[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61071-61078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18765]


Frontal New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)

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

ACTION: Notice, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The primary purpose of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) 
is to provide consumers with a measure of the relative safety of 
vehicles to aid them in their purchasing decisions. Since 1978, the 
testing procedures used for the frontal program have remained 
relatively unchanged. The frontal NCAP test procedure has been almost 
identical to the frontal barrier test procedure used in Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, except vehicles in frontal 
NCAP tests are tested at a speed 5 mph (8 km/h) faster than the belted 
test speed in FMVSS No. 208. The higher test speed allows us to observe 
differences in frontal crashworthiness performance more readily. 
However, recent amendments to FMVSS No. 208 will require vehicles 
manufactured after September 1, 2007, to meet the injury criteria of 
that standard at an increased test speed of 35 mph (56 km/h) for the 
belted 50th percentile male dummy, the same test speed as the current 
frontal NCAP test. Because the NCAP test would no longer be a higher 
test speed than the FMVSS test, the agency has been considering 
possible changes to NCAP. This document introduces and requests 
comments on some alternatives to the future of the frontal NCAP.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than December 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Web Site: <http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. 
Please note, if you are submitting petitions electronically as a PDF 
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an 
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency 
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
     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.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Comment heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to <http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
petitions received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the petition (or signing the petition, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78) or you may visit <http://dms.dot.gov>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues surrounding the 
information in this document, please contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse at 
(202) 366-1740. For legal issues surrounding this document, please 
contact Mr. Stephen Wood at (202) 366-4992. Both of these individuals 
may be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
    A. History of the Frontal New Car Assessment Program
    B. Motivation To Revisit the Frontal NCAP
II. Worldwide Frontal New Car Assessment Program Test Procedures
    A. European New Car Assessment Program
    B. Japanese New Car Assessment Program
    C. Australian New Car Assessment Program
    D. Korean New Car Assessment Program
    E. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
III. Discussion of Options
    A. Maintain Current Program
    B. Changes to the Test Procedure
    1. Increase Test Speed

[[Page 61072]]

    2. Testing With a Variety of Dummies
    3. Offset Frontal Test
    C. Changes to Rating System
    1. Change Star Rating Limits
    2. Add New Injury Metrics to Star Rating
IV. Public Comment
    Appendix A: NCAP Frontal Rating System

I. Background

A. History of the Frontal New Car Assessment Program

    In 1978, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
began the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to provide consumers with 
comparative crashworthiness information on new vehicles. Years of 
developmental work led to the creation of a frontal crash test 
procedure designed to do this. The agency published the first set of 
NCAP results based on this test for 1979 model year (MY) vehicles.
    Since the beginning of the program, the frontal NCAP test procedure 
has been almost identical to NHTSA's Compliance program, which follows 
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant 
crash protection. Like the FMVSS No. 208 test, vehicles subjected to an 
NCAP test are towed head-on into a fixed, rigid barrier. However, for 
frontal NCAP, the vehicles are tested at a speed of 35 mph (56 km/h). 
This is 5 mph (8 km/h) greater than the speed for the belted test under 
the FMVSS No. 208 standard.\1\ The NCAP crash test is conducted at 35 
mph (56 km/h) rather than the 30 mph (48 km/h) specified in FMVSS No. 
208 to allow differences in frontal crashworthiness performance to be 
more readily observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In accordance with a 1984 final rule that required automatic 
crash protection, the agency's compliance office has conducted 30 
mph crash tests according to FMVSS No. 208 on passenger cars 
beginning in MY 1987 and in 1992 on light trucks. Vehicles were 
required to comply with FMVSS No. 208 requirements with and without 
manual seat belts on the dummies. The vast majority of 30 mph crash 
tested conducted by the agency through the compliance office through 
MY 2003 were unbelted. Beginning in mid-MY 1997, manufacturers could 
elect to utilize an optional sled test to comply with the unbelted 
test requirements, but vehicles still needed to comply when tested 
in a 30 mph crash test with dummies belted. Other options were 
specified in the May 2000 final rule for advanced airbags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a frontal NCAP test, the vehicle carries two instrumented Hybrid 
III test dummies that represent 50th percentile adult males. The 
dummies are located in the driver and front passenger seats and are 
restrained by the vehicle's seat belts and air bags (if available in 
earlier years). During the crash, forces and accelerations are recorded 
and then used to indicate the likelihood of serious injury and, in 
turn, the relative crashworthiness of the vehicle in a severe frontal 
impact. Originally, this frontal NCAP data was presented to the public 
in the form of numerical scores for Head Injury Criterion (HIC), chest 
acceleration (measured in Gs), and femur forces.
    Beginning with the 1994 model year (MY), NHTSA adopted a simplified 
nonnumeric format, the ``star rating'', for presenting the test 
results. The star rating is based on the combined effect of injury to 
the head and chest. Injury risk curves were developed that related HIC 
and chest accelerations to injury probability (P). The combined 
probability of serious injury is then calculated from the equation:

