1
`
`[NHTSA notes: The Administrator has signed the following document and we have
`submitted it for publication in the Federal Register. While we have taken steps to ensure
`the accuracy of this version of the document, it is not the official version. Please refer to
`the official version in a forthcoming Federal Register publication or on GPO's Web Site.
`You can access the Federal Register at: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.]
`
`DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
`
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`49 CFR Parts 571 and 585
`
`Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004
`
`RIN 2127-AK23
`
`Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,
`
`Ejection Mitigation;
`
`Phase-In Reporting Requirements;
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
`
`Department of Transportation (DOT).
`
`ACTION: Final rule.
`
`SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
`
`No. 226, “Ejection Mitigation,” to reduce the partial and complete ejection of vehicle
`
`occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. The standard
`
`applies to the side windows next to the first three rows of seats, and to a portion of the
`
`cargo area behind the first or second rows, in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
`
`rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilogram (kg) or less (10,000 pounds (lb) or less). To assess
`
`IPR 2016-01790
`American Vehicular Sciences
`Exhibit 2014
`
`

`

`2
`
`
`compliance, the agency is adopting a test in which an impactor is propelled from inside a
`
`test vehicle toward the windows. The ejection mitigation safety system is required to
`
`prevent the impactor from moving more than a specified distance beyond the plane of a
`
`window. To ensure that the systems cover the entire opening of each window for the
`
`duration of a rollover, each side window will be impacted at up to four locations around
`
`its perimeter at two time intervals following deployment.
`
`The agency anticipates that manufacturers will meet the standard by modifying
`
`existing side impact air bag curtains, and possibly supplementing them with advanced
`
`glazing. The curtains will be made larger so that they cover more of the window
`
`opening, made more robust to remain inflated longer, and made to deploy in both side
`
`impacts and in rollovers. In addition, after deployment the curtains will be tethered near
`
`the base of the vehicle’s pillars or otherwise designed to keep the impactor within the
`
`boundaries established by the performance test. This final rule adopts a phase-in of the
`
`new requirements, starting September 1, 2013.
`
`
`
`This final rule advances NHTSA’s initiatives in rollover safety and also responds
`
`to Section 10301 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
`
`A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). That section directs NHTSA to initiate and
`
`complete rulemaking to reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants from
`
`outboard seating positions, considering various ejection mitigation systems.
`
`DATES: Effective date: The date on which this final rule amends the Code of Federal
`
`Regulations (CFR) is March 1, 2011. The incorporation by reference of certain
`
`publications listed in the standard is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
`
`of March 1, 2011.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`
`
`
`
`Petitions for reconsideration: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this
`
`rule, your petition must be received by [insert date 45 days after date of publication in the
`
`FEDERAL REGISTER].
`
`
`
`Compliance dates: This final rule adopts a phase-in of the new requirements. The
`
`phase-in begins on September 1, 2013. By September 1, 2017, all vehicles must meet the
`
`standard, with the exception of altered vehicles and vehicles produced in more than one
`
`stage, which are provided more time to meet the requirements. Manufacturers can earn
`
`credits toward meeting the applicable phase-in percentages by producing compliant
`
`vehicles ahead of schedule, beginning March 1, 2011 and ending at the conclusion of the
`
`phase-in.
`
`ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, you should refer
`
`in your petition to the docket number of this document and submit your petition to:
`
`Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
`
`Avenue, S.E., West Building, Washington, D.C., 20590.
`
`
`
`The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic
`
`form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
`
`submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
`
