Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 61071

burden. The Federal Register Notice 

with a 60-day comment period soliciting 

comments on the following collection of 

information was published on July 19, 

2004. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 15, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Ferris, Maritime 

Administration, 400 7th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

202–366–2324; FAX: 202–366–9580; or 

e-mail: michael.ferris@marad.dot.gov.

Copies of this collection also can be 

obtained from that office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime 

Administration (MARAD). 

Title: Subsidy Voucher—Operating 

Differential Subsidy (Bulk and Line 

Cargo Vessels). 

OMB Control Number: 2133–0024. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Operators of bulk and 

liner vessels. 

Forms: MA–790 and supporting 

schedules. 

Abstract: The Merchant Marine Act 

1936, authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation to provide financial aid 

in the operation of contract vessels for 

bulk or liner cargo carrying services that 

help promote, develop, expand and 

maintain the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Vessel owners must 

submit documentation requesting the 

financial assistance to the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD). 

Annual Estimated Burden Hours: Two 

hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention 

MARAD Desk Officer. 

Comments are invited on: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; ways 

to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication.

Authority: 49 CFR 1.66.

Issued in Washington, DC on October 8, 

2004. 

Joel C. Richard, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–23043 Filed 10–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18765] 

Frontal New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP)

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice, request for comments.

SUMMARY: The primary purpose of the 

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is 

to provide consumers with a measure of 

the relative safety of vehicles to aid 

them in their purchasing decisions. 

Since 1978, the testing procedures used 

for the frontal program have remained 

relatively unchanged. The frontal NCAP 

test procedure has been almost identical 

to the frontal barrier test procedure used 

in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, except 

vehicles in frontal NCAP tests are tested 

at a speed 5 mph (8 km/h) faster than 

the belted test speed in FMVSS No. 208. 

The higher test speed allows us to 

observe differences in frontal 

crashworthiness performance more 

readily. However, recent amendments to 

FMVSS No. 208 will require vehicles 

manufactured after September 1, 2007, 

to meet the injury criteria of that 

standard at an increased test speed of 35 

mph (56 km/h) for the belted 50th 

percentile male dummy, the same test 

speed as the current frontal NCAP test. 

Because the NCAP test would no longer 

be a higher test speed than the FMVSS 

test, the agency has been considering 

possible changes to NCAP. This 

document introduces and requests 

comments on some alternatives to the 

future of the frontal NCAP.

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them not 

later than December 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket number and be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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 an Optical 

Character Recognition (OCR) process, 

thus allowing the agency to search and 

copy certain portions of your 

submissions. 

• 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. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Comment 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. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all petitions 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

petition (or signing the petition, 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 on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit <http://dms.dot.gov>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues surrounding the 

information in this document, please 

contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse at (202) 

366–1740. For legal issues surrounding 

this document, please contact Mr. 

Stephen Wood at (202) 366–4992. Both 

of these individuals may be reached by 

mail at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. 

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

A. History of the Frontal New Car 

Assessment Program 

B. Motivation To Revisit the Frontal NCAP 

II. Worldwide Frontal New Car Assessment 

Program Test Procedures 

A. European New Car Assessment Program 

B. Japanese New Car Assessment Program 

C. Australian New Car Assessment 

Program 

D. Korean New Car Assessment Program 

E. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

III. Discussion of Options 

A. Maintain Current Program 

B. Changes to the Test Procedure 

1. Increase Test Speed 

61072 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 

1 In accordance with a 1984 final rule that 

required automatic crash protection, the agency’s 

compliance office has conducted 30 mph crash tests 

according to FMVSS No. 208 on passenger cars 

beginning in MY 1987 and in 1992 on light trucks. 

Vehicles were required to comply with FMVSS No. 

208 requirements with and without manual seat 

belts on the dummies. The vast majority of 30 mph 

crash tested conducted by the agency through the 

compliance office through MY 2003 were unbelted. 

Beginning in mid-MY 1997, manufacturers could 

elect to utilize an optional sled test to comply with 

the unbelted test requirements, but vehicles still 

needed to comply when tested in a 30 mph crash 

test with dummies belted. Other options were 

specified in the May 2000 final rule for advanced 

airbags.

2For the frontal test, NHTSA indicates on the 

Web site and in the Buying A Safer Car brochure 

anomalies such as femur loads in excess of FMVSS 

No. 208 requirements.

3Hackney, James R. ‘‘The Effects of FMVSS No. 

208 and NCAP as Determined From Crash Test 

Results.’’ Proceedings of the 13th International 

Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. Paris, 

France. November 1991.

4 GAO. ‘‘Highway Safety: Reliability and Validity 

of DOT Crash Tests.’’ GAO/PEMD–95–5. May 1995.

2. Testing With a Variety of Dummies 

3. Offset Frontal Test 

C. Changes to Rating System 

1. Change Star Rating Limits 

2. Add New Injury Metrics to Star Rating 

IV. Public Comment 

Appendix A: NCAP Frontal Rating System

I. Background 

A. History of the Frontal New Car 

Assessment Program 

In 1978, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) began 

the New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) to provide consumers with 

comparative crashworthiness 

information on new vehicles. Years of 

developmental work led to the creation 

of a frontal crash test procedure 

designed to do this. The agency 

published the first set of NCAP results 

based on this test for 1979 model year 

(MY) vehicles. 

