8906 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1An educational institution referred to in the size

standards is an entity whose primary function is

education, whose programs are accredited by a

nationally recognized accrediting agency or

association, who is legally authorized to provide a

program of organized instruction or study, who

provides an educational program for which it

awards academic degrees, and whose educational

programs are available to the public.

1. Small business—a for-profit concern that

provides a service or a concern not engaged

in manufacturing with average gross receipts

of $5 million or less over its last 3 completed

fiscal years;

2. Manufacturing industry—a

manufacturing concern with an average

number of 500 or fewer employees based

upon employment during each pay period for

the preceding 12 calendar months;

3. Small organization—a not-for-profit

organization which is independently owned

and operated and has annual gross receipts

of $5 million or less;

4. Small governmental jurisdiction—a

government of a city, county, town,

township, village, school district or special

district with a population of less than 50,000;

5. Small educational institution—an

educational institution supported by a

qualifying small governmental jurisdiction,

or one that is not state or publicly supported

and has 500 or fewer employees.1

NRC Small Entity Fees

The NRC has established two tiers of small

entity fees for licensees that qualify under the

NRC’s size standards. Currently, these fees

are as follows:

Maximum

annual

fee per licensed

category

Small Business Not Engaged in

Manufacturing and Small NotFor Profit Organizations (Gross

Annual Receipts):

$350,000 to $5 million ............... $1,800

Less than $350,000 .................. 400

Manufacturing entities that have

an average of 500 employees

or less:

35 to 500 employees ................ 1,800

Less than 35 employees ........... 400

Small Governmental Jurisdictions

(Including publicly supported

educational institutions) (Population):

20,000 to 50,000 ................... 1,800

Less than 20,000 ................... 400

Educational Institutions that are

not State or Publicly Supported,

and have 500 Employees or

Less:

35 to 500 employees ................ 1,800

Less than 35 employees ........... 400

To pay a reduced annual fee, a licensee

must use NRC Form 526, enclosed with the

fee bill, to certify that it meets NRC’s size

standards for a small entity. About 1,400

licensees certify each year that they qualify

as a small entity under the NRC size

standards and pay a reduced annual fee.

Approximately 900 licensees pay the small

entity fee of $1,800 while 500 licensees pay

the lower-tier small entity fee of $400.

Instructions for Completing NRC Form 526

1. File a separate NRC Form 526 for each

annual fee invoice received.

2. Complete all items on NRC Form 526 as

follows:

a. The license number and invoice number

must be entered exactly as they appear on the

annual fee invoice.

b. The Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) Code should be entered if it is known.

c. The licensee’s name and address must be

entered as they appear on the invoice. Name

and/or address changes for billing purposes

must be annotated on the invoice. Correcting

the name and/or address on NRC Form 526

or on the invoice does not constitute a

request to amend the license. Any request to

amend a license are to be submitted to the

respective licensing staffs in the NRC

Regional or Headquarters Offices.

d. Check the appropriate size standard

under which the licensee qualifies as a small

entity. Check one box only. Note the

following:

(1) The size standards apply to the

licensee, not the individual authorized users

listed in the license.

(2) Gross annual receipts as used in the

size standards includes all revenue in

whatever form received or accrued from

whatever sources, not solely receipts from

licensed activities.

(3) A licensee who is a subsidiary of a large

entity does not qualify as a small entity.

(4) The owner of the entity, or an official

empowered to act on behalf of the entity,

must sign and date the small entity

certification.

3. The NRC sends invoices to its licensees

for the full annual fee, even though some

entities qualify for reduced fees as a small

entity. Licensees who qualify as a small

entity and file NRC Form 526, which certifies

eligibility for small entity fees may pay the

reduced fee, which for a full year is either

$1,800 or $400, for each fee category shown

on the invoice depending on the size of the

entity. Licensees granted a license during the

first six months of the fiscal year and

licensees who file for termination or for a

possession only license and permanently

cease licensed activities during the first six

months of the fiscal year pay only 50 percent

of the annual fee for that year. Such an

invoice states the ‘‘Amount Billed Represents

50% Proration.’’ This means the amount due

from a small entity is not the prorated

amount shown on the invoice but rather onehalf of the maximum annual fee shown on

NRC Form 526 for the size standard under

which the licensee qualifies resulting in a fee

of (either $900 or $200) for each fee category

billed instead of the full annual fee of $1,800

or $400.

4. A new small entity form is required to

be filed with the NRC each fiscal year in

order to qualify for reduced fees for that

fiscal year. Because a licensee’s ‘‘size,’’ or the

size standards, may change from year to year,

the invoice reflects the full fee and a new

form must be completed and returned for the

fee to be reduced to the small entity fee.

LICENSEES WILL NOT BE ISSUED A NEW

INVOICE FOR THE REDUCED AMOUNT.

The completed form, the payment of the

appropriate small entity fee, and the

‘‘Payment Copy’’ of the invoice should be

mailed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, License Fee and Accounts

Receivable Branch, P.O. Box 954514, St.

Louis, MO 63195–4514.

5. Questions regarding fee bills may be

posed orally or in writing. Please call the

licensing fee staff at 301–415–7554 or write

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Office of

the Chief Financial Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–4704 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 94–97; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF40

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Roof Crush Resistance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise the test procedures in Standard

No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, to make

them more suitable to testing vehicles

with highly sloped roofs or raised roofs.

The current test procedure is intended

to test the strength of the roof over the

driver. It involves lowering a large test

plate, inclined forward at a five degree

angle, to an initial contact point near the

leading edge of the roof. However, when

the procedure is performed on certain

rounded, aerodynamically-shaped roofs

that may themselves slope at more than

five degrees, small differences in test

plate angle result in considerable

variability in the location of the initial

contact point, thus reducing the

repeatability of the test results.

Similarly, for vehicles with raised,

irregularly shaped roofs (such as some

converted vans), the initial contact point

may not be above the driver, but on the

raised rear portion of the roof, behind

the driver.

This proposal addresses these

problems by specifying the use of a

smaller test plate for use on vehicles on

which the use of the current larger test

plate would result in an initial contact

point behind the driver. The rearward

edge of the smaller test plate will be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8907

over the front occupant compartment, so

the initial contact point will be in that

area.

This proposal also changes the test

procedure to align either test plate with

the front of the roof, thus ensuring

engagement of the vehicle’s A-pillar.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must

be received by April 28, 1997.