`association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
`
`Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
`
`Pages 19477-78).
`
`
`
`For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go
`
`to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.
`
`You may also visit DOT’s Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E.,
`
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 for on-line
`
`access to the docket.
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
`
`
`
`For non-legal issues, you may contact Mr. Louis Molino, NHTSA Office of
`
`Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 202-366-1740, fax 202-493-2739. For legal
`
`issues, you may contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone
`
`202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820.
`
`
`
`You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
`
`Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., West
`
`Building, Washington, D.C. 20590.
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
`
`Executive Summary
`
`Safety Need
`
`Summary of the NPRM
`
`Summary of the Comments
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Congressional Mandate
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI. How the Final Rule Differs from the NPRM
`
`VII. Foundations for this Rulemaking
`a.
`Advanced Glazing
`b.
`Full Window Opening Coverage is Key
`c.
`Comparable Performance in Simulated Rollovers and Component-Level Impact
`Tests
`Advantages of a Component Test Over a Full Vehicle Dynamic Test
`
`d.
`
`VIII. Availability of Existing Curtains
`
`IX. Existing Curtains
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`
`
`Existing Curtains Tested to Proposed Requirements
`Field Performance
`
`Response to Comments and Agency Decisions
`Impactor Dimensions and Mass
`1. NPRM
`2. Comments
`3. Agency Response
`
`a.
`b.
`
`X.
`a.
`
`
`
`
`b. Measurement Plane and Displacement Limit (100 mm)
`
`1. NPRM
`
`2. Comments
`
`3. Agency Response
`
`c.
`
`
`Times and Speed at Which the Headform Impacts the Countermeasure.
`1. NPRM on Time Delay (Ejections Can Occur Both Early and Late in the
`Rollover Event)
`
`i. Comments on Time Delay
`
`ii. Agency Response
`2. Speed at Which the Headform Impacts the Countermeasure
`
`i. Comments on Impact Speed
`
`ii. Agency Response
`
`Target Locations
`1. Why We Are Focusing On Side Windows and Not Other Openings
`2. Why We Are Focusing On the Side Windows Adjacent To First Three Rows
`
`i. First Three Rows
`
`ii. Method of Determining 600 mm Behind Seating Reference Point
`(SgRP)
`iii. Increasing 600 mm Limit for Vehicles With One or Two Rows of
`Seats
`3. Answers to Questions About Method for Determining Three-Row Area
`
`
`
`How We Are Testing The Ability Of These Side Windows To Mitigate Ejections.
`1. What is a “Window Opening”?
`
`i. 50 mm Inboard of the Glazing
`
`ii. Conducting the Test with Various Items Around the Window Opening
`
`iii. Removing Flexible Gasket Material
`
`iv. Testing With Weather Stripping In Place
`
`v. Metal Dividers in Glazing
`2. How We Determine Impactor Target Locations In An Objective And
`Repeatable Manner
`
`i. Testing in ”Any” Location
`
`ii. Methodology
`
`iii. Reorienting the Targets
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv. Suppose Even With Rotating the Headform the Vehicle has No Target
`Locations
`v. Decision Not To Test Target of Greatest Displacement
`vi. Reconstitution of Targets
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`f.
`
`
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`
`
`
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`
`
`
`
`m.
`
`XI. Costs and Benefits
`
`XII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
`
`I.
`
`Glazing Issues
`1. Positioning the Glazing
`2. Window Pre-Breaking Specification and Method
`
`Test Procedure Tolerances
`
`Impactor Test Device Characteristics
`
`Readiness Indicator
`
`Other Issues
`1. Rollover Sensors
`2. Quasi-Static Loading
`3. Full Vehicle Test
`4. Minor Clarifications to the Proposed Regulatory Text
`
`Practicability
`
`Applicability
`1. Convertibles
`2. Original Roof Modified
`3. Multi-Stage Manufacture of Work Trucks
`4. Other
`
`Lead Time and Phase-In Schedules; Reporting Requirements
`
`Executive Summary
`
`
`
`This final rule establishes a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
`
`(FMVSS) No. 226, “Ejection Mitigation,” to reduce the partial and complete ejection of
`
`vehicle occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes.
`
`Countermeasures installed to meet this rule will also reduce the number of complete and
`
`partial ejections of occupants in side impacts. This final rule responds to §10301 of the
`
`
`
`
`