Since the beginning of the program, 

the frontal NCAP test procedure has 

been almost identical to NHTSA’s 

Compliance program, which follows the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash 

protection. Like the FMVSS No. 208 

test, vehicles subjected to an NCAP test 

are towed head-on into a fixed, rigid 

barrier. However, for frontal NCAP, the 

vehicles are tested at a speed of 35 mph 

(56 km/h). This is 5 mph (8 km/h) 

greater than the speed for the belted test 

under the FMVSS No. 208 standard.1

The NCAP crash test is conducted at 35 

mph (56 km/h) rather than the 30 mph 

(48 km/h) specified in FMVSS No. 208 

to allow differences in frontal 

crashworthiness performance to be more 

readily observed.

In a frontal NCAP test, the vehicle 

carries two instrumented Hybrid III test 

dummies that represent 50th percentile 

adult males. The dummies are located 

in the driver and front passenger seats 

and are restrained by the vehicle’s seat 

belts and air bags (if available in earlier 

years). During the crash, forces and 

accelerations are recorded and then 

used to indicate the likelihood of 

serious injury and, in turn, the relative 

crashworthiness of the vehicle in a 

severe frontal impact. Originally, this 

frontal NCAP data was presented to the 

public in the form of numerical scores 

for Head Injury Criterion (HIC), chest 

acceleration (measured in Gs), and 

femur forces. 

Beginning with the 1994 model year 

(MY), NHTSA adopted a simplified 

nonnumeric format, the ‘‘star rating’’, 

for presenting the test results. The star 

rating is based on the combined effect 

of injury to the head and chest. Injury 

risk curves were developed that related 

HIC and chest accelerations to injury 

probability (P). The combined 

probability of serious injury is then 

calculated from the equation:

P combined = Phead + Pchest¥ Phead * Pchest

A star rating from one to five (five being 

the highest) is then awarded based on 

this combined probability of serious 

injury:

✭ = 5 stars = 10% or less chance of 

serious injury to the head or chest 

✭ = 4 stars = 11 to 20% chance of 

serious injury to the head or chest 

✭ = 3 stars = 21 to 35% chance of 

serious injury to the head or chest 

✭ = 2 stars = 36 to 45% chance of 

serious injury to the head or chest 

✭ = 1 star = 46% or greater chance of 

serious injury to the head or chest

A graphical representation of this 

system may be found in Appendix A. 

Even though they are currently not 

included in the calculations of the star 

rating, readings from the neck, femur, 

lower legs, and pelvis are also 

measured. In addition, anomalous test 

occurrences have been noted for the 

past several years, and beginning with 

MY 2001, NHTSA has provided further 

explanation on safety concerns not 

reflected in the star rating.2

Each model year, the agency is able to 

provide safety information in frontal 

crashes on approximately 80–85% of 

new model entries to the vehicle fleet. 

The agency widely distributes the 

results of its crash tests through media 

events, brochure circulation, and 

promotion of its Web site. Consumer 

interest in this type of information can 

be measured in a number of ways. The 

number of visitors to the NCAP section 

of NHTSA’s Web site has grown from an 

average of 3,000 weekly in 1997 to an 

average of more than 43,000 weekly in 

2004. The results of a 1997 Customer 

Satisfaction Survey conducted by 

NHTSA suggest that safety does sell. In 

fact, 74% of the survey respondents 

considered safety a ‘‘very important’’

factor in their purchase decision. 

Another 21% deemed safety as being 

‘‘somewhat important.’’ Given this level 

of consumer interest in vehicle safety, it 

is no surprise that ads touting star 

ratings from NCAP’s crash tests are used 

to market today’s vehicles. 

Not only is the program popular with 

consumers, it has also resulted in 

measurable improvements in the 

passenger vehicle fleet. Manufacturers 

use NCAP results to evaluate and 

improve their vehicles. For example, in 

the 1979 MY, only one of the vehicles 

tested had a 5-star rating for the driver 

(assuming the results had been 

presented in that way). In the 2003 MY, 

65 of the vehicles tested received a 5-

star rating for the driver. A similar trend 

has been seen for the right front seat 

passenger. The rise in NCAP ratings has 

been accompanied by a corresponding 

decrease in the fatality rate in motor 

vehicle crashes.3 While NCAP is not the 

sole stimulus for this improvement in 

safety, a 1995 General Accounting 

Office (GAO) study said ‘‘* * * it 

seems reasonable to conclude that 

manufacturers’’ successful efforts to 

improve their products’ performance in 

NHTSA crash tests, particularly NCAP, 

have contributed to improved occupant 

protection in real-world crashes.’’ 4

Real world data shows that frontal 

crashes still account for the largest 

portion of crash fatalities for belted 

occupants in the United States. A recent 

analysis of 2002 FARS data for belted 

occupant fatalities showed that 40% of 

fatalities were attributed to frontal 

impacts, while 33% were a result of side 

impact, 22% from rollover, and 5% 

were rear end crashes and unknowns. 