If adopted, the proposed amendments

would become effective, and

compliance required, 180 days

following publication of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice number of this

notice and be submitted to: Docket

Section, Room 5109, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30

a.m.–4 p.m., Monday through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons by mail at the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, DC 20590:

For non-legal issues:

Dr. William R. S. Fan, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, NPS–11,

telephone (202) 366–4922, facsimile

(202) 366–4329, electronic mail

‘‘bfan@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues:

Mr. Paul Atelsek, Office of the Chief

Counsel, NCC–20, telephone (202) 366–

2992, facsimile (202) 366–3820,

electronic mail

‘‘patelsek@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

Comments on this proposal must be

sent to the docket and not to the contact

persons.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Petitions

A. Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

(RVIA)

B. Ford Petition

III. Agency Request for Comments

IV. Comments on the Petitions

A. Comments on the RVIA Petition and the

suitability of Standard No. 220 test

procedures for raised roof vehicles

1. Passenger Vehicle Manufacturers and

AAMA

2. Second Stage Manufacturers and RVIA

3. Safety Advocacy Groups

B. Comments on the Ford Petition, and test

plate orientation and size

1. Passenger Vehicle Manufacturers and

AAMA

2. Safety Advocacy Groups

V. NHTSA research on the proposed test

procedure

A. Passenger Cars

B. Raised Roof Converted Van Tests

VI. Agency response to the comments

A. Issues related to the RVIA petition

B. Issues related to the Ford petition

VII. Proposed Test Procedure and

Requirements

VIII. Changes to the Regulatory Text

IX. Proposed Lead Time

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

E. Civil Justice Reform

XI. Submission of Comments

I. Background

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush

Resistance, is intended to assure that

vehicles have sufficient structural

strength in the passenger compartment

roof to resist crushing during rollover

crashes. The test procedure involves

securing the vehicle on a rigid

horizontal surface, placing a test plate

on the roof, and applying 1.5 times the

unloaded vehicle weight (up to a

maximum of 22,240 N, or 5,000 pounds,

for passenger cars) to the test plate. The

vehicle passes if the roof prevents the

test plate from moving downward more

than 127 mm (5 inches).

The test procedure is designed to test

the primary structural member

supporting the roof over the front seats.

That member is generally the A-pillar.

In order to test the A-pillar, the test

plate, which is 762 mm (30 inches) wide

by 1,829 mm (72 inches) long, is

oriented in a way so that the initial

contact point is at the top of the Apillar. Its 1,829 mm dimension is

parallel to the vertical plane through the

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle,

and tilted forward at a five degree angle.

Its 762 mm dimension is tilted outward

at a 25 degree angle so that its outboard

side is lower than its inboard side. So

oriented, the test plate is lowered until

it contacts the vehicle. After the initial

contact point is determined, the test

plate is moved, maintaining its

orientation, so that the initial contact

point touches the underside of the test

plate along the test plate’s longitudinal

centerline, 254 mm (10 inches) rearward

of the centerline’s forwardmost point.

The test plate is then pushed downward

in a direction perpendicular to its lower

surface until a load of 1.5 times the

unloaded vehicle weight (up to a

maximum of 22,240 N, or 5,000 pounds,

for a passenger car) has been applied.

Although, as noted above, the intent

underlying this test procedure is to load

the area at the top of the A-pillar, the

combined effect of the test plate and

procedures and certain roof

configurations may be the testing of

other areas of the roof. Neither NHTSA

nor the industry envisioned these

configurations when the current test

procedure was promulgated. In response

to the problems created by these

configurations, two members of the

industry have petitioned the agency to

modify the test procedure.

II. Petitions

A. Recreation Vehicle Industry

Association (RVIA)

RVIA, which represents small

business van conversion manufacturers,

is concerned that contoured or raised

roof structures on certain second stage

van conversions cannot be tested using

the current test procedure. With only a

five degree incline of the test plate, the

initial contact point at the leading edge

of the roof is supposed to be 254 mm (10

inches) behind the forwardmost edge of

the test plate. However, for some raised

roofs, the initial contact point will be

several inches behind the leading edge

of the roof due to the roof geometry.

This results in testing the raised roof

structure (which is generally relatively

weak) instead of the A-pillar over the

front seats. Vehicles with these problem

configurations include raised roof

conversions of the Plymouth Voyager,

Dodge Caravan, Chrysler Town &

Country, Chevrolet Astro, and GMC

Safari minivans.

To address this situation, RVIA

petitioned NHTSA to allow vans, motor

homes and other multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses

that have raised roofs, to be tested in

accordance with the test procedures in

Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover

Protection. Standard No. 220 uses a

larger test plate and distributes the same

load evenly over the entire surface of

the roof and all its supporting pillars,

rather than concentrating the load on

either side of the roof over the front seat.

In making this request, RVIA reasoned

that, since the modified vehicles would

have met Standard No. 216

requirements prior to modification of

their roofs, the A-Pillar strength would

have been demonstrated. The Standard

No. 220 test procedure could then be

used to test the strength of the entire

modified vehicle roof. There would be

no need to repeat the Standard No. 216

test.

B. Ford Petition

Ford is concerned that some Ford

models with aerodynamic, rounded,

roof designs result in initial contact

points that are so far back on the roof

that the front edge of the test plate is

several inches behind the A-pillar when

it is positioned as specified in the

Standard. This occurs because the roofs

slope longitudinally at an angle greater
8908 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

than 5 degrees at their leading edge.

Consequently, the roofs are loaded

somewhere behind the A-pillar.

In addition, Ford states that the long

sloping roofs make repeatable testing

difficult. The initial contact point is

highly variable and dependent on the

specific roof design. The initial contact

point can move several inches if the

plate angle or the level of the floor on

which the test vehicle is placed are off

by as little as one degree. This could

lead to substantial differences in test

results.

Ford believes that the test procedures

are contradictory. S6.2 of the standard

says to ‘‘[o]rient the test device as

shown in Figure 1 * * *’’, which shows

the test plate in contact with the front

corner of the roof, inclined

longitudinally at an angle of 5 degrees.

At the same time, S6.2(d) of the rule

specifies that the initial contact point be

254 mm (10 inches) from the front edge

of the test plate. Thus, there is a conflict

between the specifications in S6.2(d)

and Figure 1 in the regulatory text for

certain vehicles with highly sloped

roofs.

Ford believes NHTSA has not

resolved this apparent conflict in a way

that is in accordance with the initial

intent underlying the standard, which is

to load the front corner of the roof.

NHTSA issued an October 3, 1980 letter

of interpretation stating that the test

plate should be positioned in

accordance with the language of the

regulatory text of S6.2(b), even if the

leading edge of the test plate will not be

forward of the A-pillar and the roof’s

leading edge, as depicted in the figure.

Ford has followed this interpretation

even though it believes that this

approach does not test the actual

resistance of the roof to being crushed

in crashes.

Ford petitioned NHTSA to amend

Standard No. 216 to specify that the

leading edge of the test plate should

always be one inch forward of the

leading edge of the roof. To accomplish

this, Ford suggested the following

language to replace S6.2(d):

The initial contact point, or center of the

initial contact area, is on the longitudinal

centerline of the device. A plane

perpendicular to the lower surface of the test

device and 25 mm rearward of the front edge

of the lower surface passes through the

rearmost point of the opening in the body

structure for the windshield.

Ford also petitioned NHTSA to

amend the test procedure to specify that

all vehicles be tested with the body sills,

rather than the chassis, mounted on the

rigid surface, and that all roof rack

components that could interfere with

initial contact between the test plate and

the roof be removed prior to testing.

