[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55137-55167]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21605]

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

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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

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
(S<IP_ADDRESS>(c));
    Clarifies the regulatory text describing the procedure for target
elimination (S<IP_ADDRESS>.1), and adds new figures 5a and 5b for
clarification purposes;
    Clarifies the regulatory text for target reorientation, 90 degree
rotation (S<IP_ADDRESS>);
    Corrects typographic errors in the regulatory text for target
reorientation incremental rotation (S<IP_ADDRESS>); 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

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

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

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

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

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

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
    S<IP_ADDRESS> 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, S<IP_ADDRESS>(c) of the
standard has a provision regarding how impact target locations are
determined. Under S<IP_ADDRESS>(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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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

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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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

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

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

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

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

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

    S<IP_ADDRESS> 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.
(S<IP_ADDRESS>(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

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.

[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

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