Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program, 40016-40050 [E8-15620]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 134 (Friday, July 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40016-40050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15620]



[[Page 40015]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / 
Notices

[[Page 40016]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555]


Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program

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

ACTION: Final decision notice.

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

SUMMARY: On January 25, 2007, NHTSA published a notice announcing a 
public hearing and requesting comments on an agency report titled, 
``The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Suggested Approaches for Future 
Program Enhancements.'' This notice summarizes the comments received 
and provides the agency's decision on how it will improve the NCAP 
ratings program.
    For model year (MY) 2010, the agency will make changes to its 
existing front and side crash rating programs. For the frontal crash 
test program, NHTSA will maintain the 35 mph (56 kmph) full frontal 
barrier test protocol but will update the test dummies and associated 
injury criteria used to assess and assign a vehicle's frontal impact 
star rating. For side impact, NHTSA will maintain the current moving 
deformable barrier test at 38.5 mph (63 kmph) but will update that test 
to include new side impact test dummies and new injury criteria that 
are used to assign a vehicle's side impact star rating. Additionally, 
vehicles will also be assessed using a new pole test and a small female 
crash test dummy.
    For rollover, the agency will continue to rate vehicles for 
rollover propensity, but will wait to update its rollover risk model to 
allow for more real-world crash data of vehicles equipped with 
electronic stability control.
    Also for MY 2010, the agency will implement a new ratings program 
that will rate vehicles on the presence of select advanced technologies 
and establish a new overall Vehicle Safety Score that will combine the 
star ratings from the front, side, and rollover programs.
    Finally, for the agency's vehicle labeling program, we are 
announcing that the side score, rather than being based only on the 
moving deformable barrier test, will be based on the combination of the 
moving deformable barrier test and the pole test. Additionally, the 
agency will initiate rulemaking to include the new overall 
crashworthiness rating on the Monroney label.

DATES: These changes to the New Car Assessment Program are effective 
for the 2010 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues concerning the 
enhancements to NCAP, contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse or Mr. John Hinch. 
Telephone: (202) 366-9700. Facsimile: (202) 493-2739. For legal issues, 
contact Dorothy Nakama, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 
366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these 
officials at: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Attention: NVS-010, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction
II. Summary of Request for Comments
    A. Frontal NCAP
    B. Side NCAP
    C. Rollover NCAP
    D. Rear Impact
    E. Crash Avoidance Technologies
    F. Presentation and Dissemination of NCAP information
    G. Manufacturer Self-Certification
III. Summary of Comments
    A. Frontal NCAP
    1. Impact Protocol
    2. Test Dummies (in the Front Seating Position)
    3. Injury Criteria
    4. Test Speed
    B. Side NCAP
    1. Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and Implementation Time)
    2. Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, Test Dummies, and Injury 
Criteria)
    C. Rollover NCAP
    1. Rollover Risk Model
    2. Dynamic Rollover Structural Test
    D. Rear Impact
    1. Basic Information
    2. Links to the IIHS
    3. Dynamic Test
    E. Crash Avoidance Technologies
    1. Program Implementation
    2. Selected Technologies
    3. Rating System
    F. Presentation of NCAP Information
    Combined Crashworthiness Rating
    G. Manufacturer Self-Certification (of NCAP Results)
    H. Other Suggestions
IV. Discussion and Agency Decision
    A. Frontal NCAP
    B. Side NCAP
    C. Rollover NCAP
    D. Rear Impact
    E. Crash Avoidance Technologies
    F. Presentation and Dissemination of Safety Information
    G. Manufacturer Self-Certification
    H. Other Recommendations
    I. Monroney Label
V. Conclusion
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D

I. Introduction

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is 
responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and economic losses 
resulting from motor vehicle crashes. One way in which NHTSA 
accomplishes this mission is by providing consumer information to the 
public. NHTSA established the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in 1978 
in response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act of 1972. Through NCAP, NHTSA currently conducts tests and 
provides frontal and side crash, and rollover ratings and communicates 
the results using a five-star rating system. With this information, 
consumers can make better-informed decisions about their purchases. In 
turn, manufacturers respond to the ratings by voluntarily improving the 
safety of their vehicles beyond the minimum Federal safety standards.
    For MY 1979, when the agency began rating vehicles for frontal 
impact safety, fewer than 30 percent of vehicles tested would have 
received the top ratings of 4 or 5 stars for the driver seating 
position.\1\ By comparison, for MY 2007, 98 percent of vehicles 
received 4 and 5 stars in the frontal NCAP rating for that same seating 
position. Equally impressive is that while it took almost 30 years to 
reach this level for frontal NCAP performance, the more recent NCAP 
programs, like side and rollover NCAP, have started reaching this level 
of safety performance at a pace that can be measured in years rather 
than decades. The agency believes that consumers continue to consider 
safety in their purchasing decisions and are demanding ever-increasing 
levels of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA began using stars in model year 1994. See 69 FR 61072, 
Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, recent advances in crash avoidance technology offer a 
new opportunity for NCAP to further enhance its ability to inform 
consumers about new systems and encourage them to purchase systems that 
NHTSA has found to be effective in improving safety.
    On January 25, 2007 NHTSA published a notice outlining proposed 
enhancements to the NCAP activities. In this notice, we requested 
comments on any additional actions that the agency could undertake so 
that the program could continue to provide consumers with relevant 
safety information.\2\ These enhancements included new test dummies and 
injury criteria for frontal NCAP, the addition of a new side pole test, 
new test dummies, and new injury

[[Page 40017]]

criteria for side NCAP, an overall summary rating, and a new program to 
promote advanced crash avoidance technologies. Additionally, the notice 
announced a March 7, 2007 public hearing to allow interested parties 
the opportunity to address the suggested approaches for enhancing the 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 72 FR 3473, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seventy-six (76) individual comments were received in response to 
the notice and the public hearing.\3\ Commenters offered mixed 
responses to the various proposals for enhancing NCAP; however, most 
commenters commended the agency's initiative to reexamine the program 
and supported the proposed approaches. This notice summarizes comments 
to the January 2007 notice, the March 2007 public hearing, and provides 
the agency's decision on how it will proceed with changes to NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This count does not include duplicative or multiple comments 
from the same source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of Request for Comments

    In its notice, the agency presented proposals to improve not only 
the program's current front, side and rollover activities, but also 
approaches to improve its information with regards to rear impact, and 
certain crash avoidance (or active safety) technologies such as 
Electronic Stability Control (ESC). NHTSA also outlined alternatives to 
enhance the presentation and dissemination of safety information to 
consumers, and solicited feedback for additional considerations that 
would allow NCAP to remain effective and relevant in improving vehicle 
safety.

