NHTSA VEHICLE SAFETY RULEMAKING and
SUPPORTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES:  2005-2009

Introduction

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce traffic‑related health care and other economic costs. The agency develops, promotes, and implements effective educational, engineering, and enforcement programs directed toward ending preventable tragedies and reducing safety‑related economic costs associated with vehicle use and highway travel.

In 2003, while the fatality rate dropped to a record low of 1.48 per 100 million vehicle miles of travel and the number of fatalities dropped nearly one percent from the previous year, there were approximately 6.3 million crashes reported to law enforcement agencies, more than 42,000 people killed, and 2.9 million people injured. Motor vehicle crash remains a leading cause of death for almost every age group in the United States. In addition to the personal toll on our nation’s families, these crashes create an economic cost to society of an estimated $230.6 billion annually, or an average of $820 for every person living in the United States.

In July 2003, the agency published its first Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Supporting Research Priorities Plan. This updates that effort and outlines the regulatory projects for the period 2005 to 2009 the agency has determined offer the greatest potential for saving lives and preventing injury. These projected regulatory actions complement the agency’s concurrent efforts to provide effective consumer information to assist those purchasing vehicles and to promote safer driving through traffic safety programs.

Through the combined efforts of NHTSA, Congress, states, local law enforcement, public safety groups and industry, the nation has made major strides in reducing fatalities and injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Safety belt use has reached a record high national average of 80 percent. The fatality rate, per 100 million vehicle miles of travel, is declining. Motor vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers are developing advanced safety technologies and deploying them into the vehicle fleet. NHTSA’s consumer information program provides valuable safety information that shoppers can use when deciding which vehicles to buy.

In addition to these programs, NHTSA issues and enforces Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). These standards establish performance criteria that every new motor vehicle sold in the United States must meet. They range from those focused on crash avoidance features (such as brakes and lighting) to ensuring vehicle crashworthiness through testing occupant restraint systems (safety belts and airbags) and to protecting against fires (fuel integrity). These standards set forward test procedures and specific performance requirements. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that each new vehicle sold meets all of the standards applicable to it. NHTSA purchases vehicles on the open market and tests them. Should a vehicle fail any aspect of the standard, the manufacturer is required to recall the vehicle and fix the problem.

During 2002-2004, NHTSA identified five priorities that can most effectively achieve our national goal of reducing crashes and resultant deaths and injuries. These were increasing safety belt use, reducing impaired driving, addressing vehicle rollovers and vehicle crash incompatibility and improving our data systems. The agency formed Integrated Project Teams (IPT) that studied these areas and developed specific plans to address each issue. Each IPT report was published on the agency’s website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). This updated Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan incorporates the agency’s work in these areas – in particular addressing rollover, crash incompatibility and data collection – and the countermeasures identified in the IPT reports. This Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Supporting Research Plan provides the framework for those aspects of our approaches to addressing these issues that necessitate regulatory action.

Many factors affect Agency priorities: the size of the safety problem and likelihood of solutions, Executive initiatives, Congressional interest and mandates, petitions to the Agency for rulemaking and other expressions of public interest, recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other groups, changes needed as a result of new vehicle technologies, and interest in harmonizing safety standards with those of other nations. With respect to the latter, NHTSA continues to collaborate with international parties under the 1998 Global Agreement Program of Work, which outlines vehicle safety regulations to be considered for harmonization. Areas include hydrogen vehicles, installation of lighting and signaling devices, motorcycle brakes, pedestrian safety, glazing, tires, head restraints, side-impact protection, vehicle compatibility, and intelligent vehicle systems.

While the priorities described in this updated plan represent the regulatory actions that can best achieve our national goals, they remain subject to external constraints such as budgets and the possible imposition of differing priorities through legislation. For example, funding for the research activities projected for the plan’s milestones beyond fiscal year (FY) 2005 are proposed but are not guaranteed and are subject to change.

For the near term (2005-2006), the agency’s regulatory priorities will address rollover, large truck tires, side impact protection, tire pressure monitoring systems, event data recorders, and performance of child restraint systems (CRS) for larger children. Longer term (2007-2009) potential rulemaking actions include research on tire bead unseating and tire strength and rulemakings on truck trailer antilock brake (ABS) performance.

The Agency intends to periodically update the vehicle safety priority plan. It serves as an internal management tool as well as means to communicate to the public our highest priorities to meet the vehicle safety challenges of the new century.

Plan Components

This document sets forth the agency’s regulatory priorities. As described above, these priorities were established because they are essential actions for helping to reduce motor vehicle related deaths and injuries. Many of the regulatory actions discussed below relate directly to reducing rollovers and enhancing crash compatibility. Agency resources must also be devoted to priorities established through Executive or Legislative initiatives, efforts to harmonize standards with other nations, the necessity of permitting or encouraging advancing technologies and other areas of public concern. The agency intends to be responsive to these needs while also working on the areas we have determined will most effectively reduce motor vehicle related deaths and injuries.

This plan also includes a discussion of the agency’s New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) program. Providing objective consumer information facilitates a market demand for safety technologies and better crash performance. Market demand developed through educated consumers armed with objective information is an important complement to the mandatory requirements imposed through the federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has recently launched a new website – www.safercar.gov -- to give consumers the information they need and will be adding to these efforts in the future.

Many of the potential regulatory projects described in this report will require additional research before any rulemaking action can be taken, but are priorities based on their potential for significantly sizeable death and injury prevention benefits. Some of these are currently being investigated under the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI). These projects are noted with milestones indicating when NHTSA plans to decide whether and how to proceed.

This document does not include every regulatory project during the upcoming years. Appendix A discusses several rulemaking and research areas of note that are either beyond the time frame covered by this Priority Rulemaking and Supported Research Plan or which, while important, are not directly related to those measures best suited to achieve the agency’s goals. The absence in this document of a particular regulatory action does not mean that the agency will not pursue it. It merely suggests that the action is not as likely as those measures discussed in the plan to eliminate preventable deaths and injuries.

NHTSA is committed, for example, to reviewing and upgrading those motor vehicle safety standards that, while having served to advance safety in the past, have been overtaken by technological or behavioral changes. The agency has instituted a new Regulatory Review Plan to systematically review the FMVSS on a regularly scheduled basis. A description of Regulatory Review Plan assessments is included in Appendix B.

The following explain references to the milestones and the milestone dates in this report:

Milestones listed as "Decision on how to proceed…" refer to internal NHTSA decisions whether or not to initiate formal rulemaking activity, i.e. , publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and perhaps the recommended next steps the Agency plans to take.

Milestones listed as "Final Regulatory Action" refer to determinations, further along in the regulatory process after the publication of the NPRM, to proceed toward publication of a Final Rule or a rulemaking termination, either of which would be published in the Federal Register.

A milestone indicating "regulatory activity" does not necessarily imply the issuance or revision of a regulation, but may only involve research or other activity short of a rulemaking. All milestone date references to years are calendar, not fiscal.

We have provided milestone due date ranges for some research or testing that may stretch over an extended period. The placement of the priorities in this plan are for organizational clarity and do not reflect any specific ordering in terms of importance or emphasis.

I.  Address Incompatibility Between Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

For decades, the light vehicle category consisted primarily of automobiles. The growing popularity over the past 10 years of light trucks, vans, and utility vehicles (LTVs), all weighing 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or less, has changed the marketplace as well as the safety picture. LTV sales have soared to almost eight million units sold in 2002 – 49 percent of new passenger vehicle sales. In 2003, the number of registered LTVs in the United States exceeded 85 million units or approximately 37 percent of registered motor vehicles in the U.S. The majority of LTVs are used as private passenger vehicles and the number of miles logged in them increased 26 percent between 1995 and 2000, and 70 percent between 1990 and 2000. Beyond the growth in sheer numbers of vehicles, LTVs also have grown larger, gaining about 700 pounds from 1984 to 1999, whereas passenger cars gained only 300 pounds during that span.

In the last decade, for the first time, more vehicle occupants are being killed in crashes between passenger cars and light trucks than in crashes involving only passenger cars. From 1980 to 2002, fatalities in car-to-car crashes decreased from 6,488 to 3,121, while LTV-to-car crashes increased from 3,718 to 5,590. Although total occupant fatalities in two-vehicle crashes involving a passenger car and an LTV (pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles [SUVs] and vans) decreased slightly in 2003, the ratio of passenger car occupants killed to LTV occupants killed increased slightly – from 3.97 to 4.06. An analysis of 2001 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data indicates that passenger car drivers are three and one-half times more likely to die than LTV drivers in front-to-front crashes between the two vehicle types, and the fatality rate for drivers of passenger cars struck in the side by LTVs is approximately three and one-half times greater than the fatality rate for drivers of LTVs struck in the side by passenger cars. The larger mass and size of LTVs, along with significant disparities in stiffness, compared to passenger automobiles, and recent analyses of crash data, have raised a number of issues of concern. In the crash avoidance area, there are problems of glare due to higher mounted headlamps on LTVs. In the crashworthiness area, there is concern that the protection of occupants in smaller vehicles is being compromised when their vehicles collide with the larger and heavier LTVs. As the trend toward greater private passenger use of light trucks continues, the Agency has continued to extend pertinent passenger car standard requirements to LTVs, and it expects to continue to apply new and revised standards to all light vehicles, not just passenger cars.

Reducing the hazards associated with vehicle incompatibility is one of the Agency’s top priorities. In 2002, NHTSA identified rollover and vehicle compatibility as two of its highest vehicle safety priorities, and formed IPTs to conduct in-depth reviews of these and two other areas (safety belt use and impaired driving). The IPT Report on Vehicle Compatibility was published in the Federal Register (FR) (68 FR 36534, Department of Transportation [DOT] docket # NHTSA-2003-14622). The Compatibility IPT made wide-ranging recommendations on ways to mitigate the compatibility problem, including several vehicle strategies, behavioral strategies, and roadway strategies (on which the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] has the lead). Vehicle strategies include partner protection, self-protection, lighting/glare efforts, and the reform of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.

