NHTSA VEHICLE SAFETY RULEMAKING PRIORITIES and SUPPORTING RESEARCH:
Calendar Years 2003-2006

NHTSA VEHICLE SAFETY RULEMAKING PRIORITIES
and SUPPORTING RESEARCH:  2003-2006

Table of Contents

Introduction

Table 1:  Rulemaking and Potential Rulemaking Areas by Crash Modes and Special Issues

I. Prevent Crashes

II. Improve the Protection of Occupants

III. Address Incompatibility Between Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

IV. Make Large Trucks Safer

V. Protect Special Populations

VI. Appendix A:  Other Active Areas, 2003-2006

VII. Appendix B:  Vehicle Safety Information for Consumers

VIII.     Appendix C.  Regulatory Review Plan Description

NHTSA VEHICLE SAFETY RULEMAKING PRIORITIES
and SUPPORTING RESEARCH:  2003-2006

Introduction

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce traffic‑related health care and other economic costs. The agency develops, promotes, and implements effective educational, engineering, and enforcement programs directed toward ending preventable tragedies and reducing safety‑related economic costs associated with vehicle use and highway travel.  In 2002, an estimated 6 million crashes were reported to law enforcement agencies, with more than 42,000 people killed and 2.9 million people injured.  In addition to the terrible personal toll, these crashes make a huge economic impact on our society with an estimated annual cost of $230.6 billion, or an average of $820 for every person living in the United States. 

The NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking Priorities Plan contained herein outlines the agency’s vehicle safety rulemaking actions for the period 2003 to 2006 that offer the greatest potential for saving lives and preventing injury.   NHTSA has made major strides in improving motor vehicle safety, and an important way in which it carries out its mandate is to issue and enforce Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).  Through these rules, NHTSA strives to reduce the number of crashes and to minimize the consequences of those crashes that do occur.  NHTSA’s rulemaking activities - via the Office of Rulemaking with support from the offices of Applied Research, Enforcement, Advanced Research and Analysis, Planning, Evaluation and Budget, and Chief Counsel - identify safety problem areas, develop countermeasures, and collect and analyze information to develop new FMVSS and amendments to existing FMVSS.   As we continue into the new century, NHTSA will strive to improve the FMVSS to encourage the automotive industry to incorporate the rapidly accelerating pace of advances in vehicle and safety technology, while ensuring that the use of the new technologies enhances vehicle safety.

In addition to addressing the most significant vehicle safety problems, we have considered the realistic likelihood for successful action in setting our priorities, especially in the context of  numerous worthwhile options competing for limited budget dollars.  The rulemaking and supporting research priorities in this plan were defined through extensive discussions within the agency, taking into account the views we have heard over several recent years at public meetings, and comments submitted to the agency via rulemaking notices and Requests for Comment.  This includes 44 comments submitted in response to a Request for Comments on the draft plan published in July 2002.  The final version of the plan incorporates changes prompted by some of these comments.  The results produced by previous NHTSA rulemaking priority planning exercises also provided valuable input to this process.  These assessments prioritized potential rules and upgrades to existing rules according to the size and severity of the problems being addressed, and best educated estimates of the cost and likelihood of effective solutions and of potential benefits.

For the near term (2003-2004), NHTSA’s regulatory priorities will address enhanced side crash protection; improved head restraints and fuel system integrity; occupant ejection prevention in rollover crashes through improved door locks and other means; reducing glare from vehicle lights; advanced air bags and dummies; upgraded roof crush resistance, and improved protection for children in school bus crashes.  The agency also will implement a Congressional mandate (Anton’s Law) by requiring lap/shoulder safety belts in light vehicles’ center rear seating position, and will conduct testing and analysis to address rear end collision avoidance systems.  Longer term (2005-06) potential rulemaking actions include electronic stability control; roadway departure collision avoidance systems; reducing driver distractions; and additional actions to address issues resulting from incompatibility between passenger cars and light trucks.

It is important to note that any priority plan’s execution depends on factors beyond its control – external factors such as petitions, budgets, and legislation.  NHTSA’s rulemaking resources and priorities can be affected by mandates and petitions.  Also, plans must fit within budgets submitted by the President and enacted by Congress.  For example, funding for the research activities projected for the plan’s milestones beyond fiscal year 2003 are proposed but are not guaranteed and are subject to change.  In some cases, developments in rulemaking actions after the submittal of information for the Unified Agenda, published in the Federal Register in May 2003, resulted in revision of these milestone dates to 2004 rather than the late 2003 dates published in the Agenda.  

This is the first of NHTSA’s multi-year vehicle safety rulemaking priorities plans, and the agency intends to periodically update them.  The plans will serve as internal management tools as well as means to communicate to the public our highest priorities to meet the vehicle safety challenges of the new century.

Background and Plan Components

Driver behavior, such as driver error and impaired or aggressive driving and safety belt non-use, is at the root of most highway crashes and injuries, and NHTSA devotes considerable resources to address these problems.  NHTSA also works with other government entities, including its sister agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), notably the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), to join forces for efficiency and mutual benefit in improving highway safety.  Some of the initiatives in this plan involve significant coordination and communication with these agencies.  For example, efforts to reduce vehicle rollover and improve visibility are pursued by NHTSA and by FHWA, via its mission to improve the quality of the nation’s highway system and roads.  FMCSA, established in 2000 and formerly a part of the FHWA, works to prevent commercial motor vehicle-related fatalities and injuries.  FMCSA’s mission includes improving commercial motor vehicle technologies and increasing safety awareness, and many of NHTSA’s initiatives to improve large truck safety are coordinated with FMCSA.

The performance capabilities of motor vehicles play an important role in helping drivers to avoid collisions and in protecting occupants when vehicles crash.  Substantial amounts of new technologies that enhance safety are being incorporated into modern vehicles.  Some are in response to Federal requirements, such as air-bags/passive protection and uniform child safety seat installation.  Over the years, despite more vehicles and more drivers on the roads, safety advances such as these have helped to reduce the annual number of traffic related deaths.  For instance, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel dropped to 1.5 in 2001. This is significantly less than the 1966 rate of 5.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel and, for comparison sake, the 1990 rate of 2.1 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel.  Although there now are more than double the number of vehicles in the United States than there were in 1966, the number of annual traffic deaths has dropped from 50,894 in 1966 to 44,599 deaths in 1990, and to 42,116 in 2001.  Vehicle occupants comprised 86 percent of the 2001 fatality total, with the balance consisting primarily of pedestrians and pedalcyclists.

Agency priorities emanate from many sources, including: the size of the safety problem and likelihood of solutions, Executive initiatives, Congressional interest and mandates, petitions to the agency for rulemaking and other expressions of public interest, recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board and other groups, interest in harmonizing safety standards with those of other nations, and changes needed as a result of new vehicle technologies.

The Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, enacted on November 1, 2000, required NHTSA to complete 21 actions relating to vehicle safety and the agency has completed 19 of those actions to date.  NHTSA has completed Final Rules upgrading tire performance and labeling standards, requiring tire under-inflation warning systems, and strengthening child restraint labeling and performance requirements.  Under this plan, the agency will write a new rule providing the first set of consumer information dynamic rollover ratings.  TREAD-related regulatory activities are noted by a in this report.