A. Frontal NCAP

    NHTSA proposed three approaches to enhance the frontal NCAP. The 
first approach was to maintain the current 35 mph (56 kmph) test 
protocol with a 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy, but to account 
for injuries to the knee/thigh/hip (KTH) complex. This would be 
accomplished by including a new injury criterion into the formula used 
to calculate the frontal NCAP rating for the driver and front passenger 
seating positions. Second, while keeping the test protocol the same, 
the agency considered determining whether injury measures obtained 
below the knee using the Denton or Thor-Lx dummy legs are predictive of 
real-world injuries. Last, the agency considered evaluating vehicles 
based on a lower test speed.

B. Side NCAP

    To enhance its side impact safety ratings, the agency presented two 
approaches for consideration. NHTSA proposed continuing to rate 
vehicles using the moving deformable barrier test protocol but would 
also encourage manufacturers to provide better head and pelvis 
protection by including the side impact pole test and the new test 
dummies recently finalized in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 214 ``Side Impact Protection'' prior to the performance 
requirements being fully phased-in.\4\ Furthermore, the agency proposed 
research that would focus on the assessment of the injury mechanisms in 
a fully equipped side impact air bag fleet. The purpose of the research 
would be to evaluate how serious injuries occur in the new fleet and to 
develop test procedures to reflect these impact conditions. The outcome 
of this research could lead to a new barrier test protocol (which could 
include increased test speed and different barrier characteristics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 73 FR 32473, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0104. On June 9, 2008 the 
agency responded to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, 
changing the effective date of the pole test. Now, with certain 
exceptions, all vehicles have to meet the upgraded pole test by 
September 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Rollover NCAP

    To enhance its rollover program, the agency indicated that it would 
continue tracking the rollover rate and the single vehicle crash rate 
of vehicles equipped with ESC to create a new rollover risk model.

D. Rear Impact

    Currently, NHTSA does not provide consumer information on rear 
impacts. However, NHTSA is aware of recent research suggesting that 
consumers are concerned about rear crashes. As such, the agency 
proposed two approaches. First, NHTSA proposed that it could provide 
consumers with basic information on rear crashes such as safe driving 
behavior, proper adjustment of head restraints, real-world safety data 
by vehicle classes, and links to the Insurance Institute of Highway 
Safety (IIHS) rear impact test results. Second, as a longer term 
approach, the agency proposed that a dynamic test, which addresses 
those injuries not covered by the agency's current standards, could be 
investigated and incorporated into the ratings program.

E. Crash Avoidance Technologies

    Technologies such as ESC, forward collision warning (FCW), lane 
departure warning (LDW) and crash mitigation systems have been 
developed and are being offered in the current vehicle fleet. Some of 
these technologies have shown effectiveness in reducing the number of 
relevant crashes in Department of Transportation (DOT)-sponsored field 
operational tests.\5\ Research by the agency and others has shown that 
consumers are generally unaware of these technologies or their 
potential safety benefits. As a result, the agency believed that NCAP 
should be used to better highlight those beneficial technologies to 
consumers and sought to establish a new ratings program that evaluated 
vehicles on the presence of proven crash avoidance technologies. Based 
on technical maturity, fleet availability, and available effectiveness 
data, NHTSA identified three technologies that fit these criteria. 
These technologies are ESC, LDW, and FCW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 72 FR 3475, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA proposed two possible approaches and illustrated a possible 
implementation of the program with an A, B, C letter grade system. 
First, the agency proposed that each of the technologies would have 
equal weight. For example, if a vehicle had only one technology, it 
would receive a C; whereas, another vehicle that had all three 
technologies would receive an A. Approach two would attempt to quantify 
a technology's real-world benefits by taking into account the target 
population and anticipated effectiveness of the technology to decide 
whether a particular type of technology would be given more weighting 
than another and thus prompt a higher score. For example, in this 
scheme, if ESC was found to be more effective than lane departure, a 
vehicle equipped only with ESC could receive a B versus a vehicle 
equipped only with lane departure warning which would receive a C 
rating.
    It was further stated that this second approach could be expanded 
into a more comprehensive performance-based crash avoidance rating. As 
the technologies evolved and as the agency gathered more information 
related to various versions of these technologies and their associated 
safety effectiveness, NHTSA proposed that a safety score (i.e., star 
rating) on individual technologies could then be developed (e.g., 
different version of ESC might yield different performance results and 
thus a different star rating).

F. Presentation and Dissemination of NCAP Information

Combined Crashworthiness Rating
    Several NHTSA-sponsored research reports and consumer surveys, as 
well as a Government Accountability Office and a National Academy of 
Sciences review of NCAP, have all pointed to the public's desire for a 
summary safety rating. Similarly, other consumer information programs 
around the world

[[Page 40018]]

such as the IIHS, Japan NCAP, and EuroNCAP use summary ratings that 
combine their respective crashworthiness tests. The agency proposed two 
summary crashworthiness rating concepts. In both concepts, the existing 
rollover rating was not included in the calculation of the overall 
summary rating, and star rating boundaries would have to be developed 
for both individual crash tests and the overall summary rating.
    The first approach computed the overall crashworthiness rating by 
first averaging the driver and right front passenger dummy injury 
results from the frontal crash mode into a single star rating. The same 
would be done for the seating positions in the side crash mode to 
compute the overall side crash rating. To compute the overall 
crashworthiness rating, the overall frontal and the overall side impact 
performance would be combined by using weighting factors obtained from 
real-world data (i.e. the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)). 
Each individual total (overall front and overall side) would be 
weighted by that crash mode's contribution to the total injuries 
occurring in the real-world.
    The second approach computed the overall crashworthiness rating by 
normalizing the seating positions for each individual crash mode (front 
and side) using the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) 
established for that dummy, body region, and crash mode. Using the NASS 
data, these normalized values would then be multiplied by the 
occurrence of that injury in the real-world. Body injury regions that 
are coded by NASS but are not measured by the dummy and/or not selected 
by NHTSA for inclusion in the rating would be equally distributed among 
the remaining body regions.
Presentation of Safety Information
    As the consumer's use of the Internet for vehicle safety 
information has grown, so has the need to consolidate and better 
present NCAP vehicle safety information to consumers on https://
www.safercar.gov. The four approaches proposed by the agency were: (1) 
Developing other topical areas under the Equipment and Safety section 
of the Web site; (2) redesigning the Web site to improve organization; 
(3) improving search capabilities on the Web site; and, (4) combining 
agency recall and ratings database information.

