5108 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1Optical 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.

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State 

from exercising subsistence 

management authority over fish and 

wildlife resources on Federal lands 

unless it meets certain requirements. 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated possible effects on Federally 

recognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that there are no effects. The 

Bureau of Indian Affairs is a 

participating agency in this rulemaking. 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, or use. This Executive 

Order requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this rule 

is not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 13211, affecting 

energy supply, distribution, or use, this 

action is not a significant action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Drafting Information—William 

Knauer drafted these regulations under 

the guidance of Thomas H. Boyd, of the 

Office of Subsistence Management, 

Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Taylor Brelsford, Alaska State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management; Bob 

Gerhard, Alaska Regional Office, 

National Park Service; Dr. Glenn Chen, 

Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs; Rod Simmons, Alaska 

Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; and Steve Kessler, USDA-Forest 

Service provided additional guidance.

List of Subjects 

36 CFR Part 242 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alaska, Fish, National 

forests, Public lands, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. 

50 CFR Part 100 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alaska, Fish, National 

forests, Public lands, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Federal Subsistence 

Board proposes to amend 36 CFR 242 

and 50 CFR 100 for the 2005–06 

regulatory year. The text of the 

amendments would be the same as the 

final rule amendments for the 2004–05 

regulatory year published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register.

Dated: December 11, 2003. 

Thomas H. Boyd, 

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.

Dated: December 11, 2003. 

Steve Kessler, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–2098 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P

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: 

• 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

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5109

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.

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.

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: 

jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov.

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 ±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.

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-tocar 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 EC3 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.

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 

5110 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

4Report to Congress ‘‘Status Report on 

Establishing a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard for Frontal Offset Crash Testing,’’ April 

1997. 5 Docket NHTSA–1998–3332.

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 worldwide 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.

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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5111

6Summers, Prasad, Hollowell, ‘‘NHTSA’s Vehicle 

Compatibility Research Program,’’ Society of 

Automotive Engineers Paper No. 1999–01–0071, 

March 1999.

7 Docket NHTSA–1998–3332.

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-tovehicle 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.

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.

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).

5112 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

8 Docket NHTSA–1998–3332.

TABLE 1.—DRIVER INJURY MEASURES FOR 1997 HONDA ACCORD

[Blazer/Trailblazer Series] 

HIC15 Chest 

Gs 

Chest 

deflection

(mm) 

Nij 

Max. 

femur

(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 sharprising 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).

TABLE 2.—DRIVER INJURY MEASURES FOR 1997 HONDA ACCORD

[Montero Sport Series] 

HIC15 Chest 

Gs 

Chest 

deflection

(mm) 

Nij 

Max. 

femur

(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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5113

9Swanson, 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.

10 ‘‘Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility,’’

June 2003, 68 FR 36534, and Docket NHTSA–2003–

14622.

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

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 massdependent 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.

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 

5114 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 fivedigit 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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