In addition to the above, under the 1998 Global Agreement Program of Work as well as under bilateral agreements with Canada, the European Commission and Japan, NHTSA is also participating in an exchange of ideas on best regulatory approaches in the area of vehicle compatibility, including the possibility of conducting joint research and testing in support of potential solutions to vehicle incompatibility.

A.  Crashworthiness Aspects of Compatibility: Self Protection

Self protection is the ability to protect the occupants within their own vehicle. Heretofore, the performance criteria in NHTSA’s regulations have been directed toward evaluating a vehicle’s "self protection," or how the vehicle protects its own occupants.

Two side impact protection initiatives were described in the IPT report. The first initiative was an upgrade of FMVSS No. 214, "Side impact protection," to provide greater head and chest side impact protection. The Agency’s side impact upgrade proposal addresses the growing number of light trucks in the U.S. fleet and includes protection against collisions with narrow objects, such as poles. An NPRM for this upgrade was issued on May 17, 2004, and NHTSA estimates that the upgrade will save 700 to 1,000 lives per year. The second initiative is dependent upon the ability to establish an average height of force (AHOF) partner protection requirement. If an AHOF compatibility requirement appears to be feasible, the Agency will investigate the desirability of modifying the FMVSS No. 214 static side door crush resistance test procedure to reflect such an AHOF requirement.

NHTSA’s FMVSS No. 214 upgrade proposal would require auto manufacturers to provide head protection in side crashes and to enhance thorax and pelvis protection for a wider range of vehicle occupants involved in such crashes (69 FR 27990). The proposed upgrade augments the current side-impact standard by requiring an additional performance test involving a 20-mph (32 kph) vehicle side impact into a rigid pole at an approach angle of 75 degrees. The new pole test reflects real world side-impact collisions in which head injuries are prevalent. A large number of deaths in such crashes occur when a single vehicle strikes a tree or a utility pole. Although narrow object impacts involve eight percent of the occupants involved in side crashes, they account for 19 percent of the fatalities and 16 percent of those seriously injured.

Since the existing side impact dummy (SID) only measures chest and pelvic responses, the Agency is moving toward incorporating the more precise biomechanical knowledge provided by second generation side impact dummies. Also, real world crash statistics indicate that injuries to vehicle occupants vary with the size of the occupant. The upgrade proposes the use of two dummies sizes representing a 5^th percentile adult female (the SIDIIs) and a 50^th percentile male dummy (Eurosid-2 (ES-2), an update of Eurosid-1) for both the proposed oblique pole test and the current FMVSS 214 barrier-to-vehicle test (which simulates a 90º impact of a vehicle traveling 30 mph (48.3 kph) into a target vehicle traveling 15 mph (24.2 kph)). The new types of dummies are being subjected to a series of sled tests and vehicle crash tests to determine their structural and functional adequacy as assessment tools for the measurement of risk of occupant injury in side crashes. NHTSA also is pursuing research to improve thoracic injury measuring capability.

The NPRM noted that a next-generation 50^th percentile male side impact dummy, known as WorldSID, is under development. Although the dummy is not yet available, NHTSA is monitoring the development of the WorldSID dummy family – a mid-sized male dummy and a small female dummy – and is working with Contracting Parties of the 1998 Agreement on an exchange of information (test data and research) related to the development of this dummy. Subject to the availability of a production WorldSID dummy, NHTSA plans to evaluate the WorldSID dummy under dynamic impact conditions that are similar to those used to evaluate the other dummies.

The NPRM also noted that efforts to determine the future characteristics of the moving deformable barrier would follow initiatives to improve partner protection by reducing aggressivity of LTVs in side impacts. Finally, comments were sought on what effect the proposed side impact upgrade might have on manufacturers’ ability to meet their technical working group’s (TWG) voluntary requirements for evaluating potential risks from side air bags to children and small adults when out of position. The NPRM also cited the Agency’s continued monitoring and testing of new side air bag designs for compliance with TWG. All of these efforts are longer-ranged tasks following a final rule to upgrade FMVSS No. 214. NPRMs to incorporate the new side impact dummies SID IIs and ES-2 will support the side impact upgrade. NPRMs were published in 2004 to incorporate a second generation 50^th percentile adult side impact dummy (ES-2) and a 5^th percentile adult side impact dummy (SIDIIs) into Part 572.

Milestones:

B.  Crashworthiness Aspects of Compatibility: Partner Protection

Partner protection involves vehicle design attributes that function to maximize protection of the occupants within the collision partner (struck) vehicle. The desired end results of NHTSA’S efforts are vehicle designs that better protect their own occupants and cause less harm to occupants of the struck vehicle. Agency analysis of 20 years’ worth of NCAP crash test data suggested that a good measure of a vehicle’s aggressivity may be the Average Height of Force (AHOF). NHTSA has conducted a comprehensive crash test program to demonstrate the efficacy of this measure. Recently conducted analysis of this data indicates some shortcomings in this past measurement methodology and that the AHOF, as measured in that manner, did not support the observed correlation with real world crash data. NHTSA is developing a research program to further investigate these results and understand how the overall trends for AHOF and initial stiffness apply within a single vehicle category.

NHTSA is pursuing refinement of its data through development of a higher resolution load cell barrier (that the International Harmonized Research Activities [IHRA] working group has evaluated) and is investigating the use of a deformable face on the rigid barrier. Additional metrics to supplement AHOF, like homogeneity, also are being studied. NHTSA and FHWA also are engaged in cooperative research that is investigating vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-roadside hardware compatibility, and thus involving safety. In addition to the IHRA working group, internationally, NHTSA is exchanging information and cooperating in research with Japan and the European Commission under separate bi-lateral agreements. NHTSA is also working with the Contracting Parties of the 1998 Agreement on an exchange of information (test data and research).

In addition to NHTSA's initiatives, leading vehicle manufacturers have committed to a set of voluntary standards for enhanced vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility. In December 2003, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) published safety commitments to meet new performance criteria designed to enhance occupant protection in front- and side-impact crashes. Specifically,participating manufacturerswill enhance geometric alignment of front energy-absorbing structures to provide better structural engagement and loading paths in front-to-front crashes. Also, they will design their vehicles to meethead protectionperformance criteria inanFMVSS No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact,"pole test impact or the IIHS side impact test. NHTSA will be closelymonitoring thesevoluntary efforts and future researchfrom industry participants.

Milestones:

Completion of test matrix to evaluate AHOF and initial stiffnes	2005
Agency decision on next steps	2005
Additional research based on Agency decision	2005-2006
Agency decision	2007

II.  Prevent and Mitigate Rollover Crashes

There were, on average, approximately 274,000 light vehicles (cars, sport utility vehicles [SUVs], light trucks and vans) involved in rollover crashes during each of the years from 1999-2003. Rollover crashes can be especially lethal; although they comprise only two percent of crashes, they accounted for almost one-third of light vehicle occupant fatalities (including 59 percent of SUV fatalities) in 2003. The rate of rollover in towed light vehicles with serious occupant injury (25 percent) was nearly four times as high as for towed vehicles with no more than property damage (6 percent). Fifty-eight percent of rollover deaths in light vehicles were associated with full or partial ejections. Light-vehicle rollover crashes resulted in 10,378 fatalities in 2003 and in approximately 260,000 non-fatal injuries per year (on average) from 1999-2003.

In 2002, NHTSA identified rollover as one of its highest safety priorities. The Agency formed an IPT specifically to examine rollover and make recommendations as to how it could most effectively improve safety in this area. The IPT Report on Rollover was published in the Federal Register in June 2003 (68 FR 36534, DOT docket # NHTSA-2003-14622). It included vehicle strategies covering both the crash avoidance and crashworthiness perspectives. The Rollover IPT made wide-ranging recommendations on ways to mitigate the rollover problem, including several vehicle strategies, behavioral strategies, and roadway strategies (on which the FHWA has the lead). Vehicle strategies include crash avoidance and crashworthiness perspectives, and the reform of the CAFE program. For improving the crashworthiness of vehicles that roll over, the Rollover IPT focused on ejection mitigation and roof crush protection. NHTSA is moving forward to reduce and mitigate rollover crashes focusing on four general strategies:  prevent the crash, prevent the rollover, prevent the ejection, and mitigate the rollover crash outcome.

Due to the complex nature of rollover, NHTSA has recognized the need to take a comprehensive approach to developing potential solutions. The Agency’s crashworthiness efforts to reduce rollover fatalities and injuries focus on restraint system effectiveness, reduction of occupant ejection through doors and windows, and on improvement to roof crush protection and interior padding for occupants.

A.  Prevent Rollovers

A small portion of rollover crashes occur on paved surfaces, but a much larger number occur when a vehicle runs off the road and strikes a tripping mechanism such a soft soil, a curb or guard rail (FHWA is conducting related research on these physical attributes). Electronic stability control can have a direct effect on susceptibility to on-road untripped rollovers as measured by the fishhook test that is part of the NCAP rollover rating program. However, that effect is limited to the untripped rollovers on paved surfaces.

A greater potential safety benefit of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is its effectiveness in reducing single vehicle crashes that involve driver error and loss of control. In this way, it can prevent the exposure of vehicles to off-road tripping mechanisms by helping the driver keep the vehicle on the road. This potential benefit is not "rollover resistance" and will not be measured by the NCAP rollover resistance rating. It should be viewed as single vehicle crash reduction. It can affect both crashes that would have resulted in rollover and crashes where rollover would not have occurred but are nevertheless hazardous. If ESC provides this benefit, it could reduce the numbers of rollovers of all vehicles, including low center of gravity vehicles like passenger cars, minivans and two-wheel drive pickup trucks, as well as of the high center of gravity vehicle types.