`

`7
`
`
`Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,”
`
`(SAFETEA-LU), P.L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144), which requires the
`
`Secretary of Transportation to issue an ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete
`
`and partial ejections of occupants from outboard seating positions.
`
`
`
`Addressing vehicle rollovers is one of NHTSA’s highest safety priorities. In
`
`2002, NHTSA conducted an in-depth review of rollovers and associated deaths and
`
`injuries and assessed how this agency and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
`
`could most effectively improve safety in this area.1
`
` The agency formulated strategies
`
`involving improving vehicle performance and occupant behavior, and with the FHWA
`
`taking the lead, improving roadway designs. Vehicle performance strategies included
`
`crash avoidance and crashworthiness programs, and included four wide-ranging
`
`initiatives to address the rollover safety problem: prevent crashes, prevent rollovers,
`
`prevent ejections, and protect occupants who remain within the vehicle after a crash.
`
`Projects aimed at protecting occupants remaining in the vehicle during a rollover
`
`included improved roof crush resistance and research on whether seat belts could be
`
`made more effective in rollovers.
`
`
`
`A major undertaking implementing the first two initiatives was completed in 2007
`
`when NHTSA adopted a new FMVSS No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126), “Electronic Stability
`
`Control Systems,” to require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on passenger cars,
`
`multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
`
`(GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less (72 FR 17236, April 6, 2007, Docket NHTSA-
`
`
`1 The assessment was carried out by one of four Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) formed within NHTSA,
`whose recommendations culminated in the agency’s priority plan, “NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking
`and Supporting Research: 2003-2006” (68 FR 43972; July 18, 2003)
`http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan/FinalVeh/Index.html. The IPT Report on Rollover
`was published in June 2003 (68 FR 36534, Docket 14622).
`
`
`
`

`

`8
`
`
`2007-27662). ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of the individual
`
`wheels of a vehicle to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving situations
`
`in which the vehicle is beginning to lose directional stability at the rear wheels (spin out)
`
`or directional control at the front wheels (plow out). Because most loss-of-control
`
`crashes culminate in the vehicle’s leaving the roadway—an event that significantly
`
`increases the probability of a rollover--preventing single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes
`
`is the most effective way to reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes.2
`
` The agency
`
`estimates that when all vehicles (other than motorcycles) under 4,536 kg GVWR have
`
`ESC systems, the number of deaths each year resulting from rollover crashes would be
`
`reduced by 4,200 to 5,500. From 2001 to 2007, there were more than 10,000 deaths in
`
`light vehicle rollover crashes. Rollover deaths have decreased slightly in 2008 (9,043)
`
`and 2009 (8,267), as have fatalities in all crash types.
`
`
`
`While ESC systems will avoid many of the roadway departures that lead to
`
`rollover, vehicle rollovers will continue to occur.
`
`3
`
` Once a rollover occurs, vehicle
`
`crashworthiness characteristics play a crucial role in protecting the occupants. According
`
`to agency data, occupants have a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not
`
`ejected from their vehicles.
`
`
`
`Concurrent with the agency’s work on ESC, NHTSA began work on the third
`
`initiative on rollover safety, pursuing the feasibility of installing crashworthiness safety
`
`2 NHTSA estimates that the installation of ESC will reduce single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 34
`percent and single vehicle crashes of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 59 percent. NHTSA further estimates
`that ESC has the potential to prevent 71 percent of the passenger car rollovers and 84 percent of the SUV
`rollovers that would otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes. NHTSA estimates that ESC would save
`5,300 to 9,600 lives and prevent 156,000 to 238,000 injuries in all types of crashes annually once all light
`vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC systems.
`3 NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for this final rule that discusses issues
`relating to the target population and the potential costs, benefits and other impacts of this regulatory action.
`The FRIA is available in the docket for this final rule and may be obtained by downloading it or by
`contacting the Docket Management facility at the address provided at the beginning of this document.
`
`
`
`

