[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2000)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 4579-4582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1959]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 2000-6798]
RIN 2127-AH74


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance

AGENCY:  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final rule, partial response to petitions for reconsideration; 
technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY:  On April 27, 1999, NHTSA published a final rule which revised 
the test procedure in Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, to make 
it more suitable to testing motor vehicles with raised roofs. The final 
rule provided that the new test procedure would be used for vehicles 
manufactured on or after October 25, 1999.
    The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) petitioned for 
reconsideration of the rule, stating that some manufacturers of 
conversion vans with raised roofs must cease production of their 
vehicles because they are unable to demonstrate compliance with the new 
test procedure. Ford Motor Company (Ford) also petitioned for 
reconsideration of the test procedure used to test vehicles with raised 
roofs.
    We are issuing this final rule in partial response to those 
petitions. The effect of this document is to stay, until October 25, 
2000, the provision specifying the new test procedure as the sole test 
procedure. This document amends Standard No. 216 so that, for vehicles 
manufactured during the stay, vehicle manufacturers have an option of 
using either the new test procedure or the test procedure that was 
specified in Standard No. 216 immediately prior to October 25, 1999 
(``former test procedure''). For vehicles manufactured after the stay, 
i.e., on or after October 25, 2000, the new test procedure will apply 
(unless the standard is further amended in a subsequent final rule). 
This stay will provide us additional time to complete our analysis of 
the petitions for reconsideration and decide whether the new test 
procedure should be amended. The agency is also amending the definition 
of ``windshield trim'' in the manner announced in the preamble, but not 
reflected in the regulatory text, of the April 1999 final rule.

DATES:  This rule is effective Janaury 31, 2000. Petitions for 
Reconsideration: You may submit a petition for reconsideration of this 
rule. We will consider petitions received no later than March 16, 2000. 
Petitions received after that date will be treated as petitions for 
rulemaking.

ADDRESSES:  In preparing a petition for reconsideration, you should 
refer to the docket and notice number of this final rule. You should 
submit the petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For technical issues, you may contact 
Maurice Hicks, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at telephone (202) 
366-6345.
    For legal issues, you may contact Deirdre Fujita, Attorney, Office 
of the Chief Counsel, at telephone (202) 366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic

[[Page 4580]]

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    On April 27, 1999, NHTSA published a final rule relating to the 
test procedure in Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance (64 FR 
22567). The procedure tests the strength of the roof over the front 
seat occupants by placing a large flat steel test plate on the roof, 
simulating contact with the ground in rollover crashes, and pressing 
downward. Prior to the amendments made by the final rule, following the 
procedure in testing certain vehicles with rounded roofs (e.g., the 
Ford Taurus) resulted in positioning the test plate too far back. In 
this position, the plate did not test the roof over the front 
occupants. In addition, this position created the potential for contact 
between the front edge of the test plate and the roof, allowing the 
plate to penetrate the roof along the leading edge of the plate. 
Similarly, in following this procedure for vehicles with raised, 
irregularly-shaped roofs (such as some vans with roof conversions), the 
initial contact point on the roof may not be above the front occupants, 
but on the raised rear portion of the roof, behind those occupants. In 
both of these cases, the positioning of the plate relative to the 
initial contact point on the roof, instead of relative to a fixed 
location on the roof, resulted in too much variability in the plate 
positioning and reduced test repeatability.
    The final rule addressed the problem of rounded roofs by specifying 
a new test procedure for all vehicles except those with certain 
modified roof configurations. Under the new procedure, the test plate 
is to be positioned so that the front edge of the plate is 254 mm (10 
inches) in front of the forwardmost point of the roof. Positioned in 
this way, the front edge of the plate will always project slightly 
forward of the roof instead of contacting it. The rule addressed the 
problem for vehicles with raised or modified roofs by specifying that 
if following the new test procedure results in an initial point of 
contact that is rearward of the front seats, the plate is repositioned 
so that its rear edge is within 10 mm of the rear of those seats.
    The agency received two petitions for reconsideration: one from the 
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and another from Ford 
Motor Company (Ford). Both petitions suggested that the new test 
procedure creates problems for manufacturers of conversion vans with 
raised or altered roofs.
    RVIA stated that following the new test procedure causes the rear 
edge of the test plate to significantly load the roof over the front 
seat areas. RVIA believed that as a consequence, this testing ``will 
not realistically load the roof over the front seat area as intended.'' 
RVIA suggested several approaches that petitioner believed would avoid 
edge loading, including two ways of repositioning the test plate. The 
first was by moving the plate 700 mm (about 27 inches) more rearward 
than that specified in the April 1999 final rule. The second was by 
increasing the longitudinal angle of the test device from 5 degrees up 
to 30 degrees following repositioning of the test device. RVIA also 
requested that one additional year of leadtime be provided, regardless 
of whether we grant or deny its petition.
    By letter dated November 12, 1999, RVIA informed NHTSA that some of 
its members have been forced to cease production of conversion vans 
with raised roofs because they are unable to demonstrate compliance 
with Standard No. 216 using the new test procedure. Petitioner 
reiterated its view that the new test procedure can result in the rear 
edge of the test plate slicing through a raised roof. The petitioner 
stated that the former procedure did not normally result in such 
cutting by edge contact. Petitioner asked that until we answer its 
petition for reconsideration, we should extend the effective date of 
the April 1999 final rule and should allow manufacturers of conversion 
vehicles with raised roofs to use the former test procedure.
    Ford also indicated that it believes the new test procedure can 
result in rear edge loading, particularly for raised or altered roof 
vehicles. Ford stated that ``the influence of rear edge loading will 
have an increasingly dramatic affect on the test results as the 
steepness of the sloped transition between the raised roof and the 
lower roof is increased.'' Ford also believes that the procedure is not 
objective. This is because the procedure uses the position of the test 
plate's initial contact point to the roof to determine whether to 
reposition the plate. Ford believes that a procedure that depends on a 
determination of the initial contact point is subject to variability 
and reproducibility problems.
    The petition from Ford also asked that the definition of 
``windshield trim'' be consistent with that used in Standard No. 201.