P combined = Phead + Pchest - 
Phead * Pchest

A star rating from one to five (five being the highest) is then awarded 
based on this combined probability of serious injury:

[star11] = 5 stars = 10% or less chance of serious injury to the head 
or chest
[star11] = 4 stars = 11 to 20% chance of serious injury to the head or 
chest
[star11] = 3 stars = 21 to 35% chance of serious injury to the head or 
chest
[star11] = 2 stars = 36 to 45% chance of serious injury to the head or 
chest
[star11] = 1 star = 46% or greater chance of serious injury to the head 
or chest

A graphical representation of this system may be found in Appendix A. 
Even though they are currently not included in the calculations of the 
star rating, readings from the neck, femur, lower legs, and pelvis are 
also measured. In addition, anomalous test occurrences have been noted 
for the past several years, and beginning with MY 2001, NHTSA has 
provided further explanation on safety concerns not reflected in the 
star rating.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the frontal test, NHTSA indicates on the Web site and in 
the Buying A Safer Car brochure anomalies such as femur loads in 
excess of FMVSS No. 208 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each model year, the agency is able to provide safety information 
in frontal crashes on approximately 80-85% of new model entries to the 
vehicle fleet. The agency widely distributes the results of its crash 
tests through media events, brochure circulation, and promotion of its 
Web site. Consumer interest in this type of information can be measured 
in a number of ways. The number of visitors to the NCAP section of 
NHTSA's Web site has grown from an average of 3,000 weekly in 1997 to 
an average of more than 43,000 weekly in 2004. The results of a 1997 
Customer Satisfaction Survey conducted by NHTSA suggest that safety 
does sell. In fact, 74% of the survey respondents considered safety a 
``very important'' factor in their purchase decision. Another 21% 
deemed safety as being ``somewhat important.'' Given this level of 
consumer interest in vehicle safety, it is no surprise that ads touting 
star ratings from NCAP's crash tests are used to market today's 
vehicles.
    Not only is the program popular with consumers, it has also 
resulted in measurable improvements in the passenger vehicle fleet. 
Manufacturers use NCAP results to evaluate and improve their vehicles. 
For example, in the 1979 MY, only one of the vehicles tested had a 5-
star rating for the driver (assuming the results had been presented in 
that way). In the 2003 MY, 65 of the vehicles tested received a 5-star 
rating for the driver. A similar trend has been seen for the right 
front seat passenger. The rise in NCAP ratings has been accompanied by 
a corresponding decrease in the fatality rate in motor vehicle 
crashes.\3\ While NCAP is not the sole stimulus for this improvement in 
safety, a 1995 General Accounting Office (GAO) study said `` * * * it 
seems reasonable to conclude that manufacturers'' successful efforts to 
improve their products' performance in NHTSA crash tests, particularly 
NCAP, have contributed to improved occupant protection in real-world 
crashes.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Hackney, James R. ``The Effects of FMVSS No. 208 and NCAP as 
Determined From Crash Test Results.'' Proceedings of the 13th 
International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. Paris, 
France. November 1991.
    \4\ GAO. ``Highway Safety: Reliability and Validity of DOT Crash 
Tests.'' GAO/PEMD-95-5. May 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Real world data shows that frontal crashes still account for the 
largest portion of crash fatalities for belted occupants in the United 
States. A recent analysis of 2002 FARS data for belted occupant 
fatalities showed that 40% of fatalities were attributed to frontal 
impacts, while 33% were a result of side impact, 22% from rollover, and 
5% were rear end crashes and unknowns. The same analysis also found 
that the major areas subject to injury (AIS 3 or greater) in frontal 
crashes were the head (22%) and chest (26%). In addition, the next 
largest percentage of injury (24%) was attributed to the victims' lower 
limbs and pelvis. This real world data suggests that there continues to 
be merit in providing consumer information about the relative frontal 
impact occupant protection provided by various vehicles.