III. Agency Request for Comments

In a request for comments published

December 27, 1994, NHTSA granted the

RVIA and Ford petitions, but expressed

reservations about the solutions

suggested by the petitioners. The details

of NHTSA’s reaction to the petitions can

be seen in that 1994 document (59 FR

66504), and will merely be summarized

here.

In response to the RVIA’s petition to

use the test procedures of Standard No.

220 for raised roof vehicles, NHTSA

expressed concern that adopting RVIA’s

approach would trade off increased roof

crush protection for rear seat occupants

with diminished protection for front

seat occupants. Because most deaths

and injuries in these vehicles are to

front seat occupants, and RVIA

submitted no data to quantify the tradeoffs in protection, NHTSA wanted to

conduct research to examine them. In

addition, NHTSA was concerned that

the roof strength in the area of the Apillars might be affected by raised roof

conversions, thus compromising the

basis for the original manufacturer’s

certification under Standard No. 216.

In response to Ford’s petition to

position the leading edge of the test

plate one inch forward of the leading

edge of the roof, NHTSA observed that

consistent positioning of the test plate

over the front of the roof would not

ensure that area of the roof would be

tested. This would occur because Ford’s

suggested language retained the 5 degree

angle of tilt (a detailed explanation is

given below). In addition, NHTSA was

concerned that Ford’s suggested

positioning could reduce the stringency

of the test for some vehicles.

The agency requested public

comment on the changes requested in

the petitions. Specifically, NHTSA

requested relevant test data, and

recommendations for other ways to

address aerodynamically sloped and

raised roofs, including changes in the

orientation, size, and shape of the test

plate.

IV. Comments on the Petitions

A total of 11 comments were received

by the agency in response to the notice.

Five passenger vehicle manufacturers

(Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz,

Volkswagen, and Volvo), a second-stage

manufacturer (S & S Coach Company),

two trade associations (American

Automobile Manufacturers Association

(AAMA) and RVIA), a group of

concerned citizens, and two safety

organizations (Advocates for Highway

and Auto Safety (Advocates) and MCR/

LRI Inc. Liability Research Group (MCR/

LRI Inc.)) submitted comments. These

comments are summarized below,

grouped according to the similarity of

their positions on the issues.

A. Comments on the RVIA Petition and

the Suitability of Standard No. 220 Test

Procedures for Raised Roof Vehicles

1. Passenger Vehicle Manufacturers and

AAMA

Ford did not support or oppose the

RVIA recommendation, but it did

comment on the appropriateness of

Standard No. 216 and 220 test

procedures for testing the raised roofs of

conversion vans. Ford stated that

Standard No. 220 may be more

practicable for the low volume roof

modifications addressed by RVIA. In

addition, Ford expressed concern that

van converters who supply vehicles for

drivers and passengers with disabilities

may not be able to certify compliance

with Standard No. 216. According to

Ford, the simplified test for school

buses in Standard No. 220 may make

certification more practicable for those

converters.

Some commenters suggested that,

rather than adopt a separate test

procedure for raised roof vehicles, the

agency could modify the Standard No.

216 test procedure to make it more

suitable for these vehicles. Ford

suggested increasing the allowable

deflection to reflect the added space

between the raised roof and occupants

in vehicles with raised roofs.

Volkswagen agreed that raised roof

vehicles should be tested using

Standard No. 216 rather than Standard

No. 220. It also suggested three different

methods for modifying the procedures

to accommodate raised roof vehicles: (1)

test with the raised roof removed and

the test plate applied to the supporting

structure, (2) exclude the measured roof

crush of the raised roof from the 127

mm (5 inch) displacement, and (3)

measure the 127 mm (5 inch)

displacement into the passenger

compartment starting from where the

test plate reaches the inner roof.

2. Second Stage Manufacturers and

RVIA

RVIA commented that several states

require Standard No. 220-type testing to

certify ambulance conversions

purchased and licensed by their states.

They enclosed a November 1, 1994

document from the General Services

Administration (Federal Specifications

for Ambulances, KKK–A–1822D)

specifying this test for use by all Federal

agencies when procuring ambulances.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8909

In response to the agency’s request for

data to show that RVIA’s suggested

amendment would not reduce the

stringency of the test, and that A-pillar

strength is retained after the roof is cut

out during a conversion, RVIA

commented that they were in the midst

of conducting new tests and would

submit their results to the docket. The

agency has not yet received any data

from RVIA, but will consider these data

if and when they become available.

S&S Coach Company, a final stage

manufacturer of funeral coaches,

submitted a petition for consideration to

exclude from Standard No 216 funeral

coaches having a gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) of 2,722 kilograms (6000

pounds) or less. They stated that the

current test procedure makes it

impossible to test the front edge of the

roof. They believe that these vehicles

have very little risk of rollover because

they are produced in small numbers, are

primarily in urban use, and operate at

slow speeds.

3. Safety Advocacy Groups

MCR/LRI Inc. stated that the

petitioners should provide data to show

the maximum force experienced by the

roof in realistic, injury-producing

rollovers in their vehicles. In addition,

before any amendment is made in the

current requirements of Standard No.

216, MCR/LRI Inc. said that RVIA

should provide data to show that the

suggested amendment does not degrade

the rollover safety of their vehicles.

Advocates stated that the NHTSA

should reject RVIA’s request for

exclusion from the test requirements of

Standard No. 216. Advocates agrees

with NHTSA’s concerns that

compliance before the roof is cut out

does not necessarily mean that the

original roof would still comply after

modification, and that the Standard No.

220 procedures do not assure frontal

compartment protection.

Advocates urged NHTSA to require

raised roof vehicles to meet the

Standard No. 220 requirements, in

addition to those of Standard No. 216,

because raised roof vehicles can carry a

full complement of passengers in the

front and rear compartments,

necessitating protection for both areas.

B. Comments on the Ford Petition, and

Test Plate Orientation and Size

1. Passenger Vehicle Manufacturers and

AAMA

Ford buttressed its petition by

presenting test results from three test

facilities with which they contracted to

test four 1994 Ford Taurus sedans using

the current Standard No. 216 test

procedure. The plate placement was

highly variable, resulting in different

roof strength measurements for each

Taurus tested at the different test

facilities. Data on the variability of plate

placement were submitted to the docket

and Ford stated that it would submit its

test results after analyzing the data.

GM, Volvo, and Mercedes-Benz

generally supported the amendment

suggested by Ford to the Standard No.

216 procedure, while Volkswagen

remained neutral. Although Ford’s test

procedure does not provide for the

consistent placement of the plate and

the same contact point, GM believed

that in most cases, the test plate would

contact the front portion of the roof

prior to reaching 127 mm (5 inches) of

crush. In addition, GM stated that Ford’s

suggested test plate positioning would

eliminate an ‘‘edge condition,’’ which

can result in concentrated loading over

a small area of the roof.

There was some disagreement among

the manufacturers over whether NHTSA

should consider changing test plate

angles, although they all agreed that

data would be needed to support such

a change. GM suggested that, if

NHTSA’s test procedure is intended to

simulate loading in rollover crashes, the

agency should consider changes in the

plate angles to accommodate the range

of vehicle designs. GM supports a

NHTSA study of the appropriateness of

the current test plate angles.