The development or introduction of advanced technologies is another potential source for rulemaking action.  The Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI), part of DOT’s Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program and coordinated by the FHWA, has been investigating vehicle safety products and systems designed to enhance vehicles’ crash avoidance capabilities and effectiveness.  Some of the new technologies under development may be applied to existing standards, or they could be the basis for new standards.  Those rulemaking priorities in the following plan that may emanate from the ITS/IVI program are indicated by a .  The most promising of these involve efforts on driver distraction, vision enhancement, collision avoidance, truck electronic braking and drowsy driver sensing systems.  Funding for IVI research is not entirely within NHTSA’s control, and changes in reauthorization levels could eliminate funding for some IVI-related milestones in this plan.

NHTSA also is striving to improve traffic safety throughout the world through the harmonization of global vehicle safety standards.  The 1998 Global Agreement, with 22 contracting parties including the United States, entered into force on August 25, 2000.  In addition to this agreement, the United States has renewed a bilateral agreement with Canada and signed new bilateral agreements with Japan and the European Union to partner on vehicle safety research and rulemaking programs.  Harmonization can be a catalyst for national and international technology transfer and exchange programs.  With each new rulemaking, NHTSA determines how U.S. standards and those of the European Community, the countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Japan, and other countries can be harmonized to enhance, or at least not diminish, safety effectiveness in the United States.  Fully aware that its overriding mission is to increase safety, NHTSA will pursue harmonization of a standard only if the harmonized standard would not result in a diminished level of safety.  In some instances, certain aspects of a standard, such as a test procedure, may be harmonized, but other standard parameters may differ to account for varying environmental and fleet situations.  With successful harmonization, increased uniformity can ensure necessary safety protection for the public, while minimizing unnecessary economic burdens. 

In February 2003, NHTSA published the schedule of meetings of the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and its working parties of experts for calendar year 2003.  In that same notice, NHTSA listed the 1998 Global Agreement program of work – which vehicle safety regulations will be considered for establishment under that Agreement in the near future as well as those areas in which exchange of information will begin.  Among the subjects to be examined are:  installation of lighting and signaling devices; motorcycle brakes; controls and displays; door locks and door retention components, and head restraints.  Other activities involve tires, side-impact dummies and compatibility, and controls and displays.  In this rulemaking priority plan, rulemaking actions that have harmonization elements (not necessarily the entire standard, research project or other regulatory activity) are noted by a . 

Attention also is given to addressing enforceability issues in the FMVSS.  Rulemaking areas in this plan that will address enforceability elements are indicated by a . 

An additional source for rulemaking priorities is concern for special populations.  Cognizant of the nation’s changing demographics, the plan discusses actions that are especially significant to children, people with disabilities, and an aging population. 

Included in this document, in Appendix B, is a discussion of consumer information activities that NHTSA’s Office of Rulemaking plans to pursue in the next few years, including the important New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings programs.  Such market-based consumer programs help to create consumer demand for safer vehicles and incentives to manufacturers to incorporate additional safety features and performance into their vehicles.  They are an important complement to NHTSA’s mandatory federal standards, and provide a broader perspective on the range of vehicle safety improvements being pursued. 

We have included several potential rulemaking projects in this report.  These are projects that require additional research to determine whether rulemaking action is needed, but are priorities based on their potential for significantly sizeable death and injury prevention benefits.  Many of these are currently being investigated under the IVI program.  These projects are noted in italics in the document, with milestones indicating when NHTSA plans to decide whether and how to proceed.  Appendix A discusses several additional regulatory activities, particularly regulation-related research activities that may extend beyond the four-year horizon of this document.  Although important regulatory (and potential regulatory) goals, these projects do not rise to the same level of immediate high priority as the activities included in the main body of this report. 

It is important to keep in mind that this document discusses only a portion of all rulemaking actions and associated research the agency plans to undertake in the coming four-plus years.  To put this plan in perspective, as of May 2003 there were 143 active rulemakings.  Some of the other rulemakings the agency currently is working on that do not appear in this plan involve fog lamps, windshield wipers, carbon monoxide, accelerator controls, radiator caps, LEDs, power-operated windows, side marker lamps, automatic door locks, wheelchair ramps, buses manufactured in more than one stage, and van conversions.  Some standards are amended to keep up with technology changes or to achieve international harmonization of a standard.  Still other amendments are minor changes, perhaps in response to petitions. The absence of a particular regulatory activity from this document does not necessarily mean that the agency will not pursue it. 

NHTSA is committed to reviewing and upgrading those motor vehicle safety standards that, while having served to advance safety, have been overtaken by technological change.  The agency has instituted a new Regulatory Review Plan to systematically review the FMVSS on a regularly scheduled basis.  The majority of the FMVSS were put in place by the early 1970's.  Many of them have had significant upgrades since that time, although some have not.  The Regulatory Review Plan establishes an assessment tool that will be used to review each FMVSS at least once in every seven-year period, to determine the need to update and/or upgrade a standard.  Two of the most important components of the assessment are an analysis of the current status of the target safety problem and a technology assessment.  The technology assessment will determine if there have been changes that have significantly altered the vehicle systems affected by the standard, thereby requiring changes to the standard.  The results can be used to “modernize” standards so that they allow for innovations that could have beneficial effects on safety.  These would be addressed on a priority basis subject to limited available resources.  Another important function of regulatory reviews is to examine international standards that address the same safety problem as the FMVSS under review. Our review will analyze the foreign approach to the problem for ideas and approaches that would produce benefits in the U.S.  A description of Regulatory Review Plan assessments is included in Appendix C. 

Notes of explanation about the milestones and the milestone dates in this report are necessary.  Milestones listed as “Decision on how to proceed…” refer to internal NHTSA decisions whether or not to initiate formal rulemaking activity, i.e., publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and perhaps the recommended next steps the Agency plans to take.  Milestones listed as “Final Regulatory Action” refer to determinations, further along in the regulatory process after the publication of the NPRM, to proceed toward publication of a Final Rule or a rulemaking termination, either of which would be published in the Federal Register.  A milestone indicating “regulatory activity” does not necessarily imply the issuance or revision of a regulation, but may only involve research or other activity short of a rulemaking.  All milestone date references to years are calendar, not fiscal.  We have provided milestone due date ranges for research or testing that may stretch over an extended period.  A hyphen placed before a date indicates that the research program or other activity began prior to 2003.  Also, please note that the placement of the priorities in this plan are for organizational clarity but do not reflect any specific ordering in terms of importance or emphasis.

