
[Federal Register: December 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 230)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 63179-63233]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02de09-13]                         


[[Page 63179]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 571 and 585



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ejection Mitigation; Phase-In 
Reporting Requirements; Proposed Rule


[[Page 63180]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0183]
RIN 2127-AK23

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ejection Mitigation; 
Phase-In Reporting Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking would establish a new 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, to reduce the 
partial and complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows 
in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. The standard would apply to 
the side windows next to the first three rows of seats in motor 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilogram 
(kg) or less (10,000 pounds (lb) or less). To assess compliance, the 
agency is proposing a test in which an impactor would be propelled from 
inside a test vehicle toward the windows. The ejection mitigation 
safety system would be required to prevent the impactor from moving 
more than a specified distance beyond the plane of a window. To ensure 
that the systems cover the entire opening of each window for the 
duration of a rollover, each side window would be impacted at up to 
four locations around its perimeter at two time intervals following 
deployment.
    The agency anticipates that manufacturers would meet the standard 
by modifying existing side impact air bag curtains, and possibly 
supplementing them with advanced laminated glazing. The curtains would 
be made larger so that they cover more of the window opening, made more 
robust to remain inflated longer, and made to deploy in both side 
impacts and in rollovers. In addition, they would be tethered or 
otherwise designed to keep the impactor within the vehicle.
    This NPRM advances NHTSA's initiatives in rollover safety and also 
responds to Section 10301 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). That 
section directs NHTSA to initiate and complete rulemaking to reduce 
complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants from outboard 
seating positions, considering various ejection mitigation systems.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the 
docket receives them not later than February 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the Docket ID Number 
above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Mr. Louis Molino, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 
202-366-1740, fax 202-493-2739. For legal issues, you may contact Ms. 
Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992, 
fax 202-366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Congressional Mandate
III. Safety Problem
IV. Proposed Solution
    a. Various Ejection Mitigation Systems Considered
    b. Full Window Opening Coverage Is Key
    1. Tests With 50th Percentile Adult Male and 5th Percentile 
Adult Female Test Dummies
    2. Tests With 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy Showed a Risk of 
Ejection Through Openings Not Fully Covered
    3. Differences in Design Between the Two Inflatable Systems
    4. Insights
    c. Comparable Performance in Simulated Rollovers and Component-
Level Impact tests
    d. Advantages of a Component Test Over a Full Vehicle Dynamic 
Test
    e. Existing Curtains Can Be Made More Effective
    1. Existing Curtains
    2. Component Tests of Real-World Curtains and Advanced Glazing 
Systems Show That Improvements Could Be Made
    3. Use of Advanced Glazing With the Air Bag Curtain Resulted in 
Reduced Displacement
    4. Field Performance of Ejection Mitigation Curtain Systems
V. Proposed Ejection Mitigation Requirements and Test Procedures
    a. Impactor Dimensions and Mass
    b. Displacement Limit (100 mm)
    c. Speed(s) and Time(s) at Which the Headform Would Impact the 
Countermeasure.
    1. Ejections Can Occur Both Early and Late in the Rollover Event
    2. Speed at Which Occupants Impact or Move Through the Window 
Opening
    3. Alternative Testing of Only One Target Position at Higher 
Speed
    d. Locations Where the Device Would Impact the Ejection 
Mitigation Countermeasure To Assess Efficacy
    1. Occupants are Mainly Ejected Through Side Windows
    2. The Requirements Would Apply to Side Windows Adjacent to 
First Three Rows
    3. Four Targets Per Glazing Area
    4. Method for Determining Impactor Target Locations
    e. How Should the Window Glazing Be Positioned or Prepared in 
the Test To Represent Real-World Circumstances?
    1. Window Position and Condition
    2. Window Pre-Breaking Specification and Method
    f. Test Procedure Tolerances
    g. Impactor Test Device Characteristics
    h. Readiness Indicator
VI. Other Considered Performance Aspects of an Ejection Mitigation 
Standard
    a. Rollover Sensor
    1. Introduction
    2. Alternative Approaches
    b. Quasi-Static Loading in a Compliance Test

[[Page 63181]]

VII. To Which Vehicles Would The Proposed Standard Apply?
VIII. The Proposed Lead Time and Phase-In Schedules
IX. The Estimated Benefits and Costs of This Rulemaking
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
XI. Public Participation

I. Executive Summary

    Addressing vehicle rollovers is one of NHTSA's highest safety 
priorities. In 2002, the agency conducted an in-depth review of 
rollovers and associated deaths and injuries and assessed how NHTSA and 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) could most effectively 
improve safety in this area.\1\ The agency formulated strategies 
involving improving vehicle performance and occupant behavior, and with 
the FHWA taking the lead, improving roadway designs. Vehicle 
performance strategies included crash avoidance and crashworthiness 
programs, and included four wide-ranging initiatives to address the 
rollover safety problem: Prevent crashes, prevent rollovers, prevent 
ejections, and protect occupants who remain within the vehicle after a 
crash. Projects aimed at protecting occupants remaining in the vehicle 
during a rollover included improved roof crush resistance and 
researching whether seat belts could be made more effective in 
rollovers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The assessment was carried out by one of four Integrated 
Project Teams (IPTs) formed within NHTSA, whose recommendations 
culminated in the agency's priority plan, ``NHTSA Vehicle Safety 
Rulemaking and Supporting Research: 2003-2006'' (68 FR 43972; July 
18, 2003) http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/
FinalVeh/Index.html. The IPT Report on Rollover was published in 
June 2003 (68 FR 36534, Docket 14622).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major undertaking implementing the first two initiatives was 
completed in 2007 when NHTSA published a new Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126 to require electronic stability control 
(ESC) systems on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) or less (72 FR 17236, April 6, 2007, Docket 27662). ESC 
systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of the individual 
wheels of a vehicle to assist the driver in maintaining control in 
critical driving situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose 
directional stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional 
control at the front wheels (plow out). Because most loss-of-control 
crashes culminate in the vehicle's leaving the roadway--an event that 
significantly increases the probability of a rollover--preventing 
single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most effective way to 
reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes.\2\ The agency estimates 
that when all vehicles (other than motorcycles) under 10,000 lb GVWR 
have ESC systems, the number of deaths each year resulting from 
rollover crashes would be reduced by 4,200 to 5,500. Currently, there 
are over 10,000 such deaths each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA estimates that the installation of ESC will reduce 
single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 34 percent and single 
vehicle crashes of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 59 percent. 
NHTSA further estimates that ESC has the potential to prevent 71 
percent of the passenger car rollovers and 84 percent of the SUV 
rollovers that would otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes. 
NHTSA estimates that ESC would save 5,300 to 9,600 lives and prevent 
156,000 to 238,000 injuries in all types of crashes annually once 
all light vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While ESC systems will avoid many of the roadway departures that 
lead to rollover, vehicle rollovers will continue to occur.\3\ Once a 
rollover occurs, vehicle crashworthiness characteristics play a crucial 
role in protecting the occupants. According to agency data, occupants 
have a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not ejected 
from their vehicles. Among the promising technological innovations to 
prevent occupant ejections are side curtain air bags and improved 
glazing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The target population addressed by this rulemaking action is 
discussed in detail in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(PRIA) for this NPRM, which has been placed in the docket for this 
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concurrent with the agency's work on ESC, NHTSA began work on the 
third initiative on rollover safety, which addresses occupant ejections 
through side windows in rollovers (``ejection mitigation''). Inroads on 
this third initiative were realized in 2007 when the agency published a 
final rule that incorporated a dynamic pole test into FMVSS No. 214, 
``Side impact protection'' (49 CFR 571.214) (72 FR 51908; September 11, 
2007, Docket No. NHTSA-29134; response to petitions for 
reconsideration, 73 FR 32473, June 9, 2008, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-
0104).\4\ The pole test, applying to motor vehicles with a GVWR of 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide 
side impact protection for a wide range of occupant sizes and over a 
broad range of seating positions. To meet the pole test, manufacturers 
will install new technologies capable of improving head and thorax 
protection in side crashes, i.e., side curtain air bags and torso side 
air bags. We believe that these side curtain air bag systems can be 
effectively modified to meet the occupant containment requirements of 
this ejection mitigation initiative on rollover safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' (SAFETEA-
LU), Public Law 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144) was enacted, 
to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Section 
10302(a) of SAFETEA-LU directed the Secretary to complete the FMVSS 
No. 214 rulemaking by July 1, 2008. The September 11, 2007 final 
rule completed the rulemaking specified in Sec.  10302(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ejection mitigation initiative was bolstered by the efforts of 
vehicle manufacturers to install side impact air bags (SIABs) on a 
voluntary basis. Immediately prior to the publication of the FMVSS No. 
214 NPRM, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), the 
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced a voluntary commitment 
to enhance occupant protection in front-to-side crashes, focusing on, 
among other things, accelerating the installation of SIABs.\5\ The 
industry's voluntary commitment to install side impact air bags 
demonstrated the feasibility of installing side curtain air bags on a 
near fleet-wide basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Docket NHTSA-2003-14623-13. Alliance and AIAM members 
agreed to provide side impact head protection in at least 50 percent 
of their new passenger car and light truck fleet by September 1, 
2007, and in 100 percent of the vehicles by September 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's NPRM begins a new stage in implementing ejection 
mitigation. This document would establish a new FMVSS for ejection 
mitigation (FMVSS No. 226), specifying occupant containment performance 
requirements. It would apply to motor vehicles with GVWR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) or less. The countermeasures most likely to be installed to 
meet the performance requirements of this NPRM would be the FMVSS No. 
214 side curtain air bags \6\ made larger to cover more of the window 
opening, made more robust to remain inflated longer, enhanced to deploy 
in side impacts and in rollovers, and made not only to cushion but also 
made sufficiently strong to keep an occupant from being fully or 
partially ejected through a side window. We have drafted the test 
procedure of our proposal to accommodate the use of advanced laminated 
glazing in fixed and

[[Page 63182]]

in possibly moveable windows in addition to or in lieu of the side 
curtain air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In this document, this countermeasure is referred to as an 
``ejection mitigation side curtain air bag,'' ``side curtain air 
bag,'' ``air bag curtain,'' ``rollover curtain,'' or simply 
``curtain.'' This countermeasure is designed to deploy in a rollover 
crash and is distinct from strictly a ``side impact curtain,'' which 
is designed predominately to protect occupants in side crashes and 
meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 214. Notwithstanding this 
nomenclature, it is anticipated that rollover curtains will mitigate 
occupant ejections in side impacts as well as rollover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standard would use a guided impactor component test to assess 
the ability of the countermeasure (e.g., a curtain system) to mitigate 
ejections in different types of rollover and side impact crashes 
involving different occupant kinematics. The test has been carefully 
designed to represent the dynamic rollover event. The impact mass is 
based on the mass imposed by a 50th percentile male's upper torso on 
the window opening during an occupant ejection. The mass of the 
impactor, 18 kilograms (kg) (40 lb), in combination with the impact 
speed discussed below, has sufficient kinetic energy to assure that the 
ejection mitigation countermeasure is able to protect a far-reaching 
population of people in real world crashes. In the test, the linear 
travel of the impactor beyond where the device contacts the inside of 
the unbroken vehicle glazing must not exceed 100 millimeters. This 
displacement limit serves to control the gap size between the 
countermeasure and the window opening, thus reducing the potential for 
both partial and complete ejection of an occupant.
    To evaluate the performance of the curtain to fully cover potential 
ejection routes, the impactor would typically target four specific 
locations per side window adjacent to the first three rows of the 
vehicle. NHTSA has tentatively determined that impacting four targets 
around the perimeter of the opening would assure that the window will 
be covered by the curtain, while imposing a reasonable test burden. 
Small windows would be tested with fewer targets.
    Computer modeling has shown that ejections can occur early and late 
in the rollover event. The impactor would strike the targets at two 
impact speeds and at two different points in time following side 
curtain air bag deployment, to ensure that the curtains will retain the 
occupant from the relatively early through the late stages of a 
rollover. The first impact would be a 24 kilometer per hour (km/h) (15 
miles per hour (mph)) impact, 1.5 seconds after deployment of the 
curtain. The 1.5 second time delay is proposed because half of all 
fatal complete ejections occurred in crashes with 5 or more quarter-
turns (\1/4\-turns), and film analysis of vehicles that rolled 5 or 
more \1/4\-turns in staged rollover tests performed by the agency 
showed the vehicles taking about 1.5 seconds to achieve one complete 
vehicle revolution. The second impact would be at 16 km/h (10 mph), 6 
seconds after deployment of the curtain. Film analysis of the staged 
vehicle tests showed a maximum roll time of 5.5 seconds for a vehicle 
that rolled 11\1/4\-turns. The test speeds are representative of the 
occupant dynamics during the rollover events as well as side impacts. 
The agency is considering the alternative of applying the 24 km/h (1.5 
second delay) impact only to the target location that exhibited the 
greatest displacement in the 16 km/h (6 second delay) impact.
    Under today's NPRM, vehicle manufacturers would have to provide 
information to NHTSA upon request that describes the conditions under 
which the ejection mitigation air bags will deploy. We do not believe 
conditions need to be specified in the standard dictating when the 
sensors should deploy; field data indicate that rollover sensors are 
deploying when they should in the real world. We discuss our rationale 
for this decision in more detail below. Comments are requested on this 
issue.

II. Congressional Mandate

    Section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU required the Secretary to issue by 
October 1, 2009, an ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete 
and partial ejections of occupants from outboard seating positions. 
Section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU amended Subchapter II of chapter 301 (the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) 
to add Sec.  30128. Paragraph (a) directs the Secretary to initiate 
rulemaking proceedings, for the purpose of establishing rules or 
standards that will reduce vehicle rollover crashes and mitigate deaths 
and injuries associated with such crashes for motor vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds. Paragraph 
(c) directs the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 
establish performance standards to reduce complete and partial 
ejections of vehicle occupants from outboard seating positions. 
Paragraph (c) states that, in formulating the standards, the Secretary 
shall consider various ejection mitigation systems, and that the 
Secretary shall issue a final rule under this paragraph no later than 
October 1, 2009. Paragraph (e) states that if the Secretary determines 
that the subject final rule deadline cannot be met, the Secretary shall 
notify and provide explanation to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
on Energy and Commerce of the delay. On September 24, 2009, the 
Secretary provided appropriate notification to Congress that the final 
rule will be delayed until January 31, 2011.

III. Safety Problem

    Rollover crashes are a significant and a particularly deadly safety 
problem. As a crash type, rollovers are second only to frontal crashes 
as a source of fatalities in light vehicles. According to 1998-2007 
Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, frontal crash fatalities 
have averaged about 12,000 per year, while rollover fatalities have 
averaged 10,400 per year. In 2007, 35 percent of all fatalities were in 
rollover crashes. Since the early 1990s, the sport utility vehicle 
(SUV) segment has provided an increasing proportion of rollover 
fatalities. There were approximately 1,700 SUV rollover fatalities in 
1998, and more than 2,800 in 2007. The last 10 years of data from the 
National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System 
(GES) indicate that an occupant in a rollover is 14 times more likely 
to be killed than an occupant in a frontal crash.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The relative risk of fatality for each crash type can be 
assessed by dividing the number of fatalities in each crash type by 
the frequency of the crash type. The frequency of particular crash 
types is determined by police traffic crash reports (PARs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ejection is a major cause of death and injury in rollover crashes. 
According to 1998-2007 FARS data, about half of the occupants killed in 
rollovers were completely ejected from their vehicle. During this time 
period, there were 338 fully ejected occupants killed for every 1,000 
fully ejected occupants in rollover crashes, as compared to 14 of every 
1,000 occupants not fully ejected occupants killed.\8\ Although the 
majority of occupants exposed to rollover crashes are in vehicles that 
roll two \1/4\-turns or less, the distribution of ejected occupants who 
are seriously injured (maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) 3+) or 
killed is skewed towards rollovers with higher degrees of rotation. 
According to NASS Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) data of occupants 
exposed to a rollover crash from 1988 to 2005, half of all fatal 
complete ejections occurred in crashes with five or more \1/4\-turns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The data combines partially-ejected and un-ejected occupants 
together, because partial ejection is sometimes difficult to 
determine and the PAR-generated FARS data may not be an accurate 
representation of partially-ejected occupant fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annualized injury data from 1997 to 2005 NASS CDS and fatality 
counts adjusted to 2005 FARS levels indicate that ejection through side 
windows constitutes the greatest part of the ejection problem. There 
were 6,174 fatalities, 5,271 MAIS 3-5 injuries, and 18,353 MAIS 1-2 
injuries for occupants

[[Page 63183]]

ejected through side windows. These constitute 61 percent of all 
ejected fatalities, 47 percent of MAIS 3-5 injuries, and 68 percent of 
MAIS 1-2 injuries.
    This NPRM seeks to reduce complete and partial ejections of 
occupants from outboard seating positions in crashes involving a 
rollover or a side planar crash. The target population for this 
rulemaking would not include the population addressed by the FMVSS No. 
214 pole test rulemaking.\9\ The target population would also not 
include persons benefited by the installation of ESC systems in 
vehicles, based on an assumption that all model year 2011 vehicles 
would be equipped with ESC. As adjusted, the target population for this 
ejection mitigation rulemaking is 1,392 fatalities, 1,410 MAIS 3-5 
injuries and 4,217 MAIS 1-2 injuries. This target population 
constitutes 23% of fatally-injured occupants ejected through the side 
window, 27% of MAIS 3-5 injured, and 23% of MAIS 1-2 injured side 
window-ejected occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Phase 1 FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking included reduction of 
partial side window-ejected adult (13+ years) occupants in side 
impacts, but did not include complete ejections. The Phase 1 
rulemaking also excluded any impact where a rollover was the first 
event. Crashes where a rollover was a subsequent event were 
included, but only for partially-ejected fatalities. In addition, 
benefits were only assumed for side impact crashes with [Delta]V 
between 19.2 and 40.2 km/h (12 to 25 mph) and impact directions from 
2 to 3 o'clock and 9 to 10 o'clock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Solution

a. Various Ejection Mitigation Systems Considered

    In formulating this NPRM, NHTSA considered various ejection 
mitigation systems in accordance with Section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU. One 
of the considered systems was advanced laminated side glazing, a 
countermeasure thought in the 1990s to have potential for use in 
ejection mitigation.\10\ In 2002, the agency terminated an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking on advanced glazing after observing that 
advanced glazing appeared to increase the risk of neck injury by 
producing higher neck shear loads and neck moments than impacts into 
tempered side glazing (67 FR 41365, June 18, 2002). In addition, the 
estimated incremental cost for installing ejection mitigation glazing 
in front side windows ranged from over $800 million to over $1.3 
billion, based on light vehicle annual sales of 17 million units in the 
2005-2006 timeframe. Moreover, because side curtain air bags were 
showing potential as an ejection mitigation countermeasure, NHTSA 
redirected its research and rulemaking efforts toward developing 
performance-based test procedures for an ejection mitigation 
standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Ejection mitigation glazing systems have a multi-layer 
construction with three primary layers. There is usually a plastic 
laminate bonded between two pieces of glass.
    \11\ ``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing, Final 
Report,'' NHTSA, August 2001, DMS Docket 1782-22 (``advance glazing 
final report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with all of the FMVSSs, this proposed ejection mitigation 
standard would be performance-oriented, to provide manufacturers wide 
flexibility and opportunity for design innovation in developing 
countermeasures that could be used for ejection mitigation. We 
anticipate that manufacturers would likely install ejection mitigation 
side curtain air bags in response to this rulemaking, taking advantage 
of the side impact curtains already in vehicles. However, advanced 
glazing could have a role in complementing ejection mitigation curtain 
systems. NHTSA tested several vehicles' ejection mitigation side 
curtain air bags both with and without laminated glazing to the 18 kg 
impactor performance test proposed in this NPRM. In the tests, the 
glazing was pre-broken to simulate the likely condition of the glazing 
in a rollover. Tests of vehicles with advanced glazing resulted in an 
average 51 mm reduction in impactor displacement across target 
locations.\12\ That is, optimum (least) displacement of the headform 
resulted from use of both an ejection mitigation window curtain and 
advanced glazing. To encourage manufacturers to enhance ejection 
mitigation curtains with advanced glazing, this NPRM proposes to allow 
windows of advanced laminated glazing to be in position, but pre-broken 
to reproduce the state of glazing in an actual rollover crash. Although 
the glazing is pre-broken, the laminate in combination with the 
remaining integrity of the glazing acts as a barrier to ejection. 
Details on the pre-breaking method are given later in this preamble. As 
discussed later, the vast majority of side windows in real-world 
rollover crashes are closed.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To accompany this NPRM, NHTSA prepared a technical analysis 
that presents a detailed analysis of engineering studies, and other 
information supporting the NPRM, such as the results of NHTSA's 
impactor testing of OEM and prototype side window ejection 
mitigation systems, ``Technical Analysis in Support of a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation.'' We will refer to this 
technical analysis from time to time in this preamble. A copy of the 
technical analysis has been placed in the docket.
    \13\ For the target population of this rulemaking, the front row 
window through which an occupant was ejected was closed or fixed 
prior to the crash 69 percent of the time. However, we are concerned 
that for those instances where manufacturers utilize advanced 
(laminated) glazing in their design, when the window is partially or 
fully down, there may be a reduction of occupant retention. As 
discussed later in this preamble, comments are requested on 
alternatives to the approach of allowing laminated windows to be in 
place and pre-broken. One option would be to test with all movable 
windows removed or rolled down, regardless of whether the window is 
laminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on whether manufacturers would use advanced 
glazing or some other novel window design alone, without a window 
curtain, to meet the ejection mitigation requirements throughout the 
vehicle or at least for some windows (e.g., as the countermeasure to 
protect against ejection from a small window). Pre-breaking the glazing 
using the proposed methodology would substantially damage advanced 
glazing and might foreclose its use to meet the proposed requirements. 
NHTSA's (limited) test data, discussed below, indicate that various 
combinations of ejection mitigation countermeasures do not have a high 
potential for producing neck injury.\14\ Yet, in lateral impact tests 
comparing unbroken advanced glazing alone to tempered glazing, the 
agency found that in some tests the lateral neck shear forces were 
higher for the advanced glazing.\15\ Given these data, comments are 
requested on the potential for neck injury in the event that advanced 
glazing alone were used to comply with the proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Status of NHTSA's Ejection Mitigation Research Program,'' 
Willke et al., 18th International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, paper number 342, June 2003.
    \15\ ``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing, Final 
Report,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Full Window Opening Coverage Is Key

    NHTSA undertook several research programs using a dynamic rollover 
fixture (DRF), which produced full-dummy ejection kinematics in an open 
window condition, to assess the potential effectiveness of ejection 
mitigation countermeasures in a rollover.\16\ These countermeasures

[[Page 63184]]

included several designs of inflatable curtain air bags, advanced 
laminated glazing, and combinations of curtains and advanced glazing. 
The results showed, however, that not all ejection mitigation air bag 
curtains work the same way. Full window opening coverage is key to the 
effectiveness of the curtain in preventing ejection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NHTSA developed the DRF to produce full-dummy ejection 
kinematics in a less costly manner than full-scale testing. The DRF 
models a lateral rollover crash of approximately one vehicle 
revolution. The DRF rotates approximately one revolution and comes 
to rest through the application of a pneumatic braking system on one 
end of the pivot axle. It does not simulate lateral vehicle 
accelerations often encountered in a rollover crash prior to 
initiation of the rollover event. The DRF has a test buck fabricated 
from a Chevrolet CK pickup cab. The cab was longitudinally divided 
down the center from the firewall to the B-pillar. The left (driver) 
side is rigidly attached to the test platform. The Chevrolet CK was 
chosen so that the advanced glazing systems developed in the 
previous ejection mitigation research could be evaluated in this 
program. A seat back and cushion were made from Teflon material, to 
minimize the shear forces on the dummy buttocks for more desired 
loading on the window area by the dummy's head and upper torso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Tests With 50th Percentile Adult Male and 5th Percentile Adult 
Female Test Dummies
    In the first research program, experimental roof rail-mounted 
inflatable devices developed by Simula Automotive Safety Devices 
(Simula) and by TRW were evaluated on the DRF, along with an advanced 
side glazing system.\17\ In the tests, unrestrained 50th percentile 
male and 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummies, instrumented with 6 
axis upper neck load cells and tri-axial accelerometers in the head, 
were separately placed in the buck.\18\ The DRF rotation results in a 
centripetal acceleration of the dummy that caused it to move outwards 
towards the side door/window. In baseline tests of the unrestrained 
dummies in the DRF with an open side window and no countermeasure, the 
dummies were fully ejected. The ability of the countermeasure to 
restrain the dummies was assessed and compared to that baseline test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Status of NHTSA's Ejection Mitigation Research Program,'' 
Willke et al., 18th International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, paper number 342, June 2003.
    \18\ Two dummy positions were used. The first was behind the 
steering wheel. The second position was more inward, toward the 
pivot axle, which generated higher contact velocities. Film analysis 
was used to measure the dummy's relative head contact velocity with 
the side window plane from these two seating positions. From the 
first position, the impact speeds were 14 km/h (9 mph) for the 5th 
percentile female dummy and 18 km/h (11 mph) for the 50th male. From 
the second (inboard) position, the velocities were 31 km/h (19 mph) 
for the 5th female and 29 km/h (18 mph) for the 50th male.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the tests of the experimental inflatable devices, the air bags 
were pre-deployed and their inflation pressure was maintained 
throughout the test by the use of an air reservoir tank mounted on the 
platform.\19\ In the tests, the dummy's upper body loaded the 
inflatable device, which limited the dummy's vertical movement toward 
the roof and caused the pelvis to load the side door throughout the 
roll, rather than to ride up the door. The inflatable devices contained 
the torso, head, and neck of the dummy, so complete ejection did not 
occur. However, both devices did allow partial ejection of the dummy's 
shoulder and arm below the bags, between the inflatable devices and the 
vehicle door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Since these were experimental systems, they were not 
deployed through pyrotechnic or in-vehicle compressed gas, as might 
be the case with production designs. The air pressure supplied by 
the laboratory reservoir kept the systems fully inflated over the 
test period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the test of the advanced side glazing (laminated with door/
window frame modifications around the entire periphery to provide edge 
capture), the glazing contained the dummies entirely inside the test 
buck. The glazing was not pre-broken before the testing. There was some 
flexing of the window frame when the dummies loaded the glazing, and 
the 50th percentile male dummy's shoulder shattered the glass when the 
dummy was located behind the steering wheel.
    In the test of the combined systems, the dummies remained entirely 
inside the buck. Although the shoulder and arm escaped under the 
inflatable devices, the advanced glazing prevented the partial ejection 
seen in tests of the inflatable devices alone.
    In these tests, the ejection mitigation systems did not show a high 
potential for producing head and neck injury. However, head and neck 
loading were higher than the open window condition. The highest load 
with respect to the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) was 82 
percent for the neck compression for the 5th percentile female tested 
with the Simula/laminate combination. The highest injury response for 
the 50th percentile male dummy was 59 percent for the neck compression 
with the TRW system alone. All HIC36 \20\ responses were 
extremely low and ranged from 8 to 90, with the maximum occurring in an 
open window test. Lateral shear and bending moment of the neck were 
also measured, although there are no established IARVs. The maximum 
lateral neck shear loads were 950 N (50th percentile male tested with 
TRW system) and 1020 N (5th percentile female tested with laminate 
only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ HIC36 is the Head Injury Criterion computed over 
a 36 msec duration. HIC36 =1000 represents an onset of 
concussion and brain injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Tests With 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy Showed a Risk of Ejection 
Through Openings Not Fully Covered
    The second research program involved a series of tests on the DRF 
using an unrestrained Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy. In previous tests 
with the 50th percentile adult male and 5th percentile adult female 
dummies, a gap formed between the inflatable devices and the window 
sill (bottom of the window opening), which allowed partial ejection of 
those dummies. The second program investigated whether the gap allowed 
ejection of the 6-year-old child dummy.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``NHTSA's Crashworthiness Rollover Research Program,'' 
Summers, S., et al., 19th International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, paper number 05-0279, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In baseline testing with an open side window without activation of 
an ejection mitigation countermeasure, the child dummy was fully 
ejected. In tests of the two inflatable systems tested in the first 
program (at the time of the second research program, the inflatable 
device formerly developed by Simula was then developed by Zodiac 
Automotive US (Zodiac)), the inflatable devices prevented full ejection 
of the 6-year-old child dummy in upright-seated positions (no booster 
seat was used). However, dummy loading on the systems produced gaps 
that did allow an arm and/or hand to pass through in some tests. 
Moreover, in a series of tests with the dummy lying in a prone position 
(the dummy was placed on its back at the height of the bottom of the 
window opening), representing a near worst-case ejection condition, the 
dummy was completely ejected at positions near the bottom of the 
inflatable devices (above the sill) with the TRW curtain, while the 
Zodiac system contained the dummy inside the test buck in all testing. 
Adding pre-broken advanced glazing with the TRW system managed to 
contain the dummy inside the test buck in all tests.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Differences in Design Between the Two Inflatable Systems
    The two prototype inflatable devices tested had fundamentally 
different designs. The Zodiac/Simula prototype system used an 
inflatable tubular structure (ITS) \23\ tethered near the base of the A 
and B-pillars that deployed a woven material over the window opening. 
(The Zodiac system differed from the originally-tested Simula design in 
that it had more window coverage. This was achieved by placing the ITS 
tether locations lower on the pillars and adding additional woven 
material.) The TRW prototype was more akin to a typical air bag curtain 
and was fixed to the A- and B-pillar at its end points and along the 
roof rail, but not tethered. The ITS differed from conventional air 
bags in that it was not vented. We believe that the better performance 
of the Zodiac prototype system compared to that of TRW, in the DRF 
testing described above and in impactor test