The same analysis also found that the 

major areas subject to injury (AIS 3 or 

greater) in frontal crashes were the head 

(22%) and chest (26%). In addition, the 

next largest percentage of injury (24%) 

was attributed to the victims’ lower 

limbs and pelvis. This real world data 

suggests that there continues to be merit 

in providing consumer information 

about the relative frontal impact 

occupant protection provided by 

various vehicles. 

B. Motivation To Revisit the Frontal 

NCAP 

As previously mentioned, the frontal 

NCAP test procedure is largely based on 

the FMVSS No. 208 crash test. However 

in 2000, FMVSS No. 208 was upgraded 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 61073

5This new requirement is phased-in over a 

number of years. The phase-in begins September 1, 

2007 (2008 model year). All vehicles will be 

required to meet this requirement by the 2011 

model year. In addition to this, NHTSA has 

proposed to require vehicles to meet the FMVSS 

No. 208 requirements using the 5th percentile 

dummy at 35 mph (56 km/h) (68 FR 46539; August 

6, 2003).

6 Frontal Impact Testing Protocol. Version 4.0. 

January 2003. European New Car Assessment 

Program. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://

www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/

downloads.php?area_ID=3>.

7Although not part of the frontal crashworthiness 

ratings, two child dummies, a TNO/Ogle P1⁄2 infant 

(18-month-old) and a TNO P3 toddler (3-year-old), 

are placed in the rear seat in appropriate child 

restraints, to assign the vehicle a separate child 

protection star rating.

8Assessment Protocol and Biomechanical Limits.

Version 4.0. January 2003. European New Car 

Assessment Program. Accessed May 26, 2004. 

<http://www.euroncap.com/content/

test_procedures/downloads.php?area_ID=3>.

9 ‘‘New Car Assessment Japan.’’ National Agency 

for Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. Accessed 

May 26, 2004. <http://www.nasva.go.jp/assess/

html2004e/as101.html>.

10 ‘‘Testing Methods.’’ National Agency for 

Automotive Safety and Victims’ Aid. Accessed May 

26, 2004. <http://www.nasva.go.jp/assess/

html2003e/as103.html>.

11 ‘‘How ANCAP Tests are Conducted.’’

Australian Automobile Association. Accessed May 

26, 2004.

< http://www.aaa.asn.au/ancap.htm>.

to include multiple sized dummies and 

replace the current fixed barrier belted 

test with a higher speed version (65 FR 

30679, May 12, 2000). 

Beginning with vehicles 

manufactured on September 1, 2003, 

additional testing using the 5th 

percentile female dummy was 

introduced to the FMVSS No. 208 

requirements. Also, beginning with 

vehicles manufactured on September 1, 

2007, vehicles must meet the FMVSS 

No. 208 requirements when tested with 

a belted 50th percentile male dummy at 

35 mph (56 km/h), (i.e. the same speed 

as the current NCAP test.)5 Each of these 

changes to FMVSS No. 208 will affect 

the utility of NCAP. Currently, the 

frontal NCAP test does not use any 

dummy other than the 50th percentile 

male. In addition, since all vehicles will 

have to comply at this higher speed, 

differences between vehicles will likely 

be less apparent. These changes to 

FMVSS No. 208 have led the agency to 

consider revising the test procedures 

and/or the calculation of the star rating 

used in frontal NCAP.

II. Worldwide Frontal New Car 

Assessment Program Test Procedures 

A. European New Car Assessment 

Program 

The European New Car Assessment 

Program (EuroNCAP) was established 

and began rating vehicles in 1997. Five 

European governments, the European 

Commission, and various motoring and 

consumer organizations throughout 

Europe currently back and provide 

funding for EuroNCAP. 

The frontal test performed by Euro 

NCAP uses a speed of 40 mph (64 km/

h), wherein a vehicle collides head-on 

with a fixed aluminum honeycomb 

barrier at a 40% overlap on the driver’s 

side.6 A pair of instrumented 50th 

percentile Hybrid III dummies is used to 

collect data in the driver and front 

passenger seats.7

Once a vehicle is crashed, occupant 

response data is linked with a sliding 

scale to assign points to different body 

regions.8 The regions rated for the driver 

include the head, neck, chest, knee/

femur/pelvis, lower leg, and foot/ankle. 

The same regions are also rated for the 

passenger, with the exception of the 

foot/ankle. Additionally, each adult 

body region is also rated based on a 

combination of visual assessment and 

measurement techniques to determine if 

the final body region ratings should be 

adjusted. Once the final point values are 

assigned, each body region is given one 

of five corresponding degrees of 

protection: Good, Adequate, Marginal, 

Weak, and Poor.

