[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55138-55167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21605]
[[Page 55137]]
Vol. 78
Monday,
No. 174
September 9, 2013
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Ejection Mitigation; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 55138]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0097]
RIN 2127-AL40
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Ejection Mitigation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
2011 final rule that established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.'' The standard is intended to
reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants through side
windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. Generally, the
issues raised by the petitioners are of two types. The petitioners ask
for reconsideration of policy issues relating to the agency's
implementation of the standard, and of technical issues concerning
engineering aspects of the rule, particularly as to how the compliance
test procedure should be conducted or improved. Most of the requested
changes were of the latter type. In general, NHTSA is denying the
petitions for reconsideration. The few changes we have made in response
to the petitions are minor, mostly to clarify the requirements of the
standard.
DATES: Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the CFR
is October 9, 2013.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your
petition must be received by October 24, 2013.
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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Louis Molino, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 202-
366-1740. For legal issues, you may call Deirdre R. Fujita, NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992. You may send mail to
these officials at the following address: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Response to Petitions Relating to Implementation of the
Standard
a. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedule
b. Applicability
1. Vehicles With Partitions With Doors
2. School Buses
c. Displacement Limit--Issue 1
d. Displacement Limit--Issue 2
IV. Response to Petitions Regarding Technical Issues
V. Determination of Impact Target Locations--Boundary of Target
Locations
a. Rearmost Limit of the Offset Line
b. Grab Handles
c. Removal of Components During Targeting
VI. Primary Target Locations
a. Determination of the Geometric Center of the Daylight Opening
b. Targeting Large Radius Windows
VII. Target Adjustment
a. Coordinate System
b. Target Reconstitution
c. Rotating the Headform
VIII. Targeting Accuracy
IX. Glazing
a. Applying Pre-Breaking Procedure
b. Pre-Breaking Procedure Applies to All Glazing
c. Meaning of ``Movable Glazing''
d. Hinges and Latches
e. Side Daylight Opening When There Is No Divider
X. Other Aspects of the Test Procedure
a. Headform Cleaning
b. Vehicle Test Attitude
c. Inspect Air Bag Mounts
XI. Secondary Issues
a. Other Typographical Errors
b. Views on a Dynamic Test Procedure
XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
On January 19, 2011, NHTSA published a final rule establishing
FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation,'' to reduce complete and partial
ejections of vehicle occupants through side windows in crashes,
particularly rollover crashes (76 FR 3212; Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004;
corrected 76 FR 10524, February 25, 2011).\1\ To meet the requirements
of FMVSS No. 226, vehicle manufacturers will avail themselves of the
side curtain air bag technologies that are already being installed in
vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact protection.'' In response
to the 2011 final rule, manufacturers will enhance these side curtain
air bags to make them larger to cover more of the window opening, more
robust to remain inflated longer, and more advanced to deploy in side
impacts and in rollovers. Further, the curtains will be made not only
to cushion but also to be sufficiently strong to reduce the likelihood
that an occupant will be fully or partially ejected through a side
window.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the final rule
was published on December 2, 2009 (74 FR 63180, Docket No. NHTSA-
2009-0183).
\2\ The final rule responded to sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess compliance, the agency adopted a test in which an
impactor is propelled from inside a test vehicle toward the windows.
The impactor mass, 18 kg (40 lb), 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 impactor mass 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. The vehicle must
prevent the impactor from moving more than a specified distance beyond
the plane of a window (the impactor must not travel more than 100
millimeters (mm) beyond the location of the inside surface of the
vehicle glazing). 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 standard applies to the side windows next to the first three
rows of seats, or next to a cargo area behind the first or second row
in vehicles that do not have a second or third row, in motor vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less. The final rule adopted a phase-in of the new requirements, which
begins September 1, 2013.
The final rule achieves tremendous benefits at reasonable costs. We
estimate that the rule will save 373 lives and
[[Page 55139]]
prevent 476 serious injuries per year (see Table 1 below). The cost of
the 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 of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities...................................................... 373
Serious Injuries................................................ 476
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Estimated Costs\*\ (2009 Economics) of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 side curtain air bag 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 of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate.......................... 7% Discount Rate.
$1.4M..................................... $1.7M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule
from: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), Mercedes-
Benz USA (Mercedes-Benz), Porsche Cars North America (Porsche), Daimler
Trucks North America (Daimler Trucks), Advocates for Highway & Auto
Safety (Advocates), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA),
TRW Vehicle Safety Systems (TRW), and the Automotive Occupant
Restraints Council (AORC)/Automotive Safety Council (ASC).\3\ The
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council (SBMTC) submitted a letter
asking for confirmation of its understanding of an aspect of the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In 2011, AORC changed its name to the Automotive Safety
Council (ASC). We will refer to the group as ``ASC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the issues raised by the petitioners are of two types.
Some petitioners ask for reconsideration of policy issues relating to
the agency's implementation of the standard, and many raise technical
issues relating to engineering aspects of the rule, such as how the
compliance test procedure should be conducted or improved. Most of the
requested changes in the petitions are of the latter type.
The petitioners' requests relating to policy issues pertain to lead
time (the Alliance, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche request NHTSA to provide
more lead time and reduced phase-in percentages related to the
compliance date and phase-in requirements), and the applicability of
the standard to certain particular vehicle types (NTEA asks for a
change with regard to vehicles with a partition that has a door;
Daimler Trucks asks that school buses be excluded from the standard). A
petitioner (Advocates) requests reducing the displacement limit
(Advocates petitions to reduce the 100 mm displacement limit to 50 mm),
and asks for a change regarding how openings are to be tested, to
prevent what the petitioner calls ``minimal designs.''
With regard to technical aspects of the test procedure, some
petitioners (the Alliance, TRW, AORC) ask for reconsideration or
clarification of the procedure for determining target locations, such
as where the rearward boundary of the target locations should be, and
how grab handles should be treated), and the procedures for identifying
primary target locations and for adjusting the targets (reconstituting
and rotating targets). Several petitioners ask for changes or
clarification regarding glazing issues. In addition, a few petitioners
point out typographical and other errors in need of correction.
In general, NHTSA is denying the petitions for reconsideration that
request substantive changes to the standard. One substantive change we
make, in response to NTEA, is to specify that for vehicles with a
partition separating an occupant seating area from a cargo area, the
partition may have a door. The other changes we have made in response
to the petitions are mostly to clarify the requirements of the standard
or to correct typographical errors in the regulatory text.
Briefly, this final rule:
Adds a definition of ``movable glazing'' (S3 is amended);
Specifies that for vehicles with a partition separating an occupant
seating area from a cargo area, the partition may have a door
(S5.2.1.2(c));
Clarifies the regulatory text describing the procedure for target
elimination (S5.2.5.1.1), and adds new figures 5a and 5b for
clarification purposes;
Clarifies the regulatory text for target reorientation, 90 degree
rotation (S5.2.5.2);
Corrects typographic errors in the regulatory text for target
reorientation incremental rotation (S5.2.5.3); and,
Clarifies the regulatory text for targeting accuracy (S7.4).
These and other issues are discussed in the sections below.
III. Response to Petitions Relating to Implementation of the Standard
a. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedule
The final rule provided two years of lead time and a multi-year
phase-in period, and provided for the use of credits during the phase-
in period. In the final rule, the agency significantly reduced the
impact velocity of the high speed impact test (performed at 1.5 seconds
after deployment of the ejection mitigation side curtain air bag) from
24 kilometers per hour (km/h) (proposed in the NPRM) to 20 km/h
(adopted in the final rule). To accelerate the benefits provided by the
new FMVSS, after considering a number of factors, including the
reduction in impactor speed, the agency in the final rule provided a
shorter lead time than the lead time proposed in the NPRM, and
[[Page 55140]]
adopted phase-in percentages higher than those in the NPRM.\4\ The
agency determined that the reduced impact speed will result in fewer
changes having to be made to existing vehicle designs to meet the final
rule's requirements, and so less lead time was needed to begin phasing
in the requirements across the fleet. The phase-in percentages could be
increased since more vehicles could be certified to the standard. At
the same time, to enhance flexibility to manufacturers in developing
plans and applying resources toward certifying to the standard, the
final rule allowed the use of credits in the 100 percent phase-in year,
which is a year longer into the phase-in period than the NPRM would
have allowed use of credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The NPRM had proposed the following lead time and phase-in
schedule: 20 percent of each manufacturer's vehicles manufactured
during the first production year beginning 3 years after publication
of the final rule; 40 percent in the fourth year; 75 percent in the
fifth year; all vehicles (without use of credits) manufactured on or
after the September 1st following 6 years after publication of a
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the final rule, starting September 1, 2013, a percentage of
the manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles manufactured
in the three previous production years, or the manufacturer's
production in the current production year, must be certified as meeting
FMVSS No. 226. The phase-in schedule is as follows: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Special allowances from the phase-in were made for limited
line manufacturers, small manufacturers, manufacturers of vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages, and alterers. See FMVSS No. 226,
S4.1.3. This schedule set forth in Table 5 does not reflect these
special allowances.
Table 5--Final Rule Lead Times and Phase-In Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of
vehicles certified to
FMVSS No. 226 shall
For vehicles manufactured on be not less than this May credits be
or after the first date and percent of the used?
before the second date manufacturer's annual
production of
vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On or after September 1, 2013; 25 percent........... Yes.
before September 1, 2014.
On or after September 1, 2014; 50 percent........... Yes.
before September 1, 2015.
On or after September 1, 2015; 75 percent........... Yes.
before September 1, 2016.
On or after September 1, 2016; 100 percent.......... Yes.
before September 1, 2017.
On or after September 1, 2017. All vehicles, without No.
use of credits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconsideration Requests
The Alliance, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche submitted petitions for
reconsideration of the lead time and phase-in schedule.
Alliance Petition
The Alliance requests that the lead time for the beginning of the
phase-in be changed to begin on September 1, 2015, and that the phase-
in percentages be changed to: 20 percent, 40 percent, 75 percent, 100
percent (with use of credits) and all vehicles (without use of
credits). For convenience, the petitioner's suggested phase-in
percentages are shown in the following Table 6.
Table 6--Comparison of Lead Times and Phase-In Schedules--Final Rule to
Alliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance's
For vehicles manufactured on Final rule's phase- recommended lead
or after the first date and in percentages time periods and
before the second date phase-in percentages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On or after September 1, 25 percent..........
2013; before September 1,
2014.
On or after September 1, 50 percent..........
2014; before September 1,
2015.
On or after September 1, 75 percent.......... 20 percent.
2015; before September 1,
2016.
On or after September 1, 100 percent (credits 40 percent.
2016; before September 1, may be used).
2017.
On or after September 1, All vehicles,
2017. without use of
credits.
On or after September 1, 75 percent.
2017; before September 1,
2018.
On or after September 1, 100 percent (credits
2018; before September 1, may be used).
2019.
On or after September 1, All vehicles,
2019. without use of
credits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance states that the final rule's lead time and phase-in
schedule ``impose unreasonable and impractical burdens on vehicle
manufacturers and have not been justified by the agency.'' Moreover,
the Alliance believes that ``several substantive provisions added by
the agency to the requirements proposed in the NPRM have created
significant new compliance issues for manufacturers that warrant the
full amount of time originally requested by the Alliance in its
comments.'' In its comments on the NPRM, the Alliance asked for an
additional year of lead time beyond what had been proposed in the NPRM
and the allowance for the use of credits for one more year.
The petitioner states that while it might have been true that the
lowered test speed (20 km/h from 24 km/h) will require fewer changes to
existing designs if all other provisions of the NPRM had remained the
same, ``the final rule contains several other substantive changes''
from the NPRM that the petitioner believes are likely to require
significant changes to existing designs and thus more time to
implement. These changes are: rotating the headform under certain
circumstances; new specifications describing features of the impactor;
not allowing movable advanced (laminated) glazing during the 16 km/h
test; and the increase of the coverage area behind the
[[Page 55141]]
rear row of seats (for 1- and 2-row vehicles) from 600 mm to 1,400 mm.
Agency Response
We are denying the Alliance's petition for reconsideration of this
issue. We are not convinced that the Alliance's information justifies
delaying the compliance dates of the final rule as the petitioner
suggests. The compliance dates were adopted to achieve the safety
benefits \6\ of the final rule as quickly as practicable, while
balancing the costs and burdens of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 373 fatalities and 476 serious injuries saved annually when
all covered vehicles meet FMVSS No. 226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule provided over two and one-half years of lead time
before the phase-in begins. In the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis,
NHTSA estimated that 55 percent of the affected vehicle fleet in model
year 2011 would have voluntarily installed ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags. We believe that the changes that have to be made to
these existing ejection mitigation air bag systems to meet FMVSS No.
226, described below, can be made well within the timeframe allotted by
the final rule. Manufacturers will have had over two and one-half years
to certify to the standard by September 1, 2013 and to begin building
credits for early compliance.
The final rule reduced the impact speed of the high speed test
considerably, from 24 km/h to 20 km/h. The final rule's high speed test
reduced the impact energy by 31 percent [((24)\2\-(20)\2\)/(24)\2\]. As
we showed in Table 22 of the final rule preamble, for the new impactor
the average reduction in displacement between the 24 km/h and 20 km/h
tests, across all tested vehicles and impact locations, was 38 mm. This
represents an average displacement reduction of 29 percent.
Vehicles that did not pass the displacement limit in a high speed
test of 24 km/h are more likely to pass when the impactor speed is 20
km/h. To illustrate this phenomenon, the final rule referred to a test
of a MY 2007 Mazda CX 9 (76 FR at 3292) to show that fewer changes will
be needed to existing designs to meet the final rule's requirements. In
the final rule preamble, the agency referred to test data which showed
that the MY 2007 Mazda CX 9, which could not pass the performance test
of the final rule when tested at the 24 km/h impact speed, was able to
pass when tested at 20 km/h without modification of the vehicle.
In objecting to use of this example, the Alliance first states
that, ``because of the change to the targeting procedure in the Final
Rule, NHTSA cannot legitimately state that the CX-9 fully complies''
since, the petitioner argues, NHTSA only evaluated the compliance of
the first and second row side daylight openings, and did not test the
third row side daylight opening. Second, the petitioner states that
even if the statement were accurate, ``the fact that one vehicle model
can comply with the requirements in a standard does not mean that the
entire fleet can be brought into compliance in a relatively short time,
or that the phase-in percentages can be increased.''
In response to the first point, after receiving the petition we
tested the third row window with the results shown in Table 7. We found
that this target location easily passed both the high speed impact test
and the low speed impact test. The target was rotated 90 degrees
(horizontal).
Table 7--Mazda CX-9, 3rd Row 90 Deg. Target Rotation (Horizontal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Test displacement
(mm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 km/h-1.5 sec......................................... 31.8
16 km/h-6 sec........................................... -7.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the second point, the CX-9's meeting the requirements of
FMVSS No. 226 affirmatively demonstrates that a vehicle that previously
did not meet a 24 km/h high speed test was able to meet a 20 km/h test.
We believe that it is feasible for many more vehicles in addition to
the CX-9 to meet the standard with little or no modification. We never
surmised that ``the entire fleet'' is capable of being brought into
compliance in a ``short time.'' However, the final rule's over two and
one-half years of lead time, phase-in percentages, and additional year
of credits provide over six and one-half years to manufacturers to test
their vehicles and undertake the necessary modifications to meet the
standard.
Manufacturers have already begun informing NHTSA about vehicles in
their fleet that they certify as meeting FMVSS No. 226. Every year,
under its enforcement authority, the agency requests manufacturers to
provide information about the standards to which each make/model is
certified, as well as the anticipated production levels for each make/
model. We have analyzed these data with regard to FMVSS No. 226. For
2012 model year vehicles, only about 1 percent was projected to meet
FMVSS No. 226. For the 2013 model year (some of these vehicles are
actually early 2014 models that will be available in 2013), the
estimated percentage of the fleet certified to FMVSS No. 226 increased
to 12 percent. This remarkable increase in fleet conformance to FMVSS
No. 226 since the publication of the final rule, in just one model
year, shows that manufacturers have been able to make a substantial
increase in the percentage of certified vehicles with relatively swift
changes to existing vehicle designs or possibly with no changes at all.
