[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5108-5115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15715]
RIN 2127-AH73


Request for Comments; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 
Occupant Crash Protection

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document is intended to inform the public about recent 
testing the agency has conducted in consideration of whether to propose 
a high speed frontal offset crash test requirement. NHTSA has been 
conducting research since the early to mid-1990s on developing a 
frontal offset crash test procedure. In fiscal year 1997, the U.S. 
House of Representatives directed the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) to work toward ``establishing a federal motor 
vehicle safety standard for frontal offset crash testing.'' Since then, 
frontal offset crash tests have been adopted for New Car Assessment 
Programs in several countries worldwide. Additionally, in the U.S., the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety began a consumer crashworthiness 
ratings program in 1995 that included a fixed offset deformable barrier 
crash test.
    Over the past several years, NHTSA has conducted testing to 
evaluate the feasibility of adopting a fixed offset deformable barrier 
crash test in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 
``Occupant crash protection,'' for improving frontal crash protection. 
It was preliminarily determined that the benefits from such a crash 
test could lead to an annual reduction in approximately 1,300 to 8,000 
MAIS 2+ lower extremity injuries. NHTSA also conducted vehicle-to-
vehicle crash tests to investigate the potential for disbenefits from a 
fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement. The testing 
demonstrated that, for some sport utility vehicles, design changes that 
improved their performance in high speed frontal offset crash tests may 
also result in adverse effects on the occupants of their collision 
partners. This notice discusses additional tests the agency plans to 
conduct to further evaluate the potential disbenefits, and poses some 
alternative strategies that could be coupled with a frontal offset 
crash test requirement. The agency invites the public to comment on 
this notice and share information and views with the agency.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the docket number set 
forth above) by any of the following methods:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. 
Please note, if you are submitting petitions electronically as a PDF 
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using 
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency 
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 
Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of 
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to 
http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif

[[Page 5109]]

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590 can be contacted.
    For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, NVS-112. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 493-2739. 
Electronic mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#650f090000250b0d1116044b010a114b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d070108082d0305191e0c43090219430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For legal issues: Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
    A. European Frontal Offset Crash Test
    B. Other Countries
    C. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crashworthiness Rating 
Program
III. Crash Tests to Assess the Benefits of Adopting a Fixed Offset 
Deformable Barrier Crash Test Requirement as Part of FMVSS No. 208
IV. Crash Tests to Assess Potential Disbenefits of Adopting a Fixed 
Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test Procedure
    A. Chevrolet Blazer/Trailblazer Series
    B. Mitsubishi Montero Sport Series
    C. Future Vehicle Crash Tests
V. Potential Alternative Strategies
    A. Exemption of Certain Vehicles
    B. Additional Performance Requirement
VI. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Public Participation

I. Introduction

    Improving occupant protection in crashes is a major goal of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Frontal crashes 
are the most significant cause of motor vehicle fatalities. In 1972, 
NHTSA promulgated FMVSS No. 208 to improve the crash protection 
provided to motor vehicle occupants. This standard has been amended 
many times. The main dynamic performance requirements in this standard 
have been vehicle-to-rigid barrier crash tests, at angles between 
perpendicular and <plus-minus<ls-thn-eq>30 degrees with both belted and 
unbelted dummies.\2\ Occupant protection is evaluated based on data 
acquired from anthropomorphic test dummies positioned in the driver and 
right front passenger seats. Data collection instrumentation is mounted 
in the head, chest, femur and, more recently, neck of the test dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March of 1997, NHTSA temporarily amended FMVSS No. 208 so 
that passenger cars and light trucks had the option of using a sled 
test for meeting the unrestrained dummy requirements. This option 
will be phased out as part of the advanced air bag rulemaking 
schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the mandated requirements for driver and right front passenger 
air bags in new vehicles, and the eventual disappearance of non-air bag 
equipped vehicles in the future, within a few years, nearly all 
passenger cars and light trucks on the road will have frontal air bags. 
However, NHTSA has estimated that over 8,000 fatalities and 100,000 
moderate-to-severe injuries will continue to occur in frontal crashes 
even after all passenger cars and light trucks have frontal air bags. 
Consequently, NHTSA has focused on the development of performance tests 
not currently addressed by FMVSS No. 208, such as high severity frontal 
offset crashes that involve only partial engagement of a vehicle's 
front structure. These tests result in large amounts of occupant 
compartment intrusion and increased potential for lower leg injury.
    FMVSS No. 208 does not currently have provisions in place to fully 
assess the potential for lower extremity injury in frontal crashes, 
specifically knee ligament, tibia, and ankle injuries. The 5th and 50th 
percentile adult Hybrid III dummies prescribed for use in FMVSS No. 208 
are limited to axial instrumentation on the left and right femurs. On 
May 3, 2003, NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
[67 FR 22381] requesting comments on two versions of lower leg 
instrumentation for use in full frontal and offset frontal vehicle 
crashes. NHTSA is currently evaluating the comments and assessing the 
merits of the two devices.

