Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ejection Mitigation; Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Incorporation by Reference, 3212-3305 [2011-547]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3212
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0004]
RIN 2127–AK23
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, Ejection Mitigation; PhaseIn Reporting Requirements;
Incorporation by Reference
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule establishes a
new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 226, ‘‘Ejection Mitigation,’’
to reduce the partial and complete
ejection of vehicle occupants through
side windows in crashes, particularly
rollover crashes. The standard applies to
the side windows next to the first three
rows of seats, and to a portion of the
cargo area behind the first or second
rows, 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 adopting a test in which an
impactor is propelled from inside a test
vehicle toward the windows. The
ejection mitigation safety system is
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
will be impacted at up to four locations
around its perimeter at two time
intervals following deployment.
The agency anticipates that
manufacturers will meet the standard by
modifying existing side impact air bag
curtains, and possibly supplementing
them with advanced glazing. The
curtains will 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,
after deployment the curtains will be
tethered near the base of the vehicle’s
pillars or otherwise designed to keep the
impactor within the boundaries
established by the performance test.
This final rule adopts a phase-in of the
new requirements, starting September 1,
2013.
This final rule advances NHTSA’s
initiatives in rollover safety and also
responds to Section 10301 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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: Effective date: The date on
which this final rule amends the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) is March 1,
2011. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the
standard is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of March 1, 2011.
Petitions for reconsideration: If you
wish to petition for reconsideration of
this rule, your petition must be received
by March 7, 2011.
Compliance dates: This final rule
adopts a phase-in of the new
requirements. The phase-in begins on
September 1, 2013. By September 1,
2017, all vehicles must meet the
standard, with the exception of altered
vehicles and vehicles produced in more
than one stage, which are provided
more time to meet the requirements.
Manufacturers can earn credits toward
meeting the applicable phase-in
percentages by producing compliant
vehicles ahead of schedule, beginning
March 1, 2011 and ending at the
conclusion of the phase-in.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, you should
refer in your petition to the docket
number of this document and submit
your petition to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
The petition will be placed in the
docket. Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all documents
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).
For access to the docket to read
background documents or comments
received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the
docket. You may also visit DOT’s
Docket Management Facility, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001 for on-line
access to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may contact Mr.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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. Safety Need
III. Congressional Mandate
IV. Summary of the NPRM
V. Summary of the Comments
VI. How the Final Rule Differs From the
NPRM
VII. Foundations for This Rulemaking
a. Advanced Glazing
b. Full Window Opening Coverage Is Key
c. Comparable Performance in Simulated
Rollovers and Component-Level Impact
Tests
d. Advantages of a Component Test Over
a Full Vehicle Dynamic Test
VIII. Availability of Existing Curtains
IX. Existing Curtains
a. Existing Curtains Tested to Proposed
Requirements
b. Field Performance
X. Response to Comments and Agency
Decisions
a. Impactor Dimensions and Mass
1. NPRM
2. Comments
3. Agency Response
b. Measurement Plane and Displacement
Limit (100 mm)
1. NPRM
2. Comments
3. Agency Response
c. Times and Speed at Which the Headform
Impacts the Countermeasure
1. NPRM on Time Delay (Ejections Can
Occur Both Early and Late in the
Rollover Event)
i. Comments on Time Delay
ii. Agency Response
2. Speed at Which the Headform Impacts
the Countermeasure
i. Comments on Impact Speed
ii. Agency Response
d. Target Locations
1. Why We Are Focusing on Side Windows
and Not Other Openings
2. Why We Are Focusing on the Side
Windows Adjacent to First Three Rows
i. First Three Rows
ii. Method of Determining 600 mm Behind
Seating Reference Point (SgRP)
iii. Increasing 600 mm Limit for Vehicles
With One or Two Rows of Seats
3. Answers to Questions About Method for
Determining Three-Row Area
e. How We Are Testing the Ability of These
Side Windows To Mitigate Ejections
1. What is a ‘‘window opening’’?
i. 50 mm Inboard of the Glazing
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
ii. Conducting the Test With Various Items
Around the Window Opening
iii. Removing Flexible Gasket Material
iv. Testing With Weather Stripping in
Place
v. Metal Dividers in Glazing
2. How We Determine Impactor Target
Locations in an Objective and Repeatable
Manner
i. Testing in ’’Any’’ Location
ii. Methodology
iii. Reorienting the Targets
iv. Suppose Even With Rotating the
Headform the Vehicle Has No Target
Locations
v. Decision Not To Test Target of Greatest
Displacement
vi. Reconstitution of Targets
f. Glazing Issues
1. Positioning the Glazing
2. Window Pre-Breaking Specification and
Method
g. Test Procedure Tolerances
h. Impactor Test Device Characteristics
i. Readiness Indicator
j. Other Issues
1. Rollover Sensors
2. Quasi-Static Loading
3. Full Vehicle Test
4. Minor Clarifications to the Proposed
Regulatory Text
k. Practicability
l. Applicability
1. Convertibles
2. Original Roof Modified
3. Multi-Stage Manufacture of Work Trucks
4. Other
m. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedules;
Reporting Requirements
XI. Costs and Benefits
XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
I. Executive Summary
This final rule establishes a new
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 226, ‘‘Ejection Mitigation,’’
to reduce the partial and complete
ejection of vehicle occupants through
side windows in crashes, particularly
rollover crashes. Countermeasures
installed to meet this rule will also
reduce the number of complete and
partial ejections of occupants in side
impacts. This final rule responds to
section 10301 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users,’’ (SAFETEA–
LU), Public Law 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005;
119 Stat. 1144), which requires the
Secretary of Transportation to issue an
ejection mitigation final rule reducing
complete and partial ejections of
occupants from outboard seating
positions.
Addressing vehicle rollovers is one of
NHTSA’s highest safety priorities. In
2002, NHTSA conducted an in-depth
review of rollovers and associated
deaths and injuries and assessed how
this agency and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) could most
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 wideranging 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
research on whether seat belts could be
made more effective in rollovers.
A major undertaking implementing
the first two initiatives was completed
in 2007 when NHTSA adopted a new
FMVSS No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126),
‘‘Electronic Stability Control Systems,’’
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 NHTSA–2007–27662).
ESC systems use automatic computercontrolled 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 4,536 kg GVWR
have ESC systems, the number of deaths
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).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3213
each year resulting from rollover crashes
would be reduced by 4,200 to 5,500.
From 2001 to 2007, there were more
than 10,000 deaths in light vehicle
rollover crashes. Rollover deaths have
decreased slightly in 2008 (9,043) and
2009 (8,267), as have fatalities in all
crash types.
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.
Concurrent with the agency’s work on
ESC, NHTSA began work on the third
initiative on rollover safety, pursuing
the feasibility of installing
crashworthiness safety systems to
mitigate occupant ejections through side
windows in rollovers (‘‘ejection
mitigation’’). Major strides 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) (‘‘Phase 1
FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking’’).4 The pole
test, applying to motor vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kg 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 are installing new
technologies capable of improving head
and thorax protection in side crashes,
i.e., side curtain air bags and torso air
bags.
Today’s final rule launches a new
phase in occupant protection and
ejection mitigation. It builds on and
3 NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis (FRIA) for this final rule that
discusses issues relating to the target population
and the potential costs, benefits and other impacts
of this regulatory action. The FRIA is available in
the docket for this final rule and may be obtained
by downloading it or by contacting the Docket
Management facility at the address provided at the
beginning of this document.
4 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, 75 FR 12123, March 15,
2010, Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0032. 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
section 10302(a). NHTSA estimates that the
September 11, 2007 final rule will save 311 lives
annually.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3214
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
improves existing technology while
achieving cost efficiency and does so
expeditiously. This final rule enhances
the side curtain air bag systems installed
pursuant to the FMVSS No. 214 side
impact rulemaking. Side curtain air
bags 5 will be made larger to cover more
of the window opening, 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. The side
curtain air bags required by this rule
will be designed to retain the occupant
regardless of whether the occupant had
his or her window glazing up, down, or
partially open, and even when the
glazing is destroyed during the rollover
crash.
The NPRM upon which this final rule
is based was published on December 2,
2009 (74 FR 63180, Docket No. NHTSA–
2009–0183). Materials underlying the
development of this rule have been
placed in that docket and in a research
and development docket created in 2006
(Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26467).
Rollover crashes can be complex and
unpredictable. At this time there is no
conventional rollover scenario or test
representative of real-world rollover
crashes that can be used in a dynamic
test to the agency’s satisfaction to
evaluate the performance of ejection
mitigation countermeasures. Yet, this
final rule achieves ejection mitigation
benefits notwithstanding the absence of
a dynamic procedure. Agency research
has found that full coverage of the side
windows is a key element to mitigating
ejection. This standard adopts a
component test that assures there is full
coverage of the side window to
diminish the potential risk of the
windows as ejection portals and that
assesses ejection mitigation safety
systems for as long in the crash event as
the risk of ejection reasonably exists.
The test uses a guided impactor 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
occupant to vehicle interactions in a
dynamic rollover event. The impact
mass is based on the mass imposed by
a 50th percentile male’s head and upper
torso on the window opening during an
occupant ejection. The mass of the
impactor, 18 kilograms (kg) (40 lb), is
propelled at points around the
window’s perimeter with sufficient
kinetic energy to assure that the ejection
mitigation countermeasure is able to
protect a far-reaching range of occupants
in real world crashes.
In the test, the countermeasure must
retain the linear travel of the impactor
such that the impactor must not travel
100 millimeters (mm) beyond the
location of the inside surface of the
vehicle glazing. This displacement limit
serves to control the size of any gaps
forming between the countermeasure
(e.g., the ejection mitigation side curtain
air bag) 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 will typically target
four specific locations per side window
adjacent to the first three rows of the
vehicle. Impacting four targets around
the perimeter of the opening assures
that the window will be covered by the
countermeasure (curtain), while
imposing a reasonable test burden.
Small windows will be tested with
fewer targets.
Computer modeling has shown that
ejections can occur early and late in the
rollover event. In the standard’s test
procedure, the ejection mitigation side
countermeasure will be tested at two
impact speeds and at two different
points in time, to ensure that the
protective system will retain the
occupant from the relatively early
through the late stages of a rollover.
The times at which the impacts will
occur are data-driven and related to our
goal of containment of occupants both
early and late in rollovers. Crash data
show that slightly less than half of all
fatal complete ejections occurred in
crashes with 5 or fewer quarter-turns.
Film analysis of vehicles that rolled 5 or
fewer quarter-turns in staged rollover
tests indicates that it took about 1.5
seconds for the vehicles to roll once
completely. A vehicle rolling 11 quarterturns had a maximum roll time of 5.5
seconds. Data from the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
Crashworthiness Data System (CDS)
show that rollovers with eleven or fewer
quarter-turns account for about 98
percent of rollovers with fatal complete
ejection.6 The standard replicates these
crash dynamics with the two impacts of
the headform. The first impact will be
at 20 kilometers per hour (km/h) (12.4
5 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. The same side curtain air bag meeting
FMVSS No. 226 can be used to meet the ejection
mitigation requirements of FMVSS No. 214 with the
addition of a rollover sensing system to deploy the
side curtain air bag in a rollover.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
miles per hour (mph)), 1.5 seconds after
deployment of the curtain. The second
impact will be at 16 km/h (9.9 mph), 6
seconds after deployment of the curtain.
The 20 km/h and 16 km/h tests replicate
the forces that an occupant can impart
to the curtain during the rollover event
as well as during side impacts.
Under today’s final rule, vehicle
manufacturers must provide
information to NHTSA upon request
that describes the conditions under
which ejection mitigation air bags will
deploy. There is no presently
demonstrated need for us to specify in
the standard the conditions dictating
when the sensors should deploy; field
data indicate that rollover sensors are
overwhelmingly deploying effectively in
the real world. We will keep monitoring
field data to determine whether future
regulatory action is needed in this area.
This chapter in occupant protection
will achieve tremendous benefits at
reasonable costs. We estimate that this
rule will save 373 lives and prevent 476
serious injuries per year (see Table 1
below). The cost of this final rule is
approximately $31 per vehicle (see
Table 2). The cost per equivalent life
saved is estimated to be $1.4 million (3
percent discount rate)–$1.7 million (7
percent discount rate) (see Table 3
below). Annualized costs and benefits
are provided in Table 4.
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BENEFITS
Fatalities ...............................
Serious Injuries .....................
373
476
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED COSTS*
[2009 economics]
Per Vehicle ...........................
Total Fleet (16.5 million vehicles).
$31.
$507 Million
* The system costs are based on vehicles
that are equipped with an FMVSS No. 214
curtain system. According to vehicle manufacturers’ projections made in 2006, 98.7 percent
of Model Year (MY) 2011 vehicles will be
equipped with curtain bags and 55 percent of
vehicles with curtain bags will be equipped
with a rollover sensor.
TABLE 3—COST PER EQUIVALENT LIFE
SAVED
3% Discount rate
7% Discount rate
$1.4M
$1.7M
6 This is based on 2000–2009 NASS data. The
1988—2005 NASS data reported in the NPRM
showed that 93 percent of rollovers with fatal
complete ejections had 11 or fewer quarter-turns.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3215
TABLE 4—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS
[In millions of $2009 dollars]
Annual costs
3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................
7% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................
Accompanying today’s final rule is a
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)
analyzing the costs, benefits, and other
impacts of this final rule, and a
technical report the agency has prepared
that presents a detailed analysis of
engineering studies, and other
information supporting the final rule.
Both documents have been placed in the
docket for this final rule. The
documents can be obtained by
contacting the docket by the means
specified at the beginning of this
document or by downloading them at
www.regulations.gov.
II. Safety Need
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. Data from the last 10
years of Fatal Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) files (2000–20097)
indicate that frontal crash fatalities have
averaged about 11,600 per year, while
rollover fatalities have averaged 10,037
per year. In 2009, 35 percent of all
fatalities were in light vehicle rollover
crashes. 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.8
Ejection is a major cause of death and
injury in rollover crashes. According to
2000–2009 FARS data, on average 47
percent of the occupants killed in
rollovers were completely ejected from
their vehicle. During this time period,
there were 358 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.9 A double-pair comparison from
the last ten years of FARS data show
that avoiding complete ejection is
associated with a 64 percent decrease in
the risk of death.10
The majority of rollover crashes
involve the vehicle rolling over two
quarter-turns or less. However, the
distribution of ejected occupants who
are seriously injured (maximum
abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) 3+) or
killed is skewed towards rollovers with
a higher number of quarter-turns.
According to NASS Crashworthiness
Data System (CDS) data of occupants
exposed to a rollover crash from 2000 to
2009, half of all fatal complete ejections
occurred in crashes with six or more
quarter-turns.
Most occupants are ejected through
side windows. In developing the target
$507M
507M
Annualized
benefits
$2,279M
1,814M
Net benefits
$1,773
1,307
population estimates for this final rule
we found that annualized injury data
from 1997 to 2008 NASS CDS and
fatality counts adjusted to the annual
average from FARS for these same
years11 indicate that ejection through
side windows is the greatest contributor
to the ejection problem.12 There were
16,272 MAIS 1–2 injuries, 5,209 MAIS
3–5 injuries, and 6,412 fatalities
resulting from ejections through the side
windows adjacent to the first three
rows.
Table 5 below shows the MAIS 1–2,
MAIS 3–5, and fatality distribution of
ejected occupants by 11 potential
ejection routes.13 The ‘‘Not Glazing’’
category captures ejected occupants that
did not eject through a glazing area or
the roof (perhaps a door or an area of
vehicle structure that was torn away
during the crash). Roof ejections have
been separated into ‘‘Roof Panel or
Glazing’’ and ‘‘Roof Other.’’ The former
groups sunroofs, t-tops and targa-tops
into a single category, whether made of
glazing or having a sheet metal skin.
The latter combines convertibles,
modified roofs, camper tops and
removable roofs. No distinction could
be made as to whether these roof
structures were open or closed prior to
ejection.
TABLE 5—OCCUPANT INJURY AND FATALITY COUNTS BY EJECTION ROUTE IN ALL CRASH TYPES
[Annualized 1997–2008 NASS and FARS]
Ejection route
MAIS 1–2
MAIS 3–5
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Windshield .......................................................................................................................
First-Row Windows ..........................................................................................................
Second-Row Windows .....................................................................................................
1,517
14,293
1,700
7 These data are updated from the 1998 to 2007
FARS data reported in the NPRM.
8 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).
9 The data combines partially-ejected and unejected occupants together, because partial ejection
is sometimes difficult to determine and the PARgenerated FARS data may not be an accurate
representation of partially-ejected occupant
fatalities.
10 ‘‘Incremental Risk of Injury and Fatality
Associated with Complete Ejection,’’ NHTSA, 2010
(see the docket for this final rule).
11 The target population estimate for the NPRM
used 1997 to 2005 FARS data. The estimate for this
vehicle, or the vehicle was a convertible, two-door
sedan, or four-door sedan (i.e., these are vehicles
without a third row or cargo area). If an occupant
was coded as seated in the third or higher row and
was coded as ejected through a rear window or
‘‘other’’ glazing, we used the NASS Case Query
System to undertake a hard copy review. We
determined ejection routes in this manner for 41
unweighted rear window cases and 17 unweighted
‘‘other’’ glazing cases. A hard copy review of the
‘‘other’’ glazing 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.
13 All crash types are included, but the counts are
restricted to ejected occupants who were injured.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
final rule is based on an additional three years of
data.
12 In our data analysis for the NPRM to determine
ejection routes, we assumed that an ejection route
coding of ‘‘rear’’ in NASS CDS meant a second row
window and that ‘‘other’’ glazing meant third and
higher row side window ejections. The assumption
was based on the coding of seat position in NASS.
Since then, we have determined that an occupant
coded as ejected through a ‘‘rear’’ window did not
necessarily go through the second row window.
Similarly, the coding of ‘‘other’’ glazing was
determined not necessarily to mean third and
higher row. Thus, for this final rule, for cases coded
as ejected through ‘‘rear’’ or ‘‘other’’ glazing, we
assume that the ejection was through a second row
window in the following circumstances: the
occupant was seated in the first two rows of a
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
1,400
4,980
641
Fatal
1,078
5,589
796
3216
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5—OCCUPANT INJURY AND FATALITY COUNTS BY EJECTION ROUTE IN ALL CRASH TYPES—Continued
[Annualized 1997–2008 NASS and FARS]
Ejection route
MAIS 1–2
MAIS 3–5
Fatal
Third-Row Windows .........................................................................................................
Fourth-Row Windows ......................................................................................................
Fifth-Row Window ............................................................................................................
Cargo Area Rear of Row 2 ..............................................................................................
Backlight ..........................................................................................................................
Roof Panel or Glazing .....................................................................................................
Roof Other .......................................................................................................................
Multiple Windows .............................................................................................................
Not Glazing ......................................................................................................................
279
0
0
342
1,621
1,000
420
0
2,848
88
0
0
17
1,364
367
105
19
2,207
27
39
7
52
495
324
81
0
1,814
Subtotals:
Rows 1–3 ..........................................................................................................
4th, 5th Row and Cargo ....................................................................................
............................
16,272
342
............................
5,709
17
............................
6,412
98
Total ..........................................................................................................................
24,020
11,188
10,302
Table 6, below, provides the
percentage of the total at each injury
level. The injuries and fatalities
resulting from ejections through the first
three rows of windows constitute 68
percent of MAIS 1–2 injuries, 51 percent
of MAIS 3–5 injuries, and 62 percent of
all ejected fatalities.
TABLE 6—OCCUPANT INJURY AND FATALITY PERCENTAGES BY EJECTION ROUTE IN ALL CRASH TYPES
[Annualized 1997–2008 NASS and FARS]
Ejection route
MAIS 1–2
MAIS 3–5
Fatal
6.3%
59.5%
7.1%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
6.8%
4.2%
1.7%
0.0%
11.9%
12.5%
44.5%
5.7%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
12.2%
3.3%
0.9%
0.2%
19.7%
10.5%
54.2%
7.7%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
0.5%
4.8%
3.1%
0.8%
0.0%
17.6%
Subtotals:
Rows 1–3 ..........................................................................................................
4th, 5th Row and Cargo ....................................................................................
............................
67.7%
1.4%
............................
51.0%
0.2%
............................
62.2%
1.0%
Total ..........................................................................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Windshield .......................................................................................................................
First-Row Windows ..........................................................................................................
Second-Row Windows .....................................................................................................
Third-Row Windows .........................................................................................................
Fourth-Row Windows ......................................................................................................
Fifth-Row Window ............................................................................................................
Cargo Area Rear of Row 2 ..............................................................................................
Backlight ..........................................................................................................................
Roof Panel or Glazing .....................................................................................................
Roof Other .......................................................................................................................
Multiple Windows .............................................................................................................
Not Glazing ......................................................................................................................
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Since the countermeasure covering
side window openings will be made
more effective in preventing ejections,
this rulemaking will also reduce the
number of complete and partial
ejections of occupants in side impacts.
These benefits go beyond those
achieved in the rulemaking adopting an
oblique pole test into FMVSS No. 214
(Phase 1 FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking)
because a side air bag installed to meet
FMVSS No. 214 is not necessarily wide
or robust enough to effectively contain
occupants in certain side impacts. In
fact, NHTSA found that FMVSS No.
214’s requirements could be met by a
seat-mounted head/torso side air bag or
a side head protection curtain air bag
together with a seat-mounted or doormounted torso bag. Further, FMVSS No.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
214’s pole test does not apply to rear
seats. In short, FMVSS No. 214 does not
require the large curtain needed for full
coverage of side window openings.
Accordingly, this ejection mitigation
safety standard will reduce the number
of partial and complete ejections of
occupants in side impacts. The Phase 1
FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking included
reduction of partial ejections of adults
(age 13+ years) through side windows in
side impacts, but did not include
complete ejections. The Phase 1 side
impact rulemaking also did not include
any impact where a rollover was the
first event. In addition, benefits were
only assumed in the Phase 1 FMVSS
No. 214 rulemaking for side impact
crashes with a change in velocity (DV)
between 19.2 and 40.2 km/h (12 to 25
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mph) and impact directions from 2 to 3
o’clock and 9 to 10 o’clock. The side
curtain air bags used to meet FMVSS
No. 226’s ejection mitigation
requirements will directly prevent many
ejection-induced injuries and fatalities
in side impacts that could not be saved
by a side air bag that minimally
complies with FMVSS No. 214.
Target Population
In general, the target population for
this ejection mitigation final rule is
composed of occupants injured or killed
by ejection from the first three rows of
side windows in vehicles to which the
standard applies. Later in the preamble,
we discuss some slight adjustments
made concerning occupants ejected
through cargo area window openings.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The target population does not include
occupants ejected in all crash types, but
rather is restricted to ejections that
occur in crashes involving rollovers and
some types of planar only side impacts.
The limitation on side impacts, change
in velocity (DV), and certain occupants
in those side impacts is necessary to not
count benefits anticipated by FMVSS
No. 214.
Tables 7–9 provide the counts and/or
percentages of the injured and killed
side window (rows 1–3) ejected
occupants by the window row they were
3217
represents 88 percent of all side window
ejected fatalities. Similarly, 3,979 (89
percent) MAIS 3–5 and 10,017 (87
percent) MAIS 1–2 injured occupants
went through the row 1 windows.
Within each row, the greatest number of
fatal and MAIS 3–5 occupants were
completely ejected and unbelted. There
were 2,623 fatally injured (59 percent)
and 2,269 MAIS 3–5 injured (50
percent) occupants who were unbelted
and completely ejected through the row
1 windows.
ejected through. These data are
restricted to rollover crashes and side
impacts in the relevant DV range (target
population type crashes).
Tables 7 and 8 show the ejection
degree and restraint condition for
occupants in the first three rows of
target population type crashes. Among
the side windows, the first row
windows provide the ejection route for
most of the injured and killed
occupants. The greatest number of
fatally ejected occupants (3,837) went
through the first row window. This
TABLE 7—DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST 3 ROWS OF SIDE WINDOW EJECTED OCCUPANTS BY EJECTION ROW AND INJURY
LEVEL BY EJECTION DEGREE AND BELT USE, IN TARGET POPULATION TYPE CRASHES
[Annualized 1997–2008 NASS and FARS]
Row 1
Ejection degree
Belted
MAIS
1–2
Row 2
MAIS
3–5
Fatal
MAIS
1–2
Row 3
MAIS
3–5
MAIS
1–2
Fatal
MAIS
3–5
Fatal
Complete ..................
Complete ..................
Partial .......................
Partial .......................
Yes .........
No ..........
Yes .........
No ..........
95
3,501
4,345
2,076
29
2,269
1,097
584
54
2,623
484
675
139
782
43
103
78
309
32
80
5
421
38
123
0
95
109
4
8
54
0
0
0
23
0
0
Total ..................
...........
10,017
3,979
3,837
1,067
499
587
207
62
23
TABLE 8—DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST 3 ROWS OF SIDE WINDOW EJECTED OCCUPANTS BY EJECTION ROW AND INJURY
LEVEL BY EJECTION DEGREE AND BELT USE, AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTALS AT EACH INJURY LEVEL, IN TARGET POPULATION TYPE CRASHES
Row 1
Ejection degree
Belted
MAIS
1–2
Row 2
MAIS
3–5
Fatal
MAIS
1–2
Row 3
MAIS
3–5
MAIS
1–2
Fatal
MAIS
3–5
Fatal
Complete ..................
Complete ..................
Partial .......................
Partial .......................
Yes .........
No ..........
Yes .........
No ..........
1%
31%
38%
18%
1%
50%
24%
13%
1%
59%
11%
15%
1%
7%
0%
1%
2%
7%
1%
2%
0%
9%
1%
3%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Total ..................
...........
87%
89%
88%
86%
9%
11%
13%
2%
1%
Table 9 shows the ejection degree and
vehicle type for occupants in the first
three rows of target population type
crashes. The greatest numbers of
fatalities result from occupants
completely ejected from passenger cars.
These account for 28 percent of the total
fatalities.
Combining partial and complete
ejections, cars account for 43 percent of
fatalities and 42 percent of MAIS 3 to 5
injuries. Pickup trucks and sport utility
vehicles (SUVs) combined account for
50 percent of fatalities and 54 percent of
MAIS 3 to 5 injuries. Since the early
1990s, the SUV segment has provided
an increasing proportion of rollover
fatalities. SUVs represented
approximately 16 percent of fatalities in
1997, and nearly 27 percent in 2008.
Vans comprise 7 percent of the fatalities
and 4 percent of the MAIS 3–5 ejections.
TABLE 9—DISTRIBUTION OF FATALITIES AND INJURIES OF FIRST 3 ROWS SIDE WINDOW EJECTED OCCUPANTS BY
VEHICLE TYPE
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
[Annualized 1997—2008 NASS and FARS]
Vehicle
Complete Ejections .................................
MAIS 1–2
MAIS 3–5
Fatal
MAIS 1–2
MAIS 3–5
Fatal
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
1,158
1,236
1,881
324
12
928
812
858
147
2
1,239
793
907
188
0
10%
11%
17%
3%
0%
20%
18%
19%
3%
0%
28%
18%
20%
4%
0%
Subtotal ......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Car .............
PU ..............
SUV ............
Van .............
Other ..........
4,612
2,747
3,127
41%
61%
70%
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3218
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 9—DISTRIBUTION OF FATALITIES AND INJURIES OF FIRST 3 ROWS SIDE WINDOW EJECTED OCCUPANTS BY
VEHICLE TYPE—Continued
[Annualized 1997—2008 NASS and FARS]
Vehicle
Partial Ejections .......................................
MAIS 1–2
MAIS 3–5
Fatal
MAIS 1–2
MAIS 3–5
Fatal
1,429
2,515
1,590
1,133
13
971
375
402
44
0
660
190
350
103
17
13%
22%
14%
10%
0%
21%
8%
9%
1%
0%
15%
4%
8%
2%
0%
Subtotal ......
6,680
1,793
1,320
59%
39%
30%
Car .............
PU ..............
SUV ............
Van .............
Other ..........
2,588
3,750
3,471
1,457
25
1,899
1,187
1,260
192
2
1,899
983
1,257
291
17
23%
33%
31%
13%
0%
42%
26%
28%
4%
0%
43%
22%
28%
7%
0%
Total ...........
Total Ejections .........................................
Car .............
PU ..............
SUV ............
Van .............
Other ..........
11,292
4,540
4,447
100%
100%
100%
In summary, for the most part, the
target population for this ejection
mitigation final rule is composed of
occupants injured or killed in an
ejection from the first three rows of side
windows in vehicles to which the
standard applies. The target population
does not include the population
addressed by the Phase 1 FMVSS No.
214 rulemaking, and does not include
persons benefited by the installation of
ESC systems in vehicles. (We assume
that all model year 2011 vehicles and
thereafter will be equipped with ESC,
see FMVSS No. 126.) As adjusted for
ESC, the target population for this
ejection mitigation rulemaking is
reduced to 1,392 fatalities, 1,410 MAIS
3–5 injuries and 4,217 MAIS 1–2
injuries. This target population
constitutes 23 percent of fatally-injured
occupants ejected through a side
window, 27 percent of MAIS 3–5
injured, and 23 percent of MAIS 1–2
injured side window-ejected
occupants.14
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
III. Congressional Mandate
This final rule responds to section
10301 of SAFETEA–LU, which requires
the Secretary of Transportation to issue
an ejection mitigation final rule
reducing complete and partial ejections
of occupants from outboard seating
positions. Section 10301 amended
Subchapter II of chapter 301 (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act) (‘‘Vehicle Safety
Act’’) to add section 30128. Section
10301, paragraph (a), directs the
Secretary to initiate rulemaking
proceedings, for the purpose of
14 When discussing the target population in this
preamble, we will typically mean the pre-ESC
adjusted values. We will specifically state when we
are referring to an ESC-adjusted target population.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
establishing rules or standards that will
reduce vehicle rollover crashes and
mitigate deaths and injuries associated
with such crashes for motor vehicles
with a GVWR 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 and
that, in formulating the standards, the
Secretary shall consider various ejection
mitigation systems.15
NHTSA’s final rule fulfills the
statutory mandate of section 10301 of
SAFETEA–LU to issue an ejection
mitigation final rule reducing complete
and partial ejections of occupants from
outboard seating positions. We have
considered various ejection mitigation
systems, including advanced glazing,16
and have made appropriate decisions
based on that analysis. At the time of its
implementation this final rule will
reduce fatality ejected occupants by
about one third 17 and completes a
15 Paragraph (c) states that the Secretary shall
issue a final rule under this paragraph by 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 notified Congress that the final rule will
be delayed until January 31, 2011.
16 One type of advanced glazing systems, usually
referred to as laminated glazing, has a multi-layer
construction typically with three primary layers.
There is usually a plastic laminate bonded between
two pieces of glass. Advanced glazing was
considered in the 1990s to have potential for use
in ejection mitigation.
17 This fatality reduction does not double-count
benefits from ESC and the recent FMVSS No. 214
upgrade.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
decisive stage in the agency’s rollover
crashworthiness program.
A few glazing manufacturers, a
glazing manufacturers’ association, and
two consumer groups expressed a view
in their comments to the NPRM that the
rulemaking will fall short of the
statutory mandate unless the final rule
ensured that windows will not allow
any openings larger than two inches to
form during a rollover event (as a
consequence, such a requirement would
encourage the use of advanced glazing).
These commenters also believed that
SAFETEA–LU directed NHTSA to
address ejections through sun roofs,
moon roofs,18 and rear windows in this
standard. We address these comments
in detail in later sections of this
preamble.
With regard to the general assertion
that this rulemaking does not meet
SAFETEA–LU, we cannot agree. As part
and parcel of good governance, all safety
standards must be reasonable and
appropriate. In addition, in adding
section 30128 to the Vehicle Safety Act,
SAFETEA–LU specifically requires us to
issue an ejection mitigation final rule in
accordance with the criteria of that Act.
The Vehicle Safety Act requires each
motor vehicle safety standard to be
practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
terms. (49 U.S.C. 30111(a).) We must
also consider whether the standard is
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate
for the particular type of motor vehicle
or motor vehicle equipment for which it
is prescribed. (49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3).)
This final rule requires protective
barriers at side windows, the ejection
18 For this document, we refer to movable and
fixed roof panels made of glazing as ‘‘moon roofs’’
and movable panels having a sheet metal exterior
as ‘‘sun roofs.’’ We refer to both as roof portals.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
portals through which 62 percent of
occupants are fatally ejected in all crash
types. We did not adopt the suggestions
in the comments of the glazing
manufacturers that could have bolstered
increased use of advanced glazing in
side windows because we did not find
a safety need supporting the
approaches. For back windows
(backlight) and roof portals, we found
that not enough was known to
appropriately evaluate the costs,
benefits and practicability of the
requirements, at this time, including the
lack of a viable test procedure. (Fatal
ejections through the back light and roof
portals account for 4.8 and 3.9 percent
of fatal ejections in all crash types.) An
appropriate test procedure that would
assess ejection potential through portals
on the vehicle’s roof is also unknown.
In formulating this final rule, NHTSA
considered various ejection mitigation
systems in accordance with section
10301 of SAFETEA–LU. We sought to
adopt performance measures that were
design-neutral and performanceoriented so as to provide substantial
flexibility to vehicle manufacturers in
developing or enhancing ejection
mitigation countermeasures that meet
the requirements of the standard. To
illustrate, the headform test procedure
was originally developed in the
advanced glazing research program and
can be used to assess the performance
of many different types of
countermeasures at the side windows.
The final rule recognizes the beneficial
effect advanced glazing can have and
permits the use of fixed glazing to
achieve the performance criteria
specified in the standard. At the same
time, however, NHTSA determined after
considering real-world field data on
advanced glazing that movable
advanced glazing alone would not be a
satisfactory ejection mitigation
countermeasure for side window
openings, given that 31 percent of front
seat ejections are through windows that
were partially or fully rolled down, and
given that it is not unusual for advanced
glazing to be heavily damaged and
rendered ineffective in a rollover crash.
Accordingly, the standard does not
permit use of movable glazing alone to
meet the requirements of the standard.
Movable glazing may be used in the
high speed test, but it must be used in
conjunction with a deployable safety
system that will mitigate ejection
throughout the stages of a rollover
event, such as an ejection mitigation
side curtain air bag.
In directing us to consider various
ejection mitigation systems, there is
indication that Congress envisioned us
focusing on ejections through side
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
windows. At the time of enactment of
SAFETEA–LU, Congress was aware of
the agency’s past work on advanced side
glazing and of our ejection mitigation
research program. Congress was aware
that side curtain air bags were showing
strong potential as an ejection
mitigation countermeasure and that we
had redirected research and rulemaking
efforts from advanced side glazing to
developing performance-based test
procedures for an ejection mitigation
standard.19
In addition, in the legislative history
on section 10301, section 7251 of the
Senate bill which the Conference
committee adopted (Conference Report
of the Committee of Conference on H.R.
3, Report 109–203, 109th Congress, 1st
Session) directed the Secretary to
include consideration of ‘‘advanced side
glazing, side air curtains, and side
impact air bags’’ (emphases added) in
establishing the standard. We believe
that Congress wanted us to take into
account the knowledge gained from our
past work on side ejections in
formulating this standard, which we
have, building on our knowledge gained
from the advanced side glazing and
rollover crashworthiness programs.
It would take a longer time than the
timeframe allowed by SAFETEA–LU to
address fatal ejections through the back
light and roof portals. In contrast to the
side window research program, which
started in the early 1990s, the agency
had no research and development
foundation upon which requirements
for the back light and roof portal could
be based. Much is unknown regarding a
test procedure, effectiveness of current
designs, method of anchoring advanced
glazing to the backlight frame and roof
portal, and possible other
countermeasures and their costs. The
agency believed that Congress intended
us to build on the knowledge already
attained and issue this final rule
addressing side window ejections,
which account for 62 percent of all fatal
occupant ejections in all crashes, as
quickly as possible, rather than delay
this final rule to venture into areas that
account for 8.7 percent of those fatal
ejections.
In sum, we developed this final rule
to meet the criteria of section 10301 of
SAFETEA–LU and the Vehicle Safety
Act, making sure that it is a performance
standard that reduces complete and
partial ejections from outboard seating
positions and that it is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate, that it
19 ‘‘Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing,
Final Report,’’ NHTSA, August 2001, Docket 1782–
22. See also, NHTSA’s termination of an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking on advanced glazing
(67 FR 41365, June 18, 2002), infra.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3219
meets the need for safety and is stated
in objective terms. Further, ensuring
that the final rule is consistent with
Executive Order 12866, we have
adopted requirements that not only
maximize the benefits of a cost-effective
approach to ejection mitigation, but do
so with an approach that saves over 370
lives. This final rule wholly implements
the instructions of our statutory and
administrative directives.
IV. Summary of the NPRM
NHTSA issued a proposal for a new
FMVSS No. 226 and proposed the
standard apply to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or
less. We proposed that the side
windows next to the first three rows of
seats be subject to performance
requirements requiring the vehicle to
have an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that would prevent an
18 kg (40 lb) headform from moving
more than 100 mm (4 inches) beyond
the zero displacement plane of each
window when the window is impacted.
Each side window would be impacted at
up to four locations around its perimeter
at two energy levels and time intervals
following deployment. The first impact
was proposed to be at 24 km/h, 1.5
seconds after deployment of the ejection
mitigation side curtain air bag, assuming
there was one present (‘‘24 km/h-1.5
second test’’), and the second impact
was proposed to be at 16 km/h, at 6
seconds after deployment (‘‘16 km/h-6
second test’’). The NPRM proposed to
allow windows of advanced glazing to
be in position during the test, but prebroken, using a prescribed method, to
reproduce the state of glazing in an
actual rollover crash.
The NPRM discussed proposals for:
(a) The impactor dimensions and mass;
(b) the displacement limit; (c) impactor
speed and time of impact; and (d) target
locations. We also discussed: (e) glazing
issues; (f) test procedure tolerances; (g)
test device characteristics; and other
issues, such as a requirement for a
readiness indicator.
The NPRM did not specifically
require a rollover sensor to deploy the
curtains or attributes that the sensor
must meet; manufacturers currently
provide sensors with their ejection
mitigation curtains and NHTSA
believed they will continue to provide
a sensor enabling deployment regardless
of an express requirement to do so. With
regard to applicability, the agency
tentatively decided in the NPRM not to
exclude convertibles but requested
comments on this issue and on the
applicability of the standard to other
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3220
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
types of vehicles, e.g., police vehicles
with security partitions.
Except for limited line and multistage
manufacturers, the proposed lead time
was the first September 1 three years
from the date of publication of a final
rule. The requirements were proposed
to be phased in over a four-year period,
with 20 percent of each manufacturer’s
vehicles manufactured during the first
production year required to meet the
standard, 40 percent manufactured
during the second year required to meet
the standard, 75 percent of vehicles
manufactured during the third year
required to meet the standard, and all
vehicles (without use of advanced
credits) manufactured on or after the
fourth year required to meet the
standard. It was proposed that limited
line and multistage manufacturers
would not have to achieve full
compliance until one year after the
phase-in is completed.
Accompanying the NPRM was a
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
(PRIA) analyzing the potential impacts
of the proposed ejection mitigation
requirements, and a technical analysis
prepared by the agency that presented a
detailed analysis of engineering studies,
and other information supporting the
NPRM (‘‘Technical Analysis in Support
of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Ejection Mitigation’’). Both documents
were placed in the docket for the NPRM
(Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0183).
V. Summary of the Comments
NHTSA received 35 comments on the
NPRM. Comments were received from
motor vehicle manufacturers through
their associations and individually,
from air bag and glazing equipment
suppliers (also through their
associations and individually), and from
consumer and insurance groups, and
individuals.
The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance) 20 stated that it
was generally supportive of many
aspects of the NPRM, such as the use of
a linear headform impactor for
evaluating rollover deployed side
curtains and the decision not to specify
a protocol for testing rollover sensors.
However, the commenter disagreed with
the proposed performance requirements,
believing that they are overly stringent
and may unnecessarily force the
development of air bag systems that
could have adverse unintended
consequences. The commenter stated
that seat belt use is the most effective
20 The Alliance member companies are BMW
Group, Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Company,
General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda,
Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche,
Toyota, and Volkswagen (VW).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
countermeasure for ejection mitigation.
The Alliance stated its belief that there
should be only one test at 16 km/h and
at 3.4 seconds, with an excursion limit
of 150 mm measured from a plane
tangent to the exterior of the vehicle.
The Alliance also stated its belief that
the standard should not apply to
convertibles and to vehicles with
partitions, for practicability reasons.
Further, the commenter asked for an
additional year of lead time, and that
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
2,722 kg (6,000 lb) should have a
compliance date that is one year after
the 100 percent phase-in date for
completed vehicles with a GVWR of
2,722 kg or less. The Alliance also had
technical comments on specific aspects
of the test procedure.
The Alliance’s member companies
commenting on the NPRM reiterated the
views of the Alliance, with some
expounding on the following matters of
particular interest to them. General
Motors (GM) stated that the Alliance’s
suggested compliance date and phase-in
schedule could be met assuming that
NHTSA adopts the modifications of the
test procedure identified by the Alliance
and excludes convertibles and vehicles
with partitions. Ford commented that
side glazing retention in real-world
rollover crashes is random and
unpredictable and expressed the belief
that FMVSS No. 226 should be focused
on rollover-activated side curtain
technology because these devices are
designed to deploy regardless of side
glazing status in a rollover (e.g.,
retained, up, down or partially open) or
construction of the glazing. Mercedes
raised concerns about the difficulties
larger vans such as the Sprinter would
have in meeting the requirements and
asked for additional lead time for
vehicles over 8,500 lb GVWR. Porsche
discussed the long lifecycles for its
sports cars and asked that
manufacturers be allowed to use credits
earned for early compliance through the
end of the 100 percent phase-in year.
Various manufacturers expressed
technical views or had questions about
specific aspects of the test procedure.
The Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers Technical
Affairs Committee 21 (AIAM) stated that
it ‘‘supports the agency’s basic approach
in the proposed ejection mitigation
21 AIAM Technical Affairs Committee members
are American Honda Motor Company (Honda),
American Suzuki Motor Corp., Aston Martin
Lagonda of North America, Ferrari North America,
Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai), Isuzu Motor
America, Kia Motors America, Maserati North
America, Nissan North America, Peugeot Motors of
America, Subaru of America, ADVICS North
America, Delphi Corporation, Denso International
America, and Robert Bosch Corporation.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standard’’ but is ‘‘concerned that there
may be unintended consequences if test
criteria establish unnecessary high
levels of energy for the test impactor.’’
AIAM said that high test impact speeds
could require the use of stiffer side
curtain air bags or advanced glazing of
increased rigidity to meet the specified
displacement limit. ‘‘Such consequences
may increase the risk of head/neck
injuries.’’ AIAM urged the agency to
consider whether the impactor energy
specifications may be reduced to a level
equivalent to 180 Nm (corresponding to
a 16 km/h test). The commenter
believed that convertibles should be
excluded from the standard for
practicability reasons and also suggested
that certain classes of vehicle could be
excluded from the high speed
requirement due to vehicle
characteristics that can dissipate the
energy of occupants in rollovers, such as
vehicles having high ‘‘belt-lines’’ (e.g.,
sports cars that seat the occupants low
relative to the window openings). AIAM
asked for an additional year of lead time
prior to the start of the phase-in period
and asked that advanced credits be
allowed to meet the 100 percent stage of
the phase-in. AIAM also commented on
specific aspects of the test procedure
and supported GM’s suggested
procedure for measuring impactor
displacement from a plane tangent to
the vehicle’s exterior.
AIAM members commenting on the
NPRM generally reiterated AIAM’s
views, with some separately raising
issues of individual concern. Honda
stated its belief that with an energy level
of 200 joules (J), occupant ejection
mitigation can be balanced with
occupant protection without
unintended adverse consequences to
occupant protection. The commenter
suggested the test procedure consist of
one test at 17 km/h with a 3.0 second
time delay. Honda agreed with the
proposed 100 mm displacement limit,
but suggested that displacement along a
line normal to the actual window at the
center of each target impact point
should not exceed 100 mm. Nissan
suggested the agency adopt a 20 km/h
test instead of the proposed 24 km/h
test. In their individual comments,
various vehicle manufacturers asked for
clarification of or changes to particular
aspects of the proposed test procedure.
Organizations representing
specialized manufacturers commented
on the NPRM. Vehicle Services
Consulting, Inc. (VSC) 22 supported the
22 VSC states: ‘‘Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
assists numerous small volume vehicle
manufacturers with US certification-related
matters.’’
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
NPRM, but asked that convertibles be
excluded from the standard. VSC also
asked for clarification of regulatory text
applying to small volume
manufacturers. The National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA) 23
requested that NHTSA exclude from the
ejection mitigation standard work trucks
built in two or more stages, particularly
those with partitions, and vehicles with
alterations to the floor height.
Air bag supplier groups commented
in favor of the NPRM. Takata
Corporation, a manufacturer of air bags
and other motor vehicle equipment,
stated that it supports NHTSA’s goal to
establish a new FMVSS to reduce the
partial and complete ejection of
occupants in rollover crashes.24
However, Takata expressed concern
about the effectiveness of applying the
ejection mitigation standard to
convertibles at this time. TRW, a
manufacturer of vehicle safety systems,
and the Automotive Occupant
Restraints Council (AORC) 25 supported
the agency’s proposal in general, but
suggested that all windows should be
tested down or removed regardless of
whether the glazing is laminated since
motorists occasionally drive with their
windows open. TRW and AORC also
expressed concern about applying the
ejection mitigation requirements to
convertibles. Each of these commenters
had detailed feedback on and
suggestions for improving the proposed
test procedures.
Glazing manufacturers and suppliers
commenting on the NPRM generally
supported the objectives and overall
structure of the proposed standard, but
a number had the view that the agency
fell short of the congressional mandate
of section 10301 of SAFETEA–LU, in
that roof glazing and backlight areas
were not being regulated by the new
standard. Many of these groups also
desired a reduction in the performance
limit, some by 50 percent (i.e., a
displacement limit of 50 mm). Many of
the groups commented that all windows
should be tested in the up (closed)
position and several objected to the pretest breaking procedure for glazing as
being excessive and suggested changes
23 NTEA describes itself as a ‘‘trade association
representing distributors and manufacturers of
multi-stage produced, work related trucks, truck
bodies and equipment.’’
24 Takata also submitted information to NHTSA’s
ejection mitigation research docket (NHTSA–2006–
26467) indicating that meeting the proposed
performance requirements in non-convertibles
would be practicable.
25 AORC describes itself as a non-profit
organization whose mission is to promote
automotive safety through education and
technology. Its membership consists of safety
system manufacturers and their suppliers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
to it, such as eliminating the
specification to pre-break the interior
surface of the glazing. Many of these
glazing supplier groups requested a
shorter lead time and phase-in period.
Consumer groups Public Citizen (PC)
and Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) commented on the
NPRM. PC stated that the NPRM is
flawed because it does not address
occupant ejections through the roof and
because the cost-benefit analysis is
‘‘devised with the same misleading
approach to determining a target
population that NHTSA has used in
other rollover rulemakings.’’ PC
suggested NHTSA establish a
performance requirement that would
encourage the dual use of laminated
glazing and side curtain air bags, but
stated that NHTSA should not permit
laminated glazing in vehicles not
equipped with side curtain air bags. PC
suggested that the phase-in schedule
should begin and end one model year
earlier than proposed. The commenter
also was critical that ‘‘the agency has not
taken a comprehensive, whole vehicle
approach to reducing fatalities in
rollover crashes.’’
Advocates stated its belief that
NHTSA interpreted SAFETEA–LU too
narrowly by addressing occupant
ejection only through side windows and
not through side doors, tailgates,
windshields, backlights, or sun roofs.
Advocates suggested that roofs can be
strengthened and occupant ejection
reduced through the use of advanced
glazing and that NHTSA should
promote pre-crash automated window
closure to ensure that vehicles with
advanced glazing would be in the
windows-up position. Advocates
supported ‘‘mandatory anti-ejection
countermeasures to be applied at all
designated seating positions, not just for
outboard occupants in the first, second,
and third rows,’’ including all occupant
positions in the rear seats of 15passenger vans. Advocates believed that
the 100 mm proposed displacement
limit should be 50 mm and that areas
outside of the target zones should be
tested. The commenter was concerned
about the proposed time intervals for
the impactor tests 26 and desired
performance requirements for rollover
air curtain sensors. The commenter
believed that manufacturers would only
need a two-year lead time and a threeyear phase-in period to meet the
proposed requirements.
26 Advocates was concerned that ‘‘no sustained
inflation is tested between the 1.5 and 6 second
tests, when excursion could exceed the 4 inch
maximum required by the proposed standard.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3221
The Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) said it supported the
NPRM because the commenter believed
that the rulemaking is likely to result in
all passenger vehicles being equipped
with side curtain air bags that deploy in
rollover crashes. However, IIHS stated
that the proposed 100 mm excursion
limit may be overly restrictive. IIHS also
stated that the agency should provide an
incentive to manufacturers to equip
vehicles with laminated side glazing.
Several individuals responded in
general support of the NPRM and with
several suggestions. National Forensic
Engineers, Inc. supported the use of
laminated glazing in side windows to
supplement side curtain air bags.
Stephen Batzer and Mariusz Ziejewski,
and Byron Bloch, stated that the
standard should apply to vehicles above
4,536 kg, to daylight openings adjacent
to every designated seating position and
to the windshield, sunroof and
backlight, and supported the use of
laminated glazing. Batzer and Ziejewski
believed that a 10 mph impact would be
sufficient. Bloch urged the agency to
evaluate ejection mitigation through a
dynamic full vehicle rollover test.
VI. How the Final Rule Differs From the
NPRM
The more important changes from the
NPRM are listed in this section and
explained in detail later in this
preamble. Changes more minor in
significance (e.g., changes that clarify
test procedures) are not listed below but
are discussed in the appropriate
sections of this preamble.
i. The high speed impact test,
performed at 1.5 seconds after ejection
mitigation side curtain air bag
deployment, will have an impact
velocity of 20 km/h instead of 24 km/
h. After evaluating the comments to the
NPRM, the agency reanalyzed the test
data upon which the impact speed
proposed in the NPRM was based,
analyzed the new testing conducted
since the NPRM, and considered all
submitted information. Based on this
analysis, we agree to decrease the
impact test speed to 20 km/h, as
suggested by Nissan in its comment,
which results in 278 joules (J) of impact
energy. This energy value is well
supported and more representative of
the energy the ejection countermeasure
will typically be exposed to in the field,
particularly in rollovers. All target
locations in each window opening will
be subject to the high speed test,
performed at 1.5 seconds after ejection
mitigation side curtain air bag
deployment (‘‘20 km/h-1.5 second test’’),
and to the low speed 16 km/h test
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3222
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
performed 6 seconds after deployment
(‘‘16 km/h-6 second test’’).
ii. If necessary, the headform and
targets will be rotated by 90 degrees to
a horizontal orientation if this results in
more impact locations than the vertical
orientation (to a maximum of four target
locations). For long narrow windows,
popular in many late model vehicles,
very limited target coverage of the
opening is achieved if the target is kept
in the vertical orientation. It did not
make sense to exclude windows from
being subject to full ejection mitigation
protection simply because the headform
could not fit when oriented vertically.
iii. The standard does not permit the
use of movable advanced glazing as the
sole means of meeting the displacement
limit of the standard. In addition, the 16
km/h-6 second test must be performed
without the use of advanced glazing for
movable windows. Field data indicates
that even when initially up, movable
advanced glazing may be destroyed and
made ineffective as a countermeasure
beyond the initial phase of a rollover.
Therefore, the final rule will require that
if a vehicle has movable advanced
glazing as part of the ejection
countermeasure, the 16 km/h-6 second
test will be performed with the glazing
retracted or removed from the window
opening. This approach will assure a
reasonable level of safety when side
glazing is rolled down or when the
severity of the rollover damages or
destroys the effectiveness of the glazing,
and still encourages the use of advanced
glazing as a countermeasure to
supplement the vehicle’s performance
in meeting the 20 km/h-1.5 second test.
iv. The window opening for cargo
areas behind the 1st and 2nd row will
be impacted. If there is a side window
opening in a cargo area behind the 1st
row of a single row vehicle or behind
the 2nd row of a two-row vehicle, this
final rule will extend coverage to those
cargo areas behind the 1st and 2nd rows
of vehicles. The area of side window
openings in a cargo area will be
bounded by a transverse plane 1,400
mm behind the seating reference point
(SgRP) of the rearmost seat in the 1st
row of a single row vehicle or behind
the SgRP of the rearmost seat in the 2nd
row of a two-row vehicle. Field data
found that cargo area ejections behind a
2nd row were similar in frequency to
3rd row ejections. Such cargo area
coverage is cost effective and is not any
more challenging than 3rd row
coverage.
v. Minor changes were made in the
definition of and procedure for
determining the window opening. The
final rule increases the lateral distance
defining the window opening from 50 to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
100 mm. We have examined interior
trim components, such as panels
covering the vehicle pillars and found
that relevant surfaces can be more than
50 mm from the inside of the window
glazing and that these trim components
can be difficult to remove.
vi. The final rule slightly modifies the
glazing pre-breaking procedure by using
a 75 mm offset pattern. (We disagree
with the comments that stated the prebreaking procedure should be deleted or
should be restricted to four points on
the glazing. We believe the pre-breaking
procedure is necessary to recreate the
damage that will likely occur in the
field.)
vii. Convertibles are excluded from
this standard. Also excluded are law
enforcement vehicles, correctional
institution vehicles, taxis and
limousines with a fixed security
partition separating the 1st and 2nd or
2nd and 3rd rows, if the vehicle is a
multistage or altered vehicle.
viii. The final rule has a 2-year lead
time period, with 25 percent of each
manufacturer’s vehicles manufactured
during the first production year required
to meet the standard, 50 percent
manufactured during the second year
required to meet the standard, 75
percent of vehicles manufactured during
the third year required to meet the
standard, and 100 percent of vehicles
manufactured on or after the fourth year
required to meet the standard. The final
rule allows manufacturers to use
advanced credits to meet the phase-in
percentages, including advanced credits
in the last year (100 percent year) of the
phase-in schedule.
ix. Characteristics of the guided linear
impactor with the 18 kg headform and
the associated propulsion mechanism
were refined to assure sufficient
repeatability and reproducibility of the
test. The impactor used in research tests
was originally constructed in the
advanced glazing program of the 1990s.