This jump in projected vehicle certification indicates that, for some
considerable segment of the vehicle population, the changes necessary
to meet FMVSS No. 226 were able to be expeditiously accomplished. To
us, this indicates that the changes needed to meet FMVSS No. 226 are
manageable within the lead time and phase-in schedule of the final
rule.
Moreover, this increase in early certification of vehicles allows
manufacturers to accrue advanced credits toward future required
certification levels at a rapid pace. Certainly, there will be make/
models of vehicles which will require greater effort and time to
achieve compliance. For those vehicles, the accelerated acquisition of
credits will give manufacturers more flexibility to plan and achieve
the necessary changes.
We recognize that various changes may have to be made to some
existing ejection mitigation side curtain air bag systems to meet the
standard. We provided a four-year phase-in period to account for this
and to provide time for manufacturers to install ejection mitigation
countermeasures in conformance with the standard. However, the
adjustments to existing systems do not appear to be extensive enough to
warrant putting off the beginning of the phase-in period to more than
four and one-half years after publication of the final rule as the
Alliance suggests, particularly when the high speed test was reduced in
impact energy by 31 percent, a significant amount.
The Alliance argues that target rotation can offset any reduction
in excursion due to the reduction in test speed from 24 km/h to 20 km/
h. It points to displacements obtained in 20 km/h tests with the old
impactor (at vertical target ``A5'' \7\), and estimates displacements
that the petitioner thinks would have been obtained with the new
impactor at that target (the petitioner added 18 mm to the value
obtained with the old impactor). Next, the petitioner compares these
estimated vertical A5
[[Page 55142]]
displacement values (associated with tests using the new impactor) with
displacement values obtained at A2 and A3 horizontal impacts with the
new impactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The petitioner states that A5 is the target located between
A1 and A4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have evaluated the petitioner's arguments, but cannot agree with
them. First, the Alliance assumed that 18 mm should be added to all
test results to compensate for the lower friction of the new impactor,
which we believe is unfounded. Although displacements will likely
increase in tests with the new impactor due to the lower friction of
the new impactor compared to the old impactor, it is unreasonable to
add 18 mm across the board to the values obtained in tests with the old
impactor. The 18 mm value referenced in the final rule preamble is an
average derived from all three test speeds on three different vehicles.
It ranges from a 69 mm increase to a 13 mm decrease. In other words,
the relationship between the old and new impactor results is vehicle-
and test-dependent, and there is not a rationale basis for assuming
there is an equivalence factor of 18 mm that can be applied
universally.
Second, it does not appear appropriate to compare vertical A5
impacts to displacement values obtained from a horizontal A3 impact,
which is near the header, and a horizontal A2 impact, which is near the
bottom of the curtain. Ejection mitigation side curtain air bags have
different challenges in limiting displacement of the headform at the
top, middle, and bottom of the curtain. Differences in displacement
values obtained in tests at the different locations cannot be deemed to
be due to a single factor, i.e., target orientation.
The Alliance states that rotating the headform and targets by 90
degrees to a horizontal orientation ``will affect the targeting for a
large number of vehicles.'' We agree that for some vehicles, coverage
of some daylight openings will need to be increased to account for
additional impact locations, or some daylight openings may be newly
subject to the standard since they did not have a target with the
headform oriented vertically, but do have a target with the headform
horizontal. From a safety and SAFETEA-LU perspective this is a positive
outcome, since it will serve to reduce the potential for partial or
complete vehicle ejection. The petitioner does not provide data to
support its assertion that the requirements are unreasonable or
impracticable.
The petitioner provides no information substantiating the claim
that its members are unduly burdened because various small cars,
midsize cars and crossovers will have additional targets. We recognize
that manufacturers will have to reassess some daylight openings to see
if new targets can be identified that were not subject to ejection
mitigation requirements when the impactor was oriented solely
vertically. However, we believe that most vehicles have an ejection
mitigation system to begin with, so orienting the impactor horizontally
may just mean that the air bags need to be modified to provide
additional daylight opening coverage and perhaps with modification to
other aspects of the overall system. The major elements of an ejection
mitigation side curtain air bag system, i.e., the design and
installation of the curtain, inflator hardware, tethers, and rollover
sensor, are already in place in most vehicles. For most vehicles, only
adjustments will be needed to their systems. For those vehicles that do
not have an ejection mitigation system, the lead time and phase-in
schedule and use of credits will provide manufacturers flexibility in
planning for their implementation.
Further, even if horizontal impacts and use of the new impactor
will slightly increase headform excursion, the petitioner provides no
information that show that existing curtains cannot be made to comply
within the final rule's implementation schedule. For a curtain that
displays increased displacements resulting from rotating the targets
and/or using the new impactor, generally these displacements could be
addressed by widening the curtain or slightly increasing inflation
pressure. These changes are capable of being implemented within the
schedule of the final rule, as opposed to more fundamental changes to
the system that would have been needed to sufficiently manage the
energy of the 24 km/h impact speed test.
We recognize that manufacturers will need time to test their
vehicles to certify the ejection mitigation systems using the new
impactor. The over two and one-half years of lead time provides
sufficient time to test vehicles and modify them as needed. We see no
basis for extending this lead time to over four and one-half years, as
the petitioner suggests. The increasing number of vehicles certified
with ejection mitigation side curtain air bags meeting FMVSS No. 226 is
a testament to the availability and practicability of designs meeting
the standard.
Further, we note that the FMVSS No. 226 test is a component test
that does not involve full-scale vehicle crash testing. As such,
countermeasure assessment and certification testing should be easier
and faster to conduct compared to a standard involving a full-scale
vehicle crash test. Modifications to existing ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags can be assessed relatively quickly to see if the
changes enable the vehicle to meet FMVSS No. 226. The notable increase
in the percentage of the new vehicle fleet that are or will be
certified to FMVSS No. 226 in one year--from 1 percent (model year
2012) to 12 percent (model year 2013)--also signifies that
manufacturers are able to evaluate vehicle designs swiftly and
efficiently.
On another point, the Alliance points to the agency's decision
specifying that the low speed (16 km/h) impact test, conducted at 6
seconds after deployment of the ejection mitigation side curtain air
bag, must be performed without the use of advanced glazing for movable
windows. The Alliance states that ``by precluding the use of advanced
glazing as a countermeasure for compliance purposes, NHTSA has again
increased the compliance challenge for many vehicles.''
In response, we are not persuaded by this point. From a practical
point of view there was no increased ``compliance challenge'' that
warrants the requested delay in compliance dates. To date, very few
manufacturers have used advanced (laminated) glazing in movable window
applications as an ejection countermeasure. We do not believe this will
change significantly in the future due to added cost and the ability to
meet the test requirements with side curtain air bags alone.
Furthermore, the decision to which the Alliance refers did not affect
manufacturers that want to use advanced glazing in movable windows to
supplement an ejection mitigation side curtain air bag system in the
high speed (20 km/h) impact test. For those manufacturers using
advanced glazing in movable windows, the high speed (20 km/h) impact
test will still be performed with the glazing (pre-broken) in place.
Further, the decision does not affect manufacturers that want to use
advanced glazing in fixed widow applications. The petitioner's argument
that the change influences the ability to meet the lead time and phase-
in requirements of the final rule has not been substantiated.
The last change made by the final rule that the Alliance cites is
the increase of the coverage area behind the last row of seats (for one
and two row vehicles) from 600 mm behind the seating reference point
(SgRP) (NPRM) to 1,400 mm behind the SgRP (final rule). The Alliance
objects to the increase and petitions for it to be changed back to 600
mm. (We respond to this portion of the
[[Page 55143]]
petition in a later section of this preamble.) The petitioner states
that extending the coverage area to 1,400 mm behind the SgRP means that
manufacturers will have to redesign the entire side air bag system, and
assess effects relating to matters such as air bag volume, air bag
deployment timing, and protection under FMVSS No. 214 and No. 201. The
Alliance states that, if NHTSA declines to reconsider the change,
``[The agency] needs to recognize the added impact that the change has
on the ability of manufacturers to satisfy the final rule's phase-in
schedule.''
We are not convinced that extending the daylight opening coverage
in the area behind the last row (for one and two row vehicles) from 600
mm to 1,400 mm will require the inordinate delay in the compliance
dates. As noted in the final rule preamble (76 FR at 3263), vehicles
are already being produced that have side air bag curtains covering
rows 1, 2 and 3 row windows. The designs typically use a single curtain
tethered at the A- and D-pillars. The petitioner provided no data as to
the number of vehicles that would be affected by the change, or
affected to the extent that necessitates a major redesign, or whose
production problems cannot be relieved by way of credits. Further,
given that there already are designs that provide three rows of
coverage, manufacturers are familiar with and have availed themselves
of air bag systems that extend coverage further into the cargo area.
The petitioner has not substantiated its claim that there are technical
challenges in extending coverage to the cargo area that cannot be met
in the schedule provided by the final rule.
For the reasons provided above, the Alliance's petition is denied.
Reconsideration Request--Mercedes-Benz Petition
In its petition for reconsideration, Mercedes-Benz states that it
supports the phase-in suggested by the Alliance and additionally
petitions with regard to a matter related to Mercedes-Benz's Sprinter
model line. Mercedes-Benz states that the final rule does not
adequately address the practicability issues associated with large,
heavy vehicles (GVWR greater than 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) that incorporate
expansive daylight openings. The petitioner states that the vehicles
``are typically exempt from the FMVSS-214 side impact barrier
requirements and therefore pre-FMVSS-226 plans did not necessarily
include side impact countermeasures (airbags [sic] and sensing) for
rear seating rows. Therefore, the application of these new requirements
imposes a level of burden which was not addressed in the NPRM or in the
subsequent Final Rule.'' Mercedes-Benz states that the Sprinter
platform is scheduled for ``renewal'' during the timeframe that, under
the final rule, all vehicles must comply with FMVSS No. 226 without the
use of credits. The petitioner states: ``Given the scope of design
change required to bring this platform into full compliance, the most
practical phase-in is one which allows development resources be focused
entirely on the new platform rather than extended to the parallel
development of two platforms. The Alliance proposal provides this
flexibility by allowing the use of credits prior to September 1,
2019.'' Alternatively, the petitioner asks that the phase-in allow the
use of accumulated credits for vehicles with a GVWR of 3,856 kg (8,500
lb) or more until September 1, 2018.
Mercedes-Benz states that the varied derivatives of the Sprinter
platform will require significant redesign to meet the requirements of
FMVSS No. 226, including air bag inflators, air bag cushions, and roll
detection sensing. To illustrate, the petitioner refers to a ``high-
roof variant of the Sprinter platform,'' which incorporates a large
sliding door. Mercedes-Benz states that an inflatable restraint
countermeasure would have to extend from the roof to the beltline (a
vertical dimension of approximately 1,100 mm (43 in)), and also satisfy
deployment timing and out-of-position performance requirements. ``With
regard to our product cycle concern, it is suggested that a development
effort of this scope should be focused entirely upon the next
generation platform.''
Agency Response
We deny Mercedes-Benz's request for an extension of the phase-in
for an additional year.\8\ We understand that this denial may cause the
petitioner to modify its plans related to the Sprinter passenger van
variant. In the final rule preamble, we acknowledged that the final
rule phase-in schedule ``may result in some manufacturers needing to
reassess and modify their plans.'' 76 FR at 3292. However, we
determined 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.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We have explained above our reasons for denying the
Alliance's petition for reconsideration of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz states that heavy vehicles (GVWR greater than 3,856
kg (8,500 lb)) ``are typically exempt from the FMVSS-214 side impact
barrier requirements and therefore pre-FMVSS-226 plans did not
necessarily include side impact countermeasures (airbags [sic] and
sensing) for rear seating rows. Therefore, the application of these new
requirements imposes a level of burden which was not addressed in the
NPRM or in the subsequent Final Rule.''
The agency believes that manufacturers have had sufficient time to
plan for the implementation of ejection mitigation side curtain air
bags in the subject vehicles. Although the subject vehicles (GVWR
greater than 3,856 kg (8,500 lb)) are excluded from FMVSS No. 214's
moving deformable barrier requirements, Standard No. 214's pole test
requirements apply to such vehicles manufactured on or after September
1, 2015. (We are currently in the middle of the phase-in of the pole
test requirements. The phase-in for most light vehicles began September
1, 2012 and ends September 1, 2014.) To meet the pole test, the
vehicles will have side air bags and sensors.
As to what type of side air bag system, when NHTSA issued the FMVSS
No. 214 pole test final rule in 2007, we noted that the ejection
mitigation rulemaking was imminent (72 FR 51908, 51932-51933; September
11, 2007). We believed that manufacturers would plan for the ejection
mitigation rulemaking requirements by considering side curtain air bags
covering the front and rear rows. NHTSA stated in that 2007 final rule:
We believe that manufacturers will increasingly install air
curtains in their vehicles because air curtains can potentially be
used as a countermeasure in preventing ejection in rollovers.
(``NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking Priorities and Supporting
Research: 2003-2006,'' July 2003, Docket 15505.) NHTSA has announced
that it is developing a proposal for an ejection mitigation
containment requirement.\9\ NHTSA believes that side curtains
installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214's pole test could readily be
developed to satisfy the desired properties of a countermeasure.
(NHTSA report ``Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of
Rollovers,'' supra.) We believe that manufacturers will install
curtains in increasing numbers of vehicles in response to this
[FMVSS No. 214] final rule, the voluntary commitment, and in
anticipation
[[Page 55144]]
of NHTSA's ejection mitigation rulemaking. The curtains will provide
head protection to front and rear seat occupants in side impacts. 72
FR at 51933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Additionally, Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA-LU requires the
Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009 an ejection mitigation final
rule reducing complete and partial ejections of occupants from
outboard seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)). [Footnote in
text.]
As shown above, the vehicles to which Mercedes-Benz refers will be
required to have side air bag technology by 2015, and manufacturers are
likely already designing for implementation of the technology. The
petitioner has had sufficient time to implement design changes to this
air bag technology to meet the ejection mitigation requirements of the
January 19, 2011 final rule.
As far as challenges with respect to sensor requirements, we note
that the supplemental information provided by the petitioner indicates
that relief was only needed for the passenger van version of the
Sprinter. We understand that Mercedes-Benz would be able to certify
compliance of the cargo and chassis cab versions. This indicates that a
sensor and algorithm to deploy the first row window curtain will be
developed, which could also be used for the passenger van. We note also
that the agency has no specific performance requirements for the
deployment sensor, so manufacturers have great latitude in this area.
Moreover, it appears that there are ways that the petitioner's
duplication of effort developing two platforms can be reduced. For
example, the rear windows adjacent to the second and higher rows appear
to be fixed. As such, advanced glazing could be used to meet the
requirements of both the high and low speed tests. With this
countermeasure in place it may reduce or eliminate the need for side
curtain air bags to cover these locations.
Another option would be for Mercedes-Benz to introduce the new
platform ahead of schedule. As Mercedes-Benz noted, the Sprinter
Passenger Van (the variant of the Sprinter that Mercedes-Benz claims it
needs more time to make compliant) only makes up 10 percent of the
Sprinter production, which is a relatively small number of vehicles.
Mercedes-Benz could avoid having to modify the current platform by
advancing the production of the new platform of the Sprinter Passenger
Van.
We realize that Mercedes-Benz would like to avoid expending
resources on the current Sprinter platform and would rather devote
efforts solely to the new platform. Unfortunately, there are costs
associated with any implementation schedule that is shorter than that
of a manufacturer. We seek to develop a lead time and phase-in schedule
that balances manufacturers' desires and the safety benefits to the
extent possible. Because of the relief provided in the final rule by
allowing an additional year for use of credits, Mercedes-Benz will be
able to produce vehicles until September 1, 2017, just as it would have
under the NPRM. We believe we have achieved the sought-after balance
with the final rule and are not convinced that the petitioner's
information and efforts warrant delaying that schedule.