Ford opposed changing the test plate

size, shape, or angle. Ford stated that

crash data should be used to verify that

any new angles are more representative

of real-world rollover crashes. Ford also

stated that the current test plate size

adequately represents the ground

surface contact area in rollover

accidents, and reducing that size would

probably require strengthening of long

roofs, due to the more concentrated

loading.

Mercedes-Benz also opposed test

plate angle changes. Assuming that

NHTSA might propose higher plate

angles, Mercedes-Benz stated that

changing the direction of the loading

might make the test more stringent,

necessitating a redesign of the roof

pillars to respond to the more horizontal

loading.

Although it is not directly relevant to

its petition, Ford also believes some

methods used by test facilities to tiedown vehicles pre-stress the pillars and

the roof and reduce the measured roof

strength. As more data become

available, Ford plans to direct the

agency’s attention to further changes

needed in the Standard No. 216 test

procedure.

AAMA also supported the Ford

suggestion, but suggested a slight

change in the language of Ford’s

suggested amendment. It thought that

some persons might misinterpret Ford’s

phrase ‘‘opening in the body structure

for the windshield’’ to mean the edge of

the depression in the metal roof panels

into which the edge of the windshield

is mounted. Ford confirmed to the

AAMA that it intended to refer to the

edge of the metal roof panels and

windshield, AAMA suggested the

following language for the test

procedure in Standard 216 for S6.2(d):

The initial contact point, or center of the

initial contact area, is on the longitudinal

centerline of the device. A line normal to the

lower surface of the test device and through

a point on its longitudinal centerline and 25

mm rearward of the front edge passes

through the rear edge of the visible exterior

surface of the windshield.

Volkswagen neither supported nor

opposed the amendment suggested by

Ford, because it had experienced no

difficulty with the procedures.

However, it urged that any amendment

of Standard No. 216 be flexible and not

limited in its suitability to test different

vehicle roof configurations.

Ford and the AAMA both urged

adoption of the Ford suggestion in order

to achieve harmonization between

Standard No. 216 and Transport

Canada’s CMVSS No. 216.

Five consumers commented that the

Ford suggestion would provide better

protection for all passengers and

drivers.

2. Safety Advocacy Groups

MCR/LRI Inc. stated that the

petitioners should submit data to show

that the force on the roof in their

amendment is realistic and that there

would not be a degradation in the

rollover safety of new vehicles if the

Ford recommendation were accepted.

MCR/LRI Inc. also stated that minor

amendments to Standard No. 216 are

unlikely to achieve an adequate level of

roof crush protection. Their analysis of

50 rollover accident cases showed that

the roof was substantially distorted in

all cases. They concluded that the head

and neck injuries almost certainly

occurred inside the vehicle as a

consequence of roof crush. MCR/LRI

stated that the current Standard No. 216

test improperly takes advantage of the

strength imparted by the windshield,

because in virtually all rollovers, the

windshield fails, resulting in a 75

percent drop in roof strength.

Instead, MCR/LRI urged NHTSA to

require the Standard No. 208, Occupant

crash protection, rollover test with

specific head and neck injury criteria,
8910 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and maximum levels of roof intrusion.

It suggested compliance be

demonstrated by a drop test or

optionally using head and neck injury

criteria in a drop test.

Like MCR/LRI, Advocates thought

that the modifications to the current

Standard No. 216 test procedure would

not be sufficient. It agreed that a

modified angle and smaller test plate

may result in a more stringent test, but

it was not certain that any manipulation

of the test plate angles would generate

the desired result because of the radical

slope of a number of current roof

designs. Advocates also stated that there

are no data to indicate what forces an Apillar should withstand, and in which

direction it should withstand them, in

real-world crashes.

Advocates considered the Standard

No. 216 test to be outdated and

inadequate. It was concerned that the

proposed modifications will be in lieu

of a dynamic roof strength test that it

believes the agency should adopt. In a

dynamic rollover test, Advocates

asserted that required roof loads should

be much higher than the 1.5 times

unloaded vehicle weight now used in

the static test, because rollover crashes

are known to involve much higher

loads. Advocates was also concerned

that there are no criteria governing

permissible injury levels associated

with the test requirements in either

Standards 216 or 220.

Although it was not directly related to

the petitions, Advocates opposed the

exclusion of vehicles between 2,722 and

4,536 kilograms (6,000 and 10,000

pounds) GVWR from the purview of this

rule. Advocates commented that this

group includes small school buses,

which carry many young passengers.

Advocates stated that excluding these

vehicles is not a responsible stance for

an agency charged with protecting and

enhancing public safety in passenger

vehicles.

V. NHTSA Research on the Proposed

Test Procedure

A. Passenger Cars

Based on the comments to the notice,

the agency decided to test two passenger

cars using the current Standard No. 216

test procedure, and a modified test

procedure based on the Ford

recommendation. Because the Ford

Taurus was one of the vehicles

mentioned in Ford’s petition, it was

chosen as one of the vehicles to be

tested by the agency.

The other passenger car tested was the

Dodge Neon. The Dodge Neon had the

highest roof slope among approximately

30 passenger cars surveyed by the

agency. NHTSA concluded that if a

revised test procedure is suitable for a

contoured roof such as that in the Dodge

Neon, and if it is at least as stringent as

the current test procedure, then that test

would be suitable for all passenger

vehicles that are currently being

produced.

Both the left and right sides of each

vehicle’s roof were tested. Standard No

216 only requires testing one side of the

roof per vehicle, so there is a slight

possibility that the deformation caused

by the first test affected the results of the

second test. However, the amount of

roof crush and the area contacted by the

test plate were so small that NHTSA

judged that the integrity of the roof

structure on the other side of the vehicle

was not altered by the first test. NHTSA

requests comment on this judgment.

The left side was tested using the

current Standard No. 216 test plate

placement procedure and the right side

was tested using a modified test plate

positioning procedure that moved the

plate forward until the plate’s front edge

was vertically flush with the

forwardmost point of the exterior roof

including trim of the windshield (Figure

1 of the proposed rule). This is a slight

modification to the Ford suggested

procedure in that the test plate is not

positioned relative to the rearmost

windshield opening, but rather to the

forwardmost point of the exterior roof

including trim.

Although NHTSA used a test plate

placement procedure slightly different

from the one Ford suggested, the agency

believes that its procedure still

addresses Ford’s concerns relating to

consistent placement of the test plate for

repeatability and concentrated loading

when the plate leading edge is behind

the leading edge of the roof. Placement

of the test plate leading edge at the

forwardmost point of the roof prevents

the leading edge of the plate from being

placed several inches rearward of the Apillars, where it would penetrate into

the roof. Under Ford’s suggested test

plate placement procedure, the leading

edge of the plate may penetrate the roof

if a line connecting the rearmost points

on either side of the windshield edge of

the roof is more than 25 mm (1 inch)

behind the forwardmost point on the

roof, which is usually located at the

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

The force-deflection curves generated

by the current and modified test plate

placement procedures for the Ford

Taurus and Dodge Neon are available in

the docket. For the Ford Taurus, up to

approximately 10 mm (0.4 inches) of

roof crush, the force does not build up

when using the current Standard No.

