New Car Assessment Program; Consideration of a Public Meeting

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. 79-17; Notice 39]

New Car Assessment Program; Consideration of a Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice requests comments on NHTSA's consideration of a

public meeting to review and discuss issues concerning, and options

for, the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and on the agenda for the

meeting. In 1972, Congress enacted the ``Motor Vehicle Information and

Cost Savings Act'' which includes requirements for the development and

dissemination of comparative information on the crashworthiness of

motor vehicles. In 1978, NCAP with the primary purpose of partially

fulfilling this requirement. In NCAP frontal crash tests of

approximately 35 passenger vehicles are conducted each year and the

test results are made available to the public. To be responsive to

Congress and to further benefit the public, NHTSA is considering

convening a public meeting on the program to review the present NCAP

and to invite information that could improve the program.

DATES: Written comments on this notice must be submitted no later than

March 4, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice 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 (3 copies) to Chief Counsel, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, room 5219, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590, and 7 copies from which the purportedly

confidential information has been deleted should be sent to the Docket

Section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Hackney, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-1740).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In December 1993, the agency submitted a

report to Congress on NCAP. This report can be found in this Docket and

is titled Response to the NCAP FY 1992 Congressional Requirements.

This report 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 the 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. The studies also conclude 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 will soon be published for public comment.

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 and

in NCAP. After considering data analysis and reviewing the comments to

the two 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 required by the recent amendment to FMVSS No. 208.

Beginning with MY 1994 vehicles, the Hybrid III is being used

exclusively 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 for NCAP.

Reach a larger group of the population with simplified

data that will assist consumers in their vehicles purchases.

Expand the collection of safety information by utilizing

the additional injury-measuring capabilities of the more advance 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.

In the report, the agency also referred to the possibility of

convening a public meeting on NCAP. A public meeting could provide an

open forum for consumer groups, media, foreign governments, national

and international safety organizations, universities, and motor vehicle

manufacturers to discuss the above NCAP goals and relevant new

suggestions. Comments could be solicited on any of the material in the

Congressional report and opportunities could be given for interested

parties to suggest alternative or additional NCAP goals and activities.

If it is determined that such a meeting is desirable, it could be

scheduled for the late spring of 1994.

Comments are therefore solicited on:

(1) The desirability and need for such a public meeting and

(2) The topics for consideration if a meeting is conducted. These

topics may include all items discussed above that are included in the

Congressional report and others such as:

Additional frontal crash modes and/or higher frontal test

speeds. Efforts in the U.S. and internationally are exploring the

applicability of various frontal crash tests in assessing occupant

protection. Offset and angled frontal tests into deformable and rigid

barriers are being conducted and assessed. What implications do these

additional crash modes and/or higher test speeds have for vehicle

crashworthiness assessment and for vehicle manufacturers?

Additional injury measures. As discussed in the

Congressional report, the Hybrid III crash test dummy provides the

capability to measure additional parameters including neck loads, chest

compression, lower leg loads, and, potentially, abdominal loads. How

would these measures be used to enhance consumer information? Should

such measures be used in consumer information prior to possible

introduction in regulations?

Whether crashworthiness assessment programs should precede

or follow the rulemaking process. For example, the present NCAP

preceded mandatory dynamic frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208

by eight years. (Note: The test procedures and test devices for 30 mph

testing had received prior rulemaking review.) However, in the case of

side impact, expansion of NCAP has awaited completed rulemaking action

prior to the possible initiation of a consumer information program. As

early as May 1984, NHTSA had established the feasibility for improving

occupant protection in side impacts (SAE Paper No. 840886, presented at

the Government/Industry Meeting in May 1984). What are the implications

to consumers and vehicle manufacturers if crashworthiness assessment

programs precede the rulemaking process?

Review of the simplified format. In December 1993, NHTSA

issued the first news release for the model year 1994 vehicles. A

simplified format that utilized a star classification system was

introduced in this release. A copy of the news release can be obtained

by contacting the NHTSA Office of Public and Consumer Affairs. This

classification system is based on a combined probability of life-

threatening head and chest injury to the driver and passenger in the

frontal NCAP test. Is this format effective in providing information to

consumers? Is there agreement on its scientific basis?

Any other relevant issues that the consumers, consumer

organizations, vehicle manufacturers, or other interested parties may

suggest.

Commenters who favor such a meeting should also indicate whether

they might be interested in providing a public statement at the meeting

and on what subjects. If it is decided to conduct a meeting, an

additional public notice will be provided.

Issued on December 27, 1993.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 93-32022 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M