Reconsideration Request--Porsche Petition
Porsche petitioned for reconsideration of the implementation
schedule, requesting additional time to achieve compliance with the
standard. The petitioner asks for more time ``in consideration of the
small number of Porsche vehicles that will not be redesigned during the
timeframe established in the final rule.'' Porsche requests that full
compliance (without the use of credits) does not become mandatory until
September 1, 2019. The petitioner states that for Porsche, the
amendment would impact no more than 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles annually
during the September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2019 timeframe. ``Compared
to the twelve million-plus light duty vehicles sold annually in the
U.S., this is a relatively small number of vehicles and in fact it
constitutes less than a single day of sales by a large manufacturer.
[Footnote omitted.]'' The petitioner states that--
the request will ultimately have no net negative impact on safety
because utilizing the amendment sought hinges on the ability to
introduce fully compliant vehicles to market early and generate
early compliance credits that can be used to offset the small number
of vehicles affected. Our request is that NHTSA simply provide us an
opportunity to use early compliance credits for a slightly longer
period of time than what would be permitted by the rule issued
January 19, 2011. . .. [T]he new ejection mitigation requirements
will require changes to the body-in-white which, in the case of our
sports cars, means that compliance cannot be achieved until the
vehicle undergoes a major redesign. Absent this major redesign, we
will be required to bring production for affected vehicles to a
premature halt.
Porsche asks, if we do not agree to adopt the schedule suggested by
the Alliance, that NHTSA consider adopting a provision ``to provide
manufacturers with additional compliance flexibility to address a small
number of vehicles that may be uniquely challenged.'' The provision
would be applicable to only a limited number of vehicles for a two-year
timeframe, and would only be available to manufacturers that introduced
fully compliant technology early and in advance of the compliance
deadlines contained in the final rule.
Agency Response
We deny Porsche's request for an extension of the lead time and
phase-in schedule.
We understand that manufacturers, such as Porsche, might have
unique problems depending on factors such as organizational resources,
product mix, and product life cycle. The final rule provided relief to
those manufacturers by allowing an additional year for use of credits.
We believe that the two and one half-years lead time and the four-year
phase-in correctly balances the various needs of manufacturers, 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. Because of the relief provided in the final
rule--the additional year for use of credits--Porsche will be able to
produce vehicles until September 1, 2017, just as would have been the
case under the NPRM.
We do not necessarily agree with Porsche that its requested
amendment ``will ultimately have no net negative impact on safety.''
Porsche argues that there will be no negative safety impact because
early compliance credits ``can be used to offset the small number of
vehicles affected.''
NHTSA has determined that two and one half-years of lead time and a
definite phase-in schedule would provide the needed time for
manufacturers to install ejection mitigation countermeasures to address
the dire rollover safety problem as quickly as reasonably possible.
Under the final rule, a vehicle manufactured or after September 1, 2017
will have a rollover ejection countermeasure. All persons purchasing a
vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2017 will be assured that
the vehicle offers the safety provided by FMVSS No. 226.
Under the petitioner's scenario, no such assurance can be given.
There will be purchasers, many of them, who will buy a new vehicle
which will not provide ejection mitigation protection while an
identical vehicle--manufactured on the same day--will, even when it is
practicable for both vehicles to provide the protection. Such an
outcome introduces an element of ``buyer beware'' in the marketplace,
which we are not prepared at this time to accept when it comes to
meeting the FMVSSs.
This situation can be distinguished from a phase-in period when
credits accrue. In that situation, the agency has determined that the
date has not yet been attained on which compliance
[[Page 55145]]
with a standard is practicable across the fleet. The use of credits
provides an incentive to manufacturers to bring more compliant vehicles
to market early than that achievable across the fleet.
Porsche recommends an approach that will give it relief from
problems resulting from a business model it uses relating to the
product life cycle of its vehicles. We do not find its arguments
sufficiently compelling to extend the certification date two years.
Thus, the petition is denied. We note that Porsche's requested
amendment departs a bit from the scope of the rulemaking. The request
has policy implications that would be more suitable for deliberation in
a separate rulemaking, rather than in this response to petitions for
reconsideration.
b. Applicability
1. Vehicles With Partitions With Doors
S5.2.1.2 of FMVSS No. 226 has procedures for locating target
locations in a daylight opening. The procedures define the testable
area of the vehicle. Generally speaking, the rearmost limit of the
testable area is determined by identifying the transverse vehicle plane
located at the following distances behind the seating reference point
(SgRP):
--For a vehicle with fewer than 3 rows: 1,400 mm behind the rearmost
SgRP;
--For a vehicle with 3 or more rows: 600 mm behind the 3rd row SgRP.
The final rule made an allowance for vehicles with partitions or
bulkheads (we will use ``partition'' to refer to both terms) that
separate areas of the vehicle with designated seating positions (namely
the driver's area) from areas of the vehicle without designated seating
positions (e.g., a rear cargo area). Vehicles with partitions--i.e.,
the vehicles themselves--generally were not excluded from the standard
\10\; rather, only the side daylight openings rearward of the partition
were excluded from testing, provided that there must not be seating
positions rearward of the partition. For such vehicles with a partition
separating a seating area from a non-seating area, S5.2.1.2(c) of the
standard has a provision regarding how impact target locations are
determined. Under S5.2.1.2(c), if a vehicle has a fixed transverse
partition through which there is no occupant access and behind which
there are no designated seating positions, the rearmost limit of the
offset line is located 25 mm in front of the partition rather than
1,400 mm behind the rearmost seating reference point, assuming the
former is positioned more forward than the latter. We made this
accommodation after deciding that, if there is a permanent partition
that separates areas of the vehicle with designated seating positions
from areas that do not have designated seating positions, the
likelihood of an occupant being ejected from an opening in an area
without a designated seating position is low. However, the final rule
specified that the partition must not provide access for an occupant to
pass through it; i.e., a partition must not have a door separating the
occupant space from non-occupant space. 76 FR at 3290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Certain vehicles with partitions were excluded from the
standard. The vehicles were: Law enforcement vehicles, correctional
institution vehicles, taxis and limousines, provided that the
vehicle was produced by more than one manufacturer or by an alterer
(S2). We are not referring to that exclusion in this discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconsideration Request
NTEA was supportive of the testing requirements in S5.2.1.2(c), but
states that ``NHTSA's limitation of that accommodation--prohibiting a
door in the partition--makes it of little value in the vocational truck
and van marketplace of today and the future.'' The petitioner asks
NHTSA to reconsider this decision and provide the exemption even when
there is a door in the partition. NTEA claims that many partitions
installed on vocational vehicles have doors and that ``[i]n the future
we expect that partitions with doors will be the norm. Those doors are
and would be latched in compliance with FMVSS [No.] 206.'' The
petitioner suggests that the agency has to provide data demonstrating
that occupants are passing through the doors in the partitions and are
being ejected through a side window ``with some significant
frequency.'' The petitioner also disputes certain statements in the
final rule preamble concerning the suitability of Incomplete Vehicle
Documents (IVDs) and the pass-through certification process for final-
stage manufacturers and alterers.
Agency Response
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 10 years of
Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) files (2000-2009) indicate that
frontal crash fatalities have averaged about 11,600 per year, while
rollover fatalities have averaged 10,037 per year. 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. A double-pair comparison
from 2000-2009 FARS data show that avoiding complete ejection is
associated with a 64 percent decrease in the risk of death. FARS data
does not subtract out multi-stage work trucks, and the FARS data above
is inclusive of all vehicles.
The January 19, 2011 final rule will substantially reduce the risk
of ejection in rollovers. The final rule enhances the side curtain air
bag systems that are now being installed, ensuring that the curtain
systems are made larger to cover more of the window opening, improved
to deploy in rollovers in addition to side impacts, made more robust to
remain inflated longer and sufficiently strong not only to cushion an
impact but to keep the occupant from being fully or partially ejected
through the window as well. We estimate that the ejection mitigation
rule will save 373 lives and prevent 476 serious injuries per year.
Some of these lives saved and injuries prevented will come in vehicles
with a GVWR between 2,722 kg and 4,536 kg (6,001 lb and 10,000 lb).
In addition, the January 2011 final rule responds to Sec. 10301 of
SAFETEA-LU, which required the Secretary of Transportation to issue an
ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete and partial ejections
of occupants from outboard seating positions. Section 10301, paragraph
(a), directed 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 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb). Paragraph (c) directed 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 to issue a final rule by a specified date. (See
49 U.S.C. Sec. 30128(a) and Sec. 30128(c)(1).
In the January 2011 final rule, we excluded daylight openings
rearward of the partition from the standard's testing requirements, if
the partition does not have a door. We emphasize that we did not
exclude partitioned vehicles themselves from the standard, we only
excluded the daylight openings rearward of the partition (and only if
there are no seating positions rearward of the partition) from certain
testing requirements. This means that a partitioned work truck would
need to meet the ejection mitigation side curtain air bag requirements
of FMVSS No. 226 for the occupant cab of the vehicle.
We did not exclude ``trucks with partitions'' outright from the
standard in the January 2011 final rule. Under our
[[Page 55146]]
regulations implementing the Vehicle Safety Act, the work vehicles to
which NTEA refers are ``trucks'' as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.\11\ It is
appropriate to apply FMVSS No. 226 to trucks notwithstanding the
presence of a partition, because a partition would not lessen the risk
of the vehicles' rollover involvement or the risk of ejection to
occupants forward of the partition. Work trucks must be driven and that
driver deserves the same protection as if he or she were driving for
personal use, for example, a similar pick-up truck or van. Since
partitioned vehicles are not immune from rollover crashes and their
occupants are not invulnerable to rollover ejection, we did not exclude
``trucks with partitions'' outright from the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Truck'' is defined as a motor vehicle with motive power,
except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of
property or special purpose equipment. Some work vehicles could be
classified as ``multipurpose passenger vehicles'' (MPVs) under 49
CFR 571.3. This discussion refers to trucks but it is relevant to
MPVs as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NTEA did not seek a complete exclusion for work trucks
from the requirements of FMVSS No. 226. Instead, its petition focused
specifically on S5.2.12(c). In response to NTEA's petition for
reconsideration, we have decided to grant the request to remove the
qualification in S5.2.1.2(c) that there must not be a door in the
partition. In the final rule, we were concerned that a door in a
partition may be open during a rollover and may become an aperture
through which an occupant could be thrown. However, the petitioner
states that the doors in the partitions are designed to have latches.
Thus, on reconsideration, we conclude that there is a fair likelihood
that the partition door will be closed and latched, and that the
latched door reduces the likelihood of ejection through the partition
door. Granting the request gives final-stage and other manufacturers
additional flexibility in meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 226,
without unreasonably reducing the safety of such vehicles.
While we have granted NTEA's request for reconsideration, we do not
agree with NTEA's generalized assessment regarding the availability of
IVDs and pass-through certification.\12\ NTEA's petition for
reconsideration states that final-stage manufacturers and alterers will
not be able to use IVDs to pass through certification to the ejection
mitigation standard. NTEA quotes from an IVD from an unidentified
incomplete vehicle manufacturer regarding FMVSS No. 201, ``Occupant
protection in interior impact.'' NTEA states that, based on this sample
IVD, ``even a partition that is designed so as not to interfere with
deployment of the OEM designed airbag [sic] system would be
impermissible for pass-through compliance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Over the years NTEA has repeatedly objected to the IVD
process and pass-through certification in response to our rulemaking
actions, and has done so again in its present petition, even though
the objections do not seem related to its requested amendment
regarding the partition door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of background, NTEA's petition for reconsideration of the
FMVSS No. 226 final rule was filed prior to a 2013 decision from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denying NTEA's petition for
review of a NHTSA final rule promulgating FMVSS No. 216a, ``Roof crush
resistance, Upgraded standard.'' National Truck Equipment Association
v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 711 F.3d 662.
Similar to this rule, NHTSA promulgated FMVSS No. 216a at the direction
of Congress through SAFETEA-LU. The agency issued FMVSS No. 216a to
include multi-stage vehicles with a GVWR up to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)
built on either a chassis cab or an incomplete vehicle with a full
exterior van body. NTEA wanted to have final-stage manufacturers
excluded from FMVSS No. 216a and filed a petition for review with the
Sixth Circuit challenging NHTSA's adoption of FMVSS No. 216a.
The Sixth Circuit denied NTEA's petition, finding, among other
things, that NHTSA conducted the rulemaking proceedings promulgating
FMVSS No. 216a in a sufficiently thorough manner, and that pass-through
certification, which, the Court acknowledged, was envisioned by
Congress, may be relied on by final-stage manufacturers and alterers to
demonstrate compliance. The Court found that the 216a standard is
practicable within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act--
because it provides final-stage manufacturers and alterers with
reasonable means of demonstrating compliance. To conclude otherwise
would disregard Congress's instruction to put a thumb on the scale
for safety in considering the substantive limitations of the Act.
See Public Citizen, Inc., v. Mineta, 30 F.3d 39, 58 (2d Cir. 2003).
After all, Congress intended for manufacturers to adjust to the
regulatory demands of the industry rather than the other way around.
Cf. Chrysler, 472 F.2d at 671 (describing the Safety Act as
technology-forcing legislation).
711 F.3d at 673-674.
We have analyzed NTEA's present petition for reconsideration of
FMVSS No. 226 and do not agree with NTEA's generalized assertions
regarding the availability of IVDs and pass-through certification.
Vehicles subject to the standard can be certified using reasonable
means such as IVDs and pass-through certification, among others,
consistent with the intent of SAFETEA-LU to reduce complete and partial
ejections from vehicles with a GVWR less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).\13\
Based on the agency's understanding of the work truck industry, and the
tailoring in this rule and petition, the agency believes that final-
stage manufacturers will be able to meet this new regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The final rule excludes vehicles with a ``modified roof''
from the standard. ``Modified roof'' means ``the replacement roof on
a motor vehicle whose original roof has been removed, in part or in
total.'' See S3, FMVSS No. 226. While not raised in the petitions,
in reviewing this matter we believe the term should include a roof
that has to be built over the driver's compartment in vehicles that
did not have an original roof over the driver's compartment. Such
vehicles are similar to vehicles whose original roof has been
removed in part or in total since pass-through certification will
not be available to final-stage manufacturers using incomplete
vehicles that did not have an original roof over the driver's
compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, FMVSS No. 226 will not apply to over 90 percent of the
vehicles produced by NTEA's members. NTEA's petition for
reconsideration of FMVSS No. 226 states that the final-stage
manufacturer is typically known as a ``distributor'' for NTEA
membership purposes, as these companies are distributors for the body
manufacturer. NTEA explains that as part of the companies' distributor
function, the companies install the body or equipment on a chassis.
NTEA states: ``Typically, the customer purchases a chassis through an
authorized OEM dealership and decides upon the body and/or equipment
that will be needed to fulfill the customer's needs.'' The final stage
manufacturer/body distributor ``takes the chassis and completes the
vehicle by installing the necessary body and equipment, sending the
completed truck back to the dealership for customer delivery.'' Many of
the work vehicles \14\ NTEA describes in its petition (``dump trucks,
utility company vehicles, aerial trucks, fire trucks, ambulances,
beverage delivery trucks, walk-in vans, digger derricks and snow
removal vehicles'') are built on chassis-cabs. A chassis-cab is defined
as ``an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that
requires only the addition of cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-
bearing
[[Page 55147]]
components to perform its intended functions'' (49 CFR 567.3). This
means that chassis-cabs are equivalent to similar pick-up trucks, minus
the truck bed. Based on previous submissions from NTEA, NHTSA
understands that the number of ``chassis and non-chassis cabs''
manufactured in the U.S. for calendar years 2007, 2008 and 2009 with a
GVWR greater between 2,721 kg and 4,536 kg (6,000 lb and 10,000 lb) was
only 8 percent of the vehicles produced by NTEA members.\15\ Moreover,
NTEA fails to demonstrate that there will be an actual issue with its
members manufacturing those vehicles. In fact, of the 8 percent of
vehicles, the vast majority (67 percent) of the vehicles produced under
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR are built on chassis-cabs. These chassis-cabs
come with a completed occupant structure from large vehicle
manufacturers such as Ford, GM, or Chrysler, and the final-stage
manufacturer will be provided an IVD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Some of the vehicles listed are walk-in vans, which are
excluded from FMVSS No. 226 (see S2 of the standard). Walk-in van is
defined as ``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.'' (Definition in S3 of FMVSS No. 226.)