216 test procedure. After this point, the

slope of the traces (which correlates

with roof stiffness) under the two

procedures are about the same. Once 40

mm (1.57 inches) of crush is reached,

the modified and current test

procedures produce almost identical

force-deflection results. Total roof

deflection was about 54 mm (2.1 inches)

under both the procedures, at 22,240 N

(5,000 pounds) of applied plate load.

The results from the Dodge Neon roof

crush tests showed almost identical

force-deflection characteristics in the

current and modified test procedures up

to 46 mm (1.8 inches) of crush. At 46

mm (1.8 inches), the currently

prescribed test procedure reached 1.5

times the unloaded vehicle weight of

the tested vehicle. Under the modified

test procedure, the load requirement

was reached after about 54 mm (2.1

inches), indicating a 17 percent increase

in the roof crush. The required load

limits were reached within the specified

roof deflection limits (127 mm, or 5

inches) for both vehicles, under both the

current and modified test procedures.

Roof crush results from the Taurus

and Neon vehicles indicate that the

modified procedure could be adopted

by the agency without any appreciable

reduction in test stringency. NHTSA

concludes that the 17 percent extra

crush under the modified test procedure

on the Dodge Neon is not appreciable

because it represents a displacement of

only 8 mm (0.3 inches), but requests

comment on this assessment. The

modified test procedure would alleviate

the ambiguous language in current

Standard No. 216, and it would position

the test plate more consistently.

B. Raised Roof Converted Van Tests

To compare the stringency of the

Standard Nos. 216 and 220 roof crush

procedures when applied to raised roof

vehicles, the agency tested a 1992 Chevy

Astro Van with a raised roof in

accordance with the modified Standard

No. 216 test procedure, and compared

the test results with the test results of an

altered 1994 GMC Safari van tested in

accordance with Standard No. 220 test

procedures. The agency obtained the

Safari Van test data from a test report

produced by General Testing

Laboratories, Inc., for Mark III

Industries. Although the two vehicles

were not identical, they are both ‘‘L/M’’

class vans produced by GM and the

raised roofs in each were very similar in

style. The roofs were cut out behind the

B-pillar. This, according to a RVIA

representative, is the predominant

method used by alterers in converting

vans to recreational vehicles. This

method is preferred because the roof

bows are not removed at the B-pillar,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8911

thus helping to retain the roof support

over the front occupant compartment.

For purposes of the modified test, the

roof over the front occupant

compartment was defined as the roof

area between a transverse vertical plane

passing through a point 162 mm (6.4

inches) rearward of the seating reference

point (SgRP) of the driver seat and a

transverse vertical plane passing

through the forwardmost point on the

roof including trim. NHTSA requests

comment on the appropriateness of this

definition.

The data from the 1994 GMC Safari

van showed the force and deflection of

the roof at an applied load 1.5 times the

unloaded vehicle weight in a Standard

No. 220 type test (the test report is

available in the docket). The test plate

covered the entire roof and was

controlled by 4 hydraulic rams, one at

each corner. The initially horizontal

plate was lowered until the plate

contacted the roof at two points. A load

was applied. When 1.5 times the

unloaded vehicle weight was reached,

the maximum deflection was 51 mm (2

inches) at the left front corner of the test

plate. Standard No. 220 specifies a

maximum deflection of 130 mm (5.12

inches).

The agency conducted its own test

using a modified Standard No. 216 test

procedure and recorded the forcedeflection characteristics on a 1992

Chevy Astro van with a raised roof very

similar to the 1994 Safari van tested

using the Standard No. 220 procedure.

The test report for the test conducted by

NHTSA is also available in the docket.

The test plate was oriented in the same

manner as in passenger car tests using

the modified test procedure (forward

edge of the plate flush with the

forwardmost exterior roof point along

the longitudinal centerline of the

vehicle). The test plate loaded the roof

initially at the highest point on the

raised roof, which was behind the Bpillar and above the original roof by

about 178 mm (7 inches). Roof crush

was continued for approximately 533

mm (21 inches) of crush, recording the

force-deflection characteristics over that

entire distance.

The force-deflection trace from the

modified Standard No. 216 test

(available in the docket) shows that 1.5

times the unloaded vehicle weight was

reached after 51 mm (2 inches) of roof

crush at the initial point of contact.

After an additional 51 mm of roof crush,

the roof was loaded through other

contact points forward of the initial

point of contact. The crushing of the

roof continued until the plate contacted

another point on the roof over the front

occupant compartment. This trace

shows the force vs. displacement curve

for the entire crushing sequence of the

roof. After a total crush of

approximately 173 mm (6.8 inches), the

plate reached the original roof structure

prior to conversion, and the load at that

point was 35,000 N (7,870 pounds). The

force peaked at 45,000 N (10,120

pounds) when the total roof crush was

about 211 mm (8.3 inches), and then

force level dropped to about 42,000 N

(9,450 pounds) as the roof was crushed

to 285 mm (11.2 inches).

The results of the Standard No. 216

and Standard No. 220 tests were then

compared to determine whether the

Standard No. 220 test was as stringent

as the Standard No. 216 procedure and

tested the appropriate areas of the roof

for proper crush strength. Both vehicles

reached 1.5 times the unloaded vehicle

weight at approximately 51 mm (2

inches) roof crush.

The raised roof reached a higher test

load (30,700 N, or 6,900 pounds,

compared to 26,700 N, or 6,000 pounds)

with less crush of the roof during the

Standard No. 220 type test mainly

because of the difference in the area of

contact between the roof and the test

plate in the two test procedures. The

test plate load in the Standard No. 220

test procedure was distributed over a

larger roof area and thus enlisted more

support pillars in developing the load.

Moreover, the test did not preferentially

crush the roof over the front occupant

compartment.

Therefore, the Standard No. 220 test

procedure appears to be slightly less

stringent than the procedure in

Standard No. 216. A similar raised roof

developed a higher load under the

Standard No. 220 procedure than under

the Standard No. 216 procedure.

Therefore, because the load

requirements are essentially the same

under the two test procedures, a roof

would more easily sustain load and pass

the test under the Standard No. 220

procedure. The Standard No. 220 test

also does not test the integrity of the

front roof structure as well as Standard

No. 216, which concentrates on the roof

over the front seat occupants.

VI. Agency Response to the Comments

A. Issues Related to the RVIA Petition

The agency does not consider the

Standard No. 220 test easier to

administer than the Standard No 216

test, as posited by Ford. Moreover, the

total cost for a Standard No. 220 test is

slightly higher than that for a Standard

No. 216 test. Therefore, the agency

disagrees with Ford’s rationale for using

the Standard No. 220 test procedure.

