the vehicle's center of gravity, which the commenter stated could
potentially affect the sensor(s) that control side curtain air bag
deployment. The standard adopted today does not specify any
requirements for the rollover sensor. In the compliance test, we
manually deploy the ejection mitigation side curtain air bags with the
stationary vehicle set up in the test laboratory. Changing the center
of gravity of the vehicle would not affect our ability to manually
deploy the side curtain air bags in the laboratory test. Likewise,
lowering the vehicle floor would not affect the ability to manually
deploy the side curtain air bags in the test.
    Since no certification requirement exists with regard to the
sensor, the IVD will not have center of gravity restrictions regarding
sensor performance. We have no sound reason to exclude multi-stage work
vehicles from the standard based on possible restrictions relating to
sensor performance.
    Furthermore, we do not believe that changing the center of gravity
of the vehicle will affect whether or not an ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags deploys in a real world rollover. We believe that
incomplete vehicle manufacturers will be able to develop rollover
detection technology that can address variability in the vehicle's
center of gravity.\157\ Sensors that are based on roll angle and roll
rate can be made to deploy the air bag when the vehicle rolls, despite
changes to the center of gravity of the vehicle involved in installing
bulkheads, partitions, etc., to which NTEA alludes. However, such
changes may have an effect on the optimization of the sensor for the
particular vehicle, which could result in the systems deploying earlier
or later than would otherwise be the case. Nonetheless, even without
sensor optimization, work vehicles with ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags would continue to provide ejection protection to their
occupants. If these vehicles were excluded because of center of gravity
changes, they would offer no ejection protection in rollovers and no
protection against ejection in side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Mercedes' comment to the NPRM indicated that vehicle
manufacturers will work toward developing rollover detection
technology for use in large vehicles with center of gravity
different than those of passenger cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some modifications made by a final-stage manufacturer or alterer to
the interior of the vehicle could affect the vehicle's compliance with
FMVSS No. 226. An example of this is installing a partition. NTEA
sought to exclude multi-stage manufactured vehicles with bulkheads and
partitions from FMVSS No. 226 since installation of a bulkhead or
partition ``will almost certainly affect the performance of the chassis
manufacturers' side curtain air bag systems.''
    We decline to adopt a blanket exclusion of multi-stage vehicles
with bulkheads or partitions in work vehicles.\158\ Such an exclusion
would be unreasonably broad. Bulkheads and partitions can be installed
so as not to interfere with the deployment of ejection mitigation side
curtain air bags. Bulkheads and partitions can be designed to allow for
sufficient clearance to allow the air bags to deploy, or may have
break-away features to allow a curtain air bag to deploy.\159\ The
incomplete vehicle manufacturers will be able to provide the
appropriate guidance to allow for pass-through certifications. Even if
the IVD does not provide guidance, the final-stage manufacturer will be
able to ascertain the clearance needed to install the bulkhead or
partition. The bulkhead and partition designs will enable the final
customer to purchase a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 226 and to
provide the protection of side curtain air bags to their employees who
will be occupying the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ As discussed later in this section, we are allowing a
limited exclusion of ``security partitions'' in multi-stage
manufactured or altered law enforcement vehicles, correctional
institution vehicles, taxis and limousines.
    \159\ See 75 FR 12123, 12128-12131, March 15, 2010, for a
discussion of approaches that are available to multi-stage
manufacturers enabling them to certify to FMVSS No. 214's pole test
using side impact curtain air bags in vehicles with partitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the Alliance's comment that the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act precludes the agency from applying FMVSS
No. 226 to vehicles with partitions. Partitioned vehicles are not a
vehicle type. In any event, it is not impracticable to meet the
standard with a partition. Manufacturers will be able to determine how
to provide a clearance for the ejection mitigation side curtain air
bags and/or design and position the partition to take advantage of the
shape of the air bag.
    NTEA also expressed concerns related to testing cost for those
multi-staged vehicles for which pass-through would not be available. It
stated that it received estimates for testing costs ``from $9,000 to
$25,000 for 1-3 rows at 5 tests per

window, and $14,000 to $40,000 for 1-3 rows at 8 tests per window
(assuming new airbags and glass for each impact.'' We do not believe
those estimates are accurate. In the PRIA, the agency estimated testing
costs would consist of $100 for labor, $300 for an air bag and $400 for
advanced glazing.\160\ For a 3 row vehicle, assuming testing every
target at both test speeds; this would result in a testing cost
estimate of $19,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ PRIA, pg. V-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTEA also questioned the potential availability of testing
facilities to fulfill the need of the multi-stage manufacturers. We
believe testing facilities will be able and willing to provide the
market demand for testing. The agency purchased a state-of-the-art
ejection mitigation test device for about $150,000 and received
delivery in 4\1/2\ months.
    In addition, multi-stage manufacturers have an additional year
after the phase-in is completed to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 226.
This leadtime available to multi-stage manufacturers will provide
enough time for the manufacturers to work with incomplete vehicle
manufacturers to address pass-through certification guidance or perform
whatever testing they deem is necessary for certification purposes,
including the basis for certifying vehicles with a partition or
bulkhead.
    NTEA noted that it expected any change to the trim or headliner
around any of the window space to be prohibited by the IVD for pass-
through compliance. We do not agree. In its comment, Nissan stated that
it did not anticipate the headliner would affect performance of the
side curtain air bag system. NTEA did not provide information showing
otherwise. Further, the multi-stage manufacturers have ample lead time
to work with incomplete vehicle manufacturers to develop acceptable
trim and headliner changes or to work with test laboratories themselves
to assess what changes to the trim or headliner can be made that will
not affect the performance of the ejection mitigation system.
    We are adopting a suggestion of NTEA with regard to partitions. One
of NTEA's comments related to vehicles with partitions or bulkheads
that separate areas of the vehicle with and without seating positions.
It stated that to the extent the proposed standard applied to multi-
stage produced trucks, ``NHTSA [should] consider adopting testing
parameters similar to those found in FMVSS 201 to effectively exclude
any targets that are located behind the forward surface of a partition
or bulkhead * * *. We believe it is neither practical nor beneficial to
require test target points that could not possibly be contacted by the
head of an occupant seated forward of the partition.'' \161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ This provision is found in S6.3(b) of FMVSS No. 201.
Footnote added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find merit in this suggestion to be consistent with FMVSS No.
201. If there is a permanent partition or bulkhead that separates areas
of the vehicle with designated seating positions (DSgPs) from areas
that do not have DSgPs, we believe there is no sensible reason to
target daylight openings in the latter area. The likelihood of an
occupant being ejected from an opening in an area without a DSgP is
low. However, to reduce the likelihood an occupant would be in the area
without a DSgP, the partition or bulkhead must be fixed to the vehicle
and not provide access for an occupant to pass through it. A partition
with a door would not be considered as separating the occupant space
from non-occupant space.
    This final rule makes a limited exclusion of security partitions in
multi-stage manufactured or altered law enforcement vehicles,
correctional institution vehicles, taxis and limousines. The Alliance
and Volvo commented that police vehicles, taxis and limousines with
partitions between the first and second rows should be excluded from
FMVSS No. 226. The Alliance claimed that any partition installed in a
way to not interfere with curtain deployment would leave ``a
significant gap between the outboard edge of the partition and the
inboard surface of the vehicle trim thus rendering it unable to provide
either complete security or privacy.'' The Alliance believed that
upwardly-deploying air bags are not feasible. Volvo believed that
installing a partition is ``always done by a third party and is, for
this reason, beyond the vehicle manufacture[r]'s control. To take this
potential adaptation into consideration during design, development, and
testing would not be possible.''
    Considering that law enforcement vehicles are more likely to be
involved in risky driving operations than other passenger vehicles,
NHTSA prefers that the vehicles provide ejection mitigation
countermeasures. However, we agree to exclude some vehicles from the
standard under certain circumstances due to practical considerations.
    Security partitions (e.g., prisoner partitions) are necessary for
the safety and security of law enforcement officers. These partitions
must be flush against the sides of the vehicle to prevent a rear seat
occupant's hand or article from intruding into the officer's
compartment. A partition installed by a final-stage manufacturer in an
incomplete vehicle or by an alterer in a completed vehicle will
interfere with the ejection mitigation side curtain air bags currently
being produced. The curtains are tethered from the A-pillar to the C-
pillar, so a partition between the 1st and 2nd rows or between the 2nd
and 3rd rows will prevent the curtain from properly covering the window
opening.
    After considering the comments, we believe it would be difficult
for incomplete vehicle manufacturers providing vehicles to the final
stage manufacturers or alterers to have an alternative design which
would be compatible with a security partition.\162\ Thus, we are
excluding from the standard law enforcement vehicles, correctional
institution vehicles, taxis and limousines, if they have a fixed
security partition separating the 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd rows, and
if they are manufactured in more than one stage or are altered. We do
not believe that compatible designs, such as a split curtain, are
impossible. Rather, we believe compatible designs will need time to
develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ In FMVSS No. 214, we do not exclude police and other
vehicles from meeting the standard's pole test requirements. The
pole test does not apply to rear seats. To meet the pole test,
vehicles must provide head, thorax and pelvic protection. Side
window curtains can be used to meet the pole test, but seat- and
door-mounted air bags in the front seat are also available for use
as well in meeting FMVSS No. 214. Thus, multi-stage manufacturers
can work together such that the vehicle in which the partition is
installed can meet FMVSS No. 214 with a front seat seat-mounted or
door-mounted air bag. At this time there is no countermeasure
available from incomplete vehicle manufacturers that could meet
FMVSS No. 226 with a security partition flush to the side of the
vehicle. A countermeasure only using advanced glazing for movable
windows will not meet today's requirements because the 16 km/h test
must be passed without glazing in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe there is any technical barrier to designing
curtain(s) to cover side windows that are separated by a partition with
two separate curtains. The front of the first row curtain and rear of
the second row curtain could be tethered to the A- and C-pillars,
respectively. Each curtain could be separately tethered to the B-
pillar. We also believe that such a split curtain system could use a
single inflator to feed both air bags. The trim on the B-pillar and on
the header in front and behind the partition could be split to allow
the two air bags to deploy independently. Development of such a vehicle
specific curtain would likely require time, and the resources available
to an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, i.e., a large vehicle
manufacturer.