[[Page 63185]]

results provided later in this preamble, was due to the greater window 
coverage by the Zodiac prototype along the entire sill and A-pillar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ITS systems were originally introduced by BMW as a side 
impact countermeasure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Insights
    The DRF research provided the following insights into ejection 
mitigation curtains:
     Inflatable devices prevented ejection of test dummies in 
simulated rollover tests, but design differences accounted for 
differences in performance;
     Gaps in the inflatable device's coverage of the window 
opening at the sill and A-pillar allowed partial ejection of adult 
dummies and full ejection of a 6-year-old child dummy;
     Adding pre-broken advanced glazing to an air bag system 
enhanced the ability of the system to contain the dummy; and,
     To optimize ejection mitigation potential, a performance 
test should ensure that the countermeasure has full coverage of the 
window opening.

c. Comparable Performance in Simulated Rollovers and Component-Level 
Impact Tests

    Because full-vehicle rollover crash tests can have an undesired 
amount of variability in vehicle and occupant kinematics, in the 
advanced glazing program NHTSA developed a component-level impact test 
for assessing excursion and the risk of ejection. The component-level 
test is basically the test proposed in this NPRM for ejection 
mitigation.\24\ The test involves use of a guided linear impactor 
designed to replicate the loading of a 50th percentile male occupant's 
head and shoulder during ejection situations. The impactor \25\ is 
described later in this preamble. There are many possible ways of 
delivering the impactor to the target location on the ejection 
mitigation countermeasure. The ejection mitigation test device \26\ 
used in agency research has a propulsion mechanism \27\ with a 
pneumatic piston that pushes the shaft component of the impactor. The 
shaft slides along a plastic (polyethylene) bearing. The impactor has 
an 18 kg mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Technical Analysis in Support of a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation,'' supra.
    \25\ The ``ejection impactor'' is the moving mass that strikes 
the ejection mitigation countermeasure. It consists of an ejection 
headform attached to a shaft
    \26\ The ejection mitigation test device consists of an ejection 
impactor and ejection propulsion mechanism.
    \27\ The ``ejection propulsion mechanism'' is the component that 
propels the ejection impactor and constrains it to move along its 
axis or shaft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The component-level test identified four impact locations to 
evaluate a countermeasure's window coverage and retention capability. 
Two of the positions were located at the extreme corners of the window/
frame and were located such that a 25 mm gap existed between the 
outermost perimeter of the headform and window frame. A third position 
was near the transition between the upper window frame edge and A-
pillar edge. The fourth position was at the longitudinal midpoint 
between the third position and the position at the upper extreme corner 
of the window/door frame, such that the lowest edge of the headform was 
25 mm above the surface of the door at the bottom of the window 
opening. At each impact location, different impact speeds and different 
time delays between air bag deployment and impact were used. To 
simulate ejection early in a rollover event and in a side impact, the 
air bags were impacted 1\1/2\ seconds after air bag deployment, at 20 
and 24 km/h. To simulate ejection late in a rollover event, the air 
bags were impacted after a delay of 6 seconds at an impact speed of 16 
km/h.
    The two inflatable systems tested in the above-described research 
programs (the inflatable devices developed by Zodiac and by TRW) were 
installed on a Chevrolet CK pickup cab and subjected to the component-
level impact test. The air bag systems were evaluated for allowable 
excursion (impactor displacement) beyond the side window plane. The 
tests also assessed the degree to which the component-level test was 
able to replicate the findings of the DRF tests.
    The component-level tests mimicked the DRF tests by revealing the 
same deficiencies in the side curtain air bags that were highlighted in 
the dynamic test. The Zodiac system \28\ did not allow the impactor to 
go beyond the plane of the window in the 16 km/h and 20 km/h tests. The 
air bag allowed only 12 and 19 mm of excursion beyond the window plane 
in the 24 km/h tests. In the 24 km/h tests of the TRW system, the 
curtain was not able to stop the impactor before the limits of travel 
were reached (about 180 mm beyond the plane for the vehicle window for 
that test setup) at the position at the extreme forward corner of the 
window sill. This is the position at which the TRW prototype system 
allowed excessive excursion of the test dummies in the DRF dynamic 
tests. In the DRF tests, the 6-year-old dummy was completely ejected 
through that window area even when the prone dummy was aimed at the 
position at the other extreme corner of the window. In other tests, the 
TRW prototype system was able to stop the impactor before the impactor 
reached its physical stops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Testing was restricted to the extreme corners of the window 
due to limited availability of this system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Advantages of a Component Test Over a Full Vehicle Dynamic Test

    The component test not only distinguishes between acceptable and 
unacceptable performance in side curtain air bags, but has advantages 
over a full vehicle dynamic test. The acceptable (or poor) performance 
in the laboratory test correlated to the acceptable (or poor) 
performance in the dynamic test. The component test was able to reveal 
deficiencies in window coverage of ejection mitigation curtains that 
resulted in partial or full ejections in dynamic conditions. NHTSA 
tentatively believes that incorporating the component test into an 
ejection mitigation standard would ensure that ejection mitigation 
countermeasures provide sufficient coverage of the window opening for 
as long in the crash event as the risk of ejection exists, which is a 
key component contributing to the efficacy of the system.
    As noted earlier, rollover crash tests can have an undesirable 
amount of variability in vehicle and occupant kinematics. In contrast, 
the repeatability of the component test has been shown to be good.\29\ 
Moreover, there are many types of rollover crashes, and within each 
crash type the vehicle speed and other parameters can vary widely. A 
curb trip can be a very fast event with a relatively high lateral 
acceleration. Soil and gravel trips have lower lateral accelerations 
than a curb trip and lower initial roll rates. Fall-over rollovers are 
the longest duration events, and it can be difficult to distinguish 
between rollover and non-rollover events. Viano and Parenteau \30\ 
correlated eight different tests to six rollover definitions from NASS-
CDS.\31\ Their analysis indicated that the types of rollovers occurring 
in the real-world varied significantly. Soil trip rollovers accounted 
for more than 47 percent of the rollovers in the field, while less than 
1 percent of real-world rollovers were

[[Page 63186]]

represented by the FMVSS No. 208 dolly test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ``NHTSA's Crashworthiness Rollover Research Program,'' 
supra.
    \30\ Viano D, Parenteau C. Rollover Crash Sensing and Safety 
Overview. SAE 2004-01-0342.
    \31\ ``Technical Analysis in Support of a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Occupant kinematics will also vary with these crash types, 
resulting in different probabilities of occupant contact on certain 
areas of the side window opening with differing impact energies. A 
single full vehicle rollover test could narrowly focus on only certain 
types of rollover crashes occurring in the field.\32\ NHTSA is 
concerned that a comprehensive assessment of ejection mitigation 
countermeasures through full vehicle dynamic testing may only be 
possible if it were to involve multiple crash scenarios. Such a suite 
of tests imposes test burdens that could be assuaged by a component 
test such as that proposed today. We also note that a comprehensive 
suite of full-vehicle dynamic tests would likely involve many more 
years of research, which would delay this rulemaking action and the 
potential for incorporating these life-saving technologies. Such a 
delay seems unwarranted since NHTSA believes the component test will be 
an effective means of determining the acceptability of ejection 
countermeasures. Whether it would be more or less effective than a yet-
to-be-defined suite of full vehicle tests remains an open question. 
However, as explained above, the proposed test clearly has advantages 
over a single full vehicle test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The agency has in the past performed dolly type dynamic 
testing. The agency has not performed enough repeat tests of the 
same vehicles to draw any conclusions about the repeatability of 
these tests to determine occupant containment. However, regardless 
of the level of repeatability of dummy kinematics, it still only 
represents a part of the kinematics that would occur in the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Existing Curtains Can Be Made More Effective

1. Existing Curtains
    The availability of vehicles that offer inflatable side curtains 
that deploy in a rollover has increased since they first became 
available in 2002. In the middle of the 2002 model year (MY), Ford 
introduced the first generation of side curtain air bags that were 
designed to deploy in the event of a rollover crash. The rollover air 
bag curtain system, marketed as a ``Safety Canopy,'' was introduced as 
an option on the Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer.\33\ For the 2007 MY, 
rollover sensors were available on approximately 95 models, with 75 of 
these models being sport utility vehicles. The system is standard 
equipment on 62 vehicles (65 percent) and optional on 33 vehicles (35 
percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_
id=6447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the presence of a rollover sensor, there are two 
important design differences between air bag curtains designed for 
rollover ejection mitigation and air bag curtains designed for side 
impact protection. The first difference is longer inflation duration. 
Rollover crashes with multiple full vehicle rotations can last many 
seconds. Ford states that its Safety Canopy stays inflated for 6 
seconds,\34\ while GM has been reported to state that its side curtain 
air bags designed for rollover protection maintain 80 percent inflation 
pressure for 5 seconds.\35\ Honda reportedly states that the side 
curtains on the 2005 and later Honda Odyssey stay fully inflated for 3 
seconds.\36\ (To our knowledge, Ford has not indicated what level of 
inflation is maintained during the duration.) In contrast, side impact 
air bag curtains designed for occupant protection in side crashes, 
generally stay inflated for less than 0.1 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Ibid.
    \35\ ``Who Benefits From Side and Head Airbags?'' (http://
www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/105563/article.html).
    \36\ http://www.autodeadline.com/
detail?source=Honda∣=HON2004083172678&mime=ASC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second important air bag curtain design difference between 
rollover and side impact protection is the size or coverage of the air 
bag curtain. One of the most obvious trends in newer vehicles is the 
increasing area of coverage for rollover curtains. Ford reportedly 
stated that its rollover protection air bags cover between 66 and 80 
percent of the first two rows of windows, and that it was expanding the 
designs so they cover all three rows in all models.\37\ GM reportedly 
stated that its curtains designed for rollover protection are larger 
than non-rollover curtains.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Ibid.
    \38\ Who Benefits From Side and Head Airbags?'' (http://
www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/105563/article.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Component Tests of Real-World Curtains and Advanced Glazing Systems 
Show That Improvements Could Be Made
    NHTSA has tested real-world side window air bag curtains and 
advanced glazing \39\ according to the test procedure proposed in this 
NPRM, except for some differences in the target 
locations.40 41 In addition, prototype Zodiac and TRW 
systems were installed on the GM CK pickup and the Lincoln Navigator. 
In this section of the preamble, we provide test results for ejection 
mitigation countermeasures installed as original equipment (OE) and as 
prototypes, tested to the proposed requirements. One of the findings of 
this test series was that none of the original equipment (OE) systems 
met the proposed displacement limit when impacted at the target in the 
forward lower corner of the front window (target A1, see Figure 1 
below) at 24 km/h.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The laminates tested were marketed as theft protection and 
not as a form of ejection mitigation.
    \40\ ``Status of NHTSA's Ejection Mitigation Research Program,'' 
supra.
    \41\ ``NHTSA Crashworthiness Rollover Research Program,'' supra.
    \42\ ``Technical Analysis in Support of a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The target locations shown in Figure 1 were determined by the 
method proposed for this NPRM. With the exception of the Honda Odyssey, 
for all tests of prototype systems and OE system through MY05, the 
method for determining the target location was slightly different than 
currently proposed. (We will refer to this method as the ``research 
target method'' as opposed to the ``proposed target method.'') The MY05 
Odyssey was tested by the proposed target method. As explained below, 
the differences in target locations identified by the two methods are 
small enough that data using the research target method can be 
reasonably compared to the proposed target method.
    The difference in determining the target location had the most 
effect on the location of A2, A3, B1 and B4. The resulting shift in 
target location was a function of the window shape. The primary 
difference in the research target method was that A3 was found by 
bisecting the angle produced by the intersection of a line parallel to 
the A-pillar and roof rail, which in the case of the window in Figure 1 
would shift A3 rearward and upward. Since A2 is located horizontally 
midway between A3 and A4 in both the research and proposed target 
methods, A2 in the research target method would be rearward of the A2 
position shown in Figure 1.
    The rear window data for prototype and OE system through MY05 is, 
for the most part, limited to B1 and B4. Under the research target 
method used to find the target locations, B1 was at the lower sill, in 
the middle of the window and B4 was in the upper rear corner. Again, 
under the research target method, B1 and B4 would likely be shifted 
forward from the location shown in Figure 1. For the test of the Zodiac 
prototype on the Navigator, extra targets were impacted. For only this 
vehicle, Tables 1 through 3 of this preamble present an average

[[Page 63187]]

result from two impacts that were on either side of the proposed 
targets B1 and B4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.000

    The results of the testing are given in Tables 1 through 3. The 
results are given in columns, by target location. These data are also 
found in a color coded format in the Technical Analysis report 
accompanying this NPRM. The target location key is shown in Figure 1 of 
this preamble, supra. In general, for a particular vehicle and target 
location, if multiple trials were run at a particular impact speed and 
time delay, each of the displacement results is shown by separating the 
table cell into two or three cells.
    Although the agency is proposing a 24 km/h impact test 1.5 seconds 
after air bag deployment, research data was acquired at 20 km/h to 
determine the sensitivity to impact speed. Several ejection mitigation 
systems were not tested at 24 km/h at every target location because the 
20 km/h results indicated displacements in excess of 100 mm at that 
location. We assume the 24 km/h impact would also have exceeded 100 mm. 
Where this occurred, the cell in Table 1 contains the 20 km/h 
displacement value and is identified by an asterisk. Similarly, some 
target locations were not tested at 20 km/h, but we assume that the 
value that would have been obtained would be below 80 mm of 
displacement because the 24 km/h impact was less than 80 mm. Where this 
occurred, the cell in Table 2 contains the 24 km/h displacement value 
and is identified by a double asterisk.
    Tables 1 through 3 show the results for vehicle front windows. For 
all three sets of tests, A1 was the most challenging target and A4 was 
the least challenging. For the 24 km/h test, the only system that did 
not exceed the 100 mm criterion at A1 was the Zodiac prototype on the 
CK pickup. At 20 km/h, the MY05 Infinity had one test result of 99 mm 
and another of 106 mm at A1. For the 16 km/h impact at a 1.5 second 
delay, two OE systems and two prototype systems had displacements 
slightly more or less than 100 mm at A1. No displacement at A4 exceeded 
76, 73 or 67 mm at 24, 20 and 16 km/h, respectively. Taken as a whole, 
A2 and A3 showed similar results to each other for all three test 
conditions in that neither was as consistently challenging to meet as 
A1 nor as easily met as A4. The trends for severity by target location 
are the same for the 16 km/h impacts at a 6 second delay.

               Table 1--Impactor Displacement--Front Row Window, 24 km/h Impact, 1.5 Second Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Position A1         Position A2         Position A3         Position A4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03 Navigator....................  No Data...........  * 186 196*........  * 229.............  -22.
03 Navigator w/lam..............  No Data...........  35................  No Data...........  No Data.
04 Volvo XC90...................  * 163.............  193...............  130...............  18.
04 Volvo w/lam..................  * 102 * 151.......  44................  118...............  15.
05 Nissan Pathfinder............  * 181.............  161...............  * 240.............  76 76.
05 Toyota Highlander............  * 159 * 164.......  202...............  137...............  67.
05 Infinity FX35................  124...............  83 96 112.........  89 89 108.........  53.
05 Chevy Trailblazer............  138...............  168...............  159...............  No Data.
05 Chevy Trailblazer w/lam......  No Data...........  No Data...........  * 107 * 110.......  No Data.
05 Honda Odyssey................  No Cover..........  119...............  107...............  No Data.
06 Dodge Durango................  174...............  156...............  * 180.............  54.
06 Dodge Durango w/lam..........  No Data...........  * 101.............  No Data...........  No Data.
Zodiac Prot. on CK..............  12................  19................  No Data...........  No Data.
Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.......  150 143...........  54................  96 102............  21 24.
Zodiac Prot. on Nav. w/lam......  No Data...........  No Data...........  91 97.............  No Data.
TRW Prot. on CK.................  No Cover [dagger].  82 82 102.........  2 6...............  -13 -8.
TRW Prot. on CK w/lam...........  180 182...........  21................  -26 -26...........  -33 -25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only tested at 20 km/h and displacement exceeded 100 mm.
[dagger] No countermeasure at this target location.


[[Page 63188]]


               Table 2--Impactor Displacement--Front Row Window, 20 km/h Impact, 1.5 Second Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Position A1         Position A2         Position A3         Position A4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03 Navigator....................  No Data...........  186 196...........  229...............  -37.
03 Navigator w/theft lam........  No Data...........  6.................  No Data...........  No Data.
04 Volvo XC90...................  163...............  84 107............  107 131...........  -3.
04 Volvo w/theft lam............  102 151...........  27................  97................  ** 15.
05 Nissan Pathfinder............  181...............  133...............  240...............  58
05 Toyota Highlander............  159 164...........  113 150...........  106 113...........  73.
05 Infinity FX35................  99 106............  58................  70................  29.
05 Chevy Trailblazer............  112...............  121...............  127...............  No Data.
05 Chevy Trailblazer w/lam......  90................  80................  109...............  No Data.
05 Honda Odyssey................  No Cover [dagger].  96................  57................  -45.
06 Dodge Durango................  160...............  140...............  180...............  18.
06 Dodge Durango w/lam..........  No Data...........  101...............  No Data...........  No Data.
Zodiac Prot. on CK..............  -12...............  -9................  No Data...........  No Data.
Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.......  122...............  38................  76 81.............  -9 -0.9.
Zodiac Prot. on Nav. w/lam......  No Data...........  No Data...........  No Data...........  No Data.
TRW Prot. on CK.................  No Cover [dagger].  75................  -29...............  -52.
TRW Prot. on CK w/lam...........  104...............  0.................  -54...............  -60 -63.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Only tested at 24 km/h and displacement was below 80 mm.
[dagger] No countermeasure at this target location.


                Table 3--Impactor Displacement--Front Row Window, 16 km/h Impact, 6 Second Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Position A1         Position A2         Position A3         Position A4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03 Navigator....................  243...............  74................  211...............  -30.
03 Navigator w/theft lam........  157...............  -14...............  137...............  No Data.
04 Volvo XC90...................  154 167...........  52 93.............  78................  -22.
04 Volvo w/theft lam............  86 105............  26................  59................  No Data.
05 Nissan Pathfinder............  108 120...........  93 106............  188...............  37 46.
05 Toyota Highlander............  198...............  132...............  147...............  67.
05 Infinity FX35................  85................  21................  39................  9.
05 Chevy Trailblazer............  121...............  192...............  124...............  No Data.
05 Chevy Trailblazer w/lam......  No Data...........  102...............  No Data...........  No Data.
05 Honda Odyssey................  No Cover [dagger].  77................  47 90.............  -54.
06 Dodge Durango................  138...............  135...............  167...............  13.
06 Dodge Durango w/lam..........  No Data...........  No Data...........  142...............  No Data.
Zodiac Prot. on CK..............  0.................  0.................  No Data...........  No Data.
Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.......  135...............  49................  78 81.............  -0.2.
Zodiac Prot. on Nav. w/lam......  104...............  No Data...........  70................  No Data.
TRW Prot. on CK.................  No Cover [dagger].  99 97.............  -36...............  -41.
TRW Prot. On CK w/lam...........  80................  -3................  -44...............  -67.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] No countermeasure at this target location.

    The 2nd row window data in Tables 4 through 6 are much more 
limited, with nearly all the data at B1 and B4. In general, these data 
indicate target location B1 is more challenging than B4. The exception 
to this is the Dodge Durango, which performed well at all 2nd row 
targets. For the 24 km/h test at B1, three of the ejection mitigation 
systems tested had displacements that did not exceed 100 mm. For the 20 
and 16 km/h test at B1, a total of 3 systems did not exceed 100 mm. We 
also expect that the Durango would not have exceeded 100 mm at 20 km/h, 
since it did not exceed 100 mm at 24 km/h. At B4, three systems had 
displacements that exceeded 100 mm. This was reduced to one system for 
the 20 and 16 km/h impacts.
    Any cell listed as ``To Stops'' indicates a displacement of the 
impactor to the point where the mechanical stops of the device keep it 
from further movement. This occurred for the MY03 Navigator at B1 at 24 
and 20 km/h. ``To stops'' is considered an infinite displacement and 
indicates very little countermeasure coverage at this location.
    Table 7 shows very limited 3rd row window data for the Odyssey and 
Durango at all test conditions. For this system C4 is much more 
challenging than C1.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ We are using C1 through C4 to denote the impact locations 
for the 3rd row window. Third row target locations were found in the 
same manner as 2nd row targets.

                          Table 4--Second Row Window, 24 km/h Impact, 1.5 Second Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Position B1         Position B2         Position B3         Position B4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03 Navigator....................  To Stops..........  No Data...........  No Data...........  -40.
04 Volvo XC90...................  (20 km/h) \*\.....  No Data...........  No Data...........  69.
04 Volvo w/theft lam............  91/93.............  No Data...........  No Data...........  62.
05 Nissan Pathfinder............  161...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  128.

[[Page 63189]]


05 Toyota Highlander............  146...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  149.
05 Infinity FX35................  143...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  45.
05 Honda Odyssey................  71................  152...............  80................  193.
06 Dodge Durango................  76................  86................  91................  82.
Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.......  Avg. = 98.........  99................  No Data...........  Avg. = 104 (32 to
                                  (96 to 100)                                                  176) [Dagger].
                                   [Dagger]..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exceeded 100 mm at 20 km/h.
[Dagger] Combines data from two impact location closest to the defined target location.


                          Table 5--Second Row Window, 20 km/h Impact, 1.5 Second Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Position B1         Position B2         Position B3         Position B4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03 Navigator....................  To Stops..........  No Data...........  No Data...........  -14.
04 Volvo XC90...................  183...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  (24 km/h) **.
04 Volvo w/theft lam............  94................  No Data...........  No Data...........  (24 km/h) **.
05 Nissan Pathfinder............  126/150...........  No Data...........  No Data...........  99.
05 Toyota Highlander............  107...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  102.
05 Infinity FX35................  79 94.............  No Data...........  No Data...........  21.
05 Honda Odyssey................  42................  134...............  34................  84.
06 Dodge Durango................  (24 km/h).........  No Data...........  No Data...........  No Data.
Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.......  Avg. = 70.........  70................  No Data...........  Avg. = 77 (9 to
                                  (67 to 72)                                                   144) [Dagger].
                                   [Dagger]..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Dagger] Combines data from two impact location closest to the defined target location.
\**\ Below 80 mm at 24 km/h.


                           Table 6--Second Row Window, 16 km/h Impact, 6 Second Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Position B1         Position B2         Position B3         Position B4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03 Navigator....................  126...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  -27.
04 Volvo XC90...................  189...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  29.
04 Volvo w/theft lam............  63................  No Data...........  No Data...........  9.
05 Nissan Pathfinder............  104...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  75.
05 Toyota Highlander............  138...............  No Data...........  No Data...........  107.
05 Infinity FX35................  61................  No Data...........  No Data...........  19.
05 Honda Odyssey................  12................  121...............  55................  28.
06 Dodge Durango................  3.................  36................  71................  18.
Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.......  Avg. = 81 (73 to    98................  No Data...........  Avg. = 67 (16 to
                                   89) [dagger].                                               117) [dagger].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Combines data from two impact location closest to the defined target location.


                          Table 7--Third Row Window, All Impact Speeds and Time Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Position C1         Position C2         Position C3         Position C4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 km/h--1.5 s
    05 Honda Odyssey............  No Data...........  No Data...........  175...............  (20 km/h) *.
    06 Dodge Durango............  No Data...........  No Data...........  No Data...........  (20 km/h) *.
20 km/h--1.5 s
    05 Honda Odyssey............  58................  No Data...........  122...............  To Stops.
    06 Dodge Durango............  66................  No Data...........  No Data...........  283.
16 km/h--6 s
    05 Honda Odyssey............  44................  To Stops..........  80................  331.
    06 Dodge Durango............  52................  No Data...........  No Data...........  No Data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exceeded 100 mm at 20 km/h.

    Summarized below are some very general trends for the displacement 
data. These trends were based on limited data and were not analyzed for 
statistical significance.
    Within target locations we found the following general trends:
     The 24 km/h--1.5 second delay test was the most 
challenging test;
     The 20 km/h--1.5 second test was more consistently 
challenging than the 16 km/h--6 second test;
     For the 24 km/h test, the only system that did not exceed 
the 100 mm criterion at A1 was the Zodiac Prototype on the CK pickup.
    Comparing target locations we found the following general trends:
     In row one, A1 was the most consistently challenging 
target and A4 was the least;
     In row two, target location B1 was more consistently 
challenging than target B4;
     Data from the third row targets were too limited to 
indicate any trends.

[[Page 63190]]

3. Use of advanced glazing with the air bag curtain resulted in reduced 
displacement
    Several vehicles were tested both with and without laminated 
glazing. A prototype glazing was used on the CK pickup. Tests where 
advanced glazing was used resulted in a reduction in impactor 
displacement. Table 8 shows the reduction in impactor displacement for 
each of the vehicles. Not every target location was tested at each 
impact speed. For all prototype and MY06 and older vehicles, the 
glazing was pre-broken using a ball-peen hammer method discussed in the 
Technical Analysis report accompanying this NPRM, while for MY07 
vehicles, the glazing was broken using a 50 mm matrix hole punch 
pattern. (The agency is proposing the latter method in this NPRM.)
    The largest displacement reduction was for the MY03 Navigator at 
A2, impacted at 20 km/h--1.5 second delay. This location exhibited a 
185 mm change in displacement (from 191 mm to 6 mm). The smallest 
change in displacement was 3 mm (18 mm to 15 mm) for the MY04 XC90 at 
A4, impacted at 24 km/h--1.5 second delay. For target positions with 
multiple vehicle tests, the A2 position had the largest change in 
displacement at each test speed. The average displacement reduction 
across target locations and test types was 51 mm.