II. Background

A. European Frontal Offset Crash Test

    In 1990, the European Experimental Vehicles Committee (EEVC) 
created a Working Group (WG-11) for the improvement of protection in 
frontal collisions. The EEVC is comprised of representatives from 
several European nations that jointly initiate research in automotive 
safety areas. In the interest of global harmonization, the EEVC invited 
NHTSA, the Japanese Ministry of Transport, Transport Canada, and the 
Australian Federal Office of Road Safety to participate in the WG-11 
activities. Automotive experts from the U.S., Europe, and Japan also 
provided input to WG-11.
    After examining available crash data, the WG-11 concluded that the 
most effective way to reduce deaths and serious injuries in frontal 
impacts was to introduce a crash test that simulated the dynamic 
conditions of frontal car-to-car impacts at 60 km/h or greater. The 
committee concluded that frontal impacts were still a major cause of 
severe and fatal injuries even in countries with high rates of safety 
belt usage. The WG-11 also found that many car-to-car impacts were 
offset impacts involving only part of the vehicle's frontal structure, 
and resulted in a large degree of intrusion.
    The EEVC generally concurred with the WG-11's findings. However, 
the EEVC determined that the initial test speed should be 56 km/h until 
design methodologies were better understood at higher energies. The 
EEVC made a recommendation to the member states for a two-stage 
approach. The first stage was to be based on a 30-degree angled rigid 
barrier test with an anti-slide device, called ASD-30, and a future 
second stage was to be based on a fixed offset deformable barrier. Due 
to the high seat belt usage rates in Europe, the test dummies were 
tested in the restrained condition only, and new injury criteria were 
incorporated to address lower limb injury.
    In December of 1996, the European Union (EU) adopted the EU 
Directive 96/79 EC \3\ for frontal crash protection, which became 
effective in October of 1998 for new types and models of vehicles, and 
will become effective in October of 2003 for all new vehicles. The 
first stage angled rigid barrier test with ASD-30 was omitted and a 56 
km/h, 40 percent offset, fixed deformable barrier test was required in 
the Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Directive 96/79 EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the Protection of Occupants of Motor Vehicles in the 
Event of a Frontal Impact and Amending Directive 70/156/EEC, 
December 16, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Other Countries

    Other countries and consumer rating programs have adopted the use 
of a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test procedure. Those that 
currently use a high speed offset deformable barrier (ODB) test include 
the European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP), Australia 
(regulation and NCAP), and Japan (NCAP).
    EuroNCAP was developed in the United Kingdom with the aim of 
bringing about vehicle improvements throughout the European Union. 
EuroNCAP has grown with sponsorship from other European countries, the 
European Commission, European consumer groups, and international 
motoring organizations. The frontal offset test is based on the EU 
Directive 96/79 EC, except that the impact speed is 64 km/h instead of 
56 km/h. The impact speed of 64 km/h was chosen

[[Page 5110]]

based on crash data analyses conducted for the EEVC WG-11.
    In 1992 Australia began a consumer information program called the 
Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP). In 1994, ANCAP added the 
draft EU Directive 96/79 EC frontal offset crash test procedure, except 
that the impact speed was specified at 60 km/h; however, the impact 
speed was later increased to 64 km/h in 1995. In 1998, the Australians 
introduced a frontal offset occupant protection regulation for new 
passenger car model approvals starting from January 1, 2000. The impact 
speed was established at 56 km/h.
    Japan does not currently have a high speed frontal offset crash 
test regulation. However, the National Organization for Automobile 
Safety has been conducting high speed fixed offset deformable barrier 
crash tests at 64 km/h for the New Car Assessment Program in Japan 
since 2000.

C. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crashworthiness Rating 
Program

    In 1995, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) began a 
vehicle crashworthiness evaluation program that included a 64 km/h, 40 
percent offset deformable barrier crash test. The IIHS essentially 
adopted the EU offset crash test procedure, but raised the impact speed 
to 64 km/h. The purpose of the program is to provide consumer 
information about the safety potential of the subject vehicles in 
frontal offset crashes, particularly related to intrusion-induced lower 
leg injuries.
    In the IIHS vehicle crashworthiness evaluations, three aspects of 
performance are rated: (1) Vehicle structure, (2) dummy injury 
measures, and (3) restraint system performance and dummy kinematics. To 
evaluate the first component, vehicle structure, the post-test vehicle 
is evaluated based on how well the front-end crush zone manages the 
crash energy and limits the damage to the occupant compartment. Pre-
crash and post-crash measurements are taken at several points on the 
instrument panel and in the footwell area. Movement of the steering 
column and closure of the driver door opening is also monitored.
    For the second component, the dummy injury criteria evaluation is 
based on the measurements obtained from the instrumentation mounted on 
the dummy head, neck, chest, left and right leg and left and right 
foot. The dummy is instrumented with Denton Hybrid III lower legs.
    For the last component, restraint system and dummy kinematics, IIHS 
utilizes a number of observational criteria that monitor how well the 
driver dummy loads the seat belt and air bag, and rebounds into a 
normal seated position. For example, how well the air bag stayed 
between the occupant and the hard surfaces of the front structure is 
considered a performance criterion that is subjective. Door openings, 
partial head ejections, or head strikes with the door frame can also 
lead to lower ratings.
    IIHS has evaluated the crashworthiness of more than 150 vehicle 
models using the 64 km/h, 40 percent ODB crash test since 1995. 
According to their results, many of the models originally tested have 
been redesigned and retested, with the majority producing better 
structural performance than their predecessors. They have also stated 
that in the past, fewer than one of every four model year (MY) 1995-
1998 cars and passenger vans tested by IIHS earned a ``good'' overall 
crashworthiness evaluation based primarily on their performance in the 
offset test, whereas about half of all 1999-2001 models tested earned 
good ratings. IIHS researchers have stated that the large improvements 
in performance are principally due to the fact that vehicle structures 
have been redesigned to prevent major collapse of the occupant 
compartment.

III. Crash Tests To Assess the Benefits of Adopting a Fixed Offset 
Deformable Barrier Crash Test Requirement as Part of FMVSS No. 208

    NHTSA initiated research in the early to mid-1990s to develop a 
frontal offset crash test procedure. Given the world-wide focus placed 
on the fixed offset deformable barrier crash test procedure, in fiscal 
year (FY) 1997, the U.S. House of Representatives directed NHTSA to 
work ``toward establishing a federal motor vehicle safety standard for 
frontal offset crash testing.'' NHTSA was further directed to consider 
the harmonization potential with other countries and to work with 
interested parties, including the automotive industry, under standard 
rulemaking procedures.
    In 1997, NHTSA submitted a Report to Congress \4\ on this program, 
providing a status report on the agency's efforts toward establishing a 
high speed frontal offset crash test standard. The agency made a 
preliminary assessment that the adoption of the EU 96/79 EC frontal 
offset test procedure, in addition to the current requirements of FMVSS 
No. 208, could yield benefits in terms of a reduction in lower limb 
injuries. To further assess this, a proposed matrix of tests was 
presented in the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Report to Congress ``Status Report on Establishing a Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for Frontal Offset Crash Testing,'' 
April 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, NHTSA completed the crash tests discussed in the Report to 
Congress. Tests were conducted with restrained 5th and 50th percentile 
dummies instrumented with Denton lower legs. The tests followed the EU 
96/79 EC frontal offset test procedure, but the vehicle impact speed 
was increased to 60 km/h, since, at that time, the agency had thought 
that Europe would eventually increase their impact speed to 60 km/h. 
Occupant responses in the frontal offset crash tests were compared to 
those resulting from 48 km/h belted rigid barrier crash tests using the 
same vehicle model.
    For the 5th percentile female dummy, it was found that the head and 
chest readings were approximately the same, or slightly greater in the 
full frontal rigid barrier crash tests. However, for the lower limb and 
neck areas, higher injury measures were found in the frontal offset 
crash tests. Overall, the 5th percentile dummy was also found to be 
more likely to experience higher normalized injury measures than the 
50th percentile dummy in the same crash configuration. This was 
particularly true for neck injury.\5\ The test results with the 50th 
percentile dummy suggested that additional safety benefits might be 
provided for the lower extremities using the frontal offset crash test 
configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Docket NHTSA-1998-3332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999-2002, NHTSA conducted another 25 tests to support an 
assessment of benefits and feasibility of a fixed offset deformable 
barrier crash test. The trends in dummy injury measurements were 
similar to that observed in the previous series of tests. Therefore, it 
was preliminarily determined that the benefits from a high speed fixed 
offset deformable barrier crash test standard would lead to a reduction 
in leg injuries for all occupants, and potentially a reduction in neck 
injuries for those of small stature. Consequently, in a notice 
published July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44565), NHTSA proposed that frontal 
offset be one of its highest priority harmonization recommendations 
under the 1998 Global Agreement, and announced its adoption of full/
offset frontal as an agency recommendation in a notice published on 
January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4893).
    In the 2001-2002 timeframe, the agency continued research by 
comparing the response of two types of lower leg instrumentation in 
eight high

