[Federal Register: November 4, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 213)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62421-62422]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04no03-11]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 587
[Docket No. NHTSA-2003-16417]
RIN 2127-AJ11
Offset Deformable Barrier
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for reconsideration submitted
by Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota). The petition asked the agency to
harmonize the specifications of the offset deformable barrier (ODB)
with the European standard. The agency is denying the petition because
the current specifications were intentionally designed to accommodate
the vehicle designs of the U.S. fleet. Further, the additional design
issues raised by Toyota are performance neutral and do not justify
amending the specifications.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues you may call Lori
Summers, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-1740. For
legal issues, you may call Christopher Calamita, Office of the Chief
Counsel, at (202) 366-2992. You may send mail to both of these
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of the Petition
Toyota petitioned NHTSA to amend the ODB specifications contained
in 49 CFR Part 587, for the purpose of harmonization with Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE) regulation 96/79/EC, Frontal impact. The
specifications for the ODB were published in a March 31, 2000, final
rule as the first step towards using an ODB to evaluate the
crashworthiness of vehicles (65 Federal Register 17196.) In its
petition for reconsideration of the March 2000 final rule, Toyota
claimed that the specified barrier height could allow the test vehicle
to contact the rigid portion of the barrier, potentially affecting the
results of the test. Toyota also argued that the differences in the
specifications between Part 587 and the European standard were unduly
burdensome on manufacturers performing compliance tests with the ODB.
Issues Raised in the Petition
In its petition for reconsideration, Toyota stated that the
specifications in Part 587 allow the fixed rigid barrier portion of the
ODB to be higher than the ECE barrier. Toyota argued that because of
the height difference, as a vehicle crushes and rotates, it could
contact the rigid portion of the barrier (the portions of the concrete
block higher than the deformable barrier). The company claimed that
this contact could affect the results of the test vehicle. Toyota
stated that this possibility is especially true for sport utility
vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks and vans (LTVs), which ride higher
than passenger cars. Toyota petitioned for the minimum barrier height
requirement to be harmonized with the ECE requirement.
Toyota also petitioned for an increase in the sample size of the
aluminum honeycomb used to test the crush characteristics of the
barrier, the removal of backing sheet material specifications, and a
reduction in hole size for deformable face mounting. Toyota claimed
that by harmonizing these specifications, separate test runs would not
be required to meet the Part 587 and ECE specifications, reducing the
burden on manufacturers.
Analysis of the Petition
Toyota expressed concern with the potential for contact between the
rigid portions of the ODB and the vehicle being tested due to the
barrier height specifications. Part 587.18(b) specifies that:
The height of the fixed barrier is at least as high as the
highest point on the vehicle at the intersection of the vertical
transverse plane tangent to the forward most point of both front
tires, when the tires are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of
the vehicle, and the vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the vehicle.
We acknowledge that the barrier height may affect the ODB results
for SUVs and LTVs, as this was our intention in establishing this
height specification in the March 2000 final rule. For larger, high-
riding vehicles, the agency believes that it is important for the rigid
barrier height to be sufficiently high to engage the full height of the
[[Page 62422]]
vehicle's front structure. In testing high-riding LTVs with the ECE
barrier in the ODB test configuration, the agency observed that LTVs
tended to override the ECE barrier, thus transferring a larger amount
of crash energy through their lower load paths. The agency is concerned
that this could lead LTV and SUV manufacturers to design unnecessarily
stiff lower structures to mitigate intrusion in the ODB test.
Stiffening the structure of an LTV or SUV in the region where they are
likely to engage with a passenger car would be detrimental to improving
vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility. While encouraging a lower load path
in LTVs and SUVs would enhance vehicle compatibility through improved
load path engagement with passenger cars, the omission of an upper load
path for the upper rails during an offset test with the ECE barrier
could force some manufacturers to design considerably stiffer lower LTV
and SUV structures, negating any gains from aligning the load paths.
By allowing the upper rails of the SUVs and LTVs to engage the
upper portion of the Part 587 barrier, manufacturers have more
flexibility in designing their front ends to allow a better
distribution of force across the full height of the vehicle front
structure, thus improving compatibility. Furthermore, Toyota's request
for harmonization alone is not sufficient justification to amend Part
587 since the U.S. and European vehicle fleets are very different. The
population of SUVs in Europe is around 5 percent of the vehicle
population. In contrast, LTVs and SUVs are approximately 50 percent of
U.S. vehicle sales and constitute approximately 38 percent of U.S.
registrations.
We are also rejecting Toyota's claim that differences in the sample
size of the honeycomb used to test the crush characteristics of the
barrier, material specifications for backing material, and hole size
for deformable face mounting are unduly burdensome. The agency found no
difference in the force versus displacement curves for the current
sample thickness and the sample thickness proposed by Toyota. (See the
test data in this docket.)
Further, Toyota states that the differences in backing material and
hole size specifications have no influence on barrier performance. Part
587 does not require manufacturers to follow prescribed specifications.
It merely states what specifications the agency will use when we run
compliance tests. If differences in specifications have no influence on
barrier performance, Toyota and other manufacturers are free to use the
ECE specifications in compliance testing.
Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, the agency is denying
Toyota's petition for reconsideration.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegation of authorities at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on: October 29, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-27656 Filed 11-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P