There have been a number of reported studies of ESC effectiveness in Europe and Japan over the last year. All of them reportedly have shown potential large reductions in single vehicle crashes as a result of ESC. However, the sample sizes of crashes of vehicles new enough to have ESC tended to be small in these studies, and applicability of foreign studies to drivers and driving conditions in the United States was unclear. A preliminary NHTSA study of crash data from 1997-2003 finds that ESC appears to be effective in reducing single-vehicle crashes, including rollover. Among vehicles in the study, ESC reduced single vehicle crashes in passenger cars by 35 percent and in SUVs by 67 percent. In October 2004, the IIHS released the results of a study of the effectiveness of ESC in preventing crashes of cars and SUVs. The IIHS found that ESC is most effective in reducing fatal single-vehicle crashes, reducing such crashes by 56 percent. The IIHS concluded that widespread application of ESC would be expected to afford a significant safety benefit:  As many as 800,000 of the 2 million single-vehicle crashes and half of the 14,000 associated deaths that occur each year could be prevented if all vehicles on U.S. roads had ESC.

In FY 2004, NHTSA initiated a test program that endeavors to develop a series of effective and meaningful tests to quantify light vehicle handling. Since the vehicles being used to develop these tests are being evaluated with their ESC systems enabled and disabled, NHTSA plans to quantify the effects of ESC intervention on the handling test outcome.

Milestones:

B.  Reduce Occupant Ejections

According to Agency data, ejection is a major cause of death and injury in light-vehicle rollover crashes. There were 8,584 people killed in 2003 and approximately 39,000 had non-fatal injuries in towaway crashes each year (on average) from 1999-2003 when they were ejected from light vehicles. Two-thirds of these ejections occurred during rollovers. Occupants stand a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not ejected from their vehicles. From 1999 to 2003, approximately 1,100 people per year were killed and 1,400 were seriously injured when they were ejected through doors (mostly side-hinged doors) of towed light passenger vehicles. For each year from 1999 to 2002, approximately 4,000 people were killed and 5,000 seriously injured when they were ejected through side windows.

Among the promising technological innovations to prevent occupant ejections are the use of side curtain air bags and improved glazing. NHTSA submitted a report to Congress on ejection mitigation using advanced glazing materials in November 2001. In May of 2004, NHTSA issued an NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 to, among other things, require head protection in a side impact pole test. This proposed regulation will likely result in the fleet-wide installation of side air bags to protect the head. While these bags will not necessarily be designed for occupant containment or for deployment in rollovers, they will prevent some number of side window ejections. This is the first phase of a three-phase approach the Agency is taking to reduce side window ejections. The second phase is to establish occupant containment performance requirements, and test procedures have been developed for this purpose. The third phase is to establish performance requirements for rollover sensors, to ensure that the air bags will deploy in a rollover crash. The Agency has not conducted specific research in this area yet, but has collected considerable information in its effort to develop a research plan for rollover sensor performance requirements.

Milestones:

C.  Protect Non-Ejected Occupants

FMVSS No. 216, "Roof crush resistance," establishes strength requirements/intrusion limits for passenger car and light truck roofs for protection in rollover crashes. Based on NHTSA’s analysis of National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) (‘97-‘02) data, approximately 1,400 belted, non-ejected occupants receive a serious or fatal maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) injury to the head/neck/face each year when roof intrusion is present over the occupants’ seating position. NHTSA has conducted vehicle tests to evaluate current fleet performance and potential new test procedures to upgrade FMVSS No. 216. The Agency will publish an NPRM in early 2005, proposing new performance requirements and application to the existing standard.

Belt slack and belt stretch inherent tosome current lap/shoulder safety belt systems may fail to sufficiently restrain occupants from contactingthe undeformed roof during a rollover crash. Thus, in order to realize significant benefit from increased roof strength, improved performance of restraints in rollovers may also be necessary. NHTSA will research the restraintperformance and benefits or disbenefits of systems such as pretensioners, belt load limiters, integrated belts and other advanced belt systemsthatmay beactivated with a rollover sensor.

Milestones:

III.  Prevent Crashes

NHTSA’s crash avoidance vehicle safety standards mandate improvements in the crash-avoidance capabilities of vehicles to reduce the likelihood of collisions. The improvements may enhance the interaction of the driver with the vehicle; deliver more effective warnings to drivers about impending crashes; improve the driver’s ability to avoid crashes and maintain control of the vehicle; or enhance driver vision through improvements in current systems or advanced technologies. The Agency focuses its crash avoidance rulemaking activities on reducing the number of collisions through improvements in direct and indirect visibility, tires, braking, directional and rollover stability, vehicle lighting, signaling, and marking.

A substantial effort has been made over the past several years to lay the foundation for continuing research and the development of collision avoidance systems. Under the IVI, NHTSA is conducting research to develop systems that will use advanced sensors, computers and communications to reduce the likelihood of crashes. Some of the new technologies that may allow upgraded or new requirements derive from ITS research. The National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) makes it possible to carry out research that has not previously been practicable. NHTSA is continuing research on the potential effectiveness of several collision avoidance products and systems.

A.  Improve and Enhance Indirect Visibility

The future of indirect vision equipment - aids to help drivers sense the presence of nearby vehicles, pedestrians or objects - includes everything from basic mirrors to advanced technology devices that use non-vision sensing systems (e.g. , sonar, radar, infrared sensors) or real-time video cameras and screens.

The number of lane change crashes may be reduced by improved rear visibility through mirrors. In addition, rear end collisions can occur when drivers take too long to assess rear view information, either by turning their head or taking too long to view mirror information. In consideration of updating FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview mirrors," NHTSA is assessing aspheric mirrors, which increase the field of view, for consideration to be allowed under the standard. These mirrors are allowed in Europe. However, non-flat mirrors distort speed and distance and they have prompted complaints to the Agency from drivers. Investigation of their impact on older drivers and other driver interactions is needed.

Agency efforts in electronically enhanced vision will emphasize a systems-approach. Enhanced vision technology can play a useful role when traveling forward, backward, and changing lanes - on roadways and off  (parking lots, garages, driveways, and commercial yards, etc.). Side view mirrors can be flat, convex or a combination. Although convex mirrors can provide an excellent extension of a driver’s visibility, a disturbingly large percentage of light vehicle drivers do not use them because they do not like the way they reproduce images. Both industry and the public have strong interest in expanded choices for mirror designs and performance. The technology that emerges as the future choice for indirect vision will have to prove itself to be sufficiently user friendly and effective, and Agency efforts with indirect vision will focus on human factors research and failsafe issues to find the best choice. Besides mirror standard upgrades, NHTSA is participating in lighting installation upgrades related to harmonization. The WP.29 Lighting and Light Signaling (GRE) expert working group is working on the development of a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on the installation of lighting and light signaling.

Milestones:

B.  Reduce Light Vehicle Tire Failures

Tire failure can cause loss-of-control of a vehicle that can result in a rollover or other crash. Tire failure also can be a hazard to motorists changing the tire on the side of the road. The highly publicized Firestone/Ford SUV tire recalls were prompted by tire failures associated with rollover and other crashes.

Between July 1999 and March 2002, NHTSA participated in an attempt to develop a global technical regulation for light vehicle tire standards and investigated tire bead unseating as a result of some cases of SUV tires coming off their rims in the Agency’s 1998-99 and 2001 dynamic rollover test programs.

In response to the Firestone/Ford SUV tire recalls, Congress enacted the Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, on November 1, 2000. TREAD required NHTSA to undertake more than a dozen rulemaking actions in the areas of tire safety standards, rollover propensity, and improving child safety. The FY 2001-2002 tire research programs included testing to support the rulemaking called for in TREAD to revise and update the light vehicle tire standards. The Agency issued the NPRM in March 2002, and the Final Rule in June 2003. NHTSA initiated research on tire aging in 2003, and later plans to initiate research on tire resistance to bead unseating and strength. Under the Program of Work under the WP.29 1998 Agreement, NHTSA continues to exchange information with its international partners on tire performance issues, including a potential aging test.

TREAD also mandated improvements in tire labeling to assist consumers in identifying tires that may be the subject of a recall. NHTSA published an NPRM to upgrade tire labeling in December 2001 and a Final Rule in November 2002. NHTSA also developed and launched a tire consumer information program to help ensure the public is aware of the importance of observing tire load limits and maintaining proper tire inflation levels.

One contributor to tire failure is tire under-inflation. A NHTSA survey released in August 2001 found that more than one out of four passenger cars, and one out of three light trucks, are driven with one or more significantly under-inflated tires. As required by the TREAD mandate, NHTSA published a final rule in June 2002 requiring light vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) to warn the driver when one or more tires is significantly under-inflated. In August 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating FMVSS No. 138, "Tire pressure monitoring systems," and directed the Agency to issue a final rule to comply with the Court’s ruling. NHTSA published its revised NPRM proposing a TPMS standard on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 55896). The proposal would require manufacturers to install a four-fire TPMS capable of detecting when a tire is more than 25 percent under-inflated and warning the driver. The proposal also would require a TPMS malfunction indicator.

Milestones:

C.  Reduce Crashes Associated with Driver Distraction

The number of in-vehicle technologies and their potential for distractions is expected to increase as more electronic devices appear in cars. NHTSA estimates that driver distraction and inattention from all sources contribute to 20-25 percent of police reported crashes – about 1.5 million crashes per year. Cell phones have become ubiquitous, and newer advanced technologies, such as heads-up and navigational displays, have begun to appear in some vehicles. Rulemaking may be necessary to modify certain devices and to limit the availability of certain functions of these technologies that have the potential to distract drivers while a vehicle is in motion. In some cases, standardized design parameters may also be needed to reduce driver confusion and associated distraction. Development of protocols for evaluating the demands of specific devices will provide quantitative metrics to assess the safety-related risk from using in-vehicle technologies. Although regulation cannot entirely eliminate driver distraction as a cause of crashes, it can help manage and mitigate its hazardous effects.