Table 1: Priority Rulemaking and Potential Rulemaking Areas
by Crash Modes and Special Issues

= Potential rulemaking

	Related FMVSS	CRASH MODE					SPECIAL ISSUES			RULEMAKING SOURCE N-NHTSA C-Congress P-Petition O-Public, Industry
		Frontal	Offset Frontal	Side	Rear-end	Rollover	Children	Older People	People with Disabilities
RULEMAKING AREAS
Prevent Crashes:
Crash Avoidance Data	All CA	X	X	X	X	X		X		N, O
Driver Distraction	101	X	X	X	X	X		X		N
Lamp Glare	108	X	X					X		O, P
Rear End Collision/Stopped Vehicle Signal Systems	101, 105, 108, 135, New				X			X	X	N
Roadway Departure Collision Avoidance System	101, New	X	X	X		X		X		N
Upgrade Tire Standards	109, 110, 119, 120, New (112,138)	X	X	X	X	X				C, N
Dynamic Stability Control for Light Vehicles	Rollover NCAP, New	X	X	X		X				C
Occupant Protection:
Advanced Dummies	202, 207, 208, 213, 214, Part 572	X	X	X	X	X	X	X		Emanates from requirements of other standards
Advanced Air Bags	208	X	X				X	X		C, N
Offset Frontal Protection	208		X					X		C
Upgrade Side Impact  Requirements	214			X		X	X	X		N
Reduce Occupant Ejections	205, 206, 212	X	X	X	X	X				N
Upgrade Roof Crush Resistance	216					X				P
Improve Rear Impact Occupant Protection	202, 207	X		X	X	X				N (202) P (207)
Improve Fuel System Integrity and Fire Risk	301				X					N
Aggressivity and Incompatibility	208, 214	X	X	X	X			X		N
Large Trucks:
Shorten Stopping Distances & Improve Braking	121	X	X	X	X					N, O
Reduce Tire Failures	119, 120, New	X	X		X	X				N
Drowsy Driver Sensing System	101	X	X	X	X	X		X		N
Special Populations:
Upgrade Child Restraints	213, 225	X	X	X	X	X	X			C
Improve School Bus Safety [incl. Pedestrian Protection]	217, 222	X	X	X	X	X	X			C
CONSUMER INFORMATION
Child Restraint Systems (including ease-of-use)	213, 225	X	X	X	X	X	X			C
Light Vehicle Rollover	New					X				C
Braking Performance	105, 135	X	X	X	X	X		X		N
Headlighting Performance	108	X	X	X	X	X		X		N
Frontal Impact Protection	208	X								N
Side Impact Protection	214			X						N

I.        Prevent Crashes

NHTSA’s crash avoidance vehicle safety standards mandate improvements in the crash-avoidance capabilities of vehicles to reduce the likelihood of collisions.  The improvements may enhance the interaction of the driver with the vehicle; deliver more effective warnings to drivers about impending crashes; improve the driver’s ability to avoid crashes and maintain control of the vehicle; or enhance driver vision through improvements in current systems or advanced technologies.  The agency focuses its crash avoidance rulemaking activities on reducing the number of collisions through improvements in direct and indirect visibility, tires, braking, directional and rollover stability, vehicle lighting, signaling, and marking. 

A substantial effort has been made over the past several years to lay the foundation for continuing research and the development of collision avoidance systems.  Under the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI), NHTSA is conducting research to develop systems that will use advanced sensors, computers and communications to reduce the likelihood of crashes.  Some of the new technologies that may allow upgraded or new requirements derive from ITS research.  The new National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) makes it possible to carry out research that has not previously been practicable.  In the next few years, NHTSA will continue research on the potential effectiveness of several collision avoidance products and systems.  However, there is a need to develop more reliable estimates of the problem size and potential benefits offered by  these and more conventional crash avoidance technologies.  This plan recognizes this need by placing Crash Avoidance Data near the top of the crash avoidance agenda.   

A.            Data for Crash Avoidance Countermeasures

The NHTSA crash avoidance rulemaking program initiates actions based on assessments of crash causation factors and the potential for vehicle-related solutions. Crash avoidance problems are identified through research, petitions, and other information received from the public.  In order to develop effectiveness and benefits data and to develop solutions, it is essential to estimate with some degree of certainty problem size and crash or injury savings as a result of changes in vehicle performance. 

While in-depth crash investigation has indicated that driver error is involved with the largest share of crashes, other factors, such as vehicle characteristics (e.g., handling, instrumentation, visibility) and the environment (e.g., weather, roadway conditions) are often associated with driver error in precipitating crashes.  For many years, NHTSA has used data from the Indiana University "Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents," May 1979 (DOT HS 805 099) for information on pre-crash causation factors and the number of crashes and injuries caused by specific vehicle factors, driver/vehicle interactions, and/or the environment.  However, since this study was published, there have been significant changes in vehicles, the on-road vehicle mix, and in-vehicle technologies.  In addition, driving behaviors and crash reporting levels have changed significantly.  Consequently, the collection of accurate, up-to-date crash avoidance data has become increasingly crucial.

While pre-crash data elements have been added to NHTSA's ongoing data collection systems,  these systems are still lacking in the crash avoidance area.  In some key areas, a lack of data on the size and characteristics of safety problems hampers the development of effective remedies. 

Building on the methodology developed for the FMCSA-sponsored Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), a new program is planned to collect crash causation data on all vehicles.  While this new system will borrow from the experience of the LTCCS, it will be designed to gather the most information possible on all crashes.  This work is aimed at uncovering the events that led up to the crash via on-scene investigation and interviews.  In recognition of the need for more information on crash causation factors, Congress provided resources in FY 2003 to begin developmental work on a new crash causation data base.  Future support hinges on Congressional action.  Other research on crash causation and vehicle factors includes naturalistic driving projects.  These projects involve in-vehicle cameras with volunteers driving vehicles with and without driver assistance systems.  

NHTSA also has developed a System for Assessing the Vehicles Motion Environment (SAVME), a roadside camera system to provide additional baseline non-crash driver performance data.  In addition, the availability of the NADS will allow the study of issues related to driver, vehicle and environment interactions under highly controlled and safe conditions.  Since this facility allows drivers to reach crash limit conditions, factors leading to crashes can be studied in great detail.  Information collected by crash data recorders, which are being introduced by some manufacturers, also may provide the agency with useful information for crash and crash causation analysis.

The Office of Rulemaking has begun compiling a data base containing cleansed death certificate information from states to analyze fatalities in certain off-road incidents (driveway incidents, trunk entrapment, e.g.) and other issues.  Other non-crash data collection includes a national survey by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics on adapted vehicle modifications and injuries associated with these modifications. 

Milestones:

Conduct Large Truck Crash Causation (LTCCS) study	-2003
Undertake development work for the new Light Vehicle Crash Causation database applying the LTCCS methodology	2003-2004
Analysis of pilot crash and critical incident data in an IVI-sponsored study of driver behavior to support development of crash avoidance countermeasures	2003-2004
Analysis of large scale crash and critical incident data in an IVI-sponsored study of driver behavior to support development of crash avoidance countermeasures	2005
Support the Rulemaking non-crash data base	2003-2006

B.       Prevent Crashes by Reducing Driver Distractions 

The number of in-vehicle technologies and their potential for distractions is expected to increase as more electronic devices appear in cars.  NHTSA estimates that driver distraction and inattention contribute to 20 to 30 percent of police reported crashes - about 1.5 million crashes a year.  Cell phones have become ubiquitous, and newer advanced technologies, such as heads-up and navigational displays have begun to appear in some vehicles.  Rulemaking may be necessary to limit the availability of certain functions of these technologies that have the potential to distract drivers while a vehicle is in motion.  In some cases, standardized design parameters may also be needed to reduce driver confusion and associated distraction.  Development of protocols for evaluating the demands of specific devices will help educate drivers about their distraction potential.  Driver distraction is an area of concern within the IVI program, and several research projects are underway and planned.  The research will attempt to define and measure the demands by devices and how their use can distract drivers.  Some of the research will be conducted using the National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS), test track experiments, and on-the-road testing, which will allow researchers to safely apply a wide range of driving conditions and situations during which drivers are carrying out both technology and non-technology based tasks.  In addition, the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) has formed an informal working group under the 1998 Agreement to begin the exchange of information on intelligent vehicle technologies and the positive and negative impacts they may pose on safety (i.e., driver distraction). 