\15\ See Declaration of Stephen Latin-Kasper, Docket No. NHTSA-
2009-0093-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, there is ample time for incomplete vehicle manufacturers to
produce chassis-cabs with ejection mitigation side curtain air bag
systems. Under the January 2011 final rule, FMVSS No. 226 does not
apply to vehicles produced by final-stage manufacturers and alterers
until September 1, 2018, which is a year longer than the time given to
manufacturers of single-stage vehicles to achieve full compliance with
the standard.\16\ The long 7\1/2\-year time period provided to final-
stage manufacturers and alterers provides the multistage manufacturing
industry abundant opportunity to develop pass-through certification
strategies, such as chassis-cabs that provide ejection mitigation side
curtain air bag systems for the driver and front passenger side windows
in the cab. Final-stage manufacturers can mount the work-performing
equipment behind the completed cab without affecting the ejection
mitigation side curtain air bags. There is no occupant space, no
daylight opening through which an occupant can be ejected behind the
chassis-cab of these work-performing vehicles--basically, there is
nothing rear of the chassis-cab subject to FMVSS No. 226. The final-
stage manufacturer only has to complete the vehicle by attaching the
work-performing equipment to the chassis behind the completed cab,
follow the IVD, and pass through the certification to FMVSS No. 226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The final rule also exempts final-stage manufacturers and
alterers from having to phase in their compliance with the standard,
whereas single-stage manufacturers are subject to a phase-in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, vehicle manufacturers using non-chassis-cabs also have
certification options available. NTEA reported that non-chassis-cabs
comprised 33 percent of the vehicles rated in the GVWR range of 2,722
kg to 4,536 kg (6,001 lb to 10,000 lb) in 2007, 2008 and 2009 (24,452
out of 73,029). Id. Similar to chassis-cabs, other incomplete vehicles
that have a completed occupant structure for the driver's compartment
will come equipped with ejection mitigation side curtain air bags. Non-
chassis-cabs with a driver's compartment can readily be developed in
that 7\1/2\-year period to achieve pass-through certification to FMVSS
No. 226. For example, an incomplete vehicle configuration is wholly
viable for van-based work vehicles or vehicles using cutaway chassis,
with ejection mitigation side curtain air bags provided for the
daylight openings adjacent to the driver's and right front passenger's
seats. Partitions can be used to exclude areas of these vehicles from
the standard's requirements.\17\ Alternatively, a final-stage
manufacturer that also produces the truck body (``distributor'') could
design the body to meet FMVSS No. 226 without use of partitions. We
have designed this rule to apply where people sit with side windows.
The body could be designed such that it does not have any side daylight
openings (side windows) rearward of the driver's position, or if it has
side daylight openings, none close enough to an occupant position such
that the standard's testing requirements apply or none large enough to
pass the FMVSS No. 226 headform. With such designs, there are no side
daylight openings subject to FMVSS No. 226's testing requirements
rearward of the 1st (driver's) row. Alternatively, if the distributor/
final-stage manufacturer would like to have side daylight openings
rearward of the 1st row that would be subject to the standard, the
distributor could design the body to have openings incorporating fixed
advanced glazing that prevents passage of the FMVSS No. 226 headform.
Such openings would not require side curtain air bag coverage. In
short, final-stage manufacturers using a van-based or cutaway platform
for work vehicles will be able to use the pass-through certification
process and will have many options available to them when they use
incomplete vehicles that have the FMVSS No. 226 system for the driver's
and right front passenger's side windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NTEA states in its petition that partitions with breakaway
features or side clearance (accommodating ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags) conflict with a Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) requirement (49 CFR 393.114(d)) for
``penetration resistance'' that applies to vehicles over 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) GVWR. We do not agree that there is a conflict. We note
first that the petitioner's argument does not seem related to its
petition for reconsideration regarding the partition door. Second,
the FMCSA requirement does not apply to work vehicles with a GVWR
less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Vehicles with a GVWR
less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) are required to provide
ejection mitigation protection under FMVSS No. 226 and SAFETEA-LU.
Third, contrary to the NTEA assertion, the FMCSA requirement (49 CFR
393.114(d)) does not require vehicles to have partitions with
penetration resistance, even for vehicles with a GVWR over 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb). Instead, it specifies requirements that front end
structures must meet if they are to be used as part of a cargo
securement system. Last, final-stage manufacturers could use an
incomplete vehicle configuration that has ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags for the daylight openings adjacent to the front
seats and complete the vehicle such that it does not have side
daylight openings rearward of the front seats. This design can
accommodate installation of a partition that is flush against the
sides of the vehicle. As the Sixth Circuit observed in NTEA v.
NHTSA, supra, the final-stage manufacturer can communicate to
dealers of incomplete vehicles and to customers that they will only
work on incomplete vehicles that have accommodating IVDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the standard itself only will apply in certain situations,
and NTEA fails to provide details on how its members' later-stage
manufacturing will be problematic. NHTSA has already applied FMVSS No.
226 only to side daylight openings within a certain distance of
occupants' seats, has excluded from the standard's requirements side
openings (windows) in a non-occupant area rear of the driver if there
is a partition, has excluded side openings even if the partition has a
door, has excluded walk-in vans and modified roof vehicles, and has
designed the standard so that nothing in the work-performing area rear
of a chassis-cab is subject to the standard. Given the design of this
standard, NHTSA fails to see evidence of an actual problem.
NTEA believes that final-stage manufacturers will not be able to
pass through certification to FMVSS No. 226 if they install a partition
because an IVD to which NTEA refers limits the modifications a final-
stage manufacturer may make to pass through certification to FMVSS No.
201.\18\ We do not agree with the petitioner's assertions. IVDs
pertaining to FMVSS No. 201 have been
[[Page 55148]]
workable in practice, as FMVSS No. 201 has applied to vehicles produced
by final-stage manufacturers and alterers since September 1, 2006. NTEA
does not provide one single instance of a final-stage manufacturer or
alterer that has been unable to produce vehicles meeting the 201
standard. Further, the quoted IVD's limits on the modifications that
may be made with regard to FMVSS No. 201 are not difficult for a final-
stage manufacturer to follow to pass through the certification to FMVSS
No. 201.\19\ If this is an issue, NTEA should be able to provide
examples. Final-stage manufacturers and alterers have to avoid
modifying the components within the head protection zone regulated by
FMVSS No. 201 or adding items to components in the zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The IVD states that the incomplete vehicle will conform to
[FMVSS] No. 201, Section 6 (``Requirements for Upper Interior
Components''), if in the process of completing the vehicle ``none of
the following components, as provided by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer, are removed, relocated, altered, or modified either
physically or chemically'': A, B, rear, or other pillar and trim,
assist handles, seat belt ``D''-rings/adjusters and ``D''-ring
covers; front or rear header and trim, side rails and trim; upper
roof and trim.
\19\ To pass-through the certification to FMVSS No. 201, a
final-stage manufacturer or alterer simply has to avoid modifying
the components of the incomplete vehicle that are within the head
protection zone regulated by FMVSS No. 201 and refrain from
installing components in the zone. For altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages, the zone ends, if there is no
partition, at a vertical plane 300 mm behind the seating reference
point of the driver's designated seating position. If an altered
vehicle or vehicle manufactured in two or more stages is equipped
with a partition between the seating reference point of the driver's
designated seating position and a vertical plane 300 mm behind the
seating reference point, targets located rearward of the partition
are excluded from FMVSS No. 201. These wide confines allow great
flexibility in permitting final-stage manufacturers to pass through
the certification to FMVSS No. 201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTEA believes that final-stage manufacturers will be restricted
from installing partitions because a note in the quoted IVD states
that, because the upper interior performance for cutaway products is
affected by the rigidity of the back panel attachment, existing upper
interior trim components may require recertification after attachment
of a back panel. NTEA believes that, since incomplete vehicle
manufacturers indicate that the addition of the body to a completed cab
chassis might cause the cab to stiffen, ``even a partition that is
designed so as not to interfere with deployment of the OEM [original
equipment manufacturer] designed airbag [sic] system would be
impermissible for pass-through compliance.''
This reasoning is not logical or persuasive. As the Court stated in
National Truck Equipment Association v. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, supra, ``NTEA's fears regarding too-restrictive IVDs
appear to us unfounded.'' 711 F.3d at 672. The statement does not seem
unduly restrictive, but simply cautionary that existing upper interior
trim components ``may'' be affected by the completion of the vehicle.
The statement in NTEA's quoted note appears to pertain to one of the
paramount and central steps in manufacturing a vehicle in stages:
Installing the vehicle body to the incomplete vehicle. This combination
of the vehicle body to the vehicle chassis is a manufacturing process.
It is reasonable for the IVD to caution that the upper interior
performance may be affected by the rigidity of the back panel
attachment. In contrast, installing a partition is much simpler than
joining the vehicle body to the chassis. Installing a partition on the
affected vehicles typically involves simply bolting or welding several
fasteners in place at certain intervals. Since installing a partition
is vastly easier and more straightforward than attaching the vehicle
body to the chassis cab, the quoted IVD statements are not relevant to
partitions, and do not show that partitions will be disallowed by the
IVDs because of FMVSS No. 226.
Fifth, in line with what the agency has observed with other rules,
we expect manufacturers to update body builder manuals to provide
guidance to final-stage manufacturers on completing a vehicle to pass
through certification to FMVSS No. 226. We believe the guidance will
include instructions on installing partitions. We also continue to
expect a dynamic marketplace with multiple manufacturers providing
various vehicle configurations. As the Sixth Circuit observed in NTEA
v. NHTSA, supra, final-stage manufacturers are free to communicate that
they will only work on incomplete vehicles from first-stage
manufacturers that have accommodating IVDs. 711 F.3d at 672.
NTEA's petition for reconsideration briefly mentioned alterers, but
did not discuss these entities at length.\20\ Alterers, by definition,
perform work on an already certified vehicle. This means that the
vehicle, prior to the alterer's work, is compliant with FMVSS No. 226.
We believe there are options available to alterers to ``pass through''
the certification to FMVSS No. 226, depending on the modifications they
make to the vehicle. Since the alterer would be modifying a vehicle
already certified to FMVSS No. 226, the alterer would only have to take
care not to alter the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSS. There
are partitions already available in the marketplace that are designed
to be compatible with side curtain air bags.\21\ An alterer may install
such a partition without affecting the vehicles' conformance with FMVSS
No. 226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Under 49 CFR 567, the ``alteration'' of vehicles involves a
person modifying a completed vehicle that has been previously
certified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of
readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim
assemblies, or by minor finishing operations such as painting,
before the first purchase of the vehicle other than for resale, in
such a manner as may affect the conformity of the vehicle with one
or more FMVSSs or the validity of the vehicle's stated weight
ratings or vehicle type classification. The alterer is required to
certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable
FMVSSs affected by the alteration in effect in the month and year no
earlier than the date of manufacture of the certified vehicle and no
later than the date alterations were completed. 49 CFR 567.7.
\21\ See, e.g., http://www.troyproducts.com/news/Airbagann2.html
and http://www.troyproducts.com/products/Partitions/FORD%20UTILITY%20VEHICLE%20CARGO%20PARTITION.pdf. See also http://www.pro-gard.com/QRC/partitions.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTEA's petition criticizing IVDs and FMVSS No. 226 is not based on
practical experience. Final-stage manufacturers have been using the
pass-through method to certify compliance with various safety standards
for decades; the method is workable and recognized by Congress.\22\
``After all, Congress intended for manufacturers to adjust to the
regulatory demands of the industry rather than the other way around''
(NTEA v. NHTSA, 711 F.3d at 673-674). Furthermore, as the above
discussion shows, all indications are that multi-stage manufacturers
and alterers will be able to use pass-through certification to develop,
produce, and offer for sale vehicles that provide the substantial
ejection mitigation protections of FMVSS No. 226 to workforce
personnel. The manufacture of these compliant vehicles accords with the
Vehicle Safety Act and SAFETEA-LU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 49 U.S.C. 30115. See NTEA, 711 F.3d at 675 (``Congress
in fact explicitly endorsed the pass-through certification regime in
2000'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. School Buses
The final rule applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) or less, except walk-in vans, ``modified roof'' vehicles (which are
defined in the standard), convertibles, and certain vehicles with
partitions. Because school buses are ``buses'' under our FMVSS
definitions (49 CFR 571.3), FMVSS No. 226 applies to the vehicle type
unless the vehicle is excluded by a specific exclusion in the standard.
Reconsideration Request
Daimler Truck requested that the final rule exclude school buses
from the standard. The petitioner stated that school buses already are
subject to ejection mitigation requirements in FMVSS No. 217. Daimler
Truck believed that NHTSA has not
[[Page 55149]]
considered the interaction of ejection mitigation side curtain air bags
with existing school bus safety features, including ``emergency exit
window handle accessibility, emergency exit window unobstructed
openings, wheelchair restraint anchorages, head impact zones, higher
seat backs and side lift door glazed areas.''
Agency Response
We are denying this request because of a lack of support for it. We
assume Daimler Truck's petition does not involve ``modified roof''
vehicles \23\ and that it involves primarily school buses produced by a
single manufacturer ``from the ground up.'' The petitioner provided no
information or analysis as to why there would be an inherent conflict
between the existing school bus standards and FMVSS No. 226,
particularly for school buses that can be originally designed to meet
the standard. NHTSA is not aware of inherent conflicts between ejection
mitigation side curtain air bags and the safety features mentioned by
the petitioner for a bus manufactured in a single stage. Therefore, at
this time we have insufficient information to agree that excluding
small school buses from applicability of FMVSS No. 226 is warranted.
Applying the standard to a wide range of vehicles under 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) best implements the mandate of SAFETEA-LU than reducing the
applicability of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Modified roof'' is defined in S3 of the standard. SBMTC
submitted a letter asking for confirmation that ``10,000 pound or
less GVWR Type-A buses and school buses constructed upon a cutaway
chassis, of which the original incomplete vehicle roof has been
modified, are excluded from the application of FMVSS 226 by virtue
of section 2 and 3 of this standard . . .'' We assume that when
SBMTC refers to the original incomplete vehicle roof as having been
``modified,'' the roof was removed in part or in total and replaced
in part or in whole. Our answer is yes, the school buses are
excluded from FMVSS No. 226 as ``modified roof'' vehicles. The final
rule excluded vehicles whose original roofs were modified in part or
in total because of the likelihood that the original curtain air bag
mounted in the header above the door would be affected by such
modification. Thus, we adopted the exclusion to be sensitive to
possible practicability problems that could arise if the roof were
modified by a later-stage manufacturer or alterer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Displacement Limit--Issue 1
The final rule specified that the ejection mitigation
countermeasure must limit the linear travel of the impactor to not more
than 100 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.
Reconsideration Request
Advocates states that the final rule ``fails to provide a sound
basis for the excessive limit on excursion selected by the agency, and
the rule does not establish a robust test procedure and requirements to
mitigate partial and complete ejections.'' The petitioner believes that
the 100 mm limit in FMVSS No. 217, FMVSS No. 206, and in architectural
design codes is used to limit the width of gaps to prevent a person
from passing through the opening, and should not be used for purposes
of an excursion limit. The petitioner believes that a ``100 mm limit
allows the occupant (headform) to pass beyond the plane of the window
frame and technically be partially ejected.''
