New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)

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