We have reduced the maximum
allowable dynamic coefficient of friction
of the test device by a factor of 5, from
1.29 (old impactor) to 0.25 (new
impactor). The device has been made
less flexible along its shaft and thus
better able to maintain its orientation as
it interacts with ejection
countermeasures.
VII. Foundations for This Rulemaking
This section discusses knowledge and
insights we gained from past research
on ejection mitigation safety systems
which underlie many of the decisions
we made in forming this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a. Advanced Glazing
In formulating this final rule, NHTSA
considered various ejection mitigation
systems in accordance with section
10301 of SAFETEA–LU. One of the
considered systems was advanced side
glazing. In the 1990s, NHTSA closely
studied advanced glazing as a potential
ejection mitigation countermeasure 27
but terminated an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking on advanced
glazing in 2002 (67 FR 41365, June 18,
2002). The termination was based on
our observation that advanced glazing
produced higher neck shear loads and
neck moments than impacts into
tempered 28 side glazing. 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. Also, because side curtain
air bags were showing potential as an
ejection mitigation countermeasure,
NHTSA decided to redirect its research
and rulemaking efforts toward
developing performance-based test
procedures for an ejection mitigation
standard.29
Elements from the advanced glazing
program underlie a substantial part of
today’s final rule. The headform and the
test procedure were originally
developed in the advanced glazing
research program.
Further, as with all of the FMVSSs,
we drafted this final rule to 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 will
install ejection mitigation side curtain
air bags in response to this rulemaking,
taking advantage of the side impact
curtains already in vehicles.
Nonetheless, this final rule provides a
role for advanced glazing as a
complement to ejection mitigation
curtain systems.
27 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.
28 Tempered glass is made from a single piece of
specially treated sheet, plate, or float glass
possessing mechanical strength substantially higher
than annealed glass. When broken at any point, the
entire piece breaks into small pieces that have
relatively dull edges as compared to those of broken
pieces of annealed glass. (See FMVSS No. 205,
‘‘Glazing Materials,’’ incorporating by reference
standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996.)
29 ‘‘Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing,
Final Report,’’ NHTSA, August 2001, Docket No.
NHTSA–1996–1782–22.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
NHTSA tested several vehicles’
ejection mitigation side curtain air bags
both with and without advanced glazing
to the 18 kg impactor performance test
adopted by this final rule. 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 a 51 mm
average reduction in impactor
displacement across target locations.30
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, the final rule allows windows
of advanced glazing to be in-position for
the 20 km/h-1.5 second test, although
pre-broken to reproduce the state of
glazing in an actual rollover crash. This
approach encourages advanced glazing
as a countermeasure to supplement the
vehicle’s performance in meeting the 20
km/h-1.5 second test.31
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
b. Full Window Opening Coverage Is
Key
We considered the findings of several
NHTSA research programs on rollover
crashworthiness protection in
developing this final rule.
A cornerstone program started with
the development of a dynamic rollover
fixture (DRF) that could be used to
produce full-dummy ejection
kinematics in an open window
condition, where the peak roll rate
ranged between 330 to 360 degrees/
second. The DRF was used to assess the
potential effectiveness of ejection
mitigation countermeasures in a
rollover.32 These countermeasures
30 See the technical analysis prepared by the
agency in support of the NPRM, placed in the
docket for the NPRM (NHTSA–2009–0183–007).
‘‘Technical Analysis in Support of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation.’’
Among other matters, the report discusses the
results of NHTSA’s impactor testing of OEM and
prototype side window ejection mitigation systems.
31 Yet, after reviewing comments to the NPRM
and other information, we have decided not to
permit movable glazing to supplement the primary
ejection mitigation system in the 16 km/h-6 second
test. This is because field data indicate that even
when initially up, movable advanced glazing may
be destroyed and rendered ineffective as an
effective countermeasure beyond the initial phase
of a rollover. In addition, 30 percent of occupants
are ejected through windows that are partially or
fully open prior to the crash.
32 NHTSA developed the DRF to produce fulldummy 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
included several designs of inflatable
curtain air bags, advanced glazing, and
combinations of curtains and advanced
glazing. The results of the assessment
showed that not all ejection mitigation
air bag curtains work the same way. We
found that full window opening
coverage was key to the effectiveness of
the curtain in preventing ejection.
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.33 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.34 The DRF rotation resulted in a
centripetal acceleration of the dummy
that caused the dummy 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
could then be assessed and compared to
that baseline test.
In the tests of the experimental
inflatable devices, the air bags were preevent. The DRF has a test buck fabricated from a
Chevrolet CK pickup cab. The cab is longitudinally
divided down the center from the firewall to the Bpillar. 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.
33 ‘‘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.
34 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 and
shoulder contact velocity with the side window
plane from these two seating positions. (For the
final rule, we digitized the films and reanalyzed the
impact speeds using data from state-of-the-art
software. The resulting impacts speeds were lower
than those reported in the NPRM. The analysis will
be discussed later in this document.) From the first
position behind the steering wheel, the shoulder
impact speeds were 7.0 km/h (4.3 mph) for the 5th
percentile female dummy and 9.0 km/h (5.6 mph)
for the 50th male. From the second (inboard)
position, the velocities were 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph)
for the 5th female dummy and 15.8 km/h (9.8 mph)
for the 50th male.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3223
deployed and their inflation pressure
was maintained throughout the test by
the use of an air reservoir tank mounted
on the platform.35 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.
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 dummy’s
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 HIC3636 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
35 Since these were experimental systems, they
were not deployed through pyrotechnic or invehicle 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.
36 HIC
36 is the Head Injury Criterion computed
over a 36 msec duration. HIC36 = 1,000 represents
an onset of concussion and brain injury.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3224
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
system) and 1020 N (5th percentile
female tested with laminate only).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
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-yearold 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 adult dummies.
The second program investigated
whether the gap allowed ejection of the
6-year-old child dummy.37
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 6year-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 prebroken advanced glazing with the TRW
system managed to contain the dummy
inside the test buck in all tests.38
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) 39 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
37 ‘‘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.
38 Id.
39 ITS systems were originally introduced by
BMW as a side impact countermeasure.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 results provided later in
this preamble, was due to the greater
window coverage by the Zodiac
prototype along the entire sill and Apillar.
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 ComponentLevel 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. We use the component-level
test in this final rule for ejection
mitigation.
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 40 is
described later in this preamble. There
are many possible ways of delivering
the impactor to the target location on
the ejection mitigation countermeasure.
40 The ‘‘ejection impactor’’ is the moving mass that
strikes the ejection mitigation countermeasure. It
consists of an ejection headform attached to a shaft.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The ejection mitigation test device 41
used by the agency in the advanced
glazing program and for the research
used to develop the NPRM (‘‘old
impactor’’) has a propulsion
mechanism 42 with a pneumatic piston
that pushes the shaft component of the
impactor. The old impactor shaft slides
along a plastic (polyethylene) bearing.
The impactor has an 18 kg mass.
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 Apillar 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 1.5 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.
Findings
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. On the other hand, the Zodiac
41 The ejection mitigation test device consists of
an ejection impactor and ejection propulsion
mechanism.
42 The ‘‘ejection propulsion mechanism’’ is the
component that propels the ejection impactor and
constrains it to move along its axis or shaft.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
system 43 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.
d. Advantages of a Component Test
Over a Full Vehicle Dynamic Test
NHTSA determined that 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. Incorporating the
component test into an ejection
mitigation standard ensures 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.44 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
43 Testing was restricted to the extreme corners of
the window due to limited availability of this
system.
44 ‘‘NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Rollover Research
Program,’’ supra.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
the longest duration events, and it can
be difficult to distinguish between
rollover and non-rollover events. Viano
and Parenteau 45 correlated eight
different tests to six rollover definitions
from NASS–CDS.46 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
represented by the FMVSS No. 208
Dolly test (‘‘208 Dolly test’’).
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.47 Assuming it is
at all possible to comprehensively
assess ejection mitigation
countermeasures through full vehicle
dynamic testing, multiple crash
scenarios would have to be involved.
Such a suite of tests imposes test
burdens and costs that could be avoided
by a component test, such as that
adopted today. We also note that a
comprehensive suite of full-vehicle
dynamic tests would involve many
more years of research, which would
delay this rulemaking action and the
implementation of life-saving curtain air
bag technologies. Such a delay is
unwarranted and undesirable since the
component test will be an effective
means of determining the acceptability
of ejection countermeasures.
VIII. Availability of Side Curtain Air
Bags
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 Ford
45 Viano D, Parenteau C. Rollover Crash Sensing
and Safety Overview. SAE 2004–01–0342.
46 ‘‘Technical Analysis in Support of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation,’’
supra.
47 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3225
Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer.48
For the 2007 MY, rollover sensors were
available on approximately 95 models,
with 75 of these models being sport
utility vehicles. The system was
standard equipment on 62 vehicles (65
percent) and optional on 33 vehicles (35
percent).
Annually, as part of NHTSA’s New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP), the
agency sends a questionnaire to
manufacturers requesting information
about the availability of certain safety
systems on their vehicles.49 Since 2008,
NHTSA has asked manufacturers for
voluntary responses regarding whether
their available side impact curtains will
deploy in a rollover crash. The
voluntary responses were in the
affirmative for 39 percent of MY 2008
make models and for 43 percent of MY
2010 make models.
IX. Existing Curtains
Aside from 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 only for
side impact protection. The first
difference is longer inflation duration.
Rollover crashes with multiple full
vehicle rotations can last many seconds.
Ford has stated that its Safety Canopy
stays inflated for 6 seconds,50 while GM
stated that its side curtain air bags
designed for rollover protection
maintain 80 percent inflation pressure
for 5 seconds.51 Honda stated that the
side curtains on the 2005 and later
Honda Odyssey stay fully inflated for 3
seconds.52 In contrast, side impact air
bag curtains designed for occupant
protection in side crashes, generally stay
inflated for less than 0.1 seconds.
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. Referring
to earlier generations of curtains, Ford
has stated that its rollover protection air
bags covered between 66 and 80 percent
48 https://media.ford.com/
article_display.cfm?article_id=6447 (Last accessed
October 8, 2010.)
49 The total number of make/models represented
in the survey is about 500. Slight model variations
are represented as different models and corporate
twins are not combined.
50 Ibid.
51 ‘‘Who Benefits From Side and Head Airbags?’’
(https://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/
articles/105563/article.html). (Last accessed
October 5, 2010.)
52 https://www.autodeadline.com/detail?source=
Honda&mid=HON2004083172678&mime=ASC.
(Last accessed October 5, 2010.)
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3226
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
of the first two rows of windows, and
that it was expanding the designs so
they cover all three rows in all
models.53 GM stated that its curtains
designed for rollover protection are
larger than non-rollover curtains.54
a. Existing Curtains Tested to Proposed
Requirements
The agency presented data in the
NPRM from testing of eight MY 2003
through MY 2006 vehicles. Since the
General Results
The results of the agency testing are
given in Tables 10 through 18, below.
The results are given in columns, by
target location and are in units of
millimeters. (The technical report
accompanying this document has the
data color-coded. Values exceeding the
proposed 100 mm limit of impactor
displacement are in red or the darkest
shading. Results from 80 to 100 mm of
displacement are purple or medium
shading. Results which are less than 80
mm are in green or the lightest shading.)
Some cells contain the average from
several tests under the same/similar
conditions; these results are bolded. In
some tests there was so little resistance
to the impactor that it continued past
the countermeasure to the point where
the internal limit of the impact
prevented any additional displacement.
In these cases, the numerical value of
date of publication of the NPRM, the
agency tested 16 vehicle models to the
proposed ejection mitigation
requirements. Data from these tests
supplement the data from tests of eight
MY 2003 through MY 2006 vehicles
discussed in the NPRM and are
discussed in this section. Most of the
testing of the 16 vehicle models was
with the old impactor used in the NPRM
tests. Tests from three vehicles were
performed with a new test device (‘‘new
impactor’’). To date we have performed
nearly 700 impacts.
Figure 1 shows the target location key
for the test results. In the data, the C1–
C4 targets follow the same positioning
as the B1–B4 targets. In a few instances,
the A2 and A3 targets were eliminated
because they were too close and a target
(A5) was placed back in the window
because the centers of remaining targets
A1 and A4 were more than 360 mm
apart.
displacement has no meaning so the cell
is denoted as ‘‘To Stops.’’
On occasion, target locations were not
tested at 24 km/h because the 20 km/h
results indicated displacements in
excess of 100 mm at that location. These
cells are denoted by ‘‘(20 km/h)’’ and we
assume the 24 km/h impact would also
have exceeded 100 mm. Similarly, some
target locations were not tested at 20
km/h, but the cells contain ‘‘(24 km/h)’’
indicating a value below 80 mm of
displacement in the 24 km/h test and
we assume the 20 km/h impact would
have resulted in a displacement less
than 80 mm.
As detailed later, some vehicles were
tested with pre-broken advanced
laminated (designated as ‘‘w/lam.’’ next
to the vehicle name). Various breaking
methods were used. For simplicity in
presenting the data, we have averaged
the results for various breaking
methods, except for the method of
breaking the laminated in four places
(designated as ‘‘4 hole’’ next to the
vehicle name). Also, a few tests were
performed with the headliner in place
(designated as ‘‘w/liner’’ next to the
vehicle name). ‘‘N/O’’ refers to whether
the test was conducted with the old ‘‘O’’
or new ‘‘N’’ impactor.
Across all vehicles, as was the case
with our previous analysis of test data
in the NPRM, target A1 remains the
most challenging impact location and
A4 the least challenging for the 1st row.
This is consistent for all three impactor
speeds and time delays. For the 2nd
row, B1 and B2 are the most
challenging. The available data do not
present a clear trend for the 3rd row.
The two best performing vehicles
were the MY 2007 Mazda CX9 and the
MY 2008 Toyota Highlander. We will
discuss the performance of these
vehicles in more detail in several of the
sections below.
TABLE 10—FRONT ROW WINDOW, 24 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY
03
03
04
04
05
05
05
N/O*
Navigator ............................................................................................
Navigator w/lam ..................................................................................
Volvo XC90 .........................................................................................
Volvo w/lam ........................................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer ................................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer w/lam .....................................................................
Chevy Trail. w/lam. (4 hole) ...............................................................
53 Ibid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Pos. A1
Pos. A2
Pos. A3
Pos. A4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
No Data
No Data
(20 km/h)
(20 km/h)
138
No Data
No Data
(20 km/h)
35
193
44
168
No Data
89
(20 km/h)
No Data
130
118
159
(20 km/h)
No data
¥21
No Data
18
15
No Data
No Data
No Data
54 Who Benefits From Side and Head Airbags?’’
(https://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/
articles/105563/article.html), supra.
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.000</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Vehicle
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3227
TABLE 10—FRONT ROW WINDOW, 24 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY—Continued
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. A1
Pos. A2
Pos. A3
Pos. A4
Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
Infinity FX35 ........................................................................................
Nissan Pathfinder ...............................................................................
Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Dodge Durango ..................................................................................
Dodge Durango w/lam ........................................................................
Dodge Dur. w/lam. (4 hole) ................................................................
Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
Volvo C70 ...........................................................................................
Chevy Silverado .................................................................................
Chevy Tahoe ......................................................................................
Chevy Tahoe w/lam ............................................................................
Chevy Tahoe w/lam. (4 hole) .............................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
No data
128
(20 km/h)
(20 km/h)
174
No Data
(20 km/h)
To Stops
229
(20 km/h)
177
To Stops
113
No data
107
101
167
137
156
101
95
208
No data
No Target
(20 km/h)
168
100
99
119
99
(20 km/h)
142
(20 km/h)
No data
(20 km/h)
No data
(20 km/h)
No Target
183
125
124
109
No data
55
79
116
54
No Data
No Data
32
62
No Target
¥1
¥25
No data
No data
07 Ford 500 .............................................................................................
O
(20 km/h)
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
Jeep Commander w/lam .....................................................................
Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
Saturn Vue ..........................................................................................
Dodge Caravan ..................................................................................
Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
146
175
(20 km/h)
(20 km/h)
No data
96
112
(20 km/h)
136
146
08 Subaru Tribeca ...................................................................................
O
(20 km/h)
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota High. w/liner ............................................................................
09 Chevy Equinox ...................................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
N
N
O
....................
....................
64
102
90
(20 km/h)
135
42.1
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
160
17
No data
(20 km/h)
(20 km/h)
No data
9
No data
(20 km/h)
84
73
38
86
155
(20 km/h)
(20 km/h)
148
87
90
(20 km/h)
(20 km/h)
99
146
41
No data
No data
101
104
55.8
¥9
No data
21
¥62
No data
2
No data
65
¥61
¥38
74
54
77
70
(20 km/h)
114
33.7
12
No data
No data
30
21
45.9
TABLE 11—FRONT ROW WINDOW, 20 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. A1
Pos. A2
Pos. A3
Pos. A4
Navigator ............................................................................................
Navigator w/lam ..................................................................................
Volvo XC90 .........................................................................................
Volvo w/lam ........................................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer ................................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer w/lam .....................................................................
Chevy Trail. w/lam. (4 hole) ...............................................................
Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
Infinity FX35 ........................................................................................
Nissan Pathfinder ...............................................................................
Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Dodge Durango ..................................................................................
Dodge Dur. w/lam. (4 hole) ................................................................
Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
Volvo C70 ...........................................................................................
Chevy Silverado .................................................................................
Chevy Tahoe ......................................................................................
Chevy Tahoe w/lam ............................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
No Data
No Data
163
127
112
86
No Data
No data
106
192
168
160
106
185
174
200
142
104
102
191
6
96
27
121
80
62
96
60
138
137
140
71
199
No data
No Target
187
110
No data
To Stops
No Data
119
97
127
109
98
57
73
248
115
180
150
No data
256
No Target
130
87
No data
¥37
No Data
¥3
(24 km/h)
No Data
No Data
No Data
¥45
30
60
76
18
No Data
¥10
31
No Target
(24 km/h)
(24 km/h)
No data
07 Ford 500 .............................................................................................
O
192
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
08
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
129
148
151
To Stops
No data
76
To Stops
112
03
03
04
04
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
Jeep Commander w/lam .....................................................................
Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
Saturn Vue ..........................................................................................
Dodge Caravan ..................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
113
(24 km/h)
No data
To Stops
175
No data
No data
130
No data
19JAR2
(24 km/h)
No data
67
137
155
73
67
191
162
(24 km/h)
No data
(24 km/h)
(24 km/h)
No data
No data
28
(24 km/h)
3228
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 11—FRONT ROW WINDOW, 20 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY—Continued
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. A1
Pos. A2
Pos. A3
Pos. A4
08 Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
O
110
No data
No data
(24 km/h)
08 Subaru Tribeca ...................................................................................
O
180
09 Chevy Equinox ...................................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
....................
....................
149
140
36.5
106
No data
112
55.7
(24 km/h)
200
132
56.7
(24 km/h)
15
39.0
TABLE 12—FRONT ROW WINDOW, 16 KM/H IMPACT, 6 SECOND DELAY
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. A1
Pos. A2
Pos. A3
Pos. A4
Navigator ............................................................................................
Navigator w/lam ..................................................................................
Volvo XC90 .........................................................................................
Volvo w/lam ........................................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer ................................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer w/lam .....................................................................
Chevy Trail. w/lam. (4 hole) ...............................................................
Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
Infinity FX35 ........................................................................................
Nissan Pathfinder ...............................................................................
Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Dodge Durango ..................................................................................
Dodge Durango w/lam ........................................................................
Dodge Dur. w/lam. (4 hole) ................................................................
Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
Volvo C70 ...........................................................................................
Chevy Silverado .................................................................................
Chevy Tahoe ......................................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
To Stops
157
161
96
121
No Data
No Data
No Data
88
117
205
138
No Data
97
222
146
135
145
42
74
¥36
73
26
192
102
92
69
22
104
210
135
No Data
58
183
207
No Target
244
6
To Stops
137
78
59
124
No Data
No Data
77
40
195
152
167
142
145
No Data
229
No Target
115
10
¥30
No Data
¥22
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
¥54
9
43
69
13
No Data
No Data
35
16
No Target
¥7
¥136
07 Ford 500 .............................................................................................
O
151
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
Ford 500 w/lam ...................................................................................
Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
Jeep Commander w/lam .....................................................................
Jeep Commander w/lam. (4 hole) ......................................................
Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
Saturn Vue ..........................................................................................
Dodge Caravan ..................................................................................
Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
96
103
123
141
255
No Data
No Data
54
67
184
85
104
08 Subaru Tribeca ...................................................................................
O
122
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
09 Chevy Equinox ...................................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
N
O
....................
....................
36
119
125
125
50.1
03
03
04
04
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
¥16
58
No Data
¥42
No Data
205
144
56
50
¥38
No Data
180
¥39
¥13
No Data
7
33
109
136
62
60
44
31
186
121
39
¥1
77
0
No Data
25
82
87.2
No Data
¥56
No Data
3
¥89
No Data
No Data
¥53
No Data
72
¥141
¥88
54
52
178
99
61.1
¥62
No Data
¥46
¥25
58.1
TABLE 13—SECOND ROW WINDOW, 24 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Vehicle
03
04
04
05
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
07
N/O*
Ford Navigator ....................................................................................
Volvo XC90 .........................................................................................
Volvo XC90 w/lam ..............................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer ................................................................................
Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
Infinity FX35 ........................................................................................
Nissan Pathfinder ...............................................................................
Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Dodge Durango ..................................................................................
Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
Chevy Silverado .................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Pos. B1
Pos. B2
Pos. B3
Pos. B4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
To Stops
(20 km/h)
92
122
152
148
167
152
86
171
159
153
No data
No data
No data
No data
193
No data
No data
No data
82
193
157
(20 km/h)
No data
No data
No data
No data
71
No data
No data
No data
76
72
75
78
40
69
62
35
80
47
133
154
91
78
No Target
117
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3229
TABLE 13—SECOND ROW WINDOW, 24 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY—Continued
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. B1
Pos. B2
Pos. B3
Pos. B4
07 Chevy Tahoe ......................................................................................
07 Chevy Tahoe w/lam ............................................................................
07 Ford 500 .............................................................................................
07 Ford 500 w/lam ...................................................................................
07 Ford 500 w/lam. (4 hole) ....................................................................
07 Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
07 Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
07 Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
07 Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
07 Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
07 Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
07 Saturn Vue ..........................................................................................
08 Dodge Caravan ..................................................................................
08 Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
08 Subaru Tribeca ...................................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota High. w/liner ............................................................................
09 Chevy Equinox ...................................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
....................
....................
(20 km/h)
No data
184
91
No data
39
51
164
140
36
22
No Target
59
45
133
106
125
133
72
112
49.2
161
48
50
No data
No data
21
33
55
(20 km/h)
2
No data
144
27
34
85
110
144
138
22
89
63.0
24
No data
102
No data
No data
¥22
No data
66
64
51
44
66
¥16
22
80
55
No data
No data
39
53
32.7
74
No data
157
111
99
27
26
75
No data
9
No data
No Target
¥7
31
111
109
133
77
45
76
44.0
TABLE 14—SECOND ROW WINDOW, 20 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. B1
Pos. B2
Pos. B3
Pos. B4
03 Ford Navigator ....................................................................................
04 Volvo XC90 .........................................................................................
04 Volvo XC90 w/lam ..............................................................................
05 Chevy Trailblazer ................................................................................
05 Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
05 Infinity FX35 ........................................................................................
05 Nissan Pathfinder ...............................................................................
05 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
06 Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
06 Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
07 Chevy Silverado .................................................................................
07 Chevy Tahoe ......................................................................................
07 Ford 500 .............................................................................................
07 Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
07 Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
07 Saturn Vue ..........................................................................................
08 Subaru Tribeca ...................................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
....................
....................
To Stops
183
94
68
134
90
143
110
155
127
114
249
152
146
122
No Target
105
No data
92
130
43.4
No data
No data
No data
No data
84
No data
No data
No data
52
128
232
No data
No data
23
107
111
No data
67
89
99
59.3
No data
No data
No data
No data
42
No data
No data
No data
42
53
(24 km/h)
(24 km/h)
89
(24 km/h)
(24 km/h)
40
(24 km/h)
(24 km/h)
No data
53
20.7
¥14
(24 km/h)
(24 km/h)
8
34
21
111
106
51
No Target
101
(24 km/h)
128
(24 km/h)
No data
No Target
No data
88
110
64
49.9
TABLE 15—SECOND ROW WINDOW, 16 KM/H IMPACT, 6 SECOND DELAY
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Vehicle
03
04
04
05
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
N/O*
Ford Navigator ....................................................................................
Volvo XC90 .........................................................................................
Volvo XC90 w/lam ..............................................................................
Chevy Trailblazer ................................................................................
Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
Infinity FX35 ........................................................................................
Nissan Pathfinder ...............................................................................
Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Dodge Durango ..................................................................................
Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
Chevy Silverado .................................................................................
Chevy Tahoe ......................................................................................
Chevy Tahoe w/lam ............................................................................
Chevy Tahoe w/lam. (4 hole) .............................................................
Ford 500 .............................................................................................
Ford 500 w/lam ...................................................................................
Ford Edge ...........................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Pos. B1
Pos. B2
Pos. B3
Pos. B4
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
126
189
63
127
121
64
111
143
36
223
107
124
120
66
58
133
64
¥16
No data
No data
No data
No data
28
No data
No data
No data
18
142
113
194
¥83
No data
No data
¥3
No data
¥40
No data
No data
No data
No data
12
No data
No data
No data
3
54
49
53
¥21
No data
No data
56
No data
¥76
¥27
29
9
47
55
20
78
110
71
54
No Target
63
15
No data
No data
94
No data
¥25
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3230
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 15—SECOND ROW WINDOW, 16 KM/H IMPACT, 6 SECOND DELAY—Continued
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. B1
Pos. B2
Pos. B3
Pos. B4
07 Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
07 Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
07 Mazda CX9 .........................................................................................
07 Saturn Vue ..........................................................................................
08 Dodge Caravan ..................................................................................
08 Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
08 Subaru Tribeca ...................................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
09 Chevy Equinox ...................................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
....................
....................
89
107
¥15
No data
¥58
¥17
76
49
87
15
81
63.9
159
99
¥58
138
¥29
¥19
19
59
105
¥51
44
84.5
22
27
5
26
¥55
¥13
28
32
No data
1
12
37.2
34
57
¥35
No data
¥56
¥40
20
57
93
¥14
31
46.8
TABLE 16—THIRD ROW WINDOW, 24 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. C1
Pos. C2
Pos. C3
Pos. C4
05 Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
06 Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
06 Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
07 Chevrolet Tahoe .................................................................................
07 Chevrolet Tahoe w/lam .......................................................................
07 Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
07 Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
08 Dodge Caravan ..................................................................................
08 Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander w/liner ...................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
....................
....................
No data
188
NC
91
No Data
(20 km/h)
229
¥42
No Target
¥42
No data
No data
85
126.1
(20 km/h)
(20 km/h)
NC
No Target
106
No data
155
112
To Stops
42
No data
No data
104
46.6
No data
119
180
194
141
81
120
35
48
92
110
42
106
53.1
175
No data
NC
No Target
No Data
186
102
¥41
No Target
No data
No data
No data
106
104.5
TABLE 17—THIRD ROW WINDOW, 20 KM/H IMPACT, 1.5 SECOND DELAY
Vehicle
N/O*
Pos. C1
Pos. C2
Pos. C3
Pos. C4
05 Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
06 Dodge Durango ..................................................................................
06 Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
06 Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
07 Chevrolet Tahoe .................................................................................
07 Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
07 Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
08 Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
....................
....................
No data
No data
147
NC
58
241
No data
No Target
No data
149
91.5
To Stops
To Stops
212
NC
No Target
No data
115
86
No data
138
66.0
58
66
75
128
No data
No data
102
(24 km/h)
88
86
25.8
122
No data
No data
NC
No Target
51
No data
No Target
No data
86
50.6
TABLE 18—THIRD ROW WINDOW, 16 KM/H IMPACT, 6 SECOND DELAY
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Vehicle
N/O *
Pos. C1
Pos. C2
Pos. C3
Pos. C4
05 Honda Odyssey ..................................................................................
06 Dodge Durango ..................................................................................
06 Mercury Monterey ...............................................................................
06 Toyota Land Cruiser ...........................................................................
07 Chevrolet Tahoe .................................................................................
07 Chevrolet Tahoe w/lam .......................................................................
07 Ford Expedition ..................................................................................
07 Jeep Commander ...............................................................................
08 Dodge Caravan ..................................................................................
08 Ford Taurus X .....................................................................................
08 Toyota Highlander ..............................................................................
Average ....................................................................................................
Standard Deviation ..................................................................................
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
....................
....................
To Stops
No Data
186
NC
30
No Data
233
170
¥91
No Target
No Data
106
133.4
To Stops
No Data
204
NC
No Target
57
No Data
104
34
60
¥23
73
76.5
44
52
142
98
64
66
49
92
¥42
7
37
55
48.2
80.
No Data.
225.
NC.
No Target.
No Data.
34.
56.
¥113.
No Target.
No Data.
56.
120.6.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
is difficult to quantify this trend, the
trend is shown graphically below by
plots of displacement values by model
year for the 1st row (Figure 2) and 2nd
Row (Figure 3). These graphs are
restricted to the 24 km/h-1.5 second test
using the old impactor and exclude any
testing with advanced glazing.
Note: Not shown in the figure are data from
older vehicles which often had no curtain
coverage at a particular target. If there was no
curtain coverage, we did not test the target
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
since the 100 mm displacement limit would
have been exceeded. Although these vehicles
are not shown on the graph, their improved
curtain coverage in recent MY vehicles is
indicative of improved performance over
time.
Since the graphs span multiple
vehicles, there is scatter in the data.
Nonetheless, when a trend line is
plotted through the data for each impact
location it shows decreasing
displacement for newer models.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.001</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Trends in Performance of Ejection
Mitigation Systems by MY Using Old
Impactor
Based on the vehicles the agency
tested, there appears to be a trend
toward improved performance as each
model year passes. This is demonstrated
by increased coverage of the window
opening in the more recent MY vehicles
tested and the ability of the
countermeasure to restrain
displacement of the impactor. While it
3231
3232
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
One comparison to note for
illustration purposes is the improved
performance of the MY 2008 Highlander
in comparison to the MY 2005
Highlander. Table 19 shows the change
in displacement values for the two
model years of the Highlander at each
target location and across impact
speeds. The largest change in
displacement value was for the 16 km/
h tests at targets A1 and A2 (169 mm
and 210 mm, respectively). On an
average basis, the MY 2008 Highlander
had 103 mm less displacement across
all tested target locations, for a 76
percent overall reduction. This is
illustrative of the improved performance
of later MY vehicles. We believe that the
MY 2008 Highlander had increased
coverage of the ejection mitigation
curtain and increased size of the
inflated chambers which helped to
restrain the impactor.
TABLE 19—OLD IMPACTOR, ABSOLUTE AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN DISPLACEMENT (MM) BETWEEN MY2005 AND
MY2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER
Test vel.
A1
A2
24 .................................................................................................
16 .................................................................................................
..................
¥169
¥96
¥210
..................
¥82%
¥70%
¥100%
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
locations where both impactors were
used.55 Not surprisingly, these data
generally indicate that the new impactor
tends to result in greater displacement
(positive difference); we believe this is
55 In some cases average values were used to
calculate the differences.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
B4
¥104
¥131
¥46
¥94
¥45
¥53
¥90%
¥190%
¥62%
¥64%
¥30%
¥66%
¥29%
¥48%
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
due to lower dynamic friction. Yet, the
old impactor displacement exceeded the
new impactor (negative difference) at
several targets as well.
The CX9 was the only vehicle that
was impacted multiple times at the
same targets by both the old and new
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.002</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Several vehicles (the MY2008 CX9,
Edge and Highlander) were tested using
both the old and new impactor.
Table 20 shows the difference in
displacements measured at target
¥88
¥98
B1
¥76%
Average (%) .................................................................................
Comparing Results of Tests With Old
and New Impactors
A4
¥103
Average (mm) ..............................................................................
24 .................................................................................................
16 .................................................................................................
A3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
impactor. A student’s t-test was
performed to determine if the difference
in the results were significant.56 Table
21 shows the displacement values and
statistics for targets A1 and A3. The
difference in displacement was
3233
statistically significant (p≤0.05) for the
A1 target, but not the A3 target.
TABLE 20—CHANGE IN DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN OLD AND NEW IMPACT TEST DEVICE
Test vel.
(km/h)
Vehicle
Ford Edge ...................................
Mazda CX9 .................................
Toyota Highlander ......................
Ford Edge ...................................
Toyota Highlander ......................
Ford Edge ...................................
Mazda CX9 .................................
Toyota Highlander ......................
A3
B1
B2
B3
B4
C3
............
............
.............
............
.............
............
............
.............
29.0
15.5
38.5
18.5
..................
19.5
13.0
83.0
69.0
3.0
23.0
..................
..................
26.0
¥13.0
¥2.0
12.0
¥14.0
19.0
..................
..................
..................
..................
38.0
12.0
0.0
34.0
..................
22.0
..................
..................
46.0
..................
¥7.0
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
¥1.0
0.0
24.0
..................
22.0
..................
..................
36.0
..................
..................
18.0
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Average ...
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
A1
31.0
17.7
13.8
28.5
¥7.0
20.3
18.0
24
24
24
20
20
16
16
16
Average All
21.6
TABLE 21—IMPACTOR COMPARISON FOR MAZDA CX9
A1
Test Vel.
(km/h)
Old
24 .....................................................................................................
New
94
98
96.0
2.8
Average ............................................................................................
Std. ...................................................................................................
P–Value ...........................................................................................
Despite the differences in test results,
the test results from the old impactor
provided useful data to assess the
relative performance of ejection
mitigation countermeasures. The results
from the impactor are useful when
analyzing data obtained from the old
impactor alone, to compare vehicles to
each other or to previous model year
A3
Old
110
113
111.5
2.1
New
84
89
86.5
3.5
0.013
90
89
89.5
0.7
0.180
vehicles, or compare data from impact
points on a vehicle.
Research Testing With New Impactor
As part of our analysis of the data, we
evaluated data from only the new
impactor to avoid confounding the
comparison of data by impactor
differences. Table 22 shows the change
in displacement between the 24 km/h1.5 second, 20 km/h-1.5 second and 16
km/h-6 second tests at various target
locations for the MY 2007 Edge, MY
2007 CX9 and MY 2008 Highlander. The
24 km/h-1.5 second test always had
greater displacement than the 20 km/h1.5 second test. On average this
difference was 38.3 mm when averaged
over all vehicles and target locations.
This is an expected result because the
only difference is the impact speed.
TABLE 22—NEW IMPACTOR, CHANGE IN DISPLACEMENT (MM) BETWEEN 24 KM/H 1.5 SECOND, 20 KM/H 1.5 SECOND AND
16 KM/H 6 SECOND TESTS
Test
comparison
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Vehicle
07
07
08
07
07
08
07
07
08
Ford Edge .......................................................
Mazda CX9 .....................................................
Toyota Highlander ..........................................
Ford Edge .......................................................
Mazda CX9 .....................................................
Toyota Highlander ..........................................
Ford Edge .......................................................
Mazda CX9 .....................................................
Toyota Highlander ..........................................
24–20
24–20
24–20
24–16
24–16
24–16
20–16
20–16
20–16
A1
A3
B1
B2
B4
C3
28
36
..................
53
45
¥17
25
9
..................
88
23
..................
122
59
25
34
36
..................
..................
..................
33
..................
..................
38
..................
..................
5
..................
..................
55
..................
..................
39
..................
..................
¥16
..................
..................
23
..................
..................
40
..................
..................
17
..................
..................
22
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Average All—24–20 .....................................................................
Average All—24–16 .....................................................................
Average All—20–16 .....................................................................
56 The one sided t-test was performed assuming
equal variance to determine if the new test device
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:11 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
38.3
44.7
15.7
had produced larger displacement values compared
to the old device.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3234
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
There were only two vehicles/target
locations that had more than one impact
at multiple test speeds. Although this is
extremely limited data, they allow a t-
test to be performed.57 The results are
given in Table 23. The results indicate
that the 16 km/h-1.5 second impact had
statistically significant less
displacement than both the higher
speed tests at target A1.
TABLE 23—NEW IMPACTOR, COMPARISON OF TARGET A1 DISPLACEMENT AS A FUNCTION OF IMPACT VELOCITY
Vehicle
CX9
Test Type
16 km/h–6 sec.
Edge
24 km/h–1.5 sec.
16 km/h–6 sec.
20 km/h–1.5 sec.
75
59
P–Value ...........................................................................
b. Field Performance
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
The agency evaluated available crash
data to better understand the field
performance of the current fleet
equipped with side curtain air bags. 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. Several
sources of available data were reviewed.
These included detailed analysis on a
limited number of rollover crashes by
NHTSA’s Special Crash Investigation
(SCI) division, case reviews of NASS
CDS cases from the target population of
the final rule, and data from a new
Rollover Data Special Study project.
57 The one sided t-test was performed assuming
equal variance to determine if the 24 km/h impact
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
126
119
152
143
67.0
11.3
Average ............................................................................
Std. ...................................................................................
110
113
111.5
2.1
122.5
4.9
147.5
6.4
0.016
0.024
Detailed reviews of some of these cases
can be found in the technical report
accompanying this final rule.
SCI Cases Presented in the NPRM
The following seven SCI cases were
discussed in the NPRM. 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
had agreed to notify SCI of the crashes.)
The subject vehicles were Ford
Expeditions, a Ford Explorer, a Mercury
Mountaineer, and a Volvo XC90. Table
24 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 4month-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 nonejected, 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.’’
produced larger displacement values compared to
the 20 km/h impact.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Mercury
Ford .....
Ford .....
Ford .....
Ford .....
Make
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
DS04017 ......................
2003–079–057 .............
Exped.
XC90 ...
Mount.
Expl. ....
Exped.
Exped.
Exped.
Model
....
....
....
....
....
2004 ....
2003 ....
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
MY
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
1R .......
1R .......
1R
1R
1R
1R
2R
Row 1
1R .......
........
........
2R .......
2R,
2NR†.
.............
1R .......
Row 2
Occupants
........
........
.............
........
1R,
2NR†.
.............
.............
Row 3
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
12 ........
6 ..........
1
1
2
5
5
⁄ Rot.
14
Yes ......
Yes ......
17 ........
43 ........
45 ........
Yes ......
Yes ......
Angle
Deploy
Unknown
Unknown
............................................................
20
146
Unknown
Unknown
Time (ms)
TABLE 24—FORD SCI ROLLOVER CASES (PRESENTED IN THE NPRM)
R = Restrained, NR = Not Restrained.
† One NR 2nd and 3rd row occupant ejected (total of 2 ejected).
Ford .....
Volvo ...
CA02–059 ....................
CA04–010 ....................
IN–02–010 ...................
2004–003–04009 .........
DS04–016 ....................
Case
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Rate (deg/s)
Unknown
Unknown
17 to 25
75
111
Unknown
Unknown
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3235
3236
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Rollover Data Special Study (RODSS)
RODSS is a new source of rollover
crash data that began in April 2007.
NHTSA initiated RODSS as a pilot
project to obtain additional field data for
rollover crashes not covered by other
agency databases. Cases were identified
through the FARS database. NASS CDS
and SCI cases were excluded from
consideration because detailed
information from those crashes would
be available from those databases.
However, remote SCIs were performed
on selected cases.58 The technical report
for this final rule includes a discussion
of the RODSS study conducted for this
final rule.
RODSS is not a random sample and
is not intended to be statistically
representative of all rollover crashes
nationally. Also, the sample size is
small and becomes even smaller when
separating the data into subcategories.
Accordingly, observations based on the
RODSS data about the relationship of
side curtains and ejection are inherently
limited.
To become part of the RODSS sample,
the vehicle had to be exposed to a
rollover crash and have a side curtain
air bag and/or electronic stability
control (ESC)/rollover stability control
(RSC). The curtain air bag did not have
to be deployable in a rollover, i.e., the
curtain air bag could be an FMVSS No.
214 side impact air curtain without a
rollover sensor, but some vehicles did
have a rollover sensor.
The study first reviewed a total of 328
crashes occurring in 2005 through 2008.
Of these 328 case vehicles, 315 were
coded as exposed to a lateral rollover.
Of these 315 case vehicles, 115 were
believed to be equipped with side
curtain air bags. Of these 115 case
vehicles, 21 were believed to have a
rollover sensor (rollover curtain). Of
these 21 case vehicles, 18 had their
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
58 A remote SCI is one where, for a variety of
reasons, the investigator is not able to physically
examine the crash location and vehicles. The
investigation is done through the use of police
accident reports, scene diagrams and photographs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
curtains deploy during the rollover and
3 did not. These three cases of nondeployment are of interest relative to
sensor performance and will be
discussed in more detail later, along
with a non-deployment SCI case.
Curtain deployment coding was tied
to the driver or passenger, i.e., if there
was someone seated on the side of the
vehicle where the curtain deployed, it
was coded as deployed for that
occupant. There were 120 side curtain
air bags deployed adjacent to occupants
of the vehicles (58 drivers and 62
passengers). Limiting RODSS occupant
selection to those in vehicles exposed to
a lateral rollover, and those who had a
known ejection status, then separating
by known curtain deployment, results
in Table 25, below. This table shows
119 occupants (57 drivers and 62
passengers) who were exposed to a
curtain deployment and 496 (244
drivers and 252 passengers), who were
not.
deployment found in Tables 26 and 27.
The ‘‘curtain deployed’’ group is made
up of vehicles that had a rollover sensor
and vehicles that did not (the latter
vehicles may have had a side impact
sensor only). The ‘‘curtain not deployed’’
group is made up of vehicles equipped
or not equipped with a curtain, i.e., one
possible reason for the curtain not
deploying is that it did not exist.
We studied the data to see if side
curtains had an effect in mitigating
rollover ejections. We were aware that
care should be taken in drawing
conclusions from these results. Most of
the curtain-equipped vehicles exposed
to lateral rollovers had only FMVSS No.
214 side impact curtains (94 vehicles),
rather than rollover curtains (21
vehicles). It is possible that if a side
impact curtain deployed during the
crash, the crash might be different than
a crash where a side impact curtain did
not deploy. An important difference
when examining ejection data is
TABLE 25—RODSS DRIVER AND PAS- rollover severity as quantified by
number of quarter-turns. To help
SENGER IN LATERAL ROLLOVERS
determine if there was an obvious bias
WITH KNOWN EJECTION STATUS BY in the data, we examined the difference
KNOWN CURTAIN DEPLOYMENT
between the quarter-turns in the rollover
crashes where the side impact curtains
Curtain
PasAll occu- deployed and the number of quarter
deployDrivers
sengers
pants
turns in the rollover crashes where they
ment
did not deploy.
Yes ........
57
62
119
RODSS data indicate that deployment
No .........
244
252
496
of any curtain (even a side impact
Total
301
314
615 curtain) has a positive effect on
reducing the rate of side window
ejection. Table 26 shows that 10.9
General Observations From RODSS
About Ejection Rates Relative to Curtain percent [13/119] of all occupants
adjacent to a curtain air bag deployment
Air Bags
were ejected through the side windows,
Again, any observations made based
in comparison to 27.6 percent [137/496]
on the RODSS data about the
of those occupants who were not
relationship of side curtains and
adjacent to a curtain deployment.
ejection must be prefaced by the fact
Restricting the data to occupants
that RODSS is not a random sample and
protected by a curtain deployed by a
is not intended to be statistically
rollover sensor, 5.3 percent [2/38] were
representative of all rollover crashes
ejected. The cases involving the two
nationally.
occupants who were ejected, even
The data from the 615 occupants in
Table 25 form the basis of a comparison though the rollover curtain deployed,
are discussed in a later section.
on ejection status versus curtain air bag
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3237
listed in Table 28, along with the
number of quarter turns, occupant
seating position, belt use, occupant age,
degree of ejection, ejection route, and
level of injury.
The average number of quarter-turns
was 5.5. These six crashes involved nine
occupants, six of whom were partially
or completely ejected through a
protected side window. Four occupants
were partially ejected and two were
completely ejected. All six were front
seat occupants, although one was
ejected through a second row window.
Four of the ejected occupants were
killed in the crash. One fatal partial
ejection was ejected through a window
protected by both a curtain and a
laminated window. Four of these cases
involved curtain damage. In two, the Apillar tether detached. It is not possible
to know if these instances of curtain
damage occurred during the rollover or
post-crash due to extrication.
We examined SCI rollover crashes,
NASS CDS cases from the target
population of the final rule and data
from the RODSS project and found six
case vehicles where occupants were
ejected through the side window
opening that a rollover deployed curtain
presumably covered. These cases are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.004</GPH>
rollover curtains, 10.0 percent [1/10]
were ejected through the side window,
as compared to 26.5 percent [9/34] of
unbelted occupants protected by side
impact curtains. We note that two
unbelted occupants were not ejected in
vehicles with deployed rollover
curtains.
ER19JA11.003</GPH>
occupants in vehicles where the curtain
did not deploy. Rollover severity (as
represented by number of quarter-turns)
does not seem to account for the
difference in the ejection rates for these
two unbelted groups.
When the data are restricted to only
unbelted occupants protected by
Cases Where Occupants Were Ejected
Through Rollover Curtain-Equipped
Windows
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Table 27 examines the subset of
occupants from Table 26 who were
unbelted. Table 27 shows that 22.7
percent [10/44] of unbelted occupants in
vehicles with curtain air bag
deployment were ejected through the
side windows, in comparison to 51.9
percent [108/208] of those unbelted
3238
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 28—RODSS, NASS CDS AND SCI CASES WITH OCCUPANTS WHO WERE EJECTED THROUGH SIDE WINDOWS
PROTECTED BY ROLLOVER CURTAINS
Case ID
1/4
Turns
Year/Make/Model
Curt.
depl.
Seat
pos.
Belt
use
Age
Eject.
Route
Injury/
MAIS
RODSS
7238 * ................
8289 * ................
8289 * ................
8289 * ................
06
03
03
03
Ford Explorer ..................................
Lincoln Aviator ‡ ..............................
Lincoln Aviator ‡ ..............................
Lincoln Aviator ................................
6
8+
8+
8+
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
......
......
......
......
11
11
12
23
No .......
Yes ......
Yes ......
Yes ......
84y
62y
28y
65y
Comp.
Part .....
No .......
No .......
Row 1 L
Row 1 L
NA ..........
NA ..........
Fatal.
Fatal.
Serious.
Moderate.
NASS CDS
2003–04–048 * ..
2003–04–048 ....
2006–79–089 ....
2008–03–108 ....
2008–12–159 ....
02
02
04
08
05
Ford Explorer ..................................
Ford Explorer ..................................
Lexus RX330 ..................................
Honda Pilot .....................................
Mercury Mont ..................................
4
4
1
6
8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
......
......
......
......
......
11
13
11
11
11
Yes ......
Yes ......
No .......
No .......
No .......
54y
49y
27y
48y
23y
No .......
Part .....
Part .....
Part .....
Comp.
NA ..........
Row 1 R
Row 2 L
Row 1 L
Row 1 L
1.
1.
Fatal.
3.
Fatal.
* These are also SCI cases.59
‡ These seating positions had laminated glazing adjacent to them.
Non-Deployed Rollover Curtains in
Rollover Crashes
We examined SCI rollover crashes,
NASS CDS cases from the target
population of the final rule and data
from the RODSS project to find if the
rollover sensors deployed the rollover
side air curtains in a rollover. In general,
field data indicate that rollover sensors
have been recognizing a rollover and
deploying rollover curtains in rollover
crashes.
We found five case vehicles where the
vehicle was apparently equipped with a
side curtain air bag that was supposed
to be deployed by a rollover sensor and
the curtains did not deploy in the
rollover event (see Table 29). There
were two completely ejected occupants
and one partial ejected occupant in
these crashes. The results of these
ejections were 3 fatalities. All of these
ejections were through side windows
except one where the front passenger
door was dislodged from the vehicle
and provided the ejection route for the
unbelted driver.
Consistent among these nondeployment cases is that the rollover
was preceded by a significant frontal
impact. Four of the five non-deployment
cases had a significant frontal impact
that preceded the rollover. The MY 2006
Ford Explorer in RODSS case 6121 had
a right front corner impact with a large
tree prior to the rollover. The MY 2003
Lincoln Aviator in RODSS case 7242
had an offset frontal impact with an
oncoming vehicle prior to the rollover.
The MY 2006 Cadillac SRX in SCI case
DS07009 impacted a large tree prior to
the rollover. The EDR data from this
case indicated that the tree impact had
a longitudinal and lateral DV of ¥ 38.9
mph and ¥ 10.2 mph, respectively. The
EDR also indicated that the rollover
sensor status was ‘‘invalid’’ and the
curtain deployment was not
commanded. The MY 2009 Dodge
Journey had a narrow offset frontal
impact with another vehicle, which the
crash investigator stated disrupted the
power supply from the battery. The
frontal air bags deployed in the above
four crashes. (There is some doubt as to
whether RODSS case 6121 (SCI CA9062)
was definitely equipped with a rollover
sensor, since the system was an option
on this vehicle. Ultimately, no definitive
determination was made.) For the cases
involving initial frontal impacts, these
impacts may have destroyed the vehicle
battery and thus eliminated the primary
power source for deploying the rollover
curtain.
In RODSS case 5032 (SCI CA9061), it
appears the sensor may not have been
able to make a determination that a
rollover occurred. However, in studying
the details of this case, the vehicle’s
kinematics were very complex and may
have included some motion not typical
of a lateral rollover.
TABLE 29—RODSS AND SCI ROLLOVER CASES WHERE THE ROLLOVER CURTAIN DID NOT DEPLOY
Case ID
Quarter
turns
Year/Make/Model
Curt.
depl.
Seat
pos.
Belt use
Age
Eject.
Route
Injury/
MAIS
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
RODSS
5032 * ................
6121 * ................
7242 * ................
7242 * ................
7242 * ................
7242 * ................
04
06
03
03
03
03
Lincoln Aviator ‡ ..............................
Ford Explorer ..................................
Lincoln Aviator ‡ ..............................
Lincoln Aviator ‡ ..............................
Lincoln Aviator ................................
Lincoln Aviator ................................
3
4
3
3
3
3
No
No
No
No
No
No
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
11
11
11
13
21
23
No .......
No .......
Yes ......
Yes ......
CRS ....
Yes ......
68y
23y
28y
26y
3y
7y
Comp.
Comp.
No .......
No .......
No .......
No .......
Row 2 R
Door (13)
NA ..........
NA ..........
NA ..........
NA ..........
Fatal.
Fatal.
Serious.
Serious.
Serious.
Serious.
SCI
DS07009 ...........
DS09071 ...........
DS09071 ...........
06 Cadillac SRX ...................................
09 Dodge Journey ................................
09 Dodge Journey ................................
4
4
4
No .......
No .......
No .......
11
11
13
No .......
Yes ......
Yes ......
81y
63y
60y
Part .....
No .......
No .......
Row 1 L
NA ..........
NA ..........
Fatal.
2.
1.
* These are also SCI cases.60
‡ These seating positions had laminated glazing adjacent to them.
59 Both RODSS cases were made into SCI remote
investigations to facilitate documentation of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
photographs and other crash details. The SCI case
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
numbers are CA09069 (RODSS 7238) and CA10006
(RODSS 8289).
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3239
The component test involves use of a
guided linear impactor that is 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).61 It
averages the dimensional and inertial
characteristics of the frontal and lateral
regions of the head into a single
headform. The NPRM specified that the
headform is covered with an
approximately 10 mm thick dummy
skin material whose outer surface
dimensions are given in Figure 4, below.
The Technical Analysis report
accompanying the NPRM 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. Both the old and new
impactors used in agency research
propel the shaft component of the
impactor with a pneumatic piston. The
shaft of the old impactor slides along a
plastic (polyethylene) bearing. The new
impactor uses curved roller bearings for
part of the shaft support, which reduces
the energy loss due to friction. The
impactor has an 18 kg mass.62
60 These three RODSS cases were made into SCI
remote investigations to facilitate documentation of
photographs and other crash details. The SCI case
numbers are RODSS 5032 (CA09061), RODSS 6121
(CA9062) and RODSS 7242 (CA9063).
61 ‘‘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.