Milestones:

UN/ECE/WP.29 Roundtable discussion on ITS	2004
IVI research voice-based interfaces, hands-free issues and effects on driver distraction	-2005
Pilot study of driver distraction & red light violations	-2005
Assess cognitive aspects of driver distraction from wireless phones with emphasis on hand held versus hands free	-2005
Research on Adaptive Interface Technology (SAVE-IT)	-2006
Rulemaking decision on whether standards should address distraction	2006

C.  Prevent Crashes by Improving Vehicle Visibility Factors

1.  Reduce Glare from Headlamps and Auxiliary Lamps

Thousands of public complaints target headlamp glare as being responsible for discomfort and disability glare.  The three primary sources are (1) high-mounted headlamps on light trucks, (2) headlamps with high intensity discharge (HID) bulbs, and (3) fog lamps and other auxiliary lamps on the front of vehicles. 

NHTSA published a Notice of Request for Comments on headlamp and auxiliary lamp glare in September 2001.  Beam intensity, aim, and electrical connections are all of concern in reducing this problem of discomfort and disability glare.  (For additional discussion on glare reduction see section V.C.) 

Many manufacturers are developing various types of adaptive forward lighting (AFL) systems that seek to improve drivers’ visibility at night by changing beam pattern and intensity in response to traffic, roadway, and ambient lighting.  Some of these systems may not provide sufficient limits on glare to other drivers.  NHTSA is participating in the WP.29 Lighting and Light Signaling (GRE) expert working group discussing HID and adaptive forward lighting system (AFS) related issues and their effects on disability glare.  This working group is examining the potential for a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on the installation of lighting and light signaling.

Milestones:

Assessment of real world effects of glare on driving behavior	2003-2004
Evaluation of visibility and glare from Adaptive Forward Lighting	2003-2004
NPRM on headlighting glare reduction related to auxiliary lamps	2004
NPRM on headlighting glare reduction related to headlamp mounting height	2004
Final rulemaking actions on glare reduction	2005

2.        Improvements in Rear View Mirrors

Many lane change crashes may be prevented by improved rear visibility through mirrors.  In addition, rear end collisions can occur when drivers take too long to assess rear view information, either by turning their head or taking too long to view mirror information.  In consideration of updating FMVSS 111, “Rearview mirrors,” NHTSA is assessing aspheric mirrors, which increase the field of view, for consideration to be allowed under the standard.  These mirrors are allowed in Europe.  However,  investigation of the impact on older drivers and other driver interactions with these mirrors is needed.  NHTSA published a Request for Comments on this potential standard update in February 2003.

Milestones:

Additional research on individual differences affecting usability and safety of aspheric rear view mirrors	2004
Decision on whether and how to proceed on FMVSS 111 amendment	2004

3. Vision Enhancement

The future of indirect vision equipment – aids to help drivers sense the presence of nearby vehicles, pedestrians or objects – includes everything from basic mirrors to advanced technology devices that use non-vision sensing systems (sonar, radar, e.g.) or real-time video cameras and screens.  They play useful roles when traveling forward, backward, and changing lanes – on roadways and off  (parking lots, garages, driveways, and commercial yards, e.g.).  Side view mirrors can be flat, convex or a combination, and although they can provide an excellent extension of a driver’s visibility, a disturbingly large percentage of light vehicle drivers do not use them because they do not like the way they reproduce images.  Both industry and the public have strong interest in expanded choices for mirror designs and performance.  The technology that emerges as the future choice for indirect vision will have to prove itself to be sufficiently user friendly and effective, and agency efforts with indirect vision will focus on human factors research and failsafe issues to find the best choice.  Agency efforts in electronically enhanced vision will emphasize a systems-approach. 

Milestones:

Conduct research regarding problem definition, safety issues, and potential solutions	2004-2006
Initiate rulemaking to implement these solutions	2004-2006

D.      Prevent Crashes by Warning Drivers of Impending Crash Situations

NHTSA and industry are working to develop system algorithms and performance requirements for vehicle electronic aids that can sense imminent crashes and warn drivers in time to take appropriate avoidance actions.  The agency has a long term research program on intelligent systems under the Department of Transportation Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. 

1. Rear End Collision Avoidance System/Stopped Vehicle Signal System

These systems for light vehicles would sense imminent crashes and warn drivers of slower moving or stopped vehicles ahead, thereby giving them time to take appropriate avoidance actions.  NHTSA hopes to make drivers more aware of and to improve their car-following behavior.  Driver diligence is a factor in the prevention of rear end collisions, and is affected by inattention, distraction, following too closely, and the use of cruise control systems.  In 2001, an impact to the rear was the initial point of impact in 20 percent of passenger car and 24 percent of light trucks involved in fatal crashes.  These crashes frequently cause relatively less serious whiplash injuries, but the huge number of injuries to light vehicle occupants – 673,000 – in addition to 1,619 fatalities – account for a huge cost to society.    From 50 to 70 percent of rear-end crashes are into vehicles stopped for more than one or two seconds.  NHTSA has developed and validated objective test procedures for these collision avoidance systems, and has worked with industry to evaluate and refine state-of-the-art systems.  

In addition to a warning system that warns oncoming drivers to avoid imminent crashes, other systems may actively control a vehicle to avoid a crash.  Radar headway detection systems can be used to provide low-level deceleration to maintain proper headway or to warn drivers of potential rear end collision situations.  New systems may incorporate automatic braking with adaptive cruise control and/or a warning of an impending crash.  Systems may use warnings, actual braking, or a combination of the two.  A successful remedy to the problem of vehicles crashing into the rear of slowed or stopped vehicles has the potential to prevent large numbers of crashes with significant reductions in deaths and injuries. The agency is considering a National Transportation Safety Board recommendation to initiate rulemaking on this topic. 

Milestones:

Research on human performance issues associated with adaptive cruise control and forward collision warning systems	-2004
Field operational test of rear-end crash warning system/adaptive cruise control underway with General Motors and related supporting research (funded by IVI)	-2004
Research on enhanced rear lighting and signaling systems	2003-2005
Decision on how to proceed / next steps	2006

2.  Roadway Departure Collision Avoidance Systems 

Single vehicle road departure crashes represent the most serious crash problem based upon national highway accident data analysis.  There were almost 900,000 crashes categorized as single vehicle off-roadway crashes in 2001; 11,711 of these were fatal crashes.  There are many different causes of these types of crashes, including weather/vision problems, driver impairment, and other improper driving behaviors. 