G. Manufacturer Self-Certification

    In addition to NHTSA's proposed suggestions in the notice the 
agency also sought comment at the public hearing on whether or not 
manufacturers should be allowed to conduct and publish their own NCAP 
ratings via a self-certification process. We indicated that such an 
approach would be one way to improve not only the timeliness of NCAP 
ratings but also to increase the number of vehicles rated by the 
agency.

III. Summary of Comments

    This section provides a brief summary of the seventy-six (76) 
comments submitted to the docket by vehicle manufacturers, safety 
advocates, public health groups and the general public in response to 
the notice and the public hearing.\6\ It should be noted that comments 
unique to the public hearing are stated as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These submissions are available at https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Frontal NCAP

    Comments regarding NHTSA's frontal program are grouped into four 
categories: Impact Protocol, Test Dummies (in the Front Seating 
Position), Injury Criteria and Test Speed.
1. Impact Protocol
    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), Automotive 
Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 
(Toyota), BMW of North America (BMW), Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc. 
(Subaru) and Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) supported the retention 
of the current frontal crash test protocol at 35 mph (56 kmph). 
Consumers Union and Public Citizen suggested adding an offset frontal 
crash test rating, which Public Citizen believed would be far more 
useful in assessing the structural integrity of different vehicle 
models. Likewise, Toyota also encouraged NHTSA to investigate ways to 
include information on offset collision conditions in its NCAP program. 
Toyota explained that their investigation of National Automotive 
Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data showed that 
an overwhelming majority of frontal crashes occur in either the full 
overlap or offset condition. They believed that vehicle performance 
assessed in the offset condition should yield relevant improvements in 
safety technology and provide considerable benefit.
    IIHS and Subaru recommended the addition of a frontal pole test to 
address significant injuries resulting from impacts with narrow 
objects. IIHS asserted that offset tests more closely simulate impacts 
with narrow objects than do full-width tests, and that a narrow-object 
NCAP test could have an important impact on real-world vehicle 
crashworthiness, and would give consumers a wide range of results to 
inform their purchasing decisions. Subaru suggested that NHTSA should 
study and possibly propose a frontal pole test for inclusion into NCAP 
if the frequency of frontal crashes with narrow objects is high. 
However, General Motors North America (GM) asserted that a pole test is 
unlikely to result in significant change or further improvement in 
structural stability and resultant injury reduction. They stated that 
research in this area may yield only limited or incremental gains in 
injury mitigation, and that the public interest is likely to be better 
served by channeling resources into areas that could produce greater 
societal benefit.
2. Test Dummies (in the Front Seating Position)
    With regard to test dummies, the Alliance stated that test dummies 
in frontal NCAP should be the same as those in FMVSS No. 208. 
Additionally, GM, AORC, Consumers Union and the Alliance supported the 
use of the 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy in the right front 
passenger position. GM provided NASS data which suggested that small 
females were over-represented (with regard to serious injuries) in the 
right front passenger seating position. GM also suggested that in the 
future, the 5th percentile female dummy should be used in both seating 
positions to optimize safety. AORC asserted that the substitution of 
the 5th female for the 50th percentile male would demonstrate a broader 
population range of protection since some data has been shown which 
suggests that the weighted frequency of serious and fatal injuries to 
women is greater than to men in the right front passenger seating 
position.
    Furthermore, Consumers Union asserted that the agency should 
investigate using the 5th percentile female and 95th percentile male 
dummies to evaluate NCAP tests for all sizes of vehicle occupants. 
Subaru supported the continued use of 50th percentile adult male 
dummies in both front seating positions indicating that this was more 
representative of real-world occupants. Subaru also asserted that 
additional tests with other dummies, such as the 5th percentile adult 
female, should be done only if well supported by real-world data.
3. Injury Criteria
    Most vehicle manufacturers agreed that NHTSA should develop and 
incorporate a KTH injury criterion into

[[Page 40019]]