B. Motivation To Revisit the Frontal NCAP

    As previously mentioned, the frontal NCAP test procedure is largely 
based on the FMVSS No. 208 crash test. However in 2000, FMVSS No. 208 
was upgraded

[[Page 61073]]

to include multiple sized dummies and replace the current fixed barrier 
belted test with a higher speed version (65 FR 30679, May 12, 2000).
    Beginning with vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2003, 
additional testing using the 5th percentile female dummy was introduced 
to the FMVSS No. 208 requirements. Also, beginning with vehicles 
manufactured on September 1, 2007, vehicles must meet the FMVSS No. 208 
requirements when tested with a belted 50th percentile male dummy at 35 
mph (56 km/h), (i.e. the same speed as the current NCAP test.)\5\ Each 
of these changes to FMVSS No. 208 will affect the utility of NCAP. 
Currently, the frontal NCAP test does not use any dummy other than the 
50th percentile male. In addition, since all vehicles will have to 
comply at this higher speed, differences between vehicles will likely 
be less apparent. These changes to FMVSS No. 208 have led the agency to 
consider revising the test procedures and/or the calculation of the 
star rating used in frontal NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This new requirement is phased-in over a number of years. 
The phase-in begins September 1, 2007 (2008 model year). All 
vehicles will be required to meet this requirement by the 2011 model 
year. In addition to this, NHTSA has proposed to require vehicles to 
meet the FMVSS No. 208 requirements using the 5th percentile dummy 
at 35 mph (56 km/h) (68 FR 46539; August 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Worldwide Frontal New Car Assessment Program Test Procedures

A. European New Car Assessment Program

    The European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) was established 
and began rating vehicles in 1997. Five European governments, the 
European Commission, and various motoring and consumer organizations 
throughout Europe currently back and provide funding for EuroNCAP.
    The frontal test performed by Euro NCAP uses a speed of 40 mph (64 
km/h), wherein a vehicle collides head-on with a fixed aluminum 
honeycomb barrier at a 40% overlap on the driver's side.\6\ A pair of 
instrumented 50th percentile Hybrid III dummies is used to collect data 
in the driver and front passenger seats.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Frontal Impact Testing Protocol. Version 4.0. January 2003. 
European New Car Assessment Program. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/downloads.php?area_ID=3.
    \7\ Although not part of the frontal crashworthiness ratings, 
two child dummies, a TNO/Ogle P\1/2\ infant (18-month-old) and a TNO 
P3 toddler (3-year-old), are placed in the rear seat in appropriate 
child restraints, to assign the vehicle a separate child protection 
star rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a vehicle is crashed, occupant response data is linked with a 
sliding scale to assign points to different body regions.\8\ The 
regions rated for the driver include the head, neck, chest, knee/femur/
pelvis, lower leg, and foot/ankle. The same regions are also rated for 
the passenger, with the exception of the foot/ankle. Additionally, each 
adult body region is also rated based on a combination of visual 
assessment and measurement techniques to determine if the final body 
region ratings should be adjusted. Once the final point values are 
assigned, each body region is given one of five corresponding degrees 
of protection: Good, Adequate, Marginal, Weak, and Poor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Assessment Protocol and Biomechanical Limits. Version 4.0. 
January 2003. European New Car Assessment Program. Accessed May 26, 
2004. <http://www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/downloads.php?area_ID=3>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the driver and passenger body regions are later 
combined with the side impact evaluation to give a final 
crashworthiness star rating for the vehicle. No star rating for the 
frontal crash is given. Additional safety features can also add points, 
called ``modifiers,'' to a vehicle's score used to establish the final 
star rating. A struck star (a star with a line through it) is used to 
indicate when a serious safety concern exists for a vehicle, which 
EuroNCAP considers to be cases when the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis 
of an occupant's body receives a score of zero. Currently, Euro NCAP 
does not note other safety concerns such as fuel leakages and door 
openings.