Agency Response

    We are reviewing and analyzing the petitions for reconsideration 
from RVIA and Ford. We expect to complete our analysis of the issues in 
the near future. However, the new test procedure has become effective 
and has reportedly caused some manufacturers of altered or raised roof 
vehicles to cease producing vehicles, pending our resolution of the 
issues raised in the RVIA petition. Many of these manufacturers are 
small businesses. We agree with RVIA that we should allow optional use 
of the former test procedure for an interim period, pending our 
decision on the petitions. Accordingly, we are republishing (with new 
section numbers and a redesignated figure number) the original language 
of the former test procedure. We are permitting the use of the former 
test procedure or the new test procedure for multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks and buses with raised or altered roofs manufactured on 
or after October 25, 1999 and before October 25, 2000. This will permit 
us to complete our analysis of and take action on the petitions prior 
to a date on which the former test procedure ceases to be available.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note RVIA stated in its November 1999 letter that, ``by 
accepting the June 11, 1999 RVIA Petition for Reconsideration, NHTSA 
acknowledged that the petition has some merit.'' Our acceptance of a 
petition indicates simply that the petition meets the applicable 
requirements regarding timeliness and contents. In no way does our 
acceptance, by itself, imply that the agency has made any judgment 
whether a petition has merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the requested change to the definition of 
``windshield trim,'' we acknowledge that the April 1999 final rule did 
not change the regulatory text to reflect the decision announced in the 
final rule preamble that the same definition used in Standard No. 201 
would be incorporated into Standard No. 216.\2\ NHTSA is amending that 
definition to implement that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the April 1999 final rule, the agency stated:
    NHTSA agrees with Ford that the term ``trim'' in S7.2(e) 
describing the proposed orientation of the test device, should be 
revised to say ``windshield trim'' because it is more specific. 
NHTSA also agrees that the term ``windshield trim'' should be 
defined consistently with the definition in Standard No. 201. 
Therefore, the same definition used in Standard No. 201 has been 
incorporated in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA finds for good cause that it is in the public interest for 
this rule to become effective upon publication. RVIA states that some 
manufacturers, primarily small businesses, of vehicles with raised or 
altered roofs are unable to certify the compliance of their vehicles to 
Standard No. 216 using the test procedure adopted in the April 1999 
final rule. That procedure was adopted because the agency believed to 
be more suitable for testing vehicles with raised or altered roofs. The 
agency did not intend to cause vehicles that formerly met Standard No. 
216 when tested using the former test procedures to no longer meet the 
standard when