             Table 8--Reduction in Impactor Displacement Resulting From Pre-Broken Laminated Glazing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    A1         A2         A3         A4         B1         B4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 km/h, 1.5 sec.:
    04 Volvo XC90.............................  .........        149         12          3  .........          7
    Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.................  .........  .........          5  .........  .........  .........
    TRW Prot. on CK...........................  .........         68         30         19  .........  .........
    Average...................................  .........        108         16         11  .........  .........
20 km/h, 1.5 sec.:
    03 Navigator..............................  .........        185  .........  .........  .........  .........
    04 Volvo XC90.............................         37         69         22  .........         89  .........
    05 Trailblazer............................         22         41         19  .........  .........  .........
    06 Durango................................  .........         47  .........  .........  .........  .........
    TRW Prot. on CK...........................  .........         75         25         10  .........  .........
    Average...................................         29         83         22  .........  .........  .........
16 km/h, 6 sec.:
    03 Navigator..............................         86         88         74  .........  .........  .........
    04 Volvo XC90.............................         65         47         19  .........        126         20
    05 Trailblazer............................  .........         90  .........  .........  .........  .........
    06 Durango................................  .........  .........         25  .........  .........  .........
    07 Commander..............................  .........         91  .........  .........  .........  .........
    Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.................         31  .........         10  .........  .........  .........
    TRW Prot. on CK...........................  .........        101          8         26  .........  .........
    Average...................................         61         83         27  .........  .........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Field Performance of Ejection Mitigation Curtain Systems
    To better understand the field performance of the current fleet 
equipped with rollover systems, the agency evaluated available crash 
data. A focus of this evaluation was the performance of the rollover 
sensors and their ability to detect the rollover event and activate 
deployment of the side curtain air bags. We also sought to understand 
the occupant containment provided by the vehicle system. The available 
data reviewed included a detailed analysis of a very limited number of 
rollover crashes by NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation (SCI) division. 
In all of the cases, the ejection countermeasure in the vehicle was an 
air bag curtain which partially covered the first two window rows.
    The agency's SCI division analyzed seven real-world rollover 
crashes of Ford vehicles where the subject vehicles contained a 
rollover sensor and side curtain air bags. (Ford agreed to notify SCI 
of the crashes.) The subject vehicles were Ford Expeditions, a Ford 
Explorer, a Mercury Mountaineer, and a Volvo XC90. Table 9 gives 
details about each case.
    In each case, the rollover sensor deployed the side curtain air 
bag. Of the seven cases, there were a total of 19 occupants, 15 of whom 
were properly restrained. All were in lap/shoulder belts, except one 
child in a rear facing child restraint system (CRS). A single crash 
(DS04-016) had all of the unrestrained occupants, serious injuries, 
fatalities and ejections in this set of cases. Two of the four 
unrestrained occupants were fully ejected from the vehicle, resulting 
in one fatal and one serious injury. The fatality was a 4-month-old 
infant, seated in the middle of the 2nd row. The ejection route was not 
determined. The seriously injured occupant was an adult in the left 3rd 
row, ejected through the uncovered right side 3rd row window. One non-
ejected, restrained occupant received a fatal cervical fracture 
resulting from roof contact and another was seriously injured. The 
injuries to the remaining occupants were ``none'' to ``minor.''

                                                                                Table 9--Ford SCI Rollover Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Occupants                                                     Deploy
              Case                       Make              Model           MY   ------------------------------------------------------  \1/4\  -------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Row 1             Row 2              Row 3         Rot.        Angle         Time (ms)      Rate  (deg/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA02-059........................  Mercury..........  Mount............     2002  1R.............  1R...............  ................        1  17............  ..............  17 to 25.
CA04-010........................  Ford.............  Expl.............     2003  1R.............  .................  ................        1  43............  20............  75.
IN-02-010.......................  Ford.............  Exped............     2003  1R.............  .................  ................        2  45............  146...........  111.
2004-003-04009..................  Ford.............  Exped............     2003  1R.............  2R...............  ................        5  Yes...........  Unknown.......  Unknown.

[[Page 63191]]


DS04-016........................  Ford.............  Exped............     2003  2R.............  2R, 2NR [dagger].  1R, 2NR [dagger]        5  Yes...........  Unknown.......  Unknown.
DS04017.........................  Ford.............  Exped............     2004  1R.............  .................  ................       12  Yes...........  Unknown.......  Unknown.
2003-079-057....................  Volvo............  XC90.............     2003  1R.............  1R...............  ................        6  Yes...........  Unknown.......  Unknown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R = Restrained, NR = Not Restrained.
[dagger] One NR 2nd and 3rd row occupant ejected (total of 2 ejected).

V. Proposed Ejection Mitigation Requirements and Test Procedures

    As discussed above, NHTSA's research on rollover ejection found 
that with partial window opening coverage by a curtain, occupants 
initially contacting covered areas can slide to an opening and be 
ejected. The agency is proposing a test that requires ejection 
mitigation curtains to retain an impactor such that its displacement is 
limited to a specified distance outside of the window. To assure full 
window opening coverage through the duration of a rollover, the 
proposed test procedure would require the first three rows of side 
window openings to be impacted at up to four locations around the 
perimeter of the opening at two time intervals.
    In this section, we discuss in detail the rationale for selection 
of the impactor test parameters. The primary parameters that determine 
the stringency of the test are: (a) The impactor dimensions and mass; 
(b) the displacement limit; (c) impactor speed and time of impact; and 
(d) target locations. We also discuss: (e) glazing issues; (f) test 
procedure tolerances; (g) test device characteristics; and (h) a 
proposal for a telltale requirement. See also ``Technical Analysis in 
Support of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation,'' 
supra.

a. Impactor Dimensions and Mass

    The component test involves use of a guided linear impactor 
designed to replicate the loading of a 50th percentile male occupant's 
head and upper torso during ejection situations. The portion of the 
impactor that strikes the countermeasure is a featureless headform that 
was originally designed for the upper interior head protection research 
program (FMVSS No. 201).\44\ It averages the dimensional and inertial 
characteristics of the frontal and lateral regions of the head into a 
single headform. The headform is covered with an approximately 10 mm 
thick dummy skin material whose outer surface dimensions are given in 
Figure 2, below. The Technical Analysis report discusses other 
dimensional attributes of the headform, such as the curvature of the 
outer surface. There are many possible ways of delivering the impactor 
to the target location on the ejection mitigation countermeasure. The 
impactor used in agency research propels the shaft component of the 
impactor with a pneumatic piston. The shaft slides along a plastic 
(polyethylene) bearing. The impactor has an 18 kg mass.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ ``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazings: A Status 
Report,'' November 1995, Docket NHTSA-1996-1782-3; ``Ejection 
Mitigation Using Advanced Glazings: Status Report II,'' August 1999, 
Docket NHTSA-1996-1782-21; ``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced 
Glazings: Final Report,'' August 2001, Docket NHTSA-1996-1782-22.
    \45\ Since the proposed performance criterion for this ejection 
mitigation standard is a linear displacement measure (a linear 
displacement measure would correlate to the actual gap through which 
an occupant can be ejected), a linear impactor appears to be a 
suitable tool to dynamically measure displacement. The impactor can 
be placed inside the vehicle for testing the ejection mitigation 
curtains and glazing covering window openings.

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

[[Page 63192]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.001

    The mass of the guided impactor was developed through pendulum 
tests, side impact sled tests, and modeling conducted to determine the 
mass imposed on the window opening by a 50th percentile adult male's 
upper torso and head during an occupant ejection (``effective 
mass'').\46\ Briefly, the pendulum impact tests were conducted on a 
BioSID anthropomorphic test device (50th percentile adult male) to 
measure effective mass of the head, shoulder, and upper torso. The 
BioSID was chosen because it was originally configured for side impact, 
unlike the Hybrid III dummy, and has a shoulder which the Side Impact 
Dummy (49 CFR 572, subpart F) currently used for FMVSS No. 214, ``Side 
impact protection,'' does not have. A linear impact pendulum weighing 
23.4 kg (51.5 lb) was used to strike the head and shoulder of the dummy 
laterally (perpendicular to the midsagittal plane) using two impact 
speeds (9.7 and 12.9 km/h) and four impact surfaces. In addition to the 
rigid impactor face, three types of padding were added to the impactor 
face to increase the contact time, to replicate advanced glazing 
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ ``Technical Analysis in Support of a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective mass was calculated by dividing the force time history 
calculated from the pendulum accelerometers by the acceleration time 
history from the dummy sensors. In general, higher speed impacts and 
impacts with softer surfaces generated higher effective mass. Based on 
these pendulum tests, a range for the effective mass of the head and 
upper torso was estimated to be 16 to 27 kg.
    In the sled tests, we used a side impact sled buck with a load 
plate representing a door and two load plates representing the glazing 
to measure shoulder and head impacts with three different stiffness 
foams. The purpose of these tests was to determine the effect lower 
body loading would have on the combined head and upper torso effective 
mass. Two impact conditions were simulated, one representative of a 
rollover event and the second of a side impact event.
    In the rollover condition, the impact speed was 16.1 km/h and the 
dummy was positioned leaning towards the door such that the head and 
torso would contact the simulated glazing at the same time. This 
leaning position was intended to be more representative of an 
occupant's attitude in a rollover. For the test designed to be more 
representative of a side impact condition, the dummy was seated upright 
and the impact speed was 24 km/h. The effective mass of the head and 
upper torso calculated for the 16.1 km/h impact condition showed a 
quick rise to about 18 kg by about 5 ms, followed by an increase to 
about 40 kg at about 30 ms. The effective mass for the 24 km/h impact 
condition showed an initial artificially high value or spike prior to 5 
ms because of a lag between the force measured in the load plates and 
the acceleration measured at the upper spine. This spike was also seen 
in the some pendulum shoulder impacts. The effective mass settled to 
about 9 kg at about 10 ms, with a slow rise to about 18 to 20 kg at 
about 25 to 30 ms. Looking at the results, we determined that early in 
each event, when the impacting mass is traveling near the pre-impact 
velocity, the energy levels of a 9 kg mass traveling at 24 km/h [9 kg x 
(6.67 m/s)\2\/2 = 200 Nm] and an 18 kg mass traveling at 16 km/h [18 kg 
x (4.47 m/s)\2\/2 = 180 Nm] were roughly the same. In consideration of 
the similarity of energy results for the sled testing at two impact 
speeds, we deferred to the 18 kg effective mass since the test 
condition more closely represented a rollover. In addition, the 18 kg 
value was within the range of the pendulum impactor results discussed 
above, which showed an effective mass range between 16 and 27 kg.

[[Page 63193]]

    The final part of the analysis involved computer modeling of an 18 
kg impactor and 50th percentile Hybrid III dummy impacting simulated 
glazing (foam). The comparison found that the total energy transferred 
by the 18 kg impactor was within the range of the total energy 
transferred by the entire dummy. For a 16.1 km/h dummy model impact 
with the foam, the effective mass that came in contact with the foam 
was between 12.5 kg and 27 kg.
    We note that the 18 kg proposed mass is consistent with that used 
by General Motors (GM) in 16.2 km/h (4.5 m/s) tests of ejection 
mitigation curtains.\47\ GM based this value on test results from 52 
full vehicle rollover tests that estimated the effective mass of 
occupant contact with the first row side window area. Forty-six percent 
of the tests were less than a \1/4\-turn, 27 percent were one \1/4\-
turn and 27 percent were two \1/4\-turns. (Twenty of the rollovers were 
curb trip; 18 were soil trip; 11 were fall-over, and 3 were corkscrew.) 
The tests used two 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummies in the front 
seats. In half of the tests, the dummies were belted and in half they 
were not. A membrane was placed over the window area to prevent 
ejections, and tri-axial load cells were incorporated into the membrane 
at the corners of the window opening. The effective mass was calculated 
using the resultant loading on the dummy head by the window membrane, 
along with resultant head and chest accelerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ O'Brian-Mitchell, Bridget M., Lange, Robert C., ``Ejection 
Mitigation in Rollover Events--Component Test Development,'' SAE 
2007-01-0374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a subset of tests the effective mass was calculated using the 
impulse and momentum principle represented by:

[int] Fdt = m[Delta]v

Where:

F = membrane contact force
m = effective mass
[Delta]v = change in occupant velocity

    Results were similar for tests employing both methods. The 
estimated effective mass for most belted tests was about 5 kg and all 
were less than 10 kg. The majority of belted tests had effective masses 
which were a combination of both the near and far side occupants. The 
effective mass for the unbelted occupants ranged from 5 to 85 kg. 
However, we note there was a 40 kg effective mass for a single unbelted 
occupant contact. Energy levels calculated by using effective mass and 
peak head velocity were all below 182.25 Nm. This is the amount of 
energy imparted in GM's internal impactor testing (18 kg impactor and a 
16.2 km/h (4.5 m/s) velocity).

Request for Comments on the Impactor

    In summary, the impactor mass was based on the determination of an 
effective mass calculated through both pendulum and sled test impacts. 
Sled tests designed to represent both side impacts and rollover impacts 
gave similar energies and two equivalent mass estimates. The 18 kg 
equivalent mass was seen during the test intended to be more 
representative of a rollover event. This was also the equivalent mass 
calculated from pendulum impact into the dummy shoulder. Thus, the 18 
kg equivalent mass is considered a reasonable representation of an 
occupant's head and a portion of the torso. An equivalent mass more 
representative of just the head would be substantially smaller and an 
equivalent mass accounting for more torso and lower body mass would be 
substantially more. The 18 kg mass is well within the effective mass GM 
estimates from vehicle rollover tests, and is consistent with the 
impactor that GM uses to evaluate side curtains. Comments are requested 
on the 18 kg mass for the linear impactor headform.

b. Displacement Limit (100 mm)

    We are proposing that the linear travel of the impactor headform 
must be limited to 100 mm from the inside of the tested vehicle's 
glazing as measured with the glazing in an unbroken state. The 100 mm 
boundary would be first determined with the original glazing ``in 
position'' (up) and unbroken. Then, for the test, the original glazing 
would be either: (a) In position but pre-broken; or (b) removed 
altogether, at the manufacturer's option.
    The window-breaking procedure will damage but not destroy advanced 
(laminated) glazing, while it will obliterate tempered glazing. For 
vehicles with advanced glazing, the damaged glazing would be permitted 
to be in position under option (a), above. Tempered glazing will 
disintegrate when subjected to the window-breaking procedure, so under 
option (b), above, manufacturers may remove or completely retract the 
window since it would be destroyed in the pre-breaking procedure and 
would have no effect on the ejection mitigation results. When tested 
with the original glazing in position but pre-broken or with the 
glazing removed, the linear travel of the impactor headform must not 
exceed the 100 mm limit. If a side curtain air bag is present, and we 
anticipate that most, if not all, vehicles will have an ejection 
mitigation curtain, the curtain would be deployed.
    In the test, the ejection mitigation countermeasure must prevent 
the headform from exceeding the 100 mm limit. The principle underlying 
the 100 mm displacement limit is to ensure that the countermeasure 
(curtain) does not allow gaps or openings to form through which 
occupants can be ejected. In the component test results, targets that 
had displacements of less than 100 mm did not eject the dummy in 
dynamic testing. As discussed previously in this preamble, the TRW and 
Zodiac prototype ejection mitigation countermeasures were tested on a 
CK pickup to the proposed impactor test procedure.\48\ The TRW 
prototype had no coverage at position A1 (front window forward lower 
position), so the displacement in the impactor test was unlimited for 
all impact speeds and time delays (displacements well over 100 mm at 
position A1). These systems were later tested on the DRF with the 50th 
percentile male, 5th percentile female and 6-year-old dummies in 
upright seating positions, and a prone 6-year-old dummy aimed at 
approximately the target positions A1 and A2 (front window rear lower 
position). When tested on the DRF, the arms of the upright dummies 
flailed out of the window opening up to the shoulder at the sill (A1 
and A2) and the prone 6-year-old dummy was completely ejected at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ There were only some slight variations in target locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is noted, however, that dummy ejection did not occur all the 
time at targets that had displacements of over 100 mm. When tested with 
pre-broken laminated glazing, at position A1 the TRW system had a 181 
mm of displacement at the 24 km/h (1.5 second delay) test and 104 mm of 
displacement in the 20 km/h (1.5 second delay) test, but did not eject 
either the prone or seated dummies in DRF tests. Nonetheless, the 
component and DRF testing indicate that there is an increased 
likelihood that a gap could be formed between the curtain and the 
window opening through which an occupant could be ejected if the 
displacement were over 100 mm in the headform test. In addition, a 100-
mm limit would also help guard against the countermeasure being overly 
pliable or elastic so as to allow excessive excursion of an occupant's 
head and shoulders outside of the confines of the vehicle even in the 
absence of a gap.
    A 100-mm performance limit is used in several regulations relating 
to occupant retention. In FMVSS No. 217, ``Bus emergency exits and 
window retention and release'' (49 CFR 571.217),

[[Page 63194]]

bus manufacturers are required to ensure that each piece of glazing and 
each piece of window frame be retained by its surrounding structure in 
a manner that prevents the formation of any opening large enough to 
admit the passage of a 100-mm diameter sphere under a specified force. 
The purpose of the requirement is to minimize the likelihood of 
occupants being thrown from the vehicle. This value is also used in 
FMVSS No. 206, ``Door locks and door retention components'' (49 CFR 
571.206; as amended 69 FR 75020). In FMVSS No. 206, the door is loaded 
with 18,000 N and the space between the interior of the door and the 
exterior of the door frame must be less than 100 mm. In addition, NHTSA 
also considered that a value of approximately 100 mm is used by the 
International Code Council (ICC) in developing building codes used to 
construct residential and commercial buildings.\49\ The ICC 2006 
International Building Code and 2006 International Residential Code 
require guards to be placed around areas such as open-sided walking 
areas, stairs, ramps, balconies and landings. The guards must not allow 
passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) in diameter up to a height of 34 
inches (864 mm). The ICC explains in the Commentary accompanying the 
Codes that the 4-inch spacing was chosen after considering information 
showing that the 4-inch opening will prevent nearly all children 1 year 
in age or older from falling through the guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The ICC is a nonprofit membership association that works on 
developing a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national 
model construction codes. http://www.iccsafe.org/news/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comments on the Displacement Limit

    NHTSA requests comment on the linear displacement limit of 100 mm 
as an appropriate value. We note that GM developed a test procedure 
that also uses a 100 mm displacement limit,\50\ but the zero 
displacement plane is defined in a slightly different way. GM places a 
plane tangent to the exterior of the side of the vehicle at the target 
location and defines the displacement perpendicular to this excursion 
plane. Thus, the allowable GM displacement would be approximately 100/
cos([thetas]) mm if other aspects of the test were identical to those 
of today's NPRM, with [thetas] being the angle with the vertical of the 
exterior plane. If [thetas] were 20 degrees, the GM limit would be 
approximately 106 mm, which allows slightly more displacement than the 
100 mm proposal. The GM method also results in a slightly different 
allowable final displacement position than the proposed method because 
of the separation between the flat excursion plane and the inside 
surface of the window at the target location.\51\ We do not know how 
that difference affects the final allowable displacement of the 
headform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ O'Brian-Mitchell, Bridget M., Lange, Robert C., ``Ejection 
Mitigation in Rollover Events--Component Test Development,'' SAE 
2007-01-0374.
    \51\ GM explained that their justification for the 100 mm 
displacement limit is that it represents half the height of the 50th 
percentile male Hybrid III head.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency further notes that an advantage to the displacement 
limit is that the linear displacement of the headform can be measured 
in a practicable and relatively straightforward manner, unlike a real-
time dynamic measurement of a gap during an impact. The latter would 
likely involve complex and multiple imaging systems. Comments are 
requested on this issue.

c. Speed(s) and Time(s) at Which the Headform Would Impact the 
Countermeasure

    As will be discussed in this section, there appears to be a need 
for a relatively high speed impact shortly after countermeasure 
deployment and a lower speed impact late in the deployment. The two 
time delays correspond to relatively early and late times in a rollover 
event.\52\ The first impact would be at 24 km/h, and at 1.5 seconds 
after countermeasure deployment (1.5 second time delay). The second 
impact would be a 16 km/h impact initiated 6 seconds after deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Each impact would take place on a test specimen (e.g., a 
curtain) that was not previously subject to an impact test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing and requesting comments on two alternatives 
regarding the testing of the four target locations for each window 
opening (see subsection 4, below). Only one of the alternatives would 
be selected for the final rule. The first proposal would subject all 
four target locations to both the 16 km/h (6 second time delay) and the 
24 km/h (1.5 second time delay) impacts (which would amount to eight 
impacts per window). The second proposal would be to apply the 16 km/h 
(6 second time delay) test on all four target locations but just apply 
the 24 km/h (1.5 second time delay) test to the location that had the 
greatest displacement in the 16 km/h (6 second time delay) test (which 
would amount to five impacts per window). The second approach would 
reduce the costs and burdens of the impact tests per vehicle.
1. Ejections Can Occur Both Early and Late in the Rollover Event
    Two impacts are proposed because ejections can occur both early and 
late in the rollover event. In the advanced glazing program, NHTSA 
performed a series of simulations to recreate three NASS-investigated 
rollover crashes with ejected occupants.\53\ The vehicles were a MY 
1991 Toyota pickup, a MY 1986 Toyota Corolla and a MY 1985 Volkswagen 
Jetta.\54\ Vehicle handling simulation software \55\ reconstructed the 
vehicle motion up to the point where the vehicle started to roll. The 
linear and angular velocity at the end of the vehicle handling 
simulation was then used as input to a MADYMO \56\ lumped parameter 
model of the vehicle to compute its complete rollover motion. The 
motion of the vehicle obtained from the MADYMO vehicle model was used 
as input to a MADYMO occupant simulation. Head and torso velocities of 
a Hybrid III 50th percentile male driver dummy were calculated for the 
three rollover simulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ ``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazings: A Status 
Report,'' November 1995, Docket NHTSA-1996-1782-3. Pg. 6-1.
    \54\ The circumstances of the Toyota pickup rollover were that 
the vehicle was traveling at 96 km/h and went into a sharp turn and 
yaw, which resulted in a rollover. In the case of the Corolla, it 
was also traveling 96 km/h on a gravel road. The vehicle went out of 
control and left the road, resulting in roll initiation. The 
Volkswagen was traveling at 88 km/h when the driver fell asleep and 
the vehicle left the road. It struck a rock embankment and rolled 
over.
    \55\ VDANL software user's manual V2.34, STI, 1992.
    \56\ MADYMO user's manual V5.1, TNO, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 10 shows the simulation resultant head velocity through the 
open window at the time of ejection. As indicated in the table, the 
occupant of the pickup was ejected early (1st \1/4\-turn for Toyota 
truck) while the occupants of the other vehicles were ejected late 
(last \1/4\-turn for Corolla and Jetta) in the rollover event.

[[Page 63195]]



                        Table 10--Head and Torso Velocities of a Hybrid III 50th Percentile Male Dummy in 3 Rollover Simulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       \1/4\ Turns at
              Vehicle                 Vehicle \1/4\       complete             Restraint use         Head to opening   Head to glazing  Torso to glazing
                                          turns           ejection                                       (km/h)            (km/h)            (km/h)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota PU.........................                12  ................  Yes.......................                20                20                 7
                                    ................                 1  No........................                 5                20                16
Toyota Corolla (86)...............                 6  ................  Yes.......................                15                15                11
                                    ................                 6  No........................                13                13                10
Volkswagen Jetta (85).............                 4  ................  Yes.......................                14                14                10
                                    ................                 4  No........................                22                18                16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has also considered other data indicating that very 
early occupant contact with the window area is possible in rollover 
crashes. Table 11 gives information on 30 rollover tests the agency 
performed from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. This data set included 
Rollover Test Device (RTD) tests, FMVSS No. 208 dolly tests, guardrail 
tests and pole tests.\57\ A film analysis of dummy motion within the 
vehicles showed that, excluding a pole impact test, occupant contact 
with the window opening and surrounding area first occurred between 
0.16 and 0.88 seconds after the event began.\58\ We note, however, that 
the majority of these dummies were belted, which means they would be 
most representative of potential partial ejections. In addition, where 
the time of window breaking is known, most of these first contacts 
occurred prior to the window breaking due to roof contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ These tests were done as part of a research program 
evaluating full scale dynamic rollover test methods, occupant 
kinematics, and vehicle responses. The RTD tests were similar to the 
FMVSS No. 208 dolly test except that the vehicle was initially 4 
feet off of the ground instead of 9 inches, and hydraulic cylinders 
were used to push the vehicle from the cart and produce an initial 
roll rate. The guardrail tests used a guardrail as a ramp to 
initiate a vehicle roll. The pole tests rolled a vehicle into a 
pole. Twenty-four of these were RTD tests on passenger cars, pickups 
and vans (the RTD testing was not geared towards ejection testing 
since all of the test dummies were belted), and four were FMVSS No. 
208 dolly tests on Ford Explorers. The test films are available at 
the National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) at George Washington 
University (http://www.ncac.gwu.edu).
    \58\ ``Evaluation of Full Vehicle Rollover Films,'' 2008, Docket 
NHTSA-2006-26467.

                                               Table 11--NHTSA Full Vehicle Rollover Testing Film Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Tilt                Vehicle                Total
      Test No.               Make                  Model             MY           Test type          angle    Roll axis  speed (km/   \1/4\-      time
                                                                                                     (deg.)     (deg.)       h)       Turns      (sec)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
878................  Honda...............  Accord..............         84  RTD..................         41         45       33.8          2       1.29
888................  Chevrolet...........  Celebrity...........         82  RTD..................         41         45       37.0          4       3.58
920................  Dodge...............  Omni................         79  RTD..................         41         45       37.0          2       0.96
939................  Mercury.............  Zephyr..............         82  RTD..................         41         60       37.0          2       2.08
1255...............  Ford................  Bronco..............         88  RTD..................         30         45       37.0          2       1.17
1266...............  Dodge...............  Caravan.............         88  RTD..................         30         45       48.3          1       0.50
1267...............  Chevrolet...........  Pickup..............         88  RTD..................         30         45       48.3          4       2.58
1274...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         88  RTD..................         30         45       48.3          6       3.76
1289...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         89  RTD..................         30         45       48.3          2       0.83
1391...............  Dodge...............  Caravan.............         89  RTD..................         30         45       48.3          8       5.08
1392...............  Ford................  Bronco..............         89  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          8       3.60
1393...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         89  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          4       2.35
1394...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         89  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          4       1.33
1395...............  Pontiac.............  Grand Am............         89  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          2       1.54
1471...............  Dodge...............  Colt................         89  RTD..................         30         90       48.3          2       0.99
1520...............  Ford................  Ranger..............         88  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          2       0.75
1521...............  Dodge...............  Ram.................         88  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          4       1.42
1530...............  Dodge...............  Caravan.............         88  Guardrail............        N/A        N/A       96.6          1        N/A
1531...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         88  Guardrail............        N/A        N/A       96.6          4        N/A
1546...............  Plymouth............  Reliant.............         81  RTD..................         41         45       33.8          6       3.00
1851...............  Volvo...............  240.................         91  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          6       2.50
1852...............  Volvo...............  740.................         91  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          8       3.00
1925...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         90  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          8       3.04
1929...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         90  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          6       2.25
2141...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         90  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          8       4.25
2270...............  Nissan..............  Pickup..............         89  RTD..................         30          0       48.3          8       3.50
2514...............  Ford................  Explorer............         94  208..................         23          0       48.3         11       5.50
2553...............  Ford................  Explorer............         93  208..................         23          0       48.3         10        N/A
3012...............  Ford................  Explorer............         94  208..................         23          0       48.3         11        N/A
3635...............  Ford................  Explorer............         94  208..................         23          0       48.3         12      5.17
Analysis of 5+ \1/4\-turn Tests
Average..........................................................................................  .........  .........       47.2        8.3        3.7
Maximum..........................................................................................  .........  .........       96.6         12        5.5
Average + 2 standard deviations..................................................................  .........  .........       55.2       12.3        5.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is proposing that the ejection mitigation countermeasure 
be first tested at 1.5 seconds after deployment of the ejection 
countermeasure. As indicated earlier in this preamble, more than half 
of the

[[Page 63196]]

complete ejection fatalities occur when the vehicle rolls 5+ \1/4\-
turns. As shown in Table 11, restricting the analysis to the tests with 
5+ \1/4\-turns, the average amount of time to complete 1 full vehicle 
revolution (4\1/4\-turns) was 1.62 seconds with a standard deviation of 
0.31 seconds. Thus, the 1.5 second represents a period of time in which 
one full vehicle revolution occurs in a high-energy rollover event. We 
also note that at 1.5 seconds into the rollover, roof contact would 
likely have occurred, leading to window breaking. Thus, as discussed at 
section V(e) of this preamble, we are proposing to pre-break the 
glazing prior to this test.
    Additional rationale comes from data obtained from the advanced 
glazing program (see Table 12, infra). In that program, NHTSA tested 
vehicles on the DRF with 5th percentile adult female and 50th 
percentile adult male test dummies (near and far side).\59\ Video 
analysis of dummy head impact velocities with the glazing showed that 
for the 5th percentile female far side occupant, the time to glazing 
impact after the DRF began rotating was between 1.3 and 1.8 seconds, 
which was in the range of two to three \1/4\-turns of rotation. The 
peak impact speed was 31 km/h. Table 12 shows the estimated velocities 
for the near and far side dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Duffy, S., ``Test Procedure for Evaluating Ejection 
Mitigation Systems,'' 2002 SAE Government/Industry Meeting.