62 Since the 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 is 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
NPRM did not specifically require a
rollover sensor. A 3-year lead time and
4-year phase-in was proposed, along
with allowance of advanced credits to
meet phase-in requirements. Costs,
benefits, and other impacts were
discussed in a PRIA accompanying the
NPRM.
a. Impactor Dimensions and Mass
1. NPRM
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.005</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
X. Response to Comments and Agency
Decisions
Laboratory and field data indicate that
window curtains covering side windows
can substantially reduce ejections in
rollovers. NHTSA issued the NPRM to
require that the side windows next to
the first three rows of seats be subject to
performance requirements that ensure
the vehicle has an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that would prevent an
18 kg headform from moving more than
100 mm beyond the zero displacement
plane of each window when the
window is impacted.
The NPRM proposed requirements
for: (a) The impactor dimensions and
mass; (b) the displacement limit; (c)
impactor time and speed of impact; (d)
target locations, and (e) testing the
targets. We also discussed: (f) glazing
issues; (g) test procedure tolerances; (h)
test device characteristics; and (i) a
proposal for a telltale requirement. The
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3240
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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’’).63 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) used for FMVSS No.
214, ‘‘Side impact protection,’’ does not
have. A linear impact pendulum
weighing 23.4 kg 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 and replicate
advanced glazing impacts.
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 condition was
described as being representative of a
rollover event and the second was
described as being representative of a
side impact event.
In the rollover condition, the impact
speed was intended to be 16.1 km/h (10
mph) 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
Analysis in Support of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Ejection Mitigation,’’
supra.
63 ‘‘Technical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
designed to be more representative of a
side impact condition, the dummy was
seated upright and the impact speed
was intended to be 24.1 km/h (15 mph).
In the preamble of the NPRM, we
described the agency’s analysis of these
tests as follows. As was done for the
pendulum data, the effective mass was
calculated by dividing the force time
history calculated from the pendulum
accelerometers by the acceleration time
history from the dummy sensors. Using
this method, 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 24.1 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
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 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.
For this final rule, we have reanalyzed
these sled tests primarily for the
purpose of determining impact energy,
which we address in detail later in this
preamble.64 However, this analysis also
generated estimates of the effective mass
of the dummies in these tests. For the
24.1 km/h test, three methods
(represented by equations 2–4, infra)
gave a range of the combined head and
shoulder effective mass of 12.2 to 13.1
kg. We believe that a reasonable
estimate is 13 kg. The analysis for the
16.1 km/h test is more complex due to
the time dependent dummy orientation.
After making estimates of the impact
energy using a simple sprung mass
model, we back calculated the effective
mass assuming the impact energy is
equal to the kinetic energy prior to
impact (represented by equation 3,
infra). We also used the sled velocity as
a surrogate for relative dummy speed
and calculated effective mass directly by
using an equation 4, infra. From these
calculations we estimated a combined
64 The video from these tests and the data from
the dummies, load wall and sled can be accessed
from the NHTSA Biomechanics Database at https://
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/biodb/
querytesttable.aspx. The test numbers are 10282
through 10287. Tests reanalyzed in detail were
10282 (24 km/h test) and 10285 (16.1 km/h test).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
head and shoulder effective mass of 22
kg.
In the NPRM preamble, we reported
that the agency also performed a
computer modeling analysis 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 noted in the NPRM that the 18 kg
proposed mass is consistent with that
used by General Motors (GM) in 16.2
km/h (10 mph) tests of ejection
mitigation curtains.65 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. A more detailed
analysis of this study can be found later
in this preamble.
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.
In summary, the proposed impactor
mass was based on the determination of
an effective mass calculated through
both pendulum and sled test impacts
and modeling. These methods resulted
in a large range of effective mass values.
In the end, we deferred to the 18 kg
equivalent mass seen during the sled
test that was intended to be more
representative of a rollover event, which
was also the equivalent mass calculated
from pendulum impact into the dummy
shoulder. For this final rule we have
reanalyzed the sled tests and estimated
a range of effective mass from
approximately 13 to 22 kg. Thus, the 18
kg effective mass is still considered to
be a reasonable representation of an
occupant’s head and a portion of the
torso. An effective 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
GM estimates from vehicle rollover
tests, and is consistent with the
impactor that GM uses to evaluate side
curtains.
65 O’Brian-Mitchell, Bridget M., Lange, Robert C.,
‘‘Ejection Mitigation in Rollover Events—
Component Test Development,’’ SAE 2007–01–
0374.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
2. Comments
There was general support from the
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers for
using a linear impactor and performance
metric based on the displacement of that
impactor in a compliance test. There
were only a few comments on the
impactor dimensions and mass. These
few comments were in favor of the
proposed mass. While VW and others
had comments on the impact energy
imparted by the mass, which is an issue
which will be addressed in a later
section below, VW stated that ‘‘the 18 kg
mass for the impactor is well
established * * *’’ The Alliance
referenced the fact that the GM test
procedure for ejection mitigation uses
an 18 kg linear impactor in stating that
‘‘[t]he Alliance supports the use of the
18 kg headform proposed in the NPRM.’’
Some parties commented on the
design of the headform. Takata stated
that simulated animations have shown
relative movement of head skull and
headform, and that ‘‘the incomplete
fixation of the head skull is influencing
the displacement behavior of the head
form [sic].’’ Takata suggested enlarging
the head skull fixation in the lower
portion, by adding a skull cap or
enlarging the chin area in the rear for
example. Similarly, TRW said that it
found that the headform skin can
become dislodged from the skull during
testing and suggested using a backplate
of smaller size on the headform to better
clamp the headform skin flange to the
skull. TRW also said that the headform
skin can become displaced from the
lower (chin) area of the skull.
AORC recommended that NHTSA
adopt specifications for the skin
stiffness, skin friction coefficient, and
skull surface finish, to address the
headform skin partially dislocating on
the headform as a result of friction
between the countermeasure and the
headform.
TRW suggested changes to the
preparation of the headform for testing.
It stated that frictional attributes of the
headform skin affect the manner in
which the headform interacts with the
rollover curtain, so talc, chalk, or other
coatings could affect test results. TRW
suggested that the standard specify that
‘‘no coatings shall be applied to the
headform skin during testing’’ and
asked, as did AORC, that the standard
specify that prior to the test, the
headform skin must be cleaned (TRW
suggested cleaning the headform with
isopropyl alcohol). TRW suggested
changes to the headform drawing
package to address: The outer surface
finish requirements of the skull; the
thickness tolerance and durometer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
hardness of the skin; inner/outer surface
finish and tolerance requirements of the
skin material type and material
properties corridor for the skin; the
definition of frictional characteristics of
the skin, including the performance
corridor; and test procedure and
measurement technique for frictional
characteristics of skin.
3. Agency Response
We are adopting an 18 kg headform
substantially similar to the device
described in the NPRM.
We are declining Takata’s and TRW’s
requests to add a skull cap or modify the
backplate of the headform. The
modification is unnecessary as the new
headform has not exhibited the problem
these commenters describe. Further, the
effect of the modification on actual test
results has not been quantified by the
commenters. Using modeling, Takata
estimated about a 3 mm increase in
displacement between the proposed
headform and one with the suggested
modification, but it is not clear this
modeling is representative of an actual
impact test.
NHTSA is not inherently opposed to
improvements in the headform design to
possibly allow for a longer period of
head skin use before it needs to be
replaced. However, it has not been
shown that there is a need to improve
the headform at this time. If
improvements are feasible and the effect
of changing the headform on ejection
mitigation countermeasure performance
can be better assessed, we are open to
considering fine-tuning adjustments to
the headform at a future date.
With respect to TRW’s comments
about the additions and revisions to the
drawing package, the NPRM’s drawing
package already included specifications
for the skin material type, thickness and
durometer. It also included a
specification for preparing the outer
surface finish of the skull. TRW did not
provide any reason to change these
specifications, so they will remain as
proposed in the final rule.
We deny TRW’s other requests that
we specify the inner/outer skin surface
finish, skin frictional characteristics,
friction performance corridor and
friction measurement technique. We do
not believe there is a need for these
specifications. NHTSA has not before
found a need to specify skin surface
finish and frictional characteristics for
test dummy skin. The commenter
provided no justification as to why the
material properties provided were
insufficient or how the requested
parameters would improve the
objectivity of the standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3241
We are denying the request to place
a requirement in the regulatory text to
clean the headform skin with isopropyl
alcohol as per FMVSS No. 201,
‘‘Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact.’’ The commenters provide no
data showing the necessity of such
provision. FMVSS No. 201 has no
requirement that the free motion
headform be cleaned with alcohol prior
to the testing. There is no FMVSS that
specifies in the regulatory text that the
dummy skin should be cleaned prior to
vehicle testing.
b. Measurement Plane and
Displacement Limit (100 mm)
1. NPRM
We proposed 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 in position
but pre-broken if it were advanced
glazing; or down or removed altogether
if it were tempered glazing. It was
proposed that advanced glazing would
be in position but pre-broken for both
the 1.5 second test and the 6-second
test.
The NPRM included a windowbreaking procedure that damages but
does not destroy advanced glazing,
while it will obliterate tempered
glazing. It was proposed that vehicle
manufacturers may remove or
completely retract tempered glazing
since it would be destroyed in the prebreaking 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 does not allow gaps
or openings to form through which
occupants can be partially or fully
ejected. In the research tests, targets that
had displacements of less than 100 mm
did not allow ejections in dynamic
testing.
In research tests, the TRW and Zodiac
prototype ejection mitigation
countermeasures were tested on a CK
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3242
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
pickup to the proposed impactor test
procedure.66 The TRW prototype had no
coverage at position A1 (front window
forward lower position). 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 6year-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.
We recognize 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 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 indicated that there was
an increased likelihood that an opening
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.67
NHTSA also noted in the NPRM that
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), 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), to
66 There were only some slight variations in target
locations.
67 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
mitigate occupant ejection through
unintentional door openings in a crash.
In FMVSS No. 206, the door is loaded
with 18,000 N of force 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.68 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.
The NPRM noted that GM has
developed a test procedure that uses a
100 mm displacement limit but in GM’s
procedure, the zero displacement plane
is a plane tangent to the exterior of the
side of the vehicle at the target
location.69 70 Displacement is measured
perpendicular to this excursion plane.
Thus, the allowable GM displacement is
approximately 100/cos(q) mm, with q
being the angle with the vertical of the
exterior plane, if other aspects of the test
were identical to those of the NPRM. If
q were 20 degrees, the GM limit would
be approximately 106 mm. 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.
2. Comments
There was general support for the use
of a linear impactor as opposed to some
other impacting device and performance
metric based on the displacement of that
68 The ICC is a nonprofit membership association
that works on developing a single set of
comprehensive and coordinated national model
construction codes. https://www.iccsafe.org/news/
about/.
69 O’Brian-Mitchell, Bridget M., Lange, Robert C.,
‘‘Ejection Mitigation in Rollover Events—
Component Test Development,’’ SAE 2007–01–
0374.
70 GM explained that its justification for the 100
mm displacement limit is that it represents half the
height of the 50th percentile male Hybrid III head.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
impactor.71 However, many commenters
had opinions about the 100 mm
performance limit and how the
displacement should be measured. In
general, the net effect of the vehicle
manufacturers’ requests was to increase
the allowable displacement, while that
of the glazing manufacturers and
consumer groups was to reduce it.
Both the Alliance and AIAM
suggested that the final rule measure
displacement from an initial reference
point other than the point of contact of
the headform with the glazing. Both
requested that a method similar to that
used by GM be used. This measurement
method defines a line tangent to the side
of the vehicle at the window opening.
(We note that although the Alliance
calls the longitudinal plane that passes
through this line the excursion plane,
see Figure 5, extracted from the Alliance
comments, there would likely be a
unique excursion plane at every target
location due to the curvature of the
vehicle sides.)
Under the Alliance method, the
headform contact with the excursion
plane for that target location defines the
point of zero displacement. The
Alliance explained this zero plane by
stating that ‘‘the risk of injury is more
closely tied to the amount of occupant
excursion from the outside of the
vehicle’s structure as opposed to the
side glass.’’ The AIAM stated that its
procedure ‘‘takes into account the shape
of the vehicle body near the side
windows and the contribution the body
makes in providing additional space
before the occupant contacts the
ground.’’
The Alliance and AIAM methods
differ after the zero excursion plane is
determined. For the Alliance, the
maximum excursion plane is defined by
translating the excursion plane 150 mm
laterally. The point of contact of the
headform with the maximum excursion
plane provides the limit on
displacement. The Alliance justifies its
request for a 150 mm excursion limit by
stating ‘‘that the impactor mass and
impact energy are based on the 50th
male.’’ Therefore, it believes that ‘‘a 150
mm excursion limit based on the
diameter of a 50th percentile male head
(Hybrid III—153 mm, WorldSID = 159
mm, Featureless = 177 mm) is more
appropriate.’’ The Alliance and Volvo
commented that excursion should not
be based on the size of a child’s head
and impact energy of an adult male. For
the AIAM, the maximum excursion
plane is defined by translating the
71 This is aside from commenters who want the
agency to use a completely different test method,
i.e., full vehicle dynamic rollover.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the lateral plane is then projected 100
mm along the normal line. The
headform is then translated laterally and
horizontally until it contacts the
projected window cross-section, which
provides the limit of displacement.
TRW agreed with the measurement
method and excursion limit of 100 mm,
with one caveat. The commenter noted
that ‘‘during an impact test, there can be
considerable deflection of the door/
window frame, door structure, door
hinges, etc.’’ TRW stated that ‘‘[s]ince the
objective of the Standard is to limit
headform displacement to no more than
100mm beyond the zero displacement
plane, movement of the plane due to the
door system deflection should be
considered during the test.’’
IIHS suggested that the 100 mm
displacement limit might be
unnecessarily small. It stated that
‘‘[s]electing this value based on its use
in other safety standards with very
different test conditions or in building
codes for guardrails on balconies and
stairs may be unreasonable.’’ IIHS
indicated that the 12 vehicles tested by
NHTSA, as reported in the NPRM,
would have failed to comply with the
100 mm displacement limit, yet ‘‘the
crash performance of these vehicles has
not been assessed to demonstrate a need
for improved ejection mitigation
systems.’’ IIHS also stated that the
potential negative effects of requiring air
72 Honda’s diagram in its comment shows a line
projected from the point of contact with the
window, rather than the target center. (The target
or target outline was defined in the NPRM as the
x-z plane projection of the ejection headform face.
The center of the target outline would be the target
center.) We assume the graphic represents the
intent of Honda’s comment. The line emanates from
the point of glazing contact with the headform.
Honda also stated that the line projected from the
point of contact is normal (perpendicular) to the
window. However, most side windows curve out of
the longitudinal vehicle plane and any normal to
the window would not be contained in a lateral
plane. Thus, we have assumed that only the
component of the normal line in the lateral plane
is of interest, i.e., only the line normal to the lateral
cross-section of the glazing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:18 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
bags to be stiffer to meet a 100 mm
displacement requirement are unknown.
In general, glazing suppliers
recommended that the final rule use the
passage of a 40 mm sphere to assess any
gaps in the countermeasures. They
suggested we use industry standards
published by the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE), SAE J2568, ‘‘Intrusion
Resistance of Safety Glazing Systems for
Road Vehicles,’’ or by the British
Standards Institution (BSI), BSI AU 209,
‘‘Vehicle Security,’’ which provide
glazing intrusion resistance
requirements from external impact (as
opposed to ejection mitigation). These
industry standards specify that after
testing there must not be separation
within the glazing or between the
glazing and vehicle body that would
allow for passage of a 40 mm diameter
sphere. The EPGAA stated that it is
necessary to ‘‘specify a maximum
opening after impact in addition to an
excursion limit to adequately address
the remaining gaps leading to partial
ejections.’’ It goes on to state that
‘‘NHTSA currently requires gap
quantification limitation for
windshields to resist occupant ejection
in FMVSS [No.] 205, which mandates
compliance with ANSI/SAE Z26.1
where glazing tears are measured and
limited after impact.’’ In contrast, Batzer
and Ziejewski indicated that the 100
mm displacement appeared appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.006</GPH>
normal to the excursion plane, rather
than 150 mm laterally.
Honda agreed with the 100 mm
displacement limit in the NPRM
because it believes it to be appropriate
to account for the size of a child’s head.
It also agreed that the horizontal
measurement of the impactor
displacement was appropriate because
of its ‘‘feasibility and measurement
accuracy.’’ However, Honda concluded
‘‘that the proposed procedure * * *
doesn’t accurately simulate the degree
of ejection toward the outside of the
vehicle.’’
Honda suggested that the measured
displacement should begin at the same
location as proposed in the NPRM, i.e.,
the point of contact of the headform
with the inside surface of the glazing.
However, Honda suggested drawing a
line normal to the glazing at the target
center.72 The window cross-section in
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
excursion plane by 100 mm along a line
3243
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Advocates suggested that the
proposed displacement limit be reduced
by 50 percent, to 50 mm. It stated that
a 100 mm displacement limit ‘‘allows
enough excursion to permit serious
injuries and deaths outside the vehicles.
The 4-inch limit also devalues the major
contribution that advanced glazing can
make to reduce the chances of occupant
ejections, including excessive occupant
excursion outside side windows.’’
100 mm limit strikes the appropriate
balance between stringency and
practicability. We address the issue of
stringency and practicability further in
a later section on the time delay of the
impacts and impactor velocity.
Suggested Methods Would Increase the
Displacement Limit
NHTSA does not agree with the
requested changes to the displacement
measurement method from the vehicle
manufacturers and TRW, which would
all effectively increase the allowable
displacement. We also disagree with the
additional post-impact gap
measurement suggested by the glazing
suppliers. We also do not concur with
the requests of some commenters to
increase the displacement limit, and of
some to reduce it. We believe that the
We do not believe that the methods
suggested by the commenters provide a
better method of measuring the
performance of the ejection
countermeasure. No data was presented
to support why the suggested methods
are preferable to the method proposed
in the NPRM.
In the NPRM and the technical
analysis supporting the NPRM, the
agency estimated that the GM
measurement method allowed about 6
percent more displacement than the
proposed method of measurement.
Below we analyze the displacement
measurement methods requested by the
Figure 7 shows the displacement
measurement methods that Honda and
the Alliance recommended in their
comments. In the Honda method, the
lateral cross-section of the glazing is
projected 100 mm along the normal line
at the point of contact of the headform.
Using the Honda method, the
headform’s horizontal displacement at
the A2 target is 101 mm from the NPRM
zero displacement point. The Alliancerecommended measurement method
defines a line tangent to the side of the
vehicle at the window opening as the
zero excursion plane. The maximum
excursion plane is defined by
translating the excursion plane 150 mm
laterally. Using the Alliance method, the
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3. Agency Response
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
commenters and compare the associated
performance limits of the respective
methods to the performance limit
discussed in the NPRM. For this
comparison, we used a graphical
representation of a two dimensional
lateral cross-section of the headform
contact with the side window. For
convenience, we used an approximation
of the headform profile rather than the
exact cubic equation prescribed in the
NPRM. The vehicle cross-section
included the window as well as the
structure in its vicinity.
Figure 6 shows how the 100 mm
displacement put forward in the NPRM
is measured from the contact point of
the headform at the A2 target point with
the side window glazing. In this
example, the lateral cross-section A–A
of the glazing is represented by a 15
degree arc segment having a 201 cm
radius, with the base of the arc oriented
approximately 7 degrees from the
vertical.
headform’s horizontal displacement at
the A2 target is 161 mm from the NPRM
zero displacement point. This 161 mm
value is the sum of the 11 mm distance
between the contact point with the
window and the excursion plane (D
excursion plane) and the 150 mm
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.007</GPH>
3244
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3245
additional displacement to the
maximum excursion plane.73
the limit determined by the Alliance
method. From Figure 7 we see that the
excursion angle is 17 degrees from the
vertical. Thus, the horizontal translation
of the AIAM maximum excursion plane
is 105 mm = 100/cos(17 deg.). The total
AIAM displacement allowance from the
headform when in contact with the
window plane is the sum of the D
Excursion Plane (11 mm) plus the
horizontal translation of the excursion
plane (105 mm), resulting in a value of
116 mm at target A2.
The displacement measurement
methods suggested by Honda, the
Alliance, and AIAM are all more
sensitive to the particular target
location, the curvature and angle of the
window, as well as the profile of the
vehicle structure around the window
opening, than the NPRM method. Figure
8 shows the NPRM displacement
measurement at target A4 for a side
window having twice the base angle (13
degrees) as the previous example. The
window curvature remains the same.
Figure 9 shows a graphical
determination of displacement
measurements for Honda (109 mm) and
the Alliance (156 mm) at A4. Using the
mathematical transformation described
above, we calculate the AIAM value
(114 mm).
73 In doing this analysis, we have assumed that
the point of contact with the glazing is along the
centerline of the headform. If we did not, the
difference between the NPRM method and the
Alliance and AIAM proposals would be even
greater.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.008</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
AIAM also recommended a
displacement measurement method
similar to the Alliance method in that
an excursion plane is located tangent to
the side of the vehicle window opening.
However, the maximum excursion plane
is defined by translating the excursion
plane by 100 mm along a line normal to
the excursion plane rather than 150 mm
laterally.
Because of the similarities between
the Alliance and AIAM methods, once
the angle of the excursion plane is
known, a simple mathematical
relationship can be used to calculate the
AIAM displacement limit with respect
to the NPRM measurement method from
The same exercise was performed for
target position A2 with a 13 degree
window and for target position A4 with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
a 7 degree window. Figure 10 shows the
displacement limits calculated for the
three commenters’ methods at target
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
positions A2 and A4 with a 7 and 13
degree window, subtracted from the 100
mm limit in the NPRM. The Honda
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
ER19JA11.009</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3246
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3247
locations and window/vehicle
geometries. However, there does not
appear to be a situation where any of the
suggested methods will result in a
lateral displacement limit of less than
100 mm. That is, each suggested method
would reduce the stringency of the test
by permitting the openings to be greater
than 100 mm. As explained in the
section below, this we cannot accept.
TRW requested allowing the zero
reference plane to move with the door
frame. We are declining this request. It
is unclear to us why allowing the
reference plane to move in the manner
suggested is preferable from a safety
standpoint than simply maintaining the
position of the zero plane with respect
to ground. The latter (NPRM) method is
preferable because the door frame
provides a reaction surface for the
curtain air bags or advanced glazing.
The door frame is part of the system
designed to retain the occupant in the
vehicle. If the zero reference plane is
tied to movement of the door frame, a
weak door frame could render the
displacement limit meaningless. For
example, under the TRW method, a
vehicle that allows an impactor
displacement of 150 mm with 50 mm of
door deflection would be considered
compliant, as would a vehicle that
allows an impactor displacement of 100
mm with 0 mm of door deflection.
Further, the TRW suggestion would
also add a significant amount of
complexity to the testing. There would
need to be a determination as to the
sufficient number of measurement
locations on the door and how the
agency would assess movement of the
door frame. The suggestion requires
further study to properly integrate it
into the test procedure and we are
unable to conclude that use of our
resources to pursue the matter would be
warranted.
Unrealistic Assumptions
The methods of measurement
suggested by the Alliance, AIAM and
Honda are dependent on assumptions
about the performance of the vehicle
that may not be realistic. The Alliance
and AIAM methods are very similar.
Both these methods use a tangent to the
side of the vehicle (zero excursion
plane), translated some distance, as the
limit of displacement (maximum
excursion plane). The assumption
apparently is that occupant excursions
within this zone will be protected.
We do not agree with this assumption.
For example, if vehicle A’s exterior skin
protrudes farther outboard than vehicle
B’s, but A’s protruding exterior skin
consists of only sheet metal or plastic or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.011</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
method provides the smallest
differential with the NPRM method (1 to
9 mm), the Alliance method provides
the largest (55 to 61 mm). Again, the
results will vary for other target
3248
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
some like material that provides little if
any crush resistance, we do not agree
that A’s maximum excursion plane
should be farther outboard at the bottom
of the window opening than B’s. More
displacement of the headform would be
permitted for vehicle A even though in
a real-world crash, A’s exterior skin
could be easily leveled. Since the
countermeasure of A would be
permitted to allow more headform
displacement outside of the window
plane than that of B, the suggested
approach would provide A’s occupants
less minimal protection in a rollover or
side impact than the NPRM approach.
Relatedly, when the excursion plane
is derived from the undeformed vehicle
structure, if the roof structure has
significant lateral deformation after
impact, the original excursion plane
may have very little relevance to
occupant protection.
With Honda’s method, it seems there
is an underlying assumption that if
ground contact occurs with the vehicle
rotated 90 degrees, the door structure
will be the initial point of contact, so
that targets near the upper part of the
glazing on a vehicle with a highly
inclined/curved glazing could be
permitted to displace farther than
targets at the center. Under this method,
the greater the inclination and/or
curvature of the glazing in the lateral
plane, the more displacement is allowed
compared to the NPRM’s approach (9
percent more at A4 with the 13 degree
glazing). A vehicle with a more highly
inclined glazing would be allowed more
headform displacement at the top and
bottom of the window compared to the
NPRM. Given the unpredictable nature
of rollover crashes, we cannot agree
with this assumption. A vehicle might
be rotated greater than 90 degrees
during ground contact, resulting in
initial contact near the upper glazing.
Thus, to allow more displacement at the
top of the glazing relative to the initial
glazing position does not seem
warranted.
Adding Complexity
The measurement methods suggested
by the Alliance, AIAM, Honda and TRW
are more complicated to implement
than the method proposed by the
agency. The NPRM’s method of
measuring displacement is actually very
simple and straightforward. The point of
zero displacement is simply the contact
point with the side window glazing.
From there, it is only necessary to keep
track of how far the linear impactor
translates along its axis of motion. No
digitization or CAD techniques are
required. To find the zero displacement
point for the Alliance or AIAM method,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
one must hold a relatively thin straight
edge in a lateral vehicle plane, aligned
with the target center, against the
outside of the vehicle. Headform contact
with this straight edge defines the point
of zero displacement. This can be done
by digitizing the exterior of the vehicle.
However, it is somewhat more onerous
than the NPRM method. The Honda
method is just as simple as the NPRM
method in finding the point of zero
displacement, but after that, we believe
the method would require a digitization
of the glazing. This digitized glazing
would then need to be manipulated in
a CAD program to determine the
allowable displacement. The complexity
of the TRW method has been discussed
above.
Increasing the Displacement Limit
The agency is declining the requests
to increase the allowable displacement
limit.
The Alliance and Volvo believe the
limit should not be based on the size of
a child’s head and the impact energy of
an adult male. (In contrast, Honda
commented that basing the requirement
on the size of a child’s head was
appropriate.) We disagree with the
Alliance and Volvo on this point. It is
reasonable for the agency to adopt a
displacement limit based on the
anthropometry of a child since the
standard is intended to mitigate ejection
of all sizes of occupants, not just the
mid-size male. It is possible for a child
occupant to interact with an ejection
mitigation countermeasure with
relatively high impact energy if a large
portion of their mass is considered. For
example, an average 5-year-old child
weighs about 18 kg (the same mass as
the linear impactor). Due to the size of
this child relative to a window opening,
it would be much easier for their entire
body mass to interact with the window
opening than it would be for an adult.
Also, the ejection mitigation
countermeasure could be double-loaded
by more than one occupant
simultaneously during the rollover
event, e.g., a child in the rear seat and
the driver in the front seat or two
unbelted occupants in the same row.
The 100 mm limit reduces the
likelihood that openings will form
during the rollover that are large enough
to pass the head or other body part of
a child or an adult.
The principle underlying the 100 mm
displacement limit is to ensure that the
entire window opening is covered, and
covered by a countermeasure resilient
enough to withstand the forces that
could be imposed on it in a rollover
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
without forming gaps or openings.74 We
chose a 100 mm displacement limit as
a reasonable and objective measure of
acceptable performance, taking into
account the practicability of meeting the
displacement limit, safety need, and the
SAFETEA–LU goal of a standard that
reduces complete and partial ejections
of vehicle occupants. We adopt a
displacement limit that will ensure that
the countermeasure covering the entire
window is wide enough and strong
enough to mitigate ejection of a child’s
head, limb or body, or those of an adult,
in the chaotic and unpredictable phases
of a rollover.
IIHS believed that the NPRM selection
of 100 mm displacement, partially based
on other standards (FMVSS Nos. 206
and 217) and building codes, may be
unreasonable. It noted that the vehicle
testing reported in the NPRM did not
show any that passed all the target
points at 100 mm of displacement even
though the field performance of these
vehicles may be acceptable. IIHS stated
that if the displacement requirement is
too stringent it will lead manufacturers
to make their air bags too stiff, with
unknown consequences from this
increased stiffness.
We understand the merits of having
extensive field data that correlates the
performance in the proposed test against
ejection mitigation in the field. At the
time of the NPRM development, there
were very few rollover curtain-equipped
vehicles in the available field data and
the vehicles then-tested by the agency
were not designed to have full window
coverage as the NPRM requirements
contemplated. Now more field data is
available to us, and we have tested
many more vehicles some of which have
been designed to have extensive
window opening coverage. However,
the data set is still insufficient to
correlate various displacement values
and field performance.
Nonetheless, we do not accept IIHS’s
argument that the 100 mm value may be
unreasonable because the value is used
in FMVSS No. 206 and 217 and in the
architectural code. These other
standards and the architectural code
referenced by the agency have basically
the same purpose: retaining occupants,
including children, in a vehicle in a
crash event, or retaining children
behind a barrier (railing). These
precedents are supportive of the
selected value. They were developed
taking into consideration the size of
children’s heads and limbs and the ease
or difficulty with which the parts can fit
through openings. If the window
opening countermeasure can limit the
74 74
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
FR 63193.
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
opening to 100 mm when impacted by
the headform at the prescribed
velocities, the countermeasure is more
likely to be able to restrict the opening
as needed when impacted by a lower
mass at the same or higher velocity, or
the same or larger mass at a lower
velocity.
Requests to Decrease Displacement
Limit
Advocates suggested that the
proposed displacement limit be reduced
by 50 percent to 50 mm. It believed that
such a stringent requirement will
‘‘ensure dramatic reductions in occupant
ejection, including partial ejection
* * *.’’ It stated further that the
proposed 100 mm value ‘‘devalues the
major contribution that advanced
glazing can make’’ and that more lives
would be saved by ‘‘a standard that
effectively would encourage the use of
advanced glazing in combination with
air curtains * * *.’’ 75 The suggestion to
reduce the displacement limit was made
by other commenters as well, including
glazing manufacturers.
NHTSA does not believe that the level
of stringency requested by Advocates
and others is warranted. We believe that
the 100 mm limit will be highly
effective in the reduction of both
complete and partial ejections.
Certainly, ejections will continue in
situations where the severity of the
crash and resulting occupant energy
will overwhelm the capacity of the
countermeasure. However, the 100 mm
limit strikes the appropriate balance
between stringency and practicability.
There is no available data that can
correlate various displacement values
with field performance at this time. We
cannot conclude that reducing the
displacement limit by 50 percent will
reduce ejection or side impact fatalities
and injuries by a corresponding amount.
The commenters did not provide data
on this issue. On the other hand, we can
estimate possible costs of indirectly
requiring advanced glazing to be
installed at side windows to meet a 50
mm displacement limit. In the FRIA, we
estimated that the incremental
difference in costs for going from
tempered glass to laminated advanced
glazing for a standard size side window
in the first or row is $15. Thus, for a two
row vehicle the total incremental cost
would be $60. In addition, we believe
that any costs associated with advanced
75 NHTSA–2009–0183–0022,
p. 3.
impact takes place on a test specimen
(e.g., a curtain) that was not previously subject to
an impact test.
77 ‘‘Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazings:
A Status Report,’’ November 1995, Docket NHTSA–
1996–1782–3. Pg. 6–1.
76 Each
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
glazing must be combined with the
curtain bag incremental cost since a
system with movable advanced glazing
alone would not be able to perform to
the level required for this standard. In
comparison, the agency has determined
that incremental cost of meeting the
final rule with only curtain air bags will
be $31 dollars per vehicle. The cost per
equivalent fatality of a system
comprised of a partial curtain in
combination with laminated glazing was
twice that of a system utilizing only a
curtain.
Requests To Add Another Requirement
3249
c. Times and Speed at Which the
Headform Impacts the Countermeasure
We have determined that there is 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.76 The
first impact is at 20 km/h, and at 1.5
seconds after countermeasure
deployment (1.5 second time delay).
(The 20 km/h speed is reduced from the
NPRM’s proposal of 24 km/h; the
rationale for which is discussed later in
this preamble.) The second is a 16 km/
h impact initiated 6 seconds after
deployment.
Many glazing manufacturers were in
favor of applying an additional postimpact requirement in which a 40 mm
sphere is used to determine the size of
any remaining gaps. According to the
commenters, this requirement would be
intended to eliminate gaps that can
exacerbate partial ejections. It is our
interpretation of the comments that this
test is to be applied to all vehicles, i.e.,
those using a combination of advanced
glazing and side curtain air bags to meet
the standard, and those using only side
curtain air bags.
We do not agree with this suggestion.
First, the requirement is not appropriate
for vehicles with only side curtain air
bags, given that there is a time
dependence associated with a curtain’s
ejection mitigation performance. Once
deployed, the pressure in the air bag
continuously decreases. The 16 km/h
test is done at 6 seconds to assure that
the pressure does not decrease too
quickly. It does not seem that the 40 mm
gap test could be done after the 6second impact, in any timeframe which
is related to rollover and side impact
ejections. Second, there is no shown
safety need for the requirement. We
cannot show that ejections that would
not be prevented by the primary 100mm displacement requirement would be
prevented by a secondary 40-mm
requirement. Third, it would seem that
the 40-mm requirement would
indirectly require installation of
advanced glazing. As discussed above,
the costs associated with advanced
glazing installations at the side
windows covered by this standard are
substantial in comparison to a system
only utilizing rollover curtains. For
these reasons, the agency does not
accept this suggestion.
Two impacts were 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.77 The vehicles were
a MY 1991 Toyota pickup, a MY 1986
Toyota Corolla and a MY 1985
Volkswagen Jetta.78 Vehicle handling
simulation software 79 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 80 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.
Table 30 shows the simulation
resultant head velocity through the open
window at the time of ejection. As
indicated in the table, for the
unrestrained simulations, the occupant
of the pickup was completely ejected
early (1st quarter-turn for Toyota truck)
while the occupants of the other
vehicles were ejected late (last quarterturn for Corolla and Jetta) in the rollover
event.
78 The circumstances of the Toyota pickup
rollover was 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.
79 VDANL software user’s manual V2.34, STI,
1992.
80 MADYMO user’s manual V5.1, TNO, 1994.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1. Time Delay (Ejections Can Occur
Both Early and Late in the Rollover
Event)
i. NPRM
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3250
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 30—HEAD AND TORSO VELOCITIES OF A HYBRID III 50TH PERCENTILE MALE DUMMY IN 3 ROLLOVER SIMULATIONS
Vehicle
Vehicle 1⁄4
turns
Toyota PU ...........................................
12
....................
6
....................
4
....................
Toyota Corolla (86) .............................
Volkswagen Jetta (85) ........................
The agency also considered other data
indicating that very early occupant
contact with the window area is
possible in rollover crashes. Table 31
gives information on 30 rollover tests
the agency performed from the mid1980s to the mid-1990s. This data set
included Rollover Test Device (RTD)
⁄ Turns at
complete
ejection
Restraint use
Head to
opening
(km/h)
....................
1
....................
6
....................
4
Yes .........................................
No ...........................................
Yes .........................................
No ...........................................
Yes .........................................
No ...........................................
14
tests, 208 Dolly tests, guardrail tests and
pole tests.81 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.82 We note, however, that the
Head to
glazing
(km/h)
20
5
15
13
14
22
20
20
15
13
14
18
Torso to
glazing
(km/h)
7
16
11
10
10
16
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.
TABLE 31—NHTSA FULL VEHICLE ROLLOVER TESTING FILM ANALYSIS
Roll axis
(deg.)
41
41
41
41
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
NA
NA
41
30
30
30
30
30
30
23
23
23
23
45
45
45
60
45
45
45
45
45
45
0
0
0
0
90
0
0
NA
NA
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Analysis of 5+ 1⁄4 turn Tests:
Average ....................................................................................................................................................
Maximum ..................................................................................................................................................
Average +2 standard deviations ...............................................................................................................
Make
Model
878 ............
888 ............
920 ............
939 ............
1255 ..........
1266 ..........
1267 ..........
1274 ..........
1289 ..........
1391 ..........
1392 ..........
1393 ..........
1394 ..........
1395 ..........
1471 ..........
1520 ..........
1521 ..........
1530 ..........
1531 ..........
1546 ..........
1851 ..........
1852 ..........
1925 ..........
1929 ..........
2141 ..........
2270 ..........
2514 ..........
2553 ..........
3012 ..........
3635 ..........
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Vehicle
speed
(km/h)
Tilt angle
(deg.)
Test #
Honda ..............
Chevrolet ..........
Dodge ..............
Mercury ............
Ford ..................
Dodge ..............
Chevrolet ..........
Nissan ..............
Nissan ..............
Dodge ..............
Ford ..................
Nissan ..............
Nissan ..............
Pontiac .............
Dodge ..............
Ford ..................
Dodge ..............
Dodge ..............
Nissan ..............
Plymouth ..........
Volvo ................
Volvo ................
Nissan ..............
Nissan ..............
Nissan ..............
Nissan ..............
Ford ..................
Ford ..................
Ford ..................
Ford ..................
Accord ..............
Celebrity ...........
Omni ................
Zephyr ..............
Bronco ..............
Caravan ...........
Pickup ..............
Pickup ..............
Pickup ..............
Caravan ...........
Bronco ..............
Pickup ..............
Pickup ..............
Grand Am ........
Colt ...................
Ranger .............
Ram .................
Caravan ...........
Pickup ..............
Reliant ..............
240 ...................
740 ...................
Pickup ..............
Pickup ..............
Pickup ..............
Pickup ..............
Explorer ............
Explorer ............
Explorer ............
Explorer ............
81 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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:18 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
MY
Test type
84
82
79
82
88
88
88
88
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
88
88
88
88
81
91
91
90
90
90
89
94
93
94
94
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
Guardrail ..........
Guardrail ..........
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
RTD ..................
208 ...................
208 ...................
208 ...................
208 ...................
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 208 Dolly
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
⁄ Turns
Total time
(sec)
33.8
37.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
96.6
96.6
33.8
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
48.3
2
4
2
2
2
1
4
6
2
8
8
4
4
2
2
2
4
1
4
6
6
8
8
6
8
8
11
10
11
12
1.29
3.58
0.96
2.08
1.17
0.50
2.58
3.76
0.83
5.08
3.60
2.35
1.33
1.54
0.99
0.75
1.42
N/A
N/A
3.00
2.50
3.00
3.04
2.25
4.25
3.50
5.50
N/A
N/A
5.17
47.2
96.6
55.2
8.3
12
12.3
14
3.7
5.5
5.8
tests on Ford Explorers. The test films are available
at the National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) at
George Washington University
(www.ncac.gwu.edu).
82 ‘‘Evaluation of Full Vehicle Rollover Films,’’
2008, Docket NHTSA–2006–26467.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The agency proposed that the ejection
mitigation countermeasure be first
tested at 1.5 seconds after deployment
of the ejection countermeasure. As
indicated earlier in this preamble,
slightly less than half of the complete
ejection fatalities occur when the
vehicle rolls up to 5 quarter-turns.83 As
shown in Table 30, restricting the
analysis to the tests with 5+ quarterturns, the average amount of time to
complete 1 full vehicle revolution (4
quarter-turns) was 1.62 seconds with a
standard deviation of 0.31 seconds.
Thus, the 1.5 second represented a
period of time in which one full vehicle
revolution occurs in a high energy
rollover event. (We also noted that at 1.5
seconds into the rollover, roof contact
would likely have occurred, leading to
window breaking. Thus, as discussed
later in this preamble, we proposed and
adopt a requirement that if advanced
glazing is present, it is pre-broken prior
to this test.)
Additional rationale came from data
obtained from the advanced glazing
program (see Table 32, infra).84 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).85 Analysis
of dummy head impacts with the
glazing in the window opening 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 quarter-turns
of rotation. Additional analysis of the
DRF testing is presented later in this
preamble.
TABLE 32—DRF TESTING RESULTS
Dummy
5th Female and 50th
Male ..........................
Far side
impact
time
(sec.)
Far side
impact @
turns
1.3–1.8
2–3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
The agency also proposed that
ejection mitigation countermeasures be
83 The 50 percent point in the cumulative
distribution occurs between 5 and 6 quarter turns.
84 Duffy, S., ‘‘Test Procedure for Evaluating
Ejection Mitigation Systems,’’ 2002 SAE
Government/Industry Meeting.
85 For this set of tests, the ‘‘near’’ and ‘‘far’’ side
dummy configurations represent the trailing
occupants in a rollover. The near side occupant
simply means that they were initially placed near
the door at what would have been behind the
steering wheel, if the steering wheel were present.
The far side occupant was moved to an initial
position which was towards the centerline of the
vehicle. This position could be thought of as a
position that a trailing occupant could slide to as
a yawed vehicle decelerates in the lateral direction,
prior to rollover initiation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
tested towards the end of a rollover.
Data indicated that occupants could
impact the window opening as late as 6
seconds after initiation of a rollover
involving 5+ quarter-turns. The last
three rows of Table 31, supra, show the
average and maximum number of
quarter-turns and the total time of
rollovers involving 5+ quarter-turns.86
This set of data contains 14 such tests.
The average and maximum number of
quarter-turns are 8.3 and 12,
respectively. The average plus two
standard deviations is 12.3 quarterturns. Thus, 12.3 quarter-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.
Other information we considered also
supported a 6-second impact time. The
1988–2005 NASS–CDS showed that
rollovers with eleven quarter-turns
account for about 90 percent of rollovers
with fatal complete ejection, i.e., 10
percent of rollovers with fatal complete
ejections have more than eleven quarterturns. The data set provided in Table 31,
supra, showed the vehicle that rolled
eleven quarter-turns had the longest roll
time (5.5 seconds) in the 208 Dolly
test.87
A factor that the agency 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.88 GM reportedly stated that its
side curtain air bags designed for
rollover protection maintain 80 percent
86 As mentioned earlier, just less than half of the
complete ejection fatalities occur when the vehicle
rolls up to 5 quarter-turns.
87 The agency explained in the NPRM that this
does not mean that rollover crashes with eleven
quarter-turns only take 5–6 seconds. Five to six
seconds may be a conservative assumption for this
many quarter-turns for some types of rollover
events. The 208 Dolly test has a very quick rollover
initiation (high initial roll rate); the beginning of the
rollover is well defined. This test only represents
about 1% of field crashes. Viano, supra. 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 quarterturns may have 5–6 second roll times.
88 https://media.ford.com/
article_display.cfm?article_id=6447 (Last accessed
October 6, 2010.)
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3251
inflation pressure for 5 seconds.89 It
appeared that a requirement that side
curtain air bags must contain the
headform when tested six seconds after
deployment was realistic and attainable.
ii. Comments on Time Delay
The Alliance and Honda suggested
different time delays than that proposed
by the NPRM. Both commenters
referenced NASS CDS data of the
distribution of rollovers by the number
of quarter-turns. The 1997–2007 data
were presented in the PRIA. These data
show that for all rollovers, not just those
with ejections, the majority of the
rollover population was at 1 to 2
quarter-turns. These commenters stated
that since these data show that the
cumulative percentage of rollovers is 90
percent at 5 quarter-turns, and 96
percent at 7 quarter-turns, the time
delay for the late impact should be
greatly reduced. They correlated these 5
and 7 quarter-turn values with the
agency’s full vehicle rollover test data to
arrive at their requested time delays of
3.4 seconds (Alliance) and 3 seconds
(Honda).
Guardian requested that NHTSA
conduct an analysis of what protection
exists under conditions when an air bag
does not deploy. The commenter
seemed to be concerned that the 1.5
second impact test was not being
performed early enough to address
ejections in side impacts. It suggested
that this may lead to air bag entrapment
of partially ejected occupants and that
advanced glazing can prevent this.
Advocates was concerned about the
test procedure impacting the ejection
countermeasure at two discrete times.
The commenter believed that the
compliance test only takes a ‘‘snapshot
of air curtain and sensor performance at
two brief intervals over the several
seconds during which an air curtain is
supposed to provide sustained inflation
and prevent excursion beyond 4 inches.
For example, no sustained inflation is
tested between the 1.5 and 6 second
tests, when excursion could exceed the
4 inch maximum required by the
proposed standard.’’ 90 Advocates stated
that a compliant system still may allow
excursions beyond 100 mm at other
points during the rollover, especially
those longer than 6 seconds.
iii. Agency Response
The agency declines to increase or
decrease the time delay for the 1.5
second and 6 second impacts. We also
89 ‘‘Who Benefits From Side and Head Airbags?’’
(https://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/
articles/105563/article.html).
90 NHTSA–2009–0183–0022, p. 12.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3252
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
towards rollovers with higher degrees of
rotation. According to NASS
Crashworthiness Data System (CDS)
data of occupants exposed to a rollover
crash from 2000 to 2009, half of all fatal
complete ejections occurred in crashes
with six or more quarter-turns. We
wanted to address the fatally and
seriously injured populations.
This information was illustrated in
the NPRM by the Figure 11 below. The
updated target population for this final
rule shows that the vast majority of the
ejection fatalities (69 percent = 3,067/
4,447) are complete ejections. This final
rule is designed to mitigate ejections
from rollover crashes that cause the
most harm (those that result in complete
ejection). By doing so, the
countermeasures installed pursuant to
this rule will reduce fatalities and
injuries resulting from severe rollovers.
Countermeasures installed to mitigate
ejections in crashes with higher degrees
of rotation will help occupants involved
in those crashes as well as occupants
exposed to rollovers of less severity. The
inverse would not be true.
The Alliance indicated that a rollover
time representing the cumulative
percentage of at least 90 to 96 percent
of rollovers is appropriate. Using this
range of values and applying it to
rollovers resulting in fatal complete
ejections, the resulting number of
quarter-turns is in the range of 10 to 12
quarter-turns for the 1997–2005 NASS
CDS data and approximately 8 to 10
quarter-turns for the more recent 2000–
2009 NASS CDS data. The Alliance
showed a regression line through the
quarter-turns versus rollover times for
the agency’s full vehicle rollover test
data (Table 11 in the NPRM). The
commenter did not show the equation
for the line. We derived the equation as
y = 0.48x, where y = rollover time in
seconds and x = number of quarter-
turns. Using this equation, the range of
8 to 12 quarter-turns gives the result of
3.8 to 5.8 seconds. Thus the upper end
of this range is consistent with the time
of the low speed impact proposed in the
NPRM 91 and adopted by this final rule.
(As noted in the NPRM, the 6-second
value may be a conservative assumption
for the corresponding number of
quarter-turns seen in FMVSS No. 208
Dolly testing. Some rollover crashes
with less than eleven quarter-turns may
have 5 to 6 second roll times.)
Based on the analysis above, the
agency declines to reduce the time delay
for the second impact to less than 6
seconds, as reducing the time delay
would not be consistent with our stated
goal of protecting a ‘‘far-reaching
population of people in real world
crashes.’’ 92
Guardian’s request that NHTSA
conduct an analysis of what protection
exists under conditions when an air bag
does not deploy appears to relate to a
concern with the 1.5 second impact test
not being performed early enough to
address ejections in side impacts. In a
side crash, the occupant will interact
with the side of the vehicle within a few
tenths of a second. In response to
Guardian, our experience with vehicles
with side curtains that deploy in
rollovers is that manufacturers design
them to deploy in side impacts as well.
These side curtain must provide head
and thorax protection in an oblique pole
test, pursuant to FMVSS No. 214, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
91 74
PO 00000
FR 63196.
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
92 74
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
FR 63182.
19JAR2
ER19JA11.012</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
have decided against adding a third
impact test at a later time or performing
any testing at time delays between 1.5
and 6 seconds or at a time
representative of a side impact.
In developing the time delays in the
standard, NHTSA recognized that the
majority of occupants exposed to
rollover crashes are in vehicles that roll
two quarter-turns or less. However, we
recognized that the distribution of
ejected occupants who are seriously
injured (maximum abbreviated injury
scale (MAIS) 3+) or killed is skewed
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
must be designed to deploy and be in
position in a matter of milliseconds. In
recent testing of side impact air curtains
to FMVSS No. 214 and New Car
Assessment Program protocols, we have
not found non-deployment of or
entrapment by side impact curtain air
bag entrapment to be a problem.
Advocates requested that we add a
third impact test with a delay time
greater than 6 seconds. We decline to do
so. In the NASS CDS database,
combining MAIS 3+ injuries and
fatalities results in only about 0.4
percent of ejected occupants are in
rollovers with more than 16 quarterturns (see Figure 11). Using the linear
regression from the 208 Dolly testing (y
= 0.48x) would result in a duration of
7.7 seconds at 161⁄4-turns. Hence, there
is a diminishing return in terms of the
population of ejection rollovers covered
by increasing the delay time for the
impact test beyond 6 seconds. In
addition, there will be costs to
redesigning ejection mitigation systems
to accommodate a third impact after 6
seconds, assuming the design is
practicable; NHTSA cannot conclude
the redesign will be cost-effective. With
regard to Advocates’ concern that ‘‘no
sustained inflation is tested between the
1.5 and 6 second tests, when excursion
could exceed the 4 inch maximum
required by the proposed standard,’’ we
will not add a test to assess the
countermeasure between 1.5 seconds
and 6 seconds. We know of no ejection
mitigation side curtain system that
deflates and inflates itself midway
through the test.
Finally, we note that the regulatory
text (S5.5(a)) has been clarified to
indicate that the time delay applies to
deployable countermeasures. For a
daylight opening with a non-deployable
countermeasure, e.g., fixed advanced
glazing, there is no time dependence for
the impact. The impactor can be
propelled at any time.
2. NPRM on Speed at Which the
Headform Impacts the Countermeasure
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
i. NPRM on Impact Speed
As discussed above, our examination
of field crash data has led to the
conclusion that the impact test should
have both a relatively high speed impact
shortly after countermeasure
deployment and a lower speed impact
late in the deployment.
The first test in the NPRM was at a 24
km/h impact velocity, 1.5 seconds after
countermeasure deployment. Field data
show that crashes with 6 or more
quarter-turns result in the majority of
complete ejection fatalities. The 1.5
second time delay for the high speed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
impact corresponds well to the film
analysis of vehicles that roll 5 or more
quarter-turns in FMVSS No. 208 Dolly
tests, for the amount of time it takes for
one complete vehicle revolution. The
NPRM reported that laboratory testing
using the DRF showed that at around
1.5 seconds, a far side occupant could
strike the window opening at nearly 30
km/h.93 MADYMO computer simulation
of three actual rollover crashes
predicted that the maximum head speed
into the window openings was 22 km/
h.94 Additional justification for the 24
km/h impact speed was found in side
impact field data. NASS CDS shows that
35% of occupants completely ejected
through the side windows in side
impact are exposed to impacts with a
DV greater than 24 km/h. It was also
noted that FMVSS No. 201 also uses a
24 km/h impact speed for the upper
interior tests.
The second test in the NPRM has a 6
second delay and a 16 km/h impact
speed. Agency film analysis found that
the maximum roll time was 5.5 seconds
for a vehicle that rolled 12 quarter-turns.
A separate film analysis of a much
smaller data set found a maximum head
speed into the window opening of 17
km/h.95 Modeling of three rollover
crashes showed a maximum torso
impact speed of 16 km/h.
ii. Comments on Impact Speed
The Alliance, AIAM, and a number of
vehicle manufacturers commented on
the impact speed. All of these
commenters requested that NHTSA
reduce the impact speed of the higher
speed 24 km/h test.96 The requested
levels of reduction varied. The
commenters did not agree there was a
need for a 24 km/h speed, and
expressed concern about the potential
adverse effects and unintended
consequences of not reducing the
impact speed, particularly as they relate
to side impact protection, protection of
out-of-position occupants, and
performance in NCAP testing.
The Alliance requested that the 24
km/h test be reduced to 16 km/h. As
discussed in the previous section, the
Alliance suggested that a 16 km/h test
be the only test and be performed at 3.4
seconds after curtain deployment. The
93 The agency has reassessed the video data of the
DRF testing and calculated lower speeds than
originally reported. This is covered in more detail
later in this preamble.
94 74 FR at 63195
95 74 FR at 63197
96 The 24 km/h test imparts about 400 joules of
energy, while the 16 km/h test imparts
approximately 178 J.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3253
Alliance stated that GM 97 and Ford 98
conducted extensive research in this
area and have both concluded that the
maximum impact energies in the range
of 180 to 200 joules (J) were appropriate
to address the vast majority of real
world rollover events. The commenter
stated that this energy level was also
validated by the agency’s own sled test
research (see 74 FR at 63192) simulating
both rollover and side impact events,
which both produced kinetic energies in
the range of 180 to 200 J.
Referring to the GM research, the
Alliance stated the 16.2 km/h impact
speed was derived from analysis of a
series of rollover sensor development
tests, in which data was collected in an
attempt to quantify the kinetic energy
associated with an occupant loading the
roof rail airbag system. The 52 tests
included both belted and unbelted test
dummies. The Alliance stated that in all
cases, the kinetic energy value
associated with the dummy’s interaction
with the roof rail airbag surrogate
(referred to in the study as a window
membrane) was less than 180 J.
