 
helmets. The agency concurs in this recom- 
mendation and it has been included in the 
standard. 

A number of comments objected to the loca- 
tion of the test line. With respect to the pro- 
posed requirement that the test line on the 
anterior portion of a helmet coincide with the 
reference plane of its corresponding reference 
headform, it was pointed out that the helmet's 
brow area would have to be excessively thick in 
order to meet the impact attenuation criteria at 
any point less than approximately 1 inch from 
the brow opening. The data indicate that this 
objection is valid, and the location of the anterior 



FART 571; S 218— PRE 2 



Effectiv*: March 1, 1974 



test line has been modified by placing it 1 inch 
above and parallel to the reference plane. 

A number of comments objected to the pro- 
posed requirement that the test line on the 
posterior portion of a helmet coincide with the 
basic plane of its corresponding reference head- 
form. The principal objection expressed con- 
cern that, by extending the posterior test line to 
the basic plane, the resulting increase in the 
posterior surface of a helmet could cause the 
helmet to impact the wearer's neck whera 
rearward rotation of the head occurs, thereby 
increasing the potential for injury in certain 
cases. After further consideration of this 
aspect of helmet safety, the agency has deter- 
mined that the location of the test line on the 
posterior portion of a helmet should be modified 
by placing it 1 inch below and parallel to the 
reference plane. 

Several comments questioned the sufficiency of 
the anatomical dimensions and diagrams pro- 
vided for the reference headforms in the Ap- 
pendix of the notice of proposed rulemaking. Of 
these comments, two proposed adopting the 
dimensional specifications of the existing ANSI 
Z90.1 headform, while a third recommended the 



inclusion of an additional reference headform 
to accommodate their smallest child helmet. The 
agency has concluded that, in order to promote 
greater uniformity in testing and more repeatable 
results, one of the reference headforms should 
have the dimensional specifications of the readily 
available Z90.1 headform, the others being scaled 
proportionally, and that a reference headform 
for smaller child helmets should be added. Ac- 
cordingly, the Appendix has been revised to 
reflect these changes. 

Effective date: March 1, 1974. 

In consideration of the foregoing, a new Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle 
Helmets, is added as § 571.218 of Title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Public Law 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on August 9, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 22390 
August 20, 1973 




PART 571; S 218— PRE 3^ 



^ 



EffKliva: March ], 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 218 

Motorcycle Helmets 

(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 3) 



The purpose of this notice is to respond to 
petitions for reconsideration and petitions for 
rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 
571.218). 

Standard No. 218, published on August 20, 
1973, (38 F.R. 22390), established minimum 
performance requirements for helmets manufac- 
tured for use by motorcyclists and other motor 
vehicle users. Pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35, peti- 
tions for reconsideration were filed by the Safety 
Helmet Council of America (SHCA) and Lear- 
Siegler, Inc., Bon-Aire Division. Additionally, 
pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31, petitions to amend 
the standard were filed by the Z-90 Committee 
of the American National Standards Institute, 
Midwest Plastics Corp., Approved Engineering 
Test Laboratories, Bell-Toptex, Inc., Premier 
Seat and Accessory Co., Safetech Co., Sterling 
Products Co., Inc., Lanco Division of Roper 
Corp., American Safety Equipment Corp., and 
Electofilm, Inc. 

In response to information contained in both 
the petitions for reconsideration and the peti- 
tions for rulemaking, the standard is being 
amended in some minor respects, and its effec- 
tiveness is temporarily suspended for helmets 
that must be tested on headform sizes A, B, and 
D. Requested changes in other requirements of 
the standard are denied. 

1. Effective date. The NHTSA received com- 
ments from Royal Industries/Grant Division, 
Jefferson Helmets, Inc., and Rebcor, Inc., urging 
that the March 1, 1974, effective date be reaf- 
firmed and stating that they either have already 
produced or could produce helmets by that date 
which meet the standard's requirements. The 
NHTSA commends these manufacturers for 



their outstanding efforts and their positive atti- 
tude toward producing safer products. 

The parties who submitted petitions, however, 
all requested some postponement of the stand- 
ard's effective date. The postponement requests 
ranged from an indefinite extension to a delay 
until the manufacturers are able to test helmets 
to the required headforms, and were sought on 
the following three grounds: (1) additional time 
in order to obtain headforms required for refer- 
ence marking and testing; (2) alleged inade- 
quacy of the headform diagrams provided in the 
final rule; and (3) inability to find a supplier 
or forge for the K-IA magnesium alloy required 
for the impact attenuation test headforms. 

As explained in the preamble to the standard, 
the headforms provided in the Appendix of the 
notice of proposed rulemaking (May 19, 1972, 
37 F.R. 10097), were changed by the agency in 
order to utilize the readily available Z90.1 head- 
form and to promote greater uniformity in test- 
ing and more repeatable results. In view of the 
fact that the size C headform of the final rule is 
identical to the Z90.1 headform, is readily avail- 
able in test laboratories, is used for several on- 
going certification programs, and that the other 
headforms are scaled proportionally, the NHTSA 
anticipated that competition would motivate 
both the manufacturers and the test laboratories 
to take the initiative cither to obtain or to pro- 
duce the other required headforms. It now ap- 
pears that the problem of finding a supplier or 
forge for the K-lA magnesium alloy required 
for the A, B, and D impact attentuation test 
headforms is substantial enough to justify the 
requests for a postponement of the standard's 
effective date for helmets that must be tested on 
headform sizes A, B, and D. 



PART 571; S 218— PRE 5 



EfFacllve: March 1, 1974 



Because the NHTSA determined that the size 
C headform would be identical to the Z90.1 head- 
form, the low resonance magnesium alloy 
(K-lA) specified for making the Z90.1 head- 
form also was specified for headforms required 
by the standard. Statements that it might be 
difficult to find suppliers or forges for the ma- 
terial were first made in the petitions on the 
standard. The NHTSA has determined that 
other low-resonance magnesium alloys can be 
substituted for the K-IA type without causing 
significant variances in the results of any of the 
helmet tests, so tliat manufacturers can determine 
compliance without undue cost penalties even 
where the K-lA alloy is in short supply. Ac- 
cordingly, the K-lA alloy is retained as the 
basic headform material for the standard. 

In view of the foregoing considerations with 
particular emphasis on the fact that testing 
services through commercial testing laboratories 
have been readily available for several years for 
the ANSI Z90.1 Standard headform, which is 
the size C headform of the standard, the requests 
for postponing the standard's effective date are 
denied with respect to helmets that fit headform 
C. 

The petitions for a postponement of the effec- 
tive date are granted, however, witii respect to 
helmets that must be tested on headforms A, B, 
and D. A sentence is being added to the Appli- 
cation section of the standard, excepting from 
its coverage helmets that must be tested on these 
headform sizes. The second sentence in S6.1.1 
of the standard relating to the selection of a 
reference iieadform to be used for reference 
marking should be disregarded until the stand- 
ard is made effective for helmets that must be 
tested on headform sizes A, B, and D. To fa- 
cilitate both the production and availability of 
headforms, the NHTSA has contracted with the 
Snell Memorial Foundation to monitor the prep- 
aration of detail drawings and model headforms 
consistent with the requirements of the standard. 
The drawings and headforms will be included 
in the docket for public examination upon their 
completion. A review of the leadtime informa- 
tion provided by the comments to the docket 
indicates that approximately 8 months of manu- 
facturer leadtime will be needed after the detail 
dimensional drawings of the A, B, and D head- 



forms become available. AVhen the drawings are 
available, notice to that etTect will be published 
in the Federal Register. The planned effective 
date for the A, B, and D-size helmets is 8 months 
from the date of the publication of that notice. 

2. Time duration criteria for impact attenua- 
tion test. Petitions on the impact attenuation 
test time duration criteria of paragraphs 85.1 (b) 
ranged from eliminating the time duration cri- 
teria of 2.0 milliseconds and 4.0 milliseconds at 
the 200g and 150g levels, respectively, to increas- 
ing these criteria to 3.0 milliseconds at the 200g 
level and 6.0 milliseconds at the 150g level. 
None of these petitions raised any issues or sub- 
mitted any data different from those already 
considered by the NHTSA. The available bio- 
mechanical data indicate that the head impact 
protection provided to the helmet user by the 
standard's time duration criteria is greater than 
that which would result from the proposed 
changes, and the 2.0 and 4.0 millisecond criteria 
are retained. 

3. Conditioning period. One petitioner re- 
quested that the 24-hour conditioning require- 
ment for each of the four impact tests in 
paragraph S6.3 be modified to "4 to 24 hours," 
consistent with the requirements of ANSI Z90.1, 
arguing that 4 hours is sufficient to condition a 
helmet to the various environmental conditions 
required for the respective tests without compro- 
mising the intent of the standard. Upon further 
study of this matter, the NHTSA has concluded 
that, although 4 hours would not be sufficient as 
a general condition, changing the conditioning 
period to 12 hours would facilitate product test- 
ing without compromising the intent of the 
standard. Accordingly, paragraph S6.3, "Con- 
ditioning," is revised by changing the "24-hour" 
conditioning requirement to "12 hours" in each 
place the 24-hour requirement appears. 

4. Low temperature conditioning requirement. 
Three petitioners objected to the —20° F. low 
temperature conditioning requirement in para- 
graph S6.3(b) on the basis that the requirement 
is overly severe. On review of a\ailable infor- 
mation, this agency has determined that precise 
data on the best low temperature requirements 
for testing are not available. Pending receipt 
of more specific information, therefore, the cold 



PART 571; S 218— PRE 6 



Effacliv*: March 1, 1974 



temperature requirement of 14° F. that has been 
used up to now by the American National Stand- 
ards Institute appears to be the most appropriate. 
Accordingly, paragraph S6.3(b), "Low tempera- 
ture," is revised by changing the " — 20° F." 
conditioning requirement to "14° F.". 

5. Projections. One petitioner requested that 
paragraph S5.5, "Projections,"' be changed to 
permit a maximum rigid projection inside the 
helmet shell of 0.080 in. with a minimum diam- 
eter of 0.150 in. The basis for this request is to 
allow for the use of eyelets and rivets for attach- 
ment of snaps for face shields and retention 
systems. The NHTSA is concerned that due 
care be exercised with regard to minimizing the 
injury producing potential of such fasteners. 
Eyelets and rivets for the attachment of snaps 
should be designed to form a portion of the 
continuous surface of the inside of the helmet 
shell. Where they are so designed, such attach- 
ments would not be "rigid projections." Ac- 
cordingly, no revision to this requirement is 
necessary. 



6. Labeling. One petitioner recommended that 
the labeling requirements in paragraph S5.6 be 
clarified with the help of manufacturers and 
other interested parties. Since the petitioner did 
not specify the points requiring clarification and 
because no other comments were received on this 
subject, the NHTSA has determined that no 
sufficient reasons have been given to change the 
labeling requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFll 
571.218, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 
Motorcycle Helmets^ is amended. . . . 

E-ffective date : March 1, 1974. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 119, Public Law 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.51.) 



Issued on January 23, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 
39 F.R. 3554 
January 28, 1974 



PART 571; S 218— PRE 7-8 



^ 



^ 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

STANDARD NO. 218 

Motorcycle Helmets 
(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 06) 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to amend 
Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, to 
extend application of the current requirements to 
all helmets that can be placed on the size "C" 
headform. The amendment is an interim rule 
requiring the certification of all large-size and 
many small-size helmets, and will be in effect until 
test headform sizes "A" and "D" have been 
developed and incorporated in the standard. This 
extended application of the standard will establish 
a minimum level of performance for a large 
number of helmets that are currently not being 
tested and certified by manufacturers, but which 
are suitable for testing on the size "C" headform. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1980. 

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration 
should refer to the docket number and notice 
number and be submitted to: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Nassif Building, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. William J. J. Liu, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590 (202- 
426-2264) 



INFORMATION: For reasons 
on September 27, 1979, the 



SUPPLEMENTARY 

discussed below, 
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
to require, as an interim measure, the testing and 
certification of all motorcycle helmets that can be 
placed on the size "C" headform as described in 



Safety Standard No. 218 (44 FR 55612). Only one 
comment was received in response to that notice, 
supporting the proposal. 

Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 
CFR 571.218), specifies minimum performance 
requirements for helmets designed for use by 
motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. 
Currently, the standard is only applicable to a 
portion of the annual helmet production. 
Paragraph S3 of the standard provides: 

* • * The requirements of this standard 

apply to helmets that fit headform size C, 

manufactured on or after March 1, 1974. 

Helmets that do not fit headform size C will not 

be covered by this standard until it is extended 

to those sizes by further amendments. 

"Fitting" is intended to mean something that is 

neither too small nor too large. It excludes not only 

helmets that are too small to be placed on the size 

"C" headform, but also helmets so large that they 

could be placed on the size "D" headform were it 

available. As explained below, that headform size 

is not currently available. 

The standard references and describes in its 
appendix four test headform sizes ("A", "B", "C", 
and "D"). Currently only test headform size "C" 
has been developed, and it is identical to the 
American National Standard specifications for 
Protective Headgear for Vehicular Users, ANSI 
Z90. 1-1971. The other test headforms are to be 
scaled proportionately from the ANSI Z90 (size 
"C") headform. The performance requirements of 
the standard for helmets fitting other than size C 
headforms were held in abeyance until these 
additional headform sizes could be developed (39 
FR 3554, January 28, 1974). Because of problems 
with prototype headforms supplied to NHTSA 
under contract (the headforms did not meet 



PART 571; S 218-PRE-9 



dimensional tolerances considered acceptable), 
development of these additional headforms has 
been delayed over the past years. However, the 
agency now anticipates that the standard will 
include requirements for headform sizes "A" and 
"D" effective April 1, 1982 (size "B" will be 
deleted from the standard). 

Last year, the Safety Helmet Council of America 
(SHCA) recommended that the agency require 
certification of all adult-size helmets on the size 
"C" headform. The SHCA stated that the delay in 
development of the additional headform sizes has 
led to confusion and unfair practices since many 
helmets are reportedly being improperly certified 
and many other helmets are not being certified 
that are required to comply with the standard. The 
agency has stated in the past that only helmets 
that are subject to compliance with Standard No. 
218 should be certified and labeled with the "DOT" 
symbol. Apparently, some manufacturers have 
used the "DOT" label on untested helmets for 
competitive purposes. The SHCA stated that these 
practices have placed considerable burdens on the 
integrity of manufacturers of high quality helmets. 
The organization pointed out that under the ANSI 
standard only one headform (size "C") was used to 
test all helmets except child-size helmets, and that 
approximately 95 percent of current helmet 
production could and should be tested on the size 
"C" headform and certified for compliance with 
Standard No. 218. 

The NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 
has investigated the current labeling and 
certification practices of helmet manufacturers. It 
was found that most manufacturers currently test 
only "medium" size helmets on the size "C" 
headform, yet there is considerable variation 
among manufacturers as to which helmets are 
considered medium. Further, the agency found 
that the percentage of helmets subject to 
certification under the current applicability of the 
standard is substantially greater than the 40 
percent that manufacturers are now testing on the 
size "C" headform. (Data from the investigation 
have been placed in the NHTSA docket under the 
docket number of this notice.) 

As stated earlier, under the existing applicability 
requirements of the standard, only helmets that 
"fit" headform size "C" must be certified. 
Apparently, interpretation of the term "fit" by 



manufacturers has led to some mislabelings and 
failures to certify. Under the existing 
requirements, "helmets that fit headform size C" 
should be all helmets other than those that must be 
tested on the other headform sizes. To determine 
which helmets must be tested on a particular 
headform size, one follows the procedures of 
paragraph S6.1.1 of the standard. That paragraph 
provides in part: 

* * * Place the complete helmet to be tested 
on the reference headform of the largest size 
specified in the Appendix whose circumference 
is not greater than the internal circumference 
of the headband when adjusted to its largest 
setting, or if no headband is provided to the 
corresponding interior surface of the helmet. 
Using the procedure of paragraph S6.1.1, 
manufacturers currently need only concern 
themselves with headform sizes "C" and "D", 
since small, child-size helmets that could not 
physically be placed on the size "C" headform 
would not have to be tested. As to the other helmet 
sizes, helmets that "fit headform size C" means 
any helmet that can be placed on the size "C" 
headform, except those helmets which the 
manufacturer can demonstrate could be placed on 
a size "D" headform. To make that demonstration, 
the manufacturers would have to show that the 
internal circumference of the helmet headband or 
the corresponding interior surface of the helmet is 
larger than the circumference of the size "D" 
headform. Even though the size "D" headform is 
not currently available, the dimensions of the 
headform are specified in the appendix of the 
standard, from which the manufacturer can make 
its determination. Regarding small, child-size 
helmets, the determination whether or not a 
particular helmet can be placed on the size "C" 
headform should be based on normal fitting 
procedures. This means, for example, that undue 
force should not be applied to forcibly push the 
headform into the helmet. However, efforts 
necessary for the ordinary wearing of the helmet 
should be employed, such as expanding the lower 
portions of a flexible-shell, full-face helmet. 
Apparently, many manufacturers have failed to 
use these procedures for determining which of 
their helmets "fit" headform size "C" and must be 
certified. 

In light of the improper certification and the 
noncertification, the unavailability of the 
additional headform sizes at the present time, the 



PART 571; S 218-PRE-lO 



need to ensure the safe performance of the large 
helmets and the apparent sufficiency of the size 
"C" headform for testing large helmets, the 
agency has concluded that the recommendations of 
the Safety Helmet Council of America have merit. 
Therefore, this notice amends Safety Standard No. 
218 to require all motorcycle helmets that can be 
placed on the size "C" headform to be certified in 
accordance with the requirements of the standard. 
"Placed" is a broader term than "fit" primarily in 
that the former term does not imply any upper 
limit on helmet size. 

Under these interim requirements, more than 90 
percent of current helmet production will be tested 
on the size "C" headform. Only small, child-size 
helmets (size "A") will be excluded since they 
cannot physically be placed on the size "C" 
headform. As noted in the procedures discussed 
above, normal fitting procedures are used to 
determine if a particular helmet can be placed on 
the size "C" headform, without the use of undue 
force. 

During its investigation, the NHTSA contacted 
manufacturers whose collective market share 
exceeds 80 percent of current annual helmet 
production. All of these manufacturers indicated 
that 90 percent or more of their helmet production 
could be placed and tested on the size "C" 
headform. Many of the manufacturers indicated 
that they are already testing the majority of their 
helmets on the size "C" headform for quality- 
control purposes, even though not required by the 
standard. Also, it was found that helmet shells and 
performance characteristics of a particular 
manufacturer's helmets do not generally vary 
significantly over the various size ranges of 
helmets produced. 

This amendment is only an interim measure to 
establish a minimum level of performance for the 
large number of helmets that are currently not 
being certified for compliance with Standard No. 
218. Testing extra-large helmets on the size "D" 
headform would require a higher level of 
performance for those helmets, since the weight of 
the size "D" headform is greater than that of the 
size "C" headform. Therefore, development of the 
size "A" and size "D" headforms has continued, 
and incorporation of requirements in the standard 
for these headforms will occur after development 
is completed. However, until this is accomplished. 



the agency believes that the performance level that 
will be required by testing on the size "C" 
headform is preferable to an absence of any 
requirements whatsoever. As stated earlier, the 
ANSI standard for helmets specifies only one 
headform size ("C") for testing all helmets. The 
additional headform sizes were originally specified 
in Standard No. 218 in response to suggestions 
from some manufacturers that requirements be 
more "fine-tuned" for the various helmet sizes. 

The agency has concluded that the new 
requirements will preclude the great majority of 
unsafe helmets currently on the road. Further, 
with all adult helmets certified, retailers and 
consumers will no longer be confused or misled 
concerning the DOT certification labels found in 
their helmets, and NHTSA's enforcement 
activities will become more effective and uniform. 

Under these new requirements, extra-large 
helmets should be tested on the size "C" headform 
without the use of "shims" or other devices to 
obtain a secure fit of the helmet on the headform. 
Agency tests involving extra-large helmets on the 
size "C" headform show results that correlate well 
with tests of medium-size helmets on the size "C" 
headform. (Data from these tests have been placed 
in the NHTSA docket). Therefore, the agency has 
concluded that repeatable results can be obtained 
under the existing procedures with the size "C" 
headform. 

The effective date for extending the applicability 
of Standard No. 218 to all helmets that can be 
placed on the size "C" headform is May 1, 1980. 
The agency's past position has been that it would 
be "false and misleading," within the meaning of 
the statute (15 U.S.C. 1397(C)), for a "DOT" 
symbol to appear without qualification on helmets 
manufactured before the effective date of the 
standard. However, since the standard is currently 
effective for helmets that fit size "C" headforms, 
and since there is such a widespread variation 
among manufacturers as to which helmets they 
consider to fit the size "C" headform, the agency 
will allow voluntary certification and labeling of 
helmets prior to May 1, 1980. This, of course, 
would only apply to helmets that can be placed on 
the size "C" headform. Small helmets that could 
not be placed on the headform could not be 
certified with the "DOT" symbol until after the 



PART 571; S 218-PRE-ll 



standard has been amended tx) include specifications 
for the size "A" headform. Also, helmets certified 
and labeled with the "DOT" symbol prior to the May 
1, 1980, effective date will be subject to the general 
enforcement provisions of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Therefore, manufacturers 
will have to exercise "due care" to assure that any 
helmet they certify in fact complies with the 
performance requirements of Standard No. 218. 

The agency has determined that this amendment 
does not qualify as a significant regulation under 
Executive Order 12044, "Improving Government 
Regulations." A final regulatory evaluation of this 
amendment has been placed in the docket for the 
benefit of all interested persons. 

The engineer and lawyer primarily responsible 
for the development of this notice are William J. J. 
Liu and Hugh Oates, respectively. 

In consideration of the above, paragraph S3 of 
Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 
CFR 571.218), is amended to read as follows: 
§ 571.218 Standard No. 218; motorcycle helmets. 



S3. Application. This standard applies to 
helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and 
other motor vehicle users. The requirements of this 
standard apply to all helmets that can be placed on 
the size C headform using normal fitting 
procedures. Helmets that cannot be placed on the 
size C headform will not be covered by this 
standard until it is extended to those sizes by 
further amendment. 

* * * « * 

(The second sentence in S6.1.1 of the standard 
relating to the selection of a reference headform 
should be disregarded until the standard is made 
effective for helmets that must be tested on 
headform sizes A and D.) 

Issued on February 29, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

45 F.R. 15179 
March 10, 1980 



PART 571; S 218-PRE-12 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
SAFETY STANDARD NO. 218 



Motorcycle Helmets 
(Docket No. 85-1 1 ; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final Rule 



SUMMARY: This rule announces changes to Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, Motorcycle Hel- 
mets. On September 27, 1985, the agency proposed to 
extend its performance requirements for the first time 
to all helmet sizes and to improve its test procedures 
and conditions. In addition, the agency requested com- 
ments on several cost-related questions and issues 
related to possible future motorcycle helmet rule- 
makings. This final rule responds to the public com- 
ments and amends the motorcycle helmet safety 
standard. This improved standard will benefit motor- 
cyclists, moped and other motor vehicle users who 
wear motorcyle helmets. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1988. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehi- 
cle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392) requires the 
establishment of Federal safety standards for motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These stand- 
ards are amended by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) as appropriate, such 
as when new safety data become available or techno- 
logical developments warrant. 

The agency's first Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard for motorcycle helmets (FMVSS 218) became 
effective in 1974. Although this standard has been 
demonstrated to be a significant factor in the reduc- 
tion of critical and fatal injuries involving motor- 
cyclists in motorcycle accidents, the standard has thus 
far not applied to all motorcycle helmets sold in the 
United States. Because of limited availability of head- 
forms on which to test motorcycle helmets, FMVSS 
218 previously applied only to motorcycle helmets 
that could be "placed on" the available size C head- 
form. As a practical matter, this has limited the 
application of the standard to medium and large 
motorcycle helmets, since small motorcycle helmets 
could not be placed on the size C headform. Small 
helmets constitute approximately 10 percent of the 
motorcycle helmet market. 



A manufacturer of a motorcycle helmet subject to 
FMVSS 218 must certify that the helmet meets all 
of the standard's requirements. Those requirements 
include performance requirements for helmets for 
impact attenuation (shock absorption), penetration 
resistance (a sharp object striking the helmet), and 
retention (chin strap strength). Tests to determine 
compliance with these requirements are conducted 
under prescribed conditions, with the helmet secured 
to a metal test headform. In addition, FMVSS 218 
establishes requirements dealing with peripheral 
vision, labeling, and internal and external projections. 

Current FMVSS 218 

The first of the three principle performance require- 
ments in FMVSS 218 is that a motorcycle helmet 
must exhibit a minimum level of shock absorbency 
upon impact with a fixed, hard object. Compliance is 
determined by a two-part impact attenuation test. 
This test involves placing motorcycle helmet on the 
test headform and dropping the headform and helmet 
(known as the headform assembly) in a guided free 
fall first onto a flat steel anvil and then, in a sepa- 
rate test, onto a hemispherical steel anvil. Each hel- 
met is impacted at four sites with two successive, 
identical impacts at each site, at any point on the area 
above a prescribed test line. Two of these sites are 
impacted upon the flat anvil by dropping the head- 
form assembly from a height of 72 inches (182.9 cen- 
timeters), and two sites are impacted upon the hem- 
ispherical anvil from a height of 54.5 inches (138.4 
centimeters). 

The impact attenuation requirement is expressed 
as limits on the acceleration levels of the headform 
and is quantified in g's, the gravitational accelera- 
tion, and used as the unit of acceleration. The accel- 
eration level relates directly to the impact on the 
brain. The greater the number of g's, the greater the 
force or impact energy that is applied to the brain. 
A number of test studies (including the 1980 study 
by the Japanese Automobile Research Institute, dis- 
cussed later in this preamble) express the threshold 
of injury to the human brain in g's. Standard 218 
limits acceleration to a peak level of 400g and re- 
quires that no helmet exceed 200g for a cumulative 



PART 571; S218-PRE 13 



duration of more than 2.0 milliseconds and 150g for 
a cumulative duration of more than 4.0 milliseconds. 
Four impact attenuation tests must be conducted 
within a specified time limit (discussed later in this 
preamble) and each must be conducted after the hel- 
met has been conditioned in one of four conditioning 
environments for 12 hours. These conditioning envi- 
ronments are: 

(a) Ambient conditions: exposure to 70 °F (21 °C) 
and relative humidity of 50 percent. 

(b) Low temperature: exposure to 14 °F (-10°C). 

(c) High temperature: exposure to 122 °F (50 °C). 

(d) Water immersion: with water at 77 °F (25 °C). 

The second performance requirement is a penetra- 
tion test, in which a metal striker is dropped 118.1 
inches (3.0 meters) in a guided free fall onto a sta- 
tionary helmet. Two penetration blows are applied at 
least 3 inches (7.6 centimeters) apart from each other 
and at least three inches from the centers of the im- 
pact attenuation blows. To meet the performance re- 
quirement, the striker may only come in contact with 
the helmet and may not come in contact with the siu*- 
face of the headform. The penetration test, like the 
impact attenuation test, is conducted within certain 
time constraints and with the helmet conditioned in 
the four previously mentioned environments. 

The third performance requirement of Standard 218 
tests chin strap strength. It requires that the reten- 
tion system or any component of the retention system 
of a motorcycle helmet be able to withstand a prelim- 
inary load of 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) of tensile 
force (for 30 seconds) and then a test load of an addi- 
tional 250 pounds (113.4 kilograms) (for 120 seconds). 
To meet the performance requirement, the helmet 
retention system may not break during the times 
loads are applied and the adjustable portion of the 
retention system device may not move more than one 
inch between preliminary and test load conditions. 
If a retention system consists of components, each 
component must meet these requirements. As with 
the impact attenuation and penetration tests, the 
motorcycle helmet must be exposed to the four condi- 
tioning environments before being tested for the re- 
tention requirements. 

Standard 218 also prescribes requirements for 
labeling, projections, and peripheral vision re- 
quirements. A manufacturer must permanently af- 
fix to each helmet labeling which includes the man- 
ufacturer's name or identification, precise model 
designation, size, month and year of manufacture, 
and, as a certification of compliance with the stand- 
ard, the DOT symbol. The labeling requirements also 
provide that the manufacturer must supply to the pur- 
chaser information concerning shell and liner com- 
position, cleaning instructions, and warnings to make 
no modifications, and to have the helmet checked by 
the manufacturer or destroyed if it experiences a 



severe blow. This additional information may be con- 
veyed on a tag attached to the helmet, or by other 
appropriate means. 

Standard 218 does not allow any rigid projections 
inside the shell and limits those outside the shell to 
those needed to operate essential accessories. An ex- 
ternal protrusion may not be more than .20 inch (the 
new provision adopted in this rulemaking is .20 inch; 
the currently effective limit is .19 inch). Finally, 
Standard 218 requires that the helmet provide a 
minimum of 105° peripheral vision to either side of 
the mid-sagittal plane (the middle of the face). 

Each manufacturer must certify that its helmets 
meet the performance requirements of the standard 
before the helmets are offered for sale. The test 
procedures in Standard 218 specify the manner in 
which procedures will be conducted by any laboratory 
under contract with NHTSA to test helmet compli- 
ance. Additional details on how the tests are to be 
conducted are contained in NHTSA Laboratory Pro- 
cedure for Motorcycle Helmet Testing (TP-2 18-02; 
October 18, 1984). 

The Proposed Rule and Public Comment 

The agency proposed changes to FMVSS 218 on 
September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39144). In addition to 
specific changes in the Standard, the agency sought 
public comment on eight cost-related questions and 
six issues for possible future rulemaking. In response, 
the agency received public comments for four motor- 
cycle helmet manufacturers (Bell Helmets, Inc., Flor- 
ida Safety Products, Inc., Javelin, Inc., and Marushin 
Kogyo Co., Ltd) and from one company that manufac- 
tures test equipment and tests motorcycle helmets 
(United States Testing Company, Inc.). The proposed 
changes, the issues raised by the agency for possible 
future rulemaking, as well as public comment sub- 
mitted on these, are discussed below. 

Applicability of Standard to All Helmets (S3.). The 
principal change in FMVSS 218 is the extension of 
the standard to all motorcycle helmet sizes. It has 
been the agency's intention since it promulgated its 
first motorcycle helmet safety standard to extend this 
standard to all helmets as soon as practicable. The 
principal cause of the delay in doing this has been the 
lack of availability of headforms other than the size 
C headform. This situation resulted in limited appli- 
cation of the standard, since small motorcycle helmets 
were not able to be placed on the size C headform to 
be tested and thus were not required to be certified 
as complying with FMVSS 218. 

This impediment no longer exists, because the 
agency has developed three new test headforms, 
small, medium, and large, which will replace the 
single size C headform. The September 27, 1985, pro- 
posed rule contained a lengthy description of the proc- 
ess used to develop these headforms. The basic steps 



PART 571; S218-PRE 14 



included the development of a numerical table des- 
cribing the exterior geometry of old size C headform 
and the creation of a new medium headform based 
on the table. The table then was used to derive the 
measurements for a small headform and a large 
headform, using a scaling factor of 0.8941 for the 
small headform and a scaling factor of 1.069 for the 
large headform. Detailed specifications for the head 
forms are contained in the Appendix to the final rule; 
these specifications should ensure that each headform 
can be accurately cast and/or machined. 

As the result of testing, the agency believes that 
helmets previously tested on the size C headform will 
achieve comparable results on the new medium head- 
form. In addition, the three new headforms will pro- 
vide a more reliable fit for all helmets being tested, 
thereby increasing the repeatability of the testing. 

For the first time, the agency proposed details on 
the interior geometry of the headform. While the pro- 
posal would allow the agency to retain some flexibility 
on the details of the interior of the headform (to allow 
for differently designed support assemblies and still 
retain the ability to meet the standard's test head- 
form and support assembly weight requirement for 
the impact attenuation test), the level of specificity 
would be sufficient to establish a fixed center of grav- 
ity for the test headform— the center of the ball socket 
joint. Being able to fix the center of gravity (and, thus, 
fix the location of the accelerometer as well, since the 
accelerometer is located at the headform's center of 
gravity) also enhances the test's repeatability. 

No specific comments were received on the develop- 
ment of the new headforms, although United States 
Testing Company, Inc., (U.S. Testing) stated that it 
generally supported the proposed changes in the pro- 
posed rule. In addition. Javelin, Inc., (Javelin) stated 
that it did not oppose the proposed test headform sys- 
tem. The final rule adopts the new small, medium, 
and large headforms as proposed. 

Since the proposed dimensions of the exterior and 
interior of the headforms were published, the agency 
has noted in the FMVSS 218 rulemaking docket 
that the manufacturer of the headforms used for the 
agency's testing has made minor modifications to 
the interior of the headform. The manufacturer has 
changed the size of the four holes inside the headform 
for the tie-down screws from V4 inch-20 helical coil 
insert to %^ inch-18 helical coil insert. These changes 
have been made to all headform sizes to increase the 
holding power of the screws to the headform. These 
changes also may reduce the frequency of adjustments 
to the monorail test equipment, especially when the 
large test headform is used. These changes are re- 
flected in Figures 6, 7, and 8 in the Appendix to the 
Standard. 

Impact Attenuation Test(S5.1). The current impact 
attenuation performance test limits the acceleration 
levels of the test headform. Expressed in g's, a test 



headform acceleration level is limited to a maximum 
of 400g. In addition, acceleration in excess of 200g is 
limited to a cumulative duration of 2.0 milliseconds 
and acceleration in excess of 150g to a cumulative 
duration of 4.0 milliseconds. Recent confirmation of 
the appropriateness of these requirements is found 
in the 1980 study of the Japan Automobile Research 
Institute, Inc., "Human Head Tolerance to Sagittal 
Impact: Reliable Estimation Deduced from Experi- 
mental Head Injury Using Subhuman Primates and 
Human Cadaver Skulls," K. Ono, A. Kikuchi, M. 
Nakamura, H. Kobayashi, and N. Nakamura, Pro- 
ceedings from the 24th Stapp Car Crash Conference, 
SAE 801303, 1980 (JARI study). The JARI study de- 
veloped a human head impact tolerance threshold 
curve, which indicates that the threshold of human 
concussion is about 200g at 2.3 milliseconds. Stand- 
ard 218's limitation of 200g at 2.0 milliseconds pro- 
vides the necessary margin of safety. The agency's 
compliance testing shows that, in general, modern 
helmet technology has no problem meeting these 
requirements. 

Although the impact attenuation test's acceleration 
levels were not proposed for change, the agency so- 
licited comments on the issue. Both Javelin and Bell 
Helmets, Inc., (Bell) submitted comments and both 
recommended that the peak g be lowered (currently 
400g)— Javelin recommending that it be lowered to 
250g and Bell that it be lowered to 300g. Javelin 
stated that most brain injuries start below 400g and 
that there are no brain injuries at 250g. Neither Jave- 
lin nor Bell submitted data to support its position. 

With regard to the dwell time requirements (limit- 
ing acceleration of 200g to 2.0 milliseconds and ac- 
celeration of 150g to 4.0 milliseconds). Bell stated that 
the original dwell times were established when the 
compliance test system was a swing-away test rig. 
Thus, when the standard changed to a drop test ap- 
proach, the time duration increased on all of the hel- 
mets. Bell's contention is that this was due to the 
change in the system, and not because of any change 
in the helmets. 

Bell tried to discount the agency's use of the dwell 
time requirements by hypothesizing that what 
NHTSA really is regulating is a change in velocity, 
since NHTSA establishes maximum g levels for cer- 
tain periods of time and the product of acceleration 
and time duration is velocity. Using this premise. Bell 
contends that NHTSA would fail a change in veloc- 
ity greater than 3.923 meters per second at 200g for 
2 milliseconds duration or more, yet would allow a 
change in velocity of 7.8 meters per second at 199g 
for 4 milliseconds duration or less. Bell commented 
that the standard implies that "more is less," because 
NHTSA would say a change in velocity of 3.923 
meters per second at 200g is life threatening, but a 
change in velocity of 7.8 meters per second at 199g 
is within human tolerance. 



PART 571; S218-PRE 15 



Bell misunderstands the role of change of velocity 
in relation to the dwell time requirements of FMVSS 
218, and bases all of its calculations on a limited and 
erroneous assumption. Bell assumes that, since both 
acceleration and time are elements of the perfor- 
mance requirement, the agency is regulating change 
in velocity (maximum acceleration multiplied by time 
duration, in the case of rectangular g-t curves). In ad- 
dition, Bell developed its "more is less" theory solely 
on the basis of calculating change of velocity from a 
single rectangular acceleration-time response curve. 

Calculating change of velocity from a rectangular 
g-t curve can result in many different impacts 
generating the same change of velocity. For example, 
a change of velocity of 9.82 m/sec is the measure of 
a rectangular response curve of 500g-2t (t = milli- 
seconds, which would represent an impact on a hard 
surface with a high acceleration level and short stop- 
ping time), as well as the measure of a rectangular 
response curve of 2g-500t (which would represent an 
impact on a soft surface, with low acceleration and 
long stopping time). While these two examples have 
the same change of velocity measure, clearly the 
500g-2t response is highly injurious while the 
2g-500t is not. The sameness in the change of veloc- 
ity in these very different examples demonstrates that 
change of velocity alone is insufficient to determine 
injury. 

As previously stated, the agency is not regulating 
change in velocity because it alone is not sufficient 
to relate impact and injury. Rather, researchers be- 
lieve that peak acceleration and time duration at a 
certain level of acceleration are accurate determina- 
tives of human brain injury potential. Limiting peak 
g and time duration for the acceleration-time response 
curve, although defining limits for the elements 
which also constitute change of velocity, is not 
limiting change in velocity. In summary, the agency 
believes the basic premise of Bell's comment is 
grounded in a misunderstanding of the role that 
change of velocity plays in applying time duration 
requirements to performance levels of motorcycle 
helmets. Further, Bell's reliance only on rectangular 
response curves is inappropriate. 

In response to the other commenters recommend- 
ing a lower maximum g level, the agency appreciates 
that there is difference of opinion in the helmet man- 
ufacturing industry. We encourage any commenter 
wishing that the agency consider a change in the re- 
quirement to submit biomechanical data in support 
of its position. To date, the commenters have not 
submitted data which supports or contradicts ir 
any way the 1980 JARI study. The current require- 
ments in FMVSS 218 are consistent with the JARI 
study. Accordingly, the agency believes that they are 
appropriate. 

Retention Test-(a) Dynamic Testing (S5.3). The 



agency asked whether the retention test should be 
changed to require dynamic testing to prevent the 
helmet from rotating on the head and perhaps com- 
ing off the head in an accident. Bell responded that 
they have done considerable research and develop- 
ment on this, and that retention testing should in- 
clude a dynamic test to check roll-off as well as strap 
strength. 

Retention Test-(b) Chin Guard Area. The agency 
asked if the standard should include procedures for 
the chin guard area or full facial coverage of the 
helmet. Bell answered affirmatively, stating that a 
test for face bars should be developed. 

With respect to the retention test responses, for both 
the dynamic testing question and the chin guard area 
question, no substantive or quantitative data were 
submitted. The agency will consider changes with 
regard to the helmet's retention system, but only if 
it receives appropriate data. The agency requests data 
to be submitted as they become available. 

Projections (S5.5). Although the agency did not pro- 
pose any change to the prohibition against rigid in- 
terior projections, Marushin submitted a comment re- 
questing that the agency define "rigid." Marushin 
stated that it is not realistic to prohibit all rigid pro- 
jections inside the shell, because any fastening system 
for essential accessories would have some kind of in- 
side projection. The agency will consider a clarifying 
amendment on rigid projections as an issue for possi- 
ble future rulemaking. 

Selection of Applicable Test Headform (New S6. 1). 
The proposed rule contained a new S6.1, Selection of 
appropriate headform, specifying designated size 
ranges of helmets to be tested on the small, medium, 
and large test headforms. The premise of the proposal 
was that each helmet should be tested on the head- 
form that correlated most closely with the heads of 
persons likely to purchase the helmet. The agency 
believed that the manufacturer's size designation was 
the best method for determining the likely size of 
those heads. The proposal called for a helmet with a 
manufacturer's designated helmet size or size range 
of 6 5/8 (European size 53) or smaller to be tested only 
on the small headform; a helmet with a manufac- 
turer's designated helmet size or size range between 
6 3/4 and 7 1/2 (between European size 54 and size 
60) to be tested on the medium headform; and a 
helmet with a manufacturer's designated size or size 
range of 7 5/8 (European size 61) or lai-ger to be tested 
on the large headform. Paragraph S6.1.2 further pro- 
vided that any helmet having a designated size range 
that overlaps all or a portion of two or more of the 
three specified ranges must be tested on all headforms 
included within the helmet's size range. 

Bell recommended that the upper end of the small 
headform size be changed from 6 5/8 to 6 3/4, because 
Bell's helmets sized at 6 3/4 cannot be placed on the 



PART 571; S218-PRE 16 



medium headform. The intention of the proposed 
changes is to ensure that all motorcycle helmets are 
subject to compliance testing. Accordingly, the final 
rule reflects Bell's requested change in sizing. 

Marushin Kogyo Co. (Marushin) requested that the 
agency define the measuring method of each helmet 
size, including the contour to be measured and the 
measuring device. Marushin also requested that the 
metric unit of the helmet size be added to the stand- 
ard. The agency declines to specify how a manufac- 
turer should measure its helmets for sizing, because 
this reflects design considerations which are most ap- 
propriately determined by the manufacturers. Also, 
the designation method used in the proposed rule pro- 
vides adequate size information, since it is adopted 
from long-established industry procedures. The 
American designation, for example, 6 3/4, indicates 
6 3/4 inches, the diameter of an equivalent circle; the 
European equivalent in parentheses, for example 54, 
indicates 54 centimeters, the circumference of the 
equivalent circle. No change has been made in the 
final rule. 

Bell opposed the requirement that a helmet be 
tested on more than one headform if its sizing extends 
beyond the limits of a single size range. As an alter- 
native, Bell suggested that any helmet falling within 
the size ranges of two or more headforms be tested 
on the largest of those headforms, noting that approx- 
imately 5 percent of its helmets would have to be dou- 
ble tested under the proposed rule. 

The agency has reviewed test results of the same 
helmet being tested on two different size headforms, 
and has found that the results are not consistent. 
Some smaller helmets tested better on larger test 
headforms and some larger helmets tested better on 
smaller test headforms. This is an indication to the 
agency that testing only on the larger headform as 
Bell suggests would not ensure that a given helmet 
also would pass the performance requirements when 
tested on a small headform. The agency therefore 
believes the multiple testing rule is needed to ensure 
that any helmet falling within the size range for any 
particular headform size meets the performance re- 
quirements when tested on that headform. No change 
has been made in the final rule. 

Headform Test Line (New S6.2.3). Paragraph S6.2.3 
describes how to determine the test line of a helmet 
and Figure 2 in FMVSS 218 graphically shows the 
test line on a headform. All strikes or impacts must 
be above the designated test line. The area above the 
test line represents the more vulnerable area of the 
skull and the required test area on a motorcycle 
helmet. In the proposed rule, the agency asked three 
questions related to the helmet test line: 

1. Should the test line marking the limit of the test 
surface in Figure 2 of the Standard be lowered or 
should the test be revised in other ways to provide 
more protection in accidents for the lower part of the 



back of the head or the front of the head in the 
forehead area, or to improve the performance of the 
helmet from the side? 

2. What requirements would represent the optimal 
trade-off between helmet weight, visibility, hearing 
and other helmet design criteria? 

3. Do current requirements represent a reasonable 
trade-off? 

Bell was the only commenter to respond to these 
questions. While Bell stated that FMVSS 218 has 
proven to offer good protection within the existing 
trade-offs scheme. Bell did recommend that the test 
line be lowered in the back of the head area. Bell or 
any other manxifacturer desiring that NHTSA con- 
sider revising the test line in a future rulemaking 
should submit support data. 

Temperature Conditioning (New S6.4) The agency 
asked whether the low temperature conditioning 
requirements should be changed so that the interior 
surface of the helmet, or the headform, is at body 
temperature for the impact attenuation and penetra- 
tion tests. 

Bell stated that it believes the agency should con- 
sider the inner and outer temperatures of the test 
helmets. Florida Safety Products, Inc., (Florida) 
believes that any tests on a helmet subjected to low 
temperature conditions is unrelated to real life con- 
ditions, unless the helmet has a simulated human 
head in it. Florida has tested helmets conditioned to 
10°F containing a bladder conditioned to 98°F to 
simulate a human head. Although it did not 
elaborate, Florida indicated that these test conditions 
produced a "startling difference in test results" from 
those for helmets tested under current FMVSS 218 
procedures. 

Florida also attached a U.S. Army Aeromedical 
Reseeirch Laboratory study on this subject, which con- 
cluded that the current FMVSS 218 requirements do 
not simulate potential, real world, cold climate con- 
ditions, particularly because the headform is deemed 
too cold, and therefore are inappropriate for the deter- 
mination of cold temperature dynamic response of a 
helmet system. The study recommended that testing 
be done under conditions that simulate potential, real 
world conditions as closely as possible. Florida con- 
cluded its comments by recommending a change in 
the standard which would require that the test head- 
form be conditioned to body temperature for the im- 
pact attenuation and penetration tests. 

The agency acknowledges that temperature gra- 
dients exist, and that the temperature of the test 
headform (or other substance on which the helmet is 
placed) may affect the temperature of the helmet. 
However, what the agency lacks, and what the com- 
menters did not submit, are any data indicating any 
link between differences in impact attenuation and 
penetration test results and changes in temperature. 
NHTSA requests any data, including specific test 



PART 571: S218-PRE 17 



results, which the agency may use to evaluate future 
rulemaking decisions. 

Bell also commented on the procedure used to wet 
the motorcycle helmet for the water immersion con- 
ditioning requirement (new S6.4.1(d)), recommending 
that the wet test be a "spray" type test as opposed 
to the current soak test. Bell further stated that they 
have indications that some of the liners have been 
moved out of position because of excess water in the 
helmet. As with other "new" information received 
from commenters, the agency will consider this 
recommendation in the context of a possible future 
rulemaking and requests the submission of specific 
data. 

Second Impact. The impact attenuation test (S7.1.2) 
states that each helmet is impacted with two suc- 
cessive, identical blows at each site, from a drop 
height of 72 inches onto the flat anvil and from a drop 
height of 54.5 inches onto the hemispherical anvil. 

Javelin recommended that the agency change the 
impact attenuation test conditions. Their recommen- 
dation was that the agency eliminate the requirement 
for the second impact at each site and, in the alter- 
native, specify 120J impact energy for the first (and 
only) impact on the flat anvil and 95J impact energy 
for the first (and only) impact on the hemispherical 
anvil (J = joules, a measure of energy). 

Translating J's into drop heights. Javelin's recom- 
mendation for the medium test headform assembly 
would be approximately 97.2 inches, as opposed to 
FMVSS 218's drop height of 72 inches onto the flat 
anvil. The equivalent drop height for 95J is about 76 
inches, as opposed to FMVSS 218's drop height of 54.5 
inches onto the hemispherical anvil. If adopted, ex- 
pressing the impact requirements in terms of energy 
units means that the drop heights would be depen- 
dent upon the mass of the test headform used and 
would be different for each size test headform. 

Conversely, Javelin's recommendation would re- 
quire that the same amount of energy be used for each 
size headform. However, Javelin did not provide any 
supporting data for their proposed test procedure 
change. The current FMVSS requires that the dif- 
ferent size test headform and motorcyle helmet 
assembly be dropped from the same height, which 
results in different amounts of energy being imparted, 
since impact energy changes with mass, and the dif- 
ferent headform assemblies have different amounts 
of mass. The agency adopted the single height re- 
quirement to simulate crash conditions. NHTSA 
believes that a consistent drop height more accurately 
simulates reality than a consistent measure of energy. 

With regard to eliminating the second impact, the 
agency believes that current FMVSS 218 establishes 
minimum performance requirements. The purpose of 
requiring the second impact at each test site is to 
establish a minimum level of helmet residual impact 
absorbing capability. In real world accidents, a second 



impact may occur quickly after the first, perhaps 
within one or two seconds and perhaps at a different 
place. While there is no existing test method for con- 
ducting second impacts within such a short time 
frame, it is known that the human head's tolerance 
is lowered when subjected to repeated blows. 

While the agency's second impact test does not 
reproduce potential, multiple impacts in a single ac- 
cident, it does establish that the material has suffi- 
cient ability to recover its protective capabilities in 
the particular location where it has been impacted. 
For these reasons, the agency believes that retaining 
a second impact test is important. 

While various manufacturers have recommended 
that the agency eliminate the second impact require- 
ment, no one has submitted data to demonstrate that 
the second impact is not appropriate or provided a ra- 
tionale for eliminating the requirement. In fact, all 
other known standards which have been established 
by private standards organizations or by foreign coun- 
tries require equal or higher impact levels than 
FMVSS 218 for both the first and second impacts. Ab- 
sent contradictory data, the agency believes that it 
is appropriate to retain the standard's current 
requirements. 

Test Conditions: Time Limitations for the Impact 
Attenuation Test and Penetration Test The NPRM 
proposed that the impact attenuation test (new 87. 1.3) 
and the penetration test (new S7.2.3) start at exactly 
two minutes following removal of the helmet from the 
conditioning environment and that the two successive 
impacts for each test site be completed within four 
minutes. If either time requirement is not met, the 
helmet must be returned to the conditioning environ- 
ment and the test series begun again. Under the cur- 
rent standard, there is no minimum starting time but 
the impacts must be conducted within five minutes. 
The reduction in test time limits will reduce the 
temperature variations from test to test with the 
same helmet and will provide more repeatable test 
results. 

The agency also requested comments from manufac- 
turers and test laboratories about whether a helmet's 
performance during the retention test (chin strap) is 
also temperature sensitive. 

The agency did not receive any comments on its pro- 
posed time limitation changes to the standard or on 
its request concerning the time sensitivity of the 
retention system test. The proposed rule provisions 
are adopted in the final rule without change. 

Resonant Frequency of the Test Headform (New 
S7.1.5). The NPRM provided that a test headform 
may not exhibit resonant frequencies below 2,000 Hz 
(cycles/seconds) (new S7.1.5), lowered from the cur- 
rently specified 3,000 Hz (old S7.1.4). The purpose of 
this requirement is to ensure that headform frequen- 
cies do not distort helmet response measurement. The 
fundamental helmet frequency is estimated to be 



PART 571; S218-PRE 18 



below 1,000 Hz and the tested resonant frequencies 
for the new small, medium, and large headforms ex- 
hibit frequencies well above 2,000 Hz. Setting a 
minimum resonant frequency of 2,000 Hz for the 
headform will eliminate any risk of interference with 
test results, while allowing some flexibility in the 
design and machining of headform interiors (for ex- 
ample, there can be variations in wall thickness). 

Since the agency did not receive any comments on 
this provision, it adopts the requirement as proposed. 

Use of the Monorail Drop Test Equipment (New 
S7.1.6). The agency specified in the proposed standard 
that it would use the monorail drop test equipment 
in the conduct of the impact attenuation test (new 
S7.1.6). The agency has been using the monorail drop 
test equipment, but it has not specified its use in the 
standard before. The agency uses the monorail drop 
test equipment because the impact point on the 
helmet can be fixed. The other frequently used 
system, the twin wire system, allows the headform 
assembly to rotate downward, making it hard to 
predict successive impact points. Added friction due 
to this downward rotation can cause speed variations, 
which in turn may produce response variations. 

The agency received several comments on its use 
of the monorail drop test equipment. Javelin sug- 
gested that test equipment be optional to the 
manufacturer, contending that if the twin- wire equip- 
ment is adjusted, it can match the performance of the 
monorail drop test equipment. Bell, while not objec- 
ting to the monorail drop test equipment itself, ques- 
tioned the agency's statement that the monorail drop 
test equipment is more consistent, contending that 
two NHTSA contract laboratories, Dayton T. Brown 
and Southwest Research, had different test results 
with the monorail drop test equipment. Finally, 
Marushin specifically requested that the twin-wire 
system be authorized, since it is Marushin's belief 
that the reliance on the monorail drop test equipment 
is premature and that the twin-wire testing system 
is the most common system in place throughout the 
world. As a practical matter, Marushin does not know 
of a reliable source from which to get the monorail 
drop test equipment. 

The agency does not consider the different test 
results experienced by Dayton T. Brown and South- 
west Research as being comparable. Certain test 
differences were due to differences in instrument con- 
trol practice. However, according to a worst case 
analysis report provided by each laboratory, variance 
due to instrumentation differences alone is less than 
five percent, well within the tolerance range. As men- 
tioned earlier, NHTSA's Laboratory Procedure for 
Motorcycle Helmet Testing (TP-218-02, October 1984) 
includes procedures for the calibration of measure- 
ment and test equipment as well as provisions to 
record all test data. The procedures used in this 
manual are in accord with established industry prac- 



tice and test laboratories should ensure that these pro- 
cedures are used in the conduct of all compliance 
testing. 

The testing done by these laboratories was not 
designed to be a comparison of like test procedures 
and like helmets, and should not be viewed as such. 
The testing labs arrived at different results for some 
tests, and like results for other tests. Tested helmets 
must meet performance requirements for any impact 
within the prescribed test area. Further, a manufac- 
turer must certify that all areas within the test area 
meet the performance level. When laboratories test 
helmets, however, there could be a wide difference in 
the actual location on the helmet which is impacted. 
These different orientations of the helmets may result 
in different test results. The results should not be so 
disparate, however, that in one lab's test a particular 
helmet model passes and in another lab's test the 
same helmet model fails. In the 3,008 drops of the dif- 
ferent laboratories reviewed by the agency, only three 
indicated different pass/fail results. (One of these was 
a failure due to the helmet liner splitting, not a failure 
based on actual helmet performance.) The agency con- 
siders these few disparities inconsequential. 

The agency does not intend to impose an additional 
burden y identifying the monorail drop test equip- 
ment as the method by which it tests compliance. As 
stated in previous rulemakings and interpretations, 
a manufacturer is not required to follow specifically 
the test procedures identified in a particular standard. 
The manufacturer must, however, ascertain that the 
product will conform to the standard's requirements 
when it is tested by the specified method. In assur- 
ing itself that its product, if tested, will conform to 
the standard's requirements, the manufacturer must 
exercise due care and utilize sound engineering judg- 
ment. As a practical matter, the manufacturer may 
continue to use the twin wire system, so long as the 
manufacturer uses "due care" to ensure that perform- 
ance is comparable to those tested with the monorail 
drop test equipment. "Due care" is determined on a 
case-by-case basis and whether a manufacturer's ac- 
tion constitutes "due care" will depend, in part, upon 
the availability of test equipment, the limitations of 
available technology, and, above all, the diligence 
evidenced by the manufacturer. 

Information available to the agency concerning the 
one known manufacturer and seller of the monorail 
drop test equipment is filed in the Standard 218 Rule- 
making Docket, including an estimated cost of $17,000 
for the testing equipment and instrumentation. 

Penetration Test(S7.2). The agency asked whether 
the geometric configuration of the pointed penetra- 
tion test striker should be modified to resemble the 
narrow surface in the 1985 Snell standard. The Snell 
standard includes a penetration test which involves 
a non-pointed object designed to represent a common 
roadway obstruction. 



PART 571; S218-PRE 19 



Both Bell and Marushin indicated that they pre- 
ferred the non-pointed object used in the Snell 
standard. 

Javelin recommended that the penetration test be 
modified to coincide with a recommendation by Pro- 
fessor H.H. Hurt in his 1981 study ("Motorcycle Ac- 
cident Cause Factors and Identification of Counter- 
measures," H.H. Hurt, J.V. Ouellet, D.R. Thom, Traf- 
fic Safety Center, University of Southern California, 
DOT HS-805 862, January 1981): " . . .[I]n actual ac- 
cident conditions, a 90° metal edge was the much 
more common threat than the pointed surface of the 

FMVSS 218 standard penetrator The conical 

point penetrator of the current test should be replaced 
with a hardened steel edge approximately 1/8 inch 
thick and 1 inch long, in order to be representative 
of accident impact." (at page 325). 

Javelin's comment indicated that Javelin believes 
that a thermoplastic helmet with thick and less dense 
liner and a matching shell of marginal penetration 
performance (according to current FMVSS 218) is a 
safer helmet than one with a denser liner designed 
to resist penetration by a pointed steel marker. The 
agency does not agree, since the biomechanical data 
available to NHTSA indicate that too thick a liner 
results in sustained g levels beyond the 2.0 and 4.0 
milliseconds allowed by the standard. These responses 
would result in injuries. 

Further, while the Hurt report does recommend 
that NHTSA adopt the Snell non-pointed object for 
its impact attenuation test, its general recommenda- 
tions state that FMVSS 218 "... provides a high level 
of protection for the typical traffic accident, and ap- 
pears to need only minor modifications." (Hurt 
Report, at p. 422) All of the Hurt recommendations, 
along with the specific comments of Bell, Javelin and 
Marushin will be evaluated in the context of a possi- 
ble future rulemaking. The agency requests specific 
data in support of this change. 

Metric Equivalents. The proposed rule contained 
metric equivalents for all inch and pound measure- 
ments, except for the headform dimensions in the Ap- 
pendix. The metric equivalents in centimeters for the 
inch dimensions in Table 2 and Figures 6, 7, and 8 
can be obtained by multiplying 2.54 to all dimensions. 
There were no comments on this issue, and the final 
rule includes metric equivalents as appropriate. 

Other standards. The proposed rule asked if NHTSA 
should consider adopting additional requirements 
which are contained in other motor vehicle safety 
standards, for example, the Snell Memorial Founda- 
tion Standard, the American National Standards In- 
stitute (ANSI) Standard or European standards, such 
as the ECE standard. 

Bell responded, in the affirmative. In considering 
the adoption of other standards' requirements in 
future rulemaking, the agency will need data related 
to performance of motorcycle helmets. The agency re- 



quests that anyone having this data submit it to 
NHTSA for consideration. 

Other changes to final rule. In addition to the 
changes in response to comment, this final rule also 
contains certain technical, nonsubstantive changes, 
as described below: 

General. The final rule places all of the tables and 
figvu-es of the standard into one Appendix and the old 
Appendix is removed. This regrouping has required 
changes to several of the cross-references in the Stand- 
ard. For example, in the definition of "Test head- 
form," the previous reference to the old Appendix is 
removed and replaced with a reference to Table 2 and 
Figures 5 through 8. 

53 Application. The final rule adds the word "all" 
before the word "helmets," to clarify the Standard 
now applies to all helmets offered for sale in the 
United States, regardless of size. 

54 Definitions. The changes include placing the 
definitions in alphabetical order and making a cross- 
reference amendment of the kind described above 
under General changes. 

S5.6 Labeling. This section is renumbered to pro- 
vide consistency in the numbering scheme and to pro- 
vide for numbering for the first time to undesignated 
paragraphs. For example, old S5.6.1(l) is now 
S5.6.1(a). Previously undesignated paragraphs con- 
taining instructions to the purchasers of helmets have 
become numbered paragraphs (1) through (4) under 
S5.6.1(f), Instructions to the purchasers. 

Helmet position. In S6.3.1, as well as in other places 
where it appears, the term "prior to" has been re- 
placed by the word "before." 

S6.4 Conditioning. An additional numerical 
breakdown has been provided for these provisions, so 
that a newly designated S6.4.1 contains the condition- 
ing requirements before testing and S6.4.2 contains 
conditioning requirements during testing. 

S7. Test conditions. 

In S7.1.4, one paragraph has been broken down into 
two designated paragraphs: S7. 1.4(a) contains the im- 
pact attenuation free fall requirements onto the hem- 
ispherical anvil and S7. 1.4(b) contains the impact at- 
tenuation free fall requirements onto the flat anvil. 

In S7.1.9, the Standard requires that the accelera- 
tion data channel comply with SAE Recommended 
Practice J211 requirements for channel class 1,000. 
The proposed rule inadvertently omitted the date of 
the Standard. The agency intends the incorporation 
by reference of SAE Recommended Practice J211, In- 
strumentation for Impact Tests, to be to the June 1980 
edition, which is substantively the same as the pre- 
viously incorporated by reference 1970 edition. Ac- 
cordingly, S7.1.9 has been amended to include a ref- 
erence to the 1980 edition. 



PART 571; S218-PRE 20 



Costs and Benefits ofFMVSS 218 

In an attempt to determine the costs associated with 
complying with FMVSS 218, the agency posed the 
following questions in the NPRM. When there was 
a response, it immediately follows the question. 

l.(a) How many helmet manufacturers have, or do 
not have, their own testing equipment? 

Bell and Marushin indicated that they have their 
own testing equipment. Marushin's is twin-wire 
equipment. 

(b) Of the manufacturers with equipment, what 
percentage of helmet testing is done by outside 
laboratories? 

Marushin stated that they have an outside 
laboratory test helmets for calibration and com- 
parison purposes once a year. 

2.(a) How many test headforms would helmet 
manufacturers, who conduct their own testing, need 
to purchase to meet the requirements of the rule? 

Bell indicated that even though they have had a 
complete set of headforms for several years, they have 
ordered a new set to ensure that they are using the 
same headforms as the NHTSA compliance test con- 
tractors. Marushin indicated that they already have 
a set, but that they will need to perform precise 
dimensional checks of the headforms against the re- 
quirements of the Standard to ensure continued 
compliance. 

(b) How many manufacturers would do their own 
machining of the headform? 

Marushin indicated that they would use a subcon- 
tractor and Bell stated their doubt that any manufac- 
turer would do its own, even though Bell has done 
it in the past. 

3. What are the testing costs for helmet manufac- 
turers conducting their own testing? 

Marushin estimated about $200 a helmet, while 
Bell stated that it was difficult to compute costs for 
in-house testing, since they have two full-time techni- 
cians who conduct quality control, new product 
research and development and competitors' model 
testing on a daily basis. 

4. What is the cost of redesigning a motorcycle 
helmet shell and its liner? 

Marushin estimates $50,000 and Bell indicated that 
the cost of redesigning a shell and liner system for 
a helmet varies by thousands of dollars depending on 
the changes made. Generally, it takes six months to 
a year to develop a new model and complete on-road 
technical testing. 

5. What percent of current helmet production can 
be placed on the size C headform (now the medium 
headform)? 

Marushin estimated roughly 90 percent and Bell 
estimated 99 percent. 

6. What percent of helmet production would be 
tested on each of the small, medium and large 
headforms? 



Small headform: Marushin, 10 percent; Bell, 1 per- 
cent (as the Standard is amended in this final rule.). 

Medium headform: Marushin, 70 percent; Bell, 85 
percent. 

Large headform: Marushin, 20 percent; Bell, 14 
percent. 

7. What percent of helmets would need to be tested 
on more than one size headform? 

Bell: 5 percent. (See previous discussion about re- 
quired multiple testing.) 

8. Is there any data comparing effectiveness of com- 
plying versus non-complying helmets? 

Marushin replied that they had no data. Bell stated 
that "there is considerable data to indicate that 
helmets passing a more rigid standard in some ways, 
but that do not pass the DOT standard have saved 
many lives without any negative side effects." Bell 
indicated that it was referring to the time duration 
requirement, and that the maximum g rule is much 
more important than the time duration requirement, 
and helmets that can pass a more stringent (lower) 
maximum g level than FMVSS 218 may not comply 
with FMVSS 218 because it cannot meet the time 
duration requirement. The agency assumes that Bell 
is speaking of high-performance helmets that are 
designed for off -road uses, such as automobile racing, 
or possibly standards in existence in other countries. 

Also in an attempt to estimate the costs associated 
with complying with FMVSS 218, the agency con- 
tracted with HH Aerospace Design Company to per- 
form a cost/benefit study of the effects of using several 
headform sizes in testing motorcycle helmets. 
("Cost/Benefit Study of Effects of Using Several Head- 
form Sizes in Testing Motorcycle Helmets Under 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218," Con- 
tract No. DTNH 22-80-C-0736, Final Report, 
September 1980.) This report, the data submitted in 
response to the questions in the proposed rule, and 
data requested orally from companies and noted in 
the rulemaking docket (Docket No. 85-11) were 
sources used by the agency in developing a thorough 
analysis of this rulemaking. This analysis is part of 
the final regulatory evaluation prepared by the 
agency and can be found in the rulemaking docket 
of this rule (See, Final Regulatory Evaluation: 
Amendment Extending FMVSS 218, Motorcycle 
Helmets, to All Helmet Sizes, NHTSA, Plans and 
Policy, Office of Regulatory Analysis, July 1987.) A 
summary of the findings follows. 

The agency has determined that there are some 
costs associated with this rule, since small motorcy- 
cle helmets (and any other size helmet that could not 
be "placed on" the size C headform) now will have 
to be certified as complying with FMVSS 218. The 
possible new costs will be in the areas of capital costs 
(purchase three or more new headforms, if the 
manufacturer does its own testing), design costs 
(possible redesign of liner for the small helmets, and 



PART 571; S218-PRE 21 



possibly, though considered unlikely, redesign of a 
motorcycle shell), testing costs (10 percent of helmet 
production, i.e., small helmets, which could not be 
placed on the size C headform and previously were 
not subject to FMVSS 218 now will have to be tested 
and certified. In addition, some helmets will have to 
be tested on multiple test headforms if their sizing 
encompasses more than one headform size), and label- 
ing costs (10 percent of helmet production will have 
to be labeled for the first time). 

Thus, a manufacturer that intends to test its own 
motorcycle helmets for compliance with FMVSS 218 
may have to purchase additional headforms, at a max- 
imum estimated cost of about $4,670. In addition, a 
manufacturer who performs in-house compliance tests 
may wish to purchase the monorail drop test equip- 
ment, at an estimated cost of $17,000 (including in- 
strumentation). Other one-time costs for manufac- 
turers, whether or not they do in-house compliance 
testing, may include the redesign of noncomplying 
helmets. The agency anticipates that any necessary 
redesign will focus on liner redesign, at an estimated 
cost to the industry as a whole of approximately 
$60,000-$72,000. Although considered unlikely, there 
may be an instance of a manufacturer having to 
redesign a helmet shell. These potential costs could 
vary widely, with a possible cost of between $12,000 
and $36,000 per shell for a redesign of a fiberglass shell 
and a possible cost of between $150,000 and $182,000 
per shell for a redesign of a polycarbonate shell. 

The other costs associated with complying with 
amended FMVSS 218 will be recurring costs— affect- 
ing the cost of production. Certifying the additional 
10 percent of the helmets now subject to the standard 
will cost about $.05 per helmet; multiple testing will 
add approximately $.03 per helmet; and the addi- 
tional labeling costs will add about $.01 per helmet. 

Costs to the Consumer. The accumulated estimate 
of these increases is estimated to be not more than 
$.10 per helmet. Since helmets can range in price 
from $33 to $300, the agency considers this increase 
inconsequential. 

Benefits. The agency considers there to be clear 
benefits to this standard. The primary benefit— the 
extension of test requirements to all helmet sizes— is 
the principal reason for undertaking the rulemaking. 
FMVSS 218 will now apply to all helmets, and each 
helmet manufacturer will have to certify each helmet 
model is complying with the Standard before the 
helmet is offered for sale in the United States. In ad- 
dition, to the extent there was consumer concern 
about the efficacy of any helmet on the market due 
to a lack of universal certification, applicability of the 
Standard to all helmets will eliminate this concern. 

Consideration of Future Action 

In the NPRM, the agency asked a series of questions 
concerning motorcycle helmet issues that may be con- 



sidered in future rulemaking proceedings. These 
questions elicited information on potential new areas 
of motorcycle helmet performance, as well as data con- 
cerning performance requirements contained in other 
motorcycle helmet standards, such as in the American 
National Standards Institute and ECE standards. The 
solicited information covered such issues as a dif- 
ferent configuration for the pointed penetration test 
striker, enlargement of the test area of the helmet, 
inclusion of a chin guard performance test for full 
facial coverage helmets, as well as test procedure 
changes for the temperature conditioning re- 
quirements and dynamic testing for the retention test. 

To the extent the agency received responses to these 
questions, they have been discussed previously, in the 
context of the specific issues of this rulemaking. 
However, the agency would like to reaffirm its 
interest in receiving specific data in these areas for 
possible future rulemaking actions. Commenters with 
information on these issues should refer back to the 
proposed rule for the specific questions on which the 
agency is seeking information. (See the September 27, 
1985, issue of the Federal Register, at page 39147.) 
To be helpful to the agency in considering each topic, 
submissions must be specific, contain actual data on 
which the conclusions are based, and lay out test pro- 
cedure specifications. If any submission is based on 
assumptions, please describe and justify the basis for 
each assumption. 

Semiannual Agenda. This document appears as 
item number 1939 in the Department's Semiannual 
Regulatory Agenda, published in the Federal Reg- 
ister on April 27, 1987 (52 FR 14548, 14653; RIN 
#2127-AA40). 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard No. 218 
is amended as follows: 

S3, is revised to read as follows: 

53. Application. This standard applies to all helmets 
designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor 
vehicle users. 

(3) S4. is amended by placing all existing defini- 
tions in alphabetical order and by revising the defini- 
tions for "Reference headform," "Reference plane," 
and "Test headform" to read as follows: 

54. Definitions. 

***** 

"Reference headform" means a measuring device 
contoured to the dimensions of one of the three head- 
forms described in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 8 
with surface markings indicating the locations of the 
basic, mid-sagittal, and reference planes, and the 
centers of the external ear openings. 

"Reference plane" means a plane above and paral- 
lel to the basic plane on a reference headform or test 
headform (Figure 2) at the distance indicated in 

Table 2. 

***** 

"Test headform" means a test device contoured to 
the dimensions of one of the three headforms de- 



PART 571; S218-PRE 22 



scribed in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 8 with sur- 
face markings indicating the locations of the basic, 
mid-sagittal, and reference planes. 

(4) S5. is revised to read as follows: 

S5. Requirements. Each helmet shall meet the re- 
quirements of S5.1, 35.2, and S5.3 when subjected to 
any conditioning procedure specified in S6.4, and 
tested in accordance with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3. 

(5) Paragraph S5.3.1(b) is revised to read as follows: 
(b) The adjustable portion of the retention system 

test device shall not move more than 1 inch (2.5 
cm) measured between preliminary and test load 
positions. 

(6) S5.4 is revised to read as follows: 

55.4 Configuration Each helmet shall have a protec- 
tive surface of continuous contour at all points on or 
above the test line described in S6.2.3. The helmet shall 
provide peripheral vision clearance of at least 105 ° to 
each side of the mid-sagittal plane, when the helmet 
is adjusted as specified in S6.3. The vertex of these 
angles, shown in Figure 3, shall be at the point on the 
anterior surface of the reference headform at the in- 
tersection of the mid-sagittal and basic planes. The brow 
opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) 
above all points in the basic plane that are within the 
angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3). 

(7) S5.5 is revised to read as follows: 

55.5 Projections. A helmet shall not have any rigid 
projections inside its shell. Rigid projections outside 
any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required 
for operation of essential accessories, and shall not 
protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm). 

(8) S5.6 is revised to read as follows: 

55.6 Labeling. 

S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled permanently 
and legibly, in a manner such that the label(s) can 
be read easily without removing padding or any other 
permanent part, with the following: 

(a) Manufacturer's name or identification. 

(b) Precise model designation. 

(c) Size. 

(d) Month and year of manufacture. This may be 
spelled out (for example, June 1988), or expressed in 
numerals (for example, 6/88). 

(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the manufac- 
turer's certification that the helmet conforms to the 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 
This symbol shall appear on the outer surface, in a 
color that contrasts with the background, in letters 
at least % inch (1 cm) high, centered laterally with the 
horizontal centerline of the symbol located a mini- 
mum of V/g inches (2.9 cm) and a maximum of 1% 
inches (3.5 cm) from the bottom edge of the posterior 
portion of the helmet. 

(f) Instructions to the purchaser as follows: 

(1) "Shell and liner constructed of (identify type(s) 
of materials)." 



(2) "Helmet can be seriously damaged by some com- 
mon substances without damage being visible to the 
user. Apply only the following: (Recommended clean- 
ing agents, paints, adhesives, etc., as appropriate)." 

(3) "Make no modifications. Fasten helmet se- 
curely. If helmet experiences a severe blow, return 
it to the manufacturer for inspection, or destroy it and 
replace it." 

(4) Any additional relevant safety information 
should be supplied at the time of purchase by means 
of an attached tag, brochure, or other suitable means. 

(9) S6. is revised to read as follows: 

S6. Preliminary test procedures. Before subjecting a 
helmet to the testing sequence specified in S7., prepare 
it according to the procedures in S6.1, S6.2, and S6.3. 

(10) A new S6.1 is added to read as follows: 

56.1 Selection of appropriate headform. 

56.1.1 A helmet with a manufacturer's designated 
discrete size or size range which does not exceed 6% 
(European size: 54) is tested on the small headform. 
A helmet with a manufacturer's designated discrete 
size or size range which exceeds 6%, but does not ex- 
ceed 7'/2 (European size: 60) is tested on the medium 
headform. A helmet with a manufacturer's desig- 
nated discrete size or size range which exceeds 7^2 is 
tested on the large headform. 

86. 1.2 A helmet with a manufacturer's designated 
size range which includes sizes falling into two or all 
three size ranges described in S6. 1.1 is tested on each 
headform specified for each size range. 

(11) Old S6.1 is redesignated as S6.2 and is revised 
to read as follows: 

56.2 Reference marking. 

56.2.1 Use a reference headform that is firmly 
seated with the basic and reference planes horizon- 
tal. Place the complete helmet to be tested on the 
appropriate reference headform, as specified in S6.1.1 
and S6.1.2. 

56.2.2 Apply a 10-pound (4.5 kg) static vertical load 
through the helmet's apex. Center the helmet later- 
ally and seat it firmly on the reference headform ac- 
cording to its helmet positioning index. 

56.2.3 Maintaining the load and position described 
in S6.2.2, draw a line (hereinafter referred to as "test 
line") on the outer surface of the helmet coinciding 
with portions of the intersection of that surface with 
the following planes, as shown in Figure 2: 

(a) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) above and parallel to 
the reference plane in the anterior portion of the 
reference headform; 

(b) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) 
behind the point on the anterior surface of the refer- 
ence headform at the intersection of the mid-sagittal 
and reference planes; 

(c) The reference plane of the reference headform; 

(d) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) 
behind the center of the external ear opening in a side 
view; and 



PART 571; S218-PRE 23 



(e) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) below and parallel to the 
reference plane in the posterior portion of the refer- 
ence headform. 

(12) Old S6.2 is redesignated as S6.3 and is revised 
as set forth below: 

56.3 Helmet positioning. 

56.3.1 Before each test, fix the helmet on a test 
headform in the position that conforms to its helmet 
positioning index. Secure the helmet so that it does 
not shift position before impact or before application 
of force during testing. 

56.3.2 In testing as specified in S7.1 and S7.2, place 
the retention system in a position such that it does 
not interfere with free fall, impact, or penetration. 

(13) Old S6.3 is redesignated as 6.4 and is revised 
to read as follows: 

56.4 Conditioning. 

56.4.1 Immediately before conducting the testing 
sequence specified in S7, condition each test hel- 
met in accordance with any one of the following 
procedures: 

(a) Ambient conditions. Expose to a temperature of 
70 °F (21 °C) and a relative humidity of 50 percent for 
12 hours. 

(b) Low temperature. Expose to a temperature of 
14°F(-10°C)for 12 hours. 

(c) High temperature. Expose to a temperature of 
122°F(50°C)for 12 hours. 

(d) Water immersion. Immerse in water at a 
temperature of 77 °F (25 °C) for 12 hours. 

56.4.2 If during testing, as specified in S7.1.3 and 
S7.2.3, a helmet is returned to the conditioning envi- 
ronment before the time out of that environment 
exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is kept in the envi- 
ronment for a minimum of 3 minutes before resump- 
tion of testing with that helmet. If the time out of the 
environment exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is re- 
turned to the environment for a minimum of 3 min- 
utes for each minute or portion of a minute that the 
helmet remained out of the environment in excess of 
4 minutes or for a maximum of 12 hours, whichever 
is less, before the resumption of testing with that 
helmet. 

(14) S7.1 is revised to read as follows: 
S7.1 Impact attenuation test. 

57.1.1 Impact attenuation is measured by deter- 
mining acceleration imparted to an instrumented test 
headform on which a complete helmet is mounted as 
specified in S6.3, when it is dropped in guided free 
fall upon a fixed hemispherical anvil and a fixed flat 
steel anvil. 

57.1.2 Each helmet is impacted at four sites with 
two successive identical impacts at each site. Two of 
these sites are impacted upon a flat steel anvil and 
two upon a hemispherical steel anvil as specified in 
S7.1.10 and S7.1.11. The impact sites are at any point 
on the area above the test line described in paragraph 
S6.2.3, and separated by a distance not less than one- 



sixth of the maximum circumference of the helmet 
in the test area. 

57.1.3 Impact testing at each of the four sites, as 
specified in S7.1.2, shall start at 2 minutes, and be 
completed by 4 minutes, after removal of the helmet 
from the conditioning environment. 

57.1.4 (a) The guided free fall drop height for the 
helmet and test headform combination onto the hem- 
ispherical anvil shall be such that the minimum im- 
pact speed is 17.1 feet/second (5.2 m/sec). The mini- 
mum drop height is 54.5 inches (138.4 cm). The drop 
height is adjusted upward from the minimum to the 
extent necessary to compensate for friction losses. 

(b) The guided free fall drop height for the helmet 
and test headform combination onto the flat anvil 
shall be such that the minimum impact speed is 
19.7 ft./sec (6.0 m/sec). The minimum drop height is 
72 inches (182.9 cm). The drop height is adjusted up- 
ward from the minimum to the extent necessary to 
compensate for friction losses. 

57.1.5 Test headforms for impact attenuation test- 
ing are constructed of magnesium alloy (K-IA), and 
exhibit no resonant frequencies below 2,000 Hz. 

57.1.6 The monorail drop test system is used for im- 
pact attenuation testing. 

57.1.7 The weight of the drop assembly, as specified 
in Table 1, is the combined weight of the test head- 
form and the supporting assembly for the drop test. 
The weight of the supporting assembly is not less than 
2.0 lbs. and not more than 2.4 lbs. (0.9 to 1.1 kg). The 
supporting assembly weight for the monorail system 
is the drop assembly weight minus the combined 
weight of the test headform, the headform's clamp 
down ring, and its tie down screws. 

57.1.8 The center of gravity of the test headform 
is located at the center of the mounting ball on the 
supporting assembly and lies within a cone with its 
axis vertical and forming a 10° included angle with 
the vertex at the point of impact. The center of grav- 
ity of the drop assembly lies within the rectangular 
volume bounded by x = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm), 
X = 0.85 inch (2.16 cm), y = 0.25 inch (0.64 cm), and 
y = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm) with the origin located at 
the center of gravity of the test headform. The rec- 
tangular volume has no boundary along the z-axis. 
The x-y-z axes are mutually perpendicular and have 
positive or negative designations in accordance with 
the right-hand rule (See Figure 5). The origin of the 
coordinate axes also is located at the center of the 
mounting ball on the supporting assembly (See Fig- 
ures 6, 7, and 8). The x-y-z axes of the test headform 
assembly on a monorail drop test equipment are ori- 
ented as follows: From the origin, the x-axis is hori- 
zontal with its positive direction going toward and 
passing through the vertical centerline of the mono- 
rail. The positive z-axis is downward. The y-axis also 
is horizontal and its direction can be decided by the 
z- and x-axes, using the right-hand rule. 



PART 571; S218-PRE 24 



57.1.9 The acceleration transducer is mounted at 
the center of gravity of the test headform with the 
sensitive axis aligned to within 5 ° of vertical when 
the test headform assembly is in the impact position. 
The acceleration data channel complies with SAE 
Recommended Practice J211 JUN 80, Instrumenta- 
tion for Impact Tests, requirements for channel class 
1,000. 

57.1.10 The flat anvil is constructed of steel with 
a 5-inch (12.7 cm) minimum diameter impact face, 
and the hemispherical anvil is constructed of steel 
with a 1.9 inch (4.8 cm) radius impact face. 

57 . 1 . 1 1 The rigid mount for both of the anvils con- 
sists of a solid mass of at least 300 pounds (136.1 kg), 
the outer surface of which consists of a steel plate with 
minimum thickness of 1 inch (2.5 cm) and minimum 
surface area of 1 ft' (929 cm'). 

57.1.12 The drop system restricts side movement 
during the impact attenuation test so that the sum 
of the areas bounded by the acceleration-time re- 
sponse curves for both the x- and y-axes (horizontal 
axes) is less than five percent of the area bounded by 
the acceleration-time response curve for the vertical 
axis. 

(15) S7.2 is revised as set forth below: 
S7.2 Penetration test. 

57.2.1 The penetration test is conducted by drop- 
ping the penetration test striker in guided free fall, 
with its axis aligned vertically, onto the outer sur- 
face of the complete helmet, when mounted as speci- 
fied in S6.3, at any point above the test line, de- 
scribed in S6.2.3, except on a fastener or other rigid 
projection. 

57.2.2 Two penetration blows are applied at least 
3 inches (7.6 cm) apart, and at least 3 inches (7.6 cm) 
from the centers of any impacts applied during the 
impact attenuation test. 

57.2.3 The application of the 2 penetration blows, 
specified in S7.2.2, starts at 2 minutes and is com- 
pleted by 4 minutes, after removal of the helmet from 
the conditioning environment. 

57.2.4 The height of the guided free fall is 118.1 
inches (3 m), as measured from the striker point to 
the impact point on the outer surface of the test 
helmet. 

57.2.5 The contactable surface of the penetration 
test headform is constructed of a metal or metallic 
alloy having a Brinell hardness number no greater 
than 55, which will permit ready detection should 
contact by the striker occur. The surface is refinished 
if necessary before each penetration test blow to per- 
mit detection of contact by the striker. 

57.2.6 The weight of the penetration striker is 6 
pounds, 10 ounces (3 kg). 

57.2.7 The point of the striker has an included 
angle of 60°, a cone height of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm), a 
tip radj/Us of 0.02 inch (standard 0.5 millimeter radius) 
and a/minimum hardness of 60 Rockwell, C-scale. 



S7.2.8 The rigid mount for the penetration test 
headform is as described in S7.1.11. 

(16) S7.3 is revised to read as follows: 
S7.3 Retention system test. 

57.3.1 The retention system test is conducted by 
applying a static tensile load to the retention assem- 
bly of a complete helmet, which is mounted, as de- 
scribed in S6.3, on a stationary test headform as 
shown in Figure 4, and by measuring the movement 
of the adjustable portion of the retention system test 
device under tension. 

57.3.2 The retention system test device consists of 
both an adjustable loading mechanism by which a 
static tensile load is applied to the helmet retention 
assembly and a means for holding the test headform 
and helmet stationary. The retention assembly is 
fastened around two freely moving rollers, both of 
which have a 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) diameter and a 3-inch 
(7.6 cm) center-to-center separation, and which are 
mounted on the adjustable portion of the tensile load- 
ing device (Figure 4). The helmet is fixed on the test 
headform as necessary to ensure that it does not move 
during the application of the test loads to the reten- 
tion assembly. 

57.3.3 A 50-pound (22.7 kg) preliminary test load 
is applied to the retention assembly, normal to the 
basic plane of the test headform and symmetrical with 
respect to the center of the retention assembly for 
30 seconds, and the maximum distance from the 
extremity of adjustable portion of the retention system 
test device to the apex of the helmet is measured. 

57.3.4 An additional 250-pound (113.4 kg) test load 
is applied to the retention assembly, in the same man- 
ner and at the same location as described in S7.3.3, 
for 120 seconds, and the maximum distance from 
the extremity of adjustable portion of the retention 
system test device to the apex of the helmet is measured. 

(17) The old Appendix to §571.218 is removed, 
existing Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Table 1 of Stand- 
ard 218 are moved so that they are contained within 
a new Appendix to §571.218, and Figure 2 and 
Table 1 are revised, and new Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 
Table 2 are added as set forth below: 

Table 1.— Weights for Impact Attenuation 
Test Drop Assembly 



Test headform size 



Weight^-lb (kg) 



Small 

Medium 

Large 



7.8 lb (3.5 kg) 
11.0 lb (5.0 kg) 
13.4 lb (6.1 kg) 



1 Combined weight of instrumented test headform and supporting 
and assembly for drop test. 

Issued on March 31, 1988. 






PART 571; S218-PRE 25-26 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

53 F.R. 11280 
April 6, 1988 



Appendix 

Table 1. 
Weights for Impact Attenuation Test Drop Assembly 



Test Headform Size 


Weight^ - 1 Ib(kg) 


Small 

Medium 

Large 


7.8 (3.5 kg) 
11.0 (5.0 kg) 
13.4 (6.1 kg) 



^Combined weight of instrumented test headform and supporting assembly for drop test. 



) 



I 



PART 571; S 218-PRE 27 



Basic Plane 




Center of External 
Ear Opening 



Lower Edge of 
Eye Socket 



Figure 1 . 



Vertical Transverse 
Plane as Determined 
by S6.2.3(d) 



Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm) 
Below Reference 
Plane 

Basic Plane 



Note; Solid lines would correspond to 
the test line on a test helmet. 



2.5 inches 
(6.4 cm) 




Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm) 
Above Reference 
Plane 



Reference Plane 



Vertical Transverse 
Plane as Determined 
by S6.2.3.(b) 



Center of External 

Ear Opening 

(See Table 2) 



Test Surface 



Figure 2. 



PART 571; S 218-PRE 28 



Section Through the Basic Plane 



^ 



Top View 



Helmet 



Reference 
Headform 




Minimum 
Peripheral Vision 
Clearance 



Figure 3. 



> 



Stationary Test 
Headform 



Freely Moving Rollers 
Mounted on Adjustable 
Portion of Retention 
System Test Device with 
Diameters 0.5 inch (1.3cm); 
and Center-to-Center 
Separation 3 inches 
(7.6cm). 




Test Helmet 



Retention Assembly 



Application of Static 
Tensile Load 



i 



Retention System Test Device 
Figure 4. 

PART 571; S 218-PRE 29 



Front 



Mid-Sagittal Plane (Symmetrical Plane) 

Apex 




Rear 



Bottom Opening 



Headform Coordinate Systems 
(Right-hand Rule) 



= 0° 



M 







Front \ 
(Slot Area) \ 


^p. 




K. 






(X, Y, Z) ^V, 
or (R, 0, Z) 


^— 


Y 



Z = 
Reference Plane 



Figure 5. Headform Sections 



PART 571; S 218-PRE 30 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions 



e 


Bottom Opening Z= - 


-3.02 


Level -5 Z= -2.900 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.292 


4.292 





4.293 


4.293 





10 


4.266 


4.201 


0.741 


4.270 


4.205 


0.742 


20 


4.159 


3.908 


1.423 


4.172 


3.920 


1.427 


30 


3.967 


3.436 


1.984 


3.961 


3.430 


1.981 


40 


3.660 


2.804 


2.353 


3.670 


2.811 


2.359 


50 


3.332 


2.142 


2.553 


3.352 


2.155 


2.568 


60 


3.039 


1.520 


2.632 


3.067 


1.534 


2.656 


70 


2.839 


0.971 


2.668 


2.869 


0.981 


2.696 


80 


2.720 


0.472 


2.679 


2.772 


0.481 


2.730 


90 


2.675 





2.675 


2.709 





2.709 


100 


2.703 


-0.469 


2.662 


2.724 


-0.473 


2.683 


110 


2.764 


-0.945 


2.597 


2.794 


-0.956 


2.626 


120 


2.888 


1.444 


2.501 


2.917 


-1.459 


2.526 


130 


2.985 


-1.919 


2.287 


3.040 


-1.954 


2.329 


140 


3.100 


-2.375 


1.993 


3.175 


-2.432 


2.041 


150 


3.175 


-2.750 


1.588 


3.232 


-2.799 


1.616 


160 


3.186 


-2.994 


1.090 


3.246 


-3.050 


1.110 


170 


3.177 


-3.129 


0.552 


3.237 


-3.188 


0.562 


180 


3.187 


-3.187 





3.246 


-3.246 






© 


Basic Plane Z= -2.360 


Level -4 Z= -2.000 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.272 


4.272 





4.247 


4.247 





10 


4.248 


4.184 


0.738 


4.223 


4.159 


0.733 


20 


4.147 


3.897 


1.418 


4.120 


3.872 


1.409 


30 


3.961 


3.430 


1.981 


3.940 


3.412 


1.970 


40 


3.687 


2.824 


2.370 


3.683 


2.821 


2.367 


50 


3.384 


2.175 


2.592 


3.392 


2.180 


2.598 


60 


3.111 


1.556 


2.694 


3.132 


1.566 


2.712 


70 


2.927 


1.001 


2.751 


2.960 


1.012 


2.782 


80 


2.815 


0.489 


2.772 


2.860 


0.497 


2.817 


90 


2.779 





2.779 


2.838 





2.838 


100 


2.802 


-0.487 


2.759 


2.861 


-0.497 


2.818 


110 


2.887 


-0.987 


2.713 


2.958 


-1.012 


2.780 


120 


3.019 


-1.510 


2.615 


3.098 


-1.549 


2.683 


130 


3.180 


-2.044 


2.436 


3.260 


-2.096 


2.497 


140 


3.306 


-2.533 


2.125 


3.405 


-2.608 


2.189 


150 


3.398 


-2.943 


1.699 


3.516 


-3.045 


1.758 


160 


3.458 


-3.250 


1.183 


3.585 


-3.369 


1.226 


170 


3.475 


-3.422 


0.603 


3.612 


-3.557 


0.627 


180 


3.472 


-3.472 





3.609 


-3.609 






PART 571; S 218-PRE 31 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued) 



e 


Level -3 Z= -1.500 


Level-2 Z= -1.000 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.208 


4.208 





4.148 


4.148 





10 


4.179 


4.116 


0.726 


4.112 


4.050 


0.714 


20 


4.075 


3.829 


1.394 


4.013 


3.771 


1.373 


30 


3.902 


3.379 


1.951 


3.844 


3.329 


1.922 


40 


3.654 


2.799 


2.349 


3.609 


2.765 


2.320 


50 


3.377 


2.171 


2.587 


3.352 


2.155 


2.568 


60 


3.094 


1.547 


2.680 


3.137 


1.569 


2.717 


70 


2.982 


1.020 


2.802 


2.989 


1.022 


2.809 


80 


2.891 


0.502 


2.847 


2.902 


0.504 


2.858 


90 


2.876 





2.876 


2.884 





2.884 


100 


2.918 


-0.507 


2.874 


2.943 


-0.511 


2.898 


110 


3.021 


-1.033 


2.839 


3.052 


-1.044 


2.868 


120 


3.170 


-1.585 


2.745 


3.225 


-1.613 


2.793 


130 


3.337 


-2.145 


2.556 


3.397 


-2.184 


2.602 


140 


3.483 


-2.668 


2.239 


3.536 


-2.709 


2.273 


150 


3.604 


-3.121 


1.802 


3.657 


-3.167 


1.829 


160 


3.682 


-3.460 


1.259 


3.751 


-3.525 


1.283 


170 


3.725 


-3.668 


0.647 


3.807 


-3.749 


0.661 


180 


3.741 


-3.741 





3.R?? 


-3.822 









Level -1 Z= -0.500 


Reference Plane Z= 


D.O 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.067 


4.067 





3.971 


3.971 





10 


4.033 


3.972 


0.700 


3.935 


3.875 


0.683 


20 


3.944 


3.706 


1.349 


3.853 


3.621 


1.318 


30 


3.777 


3.271 


1.889 


3.701 


3.205 


1.851 


40 


3.552 


2.721 


2.283 


3.491 


2.674 


2.244 


50 


3.323 


2.136 


2.546 


3.279 


2.108 


2.512 


60 


3.126 


1.563 


2.707 


3.101 


1.551 


2.686 


70 


2.987 


1.022 


2.807 


2.979 


1.019 


2.799 


80 


2.912 


0.506 


2.868 


2.910 


0.505 


2.866 


90 


2.893 





2.893 


2.890 





2.890 


100 


2.895 


-0.503 


2.851 


2.945 


-0.511 


2.900 


110 


3.064 


-1.048 


2.879 


3.062 


-1.047 


2.877 


120 


3.231 


-1.616 


2.798 


3.228 


-1.614 


2.796 


130 


3.411 


-2.193 


2.613 


3.413 


-2.194 


2.615 


140 


3.560 


-2.727 


2.288 


3.563 


-2.729 


2.290 


150 


3.682 


-3.189 


1.841 


3.681 


-3.188 


1.841 


160 


3.783 


-3.555 


1.294 


3.773 


-3.546 


1.290 


170 


3.885 


-3.826 


0.675 


3.832 


-3.774 


0.665 


180 


3.857 


-3.857 





3.844 


-3.844 






PART 571; S 218-PRE 32 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued) 



e 


Level+1 Z= 0.500 


Level +2 Z= 1.000 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





3.830 


3.830 





3.665 


3.665 





10 


3.801 


3.743 


0.660 


3.613 


3.558 


0.627 


20 


3.725 


3.500 


1.274 


3.554 


3.340 


1.216 


30 


3.587 


3.106 


1.794 


3.436 


2.976 


1.718 


40 


3.399 


2.604 


2.185 


3.271 


2.506 


2.103 


50 


3.205 


2.060 


2.455 


3.102 


1.994 


2.376 


60 


3.044 


1.522 


2.636 


2.959 


1.480 


2.563 


70 


2.927 


1.001 


2.751 


2.854 


0.976 


2.682 


80 


2.861 


0.497 


2.818 


2.792 


0.485 


2.750 


90 


2.855 





2.855 


2.783 





2.783 


100 


2.897 


-0.503 


2.853 


2.832 


-0.492 


2.789 


110 


3.007 


-1.029 


2.826 


2.938 


-1.005 


2.761 


120 


3.176 


-1.588 


2.751 


3.102 


-1.551 


2.686 


130 


3.372 


-2.168 


2.583 


3.294 


-2.117 


2.523 


140 


3.520 


-2.697 


2.263 


3.450 


-2.643 


2.218 


150 


3.643 


-3.155 


1.822 


3.564 


-3.087 


1.782 


160 


3.728 


-3.503 


1.275 


3.637 


-3.418 


1.244 


170 


3.777 


-3.720 


0.656 


3.675 


-3.619 


0.638 


180 


3.782 


-3.782 





3.670 


-3.670 









Level +3 Z= 1.450 


Level +4 Z= 1.860 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





3.419 


3.419 





3.061 


3.061 





10 


3.382 


3.331 


0.587 


3.035 


2.989 


0.527 


20 


3.299 


3.100 


1.128 


2.966 


2.787 


1.014 


30 


3.197 


2.769 


1.599 


2.872 


2.487 


1.436 


40 


3.052 


2.338 


1.962 


2.754 


2.110 


1.770 


50 


2.911 


1.871 


2.230 


2.642 


1.698 


2.024 


60 


2.786 


1.393 


2.413 


2.522 


1.261 


2.184 


70 


2.700 


0.924 


2.537 


2.477 


0.847 


2.328 


80 


2.647 


0.460 


2.607 


2.442 


0.424 


2.405 


90 


2.636 





2.636 


2.442 





2.442 


100 


2.691 


-0.467 


2.650 


2.492 


-0.433 


2.454 


110 


2.796 


-0.956 


2.627 


2.599 


-0.889 


2.442 


120 


2.961 


-1.481 


2.564 


2.758 


-1.379 


2.389 


130 


3.147 


-2.023 


2.411 


2.936 


-1.887 


2.249 


140 


3.301 


-2.529 


2.122 


3.081 


-2.360 


1.980 


150 


3.408 


-2.951 


1.704 


3.176 


-2.751 


1.588 


160 


3.479 


-3.269 


1.190 


3.230 


-3.035 


1.105 


170 


3.514 


-3.461 


0.610 


3.270 


-3.220 


0.568 


180 


3.502 


-3.502 





3.271 


-3.271 


•0 



PART 571; S 218-PRE 33 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued) 






Level +5 Z=2.250 


Level +6 Z=2.560 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





2.526 


2.526 





1.798 


1.798 





10 


2.521 


2.483 


0.483 


1.798 


1.771 


0.312 


20 


2.464 


2.315 


0.843 


1.757 


1.651 


0.601 


30 


2.387 


2.067 


1.194 


1.719 


1.489 


0.860 


40 


2.305 


1.766 


1.482 


1.678 


1.285 


1.079 


50 


2.232 


1.435 


1.710 


1.652 


1.062 


1.266 


60 


2.174 


1.087 


1.883 


1.641 


0.821 


1.421 


70 


2.144 


0.733 


2.015 


1.645 


0.563 


1.546 


80 


2.132 


0.370 


2.100 


1.673 


0.291 


1.648 


90 


2.147 





2.147 


1.712 





1.712 


100 


2.213 


-0.384 


2.179 


1.809 


-0.314 


1.782 


110 


2.316 


-0.792 


2.176 


1.925 


-0.658 


1.809 


120 


2.463 


-1.232 


2.133 


2.066 


-1.033 


1.789 


130 


2.624 


-1.687 


2.010 


2.213 


-1.423 


1.695 


140 


2.763 


-2.117 


1.776 


2.358 


-1.806 


1.516 


150 


2.863 


-2.479 


1.432 


2.469 


-2.138 


1.235 


160 


2.919 


-2.743 


0.988 


2.536 


-2.383 


0.867 


170 


2.954 


-2.909 


0.513 


2.561 


-2.522 


0.445 


180 


2.958 


-2.958 





2.556 


-2.556 









Level +7 Z=2.750 


Notes: 

1. Apex is located at (-0.75. 0, 3.02) 
for (X,Y,Z) or (0.75, 180,3.02) 
for (R,0, Z). 

2. Center of ear opening is located at 
(0.40, 2.78, -2.36) for (X,Y,Z) or 
(2.80, 81.8, -2.36) for (R,0,Z). 

3. Scale all dimensions by 0.8941 for 
small headform. 

4. Scale all dimensions by 1.069 for large 
headform. 

5. Headform is symmetrical about the 
mid-sagittal plane. 

6. Units: 

R,X,Y,Z - inches. 
0— degrees. 

7. To obtain metric equivalents in centimeters, 

multiply each figure by 2.54. 


R 


X 


Y 




10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 


1.081 
1.088 
1.055 
1.039 
1.039 
1.052 
1.068 
1.106 
1.171 
1.242 
1.422 
1.489 
1.683 
1.801 
1.954 
2.083 
2.138 
2.175 
2.175 


1.081 
1.072 
0.991 
0.900 
0.796 
0.676 
0.534 
0.378 
0.203 


-0.247 
-0.509 
-0.842 
-1.158 
-1.497 
-1.804 
-2.009 
-2.142 
-2.175 



0.189 
0.361 
0.520 
0.668 
0.806 
0.925 
1.039 
1.153 
1.242 
1.400 
1.399 
1.458 
1.380 
1.256 
1.042 
0.731 
0.378 





PART 571; S 218-PRE 34 



3.250 B.C 




5/16-18 Helical Coll Insert ty 
1/2 Length 



1.086 



2 13/64 



Constant Width i 
throughout 230°"*] 



1/2 



3/4 



1.375 RAD 
.005 Loose Fit 
with Mounting Ball 
Smooth Finish 




Section A-A 



Note: 

To obtain metric equivalents in 
centimeters, multiply each 
figure by 2.54. 



Figure 6. Small Headform — Interior Design 



PART 571; S 218-PRE 35 



7.479 




■2.230' 
5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert 
1/2 Length 



2 13/64 



1/2 



3/4 



Constant Width 
throughout 54° 



ir 



-1 r 



1.375 RAD 
.005 Loose Fit 
with Mounting Ba 
Smooth Finish 




Note: 

To obtain metric equivalents in 
centimeters, multiply each 
figure by 2.54. 



Section B-B 



Figure 7. Medium Headform — Interior Design 



PART 571; S 218-PRE 36 



1.970 RAD TYP 




QOA 5.720 4 

—' , '> 1 13/3 



I 



2.860 



qo° I 

5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert j K2.369*- 

1/2 Length 

7/16 

—^ f-« 4.690 

Constant Width I I 

throughtout 56°*1^,2 



il 



X 



4.500 



1.375 RAD 
.005 Loose Fit 
with Mounting Ball 
Smooth Finish 




Section C-C 




2 13/64 



Note: 

To obtain metric equivalents In 
centimeters, multiply each 
figure by 2.54. 



Figure 8. Large Headform — Interior Design 



PART 571; S 218-PRE 37-38 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 218 



Motorcycle Helmets 
(Docket No. 72-6; Notice 2) 



S1. Scope. 

This standard establishes minimum performance 
requirements for helmets designed for use by 
motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. 



S2. Purpose. 

The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths 
and injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehi- 
cle users resulting from head impacts. 



S3. Application. 

This standard applies to [all] helmets designed 
for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle 
users. 



S4. Definitions. 

"Basic plane" means a plane through the centers 
of the right and left external ear openings and the 
lower edge of the eye sockets (Figure 1) of a 
reference headform (Figure 2) or test headform. 

"Helmet positioning index" means the distance 
in inches, as specified by the manufacturer, from 
the lowest point of the brow opening at the 
lateral midpoint of the helmet to the basic plane 
of a reference headform, when the helmet is 
firmly and properly positioned on the reference 
headform. 

"Midsagittal plane" means a longitudinal plane 
through the apex of a reference headform or test 
headform that is perpendicular to the basic plane 
(Figure 3). 

("Reference headform" means a measuring 
device contoured to the dimensions of one of the 
three headforms described in Table 2 and Figures 5 
through 8 with surface markings indicating the 



locations of the basic, mid-sagittal, and reference 
planes, and the centers of the external ear open- 
ings.) (53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: Octo- 
ber 3, 1988) 

["Reference plane" means a plane above and 
parallel to the basic plane on a reference headform 
or test headform (Figure 2) at the distance in- 
dicated in Table 2] (53 F.R. 11280— April 6. 1988. 
Effective: October 3, 1988) 

"Retention system" means the complete 
assembly by which the helmet is retained in posi- 
tion on the head during use. 

["Test headform" means a test device contoured 
to the dimensions of one of the three headforms 
described in Table 2 and Figures 5 through 8 with 
surface markings indicating the locations of the 
basic, mid-sagittal, and reference planes.] (53 
F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988) 



S5. Requirements. 