[[Page 5111]]

speed fixed offset deformable barrier crash tests with the 50th 
percentile adult male dummy. The two types of instrumentation included: 
the Hybrid III Denton legs and the Thor-Lx Hybrid III retrofit (Thor-
Lx/HIIIr). Both lower leg instrumentation packages have been designed 
to fit the existing 50th percentile adult male Hybrid III dummy and to 
predict injury to the lower extremities. [Further discussion on the 
merits of the two types of lower leg instrumentation can be found in 
NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11838].
    In the test series, four vehicle models were crash tested twice, 
once with each of the two types of lower leg instrumentation, for 
comparison. The results showed that both the Denton legs and the Thor-
LX/HIIIr legs were durable in the offset crash environment. The driver 
dummy head and chest injury measures with the two types of lower leg 
instrumentation were generally within the realm of crash test 
variability in the paired tests. The head and chest measures were, 
again, generally below the limits prescribed in FMVSS No. 208. However, 
the lower leg injury measures were exceeded in many of the tests, 
particularly with the Thor-LX.

IV. Crash Tests To Assess Potential Disbenefits of Adopting a Fixed 
Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test Procedure

    On December 7, 2001, John D. Graham, Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and 
Budget, wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (DOT) asking DOT and NHTSA to consider giving greater 
priority to modifying its frontal occupant protection standard by 
establishing a high speed, frontal offset crash test requirement. If 
consideration was given, the letter suggested that refinements would 
need to be made in the estimates of the specific safety benefits that a 
new offset test would generate. This assessment would also need to 
include potential losses in existing safety benefits due to possible 
changes in vehicle structure and design. In response to this letter, 
NHTSA further examined the benefits and disbenefits of adopting a high 
speed frontal offset crash test procedure. Data from the 1995-2001 
National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System 
indicated that approximately 84,811 front seat vehicle occupants 
annually experience AIS 2+ skeletal and joint injuries to the lower 
extremities and hip in frontal offset crashes. Of these 84,811 vehicle 
occupants, 67,848 (80 percent) were drivers and 16,963 (20 percent) 
were front outboard passengers. Based on evaluating the agency's fixed 
offset deformable barrier crash tests conducted to date and those from 
IIHS, it was preliminarily determined that such a test requirement 
would have the potential of annually reducing 1,300 to 8,000 MAIS 2+ 
lower extremity injuries. The dummy head, chest, and femur injury 
measures were typically meeting the injury criteria in the fixed offset 
deformable barrier crash tests, so no additional benefits were 
projected in these areas beyond those already achieved through the 
FMVSS No. 208 advanced air bag final rule.
    However, the high speed frontal offset crash test procedure did 
demonstrate that benefits could be achieved in the lower leg region. 
Many vehicles exceeded the provisional injury criteria for the lower 
legs, particularly with the Thor-Lx/HIIIr instrumentation. A test that 
led to new vehicle designs with improved crash protection to the lower 
extremities could result in substantial benefits, since NHTSA has found 
that lower leg injuries are typically associated with long-term 
recovery and significant economic cost.
    The agency also conducted a few tests to assess the potential for 
any disbenefits that such a regulation might cause. Since the IIHS 
frontal offset crash test procedure has been conducted on vehicles of 
the U.S. fleet for over eight years, NHTSA has tried to assess the 
effect that vehicle design changes leading to better performance in the 
high speed offset test have had on overall benefits and disbenefits. 
For example, if a vehicle model was rated ``poor'' in the IIHS test in 
1997, but improved its rating to ``good'' in 2002, NHTSA sought to 
understand how those design changes affected the injuries received by 
not only the vehicle's occupants, but also the occupants of the 
vehicle's collision partner.
    To assess potential disbenefits, NHTSA used the vehicle-to-vehicle 
crash test configuration from the agency's vehicle compatibility 
program.\6\ In this test configuration, both vehicles are moving at 
56.3 km/h such that the subject vehicle impacts the left front corner 
of its collision partner at an offset of 50 percent and an impact angle 
of 30 degrees. Two vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests were conducted for 
each vehicle model under study, one from several years ago and one 
newer vehicle that had been redesigned. Both vehicles struck a MY 1997 
Honda Accord. The two sets of dummy injury measurements for the driver 
of the MY 1997 Honda Accord were compared to determine which MY of the 
subject vehicle (i.e., the new or old) imparted the higher injury 
numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Summers, Prasad, Hollowell, ``NHTSA's Vehicle Compatibility 
Research Program,'' Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 1999-
01-0071, March 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Chevrolet Blazer/Trailblazer Series