Single vehicle roadway departure systems and lane keeping systems alert inattentive drivers when they are drifting off the roadway or out of their lane.  Rulemaking may be needed to specify test protocols for assessing minimum safe levels of system performance and for specifying driver interface characteristics. 

Milestones:

NADS simulation of Lateral Road Departure Algorithm and Warning system	-2003
Field operational test of road departure crash warning system underway with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and related supporting research projects (funded by IVI)	-2004
Decision on how to proceed / next steps	2005

E.       Prevent Crashes by Improving Vehicle Control and Handling

1.     Reduce Light Vehicle Tire Failures     

Tire failure can cause loss-of-control of a vehicle that can result in a rollover or other crash.  Tire failure also can be a hazard to motorists changing the tire on the side of the road. The highly publicized Firestone/Ford SUV tire recalls were prompted by tire failures associated with rollover and other crashes.  More than 270 deaths and 800 injuries have occurred in these crashes.

Between July 1999 and March 2002, NHTSA was engaged in a program of global harmonization for light vehicle tire standards and was investigating tire bead unseating as a result of some cases of SUV tires coming off their rims in the agency’s 1998-99 and 2001 dynamic rollover test programs.  The fiscal year 2001-2002 tire research programs included testing to support the rulemaking called for in TREAD to revise and update the light vehicle tire standards.  The agency issued the NPRM in March 2002, and the Final Rule in June 2003.   NHTSA will continue research on tire strength for development and refinement of the test procedure, and it has initiated research on tire aging.  Under the Program of Work under the WP.29 1998 Agreement, NHTSA continues to exchange information with its international partners on tire performance issues, including a potential aging test. 

TREAD also mandated improvements in tire labeling to assist consumers in identifying tires that may be the subject of a recall.  NHTSA published an NPRM to upgrade tire labeling in December 2001 and a Final Rule in November 2002.  NHTSA also developed and launched a tire consumer information program to help ensure the public is aware of the importance of observing tire load limits and maintaining proper tire inflation levels.

One contributor to tire failure is tire under-inflation.  A NHTSA survey released in August 2001 found that more than one out of four passenger cars, and one out of three light trucks, are driven with one or more significantly under-inflated tires.  Per TREAD requirements, NHTSA published a rule in June 2002 requiring tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) for significantly under inflated tires. A second part of the TPMS Final Rule will be issued by March 1, 2005, and will establish performance requirements for the long-term, i.e., for the period beginning on November 1, 2006.  The docket remains open until 2005 for the submission of new data and analyses concerning the performance of TPMS. The agency also is conducting a study comparing the tire pressures of vehicles without any TPMS to the pressures of vehicles with TPMS, especially TPMS that do not comply with the four-tire, 25 percent compliance option.

Milestones:

Research for accelerated tire aging test procedure development	2003-2004
Research on tire aging	2003-2005
Decision on next steps for tire aging	2005

2.     Light Vehicle Braking

The growing number and fleet share of LTVs has raised concerns about stopping distance disparities between passenger cars and LTVs.   While the higher weight and mass of LTVs pose some challenges in the realm of stopping distance compared to passenger cars, braking technology advances could make a difference.

In addition, while the passenger vehicle brake regulations are substantially harmonized worldwide, additional work will need to be done to establish a GTR under the 1998 Agreement.  NHTSA will continue to work with the Contracting Parties under the 1998 Agreement in order to complete harmonization in this area.

3.     Vehicle Handling/Rollover Prevention

Vehicle handling is an important part of crash avoidance.   For example, in cornering maneuvers, drivers may tend to steer insufficiently or too sharply, which can result in loss-of-control crashes. 

        Electronic Stability Control

Rollover crashes are one of the most significant light vehicle safety problems, especially for pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans.  A small portion of rollover crashes occur on paved surfaces, but a much larger number occur when a vehicle runs off the road and strikes a tripping mechanism such a soft soil, a curb or guard rail (FHWA is conducting related research on these physical attributes).  Various types of electronic stability control systems are being marketed by several manufacturers.  Some will have a direct effect on susceptibility to on-road untripped rollovers as measured by the dynamic tests being incorporated into the NCAP program.

A greater potential safety benefit of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is its effectiveness in reducing single vehicle crashes that involve driver error and loss of control.  In this way, it can prevent the exposure of vehicles to off-road tripping mechanisms by helping the driver keep the vehicle on the road.  This potential benefit is not “rollover resistance” and will not be measured by the NCAP rollover resistance rating.  It should be viewed as single vehicle crash reduction.  It can affect both crashes that would have resulted in rollover because of poor rollover resistance and crashes where rollover would not have occurred but are nevertheless very harmful.  A Mercedes study reported a single vehicle crash reduction for Mercedes vehicles of 30% in Germany as a result of electronic stability control.

Milestones:

Research different types of electronic stability control systems	2004-2005
Evaluate effectiveness of different ESC systems in preventing single vehicle crashes based on U.S. crash data	2005
Perform benefit cost analysis of ESC and decision on how to proceed / next steps	2005

II.      Improve the Protection of Occupants 

If a crash does occur, the agency strives to reduce the severity and increase the survivability of the event.  This is known as crashworthiness.  Eighty percent of light vehicle occupant fatalities in 2001 were the result of collisions in which the initial crash event was an impact to the front or side of the vehicle. These types of collisions can be severe enough to threaten the integrity of vehicle structures, in turn compromising the vehicle’s ability to protect occupants from fatal and serious injuries. Vehicle structure must be able to manage crash energy to prevent occupant compartment intrusion, ejection of passengers, and vehicle restraint systems must be able to prevent injuries from occupant impact with interior surfaces.  Structural crash performance also must be compatible with occupant restraint systems. 

NHTSA pursues the goals of crash survivability by encouraging safety belt use; supporting crashworthiness research; conducting compliance testing and defects investigations; conducting research for potential harmonization of similar standards or elements of standards around the world; providing information to consumers through the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) on how different makes and models compare in safety performance during crash and performance tests; and as outlined below, establishing and keeping up-to-date vehicle safety standards for impact protection.  NHTSA also is pursuing compatibility strategies to improve occupant protection (see Section III).

In order to ensure that the occupant protection standards protect drivers and passengers in all types of crashes, NHTSA has developed and continues to improve anthropomorphic dummies that represent the widest possible range of vehicle occupant sizes.  Milestones for the development of improved dummies for specific types of crashes are reflected in their respective sections.  The following section provides additional information on NHTSA’s dummy development program.   

Improved Dummies 

A new generation of air bags and further occupant safety advances require improvements in and a broader range of crash test dummies to accurately measure various crash forces imparted to a range of occupant sizes in different crash situations.  As we expand occupant protection requirements for men, women and children of varying sizes, we need appropriately sized and instrumented dummies to provide estimates of the severity and extent of injury.  Also, in the future, we will use dummies that measure crash forces to several body parts or locations on particular body parts (head, neck, chest, arm, leg) – not just one or two parts or locations. 

