[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62421-62422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27656]


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

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