Research currently underway will measure the attentional demands of devices and how their use can affect the ability of drivers to perform driving tasks. The findings will provide information to help educate drivers about the distraction potential of new technologies. Some of the research is being conducted using NADS, the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) test track, and on-the-road testing, which will allow researchers to safely study a wide range of driving conditions and situations during which drivers are carrying out both technology and non-technology based tasks. Also, results from the 100-car naturalistic study (see Section VII.A. ) will specifically explore the role of driver distraction in increasing the risk of  crashes and near crashes. Another research program is evaluating the concept of adaptive interfaces. Adaptive interfaces use advanced sensors to monitor the traffic and driver status to manage distractions and enhance the effectiveness of collision warning systems that could alert distracted drivers of imminent crashes.

Milestones:

IV.  Make Large Trucks Safer

In 2003, 457,000 large trucks (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) were involved in traffic crashes. Eight percent of vehicles involved in fatal crashes were large trucks, and they accounted for 12 percent of traffic fatalities. These crashes resulted in 4,669 fatalities and 122,000 injuries: 85 percent of those killed and 78 percent of those injured were the occupants of other (light) vehicles, pedestrians or bicyclists. Both vehicle performance and driver/vehicle interaction can be significant factors in these crashes. Among these factors are insufficient braking capability, loss of control, driver fatigue and poor visibility. The involvement rate of large trucks in fatal crashes per 100 million miles of truck travel (regardless of whether the truck caused the crash) has declined from 3.3 in 1990 to 2.1 in 2002.

A.  Shorten Stopping Distances and Improve Braking

Large trucks have longer stopping distances than light vehicles, increasing the chance of collisions in panic stopping situations. Truck brake performance has been identified as a major factor contributing to crashes involving large trucks.

The major issue facing NHTSA is identifying what performance requirements should be established in FMVSS No. 121, "Air brake systems," to ensure a minimum requirement for stopping capabilities and fail-safe performance. As part of this effort, the Agency has performed test track evaluations of large trucks equipped with conventional, air disc, and hybrid (air disc equipped steer axle, conventionally braked drive axles) brakes. With cooperation from industry an operational (fleet test) evaluation on electronically controlled braking system (ECBS)-equipped tractors is presently underway. Test track evaluations indicate NHTSA’s desire to significantly reduce truck-tractor stopping distances may be achieved by using current-technology brake systems. Testing of single-unit trucks, buses and trailers is still underway. NHTSA also will look at increasing foundation brake capacity and improving tractor-trailer brake compatibility. Performance requirements for ABS on trailers also are being developed.

ECBS offer many potential benefits to the trucking industry in the areas of safety, reliability, enhanced driver feedback, and maintainability for  air-braked large trucks. ECBS are being tested by the Department and a number of manufacturers under the IVI program. These systems are intended to replace the current pneumatic brake application signal with an electronic actuation signal. ECBS may also serve as a platform for other advances such as electronic stability control systems.

Milestones:

B.  Reduce Large Truck Tire Failures

The Agency is conducting testing to develop proposals to upgrade the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars," which is required by Section 10 of the TREAD Act. In addition, NHTSA plans to conduct research on retreaded truck tires to evaluate their performance in comparison to new tires. Retreaded tires represent over 60 percent of the tires used on large trucks, but they are not regulated by any existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. After completion of research, the Agency will decide whether to pursue rulemaking to establish a new safety standard for these tires.

The primary cause of tire failure is heat buildup. Heat buildup in tires usually results from under-inflation, overloading, high-speed operation or a combination of these factors. Also, vehicles operating with low tire air pressure have reduced handling capability and fuel economy. Some of the advances in reducing tire failures on large trucks have begun and will continue to appear in passenger car tires (see Section III B). Technology (TPMS) now exists that can monitor tire inflation and warn the driver of unsafe low tire pressure that could result in tire failure. For large trucks that have a high-pressure air source on board for brakes, a better alternative to TPMS may be central tire inflation (CTI) systems that can automatically keep tires inflated to the proper pressure.

Milestones:

V.  Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Safety Research

NHTSA’s program for hydrogen, fuel cell, and alternative fuel vehicles is focused on establishing safe performance requirements for hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) and fuel cell vehicles. Safety requirements are vital to support the launch of the FreedomCAR Program, a cooperative automotive research partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR). FreedomCAR is designed to advance the development of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel infrastructure. The program was initiated as part of the President’s goal to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, improve vehicle efficiency, and reduce vehicle emissions. The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, announced in 2003, expands on the FreedomCAR Program to make fuel cell vehicles a practical and cost-effective choice for large numbers of Americans by 2020. NHTSA’s safety initiative will complement these efforts by developing safety performance requirements and test procedures. The risk assessment studies will quantify potential failures that could indicate unsafe conditions, and performance requirements will be developed to mitigate any such conditions.

Corollary efforts by NHTSA address fuel economy and international harmonization of global technical regulations for hydrogen vehicles. The Agency will analyze the potential increases in fleet fuel economy attributable to hydrogen vehicles. NHTSA will also work with its international counterparts to determine the content of regulations pertaining to fuel cell and ICE hydrogen vehicles.

Ensuring that hydrogen ICE and fuel cell powered vehicles provide a level of safety comparable to that of other vehicles currently in use in the United States requires a substantial research effort. Hydrogen-powered vehicles will utilize many advanced and unique technologies that have not been tested in the transportation environment. Many manufacturers, however, are substantially investing in producing and marketing these vehicles in the near future. Very little data are available concerning the safe performance of these vehicles because so few exist; they are typically prototypes handled by specially trained personnel. As these vehicles are deployed in the fleet, the safety of hydrogen as a fuel and the safety of alternative fuel vehicles in crashes becomes an important issue for public safety. A failure to adequately address safety requirements in the earliest stages of development could severely hamper the deployment of this new technology.

One of the top safety concerns is the safe onboard storage of hydrogen. There are a variety of very different technologies used for storing the hydrogen fuel, including very high pressure gas storage, cryogenic liquid, solid metal hydrides that require complex thermal management systems for charging and discharging hydrogen, liquid chemically bonded forms that produce highly alkaline spent fuel waste, and on-board reformulation systems that produce the hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels. Hydrogen is colorless, odorless, burns without producing a visible flame or radiant heat, and is difficult to contain. It has a minimum ignition energy an order of magnitude lower than that of other hydrocarbon fuels (.02 megajoules) and a much wider flammability range (4 to 75 percent volume in air). The quenching gap is smaller than that of methane, propane, and gasoline, requiring tighter tolerances to prevent flame propagation. Hydrogen can cause significant deterioration in metals by diffusing into steel and other metals causing a phenomenon known as hydrogen embrittlement. As a result, the metal will break or fracture at a much lower load or stress. High-pressure storage carries the risk of fuel tank rupture and missile damage. Liquid hydrogen is cryogenic and requires special tanks, insulation, and venting systems, to maintain liquid conditions. The hazard from a leak or spill is the potential for cryogenic burns and fires. Fail-safe systems designed to mitigate these hazards need to be assessed. Additionally, fuel cell vehicles operate at high voltage, and in some cases are equipped with auxiliary batteries of up to 400 volts, so that the issues of electrical shock, isolation, and ignition of surrounding materials such as plastics must be studied as well. Industry and government codes, standards, and regulations are still in the very early stages of development and would benefit greatly from real world risk assessment. Similarly, development of test procedures and suitable performance criteria are critical in order to quantify potential failures and resulting unsafe conditions as these vehicles are operated in the real world.

On July 14, 2004 (69 FR42126), NHTSA announced the availability of a planning document that describes the scope and timeline of NHTSA's proposed research program addressing safety and fuel economy assessment of hydrogen-powered fuel cell and internal combustion engine vehicles.

Implementation of the research plan is subject to the availability of test vehicles, their components and related hydrogen refueling equipment for safety assessment. The results of this assessment will be used as input to regulations (GTR, FMVSS) that minimize the potential for harmful events or outcomes caused by loss of fuel system integrity.

Milestones:

VI.  Child Protection in Light Vehicles

Four hundred and seventy-one children under the age of five died as occupants in light vehicle crashes in 2003. Of those 471 fatalities, an estimated 166 (35 percent) were totally unrestrained. Research shows that CRS, when used correctly, can reduce fatalities among children less than one year old by 71 percent in passenger cars. That makes child safety seats one of the most effective safety innovations ever developed. Use of CRS is now required in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data indicate that the combination of high‑quality CRS and the increased use of these restraints as a result of mandatory usage laws have significantly reduced the risk of child fatality in motor vehicle crashes. In 2003, an estimated 446 children under age five were saved as a result of CRS use. That 2003 figure would have been 550 children saved if all motor vehicle occupants under 5 years old were protected by CRS. That year, there were 185 fatalities among children in CRS. About 28 percent (52 fatalities) were in frontal non-rollover crashes, 28 percent (51 fatalities) were in non-rollover side impacts, and 26 percent (48 fatalities) were in rollover crashes.

NHTSA published a final rule on June 26, 2003, to address Section 14(b) of the TREAD ACT. The rule incorporated four elements into FMVSS No. 213, "Child restraint systems": (a) an updated bench seat used to dynamically test add-on CRS; (b) a sled pulse that provides a wider test corridor; (c) improved child test dummies; and (d) expanded applicability to CRS recommended for use by children weighing up to 65 pounds. CRS will be tested using the most advanced test dummies available today and tested to conditions representing current model vehicles.

For child side impact protection, the Agency decided that the level and amount of effort needed to further develop and validate a side impact component for incorporation into FMVSS No. 213 far exceeded what could be accomplished within the time constraints of the TREAD Act. However, we initiated research to address the issue of children involved in side impact crashes.