Because we believe incomplete vehicle manufacturers are able to develop
a curtain design that is compatible with a partition, we are not
extending this exclusion to law enforcement vehicles, correctional
institution vehicles, taxis and limousines if they are built in a
single stage. We believe it is practicable for such a vehicle to have a
single design to meet the final rule and that manufacturers of such
vehicles will be capable of applying the necessary resources to meet
the standard.
4. Other Issues
i. Vehicles That Have No Doors and Walk-In Vans
    Comments were requested but none were received on whether vehicles
are still being manufactured that have no doors, or exclusively have
doors that are designed to be easily attached or removed so that the
vehicle can be operated without doors. NHTSA proposed excluding the
vehicles on practicability grounds. This final rule adopts the
exclusion.
    We did not receive comments on the proposed exclusion of walk-in
vans. This final rule excludes the vehicles on practicability grounds.
ii. Vehicles Over 4,536 kg
    A few commenters requested that the standard not be limited to
vehicles under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR. Batzer and Ziejewski stated
that school buses over 4,536 kg offered ejection mitigation by virtue
of the divider-bar requirement and, therefore, commercial vehicles over
4,536 kg GVWR should be covered as well. The commenter stated that
``[w]hile this could conceivably cause some manufacturers distress,
they could be provided the opportunity to petition NHTSA for a waiver,
and notify the purchaser that their vehicle does not fully comply with
pertinent FMVSS regulations.'' \163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ NHTSA-2009-0183-0009, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did not propose to apply the standard to vehicles with a GVWR
over 4,536 kg and did not discuss the possibility of this application
of the standard or request comments on this issue. Thus, the requests
are outside the scope of the rulemaking. Also, we note that the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides very limited
authority to NHTSA to grant exemptions to manufacturers from meeting
the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. General
authority to grant waivers is not available.

m. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedules; Reporting Requirements

    Motor vehicle manufacturers will need lead time to develop and
install ejection mitigation countermeasures and rollover sensors.
Although inflatable side curtain air bags are being developed in new
vehicles to meet the September 1, 2010 date that begins the phase-in of
the FMVSS No. 214 final rule for the pole test, to meet the
requirements adopted today, these side curtains will have to be made
larger to cover more of the window opening, will have to be made more
robust to remain inflated longer, and will have to be enhanced (by
tethering and other means) to retain vehicle occupants within the
vehicle. Moreover, rollover sensors will need to be installed to deploy
the ejection mitigation countermeasures in rollover crashes, to augment
the sensors needed to deploy the side curtains in side impacts.
    Our tests of vehicles to the NPRM's proposed requirements found
that vehicle manufacturers were at different stages with respect to
designing inflatable ejection mitigation side curtains that meet the
requirements then-proposed. Vehicle manufacturers also face unique
manufacturing constraints and challenges, e.g., each face differences
in the technological advances incorporated in their current air bag
systems, differences in engineering resources, and differences in the
numbers and type of vehicles for which ejection mitigation systems will
need to be incorporated. NHTSA believed that these differing situations
can best be accommodated by phasing in the ejection mitigation
requirements and by allowing the use of advanced credits.
    NHTSA proposed that the phase-in would be implemented in accordance
with the following schedule: 20 percent of each manufacturer's vehicles
manufactured during the first production year beginning three years
after publication of a final rule (for illustration purposes, assuming
the final rule is issued in January 2011, under the NPRM that effective
date would have been September 1, 2014); 40 percent of each
manufacturer's vehicles manufactured during the production year
beginning four years after publication of a final rule; 75 percent of
vehicles manufactured during the production year beginning five years
after publication of a final rule; and all vehicles (without use of
advanced credits) manufactured on or after the September 1st following
six years after publication of a final rule.
    NHTSA also proposed to permit ``limited line'' manufacturers that
produce three or fewer carlines the option of achieving full compliance
when the phase-in is completed. The NPRM also proposed that
manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and
alterers would not be required to meet the phase-in schedule and would
not have to achieve full compliance until one year after the phase-in
is completed. NHTSA proposed reporting requirements to accompany the
phase-in.
Comments
    The Alliance asked for an additional year of lead time, believing
that it will take at least 12 months after publication of the final
rule to obtain impactors meeting the specified performance
requirements. Further, the Alliance stated that ``even after the
devices have been acquired, they must be installed, pre[hyphen]tested
and run[hyphen]in before they can produce consistent test results which
are necessary prior to the initiation of a development process that
will yield reproducible results. These logistical steps will
unfortunately eliminate one[hyphen]third of the lead[hyphen]time
intended by the NPRM and because manufacturers will utilize the
impactor in the development process, this lost time will significantly
impact manufacturers' ability to achieve compliance in the first year
of the phase[hyphen]in as proposed.''
    The AIAM stated that an additional year of lead time is needed for
vehicles not utilizing roof rail mounted curtain air bags to meet FMVSS
No. 214. It claimed that these vehicles would need significantly
greater redesign and that this work cannot begin until the final rule
is issued.
    Several vehicle manufacturers asked for the application of advanced
credits in the 100 percent certification year. The Alliance contended
that manufacturers producing vehicles that do not meet FMVSS No. 214 by
way of a side window air bag curtain will need to use credits in the
100 percent year to be able to redesign vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 226.
The commenter stated its belief that vehicles with a GVWR over 2,722 kg
(6,000 lb) will need more lead time to install larger air bag cushions
and inflators to cover the vehicles' larger windows. Porsche stated
that compliance with future ejection mitigation requirements will
necessitate significant changes to the body-in-white, greenhouse and
interior fittings which can only be implemented with the launch of a
new vehicle model. Mercedes commented that large vehicles, such as the
Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, have large window openings