Dummy improvements require considerable research and development prior to incorporation into Part 572 or a safety standard.  Most agency work on particular crash dummies focuses on a particular type of crash – frontal, side, rollover, rear.   

Among NHTSA’s most prominent dummy rulemaking priority projects are the SID-IIs, ES-2, and World-SID side impact dummies, and several new and more biofidelic child dummies, including those representing larger children (Hybrid III 10-year-old and upweighted Hybrid III 6-year-old).  For the specifics on these and other dummies, please see the particular section of this plan for further particulars about dummy work in that area (e.g., “Improve the Protection of Occupants - Frontal Crashes” or “Protect Special Populations – Children.”   

A.  Improve the Protection of Occupants in Frontal Crashes  

This is one of the most active areas of research and rulemaking activity by the agency, involving active (safety belts) and passive (air bags) driver and passenger restraints.  The mandated restraints are designed to protect vehicle occupants from violent frontal crash forces.  Studies confirm the significant safety benefits of safety belts and air bags – thousands of deaths and injuries prevented annually, including and estimated 12,144 lives saved by belts alone in 2001.  Lap and shoulder safety belts have advanced to react to crashes faster and better protect occupants, and two technologies that have improved their effectiveness are pretensioners and load limiters.  Air bag technology is developing to protect people while minimizing the hazard air bags pose to small or out of position occupants.  The agency recently completed a major upgrade to its air bag standard, FMVSS No. 208.  The May 2000 rule improves the protection afforded both belted and unbelted occupants.

NHTSA is looking at integrated seats, in which the safety belt anchorages are built into the seat instead of attached to the vehicle interior.  They provide improved belt fit and effectiveness and offer promising potential safety benefits (see Appendix A).  The agency also is looking at different ways to increase the use of safety belts, which are by far the most important vehicle safety features in the event of a crash.  In 2002 and again in 2003, NHTSA sent letters to all the major vehicle manufacturers encouraging the installation of enhanced safety belt reminder systems.  NHTSA also requested information on whether the manufacturers intended to install safety belt reminder systems, what type of technologies they intended to use, the appropriate time frame for installation and any customer feedback on their systems that they would be willing to share with the agency.  The NHTSA applied research program is conducting studies of these systems in 2003-5 to obtain information for possible legislative or rulemaking initiatives.

1. Frontal Crashworthiness Research:

Develop a test procedure to evaluate the performance of integrated seats in crash tests	2003-2004
Rulemaking decision / next steps on how to modify / upgrade relevant FMVSS regarding integrated seats	2003
Study effectiveness of different safety belt reminders and other technologies for increasing belt use	2003-2005
Rulemaking decision on safety belt reminder systems/ other vehicle technologies for increasing use	2005

2. Offset Frontal Protection 

Real world crash statistics indicate that 79 percent of injuries in frontal crashes are from offset frontal crashes.  Many of the resultant injuries are severe leg injuries, which are the result of the different forces offset crashes impart to vehicle occupants than those from full frontal crashes.  Approximately 85,000 front seat occupants receive serious hip, leg and foot skeletal and joint injuries each year.  More attention is being paid to reducing serious injuries, especially those that lead to life-long disabilities - such as foot/ankle and hip injuries.  Depending on the assumptions used, a requirement for a frontal offset test requirement could prevent approximately 1,000 to 3,000 moderate to serious injuries annually. 

Congress directed NHTSA to consider the European Union frontal offset test requirements (for harmonization).  NHTSA’s evaluation of the European frontal offset deformable barrier test demonstrates potential benefits with regard to lower leg injuries which would complement our current full frontal test requirements by addressing frontal crash modes and injuries and fatalities not addressed by current frontal requirements. 

NHTSA is conducting further testing to assess potential disbenefits in addition to these benefits.  A summary of these findings will be published in Summer 2003 with a Request for Comments. 

Milestones:

Request for Comments on offset frontal crash test requirements	2003
Complete testing to assess disbenefits of offset frontal crash test requirements	2003
Decision on how to proceed / next steps  for offset frontal crash test requirements	2003
Regulatory proposal for offset frontal crash test requirements or termination	2004

3. Advanced Air Bags

Older designs of air bags have saved thousands of lives – NHTSA estimates 12,776 through June 2003.  Unfortunately, over the same time span, air bags also have been linked with the deaths of 229 people, most of whom were children.  NHTSA must ensure that future air bag designs continue to offer the life-saving benefits, while eliminating the possibility of death in low speed crashes.  To achieve these goals, the next generations of air bags will include technology to control when and how they inflate, depending on factors such as the size of occupants and whether they are out of position for safe air bag deployment. 

In May 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements in FMVSS No. 208 for air bags in passenger cars and light trucks, to be phased in beginning in the 2004 model year.  The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in moderate to high speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low speed crashes.

The rule also included a requirement that, beginning in 2007, the 50^th percentile adult dummy must meet the injury criteria when subjected to a 35 mph belted rigid barrier crash.  The agency stated that there was insufficient data to incorporate the 5^th percentile female dummy into the 35 mph crash, but that additional testing would be conducted to determine the feasibility of including it.  That testing has now been completed, and preliminary results indicate that it is feasible for vehicles with the belted 5^th percentile female dummy to pass the injury criteria when subjected to a 35 mph rigid barrier crash.  NHTSA incorporated its resolution to initial FMVSS No. 208 petitions for reconsideration in Final Rules in December 2001 and January 2003, and anticipates responding to additional petitions in the Summer and Fall of 2003. 

Milestones:

Issue NPRM to incorporate 5th percentile dummy into 35 mph belted test	2003
Response to petitions for reconsideration on advanced air bag rule	2003
Advanced air bag research (monitor advanced air bag performance)	2003+

B. Improve the Protection of Occupants in Side Crashes  

Another way to reduce crash deaths and injuries is to improve the ability of vehicles to protect occupants from side crashes, which killed 9,048 light vehicle occupants and injured 773,000 in 2001.  The dynamic side impact protection requirements for passenger cars (FMVSS No. 214) were established in 1990, with compliance phased in between 1994 and 1998, and was extended to light trucks and vans in 1995, with full compliance by 1999.  The agency granted a petition in November 1998 to upgrade the standard to accommodate side air bags. 

To improve occupant protection in side crashes for passenger cars and light trucks and vans in both vehicle-to-vehicle and fixed object impacts, NHTSA plans a full upgrade of FMVSS No. 214.  The proposal would consider addressing the growing number of light trucks in the U.S. fleet and to include protection against collisions with narrow objects, such as poles.  The potential changes also would address upgraded and harmonized injury criteria and more precise biomechanical knowledge provided by second generation side impact dummies.  For example, the existing standard does not address side impact head protection, since the SID dummy only measures chest and pelvic responses.  The proposal will consider performance requirements for head protection in side crashes because our data show that head injuries are a significant safety concern in these crashes.  The agency is evaluating any possible harmful effects by inflatable side air bags devices on in-position and, possibly, on out-of-position child occupants.  In addition, NHTSA is continuing to monitor the safety performance of side air bags and to conduct research on the test barrier.