the NCAP frontal rating. They noted that a KTH assessment would drive 
vehicle countermeasures that could mitigate lower leg injuries and also 
yield important information relevant to vehicle design. Likewise, 
adding KTH and/or lower leg injury criteria to the NCAP rating protocol 
could expand the usefulness of the NCAP system by addressing the 
societal cost of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ injuries. The 
Alliance, Autoliv, Consumers Union and IIHS also supported NHTSA's 
efforts to incorporate a KTH injury criterion into the frontal program. 
However, IIHS urged the agency to concentrate its research tests on 
serious injuries and fatalities in frontal impacts to encourage more 
protective vehicle design. Additionally, Autoliv stated that although a 
reduction in KTH injuries would have a significant impact on societal 
cost, they believed that it would have little effect in reducing 
fatalities.
    Nissan North America (Nissan) stated that the agency should 
consider a KTH assessment only after further study is conducted. 
Instead, Nissan urged NHTSA to harmonize knee and thigh injury values 
with those required in Japanese and European regulations. Likewise, the 
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) did not 
believe that the agency should move expeditiously to include a KTH 
criterion in the current frontal NCAP program since the agency had 
identified crashes of lower test speed as the primary concern regarding 
leg injuries. They recommended that NHTSA present the analysis and 
results of their KTH research for public comment prior to including a 
KTH criterion in the frontal program.
    For lower leg assessments, several commenters suggested that 
additional research was needed to determine whether injury measures 
obtained below the knee were predictive of real-world injury. GM noted 
that adding a femur load injury criterion to frontal NCAP would drive 
many of the same vehicle countermeasures that would mitigate lower leg 
injuries.
    With regards to what anthropomorphic test device (ATD) could be 
used for these new criteria (KTH and lower leg), Honda specifically 
stated that a KTH assessment would be possible using the Denton dummy 
leg. For injuries to the lower leg (below the knee), Honda, Subaru, 
Nissan, and Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (Volvo), suggested that 
the agency adopt the Thor-Lx legs in the future. The Alliance did not 
support the introduction of either the Denton or Thor-Lx legs unless 
they were included in FMVSS No. 208. Furthermore, VW believed that 
these test devices must be validated, and the applicable injury 
criteria and rating must be verified for correlation with real-world 
safety.
    Some commenters suggested that all injury criteria incorporated in 
FMVSS No. 208 (beyond head injury criteria and chest acceleration 
criteria) should also be included in frontal NCAP. Specifically, Honda, 
Ford, GM, the Alliance, and Autoliv supported the inclusion of a chest 
deflection criterion into the frontal NCAP rating based on NASS-CDS 
data indicating a substantial number of injuries to ribs and internal 
organs resulting in AIS 3+ or higher severity injuries. However, Honda 
stated that the current chest deflection calibration procedure may not 
be appropriate to assure that chest deflection measurements are 
accurate enough to provide useful data. GM and the Alliance recommended 
including a chest compression criterion into frontal NCAP. The Alliance 
urged NHTSA to conduct research on neck (tension) injury criteria 
before including it into frontal NCAP. However, GM suggested that the 
agency add neck injury criteria to frontal NCAP since these criteria 
are already measured by the Hybrid III dummies and included in FMVSS 
No. 208.
4. Test Speed
    With regards to adopting a lower test speed, the Alliance, GM and 
Volvo agreed with NHTSA's analysis and supported the agency's proposal 
to conduct more research on lower test speeds. However, VW questioned 
whether lower speed crashes represented a greater risk of occupant 
injury than the current NCAP test procedure. Therefore, VW as well as 
the Alliance believed that an additional test in frontal NCAP would add 
significant expense and strain on available resources without any 
commensurate advantages or benefit.
    Subaru asserted that they did not support adding low speed bumper 
tests to frontal NCAP since those tests would overlap with existing 
IIHS tests.
    Two individual commenters, Mr. Dainius Dalmotas and Dr. Harold 
Mertz stated that a full vehicle crash test designed to promote 
enhanced chest protection in low-to-moderate speed frontal crashes 
would be most promising since the vast majority of serious and fatal 
injuries among belted drivers occur at collision speeds of 25 mph (40 
kmph) or less. They also asserted that incentives to promote improved 
safety in low-to-moderate speed frontal impacts were lacking and could 
be addressed through NCAP.
    At the public hearing, Consumers Federation of America (CFA) and 
the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) suggested that NHTSA increase test 
speeds and challenge manufacturers to post the highest speed at which 
their vehicles are tested, in order to differentiate amongst the 
performance of vehicles. However, the Alliance, Consumers Union, AIAM 
and Subaru opposed a higher speed test for frontal NCAP. The Alliance 
stated that field data did not show the need for higher test speeds. 
AIAM and Consumers Union did not believe that increasing crash test 
speeds would benefit the overall safety of occupants; but rather, it 
could cause vehicles to become stiffer. Subaru asserted that a higher 
speed test is not representative of the vast majority of fatal crashes, 
does not enhance NCAP's consumer information goals, and risks 
increasing vehicle aggressiveness.

B. Side NCAP

    Comments regarding NHTSA's side program are divided into the 
following categories: Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and 
Implementation Time), Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, Test 
Dummies, and Injury Criteria), and Side NCAP Research.
1. Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and Implementation Time)
    GM, Subaru, Toyota, the Alliance, and Autoliv agreed with the 
agency's proposal to incorporate an oblique pole test into NCAP. 
However, with regards to adopting the oblique pole test prior to the 
completion of the FMVSS No. 214 pole test phase-in, BMW, Ford, Toyota, 
and the Alliance, asserted that such action would be premature, and 
these commenters suggested that NHTSA adopt the test after the oblique 
pole test had been fully phased-in. Furthermore, Subaru suggested that 
3 years be allowed after the agency announced a new test before rating 
vehicles under the new test protocol.
    Toyota explained that they understood NHTSA's intention to use an 
early introduction of the pole test to drive the installation of 
advanced head protection systems (like curtain airbags), but they 
believed that significant benefits in head protection were already 
being realized from the introduction of curtain air bags, which was 
driven by industry's commitment to the industry voluntary compatibility 
requirements.\7\

[[Page 40020]]