This research is a four-pronged approach:  (1) Determine predominate crash and injury causation modes; (2) Determine types and levels of injuries to children to develop improved injury assessment reference values (IARVs); (3) Evaluate and select an appropriate side impact child dummy for Agency use; and (4) Develop a test procedure. Potential 3-year-old side impact dummies will be evaluated for their biofidelity and their repeatability and reproducibility under dynamic test conditions. The dummy(ies) and new IARVs will be used to validate the proposed test configuration(s) for assessing the protection capability of CRS and/or vehicle interiors, and to determine possible countermeasures to reduce fatalities and injuries during side impact crashes. Two test procedures are being pursued. The first is a dynamic sled test requirement similar to that being developed by the International Organization of Standards (ISO). The second would be an extension of FMVSS No. 201 interior impact occupant protection requirements to provide improved protection for children. This would improve head protection for children who, though properly restrained in CRS, impact interior side surfaces in oblique crashes.

On December 4, 2002, President Bush signed "Anton’s Law," which in part, calls for improvement of the safety of CRS in passenger motor vehicles. Section 3 of Anton’s Law requires NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish performance requirements for CRS, including booster seats, for the restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds. Other sections of Anton’s Law require the development of an anthropomorphic test device simulating a 10-year-old child and an evaluation of integrated child restraint systems. A report to Congress regarding integrated child seats was submitted in April 2004.

Milestones:

VII.  Crash Avoidance and Crashworthiness Data

A.  Data for Crash Avoidance Countermeasures

The NHTSA crash avoidance rulemaking program initiates actions based on assessments of crash causation factors and the potential for vehicle-related solutions. Crash avoidance problems are identified through research, petitions, and other information received from the public. In order to develop solutions and assess effectiveness and benefits, it is essential to estimate with some degree of certainty problem size and crash or injury savings as a result of changes in vehicle performance.

While pre-crash data elements have been added to NHTSA's ongoing data collection systems, these systems are still lacking in the crash avoidance area. In some key areas, a lack of data on the size and characteristics of safety problems hampers the development of effective remedies. The Agency has expended considerable effort to remedy the lack of crash avoidance data:  Building on the methodology developed for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)-sponsored Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) and on NASS, NHTSA initiated a study to collect crash causation data on all vehicles. The objective of this new data collection method, the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS), is to conduct a nationally representative survey of crashes for the development of a general purpose database to provide information on the events and factors related to the occurrence of crashes. Using on-scene investigation and interviews, the Agency plans to survey approximately 5,000 crashes per year over a six-year period. The collected data will be useful in identifying crash avoidance technologies needed at the environment, human, and vehicle levels and how they would need to be tailored. Also, emerging countermeasure programs and technologies could be evaluated in the real world crash environment for their crash prevention potential and relative benefits.

In addition, the availability of the NADS is allowing the study of issues related to driver, vehicle and environment interactions under highly controlled and safe conditions. Since this facility allows drivers to reach crash limit conditions, factors leading to crashes can be studied in great detail. Information collected by crash data recorders, which are being introduced by some manufacturers, may provide the Agency with useful information for crash and crash causation analysis.

NHTSA also will use data collected from its 100-car naturalistic study for crash causation analytical purposes. The Agency plans to continue collecting naturalistic driving data as a means of developing a comprehensive naturalistic driving database with the goal of supporting the wide range of data needs within NHTSA as well as other Administrations, outside researchers and other interested parties. Such a database will better define driver behavior and performance capabilities, document pre-crash factors and determine "exposure" across a broad range of circumstances and drivers. Naturalistic data offer a unique resource in the development of new and innovative approaches for reducing highway fatalities, injuries and crashes.

Milestones:

B. Event Data Recorders

Event data recorder (EDR) devices are used in other transportation sectors. Over the past several years, considerable interest has developed in the safety community with regard to potential safety benefits from the use of EDRs in motor vehicles. EDRs collect vehicle crash information that can aid investigations of the causes of vehicle crashes and occupant injury mechanisms, making it possible to better identify and address motor vehicle safety problems.

The Agency has been using EDR data in its crash investigation programs for over a decade. In the past several years, the Agency received two recommendations from the NTSB and another from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration regarding the use, installation and design of EDRs. In response to those recommendations, the Agency has initiated several EDR studies and sponsored two national working groups. From 1998 to 2001, the Agency also received three petitions for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to require the installation of EDRs in motor vehicles. On June 14, 2004, the Agency issued an NPRM specifying uniform, minimum requirements for data elements, data format, and retrieval process for voluntarily installed EDRs.

Internationally, NHTSA is participating in the WP.29 General Safety Provisions (GRSG) expert working group that has initiated the discussion of a GTR for EDRs. NHTSA is also exchanging data and research on EDRs with the European Union and France under separate bilateral agreements.

Milestones:

• Next rulemaking action on EDRs          2005

VIII.  Vehicle Safety Information for Consumers

NCAP provides the public with comparative vehicle safety information. This program and other vehicle safety public information and education activities are crucial components in NHTSA’s efforts to improve safety on the nation’s highways. The Agency also spends and distributes to partners considerable resources to educate the public about safe highway behavior, such as using restraints properly and not driving when impaired by alcohol or drugs.

An effective way to help consumers enhance the market for safety is to provide them with more comparative vehicle safety information, including crash test ratings and available safety features. Increasingly, consumers are demanding such information and are basing their purchasing decisions on it. Their choices, in turn, affect the extent and speed with which manufacturers incorporate new safety features and improved safety performance into their vehicles. As a result, market forces, in addition to regulations, improve the safety characteristics of vehicles on the road. The average number of visits to the popular NCAP section of the NHTSA website has increased from 3,000 per week in 1997 to 76,000 per week in 2004.

NHTSA carries out considerable outreach efforts to private sector organizations and companies to provide vehicle safety information to the public and to enhance the market for safety. The Agency produces and distributes brochures including: Buying a Safer Car, which includes comparative (NCAP) ratings and safety features by vehicle make/model; Buying a Safer Car for Child Passengers; Adapting Motor Vehicles for Persons with Disabilities; Tire Safety Information, and Child Safety Seat Ease-of-Use Ratings. On an on-going basis, NCAP considers additional vehicle safety information that will help consumers make informed decisions. A recent example is the inclusion of information on enhanced safety belt reminder systems in NCAP new car safety features, information for consumers on side air bag out of position testing, and frequently asked questions on side air bags. Similarly, the Agency makes needed updates to the way NCAP information is presented to the public, such as through the new safecar.gov web site.

NCAP frontal and side impact ratings as well as rollover programs provide crucial information to consumers about the relative crashworthiness and rollover potential of light vehicles. In FY 2005 NHTSA will provide crashworthiness consumer information on approximately 85 percent of new vehicles and rollover information on approximately 65 percent of new vehicles. NHTSA will continue to explore what program changes need to be made so that vehicle safety information is provided to consumers as expeditiously as possible and in the most helpful format for consumers, which could include a form of summary ratings.

Model year (MY) 2004 was the first year of the dynamic rollover test. The Agency feels that the dynamic test coupled with the static stability factor provides a more complete picture on the rollover propensity of passenger vehicles in a single vehicle crash. MY 2001 was the first year of NHTSA’s rollover NCAP program, and already dramatic improvements can be seen, especially for SUVs. During the first year some vehicles received a one star rating equaling a 40 percent or more chance of rollover in a single vehicle crash. Now, the Agency sees many SUVs receiving a three or four star rating for rollover, or a 20 percent to 30 percent chance of rollover in a single vehicle crash.

Since 2001, NHTSA has been evaluating and performing stopping distance tests on passenger vehicles. The test results have indicated that there is a disparity between classes (i.e. , passenger cars, vans, and sport utility vehicles). In parallel, the Agency has also been examining the real world data for potential benefits of having shorter stopping distances. The Agency will make a decision on whether to continue with the evaluation program in 2005.

In the previous plan, NHTSA listed a headlamp NCAP rating program as a priority. While NHTSA will continue to study headlamp performance, the Agency is removing it from the priority plan at this time. We are doing so for two reasons. One, the Agency has found that there is a lack of objective data available to quantify the benefits that would occur as a result of such a program. Two, the Agency has found a potential conflict during developmental testing. The Agency found that higher mounted headlamps, regardless of individual performance, will always give longer field of view. However, these same lamps also produce unwarranted glare. As such, the Agency has decided that the combination of these two issues warrants the delay of headlamp NCAP and removal from the priority plan.

NHTSA has also chosen to remove a summary safety score rating at this time from the priority plan. NHTSA believes that there is merit in providing comprehensive information to consumers and responding to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Shopping for Safety report, However, the Agency is also aware that possible changes to the frontal NCAP and side NCAP are being considered during the same time as this priority plan. As such, the Agency believes it would be premature to list a summary rating as a priority when the Agency has not made a final decision on what changes will occur in the frontal and side NCAP programs.

Revise Frontal and Side Crash Test Programs

The Agency has used the same rating protocol and test procedure for frontal NCAP for a number of years. In the near future, the Agency will consider potential changes to its frontal crash NCAP parameters to coincide with more stringent requirements under FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant crash protection," which in MY 2008 will increase the speeds at which vehicles are crash tested for compliance with the standard. The belted 50^th percentile male test procedure in FMVSS No. 208 will increase from 30 mph to 35 mph for 35 percent of the vehicle fleet, essentially becoming the frontal NCAP test procedure. In addition, the Agency has proposed to add the 5^th percentile 35 mph belted crash test to FMVSS No. 208 as well. Traditionally, the frontal NCAP testing program has been a more severe test than the standard. NHTSA is currently evaluating several test procedure and rating change options in exploring ways to revise the frontal NCAP test program. The Agency published a Request for Comments in October 2004 on the future of the frontal program.

As with the frontal crash test environment, NHTSA recognizes that the U.S. side impact environment has changed significantly in recent years. NHTSA issued an NPRM in May 2004 to upgrade FMVSS No. 214, to address emerging issues in the field such as head injuries in side crashes and small occupant protection in side crashes. The side NCAP testing program is modeled after FMVSS No. 214. As such, any changes to FMVSS No. 214 would be evaluated and explored for their merit in a consumer information test program. Additionally, NHTSA is currently exploring ways to incorporate the head injury data recorded during its side impact test into the side impact star rating.