B. Japanese New Car Assessment Program

    The Japanese New Car Assessment Program (Japan NCAP) testing is 
conducted by the National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim's Aid 
(NASVA) in conjunction with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and 
Transport.\9\ Japan NCAP began testing and rating vehicles using a 
full-frontal test in 1995, and added an offset frontal test in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``New Car Assessment Japan.'' National Agency for Automotive 
Safety and Victims' Aid. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://www.nasva.go.jp/assess/html2004e/as101.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The full-frontal and offset frontal tests are used, along with a 
side impact test, to establish an overall rating.\10\ In the full-
frontal test, a vehicle moving at a speed of 34 mph (55 km/h) collides 
head-on into a rigid barrier. Hybrid III 50th percentile dummies occupy 
the driver and passenger front seats. Identically to EuroNCAP, the 
Japanese offset frontal test forces the vehicle to collide head-on with 
a fixed aluminum honeycomb barrier at a 40% overlap, striking the 
driver's side at 40 mph (64 km/h). Again, two Hybrid III 50th 
percentile dummies are placed in the driver and front passenger seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Testing Methods.'' National Agency for Automotive Safety 
and Victims' Aid. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://www.nasva.go.jp/assess/html2003e/as103.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the frontal collision tests, Japan NCAP assigns points to injury 
readings recorded from each dummy's head, neck, chest, and legs. The 
vehicle is checked for certain types of damage and deformation that may 
detract from the frontal scores received. After the final number of 
points is assigned, the scores from each region are weighted and 
tallied to arrive at the total score for each vehicle occupant. Each 
vehicle is assigned a ``level'' from one to five (five being the 
highest) for the occupant in each configuration.
    For the driver, the scores from both frontal tests are combined 
with the scores from the side collision test to obtain an overall 
score. For the front passenger, only the scores from the full-frontal 
test are used. The passenger results are combined with the driver's 
side impact score to determine an overall score for the passenger. 
Based on these overall scores, a sliding point scale is used to rate 
each occupant of the vehicle from one to six stars. Safety concerns 
such as doors opening and fuel leaks are also noted.

C. Australian New Car Assessment Program

    The Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) is a program 
supported by the New Zealand and Australian governments as well as a 
host of automobile clubs and traffic authorities in both of those 
countries.\11\ In 1999, the program adopted the test procedures and 
rating system of EuroNCAP, making the two programs nearly identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``How ANCAP Tests are Conducted.'' Australian Automobile 
Association. Accessed May 26, 2004. < http://www.aaa.asn.au/ancap.htm>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One major aspect of ANCAP that differs from the EuroNCAP program is 
the way that safety concerns are reported. Instead of a struck star, 
ANCAP adds a warning note to the overall score indicating if a score of 
zero was recorded for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis. Another 
difference is that ANCAP does not rate vehicles for child protection.

D. Korean New Car Assessment Program

    In 1999, the Korean Automotive Testing and Research Institute 
(KATRI) initiated crash testing as part of the

[[Page 61074]]

Korean New Car Assessment Program (Korea NCAP). Korean NCAP only 
performs a frontal crash rating at this time, and has chosen to adopt 
the testing procedure, risk curves, and star rating system used by the 
U.S. NCAP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Crash-Test Ratings.'' Korean Automobile Testing and 
Research Institute. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://www.kotsa.or.kr/english/sub/ncap02_1.htm>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is a nonprofit 
research and communications organization funded by the auto insurance 
industry in the United States.\13\ The IIHS performs a 40 mph (64km/h) 
overlap frontal test by crashing each subject vehicle into a deformable 
aluminum honeycomb barrier across 40% of its front end.\14\ A Hybrid 
III 50th percentile male dummy is placed in the driver's seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Vehicle Research Center.'' Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://www.highwaysafety.org/about.htm>.
    \14\ ``What is Frontal Offset Crash Testing?'' Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety. Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/offset.htm>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IIHS examines three areas of performance when assigning ratings 
to a vehicle: structure/safety cage, dummy injury measures, and 
restraints/dummy kinematics.\15\ The structural performance is 
evaluated by using a series of pre- and post-crash measurements to 
quantify the intrusion that has occurred. Dummy injury measures are 
determined from responses collected from the driver's head, neck, 
chest, legs, and feet. The evaluation of the restraints and dummy 
kinematics occurs through an examination of the high-speed film and 
various measurements. Ratings are assigned to each of these three areas 
by using a scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Poor. An overall 
rating is assigned using the same terms by averaging the ratings from 
each of these areas, with the restraints/dummy kinematics portion 
weighted less heavily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``How the Institute Evaluates Vehicles in the Frontal 
Offset Crash Test.'' Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 
Accessed May 26, 2004. <http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/def.htm>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Options

