Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ejection Mitigation; Phase-In Reporting Requirements, 63180-63233 [E9-28177]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 2, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63180-63233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28177]



[[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

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 2, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[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 https://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 https://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 https://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) https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/. 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\ https://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?'' (https://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/105563/article.html).
    \36\ https://www.autodeadline.com/detail?source=Honda&mid=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?'' (https://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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------