    The first vehicle NHTSA examined was the General Motors (GM) 
Chevrolet Blazer sport utility vehicle (SUV). The 1997 MY Chevrolet 
Blazer received a ``poor'' overall crashworthiness rating in the IIHS 
frontal offset crash test program. However, in MY 2002, GM redesigned 
the Blazer, as the Chevrolet Trailblazer, and received an 
``acceptable'' rating for its vehicle structure, but a ``marginal'' 
rating overall.
    In June of 2002, NHTSA conducted two vehicle-to-vehicle crash 
tests.\7\ The first used an older MY 1997 Chevrolet Blazer impacting a 
MY 1997 Accord. The second used a redesigned 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer 
impacting a MY 1997 Honda Accord. The occupant of interest, the driver 
of the MY 1997 Honda Accord, was a Hybrid III 50th percentile adult 
male dummy with Denton lower leg instrumentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Docket NHTSA-1998-3332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first crash test of the MY 1997 Chevrolet Blazer, the Honda 
Accord driver dummy slightly exceeded the head and leg injury criteria 
specified in FMVSS No. 208. However, the chest and neck injury criteria 
were met (See Table 1).

[[Page 5112]]



                             Table 1.--Driver Injury Measures for 1997 Honda Accord
                                           [Blazer/Trailblazer Series]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Chest                Max.
                                                                  HIC15    Chest   deflection     Nij     femur
                                                                             Gs        (mm)                (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 208 Injury Criteria Perf. Limits.....................      700       60         63       1.0    10,008
    1997 Chevrolet Blazer Test.................................      738       53         24       0.39   12,114
    2002 Chevrolet TrailBlazer Test............................    3,310       81         85       0.85   16,859
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second crash test, involving the MY 2002 Chevrolet 
Trailblazer, all FMVSS No. 208 injury criteria for the Honda Accord 
driver were exceeded with the exception of Nij. (The Nij was marginally 
below the performance limits, but was still higher than in the MY 1997 
Chevrolet Blazer test). All other injury measures for the head, chest 
and femurs of the Honda Accord driver increased substantially when 
struck by the later MY vehicle. The driver head injury measurement for 
the Honda driver in the MY 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer crash test was 
four times higher than that in the MY 1997 Chevrolet Blazer crash test.
    NHTSA examined force-deflection profiles of the MY 1997 Blazer and 
MY 2002 Trailblazer vehicles to provide insight on how the vehicles 
crushed when impacting a rigid barrier under NCAP conditions. Due to 
the sharp-rising slope of the force-deflection profile and the reduced 
crush space in the MY 2002 Trailblazer, the vehicle model exhibited 
stiffer characteristics when compared to its predecessor. The MY 2002 
Trailblazer also increased in mass by 227 kg (500 lbs).
    On the other hand, the MY 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer exhibited 
notable improvements in structural integrity, as demonstrated in the 
IIHS frontal offset crash test. The MY 1997 Blazer, in contrast, had a 
large amount of structural deformation to the A-pillar and driver door 
frame.
    Overall, the crash test results showed that the MY 2002 Chevrolet 
Trailblazer slightly improved the crash protection provided to its own 
occupants in frontal offset crashes; however, it reduced the injury 
protection provided to its collision partner. The newer vehicle had 
increased stiffness and mass, and different geometry. It was difficult 
to assess how much of a contribution each of these factors made toward 
increasing the injury measures experienced by the Honda driver.