The agency has examined the

applicability of the Standard No. 220

test procedure for roof crush resistance

of raised roof vehicles. Standard No. 220

and 216 test results were compared to

determine the applicability of a 220-

type test. Results reveal that a 220-type

test will be less stringent when

compared to the Standard No. 216 test

when the test plate is positioned to

apply the load over the front occupant

compartment.

Volkswagen’s and Ford’s suggestion

for excluding the crushing of the raised

roof portion from the 127 mm (5 inch)

limitation in the standard was

investigated by the agency, as detailed

in the van tests above. NHTSA

concluded that, if the plate is placed

over the front occupant compartment

and A-pillar, where roof integrity is

most important, the proposed test

criteria could be considered as stringent

(in terms of providing the same level of

occupant safety) as the current test

criteria. Therefore, the agency

tentatively agrees with Ford and

Volkswagen that allowable roof crush

for added-on roofs under Standard No.

216 could be increased to reflect the

added space between the original roof

and the raised roof.

Unfortunately, NHTSA can see no

practical way to determine the prealteration position of the original roof.

The original roof is no longer present, so

no measurements can be made between

it and the added-on roof. In addition,

the original roof may have compound

curves, making the precise

determination of its former location

relative to the initial contact point on

the added-on roof difficult. Although

NHTSA is not proposing to modify the

test procedure to account for it at this

time, the agency specifically requests

comment on possible methods for taking

this increased head room into account.

If the commenters suggest a suitable

method, NHTSA may include such a

modification in the final rule. NHTSA

also requests comment on how or

whether the test procedure should

address the tinted glass panels, or

sunroofs that some vehicles have over

the front occupant compartment.

The agency disagrees with S&S Coach

Company that funeral coaches should be

excluded from normal Standard No.

216-type testing. The agency believes

that these vehicles are driven at a

normal range of speeds most of the time

and could be exposed to the risk of

rollover, just as other passenger vehicles

on the highway. Since some of these

vehicles have raised roofs, they would

be subject to the amended test

procedure used for raised roof vans.

However, the load requirements would
8912 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

be the same as for unmodified vehicles,

whether passenger cars, multi-purpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses.

Although the agency would welcome

data on roof loads experienced by

vehicles in ‘‘realistic, injury-producing

rollovers’’, which MCR/LRI suggested

was necessary, NHTSA is not aware of

any such data. NHTSA believes that

such data would be difficult if not

impossible to generate because, due to

the inherent complexity of rollovers and

injury causation, it is difficult to

determine precisely the role of roof

crush in causing head/neck injury.

B. Issues Related to the Ford Petition

Regarding Ford and the AAMA’s

request that NHTSA consider

harmonization of the roof crush

standard, NHTSA does not believe that

is an appropriate step at this time. There

is no UN/ECE equivalent with which

NHTSA can harmonize. Further, the

Canadian CMVSS No. 216’s reference to

‘‘the left front or the right front portion

of the vehicle’s roof structure’’ is not

sufficiently specific to meet the

objectivity requirements that apply to

all FMVSSs. It would also not provide

the repeatability that Ford desires.

NHTSA already tests with roof racks

removed, as Ford suggested in its

petition. In a September 21, 1992

interpretation letter, NHTSA stated that

the agency would conduct its

compliance testing for Standard No. 216

with roof-mounted accessories such as

roof racks removed, because the purpose

of the test is to measure the strength of

the roof, not the strength of roof

mounted accessories. Further,

conducting the test with roof mounted

accessories in place could influence the

positioning of the test device. Although

this issue has been addressed by

interpretation, NHTSA is adding a

sentence to the regulatory text to make

it explicit in the CFR.

GM urged that the agency conduct a

study to determine the appropriateness

of the current test plate angles.

Preliminary studies have been

conducted by the agency with an

alternative plate angle of zero degrees

with respect to the longitudinal axis and

fifteen degrees with respect to the lateral

axis of the plate. However, these studies

do not provide a sufficient basis for

modifying the plate angle or size

requirements in the test procedures.

The agency welcomes any data Ford

submits on pre-stressing of the A-pillar

and roof due to the tie-down method

used in Standard No. 216. However,

since Ford is not sure that the tie-down

method is a problem and no other

manufacturer has brought the matter to

the agency’s attention, the agency will

not pursue this matter until Ford

submits more data. NHTSA notes that

modification of the tie-down method, if

necessary, can probably be addressed by

a change in the compliance test

procedure and would not require an

amendment to the standard.

Regarding Mercedes-Benz’s

contention that the plate angles should

not change, the agency agrees that a test

with a higher plate angle would be more

stringent because it would stress the Apillar in a more lateral direction.

However, without changing the plate

angles or size, the initial contact point

will not change. If the initial contact

point is too far behind the A-pillar, the

load will be transferred primarily

through the B-pillar, instead of the Apillar, and thus not test roof strength in

the area over the front occupant

compartment. Nevertheless, the agency

is taking the conservative approach of

not proposing changes in test plate

angles at this time because it prefers to

accumulate more data on the effect of

different plate angles. Until these data

are developed by or supplied to the

agency, the agency will defer proposing

modifications of the load limits and

plate angles and sizes. NHTSA requests

any available data on this subject.

NHTSA agrees with Volkswagen’s

suggestion that any amendment of

Standard No. 216 be flexible and

applicable to different vehicle roof

configurations. It is always the intent of

the agency to develop test procedures

for its rules that are uniformly

applicable to all vehicles, irrespective of

their design configuration.

NHTSA agrees with MCR/LRI Inc.

that there should be some data showing

that the Ford recommendation does not

reduce the stringency of the regulatory

requirements. In order to assure that the

stringency of the standard is

maintained, the agency conducted

comparison tests using the current test

procedure and the proposed test

procedure.

Like MCR/LRI, the agency is

concerned about rollover safety and

head and neck injuries resulting from

roof crush. However, NHTSA questions

whether the head/neck injuries in MCR/

LRI’s case study of 50 rollover crashes

are solely caused by excessive roof

crush. Correlation of roof distortion

with injury is not sufficient evidence to

conclude that reduced roof intrusion

alone would have prevented head/neck

injuries.

The agency disagrees with MCR/LRI’s

contention that the current Standard No.

216 test improperly takes advantage of

the strength imparted by the

windshield. NHTSA recognizes that the

windshield is, for engineering purposes,

an integral part of the structures that

manufacturers use to strengthen the

roof. In view of this, the windshield

should not be separated from the roof

greenhouse structure during a roof crush

test. While the windshields failed in the

very severe rollover crashes selected by

MCR/LRI, resulting in diminished roof

crush resistance, the agency does not

agree that the test procedure should

reflect these unusually severe rollover

crashes. All of the crashes that MCI/LRI

selected resulted in serious to fatal head

or neck injuries, while less than five

percent of non-ejected occupants in all

rollover crashes receive such injuries.

The windshield probably contributes to

roof crush resistance in more

representative, less severe, rollover

crashes, and the strength it imparts

should be counted in the consistent

minimum level of roof strength that the

standard ensures.