The results of the driver and 

passenger body regions are later 

combined with the side impact 

evaluation to give a final 

crashworthiness star rating for the 

vehicle. No star rating for the frontal 

crash is given. Additional safety features 

can also add points, called ‘‘modifiers,’’

to a vehicle’s score used to establish the 

final star rating. A struck star (a star 

with a line through it) is used to 

indicate when a serious safety concern 

exists for a vehicle, which EuroNCAP 

considers to be cases when the head, 

chest, abdomen, or pelvis of an 

occupant’s body receives a score of zero. 

Currently, Euro NCAP does not note 

other safety concerns such as fuel 

leakages and door openings. 

B. Japanese New Car Assessment 

Program 

The Japanese New Car Assessment 

Program (Japan NCAP) testing is 

conducted by the National Agency for 

Automotive Safety and Victim’s Aid 

(NASVA) in conjunction with the 

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and 

Transport.9 Japan NCAP began testing 

and rating vehicles using a full-frontal 

test in 1995, and added an offset frontal 

test in 2001.

The full-frontal and offset frontal tests 

are used, along with a side impact test, 

to establish an overall rating.10 In the 

full-frontal test, a vehicle moving at a 

speed of 34 mph (55 km/h) collides 

head-on into a rigid barrier. Hybrid III 

50th percentile dummies occupy the 

driver and passenger front seats. 

Identically to EuroNCAP, the Japanese 

offset frontal test forces the vehicle to 

collide head-on with a fixed aluminum 

honeycomb barrier at a 40% overlap, 

striking the driver’s side at 40 mph (64 

km/h). Again, two Hybrid III 50th 

percentile dummies are placed in the 

driver and front passenger seats.

In the frontal collision tests, Japan 

NCAP assigns points to injury readings 

recorded from each dummy’s head, 

neck, chest, and legs. The vehicle is 

checked for certain types of damage and 

deformation that may detract from the 

frontal scores received. After the final 

number of points is assigned, the scores 

from each region are weighted and 

tallied to arrive at the total score for 

each vehicle occupant. Each vehicle is 

assigned a ‘‘level’’ from one to five (five 

being the highest) for the occupant in 

each configuration. 

For the driver, the scores from both 

frontal tests are combined with the 

scores from the side collision test to 

obtain an overall score. For the front 

passenger, only the scores from the fullfrontal test are used. The passenger 

results are combined with the driver’s 

side impact score to determine an 

overall score for the passenger. Based on 

these overall scores, a sliding point 

scale is used to rate each occupant of 

the vehicle from one to six stars. Safety 

concerns such as doors opening and fuel 

leaks are also noted. 

C. Australian New Car Assessment 

Program 

The Australian New Car Assessment 

Program (ANCAP) is a program 

supported by the New Zealand and 

Australian governments as well as a 

host of automobile clubs and traffic 

authorities in both of those countries.11

In 1999, the program adopted the test 

procedures and rating system of 

EuroNCAP, making the two programs 

nearly identical.

One major aspect of ANCAP that 

differs from the EuroNCAP program is 

the way that safety concerns are 

reported. Instead of a struck star, 

ANCAP adds a warning note to the 

overall score indicating if a score of zero 

was recorded for the head, chest, 

abdomen, or pelvis. Another difference 

is that ANCAP does not rate vehicles for 

child protection. 

D. Korean New Car Assessment Program 

In 1999, the Korean Automotive 

Testing and Research Institute (KATRI) 

initiated crash testing as part of the 

61074 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 

12 ‘‘Crash-Test Ratings.’’ Korean Automobile 

Testing and Research Institute. Accessed May 26, 

2004. <http://www.kotsa.or.kr/english/sub/

ncap02_1.htm>.

13 ‘‘Vehicle Research Center.’’ Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http:/

/www.highwaysafety.org/about.htm>.

14 ‘‘What is Frontal Offset Crash Testing?’’

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Accessed 

May 26, 2004. <http://www.highwaysafety.org/

vehicle_ratings/ce/offset.htm>.

15 ‘‘How the Institute Evaluates Vehicles in the 

Frontal Offset Crash Test.’’ Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://

www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/

def.htm>.

16The star rating percentage for 1979 is assigned 

as if the star rating had been in place at that time.

17Stucki, Sheldon L. ‘‘Determination of Frontal 

Offset Test Conditions Based on Crash Data.’’ Paper 

No. 98–S1–O–02. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 

Conference 1998.

18Park, Brian T., et al. ‘‘Comparison of Vehicle 

Structural Integrity and Occupant Injury Potential 

in Full-frontal and Offset-frontal Crash Tests.’’ SAE 

International Congress, March 2000.

19Regardless of what options are adopted for the 

revisions to the frontal program, the agency expects 

to update the star rating system to use HIC 15.

Korean New Car Assessment Program 

(Korea NCAP). Korean NCAP only 

performs a frontal crash rating at this 

time, and has chosen to adopt the 

testing procedure, risk curves, and star 

rating system used by the U.S. NCAP.12

E. Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety 

The Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety (IIHS) is a nonprofit research and 

communications organization funded by 

the auto insurance industry in the 

United States.13 The IIHS performs a 40 

mph (64km/h) overlap frontal test by 

crashing each subject vehicle into a 

deformable aluminum honeycomb 

barrier across 40% of its front end.14 A 

Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy 

is placed in the driver’s seat.

