[Federal Register: January 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 3473-3477]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ja07-105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555]
The New Car Assessment Program; Suggested Approaches for
Enhancements
AGENCY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments; Notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is holding a public hearing and is seeking
comment on a report titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program Suggested
Approaches for Future Program Enhancements.'' The report, published by
NHTSA, outlines both near and long-term approaches that the agency is
considering to further enhance its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
crashworthiness and crash avoidance activities to encourage additional
safety improvements, and to provide consumers with relevant information
that will aid them in their new vehicle purchasing decisions. NHTSA's
objective with these approaches is to improve not only overall vehicle
safety but the quality of the information that it provides to
consumers, especially with the emergence of advanced technologies. This
notice requests comments on the possible approaches contained in the
report and any additional actions that could be taken to improve motor
vehicle safety information for consumers. Additionally, this notice
announces the agency's intent to hold a public hearing on its suggested
approaches for enhancing the program.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received no later than April 10,
2007.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held on March 7, 2007,
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the United States Department of Transportation
(Nassif Building), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; room
numbers 2230-2232. Those wishing to participate should contact Mr.
Anthony Whitson no later than February 21, 2007.
The NHTSA recommends that all visitors arrive at least 45 minutes
early in order to facilitate entry into the building. Visitors to the
building should enter through the Southwest Lobby to be escorted to the
hearing room.
The NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids (sign language interpreter,
telecommunications devices for the deaf
[[Page 3474]]
(TDDs), readers, taped tests, braille materials, or large print
materials, and magnifying devices). Visitors requiring these aids
should contact Mrs. Gwen Archer-Pailen at 202-366-1740, by February 21,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Whitson, NVS-111, Office
of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Whitson can be reached
by phone at (202) 366-1740, by facsimile at (202) 493-2739, or by e-
mail at anthony.whitson@dot.gov.
ADDRESSES: Report: The report is available on the Internet for viewing
on line in PDF format in the Department of Transportation public docket
number 26555 at http://dms.dot.gov. You may also obtain copies of the
reports free of charge by sending a self-addressed mailing label to Mr.
Anthony Whitson (NVS-111), The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Comments: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket
Number NHTSA-2006-26555] by any of the following methods:
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324 and visit the Docket
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) established the New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act of 1972. The program strives to provide consumers
with timely, meaningful, comparative safety information that will
assist them in making informed vehicle purchasing decisions. As a
result, NHTSA is able to provide an incentive for manufacturers to
voluntarily implement vehicle design changes to improve safety
performance.
The success of NCAP can be attributed to several activities: (1)
The assignment of safety ratings to vehicles based on crashworthiness
performance in frontal and side impact crash tests, and crash avoidance
performance in rollover resistance testing, (2) the assignment of ease-
of-use ratings to child restraints, (3) the inclusion of safety
features for vehicle models, and (4) the distribution of safety ratings
and safety features to consumers through the Internet and the program's
``Buying a Safer Car Guide'' and ``Buying a Safer Car Guide for Child
Passengers.''
However, the continued success of the NCAP requires changes to be
made in the program. The NHTSA recognizes that consumer demand has
driven more manufacturers to design vehicles and child restraints that
achieve the highest NCAP ratings, and consequently most vehicles and
child restraints receive the highest ratings. Similarly, with regards
to vehicle safety, recent developments in the area of crash avoidance
technologies, amendments and proposed amendments to several Federal
safety standards, and the need to continue enhancing the presentation
of NCAP safety ratings to consumers have prompted the need for a
comprehensive review of all NCAP activities so that the program
continues to fully achieve its goals.
In analyzing what enhancements to make to NCAP, the agency must
first consider the program's guiding principles. The agency believes
that for NCAP to remain effective, new approaches should only be
considered if there is data that can be used to measure/assess that an
approach is likely to provide significant safety benefits. Additional
considerations include whether or not the change would:
1. Result in safety benefits that are evident but for which a
regulation may not be the best approach;
2. Distinguish meaningful performance differences between vehicles;
3. Spur research and the achievement of safety goals that exceed
regulatory requirements; and
4. Stimulate the use and dissemination of information so that it is
more widely used.
Below, are summarized approaches from the technical report
contained in Docket number 26555. These approaches represent how the
agency believes it can continue to enhance its NCAP activities. These
approaches take into account all of the aforementioned factors and
provide a basis for initiating stakeholder dialogue for enhancing the
NCAP.