which Mercedes stated will require a completely new generation of large
air bag curtains.
    In contrast, glazing manufacturers and consumer groups requested a
one-year reduction in both the lead time and phase-in of the final
rule. Advocates requested that the phase-in be changed to 40 percent,
75 percent and 100 percent. Guardian stated that ``advanced glazing
technology is available today.'' EPGAA stated ``many manufacturers'
models already incorporate advanced glazing and airbags, and as NHTSA's
testing shows, little or no changes are required to existing airbags to
achieve compliance with the proposed standard.''
Agency Response
    To accelerate the ejection mitigation benefits provided by this
final rule, the agency has decided to reduce the lead time by a year,
to two years of lead time, and to require larger percentages of a
manufacturer's fleet to meet the new standard in the first two years of
the phase-in schedule than proposed. The overall timetable is
comparable to the schedules in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 216, and with the
Phase I advanced air bag implementation in FMVSS No. 208.
    We reject the argument of the Alliance that a lack of availability
of impact testers will delay compliance. Many vehicle manufacturers and
air bag manufacturers presented test data to the agency indicating they
have access to impact testers and are able to perform the tests. The
lead time and phase-in timetable provided will afford sufficient time
to perform compliance tests.
    We reject the AIAM request for increased lead time for vehicles
that do not or will not use curtains to meet the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade.
If manufacturers need more time for such vehicles, they can address
this through the flexibility offered by the phase-in and credits. AIAM
indicated that the additional year was needed to ``fully separate the
214 and ejection mitigation phase-in periods.'' We do not know of a
reason why full separation is needed between completion of the phase-in
of the FMVSS No. 214 upgraded requirements and the first year of the
FMVSS No. 226 phase-in.
    The 24 km/h-1.5 second impact proposed in the NPRM has been reduced
in this final rule to 20 km/h-1.5 seconds after our reanalysis of the
technical basis for the energy requirement. With this reduction in
impactor speed, it is expected that fewer changes will be needed to
existing designs to meet the final rule's requirements. Data from
agency testing of production vehicles presented earlier in this
preamble showed that the MY 2007 Mazda CX9 was able to meet the
performance tests in the final rule, without modification. Given this
reduction in stringency of the test, fewer and/or less substantial
vehicle design changes will be needed to meet the standard, and less
lead time required to begin phasing in the requirements across the
fleet. Accordingly, we believe that two years of lead time are
sufficient prior to the phase-in. For the same reason, a greater
percentage of vehicles will be able to meet the requirements in each of
the phase-in years. Thus, we are slightly increasing the percentages of
vehicles in the fleet that will need to meet the ejection mitigation
standard during the first two years of the phase-in.
    However, vehicle manufacturers are at different stages with respect
to designing ejection mitigation systems, and also face differences in
the challenges they face and the resources available to them. To
provide flexibility to manufacturers in managing their resources to
meet this schedule, this final rule provides a multi-year phase-in
period and allows credits to be used in the 100 percent phase-in year.
The agency did allow the use of credits for the 100 percent year for
the advanced air bag rulemaking in FMVSS No. 208. We generally agree
with the comments from AIAM stating that credits allow for manufacturer
flexibility and earlier safety benefits. The added flexibility of
allowing credits in the 100 percent year will allow manufacturers a
more seamless introduction of compliant vehicles while enhancing their
ability to manage their engineering and manufacturing resources.
    We found particularly compelling the comments from Mercedes
(regarding the Sprinter), Porsche (regarding the long product cycle of
their sports cars), Volvo and other manufacturers. The use of advanced
credits in the 100 percent year will provide relief to manufacturers of
vehicles with very large windows, vehicles with very long product
cycles, and vehicles that are not as far along having side curtain air
bags as other vehicles.
    The comments showed that manufacturers have unique problems
depending on factors such as organizational resources, product mix, and
product life cycle. A manufacturer with many different models may have
more flexibility in determining which vehicles to certify and in
accruing credits. However, this larger portfolio may require greater
effort to bring all vehicles into compliance. On the other hand,
manufacturers with small portfolios may have less flexibility, but may
be able to focus resources on a much smaller number of vehicles to
upgrade. The final rule phase-in schedule, even with the added year of
credit use, may result in some manufacturers needing to reassess and
modify their plans. Nonetheless, we believe that the two-year lead time
and the four-year phase-in correctly balances the manufacturers' needs
for flexibility and the needs of the agency to limit the length of time
for the phase-in to a reasonable period and achieve the safety benefits
of the final rule as quickly as practicable.
    NHTSA has decided that the lead time and phase-in will continue to
apply to all vehicles under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).\164\ We have balanced
the safety need to implement the requirements of this final rule as
quickly as practicable with the realistic burdens of manufacture.\165\
We believe that the relief provided by the additional year to use
credits will allow manufacturers the flexibility to address any
specific problems associated with bringing heavier vehicles into
compliance. Some vehicle manufacturers pointed to FMVSS Nos. 214 and
216 as examples of standards where the certification schedule gave
special treatment to heavier vehicles. For example, for FMVSS No. 214,
the agency stated that more time was being provided for the pole test
of vehicles with GVWR greater than 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) because the
vehicles had never been regulated in FMVSS No. 214 and thus ``more
redesign of the vehicle side structure, interior trim, and/or
optimization of dynamically deploying head/side protection systems may
be needed in these vehicles than in light vehicles.'' \166\ We do not
find the analogy persuasive. The changes needed to meet FMVSS Nos. 214
and 216 were primarily