[Each helmet shall meet the requirements of 
S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 when subjected to any condi- 
tioning procedure specified in S6.4, and tested in 
accordance with S7.1, S7.2, and 87.3.] (53 F.R. 
11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988) 



S5.1 Impact attenuation. When an impact at- 
tenuation test is conducted in accordance with 
S7.1, all of the following requirements shall be 
met: 

(a) Peak accelerations shall not exceed 400g; 

(b) [Accelerations in excess of 200g shall not ex- 
ceed a cumulative duration of 2.0 milliseconds; 
and| 

(c) Accelerations in excess of 150g shall not 
exceed a cumulative duration of 4.0 milliseconds. 



(Rev. 4/6/88) 



PART 571; S 218-1 



55.2 Penetration. When a penetration test is 
conducted in accordance with S7.2, the striker 
shall not contact the surface of the test headform. 

55.3 Retention system. 

55.3.1 When tested in accordance with S7.3: 

(a) The retention system or its components 
shall attain the loads specified without separa- 
tion; and 

(b) The adjustable portion of the retention 
system test device shall not move more than 1 
inch (2.5 cm) measured between preliminary and 
test load positions. 

55.3.2 Where the retention system consists of 
components which can be independently fastened 
without securing the complete assembly, each 
such component shall independently meet the 
requirements of S5.3.1. 

55.4 Configuration. Each helmet shall have a 
protective surface of continuous contour at all 
points on or above the test line described in 
[S6.2.3.J The helmet shall provide peripheral 
vision clearance of at least 105° to each side of 
the mid-sagittal plane, when the helmet is ad- 
justed as specified in IS6.3.1 The vertex of these 
angles, shown in Figure 3, shall be at the point 
on the anterior surface of the reference headform 
at the intersection of the mid-sagittal and basic 
planes. The brow opening of the helmet shall 
be at least 1 inch I(2.5cm)l above all points in the 
basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral 
vision (see Figure 3). 

55.5 Projections. A helmet shall not have any 
rigid projections inside its shell. Rigid projections 
outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those 
required for operation of essential accessories, and 
shall not protrude more than [0.20 inch (5mm)l. 

55.6 Labeling. 

S5.6.1 Each helmet shall be labeled permanently 
and legibly, in a manner such that the label(s) can 
be read easily without removing padding or any 
other permanent part, with the following: 

(a) Manufacturer's name or identification. 

(b) Precise model designation. 



(c) Size. 

(d) Month and year of manufacture. This may 
be spelled out (for example, June 1988), or ex- 
pressed in numerals (for example, 6/88). 

(e) The symbol DOT, constituting the manufac- 
turer's certification that the helmet conforms to 
the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand- 
ards. This symbol shall appear on the outer sur- 
face, in a color that contrasts with the background, 
in letters at least % inch ((1 cm) high, centered 
laterally with the horizontal centerline of the sym- 
bol located a minimum of 1^^ inches (2.9 cm) and a 
maximum of 1% inches (3.5 cm) from the bottom 
edge of the posterior portion of the helmet.] (53 
F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988) 

[(f) Instructions to the purchaser as follows: 

(1) "Shell and liner constructed of (identify 
type(s) of materials)." 

(2) "Helmet can be seriously damaged by some 
common substances without damage being visible 
to the user. Apply only the following: (Recom- 
mended cleaning agents, paints, adhesives, etc., as 
appropriate)." 

(3) "Make no modifications. Fasten helmet 
securely. If helmet experiences a severe blow, 
return it to the manufacturer for inspection, or 
destroy it and replace it." 

(4) Any additional relevant safety information 
should be supplied at the time of purchase by 
means of an attached tag, brochure, or other 
suitable means.] (53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. 
Effective: October 3, 1988) 

S5.7 Helmet positioning index. Each manu- 
facturer of helmets shall establish a positioning 
index for each helmet he manufactures. This 
index shall be furnished immediately to any per- 
son who requests the information, with respect 
to a helmet identified by manufacturer, model 
designation, and size. 

S6. Preliminary test procedures. Before sub- 
jecting a helmet to the testing sequence specified 
in S7., prepare it according to the following 
procedures [S6.1, S6.2, and S6.31. 

[S6.1 Selection of appropriate headform. 

S6.1.1 A helmet with a manufacturer's 
designated discrete size or size range which does 



(Rev. 4/6/88) 



PART 571; S 218-2 



not exceed 6 % (European size: 54) is tested on the 
small headform. A helmet with a manufacturer's 
designated discrete size or size range which ex- 
ceeds 6 %, but does not exceed 7 V2 (European size: 
60) is tested on the medium headform. A helmet 
with a manufacturer's designated discrete size or 
size range which exceeds 7 V2 is tested on the large 
headform. 

S6.1.2 A helmet with a manufacturer's 
designated size range which includes sizes falling 
into two or all three size ranges described in S6.1.1 
is tested on each headform specified for each size 
range. 1 (53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: 
October 3, 1988) 

{S6.2 Reference marking. 

56.2.1 Use a reference headform that is firmly 
seated with the basic and reference planes horizon- 
tal. Place the complete helmet to be tested on the 
appropriate reference headform, as specified in 
S6.1.1 and S6.1.2. 

56.2.2 Apply a 10-pound (4.5 kg) static vertical 
load through the helmet's apex. Center the helmet 
laterally and seat it firmly on the reference head- 
form according to its helmet positioning index. 

56.2.3 Maintaining the load and position 
described in S6.2.2, draw a line (hereinafter refer- 
red to as "test line") on the outer surface of the 
helmet coinciding with portions of the intersection 
of that surface with the following planes, as shown 
in Figure 2: 

(a) A plane 1 inch (2.5 cm) above and parallel to 
the reference plane in the anterior portion of the 
reference headform; 

(b) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) 
behind the point on the anterior surface of the 
reference headform at the intersection of the mid- 
sagittal and reference planes; 

(c) The reference plane of the reference head- 
form; 

(d) A vertical transverse plane 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) 
behind the center of the external ear opening in a 
side view; and 

(e) A plane 1 (2.5 cm) inch below and parallel to 
the reference plane in the posterior portion of the 
reference headform.] (53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 
1988. Effective: October 3, 1988) 



56.3 Helmet positioning. 

S6.3.1 Before each test, fix the helmet on a test 
headform in the position that conforms to its 
helmet positioning index. Secure the helmet so 
that it does not shift position before impact or 
before application of force during testing. 

[S6.3.21 In testing as specified in S7.1 and S7.2, 
place the retention system in a position such that it 
does not interfere with free fall, impact, or 
penetration. 

56.4 Conditioning. 

56.4.1 Immediately before conducting the 
testing sequence specified in S7., condition each 
test helmet in accordance with any one of the 
following procedures: 

(a) Ambient conditions. Expose to a temper- 
ature of 70° F. I(21°C)1 and a relative humidity of 
50% for 12 hours. 

(b) Low temperature. Expose to a tempera- 
ture of 14° F. [(-10°C)1 for 12 hours. 

(c) High temperature. Expose to a tempera- 
ture of 122° F. [(50° Olfor 12 hours. 

(d) Water immersion. Immerse in water at a 
temperature of 77° F. [(25° C)l for 12 hours. 

56.4.2 If during testing, as specified in S7.1.3 
and S7.2.3, a helmet is returned to the condition- 
ing environment before the time out of that en- 
vironment exceeds 4 minutes, the helmet is kept in 
the environment for a minimum of 3 minutes 
before resumption of testing with that helmet. If 
the time out of the environment exceeds 4 minutes, 
the helmet is returned to the environment for a 
minimum of 3 minutes for each minute or portion 
of a minute that the helmet remained out of the en- 
vironment in excess of 4 minutes or for a maximum 
of 12 hours, whichever is less, before the resump- 
tion of testing with than helmet.J (53 F.R. 
11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988) 

S7. Test conditions. 

S7.1 Impact attenuation test. 

S7.1.1 Impact attenuation is measured by de- 
termining acceleration imparted to an instru- 
mented test headform on which a complete helmet 
is mounted as specified in [86.3], when it is 
dropped in guided free fall upon a fixed 
hemispherical anvil and a fixed flat steel anvil. 



(Rev. 4/6/88) 



PART 571; S 218-3 



57.1.2 Each helmet is impacted at four sites 
with two successive, identical impacts at each site. 

Two of these sites are impacted upon a flat steel 
anvil and two upon a hemispherical steel anvil as 
specified in [ST.I.IOJ and [ST.l.llJ. The impact 
sites are at any point on the area above the test line 
described in [S6.2.31, and separated by a distance 
not less than one-sixth of the maximum cir- 
cumference of the helmet [in the test area]. 

57.1.3 {Impact testing at each of the four sites, 
as specified in S7.1.2, shall start at two minutes, 
and be completed by four minutes, after removal of 
the helmet from the conditioning environment. 

57.1.4 (a) The guided free fall drop height for the 
helmet and test headform combination onto the 
hemispherical anvil shall be such that the minimum 
impact speed is 17.1 feet/second (5.2 m/sec). The 
minimum drop height is 54.5 inches (138.4 cm). The 
drop height is adjusted upward from the minimum to 
the extent necessary to compensate for friction 
losses. 

(b) The guided free fall drop height for the 
helmet and test headform combination onto the 
flat anvil shall be such that the minimum impact 
speed is 19.7 ft/sec. (6.0 m/sec). The minimum drop 
height is 72 inches (182.9 cm). The drop height is 
adjusted upward from the minimum to the extent 
necessary to compensate for friction losses. 

57.1.5 Test headforms for impact attenuation 
testing are constructed of magnesium alloy (K-IA), 
and exhibit no resonant frequencies below 2,000 Hz. 

57.1 .6 The monorail drop test system is used for 
impact attenuation testing. 

57.1.7 The weight of the drop assembly, as 
specified in Table 1, is the combined weight of the 
test headform and the supporting assembly for the 
drop test. The weight of the supporting assembly is 
not less than 2.0 lbs. and not more than 2.4 lbs. (0.9 to 
1.1 kg). The supporting assembly weight for the 
monoraO system is the drop assembly weight minus 
the combined weight of the test headform, the head- 
form's clamp down ring, and its tie down screws. 

57.1.8 The center of gravity of the test head- 
form is located at the center of the mounting ball 



on the supporting assembly and lies within a cone 
with its axis vertical and forming and 10° included 
angle with the vertex at the point of impact. The 
center of gravity of the drop assembly lies with the 
rectangular volume bounded by x = -0.25 inch 
(-0.64 cm), X = 0.85 inch (2.16 cm), y = 0.25 inch 
(0.64 cm), and y = -0.25 inch (-0.64 cm) with the 
origin located at the center of gravity of the test 
headform. The rectangular volume has no boun- 
dary along the z-axis. The x-y-z axes are mutually 
perpendicular and have positive or negative 
designations in accordance with the right-hand 
rule (See Figure 5). The origin of the coordinate 
axes also is located at the center of the mounting 
ball on the supporting assembly (See Figures 6, 7, 
and 8). The x-y-z axes of the test headform 
assembly on a monorail drop test equipment are 
oriented as follows: From the origin, the x-axis is 
horizontal with its positive direction going toward 
and passing through the vertical centerline of the 
monorail. The positive z-axis is downward. The 
y-axis also is horizontal and its direction can be 
decided by the z- and x-axes, using the right-hand 
rule. 

57.1.9 The acceleration transducer is mounted 
at the center of gravity of the test headform with 
the sensitive axis aligned to within 5° of vertical 
when the test headform assembly is in the impact 
position. The acceleration data channel complies 
with SAE Recommended Practice J211 JUN 80, In- 
strumentation for Impact Tests, requirements for 
channel class 1,000. 

57.1.10 The flat anvil is constructed of steel 
with a 5-inch (12.7 cm) minimum diameter impact 
face, and the hemispherical anvil is constructed of 
steel with a 1.9 inch (4.8 cm) radius impact face. 

57.1 .1 1 The rigid mount for both of the anvils 
consists of a soHd mass of at least 300 pounds 
(136.1 kg), the outer surface of which consists of a 
steel plate with minimum thickness of 1 inch (2.5 
cm) and minimum surface area of 1 ft^ (929 cm^). 

57.1.12 The drop system restricts side move- 
ment during the impact attenuation test so that 
the sum of the areas bounded by the acceleration- 
time response curves for both the x- and y-axes 
(horizontal axes) is less than five percent of the 



(Rev. 4/6/B8) 



PART 571; S 218-4 



area bounded by the acceleration-time response 
curve for the vertical axis.) (53 F.R. 11280— April 
6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 1988) 

S7.2 Penetration test. 

S7.2.1. The penetration test is conducted by 
dropping the penetration test striker in guided free 
fall, with its axis aligned vertically, onto the outer 
surface of the complete helmet, when mounted as 
specified in [S6.31, at any point above the test line, 
described in [S6.2.31, except on a fastener or other 
rigid projection. 

S7.2.2 Two penetration blows are applied at 
least 3 inches 1(7.6 cm)] apart, and at least 3 inches 
1(7.6 cm)l from the centers of any impacts applied 
during the impact attenuation test. 

[S7.2.3 The application of the two penetration 
blows, specified in S7.2.2, starts at two minutes 
and is completed by four minutes, after removal of 
the helmet from the conditioning environment.] 
(53 F.R. 11280— April 6, 1988. Effective: October 3, 
1988) 

[S7.2.41 The height of the guided free fall is 
118.1 inches, [(3 m),] as measured from the striker 
point to the impact point on the outer surface of 
the test helmet. 

[S7.2.5] The contactable surface of the penetra- 
tion test headform is constructed of a metal 
or metallic alloy having a Brinell hardness num- 
ber no greater than 55, which will permit ready 
detection should contact by the striker occur. 
The surface is refinished if necessary before 
each penetration test blow to permit detection 
of contact by the striker. 

[S7.2.6] The weight of the penetration striker 
is 6 pounds, 10 ounces [(3 kg)]. 

[S7.2.71 The point of the striker has an included 
angle of 60°, a cone height of 1.5 inches [(3.8 cm)], 
a tip radius of 0.019 inch (standard 0.5 miUimeter 
radius) and a minimum hardness of 60 Rockwell, 
C-scale. 



S7.2.8 The rigid mount for the penetration 
test headform is as described in IS7.1.111. 

S7.3 Retention system test. 

57.3.1 The retention system test is conducted 
by applying a static tensile load to the retention 
assembly of a complete helmet, which is mounted, 
as described in [S6.31, on a stationary test head- 
form as shown in Figure 4, and by measuring the 
movement of the adjustable portion of the reten- 
tion system test device under tension. 

57.3.2 The retention system test device consists 
of both an adjustable loading mechanism by which 
a static tensile load is applied to the helmet reten- 
tion assembly and a means for holding the test 
headform and helmet stationary. The retention 
assembly is fastened around two freely moving 
rollers, both of which have 0.5 inch 1(1.3 cm)l 
diameter and a 3-inch [(7.6 cm)) center-to-center 
separation, and which are mounted on the ad- 
justable portion of the tensile loading device 
(Figure 4). The helmet is fixed on the test head- 
form as necessary to ensure that it does not move 
during the application of the test loads to the 

-retention assembly. 

57.3.3 A 50-pound [(22.7 kg)) preliminary test 
load is applied to the retention assembly, normal to 
the basic plane of the test headform and sym- 
metrical with respect to the center of the retention 
assembly for 30 seconds, and the maximum 
distance from the extremity of the adjustable por- 
tion of the retention system test device to the apex 
of the helmet is measured. 

S7.3.4 An additional 250-pound [(113.4 kg)l test 
load is applied to the retention assembly, in the 
same manner and at the same location as described 
in S7.3.3, for 120 seconds, and the maximum 
distance from the extremity of the adjustable por- 
tion of the retention system test device to the apex 
of the helmet is measured. 



38 F.R. 22390 
August 20, 1973 



(Rev. 4/6/88) 



PART 571; S 218-5-6 



Appendix 

Table 1. 
Weights for Impact Attenuation Test Drop Assembly 



Test Headform Size 


Weight^ - 1 Ib(kg) 


Small 

Medium 

Large 


7.8 (3.5 kg) 
11.0 (5.0 kg) 
13.4 (6.1 kg) 



^Combined weight of instrumented test headforhn and supporting assembly for drop test. 



PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 1 



Basic Plane 




Lower Edge of 
Eye Socket 



Center of External 
Ear Opening 



Figure 1 . 



Vertical Transverse 
Plane as Determined 
by S6.2.3(d) 



2.5 inches 
(6.4 cm) 



Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm) 
Below Reference 
Plane 

Basic Plane 




Note: Solid lines would correspond to 
the test line on a test helmet. 



Test Line 1 Inch (2.5 cm) 
Above Reference 
Plane 



Reference Plane 



Vertical Transverse 
Plane as Determined 
by S6.2.3.(b) 



Center of External 
Ear Opening 
(See Table 2) 



Test Surface 



Figure 2. 



PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 2 



Section Through the Basic Plane 



Top View 



Helmet 



Reference 
Headform 




Minimum 
lo Peripheral Vision 
Clearance 



Figure 3. 



Stationary Test 
Headform 



Freely Moving Rollers 
Mounted on Adjustable 
Portion of Retention 
System Test Device with 
Diameters 0.5 inch (1.3 cm); 
and Center-to-Center 
Separation 3 Inches 
(7.6cm). 




Test Helmet 



Retention Assembly 



Application of Static 
Tensile Load 



Retention System Test Device 
Figure 4. 



PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 3 



Front 



Mid-Sagittal Plane (Symmetrical Plane) 

Apex 




Rear 



Bottom Opening 



Front 
(Slot Area) 



(X, Y, Z 
or (R, 0, Z) 



Headfofm Coordinate Systems 
(Right-hand Rule) 




Reference Plane 



Figure 5. Headform Sections 



PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 4 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions 



e 


Bottom Opening Z= - 


-3.02 


Level -5 Z= -2.900 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.292 


4.292 





4.293 


4.293 





10 


4.266 


4.201 


0.741 


4.270 


4.205 


0.742 


20 


4.159 


3.908 


1.423 


4.172 


3.920 


1.427 


30 


3.967 


3.436 


1.984 


3.961 


3.430 


1.981 


40 


3.660 


2.804 


2.353 


3.670 


2.811 


2.359 


50 


3.332 


2.142 


2.553 


3.352 


2.155 


2.568 


60 


3.039 


1.520 


2.632 


3.067 


1.534 


2.656 


70 


2.839 


0.971 


2.668 


2.869 


0.981 


2.696 


80 


2.720 


0.472 


2.679 


2.772 


0.481 


2.730 


90 


2.675 





2.675 


2.709 





2.709 


100 


2.703 


-0.469 


2.662 


2.724 


-0.473 


2.683 


110 


2.764 


-0.945 


2.597 


2.794 


-0.956 


2.626 


120 


2.888 


1.444 


2.501 


2.917 


-1.459 


2.526 


130 


2.985 


-1.919 


2.287 


3.040 


-1.954 


2.329 


140 


3.100 


-2.375 


1.993 


3.175 


-2.432 


2.041 


150 


3.175 


-2.750 


1.588 


3.232 


-2.799 


1.616 


160 


3.186 


-2.994 


1.090 


3.246 


-3.050 


1.110 


170 


3.177 


-3.129 


0.552 


3.237 


-3.188 


0.562 


180 


3.187 


-3.187 





3.246 


-3.246 









Ba£ 


jjc Plane Z= -2.360 


Level -4 Z= -2.000 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.272 


4.272 





4.247 


4.247 





10 


4.248 


4.184 


0.738 


4.223 


4.159 


0.733 


20 


4.147 


3.897 


1.418 


4.120 


3.872 


1.409 


30 


3.961 


3.430 


1.981 


3.940 


3.412 


1.970 


40 


3.687 


2.824 


2.370 


3.683 


2.821 


2.367 


50 


3.384 


2.175 


2.592 


3.392 


2.180 


2.598 


60 


3.111 


1.556 


2.694 


3.132 


1.566 


2.712 


70 


2.927 


1.001 


2.751 


2.960 


1.012 


2.782 


80 


2.815 


0.489 


2.772 


2.860 


0.497 


2.817 


90 


2.779 





2.779 


2.838 





2.838 


100 


2.802 


-0.487 


2.759 


2.861 


-0.497 


2.818 


110 


2.887 


-0.987 


2.713 


2.958 


-1.012 


2.780 


120 


3.019 


-1.510 


2.615 


3.098 


-1.549 


2.683 


130 


3.180 


-2.044 


2.436 


3.260 


-2.096 


2.497 


140 


3.306 


-2.533 


2.125 


3.405 


-2.608 


2.189 


150 


3.398 


-2.943 


1.699 


3.516 


-3.045 


1.758 


160 


3.458 


-3.250 


1.183 


3.585 


-3.369 


1.226 


170 


3.475 


-3.422 


0.603 


3.612 


-3.557 


0.627 


180 


3.472 


-3.472 





3.609 


-3.609 






PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 5 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued) 






Level -3 Z= -1.500 


Level-2 Z= -1.000 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.208 


4.208 





4.148 


4.148 





10 


4.179 


4.116 


0.726 


4.112 


4.050 


0.714 


20 


4.075 


3.829 


1.394 


4.013 


3.771 


1.373 


30 


3.902 


3.379 


1.951 


3.844 


3.329 


1.922 


40 


3.654 


2.799 


2.349 


3.609 


2.765 


2.320 


50 


3.377 


2.171 


2.587 


3.352 


2.155 


2.568 


60 


3.094 


1.547 


2.680 


3.137 


1.569 


2.717 


70 


2.982 


1.020 


2.802 


2.989 


1.022 


2.809 


80 


2.891 


0.502 


2.847 


2.902 


0.504 


2.858 


90 


2.876 





2.876 


2.884 





2.884 


100 


2.918 


-0.507 


2.874 


2.943 


-0.511 


2.898 


110 


3.021 


-1.033 


2.839 


3.052 


-1.044 


2.868 


120 


3.170 


-1.585 


2.745 


3.225 


-1.613 


2.793 


130 


3.337 


-2.145 


2.556 


3.397 


-2.t84 


2.602 


140 


3.483 


-2.668 


2.239 


3.536 


-2.709 


2.273 


150 


3.604 


-3.121 


1.802 


3.657 


-3.167 


1.829 


160 


3.682 


-3.460 


1.259 


3.751 


-3.525 


1.283 


170 


3.725 


-3.668 


0.647 


3.807 


-3.749 


0.661 


180 


3.741 


-3.741 





3.8?? 


-3.R?? 









Level -1 Z= -0.500 


Reference Plane Z= 


D.O 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





4.067 


4.067 





3.971 


3.971 





10 


4.033 


3.972 


0.700 


3.935 


3.875 


0.683 


20 


3.944 


3.706 


1.349 


3.853 


3.621 


1.318 


30 


3.777 


3.271 


1.889 


3.701 


3.205 


1.851 


40 


3.552 


2.721 


2.283 


3.491 


2.674 


2.244 


50 


3.323 


2.136 


2.546 


3.279 


2.108 


2.512 


60 


3.126 


1.563 


2.707 


3.101 


1.551 


2.686 


70 


2.987 


1.022 


2.807 


2.979 


1.019 


2.799 


80 


2.912 


0.506 


2.868 


2.910 


0.505 


2.866 


90 


2.893 





2.893 


2.890 





2.890 


100 


2.895 


-0.503 


2.851 


2.945 


-0.511 


2.900 


110 


3.064 


-1.048 


2.879 


3.062 


-1.047 


2.877 


120 


3.231 


-1.616 


2.798 


3.228 


-1.614 


2.796 


130 


3.411 


-2.193 


2.613 


3.413 


-2.194 


2.615 


140 


3.560 


-2.727 


2.288 


3.563 


-2.729 


2.290 


150 


3.682 


-3.189 


1.841 


3.681 


-3.188 


1.841 


160 


3,783 


-3.555 


1.294 


3.773 


-3.546 


1.290 


170 


3.885 


-3.826 


0.675 


3.832 


-3.774 


0.665 


180 


3.857 


-3.857 





3.844 


-3.844 






PART 571; S 2 18- Appendix Page 6 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued) 






Level+1 Z= 0.500 


Level +2 Z= 1.000 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





3.830 


3.830 





3.665 


3.665 





10 


3.801 


3.743 


0.660 


3.613 


3.558 


0.627 


20 


3.725 


3.500 


1.274 


3.554 


3.340 


1.216 


30 


3.587 


3.106 


1.794 


3.436 


2.976 


1.718 


40 


3.399 


2.604 


2.185 


3.271 


2.506 


2.103 


50 


3.205 


2.060 


2.455 


3.102 


1.994 


2.376 


60 


3.044 


1.522 


2.636 


2.959 


1.480 


2.563 


70 


2.927 


1.001 


2.751 


2.854 


0.976 


2.682 


80 


2.861 


0.497 


2.818 


2.792 


0.485 


2.750 


90 


2.855 





2.855 


2.783 





2.783 


100 


2.897 


-0.503 


2.853 


2.832 


-0.492 


2.789 


110 


3.007 


-1.029 


2.826 


2.938 


-1.005 


2.761 


120 


3.176 


-1.588 


2.751 


3.102 


-1.551 


2.686 


130 


3.372 


-2.168 


2.583 


3.294 


-2.117 


2.523 


140 


3.520 


-2.697 


2.263 


3.450 


-2.643 


2.218 


150 


3.643 


-3.155 


1.822 


3.564 


-3.087 


1.782 


160 


3.728 


-3.503 


1.275 


3.637 


-3.418 


1.244 


170 


3.777 


-3.720 


0.656 


3.675 


-3.619 


0.638 


180 


3.782 


-3.782 





3.670 


-3.670 






G 


Level +3 Z= 1.450 


Level +4 Z= 1.860 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





3.419 


3.419 





3.061 


3.061 





10 


3.382 


3.331 


0.587 


3.035 


2.989 


0.527 


20 


3.299 


3.100 


1.128 


2.966 


2.787 


1.014 


30 


3.197 


2.769 


1.599 


2.872 


2.487 


1.436 


40 


3.052 


2.338 


1.962 


2.754 


2.110 


1.770 


50 


2.911 


1.871 


2.230 


2.642 


1.698 


2.024 


60 


2.786 


1.393 


2.413 


2.522 


1.261 


2.184 


70 


2.700 


0.924 


2.537 


2.477 


0.847 


2.328 


80 


2.647 


0.460 


2.607 


2.442 


0.424 


2.405 


90 


2.636 





2.636 


2.442 





2.442 


100 


2.691 


-0.467 


2.650 


2.492 


-0.433 


2.454 


110 


2.796 


-0.956 


2.627 


2.599 


-0.889 


2.442 


120 


2.961 


-1.481 


2.564 


2.758 


-1.379 


2.389 


130 


3.147 


-2.023 


2.411 


2.936 


-1.887 


2.249 


140 


3.301 


-2.529 


2.122 


3.061 


-2.360 


1.980 


150 


3.408 


-2.951 


1.704 


3.176 


-2.751 


1.588 


160 


3.479 


-3.269 


1.190 


3.230 


-3.035 


1.105 


170 


3.514 


-3.461 


0.610 


3.270 


-3.220 


0.568 


180 


3.502 


-3.502 





3.271 


-3.271 


•0 



PART 571; S 218-Appendix Page 7 



Table 2 
Medium Headform — Exterior Dimensions (Continued) 



e 


Level +5 Z=2.250 


Level +6 Z=2.560 


R 


X 


Y 


R 


X 


Y 





2.526 


2.526 





1.798 


1.798 





10 


2.521 


2.483 


0.483 


1.798 


1.771 


0.312 


20 


2.464 


2.315 


0.843 


1.757 


1.651 


0.601 


30 


2.387 


2.067 


1.194 


1.719 


1.489 


0.860 


40 


2.305 


1.766 


1.482 


1.678 


1.285 


1.079 


50 


2.232 


1.435 


1.710 


1.652 


1.062 


1.266 


60 


2.174 


1.087 


1.883 


1.641 


0.821 


1.421 


70 


2.144 


0.733 


2.015 


1.645 


0.563 


1.546 


80 


2.132 


0.370 


2.100 


1.673 


0.291 


1.648 


90 


2.147 





2.147 


1.712 





1.712 


100 


2.213 


-0.384 


2.179 


1.809 


-0.314 


1.782 


110 


2.316 


-0.792 


2.176 


1.925 


-0.658 


1.809 


120 


2.463 


-1.232 


2.133 


2.066 


-1.033 


1.789 


130 


2.624 


-1.687 


2.010 


2.213 


-1.423 


1.695 


140 


2.763 


-2.117 


1.776 


2.358 


-1.806 


1.516 


150 


2.863 


-2.479 


1.432 


2.469 


-2.138 


1.235 


160 


2.919 


-2.743 


0.988 


2.536 


-2.383 


0.867 


170 


2.954 


-2.909 


0.513 


2.561 


-2.522 


0.445 


180 


2.958 


-2.958 





2.556 


-2.556 









Level +7 Z=2.750 


Notes: 

1. Apex is located at (-0.75, 0, 3.02) 
for (X,Y,Z) or (0.75, 180,3.02) 
for(R,e, Z). 

2. Center of ear opening is located at 
(0.40, 2.78, -2.36) for (X,Y,Z) or 
(2.80, 81.8, -2.36) for (R,e,Z). 

3. Scale all dimensions by 0.8941 for 
small headform. 

4. Scale all dimensions by 1.069 for large 
headform. 

5. Headform is symmetrical about the 
mid-sagittal plane. 

6. Units: 

R,X,Y,Z - inches. 
6— degrees. 

7. To obtain metric equivalents in centimeters, 

multiply each figure by 2.54. 


R 


X 


Y 




10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 


1.081 
1.088 
1.055 
1.039 
1.039 
1.052 
1.068 
1.106 
1.171 
1.242 
1.422 
1.489 

l.HH:^ 

1.801 
1.954 
2.083 
2.138 
2.175 
2.175 


1.081 
1.072 
0.991 
0.900 
0.796 
0.676 
0.534 
0.378 
0.203 


-0.247 
-0.509 
-0.842 
-1.158 
-1.497 
-1.804 
-2.009 
-2.142 
-2.175 



0.189 
0.361 
0.520 
0.668 
0.806 
0.925 
1.039 
1.153 
1.242 
1.400 
1.399 
1.458 
1.380 
1.256 
1.042 
0.731 
0.378 





PART 571; S 2 18- Appendix Page 8 



3.250 B.C 




5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert ty 
1/2 Length 






T 



2.392 



l^ 



1.95 RAD 



1.086 



■45/64 RAD 



2 13/64 



Constant Width i 
throughout 230 °"*^ 



1/2 



3/4 



1.375 RAD 
.005 Loose Fit 
with Mounting Ball 
Smooth Finish 




Section A-A 



Note: 

To obtain metric equivalents in 
centimeters, multiply each 
figure by 2.54. 



Figure 6. Small Headform — Interior Design 



PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 9 




•2.230' 
5/16-18 Helical Coil Insert 
1/2 Length 



2 13/64 



1/2 



3/4 



Constant Width 
throughout 54° 



ir 



-1 r 



1.375 RAD 
.005 Loose Fit 
with Mounting Ball 
Smooth Finish 




Note: 

To obtain metric equivalents In 
centimeters, multiply each 
figure by 2.54. 



Section B-B 



Figure 7. Medium Headform — Interior Design 



PART 571; S 218-Appenciix Page 10 



1.970 RAD TYP 




5/16-18 Helical Coil 
1/2 Length 

7/16 



nsert,,^°° U-2.369*- 



Constant Width I 
throughtout 56°*^ ^2 



4.500 



1.375 RAD 
.005 Loose Fit 
with Mounting Ball 
Smooth Finish 




Section C-C 



2 13/64 



Note: 

To obtain metric equivalents in 
centimeters, multiply each 
figure by 2.54. 



Figure 8. Large Headform — Interior Design 



PART 571; S 218- Appendix Page 11 



^ 



Effactiv*: SepKmbtr 1, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion 
(Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2) 



This notice establishes a new Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 219, 49 CFR 571.219, that 
regulates the intrusion of vehicle parts from 
outside the occupant compartment into a defined 
zone in front of the windshield during a frontal 
barrier crash test. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking on which 
this issuance is based was issued on May 20, 1974 
(39 F.R. 17768). An earlier notice had been 
issued on August 31, 1972 (37 F.R. 17763), pro- 
posing a standard that would prohibit penetra- 
tion of the protected zone by any part of a 
vehicle outside of the occupant compartment 
during a 30-mph frontal impact into a fixed 
barrier. After further study and an analysis 
of comm.ents submitted in response to that no- 
tice, the NHTSA determined that the initial 
rule was unnecessarily stringent since its near- 
total ban on intrusion had the effect of pro- 
hibiting entrance into the protected zone or 
contact with the windshield by small particles 
such as paint chips and glass which do not rep- 
resent a danger to the vehicle occupants if they 
enter the zone and impact the windshield open- 
ing with a limited amount of force. 

Consequently, in the notice published on May 
20, 1974, the proposed standard on windshield 
zone intrusion was amended to permit penetra- 
tion by particles, to a depth of no more than 
one-quarter inch into a styrofoam template in 
the shape of the protected zone and affixed to 
the windshield, during a 30-mph frontal barrier 
crash. 

In addition, the amended proposal published 
May 20, 1974, provided that contact by vehicle 
parts with the windshield opening in the area 
below the protected zone, during a 30-mph bar- 
rier crash test, would not be prohibited provided 



that the inner surface of that portion of the 
windshield is not penetrated. The procedure 
for determining the lower edge of the protected 
zone was also revised. 

Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, 
reflects some minor changes incorporated for 
clarification following publication of the pro- 
posed rule on May 20, 1974. First, open-body- 
type vehicles with fold-down or removable wind- 
shields have been added to forward control 
vehicles as vehicle types to which the standard 
does not apply. A structurally unsupported 
windshield, essential to the utility of this ve- 
hicle type, typically does not remain in place 
during a 30-mph frontal barrier crash test, hence 
the test is impracticable for this type of vehicle. 

In addition, the standard provides that its 
prohibitions against penetration by particles to 
a depth of more than one-quarter inch into the 
styrofoam template and penetration of the inner 
surface of the portion of the windshield below 
the protected zone do not apply to windshield 
molding and other components designed to be 
normally in contact with the windshield. This 
provision was contained in the proposed stand- 
ard published August 31, 1972 but omitted from 
the proposal published May 20, 1974. 

The standard as adopted also specifies that 
the 6.5-inch-diameter rigid sphere employed to 
determine the lower edge of the protected zone 
shall weigh 15 pounds, the approximate weight 
of the head and neck of an average driver or 
passenger. 

Comments submitted by Wayne Corporation 
and Sheller-Globe Corporation, manufacturers 
of funeral coaches and ambulances, urged that 
the standard for windshield zone intrusion con- 
tain an exception for such vehicles in view of 



PART 571; S 219— PRE 1 



Effactiva: S*pUmb«r 1, 1976 

the low incidence of accidents involving funeral 
coaches and ambulances, the low volume of pro- 
duction of such vehicles, and the high cost of 
barrier crash testing. The NHTSA has deter- 
mined that these arguments are without merit. 
The manufacturers have presented no evidence 
to support the contention that funeral coaches 
and ambulances are involved in fewer accidents 
in proportion to their numbers than other ve- 
hicles. Furthermore, several comments criticiz- 
ing the allegedly prohibitive costs of compliance 
with the standard appear to have erroneously 
assumed that every manufacturer muse conduct 
barrier crash tests. The performance require- 
ment for windshield zone intrusion is set out in 
S5. of the standard. A manufacturer of funeral 
coaches and ambulances may, for example, as- 
sure itself that the requirement is met by barrier 
crashing the conventional chassis which is a com- 
ponent of the special vehicle, modified to simu- 
late the dynamic characteristics of the funeral 
coach or ambulance. Or, the manufacturer may 
use the design characteristic of the vehicle tak- 
ing into account the modifications it makes, or 
information supplied by the chassis manufac- 
turer. 

Low volume of production is not an appro- 
priate basis for an exemption. As the NHTSA 
has maintained in past proceedings where the 
same argument was advanced, the appropriate 
means to avoid application of a standard on 



hardship grounds is a temporary exemption 
under 49 CFR Part 555. 

Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote 
compatibility and economy in barrier crash test- 
ing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy 
restraint requirements in Standard No. 219 
identical to those set out in proposed amend- 
ments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integ- 
rity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 F.R. 17036, April 16, 
1975). It has therefore required that 50th- 
percentile test dummies be placed in the seating 
positions whose restraint system is required to 
be tested by a dummy under Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, 49 CFR 571.208, and 
that they may be restrained only by the means 
that are installed in the vehicle at the respective 
seating positions. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 571 is amended by the addition of a new 
Standard No. 219, 49 CFR 571.219, Windshield 
Zone Intrusion. . . . 

Effective date: September 1, 1976. 
(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 C.F.R. 1.51.) 

Issued on June 9, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 25462 
June 16, 1975 



PART 671; S 219— PRE 2 



EfFeclive: September 1, 1976 
September 1, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion 
(Docket No. 74-21; Notice 3) 



This notice responds to four petitions for re- 
consideration of the notice published June 16, 
1975 (40 FR 25462), which established a new 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Wind- 
shield Zone Intrusion., 49 CFR 571.219, regulat- 
ing the intrusion of vehicle parts from outside 
the occupant compartment into a defined zone 
in front of the windshield during a frontal 
barrier crash test. The National Highway 
Traffic Safetj' Administration (NHTSA) hereby 
amends Standard No. 219 on the basis of the 
information and arguments presented by some 
of the petitioners. 

Petitions for reconsideration were received 
from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associa- 
tion (MVMA), General Motors, Ford, and Jeep. 
MVMA, General Motors, and Ford requested 
substitution of the term "daylight opening" for 
"windshield opening," and General Motors and 
Jeep requested a change in the effective date of 
Standard No. 219 from September 1, 1976 to 
September 1, 1977. In addition. Jeep requested 
that Standard No. 219 not become applicable 
until final issuance of Standard No. 212, Wind- 
shield Mounting, 49 CFR 571.212. 

The NHTSA has detennined that the peti- 
tions of MVMA, General Motors, and Ford 
requesting substitution of the term "daylight 
opening" for "windshield opening" have merit, 
and they are therefore granted. These peti- 
tioners requested that the term "windshield open- 
ing" be replaced by the t«rm "daylight opening", 
which is defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section 
E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace- 
Automotive Drawing Standards, September, 
1963. The part of the windshield below the day- 
light opening is protected by the cowling and 
instrument panel. There is little likelihood that 



in a frontal crash any vehicle component will 
penetrate the cowling and instrument panel with 
sufficient force to pose a threat to the vehicle 
occupants. Therefore, the zone intrusion require- 
ments of Standard No. 219 should only apply 
to the area of the windshield susceptible to 
actual penetration by vehicle components in a 
crash. Accordingly, the term "windshield open- 
ing" as it is used in Standard No. 219, is replaced 
by "daylight opening." The SAE definition of 
"daylight opening" has been slightly modified to 
reflect the particular characteristics of Standard 
No. 219. 

The NHTSA has concluded that the petitions 
of General Motors and Jeep requesting a change 
in the effective date of Standard No. 219 should 
be granted in part and denied in part. The 
economic considerations involved in coordinating 
the effective date of Standard No. 219 with that 
of Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, 
justify postponement of the effective date to 
September 1, 1977, for application of Standard 
No. 219 to all vehicles except passenger cai-s. 
However, the effective date of September 1, 1976, 
will be retained for passenger cars because of 
their greater susceptibility to the intrusion of 
vehicle parts against which this standard is de- 
signed to protect. This postponement of effec- 
tive dates also grants in part Jeep's petition 
requesting that the applicability of Standard 
No. 219 be postponed until final issuance of 
Standard No. 212. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.219 
is amended by revising S4., So., and S6.1(d) of 
Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, 
to read as follows : 

Effective date: September 1, 1976, for pas- 
senger cars; September 1, 1977, for multipurpose 



PART 571; S 219— PRE 3 



Effective: September 1, 1976 
September 1, 1977 

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a Issued on November 10, 1975. 

GVWK of 10,000 pounds or less. James B. Gregory 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 Administrator 

(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 40 F.R. 53033 

at 49 CFR 1.51.) November 14, 1975 



PART 571; S 219— PRE 4 



Effective: December 16, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion 
(Docket No. 74-21; Notice 5) 



This notice amends Standard No. 219, Wind- 
shield Zone Inti-usion, to exclude walk-in van- 
type vehicles from the requirements of the 
standard. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istration (NHTSA) proposed to exclude walk-in 
van-type vehicles from the applicability of 
Standard No. 219 (49 CFR 571.219) in a notice 
published March 11, 1976 (41 FR 10451). No 
opposition was registered in response to the pro- 
posed rulemaking. The National Motor Vehicle 
Safety Advisory Council did not take a position 
on the proposal. 

The NHTSA, therefore, amends Standard No. 
219 in accordance with the proposal. For the 
information of all interested persons, the 
NHTSA considers a "walk-in van-type" vehicle 
to be only the "step van" city delivery type of 
vehicle that permits a person to enter the vehicle 
without stooping. 

It has been determined that this amendment 
will have a negligible economic and environ- 



mental impact, since it creates an exemption 
from existing requirements that is expected to 
affect relatively few vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, paragrapli 
S3 of Standard No. 219 (49 CFR 571.219) is 
amended .... 

Eljfective date: December 16, 1976. Because 
this amendment relieves a restriction and does 
not create additional obligations for any pei'son 
and because it permits the resumption of manu- 
facture of a vehicle type not intended to be cov- 
ered by the standard, it is found tliat an 
immediate effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on December 10, 1976. 

Charles E. Duke 
Acting Administrator 

41 FR 54945 
December 16, 1976 



PART 571; S 219— PRE 5-6 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 

STANDARD NO. 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion 
(Docket No. 79-14; Notice 2) 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends two safety 
standards, Standard No. 212, Windshield 
Mounting, and Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone 
Intrusion, to limit the maximum unloaded vehicle 
weight at which vehicles must be tested for 
compliance with these standards. This action is 
being taken in response to petitions from the Truck 
Body and Equipment Association and the National 
Truck Equipment Association asking the agency to 
amend the standards to provide relief from some of 
the test requirements for final-stage manufacturers. 
Many of these small manufacturers do not have the 
sophisticated test devices of major vehicle 
manufacturers. The agency concludes that the 
weights at which vehicles are tested can be lessened 
while providing an adequate level of safety for 
vehicles such as light trucks and while ensuring that 
compliance with these standards does not increase 
their aggressivity with respect to smaller vehicles. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Since this amendment relieves 
a restriction by easing the existing test procedure 
and will not impose any additional burdens upon 
any manufacturer, it is effective (upon 
publication). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. William Smith, Crashworthiness Division, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- 
tration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2242) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On August 2, 1979, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (44 FR 45426) relating to two 
safety standards: Standard Nos. 212, Windshield 



Mounting, and 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion. 
That notice proposed two options for amending the 
test procedures of the standards that were designed 
to ease the compliance burdens of small final-stage 
manufacturers. 

The agency issued the proposal after learning that 
final-stage manufacturers were frequently unable to 
certify certain vehicles in compliance with these two 
safety standards. The problem arises because of 
weight and center of gravity restrictions imposed 
upon the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete 
vehicle manufacturer. (The final-stage manufacturer 
typically purchases an incomplete vehicle from an in- 
complete vehicle manufacturer, usually Ford, 
General Motors or Chrysler.) The incomplete vehicle 
usually includes the windshield and mounting but 
does not include any body or work-performing equip- 
ment. Since the incomplete vehicle manufacturer 
installs the windshield, it represents to the final-stage 
manufacturer that the windshield will comply with 
the two subject safety standards. In making this 
representation, however, the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer states that the representation is con- 
tingent on the final-stage manufacturer's adherence 
to certain restrictions. Any final-stage manufacturer 
that does not adhere to the restrictions imposed by 
the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must recertify 
the vehicle based upon its own information, analysis, 
or tests. The major restrictions imposed by the 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers on the final-stage 
manufacturer involve weight and center of gravity 
limitation. In many instances, these limitations have 
made it impossible for final-stage manufacturers 
either to rely on the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturer's certification or to complete vehicles 
on the same chassis that they were accustomed to 
using (prior to the extension of the two safety 
standards to these vehicle types). As a result, the 
final-stage manufacturer is faced either with buying 



PART 571; S 219, PRE-7 



the same chassis as before and recertifying them 
or with buying more expensive chassis with higher 
GVWR's and less stringent weight and center of 
gravity Hmitations. 

The agency has tried several different ways to 
alleviate this problem for the final-stage 
manufacturer. The NHTSA has met with 
representatives of the major incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers to encourage them to respond 
voluntarily by strengthening their windshield 
structures and reducing the restrictions that they 
currently impose upon final-stage manufacturers. 
The agency also discussed the possibility of its 
mandating these actions by upgrading Standards 
Nos. 212 and 219. Ford and General Motors 
indicated that the making of any major changes in 
these standards could lead to their deciding to 
discontinue offering chassis for use in the 
manufacturing of multi-stage vehicles. They said 
that such chassis were a very small percentage of 
their light truck sales and that, therefore, they 
would not consider it worth the cost to them to 
make any extensive modifications in their vehicles. 
NHTSA also asked the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers to be sure that they have properly 
certified their existing vehicles and that they are 
not imposing unnecessarily restrictive limitations 
upon final-stage manufacturers. To this agency's 
knowledge, these vehicle manufacturers have 
neither undertaken any strengthening of their 
vehicles' windshield structures nor lessened any of 
their restrictions. 

At the same time that the agency was made 
aware of the final-stage manufacturers' problems 
of certifying to these standards, the agency was 
becoming concerned about the possibility that 
compliance of some light trucks and vans with 
these standards might have made the vehicles 
more aggressive with respect to smaller passenger 
cars that they might impact. According to agency 
information, if these standards require a 
substantial strengthening of vehicle frames, the 
aggressivity of the vehicles is increased. 
Therefore, as a result of the agency's concern 
about aggressivity and its desire to address the 
certification problems of final-stage manufacturers 
in a manner that would not lead to a cessation of a 
chassis sales to those manufacturers, the agency 
issued the August 1979 proposal. The agency 
hoped that the proposal would allow and encourage 
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to reduce their 



weight and center of gravity restrictions, thereby 
easing or eliminating the compliance test burdens 
of final-stage manufacturers. The agency believed 
that this could occur using either option, because 
either would result in vehicles being tested at 
lower weights. Currently vehicles are tested under 
both standards at their unloaded vehicle weights 
plus 300 pounds. 

The first option would have required some 
vehicles whose unloaded vehicle weights exceeded 
4,000 pounds to be tested by being impacted with a 
4,000 pound moving barrier. The second option 
proposed by the agency would have required 
vehicles to be tested at their unloaded vehicle 
weight up to a maximum unloaded vehicle weight 
of 5,500 pounds. This option was suggested to the 
agency by several manufacturers and manufac- 
turer representatives. 

Comments on Notice 

In response to the agency's notice, nine 
manufacturers and manufacturer representatives 
submitted comments. All of the commenters 
supported some action in response to the problems 
of final-stage manufacturers. Most of the 
commenters also suggested that the agency's 
second alternative solution was more likely to 
achieve reductions in the restrictions being 
imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers. The 
first option would have created a new, unproven 
test procedure, and manufacturers would have 
been cautious in easing center of gravity or weight 
restrictions based upon this test procedure. 
Accordingly, most commenters were not sure that 
the first option would achieve the desired results. 
The consensus was, therefore, that the second 
option should be adopted. 

Some manufacturers recommended that both 
options be permitted allowing the manufacturer to 
decide how to test its vehicles. The agency does not 
agree with this recommendation. Not only would it 
be more difficult and expensive to enforce a 
standard that has alternative test procedures, but 
most manufacturers prefer the 5,500 pound weight 
limit option. The NHTSA concludes that as a result 
of the comments supporting the 5,500 pound 
maximum test weight, that this is an acceptable 
procedure for testing compliance with these two 
standards. Therefore, the standards are amended 
to incorporate this procedure. 



PART 571; S 219, PRE-8 



The major incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
commenting on the notice suggested that testing 
vehicles at a maximum weight of 5,500 pounds 
might provide some immediate relief. None of the 
major incomplete vehicle manufacturers provided 
any information concerning how substantial that 
relief might be. Ford indicated that any relief 
might be limited. 

The agency believes that the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers must accept the responsibility for 
establishing reasonable restrictions upon their 
incomplete vehicles. The NHTSA has not been 
provided with sufficient evidence substantiating 
the statements of the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers that their existing restrictions are 
reasonable. In fact, some evidence indicates that 
unnecessarily stringent restrictions are being 
imposed because incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
do not want to conduct the necessary testing to 
establish the appropriate weight and center of 
gravity restrictions. Since this amendment should 
reduce the severity of the test procedures, the 
agency concludes that incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers should immediately review their 
certification test procedures and reduce the 
restrictions being passed on to final-stage 
manufacturers. 

Due to changes in the light truck market, there is 
reason to believe that the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers will be more cooperative than when 
the agency spoke to them before beginning this 
rulemaking. At that time, light truck sales were 
still running well. Now that these sales are down, 
these manufacturers may be more solicitous of the 
needs of the final-stage manufacturers. If relief is 
not provided by the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers, then the agency will consider 
taking additional steps, including the upgrading of 
Standards Nos. 212 and 219 as they apply to all 
light trucks. 

General Motors (GM) questioned one of the 
agency's rationales for issuing the notice of 
proposed rulemaking. GM stated that the agency 
concludes that this action will provide a more 
appropriate level of safety for the affected vehicles 
while the initial extension of these standards to the 
affected vehicles provides, in GM's view, only a 
slight increase in the level of safety of the vehicles. 
GM indicates that since the application of these 
standards to the affected vehicles provides only 
slight benefits and since this amendment vill 



reduce those benefits, the standards should not 
apply to light trucks and vans. The agency 
disagrees with this suggestion. 

The agency is currently reviewing the 
applicability of many of its safety standards to 
determine whether they ought to be extended to 
light trucks and other vehicles. Accident data 
clearly indicate the benefits that have resulted 
from the implementation of safety standards to 
cars. The fatality rate for passenger cars has 
decreased substantially since the implementation 
of a broad range of safety standards to those 
vehicles. On the other hand, light trucks and vans 
have not had a corresponding reduction in fatality 
rates over the years. The agency attributes much 
of this to the fact that many safety standards have 
not been applied to those vehicles. Since those 
vehicles are becoming increasingly popular as 
passenger vehicles, the agency concludes that 
safety standards must apply to them. 

In response to GM's comment that this reduction 
in the test requirements for Standard Nos. 212 and 
219 will remove all benefits derived by having the 
standards apply to those vehicles, the agency 
concludes that GM has misinterpreted the effects 
of this amendment. This amendment will reduce 
somewhat the compliance test requirements for 
those light trucks and vans with unloaded vehicle 
weights in excess of 5,500 pounds. It will not affect 
light trucks with unloaded vehicle weights below 
5,500 pounds. According to agency information, 
approximately 25 percent of the light trucks have 
unloaded vehicle weights in excess of 5,500 while 
the remainder fall below that weight. As a result of 
weight reduction to improve fuel economy, it is 
likely that even more light trucks will fall below the 
5,500 pound maximum test weight in the future. 
Therefore, this amendment will have no impact 
upon most light trucks and vans. In light of the 
small proportion of light trucks and vans affected 
by this amendment and considering the potential 
benefits of applying these standards to all light 
trucks and vans, the agency declines to adopt GM's 
suggestion that the standards be made inapplicable 
to these vehicles. 

With respect to GM's question about the 
appropriate level of safety for light trucks, the 
agency's statement in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking was intended to show that the safety of 
light trucks and vans cannot be viewed without 
considering the relative safety of lighter vehicles 



PART 571; S 219, PRE-9 



that they may impact. Accordingly, the level of 
safety that the agency seeks to achieve by this and 
other safety standards is determined by balancing 
the interests of the occupants of passenger cars 
and heavier vehicles. 

GM also questioned the agency's statement that 
vehicle aggressivity may be increased by imposing 
too severe requirements on these vehicles. GM 
suggested that no evidence exists that vehicle 
aggressivity is increased as a result of complying 
with these standards. 

The agency stated in the proposal that it was 
concerned that compliance with the standards as 
they now exist might have increased the 
aggressivity of the vehicles, thereby harming the 
occupants of passenger cars that are impacted by 
these larger, more rigid vehicles. The agency is 
now beginning to examine the full range of vehicle 
aggressivity problems. The docket for this notice 
contains a paper recently presented by a member 
of our staff to the Society of Automotive 
Engineers on this subject. The agency tentatively 
concludes, based upon the initial results of our 
research and analysis, that vehicle aggressivity 
could be a safety problem and that the agency 
considers that possibility in issuing its safety 
standards. The NHTSA notes that Volkswagen 
applauds the agency's recognition of the vehicle 
aggressivity factor in safety. 

As to GM's argument that compliance with the 
standards may not have increased vehicle 
aggressivity, our information on this point came 
from the manirfacturers. The manufacturers 
indicated that compliance with Standards 212 and 
219 requires strengthening the vehicle frame. This 
makes a vehicle more rigid. Our analysis indicates 
that making a vehicle more rigid may also make it 
more aggressive. Therefore, the agency concludes 
partially on the basis of the manufacturer's 
information, that compliance with the safety 
standards as they are written may have increased 
the aggressivity of the vehicles. 

Ford Motor Company suggested that, rather 
than change these two particular standards, the 
agency should amend the certification regulation 
(Part 568) to state that any vehicle that is barrier 
tested would be required only to comply to an 
unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. 
Fo^d suggested that this would standardize all of 
the tests and provide uniformity. 



The agency is unable to accept Ford's 
recommendation for several reasons. First, the 
certification regulation is an inappropriate place to 
put a test requirement applicable to several 
standards. The tests' requirements of the 
standards should be found in each standard. 
Second, the Ford recommendation would result in 
a reduction of the level of safety currently imposed 
by Standard No. 301, Fitel System Integrity. 

As we stated earlier and in several other notices, 
the agency is legislatively forbidden to modify 
Standard No. 301 in a way that would reduce the 
level of safety now required by that standard. 
Even without this legislative mandate, the agency 
would not be likely to relieve the burdens imposed 
by Standard No. 301. That standard is extremely 
important for the prevention of fires during 
crashes. Compliance of a vehicle with this standard 
not only protects the occupants of the vehicle that 
is in compliance but also protects the occupants of 
vehicles that it impacts. The agency concludes that 
the standard now provides a satisfactory level of 
safety in vehicles, and NHTSA would not be likely 
to amend it to reduce these safety benefits even if 
such an amendment were possible. 

With respect to fuel system integrity, several 
manufacturers suggested that the agency had 
underestimated the impact of that standard upon 
weight and center of gravity restrictions. These 
commenters indicated that compliance with that 
standard requires more than merely adding shielding 
to the fuel systems of the vehicles. The agency is 
aware that compliance with that standard in certain 
instances has imposed restrictions upon 
manufacturers. Nonetheless, the agency continues to 
believe that as a result of this amendment, the 
chassis manufacturers will be able to reduce their 
weight and center of gravity restrictions while still 
maintaining the compliance of their vehicles with 
Standard No. 301. 

Chrysler commented that the agency should 
consider including the new test procedure in 
Standard No. 204 and all other standards that 
require barrier testing. The agency has issued a 
notice on Standard No. 204 (44 FR 68470) stating 
that it was considering a similar test provision for 
that standard. The agency also is aware that any 
barrier test requirement imposed upon vehicles 
subject to substantial modifications by final-stage 



PART 571; S 219, PRE-10 



manufacturers will create problems for the final- 
stage manufacturers. Accordingly, the agency will 
consider the special problems of these manufacturers 
prior to the the issuance of standards that might 
affect them and will attempt to make the test 
requirements of the various standards consistent 
wherever possible. 

The agency has reviewed this amendment in 
accordance with Executive Order 12044 and 
concludes that it will have no significant economic or 
other impact. Since the regulation relieves some 
testing requirements, it may slightly reduce costs 
associated with some vehicles. Accordingly, the 
agency concludes that this is not a significant 
amendment and a regulatory analysis is not required. 

In accordance with the foregoing. Volume 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571 is 



amended by adding the following sentence to the 
end of paragraph S6.1(b) of Standard No. 212 (49 
CFR 571.212) and paragraph S7.7(b) of Standard 
No. 219 (49 CFR 571.219). 

Vehicles are tested to a maximum unloaded 
vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds. 

The authors of this notice are William Smith of 
the Crashworthiness Division and Roger Tilton of 
the Office of Chief Counsel. 

Issued on March 28, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 



45 F.R. 22044 
April 3, 1980 



PART 571; S 219, PRE-11-12 



4 



(? 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 219 
Windshield Zone Intrusion 



51. Scope. This standard specifies limits for 
the displacement into the windshield area of 
motor vehicle components during a crash. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce crash injuries and fatalities that result 
from occupants contacting vehicle components 
displaced near or through the windshield. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks and buses of 10,000 pounds or 
less gross vehicle weight rating. However, it 
does not apply to forward control vehicles, 
walk-in van-type vehicles, or to open body-type 
vehicles with fold-down or removable wind- 
shields. 

54. Definitions. 

"Daylight Opening" (DLO) means the maxi- 
mum unobstructed opening through the glazing 
surface, including reveal or garnish moldings 
adjoining the surface, as measured parallel to 
the outer surface of the glazing material. 

"Windshield opening" means the outer surface 
of the windshield glazing material. 

55. Requirement. When the vehicle traveling 
longitudinally forward at any speed up to and 
including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision bar- 
rier that is perpendicular to the line of travel 
of the vehicle, under the conditions of S7, no 
part of the vehicle outside the occupant com- 
partment, except windshield molding and other 
components designed to be normally in contact 
with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected 
zone template, affixed according to S6, to a depth 
of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part 
of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of 



that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, 
below the protected zone defined in S6. 

S6. Protected zone template. 

S6.1 The lower edge of the protected zone is 
determined by the following procedure (see 
Figure 1). 

(a) Place a 6.5-inch diameter rigid sphere, 
weighing 15 pounds, in a position such that it 
simultaneously contacts the inner surface of the 



LOWER BOUNDARY OF 
WINDSHIELD PROTECTED 
ZONE 



HORIZONTAL EXTENSION 
BEYOND OUTERMOST 
CONTACTABLE POINT 



CROSS SECTION OF 
PROTECTED ZONE IN 
TYPICAL VERTICAL 
LONGITUDINAL PLANE 




POINT OF CONTACT 
BETWEEN SPHERE AND 
INNER SURFACE OF 
WINDSHIELD 



FRONT VIEW 



SIDE VIEW 



WINDSHIELD PROTECTED ZONE 
Figure 1 



windshield glazing and the surface of the in- 
strument panel, including padding. If any 
accessories or equipment such as the steering 
control system obstruct positioning of the sphere, 
remove them for the purposes of this procedure. 

(b) Draw the locus of points on the inner 
surface of the windshield contactable by the 
sphere across the width of the instrument panel. 
From the outermost contactable points, extend 



PART 571; S 219-1 



^ 



the locus line horizontally to the edges of the 
glazing material. 

(c) Draw a line on the inner surface of the 
windshield below and one-half inch distant from 
the locus line. 

(d) The lower edge of the protected zone 
is the longitudinal projection onto the outer sur- 
face of the windshield of the line determined 
in S6.1(c). 

56.2 The protected zone is the space enclosed 
by the following surfaces, as shown in Figure 1: 

(a) The outer surface of the windshield in 
its precrash configuration. 

(b) The locus of points 3 inches outward 
along perpendiculars drawn to each point on the 
outer surface of the windshield. 

(c) The locus of lines forming a 45° angle 
with the outer surface of the windshield at each 
point along the top and side edges of the outer 
surface of the windshield and the lower edge of 
the protected zone determined in S6.1, in the 
plane perpendicular to the edge at that point. 

56.3 A template is cut or formed from Stjrro- 
foam, type DB, cut cell, to the dimensions of the 
zone as determined in S6.2. The template is 
affixed to the windshield so that it delineates the 
protected zone and remains affixed throughout 
the crash test. 

S7. Test conditions. The requirement of S5 
shall be met under the following conditions: 

57.1 The protected zone template is affixed to 
the windshield in the manner described in S6. 

57.2 The hood, hood latches, and any other 
hood retention components are engaged prior to 
the barrier crash. 

57.3 Adjustable cowl tops or other adjustable 
panels in front of the windshield are in the po- 
sition used under normal operating conditions 
when windshield wiping systems are not in use. 

57.4 The parking brake is disengaged and the 
transmission is in neutral. 



57.5 Tires are inflated to the vehicle manu- 
facturer's specifications. 

57.6 The fuel tank is filled to any level from 
90 to 95 percent of capacity. 

57.7 The vehicle, including test devices and 
instrumentation, is loaded as follows: 

(a) Except as specified in S7.6, a passenger 
car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 
its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, se- 
cured in the luggage area, plus a 50th-percentile 
test dummy as specified in Part 572 of this chap- 
ter at each front outboard designated seating 
position and at any other position whose protec- 
tion system is required to be tested by a dummy 
under the provisions of Standard No. 208. Each 
dummy is restrained only by means that are in- 
stalled for protection at its seating position. 

(b) Except as specified in S7.6, a multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, truck or bus is loaded to its 
unloaded vehicle weight, plus 300 pounds or its 
rated cargo and luggage capacity, whichever is 
less, secured to the vehicle, plus a 50th-percentile 
test dummy as specified in Part 572 of this chap- 
ter at each front outboard designated seating 
position and at any other position whose protec- 
tion system is required to be tested by a dummy 
under the provisions of Standard No. 208. Each 
dummy is restrained only by means that are in- 
stalled for protection at its seating position. The 
load is distributed so that the weight on each 
axle as measured at the tire-ground interface is 
in proportion to its GAWR. If the weight on 
any axle when the vehicle is loaded to its un- 
loaded vehicle weight plus dummy weight ex- 
ceeds the axle's proportional share of the test 
weight, the remaining weight is placed so that 
the weight on that axle remains the same. For 
the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle 
weight does not include the weight of work- 
performing accessories. 



40 F.R. 25462 
June 16, 1975 



PART 571; S 219-2 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 220 

School Bus Rollover Protection 
(Docket No. 75-2; Notice 2) 



This notice establishes a new motor vehicle 
safety Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover 
Protection^ 49 CFR 571.220, specifying perform- 
ance requirements for the structural integrity of 
the passenger compartment of school buses when 
subjected to forces that can be encountered in 
rollovers. 

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety 
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandate the is- 
suance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
for several aspects of school bus performance, 
including crashworthiness of the vehicle body 
and frame. Pub. L. 93-942, section 202 (15 
U.S.C. 1392(i)(l)(A)). Based on tliis iimn- 
date and on bus body crashwoi'thiness resoairli 
(DOT-HS-046-3-694), the NHTSA proposed 
rollover protection requirements for school buses 
(^0 F.R. 8570, February 28, 1975). Citing sta- 
tistics on the safety record of school bus opera- 
tion, several manufacturers questioned whether 
any standard for school bus rollover protection 
could be justified. 

The Act reflects a need, evidenced in corre- 
spondence to the NHTSA from the public, to 
protect the children who ride in school buses. 
They and their parents have little direct control 
over the types of vehicles in which they ride to 
school, and are not in a position to determine 
the safety of the vehicles. It is for this reason 
that the school bus standards must be effective 
and meaningful. 

At the same time, the safety history of school 
buses does not demonstrate that radical modifica- 
tion of school bus structure would substantially 
decrease occupant death and injury. As noted 
in tlie "School Bus Safety Improvement Pro- 
gram" contract conducted by Ultrasystems. Inc.. 
(DOT-HS-046-3-694) for the NHTSA : 



"School buses are a relatively safe mode of hu- 
man transportation. School bus accident rates 
and injury/fatality rates on a per- vehicle, per- 
vehicle-mile, per-passenger-mile, or per-passen- 
ger basis are significantly less than for other 
passenger vehicles. Accidents to school children 
while enroute to and from school occur primarily 
in modes other than as school bus passengers. 
However, school bus safety can and should be 
improved." 

As a practical matter, the amount of struc- 
tural modification called for in this standard is 
also limited as a result of the 0-month lead time 
available to implement the pi'ovisions of oarli 
school bus standard after its promulgation. The 
various new requirements imposed in response to 
the mandate of the Act will recjuire considerable 
effort by school bus manufacturers to bring their 
products into conformity in the 9-month period. 

The Physicians for Automotive Safety, The 
National Transportation Safety Board, the Home 
Insurance Company and other commenters 
suggested that the NHTSA had ignored the 
recommendations of the report submitted by 
Ultrasystems on school bus improvement. The 
report concluded that the improved school bus 
design tested by Ultrasystems could withstand a 
significantly greater load for the same amount 
of roof crush than existing school bus designs. 

In fact, the NHTSA evaluated the test re- 
suits and Ultrasystem's recommendations care- 
fully. While the percentage of reduction of roof 
crush would be substantial as a result of the 
recommended design change, no relationship of 
this decrease in deflection to improved safety 
for occupants was established. Ultrasystems re- 
ported that increases of $500 in cost and 530 
pounds were incurred to achieve several iniprove- 



PART 571; S 220— PRE 1 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



raents. includin<f those of the vertical roof crusli 
test. 

The recommendations also implied increased 
structural rigidity but did not evaluate its eflFect 
on the amount of energy absorbed by vehicle 
occupants in a crash. Also, Ultras3'stems, did 
not consider the problems of lead time and re- 
tooling costs in making its recommendations. 
The NHTSA continues to consider that its pro- 
posal of 5I/8 inches of maximum roof crush under 
a load equal to lyo times the vehicle's unloaded 
weight provides a satisfactory level of occupant 
crash protection. Available data do not support 
the conclusion that a 2- or 3-inch reduction of 
this crush would significantly improve the level 
of passenger safety in school buses. It is the 
intention of the NHTSA to continually review 
accident statistics relating to school bus safety. 
Accordingly, future upgrading of the standard 
will be considered should such action be war- 
ranted based upon availability of appropriate 
data. 

In response to inquiries from the Motor Ve- 
hicle Manufacturers Association and General 
Motors as to the origin of the 514-inch require- 
ment, the limit is drawn from the existing School 
Bus Manufacturers Institute requirement for 
school bus structural integrity (Static Load Test 
Code for School Bus Body Structure, issued by 
the School Bus Manufacturers Institute). 

In adopting the oi/g-inch limit found in the 
present industry standard, tlie NHTSA is not 
merely preserving the status quo. While a man- 
ufacturer may liave designod its products to 
meet the industry standard in the past, certain 
of its products presumably performed either bet- 
ter or worse than the nominal design. Con- 
formity to NHTSA standards, in contrast, 
i-equiros that every vehicle be capable of meeting 
the ."ii/j^-inch limit. This means that the manu- 
facturer must design its vehicles to meet a higher 
level of i)erformance. to provide a compliance 
margin foi' those of its products whicli fall below 
the nominal design level. Of course, the manu- 
facturer can reduce the compliance-margin 
problem without ivdesign by improving the con- 
sistency of its manufacturing pi'ocesses. 

The standard requires that, upon the applica- 
tion of vertical downward force to the bus roof 
equal to II/2 times the vehicle's unloaded weight, 



the vehicle roof shall not crush more than 51^ 
inches, and the emergency exits shall be capable 
of being opened, with the weight api)lied. and 
after its release. The National Transportation 
Safety Board, the Vehicle Equipment Safety 
Commission (VESC), Mercedes-Benz, and tlie 
Action for Child Transportation Safety organiza- 
tion suggested other methods for evaluation of 
crashworthiness. The NHTSA has considered 
these, but concludes that the static test specified 
in this standard provides a reasonable means to 
determine crashworthiness without unnecessary 
testing expense. 

Based on submitted comments, the standard 
varies in some respects from the proposal. The 
sizes of the force application plates used to apply 
force and the method of application have been 
revised to simplify the test procedures and equip- 
ment, and to spread the force over larger areas 
of the vehicle roofs of large and small vehicles. 
The proposal specified a rigid, rectangular force 
application plate 36 inches wide and 20 inches 
shorter than the vehicle roof, preventing re- 
liance on the roof end structures for rollover 
protection in typical body-on-chassis construc- 
tion. Commenters pointed out that the end 
structures of the roof are almost certain to bear 
the weight of a rollover and should be included 
in a test of a vehicle's crashworthiness. Several 
manufacturers and other commenters recom- 
mended an increase in the size of the force ap- 
plication plate, in order to permit the foremost 
and rearmost roof "bows" of their buses to absorb 
a portion of the test load. Ford Motor Compan}' 
stated it had performed the test as proposed and 
asserted that the roof of its van-type vehicle, as 
presently designed could not meet the require- 
ment without an increase in the size of the force 
application plate to distribute the load over the 
entire vehicle roof. Chrysler Corporation stated 
it would find it necessary to discontinue produc- 
tion of small school buses because of redesign 
costs if the requirements were adopted as pro- 
posed. 

With a view to the safety record of school 
buses and the 9-month lead time, the NHTSA 
concludes that the force application plate can 
be modified so that an additional "bow" or 
"bows'' bear part of the applied force. It is the 
NHTSA's view that a change to permit both 



PART 571 ; S 220— PRE 2 



EffecNve: October 26, 1976 



roof end structures to fully contribute to support 
of the applied force in the case of buses of more 
than 10,000 pounds would be a relaxation of 
current industry practices. Accordingly, the ex- 
tent of change recommended by the industry is 
not adopted. The NHTSA concludes that an 
8-inch increase in the length of the force applica- 
tion plate is sufficient to allow some portion of 
the applied force to be absorbed by tlie end bows 
of the roof while maintaining adequate crash 
protection. Therefore, for these buses the width 
of the plate remains as proposed while the length 
of the plate is increased 8 inches. 

In the case of lighter buses, which are gen- 
erally of the van type, the NHTSA has increased 
both the width and length of the plate to eji- 
compass the entire roof. 

The procedure for applying force through tlip 
plate has also been modified in some respects. 
Many comments objected that the procedure re- 
quired an expensive, complex hydraulic mecha- 
nism that would increase the costs of compliance 
without justification. The proposal specified an 
"ev6nly-distributed vertical force in a downward 
direction through the force application plate", 
starting with the plate horizontal. Commenters 
interpreted these specifications to mean that the 
vehicle would be required to absorb the energy 
in evenly-distributed fashion and that the hori- 
zontal attitude of the plate must be maintained. 

Actually these specifications were included in 
the proposed method to advise manufacturers of 
the precise procedures to be employed in com- 
pliance testing of their products. Understanding 
that some manufacturers may choose to achieve 
the required force application by applying 
weights evenly over the surface of the plate, the 
standard specified an "evenly-distributed force" 
to eliminate other methods (such as a concen- 
trated force at one end of the plate) that could 
unfairly test the vehicle structure. The hori- 
zontal attitude of the plate was also intended to 
establish a beginning point for testing on Avhich 
a manufacturer can rely. While these specifica- 
tions establish the exact circumstances under 
which vehicles can be tested, a manufacturer can 
depart from them as long as it can l)e shown 
that the vehicle would comply if tested exactly 
as specified. In place of the perfectly rigid plate 
called for in the standard, for example, a manu- 



facturer could employ a plate of sufficient stiff- 
ness to ensure that the test results are not affected 
by the lack of rigidity. 

Some modification of the test procedures has 
been made for simplification and clarity. To 
permit placement of the plate on the roof to 
begin testing without a suspension mechanism, 
the specification for horizontal attitude is mod- 
ified to permit the plate to depart from the 
horizontal in the fore and aft direction only. 
Some manufacturers considered the initial ap- 
plication of force as an unnecessary complication. 
However, the initial force application of 500 
pounds has been retained in order to permit elim- 
ination of inconsequential deformation of the roof 
structure prior to measurement of the permissible 
51/8 inches of deflection. In instances where the 
force application plate weighs more than 500 
pounds, some type of suspension mechanism 
could be used temporarilj' to constrain the load 
level to the initial value, if the manufacturer 
decides to conduct his testing exactly as specified 
in tlie standard's procedures. 

The requirement that force be applied "through 
the plate" has been changed to "to the plate" 
in order to avoid a misunderstanding that the 
vehicle must absorb energy evenly over the sur- 
face of its roof. 

As proposed by several commenters, the rate 
of application in pounds per minute has been 
changed to inches per second, specifically "at any 
rate not more than i/^ inch per second." Manu- 
facturers should understand that "any" in this 
context is defined by the NHTSA (49 CFR 
§ 571.4) to mean that the vehicle roof must satisfy 
the requirement at every rate of application 
within the stated range. General Motors re- 
ports that as a practical matter, the effect of 
speed in rare of application for tests of this 
nature is not significant in the range of 0.12 
inches per second to 1 inch per second. 

The reciuirement that movement "at any point" 
on the plate not exceed 5% inches has not been 
modified despite some objections. The XHTSA 
considers it reasonable that excessive crush not 
be permitted at the extremities of the plate. 
Measurement of movement only at the center of 
the plate, for example, would permit total col- 
lapse of tlie structure in any direction as long 
as one point on the bus maintained its integrity. 



PART 571; S 220— PRE 3 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



The preparation of the vehicle for the applica- 
tion of force has been modified to specify re- 
placement of non-rigid body mounts with 
equivalent rigid mounts. The compression of 
deformable body mounts is unrelated to crash- 
worthiness of the structure and can therefore be 
eliminated to permit testing of the structure 
itself. 

Accessories or comjwnents which extend up- 
ward from the vehicle's roof (such as school bus 
lights) are removed for test purposes. It is also 
noted tliat the vehicle's transverse frame members 
or body sills are supported for test purposes. In 
response to a question from Blue Bird Body 
Company, a frame simulator may be used along 
with any other variations as long as the manu- 
facturer assures himself that the vehicle would 
conform if tested precisely as specified in the 
standard. 

The vehicle's emergency exits must also be ca- 
pable of opening when the required force is ap- 
plied, and following release of the force. As 
noted in comments, this requirement simulates 
the use of the exits after a rollover, whether or 
not the vehicle comes to rest on its roof. The 
proposed requirement of ability to close these 
exits is eliminated because such a capability is 
unnecessary in an emergency evacuation of the 
bus. For this reason, the requirement has been 
modified so that a particular test specimen (i.e., 
a particular bus) will not be required to meet 
requirements for emergency exits which open 
following release of force, if the exits have al- 
ready been tested wliile the application force is 
maintained. 

With regard to the requirements as a whole, 
Crown Coach and other manufacturers argued 
that the application of li/^ times the vehicle's 
unloaded weight imfairly discriminates against 
buses with a higher vehicle weight-to-passenger 
ratio. The XHTSA disagrees, and notes that 
the relevant consideration in rollover is the 
weight of tlie vehicle itself in determining tlie 
energy to be absorbed by the structure. In a 
related area, one manufacturer suggested that 
the increased weight of the NHTSA's contem- 
plated new standards for school buses would in- 
crease unloaded vehicle weight to the point where 
redesign would be required to meet the rollover 
standard. The XHTSA has considered this 



issue and estimates that the only significant new 
weight would be for improved seating. This 
weight increase would not substantially increase 
the severity of the rollover standard. 

The State of California suggested consolida- 
tion of the rollover standard with the joint 
strength. While such a consolidation would ap- 
pear logical for school buses alone, the XHTSA 
prefers the flexibility of separate standards with 
a view to their use independently in the futun 
for other vehicle types. For example, the appli 
cation of vertical force to the vehicle structur'' 
may be appropriate in a vehicle for vi'hich the 
joint strength requirement would not be appro- 
priate. 

The State of Georgia requested that transit 
systems transporting school children be exempted 
from Standard Xo. 220. This commenter ap- 
parently misunderstood the applicability of the 
standard. It only applies to newly-manufactured 
vehicles and does not require modification of 
existing fleets, whether or not operated by a 
transit authority. 

Interested persons should note that the 
XHTSA has issued a proposal to modify the 
definition of "school bus" (40 F.R. 40854, Sep- 
tember 1. 1975) and that if that definition is 
adopted the requirements of this standard will 
apply to all vehicles that fall within the defini- 
tion, whether or not they fall within the present 
definition. 

In consideration of the foregoing, a new motor 
vehicle safety standard Xo. 220, School Bus Boll- 
over Protection, is added as § 571.220 of Part 571 
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. . . . 

Effective date: October 26. 1976. 

The effective date of this standard is estab- 
lished as 9 months after the date of its issuance, 
as required by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus 
Safety Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492, 
section 202 (15 U.S.C. 1397(i) (1) (A) ). 

(Sec. 103, 119. Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407); §202, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of au- 
thority at 49 CFR 1.51) 

Issued on January 22, 1976. 

Howartl J. Dugoff 
Acting Administrator 
41 F.R. 3874 
January 27, 1976 



PART 571; S 220— PRE 4 



Effective: August 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 220 

School Bus Rollover Protection 

(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 7) 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 10) 
(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 4) 
(Docket No. 75-2; Notice 3) 
(Docket No. 75-3; Notice 5) 
(Docket No. 75-7; Notice 3) 
(Docket No. 75-24; Notice 3) 



This notice announces that the effective dates 
of the redefinition of "school bus" and of six 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they 
apply to school buses are changed to April 1, 
1977, from the previously established eflFective 
dates. This notice also makes a minor amend- 
ment to Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover 
Protection, and adds a figure to Standard No. 221, 
School Bus Body Joint Strength. 

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety 
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandated the 
issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards for several aspects of school bus perform- 
ance, Pub. L. 93^92, §202 (15 U.S.C. §1392 
(i)(l)(A)). These amendments included a 
definition of school bus that necessitated a revi- 
sion of the existing definition used by the 
NHTSA in establishing safety requirements. The 
Act also specified that the new requirements 
"apply to each school bus and item of school bus 
equipment which is manufactured ... on or after 
the expiration of the 9-month period which begins 
on the date of promulgation of such safety stand- 
ards." (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B)). 

Pursuant to the Act, amendments were made 
to the following standards: Standard No. 301-75, 
Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), 
effective July 15, 1976, for school buses not 
already covered by the standard (40 FR 483521, 
October 15, .1975); Standard No. 105-75, Hy- 
draulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105-75), 
effective October 12, 1976 (41 FR 2391, January 



16, 1976) ; and Standard No. 217, Bus Winaow 
Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), effec- 
tive for school buses on October 26, 1976 (41 FR 
3871, January 27, 1976). 

In addition, the following new standards were 
added to Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, effective October 26, 1976: 
Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protec- 
tion (41 F.R. 3874, January 27, 1976) ; Standard 
No. 221, School Biis Body Joint Strength (41 
F.R. 3872, January 26, 1976) ; and Standard No. 
222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash 
Protection (41 F.R. 4016, January 28, 1976). 
Also, the existing definition of "school bus" was 
amended, effective October 27, 1976, in line with 
the date set by the Act for issuance of the stand- 
ards. 

The Act was recently amended by Public Law 
94-346 (July 8, 1976) to change the effective dat-es 
of the school bus standards to April 1, 1977 (15 
U.S.C. i§1392(i)(l)(B)). This notice is in- 
tended to advise interested persons of these 
changes of effective dates. In the case of Stand- 
ard No. 301-75, the change of effective date is 
reflected in a conforming amendment to S5.4 of 
that standard. A similar amendment is made in 
S3 of Standard No. 105-75. 

The agency concludes that the October 27, 1976, 
effective date for the redefinition of "school bus" 
should be postponed to April 1, 1977, to conform 
to the new effective dates for the upcoming re- 
quirements. If this were not done, the new classes 



PART 571; S 220— PRE 5 



EftacNve: August 26, 1976 



of school buses would be required to meet existing 
standards that apply to school buses (e.g., Stand- 
ard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108)) before being re- 
quired to meet the new standards. This would 
result in two stages of compliance, and would 
complicate the redesign efforts that Congress 
sought to relieve. 

This notice also amends Standard No. 220 in 
response to an interpretation request by Blue 
Bird Body Company, and Sheller-Globe Corpora- 
tion's petition for reconsideration of the standard. 
Both companies request confirmation that the 
standard's requirement to operate emergency exits 
during the application of force, to the vehicle roof 
(S4(b)) does not apply to roof exits which are 
covered by the force application plate. The 
agency did not intend to require the operation 
of roof exits while the force application plate 
is in place on the vehicle. Accordingly, an 
appropriate amendment has been made to S4(b) 
of the standard. 

"With regard to Standard No. 220, Sheller- 
Globe also requested confirmation that, in testing 
its school buses that have a gross veliicle weight 
rating (GVWE) of 10,000 pounds or less, it may 
test with a force application plate with dimensions 
other than those specified in the standard. The 
standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from 
using a different dimension from that specified, 
in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on 
the legal effect of its regulations. To certify 
compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any 
means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a 
vehicle (or item of motor vehicle equipment) 
would comply if tested by the NHTSA as spec- 
ified in the standard. Thus the force application 
plate used by the NHTSA need not be duplicated 
by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. 
Sheller-Globe, or example, is free to use a force 
application plate of any width as long as it can 
certify its vehicle would comply if tested by the 
NHTSA according to the standard. 

In a separate area, the agency corrects the 
inadvertent omission of an illustration from 
Standard No. 221 as it was issued January 26, 
1976 (41 F.R. 3872). The figure does not differ 
from that proposed and, in that fonn, it received 
no adverse comment. 



In accordance with recently enunciated De- 
partment of Transportation policy encouraging 
adequate analysis of the consequences of regu- 
latory action (41 F.R. 16200, April 16, 1976), 
the agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of 
the economic and other consequences of this ac- 
tion on the public and private sectors, including 
possible loss of safety benefits. The changes in 
effective dates for the school bus standards are 
not evaluated because they were accomplished by 
law and not by regulatory action. 

The change of effective date for the redefini- 
tion of "school bus" will result in savings to 
manufacturers who will not be required to meet 
existing school bus standards between October 
27, 1976, and April 1, 1977. The agency calcu- 
lates that the only standard that would not be 
met would be the requirement in Standard No. 
108 for school bus marker lamps. In view of 
the agency's existing provision for the marking 
of light school buses in Pupil Transportation 
Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 1204), it is concluded 
that the absence of this equipment until April 1, 
1977, will not have a significant adverse impact 
on safety. 

The interpretative amendment of Standard 
No. 220 and the addition of a figure to Standard 
No. 221 are not expected to affect the manu- 
facture or operation of school buses. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 571 of 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended. . . . 

Effective dates: 

1. Because the listed amendments do not im- 
pose additional requirements of any person, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
finds that an immediate effective date of August 
26, 1976 is in the public interest. 

2. The effective dat« of the redefinition of 
"school bus" in 49 CFR Part 571.3 that was pub- 
lished in the issue of December 31, 1976 (40 F.R. 
60033) is changed to April 1, 1977. 

3. The effective dates of Standard Nos. 105-75, 
217, 301-75, 220, 221, and 222 (as they apply to 
school buses) are April 1, 1977, in accordance 
with Public Law 9^346. 



PART 571; S 220— PRE 6 



I 



Effective: August 26, 1976 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 John W. Snow 

(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Pub. L. 94-346, Stat. (15 Administrator 

U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B) ) ; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50.) . ' ° ,__. 

' August 26, 1976 

Issued on August 17, 1976. 



I 



PART 571; S 220— PRE 7-8 



^ 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 220 
School Bus Rollover Protection 



51. Scope. This standard establishes per- 
formance requirements for school bus rollover 
protection. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce the number of deaths and the severity 
of injuries that result from failure of the school 
bus body structure to withstand forces encoun- 
tered in rollover crashes. 

53. Applicability. This standard applies to 
school buses. 

54. Requirements. When a force equal to IV2 
times the unloaded vehicle weight is applied to 
the roof of the vehicle's body structure through 
a force application plate as specified in S5., Test 
procedures— 

(a) The downward vertical movement at any 
point on the application plate shall not exceed 
5^ inches; and 

(b) Each emergency exit of the vehicle pro- 
vided in accordance with Standard No. 217 
(§ 571.217) shall be capable of opening as spec- 
ified in that standard during the full application 
of the force and after release of the force, ex- 
cept that an emergency exit located in the roof 
of the vehicle is not required to be capable of 
being opened during the application of the force. 
A particular vehicle {i.e., test specimen) need not 
meet the emergency opening requirement after 
release of force if it is subjected to the emergency 
exit opening requirements during the full appli- 
cation of the force. 

55. Test procedures. Each vehicle shall be 
capable of meeting the requirements of S4. when 
tested in accordance with the procedures set 
forth below. 

S5.1 With any non-rigid chassis-to-body 
mounts replaced with equivalent rigid mounts, 



place the vehicle on a rigid horizontal surface 
so that the vehicle is entirely supported by 
means of the vehicle frame. If the vehicle is 
constructed without a frame, place the vehicle 
on its body sills. Remove any components which 
extend upward from the vehicle roof. 

55.2 Use a flat, rigid, rectangular force ap- 
plication plate that is measured with respect to 
the vehicle roof longitudinal and lateral center- 
lines; 

(a) In the case of a vehicle with a GVWR of 
more than 10,000 pounds, 12 inches shorter than 
the vehicle roof and 36 inches wide; and 

(b) In the case of a vehicle with a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or less, 5 inches longer and 5 
inches wider than the vehicle roof. For pur- 
poses of these measurements, the vehicle roof is 
that structure, seen in the top projected view, 
that coincides with the passenger and driver com- 
partment of the vehicle. 

55.3 Position the force application plate on 
the vehicle roof so that its rigid surface is per- 
pendicular to a vertical longitudinal plane and 
it contacts the roof at not less than two points, 
and so that, in the top projected view, its lon- 
gitudinal centerline coincides with the longitu- 
dinal centerline of the vehicle, and its front and 
rear edges are an equal distance inside the front 
and rear edges of the vehicle roof at the center- 
line. 

55.4 Apply an evenly-distribux-ea vertical 
force in the downward direction to the force 
application plate at any rate not more than 0.5 
inch per second, until a force of 500 pounds has 
been applied. 

55.5 Apply additional vertical force in the 
downward direction to the force application plate 
at a rate of not more than 0.5 inch per second 



(Rev. 8/17/76) 



PART 571; S 220-1 



until the force specified in S4 has been applied, 
and maintain this application of force. 

55.6 Measure the downward movement of 
any point on the force application plate which 
occurred during the application of force in ac- 
cordance with S5.5. 

55.7 To test the capability of the vehicle's 
emergency exits to open in accordance with 
S4(b)- 

(a) In the case of testing under the full ap- 
plication of force, open the emergency exits as 
specified in S4(b) while maintaining the force 
applied in accordance with S5.4 and S5.5; and 



(b) In the case of testing after the release of 
all force, release all downward force applied to 
the force application plate and open the emer- 
gency exits as specified in S4(b). 

S6. Test conditions. The following conditions 
apply to the requirements specified in S4. 

56.1 Temperature. The ambient temperature 
is any level between 32° F. and 90° F. 

56.2 Windows and doors. Vehicle windows, 
doors, and emergency exits are in fully-closed 
position, and latched but not locked. 

41 F.R. 3874 
January 27, 1976 



(Rev. 8/17/76) 



PART 571; S 220-2 



EffecHve: October 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 221 

School Bus Body Joint Strength 
(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 3) 



This notice establishes a new motor vehicle 
safety standard. No. 221 ; School Biis Body Joint 
Strength, 49 CFR 571.221, specifying; a mini- 
mum performance ' level for school bus body 
panel joints. 

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety 
Aniendnipnts of 1974 (Pub. L. 9.3-492, 88 Stat. 
1470, heiein, the Act) require the issuance of 
niiniiniim requirements for school bus body and 
frame crasliwortliiness. This r»ilemakin<r is pur- 
suant to authority vested in the Secretary of 
Transportation by the Act and delegated to the 
Administrator of the XHTSA, and is preceded 
by iiotices of proposed rulemakino: issued Jan- 
uary 29. 1974 (39 F.R. 2490) and ]\Iarc]i 13. 
1975 (40 F.R. 11738). 

One of the significant injury-producinfr char- 
acteristics of school bus accidents, exposure to 
sharp metal edjres, occurs when body panels be- 
come separated from the structural components 
to which they have been fastened. Tii an acci- 
dent severe lacerations may result if the occu- 
l)ants of the bus are tossed apainst these edpes. 
Moreover, if panel separation is preat the com- 
ponent may be ejected from the vehicle, preatly 
increasin<r the j)ossibility of serious injury. 

This standard is intended to lessen the likeli- 
hood of these modes of injury by requiring that 
body joints on school buses have a tensile 
streufitli equal to 60 percent of the tensile 
strenfrth of the weakest joined body panel, as 
su<><rested by the Vehicle Equipment Safety 
Commission (VESC). The NHTSA has deter- 
mined that tliis is an appropriate level of per- 
formance for body joints and that its application 
to school buses is both reasonable and practicable. 
Furthermore, the XHTSA believes that adoption 



of this standard will provide an effective and 
meaningful solution to the body panel problem. 

It is anticipated that this rule will burden 
manufacturers only to the extent of requiring 
the installation of more rivets than are currently 
used. The XHTSA has reviewed the economic 
and environmental impact of this proposal and 
detei-mined that neither will be significant. 

In their response to the two NHTSA pro- 
posals on this subject, several of the commenters 
suggested that the standard could be met by re- 
ducing the strength of the panel rather than 
increasing the strength of the joint, and that a 
minimum joint strength should be required. For 
several reasons the XHTSA does not believe that 
a minimun^ absolute joint .strength is desirable 
at this time. While this standard will tend to 
increase the overall strength of buses, it is not 
designed to set minimum body panel strength 
requirements. Its purpose is to prevent panels 
from separating at the joint in the event of an 
accident. In order to deal with the problem of 
laceration, this regulation must be applicable to 
both exterior and interior joints. An absolute 
minimum joint strength i-equirement would be 
constrained by tlie level of performance appro- 
priate for tiie relatively thin interior panels. 
Thus, the overall level of performance could not 
be defined in a meaningful fashion without se- 
verely and unnecessarily limiting the manufac- 
turer's flexibility in designing his product. The 
XHTSA School Bus Rollover Protection Stand- 
ard (49 CFR r)71.220), which specifies require- 
ments for the structural integrity of school bus 
bodies, should result in a practical lower limit 
on panel strength and tliereby set a practical 
absolute inininmm joint strength. 



PART 571; S 221— PRE 1 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



The XIITSA lias no evidence that the mode 
of faihnc found in tlie larjjer traditional school 
buses also occurs in smaller, van-type school 
buses currently manufactured by automobile 
nuinufacturers for use as 11- to 17-passenger 
school buses. Ford Motor Company commented 
tliat the mode of injury sought to be prevented 
liy tliis standard does not occur in accidents in- 
volvin<r school buses converted from multipur- 
pose passenjrer vehicles (vans). Chrysler Cor- 
poration sujifrested that the proposed requirement 
is inappropriate when applied to vans with 
''coach" Joint construction. Based on these com- 
ments, the XHTSA has determined that until 
information to the contrary appears .or is de- 
veloped tiiese vehicles should not be covered by 
the requirement. Accordingly, the application 
of the standard has been limited to school buses 
with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 
pounds. 

Several commenters suggested that certain 
types of joints might not be susceptible of testing 
in the manner specified in this regulation. Up 
to this time the NHTSA has not found sufficient 
evidence in support of that position to justify 
amending the standard. If information is re- 



ceived indicating that different test methods are 
required for certain applications, appropriate 
action will be initiated. 

In consideration of the foregoing, a new motor 
vehicle safety standard. No. '■22\^chool Bics Body 
Joint Strength, is added as § 571.221 of Part 571 
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
forth below. 

Effective date : October 26, 1976. 

The effective date of this standard is 9 months 
after the date of issuance, as required by the 
Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amend- 
ments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492, section 202 (15 
U.S.C. 1397(i)(l)(A)). 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; § 202, Pub. L. 93^92, 88 
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 



Issued on January 22, 1976. 



Howard J. Dugoff 
Acting Administrator 

41 F.R. 3872 
January 27, 1976 



PART 571; S 221— PRE 2 



Effective: August 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 221 

School Bus Body Joint Strength 

(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 7) 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 10) 
(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 4) 

(Docket No. 75-2; Notice 3) 

(Docket No. 75-3; Notice 5) 

(Docket No. 75-7; Notice 3) 
(Docket No. 75-24; Notice 3) 



This notice announces that the effective dates 
of the redefinition of "school bus" and of six 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they 
apply to school buses are changed to April 1, 
1977, from the previously established effective 
dates. This notice also makes a minor amend- 
ment to Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover 
Protection^ and adds a figure to Standard No. 
221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. 

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety 
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandated the 
issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards for several aspects of school bus perform- 
ance. Pub. L. 93-492, §202 (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i) 
(1)(A)). These amendments included a defini- 
tion of school bus that necessitated a revision of 
the existing definition used by the NHTSA in 
establishing safety requirements. The Act also 
specified that the new requirements "apply to 
each schoolbus and item of schoolbus equipment 
which is manufactured ... on or after the ex- 
piration of the 9-month period which begins 
on the date of promulgation of such safety stand- 
ards." (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)). 

Pursuant to the Act, amendments were made 
to the following standards : Standard No. 301-75, 
Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), 
effective July 15, 1976, for school buses not al- 
ready covered by the standard, (40 F.R. 483521, 
October 15, 1975) ; Standard No. 105-75, Hy- 
draulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105-75), 
effective October 12, 1976 (41 F.R. 2391, Jan- 



uary 16, 1976) ; and Standard No. 217, Bus Win- 
dow Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), 
effective for school buses on October 26, 1976 (41 
F.R. 3871, January 27, 1976). 

In addition, the following new standards were 
added to i.'art 571 of Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, effective October 26, 1976: 
Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protec- 
tion (41 F.R. 3874, January 27, 1976) ; Standard 
No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (41 
F.R. 3872, January 26, 1976) ; and Standard No. 
222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash 
Protection (41 F.R. 4016, January 28, 1976). 
Also, the existing definition of "school bus" was 
amended, effective October 27, 1976, in line with 
the date set by the Act for issuance of the stand- 
ards. 

The Act was recently amended by Public Law 
94-346 (July 8, 1976) to change the effective 
dates of the school bus standards to April 1, 
1977 (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B) ). This notice 
is intended to advise interested persons of these 
changes of effective dates. In the case of Stand- 
ard No. 301-75, the change of effective date is 
reflected in a conforming amendment to S5.4 of 
that standard. A similar amendment is made in 
S3 of Standard No. 105-75. 

The agency concludes that the October 27, 1976, 
effective date for the redefinition of "school bus" 
should be postponed to April 1, 1977, to conform 



PART 571; S 221— PRE 3 



Effective: August 26, 1976 



to the new effective dates for the upcoming re- 
quirements. If this were not done, the new classes 
of school buses would be required to meet exist- 
ing standards that apply to school buses (e.g., 
Standard No. 108 (49 CFK 571.108)) before 
being required to meet the new standards. This 
would result in two stages of compliance, and 
would complicate the redesign efforts that Con- 
gress sought to relieve. 

This notice also amends Standard No. 220 in 
response to an interpretation request by Blue 
Bird Body Company, and Sheller-Globe Corpora- 
tion's petition for reconsideration of the standard. 
Both companies request confirmation that the 
standard's requirement to operate emergency 
exits during the application of force to the ve- 
hicle roof (S4(b)) does not apply to roof exits 
which are covered by the force application plate. 
The agency did not intend to require the opera- 
tion of roof exits wliile the force application 
plate is in place on the vehicle. Accordingly, an 
appropriate amendment has been made to S4(b) 
of the standard. 

With regard to Standard No. 220, Sheller- 
Globe also requested confirmation that, in testing 
its school buses that have a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, it may 
test with a force application plate with dimen- 
sions other than those specified in the standard. 
The standard does not prohibit a manufacturer 
from using a different dimension from that spec- 
ified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position 
on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify 
compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any 
means, in the exercise of due care, to show that 
a vehicle (or item of motor vehicle equipment) 
would comply if tested by the NHTSA as spec- 
ified in the standard. Thus the force application 
plat© used by the NHTSA need not be duplicated 
by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. 
Sheller-Globe, for example, is free to use a force 
application plate of any width as long as it can 
certify its vehicle would comply if tested by the 
NHTSA according to the standard. 

In a separate area, the agency corrects the in- 
advertent omission of an illustration from Stand- 
ard No. 221 as it was issued Januai-y 26, 1976 
(41 F.R. 3872). The figure does not differ from 
that proposed and, in that form, it received no 
adverse comment. 



In accordance with recently enunciated De- 
partment of Transportation policy encouraging 
adequate analysis of the consequences of regu- 
latory action (41 F.R. 16200, April 16, 1976), 
the agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of 
the economic and other consequences of this ac- 
tion on the public and private sectors, including 
possible loss of safety benefits. The changes in 
effective dates for the school bus standards are 
not evaluated because they were accomplished by 
law and not by regulatory action. 

The change of effective date for the redefinition 
of "school bus" will result in savings to manu- 
facturers who will not be required to meet exist- 
ing school bus standards between October 27, 
1976, and April 1, 1977. The agency calculates 
that the only standard that would not be met 
would be the requirement in Standard No. 108 
for school bus marker lamps. In view of the 
agency's existing provision for the marking of 
light school buses in Pupil Transportation Stand- 
ard No. 17 (23 CFR 1204), it is concluded that 
the absence of this equipment until April 1, 1977, 
will not have a significant adverse impact on 
safety. 

The interpretative amendment of Standard No. 

220 and the addition of a figure to Standard No. 

221 are not expected to affect the manufacture 
or operation of school buses. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Part 571 of 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended. . . . 

Effective dates: 

1. Because the listed amendments do not impose 
additional requirements of any person, the Na- 
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
finds that an immediate effective date of August 
26, 1976 is in the public interest. 

2. The effective date of the redefinition of 
"school bus" in 49 CFR Part 571.3 that was pub- 
lished in the issue of December 31, 1976 (40 F.R. 
60033) is changed to April 1, 1977. 

3. The effective dates of Standard Nos. 105-75, 
217, 301-75, 220, 221, and 222, (as they apply to 
school buses) are April 1, 1977, in • accordance 
with Public Law 94-346. 



PART 571; S 221— PRE 4 



Effective: August 26, 1976 



I 



(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 John W. Snow 

(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Pub. L. 94-346, Stat. (15 Administrator 
U.S.C. § 1392(i) (1) (B) ) ; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50). 41 F.R. 36027 

Issued on August 17, 1976. August 26, 1976 



I 



I 



PART 571; S 221— PRE 5-6 



(; 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 221 
School Bus Body Joint Strength 



51. Scope. This standard establishes require- 
ments for the strength of body panel joints in 
school bus bodies. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from the 
structural collapse of school bus bodies during 
crashes. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 
more than 10,000 pounds. 

54. Definitions. 

"Body component" means a part of a bus body 
made from a single piece of homogeneous ma- 
terial or from a single piece of composite ma- 
terial such as plywood. 

"Body panel" means a body component used 
on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the 
bus' occupant space. 

"Body panel joint" means the area of contact 
or close proximity between the edges of a body 
panel and another body component, excluding 
spaces designed for ventilation or another func- 
tional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, 
and maintenance access panels. 

"Bus body" means the portion of a bus that 
encloses the bus' occupant space, exclusive of the 
bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure 
forward of the forwardmost point of the wind- 
shield mounting. 

55. Requirement. When tested in accordance 
with the procedure of S6, each body panel joint 
shall be capable of holding the body panel to the 
member to which it is joined when subjected to 
a force of 60% of the tensile strength of the 
weakest joined body panel determined pursuant 
to S6.2. 



S6. Procedure. 

S6.1 Preparation of the test specimen. 

56.1.1 If a body panel joint is 8 inches long or 
longer, cut a test specimen that consists of any 
randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint, 
together with a portion of the bus body whose 
dimensions, to the extent permitted by the size 
of the joined parts, are those specified in Figure 
1, so that the specimen's centerline is perpen- 
dicular to the joint at the midpoint of the joint 
segment. Where the body panel is not fastened 
continuously, select the segment so that it does 
not bisect a spot weld or a discrete fastener. 

56.1.2 If a joint is less than 8 inches long, cut 
a test specimen with enough of the adjacent ma- 
terial to permit it to be held in the tension test- 
ing machine specified in S6.3. 

56.1 .3 Prepare the test specimen in accordance 
with the preparation procedures specified in the 
1973 edition of the Annual Book of ASTM 
Standards, published by the American Society 
for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 



MntMntarlliM 



SpvdnMn einiHlIrM 



V 



XTTXh^ 



n dtiTMrvleni in inchts 



PART 571; S 221-1 



S6.2 Determination of minimum allowable 
strength. For purposes of determining the mini- 
mum allowable joint strength, determine the 
tensile strengths of the joined body components 
as follows: 

(a) If the mechanical properties of a material 
are specified by the American Society for Test- 
ing and Materials, the relative tensile strength 
for such a material is the minimum tensile 
strength specified for that material in the 1973 
edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 

(b) If the mechanical properties of a material 
are not specified by the American Society for 
Testing and Materials, determine its tensile 
strength by cutting a specimen from the bus 
body outside the area of the joint and by testing 
it in accordance with S6.3. 



S6.3 Strength test. 

56.3.1 Grip the joint specimen on opposite 
sites of the joint in a tension testing machine 
calibrated in accordance with Method E4, Veri- 
ification of Testing Machines, of the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (1973 Annual 
Book of ASTM Standards). 

56.3.2 Adjust the testing machine grips so that 
the joint, under load, will be in stress approxi- 
mately perpendicular to the joint. 

56.3.3 Apply a tensile force to the specimen 
by separating the heads of the testing machine 
at any uniform rate not less than % inch and not 
more than % inch per minute until the specimen 
separates. 

41 F.R. 3872 
January 27, 1976 



PART 571; S 221-2 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 

School Bus Seating and Crash Protection 
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 5) 



This notice establishes a new laotoi- veliicle 
safety Standaid No. 222, School Bus Seating 
and Cranh Protection^ that s])pcifies seatinp. re- 
strainin<f barrier, and impact zone requirenionts 
for school buses. 