    NHTSA is considering several options regarding possible changes to 
the NCAP frontal crash test program. While listed individually, NHTSA 
recognizes that there may be merit in combining one or more of these 
options in the final form of the frontal program. NHTSA anticipates 
implementing any changes to the frontal test procedure beginning with 
the MY 2008 program in order to coincide with the initial phase-in for 
the 35 mph (56 km/h) belted requirement of FMVSS No. 208. In 
considering the options, NHTSA is striving to keep the basic philosophy 
of NCAP in mind--to provide consumers with meaningful comparative 
safety information for their purchase decisions and to provide a market 
incentive for manufacturers to build safer motor vehicles.
    For each of the options described herein, a number of the agency's 
observations surrounding each are also briefly discussed. NHTSA will be 
evaluating options on their potential to provide continued meaningful 
information to consumers. In addition, some of the factors the agency 
will also consider will include maintaining the largest market coverage 
possible and the potential to distinguish superior occupant protection 
systems in a frontal crash.

A. Maintain Current Program

    Since MY 1979, the basic test procedure used for frontal NCAP 
testing has remained unchanged. Furthermore, since 1994, NCAP has used 
the same star rating scheme to rate vehicles and provide test results 
to consumers. The agency believes that this constant method of 
conducting tests and rating vehicles has led to vast improvements in 
vehicle restraint design. In MY 2003, 88% of tested vehicles received a 
four-or five-star driver rating compared to only 30% of MY 1979 
vehicles that received these ratings.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The star rating percentage for 1979 is assigned as if the 
star rating had been in place at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The real world data indicates that the current frontal test 
represents around 20% of all fatal frontal crashes and 38% of MAIS 3+ 
injuries among belted occupants in airbag-equipped vehicles.\17\ In 
addition, NASS data from 1988-1998 suggests frontal crashes account for 
42% of non-rollover frontal crashes, assuring that this type of testing 
continues to be relevant.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Stucki, Sheldon L. ``Determination of Frontal Offset Test 
Conditions Based on Crash Data.'' Paper No. 98-S1-O-02. Enhanced 
Safety of Vehicles Conference 1998.
    \18\ Park, Brian T., et al. ``Comparison of Vehicle Structural 
Integrity and Occupant Injury Potential in Full-frontal and Offset-
frontal Crash Tests.'' SAE International Congress, March 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this option, NCAP test results could be used for compliance 
with FMVSS No. 208 and vice-versa, thereby maintaining or perhaps 
increasing the amount of consumer information provided by the agency. 
Compliance test results could be used to assign star ratings to 
additional vehicles tested by NCAP that the agency could have otherwise 
not tested. Also, keeping the program test procedure unchanged would 
eliminate the transition period to another test, and consequently, the 
results for newly tested vehicles would remain comparable to previous 
years. In addition, this test is already demanding on restraint 
systems, thereby continuing to spur market incentives for their 
improvement.
    However, under this choice, only a portion of three-star ratings 
and the current four- and five-star ratings would equate to a vehicle 
compliant with the FMVSS No. 208 requirements beginning in MY 2008. The 
current limits for HIC and chest acceleration in FMVSS No. 208 are 700 
(HIC 15) and 60 (g's), respectively. Although NCAP currently uses HIC 
36 as part of the star rating calculation as shown in Appendix A, 
scaling the risk curve to HIC 15 would produce basically the same 
result. That is, the compliance limit would still represent the current 
star band separating the three- and two-star bands.\19\ As a result, 
less discrimination among vehicles would exist and essentially a five-
tier rating system would be reduced down to three. Only vehicles that 
barely passed compliance would receive a three-star rating. In order to 
continue with a five-tier system, a new rating system would need to be 
developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Regardless of what options are adopted for the revisions to 
the frontal program, the agency expects to update the star rating 
system to use HIC 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changes to the Test Procedure

    As mentioned previously, the frontal NCAP test procedure involves 
towing a vehicle into a fixed rigid barrier at 35 mph (56 km/h). Two 
belted instrumented Hybrid III dummies are seated in the driver and 
front passenger seats; forces and accelerations measured during the 
test are recorded. Changes to the test speed, dummies used, and barrier 
type/configuration could result in additional information being 
provided to consumers. In addition, other crash modes and injuries 
could be addressed.
1. Increase Test Speed
    One option for revising the NCAP frontal test program would be to 
increase the test speed to 40 mph (64 km/h). This would mean that the 
frontal NCAP test would again be conducted 5mph (8 km/h) faster than 
the FMVSS No. 208 test.
    This option allows for a simple transition from the current test. 
No changes to the test procedure would have to be made except for the 
increase in vehicle speed. In addition, the frontal