1. Upgrade Side Impact Requirements 

Current activity includes further research and evaluation of thoracic and head protection air bag systems and efforts to extend protection against death and injury from side impact with narrow objects, such as poles.  Although narrow object impacts involve eight percent of the occupants involved in side crashes, they account for 19 percent of the fatalities and 16 percent of those seriously injured.  Data over the time frame of 1988-1996 show that when the relative outcome severity is considered, a vehicle occupant has about three times the likelihood of being seriously injured when involved in a narrow object crash versus a vehicle-to-vehicle crash.  NHTSA will consider the addition of a pole test in its proposed FMVSS No. 214 upgrade.    

Real world crash statistics indicate that injuries to vehicle occupants vary with the size of occupant.  In its upgrade proposal, NHTSA will consider the feasibility of incorporating second generation side dummies –  the ES-2 (the update of Eurosid-1) dummy and the SID-HIII dummy.  The upgraded standard may incorporate a 50^th percentile male dummy (either ES-2 or SID-HIII) and possibly, an additional dummy, the 5^th percentile female side impact dummy, SID-IIs, which is specially designed and equipped for testing side air bag systems.  Concurrent with ES-2 testing, the agency is conducting a test program to establish that the SID-IIs is repeatable and durable in side testing, and is reasonably representative of human responses.  The new types of dummies are being subjected to a series of sled tests and vehicle crash tests to determine their structural and functional adequacy as assessment tools for the measurement of risk of occupant injury in side crashes.  The agency is also closely monitoring the development of the WorldSID, a next generation side impact dummy, and is working with Contracting Parties of the 1998 Agreement on an exchange of information (test data and research) related to the development of this dummy.  (Please see Section V.A. for information on side impact protection for children.)

            Milestones:

Research to support FMVSS No. 214 NPRM and benefits assessment	2003-2004
NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 214	2004
Support work for ES-2 and SID-IIs NPRMs and Final Rules	2003-2005
SID-IIs and/or ES-2 Part 572 NPRM	2004
Final regulatory action to upgrade FMVSS No. 214	2005
Evaluation and testing of child Q series side impact dummies	2004-2006+
Research on advanced side impact dummy (World SID)	2005-2006+

C.       Improve the Protection of Occupants in Rollover Crashes

There were 276,000 light vehicles (cars, sport utility vehicles [SUVs], light trucks and vans) involved in rollover crashes in 2001.  Rollover crashes are especially lethal; although they comprise only four percent of crashes, they account for almost one-third of light vehicle occupant fatalities, and more than 60 percent of SUV fatalities.  The proportion of vehicles that rolled over in fatal crashes (19.5 percent) was nearly four times as high as the proportion in injury crashes and nearly 14 times as high as the proportion in property-damage-only crashes.  Nearly two-thirds of all rollover deaths were caused by full or partial ejections.  Rollover crashes cause approximately 10,000 fatalities and 21,000 serious injuries each year.  NHTSA’s crashworthiness efforts to reduce rollover fatalities and injuries have focused on reducing occupant ejections through doors and windows, and on providing improved roof crush protection and interior padding for occupants. 

In 2002, NHTSA identified rollover and vehicle compatibility as two of its highest safety priorities.  The agency formed Integrated Project Teams (IPT) specifically to examine these issues and make recommendations as to how it could most effectively improve safety in these areas.  The IPT Reports on Rollover and Compatibility were just published in the Federal Register.  The Rollover IPT made wide ranging recommendations on ways to mitigate the rollover problem, including vehicle strategies covering both the crash avoidance and crashworthiness perspectives. 

To prevent rollover crashes, NHTSA envisions improving vehicle handling and stability via Electronic Stability Control and roadway departure warning systems.  The Rollover IPT Team noted that NHTSA recognizes that regulating fuel economy, through its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program, can have substantial effects on vehicle safety in addition to economic and other consequences.  The current structure of CAFE can provide an incentive to manufacturers to downweight vehicles, increase production of vehicle classes that are more susceptible to rollover crashes, and produce a less homogenous fleet mix.  NHTSA intends to examine possible reforms to the CAFE Program, and it is committed to ensuring that CAFE facilitates improvements in fuel economy without compromising motor vehicle safety.  For improving the crashworthiness of vehicles that roll over, the Rollover IPT Team focused on ejection mitigation and roof crush protection.  In addition, the team discussed roadway and behavioral strategies, that are outside the scope of this plan.     

Subsequent to NHTSA’s formation of the IPT teams, the vehicle manufacturers asked the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to chair groups of experts to make suggestions for ways the industry could voluntarily improve safety in the areas of compatibility and rollover.  NHTSA welcomes the automotive industry’s acknowledgement that rollover and compatibility are significant safety problems and their commitment to develop what they believe are effective approaches to addressing these problems. 

1.  Reduce Occupant Ejections    

According to agency data, ejection is a major cause of death and injury in rollover crashes.  In 2001, 9,062 people were killed and 21,000 were injured when they were ejected from light vehicles, and two-thirds of these ejections occurred during rollovers.  Occupants stand a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not ejected from their vehicles.  From 1994-1999 data, we estimate that almost 1,700 people were killed and 2,000 seriously injured each year when they were ejected out the doors (mostly side-hinged doors) of light passenger vehicles. 

Among the promising technological innovations to prevent occupant ejections are the use of side or curtain air bags and improved glazing.  NHTSA submitted a report to Congress on ejection mitigation using advanced glazing materials in November 2001.  The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is working on an evaluation of safety belt reminders.  Increased safety belt use would immediately reduce ejections.  NHTSA will review the NAS evaluation and take appropriate action to encourage safety belt reminders.  A recent NHTSA study researched the potential benefits of  safety belt pretensioning devices, which pull safety belts snug as a crash begins.

NHTSA will update its current door latch requirements.  The standard has not changed over 30 years.  In many cases, it does not address failure mechanisms of current door and door retention components designs.  In addition, the current standard does not specify a test procedure for evaluating the safety of sliding doors.  To address this,  NHTSA is upgrading its door lock standard, FMVSS No. 206.  Believing this to be an excellent opportunity for the international community concurrently to develop a global technical regulation (GTR), NHTSA submitted a proposal for a GTR on door locks and door retention components to the 1998 Agreement executive committee in 2003.  NHTSA is leading this effort working with other countries to have a  GTR in place in time for its upgrade of FMVSS No. 206.     