`

`9
`
`
`systems to mitigate occupant ejections through side windows in rollovers (“ejection
`
`mitigation”). Major strides on this third initiative were realized in 2007 when the agency
`
`published a final rule that incorporated a dynamic pole test into FMVSS No. 214, “Side
`
`impact protection” (49 CFR 571.214) (“Phase 1 FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking”).4
`
` The
`
`pole test, applying to motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, requires vehicle
`
`manufacturers to provide side impact protection for a wide range of occupant sizes and
`
`over a broad range of seating positions. To meet the pole test, manufacturers are
`
`installing new technologies capable of improving head and thorax protection in side
`
`crashes, i.e., side curtain air bags and torso air bags.
`
`
`
`Today’s final rule launches a new phase in occupant protection and ejection
`
`mitigation. It builds on and improves existing technology while achieving cost efficiency
`
`and does so expeditiously. This final rule enhances the side curtain air bag systems
`
`installed pursuant to the FMVSS No. 214 side impact rulemaking. Side curtain air bags
`
`5
`
`
`
`will be made larger to cover more of the window opening, more robust to remain inflated
`
`longer, enhanced to deploy in side impacts and in rollovers, and made not only to cushion
`
`but also made sufficiently strong to keep an occupant from being fully or partially ejected
`
`through a side window. The side curtain air bags required by this rule will be designed to
`
`
`4 72 FR 51908; September 11, 2007, Docket No. NHTSA-29134; response to petitions for reconsideration,
`73 FR 32473, June 9, 2008, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0104, 75 FR 12123, March 15, 2010, Docket No.
`NHTSA-2010-0032. On August 10, 2005, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
`Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,” (SAFETEA-LU), P.L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144) was
`enacted, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and
`for other purposes. Section 10302(a) of SAFETEA-LU directed the Secretary to complete the FMVSS No.
`214 rulemaking by July 1, 2008. The September 11, 2007 final rule completed the rulemaking specified in
`§10302(a). NHTSA estimates that the September 11, 2007 final rule will save 311 lives annually.
`5 In this document, this countermeasure is referred to as an “ejection mitigation side curtain air bag,” “side
`curtain air bag,” “air bag curtain,” “rollover curtain,” or simply “curtain.” This countermeasure is designed
`to deploy in a rollover crash. The same side curtain air bag meeting FMVSS No. 226 can be used to meet
`the ejection mitigation requirements of FMVSS No. 214 with the addition of a rollover sensing system to
`deploy the side curtain air bag in a rollover.
`
`
`
`

`

`10
`
`
`retain the occupant regardless of whether the occupant had his or her window glazing up,
`
`down, or partially open, and even when the glazing is destroyed during the rollover crash.
`
`
`
`The NPRM upon which this final rule is based was published on December 2,
`
`2009 (74 FR 63180, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0183). Materials underlying the
`
`development of this rule have been placed in that docket and in a research and
`
`development docket created in 2006 (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26467).
`
`
`
`Rollover crashes can be complex and unpredictable. At this time there is no
`
`conventional rollover scenario or test representative of real-world rollover crashes that
`
`can be used in a dynamic test to the agency’s satisfaction to evaluate the performance of
`
`ejection mitigation countermeasures. Yet, this final rule achieves ejection mitigation
`
`benefits notwithstanding the absence of a dynamic procedure. Agency research has
`
`found that full coverage of the side windows is a key element to mitigating ejection. This
`
`standard adopts a component test that assures there is full coverage of the side window to
`
`diminish the potential risk of the windows as ejection portals and that assesses ejection
`
`mitigation safety systems for as long in the crash event as the risk of ejection reasonably
`
`exists.
`
`
`
`The test uses a guided impactor to assess the ability of the countermeasure (e.g., a
`
`curtain system) to mitigate ejections in different types of rollover and side impact crashes
`
`involving different occupant kinematics. The test has been carefully designed to
`
`represent occupant to vehicle interactions in a dynamic rollover event. The impact mass
`
`is based on the mass imposed by a 50th percentile male’s head and upper torso on the
`
`window opening during an occupant ejection. The mass of the impactor, 18 kilograms
`
`(kg) (40 lb), is propelled at points around the window’s perimeter with sufficient kinetic
`
`
`
`
`

`

`11
`
`
`energy to assure that the ejection mitigation countermeasure is able to protect a far-
`
`reaching range of occupants in real world crashes.
`
`
`
`In the test, the countermeasure must retain the linear travel of the impactor such
`
`that the impactor must not travel 100 millimeters (mm) beyond the location of the inside
`
`surface of the vehicle glazing. This displacement limit serves to control the size of any
`
`gaps forming between the countermeasure (e.g., the ejection mitigation side curtain air
`
`bag) and the window opening, thus reducing the potential for both partial and complete
`
`ejection of an occupant.
`
`
`
`To evaluate the performance of the curtain to fully cover potential ejection routes,
`
`the impactor will typically target four specific locations per side window adjacent to the
`
`first three rows of the vehicle. Impacting four targets around the perimeter of the opening
`
`assures that the window will be covered by the countermeasure (curtain), while imposing
`
`a reasonable test burden. Small windows will be tested with fewer targets.
`
`
`
`Computer modeling has shown that ejections can occur early and late in the
`
`rollover event. In the standard’s test procedure, the ejection mitigation side
`
`countermeasure will be tested at two impact speeds and at two different points in time, to
`
`ensure that the protective system will retain the occupant from the relatively early
`
`through the late stages of a rollover.
`
`
`
`The times at which the impacts will occur are data-driven and related to our goal
`
`of containment of occupants both early and late in rollovers. Crash data show that
`
`slightly less than half of all fatal complete ejections occurred in crashes with 5 or fewer
`
`quarter-turns. Film analysis of vehicles that rolled 5 or fewer quarter-turns in staged
`
`rollover tests indicates that it took about 1.5 seconds for the vehicles to roll once
`
`
`
`
`

