New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
September 26, 1994
[Federal Register: September 26, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 79-17; Notice 40]
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting; Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that a public meeting will be held on
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program and other vehicle safety consumer
information activities. The purpose of the meeting is to seek the
public's guidance on how best to provide vehicle safety information to
consumers and to ascertain the types of information consumers desire.
DATES: Public Meeting--A public meeting will be held on Wednesday,
November 9, 1994, beginning at 9 a.m., at the Public Meeting address
listed below.
Persons wishing to make oral presentations or serve on panels at
the Public Meeting on one or more topics of the attached agenda should
contact Vincent Quarles at the address or telephone number listed below
by October 19, 1994. Persons making oral presentations are requested,
but not required, to submit 25 written copies of the full text of their
presentation no later than the day before the meeting.
Written Comments: Written comments must be received on or before
November 16, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Public Meeting--The Public Meeting will be held in the
Federal Aviation Administration Auditorium, third floor, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Written Comments: All written comments must refer to the docket and
notice numbers set forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10
copies) to the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590. Submissions containing information for which confidential
treatment is requested should be submitted (three copies) to Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5219, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590, and seven additional copies
from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted
should be sent to the Docket Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vincent R. Quarles, Office of Market Incentives, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, room 5313, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-1708.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1972, Congress enacted the ``Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act'' which includes, among other
things, requirements for the development and dissemination of
comparative information on the crashworthiness of motor vehicles. In
1978, the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was created to partially
fulfill this requirement. NCAP test results evaluate the degree or
crash protection provided front seat occupants by the vehicle's
structure and the occupant protection devices provided for those
occupants. NCAP crash tests, through model year 1994, have evaluated
frontal crash protection only. In this test, vehicles are crashed into
a fixed barrier at 35 mph, which is equivalent to a head-on collision
between two identical vehicles each moving at 35 mph. Instrumented
dummies register forces and impacts during the crash. That information
is, in turn, used by NHTSA to predict potential head, chest and femur
injuries. Approximately 35-40 passenger vehicles are tested each year
in the NCAP and the test results are made available to the public
through the periodic issuance of news releases, through the agency's
Hotline, and through other means.
NCAP is NHTSA's most popular vehicle safety consumer information
activity, as witnessed by the volume of calls to the agency, media
attention to program results, and the use of NCAP data by numerous
consumer and insurance organizations.
In recent years, the travelling public has increased its concern
about motor vehicle safety. Increased safety belt usage, reduced levels
of alcohol-impaired driving, and attention to vehicle safety attributes
such as air bags and antilock brakes are evidence of this trend.
To take advantage of this heightened consumer awareness of safety,
and to address technical and other issues associated with NCAP, the
agency believes it is timely to convene a Public Meeting to discuss
future activities under NCAP as well as how NCAP and other safety
information activities conducted or required by NHTSA can best be
integrated.
Report to Congress
On December 8, 1993, in response to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, the agency submitted a report to Congress on
NCAP.
This report, which is in the docket, provides:
The results of an 18-month study to assess consumer and
media needs and preferences for better understanding and more effective
use of NCAP data. This included a summary of several consumer focus
group and media studies. These studies indicated that consumers and the
media desire comparative safety information on vehicles, a simplified
NCAP format to better understand and utilize the crash test results,
and expansion of NCAP to include other crash modes, such as side
crashes and rollovers. Plans for implementing the findings of these
studies are included in that report.
Studies of real-world crashes versus NCAP crash tests.
These studies tentatively conclude that NCAP test conditions
approximate real-world crash conditions covering a major segment of the
frontal crash safety problem. NHTSA also tentatively concludes that
there is a significant correlation between NCAP results and real-world
fatality risks for restrained drivers. In high speed frontal crashes,
fatality risks to restrained drivers of cars that perform well in NCAP
may be as much as 30 percent lower than fatality risks to restrained
drivers of cars that do not perform well in NCAP. A more detailed
report on this subject titled Correlation of NCAP Performance With
Fatality Risk in Actual Head-On Collisions has been published by the
agency, and is available in the NHTSA docket, and public comments were
separately sought on that report (see 59 FR 1586, January 11, 1994).
A study on the efficacy of allowing manufacturers to
choose between the Hybrid III and the Hybrid II crash test dummy. NCAP
data were utilized in this study along with an analysis of comments to
Federal Register notices on the mandatory use of the Hybrid III crash
test dummy in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, and in NCAP. From data analysis and the
review of the comments to the notices, NHTSA has concluded that
exclusive use of the Hybrid III in NCAP should begin with MY 1996
vehicles. This is two years earlier than the Hybrid III will be used
exclusively for FMVSS No. 208 compliance tests. Beginning with MY 1994
vehicles, the Hybrid III is being used exclusively for NCAP testing for
all seating positions in which the occupant is protected by an air bag.