The Alliance stated that another very
influential study that solidified GM’s
decision to test at 16.2 km/h was the
NHTSA sled testing referenced in the
NPRM. The sled tests were conducted to
determine the effect lower body loading
would have on the combined head and
upper torso effective mass. The Alliance
stated, ‘‘The sled testing representing the
rollover condition was conducted at 16
km/h, while the side impact simulation
was run at 24 km/h. Once the effective
mass was determined, both impact
conditions produced a kinetic energy
between 180–200 J.’’ The commenter
suggested that this validates the
approach GM had adopted in simulating
the occupant kinetic energy in a rollover
with an 18 kg impactor at a speed of
16.2 km/h, and shows that the kinetic
energy associated with this subsystem
test would be applicable to side impact
as well.’’
The Alliance indicated that since they
agree with the impactor mass of 18 kg,
the appropriated impact ‘‘is derived
from the equation for linear kinetic
energy (KE = 1/2mv2; m = mass and v
= speed). The Alliance’s recommended
impact speed is calculated by
substituting m = 18 kg and KE = 178
Joules, resulting in a speed of 16 km/h
(4.44 m/s).’’
To emphasize their belief that the 24
km/h test is too severe, both the
97 O’Brian-Mitchell, Bridget M., Lange, Robert C.,
‘‘Ejection Mitigation in Rollover Events—
Component Test Development,’’ SAE 2007–01–
0374.
98 Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26467–0002.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3254
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Alliance and Volvo referred to the
agency’s analysis in the PRIA,99 which
indicated that a 24 km/h speed (for
occupant to ejection countermeasure)
corresponds to a pre-crash velocity of
133 km/h (83 mph). They indicated that
such a pre-crash speed is too rare an
occurrence to be reflected in the final
rule.
AIAM and VW recommended that the
agency first determine the appropriate
impact energy and then establish the
impactor mass and velocity based on
this. AIAM was concerned that impact
speeds projected by the agency are
typically associated with masses smaller
than the proposed 18 kg impactor. VW
recommended an impact energy of 180
J, which would correspond to a 18 kg
impactor traveling at 16 km/h. VW
provided a table of its modeling results
from a linear impactor into an air bag
(Table 3 in VW comments) showing that
impact excursion is primarily a function
of the initial kinetic energy of the
impactor, as opposed to mass and
impact speed.
Honda requested that the agency
focus on a maximum energy level of 200
J. The commenter referred to the
analysis of GM showing that the
effective mass of an occupant’s initial
contact with a side window in a full
vehicle rollover test indicates a constant
energy of less than 200 J. Honda stated
that its own testing showed that the
estimated peak head velocity and
effective mass, when tested in
accordance with FMVSS No. 208, were
also less than 200 J. Honda stated that
an upper threshold of 200 J would
account for the energy imparted on the
side window by a belted occupant.
Nissan commented that its
preliminary study of impact energy
associated with occupant ejection
showed values below 207 J. Based on
this and concerns of safety tradeoffs that
could exist between FMVSS No. 214, it
recommended that the final rule limit
the higher speed impact to 20 km/h,
corresponding to an energy of
approximately 280 J.
Batzer and Ziejewski stated that based
on the ‘‘testing and analysis that we
have seen and performed, NHTSA’s 15
mph [24.1 km/h] impact velocity choice
is inappropriately high.’’ They stated
that a ‘‘two impacts against the upper
half of the glazing’’ at 16.1 km/h would
be an adequate requirement. They
continue that ‘‘in side impacts, although
a large relative occupant-to-glazing
nominal velocity may result, the door
actually takes the brunt of the energy
and momentum.’’
99 NHTSA–2009–0183–0002,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
p. VIII 18.
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Air bag supplier Takata expressed
support for the proposed 24 km/h test,
stating: ‘‘We believe it is important to
test all the locations at the high energy
level to ensure structural integrity of the
countermeasure device.’’ 100 The
commenter also informed NHTSA that a
24 km/h test speed requirement would
be practicable. (NHTSA–2006–26467–
0019, infra.)
iii. Agency Response
As explained in this section, NHTSA
has evaluated the comments asking us
to base a decision on the impact speed
on the findings of a GM study and a
Ford study. After reviewing the findings
of the studies, we do not find those GM
and Ford data sufficiently informative.
However, we have carefully
considered the comments
recommending that the agency reassess
the impactor speed proposed on the
basis of what should be the impact
energy imparted to the ejection
mitigation countermeasure, given an
impactor mass of 18 kg. We agree that,
particularly in the case of a curtain air
bag countermeasure, the energy
imparted by the linear impactor is a
critical factor in the determination of
the stringency of the performance
requirement as compared to only
considering the impact speeds or
impactor mass. We acknowledge that
some data available to the agency, e.g.,
DRF testing, vehicle interior video of
FMVSS No. 208 Dolly tests, and
MADYMO simulations, only allow for
an assessment of impact speed.
Estimates of energy from these data
require assumptions to be made about
effective mass values or further
computational modeling.
Accordingly, we have reanalyzed sled
test data from the advanced glazing
program to measure the energy the midsize adult male dummy imparted to the
countermeasure. We analyzed the data
from a 24.1 km/h (15 mph) test meant
to be more indicative of a side impact
condition and a 16.1 km/h (10 mph) test
meant to be more indicative of a rollover
condition. For the 24.1 km/h (side
impact) test, we determined the energy
imparted to the window opening was
290 J. For the 16 km/h (rollover)
condition, the energy on the window
opening was calculated to be 220 J.
These were the only laboratory test data
available to the agency for direct
analysis of impact energy. For the
limited conditions tested, the results
were not at the estimated energy levels
in the 400 J range, equivalent to the
impactor energy when traveling at the
100 NHTSA–2009–0183–0015,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
p. 2.
Sfmt 4700
24 km/h speed considered by the
NPRM.
After reviewing the comments, we
also reanalyzed DRF data used in the
NPRM and found that the original
transcription of the film speed used to
determine impact speed was not done
properly. We stated in the NPRM that
video analysis of dummy head impact
velocities with the glazing showed that
for the 5th percentile female far side
occupant, the peak impact speed was 31
km/h. After reanalyzing the data for this
final rule, we determined that the peak
head and shoulder impact speeds were
approximately half that reported in the
NPRM.
We have determined that, based on a
thorough analysis of all available
information, including the reanalyzed
sled testing used by the agency in the
advanced glazing program and the DRF
data discussed in the NPRM, the test
speed for the 1.5 second test adopted by
this final rule should be 20 km/h, rather
than the proposed 24 km/h. A
20 km/h test would better represent the
energies to which the ejection
countermeasure will be exposed to in
the field, particularly in rollovers.
A. Analysis of GM Study on Impact
Energy
Several commenters referred to a GM
study in which GM determined the
effective mass and impact energy on a
membrane covering the first row
window. The agency had analyzed this
study and provided a review of it in the
NPRM and the Technical Analysis
supporting the NPRM, regarding the
basis for the impactor mass
determination of 18 kg. A brief
description of the study is provided
below.
GM conducted a study to develop
rollover sensors, using 52 full vehicle
rollover tests. It also attempted to assess
the effective mass and impact energy on
the front window area by belted and
unbelted test dummies. Forty-six
percent of the tests were less than a
quarter-turn, 27 percent were one
quarter-turn and 27 percent were two
quarter-turns. In the tests, the two front
seats were occupied by 50th percentile
adult male Hybrid III dummies. Half of
the tests were with belted dummies and
half were unbelted. The belt status
versus number of quarter-turns was not
reported by the authors.
The method used to estimate the
effective mass required the calculation
of the resultant loading on the dummy
head by the window membrane using
head acceleration, neck loading and a
dummy head mass assumed to be 4.204
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
kg.101 The effective mass was then
determined by using this head contact
force along with the resultant head and
chest accelerations. Energy levels were
calculated by using effective mass and
peak head velocity. As noted by various
commenters to the NPRM for today’s
final rule, the estimated effective mass
for most belted tests was about 5 kg and
all were less than 10 kg. The effective
mass for the unbelted occupants ranged
from 5 to 85 kg. The authors reported
that the highest energy level was 182.3
Nm.
We believe that the GM data set has
little relevance to this rulemaking with
respect to the loading of the side
window openings in crashes that cause
the most ejection harm. With regard to
the energy values derived from this
study, it is important to identify several
key limitations. First, the study was
done as a development tool for sensors,
not as a means of determining the range
of potential occupant loading/energy on
ejection countermeasures in relatively
severe rollover crashes. As such, vehicle
dynamics that show a vehicle on the
threshold of rolling or not rolling is of
great interest in sensor development.
From the distribution of quarter-turns in
these tests, the focus of the study was
on the minimum thresholds for sensor
deployment, i.e., rollovers of two or
fewer quarter-turns. In contrast, to cover
90 percent of all rollovers inducing
serious injury and fatal ejections, a
study of rollovers involving 8 or more
quarter-turns is more appropriate.
Regarding rollovers causing complete
fatal ejections, a cumulative population
of 90 percent of these crashes would
necessitate an analysis of crashes
involving 9 or more quarter-turns. The
force imparted on the side window
openings in these types of crashes is
substantially greater than that discerned
by GM in this study.
Second, although the authors state
that the highest energy level estimated
was below 182.3 J, they subsequently
report a case where they estimate that
the trailing side occupant alone imparts
243 J to the membrane. We thus believe
it is more accurate to state that the
highest energy calculated in this set of
tests was at least 243 J. It would also be
very important to know if the leading
occupant was applying load at the same
time as the trailing occupant, perhaps
adding to the 243 J value. Nonetheless,
we note that a single unbelted leading
occupant was estimated to have more
than 100 J of energy. If both a trailing
and leading occupant were to load the
window area simultaneously, the total
energy would be 343 J. Restricting
ourselves to consideration of the 243 J
value, we can correlate this energy to
the ejection mitigation test procedure by
assuming an impactor mass of 18 kg.
The corresponding impact velocity
would be 18.7 km/h.
Third, the methodology and data
presented in the GM study seem to
indicate that only membrane loading
from the dummy heads was estimated.
The agency’s sled testing indicated that
more load is transmitted through the
shoulder than the head, and even more
load is imparted when both the head
and shoulder impart loads at the same
time. We do not believe only head
loading should be considered when
evaluating the load impacted by an
occupant on the ejection mitigation
countermeasure, even for unbelted
dummies, as this may have contributed
to lower energy estimates.
quarter-turns are not representative of
the ejection-causing crashes that we are
attempting to cover by this standard.
The majority of the data was reported
before 600 ms into the event. This is
probably less than 2 quarter-turns into
the event, depending on how Ford
determined time zero. It is unclear if
Ford only modeled part of the event. For
vehicles that undergo many more
quarter-turns, there may be impacts
with the window area that were not
captured by Ford’s modeling only the
first few quarter-turns.
The agency analyzed the Ford study
and did not find the results to be
persuasive. The fact that a set of
simulations result in energy estimates
below 180 J is of limited use to the
agency’s determination of an impact
speed/energy that will protect a farreaching population of occupants.
B. Analysis of Ford Study on Impact
Energy
Several comments from vehicle
manufacturers made reference to
modeling Ford performed in which Ford
estimated the effective mass and impact
energy that occupants would impart to
the first row window in a rollover. This
information was originally presented to
NHTSA at a February 7, 2007 meeting
with the agency.102 Ford conducted
computer modeling on three vehicle
models, with belted and unbelted 50th
percentile adult male and 5th percentile
adult female Hybrid III dummies. This
was originally done ‘‘to determine the
appropriate energy for a headform
impact test procedure for Safety Canopy
development.’’ The reported effective
mass range was about 5 to 35 kg
(average of 14 kg) for belted occupants
and 5 to 50 kg (average of 24 kg) for
unbelted occupants. The reported peak
energy values were similar for belted
and unbelted occupants, at about 180 J.
These maximum values appeared to
occur early in the simulations (< 200
ms).
Ford indicated that they modeled
curb trip and SAE J2114—Dolly
Rollover Recommended Test Procedure
(Dolly) tests. The speeds, vehicle roll
rates, and quarter-turns were not
reported.103 As such, it is very difficult
for us to assess the severity of the
rollovers that were simulated. As was
the case in our analysis of the GM study,
rollovers that only produce a few
Several commenters to the NPRM
stated that the agency’s own sled testing
indicated that the appropriate energy of
the impact should be below 200 J. They
are referring to sled testing that was
performed in 1993 as a follow-up to
dummy pendulum impacts.104 The sled
tests were conducted to determine the
appropriate mass of a linear impactor to
be used in the testing of advanced
glazing (the headform impactor).105
These tests were described as
incorporating a ‘‘side impact’’ condition
and a ‘‘rollover’’ condition, although
they were both side impact sled tests.
For the test designed to be more
representative of a side impact
condition, the target impact speed was
24.1 km/h and the dummy (a 50th
percentile adult male BioSID) was
positioned was seated upright. In the
rollover condition, the target impact
speed was described as 16.1 km/h 106
and the dummy was positioned leaning
towards the door such that its head and
torso would contact the simulated
glazing (foam) at about the same time.
This leaning position was intended to
be more representative of an occupant’s
attitude in a rollover. In both conditions
the foam was positioned such that head
and shoulder contact with the foam was
achieved at similar times.
102 Docket
101 Although
the membrane had force
measurement instrumentation at each corner, these
measurements were not used in the analysis due to
a ‘‘data integrity issue.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
3255
No. NHTSA–2006–26467–0002.
SAE J2114 test uses the same test
configuration as the 208 Dolly test. However, the
208 Dolly test is performed at a speed of 48 km/
h. SAE J2114 does not have a recommended speed.
103 The
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
C. Reanalysis of Agency Data From
NHTSA Sled Testing
104 ‘‘Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing:
A Status Report,’’ November 1995, Docket No.
NHTSA–1996–1782–3. Pg. 7–10.
105 These have been entered as test Nos. 10282—
10287 in the NHTSA Biomechanics Test Database.
They are accessible at https://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/biodb/
querytesttable.aspx.
106 Although we refer to this as the 16.1 km/h test,
we found that the actual test speed for the test we
analyzed in detail was 15.2 km/h.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
km/h (side impact) test, we determined
that the energy imparted to the window
opening was approximately 290 J
(rounded up from 287 J). We believe this
energy likely represents a minimum
value for this test configuration.107 From
this energy value we estimated the
effective mass of the test to be 13 kg. As
described below, the energy and
effective mass estimates for the 16.1 km/
h (rollover) test were more complex.
However, based on this analysis we
estimate the energy of that impact to be
200 J and the effective mass to be 22 kg.
However, this test was actually
performed at approximately 15.5 km/h.
If it had been correctly performed at
16.1 km/h (10 mph), the energy would
have been 220 J. (Note that these values
do not support the commenters to the
NPRM that stated that the agency’s sled
testing indicated that the appropriate
energy of the impact should be below
Where:
Fh = Force measured at head foam pad,
assumed to be lateral force on dummy
head.
yh/s = y (lateral) displacement of the dummy
head relative to the sled.
T = Time
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
It should be understood that the
testing was not designed to directly
measure the energy the countermeasure
must absorb in order to prevent an
occupant ejection. Rather, this set of
tests was a follow-up to dummy
pendulum impacts used to determine
the appropriate mass of a linear
impactor used to test advanced glazing.
(If energy assessment had been the goal,
a means of measuring displacement of
the loaded reaction surface (foam or
surface behind it) could have been
undertaken. As it is, no direct
measurement of the displacement of the
loaded surface was made.)
In response to the comments to the
NPRM, we reanalyzed the sled test data
in an effort to estimate the energy the
incoming dummy imparted to the foam.
This new analysis is discussed in detail
in the technical report accompanying
this final rule. Briefly stated, for the 24.1
LC 200. Table 33 shows the estimated
impact energy and the measured
maximum force at the head and
shoulder on the Ethafoam pads, as well
as the maximum combined values. The
combined maximum energy value was
287 J. We believe it is appropriate to
consider the total energy value that
combines the maximum head and
shoulder components in that this would
represent the total amount of energy that
the countermeasure must absorb. The
same type of energy estimate was made
for the tests with Arsan and polystyrene
using eq. 1. The energy estimates were
282 J and 252 J for Arsan and
polystyrene, respectively. We expect the
less stiff Arsan and polystyrene to result
in lower energy estimates.
The analysis is set forth in detail in
the technical report. We determined
that, because in the 24.1 km/h test the
dummy was initially positioned upright
(i.e., the midsagittal plane aligned with
a vertical axis), the head and shoulders
of the dummy contacted the foam pads
at about the same time. This resulted in
the dummy maintaining its upright
position during force application
through the foam. We assumed there
was no significant rigid body rotation;
examination of the test video confirmed
this assumption. This assumption
allowed the use of the measured head
c.g. (center of gravity) acceleration to be
integrated once for velocity and twice
for displacement. In the case of the
torso/shoulder loading, the
accelerometer at the first thoracic
vertebra (T1) was used.
Three different types of foam padding
were used in the original tests.108 In
order of increasing stiffness, the foams
were: Polystyrene, Arsan and Ethafoam
107 We say ‘‘minimum’’ because by the nature of
impact into foam, there were energy losses that
would not be reflected in the estimated impact
energy.
108 We recognize that for all of the tests there was
energy loss into the foam, i.e., the foam absorbed
the energy of the impact without returning it to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
TABLE 33—ENERGY (EQ. 1) AND
FORCE ON THE ETHAFOAM PADDING
IN THE 24.1 KM/H SLED TEST
Maximum
energy
(J)
Head .................
Shoulder ...........
97.1
190.1
Maximum
force
(N)
2,569
3,220
dummy. The foam cells were heated, deformed
beyond their elastic limit and/or were destroyed.
Thus, the loads imparted to the dummy were lower
than would be the case if foam were not present.
Since energy was derived from the load cell force
measured behind the foam pad and the
displacement of the head (or shoulder) in the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
200 J. These sled tests alone provide a
range of energies between 220 to 290 J
that, assuming an impactor mass of 18
kg, correspond to a range of impact
velocities of 18.5 to 20.6 km/h.)
24 Km/h Test
The process of reanalysis started with
the 24.1 km/h upright (side impact)
tests. The energy into the foam padding
was determined by assessing the ‘‘work’’
done on the dummy, i.e., the integral of
the lateral force versus lateral
displacement on the dummy. The lateral
force on the dummy was assumed to be
the force measured by the load cells
behind the foam (the foam was a
surrogate for the window
countermeasure) for the head and
shoulder load cells. Equation (1)
represents the energy of the head into
the foam. A similar equation can be
written for the shoulder.
TABLE 33—ENERGY (EQ. 1) AND
FORCE ON THE ETHAFOAM PADDING
IN THE 24.1 KM/H SLED TEST—Continued
Maximum
energy
(J)
Combined—
Total ..............
287
Maximum
force
(N)
....................
We also reassessed the effective mass
calculations in the 24.1 km/h Ethafoam
test. Effective mass was calculated in
three different ways. As was reported in
the 1995 Advanced Glazing Report, we
estimated the effective mass as a
function of time during the foam contact
by using eq. (2). Again, this is done for
both the head and torso separately, and
is added for a total effective mass
estimate. The estimate over time was
averaged to provide a single value of
effective mass. However, averaging over
different time periods can result in very
different estimates of effective mass.
The estimate below uses the time period
between when the peak force value is
achieved to when the minimum relative
velocity between the dummy and the
sled is achieved.
direction of force, the lower force imparted to the
dummy resulted in a lower calculated energy. This
is to say, the estimate of the work/energy needed
for an ejection countermeasure was likely an
underestimate. The extent of the underestimation is
not known.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.013</GPH>
3256
3257
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Where:
EM = effective mass
ay = acceleration in the y (lateral) direction
The second method used to calculate
effective mass was to solve for mass in
the equation of kinetic energy by
assuming that the estimated impact
energy is equal to the kinetic energy of
the effective mass prior to impact, as is
shown in eq. (3).
Where:
Ei = Energy of impact
Vy0 = Lateral velocity relative to sled just
prior to foam contact
The third and final method was to use
impulse moment equations by
integrating the force applied to the
dummy and dividing by the change in
velocity relative to the sled. This is
shown in eq. (4).
Where:
Vyf = Lateral velocity relative to sled at
maximum foam compression
tf = time of maximum foam compression
(minimum relative velocity)
The estimates of effective mass of the
combined head and shoulder from all
three methods, which range from 12.2 to
13.1 for the 24.1 km/h impact, are
shown in the fourth through the fifth
columns in Table 34. The impulse
method estimate is lower than the other
two estimates, which match very
closely. The second column in Table 34
shows the individual values of impact
speed for the head and shoulder.
TABLE 34—IMPACT ENERGY ON THE ETHAFOAM PADDING IN THE 24 KM/H SLED TEST FROM MEASURED FORCE AND
ACCELERATION DATA
Method of Effective Mass Determination (kg)
4.32
8.58
..............................
16.1 km/h Test
109 As discussed below, the actual sled speed at
the time of dummy contact with the foam was 15.2
km/h (4.24 m/s) to 15.5 km/h (4.30 m/s) and lower
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
We also reanalyzed the 16.1 km/h
testing with the dummy midsagittal
plane oriented 25 degrees from the
vertical (rollover configuration). The
analysis of this test configuration was
more complex, mainly because the
coordinate system of the dummy was
not aligned with that of the sled, and
changed as the sled moved and
particularly as the dummy interacted
with the foam padding. We initially
compensated for the dummy orientation
by dividing the component of the local
y (lateral) accelerometer values by the
cosine of 25 degrees. Single and double
integration is required to calculate the
dummy velocity and displacement,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
4.14
8.92
12.9
The estimate of impact energy can
also be made other than by using eq. (1).
An alternate method rearranges the
terms in eq. (3) and uses the effective
mass in combination with the preimpact dummy speed. If an effective
mass of 13 kg were used in combination
with a theoretical impact speed of 24.1
km/hr (6.71 m/s), the energy generated
would be 293 J. Based on the above
analysis, we believe that a reasonable
estimate for the combined head and
shoulder effective mass and energy for
a 24.1 km/h impact to be 13 kg and 290
J, respectively. We can correlate this
energy value to the ejection mitigation
test procedure by assuming an impactor
mass of 18 kg. The corresponding
impact velocity is 20.5 km/h.
Impulse
(eq. 4)
13.1
4.19
7.97
12.2
respectively. Table 35 below shows the
estimated impact energy on the
Ethafoam padding in the 16.1 km/h sled
test test using the same methods as used
for the 24.1 km/h test. Application of eq.
(1) for the head and a similar equation
for the shoulder provided the estimate
of impact energy shown in the fifth
column of Table 35, below. We also
generated the effective mass values by
use of eq. (4), shown in the third
column of Table 35. We used this
effective mass estimate and the velocity
relative to the sled of the head and
shoulder at contact with the foam to
estimate the incoming kinetic energy by
rearranging the terms in eq. (3), shown
in the fourth column of Table 35.109
than the intended sled speed of 16.1 km/h (4.47
m/s).
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.031</GPH>
6.85
6.53
Combined .........................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Head ........................................................................................
Shoulder ...................................................................................
Energy
(eq. 3)
ER19JA11.015</GPH>
Avg. Accel.
(eq. 2)
ER19JA11.014</GPH>
V0 (m/s)
3258
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 35—IMPACT ENERGY ON THE ETHAFOAM PADDING IN THE 16.1 KM/H SLED TEST FROM MEASURED FORCE AND
ACCELERATION DATA
Vo (m/s)
Head ........................................................................................
Shoulder ...................................................................................
Combined .........................................................................
We do not have a great deal of
confidence in the energy values
presented in Table 35, particularly in
the estimate using eq. (1). As stated
above, these estimates require
integration of the dummy head and T1
acceleration values. To the extent the
dummy head or torso becomes
misaligned with the 25 degree tilt prior
to and after foam contact, the integration
of the sensor readings compounds the
error in estimated velocity and
displacement. Differences in the
calculated initial head and shoulder
velocity of 4.84 m/s and 4.06 m/s,
respectively, are indicative of dummy
rotation prior to foam contact.
Examination of the video confirmed the
rigid body rotation during dummy freeflight and after foam contact. Short of
performing a much more rigorous video
analysis of the test films, we opted for
another strategy to estimate the energy
of the 16.1 km/h impact configurations.
EM
(eq. 4)
4.84
4.06
..............................
Energy
(eq. 3)
6.7 kg
13.1 kg
19.8 kg
One strategy we employed was based
on the fact that the constitutive
properties of the foam for both the 16.1
km/h impact into the Ethafoam padding
and 24.1 km/h impact into Ethafoam did
not change, i.e., the foam properties did
not change. Based on this, we attempted
to derive the dummy motion in the
direction of force applied by the foam.
We assumed that once in contact with
the foam, the lateral force on the head
or shoulder of the dummy can be
represented by a mass on a spring, in
parallel with a viscous dashpot. To
simplify this analysis we assume the
damping coefficient is zero and the
force on the mass is simply a function
of the spring stiffness (F = ¥ky). We can
thus represent the energy stored in a
spring, as shown in eq. (5).
Energy
(eq. 1)
78.5 J
108 J
187 J
68.3 J
92.5 J
161 J
Where:
Es = Energy stored in a spring
Using this concept we can derive eq.
(6) to determine the impact energy of
the 16.1 km/h test since we know the
energy of the 24.1 km/h impact and the
forces measured at the foam pads for
each impact speed. The head and
shoulder impact energies have ratios of
61 percent and 75 percent, respectively.
The resulting estimate of total impact
energy for the 16.1 km/h impact is 202
J. Using this energy value and the
estimate for initial head and shoulder
velocity as inputs to eq. (3), the effective
mass for the head and shoulder are 5.1
kg and 17.3 kg, respectively. The
combined effective mass is 22.3 kg. The
results are given in Table 36.
TABLE 36—IMPACT ENERGY AND FORCE ON THE ETHAFOAM PADDING IN THE 16.1 KM/H SLED TEST ESTIMATED FROM A
SPRING MODEL
Max. energy (J)
Head ........................................................................................
Shoulder ...................................................................................
59.2
143
Combined .........................................................................
Another strategy employed to estimate
the energy of the 16.1 km/h test was
based on the assumption that the
estimate of sled velocity was a better
representation of the dummy impact
speed than the speed derived from the
Max. force (N)
202
Ratio of energy
2,005
2,789
60.9%
75.0
..............................
..............................
dummy accelerometers. The second
column in Table 37 shows the sled
speed just prior to dummy head and
shoulder contact. Equation 4 can be
used to estimate the effective mass if the
time (tf) of minimum relative dummy to
Effective mass
5.05
17.3
22.3
sled velocity (vyf) is known. However,
the only estimate of this time is from the
single integration of dummy
accelerometers. Nonetheless, the EM
and energy of impact, using eq. (3), are
given in Table 37.
TABLE 37—HEAD IMPACT ENERGY INTO THE ETHAFOAM FOR THE 16.1 AND 24.1 KM/H TESTS, ESTIMATED BY ASSUMING
SLED VELOCITY EQUALS THE IMPACT VELOCITY
By using the spring equation
assumption (Table 36) and sled velocity
rather than dummy sensor estimates for
initial impact speed (Table 37), we
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
4.30
4.24
estimate an effective mass range of 21.4
to 22.3 kg and an energy range of 194
to 202 J. We believe this range of
estimates is superior to the energy and
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
7.53
13.8
21.4
69.5 J
124 J
194 J
effective mass values using only dummy
sensor derived estimates of dummy
velocity and displacement (Table 35),
particularly the estimate using eq. (1).
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.017</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Head ........................................................................................................................
Shoulder ...................................................................................................................
Combined .........................................................................................................
Energy (eq. 6.6.3)
ER19JA11.016</GPH>
EM (eq. 6.6.4)
(kg)
Vo (m/s)
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Thus, we believe that it is reasonable to
estimate the effective mass and energy
of the 16.1 km/h test as 22 kg (6.3 kg for
the head and 15.6 kg for the shoulder)
and 200 J, respectively.
Finally, we note that if the test had
been actually performed at 16.1 km/h
(4.47 m/s) rather than the actual value
of approximately 15.5 km/h (4.3 m/s),
the energy estimate for the test would be
higher. There is no reason to believe
that if the test were performed at a
higher speed that it would change the
effective mass estimate. Thus, if we use
the 22 kg effective mass estimate, the
impact energy at 16.1 km/h would be
220 J.
D. DRF Data
We also reanalyzed DRF data used in
the NPRM and found an error in the
analysis of impact speed. In the NPRM
(74 FR at 63196), we discussed video
analysis of data from the advanced
glazing program of vehicles tested on
the DRF with a 5th percentile adult
female dummy and a 50th percentile
adult male test dummy (near and far
side).110 We stated that 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 quarter-turns of rotation, and
that the peak impact speed was 31 km/
h. In Table 12 of the NPRM (id.), we
showed the estimated velocities for the
near and far side dummies.
After reanalyzing the data for this
final rule, we determined that the head
3259
impact speeds are approximately half of
those reported in the NPRM. Apparently
the reason for this was an error in film
rate transcription during the original
analysis. A reanalysis of the DRF videos
found peak head and shoulder speeds
between 15 and 16 km/h, see Table 38
below.111 There is no way to directly
determine the energy of the interaction
between the dummies and the glazing in
these DRF tests. However, assuming an
effective mass for the 50th percentile
male of 6.3 kg and 15.6 kg for the head
and torso impact, respectively, the
resultant impact energy would be 209 J.
We can correlate this energy value to the
ejection mitigation test procedure by
assuming an impactor mass of 18 kg.
The corresponding impact velocity
would be 17.3 km/h.
TABLE 38—DRF TESTING PEAK VELOCITIES
Impact speed (km/h)
Estimated impact energy (J)
Dummy
Near Side
5th Female:
Head .........................................................................................................
Shoulder ...................................................................................................
50th Male:
Head .........................................................................................................
Shoulder ...................................................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
E. Discussion and Conclusion
We agree with the importance of
impact energy as a critical parameter in
the determination of the appropriate
impact speed for the 18 kg impactor in
the ejection mitigation test procedure,
particularly for a countermeasure
consisting of side curtain air bags.
Therefore, we have endeavored to take
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
7.2
7.0
15.2
15.8
Far Side
14.5
15.5
9.2
9.0
Near Side
209
a fresh look at the available data
provided by commenters and the data
the agency used to justify the impact
speed in the NPRM. Based on our
analysis, best available data have led us
to adopt an impact test speed of 20 km/
h, consistent with Nissan’s comment,
and the associated 278 J energy level.
We do not agree with requests by
commenters to decrease the impact
speed to any level below the 20 km/h
value. Honda requested a 17 km/h
impact speed (200 J), based on an
analysis of peak head velocity and
effective mass involving belted
occupants. We decline to restrict our
rulemaking to countermeasures that are
subject to performance requirements
that account for the energy imparted on
the side window by belted occupants.
The Alliance indicated that the
appropriate impact speed should be
based on an energy of 178 Joules,
resulting in a speed of 16 km/h (4.44 m/
s). We did not find the supporting GM
and Ford studies persuasive. We believe
the use of the GM energy estimates as
a basis for the final rule is problematic
because the rollover severity used in the
study only represents a small minority
of the most harmful ejection-inducing
crashes. Also, the study seems to only
measure, or only contain, occupant
loading through the head. We would
expect shoulder or combined shoulder
and head loading to result in higher
energy estimates. The Ford modeling
study also has limited usefulness given
that lack of specificity and detail
provided about the modeling.
We have also determined that
commenters’ contention that the
agency’s sled test data is supportive of
only a 16 km/h impact to be unfounded.
Our analysis showed these tests
represent energies from 220 to 290 J,
which correlated to impact speeds in
the range of 17.8 to 20.4 km/h.
We acknowledge that there are
practical limitations to the level of
performance mandated by this Federal
safety standard; the standard does not
reflect the worst case scenario. The
speeds at which our sled tests were run
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/comdb/
querytesttable.aspx. Data from four tests are under
test number 716. The file names for the 5th female
near and far side tests are C00716C001 and
C00716002, respectively. The file names for the
It is important to emphasize that this
set of DRF tests was performed at a peak
roll rate of 330–360 deg./sec. An
analysis of field data submitted by
Batzer and Ziejewski suggests that
higher peak roll rates can occur in the
field.112 We would expect that if the
DRF testing were performed at a higher
roll rate, that higher impact speed
would be possible. Modeling results
provided by the agency in the NPRM
showed a Toyota pickup rollover
simulation with a head and torso to
glazing speed of 20 and 16 km/h,
respectively.113 This would result in a
total energy of 251 J, assuming a 22 kg
effective mass.
110 Duffy, S., ‘‘Test Procedure for Evaluating
Ejection Mitigation Systems,’’ 2002 SAE
Government/Industry Meeting.
111 Videos and electronic data from these tests
have been placed in the NHTSA Component
Database and can be accessed at www-
Far Side
50th male near and far side tests are C00716C003
and C00716004, respectively.
112 An IMECE paper submitted with Batzer’s
comments indicates that this range of peak roll rate
is consistent with a 7–9 1⁄4-turn rollover.
113 74 FR at 63195.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3260
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
did not generate the highest possible
speeds that occupants in the field could
interact with the window opening.
Some vehicles roll over with a higher
roll rate than generated by the DRF tests,
resulting in higher impact velocities
than those measured in the laboratory,
and some occupants will weigh more
than the dummies used or have a greater
proportion of their mass contact the
window opening. Nonetheless, ejection
mitigation countermeasures installed
pursuant to this standard will provide a
level of protection even under more dire
conditions. Moreover, this standard sets
a reasonable, appropriate, and
practicable level of performance at a
reasonable cost.114 It assures that
vehicles will be equipped with ejection
mitigation countermeasures suited to
the energy generated in most rollover
crashes. Consistent with the agency’s
principles for sound regulatory
decision-making, the 20 km/h impact
test is data-driven and supported by all
the technical data available to date. A
400 J energy value has not been
supported by any of the technical
assessments thus far conducted.
The FRIA discusses the impacts of
adopting a 20 km/h test versus a 24 km/
h test. We performed a sensitivity
analysis comparing the harm associated
with crashes with an occupant impact
speed of 20 km/h to that of crashes
associated with an occupant impact
speed of 24 km/h, and the resulting
effect on the benefits analysis. This
analysis settles on a supposition that the
difference between a 20 km/h test speed
and a 24 km/h test speed is about 7
percent of the overall benefits of the
final rule. Nonetheless, we have several
reasons for preferring the 20 km/h test
requirement.
We have analyzed costs and other
impacts associated with the 20 km/h
and 24 km/h criteria, and have found
the 20 km/h test requirement to be the
most cost effective criterion. The FRIA
compares the cost per equivalent life
saved of a 20 km/h rollover curtain air
bag with that of a 24 km/h rollover
curtain air bag with a larger inflator (low
end of cost range) to achieve higher air
bag pressure and a 24 km/h rollover
curtain air bag that has the same
pressure as the 20 km/h curtain, but has
greater volume (high end of the cost
range). It is assumed that this system
with greater volume requires additional
air bag material and an additional
inflator for a vehicle with 3 rows or 2
114 Some commenters said that unintended safety
disbenefits would result from a 24 km/h test, such
as a greater risk to out of position occupants or less
protection in FMVSS No. 214 side impact crashes.
We respond to these commenters in a later section
of this preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
rows and a cargo area. Using the 3
percent discount rate as a basis of
comparison, the 20 km/h system is the
most cost effective at $1.4 million per
equivalent life saved. This compares
with a range in cost for the 24 km/h
system from $1.6 to $2.8 million.
Not only does the 20 km/h test
requirement impose minimal costs for
the maximum benefit, a 20 km/h test
requirement, as discussed above, it is
better supported by technical data than
a 24 km/h requirement as it better
represents the forces to which the
ejection countermeasure will be
exposed to in the field than a 24 km/h
requirement, particularly in rollovers.
Some vehicle manufacturers have
commented that meeting a 24 km/h
requirement will entail increasing air
bag pressure in current bags, and have
expressed concerns that more rigid bags
will increase head injury criteria (HIC)
values measured in a side impact test
and IARVs measured in out-of-position
(OOP) tests. Although whether those
increased HIC values and IARVs in OOP
tests from increased air bag pressure
pose an unreasonable safety risk is not
known, negative trade-offs concern the
agency in any rulemaking. Those
possible trade-offs can be avoided with
a 20 km/h requirement. To illustrate, in
agency testing the MY 2007 Mazda CX9
was able to meet the 20 km/h
performance test at all locations tested,
without modification. This vehicle has
a 5-star side impact rating under the
then-NCAP rating system.
Finally, some manufacturers pointed
to their successful experience with
rollover curtains installed on their
vehicles to argue that the performance
requirements of the proposed standard
are too high. VW stated that it was
unaware of any ejections occurring in
100,000 Tiguan, Q7 and Q5 vehicles
with sealed curtain side air bags. GM
stated that it started implementing
ejection mitigation curtains with several
2005 model year vehicles and it is
unaware of injuries due to ejection past
an ejection mitigation air bag. GM
submitted case studies of twelve
rollover crashes investigated by GM and
the University of Michigan and found
no ejections had occurred.
In response to VW, the fact that VW
is not aware of any ejections is not
necessarily supportive of a conclusion
that the ejection mitigation systems in
the vehicles are sufficient. A much more
detailed field data analysis of available
rollover and side impact crashes would
be necessary. For example, such
information would have to include the
number of rollover crashes, the number
of quarter-turns, and the seat belt status
of the occupants. Even then, it is
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
difficult to draw conclusions from a
limit number of crashes. Further, with
regard to GM’s twelve cases, almost all
of these cases involved belted
occupants. Our final rule focuses on
ejection mitigation for both unbelted
and belted occupants.
In sum, based on our analysis of the
comments and a reanalysis of the basis
for the impact tests, we have adopted an
impact test speed of 20 km/h. We
conclude that this level of energy is
more representative of the energy the
ejection countermeasure will typically
be exposed to in the field, particularly
in rollovers. Thus, the 20 km/h
requirement is reasonable, appropriate,
and practicable, and preferable to the 24
km/h test requirement.
d. Target Locations
This section discusses the NPRM’s
proposals concerning where the
headform impactor will be aimed to
assess the effectiveness of ejection
mitigation countermeasures, the
comments received on the NPRM, and
our responses thereto. Because there are
many issues relating to target locations,
to make the discussion easier to follow
we respond to the comments
immediately after summarizing them
issue by issue.
This final rule adopts the test
procedures proposed in the NPRM for
locating target locations except as
follows: (1) The window opening for
cargo areas behind the 1st and 2nd row
will be impacted; (2) the lateral distance
defining the window opening is
increased from 50 to 100 mm; and (3)
if necessary, the headform and targets
will be rotated by 90 degrees to a
horizontal orientation if this results in
more impact locations (up to a
maximum of four targets per window)
than the vertical orientation. Additional
changes include: instructing removal of
gasket material or weather stripping
used to create a waterproof seal between
the glazing and the vehicle interior and
the door and the door frame; allowing
some portion of material bordering a
window opening on the exterior of the
vehicle to factor into our assessment of
what is a window opening; and
permitting the adjustment or removal of
components that would interfere with
the ejection impactor or headform in the
test.
1. Why We Are Focusing On Side
Windows and Not Other Openings
In general, comments from glazing
manufacturers and consumer groups
asked that the agency expand coverage
to sun/moon roofs and backlights.
EPGAA stated that ‘[w]hile NHTSA
addresses third row windows which
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3261
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
account for less than 1% of the injuries
and deaths, it completely ignores sun
roofs and rear windows which are also
window openings through which
outboard seated occupants could be
ejected and together account for over
12% of the injuries and 7% of the
deaths.’’ Public Citizen (PC) commented
that ‘‘[t]he agency should consider
whether laminated glazing would
counter the potential for ejection
through the roof, which can be expected
to increase as a result of the side curtain
airbags that the standard requires.’’ PC
also mentioned that the PRIA quoted a
2002 agency report that estimated that
15 percent of occupants are ejected
through sun roofs. Batzer and Ziejewski
stated that NHTSA’s ‘‘statistics indicate
that the most common windows acting
as ejection portals include the first row
windows, the windshield, the sunroof,
and the backlite [sic].’’
Agency Response
We do not grant the request from
Advocates for ejection mitigation
coverage of doors and windshields.
Door openings are already regulated by
FMVSS No. 206, ‘‘Door locks and door
retention components,’’ which was
upgraded in 2009 expressly to improve
door lock and hinge requirements to
reduce door openings in crashes. (72 FR
5385, February 6, 2007, Docket NHTSA–
2006–23882.) Windshields are regulated
by FMVSS No. 205, ‘‘Glazing materials,’’
and the associated performance
requirements in FMVSS No. 212,
‘‘Windshield mounting.’’ No suggestion
was made as to how these existing
requirements could be enhanced.
Ejection mitigation through the
backlight and through movable or fixed
roof panels is not addressed by FMVSS
Nos. 206, 205, or 212. Our most recent
analysis of ejection route data set forth
in this final rule and in the FRIA
indicates that backlight and roof
ejections rank 3rd, behind 2nd row
window ejections.115 For all crash types
the backlight and roof represent 4.8
percent and 3.1 percent of fatalities,
respectively. When crashes are limited
to target population crash types, i.e.,
crashes involving lateral rollovers and
side impact crashes, the backlight and
roof represent 5.9 percent and 3.9
percent, respectively. Backlights are on
nearly every vehicle and sun/moon
roofs are not, so given those data, if a
roof opening is present, it represents a
greater risk for ejection than the
backlight.
In the updated data analysis for this
final rule, we provide a much more
refined analysis of the roof ejections
than was provided in the NPRM. This
was achieved by performing a manual
review of each case. Our analysis was
able to segment the data by those with
roof glazing (moon roofs) and those with
sheet metal panels (sun roofs) as well as
the pre-crash position of the panel.
Closed moon roofs represent about half
the fatal and MAIS 3+ ejections through
the roof.
To fully understand this issue, the
agency has assessed the cost
effectiveness of using advanced glazing
for the backlight and closed roof glazing.
This analysis, set forth in the FRIA,
includes all crash types (not limited to
side impacts and rollovers) since the
advanced glazing countermeasure does
not need to deploy. The results are
given in Table 39 at the 3 and 7 percent
discount rates and at an assumed
ejection effectiveness level of 20
percent. The 20 percent effectiveness
value used in the FRIA is for illustration
purposes. At the 20 percent level of
effectiveness, the backlight glazing does
not appear cost effective, while the roof
glazing could be.
TABLE 39—COST PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED (ELS) OF EJECTIONS THROUGH BACKLIGHT AND ROOF GLAZING WITH
ADVANCED GLAZING
Cost per ELS
Assumed containment effectiveness
Backlight
3%
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
20% ..........................................................................................
Roof glazing
7%
$11.3M
7%
$14.2M
Commenters to the NPRM argued that
the PRIA stated that after
implementation of FMVSS No. 226, roof
ejections are likely to increase from
their current level as a result of
occupants, contained from side window
ejections, being available for ejection
from other portals. The agency agrees
this is a reasonable possibility. In fact,
our findings in analyzing the RODSS
database cases with side curtains are
consistent with this conclusion.116
Commenters also indicated their belief
that roof ejections may increase due to
more and larger sun/moon roofs in the
future. This forecast seems speculative
since there was no data provided to
support it.
In any event, we have determined it
is not reasonable to expand this final
rule to roof glazing. A major
impediment is the lack of a proven
performance test procedure for roof
glazing. The current configuration of an
ejection propulsion mechanism and
ejection impactor has been years in
development and is specially designed
for horizontal impacts on nominally
vertical surfaces. A comparable
performance test will have to be
developed that delivers an appropriate
amount of impact energy to a pre-broken
roof glazing or the opening covered by
some other countermeasure.
Another factor that causes us not to
expand this final rule to address
ejections through the roof is an absence
of notice to the public to add such a
provision to the final rule. The public
has not been provided meaningful
115 These rankings exclude ejections through nonglazing areas.
$4.1M
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$5.1M
notice that NHTSA was considering
requirements for roof portals, and has
not been provided an opportunity to
comment on such requirements.
Relatedly, the agency has not been given
the benefit of the public’s views of the
matter. Accordingly, we are not
extending this final rule to roof glazing.
However, NHTSA is interested in
learning more about roof ejections and
would like to explore this area further.
We plan to examine field data to better
understand the current and future
extent of roof ejections, and will seek to
learn about the future implementation
of sun/moon roofs in vehicles and ideas
about effective ejection countermeasures
through those portals. The results of this
work may find that future rulemaking
on roof ejections could be warranted.
116 It is important to emphasize that the RODSS
data is not a statistically representative sample of
field data.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
3%
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3262
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
2. Why We Are Focusing on the Side
Windows Adjacent to First Three Rows
We received comments on which side
window openings should be subject to
ejection mitigation requirements, and
how the final rule should determine the
rear boundary that defines which rear
window openings are subject to the
standard.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
i. First Three Rows
Advocates believed that the rule
should extend to ‘‘occupants in the rear
seats of small buses and 15-passenger
vans.’’ Batzer and Ziejewski stated that
‘‘[t]he reasoning behind why only the
first three rows of seats are required to
have coverage seems insufficient. Why
would not every designated seating
position in every vehicle have the same
level of safety?’’
Agency Response
The final rule will not extend side
window coverage beyond three rows.
SAFTEA–LU directed us ‘‘to reduce
complete and partial ejections of vehicle
occupants from outboard seating
positions.’’ Our position in the NPRM
was that field data showed a compelling
need for ejection countermeasures to
cover daylight openings adjacent to the
first two rows of seating coverage. The
update of the field data presented in this
final rule supports this decision. For all
crash types, the first and second row
windows rank 1st and 3rd (54.2 percent
and 7.7 percent, respectively) as far as
fatal occupant ejection routes.117 When
crashes are limited to target population
crash types, i.e., crashes involving
lateral rollovers and side impact
crashes, these rankings (50.3 percent
and 7.7 percent, respectively) for fatal
ejections do not change.
Third row ejections are a very limited
part of the ejection population; in target
population crashes they constitute only
0.3 percent and 0.7 percent of fatalities
and MAIS 3+ injuries. Nonetheless, we
proposed coverage to three rows since
many vehicles already on the market
with three rows of seating are equipped
with rollover deployable side curtain air
bags that cover daylight openings
adjacent to all three rows. This trend
toward third row coverage has
continued. Further, we wanted to cover
as much of the side opening as
reasonably possible because we were
concerned that, if only the first two row
windows were covered, in a rollover
crash unbelted occupants contained
from ejecting through the first two
117 These rankings exclude ejections through nonglazing areas. The second ranked fatal ejection route
is the windshield, for both lateral rollovers and side
impact crash populations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
windows could be ejected from an
uncovered opening adjacent to the third
row. To reduce that risk of ejection, and
importantly, given that the ejection
mitigation side air curtains installed on
current vehicles demonstrate the
practicability and cost-efficiency of a
curtain spanning the side of the
windows from the first through third
rows, we felt justified in our decision to
provide coverage of third row windows.
Vehicles the agency has tested for this
rulemaking with air bag curtains
covering rows 1, 2 and 3 windows are
the MY 2005 Honda Odyssey, MY 2006
Mercury Monterey, MY 2007 Chevrolet
Tahoe, MY 2007 Ford Expedition, MY
2007 Jeep Commander, MY 2008 Dodge
Caravan, MY 2008 Ford Taurus X, and
MY2008 Toyota Highlander. These
designs are typically a single curtain
covering tethered at the A and D-pillars.
Insufficient reasons are available to
support requiring side daylight opening
coverage into 4th and higher rows.118
Fourth and higher row ejections are a
very limited part of the ejection
population; in target population crashes
they constitute only 0.6 percent and
zero percent of fatalities and MAIS 3+
injuries, respectively. Extending
coverage to 4+ rows goes beyond curtain
air bag coverage that we have seen on
any vehicle. It may be possible
technically to extend a single curtain air
bag to cover beyond 3 rows, or
conceivably manufacturers could use
two curtain air bags to cover the entire
side of the vehicle. However, for a two
curtain system without intervening
pillars there is likely a need to tether the
curtains together in order to provide
tension near the curtain bottoms. We do
not know if curtains tethered together
will be able to meet the performance
requirements of the standard adopted
today. Moreover, depending on the
design, the costs for covering windows
adjacent to 4+ rows may be substantial.
Glazing manufacturers have indicated
that some vehicle manufacturers place
advanced glazing in fixed window
positions in the rearmost rows of large
vans. However, we have not tested these
glazing applications to the adopted
requirements, nor has any data been
submitted to the agency. Thus, the
performance of a glazing-only
application in these higher rows is not
known to us.
Given the above uncertainties about
the availability and cost of
countermeasures that could be used to
cover windows adjacent to 4+ rows, and
in view of the small numbers of
ejections through those windows, we
118 74
PO 00000
FR 63201
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
decline to extend this final rule to
window openings beyond the 3rd row.
ii. Method of Determining 600 mm
Behind Seating Reference Point (SgRP)
The Alliance commented that limiting
the daylight opening to 600 mm behind
the SgRP of the last row seat or behind
the rearmost portion of a seat not fixed
in the forward seating direction, in
combination with the targeting method,
‘‘can result in targets being located in
cargo areas and/or behind and below
seat backs and head restraints.’’ The
Alliance believed that rearward
occupant motion is resisted by the seat
back and head restraint and that this is
not considered by the ‘‘600 mm
method.’’ It also stated its belief that the
combination of seats and seat belts
‘‘greatly reduces the risk of head and
upper torso ejection in the area created
by the proposed ‘600 mm’ method.’’
The Alliance suggested an alternative
of using the Head Restraint
Measurement Device (HRMD) defined in
FMVSS No. 202a to establish the
rearward extent of the head. This
approach would provide the limit of the
daylight opening in the 3rd or last row.
Honda suggested that the fact that the
600 mm limit in FMVSS No. 226 is the
same as in FMVSS No. 201 may not be
appropriate when considering that
FMVSS No. 201 has a different basis
and objective than that of ejection
mitigation. Honda suggested a different
procedure to determine the daylight
opening limit, which takes into
consideration the movement of belted
occupants in rollovers as well as the
many fore-aft and seat back angle
adjustments. Honda’s method is based
on the height of a 95th percentile
occupant, with 200 mm added (1,018
mm) to account for upward movement
of a belted occupant during a rollover.
A 1,018 mm radius arc is centered at the
SgRP and swept through the daylight
opening. A reference line is drawn
parallel to the torso line and translated
155 mm rearward and perpendicular to
the torso line. The arc and the rear
reference line provide the boundaries
for the daylight opening.
NTEA stated, ‘‘NHTSA [should]
consider adopting testing parameters
similar to those found in [S6.3(b)]
FMVSS 201 to effectively exclude any
targets that are located behind the
forward surface of a partition or
bulkhead * * * . We believe it is
neither practical nor beneficial to
require test target points that could not
possibly be contacted by the head of an
occupant seated forward of the
partition.’’
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Agency Response
The Alliance objected to the 600 mm
limit because it ‘‘can result in targets
being located in cargo areas and/or
behind and below seat backs and head
restraints.’’ The Alliance’s comment
suggesting that seat belts would reduce
the risk of an occupant’s head and torso
being ejected in the area behind the seat
back and head restraints is not
consistent with this final rule’s goal of
reducing partial and full ejections of
belted and unbelted occupants.
Similarly, the suggested use of the
HRMD to define the limit of the opening
in the third row disregards that this
final is intended to protect belted and
unbelted occupants.
It is correct that the 600 mm limit can
result in target areas in the cargo area
and/or behind and below the seat back.
We chose that limit to address what can
occur in the field. Our field data
assessment, discussed in section IX.b.
and in our technical report, has several
cases where occupants were ejected
rearward of their initial seated position.
In RODSS case 5032 (SCI CA09061) a
driver was completely ejected through
the left 3rd row quarter panel window.
In NASS case 2006–79–89 the driver
was partially ejected from the left 2nd
row window. In SCI case DS04016, an
infant seated in the middle of the 2nd
row was ejected through the 3rd row
quarter panel window.
These cases demonstrate how
rollovers, particularly of the long
duration multiple quarter-turn variety,
are chaotic events with complex vehicle
and occupant kinematics that can result
in occupants moving rearward of their
seating position. In addition, rollovers
can be preceded by planar impacts with
a substantial rearward component,
resulting in occupants moving towards
the rear of the vehicle. The bulk of the
benefits from this standard are for
unbelted occupants. The limitations
suggested by the vehicle manufacturers
are not consistent with protecting this
population. For the agency, the issue is
not whether the standard will cover
some area rearward of a seating
position, but how far behind the seating
position.
We decline to adopt Honda’s
technical method for limiting the
daylight opening. Our technical report
explains that the Honda method would
result in a smaller area of coverage and
potentially fewer impact targets than the
NPRM method. Briefly stated, a small
part of the area described by Honda
would actually be farther rearward than
the NPRM limit. However, the Honda
derived limit has a smaller area overall.
For some large windows, using the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Honda method results in only two
targets fitting in the window opening,
whereas the NPRM’s method results in
four impact locations. Further, the
Honda method increases the complexity
of the standard.
Honda suggested that selection of a
600 mm rearward limit, to the extent
that it is potentially based on FMVSS
No. 201, may be too great a distance. We
do not agree on this point. To the extent
that FMVSS No. 201 attempts to protect
occupants from interior impact in all
crash modes, including rollovers, we
believe that FMVSS No. 226 should be
no less expansive in its rearward
coverage than FMVSS No. 201.