The IIHS examines three areas of 

performance when assigning ratings to a 

vehicle: structure/safety cage, dummy 

injury measures, and restraints/dummy 

kinematics.15 The structural 

performance is evaluated by using a 

series of pre- and post-crash 

measurements to quantify the intrusion 

that has occurred. Dummy injury 

measures are determined from 

responses collected from the driver’s 

head, neck, chest, legs, and feet. The 

evaluation of the restraints and dummy 

kinematics occurs through an 

examination of the high-speed film and 

various measurements. Ratings are 

assigned to each of these three areas by 

using a scale of Good, Acceptable, 

Marginal, or Poor. An overall rating is 

assigned using the same terms by 

averaging the ratings from each of these 

areas, with the restraints/dummy 

kinematics portion weighted less 

heavily.

III. Discussion of Options 

NHTSA is considering several options 

regarding possible changes to the NCAP 

frontal crash test program. While listed 

individually, NHTSA recognizes that 

there may be merit in combining one or 

more of these options in the final form 

of the frontal program. NHTSA 

anticipates implementing any changes 

to the frontal test procedure beginning 

with the MY 2008 program in order to 

coincide with the initial phase-in for the 

35 mph (56 km/h) belted requirement of 

FMVSS No. 208. In considering the 

options, NHTSA is striving to keep the 

basic philosophy of NCAP in mind—to 

provide consumers with meaningful 

comparative safety information for their 

purchase decisions and to provide a 

market incentive for manufacturers to 

build safer motor vehicles. 

For each of the options described 

herein, a number of the agency’s 

observations surrounding each are also 

briefly discussed. NHTSA will be 

evaluating options on their potential to 

provide continued meaningful 

information to consumers. In addition, 

some of the factors the agency will also 

consider will include maintaining the 

largest market coverage possible and the 

potential to distinguish superior 

occupant protection systems in a frontal 

crash. 

A. Maintain Current Program 

Since MY 1979, the basic test 

procedure used for frontal NCAP testing 

has remained unchanged. Furthermore, 

since 1994, NCAP has used the same 

star rating scheme to rate vehicles and 

provide test results to consumers. The 

agency believes that this constant 

method of conducting tests and rating 

vehicles has led to vast improvements 

in vehicle restraint design. In MY 2003, 

88% of tested vehicles received a fouror five-star driver rating compared to 

only 30% of MY 1979 vehicles that 

received these ratings.16

The real world data indicates that the 

current frontal test represents around 

20% of all fatal frontal crashes and 38% 

of MAIS 3+ injuries among belted 

occupants in airbag-equipped 

vehicles.17 In addition, NASS data from 

1988–1998 suggests frontal crashes 

account for 42% of non-rollover frontal 

crashes, assuring that this type of testing 

continues to be relevant.18

With this option, NCAP test results 

could be used for compliance with 

FMVSS No. 208 and vice-versa, thereby 

maintaining or perhaps increasing the 

amount of consumer information 

provided by the agency. Compliance test 

results could be used to assign star 

ratings to additional vehicles tested by 

NCAP that the agency could have 

otherwise not tested. Also, keeping the 

program test procedure unchanged 

would eliminate the transition period to 

another test, and consequently, the 

results for newly tested vehicles would 

remain comparable to previous years. In 

addition, this test is already demanding 

on restraint systems, thereby continuing 

to spur market incentives for their 

improvement. 

However, under this choice, only a 

portion of three-star ratings and the 

current four- and five-star ratings would 

equate to a vehicle compliant with the 

FMVSS No. 208 requirements beginning 

in MY 2008. The current limits for HIC 

and chest acceleration in FMVSS No. 

208 are 700 (HIC 15) and 60 (g’s), 

respectively. Although NCAP currently 

uses HIC 36 as part of the star rating 

calculation as shown in Appendix A, 

scaling the risk curve to HIC 15 would 

produce basically the same result. That 

is, the compliance limit would still 

represent the current star band 

separating the three- and two-star 

bands.19 As a result, less discrimination 

among vehicles would exist and 

essentially a five-tier rating system 

would be reduced down to three. Only 

vehicles that barely passed compliance 

would receive a three-star rating. In 

order to continue with a five-tier 

system, a new rating system would need 

to be developed.

B. Changes to the Test Procedure 

As mentioned previously, the frontal 

NCAP test procedure involves towing a 

vehicle into a fixed rigid barrier at 35 

mph (56 km/h). Two belted 

instrumented Hybrid III dummies are 

seated in the driver and front passenger 

seats; forces and accelerations measured 

during the test are recorded. Changes to 

the test speed, dummies used, and 

barrier type/configuration could result 

in additional information being 

provided to consumers. In addition, 

other crash modes and injuries could be 

addressed. 

1. Increase Test Speed 

One option for revising the NCAP 

frontal test program would be to 

increase the test speed to 40 mph (64 

km/h). This would mean that the frontal 

NCAP test would again be conducted 

5mph (8 km/h) faster than the FMVSS 

No. 208 test. 