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbiis Safety 
Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-402, directed 
the issuance of a school bus seating systems per- 
formance standard (and other standards in seven 
areas of vehicle performance). The XHTSA 
had already issued two proposals foi' school bus 
seatinjr systems prior to enactment of the 1974 
Safety Amendments (the Act) (.S8 F.R. 4776, 
February 22. 1973) (39 F.E. 27.-)8r). July 30. 1974) 
and subsequently' published two additional pro- 
posals (40 F.R. 17855, April 23, 1975) (40 F.R. 
47141. October 8, 1975). Each aspect of tlie re- 
quirements was fully considered in tlie course 
of tliis rtileniakinff activity. Coiiunents received 
in response to the most recent pi-oposal were 
limited to a few aspects of the Standard. 

The larpest number of comments were received 
on the requirement that scliool bus passen^ei- 
seats be equipped with seat belt anchorajjies at 
each seatinji' position. Tlie standard relies on 
compartmentalization lietweeu well-padded and 
well-constructed seats to pi-ovide occu|)ant pro- 
tection on school buses (other than \an-type 
buses). At the same time, seat belt anchora<ies 
were proposed so that a <j.reater measure of pro- 
tection could be frained if a particular user chose 
to use the anchora<res by installation of seat belts 
together with a system to assure that seat belts 
would be worn, properly adjusted, and not 
misused. 

Bus operators stronfj^ly expressed the view that 
the presence of seat belt anchorajres would en- 
courajre the installation of seat belts bv school 



districts without providing;; the necessary super- 
\isioii of their use. This association of schofd 
bus operators (National School Ti'ansportation 
Association) also cpiestioned the benefits that 
would be derived from ancKorape installation as 
lou<r as their utilization is not I'equired. Tn view 
of these factors, and the iTulications that in any 
o\ent only a small fraction of school buses would 
have belts installed and properly used, the 
XHTSA concludes that the proposed seat belt 
anchorage re(|uirement should not be included in 
this initial school bus seating standard. Further 
study of the extent to which belts would be in- 
stalled and proi)erly used should permit more 
certainty as the basis for any future action. 

XHTSA calculations demonstrate that the 
strength characteristics of the seat specified by 
the standard to pro\ide the correct amount of 
compartmentalization also provide the strength 
necessary to absorb seat belt loads. This means 
that an operator or school district may safely 
attach seat belts to the seat frame, even where 
anchorages are not installed as original equip- 
ment. The seat is stronjr enouph to take the 
force of occupants apainst the seat back if no 
belts are utilized, or the force of occupants 
apainst seat belts if occui)ants are restrained by 
belts attached to the seat frame through the 
anchorages provided. 

The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS) 
I'equested that lap belts be required in addition 
to the compartmentalization offered by the seat- 
ing systems. The apency concluded earlier in 
this rulemakin<!: procedure that compai'tmentali- 
zation provides satisfactory protection and that 
a requirement for belts without the assurance of 
proper supervision of their use would not be an 
effective means of providing occupant protection. 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 1 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



PAS has not provided data or ui-^uiiicnts that 
would iiiodifv tliis roncliision. and its request is 
therefore denied. 

PAS. relyinfi: on testinjr undertaken at the 
University of California at Los Anjreles in 1067 
and 1960, ar<;ued that a vertical seat l)ac'k lieijiJit 
of 24 inches above the seatin<r reference point 
(SEP) is necessaiy to afford ade(]iiate protec- 
tion a<rainst occupant injury. The \HTSA, as 
noted in its fourth notice of scliool bus crash 
protection, based its 20-inch requirement on 
newer data <;enerated in dynamic and static test- 
ing by AMF (\)rporation of piototype seats de- 
sifrned to meet the proposed requirements of the 
standard ("Development of a Unitized School 
Bus", DOT-IIS-400960). While the XIITSA 
does not dispute that a properly constiuctcd, 
hiflher seat back provides more protection than 
a lower seat back, the data supi)ort the a<rency*s 
determination that the 20-inch seat back provides 
a reasonable level of protection. School bus ac- 
cident data do not i)rovide substantial evidence 
of a whi[)lash injury experience that could justify 
a 4-inch increase in seat back height. For this 
reason, the seat back height is made final as 
])roposed. 

Several counnenters objected to applicability 
of the standard to school buses with a <iross ve- 
hicle weight rating ((IVAVR) of 10,000 pounds 
or less (light school buses), asserting that the 
special requirements of the standard for those 
buses were inappropriate, or unachievable within 
the 9-month leadtime for compliance mandated 
by the Act. 

Chrysler Corporation requested exclusion of 
light school buses from this standard for an in- 
definite jieriod, and Ford Motor Company le- 
quested that essentially the same package of 
standards as already are provided in its van-tyi)e 
multi-purpose passenger vehicles and school bus 
models be required in the future, with no addi- 
tional protection. Both companies believe that 
the relatively small numbers of their vehicles 
sold as school buses would have to be withdi'awn 
from the market because of the ex[)ense of tool- 
ing new seating that offers more crash protection 
than present seating. "Wayne Corporation manu- 
factures a light school bus that is not based on 
a van-type vehicle, and requested that seats used 



in its larger models be permitted in smaller 
models, along with seat belts that comply with 
Standard \o. 209. 

The Congressional direction to issue standards 
for school bus seating systems (15 U.S.C. 
§ 1392(i) (1) (A) (iv)) implies that existing seat- 
ing and occupant crash i)rotection standards are 
insufficient for \chicles that carry school children. 
The NHTSA has proposed a combination of re- 
(juirements for light school buses that differ from 
those for heavier buses, because the crash pulse 
experienced by smaller vehicles is more severe 
than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions. 
The standard also si)ecifies adequate numbers of 
seat belts for the children that the vehicle would 
carry, because such restraints are necessary to 
provide adequate crash protection in small ve- 
hicles. The requirements applicable to light 
school buses are considered reasonable, and are 
thcrcfoie included in the final rule as proposed. 

In Wayne's case, it is not clear why the seat 
it has developed for heavier school buses will not 
serve in its smaller school buses. Seat belts may 
need to be attached to the floor to support the 
force specified by Standard Xo. 210 for anchor- 
ages. Also, some interior padding may be 
necessary to meet the vehicle impact zone re- 
(piirements of Sr).3.1.1(a). 

Sheller-Globe Corporation (Sheller) and 
Wayne considered unreasonable the standard's 
limitation on maxinnun distance between a seat's 
SRP and the rear suiface of the seat or restrain- 
ing barrier forward of the SEP (Sr).2). The 
limitation exists to minimize the distance an oc- 
cupant travels before forward motion is arrested 
by the padded structure that compartmentalizes 
the occupant. The two bus manufacturers con- 
tend that they nnist also comply with State re- 
rjuiremcnts for a minimum distance between seats 
that results in only 1 inch of tolerance in seating 
placement. 

Section 10:5(d) of the National Traffic and 
Motor ^'ehicle Safety Act pro\ ides in part : 
(d) AVhenever a Federal motoi- \ehicle safety 
standard ... is in effect, no State or political 
subdivision of a State shall have any authority 
either to establish or continue in eli'ect. with 
lespect to any motor vehicle or item of motor 
vehicle e([uii)mcnt any safety standard appli- 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 2 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



cable to the same aspect of porfoniuinco of 
such vehicle or item of equipment which is not 
identical to the Federal standard. 

It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any 
State requirement relating to seat spacing, other 
than one identical to the Federal requirement for 
maximum spacing of 20 inches from the SRP, is 
preempted under § 103(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d). 

Sheller advocated wider seat spacing for ac- 
tivity buses, because seats are occupied for longer 
periods of time on road trips. The NHTSA, 
noting that activity buses are often used on the 
open highway at high speeds for long periods of 
time, requests comments on the advisability of 
specifying a seat belt requirement in place of 
the seat spacing requirement in tlie case of these 
buses. 

Much of Sheller and Wayne's concern over 
tolerances may stem from a misunderstanding of 
the meaning of "seating reference point" (SRP). 
As defined by the NHTSA (49 CFR 571.3), the 
SRP is essentially the manufacturer's design 
reference point which simulates the pivot center 
of the human torso and thigh, located in accord- 
ance with the SAE Standard J826. Thus the 
manufacturer calculates, on its seat design seen 
in side projected view, the pivot center of the 
liuman torso and thigh of the potential seat occu- 
pant, and then establishes a design reference point 
that simulates the location of the actual pivot 
center. The NHTSA has interpreted that this 
design reference point may be fixed by the manu- 
facturer with reference to the seating structure 
to simplify calculation of its location in a bus 
for purposes of measurement and compliance. 

Sheller also requested that the "seat perform- 
ance forward" testing be siinplified by elim- 
inating the 8-inch range of locations at which 
the lower loading bar can be applied against the 
seat back. As noted in the preamble to Notice 4 
of this docket in response to a similar request 
from Blue Bird Body Company, the NHTSA de- 
clines to make this restriction, to discourage the 
addition of a narrow 2-inch wide structural mem- 
ber at this point simply to meet the requirement. 
This reasoning remains valid and Sheller's re- 
quest is denied. 



Sheller also asked that the requirement for 
forward-facing seats be eliminated from the 
standard, in view of the practice of installing 
side-facing seats in some buses for handicapped 
students. The XHTSA designed the seating sys- 
tem in this standard for protection from fore and 
aft crash forces, and ccmsiders it necessary that 
the seats be forward-facing to achieve the objec- 
tive of occupant protection. Comments are so- 
licited on whether the provision of this protection 
in special vehicles is impractical. 

The Vehicle Equipment and Safety Commis- 
.sion (VESC) asked for a minimum seat width 
of 13 inches for each designated seating position, 
noting that the standard's formula permits seat- 
ing of 12.67 inches in width. The agency does 
not believe its standard will encourage seats nar- 
rower than those presently provided in school 
buses, but will watch for any indication that that 
is occurring. Action can be taken in the future 
if it appears tliat seating is being designed to 
be narrower than at present. 

In consideration of the foregoing, a new motor 
vehicle safety Standard No. 222, School Bus 
Seating and Crash Protection, is added as 
§ 571.222, of Part 571 of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations. . . . 

Effective date: October 26, 1976. The effec- 
tive date of this standard is established as 9 
months after the date of its issuance, as required 
by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety 
Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-492, section 202 
(15 U.S.C. 1397(i)(l)(A)). 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-.563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407); §202, Pub. L. 93-492, 88 
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392) ; delegation of au- 
thority at 49 CFR 1.50). 

Issued on January 22, 1976. 

Howard J. Dugoff 
Acting Administrator 

41 F.R. 4016 
January 28, 1976 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 3-4 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 

School Bus Seating and Crash Protection 
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 6) 



This notice responds to two petitions for re- 
consideration of Standard No. 222, School Bus 
Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as it 
■was issued January 22, 1976. 

Standard No. 222 (49 CFE 571.222 was issued 
January 22, 1976 (41 F.R. 4016, January 28, 
1976), in accordance with §202 of the Motor 
Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 
1974, Pub. L. 93-492 (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)) 
and goes into effect on October 26, 1976. The 
standard provides for compartmentalization of 
bus passengers between well-padded and well- 
constructed seats in the event of collision. Peti- 
tions for reconsideration of the standard were 
received from Sheller-Globe Corporation and 
from the Physicians for Automotive Safety 
(PAS), which also represented the views of 
Action for Child Transportation Safety, several 
adult individuals, and several school bus riders. 

PAS expressed dissatisfaction with several as- 
pects of the standard. The organization objected 
most strongly to the agency's decision that seat 
belts should not be mandated in school buses. 
PAS disagreed with the agency conclusion (39 
F.R. 27585, July 30, 1974) that, whatever the 
potential benefits of safety belts in motor vehicle 
collisions, the possibility of their non-use or 
misuse in the hands of children makes them 
impractical in school buses without adequate su- 
pervision. In support of safety belt installation, 
PAS cited statistics indicating that 23 percent 
of reported school bus accidents involve a side 
impact or rollover of the bus. 

While safety belts presumably would be bene- 
ficial in these situations, PAS failed io provide 
evidence that the belts, if provided, would be 
properly utilized by school-age children. The 
agency will continue to evaluate the wisdom of 



its decision not to mandate belts, based on any 
evidence showing that significant numbers of 
school districts intend to provide the supervision 
that should accompany belt use. In view of the 
absence of evidence to date, however, the agency 
maintains its position that requiring the installa- 
tion of safety belts on school bus passenger seats 
is not appropriate and denies the PAS petition 
for reconsideration. The agency continues to 
consider the reduced hostility of improved seat- 
ing to be the best reasonable form of protection 
against injury. 

PAS asked that a separate standard for seat 
belt assembly anchorages be issued. They dis- 
agree with the agency's conclusion (41 F.E. 4016) 
that seat belt anchorages should not be required 
because of indications that only a small fraction 
of school buses would have belts installed and 
properly used. However, PAS failed to produce 
evidence that a substantial number of school 
buses would be equipped with safety belts, or 
that steps would be taken to assure the proper 
use of such belts. In the absence of such in- 
formation, the agency maintains its position that 
a seat belt anchorage requirement should not be 
included in the standard at this time, and denies 
the PAS petition for reconsideration. 

The NHTSA does find merit in the PAS con- 
cern that in the absence of additional guidance, 
improper safety belt installation may occur. The 
Administration is considering rulemaking to 
establish perfonnanc^ requirements for safety 
belt anchorages and assemblies when such sys- 
tems are installed on school bus passenger seats. 

PAS also requested that the seat back height 
be raised from the 20-inch level specified by the 
standard to a 24-inch level. In support of this 
position, the organization set forth a "common 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 5 



Effective: October 26, 1976 



sense" argument that whiplash must be occurring 
to school bus passengers in rear impact. How- 
ever, the agency has not been able to locate any 
quantified evidence that there is a significant 
whiplash problem in school buses. The crash 
forces imparted to a school bus occupant in rear 
impact are typically far lower than those im- 
parted in a car-to-car impact because of the 
greater weight of the school bus. The new and 
higher seating required by the standard specifies 
energy absorption characteristics for the seat back 
under rear-impact conditions, and the agency 
considers that these improvements over earlier 
seating designs wil reduce the number of in- 
juries that occur in rear impact. For lack of 
evidence of a significant whiplash problem, the 
PAS petition for a 24-inch seat back is denied. 

PAS believed that the States and localities 
that specify a 24-inch seat back height would be 
precluded from doing so in the future by the 
preemptive effect of Standard No. 222 under 
§ 103(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. § 1392(f)): 

§ 103 * * * * * 

(d) Wlienever a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard under this subchapter is in effect, no 
State or political subdivision of a State shall 
have any authority either to establish, or to 
continue in effect, with respect to any motor 
vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any 
safety standard applicable to the same aspect 
of performance of such vehicle or item of 
equipment which is not identical to the Fed- 
eral standard. Nothing in this section shall 
be construed to prevent the Federal Govern- 
ment or the government of any State or 
political subdivision thereof from establishing 
a safety requirement applicable to motor ve- 
hicle equipment procured for its own use if 
such requirement imposes a higher standard 
of performance than that required to comply 
with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. 

Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seat 
back height (S5.1.2) which manufactures may 
exceed as long as their product conforms to all 
other requirements of the standards applicable 
to school buses. It is the NHTSA's opinion that 
any State standard of general applicability con- 
cerning seat back height of school bus seating 



would also have to specify a minimum height 
identical to the Federal requirement. Manufac- 
turers would not be required to exceed this mini- 
mum. Thus, the PAS petition to state seat back 
height as a minimum is unnecessary and has 
already been satisfied, although it does not have 
the effect desired by the PAS. 

With regard to the PAS concern that the 
States' seat height requirements would be pre- 
empted, the second sentence of § 103(d) clarifies 
that the limitation on safety regulations of gen- 
eral applicability does not prevent governmental 
entities from specifying additional safety features 
in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, a 
State or its political subdivisions could specify a 
seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case 
of public school buses. The second sentence does 
not permit these governmental entities to specify 
safety features that prevent the vehicle or equip- 
ment from complying with applicable safety 
standards. 

With regard to which school buses qualify as 
"public school buses" that may be fitted with 
additional features, it is noted that the agency 
includes in this category those buses that are 
owned and operated by a private contractor under 
contract with a State to provide transportation 
for students to and from public schools. 

Sheller-Globe Corporation (Sheller) petitioned 
for exclusion from the seating requirements for 
seating that is designed for handicapped or con- 
valescent students who are unable to utilize 
conventional forward- facing seats. Typically, 
side-facing seats are installed to improve entry 
and egress since knee room is limited in forward- 
facing seats, or spaces on the bus are specifi- 
cally designed to accommodate wheelchairs. The 
standard presently requires that bus passenger 
seating be forward-facing (S5.1) and conform to 
requirements appropriate for forward-facing 
seats. Blue Bird Body Company noted in a 
March 29, 1976, letter that it also considered the 
standard's requirements inappropriate for special 
seating. 

The agency has considered the limited circum- 
stances in which this seating would be offered in 
school buses and concludes that the seat-spacing 
requirement (S5.2) and the fore-and-aft seat per- 
formance requirements (S5.1.3, S5.1.4) are not 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 6 



EfFeclive: October 26, 1976 



appropriate for side-facing seats designee! solely 
for handicapped or convalescent students. Occu- 
pant crash protection is, of course, as important 
for these students as others, and the agency in- 
tends to establish requirements suited to these 
specialized seating arrangements. At this time, 
however, insufficient time remains before the 
effective date of this standard to establish differ- 
ent requirements for the seating involved. There- 
fore, the NHTSA has decided to modify its rule 
by the exclusion of side-facing seating installed 
to accommodate handicapped or convalescent 
passengers. 

School bus manufacturers should note that 
the limited exclusion does not relieve them from 
providing a restraining barrier in front of any 
forward-facing seat that has a side-facing seat 
or wheelchair position in front of it . 

Sheller also petitioned for a modification of the 
head protection zone (S5. 3.1.1) that describes 
the space in front of a seating position where an 
occupant's head would impact in a crash. The 
outer edge of this zone is described as a vertical 
longitudinal plane 3.25 inches inboard of the out- 
board edge of the seat. 

Sheller pointed out that van-type school buses 
utilize "tumble home" in the side of the vehicle 
that brings the bus body side panels and glazing 
into the head protection zone. As Sheller noted, 
the agency has never intended to include body 
side panels and glazing in the protection zone. 
The roof structure and overhead projections from 
the interior are included in this area of the zone. 
To clarify this distinction and account for the 
"tumble home," the description of the head impact 
zone in S5.3.1.1 is appropriately modified. 

In accordance with recently enunciated De- 
partment of Transportation policy encouraging 
adequate analysis of the consequences of regu- 
latory action (41 F.R. 16201; April 16, 1976), 
the agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of 
the economic and other consequences of this action 
on the public and private sectors, including pos- 
sible loss of safety benefits. The decision to 
withdraw requirements for side-facing seats used 
by handicapped or convalescent students will re- 
sult in cost savings to manufactui-ere and pur- 



chasers. The action may encourage production 
of specialized buses that would otherwise not be 
built if the seating were subject to the standard. 
Because the requirements are not appropriate to 
the orientation of this seating, it is estimated that 
no significant loss of safety benefits will oc«ur as 
a result of the amendment. The exclusion of 
sidewall, window or door structure from the head 
protection zone is simply a clarification of the 
agency's longstanding intent that these compo- 
nents not be subject to the requirements. There- 
fore no new consequences are anticipated as a re- 
sult of this amendment. 

In an area unrelated to the petitions for re- 
consideration, the Automobile Club of Southern 
California petitioned for specification of a van- 
dalism resistance specification for the upholstei-y 
that is installed in school buses in compliance 
with Standard No. 222. Data were submitted on 
experience with crash pads installed in school 
buses operated in California. Vandalism damage 
was experienced, and its cost quantified in the 
submitted data. 

The Automobile Club made no argument that 
the damage to the upholstery presents a sig- 
nificant safety problem. While it is conceivable 
that removal of all padding from a seat back 
could occur and expose the rigid seat frame, the 
agency estimates that this would occur rarely and 
presumably would result in replacement of the 
seat. Because the agency's authority under the 
National Traffic and Motor Veliicle Safety Act 
is limited to the issuance of standards that meet 
the need for motor vehicle safety (15 U.S.C. 
§ 1392 (a) ) , the agency concludes that a vandalism 
resistance requirement is not appropriate for 
inclusion in Standard No. 222. 

In light of the foregoing. Standard No. 222 
(49 CFR 571.222) is amended. . . . 

Elective date: October 26, 1976. Because the 
standard becomes effective on October 26, 1976, 
it is found to be in the public interest that an 
effective date sooner than 180 days is in the public 
interest. Changes in the text of the Code of 
Federal Regulations should be made immediately. 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 7 



Effeclive: October 26, 1976 



(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 James B. Gregory 

U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority at Administrator 

49 CFK 1.50.) 41 F.R. 28506 

Issued on July 7, 1976. July 12, 1976 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 8 



i 



Effective: December 16, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 

School Bus Seating and Crash Protection 
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 8) 



This notice amends Standard No. 222, School 
Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, to 
delay the effective date for maximum rearward 
deflection of seats from April 1, 1977, to April 1, 
1978. 

Standard No. 222 (49 CFR 571.222), as pub- 
lished January 28, 1976 (41 F.R. 4016), estab- 
lished October 27, 1976, as the effective date of 
the standard, as mandated by the Motor Vehicle 
and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (the 
Act) (Pub. L. 93^92). Congress subsequently 
amended the Act by Public Law 94-346 (July 
8, 1976) to extend the effective date for the im- 
plementation of school bus standards to April 
1, 1977. 

The NHTSA has promulgated regulations on 
several aspects of performance mandated by 
Congress in the Act. These regulations become 
effective on April 1, 1977. The agency concludes, 
however, that compliance with one provision of 
Standard No. 222 by the April 1, 1977, effective 
date would be impracticable, would result in 
substantial economic waste, and would not be in 
the public interest. 

Since publication of Standard No. 222, a mis- 
understanding has arisen within the industry 
concerning the definition of the term "absorbed" 
when used in connection with the requirements 
in sections S5.1.3.4 and S5.1.4.2. The NHTSA 
explained the term "absorbed" in an interpreta- 
tion to Thomas Built Buses (July 30, 1976) to 
mean "receive without recoil." This interpreta- 
tion requires that returned energy be subtracted 
from total energy applied to the seat back to 
calculate energy "absorbed" by the seat back. 

School bus manufacturers tested their seats in 
accordance with the NHTSA definition of "ab- 
sorbed" and found that the seats continued to 



comply with the requirements of Standard No. 
222 when tested for forward performance 
(S5.1.3), but these same seats were marginally 
below the NHTSA requirements for rearward 
seat deflection. Based upon these test data, 
petitions have been received from Thomas Built 
Buses, Blue Bird Body Company, Carpenter Body 
Works, Wayne Corporation, and Ward School 
Bus Manufacturing, all requesting a change in 
rearward i^erformance requirements. 

The NHTSA has examined the data submitted 
by the manufacturers and concludes that the 
seats upon which the tests were made demonstrate 
a high probability of meeting most of the re- 
quirements of Standard No. 222. Further, the 
agency concludes that to mandate full compliance 
with the rearward performance requirements of 
Standard No. 222 would require extensive re- 
tooling and redesign. This could result in sub- 
stantial economic waste of seats now in production 
and severe economic hardship for manufacturers. 

The NHTSA is particularly concerned that to 
require full compliance with the rearward per- 
formance requirements at this late date might 
mean that manufacturers would be unable to 
redesign their seats in time to commence manu- 
facture of completed buses on April 1, 1977. 
Since single-stage buses produced after April 1, 
1977, must meet NHTSA safety requirements in 
all other respects, they will be substantially safer 
than buses currently in use. Therefore, the 
agency finds that it is in the interest of safety 
to ensure that these safer buses will be available 
on April 1, 1977, to replace older less safe models. 
To ensure that safer buses can be marketed with- 
out delay, the NHTSA extends the effective date 
of requirements for maximum rearward deflec- 
tion of seats to April 1, 1978. It is emphasized 



PART 671; S 222— PRE 9 



Effective: December 16, 1976 



that the numerous other requirements for school 
bus seating, including all other rearward per- 
formance requirements, remain in effect, which 
ensures adequate interior protection as of April 
1, 1977, as mandated by Congress. A proposal 
for minor modification of S 5. 1.4 (to be published 
shortly) will permit reinstitution of rearward 
deflection requirements following the 1-year delay. 

Because of the imminent effective date of the 
school bus safety standards and the lead time 
required to modify seat design, the NHTSA for 
gool cause finds that notice and public procedure 
on this amendment are impracticable and con- 
trary to the public interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, S5. 1.4(b) 
of Standard No. 222 (49 CFK 571.222) is 
amended by the addition, at the beginning of the 
first sentence, of the following phrase: "In the 



case of a school bus manufactured on or after 
April 1, 1978,". 

Effective date: December 16, 1976. Because 
this amendment relieves a restriction and does 
not impose requirements on any person, it is 
found, for good cause shown, that an immediate 
effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 202, Pub. L. 93-492, 
88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on December 10, 1976. 

Acting Administrator 
Charles E. Duke 

41 F.R. 54945 
December 16, 1976 



i 



f 



PART 571: S 222— PRE 10 



<J 



EfFecllve: April 1, 1978 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 



(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 12) 



This notice amends Standard No. 222, School 
Bus Pass&nger Seating a/nd Crash Protection^ 
increasing the allowable rearward deflection of 
seats from 8 to 10 inches. The action is taken in 
response to petitions that indicated the current 
rearward deflection requirement is unnecessarily 
restrictive in that it would require costly retool- 
ing of school bus seats with no measurable safety 
advantage over a somewhat greater deflection 
distance that would not entail significant retool- 
ing. Additionally, a minor modification of the 
standard is made clarifying the meaning of 
"absorbed energy" consistent with an agency 
interpretation of that term. 

Effective Date: April 1, 1978. 

For further information contact : 

Mr. Timothy Hoyt, Crash worthiness Divi- 
sion, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.. 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2264). 

Supplementary Information : On November 10, 
1977, the NHTSA published a notice proposing 
to amend the rearward deflection requirement of 
Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating 
and Crash Protection. The impetus for that pro- 
posal came from several petitions from school bus 
manufacturers claiming that the rearward deflec- 
tion requirement was unnecessarily restrictive 
since it would require significant retooling of 
school bus seats which would not be measurably 
superior, in terms of safety, to seats designed to 
meet a slightly greater deflection distance. They 
stated that seats produced in compliance with a 
somewhat greater rearward deflection require- 
ment, as opposed to the currently specified 8-inch 
requirement, would not require retooling. The 
NHTSA agreed with the petitioners and, accord- 
ingly, proposed to increase the allowable rear- 
ward deflection of seats from 8 to 10 inches. By 



the same notice, the NHTSA proposed a minor 
modification of the standard clarifying the 
agency's meaning of absorbed energy. 

Only one comment was received in response to 
that notice of proposed rulemaking. The "Vehicle 
Equipment Safety Commission did not submit 
comments. 

The only commenter. Blue Bird Body Com- 
pany, took issue with the agency's proposed 
method for limiting rearward seat deflection. It 
asserted that the requirement expressed in S5.1.4 
(c) of the standard should be the only limitation 
on rearward seat deflection. That section pro- 
vides that a seat shall not, when tested, come 
within 4 inches of any portion of another pas- 
senger seat. 

Blue Bird's comment is not persuasive. The 
requirement of So.l.4(c) addresses an entirely 
separate safety concern than the requirement of 
S5.1.4(b). Section S5.1.4(b) limits the rearward 
deflection of a seat, by this notice, to a maximum 
of 10 inches. That requirement functions as part 
of the compartmentalization scheme of Standard 
222. Limiting the degree of seat back deflection 
helps to contain a child within the seat structures 
in the event of an accident. This requirement 
should be distinguished from that contained in 
S5.1.4(c), which is intended to ensure that a 
minimum amount of space remains between seats 
following an accident so that a child does not 
become trapped. Since both requirements are 
necessary to maintain the safety level considered 
necessary for school buses, Blue Bird's request is 
denied. 

Blue Bird stated in its comments a preference 
for specifying maximum rearward seat deflection 
in terms of inches rather than angle. This com- 
ment suggests that Blue Bird misinterpreted the 
statements in the notice of proposed rulemaking 
as indicating that the NHTSA was contemplat- 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 11 



Effective: April 1, 1978 

ing an amendment that would limit the angle of 
seat deflection. The reference in the notice to a 
40° seat angle was made only to justify the pro- 
posed 10-inch maximum seat deflection. A 40° 
seat angle roughly translates to 10 inches of rear- 
ward seat deflection. There was no intention to 
suggest that an angle limitation was under con- 
sideration. In fact, the preamble stated that the 
NHTSA had abandoned, in earlier rulemaking, 
attempts to adopt an angular measurement owing 
to the difficulty of making such a measurement. 

The agency concludes that the extension of the 
allowable rearward deflection of seats from 8 to 
10 inches assures passenger safety while minimiz- 
ing the cost impact of compliance with the school 
bus regulations. Since this amendment relieves 
a restriction, it should result in no increase in 
costs. 



In consideration of the foregoing. Part 571, of 
Title 49, CFR, is amended. . . . 

The principal authors of this proposal are 
Timothy Hoyt of the Crashwortliiness Division 
and Roger Tilton of the Office of Chief Counsel. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 203, Pub. L. 93-492, 
88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on March 1, 1978. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 



43 F.R. 9149 
March 6, 1976 



PART 571; S 222— PRE 12 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 



School Bus Seating and Crash Protection 
(Docket No. 73-3; Notice 13) 



Action; Final rule. 



Summary: This notice makes final an existing 
interim amendment to Standard No. 222, 
School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, in- 
creasing the maximum allowable seat spacing 
in school buses from 20 to 21 inches. In issuing 
the original standard, the agency intended that 
the seats be spaced approximately 20 inches 
apart (S5.2). However, because of manufac- 
turing tolerances, some school bus manufactur- 
ers were spacing their seats at distances less 
than 20 inches to ensure that the spacing does 
not exceed the prescribed maximum. A seat 
spacing specification of 21 inches permits 20-inch 
spacing of seats by taking manufacturing toler- 
ances into fuller account. This spacing will ac- 
commodate large high school students while still 
ensuring a safe level of school bus seat perform- 
ance. 

Effective date: Since this amendment merely 
makes final an existing interim rule, it is effective 
March 29, 1979. 

For further information contact : 

Mr. Robert Williams, Crashworthiness Divi- 
sion, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
"Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 426-2264. 

Sufplementary information.: On December 22, 
1977, the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- 
ministration issued a proposal to increase the 
allowable seat spacing in school buses from 20 to 
21 inches (42 FR 64136). Concurrently with that 
proposal, the NHTSA issued an interim final rule 
permitting buses to be constructed immediately 
with the increased seat spacing (42 FR 64119). 
This action was taken to provide the amount of 
seat spacing in school buses originally intended 



by the agency and to relieve immediately prob- 
lems created by the unnecessarily limited seat 
spacing in buses then being built. The action 
resulted from numerous complaints by school bus 
users relating to seat spacing. The proposal and 
interim final rule responded to petitions from the 
Wisconsin School Bus Association and the Na- 
tional School Transportation Association asking 
for increased seat spacing. 

The agency received many comments in re- 
sponse to its December 1977 proposal. Most com- 
ments favored some extension in the seat spacing 
allowance in school buses. Commenters differed 
as to the amount of seat spacing needed to ac- 
commodate fully tiie larger school children. Some 
commenters suggested that the agency provide 
still more seat spacing than proposed in the 
December 22 notice. Other commenters sup- 
ported the agency's suggested modification. 

The agency has reviewed all of the comments 
and the petitions concerning this issue and has 
concluded that the proposal and interim rule 
provide sufficient seat spacing in school buses for 
all school children. To provide greater seat 
spacing, as suggested by some commenters, might 
necessitate changing the seat structures to absorb 
more energy. See the December proposal for 
further discussion of this point. The NHTSA 
does not believe that such a costly change is war- 
ranted at this time. The agency notes that as a 
result of the interim rule seat spacing in buses 
has become adequate to meet the needs for pupil 
transportation to and from school. The agency 
continues, however, to research the proper seating 
for activity buses and will address that issue in a 
separate notice as soon as all -of the research and 
analysis is completed. 



PART 571; S 222-PRE 13 



In accordance with the foregoing, Volume 49 88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392); delegation of 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571, authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 
Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Issued on March 21 1979. 

Protectiart, is amended .... ^, , , 

_,, . . , , „ , . . T, , Joan Claybrook 

ihe principal authors oi this notice are Robert . . 

Williams of the Crashworthiness Division and 

Roger Tilton of the Office of Chief Counsel. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 44 F.R. 18674-18675 

(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 203, Pub. L. 93^92, March 29, 1979 



PART 571; S 222-PRE 14 



^ 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 
FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 
School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection 

[Docket No. 73-3; Notice 15] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends the agency's 
school bus seating standard to increase seat 
spacing from 21 to 24 inches. This amendment is 
being issued to resolve problems experienced by 
users, i.e., school districts and contract carriers, to 
the effect that mandatory seat spacing at the 
prior level inhibited some necessary uses. The 
agency finds that an additional space seating 
option will not inhibit safety. 

DATE: This amendment is effective March 24, 
1983. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standard 
No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash 
Protection, was one of several standards 
implemented pursuant to the Motor Vehicle and 
School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 
93-492). The standard regulates the performance 
aspects of school bus seats. One portion of the 
standard limits the longitudinal spacing between 
seats in buses with gross vehicle weight ratings 
(GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. No seat may 
be positioned more than 21 inches from the seat 
immediately to the front, measured from the 
seating reference point to the seat back or 
restraining barrier located in front of the seat. 

The initial version of Standard 222 which 
became effective on April 1, 1977, limited school 
bus seat spacing to 20 inches. Soon after school 
buses began to be produced in compliance with 
this requirement, users began to experience 
problems of inadequate spacing. Because of 
quality control and other production problems 



affecting seat spacing, manufacturers were 
spacing seats significantly less than the 20 inches 
permitted by the standard to ensure compliance. 
As manufacturers improved their production 
techniques, seat spacing was extended. 

The agency upon examination of its then 
existing data concluded later that same year that 
it could extend seat spacing to 21 inches without 
adversely affecting the compartmentalization 
concept that was the key to protecting children in 
the buses. Compartmentalization attempts to 
protect children between well padded high- 
backed seats. The agency amended the rule 
accordingly (42 F.R. 64119, December 22, 1977) 
and undertook to study further the 
appropriateness of the required seat spacing. 

Both the amendment and improved 
manufacturer production methods reduced the 
number of spacing problems significantly. Some 
problems continue to exist, however, especially 
concerning buses used to transport children long 
distances to and from school, or to and from 
school related events which may be located far 
from the school itself. The agency has conducted 
tests to see whether it could improve seat spacing 
to respond to these continuing problems, without 
compromise of safety. The tests, which are 
available in the Technical Reference Section of 
the agency under H73-3 "School Bus Passenger 
Seat and Lap Belt Sled Tests." DOT-HS-804985, 
December 1978, show that seat spacing could be 
increased up to 24 inches without impairing the 
concept of compartmentalization. An increase in 
seat spacing beyond 24 inches might impair the 
ability of the seats to absorb energy in the 
manner required by the standard. Accordingly, 



PART 571; S222-PRE 15 



on February 25, 1982, the agency proposed a 
further increase in seat spacing to 24 inches (47 
F.R. 8231). 

The agency received numerous comments in 
response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. 
Virtually all of those comments supported the 
agency's action. In accordance with the comments 
and the existing agency information, the agency, 
by this notice, makes final the increased seat 
spacing to 24 inches. 

Three school districts out of the more than 140 
commenters on the February notice objected to 
the increased seat spacing. It appears that these 
commenters were afraid that the increased seat 
spacing was mandatory and that this would in 
turn reduce the seating capacity in their vehicles 
resulting in the need to purchase additional buses 
or realign school routes. This understanding is 
not accurate. The increased seat spacing is 
merely optional. If a school chooses to have 
additional spacing in some or all of its buses, up to 
24 inches, this would be permitted. Otherwise, 
schools may continue to purchase buses with 
seats spaced as they are today. Seat spacing less 
than 24 inches is completely within the discretion 
of the school that is purchasing the vehicles. 

Commenters to the February notice raised 
another issue that is somewhat related to seat 
spacing. They requested more comfortable seats 
and additional leg room for long distance school 



buses. These are the vehicles that frequently 
have been involved in transporting children to 
and from activities or, in some instances, carry 
children over long distances to schools in some of 
the Western States. The commenters in general 
would prefer to have recliner seats or some other 
seating system that would be more comfortable 
for these uses. 

The agency has explored the possibility of 
establishing another optional seating mode in 
school vehicles that would accommodate the 
concerns of these commenters. The agency 
concludes that recliner seats could not provide 
the same level of safety as provided by existing 
seat requirements in school buses. Accordingly, 
the agency declines to adopt this suggestion. 
NHTSA believes that the seat spacing extension 
being made today should address adequately the 
problem of comfort in buses used for school 
activities. 

This amendment is being made effective 
immediately. It relieves a restriction, and is 
com|)letely optional, and does not require any 
manufacturer or purchaser to alter present 
practices. Further, the agency has learned that 
many companies and purchasers are waiting for 
this amendment before purchasing new vehicles. 
Therefore, an immediate effective date is in the 
public interest. 

Issued on March 17, 1983. 



Raymond A Peek, Jr. 
Administrator 
48 F.R. 12384 
March 24, 1983 



PART 571; S222-PRE 16 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 



Seat Belt Assembly Achorages 

(Docket No. 87-08; Notice 5) 

RIN:2127-AD12 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule establishes a new requirement 
for lap/shoulder safety belts to be installed in all 
forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in con- 
vertible passenger cars, light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (e.g., passenger vans and utility 
vehicles), and small buses. Rear-seat lap/shoulder 
belts are estimated to be even more effective than 
rear-seat lap-only belts in reducing fatalities and 
moderate-to-severe injuries. As safety belt use in the 
rear seat of these vehicle types increases, the greater 
effectiveness of rear-seat lap/shoulder belts should 
yield progressively greater safety benefits. NHTSA 
also anticipates that this rule will achieve benefits by 
helping to increase safety belt use in rear seating 
positions of these vehicle types, by providing rear-seat 
occupants with maximum safety protection when they 
buckle up. 

This rule also establishes a requirement for lap/ 
shoulder belts to be installed at the driver's seat and at 
any other front outboard seating position in small 
buses. NHTSA believes that lap/shoulder safety belts 
in these small buses will offer the same benefits as 
lap/shoulder belts in those positions offer to occupants 
of passenger cars, light trucks, and light multipurpose 
passenger vehicles. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments of S7.1.1.3 and 
S7.1.1.5 are effective on September 1, 1991. All the 
other amendments made by this rule take effect on 
May 1, 1990. These requirements apply to convertible 
passenger cars, light trucks, light multipurpose pas- 
senger vehicles, and small buses manufactured on or 
after September 1, 1991. Convertible passenger cars, 
light trucks, light multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
and small buses manufactured before September 1, 
1991 may also comply with these requirements. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background. 

On January 1, 1968, the initial Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards took effect. One of those standards 
was Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 
CFR 571.208), which required the installation of 
lap/shoulder safety belts at the driver's and right front 



passenger's seating positions of passenger cars, and 
either lap-only or lap/shoulder safety belts at every 
other designated seating position. Another of the 
initial safety standards that took effect on January 1, 
1968 was Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly An- 
chorages (49 CFR 571.210), which specified location 
and strength requirements for the anchorages used to 
hold the safety belts to the passenger car during a 
crash. Standard No. 210 required passenger car manu- 
facturers to provide anchorages for lap/shoulder belts 
for each forward-facing front and rear outboard seating 
position in all cars other than convertibles. NHTSA 
subsequently amended both of these .standards to 
extend their applicability to trucks, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPVs), and buses. However, when 
Standard No. 210 was extended to these additional 
vehicle types, NHTSA did not require the manu- 
facturers to provide upper torso (i.e., shoulder belt) 
anchorages for rear outboard seating positions in these 
other vehicle types or in convertible passenger cars. 

Studies of occupant protection from 1968 forward 
show that the lap-only safety belts installed in rear 
seating positions are effective in reducing the risk of 
death and injury. See, for example, the studies cited in 
the ANPRM on this subject; 52 FR 22820, June 16, 
1987. However, the agency believes that rear-seat 
lap/shoulder safety belts would be even more effective. 
NHTSA estimates that rear-seat lap-only belts reduce 
the risk of death by 24-40 percent, while rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belts reduce that risk by 32-50 percent. 
The somewhat greater effectiveness of lap/shoulder 
belts vs. lap-only belts in the rear seat results in 
progressively greater actual safety benefits for rear- 
seat occupants, to the extent that those safety belts 
are, in fact, used. As recently as 1981-82, only two 
percent of rear-seat occupants used their safety belts. 
At that level of belt use, there are very few safety 
benefits from requiring rear-seat lap/shoulder belts 
instead of lap-only belts. However, belt use in the rear 
seat has steadily risen, with 16 percent of rear seat 
occupants buckling up in 1987. As rear-seat belt use 
continues to rise, the incremental benefits of rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belts can be realized. 



PART 571; S222-PRE 17 



The increase in belt use in rear seats was one of the 
factors reflected in the agency's decision to grant a 
petition by the Los Angeles Area Child Passenger 
Safety Association asking NHTSA to establish a 
requirement for rear-seat lap/shoulder safety belts. 
After granting this petition, NHTSA published an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on 
June 16, 1987 (52 FR 22818). Thirty-four commenters 
responded to the ANFRM's request for comments on 
the need for rulemaking action to require lap/shoulder 
safety belts in rear seating positions. 

After considering these comments, NHTSA con- 
cluded that several factors had changed since the 
agency had previously examined this issue and deter- 
mined that it was appropriate to give vehicle manu- 
facturers the option of installing either lap-only belts 
or lap/shoulder belts in rear seats. Among the changed 
factors were the substantial increase in rear seat 
safety belt use and the substantial decrease in costs of 
a requirement for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts, because 
of manufacturers voluntarily equipping more and 
more of their vehicles with rear seat lap/shoulder 
belts. After analyzing the effects of these changed 
factors and the comments on the ANPRM, NHTSA 
tentatively determined that a requirement for lap/ 
shoulder belts would now be appropriate. Accordingly, 
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) on November 29, 1988 (53 FR 47982). 

This NPRM was a comprehensive proposal that 
proposed requirements for passenger cars and light 
trucks, MPVs, and small buses to be equipped with 
lap/shoulder safety belts at all forward-facing rear 
outboard seating positions. Additionally, the NPRM 
proposed that these lap/shoulder safety belts be equip- 
ped with a particular type of retractor, that such belts 
be integral (i.e., the shoulder belt could not be detach- 
able from the lap belt), and that such belts comply with 
some of the comfort and convenience requirements 
specified in section S7.4 of Standard No. 208. 

More than 70 comments were received on this 
NPRM. The issue of whether passenger cars other 
than convertibles would be equipped with rear seat 
lap/shoulder belts was straightforward and noncontro- 
versial, with only two commenters suggesting some 
modifications of the agency's proposal to require all 
1990 and subsequent model year passenger cars to be 
equipped with rear-seat lap/shoulder belts. To ensure 
the earliest possible implementation of a requirement 
for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, on 
June 14, 1989, NHTSA published a final rule addressing 
only those vehicles (54 FR 25275). That rule requires 
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in all passenger cars 
manufactured on or after December 11, 1989. 

This rule addresses all of the other issues that were 
presented in the November, 1988 NPRM on this topic. 
For the convenience of the reader, this rule uses the 
same organization and format as the NPRM did. 



Requirements of this Rule 

1. Seating Positions Subject to These Requirements 

The NPRM proposed that lap/shoulder belts be 
required in rear seats at outboard seating positions 
only. Some commenters suggested that technologies 
and designs are available to provide lap/shoulder belts 
at rear center seating positions, and that NHTSA 
should further examine this issue. The agency ex- 
plained in the NPRM that there are more technical 
difficulties associated with any requirement for 
lap/shoulder belts at center rear seating positions, and 
that lap/shoulder belts at center rear seating positions 
would yield small safety benefits and substantially 
greater costs, given the lower center seat occupancy 
rate and the more difficult engineering task. Accord- 
ingly, this rulemaking excluded further consideration 
of a requirement for center rear seating positions. 
None of the commenters presented any new data that 
would cause the agency to change its tentative con- 
clusion on this subject that was announced in the 
NPRM. 

The NPRM also noted that seating positions adjacent 
to aisleways in some vans might not be "outboard 
designated seating positions" as defined at 49 CFR 
§ 571.3. because those aisle seats could be more than 
12 inches from the inside of the vehicle. General 
Motors (GM) stated its belief that this discussion 
showed the agency's intent to exclude seats that 
border aisleways from the lap/shoulder belt require- 
ment. GM suggested that the reasons for excluding 
these seating positions from the lap/shoulder belt 
requirement were the costs and/or practical difficulties 
that would be presented if aisleway seating positions 
were required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. 
Specifically, GM stated that locating the anchorage for 
the upper end of the shoulder belt on the aisle side of 
the vehicle would stretch the shoulder belt across the 
aisleway and cause entry and exit problems for occu- 
pants of seating positions to the rear of the aisleway 
seating position. To avoid such difficulties, the an- 
chorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt could be 
moved to the roof of the vehicle. However, roof struc- 
tural modifications would have to be made to accom- 
modate the anchorage, and these modifications would 
impose disproportionately high costs. GM stated in its 
comments that these reasons would apply with equal 
force to all seats adjacent to aisleways, regardless of 
whether such seats were more than or less than 12 
inches from the inside of the vehicle. 

NHTSA has determined that these comments have 
merit. The agency did not mean to suggest that 
shoulder belts should be required at seating positions 
where they would obstruct an aisle designed to give 
access to rear seating positions. Accordingly, this rule 
has been modified from the proposal to specify that 
these rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirements apply 



PART 571; S222-PRE 18 



to rear outboard seating positions except any outboard 
seating positions that are adjacent to a walkway 
located between the seat and the side of the vehicle to 
allow access to more rearward seating positions. Of 
course, in those cases where manufacturers are able to 
design and install lap/shoulder belts at seating posi- 
tions adjacent to aisleways without interfering with 
the aisleway's purpose of allowing access to more 
rearward seating positions, NHTSA encourages the 
manufacturers to do so. It should also be noted that 
those rear seating positions at which lap/shoulder 
belts are not installed voluntarily or in response to a 
regulatory requirement are required by Standard No. 
208 to be equipped with lap-only safety belts, which 
have been proven effective in reducing the risk of death 
and injury. 



2. Types of Rear Seats Subject to These Requirements 

The NPRM proposed limiting these requirements to 
forward -facing rear outboard seats, because the agency 
is unaware of any data showing that occupants of 
center-facing or rear-facing seating positions would be 
significantly better protected by lap/shoulder belts 
than by lap-only belts. The NPRM also referred to an 
April 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Ohdaira of Isuzu Motors, in 
which NHTSA stated that S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 
requires safety belts on swivel seats installed at front 
outboard seating positions to adjust to fit occupants 
"with the seat in any position." Because the same 
regulatory language would apply to swivel seats in- 
stalled at rear outboard seating positions if the proposal 
were adopted as a final rule, the NPRM proposed to add 
express regulatory language to S7.1.1 to codify the 
interpretation. 

Three commenters responded to this discussion in 
the NPRM. Ford, Nissan, and Toyota raised sub- 
stantially the same points in their comments. These 
commenters all suggested that the agency ought to 
require swivel seats to provide lap/shoulder belts for 
occupants when the seats are forward-facing, but 
permit occupants to be restrained by lap-only belts 
when the swivel seats are adjusted to some position 
other than forward-facing. These manufacturers 
argued that the overall protection of upper torso 
restraints (i.e., shoulder belts) on occupants of center- 
facing seating positions is unclear. For example, in 
certain instances, the design standard in Australia 
prohibits manufacturers from providing upper torso 
restraints at center-facing seating positions. Further, 
these manufacturers stated that they knew of no crash 
data suggesting the need for such a requirement. 
According to these commenters, the absence of demon- 
strable safety benefits associated with such a re- 
quirement combined with the demonstrable techno- 
logical problems and costs associated with such a 



requirement should lead the agency to require only lap 
belts when swivel seats are adjusted to a position other 
than forward-facing. 

NHTSA was persuaded by these comments. Indeed, 
as Ford noted in its comments, just as the NPRM 
stated that no data show that occupants of center- 
facing or rear-facing seats would be significantly 
better protected by lap/shoulder belts instead of lap- 
only belts, no data show that occupants of swivel seats 
adjusted to the center-facing or rear-facing positions 
would be significantly better protected by lap/shoulder 
belts instead of lap-only belts. Accordingly, this final 
rule adds language to Standard No. 208 that requires 
swivel seats to provide lap/shoulder belts for occupants 
when the seat is adjusted to the forward-facing position 
and permits swivel seats to provide lap-only belts for 
occupants when the seat is adjusted to some position 
other than forward-facing. The Ohdaira interpretation 
is, therefore, overruled to the extent that it is in- 
consistent with this new language in Standard No. 
208. 

In its comments. Ford indicated that it would be 
appropriate for this preamble to discuss a type of seat 
Ford is considering installing in future vehicle models. 
This seat was described as a bench seat that converts 
from forward-facing to rear-facing. Under the language 
added to Standard No. 208 by this rule, all seats that 
can be adjusted to a forward-facing position and some 
other position, regardless of whether such seats are 
swivel seats, convertible seats of the sort described in 
Ford's comment, or any other such seat, must provide 
lap/shoulder belts when in the forward-facing position 
and may provide lap-only belts when adjusted to some 
position other than forward-facing. 

3. Vehicle Types Subject to These Requirements 
a. Passenger Cars 

In the NPRM, the agency proposed to make the 
requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder belts apply to 
all passenger cars, including convertibles. As previous- 
ly discussed, the requirements for passenger cars 
other than convertibles were published in a June 14, 
1989 final rule (54 FR 25275). The NPRM proposed that 
rear seat lap/shoulder belts be required on convertible 
passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991. 

In its comments, Volkswagen asked for an additional 
year of leadtime, until September 1, 1992, before rear 
seat lap/shoulder belts must be installed in convertible 
passenger cars. According to this commenter, the 
convertible version of its Golf model (the Cabriolet) is 
not currently equipped with rear seat lap/shoulder 
belts, was not originally designed to accommodate 
such belts, and will need substantial modifications to 
its current design if the car is to accommodate such 
belts. 



PART 571; S222-PRE 19 



No change has been made in response to this 
comment. The NPRM noted that it was more difficult 
to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in convertibles 
than in other passenger cars, but that, in spite of these 
difficulties, at least three different manufacturers had 
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in their 1988 model year 
convertibles. Accordingly, the agency proposed to 
require convertible passenger cars to be equipped with 
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts, but to allow two years 
more leadtime than was proposed for other passenger 
cars, in recognition of the greater technical difficulties. 
Volkswagen's comment appears to be that more than 
two years of additional leadtime is needed to overcome 
the greater technical difficulties associated with con- 
vertibles, although the comment does not include any 
explanation or analysis of why this is so. A manu- 
facturer's unsubstantiated desire for additional lead- 
time is not a sufficient basis for the agency to postpone 
the proposed September 1, 1991 effective date for rear 
seat lap/shoulder belts in convertibles. Therefore, this 
rule adopts the proposed requirement. 

b. Light Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. 

This vehicle type consists primarily of passenger 
vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less and 
utility vehicles and other off-road vehicles. None of the 
commenters suggested any particular problems that a 
requirement for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts would 
impose on MPVs in general. Toyota repeated its 
position that the voluntary installation of rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belts by manufacturers in all vehicle 
types made it unnecessary for NHTSA to proceed with 
this rulemaking. NHTSA responded at length to similar 
comments by the vehicle manufacturers in the pre- 
amble to the NPRM; see 53 FR 47984. 

Ford did not object to the proposed general require- 
ment for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in light MPVs, 
but asked that open-body type MPVs be excluded from 
the requirement. Ford explained its comment by 
stating that its Bronco II utility vehicle has a removable 
roof over the rear passenger and cargo area. According 
to Ford's comments, "Because the removable roof on 
this vehicle extends below the shoulder reference 
point, it would be impossible to obtain a good shoulder 
belt fit if the shoulder belt anchorages were to be 
located on the non-removable side panels of the vehicle." 
For these reasons. Ford suggested that open-body type 
MPVs be exempted from these requirements or that 
the proposed requirements be revised to make clear 
that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts are not required in 
open-body type MPVs when the roof is removed. 

NHTSA agrees with Ford's assertions that open- 
body type MPVs present greater technical difficulties 
for the installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts than 
other MPVs or convertible passenger cars. For example, 



the rear seats are closer to the rear of the vehicle and 
the rear seats are higher in relation to the vehicle floor 
and sides in most open-body type MPVs than in most 
convertible passenger cars. The agency concurs with 
Ford's assertion that these factors tend to make the 
shoulder belt geometry more difficult in open-body 
type MPVs. However, the agency does not believe that 
these factors present insurmountable engineering dif- 
ficulties. Instead, NHTSA believes that these problems 
can be solved in a relatively straightforward manner. 
While manufacturers cannot use the exact same 
designs used for convertible passenger cars on open- 
body type MPVs, the convertible passenger car designs 
can be modified for use in open-body type MPVs. 
NHTSA concludes that if it is practicable to offer the 
increased protection of shoulder belts at rear outboard 
seating positions, and the added costs are comparable 
to the costs for other MPVs and convertible passenger 
cars, there is no reason to exclude open-body type 
MPVs from the requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder 
belts in MPVs. Hence, no change has been made to the 
proposed requirements for MPVs in response to this 
comment by Ford. 

The agency notes that this means that lap/shoulder 
belts will be required in the rear outboard seats of 
open-body type MPVs, while lap-only belts will be 
permitted in front outboard seats of those vehicles. (In 
practice, however, manufacturers have voluntarily 
provided front-seat lap/shoulder belts in these vehicles.) 
NHTSA is in the process of re-examining the occupant 
protection requirements for the front seating positions 
in open-body type MPVs and other light trucks and 
vans, with particular consideration of whether auto- 
matic occupant protection should be required in these 
vehicles. NHSTA will address the discrepancy between 
the regulatory requirements for front and rear seat 
occupant protection in open-body type MPVs in the 
course of that re-examination. 

c. Light Trucks and Small Buses 

All commenters that addressed the proposed require- 
ments for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in light trucks 
supported the proposal. Similarly, no commenters 
raised any objections to the proposed rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belt requirements in small 
buses other than school buses. Thus, those proposed 
requirements are adopted, for the reasons explained in 
the NPRM. 

However, several commenters, primarily school bus 
manufacturers and operators, objected to the proposed 
requirements for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in small 
school buses. Thomas Built, a school bus manufacturer, 
questioned the effectiveness of rear-seat lap/shoulder 
belts in certain small school buses ("body on chassis" 
buses). The Connecticut Operators of School Trans- 



PART571;S222-PRE20 



portation Association (COSTA) also questioned the 
effectiveness of lap/shoulder belts in small school 
buses, by voicing concerns about how the additional 
stress on the side walls of a small school bus would 
affect its compliance with Standard No. 221, School 
Bus Body Joint Strength (49 CPR 571.221). Thomas 
Built also raised the issue of different levels of safety 
protection for passengers on small school buses, with 
lap/shoulder belts for outboard seating positions and 
lap-only belts for the the inboard seating positions. 
The National School Transportation Association 
(NSTA) likewise objected to the different levels of 
occupant protection that would result if some seating 
positions were equipped with lap/shoulder belts while 
others were equipped with lap-only belts. Blue Bird, 
another school bus manufacturer, raised similar ob- 
jections, claiming that NHTSA occupant protection 
standards for school buses are "disorganized and 
confusing," and suggested that the agency undertake 
rulemaking to separate the occupant protection re- 
quirements for school buses from the occupant pro- 
tection standards for passenger cars and light trucks. 
Additionally, Blue Bird argued that the requirements 
proposed in the NPRM would require too many varieties 
of occupant protection for small school buses. 

NHTSA is concerned if Blue Bird or any other school 
bus manufacturer is having difficulty understanding 
the occupant protection requirements applicable to the 
different types of vehicles that can be used to transport 
school children. A brief summary of those requirements 
might be helpful. If school systems use a nine or fewer 
passenger vehicle to transport school children, that 
vehicle is not a "school bus" for the purposes of the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, 
that vehicle is not subject to any of the requirements in 
Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and 
Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.222). Instead, that 
vehicle would have to comply with the applicable 
requirements in Standard No. 208. As a result of this 
rule published today and the agency's previous rule- 
making, all front and rear outboard seating positions, 
in nine-passenger light vehicles must be equipped with 
lap/shoulder safety belts, irrespective of whether the 
nine-passenger light vehicle is classified as a passenger 
car, truck, or an MPV. 

If the vehicle used to transport school children can 
accommodate 10 or more passengers, the vehicle is a 
"school bus" for the purposes of the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. Every vehicle that is a 
"school bus" must comply with the occupant protection 
requirements of Standard No. 222. In the case of school 
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
more than 10,000 pounds, no safety belts are required 
at seating positions other than the driver's seat. 
Instead, Standard No. 222 sets forth requirements that 
protect occupants of rear seating positions in large 



school buses by means of a concept called "compart- 
mentalization." Persons interested in learning more 
about the concept of compartmentalization and occu- 
pant protection in large school buses may wish to 
review the agency's notice terminating rulemaking to 
specify installation requirements for voluntarily in- 
stalled safety belts on large school buses. This notice 
was published March 22, 1989 at 54 FR 11765. 

In the case of school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 
■ pounds or less. Standard No. 222 requires that occu- 
pants be protected both by safety belts at seating 
positions other than the driver's seat and by most of 
the features of compartmentalization. This double 
means of occupant protection reflects the more severe 
"crash pulse" or deceleration experienced by lighter 
vehicles as compared with heavier vehicles in similar 
collisions. Sections S5(b) of Standard No. 222 requires 
that small school buses meet the requirements of 
Standard No. 208 as those requirements apply to 
MPVs. The provisions of Standard No. 208 currently 
require MPVs (and small school buses, since the 
requirements for these two vehicle types are linked) to 
be equipped with lap/shoulder safety belts at front 
outboard seats and either lap/shoulder belts or lap- 
only belts at all other seating positions. 

Upon further consideration , NHTSA has determined 
that the occupant protection requirements for small 
school buses should be considered separately, not as an 
aspect of the rulemaking action. In the past, NHTSA 
has recognized the special importance of issues related 
to school buses by examining many of those issues in 
rulemaking actions focused exclusively on school buses, 
instead of examining those issues as one part of a 
rulemaking addressing many types of vehicles. This 
policy has allowed both the agency and the public to 
consider fully the implications of any proposed action 
on school buses safety. NHTSA believes it is appro- 
priate to continue following this policy. Accordingly, 
this rule continues to permit small school buses to be 
equipped with either lap-only or lap/shoulder safety 
belts at all rear seating positions, but small school 
buses must also comply with most of the compart- 
mentalization requirements for large school buses. All 
other small buses will be required to be equipped with 
rear-seat lap/shoulder safety belts, but will not be 
required to comply with the compartmentalization 
requirements. 

The NPRM acknowledged that small buses other 
than school buses are not currently required to have 
lap/shoulder safety belts at front outboard seating 
positions, even though front seats generally present a 
more hostile crash environment than rear seats. As 
noted above, small school buses are subject to the 
occupant protection requirements for MPVs, and small 
MPVs have long been required to have lap/shoulder 
safety belts at front outboard seating positions. No 



PART 571; S222-PRE 21 



commenters suggested any reasons why front-seat 
lap/shoulder belts should not be required in small 
buses, just as they are required in small school buses. 
This rule adopts such a requirement. 

4. Vehicle Types NOT Subject to These Requirements 

a. Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 10,000 
Pounds 

NHTSA has traditionally used GVWRs as dividing 
lines for the purposes of applying occupant crash 
protection standards. These groupings reflect the 
differences in the vehicles' functions and crash re- 
sponses and exposure. The NPRM proposed to use 
such a dividing line by limiting the rear seat lap/ 
shoulder belt requirements to vehicles with a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or less. No commenters addressed 
this issue, and this rule adopts the proposal. 

b. Motor Homes 

The NPRM proposed to exclude vehicles that are 
"motor homes" from the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt 
requirements, because lap/shoulder belts at rear seat- 
ing positions might interfere with the residential 
purposes of those seats and because the agency had no 
evidence of significant potential benefits from lap/ 
shoulder belts, instead of the currently permitted 
option for lap/shoulder or lap-only belts, at these 
seating positions. The NPRM also proposed a specific 
definition of "motor home." These proposed require- 
ments are adopted in this rule. 

5. Retractor Types Required for Rear Seat Lap/Shoulder 
Belts 

Retractors at Driver's Seat in Small Buses. 

The NPRM proposed to require that the lap/shoulder 
belt assembly installed at the driver's seating position 
of small buses include an anti-cinch automatic locking 
retractor (ALR) on the lap belt portion. Both Ford and 
Chrysler objected to this proposed requirement, stating 
that it would preclude the use of the continuous loop 
lap/shoulder belt system in small buses. The con- 
tinuous loop system, currently used on most manual 
lap/shoulder belt systems in passenger cars, uses a 
single emergency locking retractor (ELR) on one end of 
the belt system and the other end of the belt system is 
fixed. The ELR then retracts both the lap and shoulder 
belt portions of the belt system. Ford and Chrysler 
each commented that they currently use a continuous 
loop system for the lap/shoulder belts that they 
voluntarily install at the front outboard seating posi- 
tions of their small buses, and that they knew of no 
safety justification for a requirement that would 
prohibit the use of continuous loop system in small 
buses, as the proposed requirement for an ALR for the 
lap belt would have the effect of doing. NHTSA was 
persuaded by these comments. This rule has been 
amended to permit the belt systems at front outboard 



seating positions in small buses to be equipped with 

either an ELR or an anti-cinch ALR for the lap belt 

portion. 

Retractors for Rear Seats and Child Safety 

Seats 

The NPRM contained a detailed discussion of the 
agency's previous statements on this subject, and 
repeated the agency's previous conclusion that only 
ELRs should be permitted as the retractor for the lap 
belt portion of the lap/shoulder belt system. See 53 FR 
47987-47989; November 29, 1988. The agency's con- 
clusion was based on the fact that ELRs for the lap belt 
made the belt system more comfortable and convenient 
for adult occupants, thereby tending to increase use of 
the belt system. Although active children can make 
some child restraint systems unstable if the child 
restraint is secured by a lap belt that incorporates an 
ELR, NHTSA knew of no data to show that this 
potential instability would affect the safety perfor- 
mance of the child restraint in motor vehicle crashes. 
Those parents that wanted to eliminate the potential 
instability of child restraints, even if the instability did 
not have any demonstrable effect on safety, could 
purchase locking clips. These locking clips can prevent 
movement of belts equipped with an ELR. 

NHTSA received many comments on this discussion 
and the accompanying proposal. Many pediatricians 
and other medical professionals, as well as advocates 
of child safety, associations representing the insurance 
industry, and manufacturers of child safety seats, 
commented that it was important that the belt system 
in the vehicle be capable of tightly securing a child 
seat, without resort to any additional hardware like 
locking clips. The commenters suggested differing 
means of achieving this end. Some of these commenters 
advocated that this rule should specify the use of only 
ALRs in the lap belt portion, because ALRs auto- 
matically tighten down to secure the child seat. Other 
of these commenters, such as the Los Angeles Area 
Child Passenger Safety Association, urged the agency 
to draft this rule to require the use of convertible 
retractors similar to those installed in some General 
Motors vehicles. These convertible retractors function 
as ELRs normally, to ensure comfort for adult occu- 
pants. When the belt webbing is fully extended, 
however, the retractors convert to ALRs, to tightly 
secure child seats. Other of these commenters sug- 
gested that the agency could ensure that these rear- 
seat lap/shoulder belt systems would tightly secure 
child seats by following the course of action being 
considered for recommendation by a Society of Auto- 
motive Engineers (SAE) Task Force. That task force 
may recommend that safety belts which incorporate 
ELRs in the lap belt or lap belt portion of a belt 
assembly shall include a means for locking the lap belt 
when it is used with a child seat. Instead of specifying 



PART571;S222-PRE22 



the use of some specific technology, hke ALRs or 
convertible retractors, this approach sets forth the 
desired goal and permits manufacturers to use any 
available technology to achieve that goal. 

Some of the vehicle manufacturers, such as Nissan 
and Toyota, believe that there is no need for any 
further requirements. According to these commenters, 
and persons wishing to secure a child seat at a seating 
position whose lap belt is equipped with ELR can cause 
the retractor to perform like an ALR simply by using a 
locking clip. Volvo commented that the agency ought 
to permit the use of a continuous loop lap/shoulder 
belt. Volvo asserted that its design of the continuous 
loop system uses friction at the loop in the buckle to 
achieve an effect similar to that which would be 
obtained by using a locking clip. In Volvo's opinion, 
this lap/shoulder belt system is the best means of both 
securing child safety seats and ensuring comfort for 
other occupants of the belt system. Chrysler com- 
mented that it was considering modifications to the 
buckle latchplate as a means of accomplishing the 
same effect as would locking clips for its belt assemblies 
equipped with ELRs. 

NHTSA has reached the following conclusions after 
reexamining the available information in light of these 
comments. Nothing in these comments or the available 
information shows that low-speed movement of child 
safety seats actually reduces to any significant extent 
the effectiveness of those seats in crashes. However, 
the low-speed movement of child safety seats held by 
lap belts that use an ELR seems to have given rise to 
questions and concerns about the safety and effective- 
ness of child seats when used with a belt that in- 
corporates an ELR. Even if these questions and 
concerns have not been substantiated, the public may 
not be as likely to use child safety seats if there are 
perceived questions about the effectiveness of those 
seats. NHTSA has concluded that it isjjjprepfiate to 
take action to remove these perceived questions, so as 
to maintain public trust and confidence in the efficacy 
of child seats. 

The agency was persuaded by the comments assert- 
ing that it would be unnecessarily restrictive to 
require the use of ALRs on the lap belt portion of rear 
seat lap/shoulder belts, because there are design 
features other than incorporating an ALR that are as 
effective in ensuring that the belt system can tightly 
secure a child safety seat and because such a feature 
could reduce safety belt use by adult occupants. 
NHTSA has devised an approach in this final rule that 
will ensure comfort for adult occupants and tight 
securing of child safety seats. First, this rule requires 
that any lap belt or lap belt portion of a lap/shoulder 
belt installed at an outboard designated seating position 
in compliance with Standard No. 208 shall be equipped 



with an ELR. This requirement will take effect on 
September 1, 1991 for passenger cars, as well as the 
vehicle types addressed in this rule. 

Second, this final rule requires that safety belts that 
incorporate an ELR in the lap belt or lap belt portion of 
a lap/shoulder belt shall provide some means other 
than an external device that requires manual attach- 
ment or activation that will prevent any further 
webbing from spooling out until that means is released 
or deactivated. This requirement will also take effect 
on September 1, 1991 for passenger cars and vehicle 
types addressed in this rule. The purpose of this 
requirement is to ensure that child safety seats can be 
tightly secured. This requirement will not allow vehicle 
manufacturers to provide "locking clops" to comply 
with this requirement. However, any means that can 
function without additional manual actions can satisfy 
this requirement. For instance, the convertible re- 
tractors on some GM vehicles would comply with this 
requirement. Additionally, devises like Volvo's are 
acceptable if those devices do not require any further 
manual actions to prevent webbing spool out. This 
approach is intended to allow vehicle manufacturers 
the freedom to choose whatever approach they prefer 
to prevent webbing spool out for ELRs, while ensuring 
that whatever approach is chosen will be effective. 

6. The Requirements With Which Rear Seat Lap/ 
Shoulder Belts Must Comply 

The NPRM did not propose to require any crash 
testing requirements for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts, 
for several reasons. First, neither dummy positioning 
procedures nor testing procedures for rear seat occu- 
pants have yet been developed. In fact, the rear seats 
are generally removed from vehicles when conducting 
eempliance testing for occupant protection for the 
front seating positions, to allow the specified weight 
distribution to be more easily achieved and to permit 
the installation of additional instrumentation. Second, 
the rear seating positions offer a generally more benign 
crash environment than the front seating positions. 
Accordingly, the agency concluded that it could not 
justify delaying a proposal for rear-seat lap/shoulder 
belts until it was able to propose a requirement for 
dynamic testing of those safety belts. Several com- 
menters stated that they agreed with the agency's 
decision not to delay this rulemaking, but suggested 
that the agency ought to move expeditiously to estab- 
lish crash testing requirements for rear seat occu- 
pants. NHTSA will consider these comments when it 
establishes its priorities for future activities in the 
area of occupant protection. 

As an adjunct to the decision not to require crash 
testing of rear-seat lap/shoulder belts, the agency 
proposed to require that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts be 



PART 571; S222-PRE 23 



integral. Section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208 speci- 
fies that manual safety belts installed at front outboard 
seating positions must be either (a) integral lap/ 
shoulder belts or (b) crash-tested lap-only belts such 
that the car complies with the occupant protection 
requirements with test dummies restrained only by 
the lap belts. However, since the agency cannot at this 
time promulgate any crash testing requirements for 
rear-seat safety belts, NHTSA believes it is appropriate 
to require that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts installed in 
compliance with this rule be integral; i.e., the lap belt 
must not be detachable from the shoulder belt. 

Several commenters suggested that the requirement 
for integral lap/shoulder belts should not apply to 
certain types of seats or vehicles, because of special 
difficulties posed for those seats or vehicles. In response 
to these comments, NHTSA has carefully reexamined 
it proposal to require that all rear seat lap/shoulder 
belts installed in compliance with this rule be integral. 
The agency prefers to retain the proposed requirement, 
for the same reasons that the requirement was pro- 
posed. That is, to the extent that the lap belt is 
detachable from the shoulder belt and the lap belt is 
used without the shoulder belt, the enhanced safety 
protection offered by lap/shoulder belts will not be 
achieved. The agency's responses to the comments 
suggesting that there are some seating positions or 
vehicles in which rear outboard lap/shoulder belts 
should not be required to be integral are as follows: 
a. Convertible Passenger Cars. ASC, Inc., a company 
that converts hardtops into convertibles, commented 
that it did not believe that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts 
installed in convertibles should be required to be 
integral. According to ASC's comments, a detachable 
shoulder belt that is not buckled would still offer the 
occupant the protection of the lap-only belt. While this 
comment is true, the purpose of this rulemaking is to 
ensure that rear-seat occupants will enjoy even greater 
safety protection than is afforded by lap-only belts. 
Detachable shoulder belts would not serve this purpose. 

ASC's comment then asserted that "the detachability 
feature is essential for ASC to continue to manufacture 
at a competitive price a majority of its present con- 
vertible production which is already equipped with 
three point lap-shoulder safety belts." Accordingly, 
ASC believed that a requirement for integral rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belts would have a "significant negative 
impact on its business." The agency has previously 
stated that it is typically more difficult to install rear- 
seat lap/shoulder belts in convertibles than in sedans 
or coupes. However, the 1988 convertible models 
produced by BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Saab were all 
equipped with integral lap/shoulder belts at rear 
outboard seating positions. These voluntary actions 
by convertible manufacturers showed that the techni- 
cal difficulties associated with integral rear seat lap/ 
shoulder belts in convertibles can be overcome. It may 



well cost ASC , Inc. or other converters more to equip a 
convertible with integral rear-seat lap/shoulder belts 
than it would cost a high volume manufacturer. 
However, ASC provided no data or cost estimates that 
would permit the agency to estimate the cost differen- 
tial ,for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts installed by high 
volume manufacturers and converters. Based on the 
available information, NHTSA concludes that it is 
unlikely that any such cost differential would have 
more than an insignificant effect on the demand for 
convertibles produced by converters. 

NHTSA repeats it previous acknowledgements that 
it will cost manufacturers more to equip convertibles 
with integral rear seat lap/shoulder belts than it will 
cost to equip sedans and coupes with those safety 
belts. In its comments, Volkswagen stated that it 
would have to incur tooling costs of $1.2 million to 
install integral rear-seat lap/shoulder belts in its 
convertibles, with variable costs of an additional $60 
per vehicle to install integral lap/shoulder belts instead 
of lap-only belts. NHTSA estimates that these costs 
would result in a consumer cost increase of $90 per 
vehicle. Even accepting these costs as accurate, NHTSA 
does not believe that a $90 cost increase for conver- 
tibles, which already cost substantially more than the 
hardtop version of the same vehicle, will have any 
significant negative impacts on the demand for con- 
vertibles, even those produced by converters. 

To the extent that these costs result in some 
relatively minor economic impacts, the agency con- 
cludes that those costs and impacts are reasonable. 
The occupants of rear seating positions in convertibles 
are exposed to at least the same degree of risk of death 
and injury in a motor vehicle crash as occupants of 
rear seating positions in other light vehicles. In these 
circumstances, NHTSA has concluded it is appropriate 
to provide those occupants with the same amount of 
safety protection. Therefore, a requirement that con- 
vertible passenger cars manufactured on or after 
September 1 , 1991 be equipped with integral lap/shoul- 
der belts at rear outboard seating positions is adopted 
as proposed. 

Fiat filed comments on behalf of Ferrari to the effect 
that it was possible to comply with the requirement for 
integral lap/shoulder belts for convertibles that were 
designed to include those safety belt systems. However, 
Fiat asserted that the steps needed to modify an 
existing convertible design to accept the upper an- 
chorages for rear seat lap/shoulder belts "would be 
financially intolerable." Fiat asked that this final rule 
be structured to provide an exemption for at least two 
years for existing convertible designs "which cannot 
be made to comply without extreme economic and 
technical hardships." NHTSA has not done so. Section 
123 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) and 49 CFR Part 
555 set forth procedures for obtaining temporary 
exemptions from any of the generally applicable re- 



PART 571; S222-PRE 24 



quirements set forth in the safety standards. If Fiat is 
statutorily eligible for such an exemption and can 
make the requisite showings, it can obtain the tem- 
porary exemption it seeks in accordance with those 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 

b. Readily Removable Seats. In the NPRM for this 
rule, the agency summarized Ford's comment to the 
ANPRM asserting that lap/shoulder belts installed for 
readily removable seats should be permitted to be 
nonintegral, since that would be more convenient for 
persons using the vehicle especially with the seats 
removed. NHTSA concurred with this assertion, but 
noted that permitting detachable shoulder belts would 
result in lower usage of the shoulder belts and lower 
safety benefits for this rule. The agency suggested that 
manufacturers are capable of designing an integral 
lap/shoulder belt system that is nearly as convenient 
as safety belt systems with nonintegral shoulder belts. 
The NPRM suggested: "For instance, a shoulder belt 
that is readily detachable at the anchorage could be 
used for the outboard seating positions." 53 FR 47990, 
November 29, 1988. 

Both Ford and GM suggested in their comments that 
permitting belts to be detachable at the upper anchor- 
age would ease the problems of providing integral 
lap/shoulder belts at outboard seating positions of 
readily removable seats. However, both these com- 
menters also stated that a March 1 , 1985 interpretation 
letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Mr. Hiroshi 
Shimizu of Tokai Rika Co. appeared to state that the 
provisions of Standard No. 208 forbid the use of a 
lap/shoulder safety belt that is detachable at the upper 
anchorage. 

Mr. Shimizu provided a diagram with his letter that 
illustrated the safety belt design in question. This 
diagram showed two reasons why this design would 
not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208. 
First, because of the location of the retractor and the 
separate buckles for the lap and shoulder belt portions 
of this belt system, an occupant could release the 
shoulder belt buckle and use this system soley as a lap 
belt with no dangling shoulder belt webbing to alert 
the occupant to the need to fasten the shoulder belt 
buckle. Alternatively, an occupant could release the 
lap belt buckle and use the system solely as a shoulder 
belt with no dangling webbing to alert the occupant to 
the need to fasten the lap belt buckle. NHTSA stated 
that this design would not satisfy the requirement in 
S4.1.2.3.1 and S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 the non- 
detachable shoulder belts be provided on some belt 
assembli ;s. 

Second, section S7.2 of Standard No. 208 requires 
that the latch mechanism of seat belt assemblies shall 
release both lap and shoulder belt simultaneously and 
release at a single point by a pushbutton action. When 
both the lap and shoulder belt portions of Mr. Shimizu's 



design were buckled, the occupant would have to 
release both buckles to get out of the belt system. 
Hence, this belt system could not comply with Standard 
No. 208 because the release from the lap and shoulder 
belt would not be simultaneous, nor would it be at a 
single point. 

NHTSA does not believe that the Shimizu inter- 
pretation forecloses all safety belt system designs that 
detach at the upper anchorage. The language of section 
S7.2 plainly requires that any such safety belt system 
must use a single, pushbutton buckle that releases the 
occupant from the lap belt and shoulder belt simul- 
taneously. There is nothing inherent in the design of a 
safety belt system detachable at the upper anchorage 
that makes it impossible to comply with these re- 
quirements. Similarly, a shoulder belt could be de- 
tachable at the upper anchorage without incorporating 
an additional point at which the belt could be released 
by the seat occupant, such as the buckle in Mr. 
Shimizu's design. For example, manufacturers could 
install some type of spring operated "dog leash" device 
that would not be equipped with a push button release 
mechanism. By a "dog leash" device, NHTSA is 
referring to a device that does not use any form of push 
button release. Such devices rely on other actions such 
as a slide button or slide collar to mechanically 
uncouple the belt system from the upper anchorage. 
Such a design would not be prohibited by Standard No. 
208 nor anything in the Shimizu interpretation. To 
make this more clear, this rule adopts language in 
Standard No. 208 expressly stating that vehicles with 
readily removable rear seats may use a shoulder belt 
that detaches at the upper anchorage point to meet the 
requirements for an integral rear-seat lap/shoulder 
belt. 

f. Swivel seats. As previously noted, swivel seats and 
other seats that can be adjusted to be forward-facing 
and to face some other direction will be required to 
provide lap/shoulder belts only when in the forward- 
facing position and may provide lap-only belts when 
adjusted to face other directions. The agency had to 
consider the question of what requirements should be 
specified for the detachable shoulder belt. NHTSA 
could have required those belts to be detachable at the 
upper anchorage point, by establishing requirements 
such as were established for readily removable seats. 
However, that would have left the occupant of the 
swivel seat with webbing in his or her lap every time 
the occupant adjusted the seat to some position other 
than forward-facing. The shoulder belt webbing could 
become soiled, so that the occupant of the swivel seat 
not use either the lap belt alone or the belt as a 
lap/shoulder belt. 

To prevent this, NHTSA has decided that seats that 
adjust to be forward-facing and to face in some other 
direction are the only rear outboard seating positions 



PART 571; S222-PRE 25 



that will not be required to be equipped with integral 
lap/shoulder belts. Instead, those seating positions 
may be equipped with a shoulder belt that is detachable 
at the latchplate. 

However, this rule establishes an additional re- 
quirement that any such non-integral shoulder belt 
portion be equipped with an ELR, so that the shoulder 
belt portion will be available for use by all occupants of 
the seat in its retracted position, and will be less likely 
to become soiled. This will ensure that those occupants 
of adjustable seating positions that want the added 
protection of a lap/shoulder belt in these seating 
positions will have that protection. 

The agency acknowledges that this requirement is 
likely to result in lower shoulder belt use at these 
seating positions than at other rear outboard seating 
positions. However, the agency concludes that belt use 
at these adjustable seating positions would be lower 
still if the agency were to require that the lap/shoulder 
belts be integral and the shoulder belt webbing were in 
the occupant's lap or on the floor of the vehicle. On 
balance, the agency concludes that the interests of 
occupants of adjustable rear seating positions will be 
best served by permitting the shoulder belt portion of 
the lap/shoulder belt system to be detachable at the 
buckle, i.e., non-integral, while including a requirement 
for a shoulder belt retractor so that a lap shoulder belt 
will always be available for those persons. 

7. Comfort and Convenience 

The NPRM stated that compliance with the pro- 
visions in S7.4.2(a), S7.4.3, S7.4.4, and S7.4.5 of 
Standard No. 208 is determined with reference to a test 
dummy for the front seating positions. As noted above, 
there are no dummy positioning procedures for the 
rear seating positions, so the agency cannot determine 
compliance with the comfort and convenience pro- 
visions with reference to a test dummy. Additionally, 
the NPRM announced that the agency has not yet 
developed any alternative surrogate measurements for 
comfort and convenience in rear seating positions. As 
was the case with crash testing requirements discussed 
above, NHTSA did not believe it would be appropriate 
to delay this rulemaking to allow the agency to develop 
a full set of comfort and convenience requirements. 

NHTSA noted that the requirements in S7.4.6 for 
seat belt guides and hardware would apply to rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belts without proposing any changes to 
accomplish that. No commenters objected to this 
result, so safety belts installed in compliance with this 
rule are subject to those requirements. 

The remaining issue in this area concerned tension- 
relieving devices on rear-seat lap/shoulder belts. In the 
NPRM, the agency expressed its tenative conclusion 
that the same considerations should apply to rear 



seating positions with tension-relieving devices on 
safety belts as already apply to front seating positions 
with tension-relieving devices on safety belts. That is, 
tension-relieving devices are permitted to be installed 
on front seat safety belts if vehicles that have tension- ' 
relieving devices at those seating positions comply 
with certain special conditions intended to reduce the 
likelihood of misuse of tension-relieving devices. Those 
special conditions are set forth in S7.4.2 as follows: 

1. The vehicle owner's manual must include an 
explanation of how the tension-relieving device works 
and recommend a maximum amount of slack that 
should be introduced into the belt under normal 
circumstances (S7.4.2(b); 

2. The vehicle must comply with the injury criteria 
specified in S5.1 of Standard No. 208 during a barrier 
crash test with the shoulder belt webbing adjusted to 
introduce the maximum amount of slack recommended 
by the manufacturer (S7. 4.2(c); 

3. The vehicle must have an automatic means to 
cancel any shoulder belt slack introduced into the belt 
system by a tension-relieving device (S7.4.2(c). 

The NPRM explained that the second requirement 
listed above could not be applied to rear seat lap/shoul- 
der belts, because the agency could not develop dynamic 
testing procedures for the rear seating positions at this 
time. However, the notice proposed to apply the other 
two requirements listed above to rear-seat lap/shoulder 
belts equipped with tension-relieving devices. 

None of the commenters addressed the proposal to 
require the vehicle owner's manual to include an 
explanation of how the tension-relieving device works 
and a recommendation of the maximum amount of 
slack to be introduced into the safety belt. Hence, that 
requirement is adopted as proposed, for the reasons 
explained in the NPRM. 

In its comments, GM objected to the proposed 
requirement for automatic cancellation of slack. GM 
indicated that automatic cancellation of slack in front- 
seat lap/shoulder belts is accomplished by either of 
two means. If the retractor is mounted on the floor or 
on the pillar near the adjacent door, the manufacturer 
generally uses a simple cable, which operates when the 
door is open to cancel the slack. If there are dual spool 
retractors on the safety belt system, a simple mechani- 
cal device triggered by retraction of the lap belt is used 
to cancel the slack in the shoulder belt. According to 
GM, "cable routing concerns" make it difficult to use a 
cable and the current size of dual spool retractors 
precludes the use of that technology in rear seating 
positions. This comment concluded by alleging that 
only "complex, expensive mechanisms" could be used 
for slack cancellation in rear seating positions. Ford 
also suggested in its comments that it would be very 
complex to develop an automatic means for slack , 



PART 571; S222-PRE 26 



cancellation. Ford stated that all of its slack cancella- 
tion mechanisms are activated by opening the adjacent 
door. Ford also stated that electric slack cancellation 
mechanisms would be impracticable for rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belts. 

In response to these comments, NHTSA has re- 
examined its proposal. That proposal was that slack be 
automatically cancelled'eifRer when the belt is un- 
buckled or when the adjacent door is opened. Although 
not expressly stated by either GM or Ford, the manu- 
facturers' concern appears to be that there is no 
adjacent door for rear seating positions in many of the 
vehicles that will be subject to these requirements. 
The effect of the proposal, then, would be to force 
manufacturers that chose to install tension-relieving 
devices in rear-seat lap/shoulder belts for passenger 
vans, extended cab pickups, and the like, to cancel the 
slack every time the latchplate is unbuckled, because 
there is no door adjacent to those seating positions. 

The agency did not intend such a result. Instead, the 
agency's intent was to permit the slack to be cancelled 
either every time the latchplate was unbuckled or each 
time the door is opened that is designed to allow the 
occupant of the seating position in question entry and 
egress to and from the seat. Thus, if a passenger van 
has a sliding door on the right side of the vehicle that is 
designed as the means of entry and egress for all rear 
seat passengers, slack for rear seat lap/shoulder belts 
in that van must be cancelled either when that sliding 
door is opened or when the belt latchplate is unbuckled. 
Similarly, if a two-door convertible has tension-reliev- 
ing devices for its rear- seat lap/shoulder belts, slack in 
the rear-seat lap/shoulder belts must be cancelled 
either when the latchplate is unbuckled or when the 
door is opened on the same side of the vehicle as the 
rear outboard seating position. 

This approach will permit manufacturers to use, 
with appropriate modifications, the same slack cancel- 
lation mechanism that is activated by the opening of 
an adjacent door in seating positions that are not 
immediately adjacent to the door. The agency is not 
aware of any reasons why cable routing concerns 
would present any insuperable difficulties for slack 
cancellation for the rear- seat lap/shoulder belt systems 
that are not adjacent to a door. Accordingly, S7.4.2(c) of 
Standard No. 208 has been amended to provide that 
slack must be cancelled automatically either when the 
latchplate is unbuckled or when the door that is 
designed to provide entry and egress for that seating 
position is opened. 

Both Ford and GM also commented that there was 
no safety need for automatic cancellation of slack in 
rear-seat lap/shoulder belts. GM stated that it was not 
aware of any data showing a safety need for automatic 
of slack cancellation. Ford commented that there was 



no possibility of safety belts getting tangled in the door 
when there was no door adjacent to the seating 
position at which the tension-relieving device is in- 
stalled. 

NHTSA has previously explained the safety need for 
automatic slack cancellation in belts equipped with 
tension-relieving devices. Persons interested in re- 
viewing those discussions may examine 50 CFR 14580; 
April 12, 1985 and 54 FR 29047; July 11, 1989. Ford and 
GM did not raise any new arguments that have not 
already been considered and rejected by the agency. 
Accordingly, this rule incorporates a requirement for 
automatic slack cancellation. NHTSA notes that it is 
currently reviewing a petition that asks the agency to 
prohibit tension-relieving devices altogether. 

8. Relationship of This Rule to Standard No. 210 

As noted in the NPRM, section S4.1.1 of Standard 
No. 2 10 provides that seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 
seat belt assembly (lap/shoulder belt) shall be installed 
for each forward-facing outboard designated seating 
position in passenger cars other than convertibles, and 
for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 
seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208 in 
vehicles other than passenger cars. The NPRM pro- 
posed to delete Standard No. 210's exemption for 
conver'bles, because the agency was proposing to 
amend Standard No. 208 to require rear-seat lap/ 
shoulder belts in convertibles. Obviously, there would 
be lesser benefits from requiring rear-seat lap/shoulder 
belts in convertibles if those lap/shoulder belts are not 
required to be effectively anchored to the vehicle. No 
commenter objected to this proposal, so it is adopted as 
proposed. 

No amendment is needed to ensure that the rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belts required in other vehicle types 
covered by this rule will be effectively anchored to the 
vehicle. As explained above, the existing language of 
S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 automatically requires 
anchorages for lap/shoulder belts to be provided at 
seating positions required by Standard No. 208 to have 
lap/shoulder belts. 

9. Timing for Applying These New Requirements 
Some of the requirements specified in this rule apply 

to both the vehicle types addressed exclusively in this 
rule (convertible passenger cars, light trucks, MPVs, 
and small buses) and to the vehicle type previously 
addressed in NHTSA's June 14, 1989 final rule (pas- 
senger cars other than convertibles). These require- 
ments include the types of retractors that can be 
installed on rear-seat lap/shoulder belts and special 
performance requirements for tension-relieving devices 
installed on rear seat-lap/shoulder belts. 

The NPRM proposed that these general require- 
ments, as well as the new requirement that rear-seat 



PART 571; S222-PRE 27 



lap/shoulder belts be installed, apply to the vehicle 
types addressed exclusively in this rule for all such 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. 
None of the commenters has provided any evidence 
demonstrating that the amount of leadtime would be 
inadequate. Accordingly, the requirements in this rule 
will apply to convertible passenger cars, light trucks, 
MPVs and small buses as of September 1, 1991, as was 
proposed. Earlier compliance is also permitted and 
encouraged. 

With respect to passenger cars, the June 14, 1989 
final rule established certain general requirements 
applicable to cars manufactured on or after September 
1, 1990. These general requirements included a re- 
quirement that rear-seat lap/shoulder belts be integral 
and that the upper anchorage for the rear-seat 
lap/shoulder belt comply with the location require- 
ments of Standard No. 210. The general requirements 
of this rule for rear-seat lap/shoulder belts (retractor 
type and special requirements for tension-relieving 
devices) will apply on or after September 1, 1991, the 
same data as the other requirements mandated by this 
rule take effect. The general requirements of this rule 
will require greater changes, and thus longer leadtime, 
than the general requirements announced in the June 
14, 1989 rule. Accordingly, passenger cars manufac- 
tured on or after September 1, 1991 must comply with 
the retractor type and tension-relieving device require- 
ments set forth in this rule. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 
571.208 is amended as follows: 

S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 is revised to read as 

follows: 

S4.1.4 Passenger cars manufactured on or after 

September 1. 1989. 

54. 1.4.1 Except as provided in S4. 1.4.2, each pas- 
senger car manufactured on or after September 1 , 1989 
shall comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2.1. Any 
passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 
1989 and before September 1, 1993 whose driver's 
designated seating position complies with the require- 
ments of S4. 1.2. 1(a) by means not including any type of 
seat belt and whose right front designated seating 
position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt so 
that the seating position complies with the occupant 
crash protection requirements of S5. 1 , with the Type 2 
seat belt assembly adjusted in accordance with S7.4.2, 
shall be counted as a vehicle complying with S4. 1.2.1. 
A vehicle shall not be deemed to be in noncompliance 
with this standard if its manufacturer establishes that 
it did not know in the exercise of due care that such 
vehicle is not in conformity with this standard. 

54. 1.4.2 (a) Each passenger car, other than a con- 
vertible, manufactured before December 11, 1989 may 
be equipped with, and each passenger car, other than a 
convertible, manufactured on or after December 11, 



1989 and before September 1, 1990 shall be equipped 
with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at every forward- 
facing rear outboard designated seating position. Type 
2 seat belt assemblies installed pursuant to this 
provision shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
571.209) and with S7.1.1 of this standard. 

(b) Except as provided in S4. 1.4.2.1, each passenger 
car other than a convertible manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1990 and each convertible passenger car 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 shall be 
equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at 
every iorward-facing rear outboard designated seating 
position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed in 
compliance with this requirement shall comply with 
Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.2 and 
S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly 
installed in compliance with this requirement in- 
corporates any webbing tension-relieving device, the 
vehicle owner's manual shall include the information 
specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension- 
relieving device, and the vehicle shall comply with 
S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 

54. 1.4.2.1 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position with a seat that can be adjusted to be forward- 
facing and to face some other direction shall either: 

(i) meet the requirements of S4.1.4.2 with the seat in 
any position in which it can be occupied while the 
vehicle is in motion; or 

(ii) when the seat is in its forward-facing position, 
have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with an upper torso 
restraint that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 
standard and that adjusts by means of an emergency 
locking retractor that conforms with Standard No. 209 
(49 CFR 571.209), which upper torso restraint may be 
detachable at the buckle, and, when the seat is in any 
position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is 
in motion, have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion 
of a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 
and S7.2 of this standard. 

54. 1.4.2.2 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position with a readily removable seat (that is, a seat 
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means 
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) shall 
meet the requirements of S4.1.4.2, and may use an 
upper torso belt that detaches at the upper anchorage 
point to meet those requirements. 

3. A new S4.2.4 is added to Standard No. 208, to read 
as follows: 

S4.2.4 Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.. Except as provided in 
S4.2.4.2, each truck and each multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, except a motor home, manufactured on or 
after September 1 , 1991 that has a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less shall be equipped with 
an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at every forward- 



PART 571; S222-PRE 28 



facing rear outboard designated seating position. Type 
2 seat belt assemblies installed in compliance with this 
requirement shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 
CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. 
If a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed in compliance 
with this requirement incorporates any webbing 
tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual 
shall include the information specified in S7. 4.2(b) of 
this standard for the tension-relieving device, and the 
vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 

54.2.4.1 As used in this section — 

(a) "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; refrigera- 
tion or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air 
conditioning; a portable water supply system including 
a faucet and a sink; and a separate 110-125 volt 
electrical power supply and/or an LP gas supply. 

(b) "Rear outboard designated seating position" 
means any "outboard designated seating position" (as 
that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3) that is rearward 
of the front seat(s), except any designated seating 
positions adjacent to a walkway located between the 
seat and the side of the vehicle, which walkway is 
designed to allow access to more rearward seating 
positions. 

54.2.4.2 Any rear outboard designated seating posi- 
tion with a seat that can be adjusted to be forward- 
facing and to face some other direction shall either: 

(i) meet the requirements of S4.2.4 with the seat in 
any position in which it can be occupied while the 
vehicle is in motion; or 

(ii) when the seat is in its forward-facing position, 
have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with an upper torso 
restraint that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 
standard and that adjusts by means of an emergency 
locking retractor that conforms with Standard No. 209 
(49 CFR 571.209), which upper torso restraint may be 
detachable at the buckle, and, when the seat is in any 
position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is 
in motion, have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion 
of a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 
and S7.2 of this standard. 

S4.2.4.3 Any rear outboard designated seating posi- 
tion with a readily removable seat (that is, a seat 
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means 
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) shall 
meet the requrements of S4.2.4, and may use an upper 
torso belt that detaches at the upper anchorage point to 
meet those requirements. 

4. A new S4.4.3 is added to Standard No. 208, to read 
as follows: 

S4.4 Buses. 



S4.4.3 Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 
1991. 

54.4.3.1 Each bus with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of more than 10,000 pounds shall comply with 
the requirements S4.4.2.1 or S4.4.2.2. 

54.4.3.2 Except as provided in S4. 4.3.2.2, each bus 
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or 
less, except a school bus, shall be equipped with an 
integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's 
designated seating position and at the front and every 
rear forward-facing outboard designated seating posi- 
tion, and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at 
all other designated seating positions. Type 2 seat belt 
assemblies installed in compliance with this require- 
ment shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. If a 
Type 2 seat belt assembly installed in compliance with 
this requirement incorporates any webbing tension- 
relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall 
include the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this 
standard for the tension-relieving device, and the 
vehicle shall comply with S7. 4.2(c) of this standard. 

54.4.3.2. 1 As used in this section, a "rear outboard 
designated position" means any "outboard designated 
seating position" (as that term is defined at 49 CFR 
571.3) that is rearward of the front seat(s), except any 
designated seating positions adjacent to a walkway 
located between the seat and the side of the vehicle, 
which walkway is designed to allow access to more 
rearward seating positions. 

54.4.3.2.2 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position with a seat that can be adjusted to be forward- 
facing and to face some other direction shall either: 

(i) meet the requirements of S4.4.3.2 with the seat in 
any position in which it can be occupied while the 
vehicle is in motion; or 

(ii) when the seat is in its forward-facing position, 
have a Type 2 seat belt assembly with an upper torso 
restraint that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 
standard and that adjusts by means of an emergency 
locking retractor that conforms with Standard No. 209 
(49 CFR 571.209), which upper torso restraint may be 
detachable at the buckle, and, when the seat is in any 
position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is 
in motion, have a Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion 
of a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 
and S7.2 of this standard. 

54.4.3.2.3 Any rear outboard designated seating 
position with a readily removable seat (that is, a seat 
designed to be easily removed and replaced by means 
installed by the manufacturer for that purpose) shall 
meet the requirements of S4.4.3.2, and may use an 
upper torso belt that detaches at the upper anchorage 
point to meet those requirements. 



PART 571; S222-PRE 29 



S4.4.3.3 Each school bus with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less shall be equipped 
with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the 
driver's designated seating position and at the right 
front passenger's designated seating position (if any), 
and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all 
other designated seating positions. Type 2 seat belt 
assemblies installed in compliance with this require- 
ment shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 
571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. The 
lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed 
at the driver's designated seating position and at the 
right front passenger's designated seating position (if 
any) shall include either an emergency locking retractor 
or an automatic locking retractor, which retractor 
shall not retract webbing to the next locking position 
until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the 
retractor. In determining whether an automatic locking 
retractor complies with this requirement , the webbing 
is extended to 75 percent of its length and the retractor 
is locked after the initial adjustment. If a Type 2 seat 
belt assembly installed in compliance with this require- 
ment incorporates any webbing tension-relieving 
device, the vehicle owner's manual shall include the 
information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for 
the tension-relieving device, and the vehicle shall 
comply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. 

5. S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising 
S7.1.1.3 and by adding a new S7. 1.1.5, to read as 
follows: 

S7.1 Adjustment. 

***** 

S7.1.1.3 A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of 
any Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any out- 
board designated seating position of a vehicle with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less to 
comply with a requirement of ths standard, except 
walk-in van-type vehicles and school buses, shall meet 
the requirements of S7.1 by means of any emergency 
locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209 

(49 CFR 571.209). 

***** 

S7.1.1.5 Seat belt assemblies installed at a seating 
position other than the driver's position that incor- 
porate an emergency locking retractor in the lap belt or 
the lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall 
provide some means other than an external device that 
requires manual attachment or activation to lock the 
lap belt or lap belt portion, by preventing additional 
webbing from spooling out, so that the seat belt 
assembly can be used to tightly secure a child restraint 
system. 

6. S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 is amended by revising 
the introductory text and S7.4.2(c), to read as follows: 

S7.4.2 Webbing tension-relieving device. Each vehicle 
with an automatic seat belt assembly or with a Type 2 



manual seat belt assembly that must meet the occupant 
crash protection requirements of S5.1 of this standard 
installed at a front outboard designated seating posi- 
tion, and each vehicle with a Type 2 manual seat belt 
assembly installed at a rear outboard designated 
seating position in compliance with a requirement of 
this standard, that has either automatic or manual 
tension-relieving devices permitting the introduction 
of slack in the webbing of the shoulder belt (e.g., 

"comfort clips" or "window-shade" devices) shall: 

***** 

(c) Have, except for open-body vehicles with no 
doors, and automatic means to cancel any shoulder 
belt slack introduced into the belt system by a tension- 
relieving device. In the case of an automatic safety belt 
system, cancellation of the tension-relieving device 
shall occur each time the adjacent vehicle door is 
opened. In the case of a manual seat belt required to 
meet S5.1, cancellation of the tension-relieving device 
shall occur, at the manufacturer's option, either each 
time the adjacent door is opened or each time the 
latchplate is released from the buckle. In the case of a 
Type 2 manual seat belt assembly installed at a rear 
outboard designated seating position, cancellation of 
the tension-relieving device shall occur, at the manu- 
facturer's option either each time the door designed to 
to allow the occupant of that seating position entry and 
egress of the vehicle is opened or each time the 
latchplate is released from the buckle. In the case of 
open-body vehicles with no doors, cancellation of the 
tension-relieving device may be done by a manual 
means. 
§571.210 [Amended! 

7. S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 is revised to read as 
follows: 

84. 1.1 Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt 
assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing 
outboard designated seating position in passenger cars 
other than convertibles and for each designated seating 
position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is 
required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) in 
vehicles other than passenger cars. .Seat belt anchor- 
ages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed 
for each rear forward-facing outboard designated 
seating position in convertible passenger cars man- 
ufactured on or after September 1, 1991. 
§571.222 (Amended] 

8. S5(b) of Standard No. 222 is revised to read as 
follows: 

85. Requirements, (a) * * * 

(b) Each vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

10,000 pounds or less shall be capable of meeting the 

following requirements at all seating positions other 

than the driver's seat: 
(1)(A) In the case of vehicles manufactured before 

September 1, 1991, the requirements of §§571.208, 



PART 571; S222-PRE 30 



571.209, and 571.210 as they apply to multipurpose 
passenger vehicles; or 

(B) In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1991, the requirements of S4.4.3.3. of 
§571.208 and the requirementsof §§571.209 and 571.210 
as they apply to school buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less; and 

(2) TherequirementsofS5.1.2,S5.1.3,S5. 1.4,55.1.5, 
and S5.3 of this standard. However, the requirements 
of §§571.208 and 571.210 shall be met at W seating 
positions in a bench seat using a body block as specified 
in Figure 2 of this standard, and a particular school bus 
passenger seat (i.e., a test specimen) in that weight 
class need not meet further requirements after having 



met S5. 1.2 and S5. 1.5, or after having been subjected to 
either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, or S5.3 of this standard or 
§571.210. 

***** 

Issued on: October 27, 1989. 



Jeffrey R. Miller 
Acting Administrator 



54 F.R. 46257 
November 2, 1989 



PART 571; S222-PRE 31-32 



^ 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 222 



School Bus Seating and Crash Protection 



51. Scope. This standard establishes occu- 
pant protection requirements for school bus pas- 
senger seating and restraining barriers. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to 
reduce the number of deaths and the severity of in- 
juries that result from the impact of school bus 
occupants against structures within the vehicle dur- 
ing crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
school buses. 

84. Definitions. "Contactable surface" means 
any surface within the zone specified in S5.3.1.1 
that is contactable from any direction by the test 
device described in S6.6, except any surface on 
the front of a seat back or restraining barrier 3 
inches or more below the top of the seat back or 
restraining barrier. 

"School bus passenger seat" means a seat in 
a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a 
seat installed to accommodate handicapped or 
convalescent passengers as evidenced by orienta- 
tion of the seat in a direction that is more than 
45 degrees to the left or right of the longitudinal 
centerline of the vehicle. 

S4.1 The number of seating positions con- 
sidered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the 
symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in 
inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest 
whole number. 

S5. Requirements, (a) Each vehicle with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 
pounds shall be capable of meeting any of the 
requirements set forth under this heading when 
tested under the conditions of S6. However, a 
particular school bus passenger seat (i.e., test 
specimen) in that weight class need not meet 
further requirements after having met S5.1.2 and 
S5.1.5, or having been subjected to either S5.1.3, 
S5.1.4, or S5.3. 