Approaches To Enhancing Frontal NCAP
Data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) indicates
that most injuries in frontal crashes occur in full-frontal and offset-
frontal crashes. Additionally, when restricted to full-frontal crashes
with adult (16- to 60-year-old) front seat-belted occupants, the
maximum number of injuries occurs at changes in velocities from 0 to 25
miles per hour. Within this grouping, the de-habilitating and costly
knee/thigh/hip (KTH) and lower leg regions have the highest incidence
of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ injuries. Neither of these
regions is currently rated by NCAP.
In Model Year (MY) 2006, approximately 95 percent of new vehicles
achieved a four or five star rating for the driver. A five-star rating
in the frontal NCAP test accounts for a combined risk of head and chest
injury of 10 percent, and at this risk level current head and chest
Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) are not likely to further
reduce high-speed or low-speed injury numbers. The statistical data
analysis discussed above indicates that future tests should focus on
full-frontal crashes, front seat occupants, lower speeds, 16- to 60-
year-old adults, and incorporate additional body regions like the hips
and legs. Although these body regions are currently measured during
testing, they are currently not included in the rating. By including
them, there may be opportunity to use the existing test for potential
safety improvements.
The report discusses three approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Maintain the current test protocol but add femur readings to
the rating to begin addressing KTH injuries.
(2) Determine whether injury measures obtained below the knee
are predictive of real world injury. If they are, and the readings
from the dummy would result in a meaningful improvement to safety,
they could also be added to the rating, and
(3) Evaluate lower speed test(s). The research would determine
whether current IARVs need to be adjusted or created, and to assess
the ability of a test device and test procedure to accurately
measure those injury assessment values.
Approaches To Enhancing Side NCAP
NASS data indicates that the majority of side impact crashes with
serious (AIS 3+) injuries involve the primary vehicle being impacted in
the side by light trucks or cars and that approximately 82 percent of
all serious injuries to occupants result from subject vehicles
[[Page 3475]]
being hit by passenger cars or light trucks. The impact conditions for
Side NCAP were developed more than 20 years ago. The conditions
represent side impacts resulting in serious injuries of occupants being
struck by a vehicle with the weight properties of an early 1980's
passenger car and the stiffness properties of 1980's era light truck.
The vehicle fleet has changed significantly over the past 20 years
and similar to frontal NCAP, 87 percent of MY '06 vehicles receive four
or five stars. Consequently, the side NCAP ratings are reaching the
point of providing little discrimination between vehicles.
Additionally, since the fleet and impact conditions for side impacts
have changed over the years, and since side impact head and other side
impact occupant protection systems have improved over the years, it is
necessary to revisit the design of the test in an effort to continue
improving the safety in side impact crashes.
The report discusses two approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Encourage more manufactures to include head protection by
including the pole test proposed for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 prior to the final rule being fully phased-
in. This test would continue to measure performance while at the
same time indicate to consumers the importance of good head
protection devices, and
(2) Perform research that focuses on the assessment of the
injury mechanisms in a fully equipped side impact air bag fleet. The
purpose would be to evaluate how serious injuries occur in the new
fleet and develop test procedures to reflect these impact
conditions. The outcome of this research could be used to further
improve the level of side impact protection through modification to
the side NCAP test procedures.
Approaches To Enhancing Rollover NCAP
Although the proportion of crashes that result in rollover is low,
these crashes seriously injure and kill about 35,000 vehicle occupants
annually. NCAP rollover resistance ratings predict the risk of rollover
in the event of a single-vehicle crash. Estimates from the NASS
indicate that 88 percent of the single-vehicle rollover crashes occur
after the vehicle leaves the roadway and are often referred to as
``tripped rollovers.'' Part of NCAP's rating is based on a geometric
measurement called the Static Stability Factor (SSF). The SSF is highly
predictive of these ``tripped rollovers.''
The NHTSA estimates that its proposal to require Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) on all passenger vehicles by 2012 will result
in a significant reduction in run-off-road crashes. Most of the
anticipated rollover reduction from ESC is not a consequence of ESC
increasing rollover resistance. Rather, it is a consequence of ESC
preventing a large number of single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes in
which the vehicle leaves the roadway, and subsequently, is exposed to
soft soil, ditches and other conditions that cause tripped rollovers
(which comprise about 95 percent of all rollover crashes). None of the
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with ESC rated by NCAP has tipped up in
the dynamic test that assesses the vulnerability of a vehicle to an
untripped, on-road rollover. This effect of ESC shows improved rollover
resistance scores for SUVs. Finally, ESC could reduce the rollover rate
of those run-off-the-road crashes that still occur if it reduces the
speed prior to the crash. When enough real world data with ESC vehicles
has been accumulated, a need may exist to update the statistical risk
model for ESC vehicles used to predict their rollover rates (and
compute star ratings).