structural. FMVSS No. 226 countermeasures for larger vehicles, as
indicated by commenters, will likely be larger curtains and longer-
lasting inflators. The two-year lead time and phase-in timetable for
FMVSS No. 226, and the use of credits in the 100 percent year, will
provide the time needed to meet the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ This does not include limited line manufacturers,
manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles, and alterers. Those
manufacturers are not required to achieve full compliance until one
year after the phase-in is completed.
    \165\ The agency estimates that vehicles between the ranges of
2,722 kg (6,000 lb) to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and 3,856 kg (8,500 lb)
to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) constitute 25 percent and 6 percent of the
annual production of vehicles with a GVWR less than 4,536 kg (10,000
lb). The 25 percent estimate can be found in the FRIA for the recent
FMVSS No. 216 upgrade (Docket NHTSA-2009-0093). The 6 percent
estimate is derived from MY 2010 submissions to the NCAP Buying a
Safer Car program and Ward's 2009 Yearbook. We believe that to
exclude 25 percent of vehicles less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) from
meeting FMVSS No. 226 until the end of the phase-in, as would be the
case for the 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) split, would be unacceptable in
terms of the delayed safety benefits. We also believe that the 6
percent of vehicles, represented by the 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) split,
represents a number that can be accommodated with accrued advanced
credits.
    \166\ 72 FR 51911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not agree with the commenters expressing concern that
countermeasures for heavier vehicles may have more OOP issues and
therefore, in general, need more time to comply. Toyota data submitted
by the Alliance indicated that OOP concerns were actually greater for
passenger cars than they were for larger vehicles. Further, there is
the potential of using advanced glazing in these heavier vehicles,
particularly for fixed windows.
    We take this opportunity to correct Public Citizen's apparent
misinterpretation of the PRIA that led the commenter to believe that
the agency estimated that 25 percent of MY 2011 vehicles would be able
to comply with the NPRM. In the PRIA, we said that none of the curtain
systems tested met the proposed 100 mm displacement limit. However,
although none of the current curtain air bags met the displacement
requirement, the non-compliant curtains would provide some amount of
ejection mitigation. Since we do not want to double count the potential
benefits of the rulemaking with the benefits that the non-compliant
curtains already provide, these potential benefits were excluded from
the benefits estimate.\167\ Thus, the 25 percent value quoted by Public
Citizen is an adjustment factor, not a compliance rate.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ For example, a curtain air bag that completely covers the
front window opening and meets the 100 mm displacement requirement
at A2, A3, and A4, but not A1. We assumed that the air bag system
would provide some benefits, even if it failed to meet the
displacement requirement at A1.
    \168\ The PRIA stated that current ejection mitigation curtain
systems are only 46 percent effective in preventing occupants from
ejection and that 55 percent of MY 2011 vehicles would be equipped
with these non-compliant air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting Requirements
    The Alliance mentioned that the NPRM requires manufacturers to
report advanced credits 60 days after the end of the production year.
It stated that this means the first report would be due on August 31,
2011. (Under the NPRM the first report would actually have to be filed
60 days after the date of August 31, 2011, rather than on August 31.)
It opined that ``[b]ecause the rule will likely not be finalized until
2011 and the impactors complying with the specifications contained in
the final rule may not be available to all manufacturers until the 2012
timeframe, the Alliance recommended that section 585.105 of the
regulation be revised so as to provide manufacturers up to one year
after the end of the first advanced credit production period to file
their advanced credit phase[hyphen]in report for that year.
    We disagree with this request. The commenter's rationale for
putting off the filing of the report for a year was the same one it
used to argue for an increase in lead time by one year, i.e., an
alleged lack of availability of impact testers meeting the final rule
requirements. We disagree with this reason because, as previously
stated, many vehicle manufacturers and air bag manufacturers presented
test data to the agency indicating they have access to impact testers
and are able to perform tests. Further, allowing manufacturers one year
after the end of the MY 2011 production period ends to report would
lead to logistical difficulties for the agency's compliance testing
program. At the time we would be purchasing vehicles for the MY 2011
compliance testing, we would not know which vehicles to purchase for
testing to FMVSS No. 226 without the reports. If the reports were not
due until October 1, 2012, it might be difficult to procure the
certified MY 2011 vehicles at that time.
    AIAM and VSC asked that small volume and limited line manufacturers
be exempt from the phase-in reporting until the first year that they
must comply or can earn credits. We agree with the comment. These
entities are exempt from the phase-in requirements, so they should be
exempt from reporting requirements as well.

XI. Costs and Benefits

    The FRIA we have placed in the docket analyzes the impacts of this
final rule. A summary of the FRIA follows.
    The agency believes that side curtain air bags will be used to pass
the ejection mitigation test. We believe that most manufacturers will
widen the side curtain air bags that they are providing to meet FMVSS
No. 214's pole test requirements, or replace combination (combo) seat-
mounted side air bags with a curtain to pass the impactor test of the
standard adopted today. We assume that for the most part vehicle
manufacturers will install a single-window curtain for each side of the
vehicle, and that these window curtains will provide protection for
occupants of the first three rows.
    This final rule will save 373 lives and prevent 476 serious
injuries per year (see Table 42 below). The cost of this final rule is
approximately $31 per vehicle (see Table 43). The cost per equivalent
life saved is estimated to be $1.4 million (3 percent discount rate)--
$1.7 million (7 percent discount rate) (see Table 44 below). Annualized
costs and benefits are provided in Table 45.

                      Table 42--Estimated Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities......................................................     373
Serious Injuries................................................     476
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table 43--Estimated Costs *
                            [2009 Economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Vehicle..............................  $31.
Total Fleet (16.5 million vehicles)......  $507 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The system costs are based on vehicles that are equipped with an FMVSS
  No. 214 curtain system. According to vehicle manufacturers'
  projections made in 2006, 98.7 percent of Model Year (MY) 2011
  vehicles will be equipped with curtain bags and 55 percent of vehicles
  with curtain bags will be equipped with a rollover sensor.

                Table 44--Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  3% Discount rate                     7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.4M...............................................               $1.7M
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 45--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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency received several comments about the PRIA's cost benefit
analysis. Several glazing manufacturers commented that the agency's
analysis underestimated air bag costs, did not adequately consider
benefits of advanced glazing associated with enhanced security, UV
shading, weight reduction, improved energy efficiency, etc., and
overstated the cost of advanced glazing. Public Citizen stated that the
agency underestimated the benefits of FMVSS No. 226 because we
overestimated the effectiveness of ESC. Conversely, IIHS stated we
overestimated the benefits of FMVSS No. 226 because we underestimated
the benefits of FMVSS No. 216.
    In the FRIA, NHTSA responds to all relevant comments on the costs
and benefits estimated by the NPRM and PRIA.

XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small organizations and small governmental units will not be
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with
this final rule will not significantly affect the price of new motor
vehicles.
    The final rule could indirectly affect air bag manufacturers and
suppliers. These entities do not qualify as small entities.
    The final rule will directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers.
The FRIA discusses the economic impact of the final rule on small
vehicle manufacturers, of which there are six. We believe that the
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on these
manufacturers. The standard will employ static testing of the ejection
mitigation system. The test does not involve destructive crash testing.
It only involves the replacement of certain components and small
vehicle manufacturers can perform such testing themselves. They can
certify compliance using a combination of their own engineering
analyses and testing and component testing by air bag suppliers.
Already much of the air bag development work for these small vehicle
manufacturers is done by air bag suppliers. While typically, air bag
suppliers will supply larger vehicle manufacturers during the lead time
and phase-in period of this final rule, this rulemaking accounts for
this limitation by allowing more time to small manufacturers and
limited line manufacturers to comply with the upgraded requirements.
They have a year past the end of the phase-in period to comply. This
additional time provides flexibility to those entities and enough time
to work with the air bag suppliers to meet their needs.
    Final-stage vehicle manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles and
complete the vehicle. Alterers modify new vehicles, such as by raising
the roofs of vehicles. In both cases, NHTSA concludes that the impacts
of this final rule on such entities is not significant. Final-stage
manufacturers and alterers engaged in raising the roofs of vehicles
would not be affected by this final rule because the rule excludes
vehicles with raised roofs from the ejection mitigation requirements.
    NHTSA believes that work vehicles can be produced in compliance
with the standard. Partitions separating a driver from cargo can be
installed to accommodate an ejection mitigation side curtain air bag by
providing clearance for the air bag. This final rule accommodates
partitions installed in police vehicles, limousines and taxis by final-
stage manufacturer and alterers by excluding those vehicles from the
standard.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule
and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common
law tort cause of action.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
about them.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection
displays a valid OMB control number. The final rule contains a
collection of information, i.e., the phase-in reporting requirements,
requirements to place consumer information about the readiness
indicator and about the sensor in the vehicle owner's manual (S4.2.3),
and requirements for providing information to NHTSA about a rollover
sensor in a compliance test (S4.2.4). There is no burden to the general
public.
    The collection of information would require manufacturers of
passenger cars and of trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less, to annually submit a report, and maintain records
related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet
the ejection mitigation requirements of this FMVSS. The phase-in of the
test requirements would be completed approximately seven years after
publication of a final rule (eight years counting the 100 percent
credit year). The purpose of the reporting requirements is to aid the
agency in determining whether a manufacturer has complied with the
ejection mitigation requirements during the phase-in of those
requirements, including the manufacturer's use of advanced credits.
    Under the PRA, the agency must publish a document in the Federal
Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with
members of the public and affected agencies concerning each collection
of information. This was accomplished in the NPRM preceding this final
rule (74 FR 63225). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Pursuant to OMB's regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)), NHTSA sought
public comment on the following:
    (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and,
    (4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    We published our estimates of the burden to vehicle manufacturers,
as follows:
     NHTSA estimated that there are 21 manufacturers of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less;
     NHTSA estimated that the total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden resulting from the collection of information is
1,260 hours;
     NHTSA estimated that the total annual cost burden, in U.S.
dollars, will be $0. No additional resources would be expended by
vehicle manufacturers to gather annual production information because
they already compile this data for their own use.
    NHTSA did not receive any comments on the above. Therefore, we are
submitting a request for OMB clearance of the collection of information
required under today's final rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we
decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    Commenters requested that the agency apply voluntary industry
standards SAE J2568--Intrusion Resistance of Safety Glazing Systems for
Road Vehicles or BSI AU 209--Vehicle Security. These industry standards
specify that after testing there must not be separation within the
glazing or between the glazing and vehicle body, which would allow for
passage of a 40 mm diameter sphere (40 mm gap test).
    We studied the potential of applying these standards, but decided
against adopting them for several reasons. These standards provide
glazing intrusion resistance requirements from external impact
(outside-in) as opposed to ejection mitigation (inside-out).
Additionally, the requirements are not appropriate for vehicles with
only side curtain air bags, given that there is a time dependence
associated with a curtain's ejection mitigation performance. Once
deployed, the pressure in the air bag continuously decreases. The 16
km/h test is done at 6 seconds to assure that the pressure does not
decrease too quickly. It does not seem that the 40 mm gap test could be
done after the 6-second impact, in any timeframe which is related to
rollover and side impact ejections.
    Further, there was no shown safety need for applying the suggested
standards. We cannot show that ejections that would not be prevented by
the primary 100-mm displacement requirement would be prevented by a
secondary 40-mm requirement. Also, it seemed that the 40-mm requirement
would indirectly require installation of advanced glazing. As discussed
in this preamble, the costs associated with advanced glazing
installations at the side windows covered by the standard adopted today
are substantial in comparison to a system only utilizing rollover
curtains. For these reasons, the agency did not accept the suggestions.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