                                          Table 12--DRF Testing Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Impact speed  (km/h)      Far side
                                                             --------------------------    impact      Far side
                            Dummy                                                           time     impact  \1/
                                                               Near side     Far side      (sec.)      4\ turns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Female..................................................           14           31      1.3-1.8          2-3
50th Male...................................................           18           29  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is also proposing that ejection mitigation 
countermeasures be tested towards the end of a rollover. Data indicate 
that occupants could impact the window opening as late as 6 seconds 
after initiation of a rollover involving 5+ \1/4\-turns. The last three 
rows of Table 11, supra, show the average and maximum number of \1/4\-
turns and the total time of rollovers involving 5+ \1/4\-turns.\60\ 
This set of data contains 14 tests (highlighted in table). The average 
and maximum number of \1/4\-turns are 8.3 and 12, respectively. The 
average plus two standard deviations is 12.3 turns. Thus, 12.3 \1/4\-
turns is the 98th percentile value for this subset of data. The average 
and maximum times to complete the entire rollover event were 3.7 and 
5.5 seconds, respectively. The 98th percentile value was 5.8 seconds, 
which is not much different than the maximum time for the entire data 
set, which was 5.5 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ As earlier, more than half of the complete ejection 
fatalities occur when the vehicle rolls 5+ \1/4\-turns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other information we considered also supported a 6-second impact 
time. The data set provided in Table 11, supra, showed the vehicle with 
the longest rollover time (5.5 seconds) in the FMVSS No. 208 dolly test 
rolled eleven \1/4\-turns. NASS-CDS shows that rollovers with eleven 
\1/4\-turns account for about 90% of rollovers with fatal complete 
ejection, i.e., 10% of rollovers with fatal complete ejections have 
more than eleven \1/4\-turns. This does not mean that rollover crashes 
with eleven \1/4\-turns only take 5-6 seconds. Five to six seconds may 
be a conservative assumption for this many \1/4\-turns for some types 
of rollover. The FMVSS No. 208 dolly test has a very quick rollover 
initiation (high initial roll rate); the beginning of the rollover is 
well defined. However, the test only represents about 1% of field 
crashes.\61\ The vast majority of field cases are soil and curb trip 
crashes. Soil trips involve high lateral deceleration in combination 
with low initial roll rates. Ideally, the curtain air bag should deploy 
in this early phase when the roll rate is still low but the occupant is 
moving towards the window due to the lateral deceleration. The rollover 
has a slow initiation, leading to a need for longer inflation. 
Therefore, some rollover crashes with less than eleven \1/4\-turns may 
have 5-6 second roll times. A factor that the agency also considered in 
determining the time delay for the lower speed impact was the 
practicability of curtains staying inflated for this length of time. 
Ford stated that its ``Safety Canopy'' system stays inflated for six 
seconds.\62\ GM has reportedly stated that its side curtain air bags 
designed for rollover protection maintain 80 percent inflation pressure 
for 5 seconds.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Viano, supra.
    \62\ http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=6447
    \63\ ``Who Benefits From Side and Head Airbags?'' (http://
www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/105563/article.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Speed at Which Occupants Impact or Move Through the Window Opening
    This NPRM proposes that the impactor should strike the window 
opening countermeasure at a speed of 24 km/h (after a 1.5 second time 
delay after deployment of the countermeasure) and at 16 km/h (after a 6 
second delay). The 24 and 16 km/h values are based on several analyses, 
discussed below, of speeds at which occupants impact or move through 
the window opening, including analysis of accident data, computer 
simulations and test films of rollover crashes.\64\ In addition, the 
agency notes that the 24 km/h impact speed is consistent with the 
impact speed of FMVSS No. 201, ``Occupant protection in interior 
impact'' (49 CFR 571.201). FMVSS No. 201 uses a free-motion headform 
with a 4.6 kg mass to strike vehicle upper interior locations including 
areas around side window openings. The impact speed for these tests is 
24 km/h.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ It is noted that the DRF test data presented above that 
showed far side occupant velocities of approximately 30 km/h (Duffy, 
``Test Procedure for Evaluating Ejection Mitigation Systems'') also 
support the proposed test speeds.
    \65\ The 24 km/h speed was chosen in part because it is the 
average speed at which the onset of AIS 2 and AIS 3 injuries are 
likely to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accident Data

    In the analysis of accident data, the agency investigated side 
impact accident data to determine the [Delta]V of the crashes in which 
near side impact occupants were completely ejected. This data is 
depicted in Figure 3, which shows the cumulative percentage of near 
side impact occupants completely ejected, by impact [Delta]V. This 
graph represents 15,062 occupant ejections weighted from 704 NASS 
ejection cases. The range of the [Delta]V was 2 to 55 km/h. With regard 
to the proposed impact test speeds of 16 and 24 km/h, 47.6 percent of 
the near side impact occupants were completely ejected at [Delta]Vs at 
or below 16 km/h, while 65.5 percent of the

[[Page 63197]]

occupants were ejected at [Delta]Vs at or below 24 km/h.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.002

Computer Simulations

    NHTSA analyzed MADYMO simulations of the real-world rollovers of 
the Toyota pickup, Toyota Corolla and Volkswagen Jetta, supra. As shown 
in Table 10, supra, the computed resultant maximum head and torso 
velocities at contact with the intact glazing for the unejected 
occupant indicated a maximum head speed into the window openings of 22 
km/h. The maximum head velocity was 22 km/h for the Jetta unrestrained 
occupant into the window opening. The maximum torso velocity was 16 km/
h, also for the unrestrained Jetta occupant.

Film Analyses of Full Vehicle Rollover Tests

    In the early 1990's the agency reviewed 23 of 28 full-scale 
rollover tests performed in the 1970s-1990s to find any cases of 
occupant to side glazing impact and to determine the contact 
velocities. In seven of these tests, the occupant was observed striking 
the side glazing with either the head or shoulder. As shown in Table 
13, a film analysis was conducted to measure the velocity of the 
impacts.\66\ The average impact velocity measured was 8.6 km/h. Maximum 
and average head velocities were 17.0 km/h and 10.3 km/h, respectively. 
Maximum and average shoulder velocities were 8 km/h and 6.3 km/h, 
respectively.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The analysis is limited by the fact that a single camera 
was used to determine the velocities.
    \67\ These measurements compare very closely to the measurements 
reported in DOT HS476-PM-83-25. This report evaluated 48 FWHA 
rollover tests involving passenger cars. In these tests, they found 
six occupant/glazing impacts (5 head, 1 shoulder). An average impact 
velocity of 10.9 km/h was measured. Maximum and average head 
velocities were 17.8 km/h and 11.3 km/h, respectively. The only 
measured shoulder velocities were 8 km/h and 8.7 km/h.

                                                     Table 13--Film Analysis of NHTSA Rollover Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Vehicle      Occupant
          Test                      Make                  Model                Test type         test speed  impact speed      Contact point
                                                                                                            (km/h)        (km/h)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
878...............................  Honda................  84 Accord............  RTD..................         33.8          8.0   Shoulder.
No test .................  Dodge................  Aries................  Guardrail............         96.6         16.0   Head.
888...............................  Chevrolet............  82 Celebrity.........  RTD..................         37.0          6.5   Shoulder.
No test .................  Ford.................  Pinto................  Dolly................         27.4          2.5   Head.
No test .................  Dodge................  Reliant..............  RTD..................         33.8          4.5   Shoulder.
1520..............................  Ford.................  88 Ranger............  RTD..................         48.3          5.8   Head.
1522..............................  Nissan...............  88 Pickup............  Pole.................         48.3         17.0   Head.
Average...........................  .....................  .....................  .....................  ...........          8.61  ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63198]]

    Based on the above information, the agency is proposing two impact 
speeds and time delays. NHTSA requests comment on the appropriateness 
of the impact speeds and of the time delay for both the high and low 
speed impacts. If alternative impact speeds and/or time delays are 
suggested, what are the rationale and data supporting that suggestion?
3. Alternative Testing of Only One Target Position at Higher Speed
    The agency proposes to subject all four target locations (per 
window opening) to the 16 km/h (6 second time delay) impact, but 
requests comments on whether to test all four target locations with a 
24 km/h (1.5 second time delay) impact or just the location with the 
greatest displacement in the 16 km/h impact. The latter approach would 
reduce the test burden per window opening from eight targets to five. 
Our analysis of available data shows that there appears to be a 
correlation between the displacement results for the 24 km/h and the 16 
km/h impacts, particularly for the target location with the greatest 
displacement. That is, the weakest point in the countermeasure 
(curtain) that allows the most displacement of the headform could be 
the same for the 24 km/h impact as for the 16 km/h impact. If the 
weakest point in the countermeasure is the same for each impact test, 
it may be possible to reduce the number of tests for one of the impact 
speeds to a single location. If a correlation exists, an approach the 
agency could take would be to first determine the displacement at each 
target location for the 16 km/h (6 second time delay) impact and rank 
the displacement results from largest to smallest. The agency would 
then subject only the target with the largest displacement to the 24 
km/h (1.5 second delay) second impact. Under this scenario, if the 
weakest target passes the 24 km/h test, it would be reasonable to 
assume that the other targets would also have displacements under 100 
mm in 24 km/h test. If the weakest target fails the 24 km/h test, the 
vehicle would fail the requirements of the FMVSS proposed today and 
there would not be a need to test the other targets.
    There are test data demonstrating that the target locations with 
the most displacement at each test speed are generally the same, but 
the data are limited. Table 14 shows the impactor displacement results 
for the MY05 Infinity FX35 (front window), the Zodiac prototype on a 
Navigator (front window), a TRW prototype on a CK (front window), the 
MY06 Durango (second row window), and the MY05 Honda Odyssey (second 
row window). Table 15 shows the displacement rank for each target 
location and vehicle, from most displacement to least displacement.
    For the MY05 Infinity FX35, in the 24 km/h test, the largest and 
smallest displacements are A1 and A4, respectively. For the 16 km/h 
test of the Infinity, the ascending displacement ranking is A1, A3, A2 
and A4. However, for the 24 km/h test, three trials were performed at 
A2 and A3 and there is significant overlap in the displacement data. 
The average displacement plus or minus one standard deviation is shown 
in the table. In fact, there is no statistically significant difference 
between the average results of 97 mm at A2 and 95 mm at A3. For the 
Zodiac prototype data, the ranking of the displacement data at both 
impact speeds is A1, A3, A2 and A4. For the TRW prototype, the ranking 
is also identical at both speeds, but the ranking is A1, A2, A3 and A4, 
which is different from the Zodiac. The target locations for the 
Odyssey's largest and smallest displacements (A1 and A4, respectively) 
are the same in the 16 km/h tests as for the 24 km/h impacts.
    For the second row window data, the MY06 Durango ranks the 
displacement at both test speeds as B3, B2, B4 and B1, in ascending 
order. However, at 24 km/h there is very little separating the 
displacements at each location. The MY 05 Honda Odyssey has the 
displacement ranking at the 24 km/h test of B4, B2, B3, and B1. 
However, for the 16 km/h test the displacement ranking is B2, B3, B4 
and B1.
    In general, this very limited data set shows a consistency in the 
displacement results for each impact test speed, particularly for the 
location of greatest displacement for the front window (A1). For the 
second row window, the Dodge Durango had consistent results, but the 
Honda Odyssey did not.
    We note that this alternative of performing a single 24 km/h impact 
at the target that gives the largest displacement in the 16 km/h impact 
has not been analyzed in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(PRIA). However, this does not mean there would be no difference in 
cost or safety benefits. Rather, assessing this difference would 
require sufficient data to determine the probability of having a 24 km/
h impact displacement greater than 100 mm at some location other than 
the location of greatest displacement at 16 km/h. We do not have 
sufficient data for such an assessment.
    Comments are requested on whether the 24 km/h impact should only be 
conducted on the target location with largest displacement in the lower 
speed test. If results for multiple targets at 16 km/h are within the 
variance for the test, which target should be selected for the 24 km/h 
test? The agency's supporting documents for this NPRM estimate the 
likely test burdens associated with the two approaches. The agency 
estimates that the restricted testing approach would reduce the number 
of tests to determine full compliance by 38 percent, while reducing the 
costs of testing by 8 percent. Please comment on the potential 
advantages and disadvantages of each method and how the agency might 
best balance both the safety and potential test burdens.

                   Table 14--Displacements for Vehicle Windows Where All Targets Were Impacted
                                                      [mm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Position A1     Position A2     Position A3     Position A4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 km/h--1.5 sec. Delay:
    05 Infinity FX35............................             124       97  14.5     minus> 11.0
    Zodiac Prot. On Navigator...................      147  4.9                      minus> 4.2      minus> 2.1
    TRW Prot. On CK w/lam.......................      181  1.4                      minus> 0.0      minus> 5.7
16 km/h--6 sec. Delay:
    05 Infinity FX35............................              85              21              39               9
    Zodiac Prot. On Navigator...................             135              49       80  2.1
    TRW Prot. On CK w/lam.......................              80              -3             -44             -67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Position B1     Position B2     Position B3     Position B4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 63199]]


24 km/h--1.5 sec. Delay:
05 Honda Odyssey................................       71  8.5
06 Dodge Durango................................              76              86              91              82
16 km/h--6 sec. Delay:
    05 Honda Odyssey............................              12      121  0.7
    06 Dodge Durango............................               3              36              71              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 15--Displacement Rank (From Left to Right, Most Displacement to
        Least Displacement), for Each Vehicle and Target Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    16 km/h--6 sec.    24 km/h--1.5 sec.
             Vehicle                     delay               delay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
05 Infinity FX35................  A1, A3, A2, A4....  A1, A2, A3, A4.
Zodiac Prot. on Navigator.......  A1, A3, A2, A4....  A1, A3, A2, A4.
TRW Prot. on CK w/lam...........  A1, A2, A3, A4....  A1, A2, A3, A4.
05 Honda Odyssey................  B2, B3, B4, B1....  B4, B2, B3, B1.
06 Dodge Durango................  B3, B2, B4, B1....  B3, B2, B4, B1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Locations Where the Device Would Impact the Ejection Mitigation 
Countermeasure To Assess Efficacy

1. Occupants Are Mainly Ejected Through Side Windows
    NHTSA analyzed 1997 to 2005 NASS CDS data files to determine the 
injury and fatality distribution by ejection routes.\68\ Table 16 shows 
the MAIS 1-2, MAIS 3-5 and fatality distribution of ejected occupants 
by eight potential ejection routes.\69\ Ejection through side windows 
constitutes the greatest part of the ejection problem. There were 
18,353 MAIS 1-2 injuries, 5,271 MAIS 3-5 injuries, and 6,174 fatalities 
for occupants ejected through side windows. Table 17 gives the 
percentage of the total at each injury level. The side window ejections 
comprise 68 percent of all ejected MAIS 1-2 injuries, 47 percent of 
MAIS 3-5 injuries, and 61 percent of all ejected fatalities. Because of 
these data, NHTSA focused on the safety problem posed by side window 
ejections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ All crash types are included, but the counts are restricted 
to ejected occupants that were injured. In addition, in NASS CDS the 
ejection route for side windows is only explicitly coded for the 
front (Row 1 Window) and rear (Row 2 Window). The third and higher 
row side window ejections should be coded as ``other glazing.'' This 
is because there are specific codes available for coding roof 
glazing, windshield and backlight. However, when extracting NASS 
cases of known ejections through ``other glazing,'' 17 unweighted 
occupants were observed. A hard copy review of these cases showed 
that 9 were known 3rd row side window ejections, but five cases were 
miscoded. Four were actually backlight ejections and one was a 
sunroof ejection. The known 3rd row ejections were recoded as ``Row 
3 Window'' ejections.
    \69\ The ``Not Window'' category captures ejected occupants that 
did not go through a glazing area. This might have been an open door 
or an area of vehicle structure that was torn away during the crash.

 Table 16--Occupant Injury and Fatality Counts by Ejection Route in All
                               Crash Types
                 [Annualized 1997-2005 NASS, 2005 FARS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Ejection route               MAIS 1-2   MAIS 3-5    Fatal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1 Window...........................     15,797      4,607      5,209
Row 2 Window...........................      2,533        621        906
Row 3 Window...........................         23         43         59
Windshield.............................      1,923      1,565      1,155
Backlight..............................      1,625      1,677        515
Sun Roof...............................      1,127        305        237
Other Window...........................          1         51          0
Not Window.............................      3,870      2,411      2,068
Subtotals:
    All Side Windows...................     18,353      5,271      6,174
                                        --------------------------------
        Total..........................     26,899     11,280     10,149
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 17--Occupant Injury and Fatality Percentages by Ejection Route in
                             All Crash Types
                 [Annualized 1997-2005 NASS, 2005 FARS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     MAIS 1-2     MAIS 3-5      Fatal
          Ejection route            (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1 Window.....................         58.7         40.8         51.3
Row 2 Window.....................          9.4          5.5          8.9
Row 3 Window.....................          0.1          0.4          0.6
Windshield.......................          7.1         13.9         11.4
Backlight........................          6.0         14.9          5.1

[[Page 63200]]


Sun Roof.........................          4.2          2.7          2.3
Other Window.....................          0.0          0.5          0.0
Not Window.......................         14.4         21.4         20.4
Subtotals:
    All Side Windows.............         68.2         46.7         60.8
                                  --------------------------------------
        Total....................        100.0        100.0        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Requirements Would Apply to Side Windows Adjacent to First Three 
Rows
    NHTSA evaluated crash data to assess which window, by row, the 
above injured and killed occupants were ejected through. Table 18 
provides the counts of the injured and killed side window ejected 
occupants by the window row they were ejected through, ejection degree 
(complete or partial) and restraint condition for the target population 
of this rule. Table 19 shows the same data as a percentage of total 
side window ejected fatalities, MAIS 3-5 and MAIS 1-2 injuries. The 
first row (row 1) windows provide the ejection route for the most 
injured and killed occupants. There were 2,459 fatalities and 2,243 
MAIS 3-5 injuries that were unbelted and completely ejected through the 
row 1 windows. The greatest number of fatally ejected occupants (3,671) 
went through the row 1 window. This represents 83 percent of all side 
window ejected fatalities. With regard to injuries, 3,735 (88 percent) 
MAIS 3-5 and 11,016 (87 percent) MAIS 1-2 injured occupants went 
through the row 1 windows. Ejection routes through row 1 and row 2 
windows accounted for more than 99 percent of fatal and 98 percent of 
MAIS 3-5 completely ejected and unbelted occupants. These data show a 
compelling safety need to apply the ejection mitigation standard to row 
1 and row 2 windows.

                      Table 18--Distribution of Target Population by Ejection Row and Injury Level by Ejection Degree and Belt Use
                                                         [Annualized 1997-2005 NASS, 2005 FARS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Row 1                            Row 2                            Row 3
         Ejection degree                 Belted       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        MAIS 1-2   MAIS 3-5    Fatal     MAIS 1-2   MAIS 3-5    Fatal     MAIS 1-2   MAIS 3-5    Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete........................  Yes................         92         16         69         12         40          0          0         30          0
Complete........................  No.................      3,968      2,243      2,459      1,484        324        588         22          7         38
Partial.........................  Yes................      4,464      1,086        526         58         42         45          0          7          0
Partial.........................  No.................      2,492        391        617        119         64         53          0          0          0
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ...................     11,016      3,735      3,671      1,673        471        686         22         43         38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 19--Distribution of Target Population by Ejection Row and Injury Level by Ejection Degree and Belt Use, as a Percentage of Totals at Each Injury
                                                                          Level
                                                         [Annualized 1997-2005 NASS, 2005 FARS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Row 1                            Row 2                            Row 3
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Ejection degree                 Belted         MAIS 1-2   MAIS 3-5    Fatal     MAIS 1-2   MAIS 3-5    Fatal     MAIS 1-2   MAIS 3-5    Fatal
                                                       (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete........................  Yes................          1          0          2          0          1          0          0          1          0
Complete........................  No.................         31         53         56         12          8         13          0          0          1
Partial.........................  Yes................         35         26         12          0          1          1          0          0          0
Partial.........................  No.................         20          9         14          1          2          1          0          0          0
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ...................         87         88         84         13         11         16          0          1          1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We would also apply the standard to row 3 windows. All light 
vehicle (GVWR 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less) rollover occupants in the 
target population for this proposal were ejected through the windows of 
the first 3 rows. Third and higher row windows are not specifically 
coded as ejection routes in NASS, so the ``other'' window categories 
were reviewed. These categories contained only a limited number of 3rd 
row window ejections (about 1 percent of fatalities and MAIS 3-5 
injuries). While the percentage of ejection through the third and 
higher rows is small, this might be a reflection of the very few light 
vehicles with more than three rows and the low occupancy in third and 
higher rows. NHTSA is concerned that in a crash, an unbelted occupant 
could be ejected from the 3rd row window opening. As discussed in 
IV(b)(2) of this preamble, the agency has observed laboratory DRF tests 
in which an unbelted dummy was initially prevented from ejection by a 
side curtain, but was eventually ejected

[[Page 63201]]

when it slid to an opening in the curtain. Further, with substantial 
numbers of 3-row vehicles used as passenger vehicles, applying the 
standard to row 3 as well as rows 1 and 2 windows would be consistent 
with the SAFETEA-LU mandate ``to establish performance standards to 
reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants from 
outboard seating positions.''
    In addition, it appears practicable for manufacturers to meet 
ejection mitigation requirements applying to the row 3 windows. There 
are a number of current OE air bag curtains that cover rows 1, 2 and 3 
windows, such as the 2005-2007 MY Honda Odyssey, 2006 Mercury Monterey, 
2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, and 2007 Ford Expedition.
    Less can be said about the practicability of air bag curtain 
coverage beyond three rows of seating. Vehicles in this category are 
primarily large vans with more than 10 seating positions and are in the 
bus category. We do not believe that manufacturers have installed air 
bag curtains that cover beyond the third row windows in vehicles that 
have more than three rows. Thus, we would not apply the standard to 
windows for row 4+.
    Out of concern to properly assess the cost impact of this 
rulemaking, we are also proposing to limit the testable area of window 
openings extending rearward past the designated seating positions of 
the first three rows. This NPRM proposes that, for vehicles with 3 
rows, for any side window opening that extends rearward of a 3rd row 
forward-facing designated seating position (DSP), the rearward edge of 
the testable side window opening would be bound by a transverse 
vertical vehicle plane 600 mm (approximately 24 inches) behind the 
seating reference point (SgRP) of the 3rd row DSP. If the 3rd row 
designated seating position is adjustable to a non-forward facing 
orientation, the target area extends to 600 mm behind the rearmost 
portion of the seat when the seat is adjusted to the most rearward 
position (with respect to the vehicle) and the seat cushion and seat 
back are in the manufacturer's design position. So if a vehicle's third 
row seat has both a forward and a rearward facing position, the 
testable area would be determined as specified above. The final target 
area would be the largest area as defined under either of these 
conditions, i.e., (1) by the SgRP of the forward facing seat, or (2) 
the most rearward part of the non-forward facing seat. This limitation 
of testable area would also be applied to the 2nd row window in two-row 
vehicles and 1st row window in one-row vehicles. The limitation would 
primarily affect sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with two rows of seating 
and side window areas adjacent to the rear cargo area. While it is not 
impossible for unbelted occupants to be partially or completely ejected 
through this area, we believe that ejection through a non-adjacent 
opening more than 600 mm from the occupant's SgRP is less likely. We 
note that FMVSS No. 201 has a similar exclusion in S6.3 that excludes 
impact targets 600 mm rearward of the rearmost SgRP. We also note that 
changes to the seating configuration for vehicles with removable or 
stowable seats must be considered in the determination of the rearward 
limit of the testable area. We propose that the seating configuration 
that generates the largest testable area would be used.
    This NPRM proposes a definition of the term ``row,'' since the 
proposed regulatory text frequently refers to the term in describing 
the applicability of the ejection mitigation requirements. While the 
definition of the term is generally understood, under the proposed 
definition we would clarify that a single seat could constitute a 
``row.'' The proposed definition of ``row'' would state: ``Row'' means 
a set of one or more seats whose seat outline does not overlap with the 
seat outline of any other set of seats, when all seats are to their 
rearmost normal riding or driving position, when viewed from the 
side.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Stated differently, the seats are adjusted such that their 
design H-point coincides with seating reference point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the above definition of ``row'' we believe it 
is necessary to define ``seat outline.'' The proposed definition of 
``seat outline'' would state: ``Seat outline'' means the outer limits 
of a seat projected laterally onto a vertical longitudinal vehicle 
plane.
    We believe that the definition is needed to address potential 
questions about vehicles that appear in one seating configuration to 
have 2 conventional rows of seating, but which have a seat or seats in 
a row (e.g., the 2nd row) that are capable of being adjusted forward or 
rearward independently from other seats in its row. For example, 
suppose a seat in the 2nd row can move rearward such that it can occupy 
a position occupied by a seat traditionally considered to be in the 3rd 
row. NHTSA tentatively believes that a reasonable way of addressing 
this issue is as follows. First, the vehicle seats must be adjusted 
such that they are in the SgRP position. This places each seat in the 
rearmost normal driving or riding position. The transition for a seat 
being in one row as opposed to another is the overlapping of the side 
view ``seat outline'' of the seats. Seats whose seat outlines overlap 
are considered to be in the same row.
    To illustrate, Figure 4 shows the top and side view of a two row 
vehicle, with two seats in the front row and three seats in the 2nd 
row. All seats are assumed to be adjusted such that the design H-point 
coincides with the SgRP. Figure 5 is another five-seat vehicle that has 
a more rearward position for the 2nd row center seat than in Figure 4. 
However, looking at the side view, there is still overlap between the 
outline of the rear center seat and the outboard 2nd row seats. Thus, 
by our proposed definitions this is still a two-row vehicle.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 63202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.003


[[Page 63203]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.004

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    Comments are requested on the practicability, cost and potential 
benefit of extending application of the ejection mitigation 
requirements to rows beyond the 3rd row. Please also comment on the 
appropriateness and practicability of the 600 mm limitation, and on 
whether the value should be increased or decreased. Comments are also 
requested on the proposed definition of ``row'' and the implications of 
the definition on other FMVSSs, e.g., FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint 
anchorage systems.'' Standard No. 225 requires vehicles that have ``3 
or more rows'' to have a child restraint anchorage system in the 
``second row'' (S4.4(a)(1), 49 CFR 571.225).
3. Four Targets per Glazing Area
    NHTSA seeks to assure in a reasonable manner that any ejection

[[Page 63204]]

mitigation countermeasure provides the full coverage of potential 
ejection routes. The cost and burden of testing increases as the number 
of target locations increases, or as less specificity is provided in 
the test procedures identifying the target location. The agency has 
tentatively decided to limit the number of target locations per glazing 
area to four. In examining current side window designs, four targets 
appear sufficient to assure side window opening coverage for window 
designs. The targets would be less than four if the window area is 
small enough to create significant overlap in the target locations.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble at section IV(e), a 
comparison of the results of the DRF tests and impactor tests indicated 
that if key locations around the perimeter of the window opening were 
not targeted, an opening could form through which an occupant could be 
ejected in a rollover. Target A1 (see Figure 6 below, which is 
replicated below for the convenience of the reader from Figure 1 of 
this preamble) was the most challenging target in the component test, 
while A4 was the least challenging. For the 24 km/h (1.5 second time 
delay) test, the only system that did not exceed the 100 mm criterion 
at A1 was the Zodiac Prototype on the CK pickup. The data indicate that 
if target position A1 were not tested, an ejection mitigation curtain 
could have displacements of less than 100 mm in the other tests, yet 
have a hole large enough in a rollover to allow an occupant to be 
ejected. No displacement at A4 exceeded 76, 73 or 67 mm at 24 km/h, 20 
km/h and 16 km/h, respectively. Taken as a whole, A2 and A3 showed 
similar results to each other for all three test conditions (24 km/h, 
20 km/h, and 16 km/h impacts)) in that neither was as consistently 
challenging to meet as A1 nor as easily met as A4. Thus, based upon 
existing agency tests, passage of point A1 would tend to indicate a 
satisfactory countermeasure, but some vehicles showed more displacement 
at A3 than at A1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.005

    The four targets are similar to those identified by GM in 
developing that manufacturer's ejection mitigation side curtain air 
bags. GM indicated that its test procedure targets the front side 
window opening in three locations: the upper rear corner, the lower 
front corner and the centroid of the window opening.\71\ The first two 
target locations are very similar to the proposed target location A4 
and A1 described in Figure 6 above. GM explained that it identified the 
upper rear target as a test point because it represents the most 
frequent impact position in rollover, and because it is at the edge of 
the rearward seating position and assesses protection for taller 
occupants. GM believes that the lower front corner test point evaluates 
the curtain for the forward seating position, assesses the curtain's 
performance with smaller occupants, and is the location at which the 
trailing (far side) occupant contacted the window opening in rollover 
tests. The centroid position represents the impact location with the 
least boundary condition support. While NHTSA's proposed targets are 
similar in location to GM's three targets, the agency tentatively 
believes that using four targets is preferable to only three targets to 
better assess how well the curtain covers the perimeter of the window 
opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ O'Brian-Mitchell, Bridget M., Lange, Robert C., ``Ejection 
Mitigation in Rollover Events--Component Test Development,'' SAE 
2007-01-0374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on whether the FMVSS should specify that any 
point of the ejection mitigation window curtain will be tested by 
NHTSA, without limiting the number of target locations or specifying 
precisely the locations of the targets. The advantage to such an 
approach is that the agency would be allowed flexibility in choosing 
where to impact the ejection mitigation curtain, and could choose the 
location on the curtain that appeared to be the ``weakest,'' thereby 
assuring that all portions of the curtain would limit head displacement 
and not just the four target points identified in an FMVSS. 
Manufacturers would have to ensure that the curtain passed the 
performance limits at any point that NHTSA may select, which means that 
all parts of the curtain would have to meet the requirements. Further, 
it is possible that a sufficient assessment of countermeasure 
effectiveness could be achieved with fewer than four tests per window 
without decreasing the realized safety benefit.