`

`12
`
`
`completely. A vehicle rolling 11 quarter-turns had a maximum roll time of 5.5 seconds.
`
`Data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data
`
`System (CDS) show that rollovers with eleven or fewer quarter-turns account for about
`
`98 percent of rollovers with fatal complete ejection.6
`
` The standard replicates these crash
`
`dynamics with the two impacts of the headform. The first impact will be at 20 kilometers
`
`per hour (km/h) (12.4 miles per hour (mph)), 1.5 seconds after deployment of the curtain.
`
`The second impact will be at 16 km/h (9.9 mph), 6 seconds after deployment of the
`
`curtain. The 20 km/h and 16 km/h tests replicate the forces that an occupant can impart
`
`to the curtain during the rollover event as well as during side impacts.
`
`
`
`Under today’s final rule, vehicle manufacturers must provide information to
`
`NHTSA upon request that describes the conditions under which ejection mitigation air
`
`bags will deploy. There is no presently demonstrated need for us to specify in the
`
`standard the conditions dictating when the sensors should deploy; field data indicate that
`
`rollover sensors are overwhelmingly deploying effectively in the real world. We will
`
`keep monitoring field data to determine whether future regulatory action is needed in this
`
`area.
`
`
`
`This chapter in occupant protection will achieve tremendous benefits at
`
`reasonable costs. We estimate that this rule will save 373 lives and prevent 476 serious
`
`injuries per year (see Table 1 below). The cost of this final rule is approximately $31 per
`
`vehicle (see Table 2). The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to be $1.4 million
`
`(3 percent discount rate) - $1.7 million (7 percent discount rate) (see Table 3 below).
`
`Annualized costs and benefits are provided in Table 4.
`
`6 This is based on 2000 – 2009 NASS data. The 1988 – 2005 NASS data reported in the NPRM showed
`that 93 percent of rollovers with fatal complete ejections had 11 or fewer quarter-turns.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`13
`
`
`
`Table 1 - Estimated Benefits
`Fatalities
`373
`Serious Injuries
`476
`
`Table 3 - Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
`3% Discount Rate
`7% Discount Rate
`$1.4M
`$1.7M
`
`
`
`Table 4 - Annualized Costs and Benefits
`In millions of $2009 Dollars
`Annual Costs
`Annualized Benefits Net Benefits
`$507M
`$2,279M
`$1,773
`$507M
`$1,814M
`$1,307
`
`
`Table 2 - Estimated Costs* (2009 Economics)
`Per Vehicle
`$31
`Total Fleet (16.5 million vehicles) $507 million
`* The system costs are based on vehicles that are equipped with an FMVSS No. 214 curtain system.
`According to vehicle manufacturers’ projections made in 2006, 98.7 percent of Model Year (MY) 2011
`vehicles will be equipped with curtain bags and 55 percent of vehicles with curtain bags will be equipped
`with a rollover sensor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3% Discount Rate
`7% Discount Rate
`
`
`
`
`Accompanying today’s final rule is a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)
`
`analyzing the costs, benefits, and other impacts of this final rule, and a technical report
`
`the agency has prepared that presents a detailed analysis of engineering studies, and other
`
`information supporting the final rule. Both documents have been placed in the docket for
`
`this final rule. The documents can be obtained by contacting the docket by the means
`
`specified at the beginning of this document or by downloading them at
`
`www.regulations.gov.
`
`II.
`
`Safety Need
`
`
`
`
`