The report also includes a review of NCAP historical performance
and the following future goals:
Reach a larger group of the population with simplified
data that will assist consumers in their vehicle purchases.
Expand the collection of safety information by utilizing
the additional injury-measuring capabilities of the more advanced
Hybrid III dummy.
Expand NCAP to provide comparative side impact information
to consumers along with the frontal NCAP information.
Monitor rollover safety activities to determine the
potential for providing consumers with comparative information on
levels of protection in the rollover crash mode and on vehicle roll
stability.
January 3, 1994 Request for Comments
NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register on January 3,
1994, (59 FR 104), to request comments on whether it should convene a
public meeting to review and discuss issues of NCAP. Comments were
solicited on:
(1) the desirability and need for such a public meeting and
(2) the topics for consideration if a meeting is conducted.
Suggested topics included all items that were discussed in the
Congressional report and others, such as--
(A) additional frontal crash modes and/or higher frontal test
speeds.
(B) additional injury measures.
(C) whether crashworthiness assessment programs should precede or
follow the rulemaking process.
(D) review of the simplified NCAP format.
Response to January 3, 1994 Request for Comments
Comments were received from three automobile manufacturers (Toyota,
Volkswagen (VW), and Volvo), two automobile manufacturer associations
(Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), and the
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)), the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and four consumer groups
(Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Center for Auto
Safety (CFAS), Institute for Injury Reduction, and Public Citizen).
All commenters supported the holding of a public meeting. Toyota
opposed the expansion of NCAP, urging the agency instead to provide
consumers information on specific vehicle safety features. VW stated
that NCAP expansion is premature while Volvo said that vehicle safety
is more complex than can be represented by single tests at a single
speed, etc. Conversely, Advocates, CFAS, and IIHS favor expansion of
NCAP to other crash modes and speeds.
The automobile industry generally felt that new NCAP activities,
such as different test speeds, injury criteria, or crash modes, should
be preceded by rulemaking notices to amend existing or add new safety
standards regulating the same aspect of performance. However, Advocates
argued that NCAP-type consumer information programs should precede
formal rulemaking.
Toyota and AAMA suggested that NCAP should consider using tests
harmonized with those being conducted in the international community.
In comments on the new ``star'' rating system, Toyota questioned
the validity of combining head and chest dummy injury readings into a
single measure. VW stated that it found the new rating system more
acceptable than the previous format. IIHS has reservations over the new
star system because it believes that consumers may not fully understand
that it can only be used to compare vehicles in the same weight class.
CFAS stated that the system could be improved and should also reflect
femur loads.
Several comments were provided on using additional or different
injury criteria. Toyota and VW stated that the biofidelity of
additional injury levels has not been established. IIHS said NHTSA
needs to reassess its current NCAP injury criteria, given the
widespread use of air bags. CFAS suggested using the additional injury-
predicting capability of the Hybrid III test dummy.
CFAS also suggested that NHTSA publish make/model Fatal Accident
Reporting System data and consider providing consumer information on
window stickers. They also suggested that NHTSA define the audience for
NCAP data.
VW urged NHTSA to address test repeatability and variability and
the potential increase in vehicle aggressiveness if test speeds are
raised.
Public Meeting
The agency has reviewed the public comments to its January 3, 1994,
notice and, in response to the commenters, has decided to conduct a
public meeting on the future of NCAP. However, NHTSA wishes to expand
the discussion to include other vehicle safety consumer information
activities. In particular, NHTSA points to CFAS' suggestion that the
agency provide point-of-sale safety information via vehicle stickers.
This is the same approach the agency itself proposed for NCAP frontal
crash information (see 46 FR 7025, January 22, 1981) and in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for rollover stability information published on
June 28, 1994 (59 FR 33254). The agency recognizes that window
stickers, or other types of pre- or actual point-of-sale informaiton
(such as consumer brochures) are the most effective means of reaching
prospective vehicle purchasers, but that significant issues, such as
the necessity of providing information on the limitations and use of
the data, remain. The agency also wishes to point out that it may not
need to continue to conduct NCAP activities, if point-of-sale
information is provided. NHTSA wishes to focus public attention on this
issue, which will be part of the discussion at the public meeting.
However, not wishing to pre-judge the issue, the agency wishes to
conduct the majority of the public meeting as if its NCAP activities
will continue.
The agency wishes the public meeting to have the maximum possible
level of participation. Thus, it will conduct the meeting using such
informal means as follow-up questions from attendees to formal
presenters, as well as having panel discussions of some issues.