The agency agrees with Advocates

and MCR/LRI that it has not found

sufficient data to propose a different

plate angle and size for all vehicles at

present. However, Standard No. 216’s

compliance test data show that roof

contact area is generally very small,

especially for late model year vehicles.

The table ‘‘FMVSS 216 Data

Compilation’’ in the docket shows that

in most cases less than 100 square

inches of roof are crushed. In view of

this, a smaller test plate would be

sufficient for roof crush testing of a

majority of production vehicles. NHTSA

requests comment on this issue, and

specifically on the size of the small test

plate.

The agency is not planning an

upgrade of Standard No. 216 to a

dynamic test at this time. Instead, this

rulemaking is only amending Standard

No. 216 test procedure to the extent

necessary to remove the ambiguity of

test plate placement for testing and the

controversy of testing raised roof

vehicles, while maintaining the

stringency of the current test

requirement. NHTSA would welcome

any submissions of data supporting an

upgrade of Standard No. 216 to include

a dynamic test procedure and/or to

include a rollover injury criteria.

However, the agency is not planning to

make them a part of this rulemaking.

NHTSA disagrees with Advocates that

there is any gap in its safety standards

concerning rollover safety for school

buses. Standard No. 220’s roof crush

requirements apply to all school buses,

even those between 2,722 and 4,536

kilograms (6,000 and 10,000 pounds).

Therefore, these vehicles, by virtue of

their intended purpose, are covered by

the appropriate roof crush requirements.

Further, the agency is also not
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8913

convinced that the safety problem due

to roof crush in vehicles which have a

GVWR rating above 2,722 kilograms

(6,000 pounds) necessitates any change

in Standard No. 216 at this time.

VII. Proposed Test Procedure and

Requirements

A. Description of Proposal

NHTSA is proposing to modify the

test plate size and placement to fulfill

the original intent underlying Standard

No. 216, and reduce test variability. A

summary of the proposed changes to the

requirements and test procedures

follows:

(1) For all vehicles without raised roof

structures, the requirements and test

procedures would remain the same,

except that the initial placement of the

leading edge of the test plate would be

flush with the forwardmost edge of the

roof. This change would ensure

engagement of the A-pillars.

(2) For vehicles with a raised or

altered roof, the test plate size might

vary depending upon the position of the

raised roof relative to the front occupant

compartment. The current large test

plate would be placed in position with

its lower surface touching the initial

contact point. If the initial contact point

is on any portion of raised or altered

roof rearward of the front occupant

compartment, then a small test plate

(610 mm by 610 mm, or 24 inches by

24 inches) is used for testing instead.

Because the 5 degree plate angle is so

low, initial contact of a large test plate

with the raised roof to the rear of the

front occupant compartment would be

most likely to occur on vehicles whose

raised or altered roof is completely

located to the rear of the front occupant

compartment. The performance

requirement would be the same as when

testing with the large test plate. The

small test plate would have to reach a

load of 1.5 times the unloaded vehicle

weight within 127 mm (5 inches) of

displacement.

A small test plate is needed in this

particular situation to assure that the

roof over the front occupant

compartment in the area of the A-pillars

is tested. Otherwise, the large plate

might test only the roof to the rear of the

front occupant compartment. In

addition, NHTSA wants to make sure

that the roof modification process does

not significantly affect the original

strength of the front roof structure.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to

use a smaller test plate to evaluate only

the front roof strength for vehicles

(mostly van conversions) where the roof

to the rear of the front occupant

compartment may have been

compromised during the conversion.

Conversely, it would be appropriate to

test a raised roof which is located, in

part, over the front occupant

compartment, even if some raised roof

to the rear were also subsequently

crushed.

The size of the smaller plate must be

large enough so that the plate edges do

not penetrate the roof. Based on its

measurement of nine late model year

minivans, NHTSA believes that a test

plate of 610 mm by 610 mm (24 inches

by 24 inches) would be sufficient. In

nearly all the tests, a much smaller area

than the size of the proposed small plate

was crushed (see Table ‘‘FMVSS 216

Data Compilation,’’ in the docket).

However, the agency is not proposing to

use a smaller plate for all tests because

it does not have sufficient data to

determine the appropriateness of a

smaller test plate for all roof crush tests.

NHTSA requests comment on whether

the proposed plate size is appropriate.

B. Explanation of NHTSA’s Selection of

the Proposed Test Procedure and

Requirements

Because the agency’s testing indicates

that the Standard No. 220 test procedure

is less stringent than the modified

Standard No. 216 test procedure,

NHTSA did not adopt RVIA’s

recommendation to use it. Nevertheless,

NHTSA believes that using the modified

Standard No. 216 test procedure for

testing conversion vans and other such

vehicles would address RVIA’s and

Ford’s concerns. The use of the

modified procedure also accommodates

the belief expressed by the safety groups

that the roof strength should not be

degraded when part of the roof is cut

out and replaced by a raised roof.

Ford’s main concern is the variability

in the initial contact point inherent in

existing test procedures in Standard No.

216. Because of the five degree angle of

the larger plate, some vehicles with

aerodynamic roof designs could have an

initial contact point with the test plate

rearward of the A-pillar area, even

though the original intent underlying

the standard was to test the roof area in

the vicinity of the joint of the A-pillar

and front header and side rail

components.

This concern would be partly

addressed by the modified Standard No.

216 procedure. By consistently placing

the forward edge of the test plate flush

with the forwardmost edge of the roof,

the leading edge of the plate would not

penetrate into the softer parts of the

roof, but would be aligned with the

supports for the front occupant

compartment. This should assure

engagement of the A-pillar in most

cases. On some vehicles with highly

curved roofs, the initial contact point

could still be behind and inboard of the

A-pillar area, but at least the plate will

contact the A-pillar area after the roof

has been depressed a short distance.

However, by itself, realigning the

plate would not be sufficient to address

RVIA’s concern and ensure engagement

of the appropriate area on all raised roof

vehicles. This is because a raised roof

may be so high that the A-pillar area

would never be engaged before the

permissible plate travel is reached.

Therefore, NHTSA is proposing to adopt

a smaller test plate (610 mm by 610 mm,

or 24 inches by 24 inches) for use with

vehicles which have altered/raised roof

structures located rearward of the front

passenger compartment that would

make initial contact with the current

test plate. This would assure that, for

most vehicles, the test plate would

contact the front roof only. The choice

of test plate is based on whether initial

contact is with the roof over the front

occupant compartment.

VIII. Changes to the Regulatory Text

Substantial changes to the regulatory

text are being proposed, although the

substance of the regulation remains

largely the same. To accommodate the

insertion of a definitions paragraph

(customarily located at the beginning of

NHTSA’s standards), all subsequent

paragraphs, i.e., those beginning with

S4, would need to be renumbered. S4

(former ‘‘requirements’’) would become

S5. S5 (former ‘‘test device’’) would

become S6. S6 (former ‘‘test procedure’’)

and all of its subparagraphs would

become S7 and subparagraphs. The

definitions paragraph would be

designated S4. By better segregating the

requirements and the test procedures

between S5 and S7, it is possible to

eliminate the redundant statement of

parallel test procedures under the

former S6.3. Figure 1 would be revised

to reflect the new plate positioning

procedure.