The report discusses one approach the agency is considering:
(1) Track the rollover rate and the single vehicle crash rate of
ESC vehicles to create a new rollover risk model of the rollover
rate of ESC vehicles and SSF. When sufficient data is available, it
would then be possible to determine whether the current model is
accurate for ESC vehicles or whether ESC reduces rollover risk more
than currently predicted.
Approaches To Enhancing NCAP Information on Rear Impacts
Currently NHTSA provides no consumer information on rear impacts
and although NHTSA has recently upgraded FMVSS No. 202 ``Head
Restraints'' to address neck injuries, the real world data indicates
that other injuries are occurring in rear impact collisions.
Additionally, consumer research has indicated that consumers are
concerned about rear impact crashes.
The report discusses two approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Explore providing consumers with basic information
concerning rear impact crashes such as safe driving behavior and
proper adjustment of head restraints, real world safety data by
vehicle classes, and links to the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) rear impact test results.
(2) Longer term, a dynamic test that addresses those injuries
not covered by the agency's current standards could be investigated
and incorporated into a ratings program.
Approaches To Enhancing NCAP Information on Crash Avoidance
Technologies
Various crash avoidance technologies have been developed and are
beginning to be offered in the current vehicle fleet. Some of these
technologies have shown effectiveness in reducing the number of
relevant crashes in NHTSA-sponsored field operational tests. Prevention
(in the sense of avoiding the crash) and severity reduction are not
currently included in the NCAP safety ratings, and since a vehicle that
is less likely to crash is safer for its occupants, NHTSA believes
crash avoidance is one area in which NCAP could be used to improve
safety by addressing beneficial crash avoidance technologies.
The report discusses three approaches the agency is considering:
(1) The agency could begin promoting three priority crash
avoidance safety technologies that have been identified based on
technical maturity, fleet availability, and available benefits data.
These three technologies are stability control, lane departure
avoidance, and rear-end/forward collision avoidance. The agency
could highlight to consumers whether or not the vehicles have the
technology.
(2) The agency also plans to investigate the feasibility of
developing a separate crash avoidance rating that would provide a
technology rating. Under this approach, there are two options.
a. One option would be to develop a simple cumulative rating.
For example and illustrative purposes only, if there were an A, B, C
letter grade rating and a vehicle had only one technology, it would
receive a C whereas another vehicle that had all three recommended
technologies would receive an A.
b. A second option would be to develop a rating that would take
into account the target population and anticipated effectiveness of
the technology to decide whether a particular type of technology
would be given more importance over another and thus prompt a higher
rating. For example, if ESC was considered more effective and more
beneficial than lane departure, a vehicle equipped only with ESC
could get a B versus a vehicle equipped only with lane departure
which would get a C rating.
(3) As the technologies evolve and as the agency develops
(through its research) more information related to their safety
potential, a safety score (i.e. star rating) on individual
technologies could then be developed. These scores would apply to
technologies whose safety effectiveness had been sufficiently
validated through research, field testing or on-road experience. The
agency would need to ensure that it had sufficient data and that
there were meaningful distinctions between different types of the
same technology. After such an analysis, a set of performance tests
could be developed that would be able to distinguish a range of
performance.
Approaches To Enhancing the Presentation and Dissemination of NCAP
Information
Combined Safety Score
Several NHTSA sponsored research reports and consumer surveys, as
well
[[Page 3476]]
as a Government Accountability Office and a National Academy of
Sciences review of NCAP, have all pointed to the need for an NCAP
summary safety rating. Similarly, other consumer information programs
around the world such as the IIHS, Japan NCAP, and Euro NCAP have
developed summary ratings that combine their respective crashworthiness
tests. The agency would focus first on combining the frontal and side
crashworthiness ratings using weighting factors compiled from NASS
data. This method would combine the frontal ratings for driver and
right front passenger seating positions with the side ratings for the
front and rear passenger seating positions into one crashworthiness
rating and leave NHTSA's current rollover rating separate. The
following summary crashworthiness rating concepts are illustrative
examples for combining vehicle crash information. Two approaches being
considered are presented below.
(1) The overall frontal crash rating would combine the driver
and right front passenger into a single star rating by averaging the
two seating positions together. The same would be done for the
dummies in the side crash to compute the overall side crash rating.