Advocates suggests a 50 mm excursion limit. The petitioner believes
that a 50 mm limit results in a ``situation that effectively limits
excursion and ejection.'' Advocates also states that data in the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying the final rule show that 25
percent of the individual tests conducted resulted in excursions of no
more than 50 mm, while a 100 mm limit was met by more with 47 percent
of tests.
Agency Response
We are denying the petition to reduce the performance requirement
in the final rule to 50 mm.
To meet the 100 mm requirement, ejection mitigation side curtain
air bags must inflate rapidly enough to be protective for ejection
mitigation purposes 1.5 seconds after deployment and maintain inflation
so that they are protective 6 seconds after inflation. Moreover, since
the side curtain air bags will likely be installed to meet both FMVSS
No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' and FMVSS No. 226, if a side
impact is involved, the curtain air bags will inflate within
milliseconds of the side crash. We recognize that there is some risk of
external contact generally with any kind of displacement limit.
However, this risk is greatly mitigated by limiting the displacement to
100 mm. Also, even if there is contact, if the occupant's head or part
of the body is behind a curtain, the inflated curtain will provide
impact protection from the zero displacement plane to 100 mm past the
plane. While that benefit cannot be quantified, the cushioning would
mitigate some of the risk of injury from external contact.
Moreover, even if head contact with a surface may occur, and even
in the absence of cushioning, as we explained in the final rule, the
100 mm limit achieves the appropriate balance between stringency and
practicability. Advocates believes that test data presented in the
final rule preamble indicate that 25 percent of the tests conducted
resulted in displacement of the headform of less than 50 mm beyond the
inside surface of the glazing, and that 47 percent of the test results
had displacements under 100 mm. The petitioner believes that by setting
the displacement limit at 100 mm, NHTSA ``is only aiming for the
`average' capability of current airbag [sic] technology.''
It was not clear from the petition how Advocates analyzed the data
so we attempted to discern what the petitioner meant.\24\ The
petitioner's assessment is not persuasive. First, we caution that the
vast majority of the data was generated in tests using an impactor
whose frictional and deflection characteristics differed from the
updated specifications set forth in the final rule. In general, tests
with the new impactor resulted in greater displacement. The average
increase in displacement for the new impactor was 22 mm across all
target locations and 31 mm at target A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ We assume Advocates performed its analysis of the data in
Tables 10-18 of the final rule preamble. We note that the numbers in
each row of the data may represent the average result from several
tests at the same condition. In addition, some tests with differing
laminate breakage methods were combined. It is unclear if the
Advocates analysis used testing at 24 km/h, which is not part of the
final rule. We performed an analysis excluding the 24 km/h data.
Fifty-nine (59) percent [209/356] of the results in Tables, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17 and 18 were less than or equal to 100 mm and 31 percent
[112/356] were less than or equal to 50 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second and more importantly, the data to which the petitioner
refers do not demonstrate the practicability of a 50 mm displacement
limit. Rather than evaluating only the data for average displacement
across all targets (which we assume the petitioner did), we also
analyzed the data with regard to the more challenging target, A1. The
data show that only 2 percent [1/55] of tests at target A1 were less
than or equal to 50 mm and only 24 percent [13/55] of tests at target
A1 were less than or equal to 100 mm. In addition, only one of the
three vehicles tested with the new impactor had 100 mm or less
displacement at every target location tested under the final rule
conditions and no vehicle met a 50 mm criterion at every target
location.
In the January 19, 2011 final rule, NHTSA estimated that adopting
FMVSS No. 226 with a 100 mm displacement criterion would achieve
tremendous
[[Page 55150]]
benefits at reasonable costs. We estimated that the rule will save 373
lives and prevent 476 serious injuries per year, at a cost of
approximately $31 per vehicle. The final rule provided manufacturers
approximately two and one-half years of lead time to begin meeting the
standard. This lead time challenged manufacturers to begin installing
the life-saving technology as quickly as possible.
Even assuming that a displacement limit of 50 mm were practicable,
it would likely be practicable only with more lead time and possibly
with significant changes to the countermeasure. The added lead time
would have a corresponding nonattainment of the benefit that could have
been achieved by a shorter implementation of the standard. Moreover, we
must emphasize that there is no scientific basis for correlating
various displacement values with quantifiable benefits. No one can say
that reducing the displacement limit by 50 percent will reduce ejection
or side impact fatalities and injuries by a corresponding amount. On
the other hand, although the incremental benefit of a 50 mm limit
cannot be quantified, there will be a toll in terms of lives lost due
to a delay in implementation of the standard. The agency believes a 50
mm limit does not warrant delaying the benefits of ejection mitigation
side curtain air bags, especially when it cannot be shown whether any
benefits would result from a 50 mm displacement limit.
A 50 mm limit would also likely entail use of advanced glazing to
meet the requirement at side windows. In the FRIA, we estimated that
there would be a $15 incremental cost difference between tempered glass
and laminated advanced glazing for a standard-size side window in the
first or [second] row. Thus, for a two-row vehicle the total
incremental cost would be $60. This cost for advanced glazing would
have to be added to the cost of the curtain bag, since, under the final
rule, a system with movable advanced glazing alone would not be able to
perform to the level required for the standard. In comparison, the
agency determined that the 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 advanced laminated glazing was twice that of a system
utilizing only a curtain. We cannot agree that this cost is reasonable,
given the absence of any quantifiable benefit associated with the 50 mm
displacement limit.
Lastly, we believe the 100 mm limit demands a high degree of
performance. It may be helpful to think of the performance requirement
as it would be brought to bear in the real world. During and after
impact by the head and upper torso of a mid-size adult male at a
velocity present in fatal rollovers, the curtain or other safety
countermeasure must withstand the force generated by this sizable mass
and restrain the mass within 100 mm of the glazing surface at both the
beginning and end stages of a multi-roll crash. If gaps form between
the countermeasure (the curtain) covering the daylight opening, the
displacement must be contained to 100 mm. The FMVSS No. 226 test is not
one in which we simply deploy a curtain and see if there are exposed
100 mm gaps between the curtain and the window frame. Bear in mind that
the 100 mm limit is assessed when the countermeasure is struck by the
moving massive 18 kg (40 lb) headform. The 100 mm displacement limit
ensures that ejection mitigation side curtain air bags will be sturdy,
robust, and highly effective in reducing partial and complete
ejections.
c. Displacement Limit--Issue 2
The final rule specified that the impactor mass is propelled at
points around the window's perimeter. To evaluate the performance of a
curtain to fully cover potential ejection routes, the impactor targets
four specific locations per side window adjacent to the first three
rows of the vehicle. NHTSA determined that 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.
Reconsideration Request
Advocates believes that FMVSS No. 226's test methodology allows
manufacturers to have ``minimal designs.'' Advocates asks that we
include language in the final rule to ``[i]nclude testing of all
openings present between and within a tested countermeasure and the
appropriate daylight opening, both after deployment and before testing
and at the conclusion of testing, such that openings are limited to
less than 100 mm and resist the passage of a similarly sized object
under an appropriately determined level of force so as to ensure the
retention of occupants within the vehicle cabin.'' The testing would be
``similar to the testing processes noted by the agency in FMVSS 206 and
FMVSS 217.''
Agency Response
We are denying the petition to introduce a new test to determine
countermeasure resistance to passage of a 100 mm object. The petitioner
provided insufficient information regarding the need for a new test or
the suggested test methodology.
We do not agree there is a need for a new test. In the final rule
preamble, the agency responded to a similar suggestion, from glazing
manufacturers about a sphere test, although the suggested object
dimension was 40 mm. 76 FR at 3249, col. 2. In the preamble, we
explained our reasons for disagreeing with the suggestion. Those
reasons apply also to Advocates' suggestion and we deny the
petitioner's suggestion for the same reasons, which are briefly
summarized below. (For simplicity, we refer to the petitioner's
suggestion as a sphere test.)
First, we see no safety need for the test. We cannot conclude that
ejections that would not be prevented by the primary 100 mm
displacement requirement would be prevented by a secondary requirement
to ``push an object'' through any gaps in the curtain. Second, the
sphere test is not appropriate for vehicles with only side curtain air
bags and no advanced glazing, 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. The sphere test could not be able to be done
after the 6-second impact in any timeframe that is related to rollover
and side impact ejections. Third, the sphere test would indirectly
require installation of advanced glazing. As discussed in the final
rule, the costs associated with advanced glazing installations at the
side windows are substantial in comparison to a system only using
rollover curtains, with no quantifiable benefit.
We also do not agree that ``minimal designs'' will result of the
rule specifying that designated targets are tested rather than ``all
openings.'' In research leading to the development of FMVSS No. 226, we
found that ``full window opening coverage was key to the effectiveness
of the curtain in preventing ejection.'' 76 FR at 3223. To ensure that
the entire window opening is covered, we developed the standard's test
procedure such that the impactor mass is propelled at specific targets
around the window's perimeter. This testing is objective and imposes a
reasonable test burden. The
[[Page 55151]]
performance test of FMVSS No. 226 attains one of the principles
underlying the standard, which is to ensure that ejection mitigation
side curtain air bags fully cover the window opening.
In addition, the petitioner provided no information about a test
methodology for the sphere test, such as whether the sphere is to be
pushed in multiple orientations with respect to the window, pushed in
those orientations in the 6-second time frame, the appropriate push
force, or the real world relevance of the orientation of the push
force. The request lacks the substantive information that would enable
the agency to consider it to a greater degree.
For the above reasons, Advocates' petition is denied.
IV. Response to Petitions Regarding Technical Issues
The final rule included technical elements relating to the test
procedure NHTSA will use to assess a vehicle's compliance with the
standard. NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration related to
various technical elements pertaining to, among other things:
Procedures for determining target locations, identifying primary target
locations and for adjusting the targets. There were a number of
requests relating to provisions in the standard for testing glazing and
preparing glazing for testing. Petitions related to technical issues
are discussed below.
V. Determination of Impact Target Locations--Boundary of Target
Locations
a. Rearmost Limit of the Offset Line
S5.2.1.2 of the standard has procedures for locating target
locations in a daylight opening. The procedures define the testing area
of the opening. The rearmost limit of the testing area is determined in
part by identifying the transverse vertical vehicle plane located at
the following distances behind the SgRP with the seats adjusted to
their rearmost normal riding or driving position:
--For a vehicle with fewer than 3 rows: 1,400 mm behind the rearmost
SgRP;
--For a vehicle with 3 or more rows: 600 mm behind the 3rd row SgRP.
If the ``offset line'' of a particular daylight opening is rearward
of the transverse vertical vehicle plane specified above, the
transverse vertical vehicle plane defines the rearward edge of the
offset line for the purposes of determining target locations.
(S5.2.1.2(a) and (b).)
In the final rule, the agency extended the rearward location of the
transverse vertical vehicle plane beyond that proposed in the NPRM for
vehicles with 1 or 2 rows of seating. The NPRM had proposed that the
rearward limit of the plane would be 600 mm behind the SgRP of a seat
in the 2nd row for a vehicle with 2 rows, and 600 mm behind the SgRP of
a seat in the 1st row for a vehicle with 1 row. We reassessed the
proposal after reading various comments and considering that all or
part of the cargo area daylight opening rearward of that 1st or 2nd row
would be excluded from coverage under the NPRM's provisions. Also, we
reexamined the proposal after realizing from our field data analysis
for the final rule that cargo area window ejections in the area that
would have been the third row had there been a third row of seats were
0.5 percent of all ejection fatalities, which exceeded 3rd row occupant
fatalities (0.3 percent).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ We also realized after studying several Special Crash
Investigation cases that unbelted occupants were ejected through
window openings behind the row in which they were seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, for the final rule, the agency decided that for
vehicles with only 1 or 2 rows of seating, the rearward limit would be
increased from the 600 mm distance to 1,400 mm, measured from the SgRP
of the seat in the last row.\26\ 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. By increasing the
distance to 1,400 mm, more of the glazing area in cargo area behind the
1st or 2nd row will provide ejection mitigation protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Under the final rule, a 3-row vehicle is still only
required to meet the 600 mm value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconsideration Request
The Alliance requests that NHTSA reconsider its decision to
increase the rearward limit to 1,400 mm behind the SgRP. The petitioner
states that extending the coverage area to 1,400 mm may have ``possible
deleterious effects.'' The petitioner states that a partition in the
1,400 mm cargo area behind the 1st or 2nd row could interfere with a
curtain air bag, resulting in increased air bag pressure or tears which
could ``negatively affect both out-of-position [OOP] performance as
well as protection for properly positioned occupants during a side
impact.'' The Alliance believes that the risk to properly belted
occupants would increase to protect a small number of unbelted
occupants and disagrees with that outcome. Further, the petitioner
states that the new requirement ``would necessitate a significant
redesign of the roof rail airbag [sic] systems in many vehicles'' and
that meeting FMVSS No. 226 in conjunction with FMVSS No. 214 and OOP
guidelines ``would present a major engineering integration challenge
with minimal benefits.''
Agency Response
We are denying the Alliance's petition to reduce the rearward
extent of the daylight opening for vehicles with 1 or 2 rows from 1,400
mm to 600 mm.
We do not agree with the Alliance's assertions that the risks
associated with extending window coverage to the cargo area outweigh
the potential benefits. By extending the daylight opening into the
cargo area of 1 and 2 row vehicles, the agency is covering an ejection
route that accounts for the loss of 52 lives a year. The FRIA estimated
that coverage of the cargo area window openings has a similar level of
cost effectiveness as covering the 3rd row windows. The petitioner
referred to possible OOP risks and tearing risks from extending
daylight opening coverage to the cargo area, but the references were
highly speculative and completely unsupported.
With regard to the petitioner's arguments about the potential for
obstruction to air bag deployment from cargo area partitions, the
arguments are altogether inapplicable to partitions installed as
original equipment by a vehicle manufacturer. If the vehicle
manufacturer provides a partition for the vehicle, the curtain air bags
could be installed just for the rows in front of the partition.
Regarding aftermarket partitions, they could be designed with curtain
air bag deployment in mind. The partition could have a clearance for
the curtain, or have breakaway features. We are aware of several
companies marketing side curtain air bag compatible cargo barriers.\27\
At this time, we believe new partition designs will be developed to be
compatible with ejection mitigation side curtain air bags as market
demand develops for such partitions. Speculation about the futility of
aftermarket partitions evolving does not convince us to overlook the
benefits that are acquired by extending coverage to the cargo area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Pro-gard Products LLC (www.progard.com). Setina
Manufacturing Co., Inc. (www.setina.com). Troy Sheet Metal Works,
Inc. (www.troyproducts.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance asserts that the extension of the rearward daylight
opening will force the redesign of curtain air bags, which may slow
their deployment time. In addition, it refers to a ``major engineering
integration challenge'' associated with the 1,400 mm limit.
The agency addressed these points in the final rule preamble and
the
[[Page 55152]]
petitioner has not provided any information that leads us to change our
position. We pointed out in the preamble that vehicles are already
being produced that have side air bag curtains covering windows in rows
1, 2 and 3 (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 tethered
at the A- and D-pillars. (See 76 FR at 3263-3264). We pointed out that,
because these designs provide three rows of coverage, covering the
cargo area behind the 1st or 2nd row of a vehicle up to window openings
adjacent to where a 3rd row would have been is no more of a technical
challenge than manufacturers face in covering all openings adjacent to
the 3rd row for vehicles with three rows.
Manufacturers have developed and are availing themselves of air bag
systems that extend coverage into the 3rd row area of the cargo area.
The petitioner has not substantiated its claim that there are technical
challenges in extending coverage to the cargo area that manufacturers
cannot overcome.
b. Grab Handles
S6.3 of FMVSS No. 226 specifies that, during targeting and testing,
NHTSA will remove or adjust the vehicle's steering wheel, steering
column, seats, grab handles and exterior mirrors to facilitate testing
and/or provide an unobstructed path for headform travel through and
beyond the vehicle. These items are not included when the daylight
opening is defined and when the daylight opening is tested because the
items are unlikely to have a positive effect in impeding occupant
ejection and/or could restrict the travel of the impactor headform.