Moreover, since rollovers make up the
largest portion of the target population
for FMVSS No. 226, and because
rollovers result in more chaotic
occupant motion than any other crash
type, it is our view that FMVSS No.
201’s coverage should not prescribe the
limits of the coverage of FMVSS No.
226.
The suggestions of the Alliance and
Honda to reduce the 600 mm value will
dampen the effectiveness of this final
rule in protecting unbelted occupants in
rollovers. Accordingly, we deny the
requests. (We respond to NTEA’s
suggestion in the ‘‘Vehicle
Applicability’’ section of this preamble.)
iii. Increasing 600 mm Limit for
Vehicles With One or Two Rows of
Seats
The NPRM proposed to limit the
requirement to provide side daylight
opening coverage to an area bounded by
a plane 600 mm behind either the SgRP
of a seat in the last row (for vehicles
with fewer than 3 rows) or the SgRP of
a seat in the 3rd row (for vehicles with
3 or more rows). As a result, for a
vehicle with only one or two rows and
with a cargo area behind the seats, all
or part of the cargo area daylight
opening rearward of that 1st or 2nd row
would have been excluded under the
NPRM.
After reviewing the comments from
glazing manufacturers and Advocates
and the updated field data showing the
prevalence of ejections through side
glazing in the area of the first three
rows, we have reconsidered the
proposed 600 mm limit for vehicles
with less than 3 rows. We have also
reconsidered this issue after reflecting
on AIAM’s comment which asked for
clarification on whether a vehicle
having windows to the rear of the last
row of seats (e.g., 2 rows of seats but a
third side window next to the rear cargo
area) would be subject to testing of the
third side window.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3263
Agency Response
For vehicles with only one or two
rows of seating, we have decided to
increase the 600 mm distance to 1,400
mm, measured from the SgRP of the seat
in the last row. By extending the
distance to 1,400 mm, we are subjecting
more area of glazing to testing, i.e., more
of the glazing area in cargo area behind
the 1st or 2nd row will need an ejection
mitigation countermeasure. The
window openings subject to testing
under the 1,400 mm limit are those that
would have been adjacent to a third row
seat had the vehicle had a third row.
There is a safety need to cover this
cargo area. In the NPRM (see Tables 16
and 17 of the NPRM preamble), we
provided the distribution of ejected
occupants by ejection route for all
crashes. In these data tables, we did not
have a category for cargo area ejections
because data were not available. For this
final rule, we undertook a manual
review of each case to update ejection
route data provided earlier in this
preamble. In that review, we found that
0.5 percent of ejections in all crashes
(and target population crashes) were
ejected through the cargo area behind
the 2nd row.119 This is slightly more
than the percentage for 3rd row
ejections.
Further, our field data assessment
discussed in section IX.b included a
number of cases where occupants were
ejected rearward of their initial seated
position. As described earlier, in RODSS
case 5032 (SCI CA09061), a driver was
completely ejected through the left 3rd
row quarter panel window. In NASS
case 2006–79–89, the driver was
partially ejected from the left 2nd row
window. In SCI case DS04016, an infant
in the middle of the 2nd row was
ejected through the 3rd row quarter
panel window. These cases demonstrate
how rollover crashes are complex
turbulent events that can propel
unbelted occupants rearward in the
vehicle. Rollovers involving planar
impacts having a substantial rearward
component can thrust an unbelted
occupant rearward toward the rear
window openings in a manner unlike
other crash types.
Vehicles are already being produced
that have side air bag curtains covering
rows 1, 2 and 3 row windows (e.g., the
MY 2005 Honda Odyssey, MY 2006
Mercury Monterey, MY 2007 Chevrolet
Tahoe, MY 2007 Ford Expedition, MY
2007 Jeep Commander, MY 2008 Dodge
Caravan, MY 2008 Ford Taurus X, and
MY 2008 Toyota Highlander). The
designs typically use a single curtain
119 There were no ejections through the cargo area
windows behind any other row.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3264
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
covering tethered at the A- and Dpillars.120 Since there are designs that
provide three rows of coverage, we
believe that covering the cargo area
behind the 1st or 2nd row of a vehicle
up to window openings adjacent to
where a third row would have been,
offers no more of a technical challenge
than manufacturers face in covering all
openings adjacent to the 3rd row for
vehicles with three rows.
Our FRIA calculates the cost
effectiveness of extending a two-row
curtain to cover the cargo area behind
the second row and finds that it has a
similar level of cost effectiveness as 3rd
row coverage.121 Accordingly, it is
reasonable and appropriate for this final
rule to include impact targets in
window openings in the cargo area
behind the 1st and 2nd row for vehicles
with one or two rows of seating, if the
window openings are located where
they would have been adjacent to a
third row seat had the vehicle had a
third row.
We have determined that a third row
seat would have been encompassed in
an area bounded by a transverse plane
1,400 mm behind the rearmost SgRP of
a first row seat (for vehicles with only
one row of seats) or a second row seat
(for vehicles with two rows of seats).
Thus, we are extending the NPRM limit
for these vehicles that have a cargo area
behind the first or second row and no
other row of seats, by 800 mm. We
arrived at the 1,400 mm value through
a small study of curtain coverage length
of late model 3 row vehicles beyond the
2nd row SgRP. This study included 14
of the MY 2006 to MY 2009 vehicles
that were in the agency impactor testing
program. These vehicles had 3rd row
rollover curtains or curtains covering
the cargo area behind the second row.
Our measurements indicated that a
1,400 mm dimension rearward from the
2nd row SgRP would cover the entire
daylight opening area for all except one
of the vehicles.122
The final rule will maintain the 600
mm value for vehicles with 3 or more
rows.
3. Answers to Questions About Method
for Determining Three-Row Area
i. AIAM and Hyundai asked: (a) Is the
targeting procedure done on the entire
daylight opening and then the targets
120 The MY 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe uses a separate
curtain to cover the 3rd row window.
121 These cost effectiveness estimates are based on
the cargo area and/or 3rd row area coverage alone.
If they were to be lumped together with the first 2
rows of coverage, they become even more cost
effective.
122 More details of this study can be found in the
technical report supporting this final rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
are limited to those that are in the area
forward of the 600 mm line; or (b) is the
targeting procedure done only on the
area forward of the 600 mm line. In
addition, if (a) above is the answer,
Hyundai sought clarification on whether
the entire target outline needs to be
located in the daylight opening or just
the center of the target outline.
Our response is that the targeting
procedure is performed on just the area
forward of the 600 mm line (the second
answer above), for a 3 row vehicle. (As
indicated above, this final rule specifies
this dimension as 1,400 mm for vehicle
with fewer rows.) Proposed S5.2.4.2(a)
stated in part that ‘‘the transverse
vertical vehicle plane defines the
rearward edge of the daylight opening
for the purposes of determining target
locations.’’ The regulatory text adopted
by this final rule (at S5.2.1.2(a)) slightly
modifies the proposed text by indicating
that the transverse vertical plane defines
the rearward edge of the offset line
(rather than the daylight opening) for
the purposes of the targeting procedure
performed on the daylight opening. To
reiterate, the wording does not specify
that the targeting procedure is
performed on the entire opening and
then only the targets forward of the 600
mm limit are used.
ii. NTEA asked if side daylight
openings behind occupants of side
facing seats would be subject to the
standard since the SgRP is parallel to
the opening. Similarly, for rear facing
seats, NTEA asked whether the side
opening associated with such a seat is
tested and would glazing on the
opposite side of the vehicle be tested.
Finally, NTEA asked if there was a
lateral distance from any side glazing to
the SgRP of a forward or rear-facing
seating location, beyond which the
requirements for the testing would not
apply.
Our answer is that daylight openings
adjacent to both side and rear facing
seats are potentially required to be
targeted if they are part of the first three
rows of seating. The definition of ‘‘row’’
adopted by the standard is still
applicable. If these seats are fixed in a
side or rear facing direction, the SgRP is
not used to determine the rearward limit
of the daylight opening. Rather, the
limit is determined by the location of a
vertical lateral vehicle plane located
behind the rearmost portion of the
rearmost seat. See proposed S5.2.4.2(a)
and (b), and S5.2.1.2(a) and (b) in this
final rule.
Daylight openings on either side of
the vehicle are subject to testing even if
the seat or seats in that row are on the
opposite side of the vehicle. There is no
limit on lateral distance from a seat to
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a daylight opening that would exclude
an opening from coverage. Crash data
from the field have shown that an
occupant on one side of a vehicle can
be ejected out of an opposite side
window. These provisions are to reduce
the likelihood of such ejections.
e. How We Are Testing The Ability Of
These Side Windows To Mitigate
Ejections
1. What is a ‘‘Window Opening’’?
The NPRM proposed to define ‘‘side
daylight opening’’ as—
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 stripping
used to create a waterproof seal between the
glazing and the vehicle interior.
i. 50 mm Inboard of the Glazing
Reference to the area 50 mm inboard
from the window glazing was intended
to account for interior 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. In other
words, we wanted to include, as part of
the opening, vehicle structures that
were within 50 mm of the window
opening, if those structures could
restrict ejection through the opening.
The Alliance generally agreed with
the proposed definition of daylight
opening, except the commenter
suggested extending the distance from
the inside of the window glazing from
50 mm to 200 mm. The Alliance
believed that the proposed 50 mm value
‘‘may result in structures or trim
proximal to the daylight opening to be
removed to gain access to a target
location. Removal of these structures or
trim could result in an unintended
consequence of laboratory performance
reduction of the ejection mitigation
countermeasures.’’
AIAM did not request a change in the
50 mm value, but rather asked for
clarification about the inclusion of
‘‘items of trim such as grab handles
[that] may extend into the window area,
potentially interfering with the motion
of the impactor during a test.’’ AIAM
suggested that the standard specify one
of the following: removing the trim item
prior to the test, adjusting the target
location so that the trim item is not
engaged during impactor movement,
conducting the test notwithstanding the
interference of the trim item, or
eliminating the target from testing
requirements. Similarly, Honda and
Hyundai requested guidance on
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3265
air bag, the proposed delay times of 1.5
seconds and 6 seconds ensure sufficient
time for full deployment, allowing the
curtain air bag to correctly position
itself prior to contact with the impactor.
Replacing the headliner between tests
would unnecessarily increase test
complexity and could result in lab
error.’’
Agency Response
We believe the Alliance’s request that
the definition for side daylight opening
be modified to increase the 50 mm
distance inside the window has some
merit. We have examined interior trim
components, such as panels covering
the vehicle pillars, and found that
surfaces that should be considered as
part of the outline of the daylight
opening can be more than 50 mm inside
the window glazing. Figure 12 is a
schematic showing the cross-section of
a hypothetical door panel and glazing
whose horizontal tangent is 60 mm
inside the glazing. Based on the vehicles
we examined, we believe that increasing
the distance to 100 mm will be
sufficient to encompass interior borders
and other components around the
daylight opening that might not be
easily removed and whose removal may
have an unknown effect on the
performance of the countermeasure.
These components could have a positive
effect on ejection mitigation, so our
decision is that the determination of the
side daylight opening should be made
with the components in place.
We will not increase the distance to
200 mm, however. A 200 mm distance
is excessive and potentially includes
more vehicle components in the
determination of the window opening
periphery than necessary. Although the
linear impactor travels along a lateral
horizontal path, during a rollover,
people moving towards the window
opening would not. Objects 200 mm
from the window opening may have no
ability to limit the potential for ejection.
The Alliance did not provide a rationale
justifying a 200 mm limit.
One concern we had relative to
increasing the inboard distance from 50
mm to 100 mm was that even the 100
mm distance increases the possibility of
including inappropriate vehicle
components in the determination of the
periphery of the window opening. The
components should not be included
because they are not relevant to the
actual ejection portal, i.e., they are
unlikely to have a positive effect in
mitigating ejection.
One of these components is the
vehicle seat. In S6.3 of the proposed
regulatory text, we expressly specified
that the seat may be removed to conduct
the test in an uncomplicated manner.
Relatedly, in view of our increasing the
inboard distance defining the opening to
100 mm, the final rule at S3 will
specifically exclude seats from
consideration in the definition of
daylight opening.
Similarly, the agency also believes
that we should expressly list grab
handles as components that will not be
included in the determination of a ‘‘side
daylight opening.’’ Both Hyundai and
AIAM asked for clarification of the
treatment of grab handles. Hyundai’s
comments showed two examples of grab
handles that were both outside of the 50
mm limit (108 mm and 75 mm)
proposed in the NPRM. At a distance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.018</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
positioning and/or removal of interior
components, such as sun visors, the
instrument panel, interior and exterior
mirrors, and grab handles. Hyundai
stated ‘‘certain interior structures which
do not restrict the size of the daylight
opening could still interfere with the
linear travel of the impactor headform
in the area 50 millimeters or more
inboard toward the vehicle centerline
from the window glazing interior
surface.’’
Nissan asked that testing be
performed without the headliner. It
stated: ‘‘Nissan does not anticipate the
headliner affecting performance of the
side curtain air bag system. Though the
headliner might affect the initial
trajectory of the deploying side curtain
3266
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
limit of 100 mm, one of these grab
handles would be included, unless
specifically called out for exclusion.
We believe grab handles should be
excluded from contributing to the
daylight opening for several reasons.
First, we think it unlikely that they will
contribute anything positive to ejection
mitigation. Second, we believe there is
a possibility that grab handles could
interfere with the ejection impactor in
the test. The final rule will add them to
the definition of side daylight opening
in S3 as an item that is excluded from
consideration in the definition of the
daylight opening (and to S6.3 as an item
that can be removed if it obstructs the
path of the travel).
ii. Conducting the Test With Various
Items Around the Window Opening
The comments from AIAM, Honda,
and Hyundai also extend to items of
interior structure, aside from grab
handles, that are not included in the
definition of the daylight opening
(because they have no potential for
mitigating occupant ejection), but could
restrict the travel of the impactor
headform. AIAM suggested multiple
ways of handling these items other than
their removal, i.e., changing the target
position, eliminating a target, or
performing the test with the item in
place. In the NPRM, S6.3 specifically
allowed for the removal of seats and the
steering wheel. Our goal was to make
sure the testing could be performed,
even if these items need to be removed,
as these items would provide no
impediment to ejection in the real
world.
We agree with AIAM, Honda, and
Hyundai that there is a need to provide
more specificity in this part of the
standard (S6.3 and S6.4 of the final
rule). One item mentioned by
commenters was the exterior mirror. We
believe this component is worthy of
specific mention in the regulatory text
as being an item that should be removed
or adjusted so as not to impede the
motion of the headform beyond the
vehicle. As indicated by the National
Forensic Engineers in its comments,
exterior mirrors may break off during
rollovers and are unlikely to have a role
in mitigating ejection.
In the final rule, S6.3 will now specify
that steering wheels, seats, grab handles
and exterior mirrors may be removed or
adjusted to facilitate testing and/or
provide an unobstructed path for
headform travel through and beyond the
vehicle. In addition, we have added the
steering column to the list since it is
attached to the steering wheel and may
be the means by which the steering
wheel is removed or adjusted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Beyond these components mentioned
in S6.3, there are others that may
obstruct the impactor path. For
example, one could conceive of a rear
drop-down entertainment center that
blocks the upper targets. To address
these items, S6.4 in the final rule will
indicate that other vehicle components
or structures may be removed or
adjusted to provide an unobstructed
path for the headform to travel through
and beyond the vehicle.
Nissan requested that the final rule
allow testing on a ‘‘cut body’’ and not a
fully trimmed vehicle. It also requested
that testing be done without the
headliner since Nissan believes that the
headliner will not affect the test results,
but may instead result in laboratory
error. Similarly, TRW wanted testing on
a buck to be allowed.
We decline to make these changes
requested by Nissan and TRW in the
final rule. Manufacturers are free to
conduct certification testing without the
headliner, or on a cut body or test buck,
as long as they are assured that the
vehicle would meet FMVSS No. 226
when tested by NHTSA in the manner
specified in the standard. We
particularly understand why
manufacturers might want to test on a
cut body or buck during developmental
testing. However, the agency prefers to
test a vehicle in as near the asmanufactured condition as practicable,
to better ensure that the performance we
witness in the compliance laboratory is
representative of the performance of the
vehicle in the real world.
However, we recognize that there are
practical difficulties of testing the
ejection mitigation countermeasure in a
laboratory. We have decided that S6.4 in
the final rule will include language
specifying the adjustment or removal of
vehicle structure that interferes with the
ejection propulsion mechanism and
headform travel, but only to the extent
necessary to allow positioning of the
ejection propulsion mechanism and
unobstructed path for the headform to
travel. It has been our experience that
for daylight openings that are not
located in doors, there may be limited
access on the opposite side of the
vehicle to pass the impactor propulsion
mechanism through. This may then
require removal of a fixed window and
or cutting of sheet metal to allow access
on the non-tested side of the vehicle.
These modifications will not affect the
results of the impact testing.
iii. Removing Flexible Gasket Material
For the Purpose of Determining the
Daylight Opening
To keep the test area as large as
possible, the proposed ‘‘daylight
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
opening’’ definition excluded any
flexible gasket material or weather
stripping used to create a waterproof
seal between the glazing and the vehicle
interior. Flexible material is unlikely to
impede occupant ejection through the
opening.
Honda stated that while it understood
the agency’s desire to exclude gasket
material from the daylight opening
definition, it was concerned about the
material being difficult to remove or
damaged during removal for
determination of the opening. Honda
proposed an alternative where the
gasket material is included in the
daylight opening, but the 25 mm offset
line defined in proposed S5.2.1(b), is
decreased. It stated that this ‘‘retains the
intention of addressing occupant
ejection through side glazing, but test
repeatability and validity are better
assured.’’ Similarly, TRW recommended
that the opening be measured
considering any gasket/weather
stripping as potentially defining the
opening, but the offset line be 20 mm
from the opening rather than 25 mm.
Honda stated that manufacturers would
not enlarge the gasket material to reduce
the daylight opening because of ‘‘styling,
appearance and consumer acceptance.’’
Nissan stated that ‘‘removing this
[gasket] material prior to the test could
expose the side curtain air bag system
to sharp edges on the vehicle that it
would not normally be exposed to
during deployment and adversely affect
system performance.’’
Both the AORC and TRW
recommended that the agency obtain
CAD data from the vehicle
manufacturers and use this to determine
the daylight opening and offset line.
They believed that this would obviate
the need for removal and reinstallation
of the gasket/weather stripping, which
they believed could lead to potential
test variability.
Guardian, a glazing supplier,
commented that: ‘‘The NPRM defines a
window opening as the ‘daylight
opening’ (page 63204). We believe the
opening should include all related trim
and gaskets that could be removed with
the glass in a rollover situation.’’
In contrast, Takata indicated
agreement with the proposed method of
determining the target location.
Agency Response
We disagree with commenters that
wish to allow gasket material or weather
stripping to have a part in defining the
opening. We continue to believe that
this has the potential of causing an
unnecessary reduction in the size of the
opening, which may reduce the
stringency of the test.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Most commenters wishing to include
gasket material in the definition were
concerned about potential test problems
associated with removal and
reinstallation of this gasket material or
weather stripping in order to determine
the daylight opening. We address the
issue of testing with this material in the
next section. In summary, we do not
share this concern.
Both AORC and TRW suggested that
CAD information submitted by
manufacturers could be used by the
agency to define the daylight opening,
rather than removing any gasket
material. It is certainly true that the
agency can ask for information from
manufacturers and this has been done
for other FMVSSs 123 and is a part of
FMVSS No. 226’s framework concerning
the rollover sensor.124 However, we do
not believe such a requirement is
needed regarding the measurement of
the window opening. We prefer to have
a test procedure within the regulatory
text of the standard that we can use to
independently assess factors used in the
compliance test, such as the size of the
window opening, rather than depend
upon information provided by the
manufacturers.
TRW and Honda suggested a
reduction in the offset line distance,
defined in proposed S5.2.1(b), if the
agency chooses to include gasket
material in measuring the daylight
opening. Honda did not suggest a value,
but TRW recommended a reduction
from 25 mm to 20 mm. No data were
provided to indicate that the 5 mm
reduction would compensate for
reduction in the size of the opening that
would occur from inclusion of the
gasket material. There could still be a
risk that measuring the size of the
opening with gasket material in place
could artificially reduce the testable
area in a manner not in the best interest
of safety. Given our decision to exclude
the gasket material, we are not reducing
the offset line distance.
On the other hand, we do believe that
a small change in the definition of side
daylight opening is necessary as it
relates to gasket material and weather
stripping. The NPRM referred to
‘‘flexible gasket material or weather
strip[p]ing used to create a waterproof
seal between the glazing and the vehicle
interior.’’ During our research, it became
apparent that gasket material, in
123 For example, S22.4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 208
requires knowledge of the volumetric center of the
static fully inflated air bag. The agency requires this
information from vehicle manufacturers.
124 The agency can ask the manufacturer to
provide information about the rollover sensor’s
deployment capabilities. See proposed S4.2.4,
Technical Documentation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
addition to sealing the glazing, may also
provide a weather-tight seal between the
door and the door frame. For purposes
of defining the window opening, this
gasket material should be treated the
same as gasket material used for sealing
glazing, because if it were not, it could
artificially reduce the size of the
daylight opening. Accordingly, S3 in
this final rule excludes flexible gasket
material or weather stripping used to
create a waterproof seal between the
glazing and the vehicle interior and the
door and the door frame from the
definition of daylight opening.
iv. Testing With Flexible Gasket
Material In Place
In the section above, we stated that
the final rule will continue to define the
daylight opening without considering
flexible gasket material or weather
stripping. Thus, this material may, on
some vehicles, need to be temporarily
removed. However, this does not mean
that the testing will be performed
without this material. The NPRM
proposed that the headform test be
conducted with the flexible gasket
material or weather stripping in
place.125
The air bag suppliers commenting on
this issue supported testing with
weather stripping. TRW stated ‘‘the
weather stripping must be present to
provide representative inflatable
countermeasure deployment, and
occupant interaction with the
countermeasure. Further, the absence of
weather stripping during the test, could
expose edges which could damage the
countermeasure, affecting test
performance.’’ Takata stated that they
‘‘agree with the NHTSA’s proposal to
determine the target location and carry
out the testing with [the gasket]
materials.’’
As indicate in the previous section,
most commenters wishing to include
gasket material or weather stripping in
defining the daylight opening were
concerned about potential test problems
associated with removal and
reinstallation. We have not experienced
difficulty or complexity in dealing with
the gasket material in our testing. It has
been our experience that gasket
material, due to its flexible nature, can
be moved aside to allow access to the
vehicle surfaces that create the daylight
opening. If the gasket covers the
relevant vehicle surface that defines the
daylight opening and needs to be
removed temporarily to allow access to
that area, once the measurement is made
removal of the gasket need not be done
again to define the opening. No data was
125 74
PO 00000
FR 63205
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3267
submitted to indicate such a single
removal and reinstallation or, for that
matter, multiple removals and
reinstallations, would have any effect on
test results. We do not believe that
removing and reinstalling the gasket
will have any notable effect relative to
other factors influencing test variability,
such as normal manufacturer build-tobuild variability.
We also agree with commenters who
suggest that testing without this material
may unnecessarily expose the air bag to
sharp surfaces. In addition, the agency
prefers to test a vehicle in as near the
as-manufactured condition as
practicable. Thus, in the final rule we
have not added any regulatory text that
indicates that flexible gasket or weather
stripping will be removed during
testing, as we have done in S6.3 for
other parts of the vehicle.
v. Metal Dividers in Glazing
Hyundai requested clarification on
how potentially non-structural steel
dividing elements in a window opening
should be handled. Our answer is such
elements would serve to define the
daylight opening since they do not
consist of glazing. We currently have no
reasonable way to exclude these
dividing elements based on the extent to
which they may or may not add
structural integrity to the vehicle.
2. How We Determine Impactor Target
Locations In An Objective And
Repeatable Manner
i. Testing in ‘‘Any’’ Location
The Alliance, AIAM, Honda,
Hyundai, AORC, TRW and Takata all
requested that the final rule maintain
defined locations for the impact targets
as opposed to allowing any point in the
window opening to be targeted. The
Alliance AIAM, Honda, and Hyundai
suggested that testing at any target point
in the window opening would increase
the testing burden for manufacturers
without providing any meaningful
information, and would introduce
uncertainty in the certification process.
The Alliance stated that ‘‘[t]he proposed
up to 4 targets (without ‘target
reconstitution’) achieves NHTSA’s
stated goal to ‘assess how well the
curtain covers the perimeter of the
window opening’ (FR 63204).’’
(Emphasis in text). AORC stated that
‘‘four impact points per window
opening sufficiently represents the
‘worse case’ * * * .’’ TRW also agreed
with the view that the NPRM
‘‘adequately cover[s] the window
opening by requiring that the most
demanding locations of the opening be
tested.’’ Honda stated, in reference to
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3268
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
target points such as A1, that ‘‘coverage
of these most challenging points by
FMVSS No. 226 will successfully
provide ejection mitigation with the
adoption of this regulation.’’ Both TRW
and Takata suggested that the
specification of exact target points
supports a high level of repeatability,
reproducibility and robustness of
testing. In contrast, Advocates stated
that the fixed target method limits the
areas to be tested and performance
outside of those areas will not be
known.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Agency Response
We have decided to use the
methodology of the NPRM to define the
target points. First, we agree with the
Alliance that the procedure using four
defined targets achieves the agency’s
goal of assessing the coverage of the
ejection mitigation countermeasure. We
also agree with Honda’s comment that
the fixed target method will test or come
very close to testing the worst case
locations.
In response to Advocates, in
developing the final rule’s test
procedure, we sought to achieve a full
and robust assessment of side window
opening coverage. We intentionally
selected target locations that we
believed will provide the greatest
challenge to the ejection
countermeasure. Based on our test data
to date, we remain confident that this is
the case with our current target
selection method. If we were to test at
any location, manufacturers will have
less certainty in the certification
process. Whether this would result in
increased test burden is not clear.
Although the concept of testing the
window opening at any potential impact
point has merit, we do not believe it is
necessary for this standard to reduce
certainty, since testing at defined target
points will achieve our safety objectives.
ii. Methodology
The Alliance believed that the target
locations should be determined in a
manner consistent with the methods
utilized by GM and Ford, which are
based on occupant seating positions and
‘‘up and out’’ occupant kinematics in
rollover events. The Alliance stated that
GM uses three target points per window
adjacent to a row of seating: (1) Upper
rear; (2) centroid of window opening;
and (3) head position of 5th percentile
female with the seat back at a 10-degree
126 The commenter did not define the meaning of
‘‘up and out.’’ Based on the context of the Alliance’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Agency Response
The agency has decided not to reduce
the number of target locations as
requested by the Alliance and Batzer
and Ziejewski. As expressed in Honda’s
comment, coverage of the most
challenging points like A1 are necessary
for FMVSS No. 226 to successfully
ensure that adequate ejection mitigation
is provided. The same level of ejection
mitigation performance is not assured
by the suggested alternative procedures.
We believe that three target locations
are insufficient (and more so for the two
locations resulting from the Ford
procedure for rear windows) to test the
entire perimeter of the daylight opening.
The Alliance indicated that the GM and
Ford target points are consistent with
the assumption of ‘‘up and out’’ rollover
occupant kinematics.126 However, such
an assumption ignores the possibility
that during long duration, multiple
quarter-turn rollovers, occupants can
move to openings after impacting the
ejection countermeasure, and impact the
countermeasure multiple times. In
addition, the GM and Ford impact
locations seem to be most relevant to the
belted occupant situations. As we have
stated many times, the bulk of the
benefits of this final rule come from
unbelted occupants. The suggestion of
Batzer and Ziejewski for two impacts
near the upper part of the window is not
well defined. It is not clear to us if the
commenter is requesting two impact
locations or two impacts on the same
countermeasure. The latter would only
be possible for a glazing-only
countermeasure. If it is the former, it is
unsatisfactory for the same reasons that
we have expressed about the Ford
procedure. We know from our own
testing of vehicle systems that testing
point A1 is vital to determine if the
countermeasure provides full and robust
coverage.
We are also declining the Alliance
request to modify the target locations for
rear windows such that they are the
reverse of that proposed in the NPRM
for rear windows. In Figure 13 below,
illustrating the suggested Alliance
targeting, it is shown that the Alliance
procedure targeting can provide a large
gap for daylight openings with a
forward rake. It is our experience that,
to the extent that the rear windows have
a rake, this rake is forward. For rear
window openings, matching the front
window pattern creates a large gap of
coverage, as shown in Figure 13.
Further, the Alliance methodology
crowds the targets closer together,
raising the potential for forcing the
elimination of targets based on the target
reduction methodology. We are not
aware of any reason why it is important
to have consistency between the
protocol used in the front and rear
windows. Accordingly, we are denying
the Alliance and Batzer and Ziejewski
requests.
use of the ‘‘up and out’’ terminology, we assume that
the term means that occupants would be ejected
near their longitudinal vehicle location at the time
of the rollover.
rearward incline from vertical and the
head position projected forward 30
degrees to the lateral axis. The Alliance
indicated that, contrary to what was
stated by the agency in the NPRM, for
some vehicles, the lower forward GM
target does not align with position A1.
It stated that Ford uses three in the front
window and two in the rear windows.
Ford’s front window locations are the
same as GM’s except that the target
corresponding to the 5th percentile
female position is projected forward
from the lateral axis at 15 degrees rather
than 30 degrees. For rear windows, Ford
eliminates the 5th percentile female
head target location.
The Alliance also requested that the
rear window targets be reversed, i.e., the
mirror image from that proposed by the
agency. It stated that this would provide
a ‘‘more consistent protocol’’ because the
front window and rear window targets
would be located in the same way,
while achieving the stated goal of
assessing ‘‘how well the curtain covers
the perimeter of the windows opening.’’
The Alliance disagreed with the
proposed method to add back a target
(reconstitution). It believed that ‘‘[t]he
combination of FMVSS 214 and FMVSS
226 requirements renders testing at any
point and ‘target reconstitution’
unnecessary and redundant to provide
enhanced side curtain coverage.’’
Batzer and Ziejewski indicated that
‘‘two impacts against the upper half of
the glazing should be adequate.’’ The
commenter stated that for the bottom
half of the window, the use of a
headform is inappropriate. The
commenter stated that known occupant
danger for this region of the glass is arm
and leg excursion and suggested that ‘‘a
new device that simulates a forearm or
calf/foot can, and should, be developed
to validate the side curtain airbag
against this mode of excursion. This
need not be a 10 mph impact, but
merely an excursion test.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
iii. Reorienting the Targets
The Alliance, Hyundai, AORC, TRW,
NTEA and Pilkington were all opposed
to reorienting the impactor headform.127
The Alliance stated that ‘‘[if a daylight
opening is such that the headform
cannot fit with 25 mm clearance when
oriented with a vertical long axis, then
NHTSA’s goal to reduce the risk of head
and upper torso ejection has already
been achieved by the architectural
characteristics of the vehicle,
particularly when combined with belt
usage.’’
Hyundai stated that they ‘‘found that
the side daylight opening of some
vehicles with high belt-lines 128 could
not fit the outline of the impactor
headform within the 25 millimeter
offset line of the window opening.’’ 129
Nonetheless, Hyundai opposed the
rotation of the headform by 90 degrees
for windows with small vertical
dimensions where no targets will fit
with the typical impactor orientations. It
stated ‘‘these windows are unlikely exit
portals.’’ TRW believed that ‘‘revising
the orientation of the headform for
certain window shapes, while not doing
so for others, does not appear to be
based on any real world rationale.’’ The
Alliance, AORC and TRW raised testing
concerns related to reorienting the
impactor. The Alliance stated:
‘‘Arbitrary deviations from [the NPRM]
approach introduce unnecessary setup
variation and also increase the
complexity of the impactor design.’’
The agency has decided that the final
rule will allow the reorientation of the
targets and the associated reorientation
of the impactor headform, under
specific conditions. We believe that, all
things being equal, the size of an
uncovered side window has some
correlation to the risk of ejection. A gap
in coverage of a small window could be
an ejection portal, just as it could be for
a large window. If the test procedure in
the final rule does not allow for rotation
of the headform, it could allow large
3269
gaps in the window coverage that could
provide an ejection portal.
We examined two issues in
investigating whether the headform
should be reoriented. The first issue
involved reviewing the number and
location of impact targets for vehicles
with relatively long and narrow side
daylight openings (high beltline
vehicles) under the NPRM targeting
procedure. The second issue involved
the pluses and minuses of
systematically rotating the target outline
in small increments in order to fit a
single target in a window opening that
would otherwise not accommodate a
target.
In an April 15, 2010 meeting with
NHTSA, Ford showed the impact
locations for many of their current and
future vehicles.130 One of the vehicles
was a MY 2010 Ford Taurus. In Table
40, we have summarized the number of
impact targets in each daylight opening
for many of the Ford vehicles, as
provided by Ford.
TABLE 40—NUMBER OF TARGETS PER DAYLIGHT OPENING FOR FORD MODELS, ACCORDING TO THE NPRM TEST
PROCEDURE
MY
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
Type
Row 1
Taurus ................................................................
Lincoln MKS .......................................................
Lincoln MKT .......................................................
F150 Crew Cab ..................................................
F150 Super Cab .................................................
F150 Regular Cab ..............................................
Flex .....................................................................
Mustang ..............................................................
Fiesta ..................................................................
Focus ..................................................................
Future SUV ........................................................
Next Gen. Full Size Van ....................................
PC ................................
PC ................................
SUV ..............................
PU ................................
PU ................................
PU ................................
SUV ..............................
PC ................................
PC ................................
PC ................................
SUV ..............................
Van ...............................
Row 2
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
4
Row 3
1
2
4
4
2
NA
4
0
2
2
3
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
This table indicates that, without
target rotation, more than half [7⁄12] of
the vehicles on the list would have
fewer than four targets in the row 1
windows. Similarly, for the second row
windows, seven of 11 would have fewer
127 This is the same as saying they did not want
to rotate the targets, because the impactor headform
orientation is aligned with the target orientation.
128 The beltline of a vehicle is a term used in
vehicle design and styling referring to the
nominally horizontal imaginary line below the side
glazing of a vehicle, which separates the glazing
area from the lower body.
129 NHTSA–2009–0183–0044, p. 6.
130 Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0183–47.1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.019</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2012
2012
Model
3270
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
than four targets. This level of target
reduction is much greater than we have
seen in our research testing. There are
several potential reasons for this
emerging picture. First, manufacturers
initially focused their introduction of
rollover curtains on SUVs and pickups,
which typically have larger windows.
Second, the trend towards higher
beltlines has reduced the height of
windows.
The question then becomes, how
extensive is the window opening
coverage for windows with fewer than
four vertically oriented targets? To help
answer this question we also examined
a partial side view of a MY 2010
Chevrolet Camaro. This view is shown
in the technical report for this final rule.
In Figure 14 below, we drew the outline
of the daylight opening and the
associated 25 mm offset line for
illustration purposes. (These are
approximations given the resolution of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
the image and given that we did not
know the dimensions of the flexible
gasket material around the opening.
Also, we could not determine the exact
outline at the forward lower corner
because the view was obscured by the
outside mirror. However, to the extent
this drawing differs from the actual
image of the vehicle, the differences
would not be significant for the
purposes of discussion in this section.)
If the targeting procedure defined in
the NPRM is followed, the four initial
target locations (primary and secondary
targets) are as shown in the top graphic
in Figure 14. (The procedure is
explained in detail in the NPRM at 74
FR at 63205–63211.) Under the NPRM
procedure, if the horizontal distance
between target centers is less than 135
mm and the vertical distance between
target centers is less than 170 mm, the
targets are considered to be significantly
overlapping and are eliminated. At the
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
end of the process, only a single target
would remain. See middle graphic of
Figure 14(b). The forward edge of this
target is 464 mm from the forward edge
of the daylight opening outline, which
would leave a large opening forward of
the target untested. Occupant ejection
could occur through that opening.
Further, if the daylight opening were
less than 1 mm smaller (a vertical
dimension of less than 276.1 mm),
under the NPRM procedure, there
would be no targets in the window
opening.
If we perform the same targeting
procedure as defined in the NPRM
except with a horizontally-oriented
target outline (the long axis oriented
horizontally), the result is the four
targets shown in the bottom graphic of
Figure 14. The forward edge of the most
forward target was 173 mm from the
forward edge of the daylight opening.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
It appears that, if the target outline
were to be kept only vertical, there
would be an artifact in the test that
could result in the exclusion of entire or
large parts of some window openings
from being tested, while not excluding
a window that differed only by a few
millimeters in dimension. For a long
narrow window, the number of targets
can jump from zero to four with an
increase in vertical dimension of the
window opening of only about 15 mm.
If a long, narrow window had a vertical
dimension of 277 mm, the NPRM
procedure would result in no targets on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
the window opening. If the window
vertical dimension were increased by
only 5 percent, from 277 mm to 290
mm, under the NPRM procedure the
targets would go from zero to four.
Figure 15 shows the result of the
NPRM’s targeting process with the
vertical dimension of the daylight
opening increased by 3 percent (from
277 mm to 285 mm). The four initial
vertical target locations are shown in the
top graphic. The target elimination
process results in the two middle targets
being removed but under the target
reconstitution process a target is
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3271
reconstituted between them; the final
number of vertical targets is three, as
shown in the middle graphic of the
figure. The forward edge of the most
forward target is 348 mm from the
forward edge of the daylight opening,
which is a substantial area. If we
perform the targeting procedure with a
horizontally oriented target outline, the
four targets shown in the bottom graphic
of Figure 15 result. The forward edge of
the most forward target is 159 mm from
the forward edge of the daylight
opening.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.020</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 16 compares the horizontal
coverage (dimension from leading edge
of most forward target to the trailing
edge of the most rearward target) of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
daylight opening using the vertical and
horizontal target outlines. The vertical
targets show a great deal of sensitivity
to the height of the daylight opening as
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
opposed to the horizontal targets, which
are very insensitive to opening height.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.021</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3272
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3273
However, rotating the target in
increments of 5 degrees, from the initial
vertical orientation, we find that the
target outline will fit at an angle of 45
degrees.
We disagree with the Hyundai
comment that suggested that, if there are
no vertically oriented targets that can fit
in a window under the NPRM
procedure, it is unlikely to be a portal
for ejection. We have no data that
supports the view that occupants
maintain a vertical orientation when
ejected through a window in a rollover.
Given the chaotic nature of rollovers, we
do not expect this to be the case. We
know of no convincing reason why the
target should not be rotated at the
window opening, given that a simple
and small rotation will enable us to test
a countermeasure in a satisfactory
manner and ensure that the ejection
mitigation device fully covers the
window opening.
If we specified that the targets may be
reoriented (rotated) in a systematic
manner, we could eliminate an artifact
in the proposed procedure. In the
section above, we saw that for a long
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.023</GPH>
target. Figure 17 depicts a daylight
opening that is too small to fit a
vertically oriented target outline within
the offset line. Under the NPRM
targeting procedure, such a daylight
opening would not be impacted.
ER19JA11.022</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
The second issue we explored
involved the pluses and minuses of
systematically rotating the target outline
in small increments in order to fit a
single target in a window opening that
would otherwise not accommodate a
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
narrow window, the number of targets
can jump from zero to four with an
increase in vertical dimension of the
window opening of about 15 mm. This
is not desirable that a daylight opening
would go from zero to 4 targets when
the vertical dimension of the opening is
above or below 276.1 mm. These
artifacts of the combination of the
window opening geometry and the
orientation of the impactor under the
NPRM are unacceptable, given that the
standard would not assess the ability of
the countermeasure installed at the
window opening to prevent partial or
complete ejections.
Contrary to the Alliance comments
that rotating the headform is an
‘‘[a]bitrary deviation’’ of the test
procedure, the agency believes that, for
certain situations, to leave the headform
in the vertical orientation would result
in arbitrary results, not consistent with
the need for daylight opening coverage.
Similarly, we disagree with the TRW
comment that implied that target
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
reorientation needlessly complicates the
test procedure. Rotating the target
outlines would add little if any
complexity to the standard. To the
extent the procedure is more
complicated, the need is justified.
Accordingly, the agency has decided
that this final rule will allow the
reorientation of the targets and the
associated reorientation of the impactor
headform, under specific conditions.
The conditions are discussed below.
From the examples shown in the
technical analysis above, any situation
where fewer than four vertical targets
can be placed in the daylight opening
would allow for unacceptably large gaps
in coverage. As shown in Figure 15,
supra, the 3 vertically-oriented targets
had 279 mm less horizontal window
coverage than did the 4 horizontally
oriented targets and the forwardmost
horizontal target was 189 mm more
forward than the vertical target.
Yet, the agency has chosen not to
change the orientation of the impactor
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
from vertical to horizontal when the
same number of targets can be placed in
the daylight opening in either
orientation. This is so even though in
some cases, it is possible that the
horizontal targets provide more
horizontal coverage of the window
opening. There are several reasons for
this decision.
First, regardless of target orientation,
if the same number of targets can be
placed within the window opening then
the area being impacted in both cases
would be essentially the same. For
example, looking at Figure 18 below, the
target outlines impact approximately the
same amount of area in the window
opening. What differs is the distribution
of the targets within the opening, which
is solely a function of the opening
shape. The horizontal targets cover more
of the window opening towards the
bottom of the A-pillar and the vertical
targets more fully cover more of the
remaining areas of the window.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.024</GPH>
3274
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Second, the bulk of our test data to
date and the test data submitted by
comments are with the impactor in the
vertical orientation. This includes data
that indicates that the proposed
requirements are practicable. Without
more test data with a horizontal
orientation, we are reluctant to change
the impactor orientation for all window
openings. Notwithstanding that most of
our testing was done with the impactor
in the vertical orientation, when the
number of targets is fewer because the
target is oriented vertically, we believe
that the importance of fuller window
opening coverage outweighs all other
considerations.
Third, there are window openings
that would otherwise not accommodate
a target unless the target outline is
rotated to some oblique angle. See
Figure 17. We find it objectionable not
to specify that the impactor may be
rotated.
We find no reasonable argument that
would compel us not to allow rotation
of the impactor beyond the vertical or
horizontal configurations given that this
might result in such a window not being
covered by any countermeasure. To say
that an occupant’s head or some other
body part cannot reorient itself during
the rollover event, including the head or
body part of a belted occupant, is not
logical.
The conditions for the rotation of the
targets and impactor headform by 90
degrees to a horizontal orientation are
specified in the final rule regulatory text
at S5.2.5.2 and S5.6.2, respectively. The
conditions for the incremental 5 degree
rotation of the targets and impactor
headform are specified in final rule
regulatory text S5.2.5.3 and S5.6.3,
respectively. The 5 degree increment
reorientation is about the y axis of the
target and achieved by rotating the
target’s positive z axis toward the
vehicle’s positive x axis.131 At each
increment of rotation, an attempt is
made to fit the target within the offset
line of the side daylight opening. At the
first increment of rotation where the
target will fit, the target is placed such
that its center is as close as possible to
the geometric center of the side daylight
opening.
iv. Suppose Even by Rotating the
Headform the Vehicle Has No Target
Locations
AIAM and VSC requested that the
regulatory text expressly state that
vehicles without any target locations are
131 Looking at the left side of the vehicle from the
outside, the rotation is counterclockwise and
looking at the right side of the vehicle, the rotation
is clockwise.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
excluded from the standard. Hyundai
suggested that any window not having
targets according to the proposed
requirement should be excluded.
Agency Response
We have added text to S4.2 of the
standard to state that if a side daylight
opening contains no target locations, the
impact test is not performed on that
opening.
The vehicle is not excluded from
FMVSS No. 226, however. There are a
number of requirements in section S4.2
of the standard that apply to vehicles
that have an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that deploys in the
event of a rollover. Paragraph S4.2.2
requires the vehicles to have a
monitoring system with a readiness
indicator meeting certain specifications.
Paragraph S4.2.3 requires the vehicle
owner’s manual to have written
information about the ejection
mitigation system and the readiness
indicator. Paragraph S4.2.4 requires the
manufacturer of the vehicle to make
available to the agency, upon request,
certain information about the rollover
sensor system. Vehicles that have an
ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in the event of a rollover are
subject to these requirements even if
side daylight openings contain no target
locations. Since the vehicle is subject to
FMVSS No. 226, the vehicle may be
counted as a vehicle that meets the
ejection mitigation requirements of the
standard for phase-in and advanced
credit purposes.
v. Decision Not To Test Target of
Greatest Displacement
Vehicle manufacturers were
supportive of a method to reduce the
number of tests. However, not all
supported the alternative presented in
the NPRM to test at the 24 km/h impact
speed at only the target location with
the greatest displacement during the 16
km/h impact. Hyundai stated that ‘‘no
significant additional information
would be gained by testing all of the
lesser displacement locations.’’ The
Alliance alternatively suggested a single
impact speed and time delay for all
target locations (16 km/h with a 3.4
second delay). The Alliance opined that
‘‘[d]eployment of side curtain airbags is
highly dependent on placement of
garnish trim and performance of
attachments in the vehicle body. If a
subsequent test needs to be performed
[on] one side of a vehicle after an airbag
is deployed, a new airbag and new
garnish trim will have to be
installed.’’ 132 They mentioned that this
132 NHTSA–2009–0183–0029,
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
p. 30.
Sfmt 4700
3275
reinstallation may not be representative
of factory installation. In addition, it
alleges that attachment points may wear
or deform after multiple tests.
AIAM stated that ‘‘[t]here would be no
reduction in test burden unless the
agency were to require manufacturers to
identify which impact location had the
largest displacement in their low speed
certification testing, so that the agency
could perform its high speed test at the
same location. Otherwise, the
manufacturer could be required to
conduct high speed tests at all impactor
locations, to assure that it has test data
for the same location that the agency
tests.’’
Air bag suppliers were mixed in their
responses on this topic. TRW
recommended ‘‘keeping all four impact
tests at both impact speeds. This is
because NHTSA testing could identify a
different ‘worst point’ than is identified
by the OEM in their tests. Therefore,
vehicle manufacturers would likely
need to test more extensively than
NHTSA. Thus while the compliance
testing burden may be slightly lowered,
testing at the manufacturer [sic] will
probably not be diminished
significantly.’’ Takata suggested the
alternative of testing all target locations
at the 24 km/h-1.5 second test, then
performing the 16 km/h-6 second test
only at the location experiencing the
greatest displacement in the first series.
Takata believed that ‘‘it is important to
test all the locations at the high energy
level to ensure structural integrity of the
countermeasure device. This approach
identifies a robust design and also
reduces the number of tests.’’
Agency Response
After considering the comments, we
have determined that the final rule will
require that all target locations be
impacted at the higher and lower impact
velocities rather than just impacting one
target location at the higher speed test.
This adopts the regulatory text option
presented in proposed S5.5(2A) (except,
as discussed earlier in this preamble,
the higher speed will be 20 km/h rather
than 24 km/h).
We found the comments from AIAM,
TRW, and Takata to be informative and
persuasive. We agree with AIAM and
TRW that there is unlikely to be a
significant reduction of test burden to
the industry by only requiring a 1.5
second-high speed test at the location
that yields the greatest displacement at
the 6 second-low speed test. This is
because our ejection mitigation side air
curtain test data indicates that there is
typically no clear distinction between
the displacements of several of the
target points in a vehicle window
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3276
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
opening. There sometimes is no clear
distinction that a certain target is the
‘‘weakest,’’ showing the most
displacement in the 16 km/h-6 second
test. Agency testing of production
vehicles set forth earlier in this
preamble indicates that the weakest
target location is not obvious across data
from the 24 km/h-1.5 second test, 20
km/h-1.5 second test, or the 16 km/h-6
second test. Based on limited data from
our new impactor, we found that there
is less difference in displacement
between the 20 km/h-1.5 second and 16
km/h-6 second tests. (See rank of the
displacement by target location for the
second row testing of the MY 2008
Highlander, Tables 10–18, supra.) Thus,
vehicle manufacturers might not be
assured from their data which target
location will be the weakest in a
NHTSA test. Accordingly, they may end
up testing all of the targets to all of the
impact speeds.
We also agree with Takata’s
comments that all target locations must
be tested at the higher impact speed to
assure that the testing determines the
robustness of the designs. However, not
only must the robustness of design be
assessed at the top impact speed of 20
km/h, performance at 6 seconds must
also be determined. The agency can
only assure this by impacting all
locations at 16 km/h with a 6 second
delay.
AORC suggested that the standard
could specify that manufacturers will
pronounce to us which target point
should be tested at the higher speed. We
do not agree with the logic of binding
the agency to only impact target
locations deemed by the manufacturer
to have the greatest displacement in the
16 km/h test. Such an approach would
be an unacceptable limitation of the
agency’s ability to independently
determine how to test a vehicle.
We also did not find compelling the
comments expressed by the Alliance.
We have already discussed and rejected
the commenter’s suggestion that FMVSS
No. 226 should have only a single
impact speed and time delay for all
target locations (16 km/h with a 3.4
second delay).
With regard to the commenter’s
suggestion that there should be only one
16 km/h test due to wear and tear on
and effect of trim components on
testing, we decline this suggestion also.
There was no showing that issues
related to trim components justify
reducing the tests to a single impact
speed. Moreover, the Alliance’s
concerns about trim components appear
inconsistent with Nissan’s comment.
Nissan indicated that it would like the
final rule to allow testing on an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
untrimmed ‘‘cut body’’ and that the
headliner would not be expected to
affect performance of the side curtain air
bag system. This indicates to us the
possibility that trim components
generally might not have a significant
effect on curtain performance. The
Alliance’s comments about trim
components are not substantiated and
do not justify reducing the number of
tests to one.
This final rule does reduce a test
burden on manufacturers of vehicles
that use only non-movable (fixed)
glazing as the ejection mitigation
countermeasure to meet FMVSS No.
226, without use of a deployable
ejection mitigation countermeasure. We
have written the standard to apply only
the 20 km/h-1.5 second test to the
daylight opening with the non-movable
glazing, and not the 16 km/h-6 second
test. If the displacement limit can be
met at the window opening in the 20
km/h-1.5 second test, we will not
subject the window opening to the 16
km/h-6 second test. This is because the
20 km/h test would be redundant. If the
displacement limit is met in the high
speed test, we believe the limit will be
met in the low speed test.
vi. Reconstitution of Targets
The Alliance disagreed with the
proposed method to add back a target
(reconstitution). It believed that ‘‘[t]he
combination of FMVSS 214 and FMVSS
226 requirements renders testing at any
point and ‘target reconstitution’
unnecessary and redundant to provide
enhanced side curtain coverage.’’
Agency Response
We disagree with the Alliance’s
position that target reconstitution is
unnecessary and redundant. A large
space between two impact locations in
a daylight opening is not consistent
with our desire for full window
coverage. Reconstituting (adding back) a
target back between two distantlyspaced targets helps to meet our goal.
We note that both the Ford and GM
internal ejection test procedures have an
impact location at the geometric center
of the window. For many window
shapes assessed under the procedures of
this final rule, the target at the center of
the window would be close to the
location that would be covered by the
middle target reconstituted. Thus, the
Ford and GM procedures appear to
recognize the merits of testing for full
window coverage.
f. Glazing Issues
The NPRM proposed to allow
movable windows made from advanced
glazing to be in position (up and closed)
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for the compliance test, but pre-broken
by a specified test procedure to simulate
the breakage of glazing during a
rollover. Tempered (non-advanced)
glazing shatters when broken, so for
tempered glazing, we proposed that we
would conduct the glazing breaking
procedure and shatter the glazing,
remove the glazing, or retract the
glazing, at the manufacturer’s option.
1. Positioning the Glazing
The NPRM discussed the pros and
cons of advanced glazing for ejection
mitigation. Advanced glazing may
enhance the performance of current air
bag curtain designs. Vehicles tested by
NHTSA showed an average
displacement reduction across target
locations and test types of 51 mm.133
However, the updated target population
data show that 31 percent of front seat
ejections and 28 percent of all target
population ejections are through
windows that were partially or fully
open prior to the crash. Further, the
agency was concerned that in the real
world, advanced glazing would not be
as effective as an ejection
countermeasure due to vehicle
structural deformation and the effects of
inertial loading of the window mass.
The NPRM requested comments on
several alternatives, including the
alternative of testing all movable
windows removed or retracted,
regardless of whether the window is
laminated or tempered; fixed laminated
windows would be permitted to be kept
in place, but pre-broken.
Comments
Commenters were divided in their
views of how Standard No. 226 should
test vehicles that have advanced glazing
covering a side daylight opening.
Vehicle manufacturers and air bag
suppliers did not support testing with
advanced glazing in place. Ford stated
that ‘‘[s]ide glazing retention, regardless
of construction-type (e.g., laminated or
tempered), in real-world rollover
crashes is random and unpredictable.’’
Ford stated that side glazing retention
‘‘is dependent on the unique
characteristics of that particular crash
(e.g., number of quarter turns, vehicle
roll rate and deceleration, objects
contacted, occupant loading, vehicle
deformations, etc.).’’ The commenter
133 We stated in the NPRM that we believed that
incorporation of advanced glazing for ejection
mitigation would be relatively expensive compared
to the implementation of air bags. The PRIA showed
that the proposed requirements would add about
$33 per light vehicle at a total cost of $568 million
for the full curtain countermeasure. A partial
curtain plus advanced glazing would have an
incremental and total cost of $88 and $1,494
million, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
referred to an SAE paper from Kramer,
et al.134 in which the authors stated
‘‘there is information from the field
(FARS and other individual collisions)
that document ejections through
laminated side glass.’’ Ford
recommended 135 that—
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
the eventual requirements of FMVSS 226 be
focused on rollover activated side curtain
technology, with consideration of the
associated capabilities of this technology,
because these devices are designed to deploy
regardless of side glazing status in a rollover
(e.g., retained, up, down or partially open) or
construction of the glazing.