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

49 CFR Part 585

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 571.5(b) is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, an
entry to the list of materials incorporated by reference, as follows:

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Parts List; Ejection Mitigation       571.226, S7.1.1
 Headform Drawing Package,'' December
 2010; ``Parts List and Drawings;
 Ejection Mitigation Headform Drawing
 Package,'' December 2010. Copies may
 be obtained by contacting:
 Reprographics Technologies, 9000
 Virginia Manor Rd., Beltsville, MD
 20705, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.226 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  571.226  Standard No. 226; Ejection Mitigation.

    S1. Purpose and Scope. This standard establishes requirements for
ejection mitigation systems to reduce the likelihood of complete and
partial ejections of vehicle occupants through side windows during
rollovers or side impact events.
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars, and to
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4,536 kg or less, except walk-in vans, modified roof
vehicles and convertibles. Also excluded from this standard are law
enforcement vehicles, correctional institution vehicles, taxis and
limousines, if they have a fixed security partition separating the 1st
and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd rows and if they are produced by more than one
manufacturer or are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7).
    S3. Definitions.
    Ejection impactor means a device specified in S7.1 of this standard
that is a component of the ejection mitigation test device and is the
moving mass that strikes the ejection mitigation countermeasure.
    Ejection impactor targeting point means the intersection of the y-
axis of the ejection headform and the outer surface of the ejection
headform.

    Ejection mitigation countermeasure means a device or devices,
except seat belts, integrated into the vehicle that reduce the
likelihood of occupant ejection through a side window opening, and that
requires no action by the occupant for activation.
    Ejection propulsion mechanism means a device that is a component of
the ejection mitigation test device consisting of a mechanism capable
of propelling the ejection impactor and constraining it to move along
its axis or shaft.
    Limited-line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three or
fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the United
States during a production year.
    Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose
original roof has been removed, in part or in total.
    Row means a set of one or more seats whose seat outlines do not
overlap with the seat outline of any other seats, when all seats are
adjusted to their rearmost normal riding or driving position, when
viewed from the side.
    Seat outline means the outer limits of a seat projected laterally
onto a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane.
    Side daylight opening means, other than a door opening, the locus
of all points where a horizontal line, perpendicular to the vehicle
vertical longitudinal plane, is tangent to the periphery of the
opening. The periphery includes surfaces 100 millimeters inboard of the
inside surface of the window glazing and 25 mm outboard of the outside
surface of the side glazing. The periphery excludes the following: any
flexible gasket material or weather stripping used to create a
waterproof seal between the glazing or door and the vehicle interior;
grab handles used to facilitate occupant egress and ingress; and any
part of a seat.
    Small manufacturer means an original vehicle manufacturer that
produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in
the United States.
    Target means the x-z plane projection of the ejection headform face
as shown in Figure 1.
    Walk-in van means a special cargo/mail delivery vehicle that only
has a driver designated seating position. The vehicle has a sliding (or
folding) side door and a roof clearance that enables a person of medium
stature to enter the passenger compartment area in an up-right
position.
    Zero displacement plane means, a vertical plane parallel to the
vehicle longitudinal centerline and tangent to the most outboard
surface of the ejection headform when the headform is aligned with an
impact target location and just touching the inside surface of a window
covering the side daylight opening.
    S4. Phase-in, performance and other requirements.
    S4.1 Phase-in requirements.
    S4.1.1 Except as provided in S4.1.3 of this standard, a percentage
of each manufacturer's vehicle production, as specified in S8 of this
standard, manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 to August 31,
2017, shall meet the requirements of S4.2. Vehicles that are not
subject to the phase-in may be certified as meeting the requirements
specified in this standard.
    S4.1.2 Except as provided in S4.1.3 of this section, each vehicle
manufactured on or after September 1, 2017 must meet the requirements
of S4.2 without use of advanced credits.
    S4.1.3 Exceptions from the phase-in; special allowances.
    (a) Vehicles produced by a small manufacturer and by a limited line
manufacturer are not subject to S4.1.1 of this standard, but are
subject to S4.1.2.
    (b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7)
before September 1, 2018, after having been previously certified in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages before September 1, 2018, are not required to meet
the requirements of S4.2. Vehicles that are altered on or after
September 1, 2018, and vehicles that are manufactured in two or more
stages on or after September 1, 2018, must meet the requirements of
S4.2.
    S4.2 Performance and other requirements.
    S4.2.1 When the ejection propulsion mechanism propels the ejection
impactor into the impact target locations of each side daylight opening
of a vehicle according to the test procedures specified in S5 of this
standard, the most outboard surface of the ejection headform must not
displace more than 100 millimeters beyond the zero displacement plane.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> No vehicle shall use movable glazing as the sole means of
meeting the displacement limit of S4.2.1.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Vehicles with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in the event of a rollover must deploy the countermeasure for
the side daylight opening being tested according to the procedure
specified in S5 of this standard.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> If a side daylight opening contains no target locations,
the impact test of S4.2.1 is not performed on that opening.
    S4.2.2 Vehicles that have an ejection mitigation countermeasure
that deploys in the event of a rollover must have a monitoring system
with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own
readiness and must be clearly visible from the driver's designated
seating position. The same readiness indicator required by S4.5.2 of
FMVSS No. 208 may be used to meet the requirement. A list of the
elements of the system being monitored by the indicator shall be
included with the information furnished in accordance with S4.2.3.
    S4.2.3 Written information.
    (a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in the event of a rollover must be described as such in the
vehicle's owner manual or in other written information provided by the
vehicle manufacturer to the consumer.
    (b) Vehicles that have an ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in the event of a rollover must include in written information
a discussion of the readiness indicator required by S4.2.2, specifying
a list of the elements of the system being monitored by the indicator,
a discussion of the purpose and location of the telltale, and
instructions to the consumer on the steps to take if the telltale is
illuminated.
    S4.2.4 Technical Documentation. For vehicles that have an ejection
mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the event of a rollover, the
vehicle manufacturer must make available to the agency, upon request,
the following information: A discussion of the sensor system used to
deploy the countermeasure, including the pertinent inputs to the
computer or calculations within the computer and how its algorithm uses
that information to determine if the countermeasure should be deployed.
    S5. Test procedures.
    S5.1 Demonstrate compliance with S4.2 of this standard in
accordance with the test procedures specified in this standard, under
the conditions of S6, using the equipment described in S7. In the
impact test described by these procedures, target locations are
identified (S5.2) and the zero displacement plane location is
determined (S5.3). The glazing is pre-broken, fully retracted or
removed prior to the impact test (S5.4). The countermeasure is
deployed, if applicable, and an ejection impactor (see S7.1) strikes
the countermeasure at the impact target locations, at the specified
speeds and times (S5.5). The lateral displacement of the ejection
impactor beyond the zero displacement plane is measured.