Therefore, Toyota recommended additional investigation into whether 
there are merits of an early introduction of an oblique pole test into 
NCAP. Honda recommended adding to the existing side impact test by 
introducing a second side impact test that is similar to the current 
IIHS moving deformable barrier (MDB) test.\8\ Honda suggested that this 
would extend the coverage of NHTSA's side impact testing, be more 
representative of real-world crashes, and help to provide a more 
realistic assessment of a vehicle's crashworthiness in these types of 
two-vehicle collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ IIHS and the Alliance created a voluntary agreement wherein 
automotive manufacturers agreed to improve occupant protection in 
front and side crashes involving cars and light trucks. For front-
to-side impacts, most automakers agreed to design their vehicles to 
meet the head injury performance requirements of NHTSA's FMVSS No. 
201 side-pole test or the IIHS moving deformable barrier test. By 
September 1, 2007, at least half of all new passenger vehicles would 
meet one of the two requirements, and by September 1, 2009 model 
year, all new passenger vehicles would meet the head injury 
requirements of the Institute's moving deformable barrier test.
    \8\ This test would represent an SUV to subject vehicle crash 
(IIHS Side Impact Crash Evaluation test procedure--SICE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the agency went forward with an oblique pole test, Subaru 
recommended a side impact assessment based on two tests (the oblique 
pole test and IIHS's MDB test) with head injury criteria and the SID-
IIs dummy, as long as the results could be combined into a single 
rating. BMW and the Alliance suggested that the 5th percentile female 
SID-IIs dummy be used for the driver position in the oblique pole test. 
BMW asserted that the smaller SID-IIs dummy is most appropriate for 
determining the geometric coverage area required for a curtain airbag. 
The Alliance believed that it is appropriate to test only with the 5th 
percentile female dummy in the front seating position because this is a 
very severe test condition, and it would serve to meet the intent of 
NCAP while minimizing additional test burdens on NHTSA and the 
automotive industry.
    Honda, Nissan and VW did not support the inclusion of an oblique 
pole test into side NCAP. Honda believed that introducing an oblique 
pole test would be a temporary measure until the test was fully phased-
in as a requirement for FMVSS No. 214. To comply with the requirements 
of FMVSS No. 214, the head protection benefits of the oblique pole test 
would already have been realized in every vehicle, so there would be 
little practical benefit to consumers as a result of temporarily 
including such a test in NCAP. VW and Nissan, similar to Toyota, stated 
that automobile manufacturers were already committed to front-to-side 
impact protection, and that the addition of a side impact pole test 
would provide no added incentive for the manufacturers to implement 
additional side impact protection. Nissan also believed that 
incorporating the pole test into NCAP is unnecessary to encourage head 
protection in new vehicles.
    IIHS stated that the current NCAP barrier test did not fully 
address the mix of vehicles on the road and that the agency needed to 
improve the existing side impact barrier. IIHS suggested giving greater 
priority to adopting or modifying the IIHS side impact barrier rather 
than incorporating a new oblique pole test. However, GM asserted that 
the pole test is structurally more challenging than the IIHS MDB test, 
and that the IIHS MDB test and the pole test will not necessarily drive 
installation of the same air bag solutions.
2. Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, Test Dummies, and Injury 
Criteria)
    NHTSA proposed a new side NCAP barrier test protocol that would 
include new dummies and additional injury criteria. The Alliance 
supported the maintenance of the current barrier test but they 
suggested a revised, lower test speed of 33.5 mph (54 kmph).
    With regards to the incorporation of new dummies into the side MDB 
test, the Alliance, Subaru, Honda, Nissan, Volvo, and AIAM proposed the 
incorporation of WorldSID into NCAP. Specifically, Volvo and the 
Alliance suggested that the WorldSID dummy should be introduced in 
FMVSS No. 214 and NCAP simultaneously. Honda stated that the WorldSID 
dummy provides excellent biofidelity, and does not present problems 
with rib guide shape that the ES-2re dummy appears to have based on 
their evaluation. AORC believed that the current test dummy does not 
adequately address head injuries, and they encouraged NHTSA to use 
either EuroSID-2 and/or the SID-IIs side impact dummy.
    Volvo recommended that the dummies and injury criteria for the NCAP 
side barrier test procedures be the same as they are for FMVSS No. 214. 
Volvo supported the addition of head injury criteria in the NCAP 
evaluation for the side barrier; however, they would prefer that the 
NCAP criteria limits are set more stringent in order to encourage 
manufacturers to exceed the performance standards outlined in the legal 
requirement. BMW recommended that NHTSA use the ES-2re dummy for the 
driver position in the MDB test because the SID-IIs dummy is already 
included in the MDB test conducted by IIHS, and the biofidelity of the 
SID-IIs dummy in these types of impacts is well understood. GM also 
suggested the ES-2re dummy for the driver position since the most 
frequent occupant, and most frequently injured occupant type at the 
driver position is an adult male.
    Autoliv asserted that the ES-2re dummy should be used for the front 
seating position in both the oblique pole and MDB tests, as this dummy 
represents the largest percentage of front seat occupants. They also 
recommended the SID-IIs dummy for the rear seating position to provide 
information on protection for older children and small adults seated in 
the rear. GM also recommended the SID-IIs dummy for the rear seating 
position because more frail persons tend to sit in the rear, the SID-
IIs dummy is tuned for frail occupants, and placement in the rear will 
import safety improvements across the range of occupants.
3. Side NCAP Research
    As a longer term approach, the agency suggested research into the 
moving barrier test protocol to address injuries and fatalities that 
might occur in vehicles equipped with curtain and side impact air bags. 
The agency indicated this research could lead to a new barrier, an 
increased barrier test speed, and a reevaluation of the impact 
configuration.
    The Alliance, AIAM, Honda and Subaru agreed that NHTSA should 
analyze real-world side impact crashes for vehicles with side curtain 
airbags. However, the Alliance recommended that the agency and 
automotive industry should develop more experience with the new pole 
test and test dummies before considering any increase in test speeds. 
In addition, the Alliance asserted that future research should evaluate 
whether it would be beneficial for NCAP to harmonize with the existing 
IIHS barrier.
    Toyota supported additional research efforts to gain a better 
understanding of the potential for and the necessity of changes to the 
test device and configuration for vehicles equipped with side airbags. 
Furthermore, Toyota stated that questions remain relating to barrier 
characteristics, injury criteria and appropriate ATDs that should be 
researched from relevant field data.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In particular, Toyota recommended continued investigation 
into previously identified concerns with the performance of the SID-
IIs upper arm, which they believed was not biofidelic and affected 
the thoracic rib response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Autoliv recommended that NHTSA research increasing the test speed 
and develop a single test that would assess both the head and thorax 
injury protection systems installed in newer vehicles. Autoliv also 
suggested that the adoption of the WorldSID dummy would be suitable if 
incorporated into Part 572 and FMVSS No. 214.

[[Page 40021]]

Additionally, Delphi opposed releasing a new regulation under FMVSS No. 
214 and then promoting a different set of barrier protocols, dummy 
types and injury metrics for side NCAP evaluation since that decision 
could cause misdirection for original equipment manufacturers and 
suppliers.

C. Rollover NCAP

    Comments regarding NHTSA's rollover program are grouped into the 
following categories: Rollover Risk Model and Dynamic Rollover 
Structural Test.
1. Rollover Risk Model
    Most commenters supported the development of a new rollover risk 
model. Several commenters agreed that real-world crash data was 
necessary to develop an effective rollover risk model. Specifically, 
the Alliance, AIAM, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), 
and VW each commented that NHTSA should collect new crash data for 
rollover NCAP. In particular, the Alliance and Ford recommended that 
the agency collect crash data on both ESC and non-ESC equipped vehicles 
to develop a new rollover risk model that better describes rollover 
risk for all vehicles, but also accurately reflects the differences 
between ESC and non-ESC vehicles. Toyota believed that the update to 
rollover NCAP should reflect real-world benefits of ESC on rollover 
risk, and that the rollover rating should be combined (with advanced 
technologies) into an overall crash avoidance rating. AIAM suggested 
that NHTSA consider adjusting a vehicle's rollover risk rating to 
reflect the safety benefits of ESC or adopt some other means of 
communicating those benefits to consumers.
    Recognizing that since such a data collection and analysis cannot 
be completed in the near term, Ford, the Alliance and Volvo suggested 
that in the near term, an additional rollover NCAP star should be 
awarded to those vehicles equipped with an ESC system to recognize the 
benefits of ESC. Specifically, the Alliance recommended that NHTSA 
provide additional information in the form of a footnote on the 
agency's Web site and in the Safer Car brochure that explains the 
benefits of ESC and why these benefits warrant an additional star.
2. Dynamic Rollover Structural Test
    Some commenters encouraged NHTSA to develop a test for structural 
integrity to enhance rollover NCAP. Specifically, Consumers Union, 
Public Citizen and ARCCA Incorporated (ARCCA) urged the agency to 
consider a dynamic test to assess body structure, seat belt design 
(including pretension), side curtain airbags, roof strength, door locks 
and retention, and the retention of window glazing. In particular, 
Public Citizen believed that a rollover NCAP rating should be based on 
a vehicle's ability to resist rollover and to protect occupants in a 
rollover crash. They suggested a rating that included ejection as a 
consideration since this would provide valuable information about a 
vehicle's ability to prevent death or serious injury in a rollover 
crash. Additionally, the rating should measure rollover propensity, as 
well as crashworthiness measures of performance in a rollover crash.
    The Center for Injury Research (CIR) recommended that an NCAP 
rollover test be dynamic and somewhat more severe than a dynamic 
compliance standard. According to CIR, a dynamic test for use as both a 
safety compliance standard and as an NCAP test can and should be 
developed simultaneously with action on the roof crush standard. 
Moreover, CFA and CAS recommended adding a rollover test with 
comparative roof crush tests, while IIHS suggested that NHTSA should 
conduct additional research on roof crush. Bidez and Associates stated 
that a meaningful rollover crashworthiness test must include roof 
deformation, seat belt performance, door opening, and window breakage. 
They emphasized that protection should be assessed for front and rear 
passengers, adults and children, and that the Jordan Rollover System 
(JRS) holds great promise. Conversely, the Alliance, Ford and Nissan 
opposed the use of JRS in NCAP. The Alliance commented, and Ford and 
Nissan stated at the public meeting that there has been no JRS tests 
conducted with an instrumented dummy and therefore, the JRS test 
results cannot be related scientifically to the real-world risk of 
injury in a rollover crash.