Honda had a similar view, stating that
‘‘a vehicle with movable windows, being
operated with a laminated glazing even
partially open, could result in the
window falling out of the window frame
due to body deformation resulting from
the crash or subsequent ground contact
during a rollover event.’’ It stated that
because the pre-breaking procedure
allows the window to be in the full up
position it ‘‘may not fully simulate real
world conditions.’’ Honda suggested that
all testing should be done with the
windows ‘‘removed or retracted prior to
the impact test instead of allowing prebreaking for movable windows.’’ For
fixed laminated windows, the
commenter said that ‘‘the concerns
mentioned above would not apply and
pre-breaking would be a suitable
method of simulating real world
conditions * * *.’’
AORC and TRW expressed concerns
about testing glazing with the window
up. They suggested that the agency
could test without any glazing present,
but either increase the amount of
allowable excursion, or reduce the
energy level (i.e. reduce the impactor
velocity) for impact locations which
have advanced glazing, to reflect the
enhanced performance expected if the
advanced glazing were present.
In contrast, glazing suppliers stated
that all testing should be performed
with the advanced glazing in place
because they believed that the NPRM
provided strong support of advanced
glazing in reducing impactor
displacement.
Consumer groups overall supported
the use of advanced glazing. IIHS
described roof crush and side impact
testing it did on several vehicles with
front row laminated glazing. IIHS stated
that all the laminated glazing remained
intact within the window frame. IIHS
suggested NHTSA provide an incentive
134 Kramer et al. ‘‘A Comparative Study of
Automotive Side Window Occupant Containment
Characteristics for Tempered and Laminated Glass,’’
SAE Paper 2006–01–1492.
135 NHTSA–2009–0183–0020, p. 4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
to vehicle manufacturers to use
advanced glazing, such as by testing all
vehicles without the glazing in place but
allow a higher displacement for vehicles
equipped with laminated glazing. In
contrast, Advocates suggested NHTSA
should test with both air curtains and
advanced glazing and require a much
reduced displacement limit. Public
Citizen wanted the final rule to
specifically disallow the use of
advanced glazing on a vehicle unless it
was in combination with side curtain air
bags. Public Citizen stated there is a lack
of evidence that laminated glazing will
perform well enough on its own.
Agency Response
This final rule does not allow the use
of movable glazing as the sole means of
meeting the displacement limit of the
standard (i.e., movable glazing is not
permitted to be used without a side
curtain air bag). It also specifies that if
a vehicle has movable advanced glazing,
the 16 km/h-6 second test will be
performed with the glazing retracted or
removed from the daylight opening. Our
decision is based on the following
factors.
First, field data already evidence an
incongruity between the glazing
countermeasure and the foreseeable use
of it by the public. The updated target
population data show that 31 percent of
front seat ejections and 28 percent of all
target population ejections are through
windows that were partially or fully
open prior to the crash. We have no
small concerns about a countermeasure
that can be easily, totally and most
likely unknowingly counteracted by
motorists by the simple and everyday
act of opening a window. As crash data
show, many in the target population
already operate their vehicles in a
manner that negates the efficacy of the
countermeasure. Any benefits accruing
from advanced glazing will not be
achieved if the window were partially
or fully down.
Second, in contrast to IIHS’s roof
crush and side impact laboratory test
findings, the field data of real-world
performance of advanced glazing are
showing that even when movable
advanced glazing is initially up, such
glazing may not be present as an
effective countermeasure beyond the
initial phase of a rollover. Rollovers are
one of the most severe and
unpredictable vehicle crash events.
Based on an analysis of field data and
the comments on the NPRM, we are not
confident at this time that movable
advanced glazing used alone, without
an ejection mitigation side air curtain to
supplement it, will be a viable
countermeasure throughout a rollover
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3277
crash. The following illustrates some
real world examples of the unpredictable nature of advanced glazing
in rollovers.
In NASS CDS case 2001–43–190, a
MY 2000 Audi A8 experienced a left
leading, four quarter-turn rollover.136
This vehicle did not have side curtain
air bags. The unbelted driver was
completely ejected through the sunroof.
The belted front passenger was not
ejected. The technical report
accompanying this final rule shows the
interior views of the passenger and
driver sides of the vehicle, respectively.
The passenger side laminated glazing
has completely detached from the first
and second row windows. However, the
first and second row driver side
windows are in place. The first row
driver side window was coded as being
partially open prior the crash. It
remained so after the crash, although it
was extensively damaged. The second
row driver side window was in place
and undamaged.
In SCI case CA09063 (RODSS 7242),
a MY 2003 Lincoln Aviator with
laminated glass in the driver’s side
window sustained a head-on collision
followed by a three quarter-turn
rollover. This vehicle had rollover
deployable curtain air bags, but they did
not deploy. The driver and right front
passenger were belted. There were no
ejections. Both laminated driver and
front row passenger windows detached
from the window opening.
In SCI Case CA10006 (RODSS 8289),
a MY 2003 Lincoln Aviator experienced
an eight quarter-turn rollover. This
vehicle had rollover deployable curtain
air bags, which deployed. The driver
and right front passenger were belted.
The belted driver was killed due to
partial ejection of her head. Both
laminated driver and front row
passenger windows vacated the window
opening. The passenger side window
glazing is shown in the foreground of a
photograph of the scene, completely
detached from the vehicle.
In these examples, it is not possible
from the visual evidence to determine
when in the rollover event the advanced
glazing detached from the window
opening, nor the cause(s) of the
separation. In all except one of the cases
there was a belted occupant adjacent to
the window that detached from its
opening. In these cases, occupant
interaction may have been a factor. The
rear passenger side window of the Audi
did not have an adjacent occupant, so
136 Although the NASS coding indicates that the
first 2 rows of side windows were tempered glass,
we determined this to be incorrect from the
photographic evidence.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3278
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
occupant contact was not likely the
cause of the window vacating the
opening. Other potential causes are
structural deformation and inertial
forces due to impact or vehicle rotation.
We found compelling the Ford and
Honda comments discussing the
potential for advanced glazing to detach
from the window opening in real-world
rollovers. We agree with Ford that the
retention of advanced glazing,
particularly movable glazing, can be a
function of the random and
unpredictable nature of rollovers. We
also believe there is merit to the Honda
contentions that movable advanced
glazing could vacate the window frame
due to vehicle body deformation
resulting from crash dynamics or
ground contact, even when the window
is partially up, and that the pre-breaking
procedure performed in a full-up
position may not fully simulate these
conditions. We found their comments to
be consistent with the information
presented above, which shows examples
of field performance of advanced
glazing (specifically laminated glazing)
in several rollover and combination
crashes (rollover in combination with
planar impacts). Particularly interesting
is the Audi A8 rollover, where the
glazing on one side of the vehicle
vacated, but the windows on the other
side did not.
Ejection is a major cause of death and
injury in rollover crashes. As stated in
our discussion of the safety need for this
rulemaking, according to 2000–2009
FARS data, about half of the occupants
killed in rollovers were completely
ejected from their vehicle. A double-pair
comparison from the last ten years of
FARS data show that avoiding complete
ejection is associated with a 64 percent
decrease in the risk of death. The
ejection countermeasures that should be
installed in response to this final rule
are those which have been shown to
perform well in keeping occupants in
the vehicle in rollover crashes. We are
unable, at this time, to assert our
confidence in the ability of advanced
glazing to retain occupants throughout a
multiple quarter-turn rollover when
used alone in movable window
applications.
We have learned from the comments
about ways to improve FMVSS No.
226’s ability to distinguish between
countermeasures. We saw that the test
procedure should be enhanced to ensure
that the vehicle will provide ejection
mitigation protection throughout a
multiple quarter-turn real-world
rollover. The proposed impactor test of
ejection countermeasures is appropriate
and worthwhile, but we have learned
that to better replicate real-world
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
conditions, it is imperative to remove
any kind of glazing on a movable
window when preparing for the 16 km/
h-6 second test. Since there is a
reasonable possibility that the movable
window glazing will vacate the vehicle
in the later stages of the crash, by
removing the glazing in the test we
better replicate the real-world condition.
Removing such glazing, and expressly
stating in the standard that vehicles are
not allowed to use movable glazing as
the sole means of complying with the
standard, assure that movable advanced
glazing will be used with an ejection
mitigation side curtain air bag or other
deployable safety system. These
provisions assure that the movable
glazing will have to be supplemented by
a side curtain air bag or other
countermeasure, thus assuring a
minimal level of safety in the event the
window is partially or fully rolled down
or vacates the window opening due to
the dynamics of the crash.
It is possible that there could be
modifications to the designs of the
window frame that may improve the
ability of movable advanced glazing to
remain within the window opening
during a rollover.137 However, the
agency currently does not have the
information to make this determination.
We assume that this is what the AORC
meant when it stated that a single
integrity test for laminated glazing could
be established to verify retention.
Unfortunately, we did not learn of these
potential test parameters from the
comments.
Some glazing manufacturers indicated
that the problem of the open window
could be mitigated by newer vehicle
safety technology that rolls windows up
prior to a crash. It is our understanding
that at least some of these systems are
initiated when the ESC is activated.138
ESC would activate in only a portion of
the rollover events that make up our
target population, i.e., most likely single
vehicle rollover crashes. The remainder
would not be covered. Moreover, the
effectiveness, cost and practicability of
an automatic roll up system in
achieving the benefits of ejection
mitigation throughout a multiple
137 The agency researched such window frame
modifications during the research into advanced
glazing as a standalone ejection mitigation
countermeasure. ‘‘Ejection Mitigation Using
Advanced Glazings: A Status Report,’’ November
1995, DOT DMS NHTSA–1996–1782–3, pp. 4–7 to
4–10. Results indicated that adequate retention was
maintained in the area of encapsulation, but that
the unsupported (nonencapsulated) top edge was
subject to large deflections. (pg. 7–29).
138 Mercedes offers this feature and calls it PreSafe.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
quarter-turn rollover has not been
demonstrated.
Accordingly, for the 16 km/h-6
second test, if a vehicle has movable
advanced glazing as all or part of the
ejection countermeasure, the test will be
performed with the glazing retracted or
removed from the daylight opening.
Based on the 28 percent of the target
population ejected through windows
open prior to the crash and
uncertainties about the field
performance of the current movable
advanced glazing, we cannot agree to
the request that all impact testing be
performed with the movable advanced
glazing in place.
If the advanced glazing is fixed in
place, we will not remove it in the 16
km/h-6 second test. It is reasonable to
assume that glazing permanently fixed
in the up position will be up when the
vehicle is on the road. We will pre-break
the fixed glazing, to replicate the state
of the glazing during the stages of a
rollover event, but we will not remove
it. Likewise, if the glazing is fixed, we
will pre-break it but will not remove it
in the 20 km/h-1.5 second test. Thus, it
remains technically possible under the
standard to have fixed advanced glazing
as the standalone countermeasure. This
provides an incentive to manufacturers
to use advanced glazing.
Movable advanced glazing will not be
removed in the 20 km/h-1.5 second test.
This test will be performed with the
advanced glazing in place, but the
glazing will be pre-broken to replicate
the state of the glazing at the outset of
a rollover event. Although advanced
glazing could vacate the opening late in
the crash event after many quarter-turns,
we have more confidence that advanced
glazing will not be dislodged early in
the rollover event represented by the 20
km/h-1.5 second test. This is because
vehicle structural deformation and
inertial effects resulting from ground
contacts contributing to glazing being
dislodge will be cumulative, i.e.,
increase as the rollover event continues.
IIHS’s tests also showed that the
advanced glazing on some of the
vehicles it tested remained within the
frame in roof crush and side impact
testing. Allowing movable advanced
glazing to be in position in the high
speed (20 km/h-1.5 second) test will
provide an incentive to vehicle
manufacturers to use advanced glazing
to meet the standard’s requirements or
enhance ejection mitigation
performance of side curtains.
We decline the suggestions to provide
an incentive for advanced glazing by
increasing or decreasing the allowable
displacement of 100 mm. TRW and
AORC suggested increasing the allowed
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
displacement, or decreasing the impact
speed, at places on the window opening
that had advanced glazing. We cannot
agree to lessen the severity of the test for
advanced glazing as this would reduce
the protection of the motorists,
particularly those who may have the
window partially or fully rolled down.
Advocates suggested decreasing the
displacement limit below 100 mm for
combined advanced glazing plus curtain
air bag. As explained earlier in this
preamble, the 100 mm limit strikes the
appropriate balance between stringency
and practicability.
Advocates also stated that vehicle
structural deformation will reduce the
effectiveness of the curtain air bags and
advanced glazing will increase roof
strength.139 It presented no data to
substantiate these claims. NHTSA is not
aware of a technical or engineering basis
for the view that side curtain air bag
performance will be reduced by
structural deformation.
Our concerns about the performance
of advanced glazing also extend to the
deformation of the window opening.
Because of its mass, advanced glazing
will be much more susceptible to
inertial loading from vehicle rotation
and vehicle ground contact than will
curtain air bags. That was the point of
our statement in the NPRM (74 FR at
63213) about advanced glazing having
greater mass compared to an air bag
curtain. In response to comments from
some glazing suppliers, we did not
mean to imply that laminates had a
weight penalty when compared to
tempered glazing.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2. Window Pre-Breaking Specification
and Method
We have determined that there is a
safety need to have a glazing breaking
procedure applied to both the interior
and exterior sides of the glazing. We are
slightly modifying the proposed
procedure, to adopt use of a 75 mm
offset pattern to reduce the glazing
preparation time.
NPRM
In the NPRM, we proposed
specifications and a method that called
for punching holes in the glazing in a 50
mm horizontal and vertical matrix (‘‘50
mm matrix’’) on both sides of the
glazing. A spring-loaded automatic
center punch was to be used to make the
139 The relevance of the Advocates comment
about advanced glazing increasing roof strength is
not clear to us. In the May 12, 2009, FMVSS No.
216 final rule, the agency stated that we had
investigated the contribution of tempered side
windows to roof strength and found that it had
limited effect (74 FR 22371). We have no reason to
believe that there would not be similar results from
advanced laminates.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
holes. The punch has approximately a 5
mm diameter before coming to a point.
The spring on the punch was adjusted
such that 150 N ±25 N of force 140 was
required for activation. The details of
the procedure were described in the
NPRM. When punching a hole, we
placed a 100 mm by 100 mm piece of
plywood on the opposite side of the
glazing as a reaction surface against the
punch. In testing glazing that will
disintegrate under the procedure (e.g.,
tempered glazing), the vehicle
manufacturer could opt to remove or
completely retract the tempered glazing
and thereby bypass the window
breaking process.
We also noted that we would be
continuing research into window prebreaking methods, specifically, 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 at the time of the
NPRM were that this variation exhibits
the potentially positive attribute of
lessening the chances of penetrating the
inner membrane between the glass
layers. 74 FR at 63215.
Comments
The Alliance said that use of different
punches and punch settings can
produce differing amounts of
penetration and potential damage to the
plastic laminate. The commenter also
believed that the tolerance for the punch
activation force is too large (17% of
nominal value), and that the ‘‘rigid’’
backing material needs to be specified,
as does the pressure/force applied to the
backing material. The AORC supported
offsetting the breaking pattern by 25
millimeters from the inside to the
outside of the window, to reduce the
potential that a punch impacting the
same point from both sides of the
window would produce a hole through
the laminate. Guardian, EPGAA and
Solutia believed that the 50 mm prebreakage procedure was excessive and
not consistent with real-world
conditions, particularly breakage of the
interior side of the glazing. Guardian
commented that at a minimum the prebreaking procedure be altered to offset
the punch locations on either side of the
glazing. Exatec asked about the
suitability of the procedure for non-glass
advanced glazing material.
Agency Response
We disagree with the comments from
the vehicle manufacturers and air bag
suppliers that the proposed pre-breaking
procedure was too time consuming,
140 This force level worked well for the samples
of advanced glazing tested by the agency.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3279
onerous, or impractical. Nonetheless,
the procedure we adopt today calls for
less than half the number of punched
holes, reducing the glazing preparation
time.
We have performed well over 100
tests with advanced laminated glazing
using various methods of pre-breaking.
About 30 of these tests have been
performed using a 50 mm matrix. We
estimate that it takes our laboratory
technicians about 30 minutes to mark
the 50 mm grid pattern and punch all
the holes for a relatively large front row
side window. The time it takes to mark
the holes per glazing pane can be
significantly shortened by laying an
unmarked pane on top of an already
marked pane. If a subsequent test is to
be performed (as might be the case
during research and development) and
the door trim is installed, it takes
approximately 20 to 60 minutes to
replace the glazing. Often this is done in
parallel with preparations for other
aspects of the test, so the overall test
time is not affected appreciably. This
procedure is not difficult or onerous to
conduct.141
Nor is the procedure gratuitous. To
the contrary, the pre-breakage procedure
is crucial to ensuring that advanced
glazing will perform as intended in the
field. Advanced glazing is weakened
when pre-broken; the more breakage of
the glazing, generally the more
displacement of the impactor. See Table
23 of the NPRM, 74 FR at 63215. The
pre-breakage procedure is intended to
condition the glazing to mimic the
degree of breakage that is occurring in
the field. Crash information and the
results of impact testing corroborate the
necessity of the proposed procedure.
In the technical report accompanying
this final rule, we have images from
several rollover crashes. The first was a
MY 2000 Audi A8 that underwent four
quarter-turns. The second was a MY
2003 Lincoln Aviator that was exposed
to a frontal impact followed by a three
quarter-turn rollover. The last vehicle
was also a 2003 Aviator that
experienced an eight quarter-turn
rollover. The technical report also
shows a close-up of the driver side
window laminated glazing of the
Aviator that rolled eight quarter-turns.
In all of the cases, the crash scene
photographs show the degree to which
both sides of the glazing have been
disintegrated, especially for those
laminates that have vacated the window
141 When testing with tempered glass, if the glass
pane does not move completely out of the window
opening into the door, it must be removed by
opening the door trim. This glass pane removal
takes about 20 to 60 minutes as well, due to the
removal and reinstallation of door trim.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3280
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
opening. This finding that advanced
glazing experienced severe damage to
both inside and outside surfaces and
detached from the vehicle supports our
belief that pre-breaking the advanced
laminate should be aggressive. The
technical report also has a view of the
driver’s advanced glazing in a 2000
Audi A8 from NASS case 2001–43–190.
The glazing remained in the window.
Some areas appear more highly
damaged than others.
Accordingly, we are adopting the
glazing breaking procedure, with slight
changes that reduce the number of
punched holes.
In the NPRM preamble (74 FR at
63215), we stated that that the agency
was contemplating using a method for
glazing pre-breaking that takes the 50
mm matrix and offsets the holes
horizontally on each side of the glazing
by 25 mm. Initial indications were that
this variation exhibits the potentially
positive attribute of lessening the
chances of penetrating the inner
membrane between the glass layers. Our
research since the NPRM has been
focused on this and another alternative
offset method. This alternative uses a 75
mm by 75 mm hole punch pattern on
both sides of the glazing. However, the
matrix on the inside of the glazing is
offset by 37.5 mm [75 mm/2]
horizontally. A 75 mm matrix pattern is
used to reduce the number of breakage
points from the 50 mm matrix, and as
stated before, the offset reduces the
chances of completely penetrating the
material sandwiched between the
glazing layers. The technical report
provides a schematic of the 50 and 75
mm offset patterns.
Our new results are consistent with
our previous results. See the technical
report for this final rule. We found that
the method of pre-breaking the
laminated window has a discernable
effect on the test results. We compared
the 50 mm offset pattern to the 75 mm
offset pattern. When these treatments
were able to be compared statistically,
there were no significant differences
between the 50 and 75 mm offset hole
punch pattern as it relates to impactor
displacement. Moreover, given that
finding and the finding that the 75 mm
offset has less than half the number of
punched holes, reducing the glazing
preparation time, this final rule adopts
the use of the 75 mm offset pattern.
In response to Exatec, the final rule
will clarify that it is only necessary to
attempt to make the holes in the glazing
and to not actually succeed. However,
we will not change the procedure to
stop after the first row is attempted. We
have no firm basis at this time to treat
one type of advanced glazing any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
differently than another. It is
conceivable that the punches might not
break the material, but could produce
stress concentrations that weaken it.
Finally, we decline all but one of the
Alliance’s requests because we do not
believe that the procedure is not
repeatable or reproducible and no
information to the contrary was
provided by the commenter. We believe
that the tolerances and values for center
punch angle, activation force and punch
tip diameter are sufficient. We will
specifically call out the material for the
100 mm x 100 mm reaction surface,
rather than simply indicate that it
should be rigid. The final rule will
specify the use of plywood with a
minimum thickness of 18 mm (standard
3⁄4 inch), which is the material we used
during our testing. Although we believe
any sufficiently rigid material will
adequately perform this function, for
simplicity we will specify plywood.
g. Test Procedure Tolerances
The proposed regulatory text had
tolerances on various test parameters of
the proposed test procedure. For
example, the proposed text specified
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
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
was based on a similar linear impactor
tolerance in S5.2.5(c) of FMVSS No.
202a, ‘‘Head Restraints.’’ Tolerance
selection was based on test experience
and engineering judgment. Comments
were requested on whether the
tolerances assure an objective,
repeatable and practical test procedure.
Comments
1. The Alliance ‘‘requested that
impactor specification be updated to
clarify that the long axis of the impactor
headform is to maintain a vertical
orientation throughout the full stroke of
the impact event. This approach is
recommended in an effort to maximize
repeatability and reproducibility of test
results.’’ The Alliance stated that they
had observed some impactors that
constrain this motion and others that do
not.
Agency Response
We agree with the request. The
headform should not be able to freely
rotate during the impact test. Both our
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
original and new test devices have a
specific mechanism to constrain them
from rotation about their axis of travel.
Thus, we have added a specification
that the ejection impactor is inspected
after the test, to make sure that it is still
within the ± 1 degree tolerance required
at launch.
2. TRW and AORC expressed concern
about the ± 0.1 second tolerance on the
impact times of 1.5 and 6 seconds. They
suggested a tolerance of ± 0.05 seconds
to reduce the amount of test variability
due to air bag pressure changes. The
AORC also would like the agency to
clarify the time delay such that it would
be the period of time the ‘‘unimpeded
impactor would arrive at the target
location.’’
Agency Response
We are declining these requests. To
answer the questions, it is important to
keep in mind that under the test
procedures, the impactor is to strike the
countermeasure at the specified speeds
and time delays.
The target location is found by
projecting the daylight opening on a
vehicle vertical longitudinal plane and
then projecting the target onto that
plane. There are an infinite number of
parallel vertical longitudinal planes, or
alternatively, the vertical longitudinal
plane can be thought of as having any
lateral location. Assembling all the
planes, each with a projection of the
target, creates a three dimensional
projection of the target, which crosses
the vehicle laterally. Or, in other words,
imagine the 2 dimensional target being
translated along the transverse vehicle
axis, creating a path the impactor
headform should be setup to travel
along.
If the countermeasure is an air bag, it
is deployed, and the ejection impactor
is to strike the countermeasure (air bag)
at the impact target location, at the
specified speed and time delay. The
trigger for the time delay is the
activation of the countermeasure. For a
curtain air bag, that would be the time
at which the deployment is activated.
The speed and time of impact of the
impactor are measured at contact with
the countermeasure (air bag) and must
both be within the specified tolerances.
To make it clear that it is the
countermeasure that must be contacted
at the specified time intervals, we have
added text to S5.5(a).
Since the agency anticipates that its
tests will involve testing side curtain air
bags, we need to account for the effect
of the air bag on the impactor’s timing.
The calibration testing of our new
impactor indicates that the impactor
would meet the timing tolerance
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
reduction recommended by commenters
if the target were at a static location.
However, although our experience has
been that curtain air bags deploy in a
very consistent and repeatable manner,
the fact is they are not static. Also, we
determine contact time on a curtain
through video analysis. All in all,
because of the variables and
calculations needed to establish contact
time with the countermeasure, we
believe it is more reasonable to maintain
the ± 0.1 second impact time tolerance.
3. The AORC suggests the procedure
specify that contact with the
countermeasure occurs when the
impactor is beyond the influence of the
propulsion system.
Agency Response
We agree and have modified S5.5 of
the regulatory text by adding a
statement that the specified ejection
impactor velocities must be achieved
after propulsion has ceased.
4. Honda asked if the agency has any
intention of specifying the interval
between each impact test. It also stated
that the impactor speed might decrease
after propulsion, so it requested that
‘‘NHTSA clarify the position (by time)
that the impact speed should be
measured.’’ Honda also asked how
contact with the countermeasure is
determined, and requested that we
clearly state the speed and displacement
measurement methods. Honda further
requested that NHTSA provide the
accuracy, sampling time, and filtering of
each sensor.
Agency Response
We do not agree with the suggestion
to specify an interval between multiple
tests. We do not know of a reason to rest
the equipment between tests. We have
no reason to believe that the amount of
time between tests would have any
effect on the test results.
As explained above in answering
TRW and AORC, the speed and time of
impact are measured at contact with the
countermeasure and must both be
within the specified tolerances. We have
made these measurements during our
research testing, in several ways. As
indicated above, one method we have
used to determine time of contact
within a resolution of about 5 ms is
video analysis. Another method is to
know prior to the test the approximate
location of the impactor stroke where
contact will occur. In either case, the
velocity versus time output of the
ejection impactor can then be used to
determine if the contact time and
velocity parameters were met.
There is no need to provide in the
standard a specification for velocity and
displacement measurement. There are
multiple ways of measuring impactor
displacement and velocity. The output
of displacement-based instruments such
as Linear Variable Differential
Transformers (LVDTs) or string
potentiometers can be used directly for
displacement or differentiated to give
velocity. Accelerometer output can be
integrated once for velocity and twice
for displacement. A light-based speed
trap can be used for velocity
measurement as well. The agency has
used all of these methods. We believe it
would be counterproductive to specify a
single method in the regulatory text in
that this may limit our flexibility in
conducting compliance testing. We note
also that we found that our new
impactor loses very little speed over
large ranges of stroke. If the speed is
correctly set, it is not difficult to meet
the ±0.5 km/h speed tolerance.
h. Impactor Test Device Characteristics
The agency proposed certain
characteristics that the impactor should
be calibrated to meet in order 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. One was a 20 mm
limit on static deflection when the
impactor is loaded by a 27 kg mass.
There were two specifications to limit
3281
the amount of energy the impactor may
lose due to friction. The proposal
specified 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 dynamic travel. Second, it
must not require more than an average
of 570 N of force to push the impactor
rearward with a 27 kg mass attached to
it. Finally, we required that impactor be
able to deliver the center of the
headform through a theoretical
cylindrical shape.
The agency stated that the research
test device used to develop the proposal
had not been optimized for compliance
test purposes (74 FR at 63216, footnote
81.). Thus, we stated our belief that
tighter tolerances on the calibration
characteristics could be attained with an
optimized design. Id. Nonetheless, the
agency’s impactor was found to meet
the percentage velocity reduction, on an
average basis.
Comments
Honda asked that the agency indicate
in the regulatory text where the static
deflection of the impactor headform
should be measured. With respect to the
targeting accuracy requirement, Honda
wanted to know ‘‘if it is necessary to
verify accuracy of the actual contact
position after each impact test, as long
as the test device satisfies the
specifications.’’ It stated that with
testing of an air bag it would not seem
to be possible to verify whether the
targeting accuracy was achieved during
the test. Also with respect to this
targeting accuracy requirement, it
wished to have the agency specify a
calibration method.
TRW believed that the performance
attributes of the impactor are adequately
covered by the AORC impactor
specifications, as presented at the 2009
SAE Government/Industry meeting.
These specifications are provided below
in Table 41, for the convenience of the
reader.
TABLE 41—AORC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPACTOR PERFORMANCE 142
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Variable
Maximum variance
Preliminary recommendation
Velocity ....................................................................................
Deflection ................................................................................
Time Delay to Impact ..............................................................
Excursion Accuracy .................................................................
Dynamic Friction .....................................................................
Design Margin .........................................................................
± 0.75 km/h ............................................
>> 25 mm ..............................................
400 ms ...................................................
± 4.6 mm ...............................................
2.62 ........................................................
¥ 20% (TYP) ........................................
± 0.25 km/h.
< 10 mm.
< 100 mm (or redefine time to contact).
± 2 mm.
< 0.25.
TBD.
142 Stein, Doug, ‘‘Linear Impactor Performance
Characteristics for Ejection Mitigation Testing,’’ SAE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Government/Industry Meeting, February 6, 2009,
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Washington DC. File Impactor_Charaterization.ppt,
available at https://www.aorc.org/coep.asp.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3282
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
The AORC commented that NHTSA
should adopt similar specifications for
impactor performance as used by the
agency in their solicitation for a new
impactor (Solicitation Number
DTNH22–09–Q–00071).
The highlights of that solicitation are
provided in the bullets below. An
asterisk notes that the solicitation
requirement matches the AORC
recommendation.
• The ejection mitigation impactor
must be capable of measuring the
displacement of the moving impactor
mechanism throughout the entire stroke,
with an accuracy of ±2 mm.*
• The maximum radial deflection of
the ejection mitigation impactor must
not exceed 10 mm.*
• When the ejection mitigation
impactor assembly is used in
conjunction with the support frame, it
must have a vertical radial deflection of
no more than 15 mm.
• The maximum dynamic coefficient
of friction of the ejection mitigation
impactor must not exceed 0.25.*
• The moving impactor mechanism
must be designed for use at peak
velocities between 15 km/h and 25
km/h, with a tolerance within the range
of ±0.25 km/h; a range of ±0.15 km/h or
less is preferred.*
• When used with an appropriate
propulsion system, the time from the
signal to deploy the air curtain to the
peak velocity of the moving impactor
mechanism (minus any pre-programmed
delay time) must not exceed 100
milliseconds for any velocity within the
range of 15 km/h to 25 km/h. These
velocities must also be achieved prior to
the impactor making contact with
deployed air curtains of current
production.*
• When the headform is fired at 24
km/h, point P must remain within
cylinder C from the position at which
the moving impactor mechanism
achieves peak velocity to the position
100 millimeters beyond the position of
peak velocity. Point P is the geometric
center of the headform on the outer
surface of the headform, and cylinder C
is a 20-millimeter diameter cylinder,
centered on point P and parallel to the
headform’s direction of motion.
Agency Response
Many provisions of the impactor test
device calibration have been modified
to make them consistent with some of
the calibration procedures suggested by
AORC and others. The static deflection
provision has been changed from 20 mm
under a 27 kg load, to 20 mm under a
981 N force applied in four orthogonal
directions, with the device in a testready configuration. The final rule will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
require a limit on the dynamic
coefficient of 0.25, measured in four
orientations with the shaft loaded with
a 100 kg mass. We believe this provision
will fulfill the requirement previously
specified by the unobstructed velocity
test and obstructed push force tests.
In response to Honda, we have added
text to S7.2 in the final rule to indicate
that the movement of the ejection
impactor targeting point in the x–z
plane (vehicle vertical-longitudinal
plane) should be measured. In other
words, looking along the y axis
(direction of travel), the center of the
headform face should not deflect more
than the specified value. We have also
added additional detail to this section to
indicate that this static deflection test is
to be performed with the impactor
attached to the propulsion mechanism,
including any support frame connecting
it to the floor. In addition, the force is
now applied in four orthogonal
directions, rather than just downward.
This is an acknowledgement that
loading on the impactor can be in any
direction.
Since the test is performed on the
device in a test-ready configuration, the
allowable displacement is 20 mm rather
than the 10 mm recommended by the
AORC in Table 41. The 10 mm value
would be more appropriate for a test
that excludes the supporting frame of
the test device, as did the AORC
recommendation.
There is no reason to specify the
displacement measurement accuracy for
the impactor since we will use a method
sufficiently accurate to determine that
the displacement limit has been
exceeded or not. There is also no reason
to specify a minimum time from launch
until the impact speed is obtained; how
long it takes the impactor is irrelevant
to the test as long as it arrives at the
specified delay times of 1.5 ±0.1
seconds and 6.0 ±0.1 seconds.
A very important impactor
characteristic is dynamic friction. We
have indicated in S7.3 of the standard
that the dynamic friction must not
exceed 0.25. This matches the AORC
recommendation. In the technical report
for this final rule, we provided these
dynamic friction measurements for the
agency’s new impactor and how the
agency determined dynamic friction
characteristics.
We note that the dynamic friction test
differs from the static deflection test in
that it need not be done on the support
frame that would connect to the
impactor in a test-ready configuration.
We believe this is acceptable since it is
not likely that the static deflection of the
entire frame will influence the dynamic
friction determination. We also think it
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
is acceptable that the perpendicular
loading for the dynamic friction testing
is achieved through gravity and rotation
of the impactor and bearings rather than
by pulling in four orthogonal directions,
as is done in the static deflection tests.
Practically speaking, there is no other
way to perform the test.
We believe that this detailed dynamic
friction test in S7.3 of the standard will
fulfill the purpose of the requirements
previously specified in the NPRM for
unobstructed velocity (proposed S7.2.1)
and obstructed push force (proposed
S7.2.2). We have reduced the maximum
allowable dynamic coefficient of friction
of the test device by a factor of 5 from
1.29 (NPRM) to 0.25 (final rule). In
addition, S7.2.1 allowed as much as a
15 percent velocity loss over a range of
impactor stroke. Testing of the new
impactor found about a 1 percent loss in
impactor speed over a stroke of more
than 150 mm. Thus, we conclude that
proposed S7.2.1 can be removed with
no negative effect on the test procedure.
We understood Honda’s comments on
the issue of targeting accuracy (see S7.4
in the final rule) as seeking clarification
as to when the accuracy is to be
determined, i.e., would the tester need
to know that for any particular impact
test the ejection impactor targeting point
was within the required cylindrical
targeting zone shown in Figure 16 of the
NPRM. The answer to Honda’s question
is provided in S7 of the standard, where
it is stated: ‘‘[t]he ability of a test device
to meet these specifications may be
determined outside of the vehicle.’’ That
is, it is necessary that the test device
being used meet the characteristics in
S7, but these need not and cannot be
determined during the test. We cannot
see that it would be feasible to perform
these calibration measurements during a
vehicle test. Honda requested the
agency specify how often and/or when
these calibration tests should be done.
We cannot make such a pronouncement
in the regulatory text. Frequency of
calibration is a test device and due carespecific issue and must be determined
case by case.
Honda also wanted to know how
targeting accuracy would be measured
by the agency. On our new impactor, we
made this determination through
analysis of high speed video. We found
that the impactor met the required
accuracy. We can envision other
measurement techniques that utilize
witness marks on stationary targets, or
that make witness marks on the
headform.
i. Readiness Indicator
NHTSA proposed a requirement for a
monitoring system with a readiness
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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. 74 FR at 63218.
No comments were received opposing
the proposal. Accordingly, the proposal
is adopted for the reasons discussed in
the NPRM.
j. Other Issues
1. Rollover Sensors
The NPRM did not require vehicle
manufacturers to provide a sensor that
deploys the ejection countermeasure in
a rollover or side impact crash, and did
not dictate the performance of any
supplied sensor. We were concerned as
to whether specifying performance
features for the sensor could
satisfactorily capture the myriad of
rollovers occurring in the real-world.
Moreover, we explained that ejection
mitigation air bag curtains are now
being designed, developed, and
implemented by industry and are
deploying satisfactorily in the field.
We believed there would be no
incentive for manufacturers to provide
an ejection mitigation side curtain
designed to meet the standard without
providing the sensor to deploy it in a
rollover crash. In addition, under the
proposed requirements of the standard,
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. We also
proposed to deploy the side curtain in
our compliance testing only if the
owner’s manual or other written
material informs the owner that the
vehicle is equipped with an ejection
mitigation countermeasure that deploys
in the event of a rollover.
The NPRM also discussed alternatives
considered by the agency to the
approach proposed, such as requiring
that the rollover sensors be provided as
a piece of equipment and defining such
a piece of equipment, or specifying a
test that would assure the presence of a
rollover sensor on the vehicle.
Advantages and disadvantages of the
approaches were presented.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Comments
Nearly all comments from vehicle
manufacturers and air bag suppliers
supported the NPRM’s not establishing
specific rollover sensor requirements or
performance tests. The Alliance
concurred with the NPRM that sensors
are performing well in the field. GM
stated its support for only deploying air
bags ‘‘during the compliance test that
have been identified in the owner’s
manual as rollover-enabled. This is a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
practicable and reasonable approach.’’
GM agreed that manufacturers would
have no incentive to misidentify an air
bag system as rollover capable. AIAM
stated that manufacturers have their
own test and calibration processes for
crash sensors, so adding any tests in the
final rule would only add complexity to
manufacturers’ test plans for little or no
benefit. AIAM believed that the
definition of sensor deployment
requirements is vehicle specific due to
the different nature of such factors as
mass distribution, center of gravity
height and use of stability systems.
Therefore, AIAM believed that setting a
generic test requirement would not be
feasible.
On the other hand, Honda believed
that ‘‘some manner of performance
criteria may be necessary for rollover
sensors required for deployment of such
countermeasures.’’ The commenter
encouraged NHTSA to establish basic
performance criteria ‘‘consistent with
other elements of the test procedure for
FMVSS No. 226, if possible.’’ Honda
suggested a definition for ‘‘rollover
sensor’’ and suggested that NHTSA
‘‘establish a minimum requirement for
the system configuration.’’
Advocates and Public Citizen
requested that the final rule place
requirements on sensors that would
deploy the ejection countermeasures
rather than leave it to the discretion of
the manufacturer. Advocates believed
that NHTSA should specify
requirements for sensors to ensure
sustained inflation throughout the long
event of a rollover with multiple
quarter-turns. Public Citizen
recommended a dynamic test that
‘‘would allow the agency to measure
both the presence and the performance
of rollover sensors.’’
IIHS stated that while it understood
the agency’s reluctance to specify
performance requirements for sensors
that may not capture the scope of realworld rollover crash scenarios, NHTSA
should continue monitoring field data to
determine the adequacy of the agency’s
approach.
3283
Parenteau,143 represents a very small
portion of rollover crashes. See the
NPRM, 74 FR at 63218, for additional
discussion of dynamic rollover testing.
With respect to Honda’s comment on
specification of ‘‘some manner of
performance criteria’’ and/or a definition
for ‘‘rollover sensor,’’ this concept is
very similar to an option discussed in
the NPRM preamble (Equipment
Definition Option) (74 FR at 63218). We
indicated in that analysis that this
option was problematic for several
reasons. We stated that such an option
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.
Agency Response
Id.
As Honda’s comments did not address
the shortcomings of this option, the
agency continues to have concerns. We
thus decline to implement Honda’s
request in this final rule.
In view of the determination to adopt
the approach of the NPRM, and after
reviewing the comments, we conclude
that it is critical that written information
be provided in the owner’s manual that
describes how the ejection mitigation
countermeasure deploys in the event of
a rollover (see regulatory text of
S4.2.3(a) of this final rule) 144 and how
This final rule adopts the approach of
the NPRM and does not specify direct
rollover sensor specifications. The
agency is not aware of any repeatable
rollover test that replicates the breadth
of real-world rollovers addressed by this
rulemaking. Current dynamic tests, such
as the 208 Dolly test, do not allow the
agency to determine how well the
sensor will perform in the field. The 208
Dolly test offers little challenge to the
sensor and, according to Viano and
143 Viano D, Parenteau C., ‘‘Rollover Crash
Sensing and Safety Overview,’’ SAE 2004–01–0342.
144 Ford provided excerpts from the owner’s
manual of a vehicle with a rollover curtain air bag,
and asked if the information would meet the
requirements of S4.2.3(a), ‘‘Written information.’’
(NHTSA–2009–0183–0047, p. 20.) Ford’s excerpt
stated in part: ‘‘The Safety Canopy system is
designed to activate when the vehicle sustains
lateral deceleration sufficient to cause the side
crash sensor to close an electrical circuit that
initiates Safety Canopy inflation or when a certain
likelihood of a rollover event is detected by the
rollover sensor.’’ Our answer is yes.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3284
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
system readiness is monitored (see
S4.2.3(b)). It is also important that the
test procedure not deploy the ejection
countermeasure if this information is
not provided (see S5.5(c)). We also
adopt the requirement that the final rule
require manufacturers to provide more
detailed technical information to the
agency upon request (see S4.2.4).
Field data on vehicles with rollover
sensors continue to indicate that
curtains are deploying in rollovers when
they should. Of the 21 RODSS cases,
four NASS cases and 48 SCI cases
believed to involve vehicle rollover
crashes and presumed to have rollover
deployable curtains, five were
determined not to have deployed.
We conducted an in-depth review of
these five cases. Four of the five cases
had a significant frontal impact that
preceded the rollover. These impacts
may have destroyed the vehicle battery
and thus eliminated the primary power
source for deploying the rollover
curtain. There is also some question as
to whether one of these vehicles was
definitely equipped with a rollover
sensor, since the system was an option
on this vehicle. In one case, the
vehicle’s kinematics were very complex
and may have included some motion
not typical of a lateral rollover.
After reviewing the five nondeployment cases, it was not apparent
to us that there was a problem with the
rollover sensor that would have been
identified by a test for a sensor, such as
the Equipment Definition test or
Presence test discussed in the NPRM
(74 FR at 63218). We cannot make a
finding that in these cases, the rollover
curtains’ non-deployment was unrelated
to the initial frontal impacts. A presence
test that only addressed whether the
curtain will deploy, that did not account
for a significant initial frontal impact,
might not have made any difference on
the deployment of these rollover
curtains.
We have become interested, however,
after reviewing the field data, as to
whether ejection mitigation systems
could have a backup power source, such
as a capacitor, that can provide the
power for curtain deployment within
some short time period after primary
power is lost. It is our understanding
that generally vehicles currently have
such energy storage systems, but these
systems may not have the ability to
deploy rollover curtains when the
rollover is subsequent to a frontal
impact causing the loss of power. There
were only a handful of cases on hand.
We would like to learn more about this
issue.
We are not ready to specify in this
final rule some sort of requirement
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
related to the ability to deploy the
curtain after loss of primary power. For
one thing, we believe that this issue is
outside of the scope of notice of the
NPRM. Moreover, NHTSA would like to
gain more knowledge in this area. We
would like to analyze the vehicle
kinematics that result when a frontal
crash is followed by a rollover to better
understand the amount of time
secondary power is, and should be,
available. Data available from event data
recorders may provide a starting point
for the analysis of this issue. We have
begun a review of the EDR data
available to the agency and will
continue to monitor data as it becomes
available. We would like to find out if
there is a problem in the field and seek
to know more about the amount of
storage time capacitors typically have
`
vis-a-vis their ability to deploy the
curtain after power is lost.
2. Quasi-Static Loading
We requested comments on the need
for an additional test that would impose
quasi-static loading on the ejection
countermeasure. 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.
Comments
AIAM commented that in the absence
of data demonstrating that
countermeasures designed to meet the
proposed requirements are not adequate
to address quasi-static loading, there is
no basis for adopting such a test
requirement at this time.
Agency Response
We are not adopting a requirement at
this time. Instead, we plan to pursue
some limited testing in the near term to
see how an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that performs well to
the requirements in the final rule
performs in a quasi-static test. At this
time, there are no data available to the
agency. Therefore, we cannot determine
the consistency, or lack thereof, between
quasi-static performance and impact test
performance.
3. Full Vehicle Test
The NPRM explained the agency’s
position that the component test of
FMVSS No. 226 would not only
distinguish between acceptable and
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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. 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.
The NPRM further noted that 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. 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 nonrollover events. Viano and Parenteau
correlated eight different tests to six
rollover definitions from NASS–CDS.
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
represented by the 208 Dolly test. 74 FR
at 63185.
The NPRM also discussed our belief
that 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. Id. A single full vehicle
rollover test could narrowly focus on
only certain types of rollover crashes
occurring in the field. We noted in the
NPRM our concern 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
lessened by a component test. We also
noted that a comprehensive suite of fullvehicle dynamic tests would likely
involve many more years of research,
which would delay the rulemaking
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
action and the potential for
incorporating life-saving technologies.
The agency stated that such a delay
appears unwarranted, given that
NHTSA believes the component test
will be an effective means of
determining the acceptability of ejection
countermeasures.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Comments
AIAM agreed with the agency’s view
that a dynamic full vehicle test should
not be pursued at this time. The
commenter concurred that it is not clear
how the agency could represent the
wide range of rollover crash scenarios
with a single test mode, and that
manufacturer certification using a series
of test modes would be unduly
burdensome. AIAM also stated, ‘‘Making
a dynamic rollover test adequately
repeatable for regulatory purposes
would also be a very significant
challenge.’’ AIAM supported continued
research on developing a practicable
dynamic test approach that provides
additional safety benefits.
In contrast, Batzer and Ziejewski
recommended that in addition to an
impact test, NHTSA should ‘‘mandate
that all manufacturers perform at least
one FMVSS–208 style dolly rollover
test.’’ Advocates believed that the
FMVSS No. 226 impact test does not
account for ‘‘door-window frame
distortion that can occur in rollover
crashes’’ and that this could result in
reduced curtain air bag effectiveness.
Public Citizen also supported a whole
vehicle dynamic test. Public Citizen
stated that further delays needed to
develop a dynamic test would ‘‘benefit
occupants in rollover crashes, if a
dynamic rollover test resulted in a better
standard that was more representative of
real world crash conditions.’’ The
commenter also stated that the agency
‘‘cannot simply add up the sum of the
target populations identified in each of
its rollover rulemakings and claim to
have protected occupants.’’
Agency Response
For the reasons discussed in the
NPRM, the final rule will not contain a
full vehicle dynamic test to evaluate
ejection mitigation.
We understand the appeal of a
dynamic test for ejection mitigation as
well as all aspects of rollover protection,
a complement of sorts to frontal and
side protection offered by the dynamic
tests in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214,
respectively. As a matter of fact, the
agency is currently pursuing a research
program looking at the development of
a dynamic test to address roof strength.
In addition, the agency has been
pursuing laboratory research on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
restraint system (e.g., seat belt system)
optimization for rollover crashes.
As it happens, however, a full vehicle
dynamic test for rollover
crashworthiness systems is not
available. An FMVSS No. 208 (frontal
impact) or No. 214 (side impact) test
presents different challenges than a
rollover test. Frontal and side impacts,
while deadly, are less complex by
comparison to a rollover crash. As
explained in the NPRM, rollover crash
tests have a high degree of variability in
vehicle and occupant kinematics. There
are many types of rollover crashes, and
within each crash type the vehicle
speed, roll rate, roll axis and other
parameters can vary widely. In contrast,
the critical parameters for planar
crashes can be captured by the direction
of impact and DV. It is a relatively
simple matter to develop a test(s) (i.e.,
a vehicle into barrier or object into
vehicle) that results in the desired
vehicle DV in the desired direction.
Nor might a full vehicle dynamic test
be available as an outgrowth of the
agency’s roof crush and seat belt system
research. The vehicle kinematics
involved in assessing enhanced
protection of the occupant within the
vehicle (studied in the roof crush and
belt system programs) may be
significantly different from those
involved in mitigating the risks of
occupant ejection to belted and
unbelted occupants. A dynamic test that
is appropriate for assessing roof crush
and seat belt performance may not
necessarily provide the same kind of
challenge to ejection mitigation.
It may or may not be suitable to have
a single rollover test to assess roof crush
and seat belt performance. For ejection
mitigation, it is unlikely that a single
rollover test would be sufficient to
address the many types of rollovers that
occur in the field.145 We would want
the dynamic test to assure that an
ejection mitigation countermeasure
constrains belted and unbelted
occupants in all types of rollover
crashes. However, at this time there is
145 We have already discussed our determination
that the 208 Dolly test is not suitable for ejection
mitigation testing. See, e.g., 74 FR at 63185. The 208
Dolly test represents less than 1 percent of realworld rollovers. Further, some recent experience
with the 208 Dolly test makes problematic its
implementation as a replacement for the impact test
or an additional test. During recent tests in our
rollover restraints research program, we attempted
to subject a MY 2007 Ford Expedition to the 208
Dolly procedure. However, two out of five attempts
failed to initiate a roll of even one quarter-turn. We
acknowledge that the above was not a typical result
of 208 Dolly testing within the agency’s experience,
but it does highlight testing issues.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3285
no archetype rollover crash that can be
replicated in laboratory testing.146
We stated in the NPRM preamble, ‘‘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.’’ 74 FR at 63186.
We hope that in the future, a full vehicle
dynamic test, or a suite of tests, could
be developed that is appropriate for use
in FMVSS No. 226. However, at this
time, there is not a viable full vehicle
rollover test procedure to evaluate
ejection mitigation. In response to
Public Citizen, we strongly disagree that
a delay of this rulemaking to develop a
dynamic test would be justified. This
final rule will save over 370 lives a year.
Each year delayed to develop what is
now an indefinable full vehicle test will
have a substantial human cost.
Public Citizen also commented that
the agency ‘‘cannot simply add up the
sum of the target populations identified
in each of its rollover rulemakings and
claim to have protected occupants.’’ The
agency takes great care when doing the
benefits assessment to not double count
lives saved. If we assume a specific
population is saved by one of our
standards, we do not count them again
when determining the benefits for
another. In this way, our estimates are
conservative.
4. Minor Clarifications to the Proposed
Regulatory Text
In preparing the final rule regulatory
text, we made some changes to make the
text clearer and easier to understand.
The changes were not meant to alter the
requirements of the proposal. Below we
provide a listing of the more noteworthy
of these minor changes and a brief
rationale for the change.
S3. Ejection Impactor—Deleted ‘‘It
consists of an ejection headform
attached to a shaft’’ and moved it to
S7.1. This was done because this
descriptive information is consistent
with the type of information provided in
S7.1.
S3. Ejection propulsion mechanism—
Deleted ‘‘specified in S7.2 of this
Standard No. 226.’’ This was deleted
because S7.2 (New S7.3) does not really
146 A full vehicle dynamic test would presumably
involve the use of anthropomorphic test devices
(ATDs). There is some question whether the
currently available ATDs offer an acceptable level
of biofidelity with respect to occupant ejection. For
example, the hip articulation for the Hybrid III
dummies is limited, which may alter their ability
to replicated real world occupant kinematics. An
appropriate ATD for use in the test would have to
be explored.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3286
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
provide information specific to the
propulsion mechanism.
S3. Target Outline—Eliminated the
term ‘‘target outline’’ and replace it with
‘‘target’’ throughout the regulatory text.
This does not result in any substantive
change in the standard, since in the
NPRM these terms were defined to be
interchangeable in the regulatory text.
S3. Walk-in van—Deleted the second
sentence indicating that the seating
position must be forward facing and
edited the first sentence to indicate the
only seating position is the driver. This
was done to eliminate redundancy in
the definition.
S4.1.1—Added text to the first
sentence referencing S8. This was done
to provide clarity and similarity with
other standards.
S5.1—The wording of the third
sentence was modified to clarify that the
countermeasure was being struck at the
defined target locations.
New S5.2.1.1 (NPRM S5.2.1(a)),
S5.5.5, S5.4.1.1—All occurrences of
‘‘daylight opening’’ were replaced with
‘‘side daylight opening.’’
New S5.2.1.1 (NPRM S5.2.1(a)),
second sentences—Added the word
‘‘projection’’ after ‘‘side daylight
opening.’’
New S5.2.2(a) (NPRM S5.2)—Deleted
‘‘and the x–z plane of the target outline
within ±1 degree of a vehicle vertical
longitudinal plane.’’ This was a
redundant constraint. However, text was
added to indicate that the y axis of the
target points outboard.
New S5.2.3.3 (NPRM S5.2.2.3)—
Revisions were made to the structure of
this section to clarify the determination
of primary targets.
S5.5(a)—The sentence was modified
to make it clear that it was the
countermeasure that must be impacted
at the specified time.
S5.5(a) and (b)—Replaced ‘‘velocity’’
with ‘‘speed.’’
S6.1—Added text to clarify how the
vehicle attitude is to be adjusted.
k. Practicability
NHTSA believed that meeting the
proposed requirements as they applied
to the side windows at the first three
rows was practicable. There were a
number of vehicles with side air bag
curtains that cover the windows
adjacent to rows 1, 2, and 3, such as the
2005–2007 MY Honda Odyssey, 2006
Mercury Monterey, 2007 Chevrolet
Tahoe, and 2007 Ford Expedition.147
The agency also believed it was
147 Since that time the following vehicles with
three rows of coverage have been tested: MY 2007
Jeep Commander, MY 2008 Dodge Caravan, MY
2008 Ford Taurus X, and MY 2008 Toyota
Highlander.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
practicable to produce vehicles that
would meet the proposed performance
requirements.
The NPRM had a proposed 24 km/h–
1.5 second test, which has been reduced
in this final rule to 20 km/h-1.5 second.
Some of the current production vehicles
tested during the development of the
NPRM came close to meeting the 100
mm displacement limit at all target
locations and impact speeds. The most
challenging target location was A1, with
A4 being the least challenging. For the
2nd row windows, the limited data
indicated target location B1 was more
challenging than B4. Only two vehicles
were tested at the 3rd row. For these
systems, C4 was more challenging than
C1.