This option allows for a simple 

transition from the current test. No 

changes to the test procedure would 

have to be made except for the increase 

in vehicle speed. In addition, the frontal 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 61075

20 Kuppa, Shashi, et al. ‘‘Lower Extremity Injuries 

and Associated Injury Criteria.’’ 17th International 

Technical Conference on the enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. June 2001.

NCAP test could serve as an indicative 

compliance test since the only 

difference would be test speed. On the 

other hand, very limited research has 

been conducted at this test speed. 

Vehicle designs that result from this 

speed of testing could have unintended 

adverse consequences, such as 

increased stiffness and more aggressive 

airbags. Additionally, using 1993–2002 

NASS data for all front outboard seat 

occupants (regardless of belt use), 

change in velocities of 40 mph (64 km/

h) or greater accounted for 

approximately 0.4% of occupants in 

non-rollover frontal crashes, a smaller 

number of real world crashes than is 

represented by the current NCAP speed. 

Crashes of this severity accounted for 

9% of those who were seriously injured 

(fatalities plus those with MAIS 3–5) 

and 30% of fatalities. 

2. Testing With a Variety of Dummies 

Instead of using only 50th percentile 

male dummies in the driver and front 

passenger seat during each frontal 

NCAP test, two possible alternatives are 

being considered. One option would be 

to have the 5th percentile adult female 

dummy occupy both front seating 

positions. NHTSA has recently 

proposed changes to FMVSS No. 208 to 

require testing with the 5th percentile 

female dummy at 35 mph (56 km/h), 

instead of 30 mph (48 km/h), similar to 

the requirements for the 50th percentile 

male dummy. If this provision were not 

adopted as a final rule in FMVSS No. 

208, one alternative would be to change 

the NCAP procedure to test with the 5th 

female percentile dummy. 

Another option would be to vary the 

dummy used in the front seating 

positions as well as placing dummies in 

the rear seating positions. The 50th 

percentile male dummy could be placed 

in the driver seating position and the 

5th percentile female dummy could be 

placed in the passenger seating position 

or vice-versa. Additionally, rear seat 

occupants could include the twelvemonth-old CRABI or the three-, six-, and 

ten-year-old Hybrid III child dummies 

restrained in appropriate child seats. 

The test would still be a 35 mph (56 km/

h) frontal crash, but would instead 

evaluate how well the vehicle protects 

a range of occupant sizes. Currently, the 

agency is evaluating the merits of 

adding child dummies to the rear seat 

of frontal NCAP tests as part of the 

Transportation Recall Enhancement, 

Accountability, and Documentation 

(TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 

1800). The agency is considering the 

option of adding child dummies to the 

frontal program in response to TREAD, 

as well as here. 

If the two different adult dummies 

mentioned were used, testing could lead 

to improved protection for many sizes of 

occupants; manufacturers would have 

an incentive to improve safety for a 

greater range of occupant sizes. If child 

dummies were used, it could also lead 

to improved rear seat and child 

occupant protection. Furthermore, all 

dummy scores could be combined to 

develop an overall frontal rating. 

3. Offset Frontal Test 

The offset frontal test is a 

crashworthiness test conducted by four 

of the six major consumer information 

programs around the world. In this test, 

a vehicle is crashed into a deformable 

honeycomb barrier across 40% of the 

vehicle’s front end. Testing by other 

programs has most commonly been 

conducted at a speed of 40 mph (64 km/

h). While the full-frontal test is very 

demanding on a vehicle’s restraint 

system, the offset frontal test tends to 

evaluate the structure of the vehicle. On 

February 3, 2004, the agency published 

a notice (69 FR 5108) requesting 

comments on agency test results and the 

possibility of incorporating high speed 

offset frontal test requirements into 

FMVSS No. 208. 

Incorporation of an offset test 

requirement could be done either in 

conjunction with the FMVSS No. 208 35 

mph (56 km/h) requirements, or as a 

replacement of the full frontal test. The 

agency is currently evaluating the merits 

of this high speed test procedure for 

incorporation into FMVSS No. 208. A 

new rating system would need to be 

developed if the offset frontal test is 

used. 

C. Changes to Rating System

One of the unique features of the 

frontal NCAP is that vehicles are 

assigned ratings based on occupant 

injury risk curves. These risk curves 

equate readings obtained from a test 

dummy to injuries a human could 

experience. In the frontal program, HIC 

and chest acceleration results are 

combined to predict a combined 

probability of serious injury to the head 

and chest. If no changes are made to the 

frontal test procedure, changes could be 

made to the rating system to adjust the 

probability limits or include additional 

injury criteria. In effect, a five-star rating 

could become more difficult to attain. 

Two alternatives to change the rating 

system are being considered. 

1. Change Star Rating Limits 

Redefining each of the five star rating 

probability limits could mean using the 

same head and chest injury risk curves 

currently used for the rating, but 

adjusting the current five-star rating 

bands. For example, rather than using a 

10% or less chance of serious injury to 

the head and chest to establish a five 

star performance, a 5% or less chance of 

serious injury to the head and chest 

could be used as a basis for five stars. 