B. Mitsubishi Montero Sport Series

    Following the Blazer/Trailblazer tests, the agency decided to 
conduct a second pair of tests to better assess the influence of 
structural stiffness versus mass and geometric effects. The vehicle 
model selected for study was the Mitsubishi Montero Sport SUV. In MY 
1999, IIHS rated the crashworthiness of this vehicle as ``poor.'' 
However, after a redesign in MY 2001, the Montero Sport improved its 
rating to ``good.'' This vehicle had virtually no change in mass, and 
minimal change in front end geometry, during the course of the subject 
model years. Force-deflection measurements for the MY 1999 and MY 2001 
vehicles were not available.
    The Mitsubishi Montero Sport test series was conducted in November 
of 2002.\8\ NHTSA used the same 30 degree frontal oblique test 
configuration from the Blazer/Trailblazer series. As before, the target 
vehicle was a 1997 Honda Accord with a 50th percentile male Hybrid III 
driver dummy with Denton lower leg instrumentation (Table 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Docket NHTSA-1998-3332.

                             Table 2.--Driver Injury Measures for 1997 Honda Accord
                                             [Montero Sport Series]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Chest                Max.
                                                                  HIC15    Chest   deflection     Nij     femur
                                                                             Gs        (mm)                (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 208 Injury Criteria Perf. Limits.....................      700       60         63       1.0    10,008
    1999 Mitsubishi Montero Sport Test.........................      323       58         32       0.65    9,744
    2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport Test.........................      480       71         58       0.61   10,903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results demonstrated that injury measures for the head, chest, 
and femurs of the Honda Accord driver increased when struck by the 
redesigned MY 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport. Although, the increases in 
the injury measures were not as large in this test series, the test 
series exhibited the same trend toward increased injuries to the driver 
occupant of the crash partner from the later MY striking vehicle as was 
found in the Chevrolet Blazer/Trailblazer series.

C. Future Vehicle Crash Tests

    The two series of vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests were indicative of 
the same general trend, but the magnitude of differences observed were 
very different. The later model year striking vehicle generally 
imparted higher injury numbers to the struck vehicle's driver dummy. 
Furthermore, the greatest increase in injury measures were in the body 
regions of the head and chest, which could largely offset any potential 
benefits gained by reducing injuries to lower legs of occupants of the 
striking vehicle. Consequently, NHTSA's two test series have raised 
questions about whether or not these results are representative of the 
effects on collision partner protection in the current fleet, and the 
extent to which disbenefits to crash partners are associated with 
design changes made to improve performance in a high speed frontal 
offset crash test.
    Because of this, the agency has decided to study the performance of

[[Page 5113]]