`

`14
`
`
`
`
`Rollover crashes are a significant and a particularly deadly safety problem. As a
`
`crash type, rollovers are second only to frontal crashes as a source of fatalities in light
`
`vehicles. Data from the last 10 years of Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) files
`
`(2000-20097) indicate that frontal crash fatalities have averaged about 11,600 per year,
`
`while rollover fatalities have averaged 10,037 per year. In 2009, 35 percent of all
`
`fatalities were in light vehicle rollover crashes. The last 10 years of data from the
`
`National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES)
`
`indicate that an occupant in a rollover is 14 times more likely to be killed than an
`
`occupant in a frontal crash.8
`
`
`
`
`
`Ejection is a major cause of death and injury in rollover crashes. According to
`
`2000-2009 FARS data, on average 47 percent of the occupants killed in rollovers were
`
`completely ejected from their vehicle. During this time period, there were 358 fully
`
`ejected occupants killed for every 1,000 fully ejected occupants in rollover crashes, as
`
`compared to 14 of every 1,000 occupants not fully ejected occupants killed.
`
`9 A double-
`
`pair comparison from the last ten years of FARS data show that avoiding complete
`
`ejection is associated with a 64 percent decrease in the risk of death.10
`
`
`
`
`
`The majority of rollover crashes involve the vehicle rolling over two quarter-turns
`
`or less. However, the distribution of ejected occupants who are seriously injured
`
`(maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) 3+) or killed is skewed towards rollovers
`
`
`7 These data are updated from the 1998 to 2007 FARS data reported in the NPRM.
`8 The relative risk of fatality for each crash type can be assessed by dividing the number of fatalities in each
`crash type by the frequency of the crash type. The frequency of particular crash types is determined by
`police traffic crash reports (PARs).
`9 The data combines partially-ejected and un-ejected occupants together, because partial ejection is
`sometimes difficult to determine and the PAR-generated FARS data may not be an accurate representation
`of partially-ejected occupant fatalities.
`10 “Incremental Risk of Injury and Fatality Associated with Complete Ejection,” NHTSA, 2010 (see the
`docket for this final rule).
`
`
`
`

`

`15
`
`
`with a higher number of quarter-turns. According to NASS Crashworthiness Data
`
`System (CDS) data of occupants exposed to a rollover crash from 2000 to 2009, half of
`
`all fatal complete ejections occurred in crashes with six or more quarter-turns.
`
`
`
`Most occupants are ejected through side windows. In developing the target
`
`population estimates for this final rule we found that annualized injury data from 1997 to
`
`2008 NASS CDS and fatality counts adjusted to the annual average from FARS for these
`
`same years11 indicate that ejection through side windows is the greatest contributor to the
`
`ejection problem.12
`
` There were 16,272 MAIS 1-2 injuries, 5,209 MAIS 3-5 injuries, and
`
`6,412 fatalities resulting from ejections through the side windows adjacent to the first
`
`three rows.
`
`
`
`Table 5 below shows the MAIS 1-2, MAIS 3-5, and fatality distribution of ejected
`
`occupants by 11 potential ejection routes.
`
`13
`
` The “Not Glazing” category captures ejected
`
`occupants that did not eject through a glazing area or the roof (perhaps a door or an area
`
`of vehicle structure that was torn away during the crash). Roof ejections have been
`
`separated into “Roof Panel or Glazing” and “Roof Other.” The former groups sunroofs,
`
`
`11 The target population estimate for the NPRM used 1997 to 2005 FARS data. The estimate for this final
`rule is based on an additional three years of data.
`12 In our data analysis for the NPRM to determine ejection routes, we assumed that an ejection route coding
`of “rear” in NASS CDS meant a second row window and that “other” glazing meant third and higher row
`side window ejections. The assumption was based on the coding of seat position in NASS. Since then, we
`have determined that an occupant coded as ejected through a “rear” window did not necessarily go through
`the second row window. Similarly, the coding of “other” glazing was determined not necessarily to mean
`third and higher row. Thus, for this final rule, for cases coded as ejected through “rear” or “other” glazing,
`we assume that the ejection was through a second row window in the following circumstances: the
`occupant was seated in the first two rows of a vehicle, or the vehicle was a convertible, two-door sedan, or
`four-door sedan (i.e., these are vehicles without a third row or cargo area). If an occupant was coded as
`seated in the third or higher row and was coded as ejected through a rear window or “other” glazing, we
`used the NASS Case Query System to undertake a hard copy review. We determined ejection routes in this
`manner for 41 unweighted rear window cases and 17 unweighted “other” glazing cases. A hard copy
`review of the “other” glazing cases showed that 9 were known 3rd row side window ejections, but five cases
`were miscoded. Four were actually backlight ejections and one was a sunroof ejection. The known 3rd row
`ejections were recoded as “Row 3 Window” ejections.
`13 All crash types are included, but the counts are restricted to ejected occupants who were injured.
`
`
`
`