What Is a ``Window Opening''?

    This NPRM proposes a specified procedure for identifying the four 
targets of each window opening. The procedure is described in the next 
section and in detail in the Technical Analysis. To objectively 
describe ``window opening,'' this proposal would generally use the term 
``daylight opening,'' as defined in FMVSS No. 201 for openings on the 
side of the vehicle. The term is defined in FMVSS No. 201 as: ``the 
locus of all points where a horizontal line, perpendicular to the 
vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the periphery of the 
opening. * * *'' There is a daylight opening for each separate piece of 
glazing. For example, a single door may have multiple daylight openings 
if there are

[[Page 63205]]

multiple pieces of glazing comprising the side window opening.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The proposed test procedure has a provision that provides 
for fewer targets than four for small daylight openings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note, however, there would be two differences between the proposed 
definition and the FMVSS No. 201 definition of daylight opening. First, 
the proposed definition would state that the above-referenced 
horizontal line would not only be tangent to the periphery of the 
opening, but would also include the area 50 mm inboard toward the 
vehicle centerline from the window glazing interior surface. This 
provision is intended to account for interior trim or other substantial 
vehicle structure that might be in the vicinity of the daylight 
opening, which could restrict the size of the opening through which an 
occupant could be ejected.
    Second, we propose to exclude from the ``daylight opening'' 
definition any flexible gasket material or weather stripping used to 
create a waterproof seal between the glazing and the vehicle interior. 
The rationale for the exclusion is that the flexible material is 
unlikely to impede occupant ejection through the opening. This results 
in keeping the test area as large as possible. In the next paragraph, 
we discuss a proposal that would specify a 25 mm offset from the 
daylight opening in determining the testable area. If flexible gasket 
material or weather stripping were not excluded from the daylight 
opening definition, the testable area would be further reduced and the 
impactor targets would be moved even further inward away from the 
perimeter of the opening. Since we want to keep the target locations 
close to the opening perimeter to assure full coverage of the ejection 
mitigation curtain, we have tentatively decided to exclude the flexible 
material from the daylight opening definition. Comments are requested 
on the ``daylight opening'' definition.
    Although the determination of daylight opening is made with 
flexible gasket material or weather stripping removed, we propose that 
the gasket material be present for the impactor test. Our rationale for 
having the material present is that conceivably, the material could 
affect the test results in some situations, and that during real world 
rollovers it is likely that the flexible gasket material or weather 
stripping would be present. However, we do not have comparative data 
between testing with and without the flexible gasket material or 
weather stripping. Further, we recognize that if the gasket material is 
removed to determine the daylight opening, specifying that the material 
is present on the vehicle for the impactor test will necessitate an 
extra step in the testing. Therefore, we request comments on whether 
the impact test should be performed with or without the flexible gasket 
material or weather stripping.
    In specifying how the four targets of a side window opening are 
located, the test procedure would exclude a portion of the daylight 
opening. Briefly stated, to identify the four targets, measurements 
would be taken from a line offset 25 mm from the daylight opening 
(depicted as the innermost outline of the daylight opening in Figure 6, 
above). This is the line used to provide the tangent for the placement 
of the two dimensional projection of the headform as viewed from the 
lateral vehicle direction. The reason underlying the 25 mm offset for 
the headform tangent relates to the potential imprecision of the linear 
impactor. Although the impactor is guided, it is not possible to always 
have it strike precisely where targeted. As will be discussed later, we 
are proposing a 10 mm tolerance on the impact location as 
well as 2 mm for locating the offset line and 2 
mm for locating the target tangent to the offset line. Thus, a 25 mm 
offset from the window daylight opening yields 11 mm of buffer to 
assure that the impactor will not strike the window frame structure. If 
the impactor were to strike the window frame structure, the impactor 
could be at least partially restrained by the window frame structure 
rather than by only the window curtain and/or other ejection 
countermeasure.
    We are proposing that the location of the offset-line be made by 
first projecting the daylight opening laterally onto a vehicle vertical 
longitudinal plane. Then at each point on the projection, a tangent 
line would be determined. Finally, a point would be located by moving 
252 mm perpendicular to the point of tangency, in the 
vehicle vertical longitudinal plane. The set of points determined in 
this way would constitute the offset-line. Comments are requested on 
the 25 mm offset value and the method used to determine its location. 
Is there a simpler method to provide an offset from the daylight 
opening that is sufficiently objective and repeatable?
4. Method for Determining Impactor Target Locations
    The agency developed a method for determining target locations with 
the following goals in mind:
    (1) The test method has to be objective and repeatable so that 
there would be no ambiguity as to the target locations and so different 
testers would put the targets in the same locations;
    (2) The method has to result in the placement of targets that are 
well distributed around the perimeter of the window opening to assure 
full coverage of the opening by the ejection mitigation countermeasure; 
and
    (3) The method has to be simple and straightforward and suitable 
for varied window shapes of the vehicles to which the standard applies.
    NHTSA believes that the proposed test method meets these goals. The 
test approach has three main parts. The first part specifies how 
targets would be identified on front (between A- and B-pillars) and 
rear windows (rearward of the B-pillar).\73\ The test method differs 
slightly between front and rear windows to account for the distinct 
shapes of the windows. Front windows typically have a large rearward 
rake, while rear windows usually either have a forward rake due to the 
inclination of the rear backlight area or are somewhat rectangular in 
shape. For front windows, the lower-front and upper-rear portions of 
the opening have acute angles. For rear windows, particularly the 
second row in two-row vehicles and the third row in three-row vehicles, 
the acute angles are on the upper-front and lower-rear part of the 
opening. The lower acute angle locations are likely to be challenging 
for any header-mounted air bag curtain and are, therefore, good 
potential target locations (goal 2, above). These acute angles 
also provide convenient target locations because there is no ambiguity 
as to placement of the headform (goals 1 and 3). After 
conducting this first part of the test approach, the four target 
locations would be identified on most front and rear windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The proposed method of determining target locations is 
limited to side window openings. Thus, all front and rear window 
locations discussed are on the sides of the vehicle. The front 
window(s) are adjacent to the first vehicle seating row and the rear 
window(s) are adjacent to second and third seating rows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second part of the test procedure addresses what happens if, 
after conducting the first part of the test approach, the four targets 
substantially overlap each other, as would be the case involving 
smaller than typical rear windows, such as ``sail panels'' that are 
installed in the rear of larger rear windows of some vehicles. (These 
windows are usually triangular in shape.) This part of the test 
procedure specifies an objective means of eliminating some of the four 
targets that overlap to avoid redundancy in testing, and describes 
which targets would be eliminated or considered for elimination

[[Page 63206]]

and the order in which they would be considered (goals 1 and 
2).
    The third and final part of the test procedure addresses what 
happens if, after eliminating some targets pursuant to the second part 
of the test procedure, too few targets remain to test a daylight 
opening sufficiently. This part of the procedure involves the 
reconstituting (adding back in) of targets if, after implementing the 
second part of the procedure, there are too few targets remaining to 
evaluate the ejection mitigation performance of a countermeasure (goal 
3).

Part 1: Finding the Four Targets

    The first step in determining the four impactor target locations 
would be to find the corners of the daylight opening. The target 
locations are found by viewing the window from the lateral vehicle 
direction (y-axis). The corner would be located by using the ``target 
outline'' of the impactor face, which would be the x-z plane \74\ 
projection of the ejection headform face, as shown in Figure 2 of this 
preamble. The target outline would be the projection of the impactor 
face in a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane. A corner would be 
defined as any location within the daylight opening where the impactor 
target outline is tangent to the offset line (the offset line would be 
25 millimeters inside the daylight opening) at two or more points. 
Figure 7 shows target outlines placed in the corners of the side window 
daylight opening for the front and rear windows of a two-row vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The coordinate system convention is--
    x-axis: vehicle longitudinal axis;
    y-axis: vehicle lateral axis;
    z-axis: vehicle vertical axis.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.006
    
    The next step in the target location process would be to locate the 
geometric center \75\ of the daylight opening, and then to use the 
geometric center to separate the opening into four quadrants, i.e., 
lower-front, lower-rear, upper-front and upper-rear. Next, we would 
eliminate the target in certain quadrants. For the front window, we 
would eliminate any target whose center is not within (inclusive of the 
border between quadrants) the lower-front and upper-rear quadrants. For 
all rear window openings, we would eliminate any target whose center is 
not within the upper-front and lower-rear quadrants (inclusive of the 
border). We would retain the front window lower front-most and rear 
window lower rear-most target locations because they are likely to be 
challenging for any header-mounted air bag curtain and are, therefore, 
good potential target locations (goal 2, above). These 
locations also have the advantage of presenting no ambiguity as to 
placement of the headform (goals 1 and 3), as is also the goal 
for the front window upper rear-most and rear window upper forward 
target locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The balance point of an object assuming uniform weight 
distribution. Later in this section of this document we request 
comments on an alternative to using the geometric center to separate 
the window into quadrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining targets are called ``primary targets,'' and the 
quadrants in which they are located are ``primary target quadrants.'' 
If there is more than one target left in a primary target quadrant, we 
would maintain the lowest target in the lower quadrants and the highest 
targets in the upper quadrants, to ensure that the extremes of the 
ejection mitigation countermeasure would be tested. If there were no 
target centers within those quadrants, we would use the target whose 
center is closest to the quadrant. This process leaves the ``primary 
targets'' shown in Figure 8.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Geometric center locations shown are for illustration 
purposes only and may not reflect the actual location for the 
daylight opening depicted.

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

[[Page 63207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.007

    The final step in the target location process would be to locate 
the two additional targets (``secondary targets'') for each daylight 
opening. The two targets would be positioned in reference to the 
primary targets. To locate the two additional targets, we would measure 
the horizontal distance between the centers of the primary targets. 
These distances are shown as A and B for the front and rear windows in 
Figure 9, respectively. In order to have targets spaced equally in the 
fore-aft direction, vertical reference lines would be located at 
horizontal distances A/3 and B/3 from the primary target locations. For 
the front window area, a secondary target (the third target) would be 
centered at a rearward horizontal distance A/3 from the lower-front 
primary target and moved vertically upward until contact is made with 
the offset line. Another secondary target (the fourth target) would be 
centered at a forward horizontal distance A/3 from the upper-rear 
primary target and moved vertically downward until contact is made with 
the offset line.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.008

    For all other side windows, except the front, a secondary target 
(the third target for these rear side windows) would be centered at a 
rearward horizontal distance B/3 from the upper-front primary target 
and moved vertically downward until contact is made with the offset 
line. Another secondary target (the fourth for these side windows) 
would be centered at a forward horizontal distance B/3 from the lower-
rear primary target and moved vertically upward until contact is made 
with the offset line (see Figure 9).
    An example of the target identification procedure applied to a 
daylight opening that is symmetric about the horizontal axis is 
provided below in Figure 10. The opening has six corners \77\ and is a 
rear window. Under

[[Page 63208]]

the targeting procedure, the targets located in the lower-front and 
upper-rear quadrants are eliminated. Because of the symmetry, two of 
the targets centers are located along the quadrant boundaries. Targets 
located on a quadrant boundary as shown would be considered by the test 
procedure to be in the upper-front and lower-rear quadrants, so these 
targets would not be eliminated on the basis that they are not in the 
upper-front and lower-rear quadrants. However, the targets would be 
eliminated on the basis that they are not the uppermost and lowermost 
targets in the upper-front and lower-rear quadrants, respectively. Two 
primary targets remain as shown in Figure 10b after eliminating the 
targets as specified; the primary targets are the upper target in the 
upper-front quadrant and the lower target in the lower-rear quadrant. 
Finally, the secondary targets are located as shown in Figure 10c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Note that although it may appear that there is only a 
single point of contact for the middle targets in Figure 9a, due to 
the relative curvature of the window and targets, there are two 
points of contact.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.009

    Because of potential daylight opening shapes and sizes, the 
possibility exists that, once targets are placed in the corners, no 
target centers are located in one or both of the primary target 
quadrants. If this occurs, the target whose center is closest to the 
primary target quadrants is used. Figure 11 shows an example of this. 
This is a representation of a rear window, so the primary quadrants are 
at the upper-front and lower-rear. Note that there are three potential 
primary targets located at the corners of the window opening. However, 
only the lower primary quadrant has a target center located within its 
boundary. The upper primary quadrant has no target center within its 
boundary. In this example, the most forward target becomes the second 
primary target because its center is closest to the boundary of the 
upper primary quadrant. The procedure for locating the secondary 
targets remains the same.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.010

    NHTSA requests comments on the proposed method for determining the 
impactor target locations. Are there better alternatives than using the 
geometric center of the daylight opening to determine the window 
quadrants, such as dividing the overall length and height of the 
daylight opening in half?

[[Page 63209]]

Would such a method be simpler and result in the same final target 
locations?
    NHTSA also requests comment on the orientation of the target 
outline. Occupant orientation when in contact with the ejection 
mitigation system may vary; particularly for unbelted occupants. The 
targeting procedure described above maintains the long axis of the 
target outline aligned with the vehicle's vertical axis. Should the 
targeting procedure instead be performed with the target outline's long 
axis aligned with the vehicle's horizontal axis or some other 
orientation? We have not studied the sensitivity of the impactor 
displacement with the target outline orientation. Please provide data 
on the effect of alternative impactor orientations.

Part 2: Allowing Fewer Than Four Targets for Small Windows

    The second part of the test procedure addresses what happens if, 
after conducting the first part of the test approach, the four targets 
substantially overlap each other, as would be the case involving 
smaller than typical side rear windows, such as ``sail panels'' that 
are installed in the rear of larger rear windows of some vehicles. 
However, for some two-door passenger cars, these sail panels can be 
large enough to be impacted. Since the impactor contact surface 
represents the averaged dimensions of the side and face of a 50th 
percentile head, a sail panel large enough to fit the impactor outline 
within the offset line could be the location of a partial head 
ejection.
    This part of the test procedure calls for eliminating some of the 
four targets to avoid redundancy in testing, and describes which 
targets would be eliminated or considered for elimination, and the 
order in which they would be considered. This part involves measuring 
the horizontal (x-axis) and vertical (z-axis) distances between target 
centers. If the horizontal distance is less than 135 mm and the 
vertical distance is less than 170 mm, the agency would eliminate a 
target. Table 20 identifies which targets are compared, in priority 
order. In each case, both the target centers must be closer than 135 mm 
and 170 mm in the x and z directions, respectively, for a target to be 
eliminated.

    Table 20--Priority List of Target Distances To Be Checked Against
                     Horizontal and Vertical Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Eliminate this target
                                                     if horizontal and
                 Measure distance of these target   vertical  distances
      Step                    centers               are less than 135 mm
                                                        and 170 mm,
                                                       respectively *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............  Upper Secondary to Lower          Upper Secondary.
                  Secondary.
2..............  Upper Primary to Upper or         Upper or Remaining
                  Remaining Secondary.              Secondary.
3..............  Lower Primary to Lower or         Lower or Remaining
                  Remaining Secondary.              Secondary.
4..............  Upper Primary to Lower Primary..  Upper Primary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The target centers must be closer than 135 mm and 170 mm in the x and
  z directions, respectively.

    In step 1 of this procedure, we would determine the horizontal and 
vertical distance between the centers of the secondary targets. If the 
horizontal distance is less than 135 mm and the vertical distance is 
less than 170 mm, we would eliminate the upper secondary target. If 
only one distance is less than the specified value, we would not 
eliminate the target. In either case, we would proceed to step 2.
    In step 2, we would measure the distance between the upper primary 
target and the upper secondary target (if it survived step 1) or the 
remaining secondary target. If the horizontal and vertical distances 
are less than the specified values, the secondary target is eliminated. 
If only one distance is less than the specified value, we would not 
eliminate the target. In either case, we would proceed to step 3.
    In step 3, the process is repeated, except we would measure the 
distance between the lower primary target and the lower secondary or to 
the remaining secondary target. If the horizontal and vertical 
distances are less than the specified values, the secondary target is 
eliminated. If only one distance is less than the specified value, we 
would not eliminate the target.
    In step 4, we would measure the distance between the upper primary 
target and the lower primary target. If the horizontal and vertical 
distances were less than the specified values, the upper primary target 
would be eliminated. If only one distance is less than the specified 
value, we would not eliminate the upper primary target.
    The Technical Analysis accompanying this NPRM provides examples of 
the target comparison and elimination progression for illustration 
purposes.
    The selection of the 135 mm and 170 mm dimensions is based on the 
agency's engineering judgment as to what would be excessive overlap 
between the targets, based on a small sample of window openings. The 
agency determined that this spacing between targets would ensure a wide 
and even distribution of targets across the ejection mitigation 
countermeasure, which effectuates a thorough evaluation of the 
countermeasure. Each value is approximately 75% of the maximum 
dimension of the impactor in that direction (170/226 = 75% and 135/177 
= 76%).
    The target elimination process proposed provides an objective and 
repeatable means of limiting the overlap between targets while 
maintaining coverage of the entire window opening. Thus, it is 
consistent with all of the agency's stated goals for a targeting 
procedure. The targets that are retained over those slated for 
elimination in Table 20 (above), and deemed ``priority'' targets, are 
important for the following reasons. NHTSA has given priority to the 
primary targets over the secondary targets since the primary targets 
assess the curtain at its extremes: at the foremost bottom portion of 
the curtain and at the top aft of the curtain, for the case of a front 
window, and the opposite corners in the case of a rear window. Further, 
of the two primary targets, the lower primary target has priority over 
the upper primary. This is because most ejection mitigation curtains 
now deploy from the roof rail downward, and gaps through which 
ejections may occur can form between the curtain and the window opening 
more readily than at locations close to the air bag curtain housing 
unit at the roof rail. Thus, if only the two primary targets remain 
after the elimination process, the lower primary target is likely to be 
the most demanding target in assessing the ability of the curtain to 
retain occupant excursions. For these reasons, NHTSA tentatively 
concludes that after the target elimination process is conducted, the 
lower primary target should prevail.
    Finally, under the proposed test method, the long axis of the 
target outline is aligned with the z-axis. Because of the 25 mm offset, 
for window openings with a vertical

[[Page 63210]]

dimension of less than 276 mm (10.9 inches) no targets will fit in the 
window opening. The agency is considering rotating the impactor outline 
90 degrees and performing the same targeting methodology, in order to 
fit a target(s) within the window opening.
    Comments are requested on the following issues:
     Please comment on the concept of impacting a window in at 
least one location if it is large enough to fit a target outline within 
the offset line. Is there a better method of determining if a window 
opening is sufficiently large to be the site of a partial ejection, and 
therefore, a reasonable location for impact?
     Comments are requested on the proposed method for reducing 
the number of target locations for small windows. Specifically, are the 
135 mm horizontal and 170 mm vertical limits reasonable?
     Please comment on a strategy of rotating the impactor 
headform by 90 degrees in the event no targets fit in the window 
opening when the impactor is oriented with a vertical long axis. If 
this horizontal impactor orientation results in no target outlines 
fitting within the window, should the impactor be allowed to be 
oriented at any angle necessary to fit inside the opening?

Part 3: Reconstituting Targets To Get to Three

    If, after running the course of Parts 1 and 2 described above, the 
window area drops from having four crowded targets to having only two 
with a relatively substantial separation between them (more than 360 
mm), we believe that a target should be reconstituted (added back) 
between the two. This added target would be centered such that it 
bisects a line connecting the centers of the two remaining targets. See 
drawing on the right in Figure 12 for an illustrated example. In the 
drawing, the total distance between the remaining targets was 429 mm; 
the original two secondary targets have been replaced by single target 
midway between the two primary targets.
    The limit for adding back a target is 360 mm of separation between 
the remaining targets (see Figure 13). The 360 mm limit is based on 
engineering judgment as to what would be too much gap between targets 
and allow an ejection portal if the curtain was not sufficiently 
inflated or taut. Please comment on the proposed method for adding 
target locations if only two targets remain after the target reduction 
scheme is followed. Is the 360 mm distance between the remaining 
targets reasonable?
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 63211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.011

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

Summary of Procedure Identifying Target Locations

    In summary, there are three main parts to the test procedure that 
identifies the test target locations for each daylight opening. The 
three parts are summarized below.

Part 1

     Find the corners of the window opening, then locate the 
geometric center of the daylight opening. Separate the opening into 
four quadrants, i.e., lower-front, lower-rear, upper-front and upper-
rear. Eliminate the target in certain quadrants, leaving two ``primary 
targets.''
     Measure the horizontal distance between the centers of the 
primary targets. Divide that distance into thirds. Identify the two 
``secondary targets.''--For front windows, at the first \1/3\, place a 
target and move it vertically upward until contact is made with the 
offset line. At the second \1/3\, place a target and move it downward 
until contact is made with the offset line.--For rear windows, do the 
same, except that the first \1/3\ target is moved downward, and the 
second \1/3\ target is moved upward.

Part 2

     Evaluate whether some of the four targets should be 
eliminated because they excessively overlap. Determine whether target 
centers are closer than 135 mm and 170 mm in the horizontal and 
vertical directions, respectively.

Part 3

     If, after following the procedure given in part 2, there 
are only two targets remaining, determine the absolute distance between 
the centers of these targets. If this distance is at least 360 mm, 
locate a target so that the center of its outline bisects a line 
connecting the remaining targets.

e. How Should the Window Glazing Be Positioned or Prepared in the Test 
To Represent Real-World Circumstances?

    We are proposing to allow windows to be in position (up and 
closed), but pre-broken. We are proposing to allow windows to be in 
position so as to not discourage the use of advanced glazing (laminated 
glazing) in vehicles, since our testing has shown that advanced

[[Page 63212]]

glazing may enhance the performance of current air bag curtain designs. 
Typically, advanced glazing has a multi-layer construction with three 
primary layers: a plastic laminate bonded between two pieces of glass. 
In the proposed test procedure, prior to running the headform impact 
test, we would undertake a procedure on all glazing that entails pre-
breaking the glazing in a consistent fashion to simulate the breakage 
of glazing during a rollover. With advanced glazing, the procedure 
would likely result in the outside glass breaking without deforming the 
laminate. With tempered (non-advanced) glazing, the procedure would 
likely shatter the glazing into fragments, so manufacturers would be 
given the option of: (a) Running the procedure and shattering the 
glazing; or (b) having the glazing removed from the daylight opening, 
or if the glazing completely retracts into the vehicle structure, 
completely retracting the glazing, and simply bypassing the glazing-
breakage procedure.
1. Window Position and Condition
    The agency is proposing to have the windows in position (up and 
closed) in the impact test because, for the target population of this 
rulemaking, the front row window through which an occupant was ejected 
was closed or fixed prior to the crash 69 percent of the time. Nearly 
all of the closed or fixed front row ejection route windows (99 
percent) were disintegrated after the crash. Table 21 shows these data 
for three seating rows. For many vehicles, the rear seat window is 
fixed. Our accident data show that the second and third row ejection 
route windows were closed or fixed about 94 and 100 percent of the 
time, respectively.\78\ Combining all of the data, the ejection route 
windows were closed or fixed 72 percent of the time before the crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The third row data is very limited. It is comprised of only 
103 weighted ejections.

     Table 21--Pre- and Post-Impact Window Condition for Window Through Which the Occupants in the Ejection
                                    Mitigation Target Population Were Ejected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Window condition
                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Post-crash
    Window location                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Pre-crash       Disintegrated       In Place         No Glazing
                                              (percent)         (percent)         (percent)     Total  (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1.................  Closed or Fixed.                68                 1                 0                69
                        Open (Part. or                  11                17                 0                28
                         Fully).
                        No Glazing......                 0                 0                 3                 3
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Subtotal.....                79                18                 3               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 2.................  Closed or Fixed.                71              * 23                 0                94
                        Open (Part. or                   0                 6                 0                 6
                         Fully).
                        No Glazing......                 0                 0                 0                 0
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Subtotal.....                71                29                 0               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 3.................  Closed or Fixed.               100                 0                 0               100
                        Open (Part. or                   0                 0                 0                 0
                         Fully).
                        No Glazing......                 0                 0                 0                 0
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Subtotal.....               100                 0                 0               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All...................  Closed of Fixed.                68                 4                 0                72
                        Open (Part. &                   10                16                 0                26
                         Fully.
                        No Glazing......                 0                 0                 2                 2
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total........                78                20                 2               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This result seems to suggest that 23 percent of the target population ejected from the second row went through
  a closed window that remained in place after the crash. This is a physical impossibility and represents
  ambiguity in NASS. These data are derived from an unweighted count of 18 NASS occupants of the approximately
  1,200 occupants that make up the unweighted target population. The miscoding is likely a result of the fact
  that the NASS investigator has multiple side window ejection routes to properly code.