(b) lEach vehicle with a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable of 
meeting the following requirements at all seating 
positions other than the driver's seat: 

(1)(A) In the case of vehicles manufactured 
before September 1, 1991, the requirements of 
§§ 571.208, 571.209, and 571.210 as they apply to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles; or 

(B) In the case of vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 1991, the requirements of 
S4.4.3.3 of § 571.208 and the requirements of 
§§ 571.209 and 571.210 as they apply to school 
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 
pounds or less; and 

(2) The requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, 
S5.1.5, and S5.3 of this standard. However, the re- 
quirements of §§ 571.208, and 571.210 shall be met 
at W seating positions in a bench seat using a body 
block as specified in Figure 2 of this standard, and a 
particular school bus passenger seat (i.e., a test 
specimen) in that weight class need not meet further 
requirements after having met S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or 
after having been subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, 
or S5.3 of this standard of § 571.210. 54 F.R. 
46257— November 2, 1989. Effective: May 1, 1990)] 

S5.1 Seating requirements. School bus pas- 
senger seats shall be forward facing. 

55.1.1 [Reserved] 

55.1.2 Seat bacl( heiglit and surface area. 

Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped 
with a seat back that, in the front projected 
view, has a front surface area above the hori- 
zontal plane that passes through the seating 
reference point, and below the horizontal plane 
20 inches above the seating reference point, of 
not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width 
in inches multiplied by 20. 

55.1.3 Seat performance forward. When a 
school bus passenger seat that has another seat 



(Rev. 11 f 2/89) 



PART 571; S 222-1 



behind it is subjected to the application of force 
as specified in S5. 1.3.1 and S5. 1.3.2, and subse- 
quently, the application of additional force to 
the seat back as specified in S5. 1.3.3 and S5. 1.3.4: 
(a) The seat-back force/deflection curve shall 
fall within the zone specified in Figure 1; 



WWWWWWWW 
lein. ivattt] 



SEAT B«CK FORCE/OtFlECIIOH CUIIVE 
SHALL NOT ENTER SHADED AREAS 




OEFLECIIDII IIKCHESI 
FICURE I FORCE/OEFLECIION lOnl 



(b) Seat back deflection shall not exceed 14 
inches; (for determination of (a) and (b) the 
force/deflection curve describes only the force 
applied through the upper loading bar, and only 
the forward travel of the pivot attachment point 
of the upper loading bar, measured from the 
point at which the initial application of 10 
pounds of force is attained.) 

(c) The seat shall not deflect by an amount 
such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 
inches of any part of another school bus passen- 
ger seat or restraining barrier in its originally 
installed psition; 

(d) The seat shall not separate from the ve- 
hicle at any attachment point; and 

(d) Seat components shall not separate at any 
attachment point. 

55.1.3.1 Position the loading bar specified in 
S6.5 so that it is laterally centered behind the 
seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a 
transverse plane of the vehicle and in any hori- 
zontal plane between 4 inches above and 4 inches 
below the seating reference point of the school 
bus passenger seat behind the test specimen. 

55.1.3.2 Apply a force of 700W pounds hori- 
zontally in the forward direction through the 
loading bar at the pivot attachment point. Reach 



the specified load in not less than 5 nor more 
than 30 seconds. 

55.1.3.3 No sooner than 1.0 second after at- 
taining the required force, reduce that force to 
350W pounds and, while maintaining the pivot 
point position of the first loading bar at the posi- 
tion where the 350W pounds is attained, position 
a second loading bar described in S6.5 so that it 
is laterally centered behind the seat back with 
the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane 
of the vehicle and in the horizontal plane 16 
inches above the seating reference point of the 
school bus passenger seat behind the test speci- 
men, and move the bar forward against the seat 
back until a force of 10 pounds has been applied. 

55.1.3.4 Apply additional force horizontally 
in the forward direction through the upper bar 
until 4,000W inch-pounds of energy have been 
absorbed in deflecting the seat back (or restrain- 
ing barrier). Apply the additional load in not 
less than 5 seconds nor more than 30 seconds. 
Maintain the pivot attachment point in the maxi- 
mum forward travel position for not less than 
5 seconds nor more than 10 seconds and release 
the load in not less than 5 nor more than 30 
seconds. (For the determination of S5. 1.3.4 the 
force/deflection curve describes only the force 
applied through the upper loading bar, and the 
forward and rearward travel distance of the up- 
per loading bar pivot attachment point measured 
from the position at which the initial application 
of 10 pounds of force is attained.) 

S5.1.4 Seat performance rearward. When a 
school bus passenger seat that has another seat 
behind it is subjected to the application of force 
as specified in S5. 1.4.1 and S5. 1.4.2: 

(a) Seat back force shall not exceed 2,200 
pounds; 

(b) In the case of a school bus manufactured 
on or after April 1, 1978, seat back deflection 
shall not exceed 10 inches; (For determination 
of (a) and (b) the force/deflection curve de- 
scribes only the force applied through the load- 
ing bar, and only the rearward travel of the 
pivot attachment point of the loading bar, meas- 
ured from the point at which the initial applica- 
tion of 50 pounds of force is attained. 



PART 571; S 222-2 



(c) The seat shall not deflect by an amount 
such that any part of the seat moves to within 
4 inches of any part of another passenger seat 
in its originally installed position; 

(d) The seat shall not separate from the ve- 
hicle at any attachment point; and 

(e) Seat components shall not separate at any 
attachment point. 

55.1.4.1 Position the loading bar described 
in S6.5 so that it is laterally centered forvifard 
of the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis 
in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in the 
horizontal plane 13.5 inches above the seating 
reference point of the test specimen, and move 
the loading bar rearward against the seat back 
until a force of 50 pounds has been applied. 

55.1.4.2 Apply additional force horizontally 
rearward through the loading bar until 2,800W 
inch-pounds of energy have been absorbed in de- 
flecting the seat back. Apply the additional load 
in not less than 5 seconds nor more than 30 sec- 
onds. Maintain the pivot attachment point in the 
maximum rearward travel position for not less 
than 5 seconds nor more than 10 seconds and re- 
lease the load in not less than 5 seconds nor more 
than 30 seconds. (For determination of S5. 1.4.2 
the force/deflection curve describes the force ap- 
plied through the loading bar and the rearward 
and forward travel distance of the loading bar 
pivot attachment point measured from the posi- 
tion at which the initial application of 50 pounds 
of force is attained.) 

S5.1.5 Seat cushion retention. In the case of 
school bus passenger seats equipped with seat 
cushions, with all manual attachment devices be- 
tween the seat and the seat cushion in the manu- 
facturer's designed position for attachment, the 
seat cushion shall not separate from the seat at 
any attachment point when subjected to an up- 
ward force of five times the seat cushion weight, 
applied in any period of not less than 1 nor more 
than 5 seconds, and maintained for 5 seconds. 

S5.2 Restraining barrier requirements. Each 
vehicle shall be equipped with a restraining bar- 
rier forward of any designated seating position 
that does not have the rear surface of another 



school bus passenger seat within 20 inches of its 
seating reference point, measured along a hori- 
zontal longitudinal line through the seating ref- 
erence point in the forward direction. 

55.2.1 Barrier-seat separation. The horizontal 
distance between the restraining barrier's rear 
surface and the seating reference point of the 
seat in front of which it is required shall be not 
more than 20 inches, measured along a horizontal 
longitudinal line through the seating reference 
point in the forward direction. 

55.2.2 Barrier position and rear surface area. 

The position and rear surface area of the re- 
straining barrier shall be such that, in a front 
projected view of the bus, each point of the bar- 
rier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of 
the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for 
which it is required. 

55.2.3 Barrier performance forward. When 
force is applied to the restraining barrier in the 
same manner as specified in S5. 1.3.1 through 
S5. 1.3.4 for seating performance tests: 

(a) The restraining barrier force/deflection 
curve shall fall within the zone specified in 
Figure 1; 

(b) Restraining barrier deflection shall not ex- 
ceed 14 inches; (For computation of (a) and 
(b) the force/deflection curve describes only the 
force applied through the upper loading bar, 
and only the forward travel of the pivot attach- 
ment point of the loading bar, measured from 
the point at which the initial appHcation of 10 
pounds of force is attained.) 

(c) Restraining barrier deflection shall not in- 
terfere with normal door operation; 

(d) The restraining barrier shall not separate 
from the vehicle at any attachment point; and 

(e) Restraining barrier components shall not 
separate at any attachment point. 

S5.3 Impact zone requirements. 

S5.3.1 Head protection zone. Any contactable 
surface of the vehicle within any zone specified 
in S5.3.1.1 shall meet the requirements of S5.3.1.2 
and S5.3.1.3. However, a surface area that has 
been contacted pursuant to an impact test need 
not meet further requirements contained in S5.3. 



PART 571; S 222-3 



S5.3.1.1 The head protection zones in each 
vehicle are the spaces in front of each school 
bus passenger seat which are not occupied by 
bus sidewall, window, or door structure and 
which, in relation to that seat and its seating 
reference point, are enclosed by the following 
planes; 

(a) Horizontal planes 12 inches and 40 inches 
above the seating reference point; 

(b) A vertical longitudinal plane tangent to 
the inboard (aisle side) edge of the seat; 

(c) A vertical longitudinal plane 3.25 inches 
inboard of the outboard edge of the seat, and 

(d) Vertical transverse planes through and 30 
inches forward of the reference point. 

S5.3.1.2 Head form impact requirement. When 
any contactable surface of the vehicle within 



the zones specified in S5.3.1.1 is impacted from 
any direction at 22 feet per second by the head 
form described in S6.6, the axial acceleration at 
the center of gravity of the head form shall be 
such that the expression 



y^i" -^ ] 



2.5 



(t.-t.) 



shall not exceed 1,000 where a is the axial ac- 
celeration expressed as a multiple of g (the 
acceleration due to gravity), and ti and t2 are 
any two points in time during the impact. 

S5.3.1.3 Head form force distribution. When 
any contactable surface of the vehicle within the 
zones specified in S5.3.1.1 is impacted from any 
direction at 22 feet per second by the head form 



^1.94R 
(TYP) 




19.5 R 



^ BLOCK COVERED BY 
1.00 MED. DENSITY CANVAS 
COVERED FOAM RUBBER 



-2.00 R 



0.75 DIA. 
THRU HOLE 



-2.00R 



3.34 




1.94 R 
(TYPl 



FIGURE 2-BODY BLOCK FOR LAP BELT 
PART 571; S 222-4 



described in S6.6, the energy necessary to deflect 
the impacted material shall be not less than 40 
inch-pounds before the force level on the head 
form exceeds 150 pounds. When any contactable 
surface within such zones is impacted by the 
head form from any direction at 5 feet per sec- 
ond, the contact area on the head form surface 
shall be not less than 3 square inches. 

S5.3.2 Leg protection zone. Any part of the 
seat backs or restraining barriers in the vehicle 
within any zone specified in S5. 3.2.1 shall meet 
the requirements of S5.3.2.2. 

55.3.2.1. The leg protection zones of each ve- 
hicle are those parts of the school bus passenger 
seat backs and restraining barriers bounded by 
horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches 
below the seating reference point of the school 
bus passenger seat immediately behind the seat 
back or restraining barrier. 

55.3.2.2. When any point on the rear surface 
of that part of a seat back or restraining barrier 
within any zone specified in S5.3.2.1 is impacted 
from any direction at 16 feet per second by the 
knee form specified in S6.7, the resisting force 
of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 
pounds and the contact area on the knee form 
surface shall not be less than 3 square inches. 

S6. Test conditions. The following conditions 
apply to the requirements specified in S5. 

56.1 Test surface. The bus is at rest on a level 
surface. 

56.2 Tires. Tires are inflated to the pressure 
specified by the manufacturer for the gross ve- 
hicle weight rating. 

6.3 Temperature. The ambient temperature is 
any level between 32 degrees F. and 90 degrees F. 

S6.4 Seat back position. If adjustable, a seat 
back is adjusted to its most upright position. 



S6.5 Loading bar. The loading bar is a rigid 
cylinder with an outside diameter of 6 inches 
that has hemispherical ends with radii of 3 inches 
and with a surface roughness that does not ex- 
ceed 63 micro-inches, root mean square. Then 
length of the loading bar is 4 inches less than the 

PART 571; S 222-5 



width of the seat back in each test. The stroking 
mechanism applies force through a pivot attach- 
ment at the centerpoint of the loading bar which 
allows the loading bar to rotate in a horizontal 
plane 30 degrees in either direction from the 
transverse position. 

S6.5.1 A vertical or lateral force of 4,000 
pounds applied externally through the pivot at- 
tachment point of the loading bar at any posi- 
tion reached during a test specified in this 
standard shall not deflect that point more than 
1 inch. 

S6.6 Head form. The head form for the meas- 
urement of acceleration is a rigid surface com- 
prised of two hemispherical shapes, with total 
equivalent weight of 11.5 pounds. The first of 
the two hemispherical shapes has a diameter of 
6.5 inches. The second of the two hemispherical 
shapes has a 2 inch diameter and is centered as 
shown in Figure 3 to protrude from the outer 
surface of the first hemispherical shape. The 
surface roughness of the hemispherical shapes 
does not exceed 63 micro-inches, root mean 
square. 

56.6.1 The direction of travel of the head 
form is coincidental with the straight line con- 
necting the centerpoints of the two spherical 
outer surfaces which constitute the head form 
shape. 

56.6.2 The head form is instrumented with an 
acceleration sensing device whose output is re- 
corded in a data channel that conforms to the 
requirements for a 1,000 Hz channel class as 
specified in SAE Recommended Practice J211a, 
December 1971. The head form exhibits no 
resonant frequency below three times the fre- 
quency of the channel class. The axis of the 
acceleration sensing device coincides with the 
straight line connecting the centerpoints of the 
two hemispherical outer surfaces which consti- 
tute the head form shape. 



S6.6.3 The head form is guided by a stroking 
device so that the direction of travel of the head 
form is not affected by impact with the surface 
being tested at the levels called for in the 
standard. 



BIHEMISPHERICAL HEAD FORM RADII 




FIGURE 3 



S6.7 Knee form. The knee form for measure- 
ment of force is a rigid 3-inch-diameter cylinder, 
with an equivalent weight of 10 pounds, that has 
one rigid hemispherical end with a IV2 inch 



radius forming the contact surface of the knee 
form. The hemispherical surface roughness does 
not exceed 63 micro-inches, root mean square. 

56.7.1 The direction of travel of the knee 
form is coincidental with the centerline of the 
rigid cylinder. 

56.7.2 The knee form is instrumented with an 
acceleration sensing device whose output is re- 
corded in a data channel that conforms to the 
requirements of a 600 Hz channel class as spec- 
ified in the SAE Recommended Practice J211a, 
December 1971. The knee form exhibits no 
resonant frequency below three times the fre- 
quency of the channel class. The axis of the 
acceleration sensing device is aligned to measure 
acceleration along the centerline of the cylindrical 
knee form. 

56.7.3 The knee form is guided by a stroking 
device so that the direction of travel of the knee 
form is not affected by impact with the surface 
being tested at the levels called for in the 
standard. 

S6.8 The head form, knee form, and con- 
tactable surfaces are clean and dry during impact 
testing, 

41 F.R. 4016 
January 28, 1976 



PART 571; S 222-6 



EffacHva: $*pl*mb«r I, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY 
STANDARD NO. 301 

Fuel System Integrity 
(Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 301 on fuel system integrity to 
specify static rollover requirements applicable to 
passenger cars on September 1, 1975, and to 
extend applicability of the standard to multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses 
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less on Sep- 
tember 1, 1976. 

The NHTSA proposed amending 49 CFR 
571.301, Fvsl Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and 
Fuel Tank Connections, on August 29, 1970, (35 
F.R. 13799). Under the proposal the standard 
would be extended to all vehicles with a GVWR 
of 10,000 pounds or less. No fuel spillage would 
be permitted during the standard's tests. As 
proposed, these would include a spike stop from 
60 mph, and a 30 mph frontal barrier crash. 
Additional tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 
6,000 pounds or less would include a rear-end 
collision with a fixed barrier at 30 mph, and a 
static rollover test following the frontal barrier 
crash. With respect to the proposal : the frontal 
impact and static rollover tests are adopted but 
with an allowance of fuel spillage of 1 ounce 
per minute; the spike stop test is not adopted; 
and the rear-end fixed barrier collision test is 
being reproposed in a separate rule making ac- 
tion published today to substitute a moving 
barrier. 

The proposal that there be zero fuel spillage 
was almost universally opposed for cost/benefit 
reasons. The NHTSA has concluded that the 
requirement adopted, limiting fuel spillage to 
1 ounce per minute, will have much the san 
effect as a zero-loss requirement. The standa 
will effectively require motor vehicles to be c 
signed for complete fuel containment, since any 
spillage allowed by design in the aftermath of 



testing could well exceed the limit of the stand- 
ard. At the same time, the 1-ounce allowance 
would eliminate concern over a few drops of 
spillage that in a functioning system may be un- 
avoidable. 

Fuel loss will be measured for a 15-minute 
period for both impact and rollover tests. 

The NHTSA proposed a panic-braking stop 
from 60 mph to demonstrate fuel system integ- 
rity. Many commented that this appeared 
superfluous, increasing testing costs with no per- 
formance improvements, since the proposed front 
and rear impact tests represented considerably 
higher deceleration loadings than could be 
achieved in braking. The NHTSA concurs, and 
has not adopted the panic stop test. The frontal 
barrier crash at 30 mph has been retained for 
passenger cars, and extended to multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less as of Septem- 
ber 1, 1976. 

The static rollover test was adopted as pro- 
posed. It applies to passenger cars as of Sep- 
tember 1, 1975, and to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 
6,000 pounds or less, as of September 1, 1976. 
The rollover test follows the front barrier crash, 
and consists of a vehicle being rotated on its 
longitudinal axis at successive increments of 90°. 
A condition of the test is that rotation between 
increments occurs in not less than 1 minute and 
not more than 3 minutes. After reaching a 90° 
increment, the vehicle is held in that position for 
5 minutes. 

The proposed rear-end crash test incorporated 
a fixed collision barrier. Manufacturers gener- 
ally favored a moving barrier impact as a closer 



PART 571; S 301(9/1/75)— PRE 1 



EffccHv*: Saptambar 1, 1975 



simulation of real world conditions. The NHTSA 
concurs and is not adopting a rear end fixed 
barrier test. Instead, it is proposing a rear-end 
moving barrier collision test as part of the notice 
of proposed rulemaking published today. 

Under the proposal the vehicle would be 
loaded to its GVWR with the fuel tank filled to 
any level between 90 and 100 percent of capacity. 
Many commenters objected on the grounds that 
full loading of a vehicle represents an unrealistic 
condition in terms of actual crash experience. 
The NHTSA does not agree. Although full 
loading of a vehicle is not the condition most 
frequently encountered, it certainly occurs fre- 
quently enough that the vehicle should be de- 
signed to give basic protection in that condition. 
The vehicle test weight condition has been 
adopted as proposed. It should be noted that, 
in the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking 
issued today, vehicles would be tested under the 



weight conditions specified in Standard No. 208, 
effective September 1, 1975. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 571.301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 301, is amended 

Effective date: September 1, 1975. Because 
of the necessity to allow manufacturers sufficient 
production leadtime it is found for good cause 
shown that an effective date later than 1 year 
after issuance of this rule is in the public in- 
t«rest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on August 15, 1973. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

38 F.R. 22397 
August 20, 1973 



PART 571; S 301(9/1/75)— PRE 2 



^ 



Effactiv*: S«p»«mb*r 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301 

Fuel System Integrity 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fiiel 
System Integrity, to upgrade substantially the 
requirements of the standard by specifying a 
rear moving barrier crash, a lateral moving bar- 
rier crash, and a frontal barrier crash including 
impacts at any angle up to 30° in either direction 
from the perpendicular. 

A notice of proposed rulemaking published 
August 20, 1973 (38 F.R. 22417) proposed the 
imposition of additional testing requirements 
designed to ameliorate the dangers associated 
with fuel spillage following motor vehicle acci- 
dents. In an amendment to Standard No. 301, 
published on the same day as the proposal, a 
frontal barrier crash and a static rollover test 
were specified. In order to ensure the safety of 
fuel systems in any possible collision situation, 
the NHTSA finds it essential to incorporate ad- 
ditional proposed test requirements into the 
present standard and to make these requirements 
applicable to all vehicle types with a GVWR of 
10,000 pounds or less. 

Comments in response to the proposal were 
received from 29 commenters. Any suggestions 
for changes of the proposal not specifically men- 
tioned herein are denied, on the basis of all the 
information presently available to this agency. 
A number of the issues raised in the comments 
have been dealt with by the agency in its re- 
sponse to the petitions for reconsideration of the 
final rule issued on August 20, 1973. In its notice 
responding to the petitions, the NHTSA consid- 
ered objections to the use of actual fuel during 
testing, the specified fuel fill level, the applica- 
tion of the standard to vehicles using diesel fuel, 
tlie fuel spillage measuring requirement, and the 
allegedly more stringent loading requirements 



applicable to passenger cars. The type of fuel 
subject to the standard was also clarified. 

Objections were registered by 13 commenters 
to the proposed inclusion of a dynamic rollover 
test in the fuel system integrity standard. As 
proposed, the requirement calls for a measure- 
ment of tlie fuel loss while the vehicle is in mo- 
tion. Commenters pointed out the exceptional 
difficulty in measuring or even ascertaining a 
leakage when the vehicle is rolling over at 30 
mph. The NHTSA has decided that the objec- 
tions have merit, and h.as deleted the dynamic 
rollover test. The results of the dynamic rollover 
do not provide sufficiently unique data with re- 
gard to the fuel system's integrity to justify the 
cost of developing techniques for accurately 
measuring spillage during such a test, and of 
conducting the test itself. The NHTSA has 
concluded that the severity of the other required 
tests, when conducted in the specified sequence, 
is sufficient to assure the level of fuel system 
integrity intended by the agency. 

Triumph Motors objected to the use of a 4,000- 
pound barrier during the moving barrier impacts, 
asserting that such large barriers discriminate 
against small vehicles. Triumph requested that 
the weight of the barrier be the curb weight of 
the vehicle being tested in order to alleviate the 
burden on small vehicles. The NHTSA has con- 
cluded that no justification exists for this change. 
The moving barrier is intended to represent 
another vehicle with which the test vehicle must 
collide. The use of a 4,000-pound moving bar- 
rier is entirely reasonable since vehicles in use 
are often over 4,000 pounds in weight and a 
small vehicle is as likely to collide with a vehicle 
of that size as one smaller. Tlie NHTSA con- 
siders it important that vehicle fuel systems be 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 3 



Effacllv*: S«plemb«r 1, 1975 



designed in such a way as to withstand impacts 
from vehicles they are exposed to on the road, 
regardless of the differences in their sizes. 

Jeep and American Motors objected to the 
effective dates of the proposed requirements and 
asked that they be extended. Jeep favors an 
effective date not earlier than September 1, 1979, 
and American Motors favors a September 1, 
1978, effective date. The NHTSA denies these 
requests. It has found that the time period pro- 
vided for development of conforming fuel sys- 
tems is reasonable and should be strictly adhered 
to considering the urgent need for strong and 
resilient fuel systems. 

Several commenters expressed concern over the 
impact of the prescribed testing procedures on 
manufacturers of low-volume specialty vehicles. 
The NHTSA appreciates the expense of conduct- 
ing crash tests on low-production vehicles, realiz- 
ing that the burden on the manufacturer is 
related to the number of vehicles he manufac- 
tures. However, there are means by which the 
small-volume manufacturer can minimize the 
costs of testing. He can concentrate test efforts 
on the vehicle (s) in his line that he finds most 
difficult to produce in conformity with the stand- 
ard. These manufacturers should also be aware 
that an exemption from application of the stand- 
ard is available where fewer than 10,000 vehicles 
per year are produced and compliance would 
subject him to substantial financial hardship. 

In responding to the petitions for reconsider- 
ation of the amendment to Standard No. 301, 
published August 20, 1973, the NHTSA revised 
the fuel system loading requirement to specify 
Stoddard solvent as the fuel to be used during 
testing. In accordance with that amendment, 
the proposed requirement that the engine be 
idling during the testing sequence is deleted. 
However, electrically driven fuel pumps that 
normally run when the electrical system in the 
vehicle is activated shall be operating during the 
barrier crash tests. 

In order to fulfill the intention expressed in 
the preamble to the proposal, that simultaneous 
testing under Standards Nos. 208 and 301 be 
possible, language has been added to subpara- 
graph S7.1.5 of Standard No. 301 specifying the 
same method of restraint as that required in 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 4 



Standard No. 208. In its response to petitions 
for reconsideration of Standard No. 301 (39 F.R. 
10586) the NHTSA amended the standard by 
requiring that each dummy be restrained during 
testing only by means that are installed in the 
vehicle for protection at its seating position and 
that require no action by the vehicle occupant. 

Suggestions by several commenters that the 
application of certain crash tests should be lim- 
ited to passenger cars in order to maintain com- 
plete conformance to the requirements of 
Standard No. 208 are found to be without merit. 
Enabling simultaneous testing under several 
standards, although desirable, is not the most 
important objective of the safety standards. The 
NHTSA is aware of the burden of testing costs, 
and therefore has sought to ease that burden 
where possible by structuring certain of its 
standards to allow concurrent testing for com- 
pliance. It must be emphasized, however, that 
the testing requirements specified in a standard 
are geared toward a particular safety need. 
Application of the tests proposed for Standard 
No. 301 to all vehicle types with a GVAVR of 
10,000 pounds or less is vital to the accomplish- 
ment of the degree of fuel system integrity neces- 
sary to protect the occupants of vehicles involved 
in accidents. 

No major objections were raised concerning the 
proposed angular frontal barrier crash, lateral 
barrier crash, or rear moving barrier crash. On 
the basis of all information available to this 
agency, it has been determined that these pro- 
posed crash tests should be adopted as proposed. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
571.301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, 
is amended to read as set forth below. 

Effective date: September 1, 1975, with addi- 
tional requirements effective September 1, 1976, 
and September 1, 1977, as indicated. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-56", 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on March 18, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 10588 
March 21, 1974 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75 

Fuel System Integrity 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 3) 



This notice responds to petitions for recon- 
sideration of the two recent Federal Register 
notices amending and upgrading Standard No. 
301 (39 F.R. 10586; 39 F.R. 10588) and amends 
the standard in several respects. 

On March 21, 1974 two notices were published 
pertaining to Standard No. 301, Fuel System In- 
tegrity. One notice (39 F.R. 10586) responded 
to petitions for reconsideration of an earlier 
amendment to the standard (38 F.R. 22397), 
while the other (39 F.R. 10588) substantially 
upgraded the standard's performance require- 
ments. It was the intention of the NHTSA that 
the notice upgrading the standard be considered 
as the final rule and supersede the notice re- 
sponding to petitions. Hereafter, the notice re- 
sponding to petitions will be referred to as 
Notice 1, while the notice upgrading the stand- 
ard will be referred to as Notice 2. 

On October 27, 1974, the Motor Vehicle and 
Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 
93—492) were signed into law. These amend- 
ments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act incorporate Standard No. 301 as it 
was published in Notice 2 on March 21, 1974. 
According to the amendment the technical errors 
which appeared in Notice 2 may be corrected, 
while future amendments are prohibited from 
diminishing the level of motor vehicle safety 
which was established in the notice. The changes 
contained in this notice conform to these statu- 
tory requirements. 

Due to an oversight. Notice 2 failed to include 
two provisions which appeared in Notice 1. The 
limitation of the standard's application to ve- 
hicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 
32°F was inadvertently omitted in Notice 2 and 
is hereby reinstated. Notice 2 also failed to in- 
clude a provision specifying that vehicles not be 



altered during the testing sequences. It was the 
intent of the NHTSA that damage or other 
alteration of the vehicle incurred during the bar- 
rier crashes not be corrected prior to the static 
rollover tests. The test requirements are there- 
fore amended to prohibit the alteration of ve- 
hicles following each of the specified test impacts. 

In order to clarify the manner in which the 
load is to be distributed during testing of multi- 
purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, 
S7.1.5(b) is amended to require that when the 
weight on one of the axles exceeds its propor- 
tional share of the loaded vehicle weight, when 
the vehicle is loaded only with dunmiies, the re- 
mainder of the required test weight shall be 
placed on the other axle, so that the weight on 
the first axle remains the same. The loading 
specification did not specifically address this 
contingency. 

The requirement that the load be located in 
the load carrying area of multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses during testing is de- 
leted since the agency has determined that such 
a limitation is consistent with the provision spec- 
ifying distribution of weight in proportion with 
the vehicle's gross axle weight ratings. 

Petitions for reconsideration were received 
from eleven petitioners. Although only those 
comments raising issues found to be significant 
have been discussed, due consideration has been 
given to all requests. Any requests not spe- 
cifically discussed herein are denied. 

A substantial number of petitioners objected 
to the requirement that dummies used during 
testing be restrained only by passive means in- 
stalled at the seating positions. Petitioners 
pointed out that mandatory passive restraint 
systems proposed in Standard No. 208 have a 
proposed effective date of September 1, 1976; 
one year after the September 1, 1976 effective 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 5 



Effective: September 1, 1975 



date set for implementation of Standard 301. 
This would leave a period of time when most 
dummies would be involved in testing while to- 
tally unrestrained. Renault, Jeep, American 
Motors, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, and 
Ford requested that the dummies be restrained 
during testing by whatever means, active or pas- 
sive, are installed at the particular seating posi- 
tions. To provide otherwise, they argued, would 
unnecessarily expose the dummies to costly dam- 
age when subjected to impacts in an unrestrained 
condition. 

The NHTSA finds petitioners' objections mer- 
itorious. Although this agency has determined 
that reliable test results can be best obtained 
when occupant weight is included in the vehicle 
during crash testing, the manner in which that 
weight is installed is subject to additional con- 
siderations. The NHTSA has made clear its 
desire to enable simultaneous testing under more 
than one standard where the test requirements 
are compatible. Standards 301 and 208 both 
require frontal and lateral barrier crash tests 
which can be conducted concurrently if the ve- 
hicles are loaded uniformly. Since Standard 
208 provides for crash testing with dummies in 
vehicles with passive restraint systems. Standard 
301 testing of these same vehicles should be con- 
ducted with dummies installed in the seating 
positions provided under Standard 208. The 
presence of the passive restraints will protect 
the dummies from unnecessary damage and the 
required testing for complia,nce with both stand- 
ards can be accomplished simultaneously. Where 
a vehicle is not equipped with passive restraints, 
and Standard 208 testing is not mandated, weight 
equal to that of a 50th percentile test dummy 
should be secured to the floor pan at the front 
outboard designated seating positions in the ve- 
hicles being tested. 

Further concern over the damage to which test 
dummies might be exposed was manifested by 
Jeep and American Motors. They petitioned 
for the removal of the dummies prior to the 
static rollover tests, arguing that their presence 
serves no safety-related purpose. The NHTSA 
has granted the request, on the basis of its deter- 
mination that the dummies would have little or 
no effect on the fuel system's integrity during 
the rollover segment of the test procedure. 



Jeep and American Motors further suggested 
that the standard specify that hardware and 
instrumentation be removed prior to the static 
rollover test in order to prevent its damage. 
This request is denied as unnecessary. Standard 
No. 301 contains no specification for the inclusion 
of instrumentation during testing. Any instru- 
mentation present in the vehicle is there by deci- 
sion of the manufacturer to assist him in 
monitoring the behavior of the fuel system 
during testing, and must be installed and utilized 
in such a manner as not to affect the test results. 
Therefore, as long as the loading requirements 
of the standard are met, manufacturers may deal 
with their instrumentation in any fashion they 
wish, as long as the test results are unaffected. 

Volkswagen urged that unrestrained dummies 
not be required during the rear moving impact 
test, citing the absence of such a test in Standard 
208 and alleging that the integrity of vehicle 
fuel systems would not be greatly affected by the 
presence of dummies. This request is denied. 
The rear moving barrier crash specified in pro- 
posed Standard 207, Seating Systems, provides 
for the installation of dummies in the same seat- 
ing positions as required for Standard 301, thus 
permitting simultaneous conduct of the rear bar- 
rier crashes required by both standards. In 
order to obtain realistic and reliable test results, 
occupant weight must be in vehicles during 
Standard 301 crash testing. The NHTSA has 
determined that unrestrained dummies would 
have, at most, slight vulnerability to damage 
during rear barrier crash tests, since the impact 
is such that the seats themselves serve as pro- 
tective restraint mechanisms. It has therefore 
been concluded that the best method for includ- 
ing occupant weight during rear barrier crash 
testing is with test dummies. 

Notice 2 specified that the parking brake be 
engaged during the rear moving barrier crash 
test. Ford requested in its petition for recon- 
sideration that this requirement be changed in 
order to enable simultaneous rear barrier crash 
testing with Standard 207 which provides for 
disengagement of the parking brake in its recent 
proposal. The NHTSA has decided to grant 
Ford's request. The condition of the parking 
brake during this test sequence would not so 
significantly affect the test results as to warrant 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 6 



EfFeclive: September 1, 1975 



letention of <a requirement that would prevent 
simultaneous testing. 

The Recreational Vehicle Institute objected to 
tlie standard, arguing that it was not cost-effec- 
tive as applied to motor homes. RVI requested 
that different test [)rocedures be developed for 
motor home manufacturers. Specifically it ob- 
jected to wiiat it suggested was a requirement 
for unnecessary double testing in situations 
wliere the incomplete vehicle has already been 
tested before the motor home manufacturer re- 
(^eives it. RVI expressed the view that the motor 
liome manufacturer should not have to concern 
himself with compliance to the extent that he 
nuist test the entire vehicle in accordance with 
the sti.ndard's test procedures. 

The NHTSA has found the requirements of 
Standard 301 to be reasonable in that they en- 
force a level of safety that has been determined 
necessary and provide adequate lead time for 
manufacturers to develop methods and means of 
compliance. The National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manu- 
facturer to test vehicles by any particular 
method. It does require that lie exercise due 
care in assuring himself that iiis vehicles are 
cai)able of satisfying the performance require- 
ments of applicable standards when tested in the 
manner prescribed. This may be accomplished, 
however, by whatever means the manufacturer 
reasonably determines to be reliable. If the final 
stage manufacturer of a motor home concludes 
that additional testing by him of the entire ve- 
hicle for compliance is unnecessary, and he has 
exercised due care in completing the vehicle in a 
manner that continues its conformity to appli- 
cable standards, he is under no obligation to re- 
peat the procedures of the standards. 

RVI further pressed its contention that the 
standard is not cost-beneficial by arguing that 
the agency has not provided specific data indi- 
cating a frequency of fuel system fires in motor 
homes that would justify the costs imposed by 
the standard. 

Sufficient record evidence has been found to 
support the conclusion that fuel spillage in the 
types of crashes with which the standard deals 
is a major safety hazard. The only basis upon 
which motor home manufacturers could justify 



the execption of their vehicles from Standard 
SOl's requirements would be an inherent im- 
munity from gasoline spillage. The standard 
establishes a reasonable test of a vehicle's ability 
to withstand impacts without experiencing fuel 
loss. If a motor home is designed in such a 
way as to preclude the spillage of fuel during 
the prescribed test impacts, compliance with the 
standard should present no significant hardship. 

Volkswagen challenged the cost-benefit ra- 
tionale of the more extensive performance re- 
quirements contained in Notice 2, and proposed 
that only the rear barrier crash be retained, if 
sufficient data exists to support its inclusion. 
The agency has carefully considered the issues 
raised in the Volkswagen petition. As discussed 
earlier. Standard 301 has been designed to allow 
testing for its requirements with some of the 
same barrier crash tests that are required by 
other standards: 208. 204, 212, and 207. This 
should reduce substantially the costs of testing 
to Standard 301, especially when viewed on a 
cost-per-vehicle basis. The NHTSA has con- 
cluded that the changes necessary for vehicles 
to comply with the standard are practicable and 
that the need for such increased fuel system 
integrity is sufficient to justify the costs. 

The Recreational Vehicle Institute also urged 
that the effective date for motor homes be de- 
layed 1 year beyond the date set for application 
of the standard to other vehicles. RVI contends 
that a uniform effective date for all manufac- 
turers will create serious problems for the motor 
home manufacturer who will not have complying 
incomplete vehicles available to him until the 
effective date of the standard. 

The NHTSA finds RVI's argument lacking 
in merit. Adequate lead time has been provided 
in Standard 301 to allow final stage manufac- 
turers of multistage vehicles to become familiar 
with the requirements and to assure themselves 
that chassis and other vehicle components are 
available sufficiently in advance of the effective 
date to enable timely compliance. The availa- 
bility of complying incomplete vehicles is a 
situation that should properly be resolved in the 
commercial dealings between motor home manu- 
facturers and their suppliers. If the motor home 
manufacturer is unable to obtain complying in- 



PART 571 ; S 301-75— PRE 7 



Effective: September 1 , 1 975 



complete vehicles far enough in advance of the 
standard's effective date, he might, for example, 
work out an arrangement with his supplier 
whereby the supplier will provide information 
relating to the manner in which the incomplete 
vehicle must be completed in order to remain in 
compliance with yll applicable safety standards. 
The lead time provided in the standards is 
planned to take into account the needs of per- 
sons at each stage of the manufacturing process, 
including final stage manufacturers. 

Jeep, American Motors, and Toyota urged de- 
lays in tlie implementation of various aspects of 
the standard. Jeep suggested a new schedule 
for application of the standard's requirements to 
nudtipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and 
buses, stating that the current lead time is in- 
sufficient to enable completion of necessary de- 
sign changes and compliance testing. American 
Motors requested a 1-year delay in the effective 
date for the static rollover test in order to allow 
satisfactory completion of the required Environ- 
mental Protection Agency 50,000 mile durability 
test. Once vehicles have completed required 
EPA testing and certification, their fuel system 
components cannot be altered. AMC says that 
it cannot make the design changes necessary for 
Standard 301 compliance in time to utilize them 
in this year's EPA tests. AMC also desires a 
2-year delay in the frontal angular, rear, and 
lateral impact tests, alleging that that constitutes 
tlie minimum time necessary to produce designs 
that comply. Toyota asked for a delay in the 
frontal angular crash test for all passenger ve- 
hicles until 1978, in order to allow them suffi- 
cient time to develop a satisfactory means of com- 
pliance with the specified performance level. 

All of these requests are denied. The lead time 
that has been provided for compliance with 
Standard 301 is found adequate and reasonable. 
The rollover requirements have been in rule form 
for over a year, and the more extensive require- 
ments were proposed more than 3 years in ad- 
vance of their effective dates. Considering the 
urgent need for stronger and more durable fuel 
systems, further delay of the effective dates is 
not justified. On the basis of all information 
available, the NHTSA has determined that de- 
velopment of complying fuel systems can be 
attained in the time allowed. In addition, Con- 



gress lias expressed in the recently enacted 
amendments to the National Traffic and Motor 
Veiiicle Safety Act its decision tliat the effective 
dates specified in Notice 2 should be strictly 
adhered to. 

Toyota requested that the requirements of the 
rear moving barrier crash not be imposed on 
vehicles with station wagon or hatch-back bodies, 
alleging diffiodty in relocation of the fuel tank 
to an invulnerable position. The request is de- 
nied as the NHTSA has determined that satis- 
faction of the rear barrier crash requirements 
by station wagons and hatch-backs is practicable 
and necessary. 

Volkswagen raised several objections in its pe- 
tition to the static rollover test, including asser- 
tions that the test does not reflect real world 
accidents, and that the test procedure is unclear 
since the direction of rotation is unspecified. 

The NHTSA does not consider these argu- 
ments to be germane. It is true that the static 
rollover test, like any "static" test, is not de- 
signed as a simulation of the actual behavior of 
a vehicle in a dynamic crash situation. It is 
intended rather as a laboratory method of quan- 
titatively measuring the vehicle properties that 
contribute to safety in a range of crash situa- 
tions. The NHTSA has found that a vehicle's / 
performance in the static rollover test is directly 
related to the fuel system integrity that is the 
goal of the standard, and is an appropriate 
means of measuring that aspect of performance. 

With regard to the direction of rotation, the 
NHTSA has stipulated that only a cetrain 
amount of fuel may escaj^e during a 360° rota- 
tion of a vehicle on its longitudinal axis. The 
vehicle must be capable of meeting this perform- 
ance level regardless of the direction of its 
rotation. 

British Leyland (in a petition for rulemaking) 
and Volkswagen requested revision of the aspect 
of the barrier crash requirement limiting the 
amount of fuel spillage taking place from impact 
until motion of the vehicle has ceased. They 
stated that the current 1-ounce limitation is too 
difficult to measure in the period while the ve- 
hicle is moving and suggested that fuel spillage 
be averaged over the period from impact until 
5 minutes following the cessation of motion. 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 8 



The NHTSA must deny this request. The 
purpose of the current limitation on the spillage 
of fuel during the impact and post-impact mo- 
tion is to prohibit the sudden loss of several 
ounces of fuel which might occur, as an example, 
by the displacement of the filler cap. Simul- 
taneous loss of several ounces of fuel during the 
impact and subsequent vehicle motion could have 
a fire-causing potential, because of sparks that 
are likely to be given off during a skid or metal 
contact between vehicles. 

Chrysler petitioned to have the requirement 
specifying that the moving barrier be guided 
during the entire impact sequence deleted in 
favor of a requirement that would allow the 
termination of guidance of the barrier imme- 
diately prior to impact. They argued that their 
suggested procedure is more representative of 
real world impacts. 

The request is denied. The condition that 
there be no transverse or rotational movement of 
the barrier, which has been in effect since Jan- 
uary 1, 1972, eliminates random variations be- 
tween different tests and therefore makes the 
standard more repeatable and objective as re- 
quired by the statute. 

Jeep requested clarification that a given vehicle 
is only required to be subjected to one of the spec- 
ified barrier impacts followed by a static roll- 
over. This request is granted as it follows the 



Effective: September 1, 1975 

agency's intent and the standard is not specific 
on that point. Section S6. is amended to require 
that a single vehicle need only be capable of 
meeting a single crash test followed by a static 
rollover. 

American Motors submitted a request that the 
agency finds repetitious of previous petitions, 
urging that vehicle fluids be stabilized at ambient 
temperatures prior to testing. In responding to 
earlier petitions for reconsideration from MVMA 
and GM in Notice 1, the NHTSA denied a re- 
quest for temperature specification, stating that 
it intended that the full spectrum of tempera- 
tures encountered on the road be reflected in the 
test procedure. That continues to be this agency's 
position. 

In light of the foregoing S3., S6., S6.1, S6.3, 
S7.1.4, and S7.1.5 of Standard No. 301, Fuel Sys- 
tem Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301) are amended 

Effective date: September 1, 1975, with addi- 
tional requirements effective September 1, 1976 
and September 1, 1977, as indicated. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718, 
15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on November 15, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 40857 
November 21, 1974 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 9-10 



EffecHva: S*pt*mb*r I, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75 

Fuel System Integrity 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 6) 



This notice amends Standard No. 301, Fitel 
System Integrity (49 CFK 571.301), to specify 
new loading conditions and to establish a 30- 
minute fuel spillage measurement period follow- 
ing barrier crash tests. 

On April 16, 1975, the NHTSA published a 
notice (40 F.R. 17036) proposing a revision of 
the loading conditions and fuel spillage measure- 
ment period requirement in Standard 301. The 
NHTSA also proposed in that notice an exten- 
sion of the applicability of Standard 301 to 
school buses with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 
pounds. At the request of several Members of 
Congress, the due date for comments on the 
school bus proposal was extended to June 26, 
1975, and final rulemaking action on it will ap- 
pear in a later Federal Register notice. 

It was proposed that the current 15-minute 
fuel spillage measurement period be extended to 
30 minutes in order to allow more time for leaks 
to be located and rates of flow to be established. 
Measurement of fuel loss during only a 15 minute 
time period is difficult because fuel may be es- 
caping from various parts of the vehicle where 
it is not readily detectable. Chrysler, American 
Motors, and General Motors objected to the pro- 
posed change and asked that it either not be 
adopted or that adoption be delayed for one 
year until September 1, 1976. 

The commenters argued that the revision was 
unnecessary and would involve a change in their 
testing methods. The NHTSA has fully consid- 
ered these arguments and does not consider the 
amendment to prescribe a higher level of per- 
formance. It concludes that the 30-minute 
measurement period is necessary to achieve ac- 
curate measurement of fuel loss and assessment 
of vehicle compliance and accordingly amends 



Standard 301 to prescribe the longer period for 
measurement. 

The April 16, 1975, notice also proposed a 
change in the Standard 301 loading conditions 
to specify that 50th percentile test dummies be 
placed in specified seating positions during the 
frontal and lateral barrier crash tests, and that 
they be restrained by means installed in the ve- 
hicle for protection at the particular seating 
position. Currently the standard requires (dur- 
ing the frontal and lateral barrier crash tests) 
ballast weight secured at the specified designated 
seating positions in vehicles not equipped with 
passive restraint systems. In vehicles equipped 
with passive restraints, 50th percentile test dum- 
mies are to be placed in the specified seating 
positions during testing. 

In petitions for reconsideration of this amend- 
ment to Standard No. 301 (39 F.R. 40857) 
various motor vehicle manufacturers stated that 
attachment of such ballast weight to the vehicle 
floor pans during the barrier crashes would exert 
unrealistic stresses on the vehicle structure which 
would not exist in an actual crash. The NHTSA 
found merit in petitioners' arguments, and its 
proposed revision of the loading conditions is 
intended to make the crash tests more represen- 
tative of real-life situations. 

Only Mazda objected to the proposal. It 
argued that curb weight be prescribed as the 
loading condition so that it could conduct Stand- 
ard 301 compliance testing concurrently with 
testing for Standards No. 212 and 204. The 
NHTSA does not find merit in Mazda's request 
as the Standard 301 loading condition is consid- 
ered necessary to assure an adequate level of fuel 
system integrity. Since the proposed loading 
conditions are more stringent than a curb weight 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 11 



Effadiva: September 1, 1975 

condition, manufacturers could conduct compli- 
ance testing for Standards 301, 212, and 204 
simultaneously. If the vehicle complied with the 
requirements of Standards 212 and 204 when 
loaded according to 301 specifications, the manu- 
facturer presumably could certify the capability 
of the vehicles to comply with the performance 
requirements of 212 and 204 when loaded to curb 
weight. It should be noted that the NHTSA is 
considering amending Standards 212 and 204 
to specify the same loading conditions as pro- 
posed for Standard 301. 

All other commenters supported immediate 
adoption of the proposed loading conditions. 
Therefore, the NHTSA adopts the loading con- 
ditions as they were proposed in the April 16, 
1975, notice. 

In consideration of the foregoing, S5.5 and 
S7.1.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 



301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), 
are amended to read as follows : 

Effective date: Because this amendment re- 
vises certain requirements that are part of 49 
CFR 571.301-75, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
301-75, effective September 1, 1975, and creates 
no additional burden upon any person, it is 
found for good cause shown that an effective 
date of less than 180 days after publication is in 
the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued August 1, 1975. 

Robert L. Carter 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 33036 
August 6, 1975 



PART 671; S 301-75— PRE 12 



Effeclive: September 1, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75 

Fuel System Integrity 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 7) 



This notice responds to a petition for recon- 
sideration of the notice published August 6, 1975 
(40 FR 33036), which amended Standard No. 
301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), to 
specify new loading conditions and establish a 
30-minute fuel spillage measurement period fol- 
lowing a barrier crash test. 

American Motors Corporation (AMC) has 
petitioned for reconsideration of the amendment 
to S5.5 of Standard No. 301 insofar as it estab- 
lishes an effective date of September 1, 1975, for 
the 30-minute fuel spillage requirement. AMC 
requests that the effective date for the 30-minute 
fuel spillage measurement time be delayed for 
180 days from the date of publication of the rule. 

The NHTSA has determined that AMC's peti- 
tion has merit. AMC argues that the imposition 
of an effective date 25 days after the publication 
of the rule is burdensome because the 30-minute 
spillage requirement is a more stringent require- 
ment than the previous 15-minute requirement 
and therefore requires additional testing to deter- 
mine compliance. The NHTSA agrees that 25 
days is not enough time to complete the addi- 



tional testing. However, the effective date will 
be postponed 12 months instead of the 6 months 
requested by AMC so that manufacturers will 
not have to conduct compliance testing for 1976 
model vehicles already certified under the old 
15-minute spillage requirement. For these rea- 
sons the petition of American Motors Corporation 
is granted. 

In S5.5 of Standard No. 301, Fuel System 
Integrity, (49 CFR 571.301), the amendment of 
August 6, 1975 (40 FR 33036), changing the term 
"10-minute period" to "25-minute period" effec- 
tive September 1, 1975, is hereby made effective 
September 1, 1976. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.51). 

Issued on October 3, 1975. 

Gene G. Mannella 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 47790 
October 10, 1975 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE ia-14 



Effective: October 15, 1975 
July IS, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75 

Fuel System Integrity 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 8) 



The purpose of this notice is to amend Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System 
Integrity (49 CFR 571.301) to extend the appli- 
cability of the standard to school buses with a 
GVAVR in excess of 10,000 pounds. The amend- 
ment specifies conditions for a moving contoured 
barrier crash for school buses in order to deter- 
mine the amount of fuel spillage following 
impact. 

On October 27, 1974, the Motor Vehicle and 
Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, amending 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act, were signed into law (Pub. L. 93^92, 88 
Stat. 1470). Section 103(i)(l)(A) of the Act, 
as amended, orders the promulgation of a safety 
standard establishing minimum requirements for 
the fuel system integrity of school buses. Stand- 
ard No. 301 currently contains requirements for 
school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less which will become effective beginning Sep- 
tember 1, 1976. Larger school buses, which com- 
prise approximately 90 percent of the school bus 
population, will be included in Standard No. 301 
by this amendment. 

A proposal to amend Standard No. 301 with 
respect to school buses, loading conditions, and 
spillage measurement time was published on 
April 16, 1975 (40 FR 17036). An amendment 
to the Standard specifying certain loading con- 
ditions and establishing a 30-minut« fuel spillage 
measurement period was published on August 6, 
1975 (40 FR 33036). At the request of several 
members of Congress, the period for comments 
on the school bus proposals was extended. This 
notice responds to the comments received with 
respect to the inclusion of school buses within the 
requirements of the standard. 



Seven manufacturers opposed the requirement 
of a single impact test by a moving contoured 
barrier at any point on the school bus body, argu- 
ing that such a requirement would necessitate a 
proliferation of expensive tests in order to ensure 
compliance at every conceivable point of impact. 
The NHTSA does not agree. Although not 
specifying a particular impact point, the test con- 
dition allows for testing at the few most vulner- 
able points of each kind of school bus fuel system 
configuration. Therefore, only impacts at those 
points are necessary to determine compliance. On 
the basis of its knowledge of the bus design, a 
manufacturer should be able' to make at least an 
approximate determination of the most vulnerable 
points on the bus body. 

Two school bus body manufacturers requested 
a requirement that the manufacturer who installs 
the fuel system be responsible for compliance 
testing, while one chassis manufacturer argued 
that responsibility for compliance should rest 
with the final manufacturer. In most cases, if 
the basic fuel system components are included 
in the chassis as delivered by its manufacturer, 
the multistage vehicle regulations of 49 CFR 
Part 568 require the chassis manufacturer at least 
to describe the conditions under which the com- 
pleted vehicle will conform, since it could not 
truthfully state that the design of the chassis has 
no substantial determining effect on conformity. 
Beyond that, however, the NHTSA position is 
that the decision as to who should perform the 
tests and who should take the responsibility is 
best not regulated by the government. The effect 
of Part 568 is to allow the final-stage manufac- 
turer to avoid primary responsibility for con- 
formity to a standard if it completes the vehicle 
in accordance with the conditions or instructions 
furnished with the incomplete vehicle by its man- 



PART 671; S 301-75— PRE 15 



Effective: October 15, 1975 
July 15, 1976 



ufacturer. Whether it does so is a decision it 
must make in light of all the circumstances. 

This notice extends the proposed exclusion for 
vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point below 
32° F. to school buses having a GVWR greater 
than 10,000 pounds. Fuel systems using gaseous 
fuels are not subject to the spillage problems 
against which this standard is directed. 

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission re- 
quested that school buses be required to undergo 
static rollover tests and that the engine be run- 
ning during the tests. Upon consideration, the 
NHTSA finds that a static rollover test for school 
buses is impractical in light of the expensive test 
facility that would be required. A requirement 
that the engine be running during the impact test 
would make little difference in the resulting fuel 
spillage. Since the standard requires that the 
fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent during 
the impact test, the test vehicle would have to be 
equipped with an auxiliai-y fuel system for the 
engine. The expense of modifying the test ve- 
hicle to allow the engine to run during the test 
would not justify the minimal benefits resulting 
from a requirement that the engine be running. 
However, the fuel system integrity of school 
buses will be continually monitored and analyzed 
by the XHSTA. Therefore, suggestions such as 
these may be the subject of future rulemaking. 

One school bus body manufacturer cited the 
infrequency of school bus fires resulting from 
collisions as a reason for ameliorating or eliminat- 
ing altogether fuel system integrity requirements 
for school buses. In promulgating these amend- 
ments to Standard Xo. 301, the NHTSA is act- 
ing under tlie statutory mandate to develop regu- 
lations concerning school bus fuel systems. This 
statute reflects the need, evidently strongly felt 
by the public, to protect the cliildren who ride 
in the school buses. They and their parents have 
little direct control over the types of vehicles in 
which they ride to school, and are therefore not 
in a position to determine the safety of the ve- 
hicles. Considering the high regard expressed 
by the public for the safety of its children, the 
NHTSA finds it important that the school bus 
standards be effective and meaninjrful. 



The California Highway Patrol expressed the 
concern that these amendments would preempt 
State regulations to the extent that the State 
would be precluded from specifying the location 
of fuel tanks, fillers, vents, and drain openings in 
school buses. The standard will unavoidably 
have that effect, by the operation of section 
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act. However, although a State may not 
have regulations of general applicability that 
bear on these aspects of performance, the second 
sentence of the same section makes it clear that 
a State or political subdivision may specify 
higher standards of performance for vehicles pur- 
chased for its own use, although of course the 
Federal standards must be met in any case. 

In addition to provisions directly relating to 
school buses, this notice clarifies the loading con- 
dition amendments in the notice of August 6, 
1975, by amending S6.1 to provide for testing 
with 50th percentile dummies. The wording of 
S6.1 is identical to that of the proposal. 

In light of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.301, 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, is 
amended. . . . 

Elective date: July 15, 1976, in conformity 
with the schedule mandated by the 1974 Amend- 
ments to the Traffic Safety Act. However, the 
effective date of the amendment of S6.1 is October 
15, 1975. Because the amendment to that para- 
graph clarifies the revision of certain require- 
ments which became effective September 1. 1975, 
it is found for good cause shown that an effective 
date for the amendment of S6.1 less than 180 
days after issuance is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (15 
U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 202. Pub. L. 93-492, 88 
Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392) ; delegations of au- 
thority at 49 CFR 1.51 and 501.8). 

Issued on October 8, 1975. 

Gene G. Mannella 
Acting Administrator 

40 F.R. 48352 
October 15, 1975 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 16 



Effective: As set forth in S5 of the standard 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75 

Fuel System Integrity 
(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 9) 



This notice clarifies the effective date of the 
change in Standard No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301- 
75) from a 15-minute to a 30-minute fuel spillage 
measurement period following cessation of mo- 
tion in barrier crash tests. 

Until August 1975, S5.4 of Standard No. 
301-75 specified a 15-minute fuel spillage meas- 
urement period for the barrier crash test re- 
quirements that would become effective September 
1, 1975. To allow more time for leaks to be lo- 
cated and rates of flow to be established, that 
period was extended to 30 minutes in Notice 6 
(40 FR 33036, August 6, 1975; correction of 
section numbers at 40 FR 37042, August 25, 
1975). Notice 6 set the effective date of the 
change as September 1, 1975. 

In response to a petition for reconsideration 
filed by American Motors Corporation, the 
NHTSA in Notice 7 (40 FR 47790; October 10, 
1975) delayed for 1 year the effective date of 
that change, thereby establishing the following 
scheme: a 15-minute period would be used in 
applying the standard to vehicles manufactured 
before September 1, 1976, while a 30-minute 
measurement period would be used for vehicles 
manufactured after that date. 

In Notice 8, which was published on October 
15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), the loading conditions 
of S6.1 were revised, effective immediately, and 
the standard was extended to apply to school 
buses with a G\nVR in excess of 10,000 pounds, 
effective July 15, 1976. Because these amend- 
ments were made by republishing the entire text 



of the standard, it appeared that the effective 
date of the change from a 15-minute measure- 
ment period to a 30-minute measurement period 
luad been advanced from September 1, 1976, to 
July 15, 1976, for all vehicles. The NHTSA 
did not intend such an advancement, and this 
notice amends the standard to reestablish the 
September 1, 1976, effective date for vehicles 
other than school buses with a GVIVR greater 
than 10,000 pounds. 

The following corrections of Notice 8 are also 
made: the standard is designated as "Standard 
No. 301-75" and typographical errors in S6.4 and 
S7.5.2 are corrected. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.301 of 
49 CFR Part 571 (Standard No. 301, Fuel Sys- 
tem Integrity), as published in the issue of 
October 15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), is redesignated 
as § 571.301-75 and amended 

Effective dates: As set forth in the standard. 
Changes indicated in the text of the Code of 
Federal Regulations should be made immediately. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; Sec. 108, Pub. L. 93-492, 
88 Stat. 1470 (15 U.S.C. 1392 note) ; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on February 25, 1976. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 9350 
March 4, 1976 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 17-18 



Effective; August 26, 1976 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301-75 

Fuel System Integrity 

(Docket No. 73-03; Notice 07); Docket No. 73-20; Notice 010); 

(Docket No. 73-34; Notice 04); (Docket No. 75-02; Notice 03); 

(Docket No. 75-03; Notice 05); (Docket No. 75-07; Notice 03); 

(Docket No. 75-24; Notice 03) 



This notice announces that the effective dates 
of the redefinition of "school bus" and of six 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they 
apply to school buses are chang^ed to April 1, 
1977, from the previously established efl'ective 
dates. This notice also makes a minor amend- 
ment to Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover 
Protection, and adds a figure to Standard No. 
221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. 

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety 
Amendments of 1974 (the Act) mandated the 
issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards for several aspects of school bus perform- 
ance, Pub. L. 93-492, §202 (15 U.S.C. § 1392(i) 
(1)(A)). These amendments included a defini- 
tion of school bus that necessitated a revision of 
the existing definition used by the NHTSA in 
establishing safety requirements. The Act also 
specified that the new requirements "apply to 
each schoolbus and item of schoolbus equipment 
which is manufactured ... on or after the ex- 
piration of the 9-month period which begins on 
the date of promulgation of such safety stand- 
ards." (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)). 

Pursuant to the Act, amendments were made 
to the following standards : Standard No. 301-75, 
Fiiel System Integrity (49 CFK 571.301-75), 
effective July 15, 1976, for school buses not al- 
ready covered by the standard (40 FR 483521, 
October 15, 1975) ; Standard No. 105-75, Hy- 
draulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105-75), 
effective October 12, 1976 (41 FR 2391, January 
16, 1976) ; and Standard No. 217, Bus Window 
Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), effec- 
tive for school buses on October 26, 1976 (41 FR 
3871, January 27, 1976). 



In addition, the following new standards were 
added to Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, effective October 26, 1976: 
Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protec- 
tion (41 FR 3874, January 27, 1976) ; Standard 
No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (41 
FR 3872, January 26, 1976) ; and Standard No. 
222, School Bits Passenger Seating and Crash 
Protection (41 FR 4016, January 28, 1976). Also, 
the existing definition of "school bus" was 
amended, effective October 27, 1976, in line with 
the date set by the Act for issuance of the 
standards. 

The Act was recently amended by Public Law 
94-346 (July 8, 1976) to change the effective 
dates of the school bus standards to April 1, 
1977 (15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)). This notice 
is intended to advise interested persons of these 
changes of effective dates. In the case of Stand- 
ard No. 301-75, the change of effective date is 
reflected in a conforming amendment to S5.4 of 
that standard. A similar amendment is made in 
S3 of Standard No. 105-75. 

The agency concludes that the October 27, 
1976, effective date for the redefinition of "school 
bus" should be postponed to April 1, 1977, to 
conform to the new effective dates for the up- 
coming requirements. If this were not done, the 
new classes of school buses would be required to 
meet existing standards that apply to school 
buses (e.g.. Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108)) 
before being required to meet the new standards. 
This would result in two stages of compliance, 
and would complicate the redesign efforts that 
Congress sought to relieve. 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 19 



Effective: August 26, 1976 

This notice also amends Standard No. 220 in 
response to an interpretation request by Blue 
Bird Body Company, and Sheller-Globe Cor- 
poration's petition for reconsideration of the 
standard. Botli companies request confirmation 
that the standard's requirement to operate emer- 
gency exits during the application of force to the 
vehicle roof (S4(b)) does not apply to roof 
exits which are covered by the force application 
plate. The agency did not intend to require the 
operation of roof exits while the force applica- 
tion plate is in place on the vehicle. Accord- 
ingly, an appropriate amendment has been made 
to S4(b) of the standard. 

With regard to Standard No. 220, Sheller- 
Globe also requested information that, in testing 
its school buses that have a gi'oss vehicle weight 
rating (GVIVR) of 10,000 pounds or less, it may 
test with a force application plate with dimen- 
sions other than those specified in the standard. 
The standard does not prohibit a manufacturer 
from using a different dimension from that 
specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed 
position on the legal effect of its regulations. 
To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to 
choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to 
show that a vehicle (or item of motor vehicle 
equipment) would comply if tested by the 
NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus the 
force application plate used by the NHTSA need 
not be duplicated by each manufacturer or com- 
pliance test facility. Sheller-Globe, for example, 
is free to use a force application plate of any 
width as long as it can certify its vehicle would 
comply if tested by the NHTSA according to 
the standard. 

In a separate area, the agency corrects the 
inadvertent omission of an illustration from 
Standard No. 221 as it was issued January 26, 
1976 (41 FR 3872). The figure does not differ 
from that proposed and, in that form, it received 
no advei-se comment. 

In accordance with recently enunciated De- 
partment of Transportation policy encouraging 
adequate analysis of the consequences of regula- 
tory action (41 FR 16200, April 16, 1976), the 
agency herewith summarizes its evaluation of the 
economic and other consequences of this action 
on the public and private sectors, including pos- 



sible loss of safety benefits. The changes in 
effective dates for the school bus standards are 
not evaluated because they were accomplished by 
law and not by regulatory action. 

The change of effective date for the redefini- 
tion of "school bus" will result in savings to 
manufacturers who will not be required to meet 
existing school bus standards between October 27, 

1976, and April 1. 1977. The agency calculates 
that the only standard that would not be met 
would be the requirement in Standard No. 108 
for school bus marker lamps. In view of the 
agency's existing provision for the marking of 
night school buses in Pupil Transportation 
Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 1204), it is concluded 
that the absence of this equipment until April 1. 

1977, will not have a significant adverse impact 
on safety. 

The interpretative amendment of Standard 
No. 220 and the addition of a figure to Standard 
No. 221 are not expected to affect the manufac- 
ture or operation of school buses. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Part 571 of 
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended. . . . 

Effective dates: 

1. Because the listed amendments do not im- 
pose additional requirements of any person, the 
National Higliway Traffic Safety Administration 
finds that an immediate effective date of August 
26, 1976 is in the public interest. 

2. The effective date of the redefinition of 
"school bus" in 49 CFR Part 571.3 that was pub- 
lished in the issue of December 31, 1976 (40 FR 
60033) is changed to April 1, 1977. 

3. The effective dates of Standard Nos. 105-75, 
217, 301-75, 220, 221, and 222 ( as they apply to 
school buses) are April 1, 1977, in accordance 
witli Public Law 94-346. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); Pub. L. 94-346, Stat. 
(15 U.S.C. §1392(i)(l)(B)); delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.) 
Issued on August 17, 1976. 

John W. Snow 
Administrator 

41 F.R. 36026 
August 26, 1976 



PART 571; S 301-75— PRE 20 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL MOTOR 
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301 

Fuel; System Integrity 
[Docket No. 88-01; Notice 01] 



ACTION: Technical amendment; final rule 

SUMMARY: This notice makes a technical amend- 
ment to Figure 2 of Standard No. 301 to correct 
the ground clearance dimension specified, in the 
figure for moving contoured barrier used in testing 
the fuel system integrity of school buses. Currently, 
Figure 2 specifies the ground clearance to the 
lower edge of the contoured impact surface as 
12.25 inches (311 mm.). The text of the standard 
refers to the same dimension as 5.25 ± 0.5 inches. 
This amendment corrects Figure 2 to reflect the 
agency's intent that the ground clearance to the 
lower edge of the contoured impact surface is 5.25 
inches (133 mm.). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1988. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Blue 
Bird Body Company (Blue Bird), a school bus 
manufacturer, has brought to the agency's at- 
tention that corrective action should be taken to 
remedy a discrepancy in the moving contoured 
barrier specifications in Standard No. 301. Blue 
Bird informed the agency that there appeared to 
be a conflict in the standard about the correct 
ground clearance of the contoured impact surface 
used in the school bus impact test of the standard. 
Paragraph S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the 
dimension between the ground to the lower edge 
of the impact surface as 5.25 ± 0.5 inches, while 
Figure 2 of the standard shows the ground 
clearance to be 12.25. 

This amendment corrects Figure 2 to reflect the 
agency's intent that the ground clearance to the 
lower edge of the contoured impact surface is 5.25 
inches (133 mm.). NHTSA adopted the use of the 
contoured barrier in a final rule issued on October 
15, 1975 (40 FR 48352). In the April 16, 1975, 
proposal to the rule (40 FR 17036), NHTSA stated 
that: 

The contoured barrier would incorporate the 
moving barrier specifications of SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J972a (March 1973). How- 
ever, the impact surface of the barrier would 
be at a height 30 inches above the ground 
level, rather than 37 inches as specified in the 



SAE provision. Studies have shown that a 30- 
inch test height is more representative of 
actual collisions. This would be a typical 
engine height of vehicles that might impact a 
school bus. 

Thus, in S7.5.1 of the standard, the agency 
adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches ± 0.5 
inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would 
be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the 
agency apparently inadvertently incorporated the 
barrier dimensions directly from the SAE Recom- 
mended Practice J972a, without making the 
necessary 7 inch adjustment in the ground 
clearance dimension. 

The agency has therefore concluded that a 
technical correction to Figure 2 is required to 
reflect NHTSA's true intent. The agency is 
amending the table marked "Dimensions" in the 
figure by -hanging the "12.25" inch and "311" 
mm. dimensions for letter "d" (referring to the 
distance between the ground to the lower edge of 
the impact surface) to "5.25" inches, and "133" 
mm., respectively. 

Because the amendment is corrective in nature 
and imposes no additional burden upon any person, 
it is hereby found that notice and comment thereon 
are not necessary, and that for good cause shown 
an effective date earlier than 180 days after 
issuance of the rule is in the public interest. The 
amendment is effective upon 30 days after publica- 
tion in the Federal Register. 

NHTSA has considered this amendment and 
has determined that it is not major within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12291 "Federal 
Regulation" or significant under Department of 
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures, 
and that neither a regulatory impact analysis nor 
a regulatory evaluation is required. The amend- 
ment imposes no additional requirements nor 
alters the cost impacts of requirements already 
adopted. 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for purposes of 
the National Environmental Policy Act. The rule 
will have no effect on the human environment 
since it clarifies an existing requirement. 

The agency has also considered the impact of 
this amendment under the Regulatory Flexibility 



PART 571;S301-PRE 21 



Act. I certify that the amendment will not have a In consideration of the foregoing, Figure 2 of 

significant economic impact on a substantial Part 571 is amended, 

number of small entities. Accordingly, no regula- 
tory flexibility analysis has been prepared. Man- 
ufacturers of motor vehicles, those businesses 
affected by the amendment, generally are not 
small businesses within the meaning of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Any manufacturer 

who is a small business within the meaning of the Issued on March 8 1988 

Act will not be significantly affected since this ' r i? i • 

corrective amendment only clarifies a previously . . aj'"'-^- ^ '"'^^ 

adopted requirement and imposes no additional Associate Administrator 

requirements. Finally, small organizations and '^^ " emaking 

governmental jurisdictions will not be affected by 53 F.R. 8202 

this amendment since prices will not be impacted. March 14, 1988 



PART 571;S301-PRE 22 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO 

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 301 

FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY; CORRECTION 

(Docket No. 73-20; Notice 12) 



ACTION: Technical correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects a typographical 
error in 49 CFR § 571.301, FiLel System Integrity, 
concerning the application of the standard to large 
school buses. This standard limits the amount of fuel 
spillage that can occur from vehicle fuel systems 
during and after specified front, rear, and lateral 
barrier impact tests. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 1988. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agency has 
become aware of a typographical error in paragraph 
S3, Application, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 571.301). 
Standard No. 301 limits the amount of fuel spillage 
that can occur from fuel systems of vehicles subject to 
the standard during and after specified front, rear, 
and lateral barrier impact tests. 

Paragraph S3 should state: "This standard applies to 
passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds 
or less and use fuel with a boiling point above 32° F." 
(Emphasis added.) However, as published in the CFR, 
the latter portion of S3 states: "... and to schoolbuses 
that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and fuel 
with a boiling point about 32° F." 



The change in wording occurred between the 
issuance and publication of the final rule establishing 
Standard No. 301. On October 8, 1975, NHTSA 
issued for publication in the Federal Register the final 
rule which established the application of Standard 
No. 301 to school buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR, 
and amended paragraph S3 to reflect that 
application. As issued, the wording in question in 
paragraph S3 read "above 32° F." This was in accord 
with the preamble to the final rule, which stated that: 
"This notice extends the proposed exclusion for 
vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point below 32° F. 
to school buses having a GVWR greater than 10,000 
pounds." 40 FR 48352; October 15, 1975. However, 
as published, the final rule used the word "about" 
instead of "above" with respect to those more heavily 
rated school buses. This notice corrects that error. 

Issued on December 7, 1988. 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

53 F.R. 49989 
December 13, 1988 



PART 571; S301-PRE 23-24 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 301 



Fuel System Integrity 



51. Scope. This standard specifies require- 
ments for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel 
systems. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires 
that result from fuel spillage during and after 
motor vehicle crashes. 

53. Application. This standard applies to pas- 
senger cars, and to multipurpose passenger ve- 
hicles, trucks, and buses that have a GVWR of 
10,000 pounds or less and use fuel with a boiling 
point above 32° F., and to school buses that have 
a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and use fuel 
with a boiling point above 32° F. 

54. Definition. "Fuel spillage" means the fall, 
flow, or run of fuel from the vehicle but does not 
include wetness resulting from capillary action. 

55. General requirements. 

55.1 Passenger cars. Each passenger car man- 
ufactured from September 1, 1975, to August 31, 
1976, shall meet the requirements of S6.1 in a 
perpendicular impact only, and S6.4. Each pas- 
senger car manufactured on or after September 1, 
1976, shall meet all the requirements of 86, ex- 
cept S6.5. 

55.2 Vehicles with GVWR of 6,000 pounds or 
less. Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, 
and bus with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less 
manufactured from September 1, 1976, to August 
31, 1977, shall meet all the requirements of S6.1 
in a perpendicular impact only, S6.2, and S6.4. 
Each of these types of vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 1977, shall meet the require- 
ments of S6, except S6.5. 

55.3 Vehicles with GVWR of more than 6,000 
pounds but not more than 10,000 pounds. Each 
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus 



with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds but 
not more than 10,000 poimds manufactured from 
September 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, shall meet 
the requirements of S6.1 in a perpendicular im- 
pact only. Each vehicle manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1977, shall meet all the requirements 
of S6, except S6.5. 

55.4 School buses with a GVWR greater than 
10,000 pounds. Each school bus with a GVWR 
greater than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or 
after April 1, 1977, shall meet the requirements 
of S6.5. 

85.5 Fuel spillage: Barrier crash. Fuel spill- 
age in any fixed or moving barrier crash test 
shall not exceed 1 ounce by weight from impact 
until motion of the vehicle has ceased, and shall 
not exceed a total of 5 ounces by weight in the 
5-minute period following cessation of motion. 
For the subsequent 25-minute period (for vehicles 
manufactured before September 1, 1976, other 
than school buses with a GVWR greater than 
10,000 pounds: the subsequent 10-minute period), 
fuel spillage during any 1 -minute interval shall 
not exceed 1 ounce by weight. 

55.6 Fuel spillage: Rollover. Fuel spillage in 
any rollover test, from the onset of rotational 
motion, shall not exceed a total of 5 ounces by 
weight for the first 5 minutes of testing at each 
successive 90° increment. For the remaining test- 
ing period, at each increment of 90° fuel spillage 
during any 1 -minute interval shall not exceed 1 
ounce by weight. 

S6. Test requirements. Each vehicle with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable 
of meeting the requirements of any applicable 



PART 571; S 301-1 



barrier crash test followed by a static rollover, 
without alteration of the vehicle during the test 
sequence. A particular vehicle need not meet 
further requirements after having been subjected 
to a single barrier crash test and a static rollover 
test. 

56.1 Frontal barrier crash. When the vehicle 
traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up 
to and including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision 
barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel 
of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 30° in either 
direction from the perpendicular to the line of 
travel of the vehicle, with 50th-percentile test 
dummies as specified in Part 572 of this chapter 
at each front outboard designated seating posi- 
tion and at any other position whose protection 
system is required to be tested by a dummy under 
the provisions of Standard No. 208, under the 
applicable conditions of S7, fuel spillage shall not 
exceed the limits of S5.5. (Effective: October 15, 
1975) 

56.2 Rear moving barrier crash. When the ve- 
hicle is impacted from the rear by a barrier 
moving at 30 mph, with test dummies as specified 
in Part 572 of this chapter at each front out- 
board designated seating position, under the ap- 
plicable conditions of S7, fuel spillage shall not 
exceed the Hmits of S5.5. 

56.3 Lateral moving barrier crash. When the 
vehicle is impacted laterally on either side by a 
barrier moving at 20 mph with 50th-percentile 
test dummies as specified in Part 572 of this 
chapter at positions required for testing to Stand- 
ard No. 208, under the applicable conditions of 
S7, fuel spillage shall not exceed the limits of 
S5.5. 

56.4 Static rollover. When the vehicle is ro- 
tated on its longitudinal axis to each successive 
increment of 90°, following an impact crash of 
S6.1, S6.2, or S6.3, fuel spillage shall not exceed 
the limits of S5.6. 

56.5 Moving contoured barrier crash. When the 
moving contoured barrier assembly traveling lon- 
gitudinally forward at any speed up to and includ- 
ing 30 mph impacts the test vehicle (school bus 
with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds) at any 



point and angle, under the applicable conditions 
of S7.1 and S7.5, fuel spillage shall not exceed 
the limits of S5.5. 

S7. Test conditions. The requirements of S5 
and S6 shall be met under the following condi- 
tions. Where a range of conditions is specified, 
the vehicle must be capable of meeting the re- 
quirements at all points within the range. 

S7.1 General test conditions. The following 
conditions apply to all tests: 

57.1.1 The fuel tank is filled to any level from 
90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard sol- 
vent, having the physical and chemical prop- 
erties of type 1 solvent, Table I ASTM Standard 
D484-71, "Standard Specifications for Hydro- 
carbon Dry Cleaning Solvents." 

57.1.2 The fuel system other than the fuel 
tank is filled with Stoddard solvent to its normal 
operating level. 

57.1.3 In meeting the requirements of S6.1 
through S6.3, if the vehicle has an electrically 
driven fuel pump that normally runs when the 
vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is op- 
erating at the time of the barrier crash. 

57.1.4 The parking brake is disengaged and 
the transmission is in neutral, except that in 
meeting the requirements of S6.5 the parking 
brake is set. 

57.1.5 Tires are inflated to manufacturer's 
specifications. 

57.1.6 The vehicle, including test devices and 
instrumentation, is loaded as follows: 

(a) Except as specified in S7.1.1, a passenger 
car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 
its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, se- 
cured in the luggage area, plus the necessary test 
dummies as specified in S6, restrained only by 
means that are installed in the vehicle for protec- 
tion at its seating position. 

(b) Except as specified in S7.1.1, a multipur- 
pose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its 
unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test 
dummies, as specified in S6, plus 300 pounds of 
its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, 
whichever is less, secured to the vehicle and dis- 



PART 571; S 301-2 




1. OUTER FRAME 6.0 X 2.0 X 0.19 IN (1S2 X 51 X 5 mml STEEL TUBING. TWO PIECES 
WELDED TOGETHER FOR A 12.0 IN 1306 mml HEIGHT 

2. BALLAST TIE DOWNS. 

3 ALL INNER REINFORCEMENTS AND FRAME GUSSETS OF 4 X 20 X 19 IN 

1102 X 51 X 5 mml STEEL TUBING 
4. REINFORCE AREAS FOR BOLTING ON FACE PLATES. 



DIMENSIONS 



Letter 


In 


mm 


A 


1200 


3048 


B 


600 


1524 


C 


42.0 


1067 


D 


21 


533 


E 


144.0 


3658 


F 


150 


381 


G 


160 


406 


H 


12 


305 


J 


24 


610 


K 


600 


1524 


L 


840 


2134 


M 


220 


559 


N 


1200 


3048 


P 


160 


406 





12.0 


305 


R 


60 


152 



FIG. 1-COMMON CARRIAGE FOR MOVING BARRIERS 




1100 i 25LB 1499.0 ± 

11.3 kgl 

AT EACH FRONT WHEEL 



DIMENSIONS 



TOTAL WEIGHT 
4000 ± 50LB (1814.4 ± 22,7 kg) 




Letter 


In 


mm 


A 


540 


1372 


B 


15.8 


401 


C 


30-0 


762 


D 


5 25 


133 


E 


375 


95 


F 


24 75 


629 


G 


18.0 


457 


H 


39,0 


991 


J 


78,0 


1981 


K 


30.0 


762 



MOMENTS OF INERTIA 
l_ = 271 ± 13.6 SLUG • FT ' (367 ± 18.4 kg.m') 
Ij = 3475 ± 174 SLUG • FT ' (471 1 ± 236 kg . m') 
NOTES: 

1. UPPER FRAME 4.0 IN DIA X 0.25 IN WALL (102 mm DIA X 6 mm WALL) STEEL TUBING 
(THREE SIDES! 

2. LOWER FRAME 6,0 IN DIA X 50 IN WALL (152 mm DIA X 13 mm WALLI STEEL TUBING. 

3. FACE PLATE 75 IN (19 mm) THICK COLD ROLLED STEEL 

4. LEADING EDGE 1,0 X 4.0 IN (25 X 102 mml STEEL BAND. SHARP EDGES BROKEN. 

5. ALL INNER REINFORCEMENTS 4,0 X 2,0 X 19 IN (102 X 51 X 5 mm) STEEL TUBING, 



FIG. 2 -COMMON CARRIAGE WITH CONTOURED IMPACT SURFACE ATTACHED 



PART 571; S 301-3 



tributed so that the weight on each axle as 
measured at the tire-ground interface is in pro- 
portion to its GAWR. If the weight on any 
axle, when the vehicle is loaded to unloaded ve- 
hicle weight plus dummy weight, exceeds the 
axle's proportional share of the test weight, the 
remaining weight shall be placed so that the 
weight on that axle remains the same. Each 
dummy shall be restrained only by means that are 
installed in the vehicle for protection at its seat- 
ing position. 

(c) Except as specified in S7.1.1, a school bus 
with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds is 
loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus 120 
pounds of unsecured weight at each designated 
seating position. 

57.2 Lateral moving barrier crash test condi- 
tions. The lateral moving barrier crash test con- 
ditions are those specified in S8.2 of Standard 
No. 208, 49 CFR 571.208. 

57.3 Rear moving barrier test conditions. The 

rear moving barrier test conditions are those 
specified in S8.2 of Standard No. 208, 49 CFR 
571.208, except for the positioning of the barrier 
and the vehicle. The barrier and test vehicle are 
positioned so that at impact— 

(a) The vehicle is at rest in its normal atti- 
tude; 

(b) The barrier is traveling at 30 mph with 
its face perpendicular to the longitudinal center- 
line of the vehicle; and 

(c) A vertical plane through the geometric 
center of the barrier impact surface and perpen- 
dicular to that surface coincides with the longi- 
tudinal centerline of the vehicle. 

57.4 Static roiiover test conditions. The ve- 
hicle is rotated about its longitudinal axis, with 
the axis kept horizontal, to each successive incre- 
ment of 90°, 180°, and 270° at a uniform rate, 
with 90° of rotation taking place in any time 
interval from 1 to 3 minutes. After reaching 
each 90° increment the vehicle is held in that posi- 
tion for 5 minutes. 

57.5 IMoving contoured barrier test conditions. 

The following conditions apply to the moving 
contoured barrier crash test: 



S7.5.1. The moving barrier, which is mounted 
on a carriage as specified in Figure 1, is of rigid 
construction, symmetrical about a vertical longi- 
tudinal plane. The contoured impact surface, 
which is 24.75 inches high and 78 inches wide, 
conforms to the dimensions shown in Figure 2, 
and is attached to the carriage as shown in that 
figure. The ground clearance to the lower edge 
of the impact surface is 5.25 ±0.5 inches. The 
wheelbase is 120 ±2 inches. 

57.5.2 The moving contoured barrier, includ- 
ing the impact surface, supporting structure, and 
carriage, weighs 4,000 ±50 pounds with the 
weight distributed so that 900 ±25 pounds is at 
each rear wheel and 1100 ±25 pounds is at each 
front wheel. The center of gravity is located 
54.0 ± 1.5 inches rearward of the front wheel axis, 
in the vertical longitudinal plane of symmetry, 
15.8 inches above the ground. The moment of 
inertia about the center of gravity is: 

/, = 271 ±13.6 slug ft^ 
/, = 3475 ±174 slug ft» 

57.5.3 The moving contoured barrier has a 
solid nonsteerable front axle and fixed rear axle 
attached directly to the frame rails with no 
spring or other type of suspension system on any 
wheel. (The moving barrier assembly is equipped 
with a braking device capable of stopping its 
motion.) 

57.5.4 The moving barrier assembly is 
equipped with 078-15 pneumatic tires with a 
tread width of 6.0 ± 1 inch, inflated to 24 psi. 

57.5.5 The concrete surface upon which the 
vehicle is tested is level, rigid, and of 
uniform construction, with a skid number of 75 
when measured in accordance with American 
Society of Testing and Materials Method E-274- 
65T at 40 mph, omitting water delivery as speci- 
fied in paragraph 7.1 of that method. 

57.5.6 The barrier assembly is released from 
the guidance mechanism immediately prior to im- 
pact with the vehicle. 

38 F.R. 22397 
August 20, 1973 

40 F.R. 48352 
October 15, 1975 



PART 571; S 301-4 



Effactiv*: S«pl«mb«r I, 1973 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302 
Flammability of Interior Materials — Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, 

Trucks, and Buses 
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 4) 



This notice amends § 575.21 of Title 49 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new 
motor vehicle safety standard, No. 302, Flam- 
mability of Interior Materials. Notices of pro- 
posed rulemaking on the subject were published 
on December 31, 1969 (34 F.R. 20434) and June 
26, 1970 (35 F.R. 10460). 

As stated in the notice of December 31, 1969, 
the occurrence of thousands of fires per year that 
begin in vehicle interiors provide ample justifi- 
cation for a safety standard on flammability of 
interior materials. Although the qualities of 
interior materials cannot by themselves make 
occupants safe from the hazards of fuel-fed fires, 
it is important, when fires occur in the interior 
of the vehicle from such sources as matches, 
cigarettes, or short circuits in interior wiring, 
that there be sufficient time for the driver to stop 
the vehicle, and if necessary for occupants to 
leave it, before injury occurs. 

The question on which the public responses to 
the above notices differed most widely was the 
burn rate limit to be required. The rate pro- 
posed was 4 inches per minute, measured by a 
horizontal test. Some manufacturers suggested 
maximum burn rates as high as 15 inches per 
minute. The Center for Auto Safety, the Textile 
Fibers and By-Products Association, and the 
National Cotton Batting Institute, on the other 
hand, suggested essentially a zero burn rate, or 
self-extinguishment, requirement, with a vertical 
rather than a horizontal test. A careful study 
was made of the available information on this 
subject, including the bum rates of materials 
currently in use or available for use, recommen- 
dations or regulations of other agencies, and the 
economic and technical consequences of various 
possible rate levels and types of tests. A con- 



siderable amount of Bureau-sponsored research 
has been conducted and is continuing on the 
subject. On consideration of this data, the Bu- 
reau has decided to retain the 4-inch-per-minute 
bum limit, with the horizontal t«st, in this 
standard. It has been determined that suitable 
materials are not available in sufficient quanti- 
ties, at reasonable costs, to meet a significantly 
more stringent burn rate by the effective date 
that is hereby established. The 4-inch rate will 
require a major upgrading of materials used in 
many areas, and a corresponding improvement 
in this aspect of motor vehicle safety. It is im- 
portant that this standard not hinder manufac- 
turers' efforts to comply with the crash protection 
requirements that are currently being imposed, 
and that in the Bureau's judgment are of the 
greatest importance. Further study will be 
made, however, of the feasibility of, and justifi- 
cation for, imposing more stringent requirements 
with a later effective date. 

As pointed out in several comments, the prob- 
lem of toxic combustion by-products is closely 
related to that of burn rat«. Release of toxic 
gases is one of the injury-producing aspects of 
motor vehicle fires, and many of the common 
ways of treating materials to reduce theii bum 
rates involve chemicals that produce highly 
poisonous gases such as hydrogen chloride and 
hydrogen cyanide. The problem of setting 
standards with regard to combustion by-products 
is difficult and complex, and the subject of con- 
tinuing research under Bureau auspices. Until 
enough is known in this area to form the basis 
for a standard, and to establish the proper inter- 
action between burn rate and toxicity, this un- 
certainty constitutes an additional reason for not 
requiring self-extinguishing materials. 



PART 571 ; S 302— PRE 1 



EfftcHv*: September 1, 1972 



The proposal specified a particular commercial 
gas for the test bum and several comments sug- 
gested problems in obtaining the gas for manu- 
facture testing. As is the case with all the motor 
vehicle safety standards, the test procedures de- 
scribe the tests that the regulated vehicles or 
equipment must be capable of passing, when 
tested by the Bureau, and not the method by 
which a manufacturer must ascertain that cap- 
ability. Any gas with at least as high a flame 
temperature as the gas described in the standard 
would therefore be suitable for manufacturer 
testing. To make this point clearer, and to use 
a more readily available reference point, the 
standards been reworded to specify a gas that 
"has a flame temperature equivalent to that of 
natural gas." 

The dimensions of the enclosure within which 
the test is conducted have been changed from 
those proposed, in order to provide more draft- 
free conditions, and consequently more repeat- 
able results. Smaller cabinets, furthermore, 
evidently are more generally available than 
larger ones. Again it should be noted that there 
is no necessity that manufacturers duplicate the 
dimensions of the test cabinet, as long as they 
can establish a reasonable basis for concluding 
that their materials will meet the requirements 
when tested in such a cabinet. 

Several comments questioned the need for 
specifying the temperature and relative humidity 
under which the material is conditioned and the 
test is conducted. The foregoing discussions of 
the relation of the standard to manufacturer 
testing apply here also. The specification of 
temperature and relative humidity for condition- 
ing and testing is made to preclude any argu- 
ments, in the face of a compliance test failure, 
that variations in test results are due to per- 
mitted variations in test conditions. The relative 
humidity specification has been changed from 
65 percent, as proposed, to 50 percent. This 
humidity level represents more closely the con- 
ditions encountered in use during fairly dry 
weather. While it is a slightly more stringent 
condition, it is one in wide use for materials 
testing, according to the comments, and is not, 
in the judgment of the Bureau, a large enough 
change in the substance of the proposal to war- 
rant further notice and opixjrtunity for comment. 



Several comments suggested that the standard 
should specify the number of specimens to be 
tested, with averaging of results, as is commonly 
found in specification-type standards. The legal 
nature of the motor vehicle safety standards is 
such, however, that sampling and averaging 
provisions would be inappropriate. As defined 
by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act, the standards are minimum performance 
levels that must be met by every motor vehicle 
or item of motor vehicle equipment to which 
they apply. Enforcement is based on inde- 
pendent Bureau testing, not review of manu- 
facturer testing, and manufacturers are required 
to take legal responsibility for every item they 
produce. The result, and the intent of the Bu- 
reau in setting the standards, is that manufac- 
turers must establish a sufficient margin of 
performance between their test results and the 
standard's requirements to allow for whatever 
variances may occur between items tested and 
items produced. 

The description of portions to be tested has 
been changed slightly, such that the surface and 
the underlying materials are tested either sepa- 
rately or as a composite, depending on whether 
they are attached to each other as used in the 
vehicle. In the proposal, surface and underlying 
materials were to be tested separately regardless 
of how used, an element of complexity found 
unnecessary for safety purposes. 

In response to comments with respect to ma- 
terials that burn at a decreasing rate, to which 
the application of the test is not clear, an addi- 
tional criterion has been added. If material 
stops burning before it has burned for 60 seconds, 
and does not burn more than 2 inches, it is con- 
sidered to meet the requirement. 

In consideration of the foregoing, § 571.21 of 
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended 
by the addition of Standard No. 302, Flam- 
mability of Interior Materials. 

Effective date: September 1, 1972. Because 
of the extensi\e design changes that will be 
necessitated by this new standard, and the lead- 
time consequently required by manufacturers to 
prepare for production, it is found, for good 



PART 571; S 302— PRE 2 



Effeclive: Seplembar I, 1972 



cause shown, that an effective date later than one Douglas W. Toms 

year from the issuance of this notice is in the Director 
public interest. 36 F.R. 289 

Issued on December 29, 1970. January 8, 1971 



PAET 571; S 302— PRE 3^ 



Effective: October 1, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302 

Flammability of Interior Materials 
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 7b) 



This notice modifies the test procedures and 
specimen preparation requirements of Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability 
of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). A notice 
of proposed rulemaking was issued on May 17, 
1973 (38 FR 12934). 

Several comments on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking suggested exempting small com- 
ponents on the basis of size because of the con- 
fusion caused by paragraph S4.1. This agency 
has not found, however, that the exemption of 
a component on the basis of size is consistent 
with safety. Rather, NHTSA finds that if a 
component is too small to produce an acceptable 
test sample, a test sample consisting of the ma- 
terial from which the component is fabricated 
should be substituted. Consequently, a new sec- 
tion S4.1.1 has been added to require surrogate 
testing of such components as switches, knobs, 
gaskets, and grommets which are considered too 
small to be effectively tested under the current 
procedures. 

A previous notice of proposed rulemaking (36 
FR 9565) suggested a scheme for testing single 
and composite materials that would allow the 
testing of certain configurations of vehicle in- 
terior materials not taken into accomit under 
the present scheme. Examples of such configura- 
tions are multi-layered composites and single 
layers of underlying materials that are neither 
padding nor cushioning materials. Comments to 
that notice argued that some aspects of the pro- 
posed scheme would require some duplicative 
testing without providing a measurable safety 
benefit. 

In response to these arguments, it was pro- 
posed (38 F.R. 12934) that S4.2 be amended to 
take into account some omissions in the present 



scheme and to reduce the complexity of testing 
single and composite materials. After reviewing 
the comments, the proposed scheme is adopted. 
Thus, the standard is amended to require single 
materials or composites (materials that adhere 
at every point of contact), any part of which is 
within 1/2 iiich of the surface of the component, 
to meet the bum-rate requirements. Materials 
that are not part of adhering composites are sub- 
ject to the requirements when tested separately. 
Those materials that do adhere to adjacent ma- 
terials at every point of contact are subject to 
the requirements as composites when tested with 
the adjacent materials. The concept of "ad- 
herence" would replace language presently con- 
tained in the standard describing materials as 
"bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached." An 
illustrative example is included in the text of 
the section. 

Several comments in response to the notice of 
proposed rulemaking requested changes in the 
test cabinet, as did comments in response to pre- 
vious notices concerning this standard. The 
NHTSA has evaluated various recommendations 
and suggestions concerning the cabinet. No 
changes are proposed in this notice, however, as 
sufficient justification has not been found for a 
design change at this time. 

Paragraph S5.2.1 of the standard presently 
provides that materials exceeding lA inch in 
thickness are to be cut down to V^ inch in thick- 
ness before testing. As described in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking, cutting certain materials 
to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted sur- 
face upon which a flame front may be propa- 
gated at a faster rate than it would be upon the 
surface of the material before cutting, thereby 
creating an artificial test condition. In order 



PART 571; S 302— PRE 5 



Effactlva: October 1, 1975 

to avoid this, the requirements for the transmis- In light of the above, Motor Vehicle Safety 

sion rate of a flame front are amended in S4.3 (a) Standard No. 302, 49 CFR § 571.302, is 
to exclude surfaces created by cutting. amended. . . . 

The notice of proposed rulemaking points out Ejfective date: Oct. 1, 1975. 

that a related problem has arisen concerning ^g^^g ^^^^ ^^9^ p^^ L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 

which surfaces of a test specimen should face the ^^g ^.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 

flame in the test cabinet. To answer this ques- ^ .^ CFR 1 51 ^ 

tion and avoid unnecessary test duplication, the ivt v, i7 iq7k 

1 111 •i.iiii XSSU.6C1 on iMfliI*Cil Xik Luio, 

test procedures are amended to provide that the 

surface of the specimen closest to the occupant ^ -r. /-. 

_. . . , , jxu James B. Gregory 

compartment air space face downward on the \a ' t t 

test frame. The test specimen is produced by 

cutting the material in the direction that pro- 40 F.R. 14318 

vides the most adverse test results. March 31, 1975 



PART 571; S 302— PRE 6 



Effactiva: Seplambcr 16, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302 

Flammability of Interior Materials 
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 9) 



On March 31, 1975, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued 
a notice modifying the test procedures and speci- 
men preparation requirements of Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302, Flam- 
mobility of interior materials (40 FR 14318). 
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule were 
received from American Motors Corporation, 
General Motors Corporation, White Motor Cor- 
poration, Chrysler Corporation, Volkswagen of 
America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 
Ford Motor Company, and the Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association of the United States, 
Inc. 

The NHTSA notice established a process of 
surrogate testing for components which were too 
small to test without difficulty using the proce- 
dures previously prescribed by Standard No. 302. 
The objections raised to this new process by the 
petitioners were that (a) the surrogate testing 
procedure is an entirely new departure, and the 
public should have been afforded an opportunity 
for comment, (b) the results of surrogate testing 
will in certain cases differ from the results of 
testing the actual component, (c) the creation of 
a surrogate testing sample of certain materials, 
such as elastic cord, is impossible, and (d) the 
dimensions of the surrogate sample are inappro- 
priate. 

It should be fully understood that small com- 
ponents which would otherwise be included 
within the purview of Standard No. 302 are not 
excluded by virtue of their size. Further, the 
NHTSA intends to utilize a surrogate testing 
procedure, among other testing procedures, in 
the case of small components as the first step in 
determining whether a safety defect exists pur- 
suant to section 152 of the National Traffic and 



Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Since the testing of 
small components is a more difficult process, the 
NHTSA concluded in amending Standard No. 
302 to include the surrogate testing process that 
the new requirement was less stringent than that 
currently required by the standard. Further, by 
amending the standard the industry could also 
be fully apprised of one of the methods the 
NHTSA intended to use to determine whether a 
section 152 defect existed. 

Nonetheless, it appears from the petitions for 
reconsideration which were received that a num- 
ber of manufacturers feel that they should be 
allowed an opportunity for comment. The 
NHTSA concludes their request is reasonable and 
the rule, as it relates to surrogate testing, is here- 
by revoked and is reissued as a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in this issue of the Federal Register. 
A number of the petitioners questioned the 
need for including any small components within 
the ambit of Standard No. 302, citing the notice 
of proposed rulemaking (38 FR 12934, May 17, 
1973) which stated that certain small components 
designed to absorb energy are not fire hazards. 
Therefore, the petitioners believe the NHTSA 
has reversed its previous position. 

This understanding is correct. As the NHTSA 
said in the preamble to the proposed amendment 
to Standard No. 302, issued concurrently with 
the amendment to the Standard (March 31, 1975, 
40 FR 14340) : 

On May 11, 1973, the NHTSA issued a notice 
(38 FR 12934) which proposed, inter alia, 
amending paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 
to enumerate the interior components of vehicle 
occupant compartment which fell within the 
ambit of the standard. 



PART 571; S 302— PRE 7 



EfFective: September 16, 1975 



Comments to the notice, however, liavc made 
clear that the enumeration of coinponoiits, even 
with the proposed amenchnent, ^\iIl continue to 
confuse manufacturers requiiod to meet tlie 
standard. 

***** * 

While some materials exposed to the occupant 
compartment air space are not fire hazards, the 
burden of ascertaining that fact should properly 
lie with the manufacturer. 

Several petitions also questioned what safety 
benefits would come from applyino; the standard 
to small components. As petitioner American 
Motors pointed out. the purpose of Standard No. 
302 is to provide sufficient time for the occupants 
of a vehicle to exit in cnse of an interior fire. 
Thus, even small components which are hijjhly 
flammable would hasten the spreading of fires 
in motor vehicles, resulting in a serious hazard. 

Testing -procedures. Petitioners pointed out 
that while the preamble provides that the sur- 
face of the specimen closest to the occupant com- 
partment air space face dov/nward on test frame, 
this is not made entirely clear in the body of the 
standard itself. The standard is amended to 
clarify this matter. Likewise, a definition of 
the term "occupant compartment air space" is 
added, although this term was used in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking without raising a prob- 
lem for those commenting. 



Extension of effective date of arr^ndment. 
Several petitioners asked for an extension of the 
effective date. As the surrogate testing proce- 
dures have been revoked and reissued as a pro- 
posed rule, the NHTSA concludes that an exten- 
sion of the effective date is not necessary. 

Redesignation of Docket 3-3; Notice 7. 
Through a clerical error, two notices were issued 
with the heading, "Docket 3-?.; Notice 7" (July 
11, 1973, 38 FR 18.564; March 31, 1975, 40 FR 
14318). The notice appearing at 38 FR 18564 
is hereby redesig^iated "Notice 7a" and that ap- 
pearing at 49 FR 14318 is redesignated "Notice 
7b." 

In consideration of the foregoing, Motor Ve- 
hicle Safety Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302, 
is amended. . . . 

Effective date: September 16, 1975. 

Because this amendment relieves a restriction, 
it is found for good cause shown that an im- 
mediate effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sees. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392. 1407); delegation of autliority 
at 49 CFR 1.51.) 

Issued on September 10, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

September 16, 1975 
40 F.R. 42746 



PART 571; S 302— PRE 8 



Effective: December 4, 1975 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302 

Flammability of Interior Materials 
(Docket No. 3-3; Notice 11) 



This notice establishes a new section, S3A. 
Definitions, in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302. 

On September 16, 1975, the NHTSA published 
in the Federal Register its response to a petition 
for reconsideration of Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior ma- 
terials (40 FR 42746). The rule esteblished a 
definition of the term "occupant compartment air 
space" that was supposed to be added to "S3A. 
Definitions.''^ The wording of the amendment 
was faulty, however, since the Definitions section 
had not yet been established in Standard No. 
302. This notice corrects the error by adding 
that section to the standard. 

Petitions have been received from General 
Motors Corporation, Motor Vehicle Manufac- 
turers Association, American Motors Corporation, 
and Ford Motor Company requesting that the 
definition of "occupant compartment air space" 
in Notice 9 be revoked. These petitions will be 
addressed in a separate notice. The purpose of 



this notice is only to promulgate the section head- 
ing which was omitted in error from Notice 9. 

In light of the above, in place of the amend- 
ment numbered 1. in Docket 3-3, Notice 9 (40 
FR 42746, September 16, 1975), Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 302 is amended by adding 
a new S3A. Definitions. . . . 

Effective date : December 4, 1975. Because this 
amendment is of an interpretative nature and 
makes no substantive change in the rule, it is 
found for good cause shown that an immediate 
effective date is in the public interest. 

(Sec. 103, 119 Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at CFR 1.51) 

Issued on November 28, 1975. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

40 F.R. 56667 
December 4, 1975 



PART 571; S 302— PRE 9-10 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302 



Flammability of Interior Materials— Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, 

Trucks, and Buses 

(Docket N. 3-3; Notice 4) 



51. Scope. This standard specifies bum re- 
sistance requirements for materials used in the 
occupant compartments of motor vehicles. 

52. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is 
to reduce the deaths and injuries to motor ve- 
hicle occupants caused by vehicle fires, especially 
those originating in the interior of the vehicle 
from sources such as matches or cigarettes. 

53. Application. This standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses. 

S3A. Definitions. 

"Occupant compartment air space" means the 
space within the occupant compartment that nor- 
mally contains refreshable air. (40 F.R. 42746— 
September 16, 1975. Effective 9/16/75. 40 F.R. 
56667-December 4, 1975. Effective: 12/4/75) 

54. Requirements. 

S4.1 The portions described in S4.2 of the 
following components of vehicle occupant com- 
partments shall meet the requirements of S4.3: 
Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, 
convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels in- 
cluding door, front, rear, and side panels, com- 
partment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, 
sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing cov- 
ers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, 
and any other interior materials, including pad- 
ding and crash-deployed elements, that are de- 
signed to absorb energy on contact by occupants 
in the event of a crash. 



S4.2 Any portion of a single or composite 
material which is within V2 inch of the occupant 
compartment air space shall meet the require- 
ments of S4.3. 

84.2.1 Any material that does not adhere to 
other material(s) at every point of contact shall 
meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested sepa- 
rately. 

54.2.2 Any material that adheres to other ma- 
terials) at every point of contact shall meet 
the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a com- 
posite with the other material(s). Material A 
has a non-adhering interface with material B 
and is tested separately. Part of material B is 
within V2 inch of the occupant compartment air 
space, and materials B and C adhere at every 
point of contact; therefore B and C are tested 
as a composite. The cut is in material C as 
shown, to make a specimen V2 inch thick. 