`

`16
`
`
`t-tops and targa-tops into a single category, whether made of glazing or having a sheet
`
`metal skin. The latter combines convertibles, modified roofs, camper tops and removable
`
`roofs. No distinction could be made as to whether these roof structures were open or
`
`closed prior to ejection.
`
`
`Table 5 – Occupant Injury and Fatality Counts by Ejection Route in All Crash Types
`(Annualized 1997 – 2008 NASS and FARS)
`
`MAIS 1-2 MAIS 3-5 Fatal
`1,517
`1,400
`1,078
`14,293
`4,980
`5,589
`1,700
`641
`796
`279
`88
`27
`0
`0
`39
`0
`0
`7
`342
`17
`52
`1,621
`1,364
`495
`1,000
`367
`324
`420
`105
`81
`0
`19
`0
`2,848
`2,207
`1,814
`
`Ejection Route
`Windshield
`First Row Windows
`Second-Row Windows
`Third-Row Windows
`Fourth-Row Windows
`Fifth-Row Window
`Cargo Area Rear of Row 2
`Backlight
`Roof Panel or Glazing
`Roof Other
`Multiple Windows
`Not Glazing
`Subtotals
`Rows 1-3
`4th, 5th Row and Cargo
`Total
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16,272
`342
`24,020
`
`6,412
`5,709
`98
`17
`11,188 10,302
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table 6, below, provides the percentage of the total at each injury level. The
`
`injuries and fatalities resulting from ejections through the first three rows of windows
`
`constitute 68 percent of MAIS 1-2 injuries, 51 percent of MAIS 3-5 injuries, and 62
`
`percent of all ejected fatalities.
`
`
`Table 6 – Occupant Injury and Fatality Percentages by Ejection Route in All Crash
`Types (Annualized 1997 – 2008 NASS and FARS)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`17
`
`
`Ejection Route
`Windshield
`First Row Windows
`Second-Row Windows
`Third-Row Windows
`Fourth-Row Windows
`Fifth-Row Window
`Cargo Area Rear of Row 2
`Backlight
`Roof Panel or Glazing
`Roof Other
`Multiple Windows
`Not Glazing
`Subtotals
`Rows 1-3
`4th, 5th Row and Cargo
`Total
`
`
`MAIS 1-2 MAIS 3-5 Fatal
`6.3%
`12.5%
`10.5%
`59.5%
`44.5%
`54.2%
`7.1%
`5.7%
`7.7%
`1.2%
`0.8%
`0.3%
`0.0%
`0.0%
`0.4%
`0.0%
`0.0%
`0.1%
`1.4%
`0.2%
`0.5%
`6.8%
`12.2%
`4.8%
`4.2%
`3.3%
`3.1%
`1.7%
`0.9%
`0.8%
`0.0%
`0.2%
`0.0%
`11.9%
`19.7%
`17.6%
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`67.7%
`1.4%
`100.0%
`
`62.2%
`51.0%
`1.0%
`0.2%
`100.0% 100.0%
`
`
`
`
`Since the countermeasure covering side window openings will be made more
`
`effective in preventing ejections, this rulemaking will also reduce the number of complete
`
`and partial ejections of occupants in side impacts. These benefits go beyond those
`
`achieved in the rulemaking adopting an oblique pole test into FMVSS No. 214 (Phase 1
`
`FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking) because a side air bag installed to meet FMVSS No. 214 is
`
`not necessarily wide or robust enough to effectively contain occupants in certain side
`
`impacts. In fact, NHTSA found that FMVSS No. 214’s requirements could be met by a
`
`seat-mounted head/torso side air bag or a side head protection curtain air bag together