    S5.2 Determination of impact target locations.
    S5.2.1 Boundary of target location.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Initial determination of offset line. Determine the
location of an offset-line within the side daylight opening by
projecting each point of the side daylight opening laterally onto a
vehicle vertical longitudinal plane. Move each point by 252
mm towards the center of the side daylight opening projection and
perpendicular to a line tangent to the projection at that point, while
maintaining the point on a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Rearmost limit of offset line.
    (a) Seats fixed in a forward facing direction. Except as provided
in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b), if an offset line extends rearward of a transverse
vertical vehicle plane located behind the seating reference point at
the distance specified in <IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1) or (2), the transverse vertical
vehicle plane defines the rearward edge of the offset line for the
purposes of determining target locations.
    (1) For a vehicle with fewer than 3 rows--1,400 mm behind the
rearmost SgRP.
    (2) For a vehicle with 3 or more rows--600 mm behind the 3rd row
SgRP.
    (b) Seats not fixed in a forward facing direction. When the last
row seat adjacent to the opening, in the case of a vehicle with fewer
than 3 rows, or the 3rd row seat adjacent to the opening, in the case
of a vehicle with 3 or more rows, is not fixed in the forward facing
direction, the offset line may extend farther rearward than specified
in S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) under the following conditions. With the seat in any
non-forward facing orientation, the seat back set at an inclination
position closest to the manufacturer's design seat back angle, and all
other seat adjustments at any possible position of adjustment,
determine the location of a vertical transverse vehicle plane located
behind the portion of the seat rearmost in the vehicle, at the distance
specified in <IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) and (2). The boundary of target locations
extends to this vertical plane if it is farther rearward than the plane
determined in S<IP_ADDRESS>(a).
    (1) For a vehicle with fewer than 3 rows--1,400 mm behind the
portion of the seat rearmost in the vehicle.
    (2) For a vehicle with 3 or more rows--600 mm behind the portion of
the seat rearmost in the vehicle, for a seat in the 3rd row.
    (c) Vehicles with partitions or bulkheads. If a vehicle has a fixed
traverse partition or bulkhead through which there is no occupant
access and behind which there are no designated seating positions, a
vertical transverse vehicle plane 25 mm forward of the most forward
portion of the partition or bulkhead defines the rearward edge of the
offset line for the purposes of determining target locations when said
plane is forward of the limiting plane defined in S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) or (b).
    S5.2.2 Preliminary target locations.
    (a) To identify the impact target locations, the following
procedures are performed with the x and z axes of the target, shown in
Figure 1 (provided for illustration purposes), aligned within 1 degree of the vehicle longitudinal and vertical axes,
respectively, and the target y axis pointing in the outboard direction.
    (b) Place targets at any location inside the offset-line where the
target is tangent to within 2 mm of the offset-line at just
two or three points (see Figure 2) (figure provided for illustration
purposes).
    S5.2.3 Determination of primary target locations. Divide the side
daylight opening into four quadrants by passing a vertical line and a
horizontal line, in a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane, through the
geometric center of the side daylight opening.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Front windows. For any side daylight opening forward of
the vehicle B-pillar, the primary quadrants are the forward-lower and
rearward-upper.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Rear windows. For any side daylight opening rearward of
the B-pillar, the primary quadrants are the forward-upper and rearward-
lower.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> If a primary quadrant contains only one target center,
that target is the primary target for that quadrant (see Figure 3)
(figure provided for illustration purposes). If there is more than one
target center in a primary quadrant, the primary target for that
quadrant is the lowest target in a lower quadrant and the highest
target in an upper quadrant. If there is a primary quadrant that does
not contain a target center, the target center closest to the primary
quadrant outline is the primary target.
    S5.2.4 Determination of secondary target locations.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Front windows. Measure the horizontal distance between the
centers of the primary targets. For a side daylight opening forward of
the B-pillar, place one secondary target center rearward of the forward
primary target by one-third of the horizontal distance between the
primary target centers and tangent with upper portion of the offset-
line. Place another secondary target center rearward of the forward
primary target by two-thirds of the horizontal distance between the
primary target centers and tangent with the lower portion of the
offset-line (see figure 4) (figure provided for illustration purposes).
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Rear windows. For side daylight openings rearward of the
B-pillar, place one secondary target center rearward of the forward
primary target by one-third of the horizontal distance between the
primary target centers and tangent with lower portion of the offset-
line. Place another secondary target center rearward of the forward
primary target by two-thirds of the horizontal distance between the
primary target centers and tangent with the upper portion of the
offset-line (see Figure 4) (figure provided for illustration purposes).
    S5.2.5 Target adjustment.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Target elimination and reconstitution.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Target elimination. Determine the horizontal and
vertical distance between the centers of the targets. If the minimum
distance between the z axes of the targets is less than 135 mm and the
minimum distance between the x axes of the targets is less than 170 mm,
eliminate the targets in the order of priority given in steps 1 through
4 of Table 1 (see Figure 5) (figure provided for illustration
purposes). In each case, both the z axes of the targets must be closer
than 135 mm and x axes of the targets must be closer than 170 mm. If
the minimum distance between the z axes of the targets is not less than
135 mm or the minimum distance between the y axes of the targets is not
less than 170 mm, do not eliminate the target. Continue checking all
the targets listed in steps 1 through 4 of Table 1.

 Table 1--Priority List of Target Distance To Be Checked Against Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Eliminate this target if
                                               distances between z axes
                   Measure distance from z     of targets and x axes of
      Step        axis to z axis and x axis    targets are less than 135
                 to x axis for these targets        mm and 170 mm,
                                                     respectively
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............  Upper Secondary to Lower     Upper Secondary.
                  Secondary.
2..............  Upper Primary to Upper or    Upper or Remaining
                  Remaining Secondary.         Secondary.