In addition, a number of clarifying

minor changes were made to the

regulatory text. A sentence was added to

the test procedures to explicitly specify

that non-structural components such as

roof racks would be removed prior to

testing. This was already the agency’s

interpretation of the current test

procedure.

IX. Proposed Lead Time

The proposed amendments to

Standard No. 216 are not likely to

impose any additional costs on vehicle

manufacturers and converters, although

NHTSA requests comments on this

issue. The amended test procedures
8914 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

provide for repeatable testing that

follows the original intent of the

standard. For most vehicles, the test

would be essentially the same as it is

now. Even for those vehicles for which

use of a smaller test plate would be

specified, the same or similar

equipment is used for testing.

The agency is not proposing the five

year lead time requested by Ford. This

action is being taken at Ford’s request

and, to the extent that test plate

placement differs from the current

procedures, it should make compliance

with the standard easier for all vehicles,

since engagement of the A-pillars is

assured.

Consequently, the amended rule

would become effective, and

compliance would be required, on 180

days following the publication of the

final rule. However, manufacturers may

voluntarily comply with this rule

earlier.

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’ This action has

been determined to be ‘‘non-significant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The proposed amendments

would not impose any new

requirements but simply clarify existing

test procedures and allow them to be

applied consistently to the intended

area of the roof on all vehicles.

Therefore, the impacts of the proposed

amendments would be so minor that a

full regulatory evaluation is not

required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this notice under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that

this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As

explained above, the rule would not

impose any new requirements but

would instead clarify the test

procedures and allow them to be

applied to the areas of the roof to which

they were originally intended. It would

not have any effect on the price of new

vehicles purchased by small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this proposed rule

would not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would 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.

XI. Submission of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

Comments must not exceed 15 pages

in length (See 49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. See 49 CFR Part

512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available for inspection

in the docket. The NHTSA will continue

to file relevant information as it

becomes available in the docket after the

closing date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

proposed that 49 CFR Part 571 be

amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

of Title 49 would continue 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 would be amended

as follows:

a. S4 is revised.

b. S5 is revised.

c. S6 is revised, and S6.1, S6.2, 6.3

and S6.4 are removed.

d. S7, S7.1, S7.2, S7.3, and S7.4 are

added.

e. Figure 1 at the end of the section

is revised.

The additions and revisions would

read as follows:

§ 571.216 Standard No. 216; roof crush

resistance

* * * * *

S4. Definitions.

Altered roof means a roof that has had

all or part of the original roof removed

and replaced by a roof that is higher

than the original roof.

Raised roof means, with respect to a

roof which includes an area that

protrudes above the surrounding

exterior roof surface, that protruding

area of roof.

Roof over the front occupant

compartment means the roof area

between a transverse vertical plane

passing through a point 162 mm

rearward of the SgRP of the designated
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8915

left front outboard seating position and

a transverse vertical plane passing

through the forwardmost point on the

exterior surface of the roof, including

trim, that lies in the longitudinal

vertical plane passing through the

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline.

S5. Requirements.

(a) Passenger Cars. Passenger cars

shall meet the requirements of this

paragraph. When the larger test device,

described in S6, is used to apply a force

in Newtons equal to 1.5 times the

unloaded vehicle weight of the vehicle,

measured in kilograms and multiplied

by 9.8 or 22,240 Newtons, whichever

produces the lower force, to either side

of the forward edge of a vehicle’s roof

in accordance with the procedures of

S7, the test device shall not move more

than 127 millimeters, measured in

accordance with S7.4. Both the left and

right front portions of the vehicle’s roof

structure shall be capable of meeting the

requirements, but a particular vehicle

need not meet further requirements after

being tested at one location.

(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 2,722

kilograms or less that do not have raised

or altered roofs. Multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks, and buses with a

GVWR of 2,722 kilograms or less that do

not have raised or altered roofs shall

meet the requirements of this paragraph.

When the larger test device, described

in S6, is used to apply a force in

Newtons equal to 1.5 times the

unloaded vehicle weight, measured in

kilograms and multiplied by 9.8, to

either side of the forward edge of a

vehicle’s roof in accordance with the

procedures of S7, the test device shall

not move more than 127 mm, measured

in accordance with S7.4. Both the left

and right front portions of the vehicle’s

roof structure shall be capable of

meeting the requirements, but a

particular vehicle need not meet further

requirements after being tested at one

location.

(c) Multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722

kilograms or less that have raised roofs

or altered roofs.

(1) Multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722

kilograms or less having raised roofs or

altered roofs shall meet the

requirements of this paragraph. When

the larger test device (or the smaller test

device, when specified by paragraph

(c)(2)), described in S6, is used to apply

a force in Newtons equal to 1.5 times

the unloaded vehicle weight of the

vehicle, measured in kilograms and

multiplied by 9.8, to either side of the

forward edge of a vehicle’s roof, in

accordance with the procedures of S7,

the device shall not move more than 127

millimeters, measured in accordance

with S7.4. Both the left and right front

portions of the vehicle’s roof structure

shall be capable of meeting the

requirements, but a particular vehicle

need not meet further requirements after

being tested at one location.

(2) For vehicles on which the initial

contact point of the larger test device,

when oriented as specified in paragraph

S7.2, is with the raised roof to the rear

of the front occupant compartment, the

smaller test device described in S6 is

used for testing instead of the larger test

device.

S6. Test device. The larger test device

is a rigid unyielding block with its

lower surface formed as a flat rectangle

762 millimeters by 1,829 millimeters.

The smaller test device is a rigid

unyielding block with its lower surface

formed as a flat square 610 millimeters

by 610 millimeters.

S7. Test procedure. Each vehicle shall

be capable of meeting the requirements

of S5 when tested in accordance with

the following procedure.

S7.1 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. Remove roof racks or

other non-structural components.

S7.2 Orient the test device as shown

in Figure 1, so that—

(a) Its longitudinal axis is at a forward

angle (in side view) of 5° below the

horizontal, and parallel to the vertical

plane through the vehicle’s longitudinal

centerline;

(b) Its transverse axis is at an outboard

angle, in the front view projection, of

25° below the horizontal (note: if using

the smaller test device, the longitudinal

and transverse axes will be of the same

length);

(c) Its lower surface is tangent to the

surface of the vehicle;

(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

(e) The midpoint of the forward edge

of the lower surface of the test device is

tangent to the transverse vertical plane

passing through the forwardmost point

on the exterior surface of the roof,

including trim, that lies in the

longitudinal vertical plane passing

through the vehicle’s longitudinal

centerline.

S7.3 Apply force so that the test

device moves 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

the force level specified in S5. 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 S7.2(a) through S7.2(b).

S7.4 Measure the distance that the test

device moved, 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 S5 is reached.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
8916 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Issued on: February 21, 1997.

James Hackney,

Director, Office of Crashworthiness

Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–4762 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C