Reconsideration Request
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance disagrees with
the agency's decision in S6.3 to remove or adjust grab handles. The
petitioner states that grab handles located inboard of the air bag
deployment path are commonly attached through the headliner or A-pillar
garnish trim to the vehicle structure. The petitioner states:
``Removing these handles can change the headliner and trim
attachment structure and bending characteristics. Changing the
bending characteristics of the headliner can lead to curtain airbags
[sic] not deploying as designed and there could be unintended
interactions with the testing device.'' The Alliance also states
that, for handles located outboard of the air bag deployment path,
the grab handles may also function as a reaction surface for curtain
air bags. ``If the handles were to be removed, the deployment
characteristics and reaction surface of the airbag [sic] would be
changed from the design intent. In addition, the surface of the
pillar would be changed, which could lead to exposed mounting
brackets and rough surfaces that can lead to tearing of the airbag
[sic] and/or a change of the deployment characteristics.''
Agency Response
There are several parts to our response.
A. We are denying the request to keep grab handles in place when
determining the daylight opening. We affirm our conclusion in the final
rule preamble that grab handles are unlikely to ``contribute anything
positive to ejection mitigation.'' That is, in a rollover, the grab
handle is unlikely to have any effect mitigating the likelihood of
ejection since occupants will move toward the daylight opening from
many different angles. Given that the presence of the grab handle is
unlikely to lower the likelihood an occupant would be ejected from the
opening (e.g., it does not lower the chance of ejection by blocking the
opening), it would not make sense for the test procedure to allow the
grab handle to define the opening being tested.
Moreover, we are concerned that the requested amendment would
create a means to manipulate the test requirements, to enable designers
to move the impactor away from weak points in the ejection mitigation
countermeasure in a false way. Figure 1, below, depicts two renditions
of a 1st row daylight opening. The illustration on the left shows the
opening without a grab handle; the other shows a grab handle attached
to the A-pillar. For convenience, we used an approximation of the
target outline, rather than the exact cubic equation prescribed in the
final rule. The target outline height and width are dimensionally
correct relative to each other.
Assume that the grab handle has a length and width of 52 mm x 191
mm (2 in. x 7.5 in.). Also shown in each of the drawings and listed in
Table 9 is the x-direction (longitudinal) distance from the front edge
of the daylight opening to the center of each target.
This graphical presentation shows that by adding a grab handle that
projects into the daylight opening by about 50 mm, target point A1 is
pushed rearward 53 mm [170 mm-117 mm] away from the lower front corner
of the opening. Similarly, target points A2 and A3 are pushed rearward
by 17 mm [526 mm-509 mm] and 35 mm [348 mm-313 mm] from the front of
the daylight opening, respectively. These changes would be a function
of the shape, size and location of the grab handle.
We know from our testing that target location A1 is the most
challenging of the 1st row targets and that curtain coverage at the
base of the A-pillar has been deficient for most curtain designs. This
is followed by A3 and A2, in degree of difficulty.
Table 8 shows the average and standard deviation of displacement
for the 20 km/h-1.5 second impact for all 1st row target locations for
all tests conducted by NHTSA.\28\ Targets A1 and A2 have an average
displacement of 140 mm and 112 mm, respectively. Thus, moving target A1
away from the base of the A-pillar (by 53 mm, in our example, due to
the grab handle) would likely reduce the displacement of the impactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ These data can be found in Table 11 of the final rule. See
76 FR 3228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Targets A3 and A4 have an average displacement of 132 mm
and 15 mm, respectively. Moving target A3 towards the A4 target (by 35
mm, in our example) would likely reduce the displacement of the
impactor at the A3 location. Finally, the original A2 target is moved
rearwards toward the B-pillar (by 17 mm, in our example). Decreasing
the proximity to the B-pillar may add support to the curtain, which
will tend to reduce the impactor displacement.
Reducing impactor displacement by means that would have real-world
effectiveness in limiting occupant ejection is wholly appropriate.
However, the Figure 1 example shows that by adding a grab handle to the
A-pillar of a 1st row window opening, the stringency of the standard
may be reduced by the presence of an item that, in a real-world
rollover, is not likely to have an actual effect on mitigating full and
partial occupant ejections. The stringency of the standard would be
reduced by an artifact of the test procedure. For the above reasons,
the agency declines the petitioner's suggestion to modify the
determination of the daylight opening.
[[Page 55153]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE13.002
Table 8--Target X (Longitudinal) Location (in millimeters) Referenced to the Front Edge of the Daylight Opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handle location A1 A2 A3 A4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Handle................................................... 117 509 313 704
A-Pillar.................................................... 170 526 348 704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Average and Standard Deviation of Impactor Displacement (mm)
for Front Row Window, 20 Km/h Impact, 1.5 Second Delay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1 A2 A3 A4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
140 112 132 15
36.5 55.7 56.7 39.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Subject to the discussion below, we are denying the request to
keep grab handles in place during testing. The Alliance provided no
data or information supporting a finding that removal of the grab
handles affects the performance of the air bag to an extent that
outweighs the agency's interest in ensuring unobstructed passage of the
headform in a test. However, we are sensitive to when and how the grab
handle should be removed, as discussed below.
C. After the final rule was published, ASC asked the agency about
grab handles that are molded into the trim panel and how they are to be
removed.\29\ Such grab handles are not readily removable by removing
fasteners. ASC asked whether such grab handles would be sawn-off or
would the entire panel be removed. It recommended the former, with
accommodation for taping over any remaining rough edges to avoid
damaging the curtain air bag during deployment. It preferred the former
since, ASC stated, the presence of the trim panel may provide a
reaction surface for the air bag and may cover internal structure not
intended to contact the air bag. ASC also requested guidance on when a
grab handle should be removed, e.g., would it be removed only during a
test in which it would obstruct impactor travel or would it be removed
in the testing of other target locations?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See April 2, 2012 email from Douglas Stein, Chair of the
ASC Rollover and Ejection Mitigation Committee, to NHTSA staff, a
copy of which is in the docket for today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we have denied the Alliance's request to keep grab handles
in place during testing, grab handles will only be removed if they
obstruct the impactors travel to a specific target we are testing. We
also concur that grab handles should be removed with minimal
disturbance to the trim. Overall, our view is that, unless there is
reason to the contrary, testing a vehicle in as near the as-
manufactured condition as practicable better ensures that the
performance we witness in the compliance laboratory is representative
of the performance of the vehicle in the real world. For grab handles,
we have determined there is reason to remove the component (and the
other items listed in S6.3) due to potential interference with the
impactor. However, we concur that the grab handle should be removed
with minimal disturbance to the trim.
We recognize there is reason to have different methods of removal
depending on the handle design. Removing fasteners is an easy and
preferred way of removing a grab handle, provided that there are
distinct fasteners attaching the handle and that removal of the grab
handle does not affect the integrity of the trim. In the situation of a
handle molded into the trim panel without dedicated fasteners, cutting
away the portion of the handle obstructing the path of the headform is
a way to remove the grab handle without degrading the integrity of the
trim. Thus, our answer is we will remove the grab handle by removing
fasteners if there are distinct fasteners attaching the handle. If
there are no distinct fasteners attaching the grab handle (e.g., if a
grab handle is
[[Page 55154]]
molded into the trim panel without showing dedicated fasteners), we
will cut away the portion of the handle that impedes into the daylight
opening.
c. Removal of Components During Targeting
S6.2 of FMVSS No. 226 allows some vehicle doors to be opened or
removed during testing. S6.3 provides, ``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 the headform travel
through and beyond the vehicle.'' S6.4 states that, during targeting
and testing, interior vehicle components and vehicle structures other
than those 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 to provide an unobstructed path for headform travel
through and beyond the vehicle.
Petition for Reconsideration
The Alliance believes that ``apart from weather stripping and seats
. . . nothing should be removed during the targeting procedure. Items
such as instrument panels may fall within 100 mm of the inside surface
of the glass, and therefore define part of the daylight opening.
Section X(e)(1)(i) of the preamble states that NHTSA intends to include
interior components within 100 mm of the glass because they `could have
a positive effect on ejection mitigation.' ''
Agency Response
We do not agree generally with the view that ``nothing should be
removed.'' However, we note that the petitioner's request is somewhat
unclear and the petitioner does not elaborate on its views. The
following discussion on our part might help clarify matters. The
petitioner refers to an instrument panel within 100 mm of the inside
surface of the glazing. This portion of the instrument panel would not
be removed since it defines a portion of the daylight opening. That is,
the daylight opening would be prescribed around this portion of the
instrument panel. Since no target would be placed over this portion of
the instrument panel, no restriction of the impactor would occur and no
removal of the component would be necessary.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ One of the reasons behind the final rule's expanding the
inboard distance to be considered when defining the daylight
opening, from 50 mm to 100 mm, was the conclusion that this distance
would ``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.'' (76 FR 3265.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, however, the petitioner is referring to some other part of the
instrument panel not within 100 mm of the inside surface of the glazing
which obstructed the ejection propulsion mechanism's path or prevented
its positioning, that portion could be removed under S6.4. We do not
agree with the approach of having to keep vehicle interior components
(other than those within the region 25 mm outboard and 100 mm inboard
of the glazing surface) in place for targeting and testing. Removing
the objects would help ensure that the testing can be performed, as
removal might be needed to allow positioning of the ejection propulsion
mechanism or to provide an unobstructed path for headform travel
through and beyond the vehicle. Further, removal of these objects would
not degrade the ejection mitigation features of the vehicle, since the
objects provide no impediment to ejection in the real world (76 FR at
3266). Thus, the request is denied.
VI. Primary Target Locations
a. Determination of the Geometric Center of the Daylight Opening
As part of the procedure that delineates the target locations, the
side daylight opening being tested is divided into four quadrants by
passing a vertical line and a horizontal line through the geometric
center of the daylight opening (S5.2.3).
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance expresses concern
that calculation of the geometric center of some daylight openings can
be very complex and that different test facilities could identify
different points as the ``geometric center.'' The petitioner requests
that the agency ``allow manufacturers to submit CAD geometric center
coordinate data for each side daylight opening, which would then be
utilized by the agency's test laboratories when conducting compliance
tests.'' The petitioner states that ``this approach is similar to the
test procedure for S22.4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 208, [Occupant crash
protection,] with respect to the identification of the volumetric
center of an inflated air bag.''
Agency Response
It is unclear whether the petitioner is suggesting NHTSA should use
or must use manufacturer-submitted computer aided design (CAD) data for
locating the geometric center of the daylight opening. As to the
former, as a general practice in compliance testing, the agency
typically asks for a variety of information from vehicle manufacturers
to compare to our determination of pre-test parameters. Examples of
these are the design seat back angle and H-point used in FMVSS Nos.
202a, ``Head restraints,'' and in FMVSS No. 208. It is important to
note that NHTSA reserves the ability to independently determine these
pre-test parameters on the vehicle being tested, notwithstanding the
manufacturer input. The agency is not obligated to rely on the
information submitted by the manufacturer of the tested vehicle. We may
have good reason to disagree with it.
The Alliance specifically references the example of S22.4.1.2 of
FMVSS No. 208, where it is necessary to determine the geometric center
of a folded and statically inflated air bag. This is a situation where
the manufacturer-supplied information simplifies the compliance testing
process. When S22.4.1.2 was adopted in FMVSS No. 208, we stated that
``the agency anticipates that manufacturers will provide the target
point based on their computer based drawings of the air bag system and
the surrounding structure.'' \31\ Nonetheless, under FMVSS No. 208, the
agency has the ability to check this information using methods we deem
appropriate. (For instance, the information could be obtained using 3D
laser scanning.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 68 FR 68186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the implication that it would be inappropriate if
we not obtain the manufacturer CAD data. The pre-test parameter of the
geometric center of the window opening is not difficult to determine.
We have had no difficulty in efficiently and accurately determining the
location of this point in space. We have digitized the actual daylight
opening of the vehicle under test by use of a FaroArm[supreg]. Once
digitized, any number of CAD programs can be used to determine the
location of the geometric center with respect to the digitized opening
or any other fiduciary mark or reference point on the vehicle. NHTSA
may or may not ask for CAD data from the manufacturers to assist us in
determining the parameter. It is and should be the agency's prerogative
to choose whether to ask for the manufacturer's data.
If the petitioner is asking the latter suggestion, we decline the
suggestion that the standard should require NHTSA to use the
manufacturer-submitted CAD data. For one thing, we seek to determine
the actual geometric center of the daylight opening of the particular
vehicle being tested to determine the compliance of the vehicle as
produced, rather than use CAD data that may be based on the vehicle as
designed. The Vehicle Safety Act requires the compliance of new
vehicles as they are
[[Page 55155]]
sold, not simply as they are designed. Testing vehicles as manufactured
evaluates noncompliances that could occur during the manufacturing
process, due to, for example, unanticipated manufacturing problems or
to poor quality control. Thus, there are good reasons for NHTSA to test
vehicles for compliance ``as manufactured,'' not as designed.
Although some variation between the actual geometric center and
that obtained from CAD data could occur based on the build variability
of the vehicle, we have found in our testing that small variations in
the location of the geometric center has had no effect on the primary
targets selected and, therefore, do not affect the final target
locations. Nonetheless, for the reason stated above, we prefer that the
geometric center be determined from the actual vehicle under test as
opposed to CAD drawings of the vehicle.
Furthermore, although we find merit in having manufacturers submit
data on various vehicle parameters to increase the efficiency of our
test program (obtaining such information enables us to better
understand the assumptions manufacturers used in their certification of
compliance), we believe that the agency should retain the ability to
determine on our own how a compliance test will be conducted on the
test vehicle. In that way, we avoid a situation in which we are
dependent on manufacturer data with which we do not agree, or which may
have been generated using substandard means.
For the above reasons, the petitioner's request is denied.
b. Targeting Large Radius Windows
The final rule regulatory text, at S5.2.2, Preliminary target
locations, specifies the manner in which primary target locations
within the daylight opening are identified. S5.2.2(b) states: ``Place
targets at any location inside the offset-line where the target is
tangent to within 2 mm of the offset-line at just two or
three points (see Figure 2) . . .'' S5.2.3.3 provides that 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.
Clarification Request
ASC asks for clarification of the targeting procedure for a window
opening with a large radius, regarding the forward-upper quadrant of
the daylight opening. It asks how NHTSA will position a target at the
``corner'' location(s) for this area of the window (top image (labeled
``1'') in Figure 2, below.). ASC states that if the procedure is
followed as written, the target would only contact the daylight opening
offset-line at one point and, therefore, this quadrant would not
contain a target. ASC states that S5.2.3.3 then specifies that the
forward lower target would become the new primary target (image labeled
``2'' in Figure 2). ASC states that continuing with the specified test
procedure, the selected targets would be as illustrated in the image
labeled ``3'' in Figure 2. ASC believes that NHTSA intended the targets
to appear as shown in the image labeled ``4'' rather than image 3 and
asks for clarification of the procedure to achieve the target layout
shown in image 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE13.003
[[Page 55156]]
Agency Response
ASC is correct that the procedure of S5.2.3 results in the layout
shown in image 3 in Figure 2. However, it was not our intent that the
test procedure must specify placement of a target in the forward-upper
quadrant of the window opening no matter the shape of the daylight
opening. We believe that the absence of a corner in the forward-upper
quadrant is not typical, so the final placement of the targets in the
example shown is also not typical. NHTSA has not encountered a
situation like this in any vehicle we tested.
In general, the test procedure was developed to achieve, to the
extent possible, the goal of requiring full window coverage by the
ejection countermeasure, while using an objective and repeatable
methodology. In developing the test procedure, we considered the many
potential sizes and shapes of windows. The number of potential window
design variants is great, however, so the end result is that some
window shapes may result in a target distribution that is not as
dispersed as it might be with other window shapes. Nonetheless, in
developing the procedure, we realized that a primary quadrant may not
have a target located inside it, so we drafted the procedure to address
this eventuality in S5.2.3.3.