3..............  Lower Primary to Lower or    Lower or Remaining
                  Remaining Secondary.         Secondary.
4..............  Upper Primary to Lower       Upper Primary.
                  Primary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Target reconstitution. If after following the procedure
given in S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, there are only two targets remaining, determine
the absolute distance between the centers of these targets. If this
distance is greater than or equal to 360 mm, place a target such that
its center bisects a line connecting the centers of the remaining
targets.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Target reorientation--90 degree rotation. If after
following the procedure given in S<IP_ADDRESS> there are less than four
targets in a side daylight opening, repeat the procedure in 5.2 through
<IP_ADDRESS>.2, with a modification to S5.2 as follows. Reorient the target
by rotating it 90 degrees about the y axis of the target such that the
target positive z axis is aligned within 1 degree of the
vehicle longitudinal axis, pointing in the direction of the vehicle
positive x axis. If after performing the procedure in this section, the
remaining targets exceed the number of targets determined with the
original orientation of the target, the reoriented targets represent
the final target locations for the side daylight opening.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Target reorientation--incremental rotation. If after
following the procedure given in S<IP_ADDRESS> there are no targets in a
side daylight opening, starting with the target in the position defined
in S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), reorient the target by rotating it in 5 degree
increments about the y axis of the target by rotating the target
positive z axis toward the vehicle positive x axis. At each increment
of rotation, attempt to fit the target within the offset line of the
side daylight opening. At the first increment of rotation where the
target will fit, place the target center as close as possible to the
geometric center of the side daylight opening. If more than one
position exists that is closest to the geometric center of the side
daylight opening, select the lowest.
    S5.3 Determination of zero displacement plane. The glazing covering
the target location of the side daylight opening being tested is intact
and in place in the case of fixed glazing and intact and fully closed
in the case of movable glazing. With the ejection impactor targeting
point aligned within 2 mm of the center of any target
location specified in S5.2, and with the ejection impactor on the
inside of the vehicle, slowly move the impactor towards the window
until contact is made with the interior of the glazing with no more
than 20 N of pressure being applied to the window. The location of the
most outboard surface of the headform establishes the zero displacement
plane for this target location.
    S5.4 Window position and condition.Subject to S5.5(b), prior to
impact testing, the glazing covering the target location must be
removed from the side daylight opening, fully retracted, or pre-broken
according to the procedure in S5.4.1, at the vehicle manufacturer's
option.
    S5.4.1 Window glazing pre-breaking procedure.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Breakage pattern. Locate the geometric center of the side
daylight opening, established in S5.2.3 of this standard. Mark the
outside surface of the window glazing in a horizontal and vertical grid
of points separated by 752 mm with one point coincident
within 2 mm of the geometric center of the side daylight
opening (see Figure 6) (figure provided for illustration purposes).
Mark the inside surface of the window glazing in a horizontal and
vertical grid of points separated by 752 mm with the entire
grid horizontally offset by 37.5  2 mm from the grid of
points on the outside of the glazing.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Breakage method.
    (a) Start with the inside surface of the window and forward-most,
lowest mark made as specified in S<IP_ADDRESS> of this standard. Use a
center punch in this procedure. The punch tip has a 5 2 mm
diameter prior to coming to a point. The spring is adjusted to require
150 25 N of force to activate the punch. Only once at each
mark location, apply pressure to activate the spring in the center
punch in a direction which is perpendicular to the tangent of the
window surface at the point of contact, within 10 degrees.
Apply the pressure only once at each mark location, even if the glazing
does not break or no hole results.
    (b) Use a 100 10 mm x 100 10 mm piece of
plywood with a minimum thickness of 18 mm as a reaction surface on the
opposite side of the glazing to prevent to the extent possible the
window surface from deforming by more than 10 mm when pressure is being
applied to the hole-punch.
    (c) Continue the procedure with the center punch by moving rearward
in the grid until the end of a row is reached. When the end of a row is
reached, move to the forward-most mark on the next higher row and
continue the procedure. Continue in this pattern until the procedure is
conducted at each marked location on the inside surface of the glazing.
    (d) Repeat the process on the outside surface of the window.
    (e) If punching a hole causes the glazing to disintegrate, halt the
breakage procedure and proceed with the headform impact test.
    S5.5 Impact speeds and time delays. The ejection impactor speeds
specified below must be achieved after propulsion has ceased.
    (a) Vehicles with or without an ejection mitigation countermeasure
that deploys in a rollover. For a vehicle with an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that deploys in a rollover, using the ejection
propulsion mechanism, propel the ejection impactor such that it first
strikes the countermeasure, while aligned with any target location
specified in S5.2 of this standard, 1.5 0.1 seconds after
activation of the ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in
the event of a rollover, and at a speed of 20 0.5 km/h. For
a vehicle without an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in
a rollover, propel the ejection impactor at any time such that it first
strikes the countermeasure, while aligned with any target location
specified in S5.2 of this standard, at a speed of 20 0.5
km/h.
    (b) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in a rollover. For a vehicle with an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that deploys in a rollover, remove or fully retract any
movable glazing from the side daylight opening. Using the ejection
propulsion mechanism, propel the ejection impactor such that it first
strikes the countermeasure, while aligned with any target location
specified in S5.2 of this standard, 6.0 0.1 seconds after
activation of an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the
event of a rollover, and at a speed of 16 0.5 km/h.
    (c) An ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in the event
of a rollover is described as such

in the vehicle's owner manual or in other written information provided
by the vehicle manufacturer to the consumer.
    S5.6 Ejection impactor orientation.
    S5.6.1 If the targets for the side daylight opening being impacted
were determined by the procedure specified in S5.2.2 through S<IP_ADDRESS>
only, the ejection impactor orientation is as follows. At the time of
launch of the ejection impactor the x, y and z axes of the ejection
headform must be aligned within 1 degree of the vehicle
longitudinal, transverse and vertical axes, respectively.
    S5.6.2 If the targets for the side daylight opening being impacted
were determined by the procedure specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>, the ejection
impactor orientation is as follows. At the time of launch the ejection
impactor is rotated by 90 degrees about the ejection headform y axis,
from the orientation specified in S5.6.1, resulting in the headform
positive z axis pointing in the direction of the vehicle positive x
axis.
    S5.6.3 If the targets for the side daylight opening being impacted
were determined by the procedure specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>, the ejection
impactor orientation is as follows. At the time of launch the ejection
impactor is rotated about the y axis of the ejection headform by
rotating the headform positive z axis towards the vehicle positive x
axis, in the increment determined to be necessary in S<IP_ADDRESS> to fit
the target within the side daylight opening.
    S5.6.4 After any test, extend the ejection impactor to the zero
plane and determine that x, y and z axes of the ejection headform
remain aligned within 1 degree of its orientation at launch
as specified in S5.6.1--5.6.3.
    S6 General test conditions.
    S6.1 Vehicle test attitude. The vehicle is supported off its
suspension at an attitude determined in accordance with S6.1(a) through
(e).
    (a) The vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight.
    (b) All tires are inflated to the manufacturer's specifications
listed on the vehicle's tire placard.
    (c) Place vehicle on a level surface.
    (c) Pitch: Measure the sill angle of the driver door sill and mark
where the angle is measured.
    (d) Roll: Mark a point on the vehicle body above the left and right
front wheel wells. Determine the vertical height of these two points
from the level surface.
    (e) Support the vehicle off its suspension such that the driver
door sill angle is within  1 degree of that measured at the
marked area in S6.1(c) and the vertical height difference of the two
points marked in S6.1(d) is within  5 mm of the vertical
height difference determined in S6.1(d).
    S6.2 Doors.
    (a) Except as provided in S6.2(b) or S6.2(c), doors, including any
rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully closed and latched but not
locked.
    (b) During testing, any side door on the opposite side of the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle from the target to be impacted
may be open or removed.
    (c) During testing, any rear hatchback or tailgate may be open or
removed for testing any target.
    S6.3 Steering wheel, steering column, seats, grab handles, and
exterior mirrors. During targeting and testing, the steering wheel,
steering column, seats, grab handles and exterior mirrors may be
removed from the vehicle or adjusted to facilitate testing and/or
provide an unobstructed path for headform travel through and beyond the
vehicle.
    S6.4 Other vehicle components and structures. During targeting and
testing, interior vehicle components and vehicle structures other than
specified in S6.2 and S6.3 may be removed or adjusted to the extent
necessary to allow positioning of the ejection propulsion mechanism and
provide an unobstructed path for the headform travel through and beyond
the vehicle.
    S6.5 Temperature and humidity.
    (a) During testing, the ambient temperature is between 18 degrees
C. and 29 degrees C., at any relative humidity between 10 percent and
70 percent.
    (b) The headform specified in S7.1.1 of this standard is exposed to
the conditions specified in S6.5(a) for a continuous period not less
than one hour, prior to the test.
    S7. Ejection mitigation test device specifications. The ejection
mitigation test device consists of an ejection impactor and ejection
propulsion mechanism with the following specifications. The ability of
a test device to meet these specifications may be determined outside of
the vehicle.
    S7.1 Ejection impactor. The ejection impactor consists of an
ejection headform attached to a shaft. The ejection impactor has a mass
of 18 kg 0.05 kg. The shaft is parallel to the y axis of
the headform.
    S7.1.1 Ejection headform dimensions. The ejection headform has the
dimensions shown in Figure 1 and is depicted in the ``Parts List;
Ejection Mitigation Headform Drawing Package,'' December 2010, and the
``Parts List and Drawings; Ejection Mitigation Headform Drawing
Package,'' December 2010 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  571.5).
    S7.2 Static deflection. The ejection impactor targeting point must
not deflect more than 20 mm in the x-z plane when a 981 N
5 N force is applied in a vehicle vertical longitudinal plane, through
the y axis of the headform and no more than 5 mm rear of the posterior
surface of the headform. The force is applied once in each of the
following headform axes: +z, -z, +x, -x. The static deflection
measurement is made with the ejection impactor extended 400 mm outboard
of the theoretical point of impact with the countermeasure and attached
to the ejection propulsion mechanism, including any support frame and
anchors.
    S7.3 Frictional characteristics.
    (a) Measure the dynamic coefficient of friction of the ejection
impactor and any associated bearings and bearing housing in a test
ready orientation. Repeat the measurement in three more orientations
with the ejection impactor and any associated bearings and bearing
housing rotated 90, 180 and 270 degrees about the headform y axis.
Perform the measurement five consecutive times at each orientation.
    (b) Measure the average force necessary to move the ejection
impactor 200 mm rearward into the ejection propulsion mechanism at a
rate of 50 (13) mm per second, starting at a point 400 mm
outboard of the theoretical point of impact with the countermeasure.
Measure the force to an accuracy of 5 N. The measurement
excludes the force measured over the first 25 mm of travel and is
recorded at a minimum frequency of 100 Hz. During the test a 100 kg
 0.5 kg mass is attached to the impactor with its center of
gravity passing through the axis of motion of the impactor and no more
than 5 mm rear of the posterior surface of the headform.
    (c) Take the five force level averages made at each impactor
orientation in S7.3(a) and average them. Take the maximum of the force
average values and divide by 9.81 times the combined mass of the
ejection impactor and mass added in S7.3(b). The resulting value must
not exceed 0.25.
    S7.4 Targeting accuracy. Determine the distance ``D'' along the
axis of travel of the ejection impactor from its launch point to the
theoretical point of impact with the countermeasure, when moving at the
speed specified in S5.5. Determine that the ejection mitigation test
device can deliver the ejection impactor targeting point to within
10 mm of an axis normal to and passing through the target
center, as the unobstructed impactor passes through a zone defined by
vertical longitudinal