[[Page 4581]]

tested using the new procedures. The effective date of this rule will 
ensure that the manufacturers of these vehicles can immediately 
commence producing their vehicles while NHTSA considers the petitions.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this 
rulemaking action and has determined that it is not ``significant'' 
under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. The effect of this rule 
is to stay a mandatory effective date until October 25, 2000 and to 
provide a choice between two alternative test procedures during that 
time. This rule will not require any design changes and will not cause 
any increase in compliance costs. The impacts of the rule are so minor 
that a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

 b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this document under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (beginning at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601). I certify 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following is NHTSA's 
statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 605(b)). This final rule primarily affects manufacturers of truck, 
buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with raised or altered roofs. 
It applies to a substantial number of van conversion shops, which we 
presume are small businesses. This rule will not have a significant 
economic impact. Conversion shops are already responsible for 
certifying compliance with Standard No. 216 if they make conversions 
affecting the roof structure. The rule does not impose any new 
requirements, but instead permits manufacturers to continue to test 
their vehicles as they had been testing prior to the effective date of 
the April 1999 rule. This rule will not have any effect on the price of 
new vehicles purchased by small entities.

c. Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511). There are no requirements for 
information collection associated with this rule.

d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and has determined that this rule 
will not establish policies with federalism implications.

e. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 
State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the 
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

f. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and does not have a 
disproportionate effect on children.

g. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, 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 annually. This final rule does not meet the definition of 
Federal mandate because this rule simply adds a compliance alternative 
for one year. In no case will annual expenditures exceed the $100 
million threshold.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

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

    2. Section 571.216 is amended as follows:
    a. by revising the definition of ``windshield trim'' in S4 and 
revising S5; and,
    b. by adding S5.1, S8 through S8.4, and Figure 2 at the end of the 
section.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 571.216  Standard No. 216; roof crush resistance

* * * * *
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Windshield trim means molding of any material between the 
windshield glazing and the exterior roof surface, including material 
that covers a part of either the windshield glazing or exterior roof 
surface.
* * * * *
    S5. Requirements. Subject to S5.1, when the test device described 
in S6 is used to apply a force to either side of the forward edge of a 
vehicle's roof in accordance with the procedures of S7, the lower 
surface of the test device must not move more than 127 millimeters. The 
applied force in Newtons is equal to 1.5 times the unloaded vehicle 
weight of the vehicle, measured in kilograms and multiplied by 9.8, but 
does not exceed 22,240 Newtons for passenger cars. Both the left and 
right front portions of the vehicle's roof structure must be capable of 
meeting the requirements. A particular vehicle need not meet further 
requirements after being tested at one location.
    S5.1 For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that 
have a raised roof or altered roof, manufacturers have the option of 
using the test procedures of S8 instead of the procedures of S7 until 
October 25, 2000. The option of using the test procedures of S8 ceases 
to be available on that date.
* * * * *
    S8 Alternate test procedure for multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks and buses that have a raised roof or altered roof manufactured 
until October 25, 2000 (see S5.1). Each vehicle shall

[[Page 4582]]

be capable of meeting the requirements of S5 when tested in accordance 
with the following procedure.
    S8.1 Place the sills or the chassis frame of the vehicle on a rigid 
horizontal surface, fix the vehicle rigidly in position, close all 
windows, close and lock all doors, and secure any convertible top or 
removable roof structure in place over the passenger compartment.
    S8.2 Orient the test device as shown in Figure 2, so that--
    (a) Its longitudinal axis is at a forward angle (side view) of 
5 deg. below the horizontal, and is parallel to the vertical plane 
through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline;
    (b) Its lateral axis is at a lateral outboard angle, in the front 
view projection, of 25 deg. below the horizontal;
    (c) Its lower surface is tangent to the surface of the vehicle; and
    (d) The initial contact point, or center of the initial contact 
area, is on the longitudinal centerline of the lower surface of the 
test device and 254 millimeters from the forwardmost point of that 
centerline.
    S8.3  Apply force in a downward direction perpendicular to the 
lower surface of the test device at a rate of not more than 13 
millimeters per second until reaching a force in Newtons of 1\1/2\ 
times the unloaded vehicle weight of the tested vehicle, measured in 
kilograms and multiplied by 9.8. Complete the test within 120 seconds. 
Guide the test device so that throughout the test it moves, without 
rotation, in a straight line with its lower surface oriented as 
specified in S8.2(a) through S8.2(d).
    S8.4  Measure the distance that the test device moves, i.e., the 
distance between the original location of the lower surface of the test 
device and its location as the force level specified in S8.3 is 
reached.
* * * * *

Figure 2 to Sec. 571.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31JA00.089


BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

    Issued on: January 21, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Acting Administrator.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[FR Doc. 00-1959 Filed 1-28-00; 8:45 am]