[[Page 61075]]

NCAP test could serve as an indicative compliance test since the only 
difference would be test speed. On the other hand, very limited 
research has been conducted at this test speed. Vehicle designs that 
result from this speed of testing could have unintended adverse 
consequences, such as increased stiffness and more aggressive airbags. 
Additionally, using 1993-2002 NASS data for all front outboard seat 
occupants (regardless of belt use), change in velocities of 40 mph (64 
km/h) or greater accounted for approximately 0.4% of occupants in non-
rollover frontal crashes, a smaller number of real world crashes than 
is represented by the current NCAP speed. Crashes of this severity 
accounted for 9% of those who were seriously injured (fatalities plus 
those with MAIS 3-5) and 30% of fatalities.
2. Testing With a Variety of Dummies
    Instead of using only 50th percentile male dummies in the driver 
and front passenger seat during each frontal NCAP test, two possible 
alternatives are being considered. One option would be to have the 5th 
percentile adult female dummy occupy both front seating positions. 
NHTSA has recently proposed changes to FMVSS No. 208 to require testing 
with the 5th percentile female dummy at 35 mph (56 km/h), instead of 30 
mph (48 km/h), similar to the requirements for the 50th percentile male 
dummy. If this provision were not adopted as a final rule in FMVSS No. 
208, one alternative would be to change the NCAP procedure to test with 
the 5th female percentile dummy.
    Another option would be to vary the dummy used in the front seating 
positions as well as placing dummies in the rear seating positions. The 
50th percentile male dummy could be placed in the driver seating 
position and the 5th percentile female dummy could be placed in the 
passenger seating position or vice-versa. Additionally, rear seat 
occupants could include the twelve-month-old CRABI or the three-, six-, 
and ten-year-old Hybrid III child dummies restrained in appropriate 
child seats. The test would still be a 35 mph (56 km/h) frontal crash, 
but would instead evaluate how well the vehicle protects a range of 
occupant sizes. Currently, the agency is evaluating the merits of 
adding child dummies to the rear seat of frontal NCAP tests as part of 
the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800). The agency 
is considering the option of adding child dummies to the frontal 
program in response to TREAD, as well as here.
    If the two different adult dummies mentioned were used, testing 
could lead to improved protection for many sizes of occupants; 
manufacturers would have an incentive to improve safety for a greater 
range of occupant sizes. If child dummies were used, it could also lead 
to improved rear seat and child occupant protection. Furthermore, all 
dummy scores could be combined to develop an overall frontal rating.
3. Offset Frontal Test
    The offset frontal test is a crashworthiness test conducted by four 
of the six major consumer information programs around the world. In 
this test, a vehicle is crashed into a deformable honeycomb barrier 
across 40% of the vehicle's front end. Testing by other programs has 
most commonly been conducted at a speed of 40 mph (64 km/h). While the 
full-frontal test is very demanding on a vehicle's restraint system, 
the offset frontal test tends to evaluate the structure of the vehicle. 
On February 3, 2004, the agency published a notice (69 FR 5108) 
requesting comments on agency test results and the possibility of 
incorporating high speed offset frontal test requirements into FMVSS 
No. 208.
    Incorporation of an offset test requirement could be done either in 
conjunction with the FMVSS No. 208 35 mph (56 km/h) requirements, or as 
a replacement of the full frontal test. The agency is currently 
evaluating the merits of this high speed test procedure for 
incorporation into FMVSS No. 208. A new rating system would need to be 
developed if the offset frontal test is used.