Milestones:  Frontal NCAP

• Evaluation of comments on changes to Frontal NCAP         2005

• Agency decision on next steps         2005-2006

Milestones:  Side NCAP

• Request for Comments on changes to Side NCAP         2006

• Agency decision on next steps         2007

Appendix A.  Other Important Potential Rulemaking and Research

This section discusses several additional regulatory activities, including regulatory-related research activities that NHTSA chose not to include with the other vehicle safety priorities in this plan. Although they relate to important vehicle safety goals, these projects do not rise to the same level of priority as the activities included in the main body of this report. For some projects discussed in this section, the milestones extend beyond the five-year horizon of this plan. Some of the projects in this section involve longer-term rulemaking or research projects in areas in which near-term, high priority research and rulemaking activities are described earlier in this plan. Some of the research discussed here may lead to new rules, changes in rules, or changes in NCAP in a time frame longer than the current plan, or may simply involve areas in which it is premature to have rulemaking implementation plans. As was pointed out in this plan’s introduction, it is important to recognize that NHTSA is pursuing other rulemaking and research objectives beyond even those highlighted here.

A.  Additional Incompatibility Activities

In addition to the AHOF measures discussed in Section I, improved energy management between striking and struck vehicles in real world crashes, particularly between passenger cars and LTVs, would be a desired outcome for a longer-range research effort. An energy management approach could lead to improved energy sharing in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. It could also provide the opportunity to improve occupant compartment integrity, thereby decreasing intrusion-related fatalities and injuries and improving partner protection.

B.  Additional Crash Avoidance Activities

1. Reduce Glare from Headlamps and Auxiliary Lamps

A nationwide telephone survey found that 30 percent of drivers labeled discomfort from headlamp glare as "disturbing". In response to a NHTSA published Notice of Request for Comments on headlamp and auxiliary lamp glare in September 2001, NHTSA received thousands of  comments from drivers who find headlamp glare responsible for their discomfort as well as reduced visibility. The three primary sources of concern are: (1) high-mounted headlamps; (2) headlamps with high intensity discharge (HID) bulbs; and (3) fog lamps and other auxiliary lamps on the front of vehicles.

NHTSA has been conducting a series of research studies aimed at identifying the source of the complaints and evaluating possible solutions, such as new photometric requirements, automatic aiming, lowering mounting height, and washing systems. NHTSA has also been working to identify safety-related metrics, such as seeing distance, to provide an objective basis for understanding the tradeoffs between improving driver visibility distance and minimizing the adverse effects of glare. In July 2004, NHTSA held a workshop to discuss the issue of metrics and approaches to balancing glare with visibility.

NHTSA also is planning to conduct a study (Glare Risk Assessment Study) to seek ways to quantify the safety value of changes to the performance of vehicle headlighting systems that would reduce glare to other road users.

Currently, many manufacturers are developing various types of adaptive forward lighting (AFL) systems that seek to improve drivers’ visibility at night by changing beam pattern and intensity in response to traffic, roadway, and ambient lighting. Some of these systems may not provide sufficient limits on glare to other drivers under some driving scenarios.

In 2004, NHTSA conducted research on the effects of luminance, intensity, and spectral composition on disability and discomfort glare, and a preliminary assessment of real world effects of glare on driving behavior by analyzing eye glance and object detection capabilities. In 2005, NHTSA will evaluate visibility and glare from AFL to determine if glare reduction improves how drivers see, and it will analyze data to determine the relationship between glare and nighttime crash involvement. The Agency plans to make a regulatory decision on head lighting glare reduction in 2006.

2.  Improve Light Vehicle Braking

The growing number and fleet share of LTVs has raised concerns about stopping distance disparities between passenger cars and LTVs. While the greater vehicle weight of LTVs pose some challenges in achieving similar stopping distance performance as passenger cars, improvements to light vehicle brake systems have been made. These improvements include technological advances that may be capable of reducing LTV stopping distances.

In the time frame of this plan (2005-2009) NHTSA will conduct research on several light vehicle braking issues. Areas include electronic brake proportioning, brake assist, regenerative brake systems (RBS), and EBS and electro-hydraulic systems. Electronic brake proportioning is a feature that has become increasingly common on contemporary ABS. Brake assist is another technological advancement in light vehicle braking. NHTSA will conduct a crash data analysis of brake assist and human factors research in 2006, engineering research in 2007-2008, and follow with a rulemaking decision as appropriate. RBS are used on electric and hybrid vehicles to recover dissipating kinetic energy, and use the propulsion motor as a retarder for partial braking while returning electrical energy to the propulsion battery. The Agency will start this research in 2007 and will follow with a rulemaking decision as appropriate. EBS and electro-hydraulic systems are being developed as possible replacements for existing hydraulic brake systems used on current vehicles. Research on these systems, to determine what future rulemaking changes may be needed to the light vehicle brake standards to accommodate this technology, will be conducted in 2008, to be followed by a rulemaking decision in 2009. While the passenger vehicle brake regulations are substantially harmonized worldwide, additional work is needed to establish a GTR under the 1998 Agreement. NHTSA will continue to work with the Contracting Parties under the 1998 Agreement in order to complete harmonization in this area.

3.  Roadway Departure Warning Systems

Single vehicle road departure crashes represent the most serious type of crash on national highways. There were 927,000 single vehicle off-roadway crashes in 2002 and 12,360 of them resulted in a fatality. There are many different causes of these types of crashes, including weather/vision problems, driver impairment, inattention and improper driving behaviors. Roadway departure systems will alert drivers when they are drifting off the roadway or out of their lane and when they are approaching an upcoming curve at excessive speed. The research program to develop an understanding of how to design and build effective crash warning systems is nearly complete. The final stage consists of two field operational tests of pre-production prototype systems in 2005. One test is of a light vehicle road departure system that warns when the driving is drifting off the road or approaching a curve with excessive speed and the second test is of a large truck lane keeping system. The data collection phase of both of these tests has just begun, and NHTSA plans a decision on how to proceed in 2006.

4.  Rear End Collision Avoidance Systems

NHTSA and the motor vehicle industry are working to develop systems that will detect imminent crashes and provide effective and timely warnings to drivers to assist them in preventing these crashes. These advanced technology systems will help continue the steady improvement that has been seen in crash avoidance performance of our highway system; from 300 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in 1990 to 220 crashes per 100 million VMT in 2003, and will help reach the goal of one fatality per 100 million VMT by 2008. This research program is a part of the DOT’s Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program.

Rear end crashes account for 30 percent of the police-reported crashes that occur on the public roads every year. Driver assistance systems can help ameliorate this problem. These systems will sense imminent crashes and warn drivers of slower moving or stopped vehicles ahead, thereby giving them time to brake or take other appropriate avoidance actions. The research program to develop an understanding of how to design and build effective crash warning systems is nearly complete. The final stage consists of a field operational test of a light vehicle pre-production prototype system and a second field operational test of a large truck system. The systems in each of these field operational tests include an adaptive cruise control with automatic braking as well as warning of an impending crash. The data collection phase of both of these tests has been completed and data analysis is underway. The results of these evaluations will be a major factor in determining whether a rulemaking action should be initiated or not. Preliminary analysis indicates that systems such as the ones in these tests have the potential of helping to prevent large numbers of crashes, with significant reductions in deaths and injuries.

5.  Drowsy Driver Research

NHTSA has been conducting advanced engineering development of a sensor for a warning system to alert drivers before they fall asleep. The goal of this system is to reduce the more than 100,000 injuries and deaths associated with drowsiness involving both commercial and passenger vehicles. NHTSA data suggests that approximately 100,000 crashes per year, including 1,357 fatal crashes and approximately 71,000 injury crashes, involved drowsiness. The role of drowsiness in crashes may be largely underestimated due to unreported off‑roadway crashes, police inability to verify drowsiness, and driver reporting error. Drivers are often unaware of their deteriorating condition or, even when they are aware, are often motivated to keep driving. A drowsiness detection and warning system can help reduce crashes by helping to maintain alertness until it is safe to stop and rest. Drowsiness has been named as the number one driving problem at trucking summit meetings. The FMCSA, in a Final Rule published in April 2003 on Hours of Service for Commercial Drivers, discussed its potential interest in drowsy driver sensing systems. NHTSA will complete a drowsy driver sensing system field operational test in 2005.

C.  Crashworthiness Activities

If a crash does occur, the Agency strives to reduce the severity and increase the survivability of the event. This is known as crashworthiness. Vehicle structure must be able to manage crash energy to prevent occupant compartment intrusion and have sufficient structural integrity to prevent ejection of passengers, and vehicle restraint systems must be able to prevent injuries from occupant impact with interior surfaces. Structural crash performance also must be compatible with occupant restraint systems.

NHTSA pursues the goals of crash survivability by encouraging safety belt use; developing amendments to crashworthiness standards that increase safety performance; supporting crashworthiness and biomechanics research; conducting compliance testing and defects investigations; conducting research for potential harmonization of similar standards or elements of standards around the world; providing information to consumers through NCAP on how different makes and models compare in safety performance during crash and performance tests; and as outlined below, establishing and keeping up-to-date vehicle safety standards for impact protection. NHTSA also is pursuing compatibility strategies to improve occupant protection (see Section I).

In order to ensure that the occupant protection standards protect drivers and passengers in all types of crashes, NHTSA has developed and continues to improve and expand its family of anthropomorphic dummies to represent the widest possible range of vehicle occupant sizes and detect the injuries they would sustain. Dummy and associated injury criteria development requires considerable research, testing, and analysis prior to incorporation into Part 572 or a safety standard. Most Agency work on particular crash dummies focuses on a particular type of crash – frontal, side, rear. Milestones for the development of improved dummies for specific types of crashes are reflected in their respective sections.