planes 50 mm forward and rearward of ``D.''
    S8 Phase-in Schedule for Vehicle Certification.
    S8.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and before
September 1, 2016. At anytime during the production years ending August
31, 2014, August 31, 2015, and August 31, 2016, each manufacturer
shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and
vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying
with this standard. The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a
certified vehicle is irrevocable.
    S8.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and before
September 1, 2014. Subject to S8.9, for vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2013 and before September 1, 2014, the number of
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be not less than 25 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S8.4 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2015 and before
September 1, 2016. Subject to S8.9, for vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2015 and before September 1, 2016, the number of
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be not less than 75 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured in the three previous production years; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    S8.5 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2016 and before
September 1, 2017. Subject to S8.9, for vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2016 and before September 1, 2017, the number of
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be not less than 100 percent of the
manufacturer's production in the current production year.
    8.6 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. For the
purpose of calculating average annual production of vehicles for each
manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured by each
manufacturer under S8.1 through S8.4, a vehicle produced by more than
one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as
follows, subject to S8.7.
    (a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
    (b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
    S8.7 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S8.5.
    S8.8 For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer under S8, do not count any vehicle that is
excluded by this standard from the requirements.
    S8.9 Calculation of complying vehicles.
    (a) For the purposes of calculating the vehicles complying with
S8.2, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on or
after March 1, 2011 but before September 1, 2014.
    (b) For purposes of complying with S8.3, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after March 1, 2011 but before September
1, 2015 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S8.2.
    (c) For purposes of complying with S8.4, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after March 1, 2011 but before September
1, 2016 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S8.2 or S8.3.
    (d) For purposes of complying with S8.5, a manufacturer may count a
vehicle if it--
    (1) Is manufactured on or after March 1, 2011 but before September
1, 2017 and,
    (2) Is not counted toward compliance with S8.2, S8.3, or S8.4.
    (e) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer, each vehicle that is excluded from having to meet
this standard is not counted.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JA11.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JA11.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JA11.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JA11.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JA11.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JA11.030

0
4. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Part 585 is amended by adding Subpart K to read as follows:

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

* * * * *
Subpart K--Ejection Mitigation Phase-in Reporting Requirements
585.100 Scope.
585.101 Purpose.
585.102 Applicability.
585.103 Definitions.
585.104 Response to inquiries.
585.105 Reporting requirements.
585.106 Records.

Subpart K--Ejection Mitigation Phase-in Reporting Requirements

Sec.  585.100  Scope.

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

Sec.  585.101  Purpose.

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

Sec.  585.102  Applicability.

    This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of
trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kg (10,000 lb) or less. However, this subpart does not apply to
vehicles excluded by Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226) from the
requirements of that standard. This subpart does not apply to
manufacturers whose production consists exclusively of vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages, to manufacturers whose production
of motor vehicles for the United States market is less than 5,000
vehicles in a production year, and to limited line manufacturers.

Sec.  585.103  Definitions.

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

Sec.  585.104  Response to inquiries.

    At anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2014,
August 31, 2015, August 31, 2016, and August 31, 2017, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make,
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with the ejection mitigation requirements of Standard No.
226, Ejection mitigation (49 CFR 571.226). The manufacturer's
designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.

Sec.  585.105  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. (1) Within 60
days after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2011,
through August 31, 2017, each manufacturer certifying vehicles
manufactured during any of those production years as complying with the
ejection mitigation requirements of Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226)
shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration providing the information specified in paragraph (c) of
this section and in Sec.  585.2 of this part.
    (b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of each of the production years ending August 31, 2014, through August
31, 2017, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its compliance with
the ejection mitigation requirements of Standard No. 226 (49 CFR
571.226) for its vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall
provide the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section and
in Sec.  585.2 of this part.
    (c) Advanced credit phase-in report content--(1) Production of
complying vehicles. With respect to the reports identified in Sec.
585.105(a), each manufacturer shall report for the production year for
which the report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model
year, that are certified as meeting the ejection mitigation
requirements of Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226).
    (d) Phase-in report content--
    (1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each manufacturer shall
provide the number of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, manufactured in the current
production year, or, at the manufacturer's option, in each of the three
previous production years. A new manufacturer that is, for the first
time, manufacturing these vehicles for sale in the United States must
report the number of these vehicles manufactured during the current
production year.
    (2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall
report for the production year being reported on information on the
number of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and
buses, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less that meet the ejection mitigation requirements of
Standard No. 226 (49 CFR 571.226). The manufacturer shall report the
vehicles produced during the preceding years for which the manufacturer
is claiming credits as having been produced during the production year
being reported on.

Sec.  585.106  Records.

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

    Issued on January 5, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-547 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P