The result would be that achieving a 

five-star rating would be more difficult. 

For this option, there would be no 

change to the test procedure. 

Additionally, occupant injury risk 

curves that have already been 

established could be used to calculate 

ratings from both the frontal NCAP tests 

and the upgraded frontal compliance 

tests. A basis for choosing the new 

probability limits would have to be 

devised. 

2. Add New Injury Metrics to Star 

Rating 

Recent changes to FMVSS No. 208 

have added injury criteria for neck 

loading (Nij) and chest deflection. Both 

of these injury metrics are currently 

measured in the NCAP test but are not 

used to compute the star rating. NCAP 

also records femur and tibia loads, but 

these readings are not incorporated into 

the star rating calculation. In 

biomechanical literature, there are risk 

curves for each one of the 

aforementioned injury metrics.20 These 

risk curves could be added to the 

current NCAP head and chest risk 

curves to develop an occupant rating 

that is more inclusive than the current 

frontal NCAP rating. This alternative is 

feasible in that there would be no 

change to the frontal NCAP test 

procedure, and occupant injury risk 

curves have already been established. 

However, a few complexities arise with 

this option. While several authors have 

developed methodologies to estimate 

the probability of death from multiple 

injuries, research would still be needed 

to update these methodologies, weight 

the additional injury types differently, 

or use a methodology similar to other 

consumer metric programs.

IV. Public Comment 

The primary goal of NCAP is provide 

consumers with a measure of the 

relative safety potential of vehicles to 

aid them in purchasing decisions and 

provide a market incentive for 

manufacturers to increase the safety 

potential of their vehicles. NHTSA asks 

commenters to keep this goal in mind 

when responding to this Notice. 

Comments are sought on the options 

discussed herein and the agency’s initial 

61076 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 

assessments. To facilitate analysis of the 

comments, it is requested that responses 

be organized by these options. The 

options discussed in this document are 

not intended to be all-inclusive. 

Suggestions on other alternatives such 

as advanced dummies, injury criteria, 

and test procedures are also sought. 

NHTSA will consider all comments and 

suggestions in deciding what changes, if 

any, may be appropriate for the frontal 

NCAP. Given the timeframe, NHTSA 

would request that other suggestions 

include any available data and 

supporting rationale, and research 

needed to implement them (if not 

already in the Code of Federal 

Regulations) to assist the agency in 

evaluating their merit for a frontal 

crashworthiness consumer information 

program. 

In addition to comments on these 

options, NHTSA requests that 

commenters address the issue of timing 

the changes to the frontal NCAP 

program. Given that many of the 

updates to FMVSS No. 208 will be 

phased in over a number of years, 

NHTSA requests comments on whether 

frontal NCAP should make changes at 

the beginning of the FMVSS No. 208 

phase-in, the 2008 MY, or wait until the 

end of the phase-in, which is the 2011 

MY. Commenters should keep in mind 

that most of the options under 

consideration involve differences in test 

modes and/or assessment methods that 

will preclude comparison between 

vehicles tested under the current frontal 

NCAP program and vehicles tested 

under the revised program. Therefore, a 

phase-in of the new frontal NCAP 

program is not under current 

consideration. In particular, 

commenters should discuss any 

concerns with testing a vehicle under a 

revised NCAP program prior to its 

certification to the new FMVSS No. 208 

requirements. 

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 be no longer 

than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We 

establish 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 to the 

length of the attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given at the beginning of this document 

under ADDRESSES. 

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. 

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 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. This submission must include 

the information that you are claiming to 

be private; that is, confidential business 

information. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. 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). 

Will the Agency Consider Late 

Comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

are received by Docket Management 

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 in developing 

a proposal concerning these proposed 

frontal NCAP upgrades, we will 

consider that comment as an informal 

suggestion for future action. 

How Can I Read 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 on 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 access 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 ‘‘Search’’

3. On the next page (http://

dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the 

beginning of this document. Example: If 

the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–

1998–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’

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 download the 

comments. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 61077


EN14OC04.031</GPH>
61078 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Notices 

1FCR, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, 

was formed for the purpose of leasing and operating 

certain rail lines owned by CSXT in Atlanta, GA.

2CRL’s lines are located in Illinois; GWRC’s line 

is located in Georgia; GWR’s lines are located in 

Colorado; CBGR’s lines are located in Iowa; MJ’s 

lines are located in Illinois; NSR’s lines are located 

in Ohio; NOW’s line is located in Ohio; PNR’s line 

is located in Texas; and ATR’s lines are located in 

Texas.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: October 6, 2004. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 04–23078 Filed 10–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34543] 

Patrick D. Broe and OmniTRAX, Inc.—

Continuance in Control Exemption—

Fulton County Railway, LLC 

Patrick D. Broe (Mr. Broe) and 

OmniTRAX, Inc. (OmniTRAX) 

(collectively, applicants) have filed a 

verified notice of exemption to continue 

in control of Fulton County Railway, 

LLC (FCR), upon FCR’s becoming a 

Class III rail carrier. 