To focus attention, NHTSA has prepared the attached agenda for the
meeting. Agency staff will make presentations regarding items I
(Introduction) and II (Background of NCAP) to set the format of, and
stage for, the meeting. Agency staff will summarize the recent ``real
world'' evaluation of NCAP (Agenda item III--Relevance of NCAP Data).
NHTSA invites commenters to make presentations on the validity of that
report. NHTSA staff will respond and ask questions of those making
presentations.
Item IV, Reactions to NCAP information, will be in the form of a
panel discussion. Those wishing to serve on the panel are requested to
notify the agency. NHTSA will seek to insure balanced representation
from those desiring to serve on the panel.
Item V, Methods of Presenting NCAP Information, will use the
speaker format, while Item VI, Current Test Procedure Issues, will
again be in a panel format.
NHTSA desires that Item VII, the Future of Consumer Safety
Information Initiatives have the largest time for discussion of any
item on the agenda. Again, the agency believes a panel discussion would
be most appropriate for this item.
Written Comments
The agency invites written comments from all interested parties.
The agency notes that participation in the public meeting is not a
prerequisite for the submission of written comments. It is requested
but not required that 10 copies of each written comment be submitted.
No comment may exceed 15 pages in length. (40 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to a comment without regard to
the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage commenters
to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit specified information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation, 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and
after that date. Comments will be available for inspection in the
docket. NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes
available in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended
that interested persons continue to examine the docket for new
material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their written
comments in the Docket Section should enclose, in the envelope with
their comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receipt, the
docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Persons making oral presentations at the public meeting are
requested, but not required, to submit 25 written copies of the full
text of their presentation to Vincent Quarles no later than the day
before the meeting. Presentations should be limited to 15 minutes. If
time permits, persons who have not requested time, but would like to
make a statement, will be afforded an opportunity to do so. Copies of
all written statements will be placed in the docket for this notice. A
verbatim transcript of the public meeting will be prepared and also
placed in the NHTSA docket as soon as possible after the meeting. A
schedule of the persons making oral presentations at the meeting will
be available at the designated meeting area at the beginning of the
public meeting.
To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids to
participants as necessary, during the meeting. Thus, any person
desiring assistance of ``auxiliary aids'' (e.g., sign-language
interpreter, telecommunications, devices for deaf persons (TDDs)
readers, taped texts, braille materials, or large print materials and/
or a magnifying device) should contract Vincent Quarles at (202) 366-
1708 by October 26, 1994.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Issued on September 21, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
Agenda
I. Introduction
A NHTSA representative will introduce the meeting and discuss its
purpose. This will include a review of the Federal Register notice on
January 3, 1994, and a brief summary of the comments received. The
format of the meeting will be outlined. Proposed panel discussions and
presentations involving both NHTSA and public participants will be
announced.
II. Background of NCAP
An agency speaker will briefly discuss the background of NCAP
including the statutory mandate, early efforts, a brief history of
NCAP, the current program criteria, procedures and protocol and
Congressional interest.
III. Relevance of NCAP Data
The agency will make presentations and discuss its recent report
showing the correlation between real-world crashes and NCAP results.
The agency will also discuss comments on that report.
IV. Reactions to NCAP Information
This subject will be addressed by a panel of representatives of
manufacturers, media, insurers and automobile safety and consumer
groups. The discussion of this and all other participant panels will be
moderated by an agency representative.
V. Methods of presenting and format of NCAP Information
An agency speaker will present an historical overview of the
methods used to present previous NCAP data and discuss the current star
rating system. In addition, the agency will discuss the possibility of
combining data from various crash modes into a single injury indicator.
Outside speakers are invited to present their views, reactions and
suggested revisions to the present format.
VI. Current Test Procedure Issues
This subject will be addressed by a panel of representatives of
manufacturers, media, insurers and automobile safety and consumer
groups. Topics will include issues such as repeatability, international
harmonization and aggressivity.
VII. Future of Consumer Safety Information Initiatives
The agency will moderate a discussion of possible future changes in
NCAP and its other consumer safety information initiatives. Proposed
topics include; evaluating the need to change NCAP, consideration of
higher test speeds, side impacts, offset crashes, different size
dummies and/or developing new injury criteria. The agency will also
entertain discussion of the feasibility of mandating the provision, by
manufacturers, of comprehensive safety information on new models. The
objective of providing such information would be to inform consumers
(via one label or through other means) of important vehicle safety
attributes such as protection in frontal impacts, side impacts and
rollovers. It should also be noted that in 1981 the agency proposed
establishment of an NCAP performance rating program to be developed by
manufacturers via a window sticker.
[FR Doc. 94-23722 Filed 9-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M