Illustrative Example 



Occupant Compartment Air Space 




Material tested SEPARATELV 



1/ Materials tested as 
/2 COMPOSITE 



84.1.1 Deleted and Reserved. 

(Rev. 11/2 V75) 



S4.3(a) When tested in accordance with S5, 
material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not 
bum, nor transmit a flame front across its sur- 
face, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. 

PART 571; S 302-1 



However, the requirement concerning transmis- 
sion of a flame front shall not apply to a surface 
created by the cutting of a test specimen for pur- 
poses of testing pursuant to S5. 

(b) If a material stops burning before it has 
burned for 60 seconds from the start of timing, 
and has not burned more than 2 inches from the 
point where timing was started, it shall be con- 
sidered to meet the burn-rate requirement of 
S4.3(a). 

S5. Test procedure. 
S5.1 Conditions. 

55.1.1 The test is conducted in a metal cabi- 
net for protecting the test specimens from drafts. 
The interior of the cabinet is 15 inches long, 8 
inches deep, and 14 inches high. It has a glass 
observation window in the front, a closable 
opening to permit insertion of the specimen 
holder, and a hole to accommodate tubing for a 
gas burner. For ventilation, it has a ]4-inch 
clearance space around the top of the cabinet, 
ten %-inch-diameter holes in the base of the 
cabinet, and legs to elevate the bottom of the 
cabinet by three-eighths of an inch, all located 
as shown in Figure 1. 

55.1.2 Prior to testing, each specimen is con- 
ditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 70° F. 
and a relative humidity of 50 percent, and the 
test is conducted under those ambient conditions. 

55.1.3 The test specimen is inserted between 
two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 
1 inch wide and three-eighths of an inch high. 
The interior dimensions of the U-shaped frames 
are 2 inches wide by 13 inches long. A specimen 
that softens and bends at the flaming end so as 
to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by 
supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, 
spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under 
the speciinien at 1-inch intervals. A device that 
may be used for supporting this type of ma- 
terial is an additional U-shaped frame, wider 
than the U-shaped frame containing the speci- 
men, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat-resistant 
composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the 
bottom U-shaped frame. 



55.1.4 A bunsen burner with a tube of %-inch 
inside diameter is used. The gas adjusting valve 
is set to provide a flame, with the tube vertical, 
of 1% inches in height. The air inlet to the 
burner is closed. 

55.1.5 The gas supplied to the burner has a 
flame temperature equivalent to that of natural 
gas. 

S5.2 Preparation of specimens. 

55.2.1 Each specimen of material to be tested 
shall be a rectangle 4 inches wide by 14 inches 
long, wherever possible. The thickness of the 
specimen is that of the single or composite ma- 
terial used in the vehicle, except that if the 
material's thickness exceeds ^ inch, the specimen 
is cut down to that thickness measured from the 
surface of the specimen closest to the occupant 
compartment air space. Where it is not possible 
to obtain a flat specimen because of surface cur- 
vature, the specimen is cut to not more than ^ 
inch in thickness at any point. The maximum 
available length or width of a specimen is used 
where either dimension is less than 14 inches or 
4 inches, respectively, unless surrogate testing is 
required under S4.1.1. 

55.2.2 The specimen is produced by cutting 
the material in the direction that provides the 
most adverse test results. The specimen is 
oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant 
compartment air space faces downward on the 
test frame. 

55.2.3 Material with a napped or tufted sur- 
face is placed on a flat surface and combed twice 
against the nap with a comb having seven to 
eight smooth, rounded teeth per inch. 

S5.3 Procedure. 

(a) Mount the specimen so that both sides and 
one end are held by the U-shaped frame, and one 
end is even with the open end of the frame. 
Where the maximum available width of a speci- 
men is not more than 2 inches, so that the sides 
of the specimen cannot be held in the U-shaped 
frame, place the specimen in position on wire 
supports as described in S5.1.3, with one end 
held by the closed end of the U-shaped frame. 



(Rev. 9/16/75) 



PART 571; S 302-2 



(b) Place the mounted specimen in a hori- 
zontal position, in the center of the cabinet. 

(c) With the flame adjusted according to 
S5.1.4, position the bunsen burner and specimen 
so that the center of the burner tip is three- 
fourths of an inch below the center of the bottom 
edge of the open end of the specimen. 

(d) Expose the specimen to the flame for 15 
seconds. 

(e) Begin timing (without reference to the 
period of application of the burner flame) when 
the flame from the burning specimen reaches a 
point IV2 inches from the open end of the spec- 
imen. 

(f) Measure the time that it takes the flame 
to progress to a point IV2 inches from the 
clamped end of the specimen. If the flame does 
not reach the specified end point, time its pro- 
gress to the point where flaming stops. 

(g) Calculate the bum rate from the formula 



B=60xD 

t" 

Where B=buni rate in inches per minute, 

D=5leng:th the flame travels in inches, and 
T = time in seconds for the flame to travel 
inches. 



1/2 IN. 

VENTILATING 

CLEARANCE 

HEAT 

RESISTANT 

GLASS 

1 1/2 IN 

2 1/2 IN 




3/4 IN. r' 

VENTILATION 
HOLES 



36 F.R. 289 
January 8, 1971 



(R»v. 9/16/7S) 



PART 571; S 302-3 



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 
Notice of Ruling Regarding Chassis-Cabs 



Inquiry has been received from persons en- 
gaged in the sale of trucks, buses, and multi- 
purpose vehicles regarding their legal responsi- 
bility under the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for assuring that 
vehicles sold by them are in conformity with all 
applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such 
persons commonly purchase chassis-cabs from 
manufacturers and bodies or work-performing 
and load-carrying structures from other manu- 
facturers and then combine the chassis-cab with 
the body or other structure. A regulation is 
being issued this date by the Federal Highway 
Administration defining the chassis-cab as a ve- 
hicle within the meaning of the Act, requiring 
that it meet all motor vehicle safety standards 
applicable on the date of manufacture of the 
chassis-cab.' Under this regulation the manu- 
facturer of a chassis-cab manufactured subsequent 
to January 1, 1968, will have responsibility for 
compliance with all applicable motor vehicle 
safety standards as set forth therein and for 
certification of such compliance to distributors 
and dealers. 

Section 101(5) of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "manufac- 
turer" as any person engaged in the "assembling" 
of motor vehicles. Persons who combine chassis- 
cabs with bodies or similar structures are, there- 
fore, manufacturers within the meaning of the 
Act. Inasmuch as the chassis-cab's manufacturer 
is responsible for compliance with standards 
under the regulation issued today, persons who 
add bodies or other structures to such chassis- 
cab are not considered manufacturers of the 
chassis-cab and, therefore, will not be responsible 
for the conformance of the chassis-cab to the 
standards certified by the manufacturer of the 



■ See F.R. Doc. 67-15174, Title 23, in Rules and Regu- 
lations Section, supra. 



chassis-cab. In numerous instances the chassis- 
cab will not be capable of complying with motor 
vehicle safety standard 108 because it will not 
be equipped with all items of lighting equipment 
referred to in such standard. Where vendors 
combine a chassis-cab which has not been certified 
to be in conformance with standard 108, with a 
body or other like structure, such vendor will be 
responsible for compliance with the lighting 
standard, and where such vendor sells the com- 
bined assemblage to another vendor, certification 
of compliance with the lighting standard must 
accompany the vehicle. 

We are advised that a substantial inventory 
of chassis-cabs manufactured prior to the effec- 
tive date of the initial motor vehicle safety 
standards and hence not required to comply with 
the same will be held by manufacturers, distrib- 
utors, and dealers on January 1, 1968. These 
vehicles may contain various items of lighting 
equipment manufactured prior to the effective 
date of the lighting standard or be designed to 
accept such equipment. Under these circum- 
stances, it does not appear appropriate to require 
compliance with the lighting standard when such 
chassis-cabs, i.e., those manufactured prior to 
January 1, 1968, are combined with bodies or 
similar strucutres. Section 108(a) (1) of the 
Act also prohibits any person from manufac- 
turing for sale or selling any motor vehicle 
manufactured "after the date any applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect 
under this title unless it is in conformity with 
such standard ***." Under this provision per- 
sons who combine the chassis-cab with a body 
or other structure will be responsible for (1) 
compliance of the combined assemblage with any 
motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the 
end use of the combined assemblage in effect on 
the date of manufacture of the chassis-cab, com- 
pliance with which has not already been certified 



PART 571; (RULING)-l 



by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and (2) com- 
pliance with all applicable standards in effect on 
the date of manufacturer of the chassis-cab to 
the extent that the addition of a body or other 
structure to the chassis-cab affects the chassis- 
cab's previous conformance with applicable 
standards. 

To insure that the person combining the 
chassis-cab with the body or other structure has 
adequate information to enable him to meet the 
conditions specified above, the regulation being 
issued concurrently with this ruling requires the 



chassis-cab manufacturer to affix a label to the 
chassis-cab which identifies the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards with which the chassis- 
cab fully complies for the principal end uses of 
such chassis-cab. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 29, 
1967. 

Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Federal Highway Administrator 

33 F.R. 29 
January 3, 1968 



PART 571; (RULING)-2 



FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 
(FHWA Ruling 68-1) 

Notice of Ruling Regarding Campers Slide-in and Chassis-Mount 



This ruling is in response to inquiries for a 
clarification of the applicability of Federal 
Motor vehicle safety standards to certain items 
of motor vehicle equipment commonly known as 
"campers" which are used mostly for recreational 
purposes. 

A "camper" can be described generally as a 
portable structure designed to be loaded onto, or 
affixed to, a motor vehicle to provide temporary 
living quarters for recreation, travel, or other 
use. The ruling is concerned with two general 
categories of campers. The first, a "slide-in 
camper", is placed on, or slides onto a completed 
vehicle, usually a pickup truck. The second, a 
"chassis-mount camper", is mounted on a chassis- 
cab. 

In past months the Bureau received a number 
of written inquiries regarding the applicability 
of the glazing material standard (No. 205) to 
slide-in campers. These persons received re- 
sponses from the Bureau indicating that slide-in 
campers would have to comply with standard 205 
under certain specified conditions. These re- 
sponses of the Bureau apparently received wide- 
spread dissemination in the industry. Subse- 
quently, additional inquiries were received from 
affected persons asking for clarification of the 
Bureau's earlier responses with respect to the 
question of whether standard 205 was applicable 
to glazing materials contained in slide-in campers 
sold by the manufacturer of such campers to 
members of the public and to dealers when not 
an integral part of the vehicle. 

The Bureau has reconsidered this question and 
determined that the glazing standard is ap- 
plicable to slide-in campers. 

Standard 205 is applicable to "glazing ma- 
terials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses." 



The slide-in camper is an item of motor vehicle 
equipment for use in motor vehicles. As such, 
glazing materials contained in slide-in campers 
must comply with standard 205 when such camp- 
ers are sold as a separate unit as well as when 
attached to a completed pickup truck. Addi- 
tionally, manufacturers of slide-in campers must 
also comply with the certification requirements 
set forth in section 114 of the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 
1403). 

Review of the Bureau's prior communications 
with affected persons indicates that such persons, 
and others who received notice of such communi- 
cations, could justifiably have concluded that 
standard 205 was subject to an interpretation 
which excluded its application to slide-in camp- 
ers sold directly to consumers or to dealers when 
not an integral part of the pickup truck. In 
these circumstances the Bureau does not regard 
it as appropriate that the interpretation of the 
applicability of standard 205, which this ruling 
announces, should be given retroactive effect. 
Further, in view of such reliance a reasonable 
time should be afforded affected parties to allow 
for possible necessary production adjustments. 
Accordingly, it is determined that with respect 
to slide-in campers, the interpretation announced 
by this ruling shall not become effective until 
July 1, 1968. 

With regard to the chassis-mount camper, it is 
an integral part of the vehicle when attached to 
a chassis-cab as defined in § 371.3(b), Part 371, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (33 
F.R. 19). 

Persons who mount the chassis-mount camper 
to the chassis-cab are manufacturers of vehicles 
within the meaning of section 102(3) of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 



PART 571; (RULING)-3 



of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392). As such, they are to by the manufacturer of the chassis-cab, and for 

be guided by the regulation and ruling on chassis- assuring that previously met standards have not 

cabs issued December 29, 1967 (33 F.R. 19 and been adversely affected by the addition of the 

33 F.R. 29). Under this regulation and ruling chassis-mount camper. 

persons combining a chassis-cab manufactured on j^^^^^ -^ Washington, D.C., on March 20, 1968. 
or after January 1, 1968, with a body or like 

structure (in this case the chassis-mount camper) ^ n i^ d j n 

■ui f • n, «- 4.U 1 *- J Lowell K. Bndwell, 

are responsible for assuring that the completed ^^^^^^1 ^.^ Administrator 
assemblage complies with all applicable standards 

in effect on the date of manufacture of the 33 F.R. 5020 

chassis-cab which had not previously been met March 26, 1968 



PART 571; (RULING)-4 



Section Three 

Part 572— Anthropomorphic Test Dummies 

Part 573— Defect and NoncompHance Reports 

Part 574— Tire Identification and Recordkeeping 

Part 575— Consumer Information Regulations 

Part 576— Record Retention 

Part 577— Defect and Noncompliance Notification 

Part 579— Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 

Part 580— Odometer Disclosure Requirements 

Part 581— Bumper Standard 

Part 582— Insurance Cost Information Regulations 

Part 585— Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting Requirements 

Part 590— Motor Vehicle Emission Inspections 

Part 591— Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards 

Part 592— Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured to 
Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

Part 593— Determinations That a Vehicle Not Originally Manufactured to 
Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is Eligible 
for Importation 

Part 594— Schedule of Fees Authorized by the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act 

Department of the Treasury Regulation Relating to Importation of Motor 
Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment 



c 



Effacllve: Auguil 1, 1973 



PREAMBLE TO PART 572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMY 



(Docket No. 73-8; Notice 2) 



The purposes of this notice are (1) to adopt 
a re<,nilation that specifies a test dummy to 
measure tlie performance of vehicles in crashes, 
and (2) to incorporate the dummy into Motor 
Veliicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 
§.^)71.208), for the limited purpose of evaluating 
\ehicles with passive restraint systems manufac- 
tured imder the first and second restraint 
options between August 15, 1973, and August 15, 
1975. The question of the restraint system re- 
qiiirements to be in effect after August 15, 1975, 
is not addressed by this notice and will be the 
subject of future rulemaking action. 

Tlie test dunmiy regulation (49 CFR Part 
572) and the accompanying amendment to 
Standard No. 208 were proposed in a notice 
published April 2, 1973 (38 F.R. 8455). The 
duumiy described in the regulation is to be used 
to evaluate vehicles manufactured under sec- 
tions S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2, (the first and second 
options in the period from August 15, 1973, to 
A\igust 15, 1975), and the section incorporating 
the dummy is accordingly limited to those sec- 
tions. The dmiimy has not been specified for 
use with any protection systems after August 15, 
1975, nor with active belt systems under the 
third restraint option (S4.1.2.3). The recent 
decision in For(^ v. NHTSA. 473 F. 2d 1241 
(6tli Cir. 1973), removed the injury criteria 
from such systems. To make the dummy ap- 
plicable to belts under the third option, the 
agency would have to provide additional notice 
and opport\mity for comment. 

By invalidating the former test dummy 
specification, the decision in Chrysler v. DOT, 
472 F. 2d 659 (6th Cir. 1972), affected the re- 
straint options in effect before August 15, 1975, 
as well as the mandatory passive restraint re- 
quirements that were to be effective after that 
date. A manufacturer who built cars with passive 



restraints under one of the options would 
therefore be (mable to certify the cars as com- 
plying with the standard, as illustrated by the 
necessity for General Motors to obtain a limited 
exemption from tlie standard in order to com- 
plete the remainder of a run of 1,000 air-bag 
equipped cars. 

The immediate [)urpose of this rulemaking is 
to reconstitute those portions of the standard 
that will enable manufacturers to build passive 
restraint vehicles during the period when they 
are optional. The test dummy selected by the 
agency is tlie "GM Hybrid II", a composite 
developed by General Motors largely from com- 
mercially available components. GM had re- 
quested NHTSA to adopt the Hybrid II on the 
grounds that it had been successfully used in 
vehicle tests with passive restraint systems, and 
was as good as, or better than, any other im- 
mediately available dummy system. On con- 
sideration of all available evidence, the NHTSA 
concurs in this judgment. One fact weighing 
in favor of the decision is that General Motors 
lias used this diunmy to measure the conformity 
of its vehicles to the passive protection require- 
ments of Standard 208, in preparation for the 
announced introduction of up to 100,000 air- 
bag-equipped vehicles during the 1974 model 
year. 

No other vehicle manufacturer has announced 
plans for the production of passive restraint 
systems during the optional phase, nor has any 
other vehicle manufacturer come forward with 
suggestions for alternatives to Hybrid II. The 
NHTSA would have considered other dummies 
had some other manufacturer indicated that it 
was planning to produce passive restraint vehicles 
during the option period and that some other 
dummy had to be selected in order to allow 
them to proceed with their plans. If there had 



PART 572— PRE 1 



EfFactiva: Auguil 1, 1973 



been any such plans, NHTSA would have made 
every effort to insure that a test device satisfac- 
tory to said manufacturer would have been 
selected. 

This agency recognizes that since various 
types of dummy systems have been in use under 
the previous specification, any selection of one 
dummy, as is required by the Chrysler decision, 
will necessitate readjustments by some manu- 
facturers. However, considering the quantity of 
GM's production, the scope and advanced state 
of its passive restraint development program, 
and the fact that the Hybrid II does not differ 
radically from other dummies currently in use, 
in the NHTSA's judgment that dummy repre- 
sents the best and least costly choice. That 
conclusion has not been contradicted by the com- 
ments to the docket. 

The agency will not make any final decision 
regarding reinstatement of mandatory passive 
restraint requirements without further notice and 
opportunity for comment. Should the agency 
propose mandatory passive restraint require- 
ments, the question of the conformity of the 
dununy that is chosen with the instructions of 
the court in Chrysler will again be open for 
comment. The NHTSA strongly encourages the 
continuance of the dummy test programs men- 
tioned in the comments, in the hope that any 
problems that may arise can be identified and 
resolved before the dummy specifications for 
later periods are issued. 

The Hybrid II dummy has been found by 
NHTSA to be a satisfactory and objective test 
instrument. In sled and barrier tests conducted 
by GM with the GM restraint systems and in 
sled tests conducted by Calspan Corp. on behalf 
of NHTSA, the Hybrid II has produced results 
that are consistent and repeatable. This is not 
to say that each test at the same nominal speed 
and deceleration has produced identical values. 

In testing with impact sleds, and to an even 
greater extent with crash-tested vehicles, the 
test environment itself is comple.x and necessarily 
subject to variations that affect the results. The 
test data show, however, that the variance from 
dummy to dummy in these tests is sufficiently 
small that a manufacturer would have no dif- 
ficulty in deciding whether his vehicle would 
be likely to fail if tested by NHTSA. 



The provisions of the dummy regulation have 
been modified somewhat from those proposed in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking, largely as a 
result of comments from GM. Minor corrections 
liave been made in the drawings and materials 
specifications as a result of comments by GM and 
the principal dimimy suppliers. The dummy 
specification, as finally adopted, reproduces the 
Hybrid II in each detail of its design and pro- 
vides, as a calibration check, a series of perform- 
ance criteria based on the observed performance 
of normally functioning Hybrid II components. 
The performance criteria are wholly derivative 
and are intended to filter out dummy aberrations 
that escape detection in the manufacturing 
process or that occur as a result of impact 
damage. The revisions in the performance 
criteria, as discussed hereafter, are intended to 
eliminate potential \ariances in the test pro- 
cedures and to hold the performance of the Hy- 
brid II witliin the narrowest possible range. 

General Motors suggested the abandonment of 
the definition of ''upright position" in section 
.572.4(c), and the substitution of a setp-up pro- 
cedure in section .^72. 11 to serve both as a 
positioning metiiod for tlie performance tests and 
as a measurement method for tlie dummy's 
dimensions as shown in the drawings. The 
XHTSA does not object to the use of an ex- 
panded set-up procedure, but has decided to 
retain the term "upright position" with appro- 
l)riate reference to the new section 572.11 (i). 

Tlie structural properties test of section 
.")72.5(c), which had proposed that the dummy 
keep its proi)erties after being subjected to tests 
l)roducing readings 25 percent above the injury 
criteria of Standard No. 208, has been revised 
to provide instead that tlie properties must be 
retained after vehicle tests in accordance with 
Standard No. 208, 

Tlie head performance criteria are adopted as 
pro[)osed. The procedures liave been amended to 
insure tiiat tlie foreliead will be oriented below 
the nose prior to the drop, to avoid interference 
from the nose. In response to comments by tlie 
Road Research Laboratory, American Motors, 
and GM. an inter\al of at least 2 hours between 
tests is specified to allow full restoration of 
compressed areas of the head skin. 



PART 572— PRE 2 



Effective: August 1, 1973 



Tlie neck performance criteria are revised in 
several respects, in keeping with GM's recom- 
mendations. The penduhim impact surface, 
sliown in Figure 4, has been modified in ac- 
cordance with GM's design. The zero time point 
lias been specified as the instant the pendulum 
contacts the honeycomb, the instructions for de- 
termining chordal displacement have been 
modified, and the pulse shape of the pendulum 
deceleration curve has been differently specified. 
The maximum allowable deceleration for the 
liead has been increased slightly to 26g. In 
response to suggestions by the Road Research 
Laboratory and the Japan Automobile. Manufac- 
turers Association (JAMA), as well as GM, a 
tolerance has been specified for the pendulum's 
impact velocity to allow for minor variances in 
the honeycomb material. 

With respect to the thorax test, each of the 
minor procedural changes requested by GM has 
been adopted. As with the head, a minimum 
recovery time is specified for the thorax. The 
seating surface is specified in greater detail, and 
the test probe orientation has been revised to 
refer to its height above the seating surface. 
The test probe itself is expressly stated to have a 
rigid face, by amendment to section 572.11, 
thereby reflecting the probes actually used by 
NHTSA and GM. A rigid face for the probe 
was also requested by Mercedes Benz. 

The test procedures for the spine and abdomen 
tests are specified in much greater detail than 
before, on the basis of suggestions by GM and 
others that the former procedures left too much 
room for variance. The test fixtures for the 
spinal test orientation proposed by GM, and 
its i^roposed method of load application have 
been adopted. The parts of the dummy to be 
assembled for these tests are specifically recited, 
and an initial .50° flexion of the diunmy is also 
specified. The rates of load application and 
removal, and the method of taking force readings 
are each specified. The direction of force ap- 
plication is clarified in response to a comment by 
Vol vo. 

The abdomen test is amended with respect to 
the initial point of force measurement, to resolve 
a particular source of disagreement between 
GM's data and NHTSA's. The boundaries of 



the abdominal force-deflection curve are modified 
to accord with the measurements taken by GM 
subsequent to the issuance of the notice. The 
rate of force application is specified as not more 
than 0.1 inci) per second, in response to com- 
ments by Mercedes Benz, JAMA, and GM. 

The test procedures for the knee tests are 
revised to specify the type of seating surface 
used and to control the angle of the lower legs 
in accordance with suggestions by JAMA, the 
Road Research Laboratory, and GM. The in- 
strtmientation specifications of section 572.11 are 
amended to clarify the method of attachment 
and orientation of the thorax accelerometers and 
to specify the ciiannel classes for the chest 
potentiometer, the pendulum accelerometer, and 
tlie test probe accelerometer, as requested by 
several comments. 

The design and assembly drawings for the 
test dummy are too cumbersome to publish in the 
Federal Ueghter. During the comment period 
on the April 2 notice, the agency maintained 
master copies of the drawings in the docket and 
placed the reproducible mylar masters from 
which the copies were made with a commercial 
blueprint facility from whom interested parties 
could obtain copies. The NHTSA has decided 
to continue this practice and is accordingly 
placing a master set of drawings in the docket 
and the reproducible masters for these drawings 
with a blueprint facility. 

Tlie drawings as adopted by this notice differ 
only in minor detail from those that accompanied 
the April 2 notice. The majority of the changes, 
incoi-porated into corrected drawings, have 
already been gi\en to those persons who ordered 
copies. The letter of June 13, 197.3, that ac- 
companied the corrected drawings has been 
placed in the docket. The June corrections are 
iucoriwrated into the final drawing jiackage. 
.Vdditional adjustments are made hereby to re- 
flect better the weight distribution of separated 
segments of the dummy, to allow other materials 
to be used for head ballast, and to specify the 
instrument for measuring skin thickness. The 
details of these changes are recited in a memo- 
randum incorporated into the drawing package. 

Rach of the final drawings is designated by 
the legend "XHTSA Release 8/1/73". Each 



PART 572— PRE 3 



EffKMva: Augud 1, 1973 

drawing so designated is hereby incorporated as 
part of the test dummy specifications of 49 CFR 
Part 572. Subsequent changes in the drawings 
will not be made without notice and opportunity 
for comment. 

The incorporation of the Part 572 test dummy 
into Standard No. 208 makes obsolete several 
test conditions of the standard that had been 
adopted to supplement the former test dummy 
specifications. The location, orientation, and 
sensitivity of test instrumentation formerly 
specified by sections S8.1.15 through S8.1.18 are 
now controlled by Part 572 are are no longer 
necessary within Standard No. 208. Similarly, 
the use of rubber components for the head, neck 
and torso joints as specified in Part 572, supplant 
the joint setting specifications for those joints 
in section S8.1.10 of the standard. The NHTSA 
has determined that the deletion of the above 
portions of the Standard No. 208 will have no 
effect on the substantive requirements of the 
standard and that notice and public procedure 
thereon are unnecessary. 



In consideration of the foregoing, Title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended by the 
addition of Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test 
Dummy. . . . 

In view of the pressing need for a test dummy 
to permit the continued development of passive 
restraint systems, and the fact that it presently 
only relates to a new option for compliance, the 
NHTSA finds that there is good cause to adopt 
an immediate effective date. Accordingly, Part 
572 is effective August 1, 1973, and the amend- 
ment to Standard 208 is effective August 15, 1973. 

Issued under the authority of sections 103 and 
119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act, P.L. 89-563, 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407, 
and the delegation of authority at 38 F.R. 12147. 

Issued on July 26, 1973. 

James E. Wilson 
Associate Administrator 
Traffic Safety Programs 

38 F.R. 20449 
August 1, 1973 



PART 57a— PRE 4 



Effective: August 8, 1977 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES 

(Docket No. 73-8; Notice 4) 



This notice amends Part 572, Anthrojjcmiorphic 
Test Dummy, to specify several elements of the 
dummy calibration test procedures and make 
minor changes in the dummy design specifica- 
tions. Part 572 is also reorganized to provide 
for accommodation of dummies other than the 
50th-percentile male dummy in the future. 

Part 572 (49 CFR Part 572) establishes, by 
means of approximately 250 drawings and five 
calibration tests, the exact specifications of a test 
device that simulates an adult occupant of a 
motor vehicle, for use in evaluating certain types 
of crash protection systems provided in accord- 
ance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection (49 CFR §571.208). Interested per- 
sons are advised that NHTSA Docket Nos. 69-7 
and 74-14 concerning Standard No. 208 are re- 
lated to this rulemaking. 

Proposed occupant protection requirements in 
Standard No. 208 were reviewed by the Sixth 
Circuit in 1972 {'■'■Chi^sler v. Department of 
Transportation," 472 F. 2d 659 (6th Cir. 1972) ), 
and the dummy previously specified for use in 
testing was invalidated as insufficiently objective. 
The NHTSA subsequently established new 
dummy specifications under Part 572 for the 
limited purpose of qualifying passive restraint 
systems which manufacturers choose to offer on 
an optional basis (38 FR 20499, August 1, 1973). 
After examining test experience with the Part 
572 dummy, the NHTSA specified its use in a 
proposal to mandate passive restraint systems 
(39 FR 10271, March 19, 1974). 

Recently, the agency proposed minor changes 
in calibration procedures and dummy drawings 
(40 FR 33462, August 8, 1975) in response to the 
comments of manufacturers and others on the 
March 1974 notice. The August 1975 proposal 
only addressed the issue of dummy objectivity 



raised by the Sixth Circuit, while issues of 
dummy similarity to humans, sensitivity to test 
environment, and dummy positioning in a vehicle 
have been treated elsewhere (41 FR 29715, July 
19, 1976). 

It is noted that the most recent Department of 
Transportation proposals on Standard No. 208 
(41 FR 24070, June 14, 1976) reflected a modifi- 
cation of performance requirements that reduce 
the number and types of tests in which the Part 
572 dummy would be used in Standard No. 208 
dynamic tests. Specifically, rollover and lateral 
testing would no longer be required if a lap belt 
were instaP^d in the front seating positions. The 
NHTSA's July 1976 proposal noted above would 
conform existing tests in Standard No. 208 to the 
modified approach. It would also increase the 
permissible femur force loads that could be reg- 
istered on the dummy during impact, and restrict 
femur force requirements to compressive forces. 
Interested persons should be aware of these sig- 
nificant potential changes in the use of the dummy 
in Standard No. 208. 

As for the dummy objectivity treated by the 
proposal that underlies this notice, manufactur- 
ers' comments stressed the complexity of the test 
environment in which the device is used and their 
uncertainty as to how much tlie dummy char- 
acteristics contribute to the variability that is 
encountered. In somewliat contradictory fashion, 
several of the manufactui'ers repeated requests 
for a "whole systems'' calibration of the dummy 
that would be conducted under conditions ap- 
proximating the barrier crash whose complex 
variables had just been emphasized. 

As is the case with any measuring instrument, 
variations in readings can result from imperfec- 
tion in the instrument or variations in the phe- 
nomenon being measured (in this case, the 



PART 572— PRE 5 



EffecHve: August 8, 1977 



complex events that occur as a passenger car 
impacts a barrier at 30 mph, or is impacted lat- 
erally by a 4,000-pound moving barrier, or is 
rolled over). While the '■'■Chrysler" court delayed 
Standard No. 208 so that variation in the 
dummy's behavior could be corrected, it found 
the standard (and the dynamic test procedures) 
practicable and "designed to meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety" (472 F2d at 674, 675). 
To meet the need for motor vehicle safety, the 
dynamic tests are realistic simulations of the 
actual crash environment. Variations in the pre- 
cise circumstances to which the dummy is exposed 
from test to test are expected. 

Simulation of such crashes to provide a "whole 
systems" calibration of the dummy would not be 
reasonable, however, because of the variations 
that are inherent in the 30-mph (and the other) 
impacts. Unless the inputs to the dummy during 
calibi'ation are precisely controlled, as is the case 
with the five sub-assembly tests, the "whole sys- 
tems" calibration would be meaningless. To con- 
duct precisely controlled 30-mph barrier crash 
tests as part of the dummy calibration procedure 
would be very expensive, since dummy calibration 
is normally performed before and after each 
compliance test. The good results obtained in 
sub-assembly calibration, and supported by the 
controlled "whole dummy" t«st results referred 
to in the preamble to the proposal, make such a 
"whole systems" test redundant. The agency 
concludes that introduction into Part 572 of an 
extremely expensive and unfamiliar additional 
calibration is unjustified. 

General Motors (GM), Chrysler Corporation. 
Ford Motor Company, and the Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers Association (MVMA) stated that 
the dummy construction is unsuited to measure- 
ments of laterally-imposed force, thereby render- 
ing the dummy unobjective in the "lateral impact 
environment." While the agency does not agree 
with these objections, the modified performance 
levels put forward by the Department of Trans- 
portation and the agency would allow manufac- 
turers to install lap belts if they do not wish to 
undertake lateral or rollover testing. Any manu- 
facturer that is concerned with the objectivity of 
the dummy in such impacts would provide lap 
belts at the front seating positions in lieu of 
conducting the lateral or rollover tests. 



Ford and Chrysler argued that the test dummy 
is insufficiently specified despite the approxi- 
mately 250 detailed drawings that set forth 
dummy construction. Their concern seems to be 
limited to minor contour dimensions that they 
consider critical to dummy objectivity. To 
eliminate any such concern the agency will place 
a specimen of the dummy in the data and draw- 
ings package and incorporate it by reference into 
Part 572. 

The MVMA stated that its reading of the 
docket comments indicated that the dummy can- 
not be assembled as it is designed. The agency 
is aware that dimensional tolerances could, at 
their extremes, "stack up" to cause the need in 
rare instances for selective fitting of components. 
Manufacturers can avoid any such problem by 
reducing the dispersion of tolerances or by select 
fitting of components to avoid tolerance "stack- 
up." Of the three dummy manufacturers' com- 
ments on this proposal, only Humanoid Systems 
(Humanoid) listed discrepancies. The agency 
has reviewed the asserted discrepancies and con- 
cludes that the specifications themselves, the 
manufacturing practices just noted, or the cali- 
bration procedures are adequate to resolve the 
cited problems. To simplify the dummy, certain 
studs located at the side of the dummy femurs 
(used for mounting photographic targets and 
unnecessary to NHTSA test procedures) are de- 
leted because of their potential for reducing re- 
peatability under some circumstances. These 
studs are designated F/02, G/02, F/25, and G/25. 

Bayerische Motorenverken recited test experi- 
ence that demonstrated different performance 
charactei'istics among the products of different 
dummy manufacturers, although they are all 
warranted to meet the specifications of the regu- 
lations. NHTSA Report DOT-HS-801-861 
demonstrates that some manufacturer-warranted 
dummies did not meet all calibration require- 
ments of Part 572. The agency, however, is not 
in a position to assume responsibility for the 
contractual terms established between private 
parties. 

Humanoid noted that experience with the vinyl 
flesh specification of the dummy led to resolution 
of aging problems on which it had earlier com- 
mented. The company did recommend latitude 
in vinyl formulation to permit market competi- 



PAKT 572— PRE 6 



Effective: August 8, 1977 



tion. General Motors also expressed concern that 
specification of the Part 572 dummy not stifle 
innovation. Alderson Research Laboratories 
(ARL) once again asked that the agency specify 
a one-piece casting in place of the welded head 
presently specified. The agency sympathizes 
with this interest in improvement of the dummy 
manufacturing techniques. However, the dummy 
is a test instrument crucial to the validity of an 
important motor vehicle safety standard and as 
such, it cannot be loosely described for the benefit 
of innovation. 

Volkswagen requested improvement in aging 
and in storage techniques for the dummy. The 
agency considers that it has met its responsibili- 
ties by specifying calibration tests that will sig- 
nal improper storage or age-related changes. 
Further development in this area is within the 
province of the manufacturers and users. Sig- 
nificant improvements in aging or storage factors 
will, of course, not be ignored by the agency. 

Although Ford and American Motors Corpora- 
tion (AMC) made no comment on the specifics 
of the NHTSA proposal, Chrysler Corporation 
and several other vehicle manufacturers, as well 
as the dummy manufacturers, supported the pro- 
posed changes. The National Motor Vehicle 
Safety Advisory Council took no position on the 
proposal. The Vehicle Equipment Safety Com- 
mission did not comment on the proposal. Hav- 
ing carefully reviewed all of the comments 
submitted and additional data compiled by the 
agency, the changes are adopted, essentially as 
proposed. The agency proposed modification of 
the five calibration procedures for dummy sub- 
assemblies, along with minor changes in the 
drawings that describe all components of the 
dummy. 

HEAD 

The head calibration involves dropping the 
head 10 inches so that its forehead strikes a rigid 
surface and registers acceleration levels that must 
fall within a certain range. No comments were 
received on the small relocation of measurement 
points or the specification of "instant release" 
of the head, and these modifications are made as 
proposed. 



The proposal included a specification of 250 
microinches (rms) for the finish of the steel plate 
on which the head is dropped. The agency had 
considered other factors (particularly friction at 
the skull-skin interface of the dummy forehead) 
that might affect the accelerometer readings. It 
was found that, in most instances, the dummy as 
received from the manufacturer conformed to the 
specifications. When deviations were encoun- 
tered, treatment of the head in accordance with 
manufacturer recommendations eliminated the 
effect of these factors on results. Comparison of 
data on 100 head drop tests conducted since 
issuance of the proposal confirms that conclusion. 
Ninety-seven percent of these head drops reg- 
istered readings within the specified limits, with 
a mean response value of 232g and a standard 
deviation of 14g, indicating a coefficient of vari- 
ance of 6 percent. Of the three failures, the 
response values were 203g, 204g and 263g. All 
of the drop tests fell within the specified 0.9- to 
1.5-ms time range at the lOOg level. The surface 
finish of the drop plate was 63 microinches (rms). 
In view of this data, it does not appear necessary 
to adjust either the I'esponse range as advocated 
by Humanoid or the time range as recommended 
by Ford. The test results, however, support the 
request by a number of comments to change the 
proposed 250-microinch finish to a value below 
100 microinches (rms). On the basis of the 
comments and NHTSA test data, the impact 
plate surface finish is specified as any value in 
the range from 8 to 80 microinches (rms). 

General Motors asked whether coating of the 
steel plate is permitted. Coating is permitted so 
long as the 8- to 80-microinch range for the 
surface is maintained. 

Humanoid recommended that any lubrication 
or surface smoothness introduced by the dummy 
manufacturers be made uniform in the interests 
of component interchange. Volkswagen also rec- 
ommended a skull-to-skin interface finish speci- 
fication. The NHTSA, however, does not believe 
that differing procedures for preparation of the 
skull-skin interface prevent interchange of the 
heads, and the requests are therefore not granted. 



PART 572— PRE 7 



Effective: August 8, 1977 



In view of the agency decision to incorporate 
by reference a specimen of the Part 572 dummy 
in the drawings and data package, it is also con- 
sidered unnecessary to specify, as requested by 
Humanoid, thickness and performance specifica- 
tion for the headform at 45 and 90 degrees from 
the midsaggital plane. With regards to Hu- 
manoid's view that head drop tests are irrelevant 
to performance of the dummy as a measuring 
instrument, the agency considers them closely 
tied to the characteristics of the dummy that 
affect its repeatability as a measuring device. 

Renault and Peugeot recommended considera- 
tion of a revision in the test criteria of Standard 
No. 208, in the case of safety belts, to replace the 
limitation on head acceleration with a limitation 
on submarining. The agency considers the pres- 
ent limit on head acceleration a valuable means 
to limit head loading and neck hyperflexion in 
belt systems as well as other systems. It is a 
requirement that is already being met on a pro- 
duction basis by Volkswagen. 

Toyota stated that the lOg limit on lateral 
acceleration during the head drop would be im- 
possible to satisfy. The NHTSA's own test ex- 
perience did not exhibit any evidence of the noted 
problem. None of the manufacturers of dummies 
objected to the proposal, and Alderson Research 
Laboratories (ARL) supported the lOg limit. It 
is therefore made final as proposed. 

ARL once more requested consideration of the 
one-piece headform in place of the welded head- 
form presently specified. If, as ARL states, its 
customers accept and utilize the one-piece casting, 
the agency does not understand the necessity to 
modify the specification. ARL's request for con- 
sideration of a one-piece neck bracket is subject 
to the same response. As earlier noted, the justi- 
fication to "freeze" the dummy specification is 
clear from its use as a measurement instrument 
that is the basis of manufacturer compliance 
with, and agency verification testing to, a major 
motor vehicle safety standard. 

NECK 

Comments generally agreed with the proposed 
changes in the dummy neck calibration (attach- 
ment of the head form to the neck, and attach- 
ment of the neck to the end of a pendulum which 



impacts an energy-absorbing element, inducing 
head rotation which must fall within specified 
limits). General Motors clarified that its engi- 
neers' reason for recommending a non-articulated 
neck instead of an articulated neck concerned the 
cost, maintenance, and complexity of the latter's 
construction. Volkswagen agreed with Sierra 
Engineering Company (Sierra) that a smaller 
tolerance for the pendulum's speed at impact 
should be considered. Humanoid agreed with 
the agency's view that the articulated neck does 
not provide the desired level of repeatability at 
this time. Having considered these comments 
the agency makes final the proposed location 
change for the accelerometers, deletion of § 572.7 
(c)(5), and clarification of the "t4" point and 
the 26g level. 

Manufacturers made several additional recom- 
mendations. Humanoid expressed support of 
AMC's view that the neck calibration should be 
conducted at barrier impact velocity. The agency 
has reviewed these comments and finds that the 
specified energy levels are adequate for the in- 
tended purpose of establishing dynamic response 
characteristics and the measurement of repeat- 
ability of dummy necks under dynamic test con- 
ditions. Testing at higher levels would bring 
other dummy components besides the neck into 
direct impact interaction, thereby obscuring or 
completely masking the measured phenomena. 

Volkswagen cautioned against an entirely free 
selection of damping materials because of varia- 
tion in rebound characteristics produced with 
different materials that can achieve conforming 
deceleration time histories. The agency agrees 
that a limit on rebound should be established to 
compliment the choice of damping materials and 
has added such a specification to the end of the 
text of § 572.7(b). 

Humanoid noted interference in the attachment 
of the neck bracket to the backplate of the sterno- 
thoracic structure, due to the presence of a weld- 
ing bead. The agency has found no interference 
in the dummies manufactured by two companies 
and concludes that the interference must be asso- 
ciated with Humanoid's manufacturing tech- 
nique. 



PART 572— PRE 8 



Effective: August 8, 1977 



THORAX 

The NHTSA proposed several additional speci- 
fications for test probe orientation, dummy seat- 
ing, and limb positioning for the calibration test. 
The calibration consists of striking the torso of 
the seated dummy at two speeds with a specified 
striker to measure thorax resistance, deflection, 
and hysteresis characteristics. Comments did not 
object to the changes and they are incorporated 
as proposed. 

The agency also proposed several changes in 
the drawings for the thorax sub-assembly of the 
dummy and, without objection, they are made 
final in virtually the same form. ARL indicated 
that four heat seals should be used on the zipper. 
ARL clarified that the longer socket head cap 
screw is intended to permit sufficient thread en- 
gagement, not more latitude in the ballast con- 
figuration as stated in the proposal. Humanoid's 
request to know the clavicle contours that con- 
stitute the Part 572 specification is met by placing 
the dummy specimen in the drawings and data 
package as earlier noted. Humanoid and Toyo 
Kogyo suggested an increase in clavicle strength. 
The agency's experience with the clavicle since 
the last consideration of this suggestion has been 
that all dummies are not significantly susceptible 
to clavicle breakage. Accordingly, the agency 
does not consider the modification necessary. 

The major suggestion by vehicle and dummy 
manufacturers was a slight I'evision of the thorax 
resistance and deflection values, which must not 
be exceeded during impact of the chest. The 
present values (1400 pounds and 1.0 inch at 14 
fps, 2100 pounds and 1.6 inches at 22 fps) were 
questioned by GM, which recommends an in- 
crease in both resistance and deflection values to 
better reflect accurate calibration of a correctly 
designed dummy. Cojnparable increases were 
recommended by Humanoid and Sierra. ARL 
noted that the present values are extremely 
stringent. 

The agency's experience with calibration of the 
thorax since issuance of the proposal confirms 
that a slight increase in values is appropriate, 
although not the amount of increase recom- 
mended by the manufacturers. The values have 
accordingly been modified to 1450 pounds and 
1.1 inches at 14 fps, and 2250 pounds and 1.7 
inches at 22 fps. The agency does not set a 



minimum limit on the value as recommended by 
General Motors, because the interaction of the 
deflection and resistance force values make lower 
limits unnecessary. The changes in values should 
ease ARL's concern about the seating surface, 
although the agency's own experience does not 
indicate that a significant problem exists with 
the present specifications of the surface. 

In conjunction with these changes, the agency 
has reduced the maximum permissible hysteresis 
of the chest during impact to 70 percent as rec- 
ommended by GM. 

GM requested a clarification of the dummy 
limb positioning procedures for purposes of 
thorax impact testing, citing the possibility of 
limb misadjustment between steps (1) and (4) 
of § 572.8(d). The agency has added wording 
to subparagraph (4) to make clear that the limbs 
remain horizontally outstretched. The agency 
does not consider GM's suggested wording to be 
adequate for calibration. For example, the atti- 
tude of the test probe at impact is not specified. 
For this reason, the requested modification is not 
undertaken. 

Humanoid requested clarification of paragraph 
(7) of § 572.8(d) that specifies measurement of 
horizontal deflection "in line with the longitudinal 
centerline of the probe." Humanoid expressed 
concern that, as the thorax rotated backwards, 
the horizontal measurement could not be made. 
A clarification has been added to the cited 
language. 

Humanoid also requested a less temperature- 
sensitive rib damping material than is presently 
employed. The NHTSA concludes that its strict 
limitation on permissible temperature and hu- 
midity conditions for calibration testing ade- 
quately controls the effects of temperature on 
this damping material. 

LUMBAR SPINE, ABDOMEN 

The NHTSA proposed minor modifications of 
the lumbar spine construction, and several 
changes in the procedures for lumbar spine cali- 
bration, which consists of spine flexion from the 
upright position, followed by release of the force 
which was required to attain this deflection, and 
measurement of the return angle. Manufactur- 
ers supported the majority of the changes, and 



PART 572— PRE 9 



Effective: August 8, 1977 



they aro made final in this notice. The agency 
proposed that measurements be taken when 
"flexing has stopped," and Toyota, noting the 
difficulty of establishing this point under some 
cii'cumstances, suggested that the measurement 
be made 3 minutes after release. This modifica- 
tion is reasonable and is included in the final 
action. 

Testing at NHTSA's Safety Research Labora- 
tory demonstrates the need to clarify proposed 
§ 572.9(c) (3) to specify return of the lumbar 
spine sufficiently so that it remains in "its initial 
position in accordance with Figure 11" unas- 
sisted. An appropriate further specification has 
been made. 

Humanoid requested that the four-bolt attach- 
ment of the push plate be revised to two-bolt 
attachment in view of Humanoid's practice of 
providing a two-bolt plate. The agency has 
undertaken its data collection using four-bolt 
attachment, and to preserve the uncontested 
validity of these data, declines to modify the 
proposed specification. 

ARL requested reconsideration of NHTSA's 
decision to leave unchanged the lumbar cable ball 
and socket attachment design. The agency has 
continued to examine test results and cannot con- 
clude that the present attachment design has 
caused a calibration or compliance problem. 
Accordingly, ARL's request is denied. An ARL 
request to limit the reference to the strength 
requirements of the military specification in the 
case of lumbar cable swaging is granted. If such 
a limitation were not specified, the other elements 
of the military specification might arguably be 
included in the NHTSA's specification. 

Calibration of the abdomen of the dummy is 
accomplished by application of a specified force 
to the abdomen while the dummy toi'so is placed 
on its back, with a required "force/deflection" 
curve resulting. The proposal added a range of 
force application rates to make the procedure 
more uniform, as well as a 10-pound preload and 
further specification of the horizontal surface. 
Manufacturers did not oppose these changes. 

Manufacturers did oppose the proposed speci- 
fication changes that would require the dummy 
abdominal sac to be sealed. Various reasons un- 
related to abdomen performance were listed 
(e.g., transportation of sealed sac in unpressur- 



ized aircraft compartment) and available data 
show successful calibration in both configurations. 
In view of the expressed preference for the un- 
sealed design, the leak test has been removed 
from the drawings, and the vent is retained. 

Humanoid requested that the shape of the ab- 
dominal insert be modified to conform more 
closely to the dummy's abdominal cavity. The 
shape of the insert affects the dummy perform- 
ance, however, and the agency does not consider 
a change with unknown consequences advisable 
at this time. The agency also concludes that 
Humanoid's request to drop all specification of 
wall thickness for the abdominal sac is also un- 
advisable for this reason. 

Ford, the MVMA, and Humanoid noted an 
asymmetry of the dummy pelvic castings and 
requested a justification for it. The asymmetry 
is apparently an artifact of the adoption of 
Society of Automotive Engineers specifications, 
whose origin is unknown. In the agency's judg- 
ment, based on experience with numerous Part 
572 dummies and evaluation of test results, no 
degradation in performance is attributable to the 
asymmeti"y. While the agency intends to further 
review the asymmetry noted, no action will be 
taken without evidence that the specification 
affects testing. 

LIMBS 

Little comment was received on the changes 
proposed for limb calibration, which consists of 
impacting the knees of a seated dummy with a 
test probe of a specified weight at a specified 
speed and measuring the impact force on the 
dummy femurs. In response to Toyota's request 
for clarification, the positioning in accordance 
with § 572.11 is followed by the leg adjustments 
specified in § 572.10(c), which have the effect of 
changing leg position from that achieved under 
§ 572.11. 

The proposed specification of vinyl skin thick- 
ness over the knee face was supported in com- 
ments, although two manufacturers requested 
that the thickness tolerance be moved upward to 
thicken the skin somewhat. Humanoid did sug- 
gest elimination of the fenuir calibration as use- 
less, but the agency considers such a control 
important to repeatable performance of the 
dummy. 



PART 572— PRE 10 



Effective: August 8, 1977 



Ford interpreted information contained in con- 
tract work undertaken for the NHTSA (DOT- 
HS^i-00873) to show that femur force loads 
registered too high in 50 percent of cases con- 
ducted under the calibration conditions of the 
standard. In NHTSA tests of 100 dummy knees 
on Part 572 dummies (DOT-HS-801 861), the 
2,500-pound limit was exceeded only twice. The 
same data indicated a tendency for the femur to 
register lower than previously estimated, and a 
minor reduction of the lower limit is established 
in this action. The agency considers the small 
reduction to fall within the ambit of the pro- 
posal to improve conditions for calibration. 

Ford's and Humanoid's observations with re- 
gard to off-center impacts that result in bending 
or torque have been dealt with in the recent 
agency proposal to limit femur force require- 
ments of Standard No. 208 to compressive force. 
As for Humanoid's concern that unacceptable 
variation is possible in the femur load cell, it is 
noted that General Motors and Volkswagen have 
both certified thousands of vehicles based on im- 
pact readings taken from this dummy with these 
femur cells installed. 

GENERAL TEST CONDITIONS 

The agency proposed minor changes in the 
general test conditions of § 572.11 that apply to 
dummy test, such as a minimum period of dummy 
exposure to the temperature and humidity at 
which calibration tests are conducted. With cor- 
rection of accelerometer locations, a clarification 
of dummy positioning, and an increase of zipper 
heat seals from three to four, the contemplated 
changes ai'e made as proposed. 

Sierra requested a broader range of humidity 
conditions for the calibration tests, stating that 
a range of 10- to 90-percent humidity would not 
affect results of "performance tests." The com- 
pany cited freezing and desert heat conditions 
as reasons for a 6-hour conditioning rather than 
the 4-hour conditioning proposed by the agency. 
Humanoid and Toyota also addressed this aspect 
of the general test conditions. It appears that 
Sierra misunderstood the temperature and hu- 
midity specifications as applicable to vehicle 
performance tests. This rulemaking action ad- 
dresses only calibration tests which presumably 
would be conducted indooi's in a tempei'ature- 



controlled setting. Because the dummies are not 
expected to be stored in areas of great tempera- 
ture extremes prior to calibration testing, the 
proposed ranges of hiimidity and temperature 
conditions are considered to be effective to sta- 
bilize the affected dummy properties. While 
instrumentation would be affected by the 90- 
percent humidity condition suggested by Sierra, 
the agency has reduced the lower humidity con- 
dition to a 10-percent level in agreement that the 
change does not affect the ability to calibrate the 
dummy. 

Sierra objected that a dummy manufacturer's 
warranty of conformity of its products to Part 
572 would be complicated b}' a time specification 
for temperature and humidity conditioning. The 
coinpany believed that its customers would re- 
quire that 4 hours of conditioning occur whether 
or not the dummy had already stabilized at the 
correct temperature. The agency sees no reason 
why a purchaser would insist on a senseless con- 
dition but, in any case, has no control over the 
contractual dealings between the dummy manu- 
facturer and the purchaser. The NHTSA cannot 
delete necessary stabilizing conditions from its 
regulations simply because a purchaser wishes 
to make an unreasonable contractual specification 
based on it. The same rationale is responsive to 
Sierra's request for shorter recovery intervals be- 
tween repeated tests. 

Toyota supplied data to demonstrate that more 
consistent thorax and knee impact tests could be 
achieved by using cotton pants on the dummy. 
The agency's data do not agree with Toyota's 
and no other manufacturer took issue with the 
agency's proposal to delete all clothing require- 
ments. This deletion is made final as proposed. 

ARL asked why the agency's proposed prohibi- 
tion against painting dummy components is 
qualified to state "except as specified in this part 
or in drawings subtended by this part." This 
qualification simply preserves the agency's op- 
portunity to specify painted components in the 
future. 

No conclusive evidence of preferable storage 
methods was submitted by commenters. The 
agency therefore does not specify that the dummy 
calibrations be preceded by positioning in a spe- 
cific posture. To avoid the possibility of intro- 
ducing a variable, however, the eye bolt in the 



PART 572— PRE 11 



Effective: August 8, 1977 



dummy head has been relabeled on the drawings 
as "not for use in suspending dummy in storage." 

Interested persons are advised that the first 
stage of choosing a replacement foaming agent 
for the specified Nitrosan are complete. Details 
are available in document HS-802-030 in the 
public docket. 

In accordance with recently enunciated Depart- 
ment of Transportation policy encouraging ade- 
quate analysis of the consequences of regulatory 
action (41 FE 16200, April 16, 1976), the agency 
herewith summarizes its evaluation of the eco- 
nomic and other consequences of this action on 
the public and private sectors, including possible 
loss of safety benefits. The changes made are all 
to existing specifications and calibration proce- 
dures and are intended as clarifications of speci- 
fications already established. Therefore, the 
cost of the changes are calculated as minimal, 
consisting at most of relatively small modifica- 
tions of test equipment and minor dummy com- 
ponents. The number and complexity of 
calibration tests are not affected by the changes. 
At the same time, the clarification will improve 
a manufacturer's ability to conduct compliance 
tests of safety systems and will thereby con- 
tribute to an increase in motor vehicle safety. 



Note — 

The economic and inflationary impacts of this 
rulemaking have been carefully evaluated in ac- 
cordance with Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A-107, and an Inflation Impact State- 
ment is not required. 

In anticipation of the use of dummies other 
than the 50th-percentile male dummy in compli- 
ance testing, the agency takes this opportunity 
to reorganize Part 572 so that the 50th-percentile 
dummy occupies only one Subpart. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dwrrmiy, and 
the dummy design drawings incorporated by 
reference in Part 572, are amended .... 

Elective date : August 8, 1977. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407) ; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on January 31, 1977. 

John W. Snow 
Administrator 

42 F.R. 7148 
February 7, 1977 



PART 572— PRE 12 



Effective: July 5, 1978 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES 
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 11; Docket No. 73-8; Notice 07) 



This notice amends occupant crash protection 
Standard No. 208 and its accompanying test 
dummy specification to further specify test pro- 
cedures and injury criteria. The changes are 
minor in most respects and reflect comments by 
manufacturers of test dummies and vehicles and 
the NHTSA's own test experience with the 
standard and the test dummy. 

Date : Effective date— July 5, 1978. 

Addresses : Petitions for reconsideration should 
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: 
Docket Section, Room 5108, Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

For further information contact : 

Mr. Guy Hunter, 
Motor Vehicle Programs, 
National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 
Washington, D.C. 20590 
(202 426-2265) 

Supplementary information : Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), 
is a Department of Transportation safety stand- 
ard that requires manufacturers to provide a 
means of restraint in new motor vehicles to keep 
occupants from impacting the vehicle interior in 
the event a crash occurs. The standard has, since 
January 1968, required the provision of seat belt 
assemblies at each seating position in passenger 
cars. In January 1972 the requirements for seat 
belts were upgraded and options were added to 
permit the provision of restraint that is "active" 
(requiring some action be taken by the vehicle 
occupant, as in the case of seat belts) or "passive" 
(providing protection without action being taken 
by the occupant). 

In a separate notice issued today (42 FR 
34289; FR Reg. 77-19137), the Secretary of 



Transportation has reached a decision regarding 
the future occupant crasli protection that must be 
installed in passenger cars. The implementation 
of that decision will involve the testing of passive 
restraint systems in accordance with the test pro- 
cedures of Standard No. 208, and this notice is 
intended to make final several modifications of 
that procedure which have been proposed for 
change by the NHTSA. This notice also re- 
sponds to two petitions for reconsideration of 
rulemaking involving the test dummy that is 
used to evaluate the compliance of passive re- 
straints systems. 

DOCKET 74-14; NOTICE 05 

Notice 5 was issued July 15, 1976 (41 FR 
29715; July 19, 1976) and proposed that Stand- 
ard No. 208's existing specification for passive 
protection in frontal, lateral, and rollover modes 
(S4.1.2.1) be modified to specify passive protec- 
tion in the frontal mode only, with an option to 
provide passive protection or belt protection in 
the lateral and rollover crash modes. Volks- 
wagen had raised the question of the feasibility 
of small cars meeting the standard's lateral im- 
pact requirements : A 20-mph impact by a 4,000- 
pound, 60-inch-high flat surface. The agency 
noted the particular vulnerability of small cars 
to side impact and the need to provide protection 
for them based on the weight of other vehicles 
on the highway, but agreed that it would be 
difficult to provide passive lateral protection in 
the near future. Design problems also underlay 
the proposal to provide a belt option in place of 
the existing passive rollover requirement. 

Ford Motor Company argued that a lateral 
option would be inappropriate in Standard No. 
208 as long as the present dummy is used for 



PART 572— PRE 13 



Effective: July 5, 1978 



measurement of passive system performance. 
This question of dummy use as a measuring de- 
vice is treated later in this notice. General 
Motors Corporation (GM) supported the option 
without qualification, noting that the installation 
of a lap belt with a passive system "would pro- 
vide comparable protection to lap-shoulder belts 
in side and rollover impacts." Chrysler did not 
object to the option, but noted that the lap belt 
option made the title of S4.1.2.1 ("complete 
passive protection") misleading. Volkswagen 
noted that its testing of belt systems without the 
lap belt portion showed little loss in efficacy in 
rollover crashes. No other comments on this 
proposal were received. The existing option 
S4.1.2.1 is therefore adopted as proposed so that 
manufacturers will be able to immediately under- 
take experimental work on passive restraints on 
an optional basis in conformity with the Secre- 
tary's decision. 

There were no objections to the agency's pro- 
posal to permit either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat 
belt assembly to meet the requirements, and thus 
it is made final as proposed. 

The NHTSA proposed two changes in the in- 
jury criteria of S6 that are used as measures of a 
restraint system's qualification to Standard No. 
208. One change proposed an increase in per- 
missible femur force limits from 1,700 pounds to 
2,250 pounds. As clarification that tension loads 
are not included in measurement of these forces, 
the agency also proposed that the word "com- 
pressive" be added to the text of S6.4. Most 
comment ers were cautionary about the changes, 
pointing out that susceptibility to fracture is 
time dependent, that acetabular injury could be 
exacerbated by increased forces, and that angular 
applications of force were as likely in the real 
world as axial forces and would more likely 
fracture the femur. 

The agency is aware of and took into account 
these considerations in proposing the somewhat 
higher femur force limit. The agency started 
with the actual field experience of occupants of 
GM and Volkswagen vehicles that have been 
shown to produce femur force readings of about 
1,700 pounds. Occupants of these vehicles in- 
volved in crashes have not shown a significant 



incidence of femur fracture. The implication 
from this experience that the 1,700-pound figure 
can safely be raised somewhat is supported in 
work by Patrick on compressive femur forces of 
relatively long duration. The Patrick data 
(taken with aged embalmed cadavers) indicate 
that the average fracture load of the patella- 
femur-pelvis complex is 1,910 pounds. This 
average is considered conservative, in that ca- 
daver bone structure is generally weaker than 
living human tissues. While these data did not 
address angular force applications, the experi- 
ence of the GM and Volkswagen vehicle occu- 
pants does suggest that angular force application 
can go higher than 1,700 pounds. 

The agency does not agree that the establish- 
ment of the somewhat higher outer limit for 
permissible femur force loads of 2,250 pounds is 
arbitrary. Wliat is often ignored by the medical 
community and others in commenting on the in- 
jury criteria found in motor vehicle safety stand- 
ards is that manufacturers must design their 
restraint systems to provide greater protection 
than the criteria specified, to be certain that each 
of their products will pass compliance tests con- 
ducted by the NHTSA. It is a fact of industrial 
production that the actual performance of some 
units will fall below nominal design standards 
(for quality control and other reasons). Volks- 
wagen made precisely this point in its comments. 
Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act states that each vehicle must comply 
(15 U.S.C. § 1392(a)(1) (a)), manufacturers 
routinely design in a "compliance margin" of 
superior performance. Thus, it is extremely un- 
likely that a restraint system designed to meet 
the femur force load criterion of 2,250 pounds 
will in fact be designed to provide only that 
level of performance. With these considerations 
in mind, the agency makes final the changes as 
proposed. 

While not proposed for change, vehicle manu- 
facturers commented on a second injury criterion 
of the standard : A limitation of the acceleration 
experienced by the dummy thorax during the 
barrier crash to 60g, except for intervals whose 
cumulative duration is not more than 3 milli- 
seconds (ms). Until August 31, 1977, the agency 
has specified the Society of Automotive Engi- 



PART 572— PEE 14 



Effective: July 5, 1978 



neers' (SAE) "severity index" as a substitute for 
the 60g-3ms limit, because of greater familiarity 
of the industry with that criterion. 

General Motors recommended that the severity 
index be continued as the chest injury criterion 
until a basis for using chest deflection is devel- 
oped in place of chest acceleration. GM cited 
data which indicate that chest injury from cer- 
tain types of blunt frontal impact is a statisti- 
cally significant function of chest deflection in 
humans, while not a function of impact force or 
spinal acceleration. GM suggested that a shift 
from the temporary severity index measure to 
the 60g-3ms measurement would be wasteful, 
because there is no "strong indication" that the 
60g-3ms measurement is more meaningful than 
the severity index, and some restraint systems 
have to be redesigned to comply with the new 
requirement. 

Unlike GM, Chrysler argued against the use 
of acceleration criteria of either type for the 
chest, and rather advocated that the standard be 
delayed until a dummy chest with better deflec- 
tion characteristics is developed. 

The Severity Index Criterion allows higher 
loadings and therefore increases the possibility 
of adverse effects on the chest. It only indirectly 
limits the accelerations and hence the forces 
which can be applied to the thorax. Accelera- 
tion in a specific impact environment is consid- 
ered to be a better predictor of injury than the 
Severity Index. 

NHTSA only allowed belt systems to meet the 
Severity Index Criterion of 1,000 instead of the 
60g-3ms criterion out of consideration for lead- 
time problems, not because the Severity Index 
Criterion was considered superior. It is recog- 
nized that restraint systems such as lap-shoulder 
belts apply more concentrated forces to the 
thorax than air cushion restraint, and that in- 
jury can result at lower forces and acceleration 
levels. It is noted that the Agency is considering 
rulemaking to restrict forces that may be applied 
to the thorax by the shoulder belt of any seat 
belt assembly (41 FR 54961; December 16, 1976). 

With regard to the test procedures and condi- 
tions that underlie the requirements of the stand- 
ard, the agency proposed a temperature range 
for testing that would be compatible with the 



temperature sensitivity of the test dummy. The 
test dummy specification (Part 572, ''''Anthropo- 
morphic Test Dummy,''' 49 CFR Part 572) con- 
tains calibration tests that are conducted at any 
temperature between 66° and 78° F. This is 
because properties of lubricants and nonmetallic 
parts used in the dummy will change with large 
temperature changes and will affect the dummy's 
objectivity as a test instrument. It was proposed 
that the Standard No. 208 crash tests be con- 
ducted within this temperature range to eliminate 
the potential for variability. 

The only manufacturers that objected to the 
temperature specification were Porsche, Bayer- 
ische Motoren Werke (BMW), and American 
Motors Corporation (AMC). In each case, the 
manufacturers noted that dynamic testing is con- 
ducted outside and that it is unreasonable to 
limit testing to the few days in the year when 
the ambient temperature would fall within the 
specified 12-degree range. 

The commenters may misunderstand their cer- 
tification responsibilities under the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 
108(b)(2) limits a manufacturer's responsibility 
to the exercise of "due care" to assure compliance. 
The NHTSA has long interpreted this statutory 
"due care" to mean that the manufacturer is free 
to test its products in any fashion it chooses, as 
long as the testing demonstrates that due care 
was taken to assure that, if tested by NHTSA 
as set forth in the standard, the product would 
comply with the standard's requirements. Thus, 
a manufacturer could conduct testing on a day 
with temperatures other than those specified, as 
long as it could demonstrate through engineering 
calculations or otherwise, that the difference in 
test temperatures did not invalidate the test re- 
sults. Alternatively, a manufacturer might 
choose to perform its preparation of the vehicle 
in a temporarily erected structure (such as a 
tent) that maintains a temperature within the 
specified range, so that only a short exposure 
during acceleration to the barrier would occur 
in a higher or lower temperature. To assist any 
such arrangements, the test temperature condi- 
tion has been limited to require a stabilized 
temperature of the test dummy only, just prior 
to the vehicle's travel toward the barrier. 



PART 572— PRE 15 



EfFeclive: July 5, 1978 



In response to an earlier suggestion from GM, 
the agency proposed further specificity in the 
clothing worn by the dummy during the crash 
test. The only comment was filed by GM, which 
argued that any shoe specification other than 
weight would be unrelated to dummy perform- 
ance and therefore should not be included in the 
specification. The agency disagrees, and notes 
that the size and shape of the heel on the shoe 
can affect the placement of the dummy limb 
within the vehicle. For this reason, the clothing 
specifications are made final as proposed, except 
that the requirement for a conforming "config- 
uration" has been deleted. 

Renault and Peugeot asked for confirmation 
that pyrotechnic pretensioners for belt retractors 
are not prohibited by the standard. The stand- 
ard's requirements do not specify the design by 
which to provide the specified protection, and the 
agency is not aware of any aspect of the standard 
that would prohibit the use of pretensioning de- 
vices, as long as the three performance elements 
are met. 

With regard to the test dummy used in the 
standard, the agency proposed two modifications 
of Standard No. 208 : a more detailed positioning 
procedure for placement of the dummy in the 
vehicle prior to the test, and a new requirement 
that the dummy remain in calibration without 
adjustment following the barrier crash. Com- 
ments were received on both aspects of the 
proposal. 

The dummy positioning was proposed to elimi- 
nate variation in the conduct of repeatable tests, 
particularly among vehicles of different sizes. 
The most important proposed modification was 
the use of only two dummies in any test of front 
seat restraints, whether or not the system is de- 
signed for three designated seating positions. 
The proposal was intended to eliminate the prob- 
lem associated with placement of three 50th- 
percentile male dummies side-by-side in a smaller 
vehicle. In bench seating with three positions, 
the system would have to comply with a dummy 
at the driver's position and at either of the other 
two designated seating positions. 

GM supported this change, but noted that 
twice as many tests of 3-position bench-seat ve- 
hicles would be required as before. The company 
suggested using a simulated vehicle crash as a 



means to test the passive restraint at the center 
seat position. The agency considers this ap- 
proach unrepresentative of the actual crash pulse 
and vehicle kinematic response (e.g., pitching, 
yawing) that occur during an impact. To the 
degree that GM can adopt such an approach in 
the exercise of "due care" to demonstrate that 
the center seating position actually complies, the 
statute does not prohibit such a certification 
approach. 

Ford objected that the dummy at the center 
seat position would be placed about 4 inches to 
the right of the center of the designated seating 
position in order to avoid interference with the 
dummy at the driver's position. While the 
NHTSA agrees that a small amount of displace- 
ment is inevitable in smaller vehicles, it may well 
occur in the real world also. Further, the physi- 
cal dimensions of the dummy preclude any other 
positioning. With a dummy at the driver's posi- 
tion, a dummy at the center position cannot 
physically be placed in the middle of the seat in 
all cases. In view of these realities, the agency 
makes final this aspect of the dummy positioning 
as proposed. 

GM suggested the modification of other stand- 
ards to adopt "2-dummy" positioning. The 
compatibility among dynamic tests is regularly 
reviewed by the NHTSA and will be again fol- 
lowing this rulemaking action. For the moment, 
however, only those actions which were proposed 
will be acted on. 

As a general matter with regard to dummy 
positioning, General Motors found the new speci- 
fications acceptable with a few changes. GM 
cautioned that the procedure might not be suf- 
ficiently reproducible between laboratories, and 
Chrysler found greater variation in positioning 
with the new procedures than with Chrysler's 
own procedures. The agency's use of the proce- 
dure in 15 different vehicle models has shown 
consistently repeatable results, as long as a reason- 
able amount of care is taken to avoid the effect 
of random inputs (see "Repeatability of Set Up 
and Stability of Anthropometric Landmarks and 
Their Influence on Impact Response of Automo- 
tive Crash Test Dummies." Society of Automo- 
tive Engineers, Technical Paper No. 770260, 
1977). The agency concludes that, with the 



PART 572— PRE 16 



EfFecllve: July 5, 1978 



minor improvements cited below, the positioning 
procedure should be made final as proposed. 

The dummy is placed at a seating position so 
that its midsagittal plane is vertical and longi- 
tudinal. Volkswagen argued against use of the 
midsagittal plane as a reference for dummy 
placement, considering it difficult to define as a 
practical matter during placement. The agency 
has used plane markers and plane lines to define 
the midsagittal plane and has experienced no 
significant difficulty in placement of the dummy 
with these techniques. For this reason, and be- 
cause Volkswagen suggested no simpler orienta- 
tion technique, the agency adopts use of the 
midsagittal plane as proposed. 

Correct spacing of the dummy's legs at the 
driver position created the largest source of ob- 
jections by commenters. Ford expressed concern 
that an inward-pointing left knee could result in 
unrealistically high femur loads because of 
femur-to-steering column impacts. GM asked 
that an additional 0.6 inch of space be specified 
between the dummy legs to allow for installation 
of a device to measure steering column displace- 
ment. Volkswagen considered specification of 
the left knee bolt location to be redundant in 
light of the positioning specification for the right 
knee and the overall distance specification be- 
tween the knees of 14.5 inches. 

The commenters may not have understood that 
the 14.5- and o.9-inch dimensions are only initial 
positions, as specified in S8.1.11.1.1. The later 
specification to raise the femur and tibia center- 
lines "as close as possible to vertical" without 
contacting the vehicle shifts the knees from their 
initial spacing to a point just to the left and 
right of the steering column. 

As for GM's concern about instrumentation, 
the agency does not intend to modify this posi- 
tioning procedure to accommodate instrumenta- 
tion preferences not required for the standard's 
purposes. GM may, of course, make test modi- 
fications so long as it assures, in the exercise of 
due care, that its vehicles will comply when 
tested in accordance with the specification by the 
agency. 

In the case of a vehicle which is equipped with 
a front bench seat, the driver dummy is placed 
on the bench so that its midsagittal plane inter- 



sects the center point of the plane described by 
the steering wheel rim. BMW pointed out that 
the center plane of the driver's seating position 
may not coincide with the steering wheel center 
and that dummy placement would therefore be 
unrealistic. Ford believed that the specification 
of the steering wheel reference point could be 
more precisely specified. 

The agency believes that BMW may be de- 
scribing offset of the driver's seat from the steer- 
ing wheel in bucket-seat vehicles. In the case of 
bench-seat vehicles, there appears to be no reason 
not to place the dummy directly behind the steer- 
ing wheel. As for the Ford suggestion, the 
agency concludes that Ford is describing the 
same point as the proposal did, assuming, as the 
agency does, that the axis of the steering column 
passes through the center point described. The 
Ford description does have the effect of moving 
the point a slight distance laterally, because the 
steering wheel rim upper surface is somewhat 
higher than the plane of the rim itself. This 
small distance is not relevant to the positioning 
being specified and therefore is not adopted. 

In the case of center-position dummy place- 
ment in a vehicle with a drive line tunnel, Ford 
requested further specification of left and right 
foot placement. The agency has added further 
specification to make explicit what was implicit 
in the specifications proposed. 

Volkswagen suggested that the NHTSA had 
failed to specify knee spacing for the passenger 
side dummy placement. In actuality, the speci- 
fication in S8.1.11.1.2 that the femur and tibia 
centerlines fall in a vertical longitudinal plane 
has the effect of dictating the distance between 
the passenger dummy knees. 

The second major source of comments con- 
cerned the dummy settling procedure that assures 
uniformity of placement on the seat cushion and 
against the seat back. Manufacturers pointed 
out that lifting the dummy within the vehicle, 
particularly in small vehicles and those with no 
rear seat space, cannot be accomplished easily. 
While the NHTSA recognizes that the procedure 
is not simple, it is desirable to improve the uni- 
formity of dummy response and it has been ac- 
complished by the NHTSA in several small cars 
(e.g., Volkswagen Rabbit, Honda Civic, Fiat 



PART 572— PRE 17 



EffacHve: July 5, 1978 



Spider, DOT HS-801-754). Therefore, the re- 
quests of GM and Volkswagen to retain the 
method that does not involve lifting has been 
denied. In response to Renault's question, the 
dummy can be lifted manually by a strap routed 
beneath the buttocks. Also, Volkswagen's re- 
quest for more variability in the application of 
rearward force is denied because, while difficult 
to achieve, it is desirable to maintain uniformity 
in dummy placement. In response to the re- 
quests of several manufacturers, the location of 
the 9-square-inch push plate has been raised 1.5 
inches, to facilitate its application to all vehicles. 

Volkswagen asked with regard to SIO.2.2 for 
a clarification of what constitutes the "lumbar 
spine" for purposes of dummy flexing. This 
refers to the point on the dummy rear surface at 
the level of the top of the dummy's rubber spine 
element. 

BMW asked the agency to reconsider the 
placement of the driver dummy's thumbs over 
the steering wheel rim because of the possibility 
of damage to them. The company asked for an 
option in placing the hands. The purpose of 
the specification in dummy positioning, however, 
is to remove discretion from the test personnel, 
so that all tests are run in the same fashion. An 
option under these circumstances is therefore not 
appropriate. 

Ultrasystems, Inc., pointed out two minor er- 
rors in SlO.3 that are hereby corrected. The 
upper arm and lower arm centerlines are oriented 
as nearly as possible in a vertical plane (rather 
than straight up in the vertical), and the little 
finger of the passenger is placed "barely in con- 
tact" with the seat rather than "tangent" to it. 

Two corrections are made to the dummy posi- 
tioning procedure to correct obvious and unin- 
tended conflicts between placement of the dummy 
thighs on the seat cushion and placement of the 
right leg and foot on the acceleration pedal. 

In addition to the positioning proposed. Gen- 
eral Motors suggested that positioning of the 
dummy's head in the fore-and-aft axis would be 
beneficial. The agency agrees and has added 
such a specification at the end of the dummy 
settling procedure. 



In a matter separate from the positioning pro- 
cedure, General Motors, Ford, and Renault re- 
quested deletion of the proposed requirement that 
the dummy maintain proper calibration follow- 
ing a crash test without adjustment. Such a 
procedure is routine in test protocols and the 
agency considered it to be a beneficial addition 
to the standard to further demonstrate the cred- 
ibility of the dummy test results. GM, ho\rever, 
has pointed out that the limb joint adjustments 
for the crash test and for the calibration of the 
lumber bending test are different, and that it 
would be unfair to expect continued calibration 
without adjustment of these joints. The NHTSA 
accepts this objection and, until a means for 
surmounting this difficulty is perfected, the pro- 
posed change to S8.1.8 is withdrawn. 

In another matter unrelated to dummy posi- 
tioning, Volkswagen argued that active belt sys- 
tems should be subject to the same requirements 
as passive belt systems, to reduce the cost differ- 
ential between the compliance tests of the two 
systems. As earlier noted the NHTSA has issued 
an advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (41 
FR 54961, December 16, 1976) on this subject and 
will consider Volkswagen's suggestion in the con- 
text of that rulemaking. 

Finally, the agency proposed the same belt 
warning requirements for belts provided with 
passive restraints as are presently required for 
active belts. No objections to the requirement 
were received and the requirement is made final 
as proposed. The agency also takes the oppor- 
tunity to delete from the standard the out-of-date 
belt warning requirements contained in S7.3 of 
the standard. 

RECONSIDERATION OF DOCKET 73-8; 
NOTICE 04 

The NHTSA has received two petitions for 
reconsideration of recent amendments in its test 
dummy calibration test procedures and design 
specifications (Part 572, '■^Anthropomorphic Test 
Dummy," 49 CFR Part 572). Part 572 estab- 
lishes, by means of approximately 250 drawings 
and five calibration tests, the exact specifications 
of the test device referred to earlier in this notice 
that simulates the occupant of a motor vehicle 
for crash testing purposes. 



PART 572— PRE 18 



Effective: July 5, 1978 



Apart from requests for a technical change of 
the lumbar flexion force specifications, the peti- 
tions from General Motors and Ford contained a 
repetition of objections made earlier in the rule- 
making about the adequacy of the dummy as an 
objective measuring device. Three issues were 
raised: lateral response characteristics of the 
dummy, failure of the dummy to meet the five 
subassembly calibration limits, and the need for 
a "whole systems" calibration of the assembled 
dummy. Following receipt of these comments, 
the agency published notification in the Federal 
Register that it would entertain any other com- 
ments on the issue of objectivity (42 FE 28200; 
June 2, 1977). General comments were received 
from Chrysler Corporation and American 
Motors, repeating their positions from earlier 
comments that the dummy does not qualify as 
objective. 

The objectivity of the dummy is at issue be- 
cause it is the measuring device that registers the 
acceleration and force readings specified by 
Standard No. 208 during a 30-mph impact of the 
tested vehicle into a fixed barrier. The resulting 
readings for each vehicle tested must remain be- 
low a certain level to constitute compliance. 
Certification of compliance by the vehicle manu- 
facturer is accomplished by crash testing repre- 
sentative vehicles with the dummy installed. 
Verification of compliance by the NHTSA is 
accomplished by crash testing one or more of the 
same model vehicle, also with a test dummy in- 
stalled. It is important that readings taken by 
diilerent dummies, or by the same dummy repeat- 
edly, accurately reflect the forces and accelera- 
tions that are being experienced by the vehicle 
during the barrier crash. This does not imply 
that the readings produced in tests of two ve- 
hicles of the same design must be identical. In 
the real world, in fact, literally identical vehicles, 
crash circumstances, and test dummies are not 
physically attainable. 

It is apparent from this discussion that an 
accurate reflection of the forces and accelerations 
experienced in nominally identical vehicles does 
not depend on the specification of the test dummy 
alone. For example, identically specified and 
responsive dummies would not provide identical 
readings unless reasonable care is exercised in the 
preparation and placement of the dummy. Such 



care is analogous to that exercised in positioning 
a ruler to assure that it is at the exact point 
where a measurement is to commence. No one 
would blame a ruler for a bad measurement if it 
were carelessly placed in the wrong position. 

It is equally apparent that the forces and ac- 
celerations experienced in nominally identical 
vehicles will only be identical by the greatest of 
cbincidence. The small diffei'ences in body struc- 
ture, even of mass-produced vehicles, will affect 
the crash pulse. The particular deployment 
speed and shape of the cushion portion of an 
inflatable restraint system will also affect results. 

All of these factors would affect the accelera- 
tions and forces experienced by a human occu- 
pant of a vehicle certified to comply with the 
occupant restraint standard. Thus, achievement 
of identical conditions is not only impossible 
(due to the inherent differences between tested 
vehicles and underlying conditions) but would 
be unwise. Literally identical tests would en- 
courage the design of safety devices that would 
not adequately serve the variety of circumstances 
encountered in actual crash exposure. 

At the same time, the safety standards must 
be "stated in objective terms" so that the manu- 
facturer knows how its product will be tested 
and under what circumstances it will have to 
comply. A complete lack of dummy positioning 
procedures would allow placement of the dummy 
in any posture and would make certification of 
compliance virtually impossible. A balancing is 
provided in the test procedures between the need 
for realism and the need for objectivity. 

The test dummy also represents a balancing 
between realism (biofidelity) and objectivity 
(repeatability). One-piece cast metal dummies 
could be placed in the seating positions and 
instrumented to register crash forces. One could 
argue that these dummies did not act at all like a 
human and did not measure what would happen 
to a human, but a lack of repeatability could not 
be ascribed to them. At the other end of the 
spectrum, an extremely complex and realistic 
surrogate could be substituted for the existing 
Part 572 dummy, which would act realistically 
but differently each time, as one might expect 
different humans to do. 



PAKT 572— PRE 19 



Effective: July 5, 1978 



The existing Part 572 dummy represents 5 
years of effort to provide a measuring instrument 
that is sufficiently realistic and repeatable to 
serve the purposes of the crash standard. Like 
any measuring instrument, it has to be used with 
care. As in the case of any complex instru- 
mentation, paiticular care must be exercised in 
its proper use, and there is little expectation of 
literally identical readings. 

The dummy is articulated, and built of ma- 
terials that permit it to react dynamically, simi- 
larly to a hiunan. It is the dynamic reactions of 
the dummy that introduce the complexity that 
makes a check on repeatability desirable and 
necessary. The agency therefore devised five 
calibration procedures as standards for the eval- 
uation of the important dynamic dummy response 
characteristics. 

Since the specifications and calibration proce- 
dures were established in August 1973, a substan- 
tial amount of manufacturing and test experience 
has been gained in the Part 572 dummy. The 
quality of the dummy as manufactured by the 
three available domestic commercial sources has 
improved to the point where it is the agency's 
judgment that the device is as repeatable and 
reproducible as instrumentation of such complex- 
ity can be. As noted, GM and Ford disagree 
and raised three issues with regard to dummy 
objectivity in their petitions for reconsideration. 

Lateral response characteristics. Recent sled 
tests of the Part 572 dummy in lateral impacts 
show a high level of repeatability from test to 
test and reproducibility from one dummy to an- 
other ("Evaluation of Part 572 Dummies in Side 
Impacts"— DOT HS 020 858). Further modifi- 
cation of the lateral and rollover passive restraint 
requirements into an option that can be met by 
installation of a lap belt makes the lateral re- 
sponse characteristics of the dummy largely 
academic. As noted in Notice 4 of Docket 73-8 
(42 FR 7148; Febniary 7, 1977), "Any manu- 
facturer that is concerned with the objectivity of 
the dummy in such [lateral] impacts would pro- 
vide lap belts at the front seating positions in 
lieu of conducting the lateral or rollover tests." 

While the frontal crash test can be conducted 
at any angle up to 30 degrees from perpendicular 
to the barrier face, it is the agency's finding that 



the lateral forces acting on the test instrument 
are secondary to forces in the midsagittal plane 
and do not operate as a constraint on vehicle and 
restraint design. Compliance tests conducted by 
NHTSA to date in the 30-degree oblique impact 
condition have consistently generated similar 
dummy readings. In addition, they are consid- 
erably lower than in perpendicular barrier im- 
pact tests, which renders them less critical for 
compliance certification purposes. 

Repeatability of dvmtmy calihration. Ford 
questioned the dummy's repeatability, based on 
its analysis of "round-robin" testing conducted 
in 1973 for Ford at three differeent test labora- 
tories (Ford Report No. ESRO S-76-^ (1976)) 
and on analysis of NHTSA calibration testing 
of seven test dummies in 1974 (DOT-HS-801- 
861). 

In its petition for reconsideration, Ford 
equated dummy objectivity with repeatability of 
the calibration test results and concluded "it is 
impracticable to attempt to meet the Part 572 
component calibration requirements with test 
dummies constructed according to the Part 572 
drawing specifications." 

The Ford analysis of NHTSA's seven dummies 
showed only 56 of 100 instances in which all of 
the dummy calibrations satisfied the criteria. 
The NHTSA's attempts to reproduce the Ford 
calculations to reach this conclusion were unsuc- 
cessful, even after including the H03 dummy 
with its obviously defective neck. Tliis neck 
failed badly 11 times in a row, and yet Ford 
apparently used these tests in its estimate of 
56 percent compliance. This is the equivalent of 
concluding that the specification for a stop watch 
is inadequate because of repeated failure in a 
stop watch with an obviously defective part. In 
this case, the calibration procedure was doing 
precisely its job in identifying the defective part 
by demonstrating that it did not in fact meet the 
specification. 

The significance of the "learning curve" for 
quality control in dununy manufacture is best 
understood by comparison of three sets of dummy 
calibration results in chronological order. Ford 
in earlier comments relied on its own "round- 
robin" crash testing, involving nine test dummies. 
Ford stated that none of the nine dununies could 
pass all of the component calibration require- 



PART 572— PRE 20 



EfFecHve: July 5, 1978 



merits. Wliat the NHTSA learned through 
follow-up questions to Ford was that three of the 
nine dummies were not built originally as Part 
572 dummies, and that the other six were not 
fully certified by their manufacturers as qualify- 
ing as Part 572 dummies. In addition, Ford 
instructed its contractors to use the dummies as 
provided whether or not they met the Part 572 
specifications. 

In contrast, recent NHTSA testing conducted 
by Calspan (DOT-HS-6-01514, May and June 
1977 progress reports) and the results of tests 
conducted by GM (USG 1502, Docket 73-8, GR 
64) demonstrate good repeatability and reproduc- 
ibility of dummies. In the Calspan testing a 
total of 152 calibration tests were completed on 
four dummies fi'om two manufacturers. The 
results for all five calibration tests were observed 
to be within the specified performance criteria 
of Part 572. The agency concludes that the 
learning curve in the manufacturing process has 
reached the point where repeatability and repro- 
ducibility of the dummy has been fully demon- 
strated. 

Interestingly, Ford's own analysis of its round- 
robin testing concludes that variations among the 
nine dummies were not significant to the test 
results. At the same time, the overall accelera- 
tion and force readings did vary substantially. 
Ford argued that this showed unacceptable 
variability of the test as a whole, because they 
had used "identical" vehicles for crash testing. 
Ford attributed the variations in results to 
"chance factors," listing as factors placement of 
the dummy, postural changes during the ride to 
the barrier, speed variations, uncertainty as to 
just what part of the instrument panel or other 
structure would be impact loaded, instrumenta- 
tion, and any variations in the dynamics of air 
bag deployment from one vehicle to another. 

The agency does not consider these to be un- 
controlled factors since they can be greatly re- 
duced by carefully controlling test procedures. 
In addition, they are not considered to be un- 
acceptable "chance factors" that should be elim- 
inated from the test. The most important 
advantage of the barrier impact test is that it 
simulates with some realism what can be experi- 
enced by a human occupant, while at the same 
time limiting variation to achieve repeatability. 



As discussed, nominally identical vehicles are not 
in fact identical, the dynamics of deployment 
will vary from vehicle to vehicle, and humans 
will adopt a large number of different seated 
positions in the real world. The 30-mph barrier 
impact requires the manufacturer to take these 
variables into account by providing adequate 
protection for more than an overly structured 
test situation. At the same time, dummy posi- 
tioning is specified in adequate detail so that the 
manufacturer knows how the NHTSA will set 
up a vehicle prior to conducting compliance test 
checks. 

"Whole ■systems'''' calibration. Ford and GM 
both suggested a "whole systems" calibration of 
of the dummy as a necessary additional check 
on dummy repeatability. The agency has de- 
nied these requests previously, because the dem- 
onstrated repeatability and reproducibility of 
Part 572 diunmies based on current specification 
is adequate. The use of whole systems calibra- 
tion tests as suggested would be extremely expen- 
sive and would unnecessarily complicate compli- 
ance testing. 

It is instructive that neither General Motors 
nor Ford has been specific about the calibration 
tests they have in mind. Because of the variables 
inherent in a high energy barrier crash test at 
30 raph, the agency judges that any calibration 
readings taken on the dummy would be over- 
whelmed by the other inputs acting on the dummy 
in this test environment. The Ford conclusion 
from its round-robin testing agrees that dummy 
variability is a relatively insignificant factor in 
the total variability experienced in this type of 
test. 

GM was most specific about its concern for 
repeatability testing of the whole dummy in its 
comments in response to Docket 74^14; Notice 
01: 

Dummy whole body response requirements 
are considered necessary to assure that a 
dummy, assembled from certified components, 
has acceptable response as a completed struc- 
ture. Interactions between coupled components 
and subsystems must not be assumed acceptable 
simply because the components themselves have 
been certified. Variations in coupling may 
lead to significant variation in dummy response. 



PART 572— PRE 21 



Effective: July 5, 1978 



There is a far simpler, more controlled means 
to assure oneself of correct coupling of compo- 
nents than by means of a "whole systems" cali- 
bration. If, for example, a laboratory wishes to 
assure itself that the coupling of the dummy 
neck structure is properly accomplished, a simple 
statically applied input may be made to the neck 
prior to coupling to obtain a sample reading, and 
then the same simple statically applied input may 
be repeated after the coupling has been com- 
pleted. This is a commonly accepted means to 
assure that "bolting together" the pieces is prop- 
erly accomplished. 

Lumbar spine flexion. The flexibility of the 
dummy spine is specified by means of a calibra- 
tion procedure that involves bending the spine 
through a forward arc, with specified resistance 
to the bending being registered at specified angles 
of the bending arc. The dummy's ability to flex 
is partially controlled by the characteristics of 
the abdominal insert. In Notice 04, the agency 
increased the level of resistance that must be 
registered, in conjunction with a decision not to 
specify a sealed abdominal sac as had been pro- 
posed. Either of these dummy characteristics 
could affect the lumbar spine flexion perform- 
ance. 

Because of the agency's incomplete explanation 
for its actions, Ford and General Motors peti- 
tioned for reconsideration of the decision to take 
one action without the other. Both companies 
suggested that the specification of resistance 
levels be returned to that which had existed 
previously. The agency was not clear that it 
intended to go forward with the stiffer spine 
flexion performance, quite apart from the deci- 
sion to not specify an abdomen sealing specifica- 
tion. The purpose for the "stiffer" spine is to 
attain more consistent torso return angle and to 
assure better dummy stability during vehicle ac- 
celeration to impact speed. 

To assure itself of the wisdom of this course of 
action, the agency has performed dummy cali- 
bration tests demonstrating that the amended 
spine flexion and abdominal force deflection 
characteristics can be consistently achieved with 
both vented and unvented abdominal inserts 
(DOT HS-020875 (1977)). 

Based on the considered analysis and review 
set forth above, the NHTSA denies the petitions 



of General Motors and Ford Motor Company for 
further modification of the test dummy specifica- 
tion and calibration procedures for reasons of 
test dummy objectivity. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Standard 
No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) is amended as pro- 
posed with changes set forth below, and Part 572 
(49 CFR Part. 572) is amended by the addition 
of a new sentence at the end of § 572.5, General 
Description., that states: "A specimen of the 
dummy is available for surface measurements, 
and access can be arranged through : Office of 
Crashworthiness, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590." 

In accordance with Department of Transpor- 
tation policy encouraging adequate analysis of 
the consequences of regulatoi-y action (41 FR 
16200; April 16, 1976), the Department has eval- 
uated the economic and other consequences of this 
amendment on the public and private sectors. 
The modifications of an existing option, the 
simplification and clarification of test procedures, 
and the increase in femur force loads are all 
judged to be actions that simplify testing and 
make it less expensive. It is anticipated that the 
"two dummy" positioning procedure may occasion 
additional testing expense in some larger vehicles, 
but not the level of expense that would have 
general economic effects. 

The effective date for the changes has been 
established as one year from the date of publica- 
tion to permit Volkswagen, the only manufac- 
turer presently certifying compliance of vehicles 
using these test procedures, sufficient time to 
evaluate the effect of the changes on the com- 
pliance of its products. 

The program official and lawyer principally 
responsible for the development of this amend- 
ment are Guy Hunter and Tad Herlihy, respec- 
tively. 

(Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407); delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.50.) 

Issued on June 30, 1977. 

Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 
42 F.R. 34299 
July 5, 1977 



PART 572— PRE 22 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 572-ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST 
DUMMIES REPRESENTING SIX-MONTH-OLD AND THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN 

(Docket No. 78-09; Notice 4) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in conjunction 
with new Standard No. 213, Child Restraint 
Systems, which requires child restraint systems to 
be dynamically tested using anthropomorphic test 
dummies representing 6-month-old and 3-year-old 
children. This notice establishes the specifications 
for the dummies to be used in the child restraint 
testing. In addition, it sets performance criteria as 
calibration checks to assure the repeatability of the 
dummy's performance. 

DATES: The amendment is effective upon publica- 
tion in the Federal Register. December 27, 1979. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should 
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: 
Docket Section, Room 5108, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 
(202-426-2264) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This notice amends Part 572, Anthrojxmiorphic 
Test Dummies, to establish specifications and per- 
formance requirements for two test dummies, one 
representing a 6-month-old child and the other 
representing a 3-year-old child. This final rule is 
issued to supplement new Standard No. 213, Child 
Restraint Systems, published in the Federal 
Register for December 13, 1979 (44 FR 72131). 
Standard No. 213 evaluates the performance of 
child restraints in dynamic sled tests using the 
anthropomorphic test dummies whose specifica- 



tions are established in this final rule. Restraints 
recommended for children weighing 20 pounds or 
less will be tested with an anthropomorphic 
dummy representing a 6-month-old child and 
restraints recommended for children weighing 
more than 20 pounds, but not more than 50 pounds 
will be tested with an anthropomorphic dummy 
representing a 3-year-old child. 

On May 18, 1978, NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking for the anthropomorphic test 
dummy amendment (43 FR 21490) and the child 
restraint standard (43 FR 21470). The comment 
closing date for both notices was December 1, 
1978. The May 18, 1978, proposal on the 
anthropomorphic dummies noted that the calibra- 
tion requirements proposed for the 3-year-old child 
test dummy were tentative. The agency said it 
would continue further testing on the calibrations 
and the results of that work would be placed in the 
public docket as soon as possible after the testing 
was completed. Based on the testing, NHTSA 
tentatively decided to make several minor 
modifications to the test dummy specifications and 
calibration requirements to improve the accuracy 
of the test dummy as a tool for measuring the 
performance of child restraints. A copy of the 
modifications was placed in the public docket on 
September 27, 1978, and the dummy manufac- 
turers and child restraint testing facilities were 
advised of the modifications. The tentative 
modifications were published in the Federal 
Register on November 16, 1978 (43 FR 53478). 

At the request of the Juvenile Products Manufac- 
turers Association, the agency extended the 
comment closing date until January 5, 1979, for 
the portions of the child restraint and test dummy 
proposals dealing with testing with the 
anthropomorphic dummies. NHTSA granted the 
extension because manufacturers were reportedly 
having problems obtaining the proposed test 



PART 572-PRE 23 



dummies to conduct their own evaluations. Based 
on information gathered by the agency about the 
availability of testing facilities and dummies, the 
agency concluded that manufacturers could con- 
duct the necessary testings before the extended 
comment closing date. 

On December 21, 1978, NHTSA made available 
one of the agency's test dummies to General 
Motors Corp. (GM) for the purpose of resolving 
certain calibration problems GM reported it had 
experienced with its own test dummy. All other 
interested parties also were advised of the 
availability of the NHTSA test dummy and informed 
that NHTSA did not plan to issue a final rule on the 
test dummy proposal until at least mid-summer. 
The agency said it would review additional testing 
material submitted to the docket before issuance of 
the final rule. The final rule issuance date was 
subsequently rescheduled for October 1979 in the 
Department's March 1, 1979, Semi-Annual 
Regulations Agenda (44 FR Part H, 38) and for 
November 1979 in the August 27, 1979 Agenda (44 
FR 50195). 

Following issuance of the May 1978 notice of 
proposed rulemaking, NHTSA conducted addi- 
tional testing of the test dummies. This testing, 
completed in July 1979, further confirmed the 
results of the agency's prior testing which showed 
the anthropomorphic dummies to be objective test 
devices. The results of this testing were periodically 
placed in the public docket so that all interested 
parties could comment on them. 

This final rule is based on the data obtained in 
the agency's testing, data submitted in the com- 
ments, and data obtained from other pertinent 
documents and test reports. Significant comments 
submitted to the docket are addressed below. 

Infant Test Dummy 

The infant test dummy is based on a simple 
design representing the dimensions and mass 
distribution characteristics of a 6-month-old child. 
The test dummy is used to assess the ability of 
infant restraints to retain their occupants and 
maintain their structural integrity during dynamic 
testing. Because of its construction, the dummy 
cannot be instrumented to measure the forces that 
would be exerted upon an infant in a crash. 
NHTSA's tests have shown the infant dummy will 
reliably and consistently represent the dynamics of 
an infant during simulated impact tests. 



GM, the only party to comment on the specifica- 
tion for the infant test dummy, reported that it had 
"no significant problem in building or verifying the 
compliance of the dummy to the proposed 
specification." To improve the durability of the 
test dummy, GM recommended adding a wooden 
form to the head to maintain its geometry and 
using steel instead of lead for ballast in the test 
dummy. Since these recommendations should not 
affect the dummy's performance and should 
increase its durability, NHTSA has adopted a 
modified version of the proposed changes. The 
changes add a plastic form to the dummy's head, 
since a plastic form is easier to manufacture and 
duplicate than a wooden form. In addition, a por- 
tion of the ballast materials are now required to be 
steel and aluminum. 

The revised design drawings and a construction 
manual for the infant dummy are available for 
examination in the NHTSA docket section, which 
is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday 
through Friday. Copies of these documents can be 
obtained from: Keuffel and Esser Co., 1512 North 
Danville Street, Arlington, Virginia 22201. 

3-Year-Old Child Test Dummy 

The test dummy representing a 3-year-old child 
is based on the Alderson Model VIP-3C test 
dummy. It was chosen over the other available test 
dummies representing a 3-year-old child, such as 
the Sierra 492-03 test dummy, because it has more 
complete design details, can adequately withstand 
the test load imposed during impact testing, has 
more accurate anthropometry and mass distribu- 
tion, can be easily instrumented for testing, more 
closely simulates the responses of a child during 
impact testing and has more consistent head and 
chest acceleration measurements during impact 
testing. 

As with the infant test dummy, the final rule 
establishes a complete set of design specifications 
for the 3-year-old test dummy. For the 3-year-old 
test dummy, NHTSA has provided: a drawing 
package containing all of the technical details of 
the dummy parts and the stages of dummy 
manufacture; a set of master patterns for all molded 
and cast parts of the dummy; and a maintenance 
manual containing instructions for the assembly, 
disassembly, use, adjustment and maintenance of 
the dummy. These materials will ensure that 
manufacturers can accurately and consistently 
produce the test dummy. 



PART 572-PRE 24 



The drawings and the maintenance manual for 
the 3-year-old test dummy are available for 
examination at the agency's docket section. Copies 
of these drawings and the maintenance manual can 
be obtained from the Keuffel and Esser Co., 1512 
North Danville Street, Arlington, Va. 22201. In 
addition, patterns for all the cast and molded parts 
are available on a loan basis from the agency's 
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, at the address 
given at the beginning of this notice. 

Calibration Requirements 

Unlike the infant test dummy, the 3-year-old 
child test dummy can be instrumented with 
accelerometers to measure the forces imposed on 
the dummy during an impact. Thus, in Standard 
No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, the 3-year-old 
test dummy is used to measure the amount of head 
and knee excursion and the magnitude of head and 
chest acceleration allowed by the child restraint. 

Since a test dummy is a complex instrument 
required to measure important parameters, it is 
essential that the test dummy be properly 
calibrated to ensure accurate and repeatable 
results. NHTSA has developed detailed test 
dummy specifications and instrumentation 
requirements to ensure that the test dummies are 
as much as possible identically constructed and 
identically instrumented. The agency also 
developed calibration performance requirements 
that the test dummy must meet in dynamic and 
static tests. The calibration tests will determine 
whether the test dummies are uniformly 
constructed and properly instrumented. 

In its comments, GM reported that it was unable 
to calibrate its 3-year-old test dummies. As 
mentioned previously, NHTSA loaned GM one of 
the agency's test dummies for the purpose of 
resolving the reported calibration problem. Using 
the NHTSA test dummy equipped with NHTSA's 
accelerometers, GM was able to meet the peak 
resultant acceleration requirements set for the 
dummy's head in specified pendulum impact tests, 
but was not able to meet the lateral acceleration 
requirement. When the same dummy was tested 
with GM's accelerometers, the dummy did not 
meet any of the head acceleration performance 
requirements. In the case of the chest calibration 
performance requirements, the accelerations 
measured by GM test dummies and the NHTSA 
test dummy, using both GM's and NHTSA's 
accelerometers, were within the range set for peak 
resultant and lateral acceleration. 



GM also said that because the agency did not 
define the term "unimodal" it was not certain that 
the acceleration measurements that it made com- 
plied with the requirement that the acceleration- 
time curves for the head and chest impacts be 
unimodal. To clarify the requirement, NHTSA has 
defined unimodal in the final rule to mean an 
acceleration curve that only has one prominent 
peak and has specified that the measured 
acceleration-time curve during the head and chest 
impact testing need only be unimodal during a 
short time period when the accelerations are above 
a specified level. 

GM attributed the calibration problem to 
resonances in the head and chest of the test 
dummies. (A resonance is a vibrational state that 
can magnify the accelerations imposed on the test 
dummy and thus prevent the accurate measure- 
ment of those accelerations.) GM said that because 
of the possible inaccurate measurements caused by 
the resonances, the test dummy cannot be used as 
an objective tool for assessing the performance of 
child restraint systems. 

The calibration testing done for the agency 
indicates that the acceleration responses for the 
head and chest pendulum impacts include a limited 
amount of vibration. Such responses exist to some 
extent in any acceleration measuring device and 
are also found in similar pendulum impact tests of 
the Part 572 adult test dummy. However, dynamic 
sled tests of child test dummies in child restraint 
systems have demonstrated that the test dummies 
produce very repeatable results and do not show 
the vibrations found in the more severe pendulum 
impact tests. The agency's calibration tests also 
show that the test dummies produce very 
repeatable results. Even in GM tests of its three 
test dummies equipped with GM's instrumenta- 
tion, the test dummies produced repeatable 
results. Such repeatability could not be obtained 
with resonating systems. Based on a review of GM's 
and the agency's test data, NHTSA concludes that 
the GM calibration failures are not attributable to 
resonances, but are very likely due to the 
differences, discussed below, in the mounting of 
the accelerometers in the GM test dummies. 