The agency stated that the primary
parameters that determine the
stringency of the test were: (a) The
impactor dimensions and mass; (b) the
displacement limit; (c) impactor speed
and time of impact; and (d) target
locations. Comments focused on (c)
above, specifically impactor speed, to
argue for reducing the stringency of the
test based on practicability grounds.
We discussed in an earlier section of
this preamble our decision to reduce the
impactor speed from 24 km/h–1.5
second (400 J) to 20 km/h–1.5 second
(278 J), based on a reanalysis of the
research data used for the NPRM. We
believe this reduction in test velocity
resolves many of the comments,
described below, that raised concerns
about the practicability of meeting a 24
km/h–1.5 second test. However, we
wish to address the concerns about
practicability to explore any remaining
questions about the practicability of
meeting a 20 km/h–1.5 second
requirement. Further, we would like to
discuss issues relating to the
practicability and cost of meeting a 24
km/h–1.5 second requirement.
Comments
All comments relating to
practicability were submitted by vehicle
manufacturers. The comments were
focused on side curtain air bags as the
sole countermeasure for the FMVSS No.
226 requirements. The comments did
not appear to dispute the potential of
manufacturing side curtain air bag
systems that could meet the NPRM;
rather they expressed concerns with the
potential negative trade-offs associated
with such systems for both side impact
and OOP occupants.
Honda referred to agency statements
in the NPRM that indicated that two
methods of improving the ejection
mitigation performance of curtain air
bags were to make them thicker and to
increase their internal pressure. Honda
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provided data on the relationship
between internal pressure and impactor
displacement. Honda argued that
increasing tank pressure of an air bag
design to meet the proposed
requirements (to produce less
displacement of the impactor) results in
notable increases in Nij and neck
compression measures. Honda believed
that if 200 J is set as the impact energy
limit (17 km/h impact), ‘‘the primary
objective of the side curtain airbag of
occupant protection can be balanced
with the proposal for occupant ejection
mitigation without significant change to
current side curtain airbag designs for
some vehicles.’’
VW also provided information
showing the relationship between
impactor displacement and air bag
pressure. It estimated that the initial
internal pressure would need ‘‘to be
increased 2–3 times depending on the
actual kinetic energy of the impactor
and the NPRM’s required excursion
limits.’’ VW stated that ‘‘the above
mentioned pressure increase for the
ejection mitigation test will result in a
detuning of the airbag and in
deterioration of the side crash test
results’’ relevant to NCAP and IIHS
consumer information programs. VW
believed there would be a reduction of
overall fleet star ratings and a reduction
in occupant safety in conventional side
crashes.
The Alliance provided research
performed by Toyota that the Alliance
believed ‘‘illustrates the increased OOP
risk associated with the high impact
energy (400 Joule impact) and limited
excursion (100 mm) requirements
proposed in the NPRM.’’ In this
research, two SUVs and two passenger
cars were tested to the 24 km/h–1.5
second impact test and subsequently to
OOP testing using the Technical
Working Group (TWG) Recommended
Practice with an inboard facing 5th
percentile adult female dummy.148
When changes were made to the side
curtain air bag systems by increasing
internal pressure and coverage to meet
a 160 mm displacement limit when
tested at 24 km/h–1.5 seconds, the
Alliance reported that OOP values
increased from approximately 80
percent of IARVs to about 105 percent
of IARVs.
148 The TWG Recommended Procedures were
developed to evaluate the risk of side air bags to
children who are out-of-position. Through a
voluntary agreement with NHTSA, vehicle
manufacturers consented to meet the TWG. The
agency requests the results of testing through the
Buying a Safer Car program and publishes the data
annually.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Agency Response
It appears from the comments that if
the impact speed was 24 km/h, some
manufacturers would have to increase
the air pressure in their side curtain air
bags to meet the requirement. We
estimate that this approach to meet a 24
km/h test would add $7.53 to the $31
incremental cost of meeting a 20 km/h
test. This added cost is for a larger
capacity inflator. Some manufacturers
have commented that increasing air bag
pressure in current bags to meet a 24
km/h–1.5 second test increases HIC
values measured in a side impact test
and IARVs measured in OOP tests. If
manufacturers were attempting to bring
a curtain air bag into compliance that
was well outside of the 100 mm limit by
only increasing internal pressure, the air
bag would likely become more rigid.
Whether those increased HIC values and
IARVs in OOP tests from increased air
bag pressure pose an unreasonable
safety risk has not been shown, but socalled ‘‘negative trade-offs’’ concern the
agency in any rulemaking.
New side curtain air bag designs
appear to be evolving that show promise
in meeting the 100 mm limit of impactor
displacement when tested to a
24 km/h-1.5 second condition, without
undesirably affecting side impact and
OOP test results.
However, if these systems require
significantly more air bag volume, they
may be more costly than a system that
meets a 24 km/h requirement by
increased air pressure. We estimate that,
for a vehicle with an air bag system that
uses higher volume and more material
to meet the 24 km/h requirement,
$37.87 would be added to the $31
incremental cost of a system that meets
a 20 km/h requirement.149
Air bag supplier Takata met with the
agency on July 28, 2009, to discuss its
effort at designing an ejection mitigation
system to meet a December 2006
NHTSA ejection mitigation research test
procedure at a displacement limit of 100
mm at 24 km/h-1.5 second impact.150
Takata explained that it believed there
were two potential ways of meeting the
requirement: By way of retaining a
strong membrane over the window
opening, or by absorbing the impactor
energy. For the first approach, Takata
stated that the strong membrane could
be achieved by laminated glazing or a
high stiffness/pressure curtain. The
second energy absorption method could
149 A curtain air bag with more volume will
require more air bag material and may also utilize
an extra inflator if a single inflator is not sufficient.
An extra inflator adds significant cost to a curtain
air bag system.
150 Docket NHTSA–2006–26467–0019.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
3287
be achieved by air bags of increased
volume or air bags of a different shape
to increase impactor stroke. Takata said
it chose this second approach, to
develop an air bag of a different
shape.151
Takata stated that a new air bag
design it has developed was integrated
into a sedan and tested to the 24 km/h1.5 second and 16 km/h-6 second
impacts, and to TWG OOP requirements
using both the 5th percentile adult
female and 6-year-old (6YO) child
dummies. The greatest displacement for
the 24 km/h-1.5 second test was
approximately 82 mm at A1. The
greatest displacement at the 16 km/h-6
second test was approximately 79 mm at
B1. The air bag pressure at time of
impact was reported as 30 kPa.
The results from the TWG testing are
shown in Takata’s docket submission.
The 5th percentile adult female results
have a maximum value of
approximately 55 percent of the IARVs.
For the 6YO child dummy, no injury
measure exceeded 20 percent of the
IARVs.
Takata determined that its new shape
curtain could meet the 100 mm
displacement limit without advanced
glazing with a sufficient compliance
margin in a sedan design. At the time of
the presentation, Takata indicated that it
was working on increasing the
compliance margin for a sport utility
vehicle (SUV) design and working with
a vehicle manufacturer to introduce the
technology to the market.
In its comment to the NPRM, the
Alliance stated that NHTSA should not
interpret information about the
performance of innovative side air bag
design concepts developed in an
attempt to meet the NPRM to mean that
‘‘the requirements of the NPRM are
practicable.’’ 152 The Alliance claimed
that the air bag supplier design
evaluations have not addressed the
following areas: The ability of the air
bags to be deployed in time for a side
impact and provide adequate side
impact protection; the ability to
integrate these bags with FMVSS No.
201 countermeasures; the ability to
function in a complete vehicle
environment; and the ability to
implement this technology across
vehicle architectures.
We understand that integrating a
component into a full vehicle design
involves many factors. However, the
Alliance did not provide a convincing
discussion as to why NHTSA should not
consider a system such as Takata’s an
indication of the practicability of
meeting a 24 km/h-1.5 second impact
test.
The Alliance and others questioned
whether innovative systems could be
packaged in a vehicle to meet FMVSS
No. 201 requirements. The commenters
did not explain how new ejection
mitigation side air curtains would pose
unique design problems that would
impede the ability to certify to FMVSS
No. 201, when current vehicles with
rollover side air curtains already are
certified to that standard. There was no
showing that changes to the air curtains
or to the inflator will present
insurmountable problems in packaging
the equipment to FMVSS No. 201. It
also appears that Takata is now working
on implementing its system across
vehicle architectures. Takata has
indicated that its new system has been
successfully integrated into a passenger
car 153 and is in the midst of SUV
integration. Takata did not provide cost
data.
The proposed 24 km/h-1.5 second
impact has been reduced to 20 km/h-1.5
second in this final rule after our
reanalysis of the technical basis for the
energy requirement and our FRIA
analysis showing a 20 km/h requirement
to be more cost effective. With this
reduction in impactor speed, vehicles
will be able to meet the final rule’s
requirements with fewer changes to
existing designs. Data from agency
testing of production vehicles presented
earlier in this preamble demonstrate the
practicability of the requirements of this
final rule. The MY 2007 Mazda CX9 was
able to meet the performance tests in the
final rule (20 km/h), without
modification. This vehicle had a 5-star
side impact rating in the 2007 NCAP
program.
We recognize that most side curtains
will need design changes to various
degrees to meet the requirements of this
final rule. As Takata indicated in its
2009 meeting, there are several ways to
possibly improve performance in the
ejection mitigation test. Manufacturers
will have to decide what suits their
particular situation best. Manufacturers
could increase air bag internal pressure
to make the air bag stiffer and/or
increase the volume to make the air bag
thicker. They could possibly change the
air bag shape, such as Takata has done,
reducing the need for drastic changes in
pressure and volume. They might
decide to use advanced glazing to
151 We note that Takata claimed that it achieved
the necessary performance by a change in shape,
rather than an increase in pressure or volume.
152 NHTSA–2009–0183–0029, p. 20.
153 The Toyota data provided by the Alliance
indicated that it was more difficult to meet TWG
guidelines in the passenger environment than in
SUVs.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3288
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
supplement ejection mitigation side air
curtain performance in meeting the 20
km/h–1.5 second test. In addition, the
availability of lead time and a phase-in
schedule and advanced credits will
provide manufacturers time and
flexibility to implement design changes
to meet the standard.
Lastly, the Alliance referred to data
presented to NHTSA by Ford in a
September 10, 2008 meeting 154
obtained by a load cell Ford placed on
the impactor shaft behind the headform.
The Alliance believed that
‘‘[p]reliminary testing has shown the
need to further research energy and
excursion targets to ensure a ‘balanced
approach’ between excursion and
curtain stiffness (load cell measurement)
in order to avoid unintended
consequences.’’ In response, to our
knowledge, no one has established the
biomechanical relevance of a uniaxial
load measurement on the shaft of an
ejection impactor to occupant injury.
Until and unless such a relationship can
be established, the agency has no
reasonable way to judge such data.
l. Vehicle Applicability
This standard applies to passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs), trucks and buses with a GVWR
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, except as
noted in this section. Manufacturers are
installing or plan to install side impact
air bag window curtains in many of
these vehicles. These side air bag
window curtains are capable of meeting
FMVSS No. 214’s pole test
requirements, which apply to passenger
cars, MPVs, trucks and buses with
GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. An FMVSS
No. 214 air bag window curtain system
can be augmented for use as an ejection
mitigation window curtain system.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
1. Convertibles
The NPRM tentatively determined
that the standard should apply to
convertibles. We requested comments
on the practicability of certifying
convertibles to the proposed
performance test with door-mounted
ejection mitigation curtains and/or
advanced glazing.
Comments
All comments from vehicle
manufacturers and air bag
manufacturers opposed the inclusion of
convertibles in FMVSS No. 226 for
practicability reasons. Many stated that
there was no technology that would
allow a convertible to meet the
proposed requirements. The AIAM
explained that although convertibles
154 NHTSA–2006–26467–0016.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
can meet FMVSS No. 214’s pole test
using a door-mounted upwardly
deploying air bag, the inflated bag does
not have a door frame to which the
curtain can be tethered to achieve the
lateral stiffness needed for ejection
mitigation. Further, the curtains need to
be retained by the convertible top,
which may not have the same retention
capability as the door trim of
conventional vehicles.
The Alliance informed the agency that
the agency was incorrect in thinking
that research from Porsche indicated the
feasibility of a door-mounted air bag
system for ejection mitigation. The
Alliance explained that Porsche meant
to describe a ‘‘technologically neutral
solution’’ for a coupe, ‘‘which unlike a
convertible, can be fitted with framed
windows.’’ The Alliance stated that it
believed that ‘‘advanced glazing, with or
without a door-mounted airbag, does
not constitute a practicable compliance
solution for convertibles.’’ AORC stated
that its members have been working on
this technology but have not yet verified
performance relative to this
specification.
Comments from Pilkington and from
Public Citizen supported including
convertibles in the applicability of the
standard.
Agency Response
We have decided that the standard
will not apply to convertibles. We found
compelling the practicability concerns
raised by vehicle manufacturers and air
bag suppliers related to the near-term
technical challenges involved with
producing a compliant convertible.
In NPRM preamble, we mentioned
Porsche’s development of door-mounted
curtains that would deploy upward
toward the vehicle roof in a rollover.
Comments from the Alliance to the
NPRM indicated that Porsche was not
developing this curtain for ejection
mitigation of convertibles, but rather for
a coupe.
We sought comments on the
feasibility of a door-mounted upwardlydeploying curtain for ejection mitigation
of convertibles. Comments from vehicle
manufacturers and air bag suppliers
indicated that current air bag designs
are not effective for ejection mitigation
purposes in vehicles without a window
frame because the air bag cannot be
tethered at the leading edge of the
curtain without a firm door frame to
which to attach. We concur that an
ejection mitigation side curtain air bag
must be sturdily tethered in order to
meet the displacement limits of this
final rule. At this time, convertibles lack
the rigid door frame or door pillar to
which the ejection mitigation side
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
curtain air bag could be tethered. We
agree that current ejection mitigation
side curtain air bag designs cannot be
used on convertibles, and we are not
aware of information indicating the
feasibility of developing designs that
could be used on convertibles in the
foreseeable future.
Advanced glazing will not be an
available countermeasure for use in
convertibles to meet the standard.
Honda and others stated that the
advanced glazing on a convertible door
is likely to fall out in a rollover crash
due to the lack of roof structure and
rigid structure around the window
opening. In our review of field data on
advanced glazing, we found sufficient
evidence of glazing vacating the
window opening in real world rollover
crashes that we decided not to allow
movable advanced glazing to be the sole
countermeasure used to meet the
displacement limits of the standard.
Also, movable glazing cannot be present
during the 16 km/h-6 second test. With
these changes, the glazing-only
countermeasure is no longer viable for
a movable window opening. A
convertible would have to pass the 16
km/h-6 second test with just the door
mounted ejection mitigation side
curtain air bag. As previously discussed,
we do not believe it is practicable for
convertibles to meet the test with only
an air bag at this time.
In response to a comment from the
Alliance, our reasons for excluding
convertibles from the standard are not
based on FMVSS No. 216’s exclusion of
convertibles from roof crush resistance
requirements. However, we
acknowledge that convertibles can pose
unique challenges related to the roof. As
shown previously in this preamble,
there were 16 fatalities and 18 MAIS 3+
injuries due to ejections through a
convertible roof closed prior to the
crash. For convertibles where the roof
was open, the fatalities and MAIS 3+
injuries were 31 and 84, respectively.
This indicates that about half of the
ejection fatalities through the roof area
occurred even when the roof was closed
before the crash. (These estimates are
based on an extremely small sample
size.) These data reflect the problematic
nature of convertible ejection
protection.
2. Original Roof Modified
NHTSA proposed to exclude vehicles
whose original roof was replaced, raised
or otherwise modified. A definition of
‘‘modified roof’’ was adopted. No
commenter opposed the proposal.
NTEA commented in support of it. This
final rule adopts the proposed exclusion
and definition.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3. Multi-Stage Manufacture of Work
Trucks
NTEA asked that NHTSA exclude
work trucks built in two or more stages
(‘‘multi-stage vehicles’’) from FMVSS
No. 226. NTEA stated that it expects
that if ejection mitigation side curtain
air bags are installed by a chassis
manufacturer to meet FMVSS No. 226,
‘‘this manner of compliance by the
chassis manufacturers will result in
restrictive or non-existent pass-through
compliance guidance for multi-stage
manufacturers of work trucks.’’ The
commenter believed that the purchasers
of these vehicles require an extensive
variety of end designs, ‘‘including
bulkheads and partitions to protect the
driver from loose cargo in the back of
the vehicle,’’ and that the design of most
vehicles will almost certainly affect the
performance of the chassis
manufacturers’ side curtain air bag
systems. The commenter believed that
‘‘pass-through compliance will prohibit
any completions or alterations that
could affect the vehicle’s center of
gravity thus potentially affecting the
sensor(s) that control side curtain bag
deployment. Also expected to be
prohibited for pass-through compliance
would be any changes to the trim or
headliner around any of the regulated
window space.’’ 155
NHTSA is declining the request for a
blanket exclusion of all work trucks
built in two or more stages from FMVSS
No. 226. To provide relief to multi-stage
manufacturers and alterers, we have
already excluded vehicles whose
original roof was removed, in part or in
total, by an alterer or final stage
manufacturer. That exclusion addresses
designs that will specifically affect side
curtain air bag coverage or inflators for
which pass-through guidance might not
be available.
A final-stage manufacturer can either
stay within the incomplete vehicle
document (IVD) furnished by the
incomplete vehicle manufacturer
(which are typically large vehicle
manufacturers, such as GM or Ford), or
the final-stage manufacturer can work
with incomplete vehicle manufacturers
to enable the final-stage manufacturer to
certify to the new standard.156 The finalstage manufacturer can also certify to
the standard using due care based on an
155 NHTSA–2009–0183–0017,
p. 3.
156 For a discussion of NHTSA’s certification
regulations for final stage manufacturers, see 71 FR
28168, May 15, 2006, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–
24664, Response to petitions for reconsideration of
a final rule implementing regulations pertaining to
multi-stage vehicles and to altered vehicles. The
Background section of that document provides
concepts and terminology relating to the
certification of multi-stage vehicles.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
assessment of the information available
to the manufacturer.
NTEA contended that workperforming vehicles should be excluded
from the standard because producing
these vehicles may involve changing the
vehicle’s center of gravity, which the
commenter stated could potentially
affect the sensor(s) that control side
curtain air bag deployment. The
standard adopted today does not specify
any requirements for the rollover sensor.
In the compliance test, we manually
deploy the ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags with the stationary
vehicle set up in the test laboratory.
Changing the center of gravity of the
vehicle would not affect our ability to
manually deploy the side curtain air
bags in the laboratory test. Likewise,
lowering the vehicle floor would not
affect the ability to manually deploy the
side curtain air bags in the test.
Since no certification requirement
exists with regard to the sensor, the IVD
will not have center of gravity
restrictions regarding sensor
performance. We have no sound reason
to exclude multi-stage work vehicles
from the standard based on possible
restrictions relating to sensor
performance.
Furthermore, we do not believe that
changing the center of gravity of the
vehicle will affect whether or not an
ejection mitigation side curtain air bags
deploys in a real world rollover. We
believe that incomplete vehicle
manufacturers will be able to develop
rollover detection technology that can
address variability in the vehicle’s
center of gravity.157 Sensors that are
based on roll angle and roll rate can be
made to deploy the air bag when the
vehicle rolls, despite changes to the
center of gravity of the vehicle involved
in installing bulkheads, partitions, etc.,
to which NTEA alludes. However, such
changes may have an effect on the
optimization of the sensor for the
particular vehicle, which could result in
the systems deploying earlier or later
than would otherwise be the case.
Nonetheless, even without sensor
optimization, work vehicles with
ejection mitigation side curtain air bags
would continue to provide ejection
protection to their occupants. If these
vehicles were excluded because of
center of gravity changes, they would
offer no ejection protection in rollovers
and no protection against ejection in
side impacts.
157 Mercedes’ comment to the NPRM indicated
that vehicle manufacturers will work toward
developing rollover detection technology for use in
large vehicles with center of gravity different than
those of passenger cars.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3289
Some modifications made by a finalstage manufacturer or alterer to the
interior of the vehicle could affect the
vehicle’s compliance with FMVSS No.
226. An example of this is installing a
partition. NTEA sought to exclude
multi-stage manufactured vehicles with
bulkheads and partitions from FMVSS
No. 226 since installation of a bulkhead
or partition ‘‘will almost certainly affect
the performance of the chassis
manufacturers’ side curtain air bag
systems.’’
We decline to adopt a blanket
exclusion of multi-stage vehicles with
bulkheads or partitions in work
vehicles.158 Such an exclusion would be
unreasonably broad. Bulkheads and
partitions can be installed so as not to
interfere with the deployment of
ejection mitigation side curtain air bags.
Bulkheads and partitions can be
designed to allow for sufficient
clearance to allow the air bags to
deploy, or may have break-away
features to allow a curtain air bag to
deploy.159 The incomplete vehicle
manufacturers will be able to provide
the appropriate guidance to allow for
pass-through certifications. Even if the
IVD does not provide guidance, the
final-stage manufacturer will be able to
ascertain the clearance needed to install
the bulkhead or partition. The bulkhead
and partition designs will enable the
final customer to purchase a vehicle
certified to FMVSS No. 226 and to
provide the protection of side curtain air
bags to their employees who will be
occupying the vehicle.
We disagree with the Alliance’s
comment that the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act precludes the
agency from applying FMVSS No. 226
to vehicles with partitions. Partitioned
vehicles are not a vehicle type. In any
event, it is not impracticable to meet the
standard with a partition. Manufacturers
will be able to determine how to
provide a clearance for the ejection
mitigation side curtain air bags and/or
design and position the partition to take
advantage of the shape of the air bag.
NTEA also expressed concerns related
to testing cost for those multi-staged
vehicles for which pass-through would
not be available. It stated that it received
estimates for testing costs ‘‘from $9,000
to $25,000 for 1–3 rows at 5 tests per
158 As discussed later in this section, we are
allowing a limited exclusion of ‘‘security partitions’’
in multi-stage manufactured or altered law
enforcement vehicles, correctional institution
vehicles, taxis and limousines.
159 See 75 FR 12123, 12128–12131, March 15,
2010, for a discussion of approaches that are
available to multi-stage manufacturers enabling
them to certify to FMVSS No. 214’s pole test using
side impact curtain air bags in vehicles with
partitions.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3290
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
window, and $14,000 to $40,000 for
1–3 rows at 8 tests per window
(assuming new airbags and glass for
each impact.’’ We do not believe those
estimates are accurate. In the PRIA, the
agency estimated testing costs would
consist of $100 for labor, $300 for an air
bag and $400 for advanced glazing.160
For a 3 row vehicle, assuming testing
every target at both test speeds; this
would result in a testing cost estimate
of $19,200.
NTEA also questioned the potential
availability of testing facilities to fulfill
the need of the multi-stage
manufacturers. We believe testing
facilities will be able and willing to
provide the market demand for testing.
The agency purchased a state-of-the-art
ejection mitigation test device for about
$150,000 and received delivery in 41⁄2
months.
In addition, multi-stage manufacturers
have an additional year after the phasein is completed to certify compliance to
FMVSS No. 226. This leadtime available
to multi-stage manufacturers will
provide enough time for the
manufacturers to work with incomplete
vehicle manufacturers to address passthrough certification guidance or
perform whatever testing they deem is
necessary for certification purposes,
including the basis for certifying
vehicles with a partition or bulkhead.
NTEA noted that it expected any
change to the trim or headliner around
any of the window space to be
prohibited by the IVD for pass-through
compliance. We do not agree. In its
comment, Nissan stated that it did not
anticipate the headliner would affect
performance of the side curtain air bag
system. NTEA did not provide
information showing otherwise. Further,
the multi-stage manufacturers have
ample lead time to work with
incomplete vehicle manufacturers to
develop acceptable trim and headliner
changes or to work with test laboratories
themselves to assess what changes to
the trim or headliner can be made that
will not affect the performance of the
ejection mitigation system.
We are adopting a suggestion of NTEA
with regard to partitions. One of NTEA’s
comments related to vehicles with
partitions or bulkheads that separate
areas of the vehicle with and without
seating positions. It stated that to the
extent the proposed standard applied to
multi-stage produced trucks, ‘‘NHTSA
[should] consider adopting testing
parameters similar to those found in
FMVSS 201 to effectively exclude any
targets that are located behind the
forward surface of a partition or
160 PRIA,
161 This provision is found in S6.3(b) of FMVSS
No. 201. Footnote added.
pg. V–21.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
bulkhead * * *. We believe it is neither
practical nor beneficial to require test
target points that could not possibly be
contacted by the head of an occupant
seated forward of the partition.’’ 161
We find merit in this suggestion to be
consistent with FMVSS No. 201. If there
is a permanent partition or bulkhead
that separates areas of the vehicle with
designated seating positions (DSgPs)
from areas that do not have DSgPs, we
believe there is no sensible reason to
target daylight openings in the latter
area. The likelihood of an occupant
being ejected from an opening in an area
without a DSgP is low. However, to
reduce the likelihood an occupant
would be in the area without a DSgP,
the partition or bulkhead must be fixed
to the vehicle and not provide access for
an occupant to pass through it. A
partition with a door would not be
considered as separating the occupant
space from non-occupant space.
This final rule makes a limited
exclusion of security partitions in multistage manufactured or altered law
enforcement vehicles, correctional
institution vehicles, taxis and
limousines. The Alliance and Volvo
commented that police vehicles, taxis
and limousines with partitions between
the first and second rows should be
excluded from FMVSS No. 226. The
Alliance claimed that any partition
installed in a way to not interfere with
curtain deployment would leave ‘‘a
significant gap between the outboard
edge of the partition and the inboard
surface of the vehicle trim thus
rendering it unable to provide either
complete security or privacy.’’ The
Alliance believed that upwardlydeploying air bags are not feasible.
Volvo believed that installing a partition
is ‘‘always done by a third party and is,
for this reason, beyond the vehicle
manufacture[r]’s control. To take this
potential adaptation into consideration
during design, development, and testing
would not be possible.’’
Considering that law enforcement
vehicles are more likely to be involved
in risky driving operations than other
passenger vehicles, NHTSA prefers that
the vehicles provide ejection mitigation
countermeasures. However, we agree to
exclude some vehicles from the
standard under certain circumstances
due to practical considerations.
Security partitions (e.g., prisoner
partitions) are necessary for the safety
and security of law enforcement
officers. These partitions must be flush
against the sides of the vehicle to
prevent a rear seat occupant’s hand or
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
article from intruding into the officer’s
compartment. A partition installed by a
final-stage manufacturer in an
incomplete vehicle or by an alterer in a
completed vehicle will interfere with
the ejection mitigation side curtain air
bags currently being produced. The
curtains are tethered from the A-pillar to
the C-pillar, so a partition between the
1st and 2nd rows or between the 2nd
and 3rd rows will prevent the curtain
from properly covering the window
opening.
After considering the comments, we
believe it would be difficult for
incomplete vehicle manufacturers
providing vehicles to the final stage
manufacturers or alterers to have an
alternative design which would be
compatible with a security partition.162
Thus, we are excluding from the
standard law enforcement vehicles,
correctional institution vehicles, taxis
and limousines, if they have a fixed
security partition separating the 1st and
2nd or 2nd and 3rd rows, and if they are
manufactured in more than one stage or
are altered. We do not believe that
compatible designs, such as a split
curtain, are impossible. Rather, we
believe compatible designs will need
time to develop.
We do not believe there is any
technical barrier to designing curtain(s)
to cover side windows that are
separated by a partition with two
separate curtains. The front of the first
row curtain and rear of the second row
curtain could be tethered to the A- and
C-pillars, respectively. Each curtain
could be separately tethered to the Bpillar. We also believe that such a split
curtain system could use a single
inflator to feed both air bags. The trim
on the B-pillar and on the header in
front and behind the partition could be
split to allow the two air bags to deploy
independently. Development of such a
vehicle specific curtain would likely
require time, and the resources available
to an incomplete vehicle manufacturer,
i.e., a large vehicle manufacturer.
162 In FMVSS No. 214, we do not exclude police
and other vehicles from meeting the standard’s pole
test requirements. The pole test does not apply to
rear seats. To meet the pole test, vehicles must
provide head, thorax and pelvic protection. Side
window curtains can be used to meet the pole test,
but seat- and door-mounted air bags in the front seat
are also available for use as well in meeting FMVSS
No. 214. Thus, multi-stage manufacturers can work
together such that the vehicle in which the partition
is installed can meet FMVSS No. 214 with a front
seat seat-mounted or door-mounted air bag. At this
time there is no countermeasure available from
incomplete vehicle manufacturers that could meet
FMVSS No. 226 with a security partition flush to
the side of the vehicle. A countermeasure only
using advanced glazing for movable windows will
not meet today’s requirements because the 16
km/h test must be passed without glazing in place.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Because we believe incomplete vehicle
manufacturers are able to develop a
curtain design that is compatible with a
partition, we are not extending this
exclusion to law enforcement vehicles,
correctional institution vehicles, taxis
and limousines if they are built in a
single stage. We believe it is practicable
for such a vehicle to have a single
design to meet the final rule and that
manufacturers of such vehicles will be
capable of applying the necessary
resources to meet the standard.
4. Other Issues
i. Vehicles That Have No Doors and
Walk-In Vans
Comments were requested but none
were received on whether vehicles are
still being manufactured 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. NHTSA
proposed excluding the vehicles on
practicability grounds. This final rule
adopts the exclusion.
We did not receive comments on the
proposed exclusion of walk-in vans.
This final rule excludes the vehicles on
practicability grounds.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
ii. Vehicles Over 4,536 kg
A few commenters requested that the
standard not be limited to vehicles
under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR.
Batzer and Ziejewski stated that school
buses over 4,536 kg offered ejection
mitigation by virtue of the divider-bar
requirement and, therefore, commercial
vehicles over 4,536 kg GVWR should be
covered as well. The commenter stated
that ‘‘[w]hile this could conceivably
cause some manufacturers distress, they
could be provided the opportunity to
petition NHTSA for a waiver, and notify
the purchaser that their vehicle does not
fully comply with pertinent FMVSS
regulations.’’ 163
We did not propose to apply the
standard to vehicles with a GVWR over
4,536 kg and did not discuss the
possibility of this application of the
standard or request comments on this
issue. Thus, the requests are outside the
scope of the rulemaking. Also, we note
that the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act provides very limited
authority to NHTSA to grant exemptions
to manufacturers from meeting the
requirements of the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. General
authority to grant waivers is not
available.
163 NHTSA–2009–0183–0009,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
p. 1.
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
m. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedules;
Reporting Requirements
Motor vehicle manufacturers will
need lead time to develop and install
ejection mitigation countermeasures and
rollover sensors. Although inflatable
side curtain air bags are being
developed in new vehicles to meet the
September 1, 2010 date that begins the
phase-in of the FMVSS No. 214 final
rule for the pole test, to meet the
requirements adopted 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
enhanced (by tethering and other
means) to retain vehicle occupants
within the vehicle. Moreover, rollover
sensors will need to be installed to
deploy the ejection mitigation
countermeasures in rollover crashes, to
augment the sensors needed to deploy
the side curtains in side impacts.
Our tests of vehicles to the NPRM’s
proposed requirements found that
vehicle manufacturers were at different
stages with respect to designing
inflatable ejection mitigation side
curtains that meet the requirements
then-proposed. 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
believed that these differing situations
can best be accommodated by phasing
in the ejection mitigation requirements
and by allowing the use of advanced
credits.
NHTSA proposed that the phase-in
would be implemented in accordance
with the following schedule: 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, assuming the final
rule is issued in January 2011, under the
NPRM that effective date would have
been September 1, 2014); 40 percent of
each manufacturer’s vehicles
manufactured during the production
year beginning four years after
publication of a final rule; 75 percent of
vehicles manufactured during the
production year beginning five years
after publication of a final rule; and all
vehicles (without use of advanced
credits) manufactured on or after the
September 1st following six years after
publication of a final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3291
NHTSA also proposed to permit
‘‘limited line’’ manufacturers that
produce three or fewer carlines the
option of achieving full compliance
when the phase-in is completed. The
NPRM also proposed that manufacturers
of vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages and alterers 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. NHTSA
proposed reporting requirements to
accompany the phase-in.
Comments
The Alliance asked for an additional
year of lead time, believing that it will
take at least 12 months after publication
of the final rule to obtain impactors
meeting the specified performance
requirements. Further, the Alliance
stated that ‘‘even after the devices have
been acquired, they must be installed,
pre-tested and run-in before they can
produce consistent test results which
are necessary prior to the initiation of a
development process that will yield
reproducible results. These logistical
steps will unfortunately eliminate
one-third of the lead-time intended by
the NPRM and because manufacturers
will utilize the impactor in the
development process, this lost time will
significantly impact manufacturers’
ability to achieve compliance in the first
year of the phase-in as proposed.’’
The AIAM stated that an additional
year of lead time is needed for vehicles
not utilizing roof rail mounted curtain
air bags to meet FMVSS No. 214. It
claimed that these vehicles would need
significantly greater redesign and that
this work cannot begin until the final
rule is issued.
Several vehicle manufacturers asked
for the application of advanced credits
in the 100 percent certification year.
The Alliance contended that
manufacturers producing vehicles that
do not meet FMVSS No. 214 by way of
a side window air bag curtain will need
to use credits in the 100 percent year to
be able to redesign vehicles to meet
FMVSS No. 226. The commenter stated
its belief that vehicles with a GVWR
over 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) will need more
lead time to install larger air bag
cushions and inflators to cover the
vehicles’ larger windows. Porsche stated
that compliance with future ejection
mitigation requirements will necessitate
significant changes to the body-inwhite, greenhouse and interior fittings
which can only be implemented with
the launch of a new vehicle model.
Mercedes commented that large
vehicles, such as the Mercedes-Benz
Sprinter, have large window openings
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3292
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
which Mercedes stated will require a
completely new generation of large air
bag curtains.
In contrast, glazing manufacturers and
consumer groups requested a one-year
reduction in both the lead time and
phase-in of the final rule. Advocates
requested that the phase-in be changed
to 40 percent, 75 percent and 100
percent. Guardian stated that ‘‘advanced
glazing technology is available today.’’
EPGAA stated ‘‘many manufacturers’
models already incorporate advanced
glazing and airbags, and as NHTSA’s
testing shows, little or no changes are
required to existing airbags to achieve
compliance with the proposed
standard.’’
Agency Response
To accelerate the ejection mitigation
benefits provided by this final rule, the
agency has decided to reduce the lead
time by a year, to two years of lead time,
and to require larger percentages of a
manufacturer’s fleet to meet the new
standard in the first two years of the
phase-in schedule than proposed. The
overall timetable is comparable to the
schedules in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 216,
and with the Phase I advanced air bag
implementation in FMVSS No. 208.
We reject the argument of the Alliance
that a lack of availability of impact
testers will delay compliance. Many
vehicle manufacturers and air bag
manufacturers presented test data to the
agency indicating they have access to
impact testers and are able to perform
the tests. The lead time and phase-in
timetable provided will afford sufficient
time to perform compliance tests.
We reject the AIAM request for
increased lead time for vehicles that do
not or will not use curtains to meet the
FMVSS No. 214 upgrade. If
manufacturers need more time for such
vehicles, they can address this through
the flexibility offered by the phase-in
and credits. AIAM indicated that the
additional year was needed to ‘‘fully
separate the 214 and ejection mitigation
phase-in periods.’’ We do not know of a
reason why full separation is needed
between completion of the phase-in of
the FMVSS No. 214 upgraded
requirements and the first year of the
FMVSS No. 226 phase-in.
The 24 km/h-1.5 second impact
proposed in the NPRM has been
reduced in this final rule to 20 km/h-1.5
seconds after our reanalysis of the
technical basis for the energy
requirement. With this reduction in
impactor speed, it is expected that fewer
changes will be needed to existing
designs to meet the final rule’s
requirements. Data from agency testing
of production vehicles presented earlier
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
in this preamble showed that the MY
2007 Mazda CX9 was able to meet the
performance tests in the final rule,
without modification. Given this
reduction in stringency of the test, fewer
and/or less substantial vehicle design
changes will be needed to meet the
standard, and less lead time required to
begin phasing in the requirements
across the fleet. Accordingly, we believe
that two years of lead time are sufficient
prior to the phase-in. For the same
reason, a greater percentage of vehicles
will be able to meet the requirements in
each of the phase-in years. Thus, we are
slightly increasing the percentages of
vehicles in the fleet that will need to
meet the ejection mitigation standard
during the first two years of the phasein.
However, vehicle manufacturers are at
different stages with respect to
designing ejection mitigation systems,
and also face differences in the
challenges they face and the resources
available to them. To provide flexibility
to manufacturers in managing their
resources to meet this schedule, this
final rule provides a multi-year phasein period and allows credits to be used
in the 100 percent phase-in year. The
agency did allow the use of credits for
the 100 percent year for the advanced
air bag rulemaking in FMVSS No. 208.
We generally agree with the comments
from AIAM stating that credits allow for
manufacturer flexibility and earlier
safety benefits. The added flexibility of
allowing credits in the 100 percent year
will allow manufacturers a more
seamless introduction of compliant
vehicles while enhancing their ability to
manage their engineering and
manufacturing resources.
We found particularly compelling the
comments from Mercedes (regarding the
Sprinter), Porsche (regarding the long
product cycle of their sports cars), Volvo
and other manufacturers. The use of
advanced credits in the 100 percent year
will provide relief to manufacturers of
vehicles with very large windows,
vehicles with very long product cycles,
and vehicles that are not as far along
having side curtain air bags as other
vehicles.
The comments showed that
manufacturers have unique problems
depending on factors such as
organizational resources, product mix,
and product life cycle. A manufacturer
with many different models may have
more flexibility in determining which
vehicles to certify and in accruing
credits. However, this larger portfolio
may require greater effort to bring all
vehicles into compliance. On the other
hand, manufacturers with small
portfolios may have less flexibility, but
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
may be able to focus resources on a
much smaller number of vehicles to
upgrade. The final rule phase-in
schedule, even with the added year of
credit use, may result in some
manufacturers needing to reassess and
modify their plans. Nonetheless, we
believe that the two-year lead time and
the four-year phase-in correctly balances
the manufacturers’ needs for flexibility
and the needs of the agency to limit the
length of time for the phase-in to a
reasonable period and achieve the safety
benefits of the final rule as quickly as
practicable.
NHTSA has decided that the lead
time and phase-in will continue to
apply to all vehicles under 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb).164 We have balanced the
safety need to implement the
requirements of this final rule as quickly
as practicable with the realistic burdens
of manufacture.165 We believe that the
relief provided by the additional year to
use credits will allow manufacturers the
flexibility to address any specific
problems associated with bringing
heavier vehicles into compliance. Some
vehicle manufacturers pointed to
FMVSS Nos. 214 and 216 as examples
of standards where the certification
schedule gave special treatment to
heavier vehicles. For example, for
FMVSS No. 214, the agency stated that
more time was being provided for the
pole test of vehicles with GVWR greater
than 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) because the
vehicles had never been regulated in
FMVSS No. 214 and thus ‘‘more
redesign of the vehicle side structure,
interior trim, and/or optimization of
dynamically deploying head/side
protection systems may be needed in
these vehicles than in light vehicles.’’ 166
We do not find the analogy persuasive.
The changes needed to meet FMVSS
Nos. 214 and 216 were primarily
164 This does not include limited line
manufacturers, manufacturers of multi-stage
vehicles, and alterers. Those manufacturers are not
required to achieve full compliance until one year
after the phase-in is completed.
165 The agency estimates that vehicles between
the ranges of 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) to 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) and 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)
constitute 25 percent and 6 percent of the annual
production of vehicles with a GVWR less than 4,536
kg (10,000 lb). The 25 percent estimate can be found
in the FRIA for the recent FMVSS No. 216 upgrade
(Docket NHTSA–2009–0093). The 6 percent
estimate is derived from MY 2010 submissions to
the NCAP Buying a Safer Car program and Ward’s
2009 Yearbook. We believe that to exclude 25
percent of vehicles less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)
from meeting FMVSS No. 226 until the end of the
phase-in, as would be the case for the 2,722 kg
(6,000 lb) split, would be unacceptable in terms of
the delayed safety benefits. We also believe that the
6 percent of vehicles, represented by the 3,856 kg
(8,500 lb) split, represents a number that can be
accommodated with accrued advanced credits.
166 72 FR 51911.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3293
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
structural. FMVSS No. 226
countermeasures for larger vehicles, as
indicated by commenters, will likely be
larger curtains and longer-lasting
inflators. The two-year lead time and
phase-in timetable for FMVSS No. 226,
and the use of credits in the 100 percent
year, will provide the time needed to
meet the standard.
We do not agree with the commenters
expressing concern that
countermeasures for heavier vehicles
may have more OOP issues and
therefore, in general, need more time to
comply. Toyota data submitted by the
Alliance indicated that OOP concerns
were actually greater for passenger cars
than they were for larger vehicles.
Further, there is the potential of using
advanced glazing in these heavier
vehicles, particularly for fixed windows.
We take this opportunity to correct
Public Citizen’s apparent
misinterpretation of the PRIA that led
the commenter to believe that the
agency estimated that 25 percent of MY
2011 vehicles would be able to comply
with the NPRM. In the PRIA, we said
that none of the curtain systems tested
met the proposed 100 mm displacement
limit. However, although none of the
current curtain air bags met the
displacement requirement, the noncompliant curtains would provide some
amount of ejection mitigation. Since we
do not want to double count the
potential benefits of the rulemaking
with the benefits that the non-compliant
curtains already provide, these potential
benefits were excluded from the benefits
estimate.167 Thus, the 25 percent value
quoted by Public Citizen is an
adjustment factor, not a compliance
rate.168
Reporting Requirements
The Alliance mentioned that the
NPRM requires manufacturers to report
advanced credits 60 days after the end
of the production year. It stated that this
means the first report would be due on
August 31, 2011. (Under the NPRM the
first report would actually have to be
filed 60 days after the date of August 31,
2011, rather than on August 31.) It
opined that ‘‘[b]ecause the rule will
likely not be finalized until 2011 and
the impactors complying with the
specifications contained in the final rule
may not be available to all
manufacturers until the 2012 timeframe,
the Alliance recommended that section
585.105 of the regulation be revised so
as to provide manufacturers up to one
year after the end of the first advanced
credit production period to file their
advanced credit phase-in report for that
year.
We disagree with this request. The
commenter’s rationale for putting off the
filing of the report for a year was the
same one it used to argue for an increase
in lead time by one year, i.e., an alleged
lack of availability of impact testers
meeting the final rule requirements. We
disagree with this reason because, as
previously stated, many vehicle
manufacturers and air bag
manufacturers presented test data to the
agency indicating they have access to
impact testers and are able to perform
tests. Further, allowing manufacturers
one year after the end of the MY 2011
production period ends to report would
lead to logistical difficulties for the
agency’s compliance testing program. At
the time we would be purchasing
vehicles for the MY 2011 compliance
testing, we would not know which
vehicles to purchase for testing to
FMVSS No. 226 without the reports. If
the reports were not due until October
1, 2012, it might be difficult to procure
the certified MY 2011 vehicles at that
time.
AIAM and VSC asked that small
volume and limited line manufacturers
be exempt from the phase-in reporting
until the first year that they must
comply or can earn credits. We agree
with the comment. These entities are
exempt from the phase-in requirements,
so they should be exempt from reporting
requirements as well.
The agency believes that side curtain
air bags will be used to pass the ejection
mitigation test. We believe that most
manufacturers will widen the side
curtain air bags 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 the
standard adopted today. We assume that
for the most part vehicle manufacturers
will install a single-window curtain for
each side of the vehicle, and that these
window curtains will provide
protection for occupants of the first
three rows.
This final rule will save 373 lives and
prevent 476 serious injuries per year
(see Table 42 below). The cost of this
final rule is approximately $31 per
vehicle (see Table 43). The cost per
equivalent life saved is estimated to be
$1.4 million (3 percent discount rate)—
$1.7 million (7 percent discount rate)
(see Table 44 below). Annualized costs
and benefits are provided in Table 45.
TABLE 42—ESTIMATED BENEFITS
Fatalities .............................................
Serious Injuries ...................................
373
476
TABLE 43—ESTIMATED COSTS *
[2009 Economics]
Per Vehicle .............................
Total Fleet (16.5 million vehicles).
$31.
$507 million.
* The system costs are based on vehicles
that are equipped with an FMVSS No. 214
curtain system. According to vehicle manufacturers’ projections made in 2006, 98.7 percent
of Model Year (MY) 2011 vehicles will be
equipped with curtain bags and 55 percent of
vehicles with curtain bags will be equipped
with a rollover sensor.
TABLE 44—COST PER EQUIVALENT
LIFE SAVED
XI. Costs and Benefits
The FRIA we have placed in the
docket analyzes the impacts of this final
rule. A summary of the FRIA follows.
3% Discount rate
$1.4M ............................
7% Discount rate
$1.7M
TABLE 45—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
[In millions of $2009 dollars]
Annual costs
3% Discount Rate ......................................................................................................
7% Discount Rate ......................................................................................................
167 For example, a curtain air bag that completely
covers the front window opening and meets the 100
mm displacement requirement at A2, A3, and A4,
but not A1. We assumed that the air bag system
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
$507M
507M
would provide some benefits, even if it failed to
meet the displacement requirement at A1.
168 The PRIA stated that current ejection
mitigation curtain systems are only 46 percent
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Annualized
benefits
$2,279M
1,814M
Net
benefits
$1,773
1,307
effective in preventing occupants from ejection and
that 55 percent of MY 2011 vehicles would be
equipped with these non-compliant air bags.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3294
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The agency received several
comments about the PRIA’s cost benefit
analysis. Several glazing manufacturers
commented that the agency’s analysis
underestimated air bag costs, did not
adequately consider benefits of
advanced glazing associated with
enhanced security, UV shading, weight
reduction, improved energy efficiency,
etc., and overstated the cost of advanced
glazing. Public Citizen stated that the
agency underestimated the benefits of
FMVSS No. 226 because we
overestimated the effectiveness of ESC.
Conversely, IIHS stated we
overestimated the benefits of FMVSS
No. 226 because we underestimated the
benefits of FMVSS No. 216.
In the FRIA, NHTSA responds to all
relevant comments on the costs and
benefits estimated by the NPRM and
PRIA.
XII. 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 Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis describing the costs and
benefits of this rulemaking action.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
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 final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. Small organizations and small
governmental units will not be
significantly affected since the potential
cost impacts associated with this final
rule will not significantly affect the
price of new motor vehicles.
The final rule could indirectly affect
air bag manufacturers and suppliers.
These entities do not qualify as small
entities.
The final rule will directly affect
motor vehicle manufacturers. The FRIA
discusses the economic impact of the
final rule on small vehicle
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
manufacturers, of which there are six.
We believe that the final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
these manufacturers. The standard will
employ static testing of the ejection
mitigation system. The test does not
involve destructive crash testing. It only
involves the replacement of certain
components and small vehicle
manufacturers can perform such testing
themselves. They can certify
compliance using a combination of their
own engineering analyses and testing
and component testing by air bag
suppliers. Already much of the air bag
development work for these small
vehicle manufacturers is done by air bag
suppliers. While typically, air bag
suppliers will supply larger vehicle
manufacturers during the lead time and
phase-in period of this final rule, this
rulemaking accounts for this limitation
by allowing more time to small
manufacturers and limited line
manufacturers to comply with the
upgraded requirements. They have a
year past the end of the phase-in period
to comply. This additional time
provides flexibility to those entities and
enough time to work with the air bag
suppliers to meet their needs.
Final-stage vehicle manufacturers buy
incomplete vehicles and complete the
vehicle. Alterers modify new vehicles,
such as by raising the roofs of vehicles.
In both cases, NHTSA concludes that
the impacts of this final rule on such
entities is not significant. Final-stage
manufacturers and alterers engaged in
raising the roofs of vehicles would not
be affected by this final rule because the
rule excludes vehicles with raised roofs
from the ejection mitigation
requirements.
NHTSA believes that work vehicles
can be produced in compliance with the
standard. Partitions separating a driver
from cargo can be installed to
accommodate an ejection mitigation
side curtain air bag by providing
clearance for the air bag. This final rule
accommodates partitions installed in
police vehicles, limousines and taxis by
final-stage manufacturer and alterers by
excluding those vehicles from the
standard.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s final
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 rulemaking would not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
The final rule 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.’’
NHTSA rules can preempt in two
ways. First, the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an
express preemption 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
by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same
aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision
described above is subject to a savings
clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with
a motor vehicle safety standard
prescribed under this chapter does not
exempt a person from liability at
common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e)
Pursuant to this provision, State
common law tort causes of action
against motor vehicle manufacturers
that might otherwise be preempted by
the express preemption provision are
generally preserved. However, the
Supreme Court has recognized the
possibility, in some instances, of
implied preemption of such State
common law tort causes of action by
virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not
expressly preempted. This second way
that NHTSA rules can preempt is
dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the
higher standard that would effectively
be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a
State common law tort judgment against
the manufacturer, notwithstanding the
manufacturer’s compliance with the
NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA
standards established by an FMVSS are
minimum standards, a State common
law tort cause of action that seeks to
impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers will generally not
be preempted. However, if and when
such a conflict does exist—for example,
when the standard at issue is both a
minimum and a maximum standard—
the State common law tort cause of
action is impliedly preempted. See
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,
529 U.S. 861 (2000).
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132
and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should
preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency’s ability to announce
its conclusion regarding the preemptive
effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an
issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined
the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and
objectives of today’s rule and finds that
this rule, like many NHTSA rules,
prescribes only a minimum safety
standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this rule preempt state tort
law that would effectively impose a
higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers than that established by
today’s rule. Establishment of a higher
standard by means of State tort law
would not conflict with the minimum
standard announced here. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort
cause of action.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 FRIA.
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 FRIA discuss several
alternatives we considered, and the
resulting cost and benefits of various
alternative 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. 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
FRIA, none of these alternatives
achieved the objectives of the
alternative adopted today. The agency
believes that it has selected the least
costly, most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3295
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
• 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 write to us about
them.
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 final rule
contains a collection of information, i.e.,
the phase-in reporting requirements,
requirements to place consumer
information about the readiness
indicator and about the sensor in the
vehicle owner’s manual (S4.2.3), and
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 FMVSS. The phase-in of the test
requirements would be completed
approximately seven years after
publication of a final rule (eight years
counting the 100 percent credit year).
The purpose of the reporting
requirements is to aid the agency in
determining whether a manufacturer
has complied with the ejection
mitigation requirements during the
phase-in of those requirements,
including the manufacturer’s use of
advanced credits.
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. This was accomplished in
the NPRM preceding this final rule (74
FR 63225). The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has promulgated
regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Pursuant
to OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)),
NHTSA sought 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;
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
3296
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
We published our estimates of the
burden to vehicle manufacturers, as
follows:
• NHTSA estimated 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 estimated that the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden resulting from the collection of
information is 1,260 hours;
• NHTSA estimated 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.
NHTSA did not receive any
comments on the above. Therefore, we
are submitting a request for OMB
clearance of the collection of
information required under today’s final
rule.
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.
Commenters requested that the
agency apply voluntary industry
standards SAE J2568—Intrusion
Resistance of Safety Glazing Systems for
Road Vehicles or BSI AU 209—Vehicle
Security. These industry standards
specify that after testing there must not
be separation within the glazing or
between the glazing and vehicle body,
which would allow for passage of a 40
mm diameter sphere (40 mm gap test).
We studied the potential of applying
these standards, but decided against
adopting them for several reasons.
These standards provide glazing
intrusion resistance requirements from
external impact (outside-in) as opposed
to ejection mitigation (inside-out).
Additionally, the requirements are not
appropriate for vehicles with only side
curtain air bags, given that there is a
time dependence associated with a
curtain’s ejection mitigation
performance. Once deployed, the
pressure in the air bag continuously
decreases. The 16 km/h test is done at
6 seconds to assure that the pressure
does not decrease too quickly. It does
not seem that the 40 mm gap test could
be done after the 6-second impact, in
any timeframe which is related to
rollover and side impact ejections.
Further, there was no shown safety
need for applying the suggested
standards. We cannot show that
ejections that would not be prevented
by the primary 100-mm displacement
requirement would be prevented by a
secondary 40-mm requirement. Also, it
seemed that the 40-mm requirement
would indirectly require installation of
advanced glazing. As discussed in this
preamble, the costs associated with
advanced glazing installations at the
side windows covered by the standard
adopted today are substantial in
comparison to a system only utilizing
rollover curtains. For these reasons, the
agency did not accept the suggestions.
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.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 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) is amended by
adding, in alphabetical order, an entry
to the list of materials incorporated by
reference, as follows:
■
§ 571.5
*
Matter incorporated by reference.
*
*
(b) * * *
*
‘‘Parts List; Ejection Mitigation Headform Drawing Package,’’ December 2010; ‘‘Parts List and Drawings; Ejection Mitigation
Headform Drawing Package,’’ December 2010. Copies may be obtained by contacting: Reprographics Technologies,
9000 Virginia Manor Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705, telephone (301) 210–5600.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 571.226 is added to read as
follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
■
§ 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 walkin vans, modified roof vehicles and
convertibles. Also excluded from this
standard are law enforcement vehicles,
correctional institution vehicles, taxis
and limousines, if they have a fixed
security partition separating the 1st and
2nd or 2nd and 3rd rows and if they are
produced by more than one
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
571.226, S7.1.1
manufacturer or are altered (within the
meaning of 49 CFR 567.7).