    Table 22 shows the result of expanding the data set to include all 
vehicles exposed to a rollover crash, as opposed to just windows 
through which occupants were ejected. The restriction on the data is 
that an occupant needed to be seated next to the window opening. The 
data is separated into front row and rear rows, inclusive of the third 
row. It is comprised of 2.9 million weighted data points. We note that 
only windows disintegrated from vehicle structural deformation have 
been tabulated.\79\ This expanded data set shows a higher percentage 
(86 percent) of front windows are closed or fixed prior to a rollover 
than was the case for windows which were ejection routes. It also shows 
that about half (47 percent (40 percent/86 percent)) of these closed or 
fixed front row windows were disintegrated after the crash. For the 
rear rows, the proportion of disintegrated windows, which were closed 
prior to the rollover, drops to 22 percent (22 percent/98 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Windows disintegrated due to occupant contact would add 
only about 0.5 percent to this data set.

[[Page 63213]]



 Table 22--Pre- and Post-Impact Window Condition for Vehicles Exposed to a Rollover With an Occupant Adjacent to
                                        the Window--1997 to 2004 NASS CDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Window condition
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Post-crash
          Window location                                  -----------------------------------------------------
                                           Pre-crash          Disintegrated       In place
                                                                (percent)         (percent)     Total  (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front..............................  Closed or Fixed......                40                46                86
                                     Open (Part. or Fully)                 3                11                14
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                        Subtotal..........                43                57               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear...............................  Closed or Fixed......                22                76                98
                                     Open (Part. or Fully)                 0                 2                 2
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                        Subtotal..........                23                77               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All................................  Closed or Fixed......                39                49                87
                                     Open (Part. & Fully..                 3                10                13
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                        Total.............                41                59               100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comments on Glazing Position and Condition

    Although we believe that available data support a proposal allowing 
windows to be in place and pre-broken prior to testing, we recognize 
there are potential drawbacks to the proposal. On the issue of window 
position, the most obvious of these drawbacks is for those instances 
where manufacturers utilize advanced glazing in their design, when the 
window is partially or fully down the vehicle may have degraded 
occupant retention. This concern arises most frequently for first row 
windows, which are nearly always retractable. The implication of the 
data in Table 21 is that about 3 out of 10 occupants are ejected with 
the front window when it is partially or fully open prior to the crash. 
This becomes much less likely for the second and third rows.
    The agency is contemplating alternatives to the approach of 
allowing windows to be in place and pre-broken. One option would be to 
test with all movable windows removed or rolled down, regardless of 
whether the window is laminated. Fixed laminated windows would continue 
to be kept in place, but pre-broken. This would assure that the 
ejection mitigation performance of vehicles with laminated windows is 
equal to those without laminated windows, when the windows happen to be 
rolled down. However, this would not provide an incentive to vehicle 
manufacturers to install advanced glazing in movable windows.
    Another option would be to test the vehicle both with movable 
laminated windows down and with them up and pre-broken. The arithmetic 
or weighted average of the measurements could then be used to determine 
compliance with the displacement limit. (One possible weighting would 
represent the probability of windows up versus windows down.) We are 
also considering placing some higher displacement limit on the window 
down test for these systems that use both advanced glazing and an 
ejection mitigation air bag curtain to provide protection. E.g., if we 
were testing with the window down, we are considering permitting a 
displacement of more than 100 mm.
    We request comments and ask for information relating to the 
following questions:
     The agency has proposed allowing windows with advanced 
laminated glazing to remain up, but pre-broken during impact testing. 
We are also considering testing with all movable windows down or 
removed, regardless of whether they are laminated. Finally, we 
discussed requiring testing with laminated windows both up and down. 
Please comment on the relative merits of these different options. 
Please comment specifically on the effect these options will have on 
overall benefits of the standard.
     The extent to which manufacturers will avail themselves of 
advanced glazing to supplement air bag curtains is unknown. We are 
aware that some manufacturers currently provide laminated glazing as a 
theft prevention and noise reduction measure in more expensive 
vehicles. We believe that incorporation of advanced glazing for 
ejection mitigation will be relatively expensive compared to the 
implementation of side curtain air bags. Our preliminary analysis shows 
that the proposed requirements would add about $33 per light vehicle at 
a total cost of $568 million for the full curtain countermeasure. To 
what degree will manufacturers avail themselves of an advanced glazing 
option? What would be the costs associated with advanced glazing alone 
or in combination with side air bag curtains as opposed to the use of 
side air bag curtains alone?
     Our data analysis shows that for the target population of 
this proposal, about 30 percent of front windows will be rolled down 
prior to the crash. We are aware that vehicle manufacturers are 
researching and beginning to implement technology that senses an 
impending crash and roll the windows up. Should a windows-up ejection 
mitigation test option be restricted to only these vehicles?
     Advanced laminated glazing has considerably greater mass, 
particularly as compared to an air bag curtain. The inertial effects 
due to the mass of the advanced glazing and its retention by the 
vehicle structure are not accounted for in the proposed test procedure. 
To what extent might the advanced glazing mass degrade its real-world 
performance? Should NHTSA account for this in some way in our testing? 
If so, how?
2. Window Pre-Breaking Specification and Method
    We are proposing a breaking specification and method that calls for 
punching holes in the glazing in a 50 mm horizontal and vertical matrix 
(``50 mm matrix''). A spring-loaded automatic center punch would be 
used to make the holes. The punch has approximately a 5 mm diameter 
before coming to a point. The first step in the process is to mark the 
surface of the

[[Page 63214]]

window glazing in a horizontal and vertical grid of points separated by 
50 mm, with one point coincident with the geometric center of the 
daylight opening (see Figure 14). The initial target point of the punch 
would be the lowest and most forward mark made on the glazing. Holes 
would be punched in the glazing starting with the inside surface of the 
glazing, and starting with this initial lowest and most forward hole in 
the pattern. We would continue punching holes 50 mm apart, moving 
rearward on the vehicle. When the end of a row is reached, we would 
move to the most forward hole in the next higher row, 50 mm from the 
punched row. After completing the holes on the inside surface, we would 
repeat the process on the outside surface at the same impact points as 
the inside surface. These patterns are shown in Figure 14 below.
    When punching a hole, we would place a 100 mm by 100 mm piece of 
plywood on the opposite side of the glazing as a reaction surface 
against the punch. The spring on the punch would be adjusted such that 
150 N  25 N of force \80\ would be required for activation. 
The force has been designed so as to not penetrate the inner laminated 
material. However, if a particular window were constructed such that 
the inner laminated material is penetrated or damaged, the procedure 
would not be halted or invalidated; the headform impact test would be 
conducted at the conclusion of the glazing breakage procedure. If 
punching a hole causes the glazing to disintegrate, as would likely 
occur when testing tempered glazing, the procedure would be halted and 
the headform impact test would be immediately conducted. (In the latter 
situation, the vehicle manufacturer would have opted not to have 
removed or completely retracted the tempered glazing and thereby bypass 
the window breaking process.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ This force level worked well for the samples of advanced 
glazing tested by the agency.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.012

    In developing the proposed glazing breaking specification and 
method, we considered and rejected a recommendation from an industry 
group called the Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive Association 
(EPGAA), which provided a test report entitled ``Laminated Glass Pre-
breakage Repeatability Testing,'' (see docket for this rulemaking). The 
EPGAA evaluated whether different degrees of breakage affected 
laminated glazing strength. Four different degrees of breakage were 
tested and compared to glazing that had no breaks. The four were: 1 
punched hole, 4 punched holes, 8 punched holes and completely pummeled 
with a ball-peen hammer. The 4-hole punch pattern was made by first 
locating the ejection headform contact point with the glazing at each 
impact location for that window opening (see Figure 15). Each side of 
the glass was punched with a spring activated center punch tool at each 
contact location. The EPGAA recommended that NHTSA use the 4-hole punch 
pattern, but NHTSA has tentatively decided to propose the 50 mm matrix 
pattern rather than the 4-hole pattern, as explained below.

[[Page 63215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.013

    EPGAA's tests evaluated the strength of the glazing by using a ball 
impact test prescribed in FMVSS No. 205 and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) in ``American National Standard, Safety Code 
for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on 
Land Highways, ANSI Z26.1.'' In the ball impact test, a 2.2 kg steel 
ball was dropped from 7.9 meters onto the glass, which was supported 
from underneath. At this height, the ball struck the glass at 45 km/h. 
A speed trap was used to measure the velocity of the ball after it 
passed through the glass. The reduction in speed was used to calculate 
the energy absorbed by the glass. This energy was converted to a mean 
breaking height through a potential energy conversion. EPGAA found that 
there was no statistical difference in the mean breaking height for the 
glazing broken under the various methods. Thus, the EPGAA concluded 
that the 4-hole pattern would be acceptable.
    NHTSA reviewed EPGAA's data but determined that the EPGAA test 
results might not correlate with the ejection mitigation impactor test. 
The proposed impactor test is much slower than the ANSI/SAE Z26.1 ball 
impact test and the proposed impactor is much larger and massive. In 
addition, for most vehicles, the impactor load would be distributed by 
the air bag curtain. Finally, the glass is mounted differently in a 
vehicle than on the test jig used in the EPGAA study. Given all these 
differences, NHTSA performed follow-on testing to the EPGAA study, 
using the proposed 18 kg impactor with the laminated glazing pre-broken 
using the 4-hole pattern, as well as fully pummeled with a hammer. We 
also used the 50 mm matrix pattern to attempt to recreate the more 
fully broken pattern achieved by the fully-pummeled method in a more 
managed and objective manner.
    In NHTSA's follow-on testing, we found that the breaking method for 
the glazing resulted in very different breakage patterns (see Technical 
Analysis) and in different displacement results. Table 23 shows the 
limited test results to date. For all tests except the Durango at 16 
km/h at position A3, the fully-pummeled glazing exhibited more impactor 
displacement than either hole pattern. There was a statistically 
significant difference (p = 0.024) between the 4-hole pattern and the 
pummeled glazing. We have only one test using the 50 mm matrix pattern 
on a MY07 Jeep Commander. For this vehicle, there is a 7 mm reduction 
in displacement for the 50 mm matrix pattern and a 10 mm reduction for 
the 4-hole pattern over the pummeled glazing.
    From the above data, we have tentatively concluded that the method 
of pre-breaking the laminated window has a discernable effect on the 
test results. Generally, the methods that result in more breakage also 
result in less displacement reduction of the impactor, i.e., more 
overall displacement in the proposed compliance test. Our decision for 
this NPRM is to propose a method that results in more breakage than 
less, to replicate more demanding scenarios involving breakage of the 
advanced glazing. However, the most demanding method (pummeling the 
glazing) was also the method that was the least controllable and the 
most potentially difficult to repeat from laboratory to laboratory. 
Accordingly, we have tentatively decided to adopt the 50 mm matrix hole 
punching method, since it appears to be more controllable and 
repeatable than pummeling the window with a hammer, and yet yields a 
very extensive breakage pattern. Comments are requested on the method 
of pre-breaking the glazing.
    The agency is continuing its research into window pre-breaking 
methods. Specifically, we are looking into a variation of the 50 mm 
matrix hole punch method where the holes on either side of the glass 
are offset by 25 mm. Initial indications are that this variation 
exhibits the potentially positive attribute of lessening the chances of 
penetrating the inner membrane between the glass layers. Comments are 
requested on this issue.

                               Table 23--Impactor Displacement Data for Laminated Glazing Pre-Broken by Different Methods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Test conditions                         Displacement (mm) vs. glass condition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Vehicle                         Speed        Target             4-holes
                                                       (km/h)
                                                          Pummeled
                                                        50 mm matrix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05 Trailblazer..................................           20           A2           62  ...........           80  ...........  ...........  ...........
05 Trailblazer..................................           20           A3           96           98          107          110  ...........  ...........
06 Durango......................................           20           A2           71  ...........          101  ...........  ...........  ...........
06 Durango......................................           16           A3          145  ...........          142  ...........  ...........  ...........
07 Commander....................................           16           A2           48  ...........           58  ...........           51  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 63216]]

Request for Comments

    Although testing by EPGAA showed no difference in the mean breaking 
strength for laminated windows regardless of the method used to pre-
break them, ejection mitigation testing did show a significant 
difference between a 4-hole pattern and pummeling with a ball-peen 
hammer. The 50 mm matrix breaking method resulted in a very extensive 
fracture pattern of the window. The 4-hole pattern did not. 
Accordingly, we are proposing a 50 mm spacing breakage pattern through 
the use of a spring-loaded center punch with a 5  2 mm 
diameter prior to the tip, adjusted to an activation load of 150  25 N load.
    We request comments on the following issues.
     The agency has proposed allowing windows with advanced 
laminated glazing to remain up, but pre-broken during impact testing. 
(As noted earlier, we are also considering different alternatives, 
including not having the windows up at all.) We have proposed a hole 
punch pattern with a 50 mm matrix spacing to break the window. Please 
comment on the appropriateness of the window breaking procedure. 
Specifically, is the window condition representative of what would be 
seen in the field as being caused by a crash prior to occupant 
ejection? Is it necessary to fracture the glazing more extensively than 
the proposed method? If so, what is the alternative method and its 
basis?
     Is the spring loaded automatic center punch sufficiently 
described by specifying an activation force of 150  25 N? 
Is it necessary to specify the impact force generated when the spring 
tension is released? If so, what procedure should be used to determine 
the impact force? Is it sufficient to specify that the punch diameter 
be 5  2 mm prior to the tip? Does there need to be a 
specification regarding the sharpness of the tip? If so, what should 
the specification account for?

f. Test Procedure Tolerances

    The proposed regulatory text for this ejection mitigation standard 
has tolerances on various test parameters of the proposed test 
procedure. For example, the proposed text specifies that the target 
outline must be aligned within 1 degree of the vehicle 
longitudinal plane when determining the proper target location. 
Tolerances were selected such that they would not affect the test 
results, yet not be so small as to be unusable. In some instances, we 
have based tolerances on those of other FMVSSs because those tolerances 
have been practicable and useful. For example, the tolerance on the 
impactor alignment with the vehicle lateral axis is based on a similar 
linear impactor tolerance in S5.2.5(c) of FMVSS No. 202a. Tolerance 
selection has been based on test experience and engineering judgment. 
Comments are requested on whether the tolerances assure an objective, 
repeatable and practical test procedure.

g. Impactor Test Device Characteristics

    There are many possible ways of delivering the impactor to the 
target location on the ejection mitigation countermeasure. As 
previously discussed, the impactor used in agency research propels the 
shaft component of the impactor with a pneumatic piston. The shaft 
slides along a plastic (polyethylene) bearing (sleeve). This section 
explores the need to specify characteristics of the impactor to 
maximize the objectivity of the standard.
    We have tentatively determined that certain characteristics of the 
impactor should be specified to enhance the repeatability of the test, 
i.e., to increase the likelihood that the headform will be delivered to 
the countermeasure and interact with it in a repeatable manner. A 
specification we are considering in proposed S7.2 would limit the 
amount of energy the impactor may lose due to friction. All guided 
impactor designs will have some degree of velocity loss due to friction 
on the impactor shaft. To enhance the objectivity of the test 
procedure, we propose to specify that the ejection impactor must not 
lose more than 10 and 15 percent of the 24 and 16 km/h impact velocity, 
respectively, in 300 mm of unobstructed travel. The agency performed 
five speed trials with the ejection mitigation test device used for the 
agency's research.\81\ We found that the average and standard deviation 
for the percentage velocity reduction was 8.2  1.9 percent 
and 16.2  4.4 percent, for the 24 and 16 km/h impact 
speeds, respectively; our research test device lost a higher percentage 
of energy at the lower impact speed. Comments are requested on the need 
for and merits of these proposed values. Should there be an upper and 
lower limit on each value?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ This research test device has not been optimized for 
compliance test purposes. Thus, we believe that tighter tolerance 
can be attained with an optimized design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another specification under consideration relates to assuring that 
the projection of the impactor would not be unduly set off target when 
it impacts a countermeasure. The ejection mitigation countermeasure 
could impart off-axis loading on the impactor, i.e., the loading may 
not just be in the direction of the impactor shaft. This off-axis 
loading may affect the impactor in several ways. If the impactor shaft 
and support mechanism is overly flexible, off-axis loading may allow 
the impactor headform to deviate unduly from its intended target. We 
have seen this in our testing when the headform strikes near the bottom 
of the curtain. The curtain makes contact predominately on the upper 
portion of the headform, which can cause a downward loading on the 
impactor and a change in its intended path. This off-axis loading on 
the headform may also allow the shaft bearing to be exposed to 
additional loading and potentially increase the friction on the shaft.
    We are thus proposing specifications in S7.1.2 that would reduce 
the effects of off-axis loading on the impactor device. First, we are 
proposing to limit bending of the device in a static test. In the test, 
the impactor would be extended 300 mm past the position where the test 
impact velocity (24 or 16 km/h) is achieved. At that position, a 27 kg 
mass would be attached to the back of the headform. We would require 
that the headform's maximum vertical deflection, with the mass, must 
not exceed 20 mm. Second, we are proposing that, with this 27 kg mass 
attached, the average and standard deviation required to push the 
impactor over a 200 mm distance at a velocity of 50 (13) mm 
per second must not exceed 570 N and 30 N, respectively.
    Finally, in proposed S7.3 we set forth an additional way to assure 
the impact test device delivers the headform to the required target 
location on the side window opening. Briefly stated, this assessment 
would determine the accuracy of the headform in hitting a determined 
zone, similar to a pitcher in the game of baseball finding the strike 
zone. The assessment would be conducted by establishing a zone within 
which we would require the impactor to deliver the headform at test 
speed. The following describes one objective method of determining the 
``strike zone,'' to use the baseball analogy. Comments are requested on 
whether other methods of determining the zone would be preferable and 
what those methods should be.
    As shown in Figure 16, a zone could be established by first 
determining the ``ejection impactor targeting point,'' the intersection 
of the x- and y-axes on the outer surface of the headform. Next, the 
location of first contact between the impactor and the ejection 
mitigation countermeasure (e.g., ejection mitigation

[[Page 63217]]

air bag curtain) would be determined, based on the location of the 
target outlines using the methodology in the compliance test specified 
for identifying the target outlines. A 100 mm wide zone would be 
determined by defining two vertical longitudinal planes that are 50 mm 
on either side of the expected location of contact by the impactor with 
the countermeasure. These longitudinal planes define a portion of the 
strike zone. The other portion of the zone would be defined by locating 
the axis normal to and passing through the target outline center. As 
the impactor targeting point passes at test speed through the 100 mm 
wide zone (as it passes ``over the plate,'' using the baseball 
analogy), it must stay within  10 mm of the axis passing 
through the center of the target outline center (continuing the 
analogy, it must stay within the vertical zone bounded by the batter's 
knees and chest). This assessment would not be conducted with an 
ejection mitigation air bag curtain deployed, as the deployed curtain 
could obstruct accurate measurement of the impactor location and the 
effect of air bag interaction is assessed by the specification 
previously discussed.
    Comments are requested on these proposals. We are considering 
making this assessment of the impactor to assure that the impactor used 
in the compliance test has the specified characteristics adopted by the 
standard. If the impactor was able to meet the specifications during 
the assessment, it would be assumed that the impactor has the 
characteristics enabling it to meet the specifications and that it had 
those characteristics during the compliance test of the countermeasure. 
Are there any other or different characteristics of the ejection 
impactor that should be specifically defined?
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.014

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 63218]]

h. Readiness Indicator

    NHTSA is proposing a requirement for a readiness monitoring system 
with a readiness indicator for ejection mitigation systems that deploy 
in a rollover, such as that required for frontal air bags in S4.5.2 of 
FMVSS No. 208. The indicator would monitor its own readiness and would 
have to have a telltale clearly visible from the driver's designated 
seating position. We would permit vehicle manufacturers to use the same 
frontal air bag readiness indicator telltale currently used to meet 
S4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208. We also propose that manufacturer would have 
to include in the vehicle owner's manual, or other written material 
accompanying the vehicle, a list of the elements of the system being 
monitored by the indicator, a discussion of the purpose and location of 
the telltale and instructions to the consumer on the steps to take if 
the telltale were illuminated. These proposals are intended to enhance 
the longevity and dependability of the ejection mitigation system over 
the life of the vehicle.

VI. Other Considered Performance Aspects of an Ejection Mitigation 
Standard

 a. Rollover Sensor

1. Introduction
    NHTSA has tentatively decided that the regulatory text for this 
NPRM will not specifically require a rollover sensor or specify 
attributes that the sensor must meet. As explained earlier in this 
preamble, deployable ejection mitigation countermeasures (ejection 
mitigation air bag curtains) are now being designed, developed, and 
implemented by industry and, SCI data suggest, are deploying 
satisfactorily in the field. To optimize the performance of ejection 
mitigation countermeasures at these early stages of development, we 
have decided to proceed with an ejection mitigation rulemaking absent a 
protocol for testing rollover sensors. Underlying our approach is that, 
even without an explicit requirement to provide a rollover sensor, 
manufacturers will provide sensor(s) with their ejection mitigation 
curtains. We have accounted for the cost of rollover sensors in our 
cost/benefit analysis for this rulemaking.
    Our assumption that manufacturers will provide rollover sensors is 
based on several factors. First, as noted above, our SCI data for 
lateral rollovers for vehicles currently in the field with side curtain 
air bags intended for ejection mitigation show these systems have 
deployed in rollover crashes. These data show that the installation of 
rollover sensors is practicable and that the sensors are working in the 
field. Second, this NPRM would require information in the owner's 
manual or other written material accompanying the vehicle to describe 
the ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the event of a 
rollover if the deployable countermeasure is provided. With customer 
expectations at stake, there is virtually no incentive for 
manufacturers to provide an ejection mitigation side curtain designed 
to meet this NPRM without providing the sensor to deploy it in a 
rollover crash. In addition, manufacturers would be required to provide 
written information to NHTSA, upon the agency's request, explaining the 
basic operational characteristics of their rollover sensor system. 
Finally, we would deploy the ejection mitigation side curtain in the 
compliance test only if the owner's manual or other written material 
accompanying the vehicle informs the owner that the vehicle is equipped 
with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the event of 
a rollover. If the information is not present, we would perform the 
headform test without deploying the ejection mitigation side curtain. 
An example of this situation might be a vehicle that has a side curtain 
primarily for side impact protection, but that uses advanced glazing to 
meet the ejection mitigation requirements. In this case a rollover 
sensor system would not be necessary. Thus, the written information 
provided would not indicate that there is a deployable countermeasure 
and the agency would not deploy the side curtain when testing this 
vehicle.
    The agency acknowledges that the presence of a rollover sensor does 
not guarantee optimal performance of the sensor in the field. However, 
as noted earlier in this preamble and discussed further below, we are 
concerned as to whether specifying performance features for the sensor 
could satisfactorily capture the myriad of rollovers occurring in the 
real-world.\82\ In addition, vehicle rollover crash attributes and 
rollover sensing needs could change as ESC and other changes are 
incorporated into vehicles. Rather than specify performance 
requirements for the sensor that might address certain types of 
rollover crashes and exclude others that should be addressed, this NPRM 
provides manufacturers maximum design flexibility in developing sensors 
that can achieve optimum performance in rollover crashes likely to be 
encountered in the real world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Several types of rollover crashes are described by Viano 
and Parenteau, ``Rollover Crash Sensing and Safety Overview,'' SAE 
2004-01-0342, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Alternative Approaches
    The agency considered alternative approaches on whether 
requirements for a rollover sensor should be specified at this time. 
These are discussed below and in the Technical Analysis for this NPRM.
    One option was to propose that the rollover sensors be provided as 
a piece of equipment and define such a piece of equipment (Equipment 
Definition Option). The Equipment Definition Option involves simply 
having the FMVSS define the item of equipment (the rollover sensor) and 
having the FMVSS require the installation of the item of equipment. 
This option would assure a rollover sensor is present in the vehicle. 
However, it has the limitation of having to definitively specify the 
item of equipment it would be requiring, which might necessitate 
adopting and applying an overly restricted view of what a deployable 
rollover is and perhaps what it is not. For example, we can contemplate 
rollovers that have such an extremely slow roll rate when it would not 
be necessary or desirable for the countermeasure to deploy. That being 
the case, a reasonable definition of a rollover sensor might include a 
roll rate specification as a function of roll angle. Developing such a 
definition requires vehicle roll angle versus rate data, which are not 
readily available to NHTSA. Another potential drawback of this option 
is that without a test or tests to assess compliance with the 
definition, enforcement of the requirement could be restricted. An 
approach for a compliance test could be for NHTSA to remove the sensor 
from the vehicle and subject the sensor to a performance test to assess 
whether a specified performance requirement is achieved, but the agency 
has limited information at this time on which to develop performance 
parameters or a compliance test.
    A second considered approach was to specify a test(s) that would 
assure the presence of a rollover sensor on the vehicle (Presence Test 
Option). A rollover test would be performed and the countermeasure 
would or would not deploy. One option was to propose a test, with which 
both the agency and industry have experience, which is certain to 
deploy the countermeasure if a sensor were present and functioning. One 
such test would be the FMVSS No. 208 dolly test. However, the use of 
the FMVSS No. 208 dolly test as a rollover sensor test might be a 
somewhat incomplete solution due to the variation in real world 
rollover crashes. Even

[[Page 63219]]

with an indefinite development time period, there would be difficulties 
in defining and developing any test(s), and in determining the real-
world relevance of the test procedure(s). The agency does not have 
sufficient knowledge of any repeatable rollover test that merits 
selection as the test that replicates the breadth of real-world 
rollovers addressed by this rulemaking. Developing tests that assure 
good sensor performance would require additional research, which would 
delay the proposal and adoption of this FMVSS.
    The third approach we considered was a ``phase-plane zone'' option 
suggested by the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC).\83\ 
This option basically requires the rollover sensor to deploy a 
countermeasure if, prior to rolling more than 90 degrees about the 
lateral axis, the vehicle roll angle versus rate curve exceeds a 
threshold. The agency has no data to independently judge the AORC 
deployment threshold against ideal field performance. Therefore, we 
cannot assure that it represents the minimally acceptable performance. 
This option only considers roll angle and roll rate as sensor inputs, 
while AORC members indicated that many systems use other sensor inputs 
and that future sensors may be integrated into and/or use information 
from ESC systems. As discussed in the Technical Analysis for this NPRM, 
we would need some time to develop the potential test parameters and 
apparatuses for this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ July 12, 2006 meeting between NHTSA and AORC (NHTSA-2006-
26467-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA requests comments on the following issues:
     The agency has not included any regulatory requirements 
for sensor(s) that will deploy ejection mitigation countermeasures 
during a rollover. Comments are requested on the alternative approaches 
considered by the agency. Are there other alternatives that the agency 
has not considered? Are there particular performance attributes of a 
sensor system and algorithm that this FMVSS should require of all 
vehicles? Are there any particular sensor system performance tests that 
should be conducted? How should the sensor system be tested, e.g., a 
test of the system or equipment separate from the vehicle, a test of 
the complete vehicle in a dynamic test, etc.? Please provide field 
studies to support your arguments.
     Please comment on the AORC proposal for minimum sensor 
performance and how the agency could test for such performance, 
including specifics about test devices. Please discuss the 
appropriateness of specifying the test parameters and leaving the 
specific apparatus undefined.

b. Quasi-static Loading in a Compliance Test

    Films of occupant kinematics in vehicle rollover testing and in DRF 
testing indicate that ejection mitigation countermeasures can be 
exposed to quasi-static loading during a rollover, in addition to 
short-duration impacts that the headform test replicates. Quasi-static 
loading can occur when an occupant contacts the countermeasure and 
loads it throughout or nearly throughout an entire rollover event. Once 
an occupant contacts the ejection countermeasure, the occupant could 
impose a centrifugal force on the countermeasure. That force depends 
upon the rotational velocity, the radius from center of rotation to 
contact point on the countermeasure, and the portion of occupant mass 
loading the countermeasure.
    The value for each of these variables will be rollover and vehicle 
specific. Assuming a roll rate of 250 deg./s (4.4 rad./s), a radius of 
1.3 m and a mass equal to half the mass of a 50th percentile adult male 
(37 kg), the force is equal to 931 N (209 lb).
     The agency has not studied how ejection countermeasures 
perform when exposed to quasi-static loading, or whether the impact 
test alone would adequately facilitate the manufacture of ejection 
countermeasures that perform well when subjected to quasi-static 
loading in a rollover. NHTSA requests comments on the need for an 
additional test(s) that would impose quasi-static loading on the 
ejection countermeasure. What would be an appropriate load value and 
loading period? What would be an appropriate quasi-static test 
procedure?