NHTSA recognizes that because of different 
instrumentation and test procedures, different test 
facilities may obtain different results in what are 
essentially the same tests. To reduce such 
differences, NHTSA proposed requirements to 
standardize the test and instrumentation pro- 
cedures. In calibration tests conducted at Calspan 



PART 572-PRE 25 



Corporation the measurements of the peak resultant 
head accelerations and the lateral head acceleration 
were found to be close to the upper limits of the ten- 
tative head calibration requirements (112 g peak 
resultant acceleration and 5 g lateral acceleration) 
proposed by the agency. To further accommodate 
expected differences between different testing 
facilities, NHTSA has decided to broaden the head 
acceleration calibration requirements for peak re- 
sultant head acceleration to 115 g's and for lateral 
acceleration to 7 g's. 

Instrumentation 

Based on a review of GM's and the agency's test 
data, NHTSA concludes that one of the significant 
differences between NHTSA's and GM's test 
dummy is the manner in which the accelerometer 
mounting plate is attached to the head of the test 
dummy. Finding what it thought was an incom- 
patibility between the angle of the accelerometer 
mounting plate bolt and the angle of the surface of 
the plate that attaches to the dummy's head, GM 
changed the angle of the surface in its test 
dummies. However, NHTSA specified the 
difference in the two angles for an important 
reason. Having a difference in the angles allows 
for a firmer attachment of the accelerometer 
mounting plate to the dummy. The difference in 
the firmness of the attachment of the 
accelerometer mounting plate may account for the 
additional acceleration that occurred in the head 
calibration tests of the GM test dummies. 

GM also asked the agency to set a torque 
specification for the accelerometer mounting plate 
bolt. In response to GM's request, the agency has 
added a torque specification of 10 ft. lbs. to the 
specifications set out in the maintenance manual 
for the test dummy. 

GM said that another possible source of the dif- 
ference between the measurements it obtained 
with its own test dummies and the measurements 
it made with the NHTSA test dummies could be 
due to differences in the type and location of the 
accelerometers in the test dummies. GM noted that 
the specifications proposed in the rule allow the 
use of different types of accelerometers by allow- 
ing a number of different accelerometer 
placements within the test dummy. 

As explained below, testing done for the agency 
has shown that the use of different types of 
accelerometers within the permissible locations 
does not prevent the test dummy from producing 
accurate and repeatable results. However, to 



further reduce the possibility of test differences 
due to accelerometer placement, the agency has 
more specifically defined several of the permissible 
accelerometer mounting locations. 

Testing done for the agency at two different 
facilities to develop the calibration requirements 
used two types of accelerometers and different 
accelerometer locations. That testing produced no 
appreciable differences in test results and showed 
that different facilities could obtain repeatable 
results, when the accelerometers are properly 
mounted. 

The agency's test experience with the adult test 
dummy also shows that minor differences in 
accelerometer mounting locations do not affect the 
ability of the test dummy to produce similar and 
repeatable results. The number of permissible 
accelerometer locations allowed for the adult test 
dummy is in some cases larger than the number 
permitted in the child test dummy. Yet no signifi- 
cant differences in test results for the adult test 
dummy have been encountered due to accelerometer 
location. 

GM's own test data also indicate that use of dif- 
ferent types of properly mounted accelerometers and 
different mounting locations produces only minor 
variations in the measurements. GM tested 
NHTSA's test dummy using two types of 
accelerometers mounted at different locations within 
the prescribed tolerances. The average measured 
acceleration in the chest impact tests varied by only 4 
percent between the two types of accelerometers. It 
was only when GM used the improperly installed 
accelerometer mounting block in the head impact 
tests, discussed above, that GM obtained a 14 percent 
difference in measured accelerations within the 
NHTSA dummy using two types of accelerometers. 

Calibration Procedures 

GM also raised questions about the procedures 
for conducting the chest and head calibration tests. 
GM said that the sequence of procedures for posi- 
tioning the dummy for the chest pendulum impact 
test was ambiguous since it called for the test 
dummy to be adjusted so that the area on the chest 
of the dummy immediately adjacent to the impact 
point is vertical. However, that surface of the 
dummy is curved and has variable radii. GM also 
pointed out that when the dummy is moved to the 
more vertical position, the area that a pendulum 
strikes the dummy also moves so that the portion 
of the test dummy's chest which is too rigid might 
be impacted. NHTSA has changed the dummy's 



PART 572-PRE 26 



positioning procedures so that a plane tangent to 
the surface of the chest immediately adjacent to 
the designated impact area is vertical. The posi- 
tioning of the pendulum is also changed to ensure 
that the pendulum consistently strikes the chest at 
the designated point on the chest. 

GM also raised questions about the positioning of 
the pendulum for the head calibration impact tests. 
The proposed requirement specified that the 
impact point for the pendulum was to be measured 
relative to the top of the dummy's head. GM said 
that because of differences in the thickness and 
shape of the dummy's skin, the location of the 
impact point can vary. GM recommended deter- 
mining the impact point relative to the head center 
of gravity reference pins which protrude through 
the test dummy's skin. 

NHTSA has evaluated GM's proposed head 
impact positioning procedure and decided to adopt 
a modified version of it. A measurement made 
from the head center of gravity pins will be used to 
determine the head impact point to ensure that all 
test dummies will be struck in the same location 
during the head impact tests. 

GM said that the lumbar spine calibration test 
was ambiguous because it did not specify either the 
direction in which the force was to be applied to the 
lumbar spine or the location on the spine which is 
to be used to define the direction of force applica- 
tion. GM also pointed out that the procedures 
erroneously set requirements for femur friction 
plungers which are not included in the 3-year-old 
test dummy. NHTSA has corrected the test 
procedures to specify the direction of force 
application and deleted the reference to friction 
plungers. 

GM also criticized ambiguities in the specifica- 
tion for the amount of chest deflection. NHTSA 
has reevaluated the need for a chest deflection 
specification and has decided to eliminate the 
requirement, since the chest acceleration test 
should serve as an adequate calibration test of the 
dummy's chest. 

Repeatability 

Ford, GM and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 
Association (MVMA) raised questions about the 
ability of the 3-year-old test dummy to give 
repeatable results in crash testing. MVMA proposed 
that the agency conduct another series of tests to 
determine the amounts of variances in test results 
between the same dummy in several tests and 
between different dummies in the same tests. 



MVMA and Ford also recommended that the 
additional testing also include testing of the 
proposed Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 
test dummy to determine if it would be an objective 
test device. The agency has not conducted an 
evaluation of the ECE test dummy since there are 
no calibration requirements for that test dummy. 
Without caHbration requirements, there is no 
means to ensure the accuracy of the measurements 
obtained by the test dummy and therefore it 
cannot be used as an objective test device. 

The agency has already conducted three 
separate research programs to evaluate the 3-year- 
old test dummy as an objective test device. As 
explained below, those programs have shown that 
the test dummy is an objective device that 
produces repeatable test results. 

During 1977-78, the agency had simultaneous 
research programs conducted at the University of 
Michigan's Highway Safety Research Institute and 
NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center in 
East Liberty, Ohio to develop and evaluate the 
calibration performance requirements and test 
procedures for the 3-year-old test dummy. Four of 
the 3-year-old test dummies were used in the 
testing program. Two of the dummies were tested 
by one laboratory and the other two were tested by 
the other laboratory. Then the two sets of test 
dummies were exchanged by the laboratories and 
subjected to the same calibration tests. By setting 
up the research program in this manner, the agency 
was able to determine if the test procedures and 
calibration performance requirements were 
repeatable from test dummy to test dummy and 
from test laboratory to test laboratory. The test 
results from both research programs showed that 
the calibration test procedures and performance 
requirements produced repeatable results. 

The repeatability of the test dummy was 
reaffirmed in further testing conducted between 
June 1978 and July 1979 at Calspan Corporation. 
In that research program, four of the 3-year-old 
test dummies were used with two different types of 
child restraints— one shield type (Chrysler Mopar) 
and one plastic shell with integral harness type 
(GM Love Seat). Each of the four test dummies 
was subjected to six sled tests at 30 mph in both 
types of child restraints. The harness type 
restraint was also subjected to 3 sled tests at 20 
mph with the top tether strap unattached. 

To determine the repeatability of the test 
dummies, the head and chest accelerations and the 
amounts of head and knee excursion experienced 



PART 572-PRE 27 



by the test dummies were analyzed. That analysis 
showed that the amount of deviation measured by 
the same dummy in the different tests was small 
and similar in nature to the results obtained with 
Part 572 test dummies representing adults, which 
have been established as objective test devices. 

In addition to examining the results obtained for 
the same dummy in different tests, the research 
program also examined the results for each of the 
four 3-year-old dummies in the same test. Based on 
previous testing of test dummies representing 
adults, it was determined that if the absolute 
deviation of the oberved test results for each per- 
formance criteria, such as head acceleration, was 
less than six percent from the mean results, then 
the dummies had sufficient repeatability. In all but 
one of the test results, the deviation from the mean 
was less than six percent. The single exception 
involved the amount of chest acceleration 
measurered in the test dummies in the 20 mph 
tests of an untethered harness-type restraint. In 
that instance the deviation was only 7.7 percent. 
The reason for the variation in that test is probably 
due to the increased movement of the seat because 
the tether strap was unattached, rather than due 
to any variability in the test dummy. 

Costs 

The agency has considered the economic and 
other impacts of this final rule and determined that 
this rule is not significant within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12044 and the Department of 
Transportation's policies and procedures for 
implementing that order. The agency's assessment 
of the benefits and economic consequences of this 
final rule are contained in a regulatory evaluation 
which has been placed in the docket. Copies of that 
regulatory evaluation can be obtained by writing to 
NHTSA's docket section at the address given in 
the beginning of this notice. 

The cost of the infant test dummy is estimated to 
be approximately $1,000. The 3-year-old test 
dummy should cost approximately $4,000. The 
materials used in the dummies are commercially 
obtainable. The availability of the test dummy 
drawing and other specifications means that any 
manufacturer can produce its own test dummy and 
does not have to purchase the test dummy from an 
independent test dummy manufacturer. 

Strollee, a child restraint manufacturer, and the 
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association 
asked the agency to reconsider the calibration 



requirements set for the 3-year-old dummy. They 
argued that the cost of calibrating the test dummy 
is approximately $800 to $1,100. Combined with 
the cost of the sled testing, each test of a car seat 
could cost approximately $2,000-$3,500. Such 
costs "would certainly discourage a manufacturer 
from testing frequently," Strollee said. 

The calibration requirements set by this final 
rule are essential to ensure that the test dummy is 
an objective test device that will produce 
repeatable results in dynamic sled tests. So that 
the requirements would be practicable, the agency 
established the minimum number of calibration 
tests possible which would still ensure that the test 
dummy is properly constructed and properly in- 
strumentated. Each manufacturer, in the exercise 
of due care, must determine how frequently it will 
calibrate its test dummy and how frequently it will 
run tests to determine its child restraint's 
compliance with Standard No. 213. 

In its own testing, the agency has used some test 
dummies in as many as 15 tests over a 2-3 week 
period without recalibrating them and has not 
found any difference in their performance. With 
other test dummies, the agency has found it 
necessary to recalibrate them after several tests. 
However, in its compliance testing the agency will 
use properly calibrated dummies. 

The principal authors of this notice are Vladislav 
Radovich, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, and 
Stephen Oesch, Office of Chief Counsel. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 572, 
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, of Title 49 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows: 

1. A new subsection (c) is added . . . Subpart 
A-General, Section 572.4 Terminology (49 CFR 
572.4) to read as follows: 

(c) The term "unimodal", when used in 
Subpart C, refers to an acceleration-time curve 
which has only one prominent peak. 

2. A new Subpart C-Three Year Old Child, is 
added .... 

Issued on December 20, 1979. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

44 F.R. 76527 
December 27, 1979 



PART 572-PRE 28 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies 
(Docl<et No. 78-9, Notice 5; Docl<et No. 73-8, Notice 9) 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Part 572, Anthro- 
pomorphic Test Dummies, to allow the use of an 
alternative chemical foaming agent for molding 
the dummy's flesh parts. In response to a Ford 
petition, the notice also makes a minor technical 
amendment to modify one specification in the 
calibration procedures for the neck of the test 
dummy repfesenting a 50th percentile male. The 
effect of the latter amendment is to simplify the 
calibration test. 

DATES: The amendment is effective on June 16, 
1980. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should 
refer to the docket numbers and be submitted to: 
Docket Section, Room 5108, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Adminstration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W.. Washington, D.C. 20590. (Docket hours: 8:00 
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle 
Standards, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington. D.C. 20590 (202-426-2264) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice 
amends Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dum- 
mies, to modify the design specification for 
molding the test dummy's flesh parts to allow the 
use of an alternative chemical foaming agent, 
"OBSH/TBPP," to the currently specified "Ni- 
trosan." In response to a petition from the Ford 
Motor Company, the agency is also making a minor 
technical amendment to simplify the calibration 
test for the neck used in the 50th percentile male 
test dummy. The amendment deletes the current 
specification and substitutes the specification used 
in the calibration testing of the recently issued 
three-year-old child test dummy (44 FR 76527, 



December 27, 1979). 

The agency published the proposed changes to 
the flesh molding and neck calibration specifica- 
tions in the Federal Register oi December 18, 1978 
(43 FR 58843). Only one party. Ford Motor Co., 
commented on the proposed changes and Ford sup- 
ported the adoption of both proposed changes. 

Molding Specifications 

The agency proposed the changes in the molding 
specification because the sole manufacturer of 
"Nitrosan," the currently specified chemical foam- 
ing agent, has discontinued its production due to 
the hazardous propensities of the compound dur- 
ing its manufacturing process. Based on an exten- 
sive research program to develop and test new 
chemical foaming agents (which was fully de- 
scribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking), the 
agency found that test dummy flesh parts made 
from "OBSH/TBPP" have comparable material 
properties to those produced with "Nitrosan" and 
are superior in some respects. Based on an evalua- 
tion of the research results, the agency concludes 
that flesh parts produced from "OBSH/TBPP" can 
be used for all purposes for which test dummies 
are required by the applicable safety standards 
and the dummy performance will be equivalent to 
the performance of dummies produced with 
"Nitrosan." Therefore, the agency is amending the 
regulation to allow the use of "OBSH/TBPP." 

Drawings and specifications outlining the formu- 
lations for molding dummy flesh parts with the 
"OBSH/TBPP" compound are available for exam- 
ination in NHTSA Docket 73-8 and Docket 78-9, 
Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20590. Copies of these drawings may also be 
obtained from the Keuffel and Esser Company, 
1513 North Danville Street, Arlington, Virginia 
22201. 

Neck Calibration Requirements 

In response to a request from Ford, the agency 



PART 572 -PRE 29 



proposed an amendment to the pendulum impact 
test specification established in section 572.7(b) for 
the calibration of the 50th percentile male test 
dummy. The amendment would have replaced the 
current specification with the specification for 
calibration testing established for the 3-year old 
chUd test dummy. 

The pendulum neck test found in Subpart B of 
the standard for the 50th percentile male dummy 
is intended to measure the bending properties of 
the dummy's neck. The current test specifies that, 
during the neck bending procedure, the pendulum 
shall not reverse direction until "T = 123 ms." This 
means that from the time the pendulum contacts 
the arresting material which it must strike, the 
pendulum cannot reverse direction for 123 milli- 
seconds. The original intent of this requirement 
was to negate the effects of arresting material 
having rebound characteristics that could force 
the pendulum to reverse its motion before the 
bending properties of the neck could be measured. 
Ford requested a change in this specification 
because in certain instances the use of a special 
apparatus may be required to hold the pendulum 
arm for at least 123 milliseconds after the pen- 
dulum has impacted the arresting material. 

Research by NHTSA and the industry has 
shown that when appropriate crushable materials 
are used in pendulum impact tests, the pendulum 
does not reverse its motion until the neck has 
straightened out and the head's center of gravity 
has returned to its original zero-time position 
relative to the pendulum. At that time, all 
measurements of the neck bending characteristics 
are completed and the pendulum's motion there- 
after is inconsequential. In light of this research, 
the recent addition of Subpart C to Part 572, 
specifying requirements for the 3-year-old child 
dummy, modified the language concerning rever- 
sal of the pendulum arm during the neck impact 
test. Section 572.17 of that subpart specifies that 
"the pendulum shall not reverse direction until 
the head's center of gravity returns to the original 
zero time position relative to the pendulum arm." 
Under this requirement, a dummy user could only 
use an arresting material for the impact test 
whose rebound characteristics would not over- 
come the pendulum's inertia before the head and 
neck returned to the zero time position. 

Since the specification in Subpart C of Part 572 
represents a simplification of the pendulum 



impact test specified in the current Subpart B, 
without any degradation of performance 
characteristics, the agency is amending section 
572.7(b) of Subpart B to read as section 572.17(b) of 
Subpart C. 

Costs 

The agency has considered the economic and 
other impacts of this final rule and determined 
that this rule is not significant within the meaning 
of Executive Order 12044 and the Department of 
Transportation's policies and procedures for im- 
plementing that order. Based on that assessment, 
the agency has concluded also that the economic 
and other consequences of this proposal are so 
minimal that a regulatory evaluation is not 
necessary. The impact is minimal since there is no 
estimated increase in the cost of the test dummies 
due to the change in the foaming agent and neck 
calibration specification. In addition, the amend- 
ments would have no adverse environmental ef- 
fects. 

The engineer and lawyer primarily responsible 
for this notice are Vladislav Radovich and 
Stephen Oesch, respectively. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Part 572, 
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, of Title 49 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows: 

1. Technical drawing ATD-6070 incorporated 
by reference in Section 572.15 of Subpart 
C — 3-Year-Old-Child is amended to add the for- 
mulation for "OBSH/TBPP" foaming compound. 

2. Technical drawing ATD-7151 incorporated 
by reference in Section 572.5 of Subpart B— 50th 
Percentile Male is amended to add the formula- 
tion for "OBSH/TBPP" foaming compound. 

3. The last sentence of Section 572.7(b) of Sub- 
part B — 50th Percentile Male is amended to read: 

"The pendulum shall not reverse direction until 
the head's center of gravity returns to the 
original zero time position relative to the pen- 
dulum arm." 

Issued on June 9, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

45 FR 40595 
June 16, 1980 



PART 572 -PRE 30 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies Representing 6-month-old and 

3-year-old Children 

(Docket No. 78-09; Notice 6) 



ACTION: Response to petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This notice grants in part and denies in 
part a General Motors (GM) petition for recon- 
sideration of the 3-year-old test dummy require- 
ments set in Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test 
Dummies. GM said it could not calibrate its test 
dummies because of resonances in the dummies, 
which prevent accurate acceleration measure- 
ments. NHTSA found that GM's calibration prob- 
lems are due to its failure to comply with all of the 
design specifications set for the dummy and its use 
of single axis rather than triaxial accelerometers. 
In another notice in today's Federal Register the 
agency is proposing to require the use of triaxial 
accelerometers. This notice also corrects typo- 
graphical errors in the final rule. 

DATES: The amendments are effective on June 26, 
1980. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2264) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 
27, 1979, NHTSA published in the Federal 
Register a final rule amending Part 572, An- 
thropomorphic Test Dummies, to establish 
specifications and performance requirements for 
two test dummies, one representing a 6-month-old 
child and the other representing a 3-year-old child 
(44 FR 76527). The dummy is used in testing child 
restraint systems in accordance with Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child 
Restraint Systems. General Motors (GM) timely 
filed a petition for reconsideration concerning the 
specifications and performance requirements set 



for the test dummy representing a 3-year-old child. 
No other petitions were filed and GM raised no 
issues concerning the specifications set for the test 
dummy representing a 6-month-old child. 

In its petition, GM again argued that the 3-year- 
old test dummy is not an objective test device for 
acceleration measurement because of resonances 
in the test dummy. GM requested the agency not 
to use the dummy as an acceleration measurement 
device until the resonances are eliminated. 

GM also asked the agency to revise its ac- 
celerometer specifications to require the axes of 
triaxial accelerometers to intersect at a single 
point. GM said the change would reduce possible 
variability between different types of accelerom- 
eters. In addition, GM requested a further change 
in the lumbar spine test procedures to permit the 
use of either a pull or a push force during the spine 
calibration tests. 

GM also raised questions about the possible use 
of different signal filtering techniques at different 
test laboratories. GM said that the use of different 
filters might account for differences between its 
testing and testing done for the agency. 

NHTSA has evaluated GM's comments and the 
agency's responses to GM's petition are discussed 
below. All requests that are not specifically 
granted below are denied. 

Signal Filtering 

GM argued that one of the possible reasons for 
the differences between the test dummy head 
calibration test results at GM and other labora- 
tories was the use of incorrect filters (devices used 
in the electronic processing of the acceleration 
measurements) by some laboratories. Part 572 re- 
quires the acceleration measurements to be 
filtered according to the Society of Automotive 
Engineers Recommended Practice J211a. Both 
Calspan Corporation and the agency's Vehicle 
Research and Test Center (VRTC), which did 



PART 572 -PRE 31 



testing for NHTSA, used the required filter and 
instrumented their test dummies with triaxial ac- 
celerometers. The test results at VRTC were all 
within the limits set by the agency. 

The Calspan test results originally reported to 
the agency were also within the limits. In recheck- 
ing its data, however, Calspan determined that it 
had made an error in calculating the peak result- 
ant accelerations in the head calibration test. The 
corrected data showed that in one of the four head 
calibration tests the peak resultant acceleration 
was 116 g's, which exceeds the 115 g limit set in 
Part 572. To evaluate possible variability in the 
processing of the data by different laboratories, 
the agency also had HSRI and VRTC process the 
Calspan data. For the tests which exceeded the 
calibration limit, there was little variability be- 
tween the different laboratories, with HSRI 
measuring 118 g's and VRTC measuring 117.4 g's. 

The dummies Calspan used in the calibration 
testing were subsequently used in sled tests of 
child restraint systems. In the sled tests, the dum- 
mies provided consistent and repeatable accelera- 
tion measurements. Since dummies that experi- 
ence 118 g's in the head calibration test can pro- 
vide consistent and repeatable acceleration 
measurements, the agency, in a separate notice 
appearing in today's Federal Register, is propos- 
ing to increase the head resultant acceleration 
calibration limit from 115 to 118 g's. 

NHTSA has found that the University of Michi- 
gan's Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI), 
which instrumented its dummies with single axis 
accelerometers, did not use the filter required by 
Part 572, but instead used a filter that deviates 
from the required filter. To determine whether 
the use of the HSRI filter made a difference in the 
calibration tests conducted by that laboratory, the 
agency had HSRI process the accelerations 
recorded during its head calibration tests with the 
correct filter. Using the correct filter, HSRI found 
that in five of the eighteen head calibration tests 
the peak resultant acceleration exceeded the 
limits set in Part 572. In those five tests, the peak 
resultant acceleration ranged from 115.9 to 119.1 
g's. 

The peak resultant accelerations and the shape 
of the acceleration pulses in the HSRI tests that 
exceeded the calibration limit were smaller than 
and not the same shape as the measurements 
made by GM in its tests, which also used test 



dummies instrumented with single axis acceler- 
ometers. In the two sets of data submitted by GM 
to the docket, the peak resultant accellerations 
ranged from 119 to 130 g's. In addition, the shape 
of the GM head acceleration pulse was different 
than the pulses measured in all the testing done 
for the agency. In the GM acceleration pulse, 
there is a brief secondary peak after initial peak is 
reached. Based on the agency's testing of adult 
test dummies, such secondary peaks are usually 
indications of accelerometer vibration resulting 
from improper installation. 

The differences between the GM testing and 
the testing done for the agency is not attributable 
to the use of different filters. When all the test 
data is filtered as specified in the standard, the 
peak resultant accelerations measured by GM are 
still greater than those obtained at the other 
three laboratories. As explained below, use of 
triaxial accelerometers, rather than the single 
axis accelerometers used by GM and HSRI, will 
provide repeatable, complying results in the head 
calibration test. 

Instrumentation 

Part 572 allows the use of two different types of 
accelerometers (single axis and triaxial) in the test 
dummy and sets different axis intersection 
requirements for each type of accelerometer. GM 
asked the agency to apply the axis intersection re- 
quirements set for single axis accelerometers to 
triaxial accelerometers. It said such a requirement 
would reduce the variability in test measurements 
resulting from use of different types of accel- 
erometers. 

The agency's testing has demonstrated that 
variability can be sufficiently controlled by use of 
the existing specification with a triaxial ac- 
celerometer. Testing done by GM has also shown 
that the test dummy can be properly calibrated 
with triaxial accelerometers. When GM tested one 
of the agency's test dummies with GM's accel- 
erometer mounting place and single axis acceler- 
ometers, the peak lateral accelerations measured 
in the test dummy's head exceeded the limits cur- 
rently set in the regulation. Yet when GM tested 
the same test dummy equipped with triaxial ac- 
celerometers placed on the mounting plate re- 
quired by the design specifications, the test dum- 
my easily met the calibration requirements. 
Therefore, rather than adopt GM's proposal, the 



PART 572 -PRE 32 



agency is proposing, elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register, to require the use of only triaxial accel- 
erometers. 

Resonances 

GM said that "the consistent lack of correlation 
between dummy tests at General Motors and at 
other laboratories" was attributable to resonances 
in the test dummy. It said the dummy could not be 
used as an objective test device until the 
resonances were eliminated. As explained 
previously, the variability between different test 
laboratories can be controlled by the use of triaxial 
accelerometers. 

One reason for the "resonances" in the GM test 
results may be GM's failure to use dummies that 
fully comply with the agency's design specifica- 
tions. The agency's review of some of the 
blueprints used in the construction of the GM test 
dummies revealed that GM did not use the ac- 
celerometer mounting plate required by the 
NHTSA design specifications. The mounting plate 
used by GM was smaller and presumably lighter 
than the plate specified by the agency. Use of a 
smaller and lighter plate may have also con- 
tributed to the higher acceleration readings ob- 
tained by GM. 

Thus, the agency denies GM's request not to use 
the dummy for acceleration measurement and con- 
cludes that the 3-year-old test dummy in- 
strumented with triaxial accelerometers is an 
objective test device for measuring accelerations 
in child restraints. 

Spine Calibration 

The calibration requirements for the lumbar 
spine of the test dummy specify the amount of flex- 
ion the spine must experience when force is ap- 
plied to it. The calibration procedures specify that 
the applied force is to be applied as a pull force. 
GM requested the agency to permit the use of a 
"push" force saying that it "is more convenient to 
apply in some test set-ups." 

When the agency developed the spine calibra- 
tion tests, both pull and push forces were used to 
apply force to the spine. However, the testing 
done by the Highway Safety Research Institute 
(HSRI) found that use of a push force "proved to 
be awkward and inconsistent." HSRI also found 
that use of a pull force was simpler procedure and 
provided consistent data. Based on the HSRI 



testing, the agency has decided to deny GM's 
request since the use of a pull force provides a sim- 
ple, repeatable method to measure compliance. 

Corrections 

In the final rule issued on December 12, 1979, 
NHTSA amended the instrumentation require- 
ments for the chest to more specifically define 
several of the accelerometers mounting locations. 
The revised specifications inadvertently reversed 
two of the axis mounting locations in the chest. 
The specifications have been amended in this 
notice to correct that error. 

The test procedure for conducting the head im- 
pact test set forth in the final rule contained a 
typographical error. The tolerance for positioning 
the test probe was listed as ±1.1 inches. The 
regulation has been amended in this notice to 
specify the correct tolerance of ± 0.1 inches. 

The performance requirement for the neck 
calibration test was incorrectly listed as 84 
degrees ± 18 degrees rather than the correct 
figure of 84 degrees ± 8 degrees. The necessary 
corrections have been made in this notice to the 
regulation. 

The principal authors of this notice are Vlad- 
islav Radovich, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, 
and Stephen Oesch, Office of Chief Counsel. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Subpart 
C- 3- Year-Old Child of Part 572, Anthropomorphic 
Test Dummies, of Title 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, is amended as follows: 

1. Section §572.1(c)(2) is amended to read as 
follows: 

(2) Adjust the test probe so that its longitudinal 
centerline is at the forehead at the point of or- 
thogonal intersection of the head midsagittal plane 
and the transverse plane which is perpendicular to 
the "Z" axis of the head (longitudinal centerline of 
the skull anchor) and is located 0.6 ± 0.1 inches 
above the centers of the head center of gravity 
reference pins and coincides within 2 degrees with 
the line made by the intersection of horizontal and 
midsagittal planes passing through this point. 

2. The first sentence of section §572.17(b) is 
amended to read as follows: 

(b) When the head-neck assembly is tested in ac- 
cordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the 
head shall rotate in reference to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline a total of 84 degrees ± 8 
degrees about its center of gravity, rotating to the 



PART 572 -PRE 33 



extent specified in the following table at each in- 
dicated point in time, measured from impact, with 
the chordal displacement measured at its center of 
gravity. 

3. Section §572.21(c) is amended to read as 
follows: 

(c) Accelerometers are mounted in the thorax 
on the mounting plate attached to the vertical 
Hransverse bulkhead shown in the drawing 
subreferenced under assembly No. SA 103C 030 in 
drawing SA 103C 001 so that their sensitive axes 
are orthogonal and their seismic masses are posi- 
tioned relative to the axial intersection point 
located in the midsagittal plane 3 inches above the 
top surface of the lumbar spine and 0.3 inches dor- 
sal to the accelerometer mounting plate surface. 
Except in the case of triaxial accelerometers, the 
sensitive axes shall intersect at the axial intersec- 
tion point. One accelerometer is aligned with its 
sensitive axis parallel to the vertical bulkhead and 
midsagittal planes, and with its seismic mass 
center at any distance up to 0.2 inches to the left, 
0.1 inches inferior and 0.2 inches ventral of the 
axial intersection point. Another accelerometer is 
aligned with its sensitive axis in the transverse 



horizontal plane and perpendicular to the mid- 
sagittal plane and with its seismic mass center at 
any distance up to 0.2 inches to the right, 0.1 inches 
inferior and 0.2 inches ventral to the axial intersec- 
tion point. A third accelerometer is aligned with 
its sensitive axis parallel to the midsagittal and 
transverse horizontal planes and with its seismic 
mass center at any distance up to 0.2 inches supe- 
rior, 0.5 inches to the right and 0.1 inches ventral 
to the axial intersection point. In the case of a 
triaxial accelerometer, its axes are aligned in the 
same way that the axes of three separate accel- 
erometers are aligned. 

Issued on June 17, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

45 FR 43352 
June 17, 1980 



PART 572 -PRE 34 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies 
(Docket No. 78-09; Notice 8) 



ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsidera- 
tion, final rule and correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends Subpart C of Part 
572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, to specify 
the use of a triaxial accelerometer in the test dum- 
my representing a 3-year-old child. The use of a 
triaxial accelerometer will eliminate calibration 
problems associated with single axis accel- 
erometers. The notice also denies petitions filed by 
Ford Motor Company and General Motors Cor- 
poration seeking reconsideration of the agency's 
June 26, 1980 notice responding to a prior General 
Motors Corporation petition for reconsideration. 
Finally, the notice corrects a typographical error 
in the agency's June 26, 1980 final rule. 

DATES: The amendments are effective on 
December 15, 1980. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should 
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: 
Docket Section, Room 5108, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Vladislav Radovich, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 
(202-426-2264) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice 
amends Subpart C of Part 572, Anthropomorphic 
Test Dummies, to change several of the re- 
quirements for the test dummy representing a 
3-year-old child. The test dummy is used in testing 
child restraint systems in accordance with Federal 



Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child 
Restraint Systems. 

The notice amends Subpart C of Part 572 to 
specify the use of triaxial accelerometers, instead 
of single axis accelerometers, in the head and chest 
of the test dummy. In addition the notice increases 
the upper limit for permissible resultant accelera- 
tion in the head calibration test from 115 g's to 118 
g's. The agency published a notice proposing these 
changes in the Federal Register for June 26, 1980 
(45 FR 43355). Only two parties. Ford Motor Com- 
pany (Ford) and General Motors Corporation (GM), 
submitted comments on the proposal. The final 
rule is based on the data submitted in those com- 
ments, data obtained in the agency's testing and 
data obtained from other pertinent documents. 
Significant comments submitted to the docket are 
addressed below. 

This notice also denies petitions filed by Ford 
and GM seeking reconsideration of the agency's 
June 26, 1980 notice (45 FR 43352) that granted in 
part and denied in part a prior GM petition for 
reconsideration. 

Finally, this notice corrects a typographical er- 
ror in an amendment made in the agency's June 26, 
1980 notice (45 FR 43352) responding to a prior GM 
petition for reconsideration. 

Resonances 

Ford and GM both agree with the agency that 
the test dummy representing a 3-year-old child is 
an objective test device for measuring the amount 
of head and knee excursion that occurs in child 
restraint system testing using the test dummy. 
The fundamental disagreement stated in the Ford 
and GM comments and petitions for reconsidera- 
tion is whether the test dummy is an objective test 
device for measuring accelerations in the dummy's 
head and chest during child restraint testing. GM 
argues that the test dummy is not an objective 



PART 572 -PRE 35 



device because of the presence of resonances in 
the head and chest of the test dummy. Ford says 
that the test dummy "may be a suitable measuring 
device, when there is no head impact (such as in a 
shoulder harness type of child restraint)" during 
child restraint testing. It, however, argues that if 
there is a head impact in the child restraint 
testing, then the test dummy's head will resonate. 

Ford and GM both argue that the resonances 
can reinforce or attenuate the measurement of im- 
pact forces on the test dummy. Thus, if the test 
dummy does resonate, the acceleration measured 
in the test dummy may not represent the actual 
forces experienced by the test dummy. 

Ford argues that the source of the resonance is 
an oscillation of the urethane skull of the test dum- 
my. Ford included with its petition and comments 
on the June 26, 1980 proposal the results of several 
tests in which it struck the head of the test dummy 
with a rubber mallet. Ford said that regardless of 
the direction of the impact, the head resonated 
with a frequency of approximately 200 Hertz (Hz) 
when it was struck. 

The agency has reviewed the Ford and other 
test data and concluded that the test dummy is an 
objective test device that can be used for measur- 
ing accelerations. As explained below, the 
agency's conclusion is based on an analysis of the 
structure of the test dummy's head and chest and 
the relationship between that structure and the 
impact response of the test dummy. 

Many physical structures, such as the test dum- 
my's head, have a natural or resonating frequency 
at which they will vibrate when they are driven by 
a force of the same frequency. When resonance 
occurs, small variations in the applied force can 
produce large variations in the measured accelera- 
tion, thus preventing accurate measurement of the 
acceleration. The resonance, however, will not 
occur if the driving force is of a frequency that is 
below the natural or resonating frequency of the 
object being struck. 

Analysis of the test dummy shows that the 
natural or resonating frequency of the head is ap- 
proximately 128 Hz, while the natural frequency of 
the accelerometer attachment in the test dummy's 
head is approximately 255 Hz. The natural 
resonating frequencies of the test dummy's chest 
and chest accelerometer attachment are approx- 
imately 85 Hz and 185 Hz. 

Impacts with hard and unyielding objects, such 



as the unpadded portion of a car's instrument 
panel, can create high frequencies, generally up to 
1,000 Hz. Impacts with soft and yielding surfaces, 
such as a padded child restraint, create low fre- 
quencies, generally less than 50 Hz. 

The test used in Standard No. 213 to evaluate 
child restraints does not include impacts with hard 
and unyielding surfaces. In Standard No. 213 
testing, the child restraint is placed on a vehicle 
seat and attached by a lap belt. There is no portion 
of a vehicle's interior, such as an instrument panel, 
placed in front of or to the side of the vehicle seat. 
Thus, during the testing, the dummy will contact 
the belts or padded surfaces of the child restraint. 
Since the belts and padded surfaces are yielding 
and energy-absorbing, contact with them will in- 
volve impacts where the frequencies are well 
below the natural or resonating frequency of the 
test dummy's head and chest. 

Ford raised the issue of whether contact be- 
tween the head and arms of the dummy during the 
testing might produce frequencies that will cause 
the test dummy's head to resonate. Ford said that 
it had experienced dummy head and arm contact in 
some of its tests and resonance occurred. 

The agency has conducted more than 150 tests 
of child restraint systems. There have only been 
2 tests in which the head of the test dummy struck 
the toes and resonances occurred. The head-limb 
contact occurred in those tests because of massive 
structural failures in the child restraint system. 

Although resonances did occur when the head 
struck the toes, the validity of the acceleration 
measurement in those tests is irrelevant for deter- 
mining if the child restraint complied with Stand- 
ard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The struc- 
tural failure is, by itself, a violation of the stand- 
ard. The agency had not found head and limb 
contact affecting acceleration measurements in 
any child restraint that maintained its structural 
integrity during the testing. 

In the past several years, the agency has con- 
ducted 10 tests of the Ford TOT GUARD. In one of 
those tests, the arm briefly touched the head, 
but there was no effect on the acceleration 
measurement. The dummy in those tests was posi- 
tioned in accordance with the test procedure set 
out in Standard No. 213. Since the test procedure 
permits the limbs to be positioned so that they will 
not inhibit the movement of the head or torso the 
agency looked at the effect of positioning the dum- 



PART572-PRE36 



my's arm in different locations on the shield or the 
side of the TOT GUARD. None of the different 
arm positions resulted in head to arm contact af- 
fecting acceleration measurement. 

Triaxial Accelerometers 

Part 572 currently allows the use of either triax- 
ial accelerometers or single axis accelerometers to 
measure accelerations in the head and chest of the 
3-year-old child test dummy. The June 26, 1980 
notice (45 FR 43355) proposed specifying the use of 
only triaxial accelerometers in the test dummy to 
eliminate calibration problems caused by single 
axis accelerometers. The agency proposed only us- 
ing triaxial accelerometers after GM was unable to 
calibrate its test dummies with single axis ac- 
celerometers. In GM's head calibration tests, the 
peak resultant acceleration exceeded the upper 
limit set by the regulation. 

GM agreed that use of a triaxial accelerometer 
"may reduce the possibility of exceeding the peak 
acceleration in the dummy calibration test." It, 
however, argued that the use of triaxial ac- 
celerometers will not solve the problem of 
resonance. As previously explained, the types of 
impacts experienced in child restraint testing will 
not produce resonances. The purpose of requiring 
the use of triaxial accelerometers is to enable 
manufacturers to calibrate consistently their test 
dummies within the acceleration limits set in the 
regulation. 

Ford argued that single axis accelerometers are 
easier to work with, more reliable and more easily 
repaired than triaxial accelerometers. The agency 
is not aware of any data, and Ford supplied none, 
indicating that triaxial accelerometers are less 
reliable than single axis accelerometers. Contrary 
to Ford's assertion, a triaxial accelerometer should 
be easier to use. The axes and seismic mass center 
of the triaxial acceleromter (Endevco model 
7267C-750) currently used in dummy testing are 
permanently fixed in a mounting block. With 
single axis accelerometers, three separate ac- 
celerometers must be positioned by each user on a 
mounting block in order to instrument the dummy. 
Thus the possibility of variation in mounting loca- 
tion between different users is increased by the 
use of single axis accelerometers. 

Single axis accelerometers are more readily 
repairable than triaxial accelerometers. The agen- 
cy, however, has used triaxial accelerometers in 



numerous dummy tests for several years and has 
found that their repair experience is comparable 
to single axis accelerometers. 

Based on all these considerations, the agency 
has decided to adopt the triaxial accelerometer re- 
quirement as proposed. 

Calibration Limit 

To accommodate minor variation in test meas- 
urements between different test laboratories, the 
agency's June 26, 1980 notice (45 Fr 43355) pro- 
posed to slightly increase the permissible result- 
ant acceleration limit for the head calibration test 
from 115 g's to 118 g's. Neither Ford nor GM op- 
posed this change, so the agency is adopting it as 
proposed. Although the agency is expanding the 
upper limit of the calibration range, experience 
with the Part 572 adult test dummy has shown 
that manufacturers will develop production tech- 
niques to produce test dummies that have accel- 
eration responses that fall within the middle of the 
specified calibration range. 

Correction 

The final rule established by the agency's June 
26, 1980 not'ce (45 FR 43352) amended the head 
calibration ..ead test procedures. The notice in- 
advertently made the amendment to section 
572.1(c)(2) of Part 572 instead of to section 
572.16(c)(2). This notice corrects that typograph- 
ical error and makes the amendment to section 
572.16(c)(2). 

Costs 

The agency has considered the economic and 
other impacts of this final rule and determined 
that this rule is not significant within the meaning 
of Executive Order 12221 and the Department of 
Transportation's policies and procedures imple- 
menting that order. Based on that assessment, the 
agency has concluded that the economic and other 
consequences of this rule are so minimal that a 
regulatory evaluation is not necessary. The impact 
is minimal since the primary effect of this rule is to 
bind the agency to using one of the two types of 
accelerometers formerly permitted by the regula- 
tion. The economic impact on manufacturers choos- 
ing to purchase triaxial accelerometers needed to 
instrument the dummy is approximately $2,500. 

The agency finds, for good cause shown, that it 
is in the public interest that the amendments made 



PART 572 -PRE 37 



by this notice have an immediate effective date. 
The immediate effective date is needed since the 
test dummy will be used in conducting compliance 
tests for Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Sys- 
tems, which goes into effect on January 1, 1981. 

The engineer and lawyer primarily responsible 
for this notice are Vladislav Radovich and Stephen 
Oesch, respectively. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Subpart C of 
Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, of Ti- 
tle 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is revised 
to read as follows: 

1. The first sentence of section 572.16(b) is re- 
vised to read as follows: 

(b) When the head is impacted in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section by a test probe 
conforming to §572.21(a) at 7 fps., the peak result- 
ant acceleration measured at the location of the 
accelerometer mounted in the headform in accord- 
ance with §572.21(b) shall be not less than 95g and 
not more than 118g. 

2. Section 572.21(b) is revised to read as follows: 
(b) A triaxial accelerometer is mounted in the 

head on the mounting block (A/310) located on the 
horizontal transverse bulkhead as shown in the 
drawings subreferenced under assembly SA 103C 
010 so that its seismic mass centers are positioned 
as specified in this paragraph relative to the head 
accelerometer reference point located at the in- 
tersection of a line connecting the longitudinal 
centerlines of the transfer pins in the sides of the 
dummy head with the midsagittal plane of the 
dummy head. The triaxial accelerometer is aligned 
with one sensitive axis parallel to the vertical 
bulkhead and midsagittal plane and its seismic 
mass center is located 0.2 inches dorsal to and 0.1 
inches inferior to the head accelerometer ref- 
erence point. Another sensitive axis of the triaxial 
accelerometer is aligned with the horizontal plane 
and is perpendicular to the midsagittal plane and 
its seismic mass center is located 0.1 inch inferior 
to, 0.4 inches to the right of and 0.9 inch dorsal 
to the head accelerometer reference point. The 
third sensitive axis of the triaxial accelerometer is 
aligned so that it is parallel to the midsagittal and 
horizontal planes and its seismic mass center is 
located 0.1 inches inferior to, 0.6 inches dorsal to 
and 0.4 inches to the right of the head accelerome- 
ter reference point. All seismic mass centers shall 
be positioned within ± 0.05 inches of the specified 
locations. 



3. Section 572.21(c) is revised to read as follows: 
(c) A triaxial accelerometer is mounted in the 

thorax on the mounting plate attached to the ver- 
tical transverse bulkhead shown in the drawing 
subreferenced under assembly No. SA 103C 030 in 
drawing SA 103C 001 so that its seismic mass 
centers are positioned as specified in this 
paragraph relative to the thorax accelerometer 
reference point located in the midsagittal plane 3 
inches above the top surface of the lumbar spine 
and 0.3 inches dorsal to the accelerometer mount- 
ing plate surface. The triaxial accelerometer is 
aligned so that one sensitive axis is parallel to the 
vertical bulkhead and midsagittal planes and its 
seismic mass center is located 0.2 inches to the left 
of, 0.1 inches inferior to and 0.2 inches ventral to 
the thorax accelerometer reference point. Another 
sensitive axis of the triaxial accelerometer is 
aligned so that it is in the horizontal transverse 
plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane 
and its seismic mass center is located 0.2 inches to 
the right of, 0.1 inches inferior to and 0.2 inches 
ventral to the thorax accelerometer reference 
point. The third sensitive axis of the triaxial ac- 
celerometer is aligned so that it is parallel to the 
midsagittal and horizontal planes and its seismic 
mass center is located 0.2 inches superior to, 0.5 
inches to the right of and 0.1 inches ventral to the 
thorax accelerometer reference point. All seismic 
mass centers shall be positioned within ± 0.05 
inches of the specified locations. 

4. The document amending Subpart C — Three- 
Year-Old Child of Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test 
Dummies, of Title 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations published in the Federal Register of 
June 26, 1980 as 45 FR 43352 is corrected by 
changing the reference to "Section 571.1(c)(2)" 
made in the first amendment to the regulation set 
out on page 43353 to read "572.16(c)(2)." 

Issued on December 8, 1980. 



Joan Claybrook 
Administrator 

45 FR 82265 
December 15, 1980 



PART 572 -PRE 38 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572 



Anthropomorphic Test Dummies 
[Docket No. 8505; Notice 1] 



ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends regulations 
concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's specifications for anthropomor- 
phic test dummies by revising sections that state 
where copies of drawings may be obtained. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose 
of this notice is to amend Part 572 of Chapter V of 
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations by revising 
§§ 572.5(a), 572.15(aXl), and 572.25(a), which state 
where copies of drawings and a construction 
manual describing the materials and the pro- 
cedures involved in the manufacturing of an- 
thropomorphic dummies may ■ be obtained. The 
amendment changes the supply source for the 
drawings and manual from Keuffel and Esser 
Company to Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Incor- 
porated. This revision is required because of the 
sale of the Keuffel and Esser Company reproduc- 
tion facilities to Rowley-Scher Reprographics, In- 
corporated. 

The amendment to Part 572 as set forth below is 
technical in nature and does not alter existing 
obligations. This notice simply provides the correct 
address for obtaining copies of drawings and the 
construction manuals. The National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration therefore finds for 
good cause that this amendment may be made ef- 
fective without notice and opportunity for com- 
ment, may be made effective within 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, and is not sub- 
ject to the requirements of Executive Order 12291. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 
572 is amended as follows: 



1. In § 572.5, paragraph (a) is revised to read as 
follows: § 572.5 General description. 

(a) The dummy consists of the component assem- 
blies specified in Figure 1, which are described in 
their entirety by means of approximately 250 
drawings and specifications that are grouped by 
component assemblies under the following nine 
headings: 

SA 150 M070-Right arm assembly 

SA 150 M071-Left arm assembly 

SA 150 M050— LumbEU" spine assembly 

SA 150 M060— Pelvis and abdomen assembly 

SA 150 M080-Right leg assembly 

SA 150 MOBl-Left leg assembly 

SA 150 MOlO-Head assembly 

SA 150 M020-Neck assembly 

SA 150 M030-Shoulder-thorax assembly 

The drawings and specifications are incorporated 
in this Part by reference to the nine headings, and 
are available for examination in Docket 73-8, 
Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C., 20590. Copies may be obtained 
from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, attention 
Mr. Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202) 
628-6667). The drawings and specifications are 
subject to changes, but any change will be ac- 
complished by appropriate administrative pro- 
cedures, will be announced by publication in the 
Federal Register, and will be available for ex- 
amination and copying as indicated in this 
paragraph. The drawings and specifications are 
also on file in the reference library of the Federal 
Register, National Archives and Records Services, 
General Services Administration, Washington, 
D.C. 



PART 572-PRE 39 



2. In § 572.15, paragraph (a) is revised to read as 
follows: § 572.15 General description. 

(a) (1) The dummy consists of the component 
eissemblies specified in drawing SA 103C 001, 
which are described in their entirety by means of 
approximately 122 drawings and specifications 
that are grouped by component assemblies under 
the following thirteen headings: 

SA 103C 010 Head Assembly 
SA 103C 020 Neck Assembly 
SA 103C 030 Torso Assembly 
SA 103C 041 Upper Arm Assembly Left 
SA 103C 042 Upper Arm Assembly Right 
SA 103C 051 Forearm Hand Assembly Left 
SA 103C 052 Forearm Hand Assembly Right 
SA 103C 061 Upper Leg Assembly Left 
SA 103C 062 Upper Leg Assembly Right 
SA 103C 071 Lower Leg Assembly Left 
SA 103C 072 Lower Leg Assembly Right 
SA 103C 081 Foot Assembly Left 
SA 103C 082 Foot Assembly Right 

The drawings and specifications are incorporated 
in this Part by reference to the thirteen headings 
and are available for examination in Docket 78-09, 
Rm 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C., 20590. Copies may be obtained from Rowley- 
Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., 20005, attention Mr. Allan 
Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202) 
628-6667). 

(3) An Operation and Maintenance Manual 
(dated May 28, 1976, Contract No. DOT- 
HS-6-01294) with instructions for the use and 
maintenance of the test dummies is incorporated 
in this Part by reference. Copies of the manual can 
be obtained from Rowley -Scher Reprographics, Inc. 
All provisions of this manual are valid unless 
modified by this regulation. This document is 
available for examination in Docket 78-09. 



3. In § 572.25, paragraph (a) revised to read as 
follows: § 572.25 General description. 

(a) The infant dummy is specified in its entirety 
by means of 5 drawings (No. SA 1001 001) and a 
construction manual which describe in detail the 
materials and the procedures involved in the 
manufacturing of this dummy. The drawings and 
the manual are incorporated in this P£U"t by 
reference and are available for examination in 
Docket 78-09, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. Copies may be ob- 
tained from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 
1216 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, at- 
tention Mr. Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysin- 
ski ((202) 628-6667). The drawings and the manual 
are subject to changes, but any change will be ac- 
complished by appropriate administrative pro- 
cedures, will be announced by publication in the 
Federal Register, and will be available for ex- 
amination and copying as indicated in this 
paragraph. The drawings and manual are also on 
file in the reference library of the Federal Register, 
National Archives and Records Services, General 
Services Administration, Washington, D.C. 



Issued on April 17, 1985 



Diane K. Steed 
Administrator 

50 F.R. 25422 
June 19, 1985 



PART572-PRE40 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies 
(Docket No. 74-14; Notice 45 ) 



ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This notice adopts the Hybrid III test 
dummy as an alternative to the Part 572 test dummy 
in testing done in accordance with Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection. The notice sets forth the 
specifications, instrumentation, calibration test pro- 
cedures, and calibration performance criteria for the 
Hybrid HI test dummy. The notice also amends 
Standard No. 208 so that effective October 23, 1986, 
manufacturers have the option of using either the 
existing Part 572 test dummy or the Hybrid HI test 
dummy until August 31, 1991. As of September 1, 
1991, the Hybrid HI will replace the Part 572 test 
dummy and be used as the exclusive means of deter- 
mining a vehicle's conformance with the perfor- 
mance requirements of Standard No. 208. 

The notice also establishes a new performance 
criterion for the chest of the Hybrid HI test dum- 
my which will limit chest deflection. The new chest 
deflection limit applies only to the Hybrid HI since 
only that test dummy has the capability to measure 
chest deflection. 

These amendments enhance vehicle safety by per- 
mitting the use of a more advanced test dummy 
which is more human-like in response than the cur- 
rent test dummy. In addition, the Hybrid III test 
dummy is capable of making many additional 
sophisticated measurements of the potential for 
human injury in a frontal crash. 

DATES: The notice adds a new Subpart E to Part 
572 effective on October 23, 1986. 

This notice also amends Standard No. 208 so that 
effective October 23, 1986, manufacturers have the 
option of using either the existing Part 572 test 
dummy or the Hybrid HI test dummy until August 
31, 1991. As of September 1, 1991, the Hybrid HI 
will replace the Part 572 test dummy and be used 
as the exclusive means of determining a vehicle's 
conformance with the performance requirements of 
Standard No. 208. The incorporation by reference 



of certain publications listed in the regulation is ap- 
proved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of October 23, 1986. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In December 
1983, General Motors (GM) petitioned the agency to 
amend Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, 
to adopt specifications for the Hybrid HI test dum- 
my. GM also petitioned for an amendment of Stand- 
ard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to allow the 
use of the Hybrid HI as an alternative test device 
for compliance testing. The agency granted GM's 
petition on July 20, 1984. The agency subsequently 
received a petition from the Center for Auto Safety 
to propose making Standard No. 208 's existing in- 
jury criteria more stringent for the Hybrid HI and 
to establish new injury criteria so as to take advan- 
tage of the Hybrid Ill's superior measurement 
capability. The agency granted the Center's petition 
on September 17, 1984. On April 12, 1985 (50 FR 
14602), NHTSA proposed amendments to Part 572 
and Standard No. 208 that were responsive to the 
petitioners and which, in the agency's judgment, 
would enhance motor vehicle safety. Twenty-eight 
individuals and companies submitted comments on 
the proposed requirements. This notice presents the 
agency's analysis of the issues raised by the com- 
menters. The agency has decided to adopt the use 
of the Hybrid III test dummy and some of the pro- 
posed injury criteria. The agency has also decided 
to issue another notice on the remaining injury 
criteria to gain additional information about the 
potential effects of adopting those criteria. 

This notice first discusses the technical specifica- 
tions for the Hybrid III, its calibration requirements, 
its equivalence with the existing Part 572 test 
dummy, and the applicable injury criteria. Finally, 
it discusses the test procedure used to position the 
dummy for Standard No. 208 compliance testing and 
the economic and other effects of this rule. 



PART 572-PRE 41 



Test Dummy Drawings and Specifications 

Test dummies are used as human surrogates for 
evaluation of the severity of injuries in vehicle 
crashes. To serve as an adequate surrogate, a test 
dummy must be capable of simulating himian impact 
responses. To serve as an objective test device, the 
test dummy must be adequately defined through 
technical drawings and performance specifications 
to ensure uniformity in construction, impact 
response, and measurement of injury in identical 
crash conditions. 

Virtually all of the commenters, with the excep- 
tion of GM, said that they have not had sufficient 
experience with the Hybrid III to offer comments 
on the validity of the technical specifications for the 
test dummy. Since the issuance of the notice, GM 
has provided additional technical drawings and a 
Society of Automotive Engineers-developed user's 
manual to further define the Hybrid HI. These new 
drawings do not alter the basic nature of the test 
dummy, but instead provide additional information 
which will enable users to make sure that they have 
a correctly designed and correctly assembled test 
dummy. The user's manual provides information on 
the inspection, assembly, disassembly, and use of the 
test dummy. Having the user's manual available will 
assist builders and users of the Hybrid HI in pro- 
ducing and using the test dummy. GM also provided 
information to correct the misnumbering of several 
technical drawings referenced in the notice. 

In addition, the agency has reviewed the proposed 
drawings and specifications. While NHTSA believes 
the proposed drawings are adequate for producing 
the test dummy, the agency has identified and 
obtained additional information which should make 
production and use of the test dummy even more ac- 
curate. For example, the agency has obtained infor- 
mation on the range of motions for each moving 
body part of the test dummy. Finally, to promote 
the ease of assembly, NHTSA has made arrange- 
ments with GM to ensure that the molds and pat- 
terns for the test dummy are available to all in- 
terested parties. Access to the molds will assist other 
potential builders and users of the Hybrid HI since 
it is difficult to specify all of the details of the various 
body contours solely by technical drawings. 

The agency has adopted the new drawings and 
user manual in this rule and has made the necessary 
corrections to the old drawings. The agency believes 
that the available drawings and technical specifica- 
tions are more than sufficient for producing, 
assembling, and using the Hybrid HI test dummy. 



Commercial Availability of the Hybrid III 
A number of commenters raised questions about 
the commercial availability of the Hybrid HI test 
dummy, noting problems they have experienced in 
obtaining calibrated test dummies and the in- 
strumentation for the neck and lower leg of the 
Hybrid III. For example, Chrysler said that it had 
acquired two Hybrid III test dummies, but has been 
unable to obtain the lower leg and neck instrumen- 
tation for five months. Likewise, Ford said that it 
has been unable to obtain the knee displacement and 
chest deflection measurement devices for the Hybrid 
III. It also said that of the test dummies it had 
received, none had sufficient spine stiffness to meet 
the Hybrid HI specifications. Ford claimed to have 
problems in retaining a stable dummy posture which 
would make it difficult to carry out some of the 
specified calibration tests. Subsequent investigation 
showed that the instability was caused by out-of- 
specification rubber hardness of the lumbar spine, 
and was eliminated when spines of correct hardness 
were used. In addition. Ford said that the necks and 
ribs of the test dummy would not pass the proposed 
calibration procedures. Finally, Ford said that the 
equipment needed for calibrating the dummy is not 
commercially available. 

Although the commenters indicated they had ex- 
perienced difficulty in obtaining the instrumentation 
for the Hybrid Ill's neck and lower legs, they did 
not indicate that there is any problem in obtaining 
the instrumentation needed to measure the three in- 
jury criteria presently required by Standard No. 208, 
the head injury criterion, chest acceleration, and 
femur loading and which are being adopted by this 
rule for the Hybrid HI. For example, Volkswagen 
said it had obtained Hybrid HI test dummies with 
sufficient instrumentation to measure the same in- 
jury criteria as with the Part 572. VW did say it had 
ordered the additional test devices and instrumen- 
tation for the Hybrid III but was told the instrumen- 
tation would not be available for six months. 

The agency notes that there are now two commer- 
cial suppliers of the Hybrid HI test dummy. Alder- 
son Research Labs (ARL) and Humanoid Systems. 
Humanoid has built nearly 100 test dummies and 
ALR has produced five prototype test dummies as 
of the end of December 1985. Both manufacturers 
have indicated that they are now capable of produc- 
ing sufficient Hybrid Ills to meet the demand for 
those dummies. For example, Humanoid Systems 
said that while the rate of production is dependent 
on the number of orders, generally three test dum- 
mies per week are produced. Thus, in the case of the 
basic test dummy, there appears to be sufficient 
commercial capacity to provide sufficient test dum- 
mies for all vehicle manufacturers. 



PART 572-PRE 42 



As to test dummy instrumentation, the agency is 
aware that there have been delays in obtaining the 
new neck, thorax, and lower leg instrumentation for 
the Hybrid III. However, as Humanoid commented, 
while there have been delays, the supplies of the 
needed parts are expected to increase. Even if the 
supply of the lower leg instrumentation is slow to 
develop, this will not pose a problem, since the 
agency is not adopting, at this time, the proposed 
lower leg injury criteria. In the case of the neck in- 
strumentation, the supply problem should be 
minimized because each test facility will only need 
one neck transducer to calibrate all of its test dum- 
mies. The neck instrumentation will not be needed 
for a manufacturer's crash testing since at this time, 
the agency is not adopting any neck injury criteria. 
In the case of the instrumentation for measuring 
thoracic deflection, the supplier has indicated that 
it can deliver the necessary devices within 3 months 
of the time an order is placed. As to Ford's comment 
about calibration test equipment, the agency notes 
that current equipment used for calibrating the ex- 
isting Part 572 test dummy can be used, with minor 
modification, to calibrate the Hybrid III test dummy. 

Calibration Requirements 
In addition to having complete technical drawings 
and specifications, a test dummy must have ade- 
quate calibration test procedures. The calibration 
tests involve a series of static and dynamic tests of 
the test dummy components to determine whether 
the responses of the test dummy fall within specified 
performance requirements for each test. The testing 
involves instrumenting the head, thorax and femurs 
to measure the test dummy's responses. In addition, 
there are tests of the neck, whose structural prop- 
erties may have considerable influence on the 
kinematics and impact responses of the instru- 
mented head. Those procedures help ensure that the 
test dummy has been properly assembled and that, 
as assembled, it will provide repeatable and 
reproducible results in crash testing. (Repeatability 
refers to the ability of the same test dummy to pro- 
duce the same results when subjected to several 
identical tests. Reproducibility refers to the ability 
of one test dummy to provide the same results as 
another test dummy built to the same specifications.) 

Lumbar Spine Calibration Test 

The technical specifications for the Hybrid III set 
out performance requirements for the hardness of 
the rubber used in the lumbar spine to ensure that 
the spine will have appropriate rigidity. NHTSA's 
test data show that there is a direct relationship be- 
tween rubber hardness and stiffness of the spine and 



that the technical specification on hardness is suffi- 
cent to ensure appropriate spine stiffness. Accord- 
ingly, the agency believes that a separate calibra- 
tion test for the lumbar spine is not necessary. 
Humanoid supported the validity of relying on the 
spine hardness specification to assure adequate 
stability of the dummy's posture, even though it 
found little effect on the dummy's impact response. 
Humanoid 's support for this approach was based on 
tests of Hybrid III dummies which were equipped 
with a variety of lumbar spines having different 
rubber hardnesses. 

Subsequent to issuance of the notice, the agency 
has continued its testing of the Hybrid III test 
dummy. Through that testing, the agency found that 
commercially available necks either cannot meet or 
cannot consistently meet all of the calibration tests 
originally proposed for the neck. To further evaluate 
this problem, NHTSA and GM conducted a series 
of round robin tests in which a set of test dummies 
were put through the calibration tests at both GM's 
and NHTSA's test laboratories. 

The test results, which were placed in the docket 
after the tests were completed, showed that none 
of the necks could pass all of the originally specified 
calibration tests. 

In examining the test data, the agency determined 
that while some of the responses of the necks fell 
slightly outside of the performance corridors 
proposed in the calibration tests, the responses of 
the necks showed a relatively good match to existing 
biomechanical data on human neck responses. Thus, 
while the necks did not meet all of the calibration 
tests, they did respond as human necks are expected 
to respond. 

In discussions with GM, the agency learned that 
the calibration performance requirements were 
originally established in 1977 based on the responses 
of three prototype Hybrid III necks. GM first 
examined the existing biomechanical data and 
established several performance criteria that 
reflected human neck responses. GM then built 
necks which would meet the biomechanically based 
performance criteria. GM established the calibration 
tests that it believed were necessary to ensure that 
the necks of the prototype test dummies would pro- 
duce the required biomechanical responses. 
Although extensive performance specifications may 
have been needed for the development of specially 
built prototype necks, not all of the specifications 
appear to be essential once the final design was 
established for the mass-produced commercial 
version. Based on the ability of the commercially 
available test dummies to meet the biomechanical 
response criteria, NHTSA believes that the GM- 



PART 572-PRE 43 



derived calibration reqiiirements should be adjusted 
to reflect the response characteristics of commer- 
cially available test dummies and simplified as much 
as possible to reduce the complexity of the testing. 

Based on the results of the NHTSA-GM calibra- 
tion test series, the agency is making the following 
changes to the neck calibration tests. In the flexion 
(forward bending) calibration test, the agency is: 

1. increasing the time allowed for the neck to 
return to its preimpact position after the pendulum 
impact test from a range of 109-119 milHseconds 
to a range of 113-128 milliseconds. 

2. changing the limits for maximum head rotation 
from a range of 67°-79° to a range of 64°-78°. 

3. expanding the time limits during which max- 
imum moment must occur from a range of 46-56 
miUiseconds to 47-58 milHseconds. 

4. modifying the limits for maximum moment 
from a range of 72-90 ft-lbs to a range of 65-80 
ft-lbs. 

5. increasing the time for the maximum moment 
to decay from a range of 95-105 milliseconds to a 
range of 97-107 milliseconds. 

In the extension (backward bending) calibration 
test, the agency is: 

1. expanding the time allowed for the neck to 
return to its preimpact position after the pendulum 
impact test from a range of 157-167 milliseconds 
to a range of 147-174 milliseconds. 

2. changing the limits for maximum head rotation 
from a range of 94 °-106 ° to a range of 81 °-106 °. 

3. expanding the time limit during which the 
minimum moment must occur from a range of 69-77 
milliseconds to 65-79 milliseconds. 

4. modifying the limits for minimum moment 
from a range of -52 to -63 ft-lbs to a range of -39 
to -59 ft-lbs. 

5. increasing the time for the minimum moment 
to decay from the range of 120-144 milliseconds, 
contained in GM's technical specifications for the 
Hybrid III, to a range of 120-148 milliseconds. 

In reviewing the NHTSA-GM test data, the 
agency also identified several ways of simplifying 
the neck's performance requirements. In each case, 
the following calibration specifications appear to be 
redundant and their deletion should not affect the 
performance of the neck. The agency has thus 
deleted the requirement for minimum moment in 
flexion and the time requirement for that moment. 
For extension, the agency has eliminated the limit 
on the maximum moment permitted and the time 
requirement for that moment. The agency has 



deleted those requirements since the specification on 
maximum rotation of the neck in flexion and minimum 
rotation of the neck in extension appear to adequately 
measure the same properties of the neck. Similarly, 
the agency has simplified the test by eliminating the 
pendulum braking requirement for the neck test, since 
GM's testing shows that the requirement is not 
necessary to ensure test consistency. Finally, the 
agency is clarifying the test procedure by deleting the 
specification in the GM technical drawings for the 
Hybrid III calling for two pre-calibration impact tests 
of the neck. GM has informed the agency that the two 
pre-calibration tests are not necessary. 

Based on the NHTSA-GM calibration test data, 
the agency is making two additional changes to the 
neck calibration test procedure. Both NHTSA and 
GM routinely control the calibration pendulum im- 
pact speed to within plus or minus one percent. 
Currently available dummy necks are able to meet 
the calibration response requirements consistently 
when the pendulum impact speed is controlled to 
that level Thus, NHTSA believes that the proposed 
range of allowable velocities ( ± 8.5 percent) for the 
pendulum impact is excessive. Reducing the allow- 
able range is clearly feasible and will help maintain 
a high level of consistency in dummy neck responses. 
The agency has therefore narrowed the range of per- 
missible impact velocities to the neck to ± 2 per- 
cent. This range is readily obtainable with commer- 
cially available test equipment. In reviewing the 
neck calibration test data, GM and NHTSA noted 
a slight sensitivity in the neck response to 
temperature variation. In its docket submission of 
January 27, 1986, GM recommended controlling the 
temperature during the neck calibration test to 71 ° 
±1°. NHTSA agrees that controlling the tem- 
perature for the neck calibration test will reduce 
variability, but the agency believes that a slightly 
wider temperature range of 69 ° to 72 °, which is the 
same range used in the chest calibration test, is 
sufficient. 

Neck Durability 

Nissan commented that, in sled tests of the two 
test dummies, the neck bracket of one of the Hybrid 
III test dummies experienced damage after 10 tests, 
while the Part 572 test dummy had no damage. The 
agency believes that Nissan's experience may be the 
result of an early neck design which has been subse- 
quently modified by GM. (See GM letter of Septem- 
ber 16, 1985, Docket 74-14, Notice 39, Entry 28.) 
The agency has conducted numerous 30 mile per 
hour vehicle impact tests using the Hybrid III test 
dummy and has not had any neck bracket failures. 



PART 572-PRE 44 



Thorax Calibration Test 

As a part of the NHTSA-GM calibration test 
series, both organizations also performed the pro- 
posed calibration test for the thorax on the same test 
dummies. That testing showed relatively small dif- 
ferences in the test results measured between the 
two test facilities The test results from both test 
facilities show that the chest responses of the Hybrid 
III test dummies were generally within the 
established biomechanical performance corridors for 
the chest. In addition, the data showed that the 
Hybrid III chest responses fit those corridors 
substantially better than the chest responses of the 
existing Part 572 test dummy. The data also showed 
that the chest responses in the high speed (22 ft/sec) 
pendulum impact test more closely fit the corridors 
than did the chest responses in the low speed (14 
ft/sec) test. In addition, the data showed that if a 
test dummy performed satisfactorily in the low 
speed pendulum impact test, it also performed 
satisfactorily in the more severe high speed test. 

Based on those results, GM recommended in a 
letter of January 27, 1986, (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 
39, Entry 41) that only the low speed pendulum im- 
pact be used in calibration testing of the Hybrid III 
chest. GM noted that deleting the more severe pen- 
dulum impact test "can lead to increasing the useful 
life of the chest structure." 

Based on the test data, the agency agrees with the 
GM recommendation that only one pendulum impact 
test is necessary. NHTSA recognizes that using only 
the low speed pendulum impact will increase the 
useful life of the chest. However, the agency has 
decided to retain the high speed rather than the low 
speed test. While NHTSA recognizes that the high 
speed test is more severe, the agency believes the 
high speed test is more appropriate for a number 
of reasons. First, the data showed that the high 
speed chest impact responses compared more closely 
with the biomechanical corridors than the low speed 
responses. Thus, use of the high speed test will make 
it easier to identify chests that do not have the cor- 
rect biofidelity. In addition, since the higher speed 
test is more severe it will subject the ribcage to 
higher stresses, which will help identify chest struc- 
tural degradation. Finally, the high speed impact 
test is more representative of the range of impacts 
a test dummy can receive in a vehicle crash test. 

Although the NHTSA-GM test data showed that 
the production version of the Hybrid III chest had 
sufficient biofidelity, the data indicated that 
proposed calibration performance requirements 



should be lightly changed to account for the wider 
range in calibration test responses measured in com- 
mercially available test dummies. Accordingly, the 
agency is adjusting the chest deflection requirement 
to increase the allowable range of deflections from 
2.51-2.75 inches to 2.5-2.85 inches. In addition, the 
agency is adjusting the resistive force requirement 
from a range of 1186-1298 pounds to a range of 
1080-1245 pounds. Also, the hysteresis requirement 
is being adjusted from a 75-80 percent range to a 
69-85 percent range. Finally, the agency is clarify- 
ing the chest calibration test procedure by deleting 
the specification in GM's technical drawing for the 
Hybrid III that calls for two pre-calibration impact 
tests of the chest. GM has informed the agency that 
these tests are not necessary. These slight changes 
will not affect the performance of the Hybrid III 
chest, since the NHTSA-GM test data showed that 
commercially available test dummies meeting these 
calibration specifications had good biofidelity. 

Chest Durability 

Testing done by the agency's Vehicle Research 
and Test Center has indicated that the durability of 
the Hybrid Ill's ribs in calibration testing is less than 
that of the Part 572 test dummy. ("State-of-the-Art 
Dummy Selection, Volume I" DOT Publication No. 
HS 806 722) The durability of the Hybrid III was 
also raised by several commenters. For example, 
Toyota raised questions about the durability of the 
Hybrid Ill's ribs and suggested the agency act to 
improve their durability. 

The chest of the Hybrid III is designed to be more 
flexible, and thus more human-like, than the chest 
of the Part 572 test dummy. One of the calibration 
tests used for the chest involves a 15 mph impact 
into the chest by a 51.5 pound pendulum; an impact 
condition which is substantially more severe than a 
safety belt or airbag restrained occupant would ex- 
perience in most crashes. The chest of the Hybrid 
III apparently degrades after such multiple impacts 
at a faster rate than the chest of the Part 572 test 
dummy. As the chest gradually deteriorates, the 
amount of acceleration and deflection measured in 
the chest are also affected. Eventually the chest will 
fall out of specification and will require either repair 
or replacement. 

In its supplemental comments to the April 1985 
notice, GM provided additional information about 
the durability of the Hybrid III ribs. GM said that 
it uses the Hybrid III in unbelted testing, which is 
the most severe test for the dummy. GM said that 
the Hybrid III can be used for about 17 crash tests 
before the ribs must be replaced. GM explained 



PART 572-PRE 45 



that it does not have comparable data for the Part 
572 test dummy since it does not use that test 
dummy in unbelted tests. GM said, however, that 
it believes that the durability of the Part 572 test 
dummy ribs in vehicle crash testing would be com- 
parable to that of the Hybrid III. 

Having reviewed all the available information, the 
agency concludes that both the Hybrid HI and ex- 
isting Part 572 test dummy ribs will degrade under 
severe impact conditions. Although the Hybrid HFs 
more flexible ribs may need replacement more fre- 
quently, particularly after being used in unre- 
strained testing, the Hybrid Hi's ribs appear to have 
reasonable durability. According to GM's data, 
which is in line with NHTSA's crash test experience, 
the Hybrid Hi's ribs can withstand approximately 
17 severe impacts, such as found in unrestrained 
testing, before they must be replaced. Ford, in a 
presentation at the MVMA Hybrid HI workshop 
held on February 5, 1986, noted that one of its belt- 
restrained Hybrid III test dummies was subjected 
to 35 vehicle and sled crashes without any failures. 
The potential lower durability of the ribs in 
unrestrained testing should be of little consequence 
if the Hybrid HI test dummy is used in air bag or 
belt testing. 

Chest Temperature Sensitivity 

The April 1985 notice said NHTSA tests have in- 
dicated that the measurements of chest deflection 
and chest acceleration by the Hybrid HI are 
temperature sensitive. For this reason, GM's 
specifications for the Hybrid III recognize this prob- 
lem and call for using the test dummy in a narrower 
temperature range (69° to 72° F) to ensure the con- 
sistency of the measurements. GM has also sug- 
gested the use of an adjustment factor for 
calculating chest deflection when the Hybrid III is 
used in a test environment that is outside of the 
temperature range specified for the chest. While this 
approach may be reasonable to account for the ad- 
justment of the deflection measurement, there is no 
known method to adjust the acceleration measure- 
ment for variations in temperature. For this reason, 
the agency is not adopting GM's proposed adjust- 
ment factor, but is instead retaining the proposed 
69° to 72° F temperature range. 

A number of commenters addressed the feasibility 
and practicability of maintaining that temperature 
range. BMW said that although it has an enclosed 
crash test facility, it had reservations about its 
ability to control the test temperature within the 
proposed range. Daihatsu said that it was not sure 
it could assure the test dimnmy's temperature will 



remain within the proposed range. Honda said that 
while it had no data on the temperature sensitivity 
of the Hybrid HI, it questioned whether the 
proposed temperature range was practical. 
Mercedes-Benz said it is not practicable to maintain 
the proposed temperature range because the flood 
lights necessary for high speed filming of crash tests 
can cause the test dummy to heat up. Nissan said 
it was not easy to maintain the current 12 degree 
range specified for the existing Part 572 test dummy 
and thus it would be hard to maintain the three 
degree range proposed for the Hybrid HI. Ford also 
said that maintaining the three degree range could 
be impracticable in its current test facilities. 

Other manufacturers tentatively indicated that the 
proposed temperature range may not be a problem. 
VW said the temperature range should not be an in- 
surmountable problem, but more experience with 
the Hybrid III is necessary before any definite con- 
clusions can be reached. Volvo said it could main- 
tain the temperature range in its indoor test 
facilities, but it questioned whether outdoor test 
facilities could meet the proposed specification. 
Humanoid indicated in its comments, that it has 
developed an air conditioning system individualized 
for each test dummy which will maintain a stable 
temperature in the test dummy up to the time of the 
crash test. 

The agency believes that there are a number of 
effective ways to address the temperature 
sensitivity of the Hybrid III chest. The test pro- 
cedure calls for placing the test dummy in an area, 
such as a closed room, whose temperature is main- 
tained within the required range for at least four 
hours before either the calibration tests or the use 
of the test dummy in a crash test. The purpose of 
the requirement is to ensure that the primary com- 
ponents of the test dummy have reached the correct 
temperature before the test dummy is used in a test. 
As discussed below, analytical techniques can be 
used to determine the temperature within the test 
dummy, to calculate how quickly the test dummy 
must be used in a crash test before its temperature 
will fall outside the required temperature range. 

Testing done by the agency with the current Part 
572 test dummy, whose construction and materials 
are similar to the Hybrid HI, has determined how 
long it takes for various test dummy components to 
reach the required temperature range once the test 
dummy is placed in a room within that range. 
("Thermal Responses of the Part 572 Dummy to 
Step Changes in Ambient Temperature" DOT 
Publication No. HS-801 960, June 1976) The testing 
was done by placing thermocouples, devices to 



PART 572-PRE 46 



measure temperature, at seven locations within the 
dummy and conducting a series of heating and cool- 
ing experiments. The tests showed that the thermal 
time constants (the thermal time constant is the time 
necessary for the temperature differential between 
initial and final temperatures to decrease from its 
original value to 37% of the original differential) 
varied from 1.2 hours for the forehead to 6.2 hours 
for the lumbar spine. Using this information it is 
possible to estimate the time it takes a test dummy 
originally within the required temperature range to 
fall out of the allowable range once it has been ex- 
posed to another temperature. The rib's thermal 
time constant is 2.9 hours. This means, for exam- 
ple, that if a test dummy's temperature has been 
stabilized at 70.5 ° F and then transferred to a test 
environment at 65 ° F, it would take approximately 
0.8 hours for the rib temperature to drop to 69 ° F, 
the bottom end of the temperature range specified 
in Part 572. 

Thus, the NHTSA test results cited above show 
that the chest can be kept within the range proposed 
by the agency if the test dummy is placed in a 
temperature-controlled environment for a sufficient 
time to stabilize the chest temperature. Once the 
chest of the test dummy is at the desired 
temperature, the test data indicate that it can 
tolerate some temperature variation at either an in- 
door or outdoor crash test site and still be within the 
required temperature range as long as the crash test 
is performed within a reasonable amount of time and 
the temperature at the crash site, or within the vehi- 
cle, or within the test dummy is controlled close to 
the 69 to 72 degrees F range. Obviously, testing con- 
ducted at extremely high or low temperatures can 
move the test dummy's temperature out of the re- 
quired range relatively quickly, if no means are used 
to maintain the temperature of the test dummy 
within the required range. However, auxiliary 
temperature control devices can be used in the vehi- 
cle or the test environment to maintain a stabilized 
temperature prior to the crash test. Therefore, the 
agency has decided to retain the proposed 69 to 72 
degrees F temperature range. 

Chest Response to Changes in Velocity 

The April notice raised the issue of the sensitivity 
of the Hybrid Hi's chest to changes in impact 
velocities. The notice pointed out that one GM study 
on energy-absorbing steering columns ("Factors In- 
fluencing Laboratory Evaluation of Energy- 
Absorbing Steering Systems," Docket No. 74-14, 
Notice 32, Entry 1666B) indicated that the Hybrid 
Hi's chest may be insensitive to changes in impact 



velocities and asked commenters to provide further 
information on this issue. 

Both GM and Ford provided comments on the 
Hybrid Hi's chest response. GM said that since the 
Hybrid HI chest is designed to have a more human- 
like thoracic deflection than the Part 572 test dum- 
my, the Hybrid Ill's response could be different. GM 
referenced a study ("System Versus Laboratory Im- 
pact Tests for Estimating Injury Hazard" SAE 
paper 680053) which involved cadaver impacts into 
energy-absorbing steering columns. The study con- 
cluded that the force on the test subject by the steer- 
ing assembly was relatively constant despite 
changes in test speeds. GM said that this study in- 
dicated that "rather than the Hybrid III chest be- 
ing insensitive to changes in velocity in steering 
system tests, it is the Part 572 which is too sensitive 
to changes in impact velocity to provide meaningful 
information for evaluating steering systems." 

GM also presented new data on chest impact tests 
conducted on the Hybrid III and Part 572 test dum- 
mies. The tests involved chest impacts by three pen- 
dulum impact devices wath different masses and 
three impact speeds. GM said that the test results 
show that "the Hybrid HI chest deflection is sen- 
sitive to both changes in impact velocity and impac- 
tor mass." Ford also noted that the Hybrid HI ap- 
pears sensitive in the range of speed and deflections 
that are relevant to Standard No. 208 testing with 
belt-restrained dummies. 

Ford noted that the GM testing referenced in the 
April notice was conducted at higher impact speeds 
than used in the calibration testing of the Hybrid 
HI. Ford said it agreed with GM that the indicated 
insensitivity of chest acceleration to speed and load 
is a reflection of the constant-force nature of the 
steering column's energy absorption features. After 
reviewing the information provided by Ford and 
GM, NHTSA agrees that in an impact with a typical 
steering column, once the energy-absorbing 
mechanism begins to function, the test dummy's 
chest will receive primarily constant force. The 
lower stiffness of the Hybrid HI chests would make 
it respond in a more human-like manner to these 
forces than the existing Part 572 test dummy. 

Chest Accelerometer Placement 

Volvo pointed out that the chest accelerometer of 
the Hybrid III is located approximately at the center 
of gravity of the chest, while the accelerometer is 
higher and closer to the back in the Part 572 test 
dummy. Volvo said that since the biomechanical 
tolerance limits for the chest were established us- 
ing a location similar to that in the Part 572, it 



PART 572-PRE 47 



questioned whether the acceleration limits should 
apply to the Hybrid III. Volvo recommended chang- 
ing the location of the accelerometer in the Hybrid 
HI or using different chest acceleration criteria for 
the Hybrid III. 

The agency recognizes that Hybrid HI ac- 
celerometer placement should more correctly reflect 
the overall response of the chest because it is placed 
at the center of gravity of the chest. However, the 
dimensional differences between the accelerometer 
placements in the two test dummies are so small that 
in restrained crash tests the differences in accelera- 
tion response, if any, should be minimal. 

Repeatability and Reproducibility 

As discussed previously, test dummy repeatabil- 
ity refers to the ability of one test dummy to 
measure consistently the same responses when sub- 
jected to the same test. Reproducibility refers to the 
ability of two or more test dummies built to the same 
specifications to measure consistently the same 
responses when they are subjected to the same test. 

Ford said that it is particularly concerned about 
the repeatability of the chest acceleration and deflec- 
tion measurements of the Hybrid III and about the 
reproducibility of the Hybrid III in testing by dif- 
ferent laboratories. Ford said that once a test dum- 
my positioning procedure has been established, the 
agency should conduct a series of 16 car crash tests 
to verify the repeatability and reproducibility of the 
Hybrid HI. 

In its comments, GM provided data showing that 
the repeatability of the Hybrid III is the same as the 
existing Part 572 test dummy. Volvo, the only other 
commenter that addressed repeatability, also said 
that its preliminary tests show that the Hybrid III 
has a repeatability comparable to the Part 572. The 
agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center has also 
evaluated the repeatability of the Hybrid HI and the 
Part 572 in a series of sled tests. The data from those 
tests show that the repeatabOity of the two test dum- 
mies is comparable. ("State-of-the-Art Dummy 
Selection, Volume I" DOT Publication No. HS 806 
722.) 

GM also provided data showing that the 
reproducibility of the Hybrid HI is significantly bet- 
ter than the Part 572. In its supplemental comments 
filed on September 16, 1985, GM also said that 
Ford's proposed 16 car test program was not 
needed. GM said that "in such test the effects of 
vehicle build variability and test procedure variabil- 
ity would totally mask any effect of Hybrid III 
repeatability and reproducibility." 



The agency agrees with GM that additional testing 
is unnecessary. The information Provided by GM 
and Volvo shows that the repeatabOity of the Hybrid 
III is at least as good as the repeatability of the ex- 
isting Part 572 test dummy. Likewise, the GM data 
show that the reproducibility of the Hybrid III is bet- 
ter than that of the existing Part 572 test dummy. 
Likewise, the recent NHTSA-GM calibration test 
series provides further confirmation that tests by 
different laboratories show the repeatability and 
reproducibility of the Hybrid III. 

Equivalence of Hybrid III and Part 572 
As noted in the April 1985 notice, the Hybrid III 
and the Part 572 test dummies do not generate iden- 
tical impact responses. Based on the available data, 
the agency concluded that when both test dummies 
are tested in lap/shoulder belts or with air cushions, 
the differences between the two test dummies are 
minimal. The agency also said that it knew of no 
method for directly relating the response of the 
Hybrid HI to the Part 572 test dummy. 

The purpose of comparing the response of the two 
test dummies is to ensure that the Hybrid III will 
meet the need for safety by adequately identifying 
vehicle designs which could cause or increase occu- 
pant injury. The agency wants to ensure that per- 
mitting a choice of test dummy will not lead to a 
degradation in safety performance. 

As mentioned previously, one major improvement 
in the Hybrid HI is that it is more human-like in its 
responses than the current Part 572 test dummy. 
The primary changes to the Hybrid HI, that make 
it more human-like are to the neck, chest and knee. 
Comparisons of the responses of the Part 572 and 
Hybrid III test dummies show that responses of the 
Hybrid III are closer than the Part 572 to the best 
available data on human responses. (See Chapter II 
of the Final Regulatory Evaluation on the Hybrid 
HI.) 

In addition to being more human-like, the Hybrid 
III has increased measurement capabilities for the 
neck (tension, compression, and shear forces and 
bending moments), chest (deflection), knee (knee 
shear), and lower leg (knee and tibia forces and 
moments). The availability of the extra injury 
measuring capability of the Hybrid III gives vehicle 
manufacturers the potential for gathering far more 
information about the performance of their vehicle 
designs than they can obtain with the Part 572. 

To evaluate differences in the injury mea- 
surements made by the Hybrid HI and the existing 
Part 572 test dummy, the agency has reviewed all 
of the available data comparing the two test 
dummies. The data come from a variety of sled 



PART 572-PRE 48 



barrier crash tests conducted by GM, Mercedes- 
Benz, NHTSA, Nissan, and Volvo. The data include 
tests where the dummies were unrestrained and 
tests where the dimimies were restrained by manual 
lap/shoulder belts, automatic belts, and air bags. For 
example, subsequent to issuance of the April 1985 
notice, NHTSA did additional vehicle testing to com- 
pare the Part 572 and Hybrid HI test dummies. The 
agency conducted a series of crash tests using five 
different types of vehicles to measure differences 
in the responses of the test dummies. Some of the 
tests were frontal 30 mile per hour barrier impacts, 
such as are used in Standard No. 208 compliance 
testing, while others were car-to-car tests. All of the 
tests were done with unrestrained test dummies to 
measure their impact responses under severe con- 
ditions. The agency's analysis of the data for all of 
the testing done by NHTSA and others is fully 
described in the Final Regulatory Evaluation for this 
rulemaking. This notice will briefly review that 
analysis. 

One of the reasons for conducting the analysis was 
to address the concern raised by the Center for Auto 
Safety (CAS) in its original petition and the In- 
surance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in its 
comments that the Hybrid HI produces lower HIC 
responses than the existing Part 572 test dummy. 
As discussed in detail below, the test data do not 
show a trend for one type of test dummy to con- 
sistently measure higher or lower HIC's or femur 
readings than the other. Based on these test data, 
the agency concludes that the concern expressed by 
CAS and IIHS that the use of the Hybrid HI test 
dummy will give a manufacturer an advantage in 
meeting the HIC performance requirement of 
Standard No. 208 is not valid. 

In the case of chest acceleration measurements, 
the data again do not show consistently higher or 
lower measurements for either test dummy, except 
in the case of unrestrained tests. In unrestrained 
tests, the data show that the Hybrid HI generally 
measures lower chest g's than the existing Part 572 
test dummy. This difference in chest g's measure- 
ment is one reason why the agency is adopting the 
additional chest deflection measurement for the 
Hybrid III, as discussed further below. 

HIC Measurements 

The April 1985 notice specifically invited com- 
ments on the equivalence of the Head Injury 
Criterion (HIC) measurements of the two test dum- 
mies. Limited laboratory testing done in a Univer- 
sity of California at San Diego study conducted by 
Dr. Dennis Schneider and others had indicated that 



the Hybrid III test dummy generates lower accelera- 
tion responses than either the Part 572 test dummy 
or cadaver heads in impacts with padded surfaces. 
The notice explained that the reasons for those dif- 
ferences had not yet been resolved. 

In its comments, GM explained that it had con- 
ducted a series of studies to address the Schneider 
results. GM said that those studies showed that the 
Schneider test results are "complicated by the 
changing characteristics of the padding material 
used on his impact surface. As a result, his tests do 
not substantiate impactor response difference be- 
tween the Hybrid HI head, the Part 572 head and 
cadaver heads. After examining our reports. Dr. 
Schneider agreed with the finding that padding 
degradation resulting from multiple impact ex- 
posures rendered an input-response comparison in- 
valid between the cadaver and the dummies." (The 
GM and Schneider letters are filed in Docket 74-14, 
General Reference, Entry 556.) 

The agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center has 
also conducted head drop tests of the current Part 
572 and Hybrid III heads. The tests were conducted 
by dropping the heads onto a two inch thick steel 
plate, a surface which is considerably more rigid than 
any surface that the test dummy's head would hit in 
a vehicle crash test. One purpose of the tests was to 
assess the performance of the heads in an impact 
which can produce skull fractures in cadavers. The 
tests found that the response of the Hybrid HI head 
was more human-like at the fracture and subfracture 
acceleration levels than the Part 572 head. The 
testing did show that in these severe impacts into 
thick steel plates, the HIC scores for the Hybrid III 
were lower than for the Part 572. However, as 
discussed below, when the Hybrid III is tested in vehi- 
cle crash and sled tests, which are representative of 
occupant impacts into actual vehicle structures, the 
HIC scores for the Hybrid III are not consistently 
lower than those of the Part 572 test dimimy. 

The agency examined crash and sled tests, done 
by GM, Mercedes-Benz, NHTSA and Volvo, in which 
both a Hybrid III and the existing Part 572 test dum- 
my were restrained by manual lap/shoulder belts. 
(The complete results from those and all the other 
tests reviewed by the agency are discussed in 
Chapter HI of the Final Regulatory Evaluation on 
the Hybrid HI.) The HIC responses in those tests 
show that the Hybrid HI generally had higher HIC 
responses than the Part 572 test dummy. Although 
the data show that the Hybrid Ill's HIC responses 
are generally higher, in some cases 50 percent 
higher than the Part 572, there are some tests in 
which the Hybrid Ill's responses were 50 percent 
lower than the responses of the Part 572. 



PART 572-PRE 49 



For two-point automatic belts, the agency has 
limited barrier crash test data and the direct com- 
parability of the data is questionable. The tests using 
the existing Part 572 test dimimy were done in 1976 
on 1976 VW Rabbits for compliance purposes. The 
Hybrid III tests were done in 1985 by the agency's 
Vehicle Research and Test Center as part of the 
SRL-98 test series on a 1982 and a 1984 VW Rabbit. 
Differences in the seats, safety belts, and a number 
of other vehicle parameters between these model 
years and between the test set-ups could affect the 
results. In the two-point automatic belt tests, the 
data show that the Hybrid III measured somewhat 
higher head accelerations than the existing Part 572 
test dummy. In two-point automatic belts, the dif- 
ferences appear to be minimal for the driver and 
substantially larger for the passenger. In air bag sled 
tests, the Hybrid Ill's HIC responses were generally 
lower; in almost all the air bag tests, the HIC 
responses of both the Hybrid III and the Part 572 
test dummies were substantially below the HIC limit 
of 1,000 set in Standard No. 208. Because of the 
severe nature of the unrestrained sled and barrier 
tests, in which the uncontrolled movement of the 
test dummy can result in impacts with different 
vehicle structures, there was no consistent trend for 
either test dummy to measure higher or lower HIC 
responses than the other. 

Chest Measurements 

For manual lap/shoulder belts, NHTSA compared 
the results from CM, Mercedes-Benz, NHTSA, and 
Volvo sled tests, and GM frontal barrier tests. The 
NHTSA sled test results at 30 and the Volvo sled 
test results at 31 mph are very consistent, with the 
mean Hybrid III chest acceleration response being 
only 2-3 g's higher than the response of the existing 
Part 572 test dummy. In the 35 mph Volvo sled 
tests, the Hybrid III chest acceleration response was 
up to 44 percent higher than the existing Part 572 
response. The GM 30 mph sled and barrier test data 
were fairly evenly divided. In general, the Hybrid 
III chest acceleration response is slightly higher than 
that of the existing Part 572 test dummy. The 
agency concludes from these data that at Standard 
No. 208's compliance test speed (30 mph) with 
manual lap/shoulder belts there are no large dif- 
ferences in chest acceleration responses between the 
two dummies. In some vehicles, the Hybrid III may 
produce slightly higher responses and in other 
vehicles it may produce slightly lower responses. 

As discussed earlier, the agency has limited test 
data on automatic belt tests and their comparability 
is questionable. The Hybrid III chest acceleration 



responses are up to 1.5 times higher than those for 
the existing Part 572 test dummy. Only very limited 
sled test data are available on air bags alone, air bag 
plus lap belt, and air bag plus lap/shoulder belt. In 
all cases, the Hybrid III chest acceleration responses 
were lower than those for the existing Part 572 test 
dummy. 

For unrestrained occupants, the Hybrid III pro- 
duces predominantly lower chest acceleration 
responses than the existing Part 572 test dummy 
in sled and barrier tests, and in some cases the dif- 
ference is significant. In some tests, the Hybrid III 
chest acceleration response can be 40 to 45 percent 
lower than the Part 572 response, although in other 
tests the acceleration measured by the Hybrid III 
can exceed that measured by the Part 572 test 
dummy by 10 to 15 percent. 

In summary, the test data indicate the chest ac- 
celeration responses between the Hybrid III and the 
existing Part 572 test dtunmy are about the same 
for restrained occupants, but differ for some cases 
of unrestrained occupants. This is to be expected 
since a restraint system would tend to make the two 
dummies react similarly even though they have dif- 
ferent seating postures. The different seating 
postures, however, would allow unrestrained 
dummies to impact different vehicle surfaces which 
would in most instances produce different responses. 
Since the Hybrid HI dummy is more human-like, it 
should experience loading conditions that are more 
human-like than would the existing Part 572 test 
dummy. One reason that the agency is adding a 
chest deflection criterion for the Hybrid HI is that 
the unrestrained dummy's chest may experience 
more severe impacts with vehicle structures than 
would be experienced in an automatic belt or air bag 
collision. Chest deflection provides an additional 
measurement of potential injury that may not be 
detected by the chest acceleration measurement. 

Femur Measurements 

The test data on the femur responses of the two 
types of test dummies also do not show a trend for 
one test dummy to measure consistently higher or 
lower responses than the other. In lap/shoulder belt 
tests, GM's sled and barrier tests from 1977 show 
a trend toward lower measurements for the Hybrid 
III, but GM's more recent tests in 1982-83 show the 
reverse situation. These tests, however, are of little 
significance unless there is femur loading due to knee 
contact. These seldom occur to lap/shoulder belt 
restrained test dummies. Also, in none of the tests 
described above do the measurements approach 
Standard No. 208's limit of 2250 pounds for femur 



PART 572-PRE 50 



loads. The air bag test data are limited; however, 
they show little difference between the femur 
responses of the two test dummies. As would be ex- 
pected, the unrestrained tests showed no systematic 
differences, because of the variability in the impact 
locations of an unrestrained test dummy. 

Injury Criteria 

Many manufacturers raised objections to the ad- 
ditional injury criteria proposed in the April 1985 
notice. AMC, Ford, and MVMA argued that adopt- 
ing the numerous injury criteria proposed in the 
April 1985 notice would compound a manufacturer's 
compliance test problems. For example. Ford said 
it "would be impracticable to require vehicles to 
meet such a multitude of criteria in a test with such 
a high level of demonstrated variability. Notice 39 
appears to propose 21 added pass-fail measurements 
per dummy, for a total of 25 pass-fail measurements 
per dummy, or 50 pass-fail measurements per test. 
Assuming these measurements were all independent 
of one another, and a car design had a 95% chance 
of obtaining a passing score on each measurement, 
the chance of obtaining a passing score on all 
measurements in any single test for a single dummy 
would be less than 28% and for both dummies would 
be less than 8%." Ford, Nissan, VW and Volvo also 
said that with the need for additional measurements, 
there will be an increase in the number of tests with 
incomplete data. BMW, while supporting the use of 
the Hybrid III as a potential improvement to safety, 
said that the number of measurements needed for 
the additional injury criteria is beyond the capability 
of its present data processing equipment. 

VW said there is a need to do additional vehicle 
testing before adopting any new criteria. It said that 
if current production vehicles already meet the 
additional criteria then the criteria only increase 
testing variability without increasing safety. If cur- 
rent vehicles cannot comply, then additional infor- 
mation is needed about the countermeasures needed 
to meet the criteria. Honda said there are insuffi- 
cient data to determine the relationship between ac- 
tual injury levels and the proposed injury criterion. 

As discussed in detail below, the agency has 
decided to adopt only one additional injury criterion, 
chest deflection, at this time. The agency plans to 
issue another notice on the remaining criteria pro- 
posed in the April 1985 notice to gather additional 
information on the issues raised by the commenters. 

Alternative HIC Calculations 

The April 1985 notice set forth two proposed alter- 
native methods of using the head injury criterion 



(HIC) in situations when there is no contact between 
the test dummy's head and the vehicle's interior 
during a crash. The first proposed alternative was 
to retain the current HIC formula, but limit its 
calculation to periods of head contact only. However, 
in non-contact situations, the agency proposed that 
an HIC would not be calculated, but instead new 
neck injury criteria would be calculated. The agency 
explained that a crucial element necessary for 
deciding whether to use the HIC calculation or the 
neck criteria was an objective technique for deter- 
mining the occurrence and duration of head contact 
in the crash test. As discussed in detail in the April 
1985 notice, there are several methods available for 
establishing the duration of head contact, but there 
are questions about their levels of consistency and 
accuracy. 

The second alternative proposed by the agency 
would have calculated an HIC in both contact and 
non-contact situations, but it would limit the calcula- 
tion to a time interval of 36 milliseconds. Along with 
the requirement that an HIC not exceed 1,000, this 
would limit average head acceleration to 60 g's or 
less for any durations exceeding 86 milliseconds. 

Almost all of the commenters opposed the use of 
the first proposed alternative. The commenters 
uniformly noted that there is no current technique 
that can accurately identify whether head contact 
has or has not occured during a crash test in all situa- 
tions. However, the Center for Auto Safety urged 
the agency to adopt the proposed neck criteria, 
regardless of whether the HIC calculation is 
modified. 

There was a sharp division among the commenters 
regarding the use of the second alternative; although 
many manufacturers argued that the HIC calculation 
should be limited to a time interval of approximately 
15 to 17 milliseconds (ms), which would limit average 
long duration (i.e., greater than 15-17 mOliseconds) 
head accelerations to 80-85 g's. Mercedes-Benz, 
which supported the second alternative, urged the 
agency to measure HIC only during the time inter- 
val that the acceleration level in the head exceeds 60 
g's. It said that this method would more effectively 
differentiate results received in contacts with hard 
surfaces and results obtained from systems, such as 
airbags, which provide good distribution of the loads 
experienced during a crash. The Center for Auto 
Safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
and State Farm argued that the current HIC calcula- 
tion should be retained; they said that the proposed 
alternative would lower HIC calculations without en- 
suring that motorists were still receiving adequate 
head protection. 



PART 572-PRE 51 



NHTSA is in the process of reexamining the 
potential effects of the two alternatives proposed by 
the agency and of the two additional alternatives 
suggested by the commenters. Once that review has 
been completed, the agency will issue a separate 
notice announcing its decision. 

Thorax 

At present, Standard No. 208 uses an acceleration- 
based criterion to measure potential injuries to the 
chest. The agency believes that the use of a chest 
deflection criterion is an important supplement to 
the existing chest injury criterion. Excessive chest 
deflection can produce rib fractures, which can 
impair breathing and inflict damage to the internal 
organs in the chest. The proposed deflection limit 
would only apply to the Hybrid III test dummy, since 
unlike the existing Part 572 test dummy, it has a 
chest which is designed to deflect like a human chest 
and has the capability to measure deflection of the 
sternum relative to the spine, as well as accelera- 
tion, during an impact. 

The agency proposed a three-inch chest deflection 
limit for systems, such as air bags, which sym- 
metrically load the chest during a crash and a two- 
inch limit for all other systems. The reason for the 
different proposed limits is that a restraint system 
that symmetrically and uniformly applies loads to 
the chest increases the ability to withstand chest 
deflection ■ as measured by the deflection sensor, 
which is centrally located in the dummy. 

The commenters generally supported adoption of 
a chest deflection injury criterion. For example. 
Ford said it supported the use of a chest deflection 
criterion since it may provide a better means of 
assessing the risk of rib fractures. Likewise, the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said the 
chest deflection criteria, "will aid in evaluating injury 
potential especially in situations where there is chest 
contact with the steering wheel or other interior 
components." IIHS also supported adoption of a 
three-inch deflection limit for inflatable systems and 
a two-inch limit for all other systems. However, most 
of the other commenters addressing the proposed 
chest deflection criteria questioned the use of dif- 
ferent criteria for different restraint systems. 

GM supported limiting chest deflections to three- 
inches in all systems. GM said that it uses a two-inch 
limit as a guideline for its safety belt system testing, 
but it had no data to indicate that the two-inch limit 
is appropriate as a compliance limit. 

Renault/Peugeot also questioned the three-inch 
deflection limit for systems that load the dummy 
symmetrically and two inches for systems that do 



not. It said that the difference between those 
systems should be addressed by relocation of the 
deflection sensors. It also asked the agency to define 
what constitutes a symmetrical system. VW also 
questioned the appropriateness of setting separate 
limits for chest compression for different types of 
restraint systems. It recommended adoption of a 
three-inch limit for al 1 types of restraint systems. 

Volvo also raised questions about the ap- 
propriateness of the proposed deflection criteria. 
Volvo said that the GM-developed criteria proposed 
in the April 1985 notice were based on a comparison 
of accident data gathered by Volvo and evaluated 
by GM in sled test simulations using the Hybrid III 
test dummy. Volvo said that the report did not 
analyze "whether the chest injuries were related to 
the chest acceleration or the chest deflection, or a 
combination of both." 

The agency recognizes that there are several dif- 
ferent types of potential chest injury mechanisms 
and that it may not be possible to precisely isolate 
and measure what is the relevant contribution of 
each type of mechanism to the final resulting injury. 
However, there is a substantial amount of data in- 
dicating that chest deflection is an important con- 
tributing factor to chest injury. In addition, the data 
clearly demonstrate that deflection of greater than 
three inches can lead to serious injury. For example, 
research done by Neathery and others has examined 
the effects of frontal impacts to cadaver chests with 
an impactor that represents the approximate dimen- 
sions of a steering wheel hub. Neathery correlated 
the measured injuries with the amount of chest 
deflection and recommended that for a 50th percen- 
tile male, chest deflection not exceed three inches. 
(Neathery, R. F., "Analysis of Chest Impact 
Response Data and Scaled Performance Recommen- 
dations," SAE Paper No. 741188) 

Work by Walfisch and others looked at crash tests 
of lap/shoulder belt restrained cadavers. They found 
that substantial injury began to occur when the 
sternum deflection exceeded 30 percent of the 
available chest depth ("Tolerance Limits and 
Mechanical Characteristic of the Human Thorax in 
Frontal and Side Impact and Transposition of these 
Characteristics into Protective Criteria," 1982 
IRCOBI Conference Proceedings). With the chest 
of the average man being approximately 9.3 inches 
deep, the 30 percent limit would translate into a 
deflection limit of approximately 2.8 inches. Since 
the chest of the Hybrid III test dummy deflects 
somewhat less than a human chest under similar 
loading conditions, the chest deflection limit for 
systems which do not symmetrically and uniformly 



PART 572-PRE 52 



load the chest, such as lap/shoulder belts, must be 
set at a level below 2.8 inches to assure an adequate 
level of protection. 