To compute the overall crashworthiness rating, the overall frontal
and the overall side impact performance would be combined by using
weighting factors obtained from the NASS. Each individual total
(overall front and overall side) would be weighted by that crash
mode's contribution to the total fatalities occurring in the real
world.
(2) For each individual crash mode (front and side), this method
would normalize each IARV that NHTSA included in the rating by
established IARVs for that dummy, body region, and crash mode. Using
the NASS data, these normalized values would then be multiplied by
the occurrence of that injury in the real world. Body injury regions
that are coded by NASS but are not measured by the dummy and or not
selected by NHTSA for inclusion in the rating would be equally
distributed among the remaining body regions.
Presentation of Safety Information
As consumers' use of the World Wide Web for vehicle safety
information has grown, so has the need to consolidate and better
present NCAP vehicle safety information to consumers on
http://www.safercar.gov.
The report discusses four approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Developing other topical areas under http://www.safercar.gov;
(2) Redesigning the Web site to improve organization;
(3) Improving the search capabilities on the Web site; and
(4) Combining agency recall and ratings database information.
Specific Requests for Written or Public Comments
When commenting on the agency report, we request that consideration
also be given to the following questions:
(1) In addition to or rather than the advanced crash avoidance
technologies we have identified, are there others with significant
safety benefit potential that we should consider? What are they and
what studies have been done to estimate the potential safety benefits?
(2) Are there other approaches the agency should consider in
selecting and rating advanced technologies? What are the advantages of
these alternative approaches?
(3) Identify those cases where you believe a particular approach to
enhancing the NCAP and/or NHTSA's planned consumer information
activities to address the approach are inappropriate. Discuss the basis
for your position. In particular, if you believe a particular approach
is inappropriate, discuss what you believe is a more appropriate
approach.
(4) Are there other injury criteria, tests, and test devices we
should consider? If so, describe how they would improve real world
crash safety. Are there reasons why the agency should not pursue the
use of injury criteria, tests, and test devices prior to incorporation
into a Federal standard?
(5) An overall vehicle safety rating could allow the agency to
combine new tests, crash avoidance technologies, items not reflected by
the testing protocols into a single metric, and vehicle weight for
across class comparisons. However, doing so might mask certain results
and also lead to discontinuity in the ratings as technologies are added
and removed and or new tests are added. Similarly star ratings from
year to year might not be comparable. What are the disadvantages and
advantages for combining all crashworthiness and crash avoidance
ratings into a single metric? Is discontinuity in ratings important to
consumers?
(6) In September 2007, all new vehicles will be required to display
the NCAP ratings at the point of sale. It is anticipated that these new
safety labels will undoubtedly raise the awareness of NCAP results. In
light of this new labeling requirement, are there other activities the
agency should be undertaking to raise awareness of NCAP and its safety
information?
How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?
NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report and invites
reviewers to submit written comments so that the agency can consider
these in its deliberations on what changes to make to NCAP.
Additionally, NHTSA will hold a public hearing on the report to
provide interested parties an opportunity to express their views on the
future of NCAP. Through this hearing and from the written comments, the
agency will refine its approach to enhancing NCAP. We will consider the
information and the views expressed at the public hearing and in the
subsequent docket comments in making final decisions to enhance NCAP
activities. All interested persons and organizations are invited to
attend.
To assist the agency in planning for the hearing, members of the
public must request the opportunity to make an oral presentation by
contacting Mr. Anthony Whitson at the address or numbers mentioned at
the beginning of this document. Those making a presentation will be
provided 10 minutes to speak, followed by the opportunity for NHTSA
officials to ask questions. Requests for oral presentations and the
oral statements themselves should be received no later than February
21, 2007.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2005-20132) in your comments.
Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management,
submit them electronically, fax them, or use the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. The mailing address is U. S. Department of Transportation
Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. If you submit your comments electronically, log onto the Dockets
Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov and click on ``Help''
to obtain instructions. The fax number is 1-202-493-2251. To use the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your
[[Page 3477]]
comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, NCC-01, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in
our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room
PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit them
electronically.
Will the agency consider late comments?
In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket
Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing
date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person
at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC from 10 a.m. to
5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the
following steps:
A. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
B. On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
C. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm/
) type in the five-digit Docket number shown at
the beginning of this Notice (20132). Click on ``Search.''
D. On the next page, which contains Docket summary information for
the Docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also
download the comments.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Dated: January 18, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-1130 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P