four additional vehicle models that have improved their IIHS 
crashworthiness rating from ``poor'' (or ``marginal'' in one case) to 
``good'' over the course of a vehicle redesign. The vehicle models 
selected are the Cadillac Seville, the Toyota Avalon, the Dodge Ram 
1500 and the Toyota Previa. Generally, these vehicle models received a 
``poor'' or ``marginal'' crashworthiness rating in the 1993-1998 MY 
time period. However, more recently, these vehicle models improved 
their rating to ``good.'' While we previously studied two SUV models, 
we are now conducting the tests of other vehicle types to see if a 
similar trend is observed. We have broadened our selection to include 
two vehicle models from the other light truck and van (LTV) classes, 
specifically a pickup truck and a minivan. We have also selected two 
passenger cars, since load cell data collected in NHTSA's New Car 
Assessment Program has suggested that passenger cars have generally 
been getting stiffer during the past five years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Swanson, J., Rockwell, T., Beuse, N., Summers, L., Summers, 
S., Park, B., ``Evaluation of Stiffness Measures from the U.S. New 
Car Assessment Program,'' Proceedings of the 18th International 
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Nagoya, 
Japan, Paper 527.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the vehicle models, the Cadillac Seville, the Dodge Ram 
1500 and the Toyota Previa, improved their IIHS overall crashworthiness 
rating from ``poor'' to ``good'' during the course of a redesign 
without a significant increase in vehicle weight (less than 59 kg or 
130 lb). The fourth vehicle, the Toyota Avalon, improved its rating 
from ``marginal'' to ``good,'' but had a 110 kg (243 lb.) increase in 
vehicle weight. Therefore, with the exception of the Avalon, increased 
mass should not be a relevant factor.
    NHTSA plans to docket the results of these tests in Docket Number 
NHTSA-1998-3332, as they become available. We anticipate this will 
occur during the comment period for this notice. NHTSA does not know at 
this time what conclusions, if any, can be reached regarding potential 
benefits and disbenefits of a high speed frontal offset crash test 
requirement. Therefore, in addition to the tests described above, we 
would like to consider data and views from others in deciding on the 
next steps for our high speed frontal offset rulemaking. We will then 
proceed with a proposal or pursue potential alternative strategies, 
depending on the outcome of these tests and the comments received.

V. Potential Alternative Strategies

    If there appears to be a trend of higher partner vehicle injury 
measures for new vehicles that have been redesigned to perform better 
in an offset frontal crash test, NHTSA may consider potential 
alternative strategies aimed at preserving the potential lower leg 
benefits from a high speed frontal offset crash test requirement, while 
minimizing the risk of increasing vehicle aggressivity in the fleet. 
The alternative strategies discussed in this section do not constitute 
an exhaustive list of options. NHTSA is seeking comments on others as 
well.

A. Exemption of Certain Vehicles

    One strategy to reduce the potential disbenefits of a frontal 
offset crash test requirement would be to limit the vehicle classes or 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicles to which the 
potential regulation would apply. For example, NHTSA's initial 
disbenefits assessment tests were conducted on SUVs only. If tests with 
the Cadillac DeVille and Toyota Avalon passenger cars do not show the 
same trend as observed for the Blazer/Trailblazer and Montero Sport, 
one potential strategy would be to apply the high speed frontal offset 
requirement only to passenger cars. Excluding SUVs (or all LTVs) from 
the proposed frontal offset crash test requirement would not contribute 
to encouraging vehicle manufacturers to stiffen their front structures 
to comply with the test procedure. However, this option is not a 
panacea since it would exempt LTV manufacturers from being required to 
improve their compartment integrity. This is of particular concern 
since LTVs are a growing proportion of the U.S. passenger vehicle 
fleet.
    Passenger car occupants, on the other hand, could benefit from a 
frontal offset crash test requirement since their vehicles would be 
required to maintain compartment integrity and provide better lower leg 
protection. Since passenger cars typically incur more intrusion when 
involved in frontal crashes with larger, stiffer LTVs, their occupants 
would largely be the benefactors from such a frontal offset regulation. 
NHTSA estimates that approximately 77 percent of the benefits of a high 
speed frontal offset regulation would accrue to passenger car 
occupants. In addition, passenger car occupants may also benefit from 
the LTV exclusion, since the LTVs striking them by may not be designed 
to be as stiff.
    Overall, this approach would increase the self protection (i.e., 
the protection a vehicle provides to its own occupants) of passenger 
cars, but would not address the self protection needs of LTV occupants. 
The approach may also create disbenefits to LTV occupants if future 
passenger car collision partners become significantly stiffer as a 
result of a frontal offset crash test requirement. LTVs could 
alternatively be addressed in a future rulemaking when a more 
comprehensive strategy for addressing fleet compatibility is developed.