To determine the appropriate level for non- 
symmetrical systems, the agency first reviewed a 
number of test series in which cadaver injury levels 
were measured under different impact conditions. 
(All of the test results are fully discussed in Chapter 
III of the Final Regulatory Evaluation on the Hybrid 
III.) The impact conditions included 30 mph sled 
tests done for the agency by Wayne State Univer- 
sity in which a pre-inflated, non-vented air bag 
system symmetrically and uniformly spread the im- 
pact load on the chest of the test subject. NHTSA 
also reviewed 30 mph sled tests done for the agency 
by the University of Heidelberg which used a 
lap/shoulder belt system, which does not sym- 
metrically and uniformly spread chest loads. In 
addition, the agency reviewed 10 and 15 mph pen- 
dulum impact tests done for GM to evaluate the 
effects of concentrated loadings, such as might oc- 
cur in passive interior impacts. The agency then 
compared the chest deflection results for Hybrid III 
test dummies subjected to the same impact condi- 
tions. By comparing the cadaver and Hybrid III 
responses under identical impact conditions, the 
agency was able to relate the deflection 
measurements made by the Hybrid III to a level of 
injury received by a cadaver. 

The test results show that when using a relatively 
stiff air bag, which was pre-inflated and non- vented, 
the average injury level measured on the cadavers 
corresponded to an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 
of 1.5. (The AIS scale is used by researchers to 
classify injuries an AIS of one is a minor injury, while 
an AIS of three represents a serious injury.) In tests 
with the Hybrid III under the same impact condi- 
tions, the measured deflection was 2.7 inches. These 
results demonstrate that a system that symmetri- 
cally and uniformly distributes impact loads over the 
chest can produce approximately threeinches of 
deflection and still adequately protect an occupant 
from serious injury. 

The testing in which the impact loads were not 
uniformly or symmetrically spread on the chest or 
were highly concentrated over a relatively small area 
indicated that chest deflection measured on the 
Hybrid III must be limited to 2-inches to assure 
those systems provide a level of protection compar- 
able to that provided by systems that symmetrically 
spread the load. In the lap/shoulder belt tests, the 
average AIS was 2.6. The measured deflection for 
the Hybrid III chest in the same type of impact test 
was 1.6 inches. Likewise, the results from the 



pendulum impact tests showed that as the chest 
deflection measured on the Hybrid III increased, the 
severity of the injuries increased. In the 10 mph pen- 
dulum impacts, the average AIS was 1.3 and the 
average .deflection was 1.3 inches. In the 15 mph 
pendulum impacts the average AIS rose to 2.8. 
Under the same impact conditions, the chest deflec- 
tion measured on the Hybrid HI was 2.63 inches. 

Based on these test results NHTSA has decided 
to retain the two-inch limit on chest deflection for 
systems that do not symmetrically and uniformly 
distribute impact loads over a wide area of the chest. 
Such systems include automatic safety belts, passive 
interiors and air bag systems which use a lap and 
shoulder belt. For systems, such as air bag only 
systems or air bag combined with a lap belt, which 
symmetrically and uniformly distribute chest forces 
over a large area of the chest, the agency is adopt- 
ing the proposed three-inch deflection limit. This 
should assure that both symmetrical and non- 
symmetrical systems provide the same level of pro- 
tection in an equivalent frontal crash. 

In addition to the biomechanical basis for the chest 
deflection limits adopted in this notice, there is 
another reason for adopting a two-inch deflection 
limit for systems that can provide concentrated 
loadings over a hmited area of the test dummy. The 
Hybrid III measures chest deflection by a deflection 
sensor located near the third rib of the test dummy. 
Tests conducted on the Hybrid III by NHTSA's 
Vehicle Research and Test Center have shown that 
the deflection sensor underestimates chest displace- 
ment when a load is applied to a small area away 
from the deflection sensor. (The test report is filed 
in Docket No. 74-14, General Reference, Entry 606.) 

In a crash, when an occupant is not restrained by 
a system which provides centralized, uniform 
loading to a large area, such as an air bag system, 
the thorax deflection sensor can underestimate the 
actual chest compression. Thus, in a belt-restrained 
test dummy, the deflection sensor may read two- 
inches of deflection, but the actual deflection caused 
by the off-center loading of a belt near the bottom 
of the ribcage may be greater than two inches of 
deflection. Likewise, test dummies in passive in- 
terior cars may receive substantial off-center and 
concentrated loadings. For example, the agency has 
conducted sled tests simulating 30 mile per hour 
frontal barrier impacts in which unrestrained test 
dummies struck the steering column, as they would 
do in a passive interior equipped car. Measurements 
of the pre- and post-impact dimensions of the steer- 
ing wheel rim showed that there was substantial 
non-symmetrical steering wheel deformation, even 
though these were frontal impacts. (See, e.g., 



PART 572-PRE 53 



"Frontal Occupant Sled Simulation Correlation, 
1983 Chevrolet Celebrity Sled Buck," Publication 
No. DOT HS 806 728, February 1985.) The expected 
off-center chest loadings in belt and passive interior 
systems provide a further basis for applying a two- 
inch deflection limit for those systems to assure they 
provide protection comparable to that provided by 
symmetrical systems. 

Use of Acceleration Limits for Air Bag Systems 

Two commenters raised questions about the use 
of an acceleration-based criterion for vehicles which 
use a combined air bag and lap/shoulder belt system. 
Mercedes-Benz said that acceleration-based criteria 
are not appropriate for systems that reduce the 
deflection of the ribs but increase chest acceleration 
values. Ford also questioned the use of acceleration- 
based criteria. Ford said that its tests and testing 
done by Mercedes-Benz have shown that using an 
air bag in combination with a lap/shoulder belt can 
result in increased chest acceleration readings. Ford 
said it knew of no data to indicate that combined air 
bag-lap/shoulder belt system loads are more in- 
jurious than shoulder belt loads alone. Ford recom- 
mended that manufacturers have the option of using 
either the chest acceleration or chest deflection 
criterion until use of the Hybrid III is mandatory. 

As discussed previously, acceleration and deflec- 
tion represent two separate types of injury 
mechanisms. Therefore, the agency believes that it 
is important to test for both criteria. Although the 
tests by Mercedes-Benz and Ford show higher chest 
accelerations, the tests also show that it is possible 
to develop air bag and lap/shoulder belt systems and 
meet both criteria. Therefore, the agency is retain- 
ing the use of the acceleration-based criterion. 

Use of Additional Sensors 

Mercedes-Benz said the deflection measuring in- 
strumentation of the Hybrid HI cannot adequately 
measure the interaction between the chest and a 
variety of vehicle components. Mercedes-Benz said 
that it is necessary to use either additional deflec- 
tion sensors or strain gauges. Renault/Peugeot 
recommended that the agency account for the dif- 
ference between symmetrical systems and asym- 
metrical systems by relocating the deflection sensor. 

The agency recognizes that the use of additional 
sensors could be beneficial in the Hybrid HI to 
measure chest deflection. However, such technology 
would require considerable further development 
before it could be used for compliance purposes. 
NHTSA believes that, given the current level of 
technology, use of a single sensor is sufficient for 



the assessment of deflection-caused injuries in 
frontal impacts. 

Femurs 

The April 1985 notice proposed to apply the femur 
injury reduction criterion used with the Part 572 test 
dummy to the Hybrid HI. That criterion limits the 
femur loads to 2250 pounds to reduce the possibil- 
ity of femur fractures. No commenter objected to 
the proposed femur limit and it is accordingly 
adopted. 

Ford and Toyota questioned the need to conduct 
three pendulum impacts for the knee. They said that 
using one pendulum impact with the largest mass 
impactor (11 pounds) was sufficient. GM has 
informed the agency that the lower mass pendulum 
impactors were used primarily for the development 
of an appropriate knee design. Now that the knee 
design is settled and controlled by the technical 
drawings, the tests with the low mass impactors are 
not needed. Accordingly, the agency is adopting the 
suggestion from Ford and Toyota to reduce the 
number of knee calibration tests and will require 
only the use of the 11-pound pendulum impactor. 

Hybrid III Positioning Procedure 

The April notice proposed new positioning pro- 
cedures for the Hybrid HI, primarily because the 
curved lumbar spine of that test dummy requires a 
different positioning technique than those for the 
Part 572. Based on its testing experience, NHTSA 
proposed adopting a slightly different version of the 
positioning procedure used by GM. The difference 
was the proposed use of the Hybrid HI, rather than 
the SAE J826 H-point machine, with slightly 
modified leg segments, to determine the H-point of 
the seat. 

GM urged the agency to adopt its dummy position- 
ing procedure. GM said that users can more con- 
sistently position the test dummy's H-point using the 
SAE H-point machine rather than using the Hybrid 
HI. Ford, while explaining that it had insufficient 
experience with the Hybrid HI to develop data on 
positioning procedures, also urged the agency to 
adopt GM's positioning procedure. Ford said that 
since GM has developed its repeatability data on the 
Hybrid HI using its positioning procedure, the 
agency should use it as well. Ford also said that the 
use of GM's method to position the test dummy 
relative to the H-point should reduce variability. 

Based on a new series of dummy positioning tests 
done by the agency's Vehicle Research and Test 
Center (VRTC), NHTSA agrees that use of the SAE 
H-point machine is the most consistent method to 
position the dummy's H-point on the vehicle seat. 



PART 572-PRE 54 



Accordingly, the agency is adopting the use of the 
H-point machine. 

In the new test series, VRTC also evaluated a 
revised method for positioning the Hybrid III test 
dummy. The testing was done after the results of 
a joint NHTSA-SAE test series conducted in 
November 1985 showed that the positioning pro- 
cedure used for the current Part 572 test dummy 
and the one proposed in the April 1985 notice for 
the Hybrid III does not satisfactorily work in all cars. 
(See Docket 74-14, Notice 39, Entry 39.) The posi- 
tioning problems are principally due to the curved 
lumbar spine of the Hybrid III test dummy. In its 
tests, VRTC positioned the Hybrid III by using the 
SAE H-point machine and a specification detailing 
the final position of the Hybrid III body segments 
prior to the crash test. The test results showed that 
the H-point of the test dummy could be consistently 
positioned but that the vertical location of the 
Hybrid III H-point is V4 inch below the SAE H-point 
machine on average. Based on these results, the 
agency is adopting the new positioning specification 
for the Hybrid III which requires the H-point of the 
dummy to be within a specified zone centered y* inch 
below the H-point location of the SAE H-point 
machine. 

GM also urged the agency to make another slight 
change in the test procedures. GM said that when 
it settles the test dummy in the seat it uses a thin 
sheet of plastic behind the dummy to reduce the fric- 
tion between the fabric of the seat back and the 
dummy. The plastic is removed after the diunmy has 
been positioned. GM said this technique allows the 
dummy to be more repeatably positioned. The 
agency agrees that use of the plastic sheet can 
reduce friction between the test dummy and the 
seat. However, the use of the plastic can also create 
problems, such as dislocating the test dummy during 
removal of the plastic. Since the agency has suc- 
cessfully conducted its positioning tests without 
using a sheet of plastic, the agency does not believe 
there is a need to require its use. 

Ford noted that the test procedure calls for testing 
vertically adjustable seats in their lowest position. 
It said such a requirement was reasonable for ver- 
tically adjustable seats that could not be adjusted 
higher than seats that are not vertically adjustable. 
However, Ford said that new power seats can be 
adjusted to positions above and below the manually 
adjustable seat position. It said that testing power 
seats at a different position would increase testing 
variability. Ford recommended adjusting vertically 
adjustable seats so that the dummy's hip point is as 
close as possible to the manufacturer's design 



H-point with the seat at the design mid-point of its 
travel. 

The agency recognizes that the seat adjustment 
issue raised by Ford may lead to test variability. 
However, the agency does not have any data on the 
effect of Ford's suggested solution on the design of 
other manufacturer's power seats. The agency will 
solicit comments on Ford's proposal in the NPRM 
addressing additional Hybrid III injury criteria. 

Volvo said that the lumbar supports of its seats 
influence the positioning of the Hybrid III. It 
requested that the test procedure specify that 
adjustable lumbar supports should be positioned in 
their rearmost position. Ford made a similar re- 
quest. GM, however, indicated that it has not had 
any problems positioning the Hybrid III in seats with 
lumbar supports. To reduce positioning problems 
resisting from the lumbar supports in some vehicles, 
the agency is adopting Ford's and Volvo's sug- 
gestion. 

Test Data Analysis 

The Chairman of the Society of Automotive 
Engineers Safety Test Instrumentation Committee 
noted that the agency proposed to reference an 
earlier version of the SAE Recommended Practice 
on Instrumentation (SAE J211a, 1971). He sug- 
gested that the agency reference the most recent 
version (SAE J211, 1980), saying that better data 
correlation between different testing organizations 
would result. The agency agrees with SAE and is 
adopting the SAE J211, 1980 version of the in- 
strumentation Recommended Practice. 

Ford and GM recommended that the figures 25 
and 26, which proposed a standardized coordinate 
system for major body segments of the test dummy, 
be revised to reflect the latest industry practice on 
coordinate signs. Since those revisions will help 
ensure uniformity in data analysis by different test 
facilities, the agency is making the changes for the 
test measurements adopted in this rulemaking. 

Both GM and Ford also recommended changes in 
the filter used to process electronically measured 
crash data. GM suggested that a class 180 filtei' be 
used for the neck force transducer rather than the 
proposed class 60 filter. Ford recommended the use 
of a class 1,000 filter, which is the filter used for the 
head accelerometer. 

NHTSA has conducted all of the testing used to 
develop the calibration test requirement for the neck 
using a class 60 filter. The agency does not have any 
data showing the effects of using either the class 180 
filter proposed by GM or the class 1,000 filter 
proposed by Ford. Therefore the agency has adopted 



PART 572-PRE 55 



the use of a class 60 filter for the neck transducer 
during the calibration test. The agency also used a 
class 60 filter for the accelerometer mounted on the 
neck pendulum and is therefore adopting the use of 
that filter to ensure uniformity in measuring pen- 
dulum acceleration. 

Optional and Mandatory Use of Hybrid III 

AMC, Chrysler, Ford, Jaguar and Subaru all 
urged the agency to defer a decision on permitting 
the optional use of the Hybrid III test dummy until 
manufacturers have had more experience with using 
that test dummy. AMC said it has essentially no 
experience with the Hybrid HI and urged the agency 
to postpone a decision on allowing the optional use 
of that test dummy. AMC said this would give small 
manufacturers time to gain experience with the 
Hybrid HI. 

Chrysler also said that it has no experience with 
the Hybrid HI test dummy and would need to con- 
duct two years of testing to be able to develop suffi- 
cient information to address the issues raised in the 
notice. Chrysler said that it was currently develop- 
ing its 1991 and 1992 models and has no data from 
Hybrid III test dummies on which to base its design 
decisions. It said that allowing the optional use of 
the Hybrid III before that time would give a com- 
petitive advantage to manufacturers with more 
experience with the test device and suggested in- 
definitely postponing the mandatory effective date. 

Ford said that the effective date proposed for 
optional use of the Hybrid III should be deferred to 
allow time to resolve the problems Ford raised in 
its comments and to allow manufacturers time to 
acquire Hybrid III test dummies. It suggested defer- 
ring the proposed optional use until at least 
September 1, 1989. Ford also recommended that the 
mandatory use be deferred. Jaguar also said it has 
not had experience with the Hybrid III and asked 
that manufacturers have until September 1, 1987, 
to accumulate information on the performance of the 
test dummy. Subaru said that it has exclusively used 
the Part 572 test dummy and does not have any ex- 
perience with the Hybrid III. It asked the agency 
to provide time for all manufacturers to gain ex- 
perience with the Hybrid III, which in its case would 
be two years, before allowing the Hybrid III as an 
alternative. 

A number of manufacturers, such as GM, Honda, 
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and Volvo, that sup- 
ported optional use of the Hybrid III, urged the 
agency not to mandate its use at this time. GM asked 
the agency to permit the immediate optional use of 
the Hybrid III, but urged NHTSA to provide more 



time for all interested parties to become familiar 
with the test dummy before mandating its use. 
Honda said that while it supported optional use, it 
was just beginning to assess the performance of the 
Hybrid III and needed more time before the use of 
the Hybrid III is mandated. Mercedes-Benz also sup- 
ported the use of the Hybrid III as an alternative 
test device because of its capacity to measure more 
types of injuries and because of its improved 
biofidelity for the neck and thorax. However, 
Mercedes recommended against mandatory use until 
issues concerning the Hybrid Ill's use in side impact, 
the biofidelity of its leg, durability and chest deflec- 
tion measurements are resolved. Nissan opposed the 
mandatory us of the Hybrid III saying there is a 
need to further investigate the differences between 
the Hybrid III and the Part 572. Toyota said that 
it was premature to set a mandatory effective date 
until the test procedure and injury criteria questions 
are resolved. Volkswagen supported the adoption of 
the Hybrid III as an alternative test device, but it 
opposed mandating its use. Volvo supported the op- 
tional use of the Hybrid III. It noted that since 
NHTSA is developing an advanced test dummy, 
there might not be a need to require the use of the 
Hybrid III in the interim. 

The agency recognizes that manufacturers are 
concerned about obtaining the Hybrid III test 
dummy and gaining experience with its use prior to 
the proposed September 1, 1991, date for mandatory 
use of that test dummy. However, information pro- 
vided by the manufacturers of the Hybrid III shows 
that it will take no longer than approximately one 
year to supply all manufacturers with sufficient 
quantities of Hybrid Ill's. This means that manufac- 
turers will have, at a minimum, more than four years 
to gain experience in using the Hybrid III. In addi- 
tion, to assist manufacturers in becoming familiar 
with the Hybrid III, NHTSA has been placing in the 
rulemaking docket complete information on the 
agency's research programs using the Hybrid III 
test dummy in crash and calibration tests. Since 
manufacturers will have sufficient time to obtain and 
gain experience with the Hybrid III by September 
1, 1991, the agency has decided to mandate use of 
the Hybrid III as of that date. 

As discussed earlier in this notice, the evidence 
shows that the Hybrid III is more human-like in its 
responses to impacts than the existing Part 572 test 
dummy. In addition, the Hybrid III has the capability 
to measure far more potential injuries than the cur- 
rent test dummy. The agency is taking advantage 
of that capability by adopting a limitation on chest 
deflection which will enable NHTSA to measure a 



PART 572-PRE 56 



significant source of injury that cannot be measured 
on the current test dummy. The combination of the 
better biofidelity and increased injury-measuring 
capabiHty available with the Hybrid III will enhance 
vehicle safety. 

Adoption of the Hybrid HI will not give a com- 
petitive advantage to GM, as claimed by some of the 
commenters, such as Chrysler and Ford. As the 
developer of the Hybrid HI, GM obviously has had 
more experience with that test dummy than other 
manufacturers. However, as discussed above, the 
agency has provided sufficient leadtime to allow all 
manufacturers to develop sufficient experience with 
the Hybrid III test dummy. In addition, as discussed 
in the equivalency section of this notice, there are 
no data to suggest that it will be easier for GM or 
other manufacturers to meet the performance re- 
quirements of Standard No. 208 with the Hybrid HI. 
Thus GM and other manufacturers using Hybrid HI 
during the phase-in period will not have a com- 
petitive advantage over manufacturers using the 
existing Part 572 test dummy. 

Finally, in its comments GM suggested that the 
agency consider providing manufacturers with an 
incentive to use the Hybrid HI test dummy. GM said 
that the agency should consider providing manufac- 
turers with extra vehicle credits during the 
automatic restraint phase-in period for using the 
Hybrid HI. The agency does not believe it is 
necessary to provide any additional incentive to use 
the Hybrid III. The mandatory effective date for use 
of the Hybrid III provides sufficient incentive, since 
manufacturers will want to begin using the Hybrid 
HI as soon as possible to gain experience with the 
test dummy before that date. 

Optional use of the Hybrid HI may begin October 
23, 1986. The agency is setting an effective date of 
less than 180 days to facilitate the efforts of those 
manufacturers wishing to use the Hybrid HI in cer- 
tifying compliance with the automatic restraint 
requirements. 

Use of Non-instrumented Test Dummies 

Ford raised a question about whether the Hybrid 
III may or must be used for the non-crash perfor- 
mance requirements of Standard No. 208, such as 
the comfort and convenience requirements of S7.4.3, 
7.4.4, and 7.4.5 of the standard. Ford said that 
manufacturers should be given the option of using 
either the Part 572 or Hybrid HI test dummy to 
meet the comfort and convenience requirements. 
The agency agrees that until September 1, 1991, 
manufacturers should have the option of using either 
the Part 572 or Hybrid HI test dummy. However, 
since it is important the crash performance 
requirements and comfort and convenience 



requirements be linked together through the use of 
a single test dummy to measure a vehicle's ability 
to meet both sets of requirements. Therefore, begin- 
ning on September 1, 1991, use of the Hybrid HI 
will be mandatory in determining a vehicle's com- 
pliance with any of the requirements of Standard 
No. 208. 

In addition. Ford asked the agency to clarify 
whether manufacturers can continue to use Part 572 
test dummies in the crash tests for Standard Nos. 
212, 219, and 301, which only use non-instrumented 
test dummies to simulate the weight of an occupant. 
Ford said that the small weight difference and the 
small difference in seated posture between the two 
test dummies should have no effect on the results 
of the testing for Standard Nos. 212, 219, and 301. 
The agency agrees that use of either test dummy 
should not affect the test results for those standards. 
Thus, even after the September 1, 1991, effective 
date for use of the Hybrid HI in the crash and non- 
crash testing required by Standard No. 208, 
manufacturers can continue to use, at their option, 
either the Part 572 or the Hybrid HI test dummy 
in tests conducted in accordance with Standard Nos. 
212, 219, and 301. 

Economic and Other Impacts 

NHTSA has examined the impact of this rulemak- 
ing action and determined that it is not major within 
the meaning of Executive Order 12291 or significant 
within the meaning of the Department of Transpor- 
tation's regulatory policies and procedures. The 
agency has also determined that the economic and 
other impacts of this rulemaking action are not 
significant. A final regulatory evaluation describing 
those effects has been placed in the docket. 

In preparing the regulatory evaluation, the agency 
has considered the comments from several manufac- 
turers that the agency had underestimated the costs 
associated with using the Hybrid III. Ford said that 
the cost estimates contained in the April 1985 notice 
did not take into account the need to conduct sled 
tests during development work. Ford said that for 
1985, it estimated it will conduct 500 sled tests re- 
quiring 1000 test dummy applications. Ford also said 
that NHTSA's estimate of the test dummy inven- 
tory needed by a manufacturer is low. It said that 
it currently has an inventory of 31 Part 572 test 
dummies and would expect to need a similar inven- 
tory of Hybrid Hi's. In addition. Ford said that 
NHTSA's incremental cost estimate of $3,000 per 
test dummy was low. It said that the cost for 
monitoring the extra data generated by the Hybrid 
HI is $2,700. Ford said that it also would have to 
incur costs due to upgrading its data acquisition and 
data processing equipment. 



PART 572-PRE 57 



GM said that NHTSA's estimate of a 30-test useful 
life for the test dummy substantially underestimates 
its actual useful life, assuming the test dummy is 
repaired periodically. It said that some of its 
dummies have been used in more than 150 tests. GM 
also said that the agency's assumption that a large 
manufacturer conducts testing requiring ap- 
proximately 600 dummy applications each year 
underestimates the actual number of tests 
conducted. In 1984, GM said it conducted sled and 
barrier tests requiring 1179 dummy applications. 
GM said that the two underestimates, in effect, 
cancel each other out, since the dummies are usable 
for at least five times as many tests, but they are 
used four times as often. 

Mitsubishi said that its incremental cost per 
vehicle is $7 rather than 40 cent as estimated by the 
agency. Mitsubishi explained the reason for this dif- 
ference is that the price of an imported Hybrid III 
is approximately two times the agency estimate and 
its annual production is about one-tenth of the 
amount used in the agency estimate. Volvo also said 
the agency had underestimated the incremental cost 
per vehicle. Volvo said it conducts approximately 
500-600 test dummy applications per year in sled 
and crash testing, making the incremental cost in 
the range of $15-18 per vehicle based on its export 
volume to the United States. 

NHTSA has re-examined the costs associated with 
the Hybrid III test dummy. The basic Hybrid III 
dummy with the instrumentation required by this 
final rule costs $35,000 or approximately $16,000 
more than the existing 572 test dummy. Assuming 
a useful life for the test dummy of 150 tests, the total 
estimated incremental capital cost is approximately 
$107 per dummy test. 

To determine the incremental capital cost per test, 
the agency had to estimate the useful life of the 
Hybrid III. Based on NHTSA's test experience, the 
durability of the existing Part 572 test dummy and 
the Hybrid III test dummy is essentially identical 
with the exception of the Hybrid III ribs. Because 
the Hybrid III dummy chest was developed to 
simulate human chest deflection, the ribs had to be 
designed with much more precision to reflect human 
impact response. This redesign uses less metal and 
consequently they are more susceptible to damage 
during testing than the Part 572 dummy. 

As discussed previously, GM estimates that the 
Hybrid III ribs can be used in severe unrestrained 
testing approximately 17 times before the ribs or the 



damping material needs replacement. In addition, 
GM's experience shows that the Hybrid III can 
withstand as many as 150 test applications as long 
as occasional repairs are made. Ford reported at the 
previously cited MVMA meeting that one of its belt- 
restrained Hybrid III test dummies imderwent 35 
crash tests without any degradation. Clearly, the 
estimated useful life of the test dummy is highly 
dependent on the type of testing, restrained or 
unrestrained, it is used for. Based on its own test 
experience and the experience of Ford and GM cited 
above, the agency has decided to use 30 applications 
as a conservative estimate of the useful life of the 
ribs. Assuming a life of 30 tests before a set of ribs 
must be replaced at a cost of approximately $2,000, 
the incremental per test cost is approximately 
$70. 

The calibration tests for the Hybrid III test 
dummy have been simplified from the original 
specification proposed in the April 1985 notice. The 
Transportation Research Center of Ohio, which does 
calibration testing of the Hybrid III for the agency, 
vehicle manufacturers and others estimates the cost 
of the revised calibration tests is $1528. This is $167 
less than the calibration cost for the existing Part 
572 test dummy. 

Numerous unknown variables will contribute to 
the manufacturers' operating expense, such as the 
cost of new or modified test facilities or equipment 
to maintain the more stringent temperature range 
of 69° F to 72° F for test dummies, and capital 
expenditures for lab calibration equipment, signal 
conditioning equipment, data processing techniques 
and capabilities, and additional personnel. Obviously, 
any incremental cost for a particular manufacturer 
to certify compliance with the automatic restraint 
requirements of Standard No. 208 will also depend 
on the extent and nature of its current test facilities 
and the size of its developmental and new vehicle 
test programs. 

In addition to the costs discussed above, Peugeot 
raised the issue of a manufacturer's costs increas- 
ing because the proposed number of injury 
measurements made on the Hybrid III will increase 
the number of tests that must be repeated because 
of lost data. Since the agency is only adding one 
additional measurement, chest deflection, for the 
Hybrid III the number of tests that will have to 
be repeated due to lost data should not be substan- 
tially greater for the Hybrid III than for the Part 
572. 



PART 572-PRE 58 



Effective Date 

NHTSA has determined that it is in the public in- 
terest to make the optional use of the Hybrid III test 
dummy effective in 90 days. This will allow manufac- 
turers time to order the new test dummy to use in 
their new vehicle development work. Mandatory use 
of the Hybrid HI does not begin until September 1, 
1991. 

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 572, 
Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, and Part 571.208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, of Title 49 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

Part 572-[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 572 is amended 
to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, and 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. A new Subpart E is added to Part 572 to read 
as follows: 

Subpart E -Hybrid HI Test Dummy 

§ 572.30 Incorporated materials 

§ 572.31 General description 

§572.32 Head 

§572.33 Neck 

§ 572.34 Thorax 

§ 572.35 Limbs 

§ 572.36 Test conditions and instrumentation 

§ 572.30 Incorporated Materials 

(a) The drawings and specifications referred to in 
this regulation that are not set forth in fuU are hereby 
incorporated in this part by reference. The Director 
of the Federal Register has approved the materials 
incorporated by reference. For materials subject to 
change, only the specific version approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register and specified in the 
regulation are incorporated. A notice of any change 
will be published in the Federal Register. As a con- 
venience to the reader, the materials incorporated by 
reference are listed in the Finding Aid Table foimd 
at the end of this volume of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. 

(b) The materials incorporated by reference are 
available for examination in the general reference 
section of Docket 74-14, Docket Section, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. 
Copies may be obtained from Rowley-Scher 
Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20005 ((202) 628-6667). The draw- 
ings and specifications are also on file in the 
reference library of the Office of the Federal 
Register, National Archives and Records Ad- 
ministration, Washington, D.C. 



§ 572.31 General description 

(a) The Hybrid HI 50th percentile size dummy 
consists of components and assemblies specified in 
the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy drawing and 
specifications package which consists of the follow- 
ing six items: 

(1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts 
List, dated July 15, 1986, and containing 13 pages, 
and a Parts List Index, dated April 26, 1986, con- 
taining 6 pages, 

(2) A listing of Optional Hybrid HI Dummy 
Transducers, dated April 22, 1986, containing 4 
pages, 

(3) A General Motors Drawing Package identified 
by GM drawing No. 78051-218, revision P and subor- 
dinate drawings, 

(4) Disassembly, Inspection, Assembly and Limbs 
Adjustment Procedures for the Hybrid III dummy, 
dated July 15, 1986, 

(5) Sign Convention for the signal outputs of 
Hybrid II dummy transducers, dated July 15, 1986, 

(6) Exterior Dimensions of the Hybrid III dummy, 
dated July 15, 1986. 

(b) The dummy is made up of the following com- 
ponent assemblies: 

Drawing Number Revision 

78051-61 Head Assembly-Complete- (T) 

78051-90 Neck Assembly-Complete- (A) 

78051-89 Upper Torso Assembly-Complete- (I) 
78051-70 Lower Torso Assembly— Without 

Pelvic Instrumentation Assembly, 

Drawing No. 78051-59 (C) 

86-5001-001 Leg Assembly-Complete (LH)- 
86-5001-002 Leg Assembly-Complete (RH)- 
78051-123 Arm Assembly-Complete (LH)- (D) 

78051-124 Arm Assembly-Complete (RH)- (D) 

(c) Any specifications and requirements set forth 
in this part supercede those contained in General 
Motors Drawing No. 78051-218, revision P. 

(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such 
that throughout the range of motion and also under 
crash-impact conditions, there is no contact between 
metallic elements except for contacts that exist 
under static conditions. 

(e) The weights, inertial properties and centers of 
gravity location of component assemblies shall con- 
form to those listed in drawing 78051-338, revision S. 

(f) The structural properties of the dummy are 
such that the dummy conforms to this part in every 
respect both before and after being used in vehicle 
test specified in Standard No. 208 of this Chapter 
(§ 571.208). 



PART 572-PRE 59 



§572.32 Head 

(a) The head consists of the assembly shown in the 
drawing 78051-61, revision T, and shall conform to 
each of the drawings subtended therein. 

(b) When the head (drawing 78051-61, revision T) 
with neck transducer structural replacement (draw- 
ing 78051-383, revision F) is dropped from a height 
of 14.8 inches in accordance with paragraph (c) of 
this section, the peak resultant accelerations at the 
location of the accelerometers mounted in the head 
in accordance with 572.36(c) shall not be less than 
225g, and not more than 275g. The acceleration/ 
time curve for the test shall be unimodal to the ex- 
tent that oscillations occurring after the main ac- 
celeration pulse are less than ten percent (zero to 
peak) of the main pulse. The lateral acceleration vec- 
tor shall not exceed 15g (zero to peak). 

(c) Test Procedure. (1) Soak the head assembly 
in a test environment at any temperature between 
66° F to 78° F and at a relative humidity from 10% 
to 70% for a period of at least four hours prior to 
its application in a test. 

(2) Clean the head's skin surface and the surface 
of the impact plate with 1,1,1 Trichlorethane or 
equivalent. 

(3) Suspend the head, as shown in Figure 19, so 
that the lowest point on the forehead is 0.5 inches 
below the lowest point on the dummy's nose when 
the midsagittal plane is vertical. 

(4) Drop the head from the specified height by 
means that ensure instant release onto a rigidly sup- 
ported flat horizontal steel plate, which is 2 inches 
thick and 2 feet square. The plate shall have a clean, 
dry surface and any microfinish of not less than 8 
microinches (rms) and not more than 80 microinches 
(rms). 

(5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive tests 
on the same head. 

§572.33 Neck 

(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown in 
drawing 78051-90, revision A and conforms to each 
of the drawings subtended therein. 

(b) When the neck and head assembly (consisting 
of the parts 78051-61, revision T; -84; -90, revision 
A; -96; -98; -303, revision E; -305; -306; -307, revi- 
sion X, which has a neck transducer (drawing 
83-5001-008) installed in conformance with 
572.36(d), is tested in accordance with paragraph (c) 
of this section, it shall have the following 
characteristics: 

(1) Flexion (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure 20, 
shall rotate, between 64 degrees and 78 degrees, 
which shall occur between 57 milliseconds (ms) and 



64 ms from time zero. In first rebound, the rotation 
of plane D shall cross degree between 113 ms and 
128 ms. 

(ii) The moment measured by the neck transducer 
(drawing 83-5001-008) about the occipital condyles, 
referenced in Figure 20, shall be calculated by the 
following formula: Moment Obs-ft) = My -i- 0.02875 
X Fx where My is the moment measured in Ibs-ft by 
the moment sensor of the neck transducer and Fjj 
is the force measure measured in lbs by the x axis 
force sensor of the neck transducer. The moment 
shall have a maximum value between 65 Ibs-ft and 
80 Ibs-ft occurring between 47 ms and 58 ms, and 
the positive moment shall decay for the first time 
to Ib-ft between 97 ms and 107 ms. 

(2) Extension (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure 
21, shall rotate between 81 degrees and 106 degrees, 
which shall occur between 72 and 82 ms from time 
zero. In first rebound, the rotation of plane D shall 
cross degree between 147 and 174 ms. 

(ii) The moment measured by the neck transducer 
(drawing 83-5001-008) about the occipital condyles, 
referenced in Figure 21, shall be calculated by the 
following formula: Moment (Ibs-ft) = My -i- 0.02875 
X Fx where My is the moment measured in Ibs-ft by 
the moment sensor of the neck transducer and Fx 
is the force measure measured in lbs by the x axis 
force sensor of the neck transducer. The moment 
shall have a minimum value between - 39 Ibs-ft and 
- 59 Ibs-ft, which shall occur between 65 ms and 79 
ms., and the negative moment shall decay for the 
first time to Ib-ft between 120 ms and 148 ms. 

(3) Time zero is defined as the time of contact be- 
tween the pendulum striker plate and the aluminum 
honeycomb material. 

(c) Test Procedure. (1) Soak the test material in 
a test environment at any temperature between 69 
degrees F to 72 degrees F and at a relative humidity 
from 10% to 70% for a period of at least four hours 
prior to its application in a test. 

(2) Torque the jamnut (78051-64) on the neck 
cable (78051-301, revision E) to 1.0 Ibs-ft ± .2 Ibs-ft. 

(3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in 
paragraph (b) of this section, on a rigid pendulum 
as shown in Figure 22 so that the head's midsagit- 
tal plane is vertical and coincides with the plane of 
motion of the pendulum's longitudinal axis. 

(4) Release the pendulimi and allow it to fall freely 
from a height such that the tangential velocity at 
the pendulum accelerometer centerline at the in- 
stance of contact with the honeycomb is 23.0 ft/sec 
± 0.4 ft/sec. for flexion testing and 19.9 ft/sec ± 
0.4 ft/sec. for extension testing. The pendulum 
deceleration vs. time pulse for flexion testing shall 



PART 572-PRE 60 



conform to the characteristics shown in Table A and 
the decaying deceleration-time curve shall first cross 
5g between 34 ms and 42 ms. The pendulum 
deceleration vs. time pulse for extension testing shall 
conform to the characteristics shown in Table B and 
the decaying deceleration-time curve shall cross 5g 
between 38 ms and 46 ms. 

Table A 
Flexion Pendulum Deceleration vs. Time Pulse 



Time (ms) 



Flexion 

deceleration 

level (g) 



10 22.50-27.50 

20 17.60-22.60 

30 12.50-18.50 

Any other time above 30 ms 29 maximum 



Table B 
Extension Pendulum Deceleration vs. Time Pulse 



Time (ms) 



Extension 

deceleration 

level (g) 



10 17.20-21.20 

20 14.00-19.00 

30 11.00-16.00 

Any other time above 30 ms 22 maximum 

(5) Allow the neck to flex without impact of the 
head or neck with any object during the test. 

§ 572.34 Thorax 

(a) The thorax consists of the upper torso 
assembly in drawing 78051-89, revision I and shall 
conform to each of the drawings subtended therein. 

(b) When impacted by a test probe conforming to 
S572. 36(a) at 22 fps ± .40 fps in accordance with 
paragraph (c) of this section, the thorax of a com- 
plete dummy assembly (78051-218, revision P) with 
left and right shoes (78051-294 and -295) removed, 
shall resist with the force measured by the test probe 
from time zero of 1162.5 pounds ± 82.5 pounds and 
shall have a stemtun displacement measured relative 
to spine of 2.68 inches ± .18 inches. The internal 
hysteresis in each impact shall be more than 69% 
but less than 85%. The force measured is the pro- 
duct of pendulum mass and deceleration. Time zero 
is defined as the time of first contact between the 
upper thorax and pendulum face. 



(c) Test procedure. (1) Soak the test dummy in 
an environment with a relative humidity from 10% 
to 70% until the temperature of the ribs of the test 
dummy have stabilized at a temperature between 
69° F and 72° F. 

(2) Seat the dummy without back and arm sup- 
ports on a surface as shown in Figure 23. 

(3) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test 
probe so that it is .5 ± .04 in. below the horizontal 
centerline of the No. 3 Rib (reference drawing 
number 79051-64, revision A-M) as shown in Figure 
23. 

(4) Align the test probe specified in S572. 36(a) so 
that at impact its longitudinal centerline coincides 
within .5 degree of a horizontal line in the dummy's 
midsagittal plane. 

(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that 
the longitudinal centerline of the test probe falls 
within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in the dummy 
midsagittal plane at the moment of impact. 

(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it moves 
with no significant lateral, vertical, or rotational 
movement. 

(7) Measure the horizontal deflection of the ster- 
num relative to the thoracic spine along the line 
established by the longitudinal centerline of the 
probe at the moment of impact, using a poten- 
tiometer (ref. drawing 78051-317, revision A) 
mounted inside the sternum as shown in drawing 
78051-89, revision I. 

(8) Measure hysteresis by determining the ratio 
of the area between the loading and unloading por- 
tions of the force deflection curve to the area under 
the loading portion of the curve. 

§572.35 Limbs 

(a) The limbs consist of the following assemblies: 
leg assemblies 86-5001-001 and -002 and arm 
assemblies 78051-123, revision D, and -124, revision 
D, and shall conform to the drawings subtended 
therein. 

(b) When each knee of the leg assemblies is im- 
pacted by the pendulum defined in 8572. 36(b) in ac- 
cordance with paragraph (c) of this section at 6.9 
ft/sec ± .10 ft/sec, the peak knee impact force, 
which is a product of pendulum mass and accelera- 
tion, shall have a minimum value of not less than 996 
pounds and a maximum value of not greater than 
1566 pounds. 

(c) Test Procedure. (1) The test material consists 
of leg assemblies (86-5001-001) left and (-002) right 
with upper leg assemblies (78051-46) left and 



PART 572-PRE 61 



(78051-47) right removed. The load cell simulator 
(78051-319, revision A) is used to secure the knee 
cap assemblies (79051-16, revision B) as shown in 
Figure 24. 

(2) Soak the test material in a test environment 
at any temperature between 66° F to 78° F and at 
a relative humidity from 10% to 70% for a period 
of at least four hours prior to its application in a test. 

(3) Mount the test material with the leg assembly 
secured through the load cell simulator to a rigid sur- 
face as shown in Figure 24. No contact is permitted 
between the foot and any other exterior surfaces. 

(4) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test 
probe so that at contact with the knee it is colinear 
within 2 degrees with the longitudinal centerline of 
the femur load cell simulator. 

(5) Guide the pendulum so that there is no signifi- 
cant lateral, vertical or rotational movement at time 
zero. 

(6) Impact the knee with the test probe so that the 
longitudinal centerline of the test probe at the 
instant of impact falls within .5 degrees of a horizon- 
tal line parallel to the femur load cell simulator at 
time zero. 

(7) Time zero is defined as the time of contact 
between the test probe and the knee. 

§ 572.36 Test conditions and instrumentation 

(a) The test probe used for thoracic impact tests 
is a 6 inch diameter cylinder that weighs 51.5 pounds 
including instrumentation. Its impacting end has a 
flat right angle face that is rigid and has an edge 
radius of 0.5 inches. The test probe has an 
accelerometer mounted on the end opposite from 
impact with its sensitive axis colinear to the 
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder. 

(b) The test probe used for the knee impact tests 
is a 3 inch diameter cylinder that weighs 1 1 pounds 
including instrumentation. Its impacting end has a 
flat right angle face that is rigid and has an edge 
radius of 0.2 inches. The test probe has an ac- 
celerometer mounted on the end opposite from im- 
pact with its sensitive axis colinear to the 
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder. 

(c) Head accelerometers shall have dimensions, 
response characteristics and sensitive mass locations 
specified in drawing 78051-136, revision A or its 
equivalent and be mounted in the head as shown in 
drawing 78051-61, revision T, and in the assembly 
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision D. 

(d) The neck transducer shall have the dimen- 
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis 



locations specified in drawing 83-5001-008 or its 
equivalent and be mounted for testing as shown in 
drawing 79051-63, revision W, and in the assembly 
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision P. 

(e) The chest accelerometers shall have the dimen- 
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive mass 
locations specified in drawing 78051-136, revision 
A or its equivalent and be mounted as shown with 
adaptor assembly 78051-116, revision D, for 
assembly into 78051-218, revision L. 

(f) The chest deflection transducer shall have the 
dimensions and response characteristics specified in 
drawing 78051-342, revision A or equivalent, and be 
mounted in the chest deflection transducer assembly 
87051-317, revision A, for assembly into 78051-218, 
revision L. 

(g) The thorax and knee impactor accelerometers 
shall have the dimensions and characteristics of 
Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent. Each ac- 
celerometer shall be mounted with its sensitive axis 
colinear with the pendulum's longitudinal centerline. 

(h) The femur load cell shall have the dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive axis locations 
specified in drawing 78051-265 or its equivalent and 
be mounted in assemblies 78051-46 and -47 for 
assembly into 78051-218, revision L. 

(i) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing 
devices installed in the dummy and in the test 
apparatus specified by this part are recorded in 
individual data channels that conform to the 
requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J211, 
JUNE 1980, "Instrumentation for Impact Tests," 
with channel classes as follows: 

(1) Head acceleration— Class 1000 

(2) Neck force-Class 60 

(3) Neck pendulum acceleration— Class 60 

(4) Thorax and thorax pendulum 

acceleration— Class 180 

(5) Thorax deflection-Class 180 

(6) Knee pendulum acceleration— Class 600 

(7) Femur force-Class 600 

(j) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity 
conform to the sign convention shown in the docu- 
ment incorporated by § 572.31(a)(5). 

(k) The mountings for sensing devices shall have 
no resonance frequency within range of 3 times the 
frequency range of the applicable channel class. 

(1) Limb joints are set at Ig, barely restraining the 
weight of the limb when it is extended horizontally. 
The force required to move a limb segment shall not 
exceed 2g throughout the range of limb motion. 



PART 572-PRE 62 



(m) Performance tests of the same component, 
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummj^ are 
separated in time by a period of not less than 30 
minutes unless otherwise noted. 

(n) Surfaces of dummy components are not 
painted except as specified in this part or in draw- 
ings subtended by this part. PART 571 [Amended] 

2. The authority citation for Part 571 continues 
to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

3. Section S5 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 
571.208) is amended by revising S5.1 to read as 
follows: 

§571.208 [Amended] 

S5. Occupant crash protection requirements. 

S5.1 Vehicles subject to S5.1 and manufactured 
before September 1, 1991, shall comply with either, 
at the manufacturer's option, 5.1(a) or (b). Vehicles 
subject to S5.1 and manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1991, shall comply with 5.1(b). 

(a) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally for- 
ward at any speed, up to and including 30 mph, into 
a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the 
line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 
30 degrees in either direction from the perpendicular 
to the line of travel of the vehicle under the ap- 
plicable conditions of S8. The test dummy specified 
in S8. 1.8.1 placed at each front outboard designated 
seating position shall meet the injury criteria of 
S6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4. 

(b) Impact a vehicle traveling longitudinally for- 
ward at any speed, up to and including 30 mph, into 
a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the 
line of travel of the vehicle, or at any angle up to 
30 degrees in either direction from the perpendicular 
to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the ap- 
plicable conditions of S8. The test dummy specified 
in S8. 1.8.2 placed at each front outboard designated 
seating position shall meet the injury criteria of 
S6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5. 

3. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 208 is revised to 
read as follows: 

S5.2 Lateral moving barrier crash. 

S5.2.1 Vehicles subject to S5.2 and manufactiu'ed 
before September 1, 1991, shall comply with either, 
at the manufacturer's option, 5.2.1(a) or (b). Vehicles 
subject to S5.2 and manufactured on or after 
September 1, 1991, shall comply with 5.2.1(b). 

(a) Impact a vehicle laterally on either side by a 
barrier moving at 20 mph under the applicable 



conditions of S8. The test dummy specified in 
S8. 1.8.1 placed at the front outboard designated 
seating position adjacent to the impacted side shall 
meet the injury criteria of S6.1.2 and S6.1.3. 

(b) When the vehicle is impacted laterally under 
the applicable conditions of S8, on either side by a 
barrier moving at 20 mph, with a test device 
specified in S8. 1.8.2, which is seated at the front out- 
board designated seating position adjacent to the im- 
pacted side, it shall meet the injury criteria of S6.2.2, 
and S6.2.3. 

4. Section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 is revised to 
read as follows: 

S5.3 Rollover Subject a vehicle to a rollover test 
under the applicable condition of S8 in either lateral 
direction at 30 mph with either, at the manufac- 
turer's option, a test dummy specified in S8. 1.8.1 
or S8. 1.8.2, placed in the front outboard designated 
seating position on the vehicle's lower side as 
mounted on the test platform. The test dummy shall 
meet the injury criteria of either S6.1.1 or S6.2.1. 

5. Section S6 of Standard No. 208 is revised to 
read as follows: 

S6. Injury Criteria 

S6.1 Injury criteria for the Part 572, Subpart B, 
50th percentile Male Dummy. 

S6.1.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be con- 
tained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle 
passenger compartment throughout the test. 

S6.1.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of 
gravity of the head shall be such that the expression: 



1 



/ '^' ] 



2.5 



t2-t, 



shall not exceed 1,000, where a is the resultant 
acceleration expressed as a multiple of g (the ac- 
celeration of gravity), and ti and t2 are any two 
points during the crash. 

56. 1 .3 The resultant acceleration at the center of 
gravity of the upper thorax shall not exceed 60 g's, 
except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not 
more than 3 milliseconds. 

56.1.4 The compressive force transmitted axially 
through each upper leg shall not exceed 2250 
pounds. 

S6.2 Injury criteria for the Part 572, Subpart E, 
Hybrid III Dummy 

S6.2.1 All portions of the test dummy shall be con- 
tained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle 
passenger compartment throughout the test. 



PART 572-PRE 63 



S6.2.2 The resultant acceleration at the center of 
gravity of the head shall be such that the expression: 

2.5 



[-ZT-f - ] 



tz-ti 



shall not exceed 1,000, where a is the resultant 
acceleration expressed as a multiple of g (the 
acceleration of gravity), and ti and t2 are any two 
point during the crash. 

56.2.3 The resultant acceleration calculated from 
the thoracic instrumentation shown in drawing 
78051-218, revision L, incorporated by reference in 
Part 572, Subpart E of this Chapter, shall not exceed 
60g's, except for intervals whose cumulative dura- 
tion is not more than 3 milliseconds. 

56.2.4 Compression deflection of the sternum 
relative to spine, as determined by instrumentation 
shown in drawing 78051-317, revision A, incor- 
porated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E of this 
Chapter, shall not exceed 2 inches for loadings 
applied through any impact surfaces except for those 
systems which are gas inflated and provide 
distributed loading to the torso during a crash. For 
gas-inflated systems which provide distributive 
loading to the torso, the thoracic deflection shall not 
exceed 3 inches. 

56.2.5 The force transmitted axially through each 
upper leg shall not exceed 2250 pounds. 

6. Section S8.1.8 of Standard No. 208 is revised 
to read as follows: 

88.1.8 Anthropomorphic test dummies 

S8.1 8.1 The anthropomorphic test dummies used 
for evaluation of occupant protection systems 
manufactured pursuant to applicable portions of 
paragraphs S4.1.2, 4.1.3, and S4.1.4 shall conform 
to the requirements of Subpart B of Part 572 of this 
Chapter. 

S8. 1.8.2 Anthropomorphic test devices used for 
the evaluation of occupant protection systems 
manufactured pursuant to applicable portions of 
paragraphs S4.1.2, S4.1.3, and S4.1.4 shall conform 
to the requirements of Subpart E of Part 572 of this 
Chapter. 

7. Section S8.1.9 of Standard No. 208 is revised 
to read as follows: 

S8.1.9.1 Each Part 572, Subpart B, test dummy 
specified in S8. 1.8.1 is clothed in formfitting cotton 
stretch garments with short sleeves and midcalf 
length pants. Each foot of the test dummy is equip- 
ped with a size llEE shoe which meets the config- 



uration size, sole, and heel thickness specifications 
of MIL-S-131192 and weighs 1.25 ± 0.2 pounds. 

S8.1.9.2 Each Part 572, Subpart E, test dummy 
specified in S8. 1.8.2 is clothed in formfitting cotton 
stretch garments with short sleeves and midcalf 
length pants specified in drawings 78051-292 and 
-293 incorporated by reference in Part 572, Subpart 
E, of this Chapter, respectively or their equivalents. 
A size llEE shoe specified in drawings 78051-294 
(left) and 78051-295 (right) or their equivalents is 
placed on each foot of the test dummy. 

8. Section S8.1.13 of Standard No. 208 is revised 
to read as follows: 

S8.1.13 Temperature of the test dummy 

58. 1.13.1 The stabilized temperature of the test 
dummy specified by S8. 1.8.1 is at any level between 
66 degrees F and 78 degrees F. 

58.1.13.2 The stabilized temperature of the test 
dummy specified by S8. 1.8.2 is at any level between 
69 degrees F and 72 degrees F. 

9. A new fourth sentence is added to section 
S8.1.3 to read as follows: 

Adjustable lumbar supports are positioned so that 
the lumbar support is in its lowest adjustment 
position. 

10. A new section Sll is added to read as follows: 

Sll. Positioning Procedure for the Part 572 
Subpart E Test Dummy 
Position a test dummy, conforming to Subpart E 
of Part 572 of this Chapter, in each front outboard 
seating position of a vehicle as specified in SI 1.1 
through SI 1.6. Each test dummy is restrained in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of 
S4.1.2.1, 4.1.2.2 or S4.6. 

SI 1.1 Head. The transverse instrumentation 
platform of the head shall be horizontal within Vz 
degree. 

511.2 Arms 

Sll. 2.1 The driver's upper arms shall be adjacent 
to the torso with the centerlines as close to a ver- 
tical plane as possible. 

SI 1.2. 2 The passenger's upper arms shall be in 
contact with the seat back and the sides of torso. 

511.3 Hands 

Sll.3.1 The palms of the driver test dummy shall 
be in contact with the outer part of the steering 
wheel rim at the rim's horizontal centerline. The 
thumbs shall be over the steering wheel rim and 
attached with adhesive tape to provide a breakaway 
force of between 2 to 5 pounds. 



PART 572-PRE 64 



Sll.3.2 The palms of the passenger test dummy 
shall be in contact with outside of thigh. The little 
finger shall be in contact with the seat cushion. 

SI 1.4 Torso 

511.4.1 In vehicles equipped with bench seats, the 
upper torso of the driver and passenger test 
dummies shall rest against the seat back. The mid- 
sagittal plane of the driver dummy shall be vertical 
and parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, 
and pass through the center of the steering wheel 
rim. The midsagittal plane of the passenger dummy 
shall be vertical and parallel to the vehicle's 
longitudinal centerline and the same distance from 
the vehicle's longitudinal centerline as the midsagit- 
tal plane of the driver dummy. 

511.4.2 In vehicles equipped with bucket seats, 
the upper torso of the driver and passenger test 
dummies shall rest against the seat back. The mid- 
sagittal plane of the driver and the passenger 
dummy shall be vertical and shall coincide with the 
longitudinal centerline of the bucket seat. 

511.4.3 Lower torso 

511.4.3.1 H-point. The H-point of the driver and 
passenger test dummies shall coincide within Vz inch 
in the vertical dimension and V2 inch in the horizon- 
tal dimension of a point V4 inch below the position 
of the H-point determined by using the equipment 
and procedures specified in SAE J826 (Apr 80) 
except that the length of the lower leg and thigh 
segments of the H-point machine shall be adjusted 
to 16.3 and 15.8 inches, respectively, instead of the 
50th percentile values specified in Table 1 of SAE 
J826. 

511.4.3.2 Pelvic angle. As determined using the 
pelvic angle gage (GM drawing 78051-532 incor- 
porated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E, of this 
chapter) which is inserted into the H-point gaging 
hole of the dummy, the angle measured from the 
horizontal on the 3 inch flat surface of the gage shall 
be 22V2 degrees plus or minus 2V2 degrees. 

S11.5 Legs. The upper legs of the driver and 
passenger test dummies shall rest against the seat 
cushion to the extent permitted by placement of the 
feet. The initial distance between the outboard knee 
clevis flange surfaces shall be 10.6 inches. To the 
extent practicable, the left leg of the driver dummy 
and both legs of the passenger dummy shall be in 
vertical longitudinal planes. Final adjustment to 
accommodate placement of feet in accordance with 
SI 1.6 for various passenger compartment configura- 
tions is permitted. 



S11.6 Feet 

SI 1.6.1 The right foot of the driver test dummy 
shall rest on the undepressed accelerator with the 
rearmost point of the heel on the floor surface in the 
plane of the pedal. If the foot cannot be placed on 
the accelerator pedal, it shall be positioned 
perpendicular to the tibia and placed as far forward 
as possible in the direction of the centerline of the 
pedal with the rearmost point of the heel resting on 
the floor surface. The heel of the left foot shall be 
placed as far forward as possible and shall rest on 
the floor surface. The left foot shall be positioned 
as flat as possible on the floor surface. The longi- 
tudinal centerline of the left foot shall be placed as 
parallel as possible to the longitudinal centerline of 
the vehicle. 

Sll.6.2 The heels of both feet of the passenger 
test dummy shall be placed as far forward as possi- 
ble and shall rest on the floor surface. Both feet shall 
be positioned as flat as possible on the floor surface. 
The longitudinal centerline of the feet shall be placed 
as parallel as possible to the longitudinal centerline 
of the vehicle. 

SI 1.7 Test dummy positioning for latchplate ac- 
cess. The reach envelopes specified in S7.4.4 are ob- 
tained by positioning a test dummy in the driver's 
seat or passenger's seat in its forwardmost adjust- 
ment position. Attach the lines for the inboard and 
outboard arms to the test dummy as described in 
Figure 3 of this standard. Extend each line 
backward and outboard to generate the compliance 
arcs of the outboard reach envelope of the test dum- 
my's arms. 

SI 1.8 Test dummy positioning for belt contact 
force. To determine compliance with S7.4.3 of this 
standard, position the test dummy in the vehicle in 
accordance with the requirements specified in SI 1.1 
through Sll.6 and under the conditions of S8.1.2 
and S8.1.3. Pull the.belt webbing three inches from 
the test dummy's chest and release until the webb- 
ing is within 1 inch of the test dummy's chest and 
measure the belt contact force. 

SI 1.9 Manual belt adjustment for dynamic 
testing. With the test dummy at its designated 
seating position as specified by the appropriate re- 
quirements of S8.1.2, S8.1.3 and Sll.l through 
Sll.6, place the Tjrpe 2 manual belt around the test 
dummy and fasten the latch. Remove all slack from 
the lap belt. Pull the upper torso webbing out of the 
retractor and allow it to retract; repeat this opera- 
tion four times. Apply a 2 to 4 pound tension load 



PART 572-PRE 65 



to the lap belt. If the belt system is equipped with Issued on July 21, 1986 

a tension-relieving device introduce the maximum 

amount of slack into the upper torso belt that is 

recommended by the manufacturer for normal use 

in the owner's manual for the vehicle. If the belt 

system is not equipped with a tension-relieving Diane K. bteed 

device, allow the excess webbing in the shoulder belt Admmistrator 

to be retracted by the retractive force of the 51 F.R. 26688 

retractor. July 25,1986 



PART 572-PRE 66 



PREAMBLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO PART 572 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies 
[Doclcet No. 74-14; Notice 54] 



ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for 
reconsideration. 



SUMIWIARY: In July 1986, this agency published a 
final rule mandating the use of the Hybrid III test 
dummy in compliance testing under Standard 
No. 208 beginning September 1, 1991. That same 
rule permitted the optional use of the Hybrid III 
test dummy for compliance testing beginning 
October 23, 1986. Eleven organizations filed peti- 
tions for reconsideration of this rule. 

In response to these petitions, the agency is 
making three significant and several other 
changes to the final rule published in July 1986. 
The first of the significant changes is the suspen- 
sion of the September 1, 1991, date for mandatory 
use of the Hybrid III test dummy in compliance 
testing. The mandatory use date is being sus- 
pended because, inadvertently, insufficient time 
was permitted to address the technical questions 
that may arise through the use of this new test 
dummy. 

The second significant change is the amend- 
ment of the thorax deflection requirement to 
increase the permissible deflection of the Hybrid 
III thorax (chest) during compliance testing from 
two to three inches. The thorax deflection limit is 
being increased because it appears that most 2- 
point automatic belt designs used in current vehi- 
cles would not comply with the previously estab- 
lished two inch thorax deflection limit. The avail- 
able accident data do not show an increased risk of 
thorax injuries to occupants of 2-point belt sys- 
tems, as compared with occupants of 3-point belt 
systems or air bags. On the other hand, some 
limited biomechanical data appear to suggest that 
2-point belted occupants may suffer chest injuries 
more frequently than their 3-point belted or air 
bag restrained counterparts. These inconsisten- 
cies between the different data cannot be resolved 
at the present time. The agency intends to take the 
necessary steps to obtain sufficient data in this 
area to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the 
inconsistencies. Given the current uncertainties, 
however, this rule establishes a three inch chest 
deflection limit for the Hybrid III test dummy. 
The available data for 2-point and 3-point belt 



systems and for air bags indicate that this three 
inch limit is practicable and meets the need for 
safety. 

The third significant change is a delay until 
September 1, 1990, in the use of the Hybrid III 
dummy for compliance testing of vehicles that do 
not use any restraint system to provide automatic 
occupant protection. Such restraint systems have 
generally been called "passive interiors." Up to 
this point, the agency has established the same 
chest deflection limit for Hybrid III dummies 
restrained by safety belts and those that are 
unrestrained. However, the agency wants to 
further investigate whether it is appropriate to 
establish separate chest deflection limits for 
unrestrained and safety-belt restrained Hybrid 
III dummies. Additionally, the agency wants to 
determine if the Hybrid III dummy with a three 
inch chest deflection limit is equivalent to the 
older type of test dummy when both are un- 
restrained. The temporary delay in the use of the 
Hybrid III test dummy for certain vehicles will 
provide the agency with sufficient time to de- 
termine whether a chest deflection limit lower 
than three inches should be proposed for un- 
restrained Hybrid III dummies, and, if so, which 
lower limit should be proposed. 

This notice also makes several other changes to 
the July 1986 rule in response to the petitions for 
reconsideration. These are: 

1. This notice adjusts the required calibration 
responses for the dummy's thorax and femur. The 
thorax force response adjustment is necessary to 
reflect the characteristics of the dummy's rib cage 
structure when the ribs are manufactured with 
new rib damping material. The femur force ad- 
justment narrows the acceptable force response 
range during calibration. Both of these adjust- 
ments will result in more consistently repeatable 
dummy impact responses during crash testing. 
NHTSA has made the appropriate adjustments to 
the drawing and specifications package for the 
Hybrid III dummy to reflect these changes. 

2. This notice makes certain clarifying amend- 
ments to Standard No. 208 to perm it the use of the 
Hybrid III test dummy for compliance testing 
with all the requirements of Standard No. 208 and 
to permit the use of both types of test dummies in 



PART 572-PRE 67 



any Standard No. 208 testing conducted before 
the use of the Hybrid III becomes mandatory. 



EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulatory changes made 
in response to the petitions for reconsideration are 
effective on March 17, 1988. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In December 1983, General Motors (GM) peti- 
tioned the agency to amend 49 CFR Part 572, 
Anthropomorphic Test Dumm ies, to include speci- 
fications for the Hybrid III test dummy that GM 
had developed. GM stated in its petition that the 
Hybrid III test dummy provides more meaningful 
information about the occupant protection poten- 
tial of a vehicle than does the test dummy specified 
in Subpart B of Part 572. GM also argued that the 
Hybrid III test dummy's impact responses during 
a crash are more representative of human re- 
sponses. Additionally, GM stated that the Hybrid 
III allows the assessment of more types of potential 
injuries, with 31 total measurements as opposed to 
eight measurements with the Part 572 Subpart B 
test dummy. GM also claimed that the repeat- 
ability and reproducibility of the Hybrid III are as 
good as those of the Subpart B test dummy. In 
support of these claims, GM submitted numerous 
documents to the agency. 

After evaluating the petition and the support- 
ing documents, NHTSA published a proposal on 
April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14602). That notice pro- 
posed to adopt the Hybrid III test dummy as an 
alternative to the Part 572 Subpart B test dummy 
for compliance testing under Standard No. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR §571.208) 
until September 1, 1991. After that date, the 
agency proposed to use only the Hybrid III test 
dummy for compliance testing under Standard 
No. 20J. 

The agency proposed that action because it 
tentatively concluded that the Hybrid III test 
dummy appeared to represent an appreciable 
advance in the state-of-the-art of human simula- 
tion. NHTSA was particularly interested in the 
Hybrid III test dummy because of its apparently 
superior biofidelity and updated anthropometry, 
as compared with the Part 572 Subpart B test 
dummy. Further, because the Hybrid III test 
dummy has the capability of monitoring almost 
four times as many injury indicating parameters 



as the Subpart B test dummy, it can be used to 
measure injury producing forces, accelerations, 
deflections, moments, etc., for areas of the body 
that are not instrumented in the Subpart B test 
dummy. For instance, the Hybrid III test dummy 
has instrumentation capable of measuring injury 
producing forces experienced by the neck and 
lower legs. Although these body areas show a high 
incidence of serious and/or disabling injuries in 
crashes, the agency cannot make use of the Subpart 
B test dummy to evaluate the extent of the 
protection afforded to these body areas by vehicle 
safety systems. Because of these attributes of the 
Hybrid III test dummy, NHTSA believed that it 
should eventually replace the Subpart B test 
dummy as the tool used to evaluate the protection 
that vehicles afford occupants during frontal 
crashes. 

The Final Rule 

After evaluating the comments on the April 

1985 proposal, NHTSA published a final rule 
adopting the Hybrid III test dummy on July 25, 

1986 (51 FR 26688). This final rule made some 
adjustments to the calibration procedures pro- 
posed to be used with the Hybrid III test dummy. 
The calibration procedures involve a series of 
static and dynamic tests of the test dummy com- 
ponents to determine whether the responses of the 
dummy fall within specified ranges. These cali- 
bration procedures help ensure that the test 
dummy has been properly assembled and that the 
assembled test dummy will give repeatable and 
reproducible results during crash testing. (Re- 
peatability refers to the ability of the same test 
dummy to produce the same results when sub- 
jected to identical tests. Reproducibility refers to 
the ability of one test dummy to provide the same 
results as another test dummy built to the same 
specifications.) 

The preamble to the final rule also stated that 
the agency had concluded that the two types of test 
dummies were equivalent; i.e., when both test 
dummies were restrained by lap/shoulder belts or 
with air bags, only minimal differences in test 
results were shown by the two types of dummies. 
The importance of equivalence is that vehicles, 
which will pass or fail Standard No. 208 using one 
type of dummy, will achieve essentially the same 
result using the other dummy. 

The exception to the finding of equivalence 
occurred for chest acceleration measurements for 
unrestrained Hybrid III test dummies. The chest 
acceleration measurements for unrestrained 



PART 572-PRE 68 



Hybrid III dummies were consistently lower than 
the chest acceleration measurements for unres- 
trained Part 572 Subpart B dummies. If the two 
test dummies were to be equivalent, some addi- 
tional measurement of injury producing forces to 
the chest of the Hybrid III test dummy would have 
to be recorded to compensate for the lower chest 
acceleration measurements with this test dummy. 
Chest injuries generally are caused by excessive 
loading on the chest, when the chest contacts the 
restraint system and possibly the steering system, 
if the occupant is restrained, or the steering sys- 
tem or other passenger compartment components, 
if the occupant is unrestrained. The agency con- 
cluded that a measurement of chest deflection in 
testing with the Hybrid III test dummy would 
appropriately compensate for that dummy's lower 
chest acceleration measurements when it was 
unrestrained. Therefore, the July 1986 final rule 
specified a limit on the amount of thorax deflec- 
tion that could occur with the Hybrid III test 
dummy, as the means of ensuring equivalence of 
the two types of test dummies. See 51 FR at 
26693-26694. 

Having determined that a thorax deflection 
limit was necessary to ensure equivalence of the 
two types of test dummies, the obvious question 
was what that limit should be. The agency began 
by examining biomedical data on thorax deflec- 
tion. Excessive chest deflection can produce rib 
fractures which can impair breathing and inflict 
serious damage to the internal organs within the 
perimeter of the chest structure. The agency 
began by examining test results to compare the 
measured responses of Hybrid III test dummies 
and the injuries induced in cadavers under identi- 
cal impact conditions. Injuries induced in the cad- 
avers were rated on the Abbreviated Injury Scale 
(AIS). An AIS rating of 1 is a minor injury, while 
an AIS of 3 is a serious injury. The rated cadaver 
injuries were then compared with the chest de- 
flection experienced by a Hybrid III test dummy 
under identical impact conditions. 

In tests using a relatively stiff air bag, which 
was preinflated and not vented, the cadaver sus- 
tained an average injury level of AIS 1.5 (minor to 
moderate), while the Hybrid III test dummy 
experienced a 2.7 inch chest deflection under the 
same conditions. NHTSA concluded that these 
results demonstrated that a system that sym- 
metrically and uniformly distributes impact loads 
over the entire chest can produce approximately 
three inches of chest deflection, as measured on 
the Hybrid III dummy, and still adequately protect 
an occupant from serious injury. 



However, the testing with belt restraints that 
did not uniformly or symmetrically spread loads 
over the entire chest and with other protective 
systems where the impact loads were highly con- 
centrated over a relatively small area suggested 
that chest deflection in other portions of the chest 
could be significantly greater than was shown by 
the centrally mounted chest deflection gauge on 
the Hybrid III dummy. Accordingly, it appeared 
reasonable to establish a chest deflection limit of 
less than three inches to ensure that those res- 
traint systems would provide a level of chest pro- 
tection comparable to that provided by restraint 
systems that symmetrically spread the load over 
the entire chest surface. When evaluating lap/- 
shoulder belts in a laboratory environment, the 
cadavers had moderate to serious injuries (AIS of 
2.6) induced under the same conditions that the 
Hybrid III experienced chest deflection of 1.6 
inches. Additionally, some pendulum tests were 
conducted for GM. In these tests, blunt, concen- 
trated loads are intended to stimulate unrestrained 
vehicle occupant impacts into the steering wheel 
or other interior components. This testing showed 
that the cadavers had serious chest injuries in- 
duced (av rage AIS of 2.8) under the same impact 
conditions in which the Hybrid III dummy mea- 
sured 2.63 inches of chest deflection. 

The available biomechanical data on this sub- 
ject are based on a limited number of cadaver tests 
that are not large enough to make statistically 
significant injury projections. While the agency 
could not and did not rely on these limited biome- 
chanical data alone to justify a decision to estab- 
lish any particular limit for chest deflection, these 
data did suggest that a limit as low as 1.6 inches of 
chest deflection should be considered for the 
Hybrid III test dummy. 

In addition to the indications from the biome- 
chanical data that a chest deflection limit of less 
than three inches should be adopted for impact 
exposures that provide concentrated loadings over 
a limited area of the chest, the agency was also 
concerned that the Hybrid III test dummy could, 
in many instances, underestimate actual chest 
deflection. The Hybrid III measures chest deflec- 
tion by a deflection sensor located near the third 
rib of the test dummy, on the midsternum of the 
dummy's chest. NHTSA testing has shown that 
the Hybrid Ill's deflection sensor underestimates 
chest displacement when a load is applied to an 
area away from the deflection sensor. 

The agency recognized the limitations of the 
biomechanical data when it was considering what 
chest deflection limit should be established for 



PART 572-PRE 69 



restraint systems that can provide concentrated 
loadings over a limited area of the chest. Given 
these limitations, NHTSA examined the chest 
deflection levels that occur with current vehicle 
restraint systems. To do this, NHTSA examined 
the crash performance of existing restraint sys- 
tems in available accident files, such as National 
Accident Sampling System (NASS) and Fatal 
Accident Reporting System (FARS). These data 
showed that existing 2- and 3-point safety belts, 
when used, offer vehicle occupants a high level of 
safety protection, including protection against the 
risk of serious chest injuries. Therefore, the agency 
determined that the chest deflection limit could 
safely be set at a level that was compatible with 
the level of chest deflection that would be expe- 
rienced in 30 mph tests with existing 2- and 3- 
point belt designs. 

Test data available to the agency at the time of 
the final rule indicated that the two inch limit 
could be satisfied by existing designs of 3-point 
manual belts, 2-point automatic belts, and 3-point 
manual belts with air bags. For instance, the data 
available on 3-point manual safety belts in 30 mph 
frontal impacts with the Hybrid HI test dummy 
showed chest deflections ranging from an average 
of 0.67 inch in NHTSA car-to-car testing to 1.89 
inches in GM sled testing. For the Volkswagen 
2-point automatic belts, the data showed chest 
deflections ranging from 0.79 inch to 1.09 inches 
in NHTSA testing. Bases on these data, the 
agency concluded that a two inch chest deflection 
limitwasan achievable level for existing restraint 
system designs. 

Thus, the decision to adopt a two inch chest 
deflection limit for restraint systems that did not 
generally distribute the load over the entire chest 
area was based on the following factors: 



1. The limited biomechanical data that were 
available suggested that there was a safety need 
for a chest deflection limit at a level below three 
inches; 

2. A chest deflection limit below three inches 
would compensate for the Hybrid Hi's tendency to 
underestimate chest deflection when a load is app- 
lied to a small area away from the deflection sen- 
sor; and 

3. Existing 2- and 3-point belt systems could 
comply with a two inch chest deflection limit, 
based on the limited testing data available to the 
agency. 



Petitions for Reconsideration 

The agency received petitions for reconsidera- 
tion of this final rule from nine different organiza- 
tions. Many of the petitions for reconsideration 
raised issues involving the positioning of the 
Hybrid HI dummy during compliance testing. In 
its November 23, 1987, final rule establishing 
dynamic testing requirements for light trucks 
and light multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) 
(52 FR 44898), NHTSA permitted the use of 
Hybrid HI test dummies for compliance testing of 
those vehicle types. The dummy positioning issues 
that were raised in the petitions for reconsideration 
of the Hybrid HI dummy had to be resolved in that 
rule, to allow the Hybrid HI dummies to be 
properly positioned during compliance testing. 
Although that rule addressed only light trucks 
and MPV's, the positioning problems in those 
vehicle types are similar to the positioning 
problems for passenger cars. Accordingly, the 
dummy positioning procedures set forth therein 
are applicable to positioning the Hybrid HI test 
dummy in any type of vehicle, including passenger 
cars. Persons interested in reviewing the agency's 
response to the Hybrid III test dummy positioning 
issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration 
should consult that document. This notice ad- 
dresses all other issues raised in the petitions for 
reconsideration of the final rule establishing 
requirements for the Hybrid III test dummy. 

Chest Deflection Limits 

The chest deflection limits generated the most 
requests for reconsideration. Chrysler, Ford, GM, 
Honda, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associa- 
tion (MVMA), Nissan, Renault, Toyota, Volks- 
wagen, and Volvo all asked for some changes to 
these requirements. GM stated that it uses a two 
inch deflection limit as an internal design and 
performance guide in its development of belt 
restraint systems. However, GM stated that there 
is no biomedical basis for such a limit. GM 
concluded by stating that it believed a two inch 
chest deflection limit was overly conservative as a 
mandatory requirement and that a three inch 
limit would be a more appropriate regulatory 
requirement. 

Toyota stated that the two inch limit was un- 
reasonable. Toyota stated that it has no knowledge 
of any accidents in which occupants of a Cressida 
equipped with this automatic belt system have 



suffered serious chest injuries. Yet, according to 
this petitioner, in 30 miles per hour (mph) barrier 
impact tests using the Hybrid III test dummy, the 
2-point automatic belt system installed in its 
Cressida model causes chest deflections that 
average 2.3 inches, with a maximum of 2.9 inches. 
Thus, these vehicles would not comply with the 
two inch chest deflection limit. Toyota asserted 
that retention of the two inch chest deflection limit 
would force it to discontinue offering this 2-point 
automatic belt system, even though accident data 
indicate that the system offers effective occupant 
protection. Toyota urged the agency to increase 
the chest deflection limit to three inches for all 
restraint systems. Volkswagen made a similar 
point with respect to the 2-point automatic belt 
system installed in its Golf models, as did Chrysler 
for the 2-point automatic belt systems installed in 
some of its models. 

Volvo stated that the data on which NHTSA 
had based the two inch deflection limit were 
inadequate to provide conclusive evidence of bio- 
mechanical tolerance levels. Renault requested 
the agency to amend the chest deflection limit to 
2.5 inches until the uncertainties associated with 
the test data, which were the basis for the two inch 
limit, are fully resolved. MVMA asked that the 
two inch limit be suspended until the agency had 
resolved the issues surrounding this aspect of 
occupant protection. 

Restrained Hybrid III dummies. In response to 
these petitions, NHTSA has thoroughly re- 
examined this subject. The agency has no basis for 
questioning its previous statements that the 
Hybrid III can underestimate actual chest de- 
flections in certain circumstances. Further, after 
again reviewing the available biomechanical data, 
the agency continues to believe those data suggest 
the need to establish a chest deflection limit for 
restraint systems that do not evenly distribute the 
load over the entire thorax surface at some level 
below three inches. 

If the biomechanical data were complete and 
reliable, the agency could rely on these data alone 
as the primary support for a particular chest 
deflection limit somewhere below three inches. 
However, the currently available biomechanical 
data are limited. NHTSA believes that it should 
not rely on these biomechanical data alone to 
support a particular chest deflection limit. Even 
when the agency's concern about the Hybrid III 
dummy's propensity to underestimate actual chest 
deflection in certain situations is combined with 
the available biomechanical data, the agency 



cannot demonstrate at this time that a two inch 
chest deflection limit is necessary to meet the need 
for safety. 

The most broad-based data source available for 
examination when establishing a new chest de- 
flection limit is the accident files for the restraint 
systems currently in production. As noted above, 
those accident files show that current 2- and 3- 
point safety belts, when used, afford a high level of 
protection against serious thorax injuries. When 
the agency adopted the two inch chest deflection 
limit, the data available to the agency indicated 
that existing 2- and 3-point safety belt systems 
would not have to be redesigned to comply with 
this requirement. In the case of 2-point automatic 
belts, the available data consisted of 1982 and' 
1984 Volkswagen Rabbit tests. This testing showed 
chest deflections of 1.09 and 1.06 for the Hybrid 
III dummy at the driver's position, and chest 
deflections of 0.79 and 0.86 inch for the Hybrid III 
dummy at the passenger's position. Based on these 
test results, the agency had no reason to believe 
that existing 2-point automatic belt systems would 
have to be redesigned to comply with the two inch 
chest deflection limit. 

However, manufacturers of vehicles with 2- 
point automatic belt systems submitted new test 
results as part of their petitions for reconsidera- 
tion, showing that their existing belt systems do 
not comply with a two inch chest deflection limit. 
As noted above, Toyota and Chrysler submitted 
test results showing that their models with 2-point 
automatic belt systems would not comply with a 
two inch chest deflection limit. Most significantly, 
Volkswagen submitted test data for its 1987 Golf 
model. This vehicle uses a very similar design of 
2-point automatic belts to that which was present 
in the 1982 and 1984 Rabbit models that were 
tested by the agency. Volkswagen's testing of this 
1987 Golf showed that the Hybrid HI test dummies 
at both the driver and the passenger positions 
experienced chest deflections of 2.3 inches. These 
chest deflections are significantly higher than 
those measured in the NHTSA testing. Both 
Volkswagen and MVMA alleged in their petitions 
for reconsideration that a scaling error may 
account for the large differences in test results for 
what is essentially the same restraint system. 
Both petitioners stated that the agency may have 
improperly converted centimeters to inches. 
Volkswagen showed that when the NHTSA results 
were multiplied by 2.54 (the number of centimeters 
in one inch), the NHTSA and Volkswagen data 
show very good agreement. 



PART 572-PRE 71 



In response to these allegations, NHTSA has 
begun an investigation of its previous test results. 
The preliminary conclusion from that investigation 
is that the discrepancy between the NHTSA and 
Volkswagen test results cannot be definitely 
attributed to a data processing scaling error in the 
NHTSA data. However, it concluded that those 
previous test results must be regarded as highly 
suspect. 

Subsequent sled tests by NHTSA using Volks- 
wagen Golf interiors produced chest deflections 
substantially greater than the results of the 
previous NHTSA crash testing of Volkswagen 
Rabbits. For example, this subsequent sled testing 
of a Golf showed a chest deflection of 2.8 inches for 
the current design of the Golf interior and restraint 
system. The agency then made several modifica- 
tions to the Golf interior and restraint system to 
explore the sensitivity of the parameters that 
influence the magnitude of measured chest deflec- 
tion. One of these modifications resulted in a chest 
deflection of 1.9 inches. However, this modification 
increased the HIC level to 2362. None of the chest 
deflections measured in these 11 tests of the Golf 
were near the level of 1.09 inches measured in the 
previous NHTSA testing of the Rabbit, and all but 
the one modification discussed above had chest 
deflections above two inches. 

Additionally, the agency has also conducted 
several 30 mph frontal impact tests of vehicles 
equipped with 2-point automatic belts. The Chry- 
sler LeBaron had a chest deflection of 2.35 inches 
at the driver's position and 2.56 inches at the 
passenger's position. The Subaru XT had a chest 
deflection of 2.48 inches at the driver's position 
and 2.61 inches at the passenger's position. The 
Toyota Camry had a chest deflection of 1.66 inches 
at the driver's position and 2.15 inches at the 
passenger's position. These results likewise are 
substantially greater than the chest deflection of 
1.09 inches measured for the Volkswagen Rabbit 
in the agency's previous testing. 

The subsequent testing by NHTSA and by the 
manufacturers has not been able to replicate the 
results of NHTSA's previous testing of 2-point 
automatic belts. To date, the agency has not been 
able to identify the source(s) of the discrepancies 
between current and previous test results. Ac- 
cordingly, the agency believes that it cannot rely 
on the chest deflection measurements obtained in 
that previous round of testing for any purpose 
until such time as the agency can explain or 
replicate those results. 

Data available to the agency indicate that most 
of the two point belt systems currently offered and 



some three point belt systems could not comply 
with the two inch chest deflection limit. Moreover, 
the accident data for vehicles equipped with 
restraint systems that do not comply with the two 
inch chest deflection limit do not show that persons 
restrained by these belt systems experience a 
higher level of chest injuries in crashes than those 
restrained by belt systems that comply with the 
two inch chest deflection limit. Given these 
accident data and the acknowledged limitations of 
the available biomechanical data, the agency has 
concluded that it does not have an adequate basis 
for imposing a two inch chest deflection limit at 
this time. Accordingly, this notice amends the 
chest deflection level upward. 

The remaining question is what level should be 
established as the limit for permissible chest 
deflection. As noted above, agency sled tests have 
measured a 2.8 inch chest deflection for the 
Volkswagen Golf. NHTSA vehicle tests measured 
chest deflections of 2.56 inches in the Chrysler 
LeBaron and 2.61 inches in the Subaru XT. In one 
of Toyota's tests, a chest deflection of 2.9 inches 
was measured in its Cressida model. The agency 
currently has no field evidence that persons 
restrained by the restraint systems in these 
vehicles are exposed to an unacceptable risk of 
serious chest injuries. Therefore, this notice 
amends the chest deflection limit for Hybrid III 
test dummies to specify that the chest deflection 
shall not exceed three inches for any occupant 
protection system. 

Unrestrained Hybrid III dummies. As noted 
above, the available accident data suggest that, 
when the impact forces that produce 2.9 inches of 
chest deflection in the Hybrid III test dummy are 
imposed on the human chest by 2-point belts, those 
forces appear not to expose vehicle occupants to a 
significant risk of serious chest injury. Similarly, 
NHTSA has test data showing that, when the 
forces that produce 2.7 inches of chest deflection 
in the Hybrid III test dummy are imposed on the 
human chest by air bags, those forces appear not 
to expose vehicle occupants to a significant risk of 
serious chest injury. Accordingly, the agency 
believes that a three inch chest deflection limit for 
the Hybrid III test dummy when restrained by 
safety belts or air bags appears to meet the need 
for motor vehicle safety. 

In both the NPRM and the final rule adopting 
the Hybrid HI test dummy, the agency treated all 
occupant protection systems other than those that 
were "gas inflated and provide distributed loading 
to the torso during a crash" as a single category. 
This treatment had the effect of establishing the 



PART 572-PRE 72 



same chest deflection limit for Hybrid III dummies 
that were restrained by safety belts and those that 
were unrestrained. Following this same reasoning, 
one would infer that since the three inches of chest 
deflection in the Hybrid HI dummy can safely be 
tolerated by vehicle occupants when those forces 
are imposed by safety belts, that same level of 
chest deflection could be safely tolerated when it is 
imposed on unrestrained vehicle occupants. 

However, the accident data and the limited 
biomechanical data that are currently available 
for unrestrained occupants raise concerns about 
the decision to assign the same chest deflection 
limit to unrestrained and belt-restrained occu- 
pants. To respond to these concerns, NHTSA 
believes that it should reexamine the basis for its 
decision to establish the same chest deflection 
limit for belt-restrained and unrestrained Hybrid 
III test dummies. 

Moreover, the preamble to the final rule 
establishing the Hybrid III test dummy expressed 
the agency's concerns about the equivalence of the 
Hybrid III test dummy and the Part 572 Subpart 
B test dummy, relying solely on data gathered 
when both types of test dummies were unre- 
strained. The equivalence of the two test dummies 
is essential if the agency is to ensure that per- 
mitting a choice of test dummies will not lead to a 
degradation in vehicle safety performance. That 
is, both test dummies must reach similar con- 
clusions in identifying vehicle designs that could 
cause or increase occupant injury. Based on a 
review of all available data comparing the test 
responses of the two dummies, the agency con- 
cluded that there was no consistent trend for 
either test dummy to measure higher or lower 
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) or femur measure- 
ments than the other. With respect to chest ac- 
celeration responses, however, the preamble 
explained the following: 

In the case of chest acceleration measure- 
ments, the data again do not show higher or 
lower measurements for either test dummy, 
except in the case of unrestrained tests. In 
unrestrained tests, the data show that the 
Hybrid III generally measures lower chest g's 
than the existing Part 572 test dummy. This 
difference in chest g's measurement is one 
reason why the agency is adopting the ad- 
ditional chest deflection measurement for the 
Hybrid III, as discussed further below. 51 FR 
26688, at 26694; July 25, 1986. 
Later, the preamble said: 

In summary, the test data indicate the chest 
acceleration responses between the Hybrid 



III and the existing Part 572 test dummy are 
about the same for restrained occupants, but 
differ for some cases of unrestrained occupants. 
This is to be expected since a restraint system 
would tend to make the two dummies react 
similarly even though they have different 
seating postures. The different seating pos- 
tures, however, would allow unrestrained 
dummies to impact different vehicle surfaces, 
which would in most instances produce dif- 
ferent responses. Since the Hybrid III dummy 
is more human-like, it should experience 
loading conditions that are more human-like 
than would the existing Part 572 test dummy. 
One reason that the agency is adding chest 
deflection criteria [sic] for the Hybrid III is 
that the unrestrained dummy's chest may 
experience more severe impacts with vehicle 
structures than would be experienced in an 
automatic belt or air bag collision. Chest 
deflection provides an additional measure- 
ment of potential injury that may not be 
detected by the chest acceleration measure- 
ment. Id., at 26694-95. 
NHTSA's 1986 determination that the Hybrid 
III and the Part 572 Subpart B test dummies were 
nevertheless equivalent test devices for unres- 
trained occupants was based on the addition of a 
chest deflection limit for unrestrained Hybrid III 
test dummies. The chest deflection limit was 
established at two inches, based primarily upon 
data that had been gathered for belt-restrained 
occupants. However, today's notice has amended 
the chest deflection limit for Hybrid III test 
dummies to three inches, based in part on the 
inadequate support for the two inch value. Despite 
our acknowledgement of the limitations in the 
support for the two inch value, NHTSA is also 
concerned that none of the limited available data 
indicate that a three inch chest deflection limit for 
unrestrained Hybrid III test dummies is the 
correct value to make the Hybrid III test dummy 
equivalent to the Part 572 Subpart B test dummy. 
Given the limitations of the available data to 
support any particular chest deflection value for 
unrestrained occupants and the concerns about 
the equivalence of the Hybrid III and Subpart B 
test dummies without a two inch chest deflection 
limit, the agency has concluded that it should not 
permit the Hybrid III dummy to be used until 
September 1, 1990, to test vehicles that do not use 
any restraint systems (such as automatic safety 
belts or air bags) to provide automatic occupant 
protection. This period of time will allow the 
agency to gather and analyze additional data, so 



PART 572-PRE 73 



that it can determine whether a chest deflection 
limit of less than three inches is necessary for 
unrestrained Hybrid III test dummies, and, if so, 
what specific limit should be proposed. 

Furthermore, the agency has already deter- 
mined that the injury criteria applicable to unres- 
trained Subpart B test dummies are reasonably 
correlated to the tolerance limits of unrestrained 
vehicle occupants. Accordingly, mandating the 
use of the Subpart B test dummy until September 
1, 1990, for compliance testing of vehicles that do 
not use restraints to provide occupant protection 
will ensure that any such vehicles afford a level of 
occupant protection equivalent to that afforded by 
vehicles that use restraint systems. 

The agency would like to make clear that the 
available data do not establish that the three inch 
chest deflection limit for unrestrained Hybrid HI 
test dummies fails to meet the need for safety or 
fails to ensure equivalence with the Subpart B test 
dummy. To repeat, the agency has always treated 
unrestrained and belt-restrained Hybrid HI 
dummies as a single category for the purposes of 
chest deflection throughout this rulemaking. If 
the agency were to continue following this course, 
there would be no reason for the temporary delay 
in the use of the Hybrid III for certain types of 
vehicles. However, the accident data and the 
limited biomechanical data that are available 
suggest that it would not be appropriate to con- 
tinue to treat belt-restrained and unrestrained 
Hybrid III test dummies in a single category for 
purposes of the chest deflection limit. The agency 
wants to investigate this subject further, to ensure 
that the chest deflection limit that is established 
for unrestrained Hybrid III dummies both meets 
the need for safety and ensures that these dummies 
are equivalent to the Subpart B test dummy in 
similar conditions. 

If the agency cannot substantiate its concerns 
with data by the time this temporary delay in the 
use of the Hybrid III dummy for some vehicles 
expires, NHTSA will assume that it is reasonable 
to continue imposing a single chest deflection 
limit for belt-restrained and unrestrained Hybrid 
III dummies. Accordingly, unless there is some 
future rulemaking action in this area, this rule 
provides that vehicles that do not use any restraint 
systems to provide occupant protection and that 
are manufactured on or after September 1, 1990, 
may use the Hybrid III test dummy with the three 
inch chest deflection limit in Standard No. 208 
compliance testing. 

The agency is not aware of any manufacturer's 



plans to certify a vehicle design as complying with 
Standard No. 208 without including any auto- 
matic restraint system before September 1, 1990. 
Hence, this temporary delay in the use of the 
Hybrid III for testing vehicles without any auto- 
matic restraint systems should not adversely affect 
any manufacturer. After this temporary delay 
has expired, the Hybrid III dummy will be avail 
able for compliance testing for any type of occu- 
pant protection system a manufacturer may cer- 
tify as complying with Standard No. 208. This 
reflects the agency's continuing belief that the 
Hybrid III test dummy should eventually replace 
the older Subpart B test dummy as the tool used to 
evaluate the protection that all vehicles afford 
occupants during frontal crashes, including vehi- 
cles that do not use any restraint systems to pro- 
tect the occupants, because of the Hybrid Ill's 
enhanced biofidelity and capability of measuring 
injury producing forces for areas of the body that 
are not measured by the Subpart B test dummy. 

Mandatory Use Date for Hybrid III 

There are a number of questions that are cur- 
rently unresolved regarding the injury criteria 
that should be established for the Hybrid III 
dummy. The following are some of the issues that 
need to be addressed to develop sound injury 
criteria for that test dummy: 

1. What is the extent of the occupant chest 
injury problem in real world motor vehicle 
crashes? How does the problem vary by restraint 
system type? 

2. Is chest deflection a relevant chest injury 
measure, in addition to chest acceleration, when 
using the Hybrid III test dummy? 

3. What process should be used to correlate 
laboratory-based test data about chest injuries 
with the actual accident data for chest injuries? 

4. How accurate and valid are the current 
chest deflection measurement technology and any 
current technological alternatives for assessing 
chest injury potential (such as measurements of 
shoulder belt loading)? 

5. To what extent should the performance 
requirement limiting chest deflection differen- 
tiate among the various types of restraint systems? 

6. Are the responses of the Hybrid III test 
dummy adequately repeatable when used to mea- 
sure the chest deflection of various types of res- 
traint systems? 



PART 572-PRE 74 



The available data are inadequate to permit the 
agency to resolve these questions with a reasonable 
degree of confidence. Until the agency has a 
reasonable confidence in its answers to these types 
of questions, NHTSA believes it would premature 
to mandate the use of only this test dummy for 
compliance testing under Standard No. 208. Ac- 
cordingly, this notice suspends the mandatory use 
date for the Hybrid III test dummy. The July 1986 
final rule had established September 1, 1991, as 
the date after which NHTSA would use only the 
Hybrid HI test dummy for its passenger car 
compliance testing under Standard No. 208. 

NHTSA has already initiated further testing of 
current restraint systems with the Hybrid HI test 
dummy. In addition, the ag> acy intends to broaden 
its biomechanical data base to fill in the gaps in 
the existing data regarding the appropriateness 
of limits on permissible chest deflection. NHTSA 
will also attempt to correlate the biomechanical 
data. Hybrid III chest deflections and/or related 
injury assessments, and injuries observed in 
vehicle crashes. Finally, the agency will gather 
more chest deflection and injury data from vehicle 
test crashes. After the agency has performed this 
additional research, it will propose a new manda- 
tory use date for the Hybrid III dummy in 
Standard No. 208 compliance testing. 

In connection with this suspension of the man- 
datory use date for the Hybrid III dummy in 
NHTSA's compliance testing, the agency em- 
phasizes that it is aware of the need to allow all 
manufacturers to obtain and gain experience with 
using the Hybrid III dummy before that test 
dummy is used for passenger car compliance test- 
ing. NHTSA previously determined that at least 
four years should be allowed for manufacturers to 
gain experience with the Hybrid III, after those 
test dummies were commercially available in 
sufficient quantities; 51 FR 26688, at 26699, July 
25, 1986. When proposing a new mandatory use 
date for the Hybrid HI, NHTSA will again specify 
a leadtime that is adequate to allow all manufactur- 
ers to gain experience with the Hybrid III test 
dummy. Because of the problems that have arisen 
vis-a-vis chest deflection, NHTSA will not include 
the time that has elapsed since the July 25, 1986, 
final rule in its leadtime estimate. 

Other Issues Raised in Petitions for Reconsidera- 
tion 

As noted above, all issues related to the Hybrid 
III positioning procedures that were raised in 



these petitions for reconsideration were addressed 
in the November 23, 1987, final rule establishing 
dynamic testing requirements for light trucks 
and light multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 
44898). Interested persons are referred to that 
rule if they wish to review the agency's response to 
those issues. Besides the issues of the appropriate 
chest deflection limits, the mandatory use date for 
the Hybrid III test dummy, and the positioning 
procedures, the following issues were raised in 
petitions for reconsideration. 

1 . A cceptability of the Hybrid Ill's Design and 
Performance Specifications. 

Ford commented that the performance require- 
ments for Hybrid III test dummies that were spec- 
ified in the final rule were based on versions of the 
Hybrid III that reflected the proposed require- 
ments. However, the version of the Hybrid III 
mandated in the final rule includes new rib damp- 
ing material, knee sliders, ball-joint ankles, and so 
forth. Ford asserted that the performance re- 
quirements in the final rule may not have taken 
these changes into account. In addition to the 
changes noted by Ford, the requirements for the 
Hybrid III dummy specified in the final rule dif- 
fered from those proposed with respect to the cali- 
bration procedures to be followed. 

Ford's assertion that the agency failed to account 
for the changes made to the test dummy between 
the proposal and the final rule is not correct. In the 
case of the new rib damping material, data sub- 
mitted by GM (Docket No. 74-14-N 45-027) and 
testing conducted for NHTSA show that the new 
rib damping material shifts the impact force 
response calibration limits upward by about six 
percent, but has little or no effect on the chest 
deflection characteristics. 

The design changes to the knee, lower leg, and 
ankle were made to reduce the dummy's design 
complexity which, in turn, should enhance the 
dummy's reproducibility. The size, mass, mass 
distribution, and rigidity of the knee, lower leg, 
and ankle are identical to those which were 
proposed. Additionally, NHTSA conducted its 
testing of the Hybrid III dummy's knees with the 
proposed knees, that is, without a shear module. 
GM conducted its testing of the dummy's knees 
with the knees adopted in the final rule, that is, 
with the shear module. The agency and GM test 
results for the knees were nearly identical. These 
test results show that the addition of the knee 
shear module did not significantly affect the 
performance of the knees in testing. 



PART 572-PRE 75 



Ford did not offer any explanation of why it 
believes the changes to the knee, lower leg, and 
ankle would affect the performance of the Hybrid 
III dummy during testing. The dummy calibration 
modifications that were made between the proposal 
and the final rule simply reduced the complexity 
and redundancy of the calibration procedures. 
The available evidence indicates that the only 
effect on the performance of the Hybrid HI as a 
result of the calibration modifications was to 
ensure that the test dummy produces more con- 
sistent impact responses. Accordingly, NHTSA 
has not amended the rule in response to Ford's 
concern. 

2. Calibratio7i Requirements. 

The calibration procedures involve a series of 
static and dynamic tests of the test dummy com- 
ponents to determine whether the responses of the 
dummy fall within specified ranges. These cali- 
bration procedures help ensure that the test 
dummy has been properly assembled and that the 
assembled test dummy will give repeatable and 
reproducible results during crash testing. 

a. Thorax calibration response requirements. 
In its petition, Ford asked NHTSA to revise the 
thorax calibration specifications to reflect the 
characteristics of the rib cage structure with the 
new United McGill rib damping material. NHTSA 
changed to this new rib damping material after 
proposing to use a different rib damping material. 
Ford also indicated that it has experienced some 
intermittent difficulties in getting its Hybrid III 
dummies to comply with the thorax calibration 
requirements. Honda, Volkswagen, and Toyota 
also indicated they had experienced problems 
with getting Hybrid III dummies to meet the 
thorax calibration requirements. These three 
manufacturers also indicated that they had diffi- 
culties obtaining consistent thorax impact re- 
sponses. GM urged the agency to revise the mid- 
point of the thorax resistive forces specified in the 
calibration requirements upwards by 47.5 pounds. 
GM stated that this increase would more approp- 
riately reflect the range of acceptable responses 
for newly manufactured Hybrid III test dummies 
incorporating the new rib damping material. 

The agency believes that these petitions raise a 
legitimate point. NHTSA confirmed in its own 
testing and testing conducted by the Hybrid III 
dummy manufacturers that the rib design speci- 
fication set forth in the final rule is too broad. The 
dimensional extremes permissible under that 
specification result in the test dummy's thorax 
exhibiting excessive impact response variations. 



During the months of November and December 
1986, a series of round robin tests were conducted 
by the two dummy manufacturers and GM to 
determine what rib steel and damping material 
combinations would produce the most consistent 
impact responses, while ensuring biofidelity with 
the human rib cage. Those tests indicated that a 
rib steel thickness of 0.080 inch and 0.53 inch 
thickness of the new rib damping material would 
yield the most consistent responses and retain 
biofidelity (NHTSA Docket No. 74-14-N45-027). 
However, this report also concluded that the 
calibration force requirements should be adjusted 
upwards by 80 pounds. 

Subsequently, the agency performed a similar 
series of tests of the rib cages made by both 
dummy manufacturers to ensure that rib cages 
that comply with these new specifications could be 
calibrated within the higher force levels and that 
rib cages that comply with these new specifications 
and that are calibrated at the higher force levels 
yield consistent impact responses. These tests 
showed that both dummy manufacturers can 
produce Hybrid III rib cages well within these 
new specifications and that both manufacturers' 
rib cages built to these new specifications gave 
repeatable and reproducible impact responses. 
(NHTSA Docket No. 74-14-N45-038). 

Therefore, in response to the petitions and these 
test results, §572.34(b) is revised to specify that 
the thorax shall resist a force of 1242.5 ± 82.5 
pounds. This is an increase of the midpoint force 
level by 80 pounds, or about six percent, over the 
previously specified level. The specifications for 
rib steel thickness have been narrowed from 0.078 
± 0.002 inch to 0.080 ± 0.001 inch. The specifica- 
tions for rib damping material thickness are 
revised from a range of 0.250-0.625 inch to a range 
of 0.53 ± 0.03 inch. These changes should ensure 
that the Hybrid III thorax will yield more consist- 
ent impact responses. 

b. Knee impact calibration responses. Ford 
stated in its petition for reconsideration that the 
knee impact calibration should be conducted with- 
out the lower leg attached. In support of this 
request. Ford stated that it is hard to accurately 
measure the required angle specified for the 
lower leg, using the new lower leg. Additionally, 
Ford noted that §572. 35(c) requires the use of the 
new lower leg for knee impact testing, while Fig- 
ure 24 shows the lower leg that was proposed, but 
not adopted in the final rule. 

The agency was not persuaded by this argu- 
ment. First, the agency has not encountered any 



PART 572-PRE 76 



problems in its testing with rotating tiie leg to the 
specified angle and maintaining it in the correct 
orientation. Ford did not explain what specific 
difficulties it has encountered. Second, removal of 
the lower leg would require the dummy to be dis- 
assembled during the calibration procedures. This 
would add time and effort to the calibration pro- 
cess with no corresponding benefit. Hence, this 
suggested change has not been adopted. 

Additionally, Ford's suggestion that Figure 24 
needs to be revised to show the version of the lower 
leg adopted in the final rule is not persuasive. The 
proposed lower leg included instrumentation on 
the tibia, while the final rule specified a non- 
instrumented tibia. There were no other differen- 
ces in the lower leg. Figure 24 merely shows a 
lower leg, without identifying any particular 
lower leg by a part number or the like. The identi- 
fication of the lower leg in §572.35 correctly iden- 
tifies the leg assembly with a non-instrumented 
tibia. Hence, no clarifying amendments are neces- 
sary. 

Both Ford and GM stated that the knee impact 
calibration tolerances were overly broad in the 
final rule. That rule specified a tolerance of ± 22 
percent, with an acceptable variation of 44 per- 
cent (not less than 996 pounds nor more than 1566, 
with a midpoint of 1281 pounds),. Ford stated that 
potential test variability would be significantly 
reduced if the range were narrowed to ± 10 per- 
cent (not less than 1153 pounds nor more than 
1409 pounds, with the midpoint remaining at 1281 
pounds). 

Based on a series of round robin tests between 
NHTSA and itself, GM also stated that the range 
of acceptable knee impact force requirements is 
too broad, especially when compared with the typ- 
ical knee impact responses of newly manufac- 
tured Hybrid HI dummies. GM recommended, 
based on the round robin testing, that the calibra- 
tion performance requirements be modified to be 
not less than 1060 pounds nor more than 1300 
pounds. This would lower the midpoint of the 
acceptable range to 1180 pounds, and would fall 
within the ± 10 percent tolerance limit suggested 
by^Ford. 

After reconsidering this issue, NHT^A agrees 
with Ford and GM that the knee impact response 
range specified in the final rule is too broad. The 
knee response is governed primarily by the flesh 
covering the knee. It is relatively simple to control 
the consistency of this flesh when manufacturing 
new dummies, and relatively simple to replace the 
flesh on used dummies, when the response falls 



out of the acceptable calibration range. Based on 
the round robin testing, this notice adopts GM's 
suggested calibration range of 1060-1300 pounds. 
NHTSA and GM testing showed that this range is 
practicable and relatively simple to attain. This 
narrower range should also yield more repeatable 
impact responses from the Hybrid HI dummies in 
crashes. 

c. Conforming changes to the drawings and 
specifications package for the Hybrid III test 
dummy. As a part of the amendments to the 
calibration specifications and to correct errors in 
the previous package, NHTSA is making some 
changes to the drawings and specifications pack- 
age for the Hybrid HI test dummy. These changes 
consist of the following: 

i) a revised rib thickness specification; 

ii) a revised rib damping material specification; 

iii) a revised rib cage assembly specification (to 
reflect the changes in i) and ii)); 

iv) a new abdominal insert specification (to 
eliminate possible interference by the insert with 
the lever arm of the chest deflection potentio- 
meter); 

v) a new specification for the pelvis angle dur- 
ing thorax calibration tests; and 

vi) an update of the dummy assembly drawing 
to reflect these changes. 