We do not believe that the example given by ASC shows a problem
that warrants a change to the test procedure. The forward-upper
quadrant is an area of the daylight opening where a curtain air bag
would be well supported by the header attachment and the B-pillar.
These features should contribute to the curtain meeting FMVSS No. 226's
displacement limit, so the absence of a target in this area is not a
great concern. In addition, a change or addition to the procedure to
address this issue could add complexity to the test procedure, even
though the addition to the procedure would rarely need to be invoked.
For these reasons, we decline to revise the procedure to achieve the
layout shown in image 4.
VII. Target Adjustment
a. Coordinate System
The final rule defines the targets using the headform's local
coordinate system. The term ``target'' is defined as the x-z plane
projection of the headform face shown in Figure 1 of the final rule's
regulatory text. Figure 1 of the regulatory text shows the headform's
local coordinate system. The initial headform x, y and z axes are to
align with the vehicle longitudinal, transverse and vertical axes,
respectively. Under S5.6.1, the ``zero displacement plane'' is measured
with the headform touching the inside surface of the window, showing
that the headform y-axis is pointing outward.
The x-z coordinate system is used in the final rule in determining
target location. Among other provisions, the final rule included
provisions to account for possible overlapping of the targets (see
S5.2.5.1.1) and elimination if appropriate. The rule specifies that
after the primary and secondary targets are established, the horizontal
and vertical distances between target centers are checked in a
specified order. If the horizontal distance between the targets is less
than 170 mm and the vertical distance is less than 135 mm, one of the
targets is eliminated.
See S5.2.5.1.1, Target elimination, in the regulatory text of the
January 19, 2011 final rule.
The final rule includes provisions for rotating targets in
circumstances of testing daylight openings that might not fit targets
well when the targets are oriented in their original upright position
(z-axis (long axis) aligned vertically). S5.2.5.2 provides for the
rotation of the targets by 90 degrees about the y-axis of the target,
such that the positive z-axis of the target (long axis) becomes
horizontal and points in the direction of the positive vehicle x-axis.
To maintain the same spacing between targets when the long axis of the
target is vertical or horizontal, the final rule specifies that the 170
mm value is associated with the x-axis of the targets and the 135 mm
value is associated with the z-axis of the targets.
Reconsideration Requests
The Alliance believes that the reference coordinate axes used
throughout the regulation, and particularly in S5.2, need illustrations
and/or figures to better define the vehicle, headform and target axes,
especially with rotation of the headform. TRW and ASC ask for
clarification of S5.2.5.1.1 as to the specified distances between the
target's local z-axis and x-axis, i.e., whether the distances remain
constant irrespective of target orientation. Both the Alliance and ASC
provide figures to illustrate their understanding of S5.2.5.1.1 and
S5.2.5.2 and ask if their understanding is correct. They suggest that
figures be added to the regulatory text to help clarify the
relationship between vehicle and target axes when assessing possible
target elimination.
Agency Response
We are granting this request. The figures submitted by the
Alliance, TRW and ASC correctly interpret the regulatory text in
S5.2.5.1.1. We agree that adding figures to the regulatory text would
be helpful. We are adding the figures below to the regulatory text as
new Figures 5a and 5b. Figure 3 below (new Figure 5a in the regulatory
text) shows the vehicle and target coordinate systems from the
perspective of a viewer facing the left side of the vehicle exterior.
The minimum distance of 170 mm and 135 mm between the x and z axes,
respectively, are also shown. The left side of the figure shows these
minimum distances for vertically-oriented targets and the right side of
the figure shows these for horizontally-oriented targets. Additionally,
the right side of the figure provides the orientation of the z axis of
the target specified in S5.2.5.2.
Figure 4 below (new Figure 5b in the regulatory text) shows the
vehicle and target coordinate systems from the perspective of a viewer
facing the right side of the vehicle exterior.
[[Page 55157]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE13.004
A reference to these new figures will be made in S5.2.5.1.1 and
S5.2.5.2. Also, a typographical error is corrected in S5.2.5.1.1. The
Alliance has noted that in the fourth sentence of S5.2.5.1.1, ``y
axis'' is incorrectly referenced. The correct reference is ``x axis.''
b. Target Reconstitution
S5.2.5.1.2 of the final rule regulatory text specifies a process by
which a third target is added to the daylight opening if there are only
two targets remaining at the conclusion of a preliminary stage of
target identification, and the absolute distance between the two target
centers is greater than or equal to 360 mm. The third added target is
placed such that its center bisects a line connecting the two targets
that had remained.
Under S5.2.5.2, Target reorientation--90 degree rotation, if there
are three or fewer (vertical) targets in a side daylight opening at the
conclusion of the procedure in S5.2.5.1, the entire target process is
repeated with the targets rotated by 90 degrees (horizontal targets).
If this second target process results in more targets in the daylight
opening than found under S5.2.5.1, i.e., more horizontal targets than
vertical targets, the horizontal targets will be used as the final
target locations. The possibility exists for a scenario under which
three horizontal targets are placed in the daylight opening under
S5.2.5.1.2, if only two or fewer vertical targets can fit in the
opening.
Reconsideration Request
ASC asks whether a distance greater than 360 mm, specified in
S5.2.5.1.2, should be used to determine the need for a third target
when the targeting process is performed with targets rotated 90 degrees
as per S5.2.5.2. The petitioner asks: ``If the 360 mm has been
established to minimize overlapping of targets in the vertical
orientation, would it not be appropriate to increase this distance when
the targets are rotated 90[deg]?'' ASC believes that, given the
headform dimensions of 176.8 x 226.1 mm, if the absolute distance
between two vertically oriented targets is at 360 mm, the third target
will almost touch the two existing targets (with a maximum of 3.2 mm
gap on each side). ASC further states that ``if the absolute distance
between 2 horizontally-oriented targets is at 360 mm, the 3rd target
will overlap the 2 existing targets by as much as 46.1 mm on each.''
[[Page 55158]]
Agency Response
We decline to increase the 360 mm distance for horizontally-
oriented targets.\32\ There is a potential for three horizontal targets
to represent the final target locations under provisions of S5.2.5.2.
The question presented is whether the overlap of the horizontal targets
is excessive compared to the overlap ``permitted'' by the standard for
vertical targeting configurations. To help in this assessment we have
constructed Figure 6, below. This figure shows the maximum allowable
overlap of targets under three different scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ We wish to note that if a daylight opening has the size and
shape to accommodate both three vertically- and three horizontally-
oriented targets (as appears in the example shown in the
petitioner's figure on page 7 of its petition), the final targets
must be vertical (see S5.2.5.2). Thus, the predicament highlighted
in the petition in the figure would not occur in real-world testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the maximum amount of overlap is achieved when a target
axis of a target is aligned with that of another. In the three
scenarios of Figure 6, the horizontal axes are aligned. Example 1 shows
the maximum overlap for vertically-oriented targets under the provision
of S5.2.5.1.1.\33\ The linear overlap of these targets is 42 mm and the
area of overlap is 5,460 mm\2\. Example 2 shows the maximum overlap for
horizontally-oriented targets under the provision of S5.2.5.1.1. The
linear overlap of these targets is 56 mm and the area of overlap is
5,060 mm\2\. Example 3 shows the maximum overlap for horizontal targets
under the provision of S5.2.5.1.2.\34\ The linear overlap of these
targets is 46 mm and the area of overlap is 3,810 mm\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ For simplicity, we used an approximation of the target area
outline with correct vertical and horizontal dimensions, rather than
the exact cubic equation prescribed in the final rule.
\34\ The maximum overlap would be the situation where the
targets' horizontal axes are aligned. Under S5.2.5.1.2 the third
target is placed between two target centers that are separated by at
least 360 mm. The third target is placed such that its target center
bisects the line connecting the outer targets. Thus the target
centers of the overlapping targets are separated by 180 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 3 is the situation for which ASC suggests the agency should
make some form of accommodation to reduce the potential overlap.
However, we see that, when compared to Examples 1 and 2, Example 3 has
a smaller area of overlap than Examples 1 or 2 and less linear overlap
than Example 2. The maximum potential overlap under S5.2.5.1.2 for
horizontal targets is, in fact, less than the maximum potential target
overlap for other target configurations. All-in-all, we do not believe
that these targeting scenarios allow for excessive overlap. The
targeting procedures ensure that the ejection mitigation countermeasure
is evaluated throughout coverage of the daylight opening. Accordingly,
because we do not believe the overlap allowed for horizontal targets by
S5.2.5.1.2 is excessive, we see no reason to limit it further.
[[Page 55159]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE13.005
c. Rotating the Headform
The final rule at S5.2.5.3 specifies that if no targets can fit in
the daylight opening in either the vertical or horizontal orientation,
the target is rotated about its y-axis in 5 degree increments. From the
initial target orientation as defined in S5.2.2.2(a), the direction of
rotation is such that the local z-axis is moved toward the vehicle
positive x-axis. This continues to be the direction of rotation, for
all subsequent increments of rotation.
Reconsideration Request
ASC is unsatisfied with the manner in which the headform is rotated
under S5.2.5.3. The petitioner states that for some daylight openings,
the target/headform would need to be rotated more than 270 degrees from
its initial position to fit in the opening. ASC believes that in such
an instance, rotating the target/headform in the opposite direction
``would be more consistent with the adjustment capabilities of the
impactor.''
Agency Response
We are denying this request. While the suggestion makes some sense,
we prefer not deviating from the straightforward, objective instruction
in the current regulatory text as to how the target/headform is to be
rotated. The agency will perform its testing by rotating the target/
headform in the specified direction. However, there is nothing to
preclude a manufacturer from rotating the target/headform in the
opposite direction if it believes it will have no bearing on its
ability to certify to the standard.
VIII. Targeting Accuracy
S7.4 of the regulatory text reads as set forth in the January 19,
2011 final rule.
The NPRM provided the following illustration in the preamble to
explain the requirement (74 FR at 63216-63217):
As shown in Figure 16, a zone could be established by first
determining the ``ejection impactor targeting point,'' the
intersection of the x- and y-axes on the outer surface of the
headform. Next, the location of first contact between the impactor
and the ejection mitigation countermeasure (e.g., ejection
mitigation air bag curtain) would be determined, based on the
location of the target outlines using the methodology in the
compliance test specified for identifying the target outlines. A 100
mm wide zone would be determined by defining two vertical
longitudinal planes that are 50 mm on either side of the expected
location of contact by the impactor with the countermeasure. These
longitudinal planes define a portion of the strike zone. The other
portion of the zone would be defined by locating the axis normal to
and passing through the target outline center. As the impactor
targeting point passes at test speed through the 100 mm wide zone
(as it passes ``over the plate,'' using the baseball analogy), it
must stay within 10 mm of the axis passing through the
center of the target outline center (continuing the analogy, it must
stay within the vertical zone bounded by the batter's knees and
chest). This assessment would not be conducted with an ejection
mitigation air bag curtain
[[Page 55160]]
deployed, as the deployed curtain could obstruct accurate
measurement of the impactor location and the effect of air bag
interaction is assessed by the specification previously discussed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE13.006
Petition for Reconsideration
The Alliance states that it was not certain of the intent of this
requirement and was confused by it. It notes that section X(h) of the
preamble stated that the final rule required that the ``impactor be
able to deliver the center of the headform through a theoretical
cylindrical shape.'' The Alliance states its understanding that the
distance ``D'' seems to be a segment of a line that is parallel to a
vehicle lateral axis. In reference to the longitudinal planes that
define the ends of the cylinder, it states that ``vertical and
longitudinal planes cannot be defined in vehicle coordinates as forward
and rearward of a lateral segment. From a vehicle perspective, they
would be inboard and outboard, or right and left of such a segment.
Perhaps the second sentence should be modified to read: `Determine that
the ejection mitigation test device can deliver the ejection impactor
targeting point within a cylinder with radius of 10 mm centered about
the segment `D' with 50 mm extensions at each end.' ''
Agency Response
We are granting the request to revise S7.4. The Alliance is correct
that the zone specified in S7.4 is a cylinder with a 10 mm radius.
However, ``D'' does not represent the line segment that the cylinder is
centered around. Rather, ``D'' was intended to be a point of reference
for the theoretical point of contact with the countermeasure. In
response to the Alliance's comment that vertical and longitudinal
planes cannot be defined in vehicle coordinates as forward and rearward
of a lateral segment, the terms ``forward'' and ``rearward'' in S7.4
were intended to be in reference to the impactor's direction of travel,
not the vehicle coordinate system.
After reading the Alliance's petition, we have revised S7.4 solely
for purposes of clarifying it. No substantive change is intended. Among
other things, we have rewritten S7.4 to indicate the cylindrical nature
of the zone of interest and to eliminate the reference to distance
``D,'' since the reference to D was confusing to the petitioner.
IX. Glazing
The final rule included these and other provisions regarding
glazing issues:
The high speed impact test is performed with the glazing
pre-broken, fully retracted or removed prior to the
[[Page 55161]]
impact test. The vehicle manufacturer has the option of choosing the
test condition. (As a practical matter, pre-breaking tempered glazing
will destroy the glazing, so tempered glazing is either fully retracted
or removed.)
The 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).
Fixed glazing could be used as the sole means of meeting
the displacement limit of the standard; the glazing would have to be
advanced glazing in order to meet the pre-breaking procedure of the
standard.
If a vehicle has movable advanced glazing, the low speed
test is performed with the advanced glazing retracted or removed from
the daylight opening.
a. Applying Pre-Breaking Procedure
TRW repeats a view it made in its comment to the NPRM. TRW requests
the agency to reconsider the requirement to perform testing of vehicles
with movable advanced glazing with the glazing in place and pre-broken.
The petitioner's approach is to test with all movable glass removed,
and allow a ``bonus'' to vehicles fitted with movable advanced glazing.
The bonus would consist of an additional amount of impactor
displacement, so for example, a maximum displacement of 150 mm would be
permitted. The petitioner states that such a method would eliminate the
need for ``onerous'' glass pre-breakage. The petitioner also believes
that our response to this suggestion, when TRW made it in its comment,
was ``inappropriate,'' in that the suggested approach would result in a
more stringent standard, TRW thought, not one that would be less
stringent, as NHTSA had determined.
Agency Response
We do not agree to TRW's request to have all testing with movable
glazing be performed with the glazing removed, rather than pre-broken.
First, the ``bonus'' approach is undesirable because it presents a
policy under which a motorist would have a reduced level of protection
when the window is partially or fully rolled down. Thirty-one 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. It is for this reason that we determined that the
suggested approach would lessen the severity of the test for vehicles
with advanced glazing. Increasing the allowed displacement or
decreasing the impact speed of the impactor at windows that had
advanced glazing would reduce the protection of many motorists who may
have the window partially or fully rolled down. (76 FR at 3278-3279.)
We also do not agree that we should adopt the above policy reducing
the level of protection for the motorists who had the window partially
or fully down as a means of providing relief to the petitioner for what
it thinks is an ``onerous'' test procedure. We do not agree that the
pre-breaking procedure is ``onerous.'' NHTSA addressed this issue in
the final rule preamble (76 FR at 3279):
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.
TRW has not provided any additional information on this topic than
what was provided in comments to the NPRM. Our decision on this issue
remains as it did when we analyzed those comments.
For the above reasons, the petitioner's request is denied.
b. Pre-Breaking Procedure Applies to All Glazing
Paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 226 states in part: ``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 . . .''
The Alliance questions why the phrase ``subject to S5.5(b)'' is
used in S5.4. The Alliance states that the phrase ``except for
S5.5(b)'' should be used instead, ``to clarify the pre-breaking does
not apply to S5.5(b).''
Agency Response
We are not making the change. It appears that the Alliance has
misinterpreted S5.4 and S5.5(b). Contrary to the petitioner's
understanding, the pre-breaking procedure applies to S5.5(b).
Specifically, the pre-breaking procedure applies to fixed glazing
tested under S5.5(b). There is never a situation under any part of the
standard in which glazing is left in place and unbroken.