C. Changes to Rating System

    One of the unique features of the frontal NCAP is that vehicles are 
assigned ratings based on occupant injury risk curves. These risk 
curves equate readings obtained from a test dummy to injuries a human 
could experience. In the frontal program, HIC and chest acceleration 
results are combined to predict a combined probability of serious 
injury to the head and chest. If no changes are made to the frontal 
test procedure, changes could be made to the rating system to adjust 
the probability limits or include additional injury criteria. In 
effect, a five-star rating could become more difficult to attain. Two 
alternatives to change the rating system are being considered.
1. Change Star Rating Limits
    Redefining each of the five star rating probability limits could 
mean using the same head and chest injury risk curves currently used 
for the rating, but adjusting the current five-star rating bands. For 
example, rather than using a 10% or less chance of serious injury to 
the head and chest to establish a five star performance, a 5% or less 
chance of serious injury to the head and chest could be used as a basis 
for five stars. The result would be that achieving a five-star rating 
would be more difficult.
    For this option, there would be no change to the test procedure. 
Additionally, occupant injury risk curves that have already been 
established could be used to calculate ratings from both the frontal 
NCAP tests and the upgraded frontal compliance tests. A basis for 
choosing the new probability limits would have to be devised.
2. Add New Injury Metrics to Star Rating
    Recent changes to FMVSS No. 208 have added injury criteria for neck 
loading (Nij) and chest deflection. Both of these injury metrics are 
currently measured in the NCAP test but are not used to compute the 
star rating. NCAP also records femur and tibia loads, but these 
readings are not incorporated into the star rating calculation. In 
biomechanical literature, there are risk curves for each one of the 
aforementioned injury metrics.\20\ These risk curves could be added to 
the current NCAP head and chest risk curves to develop an occupant 
rating that is more inclusive than the current frontal NCAP rating. 
This alternative is feasible in that there would be no change to the 
frontal NCAP test procedure, and occupant injury risk curves have 
already been established. However, a few complexities arise with this 
option. While several authors have developed methodologies to estimate 
the probability of death from multiple injuries, research would still 
be needed to update these methodologies, weight the additional injury 
types differently, or use a methodology similar to other consumer 
metric programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Kuppa, Shashi, et al. ``Lower Extremity Injuries and 
Associated Injury Criteria.'' 17th International Technical 
Conference on the enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Amsterdam, The 
Netherlands. June 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Public Comment

    The primary goal of NCAP is provide consumers with a measure of the 
relative safety potential of vehicles to aid them in purchasing 
decisions and provide a market incentive for manufacturers to increase 
the safety potential of their vehicles. NHTSA asks commenters to keep 
this goal in mind when responding to this Notice.
    Comments are sought on the options discussed herein and the 
agency's initial

[[Page 61076]]

assessments. To facilitate analysis of the comments, it is requested 
that responses be organized by these options. The options discussed in 
this document are not intended to be all-inclusive. Suggestions on 
other alternatives such as advanced dummies, injury criteria, and test 
procedures are also sought. NHTSA will consider all comments and 
suggestions in deciding what changes, if any, may be appropriate for 
the frontal NCAP. Given the timeframe, NHTSA would request that other 
suggestions include any available data and supporting rationale, and 
research needed to implement them (if not already in the Code of 
Federal Regulations) to assist the agency in evaluating their merit for 
a frontal crashworthiness consumer information program.
    In addition to comments on these options, NHTSA requests that 
commenters address the issue of timing the changes to the frontal NCAP 
program. Given that many of the updates to FMVSS No. 208 will be phased 
in over a number of years, NHTSA requests comments on whether frontal 
NCAP should make changes at the beginning of the FMVSS No. 208 phase-
in, the 2008 MY, or wait until the end of the phase-in, which is the 
2011 MY. Commenters should keep in mind that most of the options under 
consideration involve differences in test modes and/or assessment 
methods that will preclude comparison between vehicles tested under the 
current frontal NCAP program and vehicles tested under the revised 
program. Therefore, a phase-in of the new frontal NCAP program is not 
under current consideration. In particular, commenters should discuss 
any concerns with testing a vehicle under a revised NCAP program prior 
to its certification to the new FMVSS No. 208 requirements.

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 in your comments.
    Your comments must be no longer than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We establish this limit to encourage the preparation of comments in a 
concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents 
to your comments. There is no limit to the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning 
of this document under ADDRESSES.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your 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, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. This submission must include the 
information that you are claiming to be private; that is, confidential 
business information. In addition, you should submit two copies, from 
which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, 
to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When 
you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential 
business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in our confidential business information 
regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that are received by Docket 
Management 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. If 
Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in 
developing a proposal concerning these proposed frontal NCAP upgrades, 
we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future 
action.

How Can I Read Comments Submitted By Other People?

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
<http://dms.dot.gov.
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also review the comments on the Internet. To access the 
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``Search''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``Search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You can 
download the comments.
    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.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 61077]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14OC04.031



[[Page 61078]]


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: October 6, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-23078 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C