[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8209-8212]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-2007-OAR-1109; FRL-8528-4]

Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the
Imperial County, 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes EPA's finding of nonattainment and
reclassification of the Imperial County 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(Imperial County). EPA finds that Imperial County has failed to attain
the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (``NAAQS'' or
``standard'') by June 15, 2007, the attainment deadline set forth in
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for
marginal nonattainment areas. As a result, on the effective date of
this rule, Imperial County will be reclassified by operation of law as
a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The moderate area
attainment date for the reclassified Imperial County will be ``as
expeditiously as practicable,'' but no later than June 15, 2010. Once
reclassified, California must submit State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions that meet the 8-hour ozone nonattainment requirements for
moderate areas, as required by the CAA. EPA has determined that the
State must submit these SIP revisions by December 31, 2008.

DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-2007-OAR-1109 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901. While

documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., Confidential Business Information). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrienne Priselac, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3285<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. Response to Comments
III. What is the effect of this action?
    A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Imperial
County Nonattainment Area and New Attainment Date
    B. Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Imperial County
Area
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On November 23, 2007, EPA published its proposed finding that
Imperial County did not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007,
the applicable attainment date (72 FR 65682). The proposed finding was
based upon ambient air quality data from the years 2004, 2005, and
2006. In addition, as explained in the proposed rule, the area did not
qualify for an attainment date extension under the provisions of CAA
section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907, because the 4th highest daily
value in the attainment year was greater than 0.084 ppm. In the
November 23, 2007, proposal, EPA proposed that the area would be
reclassified by operation of law to ``moderate'' nonattainment, in
accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2).

II. Response to Comments

    EPA published its proposed rule on November 23, 2007, and provided
an opportunity for public comment. The public comment period ended on
December 24, 2007. EPA received no comments. No further opportunity for
public comment will be provided.

III. What is the effect of this action?

A. Determination of Nonattainment, Reclassification of Imperial County
and New Attainment Date

    Pursuant to section 181(b)(2), EPA finds that Imperial County
failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007,
attainment deadline prescribed under the CAA (69 FR 23858, April 30,
2004 and 40 CFR 51.903(a)) for marginal ozone nonattainment areas. When
this finding becomes effective, Imperial County will be reclassified by
operation of law from marginal nonattainment to moderate nonattainment.
The reclassification to the next higher classification is mandated by
section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA. (see the discussion in the proposal at
72 FR 65684) Moderate areas are required to attain the standard ``as
expeditiously as practicable'' but no later than 6 years after
designation or June 15, 2010. The ``as expeditiously as practicable''
attainment date will be determined as part of the action on the
required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard. Also in this action, EPA is finalizing its proposal
establishing a schedule by which California will submit the SIP
revisions necessary to meet the requirements for areas reclassified to
moderate nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

B. Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the Imperial County Area

    In its proposal, EPA addressed the schedule by which California is
required to submit a revised SIP meeting the requirements for the
Imperial County moderate nonattainment area. When an area is
reclassified, EPA has the authority under section 182(i) of the CAA to
adjust the CAA's submittal deadlines for any new SIP revisions that are
required as a result of the reclassification.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment area, a state
must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for
attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone
season. The attainment year ozone season is the ozone season
immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date, in this
case 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season is the ozone monitoring
season as defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3
(71 FR 61236, October 17, 2006). For the purposes of this
reclassification for Imperial County, January 1, 2009, is the beginning
of the ozone monitoring season. As a result, EPA is finalizing its
proposal requiring that the required SIP revisions be submitted by
California as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December
31, 2008. This timeline also calls for implementation of applicable
controls no later than January 1, 2009.
    The area was previously required to submit the requirements for
marginal areas, and under section 182(b) remains required to meet them,
and now must meet the requirements for moderate areas as well.
    A revised SIP must include the following moderate area
requirements: (1) An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908), (2)
provisions for reasonably available control technology and reasonably
available control measures (40 CFR 51.912), (3) reasonable further
progress reductions in emissions (40 CFR 51.910), (4) contingency
measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet a milestone
or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9)), and (5) NOX and VOC
emission offsets of 1.15 to 1 for major source permits (40 CFR
51.165(a)). See also the requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment
areas set forth in CAA section 182(b).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program would
normally be listed as a requirement for an ozone moderate or above
nonattainment area. However, the Federal I/M Flexibility Amendments
of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with populations less than
200,000 for 1990 are not mandated to participate in the I/M program
(60 FR 48027, September 18, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is making a final
determination that the Imperial County ``marginal'' 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15,
2007. Upon the effective date of this rule, the Imperial County
``marginal'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area will be reclassified by
operation of law as a ``moderate'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA, EPA is establishing the schedule
for submittal of the SIP revisions required for moderate areas once the
area is reclassified. The required SIP revision for California must be
submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December
31, 2008.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and is therefore not
subject to review under the EO. The Agency has determined that the
finding of nonattainment would result in none of the effects identified
in the Executive Order. Under Section 181(b)(2) of the CAA,
determinations of nonattainment are based upon air quality
considerations and the resulting reclassifications must occur by
operation of law.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Determinations of nonattainment and the
resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law
under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves create
any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking makes a factual
determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. Therefore,
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act'' or ``UMRA''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any
proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this rulemaking action does not include a
Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Also, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore
is not subject to the requirements of section 203. EPA believes that
the finding of nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air
quality considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the
area must occur by operation of law. Therefore EPA believes that the
finding does not constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section
101 of the UMRA, because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any
entity.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and
12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This
action merely determines that the Imperial County area has not attained
by its applicable attainment date, reclassifies the Imperial County
area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, and adjusts applicable
deadlines. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This action
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not
have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action merely determines that the Imperial Valley area has not
attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, reclassifies
the Imperial Valley area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, and
adjusts applicable deadlines.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS. This action merely determines that the Imperial County
area has not attained by the applicable attainment date, reclassifies
the Imperial County area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area, and
adjusts applicable deadlines. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use
of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective March 14, 2008.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 14, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 24, 2008.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  81.305 the ``California-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)'' table is
amended by revising the entry for ``Imperial County:'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

                                                                    California-Ozone
                                                                    [8-hour standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date\1\                       Type                        Date                   Classification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Imperial County, CA: Imperial County....  ...........  Nonattainment............................      3/14/08  Subpart 2/Moderate.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. E8-2698 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Plain Language

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

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

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

XI. Public Participation

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

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

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

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

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

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

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

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

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

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

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

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

49 CFR Part 585

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

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

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

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

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

Sec.  571.226  Standard No. 226; Ejection Mitigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE09.020

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

Subpart K--Ejection Mitigation Phase-in Reporting Requirements

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

Sec.  585.100  Scope.

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

Sec.  585.101  Purpose.

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

Sec.  585.102  Applicability.

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

Sec.  585.103  Definitions.

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

Sec.  585.104  Response to inquiries.

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

Sec.  585.105  Reporting requirements.

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

Sec.  585.106  Records.

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

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

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P