In S5.4, the phrase ``subject to S5.5(b)'' modifies the instruction
in S5.4. Under S5.4 without the modifying instruction, the vehicle
manufacturer has the option of removing the glazing, retracting \35\
it, or pre-breaking it. The ``subject to S5.5(b)'' clause is modifying
the ability to choose an option. I.e., under S5.5(b), movable glazing
must be removed or retracted--it cannot remain for the low speed test.
If the glazing is fixed, it will not be removed but it will be pre-
broken under the terms and conditions of S5.4.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The glazing may be retracted instead of being removed if it
can be fully retracted from the daylight opening.
\36\ As a practical matter, tempered glass can simply be removed
rather than pre-broken. Tempered glass will shatter and vacate the
window opening when subjected to the pre-breaking procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the petitioner's request is denied.
c. Meaning of ``Movable Glazing''
S5.5(b) includes a direction to ``remove or fully retract any
movable glazing from the side daylight opening.''
The Alliance asks what is meant by the term ``movable glazing.''
The petitioner specifically asks about rear windows that are hinged at
one edge of the glazing and that are partially opened by rotating the
window outwards, which the petitioner calls ``pop-out windows.'' The
Alliance believes that because these windows do not fully retract, pop-
out windows could function as an FMVSS No. 226 countermeasure and
should be considered ``fixed.''
Also, the petitioner asks about emergency egress windows on some
large vans and mini-buses. The Alliance states that the windows are
closed during normal operation and must be unlocked to provide egress
during emergency situations. The petitioner asks that these windows be
considered ``fixed.''
Agency Response
We consider pop-out windows to be ``movable glazing.'' ``Movable
glazing'' refers to glazing designed to be moved with respect to
vehicle or frame. We have added a definition to the regulatory text.
The glazing can be opened to the outside environment. Movable glazing
is typically not permanently attached on all edges in its frame,
compared to fixed glazing. Field data have cases of movable laminated
glazing detaching from the window opening in a rollover, partly, we
believe, because the glazing is not encapsulated in a framed
structure.\37\ We do not think
[[Page 55162]]
it is necessary to indicate the mechanism by which the glazing moves,
or the direction in which it moves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See the final rule's discussion of the field data showing
the unpredictable nature of movable laminated glazing in real world
crashes. 76 FR at 3277-3278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pop-out glazing is more like retractable glazing than fixed glazing
in terms of how well it is attached to its frame. We do not have reason
to think that a laminated pop-out window would perform better in a
rollover than a laminated window that moves up and down on a track
mechanism.
With regard to ``emergency egress windows,'' as far as we can tell,
the glazing is movable and falls under the term ``movable glazing.'' We
come to a different conclusion if an emergency egress window could not
be used in the ``open'' position at all when the vehicle is in motion,
and have added that condition to the definition.
d. Hinges and Latches
The agency also received a question by email from Autoliv \38\ on
whether the hinge or latch components of a pop-out window should be
considered when determining the daylight opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Copy placed in the docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response
Our answer is yes. Our observations of current pop-out window
designs indicate that the hinge and latch mechanisms would be within
the 100 mm lateral distance from the inside surface of the window, and
as such would be included in the determination of the daylight opening.
Hinge and latch components differ from grab handles in that they are
physically attached to the window. Thus, their removal for testing may
create an unrealistic condition for testing a laminated window since
the hinge and latch components may serve to reinforce the window, at
least for one test speed.\39\ Also, when we include the hinge or latch
components in the determination of the daylight opening, we avoid
impacting the components during testing. Allowing contact of the
headform with hinge or latch components may artificially impede the
headform's displacement. Avoiding contact with these structures better
evaluates the performance of the ejection mitigation countermeasure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ For movable windows, the 20 km/h high speed test is
performed with the window pre-broken, but maintained in the daylight
opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Side Daylight Opening When There Is No Divider
Side daylight opening is defined in S3 as set forth in the
regulatory text of the January 19, 2011 final rule.
In response to a comment on the NPRM, the preamble of the final
rule addressed non-structural steel dividing elements in a window
opening. We stated that ``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.'' 76 FR at 3267.
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance asks for
clarification of the meaning of ``side daylight opening'' with regard
to a vehicle without a dividing element of any material between the
front and rear glazing (depicted on the figure on page 12 of the
Alliance's petition). The petitioner asks: Does the vehicle have a
single side daylight opening for the front and rear seating, or does
each separate piece of glazing constitute a separate daylight opening?
The petitioner supports the latter view.
Agency Response
Our answer is we consider the vehicle to have a single side
daylight opening for the front and rear rows of seats. There is no
dividing element of any kind between the panes of glazing, no solid
component between the two pieces of glazing. When the pieces are
retracted (in the full down position), the daylight opening consists of
one area. Our view is that the combined panes comprise a single
daylight opening. The ``periphery of the opening'' is the frame
surrounding the glazing as shown in the Alliance's figure on page 12 of
its petition and not just the individual panes of glazing. No rationale
or justification was provided by the Alliance for its view.
X. Other Aspects of the Test Procedure
a. Headform Cleaning
In the final rule, the agency declined to adopt a requirement in
the regulatory text that the headform skin would be cleaned with
isopropyl alcohol prior to a test. Several commenters had asked for
such a specification. TRW stated in its comment 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 ASC in its comment, that the standard specify that,
prior to the test, the headform skin must be cleaned. In the final
rule, NHTSA explained that it concluded there was no need for such a
requirement, as the commenters provided no data showing the necessity
of such provision and a comparable standard, FMVSS No. 201, has no
requirement that the free motion headform be cleaned with alcohol prior
to testing.
In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance states that it is
concerned about the possible effect that headform surface coefficient
of friction has on test repeatability. The petitioner states that it
has preliminary data showing that ``significant excursion variation as
a function of headform cleanliness,'' and that it would submit the data
``at a future date along with a recommendation.'' The petitioner did
not provide such follow-on data or recommendation. The Alliance
suggests we use the same procedure that is specified for the headform
in FMVSS No. 201.
ASC and TRW also petition to have a headform cleaning procedure
prior to each test. The petitioners recommend cleaning the headform
prior to the test ``since the deposit of foreign substances on the
surface of the headform could lead to a lower or higher coefficient of
friction.'' They state that a modeling study shows that headform
displacement at targets A1 and B1 beyond the window pane increased and
decreased with a 20 percent lower and higher coefficient of friction,
respectively. These petitioners further state that the test procedures
for upper interior components in FMVSS No. 201, ``Occupant protection
in interior impacts,'' (``201U''), provide for cleaning of the headform
skin with isopropyl alcohol or equivalent prior to the test.
Agency Response
We disagree that there is a need to require the headform surface be
cleaned prior to testing. The simulation results provided by TRW and
ASC do not provide sufficient collaboration of their claims. The
modeling results showed sensitivity to the coefficient of friction for
an impact location, but there was a lack of detail and specificity
about the modeling. The results were not shown relevant to actual
vehicle testing. In a vehicle test, what would have to be done to the
headform skin to achieve a change in the coefficient of friction of
20 percent? How much and what type of a foreign substance
has to be on the headform to have a 20 percent change in
the coefficient of friction? How likely is it that a headform in a
compliance test would have such an amount of substance on it? Without
this basic information, the submitted modeling study has not shown a
need for a requirement for cleaning the headform prior to testing.
[[Page 55163]]
The petitioners state that precedent exists for headform cleaning.
However, as we said in the preamble to the NPRM, FMVSS No. 201 has no
requirement that the headform be cleaned with alcohol prior to testing
in either the regulatory text or compliance test procedure (TP).
Rather, Appendix A of the TP-201U is a calibration procedure for the
instrumented free motion headform. Section 12.1 of that document
specifies that the headform is to be cleaned prior to a calibration
drop test. Such head skin cleaning is also done before drop test
calibration of other ATD heads. A headform drop test is not part of the
FMVSS No. 226 procedure.
b. Vehicle Test Attitude
The final rule adopted specifications relating to the vehicle test
attitude (S6.1).\40\ As described below, the vehicle is supported off
its suspension at an attitude determined in accordance with S6.1(a)
through (f). S6.1(a) through (f) are set forth in the regulatory text
of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ There are typographical errors in S6.1. Paragraph heading
``(c)'' is repeated twice, by mistake. The second (c) should be (d).
Headings (d) and (e) should be (e) and (f), respectively. Errors
appear in cross-references. Today's document corrects these errors.
Henceforth from this point, we will refer to the corrected headings
and cross-references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance believes that S6.1 does not address vehicle lateral
restraint, which the petitioner believes could affect the outcome of
the test. The Alliance suggests that the agency add a new paragraph
specifying that the vehicle must be secured on a rigid, fixture so that
it is adequately restrained, and supported along the sills of the
vehicle (with the frame supported at multiple locations in the case of
body-on-frame construction), to prevent lateral or vertical movement.
Agency Response
We are declining the Alliance request. The standard addresses
vehicle lateral restraint by specifying that the vehicle is supported
off its suspension. The agency has had no indication during its
extensive test program supporting the development and proposal of FMVSS
No. 226 that test repeatability has been affected by a lack of
additional lateral restraint. In addition, the Alliance has not
provided any data to indicate that the test results can be affected by
a lack of additional lateral support.
c. Inspect Air Bag Mounts
TRW and ASC made an identical request related to curtain air bag
mounts. The petitioners recommended that ``the regulatory text and/or
the test procedure include a provision to inspect the curtain mounts or
fastening locations, in the vehicle body, prior to each test, if NHTSA
were to test more than one head target location per window. The curtain
airbag [sic] mounts or integrity of the fastening locations could be
compromised during repeated FMVSS [No.] 226 tests.''
Agency Response
We decline to make the requested change. To begin, we do not agree
with the implication that associates a curtain mount failure with a
compromised test. If a curtain mount fails during an initial impact
with the test device, the failure of the mount is representative of
real world performance of the system.
Furthermore, the provision is unnecessary. The agency may choose to
perform multiple tests on a vehicle and may reuse certain vehicle
hardware, provided that the multiple tests do not compromise the
vehicle's performance in the test. In general, we will visually inspect
reused mounts prior to a test. We will replace components as the need
arises. Having an ambiguous provision in the regulatory text to inspect
the curtain mount does not add to the objectivity of the standard.
XI. Secondary Issues
a. Other Typographical Errors
In additional to the typographical errors previously mentioned in
this document, this final rule also corrects the following errors which
were pointed out by the Alliance in its petition:
S5.2.1.2(c) has the term ``fixed traverse partition.'' The
correct term is ``fixed transverse partition.''
The first sentence of S5.2.5.3 refers to S5.2.2.2(a). It
should be S5.2.2(a).
b. Views on a Dynamic Test Procedure
In the NPRM and the final rule preambles, the agency explained at
length its reasons for not incorporating a full-scale vehicle dynamic
test in FMVSS No. 226. A relevant excerpt from the final rule is as
follows (76 FR 3285):
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. . .
. [W]e 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.
We also stated in the final rule that, while we are currently
pursuing a research program looking at the development of a dynamic
test to address roof strength and seat belts, a full vehicle dynamic
test appropriate for ejection mitigation testing might not result 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.'' Id.
In its petition for reconsideration, Advocates expresses a
preference for a dynamic rollover test procedure as a way to examine
``a more realistic interaction'' of occupants with rollover related
countermeasures and also to ``fully quantify the costs, benefits and
practicability of advanced glazing and mitigation of ejection through
portals.'' Advocates believes that the agency ``should include the
development of a dynamic rollover test procedure in its strategic
plan.''
Agency Response
The views stated in Advocates' petition are not new. They were
expressed prior to the final rule, and the agency responded to them in
the final rule preamble (see above and the final rule preamble, 76 FR
3284-3285).
The views stated by Advocates do not pertain to an aspect of the
final rule. The subject is not a matter for a petition for
reconsideration.
NHTSA's policy views are subject to change, as safety needs,
technologies, resources and priorities change. The public will have
ample opportunity to provide insight and opinions on NHTSA's programs
at the appropriate times. However, petitioning for reconsideration of
our decision on a matter relating to future work and the agency's
strategic plan is not a mechanism recognized by our rulemaking
regulations. We will not engage in a discourse on our rulemaking and
research priority decision-making in today's document.
The current agency rollover research is planned to continue until
August 2014. At the close of that program the
[[Page 55164]]
agency will assess any applicability of the results to safety issues
beyond the assessment of roof strength and restraint optimization. The
need for future research into full-vehicle ejection mitigation testing
will then be assessed along with all other agency endeavors and
priorities.
XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking is not ``significant'' under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and the Department's regulatory
policies and procedures. Although the January 19, 2011 final rule was
significant, this response to petitions for reconsideration mostly
denies the petitions for reconsideration of the rule. The few changes
that are being made in response to the petitions for reconsideration
are minor, mostly to clarify the requirements of the standard. One
substantive change is to permit, for vehicles with a partition
separating an occupant seating area from a cargo area, the partition to
have a door, but even that change is not significant. We estimate that
today's final rule has no effect on the estimated costs and benefits
and other economic impacts of the January 19, 2011 final rule.
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.
This final rule denies most of the petitions for reconsideration of
the January 19, 2011 final rule. To the extent we are amending the
original final rule, we are mainly clarifying requirements, such as by
adopting a definition. The amendment to permit partitions between an
occupant area and a cargo area to have a door may have a small positive
impact on some small final-stage manufacturers and alterers by giving
them flexibility to use partitions with doors. We do not believe that
the impact is significant.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). We conclude 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 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.
Sec. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that
preempts any non-identical 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).
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
[[Page 55165]]
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million in any one year ($100 million adjusted annually for
inflation, with base year of 1995). This final rule responding to
petitions for reconsideration will not result in a cost of $139 million
or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)(Public Law 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. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The agency discussed our analysis of the NTTAA in the January 19,
2011 final rule and our conclusion that voluntary industry standards
for glazing would not satisfy the agency's objectives in this
rulemaking. 76 FR at 3296. Those conclusions continue to reflect the
agency's findings in this area.
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, 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
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 1.95.
0
2. Section 571.226 is amended by:
0
a. Amending S3 by revising the definition of ``modified roof'' and
adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``movable window'';
0
b. Revising S5.2.1.2(c), S5.2.5.1.1, S5.2.5.2, S5.2.5.3, S6.1, and
S7.4; and
0
c. Adding Figures 5a and 5b after Figure 5.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 571.226 Standard No. 226; Ejection Mitigation.
* * * * *
S3. Definitions.
* * * * *
Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose
original roof has been removed, in part or in total, or a roof that has
to be built over the driver's compartment in vehicles that did not have
an original roof over the driver's compartment. Movable window means a
daylight opening composed of glazing designed to be moved with respect
to the vehicle or frame while the vehicle is in motion.
* * * * *
S5.2.1.2(c) Vehicles with partitions or bulkheads. If a vehicle has
a fixed transverse partition or bulkhead 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).
* * * * *
S5.2.5.1.1 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, 5a and 5b) (figures 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 x 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.
* * * * *
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 (see Figures 5a and 5b) (figures provided for
illustration purposes). 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(a), reorient the target by rotating it in 5 degree increments
about the y axis of the target by rotating
[[Page 55166]]
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.
* * * * *
S6.1 Vehicle test attitude. The vehicle is supported off its
suspension at an attitude determined in accordance with S6.1(a) through
(f).
(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.
(d) Pitch: Measure the sill angle of the driver door sill and mark
where the angle is measured.
(e) 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.
(f) 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(d) and the vertical height difference of the two
points marked in S6.1(e) is within 5 mm of the vertical
height difference determined in S6.1(e).
* * * * *
S7.4 Targeting accuracy. Determine that the ejection mitigation
test device can deliver the ejection impactor targeting point through a
zone defined by a cylinder with a 20 mm diameter and 100 mm length,
when the ejection impactor is moving at the speed specified in S5.5.
The projection of the long axis of the cylinder is normal to the target
and passes through the target center. The long axis of the cylinder is
bisected by a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane passing through the
theoretical point of impact with the countermeasure.
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE13.007
[[Page 55167]]
* * * * *
Issued on August 29, 2013.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-21605 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P