The transaction is scheduled to be 

consummated on or shortly after 

October 15, 2004. 

This transaction is related to a 

concurrently filed verified notice of 

exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 

34542, Fulton County Railway, LLC—

Lease and Operation Exemption—CSX 

Transportation, Inc., wherein FCR1

seeks to lease from CSX Transportation, 

Inc. (CSXT), and operate approximately 

55 miles of rail lines that extend from: 

(1) milepost ANO 855.06, V.S. 3+30, at 

Fulco Junction, westerly to milepost 

ANO 858.72, V.S. 196+31; (2) milepost 

ANO 858.72, V.S. 196+31 northeasterly 

to milepost ANO 860.75, V.S. 304+70, at 

the northeast end of the line; and (3) 

V.S. 196+31 = V.S. 0+00 southwesterly 

to V.S. 208+94, at the southwest end of 

the line, through the Fulco Industrial 

Park, including the track in the Fulco 

Yard, and the appurtenant sidings, and 

industrial tracks, in Atlanta, GA.

Mr. Broe is a noncarrier individual 

who directly controls OmniTRAX, a 

noncarrier company. OmniTRAX 

currently controls nine Class III rail 

carriers operating in seven states: 

Chicago Rail Link, LLC (CRL); Georgia 

Woodlands Railroad, LLC (GWRC); 

Great Western Railway of Colorado, LLC 

(GWR); Great Western Railway of Iowa 

LLC (CBGR); Manufacturers’ Junction 

Railway, LLC (MJ); Newburgh & South 

Shore Railroad Limited (NSR); Northern 

Ohio & Western Railway, LLC (NOW); 

Panhandle Northern Railroad, LLC 

(PNR); and Alliance Terminal Railroad, 

LLC (ATR).2

Applicants state that: (1) The rail lines 

operated by CRL, GWRC, GWR, CBGR, 

MJ, NSR, NOW, PNR and ATR do not 

connect with the rail lines being leased 

by FCR; (2) the continuance in control 

is not part of a series of anticipated 

transactions that would connect the rail 

lines being leased by FCR with any 

railroad in the OmniTRAX corporate 

family; and (3) neither FCR nor any of 

the carriers controlled by OmniTRAX 

are Class I rail carriers. Therefore, the 

transaction is exempt from the prior 

approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2). The 

purpose of the transaction is to reduce 

overhead expenses, coordinate billing, 

maintenance, mechanical and personnel 

policies and practices of its rail carrier 

subsidiaries and thereby improve the 

overall efficiency of rail service 

provided by the ten railroads. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board 

may not use its exemption authority to 

relieve a rail carrier of its statutory 

obligation to protect the interests of its 

employees. Section 11326(c), however, 

does not provide for labor protection for 

transactions under sections 11324 and 

11325 that involve only Class III rail 

carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not 

impose labor protective conditions here, 

because all of the carriers involved are 

Class III carriers. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the transaction. 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to STB Finance 

Docket No. 34543, must be filed with 

the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each 

pleading must be served on Karl Morell, 

Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F 

Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 

20005. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: October 7, 2004.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–23049 Filed 10–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34542] 

Fulton County Railway, LLC—Lease 

and Operation Exemption—CSX 

Transportation, Inc. 

Fulton County Railway, LLC (FCR), a 

noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to 

lease from CSX Transportation, Inc. 

(CSXT), and operate approximately 55 

miles of rail lines located in Atlanta, 

GA. The rail lines extend from: (1) 

Milepost ANO 855.06, V.S. 3+30, at 

Fulco Junction, westerly to milepost 

ANO 858.72, V.S. 196+31; (2) milepost 

ANO 858.72, V.S. 196+31 northeasterly 

to milepost ANO 860.75, V.S. 304+70, at 

the northeast end of the line; and (3) 

V.S. 196+31 = V.S. 0+00 southwesterly 

to V.S. 208+94, at the southwest end of 

the line, through the Fulco Industrial 

Park, including the track in the Fulco 

Yard, and the appurtenant sidings, and 

industrial tracks. 

This transaction is related to STB 

Finance Docket No. 34543, Patrick D. 

Broe and OmniTRAX, Inc.—

Continuance in Control Exemption—

Fulton County Railway, LLC., wherein 

Patrick D. Broe and OmniTRAX, Inc., 

have filed a notice of exemption to 

continue in control of FCR upon its 

becoming a Class III rail carrier. 

FCR certifies that its projected 

revenues as a result of this transaction 

will not result in FCR’s becoming a 

Class II or Class I rail carrier, and further 

certifies that its projected annual 

revenues will not exceed $5 million. 

The transaction is expected to be 

consummated on or shortly after 

October 15, 2004. 

If the notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the transaction. 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to STB Finance 

Docket No. 34542, must be filed with 

the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each 

pleading must be served on Karl Morell, 

Of Counsel, Ball Janik, LLP, 1455 F