B. Additional Performance Requirement

    Another alternative under consideration would be to include a 
loading requirement that would limit the stiffness and/or energy 
management such that LTV/SUV's structural properties were more similar 
to those of passenger cars. There are a number of long term strategies 
to accomplish this. The potential strategies could include a fleet-
representative moving deformable barrier-to-vehicle test, a fixed 
offset deformable barrier test with a mass-dependent impact speed, or a 
fixed offset deformable barrier test (with a constant impact speed) and 
either a load limit or a height requirement on the average force 
applied to the barrier face. However, NHTSA has collected only a very 
limited amount of load cell data in its frontal offset deformable 
barrier crash tests. A similar effort is described for partner 
protection in NHTSA's vehicle compatibility report,\10\ but test 
results from the compatibility initiative will not be available for 
about a year, and do not include fixed offset deformable barrier 
testing. Thus, pursuing this alternative is viewed as a longer term 
effort, and is not consistent with establishing a high speed frontal 
offset crash test requirement in the near future. Comments on 
alternative loading requirements that have been developed and could be 
used in the near term are sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility,'' June 
2003, 68 FR 36534, and Docket NHTSA-2003-14622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    To assist the agency in acquiring the information it needs, NHTSA 
is including a list of questions and requests for comments and data in 
this notice. For easy reference, the questions are numbered 
consecutively. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific 
responses for each question for which they have information or views. 
In order to facilitate tabulation of the written comments in sequence, 
please identify the number of each question to which you are 
responding.
    NHTSA requests that the rationale for positions taken by commenters 
be very specific, including analysis of safety consequences. NHTSA 
encourages commenters to provide scientific

[[Page 5114]]

analysis and data relating to materials, designs, testing, 
manufacturing, and field experience.
    The following is a list of questions for which the agency is 
requesting feedback. NHTSA also encourages commenters to provide any 
other data, analysis, arguments or views they believe are relevant.
    1. Are NHTSA's anticipated safety benefits associated from a fixed 
offset deformable barrier crash test requirement provided in Section IV 
realistic? Please provide data to support any views.
    2. In addition to potential disbenefits to the occupants of 
collision partners described in this notice, are there other potential 
disbenefits NHTSA should consider? Please provide data to support any 
views.
    3. Is it necessary to stiffen the front corners of vehicles to do 
well in a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test? Please explain 
the answer. Also, is the answer to this question different for 
different vehicle classes? If so, please explain the answer for each 
vehicle class.
    4. If stiffening the front corners of vehicles to do well in a 
fixed offset deformable barrier crash test is just one alternative for 
improving performance, what other types of countermeasures are 
available to achieve good performance in a fixed offset deformable 
barrier crash test? What are the costs and required lead-time 
associated with these countermeasures?
    5. What are the constraints vehicle manufacturers must face in 
designing a vehicle to meet a high speed fixed offset deformable 
barrier crash test requirement? Which are the most difficult to 
overcome? What types of vehicles have the most constraints?
    6. Is it necessary for the agency to consider alternative 
strategies to prevent vehicles from being too stiff or aggressively 
designed as a result of a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test 
requirement?
    7. Are there certain vehicle classes or vehicle weights that should 
be exempted from a frontal offset crash test requirement? If so, please 
state the rationale for each vehicle class exemption or vehicle weight 
limitation.
    8. This notice discussed one potential alternative strategy 
establishing an additional performance requirement to limit stiffness 
and/or energy management. Is this an appropriate strategy to pursue? If 
so, what requirement should be established?
    9. Are there other alternative strategies, beyond those mentioned 
in this notice, which the agency should consider in conjunction with a 
fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement?
    10. What optimum test speed should be employed in the fixed offset 
deformable barrier test so as to maximize occupant compartment 
integrity and at the same time ensure no undue stiffening of the fronts 
of large vehicles? What are the trade-offs between test speed and 
front-end stiffness of vehicles? Are the countermeasures dependent upon 
the test speed? If so, please explain the dependence.

VII. Public Participation

A. How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage the preparation of comments in a 
concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents 
to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

B. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

C. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management. When you send a comment 
containing information claimed to be confidential business information, 
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information 
specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR 
part 512.)

D. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a proposed rule (assuming that one is issued), we will 
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking 
action.

E. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 
11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also review the comments on the Internet. To read the 
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
    (3) On the next page, type in the five-digit docket number shown at 
the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were 
``NHTSA-1998-12345,'' you would type ``12345.'' After typing the docket 
number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You can then 
download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the

[[Page 5115]]

Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late 
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the 
Docket for new material.

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

    Issued: January 28, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-2206 Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>