3. Chest Temperature Sensitivity. 

The final rule provided that the stabilized 
temperature of the Hybrid HI test dummy is to be 
between 69° and 72° F for the Standard No. 208 
compliance testing. This narrow temperature 
range is necessary, because testing has shown that 
the Hybrid HI test dummy's measurements of 
chest deflection and chest acceleration are tempera- 
ture sensitive. The agency stated ^hat it believed 
this temperature range was practicable. 

Ford stated that its barrier crash facility cannot 
maintain the specified temperature range. How- 
ever, Ford recommended that the temperature 
range could be broadened because "the new r-ib 
damping material will probably exhibit some- 
what different temperature sensitivity." Based on 
this assumption. Ford suggested that the temper- 
ature range be broadened by 2° to 5° F. As an 
alternative to broadening the temperature range. 
Ford suggested that this narrow temperature 
range be applied only to the dummy components 
that have shown great temperature sensitivity, 
and that the dummy components that do not 
exhibit temperature sensitivity should not be sub- 
ject to tight temperature controls. 

According to Mazda's petition for reconsidera- 



PART 572-PRE 77 



tion, the specified temperature range can only be 
maintained with separate on-board air condition- 
ing, and such an arrangement would limit the 
number and variety of tests that were possible. 
Like Ford, Mazda asserted that the reduced 
temperature sensitivity of the new rib damping 
material would permit the agency to expand the 
permissible temperature range, which Mazda 
suggested be set at 68° to 76° F. Honda stated that 
its test facility could control the temperature 
within 8° F and urged that the permissible 
temperature range be expanded to an 8° F limit. 
Volvo stated that the permissible temperature 
range is practicable, but that it is excessively time 
consuming and complicated, especially because 
the test cycle has to be interrupted frequently for 
various technical reasons unrelated to temperature. 

Contrary to the assertions by some of these 
petitioners, test data available in the public docket 
(NHTSA Docket No. 74-14-N39-049) show that 
the new rib damping material has nearly the 
identical temperature sensitivity as the damping 
material it replaces. Ifthe agency were to establish 
a broader temperature range for the testing, it 
would introduce excessive variability into the 
compliance test results. The preamble to the final 
rule discussed at length the several means that the 
agency and its contractors have used to maintain 
the temperature within the specified range (51 
FR 26692). In addition, in a submission to the 
docket, General Motors indicated successful use of 
temperature normalization factors which a manu- 
facturer may want to use to predict response 
values at the exact specified mean temperature. 
NHTSA has concluded that the specified temper- 
ature range is practicable and necessary to reduce 
variability of the test results, so this provision has 
not been changed in this notice. 

4. Dummy DnrabUity. 

Nissan stated that in 35 mph sled tests, its 
Hybrid HI test dummy had experienced damage 
to the neck, rib cage, and wrists. Similarly, Volvo 
stated in its petition for reconsideration that the 
Hybrid HI dummy is less durable in 35 mph 
impacts than the currently specified test dummy. 
Additionally, Volvo stated that the thorax needs 
more frequent replacement in 35 mph impacts 
than was stated by the agency. In the preamble to 
the final rule, the agency said that testing had 
shown that Hybrid III dummies could be used for 
about 17 crash tests before the ribs must be 
replaced, and concluded that this level of durabil- 
ity was reasonable. Volvo did not provide any data 
to support its assertions. 



The agency has not examined the durability of 
the Hybrid HI test dummy in 35 mph impact tests. 
However, the agency does not believe this issue is 
relevant to the announced use of the Hybrid III 
test dummy. The final rule specified that the 
Hybrid III dummy would be used in compliance 
testing for Standard No. 208, which requires 30 
mph impacts. If and when the agency decides to 
use the Hybrid III dummy in testing for the New 
Car Assessment Program, which involves 35 mph 
frontal impacts, the agency will examine the dur- 
ability of the dummy in 35 mph frontal impacts. 
Until such a decision is made, NHTSA believes 
that its resources can be better spent examining 
other issues related to the Hybrid III test dummy. 

During extensive testing in 30 mph impacts 
conducted for NHTSA and manufacturers, the 
Hybrid III dummy has demonstrated adequate 
durability under those conditions (NHTSA Docket 
No. 74-14-GR-602). To the extent that the dura- 
bility of the Hybrid III thorax may have been in 
question, agency testing has shown that Hybrid 
III test dummies with the new ribs and new rib 
damping material show minimal changes in force 
and deflection responses of the thorax after 20 
consecutive pendulum impacts. After the 20th 
impact, the rib cage force and deflection response 
levels had changed less than 3 percent from the 
mean responses ofthe first four impacts. (NHTSA 
Docket No. 74-14-N45-038). Based on these test 
results, NHTSA concludes that the Hybrid III 
test dummy has adequate durability in 30 mph 
impacts. 

5. Changes to the Text of Standard No. 208 and 
Part 572. 

Chrysler, Ford, and MVMA all requested the 
addition of text to sections S7.4.3-S7.4.5 to permit 
use of the Hybrid HI test dummy to test compliance 
with the comfort and convenience requirements of 
S7.4. The final rule establishing dynamic testing 
requirements for light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles has already amended section 
S7.4.4 to permit the use of either type of test 
dummy for such testing. This notice makes similar 
changes to sections S7.4.3 and S7.4.5. 

Renault asked that Standard No. 208 be clari- 
fied as to the question of whether the two dummy 
types may be used interchangeably in the driver 
and/or passenger positions. NHTSA has previously 
concluded that both dummy types yield equival- 
ent safety assessments of vehicles. Therefore, 
until the time when only the Hybrid III test 
dummy is used for compliance testing, NHTSA 
believes manufacturers should be allowed to base 



PART 572-PRE 78 



their certifications of compliance on the use of 
either type of test dummy in any combination and 
in any of the designated seating positions. Lan- 
guage to this effect has been added to Standard 
No. 208. 

Ford also suggested some technical changes to 
clarify certain parts of Standard No. 208 and Part 
572. Ford stated that section S6.2.3 of Standard 
No. 208 currently provides that, "The resultant 
acceleration calculated from the thoracic instru- 
mentation . . . ." Ford stated that the acceleration 
is calculated from the output signal of the instru- 
mentation, not from the instrumentation itself, 
and asked that the language be amended to state 
that. The agency agrees, and has made this change. 

Ford stated that the positive and negative signs 
had been reversed in section 572.33(b)(l)(ii) and 
(b)(2)(ii). This statement is incorrect. According to 
the sign convention for the output of the Hybrid 
III transducers referenced in §572. 31(a)(5) and 
sign conventions adopted by the Society for 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Instrumentation 
Subcommittee, the positive and negative signs 
were correctly used in the sections questioned by 
Ford. 

Ford also asked that the definition of and refer- 
ences to "time zero" be deleted from §572.34(b), 
because the agency had deleted the proposed 
specifications that thorax load be measured 19 
milliseconds after impact and that thorax displace- 
ment be measured 25 milliseconds after impact. 
Because of these deletions. Ford asserted that the 
references and definition of time zero were un- 
necessary and potentially misleading. NHTSA 
agrees with this point, and this rule has amended 
§572.34 to delete the reference to "time zero." 



Impact Assessments 

1. Economic and Other Impacts. NHTSA has 
considered the impacts of this response to the peti- 
tions for reconsideration of the final rule on the 
Hybrid III test dummy and determined that it is 
neither "major" within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12291 nor "significant" within the meaning 
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. The several technical 
corrections made by this notice should not signifi- 
cantly affect the cost estimates set forth in the 
final regulatory evaluation that was prepared in 
connection with the final rule on the Hybrid HI 
test dummy. Interested persons are referred to 
that document, which is available in NHTSA 



Docket No. 74-14, Notice 45. Copies of that regula- 
tory evaluation may be obtained by writing to: 
NHTSA Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, or by 
calling the Docket Section at (202) 366-2992. 

The most important changes made in this 
response to the petitions are the amendment of the 
chest deflection limit, the delay until September 
1, 1990, in using the Hybrid III dummy for com- 
pliance testing of vehicles that don't use restraint 
systems to provide automatic occupant protection, 
and the suspension of the mandatory effective 
date for use of the Hybrid III dummy. The 
amendment of the chest deflection limit for the 
Hybrid III dummy is necessary to ensure that the 
adoption of a new compliance test device does not 
require the redesign of most existing designs of 
2-point automatic belt systems. Amending the 
chest deflection limit to three inches both recog- 
nizes the effectiveness of existing 2-point auto- 
matic belt systems and avoids unnecessary adverse 
impacts on any party. 

The temporary delay in the use of the Hybrid III 
test dummy for compliance testing of vehicles that 
provide automatic occupant protection without 
using any restraint systems is necessary to allow 
the agency to further examine its decision to 
establish the same chest deflection limits for those 
systems and systems that use either safety belts or 
air bags. No manufacturer currently certifies any 
such vehicle design, nor is the agency aware of any 
plans to certify such a vehicle design before Sep- 
tember 1, 1990. Hence, this temporary delay 
should not adversely affect any person. 

The suspension of the effective date for manda- 
tory use of the Hybrid III test dummy is necessary 
to permit the agency to resolve some remaining 
technical issues, principally related to chest deflec- 
tion. The agency does not believe that postponing 
the mandatory use date for the Hybrid III test will 
have any adverse impact on any person. Those 
manufacturers that wish to certify their vehicles 
on the basis of testing with the Hybrid III test 
dummy are permitted to do so. Those manufac- 
turers that wish to certify their vehicles on the 
basis of testing with the Part 572 Subpart B 
dummy are also permitted to do so. Once the 
agency has resolved the outstanding technical 
issues associated with the Hybrid HI test dummy, 
a new date for the mandatory use of that test 
dummy in NHTSA's compliance testing will be 
proposed through the rulemaking process. That 
rulemaking will consider all the impacts asso- 
ciated with a new mandatory use date. 



PART 572-PRE 79 



In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 
§571.208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 49 CFR 
Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, are 
amended as follows: 
PART 571 - [AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 571 con- 
tinues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 
§571.208 [Amended] 

2. S5 of Standard No. 208 is amended by 
revising S5.1 and S5.2.1 to read as follows: 

S5. Occupant crash protection requirements. 

55. 1 Vehicles subject to S5. 1 shall comply with 
either S5.1(a) or S5.1(b), or any combination 
thereof, at the manufacturer's option; except that 
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1990, 
that comply with the requirements of S4. 1.2. 1(a) 
by means not including any type of seat belt or 
inflatable restraint shall comply with S.5.1(a). 

(a) *** 

(b) * * * 

S5.2. Lateral moving barrier crash test. 

S5.2.1 Vehicles subject to S5.2 shall comply 
with either S5.2. 1(a) or S5.2. 1(b), or any combina- 
tion thereof, at the manufacturer's option; except 
that vehicles manufactured before September 1, 
1990, that comply with the requirements of 
S4. 1.2. 1(c) by means not including any type of seat 
belt or inflatable restraint shall comply with 
S5.2.1(a). ***** 

3. S6.2 of Standard No. 208 is amended by 
revising S6.2.3a and S6.2.4 to read as follows: 

56.2 Injury Criteria for the Part 572, Subpart E, 
Hybrid HI Test Dummy. ***** 

56.2.3 The resultant acceleration calculated 
from the output of the thoracic instrumentation 
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision R incorpo- 
rated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E, of this 
Chapter shall not exceed 60 g's, except for inter- 
vals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 
milliseconds. 

56.2.4 Compression deflection of the sternum 
relative to the spine, as determined by instrument- 
ation shown in drawing 78051-317, revision A 
incorporated by reference in Part 572, Subpart E 
of this Chapter, shall not exceed 3 inches. ***** 

4. S7.4 of Standard No. 208 is amended by 
revising S7.4.3 and the first sentence of S7.4.5 to 
read as follows: 

S7.4 Seat belt comfort and convenience. ***** 



87. 4. 3 Belt contact force. Except for manual or 
automatic seat belt assemblies that incorporate a 
webbing tension-relieving device, the upper torso 
webbing of any seat belt assembly shall not exert 
more than 0.7 pound of contact force when mea- 
sured normal to and one inch from the chest of an 
anthropomorphic test dummy, positioned in ac- 
cordance with either SlOor SI 1 of this standard in 
the seating position for which that seat belt 
assembly is provided, at the point where the 
centerline of the torso belt crosses the midsagittal 
line on the dummy's chest. ***** 

S7.4.5 Retraction. When tested under the condi- 
tions of S8.1.2 and S8.1.3, with anthropomorphic 
test dummies whose arms have been removed and 
which are positioned in accordance with either 
SIO or Sll, or any combination thereof, in the 
front outboard designated seating positions and 
restrained by the belt systems for those positions, 
the torso and lap belt webbing of any of those seat 
belt systems shall automatically retract to a stowed 
position either when the adjacent vehicle door is in 
the open position and the seat belt latchplate is 
released, or, at the option of the manufacturer, 
when the latchplate is released. ***** 



PART 572 - [AMENDED] 

5. The authority citation for Part 572 con- 
tinues to read as follows: 

AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

6. Section 572.31 is amended by revising para- 
graphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (b) to read as follows: 

§572.31 General description. 

(a) The Hybrid III 50th percentile size dummy 
consists of components and assemblies specified in 
the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy drawing and 
specifications package which consists of the fol- 
lowing six items: 

(1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts 
List, dated December 15, 1987, and containing 13 
pages, and a Parts List Index, dated December 15, 

1987, containing 8 pages. 

* * * 

(3) A General Motors Drawing Package iden- 
tified by GM Drawing No. 78051-218, revision R, 
and subordinate drawings. * * * * ♦ 

(b) The dummy is made up of the following 
component assemblies: 



PART 572-PRE 80 



Drawing No. 


Revision 


78051-61 Head Assembly — 




Complete 


(T) 


78051-90 Neck Assembly — 




Complete 


(A) 


78051-89 Upper Torso Assembly — 




Complete 


(K) 


78051-90 Lower Torso Assembly — 




Without Pelvic 




Instrumentation Assembly, Drawing 




No. 78051-59 


(D) 


86-5001-001 Leg Assembly - 




Complete (LH) 


(E) 


86-5001-002 Leg Assembly — 




Complete (RH) 


(E) 


78051-123 Arm Assembly — 




Complete (LH) 


(D) 


78051-124 Arm Assembly — 




Complete (RH) 


(D) 



7. Section 572.33 is amended by revising para- 
graph (b)(l)(i) to read as follows: 

§572.33 Nec/c. * * * * * 

(b) *** 

(1) Flexion (i) Plane D, referenced in 
Figure 20, shall rotate between 64 degrees and 78 
degrees, which shall occur between 57 milli- 
seconds (ms) and 64 ms from time zero. In first 
rebound, the rotation of Plane D shall cross 
degrees between 113 ms and 128 ms. * * * * * 

8. Section 572.34 is amended by revising para- 
graphs (a), (b), and (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§572.34 Thorax. 

(a) The thorax consists of the upper torso 
assembly in drawing 78051-89, revision K, and 
shall conform to each of the drawings subtended 
therein. 

(b) When impacted by a test probe conforming 
to §572.36(a) at 22 fps ± 0.40 fps in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section, the thorax of a 
complete dummy assembly (78051-218, revision 
R) with left and right shoes (78051-294 and -295) 
removed, shall resist with a force of 1242.5 pounds 
± 82.5 pounds measured by the test probe and 
shall have a sternum displacement measured 
relative to spine of 2.68 inches ± 0.18 inches. The 
internal hysteresis in each impact shall be more 
than 69 percent but less than 85 percent. The force 
measured is the product of pendulum mass and 
deceleration. 



(c) Test procedure. (1) * * * 

(2) Seat the dummy without back and arm 
supports on a surface as shown in Figure 23, and 
set the angle of the pelvic bone at 13 degrees plus 
or minus 2 degrees, using the procedure described 
in SI 1.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 (§571.208 of this 
Chapter). ***** 

9. Section 572.35(b) is revised to read as 
follows: 

§572.35 Lm6s. 

(a) * * * 

(b) When each knee of the leg assemblies is 
impacted, in accordance with paragraph (c) of 
this section, at 6.9 ft/sec ± 0.10 ft/sec by the 
pendulum defined in §572.36(b), the peak knee 
impact force, which is a product of pendulum 
mass and acceleration, shall have a minimum 
value of not less than 1060 pounds and a maximum 
value of not more than 1300 pounds. ***** 

10. Section 572.36 is amended by revising 
paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (h) to read as 
follows: 

§572.36 Test conditions and instrumentation. 

******** 

(b) The test probe used for the knee impact 
tests is a 3 inch diameter cylinder that weighs 11 
pounds including instrumentation. Its impacting 
end has a flat right angle face that is rigid and has 
an edge radius of 0.02 inches. The test probe has 
an accelerometer mounted on the end opposite 
from impact with its sensitive axis colinear to the 
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder. 

(c) Head accelerometers shall have dimensions, 
response characteristics, and sensitive mass loca- 
tions specified in drawing 78051-136, revision A, 
or its equivalent, and be mounted in the head as 
shown in drawing 78051-61, revision T, and in the 
assembly shown in drawing 78051-218, revision 
R. 

(d) The neck transducer shall have the dimen- 
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis 
locations specified in drawing 83-5001-008 or its 
equivalent and be mounted for testing as shown in 
drawing 79051-63, revision W, and in the assembly 
shown in drawing 78051-218, revision R. 

(e) The chest accelerometers shall have the 
dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive 
mass locations specified in drawing 78051-136, 
revision A, or its equivalent, and be mounted as 
shown with adaptor assembly 78051-116, revision 
D, for assembly into 78051-218, revision R. 



PART 572-PRE 81 



(f) The chest deflection transducer shall have Issued on March 11, 1988 

the dimensions and response characteristics spec- 
ified in drawing 78051-342, revision A, or equival- 
ent, and be mounted in the chest deflection trans- 
ducer assembly 78051-317, revision A, for assembly 
into 78051-218, revision R. ***** 

(h) The femur load cell shall have the dimen- 
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis Diane K. Steed 
locations specified in drawing 78051-265 or its Administrator 
equivalent and be mounted in assemblies 78051- 

46 and -47 for assembly into 78051-218, revision R. /JZ' .!„« 

******** March 17, 1988 



PART 572-PRE 82 



PART 572— ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES 



Subpart A— General 

§ 572.1 Scope. This part describes the 
anthropomorphic test dummies that are to be used 
for compHance testing of motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment with motor vehicle safety 
standards. 



§ 572.2 Purpose. The design and performance 
criteria specified in this part are intended to 
describe measuring tools with sufficient precision 
to give repetitive and correlative results under 
similar test conditions and to reflect adequately 
the protective performance of a vehicle, or item or 
motor vehicle equipment, with respect to human 
occupants. 

§ 572.3 Application. This part does not in 
itself impose duties or liabilities on any person. It is 
a description of tools that measure the perform- 
ance of occupant protection systems required by 
the safety standards that incorporate it. It is 
designed to be referenced by, and become a part 
of, the test procedures specified in motor vehicle 
safety standards such as Standard No. 208, Occu- 
pant Crash Protection. 



§ 572.4 Terminology. 

(a) The term "dummy," when used in this 
Subpart A, refers to any test device described by 
this part. The term "dummy," when used in any 
other subpart of this part, refers to the particular 
dummy described in that part. 

(b) Terms describing parts of the dummy, such 
as "head," are the same as names for correspond- 
ing parts of the human body. 

(c) The term "upright position" means the posi- 
tion of the dummy when it is seated in accordance 
with the procedures of 572.11(1). 



Subpart B— 50th Percentile Male 
§ 572.5 General description. 

(a) The dummy consists of the component 
assemblies specified in Figure 1, which are described 
in their entirety by means of approximately 250 
drawings and specifications that are grouped by 
component assemblies under the following nine 
headings: 

SA 150 M070 Right arm assembly 

SA 150 M071 Left arm assembly 

SA 150 M050 Lumbar spine assembly 

SA 150 M060 Pelvis and abdomen assembly 

SA 150 M080 Right leg assembly 

SA 150 M081 Left leg assembly 

SA 150 MOlO Head assembly 

SA 150 M020 Neck assembly 

SA 150 M030 Shoulder- thorax assembly 

The drawings and specifications are incorporated in 
this Part by reference to the nine headings, and are 
available for examination in Docket 73-8, Room 
5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. [Copies may be obtained from Rowley-Scher 
Reprographics, Inc. 1216 K Street, N.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20005, attention Mr. Allan Goldberg and 
Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202) 628-6667). The drawings 
and specifications are subject to changes, but any 
change will be accomplished by appropriate ad- 
ministrative procedures, will be announced by 
publication in the Federal Register, and will be 
available for examination and copying as indicated in 
the paragraph. The drawings and specifications are 
also on file in the reference library of the Federal 
Reigister, National Archives and Records Services, 
General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. 
(50 F.R. 25422-June 19, 1985. Effective: June 19, 
1985)1 

The drawings and specifications are on file in the 
reference library of the Federal Register, National 
Archives and Records Service, General Services 
Administration, Washington, D.C. 

(b) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner 
such that throughout the range of motion and also 
under crash-impact conditions there is no contact 



(R«v. 6/19/85) 



PART 572-1 



between metallic elements except for contacts that 
exist under static conditions. 

(c) The structural properties of the dummy are 
such that the dummy conforms to this part in every 
respect both before and after being used in vehicle 
tests specified in Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208). 

A specimen of the dummy is available for surface 
measurements, and access can be arranged 
through: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

§ 572.6 Head. 

(a) The head consists of the assembly shown as 
number SA 150 MOlO in Figure 1 and conforms to 
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150 
MOIO. 

(b) When the head is dropped from a height of 10 
inches in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 
section, the peak resultant accelerations at the 
location of the accelerometers mounted in the head 
form in accordance with § 572.11(b) shall be not 
less than 210g, and not more than 260g. The 
acceleration/time curve for the test shall be 
unimodal and shall lie at or above the lOOg level for 
an interval not less than 0.9 milliseconds and not 
more than 1.5 milliseconds. The lateral accelera- 
tion vector shall not exceed lOg. 

(c) Test procedure: 

(1) Suspend the head as shown in Figure 2, so 
that the lowest point on the forehead is 0.5 inches 
below the lowest point on the dummy's nose when 
the midsagittal plane is vertical. 

(2) Drop the head from the specified height by a 
means that ensures instant release onto a rigidly 
supported flat horizontal steel plate, 2 inches thick 
and 2 feet square, which has a clean, dry surface and 
any microfinish of not less than 8 microinches (rms) 
and not more than 80 microinches (rms). 

(3) Allow a time period of at least 2 hours 
between successive tests on the same head. 

§ 572.7 Neck. 

(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown as 
number SA 150 M020 in Figure 1 and conforms to 
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150 
M020. 

(b) When the neck is tested with the head in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the 
head shall rotate in reference to the pendulum's 



longitudinal centerline a total of 68° ± 5° about its 
center of gravity, rotating to the extent specified 
in the following table at each indicated point in 
time, measured from impact, with a chordal 
displacement measured at its center of gravity that 
is within the limits specified. The chordal displace- 
ment at time T is defined as the straight line 
distance between (1) the position relative to the 
pendulum arm of the head center of gravity at time 
zero, and (2) the position relative to the pendulum 
arm of the head center of gravity at time T as il- 
lustrated by Figure 3. The peak resultant accelera- 
tion recorded at the location of the accelerometers 
mounted in the head form in accordance with 
§ 572.11(b) shall not exceed 26g. The pendulum 
shall not reverse direction until the head's center 
of gravity returns to the original zero time position 
relative to the pendulum arm. 







Chordal 




Time (ms) 


Displacement 


Rotation (degrees) 


± (2 + .08T) 


(inches ± 0.5) 








0.0 


30 


30 


2.6 


60 


46 


4.8 


Maximum 


60 


5.5 


60 


75 


4.8 


30 


95 


2.6 





112 


0.0 



(c) Test procedure: 

(1) Mount the head and neck on a rigid 
pendulum as specified in Figure 4, so that the 
head's midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides 
with the plane of motion of the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline. Mount the neck directly 
to the pendulum as shown in Figure 4. 

(2) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall 
freely from a height such that the velocity at 
impact is 23.5 ±2.0 feet per second (fps), 
measured at the center of the accelerometer 
specified in Figure 4. 

(3) Decelerate the pendulum to a stop with an 
acceleration-time pulse described as follows: 

(i) Establish 5g and 20g levels on the a-t 
curve. 

(ii) Establish t^ at the point where the rising 
a-t curve first crosses the 5g level, t, at the 
point where the rising a-t curve first crosses 
the 20g level, t^ at the point where the decaying 



(Rev. 6/19/85) 



PART 572-2 



a - 1 curve last crosses the 20g level, and t^ at the 
point where the decaying a - 1 curve first crosses 
the 5g level. 

(iii) t,-tj shall be not more than 3 
milliseconds. 

(iv) tg - 1„ shall be not less than 25 mOliseconds 
and not more than 30 milliseconds. 

(v) t^-tj shall be not more than 10 
milliseconds. 

(vi) The average deceleration between t^ and 
tj shaO be not less than 20g and not more than 
24g. 

(vii) Allow the neck to flex without impact of 
the head or neck wdth any object other than the 
pendulum arm. 

§ 572.8 Thorax. 

(a) The thorax consists of the assembly shown as 
number SA 150 M030 in Figure 1, and conforms to 
each of the drawings subtended by number SA 150 
M030. 

(b) The thorax contains enough unobstructed 
interior space behind the rib cage to permit the 
midpoint of the sternum to be depressed 2 inches 
without contact between the rib cage and other 
parts of the dummy or its instrumentation, except 
for instruments specified in subparagraph (d) (7) of 
this section. 

(c) When impacted by a test probe conforming to 
§ 572.11(a) at 14 fps and at 22 fps in accordance 
with paragraph (d) of this section, the thorax shall 
resist with forces measured by the test probe of not 
more than 1450 pounds and 2250 pounds, respec- 
tively, and shall deflect by amounts not greater 
than 1.1 inches and 1.7 inches, respectively. The in- 
ternal hysteresis in each impact shall not be less 
than 50 percent and not more than 70 percent. 

(d) Test Procedure: 

(1) With the dummy seated without back 
support on a surface as specified in § 572.11(i) 
and in the orientation specified in § 572.11(i), 
adjust the dummy arms and legs until they are 
extended horizontally forward parallel to the 
midsagittal plane. 

(2) Place the longitudinal center line of the 
test probe so that it is 17.7 ±0.1 inches above the 
seating surface at impact. 

(3) Align the test probe specified in § 572.11 
(a) so that at impact its longitudinal centerline 



coincides within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in 
the dummy's midsagittal plane. 

(4) Adjust the dummy so that the surface area 
on the thorax immediately adjacent to the pro- 
jected longitudinal center line of the test probe is 
vertical. Limb support, as needed to achieve and 
maintain this orientation, may be provided by 
placement of a steel rod of any diameter not less 
than one-quarter of an inch and not more than 
three-eighths of an inch, with hemispherical 
ends, vertically under the limb at its projected 
geometric center. 

(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so 
that its longitudinal centerline falls within 2 
degrees of a horizontal line in the dummy's 
midsagittal plane at the moment of impact. 

(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it 
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or 
rotational movement. 

(7) Measure the horizontal deflection of the 
sternum relative to the thoracic spine along the 
line established by the longitudinal centerline of 
the probe at the moment of impact, using a 
potentiometer mounted inside the sternum. 

(8) Measure hysteresis by determining the 
ratio of the area between the loading and 
unloading portions of the force deflection curve 
to the area under the loading portion of the 
curve. 

§ 572.9 Lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis. 

(a) The lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis 
consist of the assemblies designated as numbers 
SA 150 M050 and SA 150 M060 in Figure 1 and 
conform to the drawings subtended by these 
numbers. 

(b) When subjected to continuously applied force 
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, 
the lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount 
that permits the rigid thoracic spine to rotate from 
its initial position in accordance with Figure 1 1 by 
the number of degrees shown below at each 
specified force level, and straighten upon removal 
of the force to within 12 degrees of its initial posi- 
tion in accordance with Figure 11. 

Flexion Force ( ±6 

(degrees) pounds) 



20 28 

30 40 

40 52 



PART 572-3 



(c) Test procedure: 

(1) Assemble the thorax, lumbar spine, pelvic, 
and upper leg assemblies (above the femur force 
transducers), ensuring that all component 
surfaces are clean, dry, and untreated unless 
otherwise specified, and attach them to the 
horizontal fixture shown in Figure 5 at the two 
link rod pins and with the mounting brackets for 
the lumbar test fixtures illustrated in Figure 6 to 
9. 

(2) Attach the rear mounting of the pelvis to 
the pelvic instrument cavity rear face at the four 
Vi" cap screw holes and attach the front mount- 
ing at the femur axial rotation joint. Tighten the 
mountings so that the pelvic-lumbar adapter is 
horizontal and adjust the femur friction plungers 
at each hip socket joint to 240 inch-pounds 
torque. 

(3) Flex the thorax forward 50° and then 
rearward as necessary to return it to its initial 
position in accordance with Figure 11 unsup- 
ported by external means. 

(4) Apply a forward force perpendicular to 
the thorax instrument cavity rear face in the 
midsagittal plane 15 inches above the top sur- 
face of the pelvic-lumbar adapter. Apply the 
force at any torso deflection rate between .5 
and 1.5 degrees per second up to 40° of flexion 
but no further, continue to apply for 10 sec- 
onds that force necessary to maintain 40° of 
flexion, and record the force with an instrument 
mounted to the thorax as shown in Figure 5. 
Release all force as rapidly as possible and 
measure the return angle 3 minutes after the 
release. 

(d) When the abdomen is subjected to con- 
tinuously applied force in accordance with para- 
graph (e) of this section, the abdominal force- 
deflection curve shall be within the two curves 
plotted in Figure 10. 

(e) Test procedure: 

(1) Place the assembled thorax, lumbar 
spine, and pelvic assemblies in a supine position 
on a flat, rigid, smooth, dry, clean horizontal 
surface, ensuring that all component surfaces 
are clean, dry, and untreated unless otherwise 
specified. 

(2) Place a rigid cylinder 6 inches in diam- 
eter and 18 inches long transversely across the 
abdomen, so that the cylinder is symmetrical 
about the midsagittal plane, with its longi- 



tudinal centerline horizontal and perpendicular 
to the midsagittal plane at a point 9.2 inches 
above the bottom line of the buttocks, measured 
with the dummy positioned in accordance with 
Figure 11. 

(3) Establish the zero deflection point as 
the point at which a force of 10 pounds has 
been reached. 

(4) Apply a vertical downward force through 
the cylinder at any rate between 0.25 and 0.35 
inches per second. 

(5) Guide the cylinder so that it moves without 
significant lateral or rotational movement. 

§ 572.10 Limbs. 

(a) The limbs consist of the assemblies shown as 
numbers SA 150 M070, SA 150 M071, SA 150 
M080, and SA 150 M081 in Figure 1 and conform 
to the drawings subtended by these numbers. 

(b) When each knee is impacted at 6.9 ft/ sec. in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the 
maximum force on the femur shall be not more 
than 2500 pounds and not less than 1850 pounds, 
with a duration above 1000 pounds of not less than 
1.7 milliseconds. 

(c) Test procedure: 

(1) Seat the dummy without back support on a 
surface as specified in § 572.11(1) that is 
17.3 ±0.2 inches above a horizontal surface, 
oriented as specified in § 572.11(1), and with the 
hip joint adjustment at any setting between Ig 
and 2g. Place the dummy legs in planes parallel 
to its midsagittal plane (knee pivot centerline 
perpendicular to the midsagittal plane) and with 
the feet flat on the horizontal surface. Adjust the 
feet and lower legs until the lines between the 
midpoints of the knee pivots and the ankle pivots 
are at any angle not less than 2 degrees and not 
more than 4 degrees rear of the vertical, 
measured at the centerline of the knee pivots. 

(2) Reposition the dummy if necessary so that 
the rearmost point of the lower legs at the level 
one inch below the seating surface remains at 
any distance not less than 5 inches and not more 
than 6 inches forward of the forward edge of the 
seat. 



PART 572-4 



(3) Align the test probe specified in 
§ 572.11(a) so that at impact its longitudinal 
centerline coincides within ±2° with the 
longitudinal centerline of the femur. 

(4) Impact the knee with the test probe 
moving horizontally and parallel to the midsagit- 
tal plane at the specified velocity. 

(5) Guide the probe during impact so that it 
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or 
rotational movement. 

§ 572.11 Test conditions and instrumentation. 

(a) The test probe used for thoracic and knee 
impact tests is a cylinder 6 inches in diameter that 
weighs 51.5 pounds including instrumentation. Its 
impacting end has a flat right face that is rigid and 
that has an edge radius of 0.5 inches. 

(b) Accelerometers are mounted in the head on 
the horizontal transverse bulkhead shown in the 
drawings subreferenced under assembly No. SA 
150 MOlO in Figure 1, so that their sensitive axes 
intersect at a point in the midsagittal plane 0.5 
inches above the horizontal bulkhead and 1.9 
inches ventral of the vertical mating surface of the 
skull with the skull cover. One accelerometer is 
aligned with its sensitive axis perpendicular to the 
horizonal bulkhead in the midsagittal plane and 
with its seismic mass center at any distance up to 
0.3 inches superior to the axial intersection 
point. Another accelerometer is aligned with its 
sensitive axis parallel to the horizontal bulkhead 
and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane, and 
with its seismic mass center at any distance up to 
1 .3 inches to the left of the axial intersection point 
(left side of dummy is the same as that of man). A 
third accelerometer is aligned with its sensitive 
axis parallel to the horizontal bulkhead in the mid- 
sagittal plane, and with its seismic mass center at 
any distance up to 1.3 inches dorsal to the axial 
intersection point. 

(c) Accelerometers are mounted in the thorax by 
means of a bracket attached to the rear vertical 
surface (hereafter "attachment surface") of the 
thoracic spine so that their sensitive axes intersect 
at a point in the midsagittal plane 0.8 inches below 
the upper surface of the plate to which the neck 
mounting bracket is attached and 3.2 inches 
perpendicularly forward of the surface to which 



the accelerometer bracket is attached. One 
accelerometer has its sensitive axis oriented 
parallel to the attachment surface in the midsagit- 
tal plane, with its seismic mass center at any 
distance up to 1.3 inches inferior to the inter- 
section of the sensitive axes specified above. 
Another accelerometer has its sensitive axis 
oriented parallel to the attachment surface and 
perpendicular to the midsagittal plane, with its 
seismic mass center at any distance up to 0.2 
inches to the right of the intersection of the sen- 
sitive axes specified above. A third accelerometer 
has its sensitive axis oriented perpendicular to the 
attachment surface in the midsagittal plane, with 
its seismic mass center at any distance up to 1.3 
inches dorsal to the intersection of the sensitive 
axes specified above. Accelerometers are oriented 
with the dummy in the position specified in 
S 572.11(1). 

(d) A force-sensing device is mounted axially in 
each femur shaft so that the transverse centerline 
of the sensing element is 4.25 inches from the 
knee's center of rotation. 

(e) The outputs of acceleration and forcesensing 
devices installed in the dummy and in the test 
apparatus specified by this Part are recorded in 
individual data channels that conform to the 
requirements of SAE Recommended Practice 
J211a, December 1971, with channel classes as 
follows: 

(1) Head acceleration— Class 1000. 

(2) Pendulum acceleration— Class 60. 

(3) Thorax acceleration— Class 180. 

(4) Thorax compression— Class 180. 

(5) Femur force— Class 600. 

(f) The mountings for sensing devices have no 
resonance frequency within a range of 3 times the 
frequency range of the applicable channel class. 

(g) Limb joints are set at Ig, barely restraining 
the weight of the limb when it is extended horizon- 
tally. The force required to move a limb segment 
does not exceed 2g throughout the range of limb 
motion. 

(h) Performance tests are conducted at any 
temperature from 66° F to 78° F and at any 
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent 
after exposure of the dummy to these conditions 
for a period of not less than 4 hours. 



PART 572-5 



(i) For the performances tests specified in 
§§ 572.8, 572.9, and 572.10, the dummy is posi- 
tioned in accordance with Figure 11 as follows: 

(1) The dummy is placed on a flat, rigid, 
smooth, clean, dry, horizontal, steel test surface 
whose length and width dimensions are not less 
than 16 inches, so that the dummy's midsagittal 
plane is vertical and centered on the test surface 
and the rearmost points on its lower legs at the 
level of the test surface are at any distance not 
less than 5 inches and not more than 6 inches 
forward of the forward edge of the test surface. 

(2) The pelvis is adjusted so that the upper sur- 
face of the lumbar-pelvic adapter is horizontal. 

(3) The shoulder yokes are adjusted so that 
they are at the midpoint of their anterior 
posterior travel with their upper surfaces 
horizontal. 

(4) The dummy is adjusted so that the rear sur- 
faces of the shoulders and buttocks are tangent 
to a transverse vertical plane. 

(5) The upper legs are positioned symmetrically 
about the midsagittal plane so that the distance 
between the knee pivot bolt heads is 11.6 inches. 

(6) The lower legs are positioned in planes 
parallel to the midsagittal plane so that the lines 
between the midpoint of the knee pivots and the 
ankle pivots are vertical. 

(j) The dummy's dimensions, as specified in 
drawing number SA 150 M002, are determined as 
follows: 

(1) With the dummy seated as specified in 
paragraph (i), the head is adjusted and secured so 
that its occiput is 1.7 inches forward of the 
transverse vertical plane with the vertical 
mating surface of the skull with its cover parallel 
to the transverse vertical plane. 

(2) The thorax is adjusted and secured so that 
the rear surface of the chest accelerometer 
mounting cavity is inclined 3° forward of 
vertical. 

(3) Chest and waist circumference and chest 
depth measurements are taken with the dummy 
positioned in accordance with paragraph (i), (1) 
and (2) of this section. 

(4) The chest skin and abdominal sac are 
removed and all following measurements are 
made without them. 



(5) Seated height is measured from the seating 
surface to the uppermost point on the head-skin 
surface. 

(6) Shoulder pivot height is measured from the 
seating surface to the center of the arm elevation 
pivot. 

(7) H-point locations are measured from the 
seating surface to the center of the holes in the 
pelvis flesh covering in line with the hip motion 
ball. 

(8) Knee pivot distance from the backline is 
measured to the center of the knee pivot bolt 
head. 

(9) Knee pivot distance from floor is measured 
from the center of the knee pivot bolt head to the 
bottom of the heel when the foot is horizontal 
and pointing forward. 

(10) Shoulder width measurement is taken at 
arm elevation pivot center height with the 
centerlines between the elbow pivots and the 
shoulder pivots vertical. 

(11) Hip width measurement is taken at widest 
point of pelvic section. 

(k) Performance tests of the same component, 
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummy are 
separated in time by a period of not less than 30 
minutes unless otherwise noted. 

(1) Surfaces of dummy components are not 
painted except as specified in this part or in draw- 
ings subtended by this part. 

Subpart C— Three Year Old Child 

Sec. 

572.15 General description. 

572.16 Head. 

572.17 Neck. 

572.18 Thorax. 

572.19 Lumbar, spine, abdomen and plevis. 

572.20 Limbs. 

572.21 Test conditions and instrumentation. 

Subpart C— Three Year Old Child 

§ 572.15 General description. 

(a)(1) The dummy consists of the component 
assemblies specified in drawing SA 103C 001, 
which are described in their entirety by means of 
approximately 122 drawings and specifications 
grouped by component assemblies under the 
following headings: 



PART 572-6 



SA 103C 010 Head Assembly 

SA 103C 020 Neck Assembly 

SA 103C 030 Torso Assembly 

SA 103C 041 Upper Arm Assembly Left 

SA 103C 042 Upper Arm Assembly Right 

SA 103C 051 Forearm Hand Assembly Left 

SA 103C 052 Forearm Hand Assembly Right 

SA 103C 061 Upper Leg Assembly Left 

SA 103C 062 Upper Leg Assembly Right 

SA 103C 071 Lower Leg Assembly Left 

SA 103C 072 Lower Leg Assembly Right 

SA 103C 081 Foot Assembly Left 

SA 103C 082 Foot Assembly Right 

The drawings and specifications are incorporated 
in this part by reference to the thirteen headings 
and are available for examination in Docket 78-09, 
Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 20590. [Copies may be obtained from 
Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, attention Mr. 
Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark Krysinski ((202) 
628-6667). (50 F.R. 25422-June 19,1985. Effec- 
tive: June 19, 1985)1 

(2) The patterns of all cast and molded parts for 
reproduction of the molds needed in manufactur- 
ing of the dummies are incorporated in this part by 
reference. A set of the patterns can be obtained on 
a loan basis by manufacturers of the test dummies, 
or others if need is shown, from the Office of 
Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

(3) [An Operation and Maintenance Manual 
(dated May 28, 1976, Contract No. DOT- 
HS-6-01294) with instructions for the use and 
maintenance of the test dummies is incorporated in 
this Part by reference. Copies of the manual can be 
obtained from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc. 
All provisions of this manual are valid unless 
modified by this regulation. This document is 
available for examination in Docket 78-09. (50 F.R. 
25422-June 19, 1985. Effective: June 19, 1985)1 

(4) The drawings, specifications and the manual 
are subject to changes, but any change will be 
accomplished by appropriate administrative pro- 
cedures and announced by publication in the 
Federal Register and be available for examination 
and copying as indicated in this paragraph. 

(5) The drawings, specifications, patterns, and 
manual are on file in the reference library of the 
Federal Register, National Archives and Records 
Service, General Services Administration, 
Washington, D.C. 



(b) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner 
such that throughout the range of motion and 
also under simulated crash-impact conditions, 
there is no contact between metallic elements ex- 
cept for contacts that exist under static condi- 
tions. 

(c) The structural properties of the dummy are 
such that the dummy conforms to this part in 
every respect both before and after being used in 
tests specified by Standard No. 213, Child 
Restraint Systems (§ 571.213). 

§ 572.16 Head. 

(a) The head consists of the assembly shown in 
drawing SA 103C 001 by number SA 103C 010, 
and conforms to each of the drawings listed 
under this number on drawing SA 103C 002, 
sheet 8. 

(b) When the head is impacted in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section by a test probe 
conforming to § 572.21(a) at 7 fps., the peak 
resultant accelerations measured at the location 
of the accelerometers mounted in the headform 
in accordance with § 572.21(b) shall be not less 
than 95g, and not more than 115g. The recorded 
acceleration-time curve for this test shall be 
unimodal at, or above the 50g level and shall lie 
at, or above that level for an interval not less 
than 2.0 and not more than 3.0 milliseconds. The 
lateral acceleration vector shall not exceed 7g. 

(c) Test Procedure: 

(1) Seat the dummy on a seating surface hav- 
ing a back support as specified in § 572.21(h) and 
orient the dummy in accordance with § 572.21(h) 
and adjust the joints of the limbs at any setting 
between Ig and 2g, which just supports the 
limbs' weight when the limbs are extended 
horizontally forward. 

(2) Adjust the test probe so that its 
longitudinal centerline is at the forehead at the 
point of orthogonal intersection of the head mid- 
sagittal plane and the transverse plane which is 
perpendicular to the "Z" axis of the head 
(longitudinal centerline of the skull anchor) and 
is located 0.6 ± .1 inches above the centers of the 
head center of gravity reference pins and coin- 
cides within 2 degrees with the line made by the 
intersection of horizontal and midsagittal planes 
passing through this point. 

(3) Adjust the dummy so that the surface area 
on the forehead immediately adjacent to the pro- 
jected longitudinal centerline of the test probe is 
vertical. 



(Rev. 6/19/85) 



PART 572-7 



(4) Impact the head with the test probe so that at 
the moment of impact the probe's longitudinal 
centerline falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line 
in the dummy's midsagittal plane. 

(5) Guide the probe during impact so that it 
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or rota- 
tional movement. 

(6) Allow a time period of at least 20 minutes 
between successive tests of the head. 

§ 572.17 Neck. 

(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown in 
drawing SA 103C 001 as number SA 103C 020, and 
conforms to each of the drawings listed under this 
number on drawing SA 103C 002, sheet 9. 

(b) When the head-neck assembly is tested in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the 
head shall rotate in reference to the pendulum's 
longitudinal centerline a total of 84 degrees ± 8 
degrees about its center of gravity, rotating to the 
extent specified in the following table at each 
indicated point in time, measured from impact, 
with the chordal displacement measured at its 
center of gravity. The chordal displacement at 
time T is defined as the straight line distance 
between (1) the position relative to the pendulum 
arm of the head center of gravity at time zero, and 
(2) the position relative to the pendulum arm of the 
head center of gravity at time T as illustrated by 
Figure 3. The peak resultant acceleration recorded 
at the location of the accelerometers mounted in 
the headform in accordance with § 572.21(b) shall 
not exceed 30g. The pendulum shall not reverse 
direction until the head's center of gravity returns 
to the original zero time position relative to the 
pendulum arm. 







Chordal 


Rotation 


Time (ms) 


Displacement 


(degrees) 


± (2 + .08T) 


(inches ±0.8) 











30 


21 


2.2 


60 


36 


4.3 


Maximum 


62 


5.8 


60 


91 


4.3 


30 


108 


2.2 





123 






(c) Test Procedure: 

(1) Mount the head and neck on a rigid pendulum 
as specified in Figure 4, so that the head's 



midsagittal plane is vertical and coincides with the 
plane of motion of the pendulum's longitudinal 
centerline. Mount the neck directly to the 
pendulum as shown in Figure 15. 

(2) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall 
freely from a height such that the velocity at im- 
pact is 17.00 ±1.0 feet per second (fps), measured 
at the center of the accelerometer specified in 
Figure 4- 

(3) Decelerate the pendulum to a stop with an 
acceleration-time pulse described as follows: 

(i) Establish 5g and 20g levels on the a-t curve. 

(ii) Establish ti at the point where the a-t 
curve first crosses the 5g level, t2 at the point 
where the rising a-t curve first crosses the 20g 
level, ts at the point where the decaying a-t curve 
last crosses the 20g level, and t4 at the point where 
the decaying a-t curve first crosses the 5g level. 

(iii) t2-ti, shall be not more than 4 
milliseconds. 

(iv) t3-t2, shall be not less than 18 and not 
more than 21 milliseconds. 

(v) t4-t3, shall be not more than 5 milliseconds. 

(vi) The average deceleration between t2 and 
ts shall be not less than 20g and not more than 34g. 

(4) Allow the neck to flex without contact of the 
head or neck with any object other than the 
pendulum arm. 

(5) Allow a time period of at least 1 hour 
between successive tests of the head and neck. 

§ 572.18 Thorax. 

(a) The thorax consists of the part of the torso 
shown in assembly drawing SA 103C 001 by 
number SA 103C 030 and conforms to each of the 
applicable drawings listed under this number on 
drawings SA 103C 002, sheets 10 and 11. 

(b) When impacted by a test probe conforming 
to § 572.21(a) at 13 fps. in accordance with 
paragraph (c) of this section, the peak resultant ac- 
celerations at the location of the accelerometers 
mounted in the chest cavity in accordance with 
§ 572.21(c) shall be not less than 50g and not more 
than 70g. The acceleration-time curve for the test 
shall be unimodal at or above the 30g level and 
shall lie at or above the 30g level for an interval not 
less than 2.5 milliseconds and not more than 4.0 
milliseconds. The lateral acceleration shall not 
exceed 5g. 

(c) Test Procedure: 

(1) With the dummy seated without back sup- 
port on a surface as specified in § 572.21(h) and 



PART 572-8 



oriented as specified in § 572.21(h), adjust the 
dummy arms and legs until they are extended 
horizontally forward parallel to the midsagittal 
plane, the joints of the limbs are adjusted at any 
setting between Ig and 2g, which just supports the 
limbs' weight when the limbs are extended 
horizontally forward. 

(2) Establish the impact point at the chest mid- 
sagittal plane so that it is 1.5 inches below the 
longitudinal centerline of the bolt that attaches the 
top of the ribcage sternum to the thoracic spine 
box. 

(3) Adjust the dummy so that the tangent plane 
at the surface on the thorax immediately adjacent 
to the designated impact point is vertical and 
parallel to the face of the test probe. 

(4) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test 
probe to coincide with the designated impact point 
and align the test probe so that at impact its 
longitudinal centerline coincides within 2 degrees 
with the line formed by intersection of the horizon- 
tal and midsagittal planes passing through the 
designated impact point. 

(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that 
at the moment of impact the probe's longitudinal 
centerline falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line 
in the dummy midsagittal plane. 

(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it 
moves with no significant lateral, vertical or rota- 
tional movement. 

(7) Allow a time period of at least 20 minutes 
between successive tests of the chest. 



§ 572.19 Lumbar spine, abdomen and pelvis. 

(a) The lumbar spine, abdomen, and pelvis con- 
sist of the part of the torso assembly shown by 
number SA 103C 030 on drawing SA 103C 001 and 
conform to each of the applicable drawings listed 
under this number on drawing SA 103C 002, 
sheets 10 and 11. 

(b) When subjected to continuously applied force 
in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, 
the lumbar spine assembly shall flex by an amount 
that permits the rigid thoracic spine to rotate from 
its initial position in accordance with Figure 18 of 
this subpart by 40 degrees at a force level of not 
less than 34 pounds and not more than 47 pounds, 
and straighten upon removal of the force to within 
5 degrees of its initial position. 



(c) Test Procedure: (1) The dummy with lower 
legs removed is positioned in an upright seated 
position on a seat as indicated in Figure 18, ensur- 
ing that all dummy component surfaces are clean, 
dry and untreated unless otherwise specified. 

(2) Attach the pelvis to the seating surface by a 
bolt C/328, modified as shown in Figure 18, and 
the upper legs at the knee axial rotation joints by 
the attachments shown in Figure 18. Tighten the 
mountings so that the pelvis-lumbar joining sur- 
face is horizontal and adjust the femur ball-flange 
screws at each hip socket joint to 50 inch pounds 
torque. Remove the head and the neck and install a 
cylindrical aluminum adapter 2.0 inches in 
diameter and 2.80 inches long in place of the neck. 

(3) Flex the thorax forward 50 degrees and then 
rearward as necessary to return to its initial posi- 
tion in accordance with Figure 18 unsupported by 
external means. 

(4) Apply a forward pull force in the midsagittal 
plane at the top of the neck adapter, so that at 40 
degrees of the lumbar spine flexion the applied 
force is perpendicular to the thoracic spine box. 
Apply the force at any torso deflection rate 
between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees per second up to 40 
degrees of flexion but no further; continue to apply 
for 10 seconds the force necessary to maintain 40 
degrees of flexion, and record the highest applied 
force at that time. Release all force as rapidly as 
possible and measure the return angle 3 minutes 
after the release. 

§ 572.20 Limbs. 

The limbs consist of the assembHes shown on 
drawing SA 103C 001 as Nos. SA 103C 041, SA 
103C 042, SA 103C 051, SA 103C 052, SA 103C 
061, SA 103C 062, SA 103C 071, SA 103C 072, SA 
103C 081, SA 103C 082, and conform to each of the 
applicable drawings listed under their respective 
numbers of the drawing SA 103C 002, sheets 12 
through 21. 

§ 572.21 Test conditions and instrumentation. 

(a) The test probe used for head and thoracic im- 
pact tests is a cylinder 3 inches in diameter, 13.8 
inches long and weighs 10 lbs., 6 ozs. Its impacting 
end has a flat right face that is rigid and that has 
an edge radius of 0.5 inches. 

(b) Accelerometers are mounted in the head on 
the mounting block (A/310) located on the horizon- 
tal transverse bulkhead shown in the drawings 



PART 572-9 



subreferenced under assembly SA 103C 010 so that 
their sensitive axes are orthogonal and their seismic 
masses are positioned relative to the axial intersec- 
tion point. Except in the case of tri-axial 
accelerometers, the sensitive axes shall intersect at 
the axial intersection point located at the intersection 
of a line connecting the longitudinal centerlines of 
the transfer pins in the sides of the dummy head with 
the midsagittal plane of the dummy head. One 
accelerometer is aligned with its sensitive axis 
parallel to the vertical bulkhead and midsagittal 
plane, and with its seismic mass center at the mid- 
sagittal plane at any distance up to 0.3 inches dorsal 
and 0. 1 inches inferior to the axial intersection point. 
Another accelerometer is aligned with its sensitive 
axis in the horizontal plane and perpendicular to the 
midsagittal plane, and with its seismic mass center at 
any distance up to 0.2 inches inferior to, 0.4 inches to 
the right of, and 1 inch dorsal to the axial intersection 
point (right side of dummy is the same as that of 
child). A third accelerometer is aligned with its sen- 
sitive axis parallel to the midsagittal and horizontal 
planes, and wath its seismic mass center at any 
distance up to 0.2 inches inferior to, 0.6 inches dorsal 
to, and 0.4 inches to the right of the axial intersection 
point. In the case of a tri-axial accelerometer, its axes 
are aligned in the same way that the axes of three 
separate accelerometers are aligned. 

(c) Accelerometers are mounted in the thorax on 
the mounting plate attached to the vertical 
transverse bulkhead shown in the drawings 
subreferenced under assembly No. SA 103C 030 in 
drawing SA 103C 001 so that their sensitive axes 
are orthogonal and their seismic masses are posi- 
tioned relative to the axial intersection point 
located in the midsagittal plane 3 inches above the 
top surface of the lumbar spine and 0.3 inches 
dorsal to the accelerometer mounting plate sur- 
face. Except in the case of tri-axial accelerometers, 
the sensitive axes shall intersect at the axial in- 
tersection point. One accelerometer is aligned with 
its sensitive axis parallel to the vertical bulkhead 
and midsagittal planes, and with its seismic mass 
center at any distance up to 0.2 inches to the right, 
0.2 inches inferior and 0.1 inches ventral of the 
axial intersection point. Another accelerometer is 
aligned with its sensitive axis in the horizontal 
transverse plane and perpendicular to the mid- 
sagittal plane and with its seismic mass center at 
any distance up to 0.3 inches to the left, 0.2 inches 



inferior and 0.2 inches ventral to the axial intersec- 
tion point. A third accelerometer is aligned with its 
sensitive axis parallel to the midsagittal and 
horizontal planes and with its seismic mass center 
at any distance up to 0.3 inches superior, 0.6 inches 
to the right and 0.1 inches ventral to the axial 
intersection point. In the case of a tri-axial 
accelerometer, its axes are aligned in the same 
way that the axes of three separate accelerometers 
are aligned. 

(d) The outputs of accelerometers installed in the 
dummy, and of test apparatus specified by this part, 
are recorded in individual data channels that con- 
form to the requirements of SAE Recommended 
Practice J211a, December 1971, with channel 
classes as follows: 

(1) Head acceleration— Class 1,000. 

(2) Pendulum acceleration— Class 60. 

(3) Thorax acceleration— Class 180. 

(e) The mountings for accelerometers have no 
resonance frequency less than 3 times the cut-off 
frequency of the applicable channel class. 

(f) Limb joints are set at the force between l-2g, 
which just supports the limbs' weight when the 
limbs are extended horizontally forward. The force 
required to move a limb segment does not exceeed 
2g throughout the range of limb motion. 

(g) Performance tests are conducted at any 
temperature from 66° F to 78° F and at any 
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent 
after exposure of the dummy to these conditions 
for a period of not less than 4 hours. 

(h) For the performance tests specified 
§§ 572.16, 572.18, and 572.19, the dummy is 
positioned in accordance with Figures 16, 17, and 
18 as follows: 

(1) The dummy is placed on a flat, rigid, clean, 
dry, horizontal surface of teflon sheeting with a 
smoothness of 40 microinches and whose length 
and width dimensions are not less than 16 inches, 
so that the dummy's midsagittal plane is vertical 
and centered on the test surface. For head tests, 
the seat has a vertical back support whose top is 
12.4 ±0.2 inches above the seating surface. The 
rear surfaces of the dummy's shoulders and but- 
tocks are touching the back support as shown in 
Figure 16. For thorax and lumbar spine tests, the 
seating surface is without the back support as 
shown in Figures 17 and 18 respectively. 



PART 572-10 



(2) The shoulder yokes are adjusted so that 
they are at the midpoint of their anterior-posterior 
travel with their upper surfaces horizontal. 

(3) The dummy is adjusted for head impact and 
lumbar flexion tests so that the rear surfaces of the 
shoulders and buttocks are tangent to a transverse 
vertical plane. 

(4) The arms and legs are positioned so that 
their centerlines are in planes parallel to the 
midsagittal plane. 

(i) The dummy's dimensions are specified in 
drawings No. SA 103C 002, sheets 22 through 26. 

(j) Performance tests of the same component, 
segment, assembly or fully assembled dummy are 
separated in time by a period of not less than 20 
minutes unless otherwise specified. 

(k) Surfaces of the dummy components are not 
painted except as specified in this part or in 
drawings subtended by this part. 

Subpart D— Six Month Old Infant 
§ 572.25 General Description. 

(a) The infant dummy is specified in its entirety 
by means of 5 drawings (No. SA 1001 001) and a 
construction manual which describes in detail the 
materials and the procedures involved in the 
manufacturing of this dummy. The drawings and 
the manual are incorporated in this part by 
reference and are available for examination in 
Docket 78-09, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies may be 
obtained from Rowley-Scher Reprographics, Inc. 
1216 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C, 20005, 
attention Mr. Allan Goldberg and Mr. Mark 
Krysinski ((202) 628-6667). The drawings and the 
manual are subject to changes, but any change will 
be accomplished by appropriate administrative 
procedures and announced by publication in the 
Federal Register and be available for examination 
and copying as indicated in this paragraph. The 
drawings and manual are on file in the reference 
library of the Federal Register, National Archives 
and Records Services, General Services 
Administration, Washington, D.C. (50 F.R. 
25422-June 19, 1985. Effective: June 19, 1985) 

(b) The structural properties and dimensions of 
the dummy are such that the dummy conforms to 
this part in every respect, both before and after 
being used in tests specified by Standard No. 213 
(571.213). 



[§ 572.30 Incorporated Materials. 

(a) The drawings and specifications referred to 
in this regulation that are not set forth in full are 
hereby incorporated in this part by reference. The 
Director of the Federal Register has approved the 
materials incorporated by reference. For materials 
subject to change, only the specific version ap- 
proved by the Director of the Federal Register and 
specified in the regulation are incorporated. A 
notice of any change will be published in the 
Federal Register. As a convenience to the reader, 
the materials incorporated by reference are listed 
in the Finding Aid Table found at the end of this 
volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

(b) The materials incorporated by reference are 
available for examination in the general reference 
section of Docket 74-14, Docket Section, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 
5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20590. Copies may be obtained from Rowley-Scher 
Reprographics, Inc., 1216 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C.20005 ((202) 628-6667). The 
drawings and specifications are also on file in the 
reference library of the Office of the Federal 
Register, National Archives and Records 
Administration, Washington, D.C. 

§ 572.31 General Description. 

(a) The Hybird III 50th percentile size dummy 
consists of components and assemblies specified in 
the Anthropomorphic Test Dummy drawing and 
specifications package which consists of the follow- 
ing six items: 

(1) The Anthropomorphic Test Dummy Parts 
List, dated [December 15, 1987], and containing 
13 pages, and Parts list Index, dated [December 
15, 1987], containing [8] pages, 

(2) A listing of Optional Hybrid III Dummy 
Transducers, dated April 22, 1986, contained 4 
pages 

(3) A General Motors Drawing package iden- 
tified by GM drawing No. 78051-218 revision [RI 
and subordinate drawings. 

(4) Disassembly, Inspection, Assembly and 
Limbs Adjustment Procedures for the Hybrid III 
Dummy, dated July 15, 1986, 

(5) Sign Convention for the signal outputs of 
Hybrid III Dummy Transducers, dated July 15, 
1986, 

(6) Exterior Dimensions of the Hybrid III 
Dummy, dated July 15, 1986. 



(Rev. 3/15fe8) 



PART 572-11 



(b) The dummy is made up of the following com- 
ponent assemblies: 

Drawing Number Revision 

78051-61 Head Assembly-Complete- (T) 

78051-90 Neck Assembly-Complete- (A) 

78051-89 Upper Torso Assembly-Complete- I(K)1 

78051-70 Lower Torso Assembly- Without 

Pelvic Instrumentation Assembly, 
Drawing Number 78051-59 I(D)1 

86-5001-001 Leg Assembly-Complete (LH)- I(E)1 
86-5001-002 Leg Assembly-Complete (RH)- I(E)1 
78051-123 Arm Assembly-Complete (LH)- (D) 
78051-124 Arm Assembly-Complete (RH)- (D) 

(c) Any specifications and requirements set forth 
in this part supercede those contained in (Jeneral 
Motors Drawing No. 78051-218, revision P. 

(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner 
such that throughout the range of motion and also 
under crash-impact conditions, there is no contact 
between metallic elements except for contacts that 
exist under static conditions. 

(e) The weights, inertial properties and centers 
of gravity location of component assemblies shall 
conform to those listed in drawing 78051-338, 
revision S. 

(f) The structural properties of the dummy are 
such that the dummy conforms to this part in every 
respect both before and after being used in vehicle 
test specified in Standard No. 208 of this Chapter 
(S 571.208). (53 F.R. 8755— March 17, 1988. Effec- 
tive: March 17, 1988) 



§ 572.32 Head. 

(a) The head consists of the assembly shown in 
the drawing 78051-61, revision T, and shall con- 
form to each of the drawings subtended therein. 

(b) When the head (drawing 78051-61, revision 
T) with neck transducer structural replacement 
(drawing 78051-383, revision F) is dropped from a 
height of 14.8 inches in accordance with paragraph 
(c) of this section, the peak resultant accelerations 
at the location of the accelerometers mounted in the 
head in accordance with 572.36(c) shall not be less 
than 225g, and not more than 275g. The accelera- 
tion/time curve for the test shall be unimodal to the 
extent that oscillations occurring after the main ac- 
celeration pulse are less than ten percent (zero to 
peak) of the main pulse. The lateral acceleration 
vector shall not exceed 15g (zero to peak). 

(c) Test Procedure. (1) Soak the head assembly 
in a test environment at any temperature between 



66 degrees F to 78 degrees F and at a relative 
humidity from 10% to 70% for a period of at least 
four hours prior to its application in a test. 

(2) Clean the head's skin surface and the sur- 
face of the impact plate with 1,1,1 Trichlorethane 
or equivalent. 

(3) Suspend the head, as shown in Fig^e 19, so 
that the lowest point on the forehead is 0.5 inches 
below the lowest point on the dummy's nose when 
the midsagittal plane is vertical. 

(4) Drop the head from the specified height by 
means that ensure instant release onto a rigidly 
supported flat horizontal steel plate, which is 2 
inches thick and 2 feet square. The plate shall have 
a clean, dry surface and any microfinish of not less 
than 8 microinches (rms) and not more than 80 
microinches (rms). 

(5) Allow at least 2 hours between successive 
tests on the same head. 

§ 572.33 Neck. 

(a) The neck consists of the assembly shown in 
drawing 78051-90, revision A and conforms to 
each of the drawings subtended therein. 

(b) When the neck and head assembly (con- 
sisting of the parts 78051-61, revision T; -84; 

-90, revision A; -96; -98; -303, revision E; 

-305; -306; -307, revision X, which has a neck 
transducer (drawing 83-5001-008) installed in con- 
formance with 572.36(d), is tested in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section, it shall have the 
following characteristics: 

(1) Flexion, (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure 
20, shall rotate between 64 degrees and 78 
degrees, which shall occur between 57 milliseconds 
(ms) and 64 ms from time zero. In first rebound, 
the rotation of plane D shall cross degrees 
between 113 ms and 128 ms. 

(ii) The moment measured by the neck 
transducer (drawing 83-5001-008) about the oc- 
cipital condyles, referenced in Figure 20, shall be 
calculated by the following formula: Moment (Ibs- 
ft) = My H- 0,02875 X Fx' where My is the moment 
measured in Ibs-ft by the moment sensor of the 
neck transducer and F^ is the force measure 
measured in lbs by the x axis force sensor of the 
neck transducer. The moment shall have a max- 
imum value between 65 Ibs-ft occurring between 
47 ms and 58 ms, and the positive moment shall 
decay for the first time to Ib-ft between 97 ms 
and 107 ms. 



(Rev. 3/17/88) 



PART 572-12 



(2) Extension, (i) Plane D, referenced in Figure 
21, shall rotate between 81 degrees and 106 
degrees, which shall occur between 72 and 82 ms 
from time zero. In first rebound, the rotation of 
plane D shall cross degree between 147 and 174 
ms. 

(ii) The moment measured by the neck 
transducer (drawing 83-5001-008) about the 
occipital condyles, referenced in Figure 21, shall be 
calculated by the following formula: Moment Obs- 
ft) = My + 0.02875 X Fjj' where My is the moment 
measured in Ibs-ft by the moment sensor of the 
neck transducer and F^ is the force measure 
measured in lbs by the x axis force sensor of the 
neck transducer. The moment shall have a 
minimum value between - 39 Ibs-ft and - 59 Ibs-ft, 
which shall occiu- between 65 ms and 79 ms, and 
the negative moment shall decay for the first time 
to Ib-ft between 120 ms and 148 ms. 

(3) Time zero is defined as the time of contact 
between the pendulum striker plate and the 
aluminum honeycomb material. 

(c) Test Procedure. (1) Soak the test material in 
a test environment at any temperature between 69 
degrees F to 72 degrees F and at a relative 
humidity from 10% to 70% for a period of at least 
four hours prior to its application in a test. 

(2) Torque the jamnut (78051-64) on the neck 
cable (78051-301, revision E) to 1.0 Ibs-ft ±.2 
Ibs-ft. 

(3) Mount the head-neck assembly, defined in 
paragraph (b) of this section, on a rigid pendulum 
as shown in Figure 22 so that the head's midsagit- 
tal plane is vertical and coincides with the plane of 
motion of the pendulum's longitudinal axis. 

(4) Release the pendulum and allow it to fall 
freely from a height such that the tangential velocity 
at the pendulum accelerometer centerline at the in- 
stance of contact with the honeycomb is 23.0 ft/sec 
± 0.4 ft/sec. for flexion testing and 19.9 ft/sec ± 
0.4 ft/sec. for extension testing. The pendulum 
deceleration vs. time pulse for flexion testing shall 
conform to the characteristics shown in Table A 
and the decaying deceleration-time curve shall first 
cross 5g between 34 ms and 42 ms. The pendulum 
deceleration vs. time pulse for extension testing 
shall conform to the characteristics shown in Table 
B and the decaying deceleration-time curve shall 
cross 5g between 38 ms and 46 ms. 



Table A 
Flexion Pendulum Deceleration vs. Time Pulse 



Time (ms) 



Flesion 

deceleration 
level (g) 



10 22.50-27.50 

20 17.60-22.60 

30 12.50-18.50 

Any other time above 30 ms 29 maximum 



Table B 
Extension Pendulum Deceleration vs. Time Pulse 



Time (ms) 



Extension 

deceleration 

level (g) 



10 17.20-21.00 

20 14.00-19.00 

30 11.00-16.00 

Any other time above 30 ms 22 maximum 



(5) Allow the neck to flex without impact of the 
head or neck with any object during the test. 

S 572.34 Thorax. 

(a) The thorax consists of the upper torso 
assembly in drawing 78051-89, revision (KJ and 
shall conform to each of the drawings subtended 
therein. 

(b) [When impacted by a test probe conforming 
to S 572.36(a) at 22 ^s ± .40 fps in accordance with 
paragraph (c) of this section, the thorax of a com- 
plete dummy assembly (78051-218, revision R) with 
left and right shoes (78051-294 and -295) removed, 
shall resist with a force of 1242.5 pwunds ± 82.5 
pounds measured by the test probe and shall have a 
sternum displacement measured relative to spine of 
2.68 inches ±0.18 inches. The internal hysteresis in 
each impact shall be more than 69% but less than 
85%. The force measured is the product of pen- 
dulum mass and deceleration.! (53 F.R. 8755— March 
17, 1988. Effective: March 17, 1988) 

(c) Test procedure. (1) Soak the test dummy in 
an environment with a relative humidity from 10% 
to 70% until the temperature of the ribs of the test 
dummy have stabilized at a temperature between 
69 degrees F and 72 degrees F. 



(R«v. 3/17/88) 



PART 572-13 



(2) [Seat the dummy without back and arm sup- 
ports on a surface as shown in Figure 23, and set 
the angle of the pelvic bone at 13 degrees plus or 
minus 2 degrees, using the procedure described in 
S 11.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 (S 571.208 of this 
chapter).! (53 F.R. 8755— March 17, 1988. Effective: 
March 17, 1988). 

(3) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test 
probe so that it is .5 in ± .04 in. below the horizon- 
tal centerline of the No. 3 Rib (reference drawing 
number 79051-64, revision A-M) as shown in 
Figure 23. 

(4) Align the test probe specified in S572.36(a) 
so that at impact it longitudinal centerline coin- 
cides within .5 degree of a horizontal line in the 
dummy's midsagittal plane. 

(5) Impact the thorax with the test probe so 
that the longitudinal centerline of the test probe 
falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in the 
dummy's midsagittal plane at the moment of 
impact. 

(6) Guide the probe during impact so that it 
moves with no significant lateral, vertical, or rota- 
tional movement. 

(7) Measure the horizontal deflection of the 
sternum relative to the thoracic spine along the 
line established by the longitudinal centerline of 
the probe at the moment of impact, using a poten- 
tiometer (ref. drawing 78051-317, revision A) 
mounted inside the sternum as shown in drawing 
78051-89, revision I. 

(8) Measure hysteresis by determining the ratio 
of the area between the loading and unloading por- 
tions of the force deflection curve to the area under 
the loading portion of the curve. 

§ 572.35 Limbs. 

(a) The limbs consist of the following assemblies: 
leg assemblies 86-5001-001 and -002 and arm 
assemblies 78051-123, revision D, and -124, 
revision D, and shall conform to the drawings 
subtended therein. 

(b) [When each knee of the leg assemblies is 
impacted, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 
section, at 6.9 ft/sec ± 0.10 ft/sec, by the pendulum 
defined in S 572.36(b), the peak knee impact force, 
which is a product of pendulum mass and accelera- 
tion, shall have a minimum value of not less than 
1060 pounds and a maximum value of not more 
than 1300 pounds.) (53 F.R. 8755— March 17, 1988. 
Effective: March 17, 1988) 



(c) Test Procedure, (c) The test material con- 
sists of leg assemblies (86-5001-001) left and 
(-002) right with upper leg assemblies (78051-46) 
left and (78051-47) right removed. The load cell 
simulator (78051-319, revision A) is used to secure 
the knee cap assemblies (79051-16, revision B) as 
shown in Figure 24. 

(2) Soak the test material in a test environment 
at any temperature between 66 degrees F to 78 
degrees F and at a relative humidity from 10% to 
70% for a period of at least four hours prior to its 
application in a test. 

(3) Mount the test material with the leg 
assembly secured through the load cell simulator to 
a rigid surface as shown in Figure 24. No contact is 
permitted between the foot and any other exterior 
surfaces. 

(4) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test 
probe so that at contact with the knee it is colinear 
within 2 degrees with the longitudinal centerline of 
the femur load cell simulator. 

(5) Guide the pendulum so that there is no 
significant lateral, vertical or rotational movement 
at time zero. 

(6) Impact the knee with the test probe so that 
the longitudinal centerline of the test probe at the 
instant of impact falls within .5 degrees of a 
horizontal line parallel to the femur load cell 
simulator at time zero. 

(7) Time zero is defined as the time of contact 
between the test probe and the knee. 

§ 572.36 Test Conditions and Instrumentation. 

(a) The test probe used for thoracic impact tests 
is a 6 inch diameter cylinder that weighs 51.5 
pounds including instrumentation. Its impacting 
end has a flat right angle face that is rigid and has 
an edge radius of 0.5 inches. The test probe has an 
accelerometer mounted on the end opposite from 
impact with its sensitive axis colinear to the 
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder. 

(b) The test probe used for the knee impact tests 
is a 3 inch diamenter cylinder that weighs 11 
pounds including instrumentation. Its impacting 
end has a flat right angle face that is rigid and has 
an edge radius of 0.2 inches. The test probe has an 
accelerometer mounted on the end opposite from 
impact with its sensitive axis colinear to the 
longitudinal centerline of the cylinder. 



(R«v. 3M7/88) 



PART 572-14 



(c) Head accelerometers shall have dimensions, 
response characteristics and sensitive mass loca- 
tions specified in drawing 78051-136, revision A or 
its equivalent and be mounted in the head as shown 
in drawing 78051-61, revision T, and in the as- 
sembly shown in drawing 78051-218, revision [Rl. 

(d) The neck transducer shall have the dimen- 
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis 
locations specified in drawing 83-5001-008 or its 
equivalent and be mounted for testing as shown in 
drawing 79051-63, revision W, and in the as- 
sembly shown in drawing 78051-218, revision IRJ. 

(e) The chest accelerometers shall have the 
dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive 
mass locations specified in drawing 78051-136, 
revision A or its equivalent and be mounted as 
shown with adaptor assembly 78051-116, revision 
D for assembly into 78051-218, revision IRl. 

(f) The chest deflection transducer shall have the 
dimensions and response characteristics specified 
in drawing 78051-342, revision A or equivalent 
and be mounted in the chest deflection transducer 
assembly 87051-317, revision A for assembly into 
78051-218, revision IRJ. 

(g) The thorax and knee impactor accelero- 
meters shall have the dimensions and character- 
istics of Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent. Each 
accelerometer shall be mounted with its sensitive 
axis colinear with the pendulum's longitudinal 
centerline. 

(h) The femur load cell shall have the dimen- 
sions, response characteristics, and sensitive axis 
locations specified in drawing 78051-265 or its 
equivalent and be mounted in assemblies 78051-46 
and -47 for assembly into 78051-218, revision [RJ. 



(i) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing 
devices installed in the dummy and in the test ap- 
paratus specified by this part are recorded in in- 
dividual data channels that conform to the re- 
quirements of SAE Recommended Practice J211, 
JUN 1980, "Instrumentation for Impact Tests," 
with channel classes as follows: 

(1) Head acceleration— Class 1000 

(2) Neck force-Class 60 

(3) Neck pendulum acceleration— Class 60 

(4) Thorax and thorax pendulum 
acceleration— Class 180 

(5) Thorax deflection-Class 180 

(6) Knee pendulum acceleration— Class 600 

(7) Femur force-Class 600 

(j) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity 
conform to the sign convention shown in the docu- 
ment incorporated by S572.31(aX5). 

(k) The mountings for sensing devices shall have 
no resonance frequency within range of 3 times the 
frequency range of the applicable channel class. 

0) Limb joints are set at Ig, barely restraining 
the weight of the limb when it is extended horizon- 
tally. The force required to move a limb segment 
shall not exceed 2g throughout the range of limb 
motion. 

(m) Performance tests of the same component, 
segment, assembly, or fully assembled dummy are 
separated in time by a period of not less than 30 
minutes unless otherwise noted. 

(n) Surfaces of dummy components are not 
painted except as specified in this part or in draw- 
ings subtended by this part. (53 F.R. 8755— March 
17, 1988. Effective: March 17, 1988) 



(Rev. 3/17/88) 



PART 572-15-16 



ARM ASSY 

SA 150 M070 RIGHT 

SA 160 M071 LEFT 



LUMBAR SPINE 

ASSY 

SA 150 M050 

PELVIS AND 
ABDOMEN ASSY 
SA 1 50 M060 



LEG ASSY 

SA 1 50 M080 RIGHT 

SA 150 M081 LEFT 




HEAD ASSY 
SA 150M010 



NECK ASS'Y 
SA I SO M020 



SHOULOER'THORAX 

ASSY 

SA 1 60 M030 



FIGURE NO. 1 



' coao 



COKNECTWt DIM 



STEEL BLOCK C 
7' X 24" X 2<" 




HEAD POSITIONING FOR DROP TESTS 



FIGURE NO. 2 



^KNOULUM 
PIVOT TOINT 




HEAD ROTATION ANGLE 



CHORDAL 
DISPLACEMENT 



HEAD POSITION 
AT TIME ■•0" 



nsuPE Na 1 
NECK COMPONENT TEST 



PART 572-ART PAGE 1 



INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF PENDULUM 
WITHOUT TEST SPECIMEN. 

WEIGHT 66.2 LBS. 

MOMENT OF INERTIA 24.5 LB-FT SEC 
ABOUT PIVOT AXIS 



3/16" STRUCTURAL 
STEEL TUBE 



PIVOT 



ACCELEROMETER 




CG OF PENDULUM 
APPARATUS WITHOUT 
TEST SPECIMEN 



ALUMINUM HONEYCOMB 

(HEXCELL 1.8LBS/CU. FT.) 

REF. 



• 3" X 6" X 3/8" PLATE (SHARP EDGES) 

-3/4" "^ CG OF TEST SPECIMEN 

FIGURE NO. 4 
NECK COMPONENT TEST 



PART 572-ART PAGE 2 



LINE OF fORCE APPLICATION 



FIGURE NO. 7 
FIGURE NO. 6 



ATTACHMENT 
5/16-24 BOLTS 



FIGURE NO. 8 




FIGURE NO 9 

ATTACHMENT 10 32 SCREWS 
(FOUR PLACES! 



LINK ROD (ITEMS F/04 AND G/04 
DRAWING NO SA 1 5OM002 SHEET 1 ) 
ATTACHMENT TO BEDPLATE 
WITH 3/8-24 BOLTS 

FIGURE NO. 5 
LUMBAR FLEXION TEST 



■2-1/4 

I 1-1/4- 



i I 



n 



L 



Y 






tn WlOt SLOT \m >l/4 ■ 

(TWO PLACES) 



- 3/B WIDE SLOT (TWO PLACES! 
6 X e STRUCTURAL STL. ANGLE 




FIGURE NO 6 



SUPPORT BRACKET 
LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE 



1/J sa STL. STOCK 71/2 LONG 
WELDED TO ANCLE 



46° TYP. 



TOLERANCE • 1/32" 



PART 572-ART PAGE 3 



13/32 



19/16* 1/32 

r 



-6 ■ 5/8 - 



a ■<> 




U 



• 1-3/16W 



la 



5/16 24 TAP THRU I 2 HOLES! 



FIGURE NO. 7 
MOUNTING BRACKET- LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE 




7/32 



_1 



9/32 DRILL THRU 
4 PLACES 



TOLERANCE! 1/64" 
MATERIAL: STEEL 
WELDED CONSTRUCTION 



9/16 DRILL THRU 
2 PLACES 




•^ 



3-1/2- 



9/16 DRILL THRU 
4 PLACES 




9/16 DRILL HOLE 4- 



I ] MATL STEEL 1/4 THICK PLATE &2X 2 1/4 WALL Sa TUBINO 

WELDED CONSTRUCTION 



FIGURE NO 8 
BEDPLATE LUMBAR TEST FIXTURE 



TOLERANCE t 1/32" 



PART 572-ART PAGE 4 



nn 



T 



•1.00- 



IJ_I K 



r-f 



•* .25 



CONST: ALUMINUM OR STL. WELDMENT 
TOLERANCE: t .03 TWO PLACES 
t .005 THREE PLACES 



5-<U 



.25- 



■1.76- 



.25 R 
4 PLACES 



/- 



-^ 



' 3.000 ■ 
-3.50— 



-(t> 



r^ 




— r 



—*4 ,50 U— 



K£ 



.50 DIA 

1.38 



CLEAR DRILL 
FOR 10-32 SCREW 
4 PLACES 

FIGURE 9 
LMding Pl«t»- Lumbw T«t Fixttir* 



I « 1.40— >■ 



.25R (4 PLACES) 











1 

1 

! 




90 


— 








• - — 88 


BO 


- 






1 


/^ 




70 


"" 




63—^ — — 


y 


/^ 




60 


^ 




^ 


" y 


r 




FORCE 60 
(LBS.) 


- 




^^ 


^ 


——50 




40 


— 




^^^^ 


i 






30 


- 


^ 


^V^^ 






20 


- 


y^ 


^ 








10 




^ 















1 


1 1 


1 


1 






0.25 


0.50 a 75 


1.00 


1.30 






. DISPLACEMENT • INCHES 












FIGURE NO. 10 












ABDOMEN COMPONENT TEST 









PART 572-ART PAGE 5 



SPACER (REF.) 



(a^REF) 




FIGURE No. 11 

UPRIGHT SEATED POSITION FOR LINEAR MEASUREMENTS 



PART 572-ART PAGE 6 



Space for figures 12 thru 14 
reserved for future use. 



PART 572-ART PAGE 7 



3/16" STRUCTURAL 
STEEL TUBE 



INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF PENDULUM 
WITHOUT TEST SPECIMEN. 

WEIGHT 65.3 LBS. 

MOMENT OF INERTIA 24.5 LB-FT SEC* 

ABOUT PIVOT AXIS 



ACCELEROMETER 



5 11/16" REF 




CG OF PENDULUM 
APPARATUS WITHOUT 
TEST SPECIMEN 



ALUMINUM HONEYCOMB 

IHEXCELL 1 8LBS/CU FT.) 

REF 



•CG OF TEST SPECIMEN 



3" X 6" X 3/8" PLATE (SHARP EDGES) 
LEADING EDGE OF NECIC 



MUST BE ALLIGNED WITH 
LEADING EDGE OF PENDULUM 



FIGURE NO. 15 
NECK COMPONENT TEST 



PART 572-ART PAGE 8 




IMPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE 



12.4- 



FIGURE NO. 16 
HEAD IMPACT TEST 



PART 572-ART PAGE 9 



IMPACTOR FACE TO BE VERTICAL + 2° 
AT CONTACT OF CHEST 




IMPACTOR SUPPORT WIRE 



FIGURE NO. 17 
CHEST IMPACT TEST 



PART 572-ART PAGE 10 



1.00" RADIUS 
I. 



DRILL .53 THRU 



S 



-DRILL .25 



.125 



2.70 



yi-20SOC. HD. SCR. WELDED 
TO C 328 SCR. BOLTED 
THROUGH TABLE 



PULL FORCE IN THE MID-SAGITTAL 
PLANE PERPENDICULAR TO THE CHEST 
INSTRUMENT CAVITY REAR FACE. 




UPPER LEGS 
SECURED BY 
BOLT 
THROUGH TABLE 



METAL TABLE 



FIGURE NO. 18 
LUMBAR-SPINE FLEXION TEST 



PART 572-ART PAGE 11-12 



EUtctlvt: Octobti 1, 1971 



PREAMBLE TO PART 573— DEFEa REPORTS 



(Docket No. 69-31; Notice No. 2) 



On December 24, 1969, a notice of proposed 
rulemaking entitled, "Defect Reports", was pub- 
lished in the Federal Register (34 F.R. 20212). 
The notice proposed requirements for reports 
and information regarding defects in motor 
vehicles, to be submitted to the National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration by manufac- 
turers of motor vehicles pursuant to sections 112, 
113, and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1401, 1402, and 
1407). 

The notice requested comments on the pro- 
posed requirements. All comments received have 
been considered and some are discussed below. 

Several comments asked whether both the 
fabricating manufacturer and the importer of 
imported vehicles were required to comply with 
all the proposed requirements. A similar ques- 
tion was asked in regard to manufacturers of 
incomplete vehicles and subsequent manufac- 
turers of the same vehicles. In response to the 
comments, § 573.3 provides that in the case of 
imported vehicles, compliance by either the 
fabricating manufacturer or the importer of the 
imported vehicle with §§ 573.4 and 573.5 of this 
part, with respect to a particular defect, shall be 
considered compliance by both. In the case of 
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, 
compliance by either the manufacturer of the in- 
complete vehicle or one of the subsequent manu- 
facturers of the vehicle with §§ 573.4 and 573.5 
of this part, with respect to a particular defect, 
shall be considered compliance by both the in- 
complete vehicle manufacturer and the subse- 
quent manufacturers. 

Many comments requested that the time for 
the initial filing of the direct information report 
be increased to allow opportunity for the exten- 
sive and complex testing often necessary to deter- 
mine whether a defect is safety-related. As 



proposed, the time for initially filing the report 
was within 5 days after the discovery of a defect 
that the manufacturer subsequently determined 
to be safety-related. In response to these com- 
ments, § 573.4(b) provides that the report shall 
be submitted by the manufacturer not more than 
5 days after he or the Administrator has deter- 
mined that a defect in the manufacturer's ve- 
hicles relates to motor vehicle safety. 

Several comments requested the deletion of one 
or more items of information proposed for inclu- 
sion in the defect information report. Objec- 
tions to providing an evaluation of the risk of 
accident due to the defect, a list of all incidents 
related to the defect, and an analysis of the 
cause of the defect were based on the ground that 
the information would be inherently speculative. 
The proposed requirements for these three items 
of information have been deleted. In place of 
the list of incidents, § 573.4(c) (6) requires a 
chronology of all principal events that were the 
basis for the determination of the existence of 
a safety-related defect. In accordance with the 
deletion of the list of incidents, the provision in 
the proposal requiring quarterly reports to con- 
tain information concerning previously unre- 
ported incidents has also been deleted. 

Several comments stated that the requirement 
in the proposal for the submission of a copy of 
all communications sent to dealers and pur- 
chasers concerning a safety-related defect would 
create an unreasonable burden on the manufac- 
turers. The comments reported that the manu- 
facturers would be required to submit to the 
Administration a large volume of useless cor- 
respondence between the manufacturers and in- 
dividual dealers or purchasers. To mitigate this 
problem, § 573.4(c) (8) provides that the manu- 
facturers shall submit to the Administration 
only those communications that are sent to more 



PART 573— PRE 1 



EfFacHv*: Oclobar 1, 1971 



than one dealer or purchaser. For the same rea- 
son, the requirement in § 573.7 that a manufac- 
turer submit a copy of all communications, other 
than those required under § 573.4(c) (8), regard- 
ing any defect, whether or not safety-related, in 
his vehicles, is also limited to communications 
sent to more than one person. 

Many comments requested that a regular 
schedule for submitting quarterly reports be es- 
tablished. They suggested that this be accom- 
plished by requiring that the first quarter for 
submitting a quarterly report with respect to a 
particular defect be the calendar quarter in 
which the defect information report for the 
defect is initially submitted. As proposed, the 
first quarter began on the date on which the de- 
fect information report was initially submitted. 
Several of these comments also objected to the 
proposed requirements for submitting both 
quarterly reports and annual defect summaries 
on the ground that the latter would be partially 
redimdant. In response to these comments, the 
proposed requirement for filing a separate series 
of quarterly reports for each defect notification 
campaign has been deleted. Instead, § 573.5(a) 
requires that each manufacturer submit a 
quarterly report not more than 25 working days 
after the close of each calendar quarter. The in- 
formation specified in § 573.5(c) is required to be 
provided with respect to each notification 
campaign, beginning with the quarter in which 
the campaign was initiated. Unless otherwise 
directed by the Administration, the information 
for each campaign is to be included in the 
quarterly reports for six consecutive quarters or 
until corrective action has been completed on all 



defective vehicles involved in the campaign, 
whichever occurs sooner. 

The proposed requirement for filing annual 
summaries has been deleted. Instead, § 573.5 
(d) requires that the figures provided in the 
quarterly reports under paragraph (c) (5), (6), 
(7), and (8) of § 573.5 be cumulative. In addi- 
tion, § 573.5(b) requires that each quarterly re- 
port contain the total number of vehicles pro- 
duced during the quarter for which the report is 
submitted. 

Several changes have been made for the pur- 
pose of clarification, § 573.4(c) (8) requires 
that manufacturers submit three copies of the 
communications specified in that section. In 
response to questions concerning the use of com- 
puters for maintaining owner lists, a reference to 
computer information storage devices and card 
files has been added to § 573.6 to indicate that 
they are suitable. A reference to first purchasers 
and subsequent purchasers to whom a warranty 
has been transferred, and any other owners 
known to the manufacturer, has been added to 
the same section to make clear that the owner 
list is required to include both types of pur- 
chasers as well as other known owners. 

Effective date: October 1, 1971. 

Issued on February 10, 1971. 

Douglas W. Toms, 

Acting Administrator, National High- 
way Traffic Safety Administration. 

36 F.R. 3064 
February 17, 1971 



PART 573— PRE 2 



Effecllva: May 6, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT REPORTS 
(Docket No. 69-31; Notice 5) 



This notice amends the Defect Reports regula- 
tion (49 CFR Part 573) to require manufactur- 
ers to submit vehicle identification numbers as 
part of the information furnished by them to the 
NHTSA. A notice of proposed rulemaking re- 
garding this subject was published November 7, 
1972 (37F.R. 23650). 

The purpose of including VIN's in defect re- 
ports would be to improve the notification of 
owners of vehicles involved in safety defect noti- 
fication campaigns. The State Farm Insurance 
Company had suggested, for example, that in- 
surance companies could use VIN's to identify 
vehicles which they insure, and to themselves 
notify owners of record. The Center for Auto 
Safety also requested the inclusion of VIN's in 
defect reports, so it could more readily inform 
persons who inquire whether particular vehicles 
were subject to campaigns. Other possible uses, 
it was noted, would be that State and local in- 
spection facilities could determine, as part of 
inspection programs, whether particular vehicles 
had been subjected to campaigns, and if so, 
whether they had been repaired. 

The proposal would have required the submis- 
sion in the "defect information report" (§ 573.4), 
within five days of the defect determination, of 
the vehicle identification number for each vehicle 
potentially affected by the defect. It also pro- 
posed to substitute "line" for "model" as one of 
the identifying classifications describing poten- 
tially affected vehicles. 

The comments demonstrated that the vehicle 
identification number is a useful tool for locating 
second and later owners of vehicles. In a study 
conducted by the Ford Motor Company and the 
State Farm Insurance Company, a fairly signifi- 
cant percentage of owners who either had not 
received or responded to the initial notification 



mailed by the manufacturer did respond to sub- 
sequent letters sent on the basis of the VIN. 

As a result of comments received, however, the 
NHTSA has decided that vehicle identification 
numbers should only be required to be supplied 
in the second "quarterly report", approximately 
six months after a campaign is initiated, rather 
than in the defect information report as pro- 
posed. Only the VIN's for vehicles not repaired 
by that date are required to be provided. The 
NHTSA believes this approach will provide the 
safety benefits to be derived from having pub- 
licly available lists of defective vehicle VIN's 
and will also reduce duplication and facilitate 
the agency's efforts to compile and report the 
information. 

The NHTSA requests that vehicle identifica- 
tion numbers be submitted in a form suitable for 
automatic data processing (magnetic tape, discs, 
punched cards, etc.) when more than 500 num- 
bers are reported for any single campaign. While 
not required by this notice, the use of automatic 
data processing for large campaigns will facili- 
tate the dissemination of the information for the 
agency. The agency may include specific re- 
quirements in this regard at a later time. 

The comments argued that the benefits of hav- 
ing VIN's available during the initial stages of 
a campaign are limited, and that the compilation 
of identification numbers for every vehicle in a 
campaign would create significant problems for 
manufacturers related to conducting campaigns. 
The NHTSA believes these comments to have 
merit. It is clear that the chief use of VIN's 
will be to notify other than first purchasers, 
i.e., owners of older vehicles, as the names of 
these owners will not be available to manufac- 
turers. By delaying the furnishing of VIN's 
until the filing of the second quarterly report, 
the VIN's reported will represent to a greater 



PART 573— PRE 3 



Effettive: May 6, )974 



degree the names and addresses of second and 
later owners. The later reporting will also re- 
duce the possibility that first purchasers will 
receive duplicate notices. 

Many comments challenged generally the util- 
ity of the VIN in notification campaigns. Other 
comments complained that insurance companies 
might abuse the information; for example, by 
cancelling policies on defective vehicles. Still 
others believed VIN's to be privileged proprie- 
tary information, both taken separately and 
when combined with other information submit- 
ted pursuant to Part 573. 

While it is true that the effectiveness of the 
requirement will depend to an extent upon the 
voluntary activities of third parties, the NHTSA 
does not view this as a reason not to issue the 
requirement. The offers of insurance companies 
and other groups to participate in notification 
campaigns appear to be reasonable and properly 
motivated. There has been no evidence brought 
to the NHTSA's attention to support the allega- 
tions of possible misuse of the information by 
insurance companies. 

The agency also cannot agree that information 
identifying defective vehicles is or relates to pro- 
prietary information. The comments on this 
point seem to equate what may be embarrassing 
information with notions of confidentiality. 



There is no basis under existing statutory defini- 
tions of confidentiality for including within 
them VIN's or other information identifying 
defective vehicles. 

The proposed substitution of "line" for 
"model" in the descriptive information for ve- 
hicles was opposed in one comment because the 
term "line" is apparently more suited for pas- 
senger cars than other vehicle types. The com- 
ment indicated that "model" is a more appro- 
priate term for trucks. In light of this comment, 
the terms are specified as alternatives in the 
regulation. 

In light of the above, Part 573 of Title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, "Defect Reports," 
is amended. . . . 

Effective date : May 6, 1974. 

(Sections 103, 112, 113, and 119, Pub. L. 89- 
563, 80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 
1407, and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.51 Office of Management and Budget Approved 
04-R5628.) 



Issued on January 30, 1974. 



James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 4578 
February 5, 1974 



PART 573— PRE 4 



Effective: August 6,1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT REPORTS 



(Docket No. 69-31; Notice 6) 



This notice responds to petitions for reconsid- 
eration of the amendment of 49 CFR Part 573. 
"Defect Reports," requiring the submission to 
NHTSA of the \eliicle identification numbers 
(VIN) of motor \ehicles fonnd to contain safety 
rehited defects. Tlie amendment was published 
February .5. 197-1: (39 F.R. 4578). Except inso- 
far as fjranted by this notice, tlie requests of the 
petitioners are denied. 

Two petitions for reconsideration, one from 
General Motors Corporation and the other from 
Chrysler Corporation, were received. Both pe- 
titions objected to the requirement that VIX's 
be reported in the second quarterly report filed 
subsequent to the initiation of the defect notifi- 
cation campaign. Both pointed out that the 
NHTSA had stated in the amendment published 
February 5, 1974, that it was desirable to defer 
reporting VIN's until six months had passed 
from the time a notification campaign had begun. 
Both petitioners argued that the time for filing 
the second quarterly report is frequently less 
than six months, and suggested that the third 
quarterly report rather than the second was the 
more appropriate quarterly report to contain 
vehicle identification numbers, tieneral Motors 
indicated that the a\erage elapsed time from the 
initiation of a notification campaign to the filing 
of the second quarterly report is four and one- 
half months, while the elapsed time imtil the 
filing of the third quarterly report is, on the 
average, seven and one-half months. The 
NHTSA still believes it reasonable to allow a 
six-month period from the initiation of the cam- 
paign to elapse before VIN's are submitted. 
Accordingly, the NHTSA has granted the peti- 
tions insofar as they request that VIN's be re- 
ported in the third quarterly report submitted 
to NHTSA by the manufacturer. 



Chrysler objected to the VIN reporting re- 
quirement generally, on the basis that it is un- 
necessary and will not produce the desired 
results. It is requested that an evaluation of the 
usefulness of the requirement be conducted after 
it is in effect, and that appropriate modifications 
be made if the requirement fails to achieve the 
desired results. General Motors requested that' 
NHTSA maintain a public record of requests for 
VIN's so that future consideration can be given 
to the extent that the data is useful, and to whorri 
it is useful. The NHTSA believes that public 
a\'ailability of VIN's will facilitate locating and 
repairing defective \ehicles no longer in the 
hands of first purchasers. At the same time it 
agrees to conduct an evaluation of the efficacy of 
the requirement once it is in effect. The extent 
of usage is a relevant aspect of an evaluation of . 
this type, and the NHTSA sees no prohibition 
against maintaining a public record of requests 
for the information. 

The amended regulation will be effective 
August (i, 1974. and as such will require all third 
quarterly reports submitted to NHTSA on or 
after that date to contain appropriate vehicle 
identification numbers. The effective date has 
been changed from May 6, 1974, as a result of 
the change requiring the third rather than the 
second quarterly report to contain VIN's. As a 
practical matter, VIN's will be required to be 
reported in the third quarterly report for all 
defect notification campaigns initiated on or 
after January 1, 1974 (NHTSA campaign num- 
bers 74—0001 and subsequent campaigns). 

In light of the above, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect 
Reports, is amended by revising § 573.5(e) .... 



PART 573— PRE 5 



Effective: August 6,1974 



EflFective date : August 6, 1974. Issued on May 6, 1974. 

(Sees. 103, 112, 113, and 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 
80 Stat. 718; 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1402, 1407, ^^"® ^- Mannella 

and tlie delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 ; Acting Administrator 

Office of Management and Budget approved 39 F R 16469 

04-R5628.) ^^;,; ,,7, 



PART 573— PRE 6 



Effective: December 10, 1974 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT REPORTS 

(Docket No. 74-7; Notice 2) 



This notice amends Part 573 — "Defect Re- 
ports" by revoking: the requirement that manu- 
facturers of motor vehicles re^wrt quarterly to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra- 
tion production figures for \ehicles manufactured 
or imported during the calendar quartei. A 
notice of proposed rulemaking in which this 
amendment was i)rop()sed was published January 
15, 1974 (39 FR 1863). 

The NHTSA is revoking the requirement for 
the reporting of quarterly production figures be- 
cause it has found that the value of the informa- 
tion has not justified the burden on manufac- 
turers of providing it. This amendment will 
eliminate the need for manufacturers to file 
quarterly reports unless they are conducting no- 
tification campaigns during the calendar quarter. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 
15, 1974, proposed to extend the applicability of 
the Defect Reports regulations to include manu- 
facturers of motor vehicle equipment, and to 
modify the information required to be reported. 
Since the issuance of this proposal, Congress has 
amended sections of tlxe National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act which deal with manu- 
facturers' responsibilities for safety related de- 
fects in motor veiiicles and motor vehicle 
equipment. (Pub. L. 93-492, Oct. 27, 1974) 
These amendments to the Safety Act in pai-t 
enlarge the responsibilities of manufacturers of 
motor vehicle equipment for safety related de- 
fects. Ultimately the Defect Reports regulations 
will reflect completely the expanded scope of the 
statutory amendments. While the language of 



the proposed nde of January 15, 1974, is in most 
cases sufficiently broad to reflect these statutory 
changes, the scope of the proposal under the 
previous language of the Safety Act is materially 
different. Consequently, the NHTSA has decided 
to issue a further notice, with opportunity for 
public comment, that specifically reflects the ex- 
panded scope of the statutory amendments. This 
notice will be issued at some time following the 
effective date (December 26, 1974) of the statu- 
tory amendments. 

The NHTSA has determined, however, that 
relief from the production-figures reporting re- 
quirements should not be further deferred, and 
by this notice deletes those requirements from 
the Defect Reports regulation. 

In light of the above, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect 
Reports, is amended by revoking and reserving 
paragraph (b) of section 573.5 ("Quarterly re- 
ports"). 

Effective date: December 10, 1974. This 
amendment relieves a restriction and imposes no 
additional burden on any person. Consequently 
good cause exists and is hereby found for an 
effective date less than 30 days from publication. 

(Sees. 108, 112, 113, 119, Pub. L. 89-563, 80 
Stat. 718, 15 IJ.S.C. 1397, 1401, 1402, 1408; dele- 
gation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51) 

Issued on December 4, 1974. 

James B. Gregory 
Administrator 

39 F.R. 43075 
December 10, 1974 



PART 573— PRE 7-8 



PREAMBLE TO AMENDMENT TO PART 573— DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS 

(Docket No. 74-7; Notice 4) 



This notice amends Part 573, Defect and Non- 
complmnce Reports, by adding reporting require- 
ments for equipment manufacturers and altering 
somewhat the requirements for vehicle manufac- 
turers as authorized by the 1974 Motor Vehicle 
and Schoolbus Safety Amendments. The amended 
regulation requires the submission of reports to 
the agency concerning defects and noncompliance 
with safety standards and specifies the informa- 
tion to be included in those reports. 

Effective date : January 25, 1979. 

Addresses : Petitions for reconsideration should 
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: 
Koom 5108, Nassif Building, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 

Fo7' further information contact: 

Mr. James Murray, Office of Defects Investi- 
gation, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2840) 
Supplementat^ information: 

This notice amends Part 573, Defect and Non- 
compliance Reports. A notice of proposed rule- 
making was published on September 19, 1975 (40 
F.R. 43227), proposing new requirements for ve- 
hicle and equipment manufacturers regarding 
submittal to the NHTSA of defect and noncom- 
pliance reports as authorized by the Motor Ve- 
iiicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 
(the Amendments) (Pub. L. 93-492). 

Sections 151 to 160, or Part B of the Amend- 
ments alter the defect notification requirements 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1966 ("the Act") (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). 
These Amendments require manufacturers of mo- 
tor vehicle replacement equipment to notify 
purchasers and to remedy any defects or non- 
compliances following the manufacturer's or the 



Administrator's determination that the equipment 
contains either a defect which relates to motor 
vehicle safety or a noncompliance with an ap- 
plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 
Prior to the enactment of these provisions, manu- 
facturers of motor vehicle equipment were re- 
sponsible under the Act for notification of defects 
or noncompliances only following a determination 
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- 
istrator that the item of equipment contained a 
safety-related defect or failed to comply (Sec. 
113(e), Pub. L. 89-563, 15 U.S.C. 1402). 

Comments on the proposal were received from 
manufacturers, safety organizations, and manu- 
facturer representatives. The Vehicle Equipment 
Safety Commission did not submit comments. 
All comments were consideied and the most sig- 
nificant ones are discussed below. 

I. Scope. 

Several manufacturers objected to the scope of 
the regulation indicating that it exceeded the 
agency's authority to I'egulate vehicle and equip- 
ment manufacturers. For example, manufactur- 
ers alleged that the agency only has authority 
over safety-related