VII. To Which Vehicles Would the Proposed Standard Apply?

    We propose that this standard would apply to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. Those are the 
vehicle classes to which the FMVSS No. 214 pole test applies. Comments 
are requested on whether the standard should exclude the vehicle types 
listed below, and whether other vehicle types not listed below should 
also be excluded.
    Convertibles. NHTSA has tentatively determined that convertibles 
should not be excluded from the applicability of the standard because 
we believe there is potential benefit and because it is feasible to 
build countermeasures into this type of vehicle. First, approximately 
17% of the target population fatalities are in side impacts or side 
impacts followed by a rollover. Even absent any roof structure, we 
believe that side curtain air bags and/or advanced glazing may be 
effective in reducing ejections in this side impact population and 
perhaps, to a lesser degree, in the side impact followed by a rollover 
population. We realize that occupants of convertibles in other rollover 
crashes of two or more quarter-turns are extremely vulnerable due to 
the lack of roof structure. This is particularly true if the 
convertible top is down or hardtop is removed. However, survival space 
may exist, particularly for convertibles with roll bars behind the 
seats such in the Mini Cooper and Porsche Boxster. The version in the 
Mini Cooper is recessed behind the rear seats and deploys in a 
rollover. Although we have no firm data on the percentage of 
convertibles driven with the top up, if they are and there is a roll 
bar type structure, ejection mitigation countermeasures may be 
effective.
    On the issue of feasibility, although these vehicles do not have a 
permanent roof structure in which to house a roof-mounted ejection 
mitigation curtain, Porsche has indicated to NHTSA that it is 
developing a door-mounted curtain that would deploy upward toward the 
vehicle roof in a rollover.\84\ Comments are requested on the 
feasibility of installing door-mounted ejection mitigation curtains in 
convertibles on a widespread basis, and if feasible, the costs and 
benefits associated with door-mounted ejection mitigation curtains. 
Please comment on the practicability of certifying convertibles to the 
proposed performance test with door-mounted ejection mitigation 
curtains and/or advanced glazing. Could advanced glazing alone be a 
sufficient ejection mitigation countermeasure in convertibles? If it is 
not practicable to meet the proposed requirements with any 
countermeasures, please indicate how the proposed performance 
requirement and test procedure could be adjusted to be more appropriate 
for convertibles, such as by changes to the displacement limit, impact 
velocity, target locations, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ NHTSA-2006-26467-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicles that have had the original roof modified. If a vehicle 
were altered or modified such that the original roof were replaced, 
raised or otherwise modified, the original ejection mitigation window 
curtain that was mounted in the header above the door would be affected 
by such modification. NHTSA proposes excluding vehicles

[[Page 63220]]

with modified roofs from the standard, and adopting FMVSS No. 214's 
definition of a ``modified roof.'' That standard defines ``modified 
roof'' as ``the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original roof 
has been removed, in part or in total.'' However, should vehicles with 
door-mounted upward-deploying side curtain air bags installed as 
original equipments be excluded from the ejection mitigation standard 
if the vehicle's roof is later modified? There might not be a need to 
exclude such vehicles from the ejection mitigation standard if the 
door-mounted ejection mitigation countermeasure would not be 
significantly affected by the modification to the vehicle's roof.
    Vehicles with a lowered floor. NHTSA does not think there is a need 
to exclude from the standard vehicles that have had their floors 
lowered by a final-stage manufacturer or alterer. It does not appear 
that the ejection mitigation countermeasure would be significantly 
affected by the modification, or that it would be overly difficult for 
the manufacturer to certify the compliance of the vehicle. Comments are 
requested on this issue.
    Vehicles that have no doors, or exclusively have doors that are 
designed to be easily attached or removed so that the vehicle can be 
operated without doors. Comments are requested on whether these 
vehicles are still being manufactured in the U.S. Assuming the vehicles 
are being manufactured, NHTSA proposes excluding the vehicles on 
practicability grounds. Comments are requested on this issue.
    Walk-in vans. We propose excluding these vehicles on practicability 
grounds.
    Police vehicles with security partitions. Considering that law 
enforcement vehicles are more likely to be involved in risky driving 
operations than other passenger vehicles, NHTSA would prefer that the 
vehicles provide ejection mitigation countermeasures. However, security 
partitions (e.g., prisoner partitions) are necessary for the safety and 
security of the law enforcement officers, and they must be flush 
against the sides of the vehicle to prevent a prisoner's hand or 
article from intruding into the officer's compartment. We would like 
information as to whether police vehicles with security partitions 
should be excluded from the standard. Comments are requested on whether 
innovative partition designs exist that would permit the side curtain 
air bag to be deployed effectively without interference from a security 
partition. Alternatively, is it feasible to incorporate separate 
curtains for the front and rear passenger compartments? Is it feasible 
to incorporate a window curtain for the front compartment and advanced 
glazing for the rear compartment? Is it feasible to incorporate air bag 
curtains that deploy upwards (e.g., as in the Volvo C70?) In addition, 
would advanced glazing alone be sufficient in these vehicles to meet 
the standard? The agency has tentatively decided not to exclude 
vehicles with partitions generally, because it appears that a partition 
other than a security (prisoner) partition could be made compatible 
with a window air bag curtain by allowing a space between the daylight 
opening and the partition edge. Comments are requested on these 
tentative determinations.

VIII. The Proposed Lead Time and Phase-In Schedules

    Motor vehicle manufacturers will need lead time to develop and 
install ejection mitigation countermeasures and rollover sensor 
algorithms. Although inflatable side curtain air bags are being 
developed in new vehicles to meet the September 11, 2007 final rule (as 
amended June 9, 2008) incorporating a dynamic pole test in FMVSS No. 
214, to meet the requirements proposed today these side curtains will 
have to be made larger to cover more of the window opening, will have 
to be made more robust to remain inflated longer, and will have to be 
considerably enhanced (by tethering and other means) to retain vehicle 
occupants within the vehicle. Moreover, rollover sensor algorithms will 
be needed to deploy the ejection mitigation countermeasures in rollover 
crashes, to augment the sensors needed to deploy the side curtains in 
side impacts.\85\ Our tests of vehicles to the proposed ejection 
mitigation requirements found that vehicle manufacturers are at 
different stages with respect to designing inflatable ejection 
mitigation side curtains that meet the proposed requirements. Vehicle 
manufacturers also face unique manufacturing constraints and 
challenges, e.g., each face differences in the technological advances 
incorporated in their current air bag systems, differences in 
engineering resources, and differences in the numbers and type of 
vehicles for which ejection mitigation systems will need to be 
incorporated. NHTSA believes that these differing situations can best 
be accommodated by phasing in the ejection mitigation requirements 
proposed today over a period of four years, and by allowing the use of 
advance credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The FMVSS No. 214 final rule/response to petitions for 
reconsideration acknowledged that current side air bag sensors will 
have to be developed further to sense when it would be appropriate 
to deploy in a crash situation involving impacts up to 32 km/h (20 
mph). NHTSA provided manufacturers until September 1, 2014 to 
develop these sensors. 73 FR 32473, June 9, 2008, Docket No. NHTSA-
2008-0104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also believe that the phase-in of the ejection mitigation 
requirements should start after the date most vehicles will be 
certified as meeting the FMVSS No. 214 side impact pole test 
requirements.\86\ This is in recognition of the potential for a side 
curtain system to meet both FMVSS No. 214 and the ejection mitigation 
requirements and that meeting both sets of requirements will place 
demands on manufacturers and air bag system suppliers to develop a 
``new generation'' of side air bag curtains and sensors beyond those 
installed to meet the FMVSS No. 214 test requirements. Taking into 
account all available information, including but not limited to the 
technologies that could be used to meet the proposed testing 
requirements, the SAFETEA-LU provision that a final rule be issued by 
October 1, 2009, and the relatively low percentage of the fleet that 
has ejection mitigation countermeasures capable of meeting the proposed 
requirements, the agency is proposing to phase-in the new ejection 
mitigation requirements starting the first September 1 three years from 
the date of publication of a final rule. Assuming that a final rule 
would be issued in January 2011, NHTSA proposes that the phase-in would 
be implemented in accordance with the following schedule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The FMVSS No. 214 rule will be phased in and will apply to 
80 percent of vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2013. Advance credits may be 
used. All vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less (except for 
altered and multistage vehicles and vehicles produced by limited 
line and small volume manufacturers) manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2014 must meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 requirements 
without use of advanced credits. All vehicles with GVWRs 8,500 to 
10,000 lb (except for altered and multistage vehicles) manufactured 
on or after September 1, 2015 must meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 214 
pole test requirements. All altered and multistage vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2016 must meet the upgraded 
FMVSS No. 214 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     20 percent of each manufacturer's vehicles manufactured 
during the first production year beginning three years after 
publication of a final rule (for illustration purposes, that effective 
date would be September 1, 2014);
     40 percent of each manufacturer's vehicles manufactured 
during the production year beginning, for illustration purposes, 
September 1, 2015;
     75 percent of vehicles manufactured during the production 
year beginning, for illustration, September 1, 2016;

[[Page 63221]]

     And all vehicles (without use of advanced credits) 
manufactured on or after, for illustration, September 1, 2017.
    NHTSA believes that the proposed phase-in would best address a 
number of issues. It would allow manufacturers to focus their resources 
in an efficient manner. Data obtained from the agency's 2008 model year 
New Car Assessment Program indicate that approximately 40 percent of 
2008 model year vehicles are available with side air bags that are 
designed to deploy in a rollover and stay inflated for a duration 
longer than that needed to provide protection in a side impact not 
involving a rollover. However, this does not mean that these vehicles 
would be capable of complying with this NPRM. For example, the air bag 
curtain may not have sufficient window coverage or stay inflated long 
enough to meet the proposed requirements. Rather, these ejection 
mitigation systems are designed to the manufacturers' internal design 
criteria.
    The agency believes that it would not be possible for manufacturers 
that produce large numbers of models of passenger cars and LTVs to 
simultaneously design and install ejection mitigation air bags meeting 
the proposed requirements in all of their vehicles at once. 
Manufacturers have limited engineering resources, and will have been 
using their resources to improve the performance of LTVs and passenger 
cars in the dynamic pole test and the moving deformable barrier 
vehicle-to-vehicle crash test of FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA seeks to provide 
vehicle manufacturers sufficient opportunity to adopt the best designs 
possible as quickly as possible. The agency tentatively concludes that 
a 4-year phase-in beginning three full years after publication of a 
final rule will provide the lead time needed while achieving the life-
saving benefits of the final rule in as expeditious a manner as 
possible.
    NHTSA further believes that the proposed phase-in would not be 
incompatible with the agency's efforts to upgrade FMVSS No. 216, ``Roof 
crush resistance.'' The roof strength upgrade will mainly require 
structural redesigns in the areas of the A- and B-pillars, side and 
front header, and roof cross beams, particularly for heavier vehicles 
that were not previously subject to the standard. Potential vehicle 
modifications could include the incorporation of higher strength or 
higher gauge steel, adding supporting materials in the pillars, and/or 
reinforcing the roof-pillar joints. NHTSA believes that any structural 
changes needed in response to the new roof crush resistance 
requirements will have an inconsequential impact on the ability to 
implement ejection mitigation countermeasures, such as rollover curtain 
air bags. Possible ancillary changes could include the need to 
accommodate larger air bag packaging and new curtain attachment points. 
Nonetheless, the agency is considering overlapping the phase-ins of 
both the roof crush resistance and ejection mitigation upgrades to 
afford vehicle manufacturers the opportunity to make needed 
modifications for compliance with both requirements at one time. 
Ultimately, the improved roof strength provided by FMVSS No. 216, in 
combination with the ejection mitigation countermeasures, will provide 
comprehensive protection for vehicle occupants involved in rollover 
crashes.
    We also propose to include provisions under which manufacturers can 
earn credits towards meeting the applicable phase-in percentages if 
they meet the new ejection mitigation requirements ahead of schedule. 
In addition, as we have done with other standards, we are proposing a 
separate alternative to address the special problems faced by limited 
line and multistage manufacturers and alterers in complying with phase-
ins. A phase-in generally permits vehicle manufacturers flexibility 
with respect to which vehicles they choose to initially redesign to 
comply with new requirements. However, if a manufacturer produces a 
very limited number of lines, a phase-in would not provide such 
flexibility. NHTSA is accordingly proposing to permit ``limited line'' 
manufacturers that produce three or fewer carlines the option of 
achieving full compliance when the phase-in is completed. Flexibility 
would be allowed for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and 
altered vehicles from the phase-in requirements. These vehicles would 
not be required to meet the phase-in schedule and would not have to 
achieve full compliance until one year after the phase-in is completed. 
Also, as with previous phase-ins, NHTSA is proposing reporting 
requirements to accompany the phase-in.

IX. The Estimated Benefits and Costs of This Rulemaking

    We are placing in the docket a Preliminary Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (PRIA) to accompany this NPRM.\87\ The PRIA analyzes the 
potential impacts of the proposed ejection mitigation requirements. A 
summary of the PRIA follows. Comments are requested on the 
analyses.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The PRIA may be obtained by contacting the docket at the 
address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this 
document.
    \88\ The analyses were based on information voluntarily 
submitted by manufacturers at the end of 2006. Since that time, 
various manufacturers have reported that product plans pertaining to 
other rulemakings have changed due to changed economic 
circumstances. Comments are requested on the estimates provided in 
this section and in the PRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes that curtain air bags will be used to pass the 
proposed ejection mitigation test. We believe that most manufacturers 
will have to widen the side air bag curtains that they are providing to 
meet FMVSS No. 214's pole test requirements, or replace combination 
(combo) seat-mounted side air bags with a curtain to pass the impactor 
test of this NPRM. We assume that vehicle manufacturers would install a 
single-window curtain for each side of the vehicle, and that these 
window curtains would provide protection for both front and rear seat 
occupants.
    We primarily examined two different types of countermeasures that 
are designed to meet the proposed headform requirements. One approach 
covers the opening with a wider curtain air bag (called ``full 
curtain'' in the PRIA). However, we believe that even if the window is 
completely covered with a curtain air bag, some partial ejections could 
occur through a potential gap along the bottom of the air bag between 
the air bag and vehicle's window sill. The second countermeasure 
entails the installation of laminated glazing in the front window 
openings to prevent ejections through test point A1 and the lower gap 
(called ``partial curtain plus laminated glazing'' in the PRIA). In 
addition, we also examined how manufacturers would design an ejection 
mitigation system if we change the test requirements in one of two ways 
that may allow different countermeasures to comply with the standard. 
First, we analyzed the effect of reducing the impact speed for the 1.5 
second delay test from 24 km/h to 20 km/h for the front lower corner 
(called ``A1 full curtain'' in the PRIA).\89\ Next we

[[Page 63222]]

analyzed the effect of reducing the number of target points to one, for 
both the 24 km/h and 16 km/h impact tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Notwithstanding the examination of these changes to the 
test requirements, the goal remains coverage of the whole window 
opening. As part of the rulemaking effort, the agency tested a 
prototype curtain ejection mitigation system developed by TRW in a 
dynamic rollover fixture (DRF). The test results showed that in a 
near worst case ejection condition, an unrestrained small child 
could be ejected through a small window opening (target position A1) 
when the area is not fully covered, even when initially aimed at 
another part of the window (target position A2). For additional 
discussion, see a report titled ``NHTSA's Crashworthiness Rollover 
Research Program,'' Summers, S., et al., 19th International 
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles,'' paper 
number 05-0279, 2005. These benefits estimates are based on lateral 
rollovers. We do not know the effectiveness of these bags in other 
rollover events, such as end-to-end or more complex rolls. We 
suspect that the effectiveness would decrease noticeably in non-
lateral rollovers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefits. The agency first identified the baseline target 
population and then estimated the fatality or injury reduction rate. 
The target population was defined as partially and completely ejected 
occupants in rollovers and certain side crashes. The agency's 
annualized injury data from 1997 to 2005 NASS CDS and fatality counts 
adjusted to 2005 FARS levels show that there are 6,174 fatalities and 
5,271 MAIS 3+ non-fatal injuries for occupants ejected through side 
windows. We excluded from the estimate of this ejection mitigation 
rulemaking 649 fatalities and 243 MAIS 3+ non-fatal injuries already 
accounted for in the FMVSS No. 214 pole test rulemaking (September 11, 
2007; 72 FR 51907). The most significant adjustment to the target 
population was for assumed full compliance with the Electronic 
Stability Control (ESC) final rule (April 6, 2007; 72 FR 17236), which 
reduced the target population by 3003 fatalities and 2,854 MAIS 3+ non-
fatal injuries. Finally, after adjusting for anticipated compliance 
with today's proposed rule, we estimate that this NPRM being met by a 
full curtain would save 402 lives and prevent 310 serious injuries, 
annually.\90\ For the estimated benefits, we assumed that the belt use 
rate observed in 2005 remains unchanged. The majority of the benefits 
are for unbelted occupants but the analysis shows that 13 percent of 
the benefits would be from belted occupants: 10 percent from rollovers 
and about 3 percent from side crashes considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The benefit estimate was made based on particular 
assumptions used in the analysis. When inputs that affect the 
analysis are uncertain, the agency makes its best judgment about the 
range of values that will occur through sensitivity analyses, as 
discussed in the PRIA. The sensitivity analyses showed that the 
ejection mitigation system would save as many as 581 lives in most 
favorable conditions and as little as 390 lives in least favorable 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs. Potential compliance costs for the linear headform test vary 
considerably and are dependent upon the types of the FMVSS No. 214 
head/side air bags that will be installed by vehicle manufacturers to 
comply with the oblique pole test requirements. For vehicles with two 
rows of seats to be covered with a curtain air bag, we estimate an 
ejection mitigation system (consisting of 2 window curtains, 2 thorax 
air bags for the front seat occupants only, 2 side impact sensors and 1 
rollover sensor) would cost about $299.44, when compared to a vehicle 
with no side air bags. This is $49.97 more than a vehicle with a side 
air bag system designed to meet the FMVSS No. 214 pole tests. The MY 
2011 sales show that 25% of light vehicles will have a third row seat. 
When the first through 3rd row are covered with a curtain air bag, we 
estimated the cost per vehicle will increase by $61.92, when compared 
to a vehicle equipped with a FMVSS No. 214-curtain system.
    The manufacturers' plans for MY 2011 head air bag sales show that 
about 1%, 44% and 55% of vehicles would be equipped with combination 
air bags, curtain air bags without rollover sensors and with rollover 
sensors, respectively.\91\ Thus, manufacturers are planning to provide 
55% of the MY 2011 vehicles with an expensive part of the cost of 
meeting the ejection mitigation test, the rollover sensor, which is 
estimated to cost $38.02. Given that 25% of light trucks have 3 rows of 
seats, we estimate the average cost per vehicle would increase by $54 
if there were no voluntary compliance by manufacturers for MY 2011. 
Manufacturers' plans for MY 2011 indicate at least $20 per vehicle of 
costs toward this proposal. Thus, compared to the manufacturers' plans, 
this ejection mitigation proposal would add about $34 per light 
vehicle, at a total cost of $583 million for the full curtain 
countermeasure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Our analysis shows that most vehicles that are equipped 
with combination bags would be convertibles (about 1%). The agency 
asks for comments on whether it should exempt convertibles from the 
ejection mitigation requirement on practicability grounds.

                                   Table 24--Total and Average Vehicle Costs *
                                                     [$2007]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Ejection mitigation        Weighted MY 2011
                Costs                           system            manufacturers' plans      Incremental costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Vehicle Costs....................  $54....................  $20....................  $34.
Total Costs (17 million vehicles)....  $920 million...........  $337 million...........  $583 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The system costs are based on vehicles that are equipped with the FMVSS No. 214-curtain system. According to
  vehicle manufacturers' projections made in 2006, 98.7% of MY 2011 vehicles will be equipped with curtain bags
  and 55% of vehicles with curtain bags will be equipped with a roll sensor.

    Cost per Equivalent Life Saved and Net Benefits. The PRIA estimated 
the net costs per equivalent life saved. For the full curtain 
countermeasure, the low end of the range is $1.6 million per equivalent 
life saved, using a 3 percent discount rate. The high end of the range 
is $2.0 million per equivalent life saved, using a 7 percent discount 
rate.
    Net benefit analysis differs from cost effectiveness analysis in 
that it requires that benefits be assigned a monetary value, and that 
this value is compared to the monetary value of costs to derive a net 
benefit. When we assume that the percentage of MY 2011 air bag sales 
remain unchanged (i.e., 1%, 44% and 55% of vehicles would be equipped 
with combination air bags, curtain air bags without rollover sensor and 
with rollover sensors, respectively), it resulted in $1,680 million net 
benefits using a 3 percent discount rate, and $1,217 million using a 7 
percent discount rate. Both of these are based on a $6.1 million cost 
per life,\92\ as shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The Department of Transportation has determined that the 
best current estimate of the economic value of preventing a human 
fatality is $5.8 million (``Treatment of the Economic Value of a 
Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses,'' Tyler D. Duval, 
Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, February 5, 2008. The 
$6.1 million comprehensive cost was based on the $5.8 million 
statistical life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analysis of Alternatives. The following tables show the estimated 
benefits, costs, cost per equivalent life saved, and net benefits for 
the three alternative countermeasures considered.

[[Page 63223]]



                                         Table 25--Incremental Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Weighted risk of      Uniform risk of ejection
                                                                   ejection method               method
                       Countermeasure                        ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Serious                   Serious
                                                               Fatalities    injuries    Fatalities    injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Curtain................................................          402          310          390          296
A1 Full Curtain.............................................          391          301          372          283
Partial Curtain plus Laminated Glazing......................          494          391          490          386
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Table 26--Incremental Costs
                           [In 2007 economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Per average     Total  (In
             Countermeasure                   vehicle        millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Curtain............................             $34            $583
A1 Full Curtain.........................              34             583
Partial Curtain plus Laminated Glazing..              88           1,494
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                Table 27--Cost per Equivalent Life Saved and Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Weighted risk of ejection method             Uniform risk of ejection method
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total     Cost per equivalent      Net benefits       Cost per equivalent      Net benefits
                    Countermeasure                        cost         life saved      ----------------------      life saved      ---------------------
                                                                 ----------------------                      ----------------------
                                                                      3%         7%         3%         7%         3%         7%         3%         7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Curtain.........................................       $583      $1.57      $1.98     $1,680     $1,217      $1.63      $2.04     $1,605     $1,158
A1 Full Curtain......................................        583       1.62       2.03      1,615      1,166       1.68       2.11      1,534      1,101
Partial Curtain plus Laminated Glazing...............      1,494       3.27       4.11      1,292        723       3.30       4.14      1,271        706
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated benefits from the ejection mitigation systems 
considered show that the partial curtain plus front window laminated 
glazing system would result in most benefits (494 lives saved) followed 
by the full curtain and the A1 full curtain. However, the curtain plus 
glazing system would be the most costly system ($1,624 million) 
followed by the full curtain and the A1 full curtain. When the 
comprehensive saving (for preventing a loss of statistical life) was 
considered, the net benefit analysis showed that the full curtain would 
result in the highest net benefits.
    In the PRIA's Sensitivity Analyses Section (Section VII), we 
analyzed costs and benefits that would result from the different 
assumptions used in the analysis. We seek public input on our analysis 
of costs and benefits under 100% belt use rate (one of NHTSA's goals), 
and also under the scenario where alcohol-related crashes are removed 
from the analysis.

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action 
under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is economically 
significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking 
action has also been determined to be significant under the 
Department's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA has placed in 
the docket a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) describing 
the costs and benefits of this rulemaking action. The costs and 
benefits are summarized in section IX of this preamble.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires 
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final 
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this NPRM would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small organizations and small governmental units would not be 
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with 
this proposed action should not significantly affect the price of new 
motor vehicles.
    The proposed rule would indirectly affect air bag manufacturers and 
suppliers. NHTSA believes these entities do not qualify as small 
entities.
    The proposed rule would directly affect motor vehicle 
manufacturers. The PRIA discusses the economic impact of the proposed 
rule on small vehicle manufacturers, of which there are six. We believe 
that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
these manufacturers. The standard would employ static testing of the 
ejection mitigation system. Small vehicle manufacturers are likely to 
certify compliance using a combination of component testing by air bag 
suppliers and engineering analyses. Already much of the ejection 
mitigation system development work for these small vehicle 
manufacturers is done by air bag suppliers. Typically, air bag 
suppliers will supply larger vehicle manufacturers during the 
development and phase-in period, and do not have the design 
capabilities to handle all of the smaller manufacturers. This 
rulemaking proposal accounts for this limitation by proposing to allow 
small manufacturers and limited line manufacturers to comply with the

[[Page 63224]]

upgraded requirements at the end of the phase-in period, to reduce the 
economic impact of the rule on these small entities.
    NHTSA notes that final-stage vehicle manufacturers buy incomplete 
vehicles and complete the vehicle. Alterers modify new vehicles, such 
as by raising the roofs of vehicles. In either case, NHTSA tentatively 
concludes that the impacts of a final rule on such entities would not 
be significant. Final-stage manufacturers or alterers engaged in 
raising the roofs of vehicles would not be affected by this NPRM, 
because it proposes to exclude vehicles with raised roofs from the 
ejection mitigation requirements. NHTSA does not believe at this point 
that the ejection mitigation system would be affected by modifications 
other than the modification of the vehicle roof. Additional information 
concerning the potential impacts of the proposed requirements on small 
entities is presented in the PRIA.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive 
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no 
additional consultation with States, local governments or their 
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency 
has concluded that the proposed rule would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local 
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 
The proposal would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect 
of today's proposed rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two 
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains 
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of 
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to 
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 
command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative 
law, not today's proposed rulemaking, so consultation would be 
unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied 
preemption: In some instances, State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, 
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA 
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. 
See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However, 
NHTSA has considered the nature and purpose of today's proposed rule 
and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might 
conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied 
preemption.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows.
    The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that 
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other 
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million in any one year ($100 million adjusted annually for 
inflation, with base year of 1995). These effects are discussed earlier 
in this preamble and in the PRIA.
    UMRA also requires an agency issuing a final rule subject to the 
Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.'' The 
preamble and the PRIA identify and consider several alternatives to the 
proposal, and the resulting cost and benefits of various potential 
countermeasures. The alternatives considered were: (a) Exclusion of the 
front lower corner of the front side window area (test point A1); (b) a 
component test consisting of a single headform impact at the center of 
the side window opening area; and, (c) a full-vehicle dynamic test to 
evaluate a countermeasure's retention capability instead of the 
headform component test proposed by this NPRM. The countermeasures 
examined for alternatives (a) and (b) were various levels of partial 
window coverage (``partial curtain''). We also examined the potential 
countermeasure of a partial curtain in combination with the 
installation of laminated glazing in the front window openings to 
prevent ejections through test point A1 and the lower gap (``partial 
curtain plus laminated glazing''). However, as discussed in this 
preamble and in the PRIA, none of these alternative proposals and 
potential countermeasures would fully achieve the objectives of the 
alternative preferred by NHTSA. The agency believes that it has 
selected the least costly, most cost-effective and least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rulemaking. The agency 
requests comments on this issue.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
    Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't 
clear?
    Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

[[Page 63225]]

    Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
    What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection 
displays a valid OMB control number. The proposal contains a collection 
of information, i.e., the proposed phase-in reporting requirements, 
proposed requirements to place consumer information about the readiness 
indicator and about the sensor in the vehicle owner's manual (S4.2.3), 
and proposed requirements for providing information to NHTSA about a 
rollover sensor in a compliance test (S4.2.4). There is no burden to 
the general public.
    The collection of information would require manufacturers of 
passenger cars and of trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) or less, to annually submit a report, and maintain records 
related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet 
the ejection mitigation requirements of this proposed FMVSS. The phase-
in of the test requirements would be completed approximately seven 
years after publication of a final rule. The purpose of the reporting 
requirements would be to aid the agency in determining whether a 
manufacturer has complied with the ejection mitigation requirements 
during the phase-in of those requirements.
    We are submitting a request for OMB clearance of the collection of 
information required under today's proposal. These requirements and our 
estimates of the burden to vehicle manufacturers are as follows:
     NHTSA estimates that there are 21 manufacturers of 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with 
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less;
     NHTSA estimates that the total annual reporting and 
recordkeeping burden resulting from the collection of information is 
1,260 hours;
     NHTSA estimates that the total annual cost burden, in U.S. 
dollars, will be $0.
    No additional resources would be expended by vehicle manufacturers 
to gather annual production information because they already compile 
this data for their own use.
    Under the PRA, the agency must publish a document in the Federal 
Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with 
members of the public and affected agencies concerning each collection 
of information. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a 
document. Under OMB's regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)), agencies must ask 
for public comment on the following:
    (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and,
    (4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    Organizations and individuals that wish to submit comments on the 
information collection requirements should direct them to NHTSA's 
docket for this NPRM.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The 
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we 
decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. NHTSA has searched for, but has not found, any applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.