D. Rear Impact

    Comments regarding NHTSA's rear impact NCAP activity are divided 
into the following categories: Basic Information, Links to the IIHS, 
and Dynamic Test.
1. Basic Information
    Commenters presented similar views on how NHTSA should provide 
consumers with basic information concerning rear impact crashes in an 
NCAP publication. GM, Toyota, Subaru and VW supported the inclusion of 
information on the proper adjustment and utilization of head restraint 
systems. Additionally, GM supported consumer education that included 
material such as safety tips and safe driving practices.
2. Links to the IIHS
    The IIHS endorsed the agency's proposal and offered their head 
restraint evaluation information for posting on the agency's Web site. 
Toyota believes that the IIHS results are only one way to assess rear 
impact performance, and thus the agency should be cautious and thorough 
when determining what rear impact evaluation should be part of a future 
NCAP evaluation. They also stated that ample consideration should be 
given to passive and active head restraint concepts in order to 
maintain benefits from all design types.
    The Alliance felt that NHTSA's proposal did not seem consistent 
with the principle of the Federal government independently generating 
all NCAP data. Rather, they advocated that the agency should 
investigate further the injury mechanism of whiplash and then choose 
which responses to evaluate based on biomechanics. Similarly, GM 
discouraged NHTSA from implementing this option. According to GM, links 
to the IIHS Web site might imply that NHTSA has given full endorsement 
of IIHS methodology and interpretations, and some consumers may even 
conclude that IIHS is a government agency.
3. Dynamic Test
    The Alliance believed that NHTSA should first evaluate potential 
effectiveness and safety benefits prior to incorporating a rear crash 
rating into NCAP. Consumers Union stated that rear impact whiplash 
injuries are debilitating to those involved and cause a large cost to 
society. Consumers Union recommended that NHTSA look at IIHS's work on 
rear impact testing to determine whether developing NCAP ratings for 
rear impact results would be cost effective. Public Citizen suggested 
that the agency develop a rear-impact crash NCAP rating, especially at 
speeds of 35 to 40 mph (56 to 64 kmph) to improve rear-impact occupant 
protection and seat back strength. Furthermore, ARCCA stated that rear 
impact testing for fuel integrity should be utilized, and that this 
type of testing would enable the agency to assess occupant kinematics 
and interactions in rear impacts.
    Nissan recommended that NHTSA harmonize with the global technical 
regulation (GTR) dynamic test

[[Page 40022]]

procedure.\10\ GM stated that the development of a dynamic test by 
NHTSA should be considered only after recent revisions to FMVSS No. 202 
are assessed. According to GM, if the regulatory changes are shown to 
be effective in mitigating injury, a rear impact NCAP could be better 
directed toward areas not fully addressed by the current regulation. 
Similarly, while Subaru did not support new requirements for FMVSS No. 
202a in the short term, they asserted that NHTSA needs to educate 
consumers on the proper use and adjustment of head restraints. However, 
Subaru believed that in the long term, NHTSA should focus on the study 
of whiplash-type injury mechanisms and applicable countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See https://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2007/wp29/WP29-143-
23r1e.doc. This is an agreement to begin work on Phase 2 of this 
GTR, which will analyze a revised dynamic test procedure 
incorporating the BioRID-II dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Crash Avoidance Technologies