1.  Advanced Dummies, Injury Criteria, and Performance Levels

The ultimate purpose for crashworthiness research and rulemaking is to prevent fatalities and reduce the number and severity of injuries to occupants of vehicles when crashes occur. Whether the crash is considered a full frontal, frontal offset, side, rear, or rollover, the ultimate measure of success is determined by the degree to which the crash forces presented to an occupant are mitigated and controlled below recognized injury thresholds. NHTSA’s National Transportation Bio-Mechanics Research Center (NTBRC) will conduct research and development efforts in the areas of in-depth analysis of causes and consequences of severe crashes at ten Level 1 Trauma Centers; experimental investigations of the biomechanics of impact injury to provide a basis for developing test devices, injury criteria, and effective performance thresholds; and development of analytical techniques to mathematically simulate the human structure and its possible failure during a crash. Work also will be done to translate this knowledge into the development of improvements in crash test dummies that can identify and quantify the injury risks specific crash conditions present to various sizes of living humans. The Agency may need to pursue research on kinematic manikins, including a dummy that has appropriate kinematics for low-g events, such as pre-impact braking.

2.  Improve Protection in Frontal Crashes

Studies confirm the significant safety benefits of safety belts and air bags – thousands of deaths and injuries are prevented annually, including an estimated 14,164 lives saved by belts alone in 2002. NHTSA estimates that 14,563 lives have been saved by air bags from 1985 through April 2004. Unfortunately, over the same time span, air bags also have been linked with the deaths of 242 people, most of whom were children. NHTSA must ensure that future air bag designs continue to offer the life-saving benefits, while eliminating the possibility of death due to airbag deployment in low speed crashes. To achieve these goals, the next generations of air bags will include technology to control when and how they inflate, depending on factors such as the size of occupants and whether they are out of position for safe air bag deployment.

In May 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements in FMVSS No. 208 for air bags in passenger cars and light trucks, to be phased in beginning in the 2004 model year. The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in moderate to high speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low speed crashes.

The rule also included a requirement that, beginning in 2007, the 50^th percentile adult dummy must meet the injury criteria when subjected to a 35 mph belted rigid barrier crash. The Agency stated that there was insufficient data to incorporate the 5^th percentile female dummy into the 35 mph crash, but that additional testing would be conducted to determine the feasibility of including it. That testing was completed, and NHTSA published an NPRM on August 6, 2003, proposing requirements that the belted 5^th percentile female dummy pass the injury criteria when subjected to a 35 mph rigid barrier crash. The Agency is considering the comments received as it works toward a subsequent rulemaking action. The next rulemaking action on 5^th percentile dummy 35 mph belted test is planned for 2005. NHTSA incorporated its resolution to initial and subsequent FMVSS No. 208 petitions for reconsideration in Final Rules in December 2001, January 2003, November 2003, and August 2004.

In the 2005-2009 time frame, the Agency will continue to pursue research to advance occupant protection in frontal crashes, including monitoring real world air bag performance; evaluating dynamic out of position air bag suppression systems; evaluating advanced occupant sensors; evaluating advanced seat belts, adaptive pretensioners, and load limiters; exploring crash test procedures with pre-impact braking; developing and evaluating dummy enhancements driven by new sensor/restraint technologies.

Full Frontal Protection

In addition to the advanced air bag frontal occupant protection efforts described at the introduction to this section, the Agency is also monitoring and investigating occult injuries from frontal crashes. Knee-thigh-hip (KTH) complex injuries to belted occupants are one of the injury patterns being investigated. Completion of KTH complex biomechanics and injury research will occur in 2005, followed by evaluation of countermeasure feasibility, and a rulemaking decision regarding KTH in 2006.

3.  Offset Frontal Protection 

Real world crash statistics indicate that 79 percent of injuries in frontal crashes are from offset frontal crashes. The offset crash environment is characterized by greater intrusion of the occupant compartment, which results in different loading patterns being imparted to the vehicle occupant as compared to those in full frontal crashes. These crashes frequently result in severe leg injuries to vehicle occupants. NHTSA is developing and refining advanced dummies and associated injury criteria, and to better measure the resultant injury forces, NHTSA has developed specialized advanced crash dummy lower extremities, Thor-Lx (50^th percentile male) and Thor-FLx (5^th percentile female), which incorporate improved biofidelic features and significantly expanded instrumentation.

NHTSA is considering rulemaking to regulate vehicle performance in offset frontal crashes. Not to be overlooked are potential disbenefits to such regulations, such as harm to the occupants of the vehicles with which the upgraded vehicles collide, and NHTSA has conducted vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests to examine the potential for harm from this rulemaking. In 2004, the Agency requested public comment to gather more information on this aspect of the rulemaking and next steps are pending agency rulemaking decisions.

4.  Automatic Advanced Passive Technologies/Pre-Crash Sensing

Countermeasures that sense a pre-crash condition and act to automatically arm airbags and pretension belts – before a crash – could create precious seconds for crash preparation not otherwise available. Such systems operate after human crash avoidance responses are possible. They include automatic advanced passive technologies that reduce vehicle incompatibilities in crashes and last-second radar braking to bleed crash energy. Some of these technologies have the potential to reduce the crash consequences of high priority safety problems such as frontal and side impacts, and inter-vehicle crash compatibility. A cooperative research program with suppliers and carmakers will be developed. This program will investigate minimum performance specifications and objective tests for occupant protection systems, including pretensioners, integrated belts, and load limiters, that use pre-crash sensing.

5.  Safety Belt Use Reminders

In 2002 and 2003, NHTSA sent letters to all the major vehicle manufacturers encouraging the installation of enhanced safety belt reminder systems. NHTSA also requested information on the types of technologies they intended to use, the appropriate time frame for installation and any customer feedback on their systems that they would be willing to share with the Agency. Based on the feedback received, NHTSA has developed a research plan to investigate these technologies. In 2004, the NAS’s Transportation Research Board also completed a study, "Buckling Up, Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use," Special Report 278.

The NAS committee concluded that safety belt reminder technologies show promise for increasing safety belt use and developed eight recommendations for the continued development of these technologies. NHTSA believes that the eight recommendations contained within the NAS report are consistent with efforts already underway and expects that these efforts as well as the continued development of safety belt reminder systems will help increase safety belt use. Actions include publication of consumer information on vehicles with enhanced reminders in 2005, research on effectiveness of advanced reminder systems in 2005-2006, and a rulemaking decision on next steps in 2007.

NHTSA is conducting a study to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of several different types of safety belt reminder systems currently being offered by a number of manufacturers. Observations of actual belt use will be compared with survey data to determine the extent to which reminder systems increase belt use and driver acceptance of the different approaches to reminder system designs.

D.  Other Vehicles

1.  Motorcycles:  Motorcycle Helmet Enforceability Upgrade

Injury of the head is the most serious danger associated with riding motorcycles. Fatalities have been increasing. In 2003, 3,661 motorcycle drivers and passengers died and 67,000 were injured. These fatalities comprise eight percent of all traffic fatalities, although motorcycles represent approximately two percent of the total vehicle fleet. Approximately half of those killed were not wearing helmets. Motorcycle helmet use has been the most effective countermeasure in the effort to reduce these injuries and deaths. NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,158 motorcyclists in 2003, and could have saved an additional 640 lives if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. A helmet comfort and convenience study will be conducted in 2005.

FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle helmets", establishes performance requirements to insure motorcycle helmets aresafe and effective. The standard requires that a "DOT" symbol, constituting the manufacturer’s certification that the helmet conforms to the standard, be affixed to the helmet in a specified location. Many States have helmet use laws that require motorcycle riders to wear helmets that are certified to the requirements of FMVSS No. 218. NHTSA is aware that some motorcycle riders have placed DOT stickers on noncompliant helmets to mislead law enforcement officers and avoid a ticket for not wearing a compliant helmet. NHTSA is currently considering ways to strengthen its standard to address the false certification of helmets through the use of unauthorized stickers.

2.  Other Motorcycle Issues

The Agency is considering undertaking a crash data collection effort. To evaluate motorcycle braking performance, NHTSA is conducting research on a variety of motorcycles to assess stopping distance performance, ABS performance and combined brake system (CBS) performance. Then, the Agency plans to initiate rulemaking to update the performance requirements in FMVSS No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems. "  NHTSA is undertaking conspicuity research, and it published a Final Rule to reduce the minimum hand lever and foot pedal force for fade and water recovery tests in August 2001. Internationally, NHTSA is participating in the development of a GTR on motorcycle brakes. Specific actions include: development of a GTR on motorcycle brakes (2005-2006); brake research on stopping distance, ABS, and CBS (2006) and a rulemaking decision on next steps for ABS/CBS (2007).

3.  Improve School Bus Safety

The safety record for school bus transportation exceeds that of all other modes of travel. Students are nearly eight times safer riding in a school bus than in cars. Each school day, 440,000 public school buses transport 23.5 million children. The fatality and injury rates associated with school buses are consistent from year to year. On average, about seven passengers die in school bus crashes each year. In 2003, five passengers and six drivers died in school transportation vehicles (this includes school buses and other vehicles used as school buses), and 21 pedestrians were killed when struck by a school bus. NHTSA has several standards relating to school bus safety. NHTSA’s requirements for compartmentalization on large and small school buses, plus safety belts on small buses contribute to the safe environment.

NHTSA continues to search for effective ways to prevent these tragedies and to make school bus travel even safer. Amendments to the school bus standards have improved traffic control warning devices and emergency exits. To increase protection for disabled school bus passengers, the Agency developed rules for occupant restraint systems and anchorages and wheelchair securement and anchorages that became effective in 1994. School buses are unique as the only class of vehicles with requirements for securing wheelchairs, and these requirements apply to all school buses regardless of size.