XI. Public Participation

    In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of 
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this proposed 
rule. We invite you to provide different views on options we propose, 
new approaches we haven't considered, new data, how this proposed rule 
may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on 
all aspects of this proposed rule, but request comments on specific 
issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective 
if you follow the suggestions below:

--Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
--Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
--If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the 
estimate.
--Tell us which parts of the proposal you support, as well as those 
with which you disagree.
--Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
--Offer specific alternatives.
--Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the 
units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.
--Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your 
comments.

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging 
onto http://www.regulations.gov or by the means given in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this document.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information to the docket.

[[Page 63226]]

When you send a comment containing information claimed to be 
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter 
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

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

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address 
given above under ADDRESSES. You may also see the comments on the 
Internet (http://regulations.gov).
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

49 CFR Part 585

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Incorporation by reference.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
parts 571 and 585 as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

    2. Section 571.5(b) would be amended by redesignating paragraph 
(11) as paragraph (12), and by adding new paragraph (11) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (11) Ejection Mitigation Headform Drawing Package. Copies may be 
obtained by contacting: Reprographics Technologies, 9000 Virginia Manor 
Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705, telephone (301) 210-5600.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.226 would be added to read as follows:


Sec.  571.226  Standard No. 226; Ejection Mitigation.

    S1. Purpose and Scope. This standard establishes requirements for 
ejection mitigation systems to reduce the likelihood of complete and 
partial ejections of vehicle occupants through side windows during 
rollovers or side impact events.
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 4,536 kg or less, except walk-in vans and modified 
roof vehicles.
    S3. Definitions.
    Ejection impactor means a device specified in S7.1 of this Standard 
No. 226 that is a component of the ejection mitigation test device and 
is the moving mass that strikes the ejection mitigation countermeasure. 
It consists of an ejection headform attached to a shaft.
    Ejection impactor targeting point means the intersection of the y-
axis of the ejection headform and the outer surface of the ejection 
headform.
    Ejection mitigation countermeasure means a device or devices, 
except seat belts, integrated into the vehicle that reduce the 
likelihood of occupant ejection through a side window opening, and that 
requires no action by the occupant for activation.
    Ejection propulsion mechanism means a device specified in S7.2 of 
this Standard No. 226 that is a component of the ejection mitigation 
test device consisting of a mechanism capable of propelling the 
ejection impactor and constraining it to move along its axis or shaft.
    Limited-line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three or 
fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the United 
States during a production year.
    Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose 
original roof has been removed, in part or in total.
    Row means a set of one or more seats whose seat outlines do not 
overlap with the seat outline of any other seats, when all seats are 
adjusted to their rearmost normal riding or driving position, when 
viewed from the side.
    Seat outline means the outer limits of a seat projected laterally 
onto a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane.
    Side daylight opening means, other than a door opening, the locus 
of all points where a horizontal line, perpendicular to the vehicle 
vertical longitudinal plane, is tangent to the periphery of the 
opening, including the area 50 millimeters inboard of the window 
glazing, but excluding any flexible gasket material or weather striping 
used to create a waterproof seal between the glazing and the vehicle 
interior.
    Small manufacturer means an original vehicle manufacturer that 
produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in 
the United States.
    Target means target outline.
    Target outline means the x-z plane projection of the ejection 
headform face as shown in Figure 1.
    Walk-in van means a special cargo/mail delivery vehicle that has 
only one designated seating position. That designated seating position 
must be forward facing and for use only by the driver. The vehicle 
usually has a thin and light sliding (or folding) side door for easy 
operation and a high roof clearance that enables a person of medium 
stature to enter the passenger compartment area in an upright position.
    Zero displacement plane means, a vertical plane parallel to the 
vehicle longitudinal centerline and tangent to the most outboard 
surface of the ejection headform when the headform is aligned with an 
impact target location and just touching the inside surface of a window 
covering the side daylight opening.
    S4. Phase-in, performance and other requirements.
    S4.1 Phase-in requirements.
    S4.1.1 Except as provided in S4.1.3 of this Standard No. 226, for 
vehicles manufactured on or after [date first September 1 three full 
years after the publication date of the final rule; for illustration 
purposes, assume that the date is September 1, 2014] to [date that is 
the August 31 that is seven years after the publication date of the 
final rule; for illustration purposes, August 31, 2017], a percentage 
of each manufacturer's production, as specified in S8, shall meet the 
requirements of S4.2. Vehicles that are not subject to the phase-in may

[[Page 63227]]

be certified as meeting the requirements specified in this Standard No. 
226.
    S4.1.2 Except as provided in S4.1.3 of this section, each vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2017 [date provided for 
illustration purposes] must meet the requirements of S4.2.
    S4.1.3 Exceptions from the phase-in; special allowances.
    (a) Vehicles produced by a small manufacturer and by a limited line 
manufacturer are not subject to S4.1.1 of this Standard No. 226, but 
are subject to S4.1.2.
    (b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) 
before September 1, 2018 [dates provided in this section are for 
illustration purposes], after having been previously certified in 
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicle manufactured in 
two or more stages before September 1, 2018, are not required to meet 
the requirements of S4.2. Vehicles that are altered on or after 
September 1, 2018, and vehicles that are manufactured in two or more 
stages on or after September 1, 2018, must meet the requirements of 
S4.2.
    S4.2 Performance and other requirements.
    S4.2.1 When the ejection propulsion mechanism propels the ejection 
impactor into the impact target locations of each side daylight opening 
of a vehicle according to the test procedures specified in S5 of this 
Standard No. 226, the most outboard surface of the ejection headform 
must not displace more than 100 millimeters beyond the zero 
displacement plane.
    S4.2.2 Vehicles that have an ejection mitigation countermeasure 
that deploys in the event of a rollover must have a monitoring system 
with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own 
readiness and must be clearly visible from the driver's designated 
seating position. The same readiness indicator required by S4.5.2 of 
FMVSS No. 208 may be used to meet the requirement. A list of the 
elements of the system being monitored by the indicator shall be 
included with the information furnished in accordance with S4.2.3.
    S4.2.3 Written information.
    (a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that 
deploys in the event of a rollover must be described as such in the 
vehicle's owner manual or in other written information provided by the 
vehicle manufacturer to the consumer.
    (b) Vehicles that have an ejection mitigation countermeasure that 
deploys in the event of a rollover must include in written information 
a discussion of the readiness indicator required by S4.2.2, specifying 
a list of the elements of the system being monitored by the indicator, 
a discussion of the purpose and location of the telltale, and 
instructions to the consumer on the steps to take if the telltale is 
illuminated.
    S4.2.4 Technical Documentation. For vehicles that have an ejection 
mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the event of a rollover, the 
vehicle manufacturer must make available to the agency, upon request, 
the following information: A discussion of the sensor system used to 
deploy the countermeasure, including the pertinent inputs to the 
computer or calculations within the computer and how its algorithm uses 
that information to determine if the countermeasure should be deployed.
    S5. Test procedures.
    S5.1 Demonstrate compliance with S4.2 of this Standard No. 226 in 
accordance with the test procedures specified in this standard, under 
the conditions of S6, using the equipment described in S7. In the 
impact test described by these procedures, target locations are 
identified (S5.2) and the zero displacement plane location is 
determined (S5.3). The glazing is pre-broken, fully retracted or 
removed prior to the impact test (S5.4). The countermeasure is 
deployed, if applicable, and an ejection impactor (see S7.1) strikes 
impact target locations at specified speeds and times (S5.5). The 
lateral displacement of the ejection impactor beyond the zero 
displacement plane is measured.
    S5.2 Determination impact target locations. To identify the impact 
target locations, the following procedures are performed with the x and 
z axes of the target outline, shown in Figure 1 (provided for 
illustration purposes), aligned within 1 degree of the 
vehicle longitudinal and vertical axes, respectively, and the x-z plane 
of the target outline within 1 degree of a vehicle vertical 
longitudinal plane.
    S5.2.1 Preliminary target locations.
    (a) Determine the location of an offset-line within the daylight 
opening by projecting each point of the side daylight opening laterally 
onto a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane. Move each point by 25 
 2 mm towards the center of the side daylight opening and 
perpendicular to a line tangent to the projection at that point, while 
maintaining the point on a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane.
    (b) Place target outlines at any location inside the offset-line 
where the target outline is tangent to within 2 mm of the 
offset-line at just two or three points (see Figure 2) (figure provided 
for illustration purposes).
    S5.2.2 Determination of primary target locations. Divide the side 
daylight opening into four quadrants by passing a vertical line and a 
horizontal line, in a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane, through the 
geometric center of the daylight opening.
    S5.2.2.1 Front windows. For any side daylight opening forward of 
the vehicle B-pillar, the primary quadrants are the forward-lower and 
rearward-upper.
    S5.2.2.2 Rear windows. For any side daylight opening rearward of 
the B-pillar, the primary quadrants are the forward-upper and rearward-
lower.
    S5.2.2.3 The primary targets have outlines whose center is within 
the primary quadrants, regardless of the location of the primary 
quadrant outline. If there is more than one target outline center in 
each primary target quadrant, maintain the lowest target outline in the 
lower quadrants and the highest targets in the upper quadrants. If 
there is a primary quadrant that does not contain a target outline 
center, the target outline whose center is closest to the primary 
quadrant outline becomes the primary target (see Figure 3) (figure 
provided for illustration purposes).
    S5.2.3 Determination of secondary target locations.
    S5.2.3.1 Front windows. Measure the horizontal distance between the 
centers of the primary target outlines. For a side daylight opening 
forward of the B-pillar, place one secondary target outline centered 
rearward of the forward primary target by one-third of the horizontal 
distance between the primary target outlines and tangent with upper 
portion of the offset-line. Place another secondary target outline 
centered rearward of the forward primary target by two-thirds of the 
horizontal distance between the primary target outlines and tangent 
with the lower portion of the offset-line (see figure 4) (figure 
provided for illustration purposes).
    S5.2.3.2 Rear windows. For side daylight openings rearward of the 
B-pillar, place one secondary target outline centered rearward of the 
forward primary target by one-third of the horizontal distance between 
the primary target outlines and tangent with lower portion of the 
offset-line. Place another secondary target outline centered rearward 
of the forward primary target by two-thirds of the horizontal distance 
between the primary target outlines and tangent with the upper portion 
of the offset-line (see Figure 4) (figure provided for illustration 
purposes).
    S5.2.4 Target adjustment.

[[Page 63228]]

    5.2.4.1 Target elimination and reconstitution.
    5.2.4.1.1 Target elimination. Determine the horizontal and vertical 
distance between the centers of the targets. If the horizontal distance 
between the target centers is less than 135 mm and the vertical 
distance is less than 170 mm, eliminate the targets in the order of 
priority given in steps 1 through 4 of Table 1 (see Figure 5) (figure 
provided for illustration purposes). In each case, both the target 
centers must be closer than 135 mm and 170 mm in the horizontal and 
vertical directions, respectively. If the horizontal distance between 
the targets is not less than 135 mm or the vertical distance is not 
less than 170 mm, do not eliminate the target. Continue checking all 
the targets listed in steps 1 through 4 of Table 1.

         Table 1--Priority List of Target Distance To Be Checked Against Horizontal and Vertical Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Eliminate this target if
                                                                                     horizontal and vertical
               Step                  Measure distance of these target centers    distances are less than 135 mm
                                                                                   and 170 mm, respectively *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................  Upper Secondary to Lower Secondary.........  Upper Secondary.
2................................  Upper Primary to Upper or Remaining          Upper or Remaining Secondary.
                                    Secondary.
3................................  Lower Primary to Lower or Remaining          Lower or Remaining Secondary.
                                    Secondary.
4................................  Upper Primary to Lower Primary.............  Upper Primary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The target centers must be closer than 135 mm and 170 mm in the x and z directions, respectively.

    S5.2.4.1.2 Target reconstitution. If after following the procedure 
given in S5.2.4.1.1, there are only two targets remaining, determine 
the absolute distance between the centers of these targets. If this 
distance is greater than or equal to 360 mm, place a target such that 
the center of its outline bisects a line connecting the centers of the 
remaining targets.
    S5.2.4.2 Rearmost target location.
    (a) Except as provided in S5.2.4.2(b), if a side daylight opening 
extends rearward of a transverse vertical vehicle plane located 600 mm 
behind (1) the seating reference point of the last row seat adjacent to 
the opening, in the case of a vehicle with fewer than 3 rows, or (2) 
the 3rd row seat adjacent to the opening, in the case of a vehicle with 
3 or more seating rows, the transverse vertical vehicle plane defines 
the rearward edge of the daylight opening for the purposes of 
determining target locations.
    (b) When the last row seat adjacent to the opening, in the case of 
a vehicle with fewer than 3 rows, or the 3rd row seat adjacent to the 
opening, in the case of a vehicle with 3 or more seating, is not fixed 
in the forward facing direction, the side daylight opening may extend 
farther rearward then specified in S5.2.4.2(a) under the following 
conditions. With the seat in any non-forward facing orientation, the 
seat back set at an inclination position closest to the manufacturer's 
design seat back angle, and all other seat adjustments at any potential 
position of adjustment, determine the location of a vertical lateral 
vehicle plane located 600 mm behind the rearmost portion of the seat. 
The target area extends to this vertical plane if it is farther 
rearward than the plane determined in S5.2.4.2(a).
    S5.3 Determination of zero displacement plane. The glazing covering 
the target location of the side daylight opening being tested is intact 
and in place in the case of fixed glazing and intact and fully closed 
in the case of movable glazing. With the ejection impactor targeting 
point aligned within 2 mm of the center of any target 
location specified in S5.2, and with the ejection impactor on the 
inside of the vehicle, slowly move the impactor towards the window 
until contact is made with the interior of the glazing with no more 
than 20 N of pressure being applied to the window. The location of the 
most outboard surface of the headform establishes the zero displacement 
plane for this target location.
    S5.4 Window position. Prior to impact testing, the glazing covering 
the target location must be removed from the side daylight opening, 
fully retracted, or pre-broken according to the procedure in S5.4.1, at 
the option of the vehicle manufacturer.
    S5.4.1 Window glazing pre-breaking procedure.
    S5.4.1.1 Breakage pattern. Locate the geometric center of the 
daylight opening, established in S5.2.2 of this Standard No. 226. Mark 
the surface of the window glazing in a horizontal and vertical grid of 
points separated by 50  2 mm with one point coincident 
within 2 mm of the geometric center of the daylight opening 
(see Figure 6) (figure provided for illustration purposes).
    S5.4.1.2 Breakage method.
    (a) Start with the inside surface of the window and forward-most, 
lowest mark made as specified in S5.4.1.1 of this Standard No. 226. Use 
a center punch to make a hole in the glazing. The punch tip has a 5 
 2 mm diameter prior to coming to a point. The spring is 
adjusted to require 150  25 N of force to activate the 
punch. Apply pressure to the center punch in a direction 10 
degrees perpendicular to the window surface.
    (b) Use a 100  10 mm x 100  10 mm piece of 
rigid material as a reaction surface on the opposite side of the 
glazing to prevent to the extent possible the window surface from 
deforming by more than 10 mm when pressure is being applied to the 
hole-punch.
    (c) Continue making holes by moving rearward in the grid until the 
end of a row is reached. Then move to the forward-most mark on the next 
higher row and make a hole. Continue in this pattern until all the 
holes on the inside surface of the glazing are made.
    (d) Repeat the process on the outside surface of the window.
    (e) If punching a hole causes the glazing to disintegrate, halt the 
breakage procedure and proceed with the headform impact test.
    S5.5 Impact speeds and time delays.
    (a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that 
deploys in a rollover. Using the ejection propulsion mechanism, propel 
the ejection impactor such that it strikes:
    (1) Any target location specified in S5.2 of this Standard No. 226, 
6.0  0.1 seconds after activation of an ejection mitigation 
countermeasure that deploys in the event of a rollover and at a 
velocity of 16  0.5 km/h; and,
    (2A) [Alternative 1 to paragraph (2)] Any target location specified 
in S5.2 of this Standard No. 226, 1.5  0.1 seconds after 
activation of an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the 
event of a rollover and at a velocity of 24  0.5 km/h.
    (2B) [Alternative 2 to paragraph (2)] The target location struck in 
accordance with S5.5(a) that resulted in the greatest amount of 
displacement of the ejection impactor beyond the zero displacement 
plane, 1.5  0.1 seconds after activation of an ejection 
mitigation

[[Page 63229]]

countermeasure that deploys in the event of a rollover and at a 
velocity of 24  0.5 km/h.
    (b) Vehicles without an ejection mitigation countermeasure that 
deploys in a rollover. Using the ejection propulsion mechanism, propel 
the ejection impactor such that it strikes the target location at a 
velocity of 16  0.5 km/h and at a velocity of 24  0.5 km/h. Do not deploy inflatable devices at any time during 
the test or activate any other ejection mitigation countermeasure.
    (c) An ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the event 
of a rollover is described as such in the vehicle's owner manual or in 
other written information provided by the vehicle manufacturer to the 
consumer.
    S5.6 Ejection impactor orientation. At the time of launch of the 
ejection impactor the:
    (a) x and z axes of the ejection headform must be aligned within 
1 degree of the vehicle longitudinal and vertical axes, 
respectively; and,
    (b) y axis of the ejection headform must be within 1 
degree of the vehicle lateral axis.
    S6. General test conditions.
    S6.1 Vehicle test attitude. The vehicle is supported off its 
suspension at an attitude determined in accordance with S6.1(a) and 
(b).
    (a) The vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight.
    (b) All tires are inflated to the manufacturer's specifications 
listed on the vehicle's tire placard.
    S6.2 Doors.
    (a) Except as provided in S6.2(b) or S6.2(c), doors, including any 
rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully closed and latched but not 
locked.
    (b) During testing, any side door on the opposite side of the 
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle from the target to be impacted 
may be open or removed.
    (c) During testing, any rear hatchback or tailgate may be open or 
removed for testing any target.
    S6.3 Steering wheel and seats. During targeting and testing, the 
steering wheel and seats may be removed from the vehicle.
    S6.4 Convertible tops. During testing, the top, if any, of 
convertibles and open-body type vehicles is in the closed passenger 
compartment configuration.
    S6.5 Temperature and humidity.
    (a) During testing, the ambient temperature is between 18 degrees 
C. and 29 degrees C., at any relative humidity between 10 percent and 
70 percent.
    (b) The headform specified in S7.1.1 of this Standard No. 226 is 
exposed to the conditions specified in S6.5(a) for a continuous period 
not less than one hour, prior to the test.
    S7. sEjection mitigation test device specifications. The ejection 
mitigation test device consists of an ejection impactor and ejection 
propulsion mechanism with the following specifications. The ability of 
a test device to meet these specifications may be determined outside of 
the vehicle.
    S7.1 Ejection impactor. The ejection impactor has a mass of 18 kg 
0.05 kg. The shaft is parallel to the y axis of the 
headform.
    S7.1.1 Ejection headform dimensions. The ejection headform has the 
dimensions shown in Figure 1 and is depicted in Ejection Mitigation 
Headform Drawing Package, dated 2007 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  571.5).
    S7.1.2 Static deflection. The ejection headform must not deflect 
downward more than 20 mm when a 27 kg mass is attached to the posterior 
surface of the headform. The center of gravity of the attached mass is 
aligned with the axis of motion of the impactor and 100 mm rear of the 
impact face. The static deflection measurement is made with the 
ejection impactor attached to the ejection propulsion mechanism and 
extended 300 mm outboard of the theoretical point of impact with the 
countermeasure.
    S7.2 Frictional characteristics.
    S7.2.1 Unobstructed velocity reduction. If unobstructed, the 
ejection impactor must not lose more than 10 percent of the 24 km/h 
velocity and 15 percent of the 16 km/h velocity specified in S5.5 of 
this Standard No. 226 in 300 mm of outboard travel from the theoretical 
point of impact with the ejection mitigation countermeasure.
    S7.2.2 Obstructed push force. The average force necessary to move 
the ejection impactor 225 mm rearward into the ejection propulsion 
mechanism at a rate of 50 (13) mm per second, starting at a 
point 300 mm outboard of the theoretical point of impact with the 
countermeasure, must not exceed 570 N and have a standard deviation of 
no more than 30 N. The measurement is made with the 27 kg mass 
specified in S7.1.2 of this Standard No. 226 attached to the headform, 
excludes the force measured over the first 25 mm of travel and is 
recorded at a frequency of 100 Hz. The force is applied to the ejection 
headform with the skin removed.
    S7.3 Targeting accuracy. Determine the distance ``D'' along the 
axis of travel of the ejection impactor from its launch point to the 
theoretical point of impact with the countermeasure, when moving at the 
speed specified in S5.5. Determine that the ejection mitigation test 
device can deliver the ejection impactor targeting point to within 
10 mm of an axis normal to and passing through the target 
outline center, as the unobstructed impactor passes through a zone 
defined by vertical longitudinal planes 50 mm forward and rearward of 
``D.''
    S8. Phase-in Schedule for Vehicle Certification.
    S8.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014 and before 
September 1, 2016. At anytime during the production years ending August 
31, 2015, August 31, 2016, August 31, 2016, and August 31, 2017, each 
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, 
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as 
complying with this standard. The manufacturer's designation of a 
vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
    S8.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014 and before 
September 1, 2015. Subject to S8.8, for vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 2014 and before September 1, 2015, the number of 
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be not less than 20 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S8.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2015 and before 
September 1, 2016. Subject to S8.8, for vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 2015 and before September 1, 2016, the number of 
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be not less than 40 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S8.4 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2016 and before 
September 1, 2017. Subject to S8.8, for vehicles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 2016 and before September 1, 2017, the number of 
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be not less than 75 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles 
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S8.5 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. For the 
purpose of calculating average annual production of vehicles for each 
manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured by each

[[Page 63230]]

manufacturer under S8.1 through S8.4, a vehicle produced by more than 
one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as 
follows, subject to S8.6.
    (a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
    (b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one 
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be 
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
    S8.6 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S8.5.
    S8.7 For the purposes of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer under S8, do not count any vehicle that is 
excluded by this standard from the requirements.
    S8.8 Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of calculating the vehicles complying with 
S8.2, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or 
after [date that is 30 days after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register] but before September 1, 2015.
    (b) For purposes of complying with S8.3, a manufacturer may count a 
vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after [date that is 30 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register but before 
September 1, 2016 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S8.2.
    (c) For purposes of complying with S8.4, a manufacturer may count a 
vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after [date that is 30 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] but before 
September 1, 2017 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S8.2 or S8.3.
    (d) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer, each vehicle that is excluded from having to meet 
the applicable requirement is not counted.
    Figures to Sec.  571.226.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.015


[[Page 63231]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.018


[[Page 63232]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.020

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    4. The authority citation for part 585 would continue to read as 
follows:

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

    5. Part 585 would be amended by adding Subpart K to read as 
follows:
* * * * *

Subpart K--Ejection Mitigation Phase-in Reporting Requirements

Sec.
585.100 Scope.
585.101 Purpose.
585.102 Applicability.
585.103 Definitions.
585.104 Response to inquiries.
585.105 Reporting requirements.
585.106 Records.


Sec.  585.100  Scope.

    This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger 
cars, and of trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 
pounds (lb)) or less, to submit a report, and maintain records related 
to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet the 
ejection mitigation requirements of Standard No. 226, Ejection 
mitigation (49 CFR 571.226).


Sec.  585.101  Purpose.

    The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a 
manufacturer has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 226, 
Ejection mitigation (49 CFR 571.226).


Sec.  585.102  Applicability.

    This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of 
trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 
kg (10,000 lb) or less. However, this part does not apply to vehicles 
excluded by Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226) from the requirements of 
that standard.

[[Page 63233]]

Sec.  585.103  Definitions.

    (a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their 
statutory meaning.
    (b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in 
Sec.  571.3 of this chapter.
    (c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1 
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
    (d) Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three 
or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the 
United States during a production year.


Sec.  585.104  Response to inquiries.

    At anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2015, 
August 31, 2016, and August 31, 2017, each manufacturer shall, upon 
request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide 
information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle 
identification number) that have been certified as complying with the 
ejection mitigation requirements of Standard No. 226, Ejection 
mitigation (49 CFR 571.226). The manufacturer's designation of a 
vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.


Sec.  585.105  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 
days after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2011, 
August 31, 2012, August 31, 2013, and August 31, 2014, each 
manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during any of 
those production years as complying with the ejection mitigation 
requirements of Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226) shall submit a report 
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration providing the 
information specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in Sec.  
585.2 of this part.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end 
of each of the production years ending August 31, 2015, August 31, 
2016, and August 31, 2017, each manufacturer shall submit a report to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its 
compliance with the ejection mitigation requirements of Standard No. 
226 (49 CFR 571.226) for its vehicles produced in that year. Each 
report shall provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section and in section 585.2 of this part.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content--(1) Production of 
complying vehicles. With respect to the reports identified in Sec.  
585.105(a), each manufacturer shall report for the production year for 
which the report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model 
year, that are certified as meeting the ejection mitigation 
requirements of Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226).
    (d) Phase-in report content--
    (1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each manufacturer shall 
provide the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production 
year, or, at the manufacturer's option, in each of the three previous 
production years. A new manufacturer that is, for the first time, 
manufacturing passenger cars for sale in the United States must report 
the number of passenger cars manufactured during the current production 
year.
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall 
report for the production year being reported on, and each preceding 
production year, to the extent that vehicles produced during the 
preceding years are treated under Standard No. 226 as having been 
produced during the production year being reported on, information on 
the number of passenger vehicles that meet the ejection mitigation 
requirements of Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226).


Sec.  585.106  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is 
reported under Sec.  585.105 until December 31, 2020.

    Issued on November 19, 2009.
 Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-28177 Filed 12-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