    Comments regarding NCAP information on crash avoidance technologies 
are grouped into three categories: Program Implementation, Selected 
Technologies, and Rating System.
1. Program Implementation
    Most commenters encouraged NHTSA to implement a new component into 
NCAP to rate vehicles on the presence of crash avoidance technologies. 
They agreed that such a program would help educate consumers about 
these technologies and encourage manufacturers to include them in more 
vehicles. According to Ford, the first step would be to identify 
promising technologies with measurable real-world safety benefits. 
Next, those items must be assessed using developed performance based 
metrics, and finally, the assessments should be used to develop crash 
avoidance NCAP ratings that balance rating flexibility with stability.
    GM emphasized an overarching principle that crash avoidance NCAP 
should be biased toward including features that have a high likelihood 
of improving safety. GM suggested further that the agency consider a 
wording revision, perhaps to `Collision Avoidance and Post-Crash Safety 
(CAPS)' NCAP so that a technology such as Automatic Collision 
Notification could be considered and included.
    Honda encouraged NHTSA to consider a program that would define the 
various crash avoidance technologies. They stated that these 
definitions should be based on the effect each function of a particular 
system has from the driver's point of view, and include a clear 
explanation of the actions the system can take to enhance safety. 
Honda, along with Delphi, suggested the development of assessment-
weighting coefficients derived from a system's expected benefits and 
the frequency of the crash type (using appropriate U.S. databases) that 
the system is supposed to address.
    BMW suggested a program that would accomplish the agency's goals 
without over-promising consumers on expected performance and avoid 
crediting systems prematurely. They suggested a program that would 
differentiate technologies with real-world effectiveness from those 
whose effectiveness numbers were generated by some other means. They 
also suggested that NHTSA and manufacturers collaborate on ways to 
educate consumers on emerging technologies with promising capabilities 
and proven benefits.
    Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes) recommended that NHTSA work with the 
automotive industry before developing crash avoidance ratings. To 
develop future ratings they, along with Continental Automotive Systems, 
supported the idea of creating an advisory panel that represents the 
viewpoints of all manufacturers competing in the U.S. market.
    Nissan agreed with the agency's desire to implement this new 
program. They also stated that the agency should identify immediately 
its priority technologies through a press release, on the NCAP Web 
site, through the ``Buying a Safer Car'' brochure, and on each 
vehicle's NCAP summary Web page.
    IIHS and NADA were not convinced of the need for NCAP crash 
avoidance ratings at this time. IIHS suggested that NHTSA should not 
rate vehicle crash avoidance technologies, since the agency cannot 
currently identify which systems are most effective.
2. Selected Technologies
    Nissan and Delphi agreed with the three technologies selected by 
the agency. However, GM and Toyota believed that there were additional 
crash avoidance technologies that should be promoted because they would 
provide safety value to consumers. For brevity, we chose not to list 
them all in this document, but they included such things as daytime 
running lights, backover prevention technology, and advanced collision 
notification. GM further believed that there were data for some of 
these crash avoidance technologies and methods by which potential 
benefits could be assessed, and they could be included in the initial 
implementation of a crash avoidance NCAP. GM felt that limiting crash 
avoidance technologies to the three identified by the agency would 
unnecessarily limit the potential safety benefits to consumers.
3. Rating System
a. Cumulative Rating (NHTSA's Approach 1)
    There was little support for NHTSA's proposed Approach 1. In the 
short term, only Nissan supported a simple cumulative rating whereby 
each priority technology would be weighted the same. Both the Alliance 
and GM were opposed to this approach. GM believed that a cumulative 
rating would not discriminate among the three technologies, and they 
would prefer that NHTSA weight appropriately safety-enhancing features 
based on their relative benefits. The Alliance stated that the 
effectiveness of the selected technologies was not equal, and providing 
equal weighting would significantly mislead the consumer as to their 
relative safety benefits.
    Rather than a star rating or the use of a cumulative rating, BMW 
suggested a ``thumbs up'' rating system to assist consumers in quickly 
and intuitively distinguishing among technologies on the basis of 
maturity. BMW believed that this approach would deliver to consumers 
two levels of information: which technologies have the potential for 
success and which technologies have a history of success. Furthermore, 
BMW felt that this approach would reduce the need for NHTSA to 
research, analyze and document the actual benefits of a technology. 
Mercedes believed that NCAP should issue publications that would rank 
the merits of emerging technologies in a manner similar to that used in 
the IIHS status reports, and that NHTSA should communicate with the 
industry so that public safety messages could be coordinated with 
industry advertisements.
b. Effectiveness Rating (NHTSA's Approach 2)
    Nissan, in the long term, along with Toyota, Volvo, Public Citizen, 
AORC, the Alliance, AIAM and GM favored the agency's proposed Approach 
2 of establishing an effectiveness rating for crash avoidance 
technologies. Toyota, however, believed that it would be ideal to 
develop information related to each new technology's safety potential 
and to establish a ``Graduated Comprehensive Crash Avoidance Rating 
System'' concept. They also recommended

[[Page 40023]]

further study to expand the list of technologies beyond ESC, lane 
departure warning and forward collision warning to include systems such 
as rear pre-collision preparation/warning, emergency stop signal, blind 
zone alert, vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure 
communications.

F. Presentation of NCAP Information

    Comments regarding the presentation and dissemination of NCAP 
focused mainly on a combined crashworthiness rating. A few commenters 
offered suggestions on the dissemination of NCAP information. NADA 
suggested that NHTSA develop, maintain and make available a database of 
non-agency sources of credible vehicle safety information. The CAS and 
CFA suggested that the agency implement additional and more 
sophisticated systems that deliver safety information at the point of 
sale. They believed this information should be beyond the agency's new 
NCAP labeling program (no examples were given).
Combined Crashworthiness Rating
    Most responders to the NCAP notice expressed support for an overall 
crashworthiness rating that combined the results from all the crash 
modes (front and side) tested. However, IIHS cautioned that an all-
encompassing single rating may allow some poor performance qualities to 
be hidden under the umbrella rating. Therefore, they urged NHTSA to 
provide consumers with all of the scores in each crash mode to allow 
them to choose which vehicle to purchase. Additionally, Delphi, Public 
Citizen and Bidez and Associates noted that while a single overall 
crashworthiness rating would simplify information for consumers, it 
could also confuse consumers if not based on sound science.
    Toyota believed there is merit to combining ratings for 
crashworthiness evaluations to provide the consumer with a 
comprehensive summary of the crash performance of the vehicle in front 
and side impacts. They recommended weighting the injuries and 
assessment in each impact condition by the distribution of serious 
injuries (AIS3+) and fatalities. After determining the weighting 
factors for each injury, each impact configuration should receive 
similar ``Field Relevance Weighting'' based on frequency, severe injury 
risk, and occupancy. Because of the small number of fatalities in NASS, 
Toyota suggested exploring FARS augmented with the Multiple Cause of 
Death (MCOD) database.
    Honda supported a combined crashworthiness rating that covers a 
wide variety of real-world collisions. Honda recommended compatibility 
testing that assesses performance in crashes between two vehicles with 
different geometries and/or weights. Further, they recommended 
weighting coefficients for each region of the crash test dummy, 
representing specific types of injuries, based on real-world crash and 
injury data.
    The Alliance generally supported the concept of a combined 
crashworthiness rating. They believed that it is possible to combine 
the different body regions into a single star rating for both frontal 
and side. However, they noted that the frontal NCAP ratings are 
vehicle-weight dependent while the side NCAP ratings are generally 
weight independent. Thus, the Alliance asserted that a combined 
crashworthiness rating would be comparable only within vehicle weight 
class. Moreover, AIAM urged NHTSA to ensure that a single rating is 
meaningful in terms of real-world performance to drive safety 
improvements in all crash modes. They recommended that changes to the 
star system be considered only if based on appropriate research 
involving consumer surveys or focus groups, and not on intuitive 
judgments about what data presentation is most effective.
    Public Citizen supported a single rating if it were weighted with 
respect to saving lives and preventing injuries. They also suggested 
that NHTSA use a letter grade rating system instead of ``stars.'' 
Volkswagen believed that the agency should consider a single crash 
rating only until a crash avoidance NCAP rating grows in substance and 
scope. Delphi expressed that a combined crashworthiness rating would 
obscure safety benefits; rather, they supported a Euro NCAP style point 
system and recommended that key performance-based assessments be 
presented as the primary information and that feature-based indicators 
be presented as of secondary importance.