The NTSB has recommended that NHTSA evaluate occupant restraint systems, including those presently required for small school buses, and add requirements based on its evaluation. In 1998, NHTSA developed a test plan for the next generation of school bus occupant protection, including testing various school bus child restraints so it could finalize its proposed guidelines on how to transport preschool-aged children on buses.

NHTSA provided a report to Congress in May 2002 assessing occupant protection in school buses. In that report, NHTSA concluded that lap belts have little, if any, benefit in reducing serious or fatal injuries in severe frontal crashes, and could increase the incidence of serious neck injuries and possibly abdominal injury among young passengers in severe frontal crashes. Any increased risks associated with their use in small school buses was more than offset by preventing ejections. Small school buses weigh less, have different crash dynamics, and are more prone to rollover than large school buses. Combination lap/shoulder belts, if used properly, could save one life a year, but improper use could cause serious neck injury or abdominal injury. Lap/shoulder belts could reduce bus capacity and add more than $100 million in annual costs. Since school buses are the safest way to and from school, even the smallest reduction in the number of bus riders could result in more children being killed or injured when using alternative methods of transportation.

NHTSA’s research program is focusing on side impact protection. Other school bus safety improvements the Agency is considering include:  increasing seat back height to reduce the potential for passenger override in crashes; requiring lap/shoulder restraints on smaller buses (lap belts are now required); and developing test procedures for voluntarily installed lap/shoulder belts. NHTSA plans to publish an NPRM for FMVSS No. 222, "School bus passenger seating and crash protection," for improved passenger protection in 2006 and a final rule in 2007 after it completes testing in support of the Final Rule and a cost assessment.

4.  Motorcoach Safety

On average, motorcoach crashes cause 10 deaths annually. In the 1990s, 20 of 46 motorcoach fatal crashes involved rollover, and occupant ejection was a significant cause of death. NHTSA held a joint public meeting with Transport Canada in April 2002 to explore potential areas to improve motorcoach safety. Among the potential issues explored at the public meeting were emergency evacuation and window glazing, improved braking and rollover stability control, occupant protection, roof crush improvements and advanced restraint systems. A joint study has been initiated with Transport Canada to determine methods for improved motorcoach occupant protection. Research is planned for 2005-2006 with a rulemaking decision in 2007.

E.  Other Populations

1.  Older Drivers and Occupants

Older drivers, though involved in relatively few crashes (due to factors such as driving fewer miles), have a statistically high risk of crashes when they do drive - and older drivers are driving more each year. Although societal fatality rates have been declining for several years, older drivers and vehicle occupants are dying at alarmingly increasing rates. Light vehicle occupants age 70 and up suffered 4,483 fatalities and 145,000 non-fatal injuries in 2003. As the driving population continues to age, more drivers are experiencing age-associated degradations in driving performance. Examples of specific degradations of older drivers include increased reaction times, reduced visual abilities (especially at night, partially attributable to increased sensitivity to glare) and range of motion, and some reduction of cognitive functioning. Consideration of the needs of older drivers is critical as technology is designed and implemented in vehicles.

Enhancements to injury tolerance for existing and advanced dummies specifically addressing the needs of the older population will be pursued. This will allow specific evaluation of crash consequences to the elderly to be performed and also the introduction of restraint systems that appropriately adjust their properties for elderly occupants. In addition to surveys already conducted, NHTSA will conduct surveys and research to identify additional problems specific to older drivers and occupants of motor vehicles. Candidate issues to be explored include:  nighttime lighting and glare, controls and displays, vehicle features that create distractions to driving tasks, adequacy of mirrors, and comfort and convenience of safety belts. Based upon these activities, rulemaking plans will be developed to track technological developments in the auto industry that are designed for and marketed to the older driver. In addition, a data analysis study will be conducted once enough cars are on the road that have these features to see if they are producing lower crash or injury rates.

NHTSA is currently conducting research on several fronts to use advanced in-vehicle technologies to help older drivers meet their driving needs. Some of the new technologies are being developed under the DOT’s ITS program. Among the current and emerging technologies, those that avoid collisions are considered especially promising for older drivers. These technologies include adaptive cruise control, collision warnings, near-object detection systems while backing and changing lanes, adaptive forward lighting and night vision enhancement, and route guidance. Later possible advances include intelligent cruise control and forward collision avoidance systems. The success and practicality of these systems will depend in large measure on designing them to help drivers with special needs without distracting or confusing them. Specific actions include: complete research to evaluate in-vehicle safety technology directed at improving safety for older drivers 2005-2007; complete development of age dependent injury criteria (2008-2009); and rulemaking decision on injury criteria (2009).

2.  Pedestrians

In 2003, 4,749 pedestrians died and 70,000 were injured in traffic crashes representing two percent of all traffic crash injuries and 11 percent of traffic fatalities. The pedestrian impact problem is even larger in developing countries around the world. The international community, through the United Nations, is working on the development of a global technical regulation on pedestrian safety. The U.N. WP29 GRSP Committee has initiated an effort to develop a GTR under the 1998 U.N. agreement, and NHTSA is actively participating in this effort. The IHRA Pedestrian Safety Working Group (PSWG) is developing test procedures for adult and child head impact and adult leg impact. Related Agency activities will include evaluation of biofidelity of candidate pedestrian leg-forms (2005); assessment of U.N. GTR and potential cost/benefit studies (2005); and Agency decision on U.N. GTR (2006).

Older pedestrians have the highest fatality rates among different age groups. The Agency will conduct research over the next few years to gather information on pedestrian safety issues and injury mechanisms. Such efforts could lead to the development of internationally harmonized head and leg component test procedures. This older pedestrian activity would serve as input to the pedestrian protection program.

3.  People with Disabilities

NHTSA works to assure motor vehicle safety for the small but vulnerable population of persons with disabilities – without hindering their access to personal transportation.

A Final Rule exempting businesses that modify vehicles to accommodate people with disabilities from the Agency’s "make inoperative" prohibitions was published in February 2001. NHTSA has produced and distributed a consumer brochure, Adapting Motor Vehicles for Persons with Disabilities, about adaptive equipment and modified vehicles. The Agency has adopted requirements for securing wheelchairs and their occupants traveling in school buses to afford increased protection for disabled passengers.

In December 2002, NHTSA published a Final Rule that established two new safety standards:  an equipment standard, FMVSS No. 403, "Platform lift systems for accessible motor vehicles"; and a vehicle standard, FMVSS No. 404, "Platform lift installation". The equipment standard establishes performance requirements for platform lifts, and the vehicle standard requires manufacturers who install lifts to use lifts that meet the equipment standard, to install them according to the lift manufacturer’s instructions, and to provide certain information to lift users. The regulation, applicable to all motor vehicles, should prevent deaths and injuries associated with the use of platform lifts for people with disabilities. NHTSA will continue to assess adaptive equipment safety issues throughout the time frame covered by this plan. For example, the Agency has begun testing to evaluate the feasibility of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) draft recommended test procedure for powered gas/brake control systems. NHTSA will continue to work with the SAE Adaptive Devices Standards Committee on this and other issues as they evolve.

F.  Additional Consumer Information Activities

1.  Consumer Information on Child Restraints

NHTSA’s strategy to protect children includes encouraging the use of CRS, ensuring restraints provide optimal protection, and providing consumers with useful information on restraining their children. Approximately 80 percent of CRS are used incorrectly. The TREAD Act contained several provisions that dealt with child restraints. Another provision mandates a review of CRS labels and instructions. In response to a provision on upgrading the labeling requirements for CRS, in October 2002, NHTSA published a Final Rule to improve CRS labels and instructions.

Other provisions of TREAD required the Agency to consider placing CRS in NHTSA NCAP crash tests and to establish a CRS safety rating consumer information program. In November 2002, the Agency issued a Final Rule that included a CRS ease of use safety rating program. It also described two pilot programs to explore the feasibility of providing meaningful consumer information based upon dynamic sled testing of CRS, and in-vehicle testing to evaluate the child occupant protection provided by the vehicle. NHTSA posted its first ease-of-use ratings on its NCAP website in June 2003, and it expects to provide ease-of-use rating for approximately 95 percent of the CRS on the market in its first year of ratings. NHTSA plans to issue a notice on the results of its two pilot programs early in 2005.

Appendix B.  Regulatory Review Plan Description

The Regulatory Review Plan was developed in 2002. On a seven year cycle, each FMVSS is subjected to the following assessment components to determine the need to update and/or upgrade the standard.

1. Safety Problem Assessment - NHTSA databases and other data are explored to identify safety problems that could be addressed through revised performance requirements for vehicle systems. Sources may include FARS, NASS, General Estimates System (GES), Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and Office of Defects Investigation data, and other sources such as manufacturer data and technical reports.

2. Other Societal Factors - A listing is included of other societal factors that might influence the need to amend a FMVSS or develop a new FMVSS. Factors may include:  demographics (e.g. , growth in certain population groups such as older drivers and passengers), societal values (e.g. , protection of children), or vehicle safety problems in certain areas of the country (e.g. , low speed vehicles)

3. Technology, Enforceability and Other Standards Review - The technology review focuses on developments in the system(s) affected by the subject standard in the past 10 years, prospects for the immediate future (5 years out) and prospects for the longer term future (5+ years). Enforceability problems and issues of current standards are reviewed. A listing and brief description also is included of other standards related to the vehicle systems addressed by the FMVSS. These may include national and international standards (United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe [UNECE], Canada, etc) or voluntary industry consensus standards (ISO, SAE, ASTM). Information sources may include manufacturers, suppliers, industry organizations, published sources, the Internet, and site visits.

4. Summary Regulatory Review Report - The results of Sections A. , B. and C. are combined into a summary report. The report includes an additional section, Recommendations, which also provides the reasoning and underlying bases for the recommendations on the need for (and recommended time frames) for updating and/or upgrading the standard.

Appendix C.  Acronyms Used in This Plan