S3. Definitions.
Ejection impactor means a device
specified in S7.1 of this standard that is
a component of the ejection mitigation
test device and is the moving mass that
strikes the ejection mitigation
countermeasure.
Ejection impactor targeting point
means the intersection of the y-axis of
the ejection headform and the outer
surface of the ejection headform.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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 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. The periphery
includes surfaces 100 millimeters
inboard of the inside surface of the
window glazing and 25 mm outboard of
the outside surface of the side glazing.
The periphery excludes the following:
any flexible gasket material or weather
stripping used to create a waterproof
seal between the glazing or door and the
vehicle interior; grab handles used to
facilitate occupant egress and ingress;
and any part of a seat.
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 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 only has a
driver designated seating position. The
vehicle has a sliding (or folding) side
door and a 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
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, a percentage of each
manufacturer’s vehicle production, as
specified in S8 of this standard,
manufactured on or after September 1,
2013 to August 31, 2017, shall meet the
requirements of S4.2. Vehicles that are
not subject to the phase-in may be
certified as meeting the requirements
specified in this standard.
S4.1.2 Except as provided in S4.1.3
of this section, each vehicle
manufactured on or after September 1,
2017 must meet the requirements of
S4.2 without use of advanced credits.
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, but are subject to S4.1.2.
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within
the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before
September 1, 2018, after having been
previously certified in accordance with
part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles
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, the
most outboard surface of the ejection
headform must not displace more than
100 millimeters beyond the zero
displacement plane.
S4.2.1.1 No vehicle shall use
movable glazing as the sole means of
meeting the displacement limit of
S4.2.1.
S4.2.1.2 Vehicles with an ejection
mitigation countermeasure that deploys
in the event of a rollover must deploy
the countermeasure for the side daylight
opening being tested according to the
procedure specified in S5 of this
standard.
S4.2.1.3 If a side daylight opening
contains no target locations, the impact
test of S4.2.1 is not performed on that
opening.
S4.2.2 Vehicles that have an ejection
mitigation countermeasure that deploys
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3297
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 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 prebroken, 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 the countermeasure at
the impact target locations, at the
specified speeds and times (S5.5). The
lateral displacement of the ejection
impactor beyond the zero displacement
plane is measured.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3298
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
S5.2 Determination of impact target
locations.
S5.2.1 Boundary of target location.
S5.2.1.1 Initial determination of
offset line. Determine the location of an
offset-line within the side 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
projection and perpendicular to a line
tangent to the projection at that point,
while maintaining the point on a
vehicle vertical longitudinal plane.
S5.2.1.2 Rearmost limit of offset line.
(a) Seats fixed in a forward facing
direction. Except as provided in
S5.2.1.2(b), if an offset line extends
rearward of a transverse vertical vehicle
plane located behind the seating
reference point at the distance specified
in 5.2.1.2(a)(1) or (2), the transverse
vertical vehicle plane defines the
rearward edge of the offset line for the
purposes of determining target
locations.
(1) For a vehicle with fewer than 3
rows—1,400 mm behind the rearmost
SgRP.
(2) For a vehicle with 3 or more
rows—600 mm behind the 3rd row
SgRP.
(b) Seats not fixed in a forward facing
direction. 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
rows, is not fixed in the forward facing
direction, the offset line may extend
farther rearward than specified in
S5.2.1.2(a) under the following
conditions. With the seat in any nonforward 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 possible position of adjustment,
determine the location of a vertical
transverse vehicle plane located behind
the portion of the seat rearmost in the
vehicle, at the distance specified in
5.2.1.2(b)(1) and (2). The boundary of
target locations extends to this vertical
plane if it is farther rearward than the
plane determined in S5.2.1.2(a).
(1) For a vehicle with fewer than 3
rows—1,400 mm behind the portion of
the seat rearmost in the vehicle.
(2) For a vehicle with 3 or more
rows—600 mm behind the portion of
the seat rearmost in the vehicle, for a
seat in the 3rd row.
(c) Vehicles with partitions or
bulkheads. If a vehicle has a fixed
traverse partition or bulkhead through
which there is no occupant access and
behind which there are no designated
seating positions, a vertical transverse
vehicle plane 25 mm forward of the
most forward portion of the partition or
bulkhead defines the rearward edge of
the offset line for the purposes of
determining target locations when said
plane is forward of the limiting plane
defined in S5.2.1.2(a) or (b).
S5.2.2 Preliminary target locations.
(a) To identify the impact target
locations, the following procedures are
performed with the x and z axes of the
target, shown in Figure 1 (provided for
illustration purposes), aligned within ±1
degree of the vehicle longitudinal and
vertical axes, respectively, and the target
y axis pointing in the outboard
direction.
(b) Place targets at any location inside
the offset-line where the target is
tangent to within ±2 mm of the offsetline at just two or three points (see
Figure 2) (figure provided for
illustration purposes).
S5.2.3 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 side
daylight opening.
S5.2.3.1 Front windows. For any
side daylight opening forward of the
vehicle B-pillar, the primary quadrants
are the forward-lower and rearwardupper.
S5.2.3.2 Rear windows. For any side
daylight opening rearward of the Bpillar, the primary quadrants are the
forward-upper and rearward-lower.
S5.2.3.3 If a primary quadrant
contains only one target center, that
target is the primary target for that
quadrant (see Figure 3) (figure provided
for illustration purposes). If there is
more than one target center in a primary
quadrant, the primary target for that
quadrant is the lowest target in a lower
quadrant and the highest target in an
upper quadrant. If there is a primary
quadrant that does not contain a target
center, the target center closest to the
primary quadrant outline is the primary
target.
S5.2.4 Determination of secondary
target locations.
S5.2.4.1 Front windows. Measure the
horizontal distance between the centers
of the primary targets. For a side
daylight opening forward of the B-pillar,
place one secondary target center
rearward of the forward primary target
by one-third of the horizontal distance
between the primary target centers and
tangent with upper portion of the offsetline. Place another secondary target
center rearward of the forward primary
target by two-thirds of the horizontal
distance between the primary target
centers and tangent with the lower
portion of the offset-line (see figure 4)
(figure provided for illustration
purposes).
S5.2.4.2 Rear windows. For side
daylight openings rearward of the Bpillar, place one secondary target center
rearward of the forward primary target
by one-third of the horizontal distance
between the primary target centers and
tangent with lower portion of the offsetline. Place another secondary target
center rearward of the forward primary
target by two-thirds of the horizontal
distance between the primary target
centers and tangent with the upper
portion of the offset-line (see Figure 4)
(figure provided for illustration
purposes).
S5.2.5 Target adjustment.
S5.2.5.1 Target elimination and
reconstitution.
S5.2.5.1.1 Target elimination.
Determine the horizontal and vertical
distance between the centers of the
targets. If the minimum distance
between the z axes of the targets is less
than 135 mm and the minimum
distance between the x axes of the
targets 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 z axes of the targets must be closer
than 135 mm and x axes of the targets
must be closer than 170 mm. If the
minimum distance between the z axes
of the targets is not less than 135 mm
or the minimum distance between the y
axes of the targets 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 LIMITS
Step
Measure distance from z axis to z axis and x axis to x axis for
these targets
1 .........
2 .........
Upper Secondary to Lower Secondary ............................................
Upper Primary to Upper or Remaining Secondary ..........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:18 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Eliminate this target if distances between z axes of targets and x
axes of targets are less than 135 mm and 170 mm, respectively
Upper Secondary.
Upper or Remaining Secondary.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
3299
TABLE 1—PRIORITY LIST OF TARGET DISTANCE TO BE CHECKED AGAINST LIMITS—Continued
Measure distance from z axis to z axis and x axis to x axis for
these targets
3 .........
4 .........
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Step
Lower Primary to Lower or Remaining Secondary ..........................
Upper Primary to Lower Primary .....................................................
S5.2.5.1.2 Target reconstitution. If
after following the procedure given in
S5.2.5.1.1, 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 its center bisects a line connecting
the centers of the remaining targets.
S5.2.5.2 Target reorientation—90
degree rotation. If after following the
procedure given in S5.2.5.1 there are
less than four targets in a side daylight
opening, repeat the procedure in 5.2
through 5.2.5.1.2, with a modification to
S5.2 as follows. Reorient the target by
rotating it 90 degrees about the y axis of
the target such that the target positive z
axis is aligned within ±1 degree of the
vehicle longitudinal axis, pointing in
the direction of the vehicle positive x
axis. If after performing the procedure in
this section, the remaining targets
exceed the number of targets
determined with the original orientation
of the target, the reoriented targets
represent the final target locations for
the side daylight opening.
S5.2.5.3 Target reorientation—
incremental rotation. If after following
the procedure given in S5.2.5.2 there are
no targets in a side daylight opening,
starting with the target in the position
defined in S5.2.2.2(a), reorient the target
by rotating it in 5 degree increments
about the y axis of the target by rotating
the target positive z axis toward the
vehicle positive x axis. At each
increment of rotation, attempt to fit the
target within the offset line of the side
daylight opening. At the first increment
of rotation where the target will fit,
place the target center as close as
possible to the geometric center of the
side daylight opening. If more than one
position exists that is closest to the
geometric center of the side daylight
opening, select the lowest.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
Eliminate this target if distances between z axes of targets and x
axes of targets are less than 135 mm and 170 mm, respectively
Lower or Remaining Secondary.
Upper Primary.
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 and
condition.Subject to S5.5(b), 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 vehicle
manufacturer’s option.
S5.4.1 Window glazing pre-breaking
procedure.
S5.4.1.1 Breakage pattern. Locate
the geometric center of the side daylight
opening, established in S5.2.3 of this
standard. Mark the outside surface of
the window glazing in a horizontal and
vertical grid of points separated by 75±2
mm with one point coincident within
±2 mm of the geometric center of the
side daylight opening (see Figure 6)
(figure provided for illustration
purposes). Mark the inside surface of
the window glazing in a horizontal and
vertical grid of points separated by 75±2
mm with the entire grid horizontally
offset by 37.5 ± 2 mm from the grid of
points on the outside of the glazing.
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. Use a center punch in this
procedure. 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. Only once
at each mark location, apply pressure to
activate the spring in the center punch
in a direction which is perpendicular to
the tangent of the window surface at the
point of contact, within ±10 degrees.
Apply the pressure only once at each
mark location, even if the glazing does
not break or no hole results.
(b) Use a 100 ±10 mm x 100 ±10 mm
piece of plywood with a minimum
thickness of 18 mm 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(c) Continue the procedure with the
center punch by moving rearward in the
grid until the end of a row is reached.
When the end of a row is reached, move
to the forward-most mark on the next
higher row and continue the procedure.
Continue in this pattern until the
procedure is conducted at each marked
location on the inside surface of the
glazing.
(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.
The ejection impactor speeds specified
below must be achieved after
propulsion has ceased.
(a) Vehicles with or without an
ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in a rollover. For a vehicle with
an ejection mitigation countermeasure
that deploys in a rollover, using the
ejection propulsion mechanism, propel
the ejection impactor such that it first
strikes the countermeasure, while
aligned with any target location
specified in S5.2 of this standard, 1.5
±0.1 seconds after activation of the
ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in the event of a rollover, and
at a speed of 20 ±0.5 km/h. For a vehicle
without an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that deploys in a
rollover, propel the ejection impactor at
any time such that it first strikes the
countermeasure, while aligned with any
target location specified in S5.2 of this
standard, at a speed of 20 ±0.5 km/h.
(b) Vehicles with an ejection
mitigation countermeasure that deploys
in a rollover. For a vehicle with an
ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in a rollover, remove or fully
retract any movable glazing from the
side daylight opening. Using the
ejection propulsion mechanism, propel
the ejection impactor such that it first
strikes the countermeasure, while
aligned with any target location
specified in S5.2 of this standard, 6.0
±0.1 seconds after activation of an
ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in the event of a rollover, and
at a speed of 16 ±0.5 km/h.
(c) An ejection mitigation
countermeasure that deploys in the
event of a rollover is described as such
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3300
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
in the vehicle’s owner manual or in
other written information provided by
the vehicle manufacturer to the
consumer.
S5.6 Ejection impactor orientation.
S5.6.1 If the targets for the side
daylight opening being impacted were
determined by the procedure specified
in S5.2.2 through S5.2.5.1 only, the
ejection impactor orientation is as
follows. At the time of launch of the
ejection impactor the x, y and z axes of
the ejection headform must be aligned
within ±1 degree of the vehicle
longitudinal, transverse and vertical
axes, respectively.
S5.6.2 If the targets for the side
daylight opening being impacted were
determined by the procedure specified
in S5.2.5.2, the ejection impactor
orientation is as follows. At the time of
launch the ejection impactor is rotated
by 90 degrees about the ejection
headform y axis, from the orientation
specified in S5.6.1, resulting in the
headform positive z axis pointing in the
direction of the vehicle positive x axis.
S5.6.3 If the targets for the side
daylight opening being impacted were
determined by the procedure specified
in S5.2.5.3, the ejection impactor
orientation is as follows. At the time of
launch the ejection impactor is rotated
about the y axis of the ejection headform
by rotating the headform positive z axis
towards the vehicle positive x axis, in
the increment determined to be
necessary in S5.2.5.3 to fit the target
within the side daylight opening.
S5.6.4 After any test, extend the
ejection impactor to the zero plane and
determine that x, y and z axes of the
ejection headform remain aligned
within ±1 degree of its orientation at
launch as specified in S5.6.1—5.6.3.
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) through (e).
(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.
(c) Place vehicle on a level surface.
(c) Pitch: Measure the sill angle of the
driver door sill and mark where the
angle is measured.
(d) Roll: Mark a point on the vehicle
body above the left and right front
wheel wells. Determine the vertical
height of these two points from the level
surface.
(e) Support the vehicle off its
suspension such that the driver door sill
angle is within ± 1 degree of that
measured at the marked area in S6.1(c)
and the vertical height difference of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
two points marked in S6.1(d) is within
± 5 mm of the vertical height difference
determined in S6.1(d).
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, steering
column, seats, grab handles, and
exterior mirrors. During targeting and
testing, the steering wheel, steering
column, seats, grab handles and exterior
mirrors may be removed from the
vehicle or adjusted to facilitate testing
and/or provide an unobstructed path for
headform travel through and beyond the
vehicle.
S6.4 Other vehicle components and
structures. During targeting and testing,
interior vehicle components and vehicle
structures other than specified in S6.2
and S6.3 may be removed or adjusted to
the extent necessary to allow
positioning of the ejection propulsion
mechanism and provide an
unobstructed path for the headform
travel through and beyond the vehicle.
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 is exposed to the
conditions specified in S6.5(a) for a
continuous period not less than one
hour, prior to the test.
S7. Ejection 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 consists of an ejection
headform attached to a shaft. 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 the ‘‘Parts List; Ejection
Mitigation Headform Drawing Package,’’
December 2010, and the ‘‘Parts List and
Drawings; Ejection Mitigation Headform
Drawing Package,’’ December 2010
(incorporated by reference; see § 571.5).
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
S7.2 Static deflection. The ejection
impactor targeting point must not
deflect more than 20 mm in the x-z
plane when a 981 N ± 5 N force is
applied in a vehicle vertical
longitudinal plane, through the y axis of
the headform and no more than 5 mm
rear of the posterior surface of the
headform. The force is applied once in
each of the following headform axes: +z,
¥z, +x, ¥x. The static deflection
measurement is made with the ejection
impactor extended 400 mm outboard of
the theoretical point of impact with the
countermeasure and attached to the
ejection propulsion mechanism,
including any support frame and
anchors.
S7.3 Frictional characteristics.
(a) Measure the dynamic coefficient of
friction of the ejection impactor and any
associated bearings and bearing housing
in a test ready orientation. Repeat the
measurement in three more orientations
with the ejection impactor and any
associated bearings and bearing housing
rotated 90, 180 and 270 degrees about
the headform y axis. Perform the
measurement five consecutive times at
each orientation.
(b) Measure the average force
necessary to move the ejection impactor
200 mm rearward into the ejection
propulsion mechanism at a rate of 50
(±13) mm per second, starting at a point
400 mm outboard of the theoretical
point of impact with the
countermeasure. Measure the force to an
accuracy of ±5 N. The measurement
excludes the force measured over the
first 25 mm of travel and is recorded at
a minimum frequency of 100 Hz. During
the test a 100 kg ± 0.5 kg mass is
attached to the impactor with its center
of gravity passing through the axis of
motion of the impactor and no more
than 5 mm rear of the posterior surface
of the headform.
(c) Take the five force level averages
made at each impactor orientation in
S7.3(a) and average them. Take the
maximum of the force average values
and divide by 9.81 times the combined
mass of the ejection impactor and mass
added in S7.3(b). The resulting value
must not exceed 0.25.
S7.4 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 center, as the
unobstructed impactor passes through a
zone defined by vertical longitudinal
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
planes 50 mm forward and rearward of
‘‘D.’’
S8 Phase-in Schedule for Vehicle
Certification.
S8.1 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2013 and before
September 1, 2016. At anytime during
the production years ending August 31,
2014, August 31, 2015, and August 31,
2016, 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, 2013 and before
September 1, 2014. Subject to S8.9, for
vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2013 and before
September 1, 2014, the number of
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be
not less than 25 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, 2015 and before
September 1, 2016. Subject to S8.9, 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 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
S8.5 Vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2016 and before
September 1, 2017. Subject to S8.9, 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 100 percent of the
manufacturer’s production in the
current production year.
8.6 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 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 S8.7.
(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.
S8.7 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.
S8.8 For the purposes of calculating
average annual production of vehicles
for each manufacturer and the number
of vehicles manufactured by each
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3301
manufacturer under S8, do not count
any vehicle that is excluded by this
standard from the requirements.
S8.9 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 March 1,
2011 but before September 1, 2014.
(b) For purposes of complying with
S8.3, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it—
(1) Is manufactured on or after March
1, 2011 but before September 1, 2015
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 March
1, 2011 but before September 1, 2016
and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance
with S8.2 or S8.3.
(d) For purposes of complying with
S8.5, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it—
(1) Is manufactured on or after March
1, 2011 but before September 1, 2017
and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance
with S8.2, S8.3, or S8.4.
(e) 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 this
standard is not counted.
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.025</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3302
ER19JA11.028</GPH>
3303
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.027</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
4. The authority citation for part 585
continues to read as follows:
PART 585—PHASE-IN REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
*
■
5. Part 585 is amended by adding
Subpart K to read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
*
*
*
*
Subpart K—Ejection Mitigation Phase-in
Reporting Requirements
585.100
PO 00000
585.101
585.102
585.103
585.104
585.105
585.106
Purpose.
Applicability.
Definitions.
Response to inquiries.
Reporting requirements.
Records.
Scope.
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
ER19JA11.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
ER19JA11.029</GPH>
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
3304
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart K—Ejection Mitigation Phasein Reporting Requirements
§ 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).
§ 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).
§ 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 subpart does not apply to
vehicles excluded by Standard No. 226
(49 CFR 571.226) from the requirements
of that standard. This subpart does not
apply to manufacturers whose
production consists exclusively of
vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, to manufacturers whose
production of motor vehicles for the
United States market is less than 5,000
vehicles in a production year, and to
limited line manufacturers.
§ 585.103
Definitions.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
(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 § 571.3 of this chapter.
(c) Production year means the 12month period between September 1 of
one year and August 31 of the following
year, inclusive.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jan 18, 2011
Jkt 223001
(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.
§ 585.104
Response to inquiries.
At anytime during the production
years ending August 31, 2014, 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.
§ 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, through
August 31, 2017, each manufacturer
certifying 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 § 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,
2014, through 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 § 585.2 of this
part.
(c) Advanced credit phase-in report
content—(1) Production of complying
vehicles. With respect to the reports
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
3305
identified in § 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 passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses, with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less, 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 these vehicles for sale in
the United States must report the
number of these vehicles manufactured
during the current production year.
(2) Production of complying vehicles.
Each manufacturer shall report for the
production year being reported on
information on the number of passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses, with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less that meet the ejection
mitigation requirements of Standard No.
226 (49 CFR 571.226). The manufacturer
shall report the vehicles produced
during the preceding years for which
the manufacturer is claiming credits as
having been produced during the
production year being reported on.
§ 585.106
Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain
records of the Vehicle Identification
Number for each vehicle for which
information is reported under § 585.105
until December 31, 2020.
Issued on January 5, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–547 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\19JAR2.SGM
19JAR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3212-3305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-547]
[[Page 3211]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Incorporation by Reference; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 3212]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004]
RIN 2127-AK23
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Ejection Mitigation;
Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Incorporation by Reference
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 226, ``Ejection Mitigation,'' to reduce the partial and
complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows in crashes,
particularly rollover crashes. The standard applies to the side windows
next to the first three rows of seats, and to a portion of the cargo
area behind the first or second rows, 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 adopting a
test in which an impactor is propelled from inside a test vehicle
toward the windows. The ejection mitigation safety system is 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 will be impacted at up to four locations around its perimeter at
two time intervals following deployment.
The agency anticipates that manufacturers will meet the standard by
modifying existing side impact air bag curtains, and possibly
supplementing them with advanced glazing. The curtains will 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, after deployment the curtains will be
tethered near the base of the vehicle's pillars or otherwise designed
to keep the impactor within the boundaries established by the
performance test. This final rule adopts a phase-in of the new
requirements, starting September 1, 2013.
This final rule 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: Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is March 1, 2011. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the standard is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 1, 2011.
Petitions for reconsideration: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by March
7, 2011.
Compliance dates: This final rule adopts a phase-in of the new
requirements. The phase-in begins on September 1, 2013. By September 1,
2017, all vehicles must meet the standard, with the exception of
altered vehicles and vehicles produced in more than one stage, which
are provided more time to meet the requirements. Manufacturers can earn
credits toward meeting the applicable phase-in percentages by producing
compliant vehicles ahead of schedule, beginning March 1, 2011 and
ending at the conclusion of the phase-in.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents 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).
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket. You may also visit DOT's Docket
Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 for on-line access to
the docket.
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. Safety Need
III. Congressional Mandate
IV. Summary of the NPRM
V. Summary of the Comments
VI. How the Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
VII. Foundations for This Rulemaking
a. Advanced Glazing
b. Full Window Opening Coverage Is Key
c. Comparable Performance in Simulated Rollovers and Component-
Level Impact Tests
d. Advantages of a Component Test Over a Full Vehicle Dynamic
Test
VIII. Availability of Existing Curtains
IX. Existing Curtains
a. Existing Curtains Tested to Proposed Requirements
b. Field Performance
X. Response to Comments and Agency Decisions
a. Impactor Dimensions and Mass
1. NPRM
2. Comments
3. Agency Response
b. Measurement Plane and Displacement Limit (100 mm)
1. NPRM
2. Comments
3. Agency Response
c. Times and Speed at Which the Headform Impacts the
Countermeasure
1. NPRM on Time Delay (Ejections Can Occur Both Early and Late
in the Rollover Event)
i. Comments on Time Delay
ii. Agency Response
2. Speed at Which the Headform Impacts the Countermeasure
i. Comments on Impact Speed
ii. Agency Response
d. Target Locations
1. Why We Are Focusing on Side Windows and Not Other Openings
2. Why We Are Focusing on the Side Windows Adjacent to First
Three Rows
i. First Three Rows
ii. Method of Determining 600 mm Behind Seating Reference Point
(SgRP)
iii. Increasing 600 mm Limit for Vehicles With One or Two Rows
of Seats
3. Answers to Questions About Method for Determining Three-Row
Area
e. How We Are Testing the Ability of These Side Windows To
Mitigate Ejections
1. What is a ``window opening''?
i. 50 mm Inboard of the Glazing
[[Page 3213]]
ii. Conducting the Test With Various Items Around the Window
Opening
iii. Removing Flexible Gasket Material
iv. Testing With Weather Stripping in Place
v. Metal Dividers in Glazing
2. How We Determine Impactor Target Locations in an Objective
and Repeatable Manner
i. Testing in ''Any'' Location
ii. Methodology
iii. Reorienting the Targets
iv. Suppose Even With Rotating the Headform the Vehicle Has No
Target Locations
v. Decision Not To Test Target of Greatest Displacement
vi. Reconstitution of Targets
f. Glazing Issues
1. Positioning the Glazing
2. Window Pre-Breaking Specification and Method
g. Test Procedure Tolerances
h. Impactor Test Device Characteristics
i. Readiness Indicator
j. Other Issues
1. Rollover Sensors
2. Quasi-Static Loading
3. Full Vehicle Test
4. Minor Clarifications to the Proposed Regulatory Text
k. Practicability
l. Applicability
1. Convertibles
2. Original Roof Modified
3. Multi-Stage Manufacture of Work Trucks
4. Other
m. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedules; Reporting Requirements
XI. Costs and Benefits
XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
This final rule establishes a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, ``Ejection Mitigation,'' to reduce the
partial and complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows
in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. Countermeasures installed to
meet this rule will also reduce the number of complete and partial
ejections of occupants in side impacts. This final rule responds to
section 10301 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,'' (SAFETEA-LU), Public
Law 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144), which requires the
Secretary of Transportation to issue an ejection mitigation final rule
reducing complete and partial ejections of occupants from outboard
seating positions.
Addressing vehicle rollovers is one of NHTSA's highest safety
priorities. In 2002, NHTSA conducted an in-depth review of rollovers
and associated deaths and injuries and assessed how this agency 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 research on
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 adopted a new FMVSS No. 126 (49 CFR
571.126), ``Electronic Stability Control Systems,'' 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 NHTSA-2007-27662). 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 4,536 kg GVWR have ESC systems, the number of
deaths each year resulting from rollover crashes would be reduced by
4,200 to 5,500. From 2001 to 2007, there were more than 10,000 deaths
in light vehicle rollover crashes. Rollover deaths have decreased
slightly in 2008 (9,043) and 2009 (8,267), as have fatalities in all
crash types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(FRIA) for this final rule that discusses issues relating to the
target population and the potential costs, benefits and other
impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is available in the
docket for this final rule and may be obtained by downloading it or
by contacting the Docket Management facility at the address provided
at the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrent with the agency's work on ESC, NHTSA began work on the
third initiative on rollover safety, pursuing the feasibility of
installing crashworthiness safety systems to mitigate occupant
ejections through side windows in rollovers (``ejection mitigation'').
Major strides 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)
(``Phase 1 FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking'').\4\ The pole test, applying to
motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 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 are installing new technologies capable of
improving head and thorax protection in side crashes, i.e., side
curtain air bags and torso air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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, 75 FR 12123, March 15, 2010,
Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0032. 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 section 10302(a). NHTSA estimates that the September 11, 2007
final rule will save 311 lives annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's final rule launches a new phase in occupant protection and
ejection mitigation. It builds on and
[[Page 3214]]
improves existing technology while achieving cost efficiency and does
so expeditiously. This final rule enhances the side curtain air bag
systems installed pursuant to the FMVSS No. 214 side impact rulemaking.
Side curtain air bags \5\ will be made larger to cover more of the
window opening, 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. The side curtain air bags
required by this rule will be designed to retain the occupant
regardless of whether the occupant had his or her window glazing up,
down, or partially open, and even when the glazing is destroyed during
the rollover crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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. The same side curtain air bag meeting FMVSS No. 226 can be
used to meet the ejection mitigation requirements of FMVSS No. 214
with the addition of a rollover sensing system to deploy the side
curtain air bag in a rollover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM upon which this final rule is based was published on
December 2, 2009 (74 FR 63180, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0183). Materials
underlying the development of this rule have been placed in that docket
and in a research and development docket created in 2006 (Docket No.
NHTSA-2006-26467).
Rollover crashes can be complex and unpredictable. At this time
there is no conventional rollover scenario or test representative of
real-world rollover crashes that can be used in a dynamic test to the
agency's satisfaction to evaluate the performance of ejection
mitigation countermeasures. Yet, this final rule achieves ejection
mitigation benefits notwithstanding the absence of a dynamic procedure.
Agency research has found that full coverage of the side windows is a
key element to mitigating ejection. This standard adopts a component
test that assures there is full coverage of the side window to diminish
the potential risk of the windows as ejection portals and that assesses
ejection mitigation safety systems for as long in the crash event as
the risk of ejection reasonably exists.
The test uses a guided impactor 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
occupant to vehicle interactions in a dynamic rollover event. The
impact mass is based on the mass imposed by a 50th percentile male's
head and upper torso on the window opening during an occupant ejection.
The mass of the impactor, 18 kilograms (kg) (40 lb), is propelled at
points around the window's perimeter with sufficient kinetic energy to
assure that the ejection mitigation countermeasure is able to protect a
far-reaching range of occupants in real world crashes.
In the test, the countermeasure must retain the linear travel of
the impactor such that the impactor must not travel 100 millimeters
(mm) beyond the location of the inside surface of the vehicle glazing.
This displacement limit serves to control the size of any gaps forming
between the countermeasure (e.g., the ejection mitigation side curtain
air bag) 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 will typically target four specific
locations per side window adjacent to the first three rows of the
vehicle. Impacting four targets around the perimeter of the opening
assures that the window will be covered by the countermeasure
(curtain), while imposing a reasonable test burden. Small windows will
be tested with fewer targets.
Computer modeling has shown that ejections can occur early and late
in the rollover event. In the standard's test procedure, the ejection
mitigation side countermeasure will be tested at two impact speeds and
at two different points in time, to ensure that the protective system
will retain the occupant from the relatively early through the late
stages of a rollover.
The times at which the impacts will occur are data-driven and
related to our goal of containment of occupants both early and late in
rollovers. Crash data show that slightly less than half of all fatal
complete ejections occurred in crashes with 5 or fewer quarter-turns.
Film analysis of vehicles that rolled 5 or fewer quarter-turns in
staged rollover tests indicates that it took about 1.5 seconds for the
vehicles to roll once completely. A vehicle rolling 11 quarter-turns
had a maximum roll time of 5.5 seconds. Data from the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS)
show that rollovers with eleven or fewer quarter-turns account for
about 98 percent of rollovers with fatal complete ejection.\6\ The
standard replicates these crash dynamics with the two impacts of the
headform. The first impact will be at 20 kilometers per hour (km/h)
(12.4 miles per hour (mph)), 1.5 seconds after deployment of the
curtain. The second impact will be at 16 km/h (9.9 mph), 6 seconds
after deployment of the curtain. The 20 km/h and 16 km/h tests
replicate the forces that an occupant can impart to the curtain during
the rollover event as well as during side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This is based on 2000-2009 NASS data. The 1988--2005 NASS
data reported in the NPRM showed that 93 percent of rollovers with
fatal complete ejections had 11 or fewer quarter-turns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under today's final rule, vehicle manufacturers must provide
information to NHTSA upon request that describes the conditions under
which ejection mitigation air bags will deploy. There is no presently
demonstrated need for us to specify in the standard the conditions
dictating when the sensors should deploy; field data indicate that
rollover sensors are overwhelmingly deploying effectively in the real
world. We will keep monitoring field data to determine whether future
regulatory action is needed in this area.
This chapter in occupant protection will achieve tremendous
benefits at reasonable costs. We estimate that this rule will save 373
lives and prevent 476 serious injuries per year (see Table 1 below).
The cost of this final rule is approximately $31 per vehicle (see Table
2). The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to be $1.4 million
(3 percent discount rate)-$1.7 million (7 percent discount rate) (see
Table 3 below). Annualized costs and benefits are provided in Table 4.
Table 1--Estimated Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities.............................................. 373
Serious Injuries........................................ 476
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Estimated Costs*
[2009 economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Vehicle............................... $31.
Total Fleet (16.5 million vehicles)....... $507 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The system costs are based on vehicles that are equipped with an FMVSS
No. 214 curtain system. According to vehicle manufacturers'
projections made in 2006, 98.7 percent of Model Year (MY) 2011
vehicles will be equipped with curtain bags and 55 percent of vehicles
with curtain bags will be equipped with a rollover sensor.
Table 3--Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discount
3% Discount rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.4M..................................................... $1.7M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3215]]
Table 4--Annualized Costs and Benefits
[In millions of $2009 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Annual costs benefits Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate................................................ $507M $2,279M $1,773
7% Discount Rate................................................ 507M 1,814M 1,307
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accompanying today's final rule is a Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (FRIA) analyzing the costs, benefits, and other impacts of
this final rule, and a technical report the agency has prepared that
presents a detailed analysis of engineering studies, and other
information supporting the final rule. Both documents have been placed
in the docket for this final rule. The documents can be obtained by
contacting the docket by the means specified at the beginning of this
document or by downloading them at www.regulations.gov.
II. Safety Need
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. Data from the last 10
years of Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) files (2000-2009\7\)
indicate that frontal crash fatalities have averaged about 11,600 per
year, while rollover fatalities have averaged 10,037 per year. In 2009,
35 percent of all fatalities were in light vehicle rollover crashes.
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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These data are updated from the 1998 to 2007 FARS data
reported in the NPRM.
\8\ 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 2000-2009 FARS data, on average 47 percent of the
occupants killed in rollovers were completely ejected from their
vehicle. During this time period, there were 358 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.\9\ A double-pair comparison from the last ten years
of FARS data show that avoiding complete ejection is associated with a
64 percent decrease in the risk of death.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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.
\10\ ``Incremental Risk of Injury and Fatality Associated with
Complete Ejection,'' NHTSA, 2010 (see the docket for this final
rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of rollover crashes involve the vehicle rolling over
two quarter-turns or less. However, the distribution of ejected
occupants who are seriously injured (maximum abbreviated injury scale
(MAIS) 3+) or killed is skewed towards rollovers with a higher number
of quarter-turns. According to NASS Crashworthiness Data System (CDS)
data of occupants exposed to a rollover crash from 2000 to 2009, half
of all fatal complete ejections occurred in crashes with six or more
quarter-turns.
Most occupants are ejected through side windows. In developing the
target population estimates for this final rule we found that
annualized injury data from 1997 to 2008 NASS CDS and fatality counts
adjusted to the annual average from FARS for these same years\11\
indicate that ejection through side windows is the greatest contributor
to the ejection problem.\12\ There were 16,272 MAIS 1-2 injuries, 5,209
MAIS 3-5 injuries, and 6,412 fatalities resulting from ejections
through the side windows adjacent to the first three rows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The target population estimate for the NPRM used 1997 to
2005 FARS data. The estimate for this final rule is based on an
additional three years of data.
\12\ In our data analysis for the NPRM to determine ejection
routes, we assumed that an ejection route coding of ``rear'' in NASS
CDS meant a second row window and that ``other'' glazing meant third
and higher row side window ejections. The assumption was based on
the coding of seat position in NASS. Since then, we have determined
that an occupant coded as ejected through a ``rear'' window did not
necessarily go through the second row window. Similarly, the coding
of ``other'' glazing was determined not necessarily to mean third
and higher row. Thus, for this final rule, for cases coded as
ejected through ``rear'' or ``other'' glazing, we assume that the
ejection was through a second row window in the following
circumstances: the occupant was seated in the first two rows of a
vehicle, or the vehicle was a convertible, two-door sedan, or four-
door sedan (i.e., these are vehicles without a third row or cargo
area). If an occupant was coded as seated in the third or higher row
and was coded as ejected through a rear window or ``other'' glazing,
we used the NASS Case Query System to undertake a hard copy review.
We determined ejection routes in this manner for 41 unweighted rear
window cases and 17 unweighted ``other'' glazing cases. A hard copy
review of the ``other'' glazing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 below shows the MAIS 1-2, MAIS 3-5, and fatality
distribution of ejected occupants by 11 potential ejection routes.\13\
The ``Not Glazing'' category captures ejected occupants that did not
eject through a glazing area or the roof (perhaps a door or an area of
vehicle structure that was torn away during the crash). Roof ejections
have been separated into ``Roof Panel or Glazing'' and ``Roof Other.''
The former groups sunroofs, t-tops and targa-tops into a single
category, whether made of glazing or having a sheet metal skin. The
latter combines convertibles, modified roofs, camper tops and removable
roofs. No distinction could be made as to whether these roof structures
were open or closed prior to ejection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ All crash types are included, but the counts are restricted
to ejected occupants who were injured.
Table 5--Occupant Injury and Fatality Counts by Ejection Route in All Crash Types
[Annualized 1997-2008 NASS and FARS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ejection route MAIS 1-2 MAIS 3-5 Fatal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windshield................................................ 1,517 1,400 1,078
First-Row Windows......................................... 14,293 4,980 5,589
Second-Row Windows........................................ 1,700 641 796
[[Page 3216]]
Third-Row Windows......................................... 279 88 27
Fourth-Row Windows........................................ 0 0 39
Fifth-Row Window.......................................... 0 0 7
Cargo Area Rear of Row 2.................................. 342 17 52
Backlight................................................. 1,621 1,364 495
Roof Panel or Glazing..................................... 1,000 367 324
Roof Other................................................ 420 105 81
Multiple Windows.......................................... 0 19 0
Not Glazing............................................... 2,848 2,207 1,814
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotals: ................ ................ ................
Rows 1-3.......................................... 16,272 5,709 6,412
4th, 5th Row and Cargo............................ 342 17 98
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 24,020 11,188 10,302
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6, below, provides the percentage of the total at each injury
level. The injuries and fatalities resulting from ejections through the
first three rows of windows constitute 68 percent of MAIS 1-2 injuries,
51 percent of MAIS 3-5 injuries, and 62 percent of all ejected
fatalities.
Table 6--Occupant Injury and Fatality Percentages by Ejection Route in All Crash Types
[Annualized 1997-2008 NASS and FARS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ejection route MAIS 1-2 MAIS 3-5 Fatal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windshield................................................ 6.3% 12.5% 10.5%
First-Row Windows......................................... 59.5% 44.5% 54.2%
Second-Row Windows........................................ 7.1% 5.7% 7.7%
Third-Row Windows......................................... 1.2% 0.8% 0.3%
Fourth-Row Windows........................................ 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
Fifth-Row Window.......................................... 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Cargo Area Rear of Row 2.................................. 1.4% 0.2% 0.5%
Backlight................................................. 6.8% 12.2% 4.8%
Roof Panel or Glazing..................................... 4.2% 3.3% 3.1%
Roof Other................................................ 1.7% 0.9% 0.8%
Multiple Windows.......................................... 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Not Glazing............................................... 11.9% 19.7% 17.6%
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotals: ................ ................ ................
Rows 1-3.......................................... 67.7% 51.0% 62.2%
4th, 5th Row and Cargo............................ 1.4% 0.2% 1.0%
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the countermeasure covering side window openings will be made
more effective in preventing ejections, this rulemaking will also
reduce the number of complete and partial ejections of occupants in
side impacts. These benefits go beyond those achieved in the rulemaking
adopting an oblique pole test into FMVSS No. 214 (Phase 1 FMVSS No. 214
rulemaking) because a side air bag installed to meet FMVSS No. 214 is
not necessarily wide or robust enough to effectively contain occupants
in certain side impacts. In fact, NHTSA found that FMVSS No. 214's
requirements could be met by a seat-mounted head/torso side air bag or
a side head protection curtain air bag together with a seat-mounted or
door-mounted torso bag. Further, FMVSS No. 214's pole test does not
apply to rear seats. In short, FMVSS No. 214 does not require the large
curtain needed for full coverage of side window openings.
Accordingly, this ejection mitigation safety standard will reduce
the number of partial and complete ejections of occupants in side
impacts. The Phase 1 FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking included reduction of
partial ejections of adults (age 13+ years) through side windows in
side impacts, but did not include complete ejections. The Phase 1 side
impact rulemaking also did not include any impact where a rollover was
the first event. In addition, benefits were only assumed in the Phase 1
FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking for side impact crashes with a change in
velocity ([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. The side
curtain air bags used to meet FMVSS No. 226's ejection mitigation
requirements will directly prevent many ejection-induced injuries and
fatalities in side impacts that could not be saved by a side air bag
that minimally complies with FMVSS No. 214.
Target Population
In general, the target population for this ejection mitigation
final rule is composed of occupants injured or killed by ejection from
the first three rows of side windows in vehicles to which the standard
applies. Later in the preamble, we discuss some slight adjustments made
concerning occupants ejected through cargo area window openings.
[[Page 3217]]
The target population does not include occupants ejected in all crash
types, but rather is restricted to ejections that occur in crashes
involving rollovers and some types of planar only side impacts. The
limitation on side impacts, change in velocity ([Delta]V), and certain
occupants in those side impacts is necessary to not count benefits
anticipated by FMVSS No. 214.
Tables 7-9 provide the counts and/or percentages of the injured and
killed side window (rows 1-3) ejected occupants by the window row they
were ejected through. These data are restricted to rollover crashes and
side impacts in the relevant [Delta]V range (target population type
crashes).
Tables 7 and 8 show the ejection degree and restraint condition for
occupants in the first three rows of target population type crashes.
Among the side windows, the first row windows provide the ejection
route for most of the injured and killed occupants. The greatest number
of fatally ejected occupants (3,837) went through the first row window.
This represents 88 percent of all side window ejected fatalities.
Similarly, 3,979 (89 percent) MAIS 3-5 and 10,017 (87 percent) MAIS 1-2
injured occupants went through the row 1 windows. Within each row, the
greatest number of fatal and MAIS 3-5 occupants were completely ejected
and unbelted. There were 2,623 fatally injured (59 percent) and 2,269
MAIS 3-5 injured (50 percent) occupants who were unbelted and
completely ejected through the row 1 windows.
Table 7--Distribution of First 3 Rows of Side Window Ejected Occupants by Ejection Row and Injury Level by Ejection Degree and Belt Use, In Target
Population Type Crashes
[Annualized 1997-2008 NASS and 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.............. 95 29 54 139 78 5 0 8 0
Complete.......................... No............... 3,501 2,269 2,623 782 309 421 95 54 23
Partial........................... Yes.............. 4,345 1,097 484 43 32 38 109 0 0
Partial........................... No............... 2,076 584 675 103 80 123 4 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ................. 10,017 3,979 3,837 1,067 499 587 207 62 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Distribution of First 3 Rows of Side Window Ejected Occupants by Ejection Row and Injury Level by Ejection Degree and Belt Use, as a Percentage
of Totals at each Injury Level, in Target Population Type Crashes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.............. 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Complete.......................... No............... 31% 50% 59% 7% 7% 9% 1% 1% 1%
Partial........................... Yes.............. 38% 24% 11% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Partial........................... No............... 18% 13% 15% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ................. 87% 89% 88% 86% 9% 11% 13% 2% 1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 shows the ejection degree and vehicle type for occupants in
the first three rows of target population type crashes. The greatest
numbers of fatalities result from occupants completely ejected from
passenger cars. These account for 28 percent of the total fatalities.
Combining partial and complete ejections, cars account for 43
percent of fatalities and 42 percent of MAIS 3 to 5 injuries. Pickup
trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) combined account for 50
percent of fatalities and 54 percent of MAIS 3 to 5 injuries. Since the
early 1990s, the SUV segment has provided an increasing proportion of
rollover fatalities. SUVs represented approximately 16 percent of
fatalities in 1997, and nearly 27 percent in 2008. Vans comprise 7
percent of the fatalities and 4 percent of the MAIS 3-5 ejections.
Table 9--Distribution of Fatalities and Injuries of First 3 Rows Side Window Ejected Occupants By Vehicle Type
[Annualized 1997--2008 NASS and FARS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle MAIS 1-2 MAIS 3-5 Fatal MAIS 1-2 MAIS 3-5 Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ejections......................... Car.......................... 1,158 928 1,239 10% 20% 28%
PU........................... 1,236 812 793 11% 18% 18%
SUV.......................... 1,881 858 907 17% 19% 20%
Van.......................... 324 147 188 3% 3% 4%
Other........................ 12 2 0 0% 0% 0%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... 4,612 2,747 3,127 41% 61% 70%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3218]]
Partial Ejections.......................... Car.......................... 1,429 971 660 13% 21% 15%
PU........................... 2,515 375 190 22% 8% 4%
SUV.......................... 1,590 402 350 14% 9% 8%
Van.......................... 1,133 44 103 10% 1% 2%
Other........................ 13 0 17 0% 0% 0%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... 6,680 1,793 1,320 59% 39% 30%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Ejections............................ Car.......................... 2,588 1,899 1,899 23% 42% 43%
PU........................... 3,750 1,187 983 33% 26% 22%
SUV.......................... 3,471 1,260 1,257 31% 28% 28%
Van.......................... 1,457 192 291 13% 4% 7%
Other........................ 25 2 17 0% 0% 0%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 11,292 4,540 4,447 100% 100% 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, for the most part, the target population for this
ejection mitigation final rule is composed of occupants injured or
killed in an ejection from the first three rows of side windows in
vehicles to which the standard applies. The target population does not
include the population addressed by the Phase 1 FMVSS No. 214
rulemaking, and does not include persons benefited by the installation
of ESC systems in vehicles. (We assume that all model year 2011
vehicles and thereafter will be equipped with ESC, see FMVSS No. 126.)
As adjusted for ESC, the target population for this ejection mitigation
rulemaking is reduced to 1,392 fatalities, 1,410 MAIS 3-5 injuries and
4,217 MAIS 1-2 injuries. This target population constitutes 23 percent
of fatally-injured occupants ejected through a side window, 27 percent
of MAIS 3-5 injured, and 23 percent of MAIS 1-2 injured side window-
ejected occupants.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ When discussing the target population in this preamble, we
will typically mean the pre-ESC adjusted values. We will
specifically state when we are referring to an ESC-adjusted target
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Congressional Mandate
This final rule responds to section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU, which
requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue an ejection
mitigation final rule reducing complete and partial ejections of
occupants from outboard seating positions. Section 10301 amended
Subchapter II of chapter 301 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) (``Vehicle Safety Act'') to add section
30128. Section 10301, 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
GVWR 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 and that, in formulating the standards,
the Secretary shall consider various ejection mitigation systems.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Paragraph (c) states that the Secretary shall issue a final
rule under this paragraph by 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
notified Congress that the final rule will be delayed until January
31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's final rule fulfills the statutory mandate of section 10301
of SAFETEA-LU to issue an ejection mitigation final rule reducing
complete and partial ejections of occupants from outboard seating
positions. We have considered various ejection mitigation systems,
including advanced glazing,\16\ and have made appropriate decisions
based on that analysis. At the time of its implementation this final
rule will reduce fatality ejected occupants by about one third \17\ and
completes a decisive stage in the agency's rollover crashworthiness
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ One type of advanced glazing systems, usually referred to
as laminated glazing, has a multi-layer construction typically with
three primary layers. There is usually a plastic laminate bonded
between two pieces of glass. Advanced glazing was considered in the
1990s to have potential for use in ejection mitigation.
\17\ This fatality reduction does not double-count benefits from
ESC and the recent FMVSS No. 214 upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few glazing manufacturers, a glazing manufacturers' association,
and two consumer groups expressed a view in their comments to the NPRM
that the rulemaking will fall short of the statutory mandate unless the
final rule ensured that windows will not allow any openings larger than
two inches to form during a rollover event (as a consequence, such a
requirement would encourage the use of advanced glazing). These
commenters also believed that SAFETEA-LU directed NHTSA to address
ejections through sun roofs, moon roofs,\18\ and rear windows in this
standard. We address these comments in detail in later sections of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For this document, we refer to movable and fixed roof
panels made of glazing as ``moon roofs'' and movable panels having a
sheet metal exterior as ``sun roofs.'' We refer to both as roof
portals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the general assertion that this rulemaking does not
meet SAFETEA-LU, we cannot agree. As part and parcel of good
governance, all safety standards must be reasonable and appropriate. In
addition, in adding section 30128 to the Vehicle Safety Act, SAFETEA-LU
specifically requires us to issue an ejection mitigation final rule in
accordance with the criteria of that Act. The Vehicle Safety Act
requires each motor vehicle safety standard to be practicable, meet the
need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. (49
U.S.C. 30111(a).) We must also consider whether the standard is
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.
(49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3).)
This final rule requires protective barriers at side windows, the
ejection
[[Page 3219]]
portals through which 62 percent of occupants are fatally ejected in
all crash types. We did not adopt the suggestions in the comments of
the glazing manufacturers that could have bolstered increased use of
advanced glazing in side windows because we did not find a safety need
supporting the approaches. For back windows (backlight) and roof
portals, we found that not enough was known to appropriately evaluate
the costs, benefits and practicability of the requirements, at this
time, including the lack of a viable test procedure. (Fatal ejections
through the back light and roof portals account for 4.8 and 3.9 percent
of fatal ejections in all crash types.) An appropriate test procedure
that would assess ejection potential through portals on the vehicle's
roof is also unknown.
In formulating this final rule, NHTSA considered various ejection
mitigation systems in accordance with section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU. We
sought to adopt performance measures that were design-neutral and
performance-oriented so as to provide substantial flexibility to
vehicle manufacturers in developing or enhancing ejection mitigation
countermeasures that meet the requirements of the standard. To
illustrate, the headform test procedure was originally developed in the
advanced glazing research program and can be used to assess the
performance of many different types of countermeasures at the side
windows. The final rule recognizes the beneficial effect advanced
glazing can have and permits the use of fixed glazing to achieve the
performance criteria specified in the standard. At the same time,
however, NHTSA determined after considering real-world field data on
advanced glazing that movable advanced glazing alone would not be a
satisfactory ejection mitigation countermeasure for side window
openings, given that 31 percent of front seat ejections are through
windows that were partially or fully rolled down, and given that it is
not unusual for advanced glazing to be heavily damaged and rendered
ineffective in a rollover crash. Accordingly, the standard does not
permit use of movable glazing alone to meet the requirements of the
standard. Movable glazing may be used in the high speed test, but it
must be used in conjunction with a deployable safety system that will
mitigate ejection throughout the stages of a rollover event, such as an
ejection mitigation side curtain air bag.
In directing us to consider various ejection mitigation systems,
there is indication that Congress envisioned us focusing on ejections
through side windows. At the time of enactment of SAFETEA-LU, Congress
was aware of the agency's past work on advanced side glazing and of our
ejection mitigation research program. Congress was aware that side
curtain air bags were showing strong potential as an ejection
mitigation countermeasure and that we had redirected research and
rulemaking efforts from advanced side glazing to developing
performance-based test procedures for an ejection mitigation
standard.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing, Final
Report,'' NHTSA, August 2001, Docket 1782-22. See also, NHTSA's
termination of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on advanced
glazing (67 FR 41365, June 18, 2002), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in the legislative history on section 10301, section
7251 of the Senate bill which the Conference committee adopted
(Conference Report of the Committee of Conference on H.R. 3, Report
109-203, 109th Congress, 1st Session) directed the Secretary to include
consideration of ``advanced side glazing, side air curtains, and side
impact air bags'' (emphases added) in establishing the standard. We
believe that Congress wanted us to take into account the knowledge
gained from our past work on side ejections in formulating this
standard, which we have, building on our knowledge gained from the
advanced side glazing and rollover crashworthiness programs.
It would take a longer time than the timeframe allowed by SAFETEA-
LU to address fatal ejections through the back light and roof portals.
In contrast to the side window research program, which started in the
early 1990s, the agency had no research and development foundation upon
which requirements for the back light and roof portal could be based.
Much is unknown regarding a test procedure, effectiveness of current
designs, method of anchoring advanced glazing to the backlight frame
and roof portal, and possible other countermeasures and their costs.
The agency believed that Congress intended us to build on the knowledge
already attained and issue this final rule addressing side window
ejections, which account for 62 percent of all fatal occupant ejections
in all crashes, as quickly as possible, rather than delay this final
rule to venture into areas that account for 8.7 percent of those fatal
ejections.
In sum, we developed this final rule to meet the criteria of
section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU and the Vehicle Safety Act, making sure
that it is a performance standard that reduces complete and partial
ejections from outboard seating positions and that it is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate, that it meets the need for safety and is
stated in objective terms. Further, ensuring that the final rule is
consistent with Executive Order 12866, we have adopted requirements
that not only maximize the benefits of a cost-effective approach to
ejection mitigation, but do so with an approach that saves over 370
lives. This final rule wholly implements the instructions of our
statutory and administrative directives.
IV. Summary of the NPRM
NHTSA issued a proposal for a new FMVSS No. 226 and proposed the
standard apply to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. We proposed that the
side windows next to the first three rows of seats be subject to
performance requirements requiring the vehicle to have an ejection
mitigation countermeasure that would prevent an 18 kg (40 lb) headform
from moving more than 100 mm (4 inches) beyond the zero displacement
plane of each window when the window is impacted. Each side window
would be impacted at up to four locations around its perimeter at two
energy levels and time intervals following deployment. The first impact
was proposed to be at 24 km/h, 1.5 seconds after deployment of the
ejection mitigation side curtain air bag, assuming there was one
present (``24 km/h-1.5 second test''), and the second impact was
proposed to be at 16 km/h, at 6 seconds after deployment (``16 km/h-6
second test''). The NPRM proposed to allow windows of advanced glazing
to be in position during the test, but pre-broken, using a prescribed
method, to reproduce the state of glazing in an actual rollover crash.
The NPRM discussed proposals for: (a) The impactor dimensions and
mass; (b) the displacement limit; (c) impactor speed and time of
impact; and (d) t