G. Manufacturer Self-Certification (of NCAP Results)

    With regards to manufacturers providing their own NCAP test 
results, GM and Toyota supported the implementation of a type-approval 
program wherein NHTSA would oversee NCAP testing conducted by the 
manufacturer. GM felt that NHTSA's attendance (or the presence of a 
NHTSA representative) would allow appropriate scrutiny of the testing 
and ensure consumer confidence in such a program. Additionally, they 
strongly discouraged implementation of any program that could 
compromise NHTSA-sanctioned vehicle ratings because of results obtained 
through spot-checking (presumably conducted by NHTSA). Bidez and 
Associates, Consumers Union and Public Citizen urged NHTSA to consider 
a manufacturer self-certifying process in which the industry would test 
and rate its own vehicles and undergo spot checking of their test 
results by NHTSA. According to these commenters, the benefit of such a 
program would be to disseminate NCAP test information on newly-
introduced vehicles more rapidly than under the current system.

H. Other Suggestions

    In addition to the approaches that NHTSA had proposed to further 
enhance its NCAP crashworthiness and crash avoidance activities, 
commenters submitted other recommendations to the agency. These 
comments on other possible approaches to improving NCAP are grouped 
into the following categories: Child Restraints and Rear Seat Testing, 
Lighting, and Pedestrians.
1. Child Restraints
    Public Citizen suggested that NHTSA incorporate a dynamic child 
restraint system (CRS) test into NCAP in all crash modes (including 
frontal, rollover, side and rear crashes). They recommended that a six-
year old Hybrid III dummy be restrained in a backless booster and a 5th 
percentile female Hybrid III dummy be placed in a 3-point belt in both 
rear-outboard seating positions. ARCCA recommended adding instrumented 
child dummies to the outboard-designated seating positions in the rear 
to investigate issues associated with accommodations and crash 
performance of rear-seated occupants resulting from cargo.
    Bidez & Associates asserted that the agency should build upon and 
leverage the experience of EuroNCAP in child protection to force design 
innovation in rear seat safety for six to twelve-year olds.\11\ They 
believed there was a need to enhance frontal impact protection of nine 
to twelve-year old children who are properly belted in the rear seat. 
Their research for restrained nine to twelve-year old children 
suggested that rear seat occupants had a risk of serious injury 78 
percent higher than that of front seat occupants. They estimated that 
the overall injury rate for all restrained nine to twelve-year olds in 
all crash types was 38 percent higher in the rear seat than in the 
front seat. As such,

[[Page 40024]]

Bidez & Associates recommended that NHTSA immediately warn consumers, 
retract its message to parents about placing children in the rear, and 
force the automobile industry to upgrade the safety of the rear 
occupant area of the existing and future vehicle fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The commenter did not provide specific detail as to what 
design innovations have occurred as a result of the EuroNCAP 
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subaru, GM and the Alliance opposed implementation of a CRS test 
into NCAP. GM asserted that there can be no meaningful dynamic NCAP 
test for CRS until there is a meaningful way to tie a CRS NCAP 
performance rating to real-world performance. They believed that it is 
inappropriate to invent a test and claim correlation to real-world 
safety performance improvements without sound data to back this claim. 
These commenters felt that using child safety seats in NCAP vehicle 
tests would confound the test results and would not lead to a 
meaningful vehicle or CRS rating. Additionally, the Alliance asserted 
that the real-world safety benefits of child restraints demonstrate the 
children are already very well-protected in the rear seat. As such, 
they believed that adding child dummies in child restraints to the rear 
seating position for front or side NCAP testing would not maximize 
advancements in child protection.
    Volvo suggested that if the agency wanted to develop a child 
restraint test, then the test should be performed on a sled, and they 
asserted that there should be improvements in FMVSS No. 213. According 
to Volvo, the restrictions for design and testing of the restraints, as 
set up in this standard, basically prohibit innovative concepts with 
improved performance for reducing misuse and improper installation and 
for improving safety performance in a crash. To improve child safety, 
Consumers Union recommended that NHTSA pursue research toward an NCAP 
rating on (rear) vehicle visibility since they believed that data from 
Kids and Cars and others suggest that children are most at risk from 
poor visibility and blind zones around the vehicle.
2. Rear Seat Testing
    Adding rear seat dummies into the frontal NCAP program was 
encouraged by some commenters. In particular, AORC and Bidez and 
Associates suggested the addition of the 5th percentile female or the 
10-year old dummy. However, AORC asserted that an analysis of field 
data would be needed to determine the most appropriate dummy and 
seating position, and that dummy development may be required in this 
area to better measure abdominal injuries that may be present among 
belted occupants in the rear seat.
    Individual commenter Mr. Todd Saczalski recommended rear seat 
testing with adult and child dummies and child restraints to assess the 
difficulty exiting the vehicle and to examine injuries due to seat back 
failure. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) stated that the 
agency should place an older belt-restrained dummy, such as the six or 
ten-year old Hybrid III child dummy, in the rear seat of the NCAP 
frontal test to better understand rear restraint systems for child 
occupants. Additionally, they encouraged the use of a belt-positioning 
booster seat with the six-year old Hybrid III dummy.
    Subaru did not support adding dummies to the rear seating position. 
Subaru stated that it might not be possible, with the current front 
seat positioning procedure, to properly position a 50th percentile male 
Hybrid III dummy in the rear seat of some vehicles; the result could be 
inconsistent performance evaluations across all vehicles.
3. Lighting
    Some public commenters expressed concerns about lighting and glare 
related to daytime running lights (DRLs). However, the glare comments 
were focused on the agency's rulemaking activity and not its consumer 
information activity. Therefore, daytime running lights are not 
discussed in this notice. GM stated that numerous field effectiveness 
studies conducted throughout the world show that DRLs could prevent 
some crashes. Citing an analysis of field data suggesting that under 
daytime conditions, daytime running lights can prevent 5 percent of 
opposite direction crashes and 12 percent of pedestrian and 
pedalcyclist crashes, GM encouraged NHTSA to expand the installation of 
DRLs and include this technology in its crash avoidance rating so that 
manufacturers will be encouraged to install them and provide additional 
collision avoidance benefit.
4. Pedestrians
    Consumers Union recommended that NHTSA study the work of auto 
safety researchers in other countries to determine whether a 
pedestrian-friendly NCAP rating would be effective in the United 
States. Consumers Union noted that Honda has taken a leadership role in 
designing a dummy for testing pedestrian safety and designing its 
vehicles with pedestrian s