Milestones:

Research toward Agency decision on whether to adopt requirements for ejection mitigation through side windows, and if so, what performance levels and tests to adopt	2003-2004
Component testing for the development of  performance requirements for publishing an ejection mitigation notice	2003-2004
Ejection mitigation notice	2004
Testing at Transport Canada of inertia and other test procedures in support of FMVSS No. 206 Final Rule	2003-2004
NPRM to upgrade door systems	2004
Final regulatory action to upgrade door systems	2005

2. Upgrade Roof Crush Resistance

FMVSS No. 216 establishes strength requirements/intrusion limits for passenger car and light truck roofs for protection in rollover crashes.  Impact with the roof causes severe head and neck injuries to vehicle occupants during rollover crashes.  NHTSA, based on analysis of its data, estimates that roof crush intrusion causes 1,339 serious or fatal occupant injuries among belted, unejected occupants each year.  Unbelted occupants in rollover crashes are primarily injured by ejection from the vehicle, which is fatal in about half the cases.  The agency cannot determine whether belted occupants in rollover crashes receive their most severe injuries by contacting the roof structure or due to belt slack and stretch when the roof is in contact with the ground, by the roof crushing in, or by both of these potential injury mechanisms.  Therefore, even though safety belts are 73 percent effective in reducing fatalities in rollovers, their performance might be improved by holding the occupant down in his/her seat during a rollover.  NHTSA will research the potential safety benefits of pretensioners, inflatable tubular belts, integrated belts, and other belt systems when activated with a rollover sensor.  NHTSA will also research the potential benefits of increasing roof strength.  The agency published a Request for Comments on roof crush in October 2001. 

Milestones:

Conduct tests to evaluate potential new test procedures and performance requirements and evaluate the roof crush performance of recent vehicles	2003
NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 216 test procedure	2004
Testing in support of FMVSS No. 216 Final Rule test procedure and requirements	2004-2005
Final regulatory action to upgrade FMVSS No. 216	2005

D.      Improve the Protection of Occupants in Rear Crashes 

Crashes in which one vehicle collides into the rear of a vehicle in front of it accounted for almost 30 percent of crashes in 2001.  NHTSA plans several rulemaking actions over the next five years to attack this problem on three fronts:  to help drivers avoid such crashes (see Section I.D.1.), to protect vehicle occupants from the effects of crash forces if a crash does occur, and to enhance fuel systems to reduce the additional hazard of fire from such crashes.

1. Improve Rear Impact Occupant Protection   

            NHTSA estimates that each year 272,088 occupants of vehicles struck in the rear by another vehicle receive whiplash injuries. Although whiplash injuries may be of a relatively minor severity, they entail large societal costs, estimated at $1.76 billion for rear impact whiplash.  To reduce the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear-end and other collisions, the agency plans to strengthen the requirements in the standards for head restraints and for seats and their attachment and installation.  It is important to protect occupants in the rear seats from those in the front seats without increasing the injury risk to those in the front.  NHTSA believes that with adequate head restraints and energy management, both goals can be met.  The agency published in January 2001 an NPRM to upgrade the head restraint standard, FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints.  Once the Final Rule is published, NHTSA will lead the harmonization efforts under the Program of Work of the 1998 Agreement in order to establish a GTR that would better address neck injuries.

Milestones:

Final regulatory action to upgrade FMVSS No. 202	2003
NPRM for FMVSS No. 207, “Seating Systems,” upgrade	2004
Comparative evaluation of advanced rear impact dummies (BioRID II, RID-2, THOR) for their ability to replicate neck kinematics and seat/head rest interaction in FMVSS No. 202/207 testing	2003-2005
Testing to develop test procedures for merging FMVSS No. 202 and 207 – creating a combined head restraint/seatback strength standard	2003-2005
Decision on how to proceed / next steps for advanced rear impact dummy	2006
Final regulatory action for FMVSS No. 207 upgrade	2006

2. Improve Fuel System Integrity and Reduce Fire Risk  

Fire in a crash is often associated with a breach in the integrity of a vehicle’s fuel system.  Although relatively infrequent, vehicle fires can have devastating consequences on fatalities and injuries.  Although fire occurred in only 0.1 percent of the vehicles involved in traffic crashes in 2001, the occurrence of fire in fatal crashes rose to 3 percent.  In 2001, fire occurred in an estimated 12,000 light motor vehicle crashes, including 1,348 light vehicle fatal crashes and an estimated 5,000 light vehicle nonfatal injury crashes. 

NHTSA has several standards to address post-crash fire hazards.  One standard specifies requirements for vehicle fuel system integrity to prevent fires by limiting gasoline spillage, and also has provisions to prevent ingestion of fuel during siphoning.  Two standards (FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304) specify requirements for the integrity of compressed natural gas fuel systems and containers.  Another rule  (FMVSS No. 302) specifies the burn resistance requirements for materials used in vehicle occupant compartments to reduce the incidence of fires from sources such as matches and cigarettes.  A new standard, FMVSS No. 305, regulating electric vehicle crash safety, was published in September 2000.  NHTSA published an NPRM in November 2000 proposing to upgrade FMVSS No. 301, “Fuel System Integrity,” including changing the standard’s side impact test procedure.  The proposed upgrade would replace the current 30 mph rear crash test with a moving deformable barrier crash test at 50 mph, and would replace the current 20 mph side impact test with the current FMVSS No. 214 dynamic test with a moving deformable barrier at 33.5 mph.  This would reduce the risk of fire to occupants who survive crashes, and also allow NHTSA to conduct a single compliance test for the side impact and fuel system integrity standards.     

In addition to traditional gas fuel systems, NTHSA is also investigating issues concerning

the storage of hydrogen fuel in hydrogen vehicles.  NHTSA has been working with its international counterparts, including standards-setting organizations in order to develop international standards and global technical regulations for hydrogen vehicles.  The agency will evaluate European and Japanese standards and regulations for liquid and gaseous hydrogen and assess the level of safety protection these regulations would provide.

Milestones:

Final Rule to upgrade FMVSS No. 301 by improving fuel tank integrity	2003
Regulatory review of FMVSS No. 302	2004
Assess risks associated with the operation of fuel cell (hydrogen) vehicles and perform related testing	2003-2006+

III.  Address Incompatibility Between Passenger Cars and Light Trucks  

For decades, the light vehicle category consisted primarily of automobiles.  The growing popularity over the past 10 years of light trucks, vans, and utility vehicles (LTVs), all weighing 10,000 pounds GVWR or less, has changed the marketplace as well as the safety picture.  LTV sales have soared to almost eight million units sold in 2002 – 49 percent of new passenger vehicle sales.   In 2002, the number of registered LTVs in the United States exceeded 76 million units or approximately 36 percent of registered motor vehicles in the U.S.  The majority of LTVs are used as private passenger vehicles and the number of miles logged in them increased 26 percent between 1995 and 2000, and 70 percent between 1990 and 2000.  Beyond the growth in sheer numbers of vehicles, LTVs also have grown larger, gaining about 700 pounds from 1984 to 1999, whereas passenger cars gained only 300 pounds during that span.

In the last decade, for the first time, more vehicle occupants are being killed in crashes between passenger cars and light trucks than in crashes involving only passenger cars.  From 1980 to 2001, fatalities in car-to-car crashes decreased from 6,488 to 3,152, while LTV-to-car crashes increased from 3,718 to 5,233.  An analysis of 2001 FARS data indicates that passenger car drivers are three and one-half times more likely to die than LTV drivers in front to front crashes between the two vehicle types, and the fatality rate for drivers of passenger cars struck in the side by LTVs is approximately three and one-half times greater than the fatality rate for drivers of LTVs struck in the side by passenger cars.  The larger mass and size of LTVs, along with significant disparities in stiffness, compared to passenger automobiles, and recent studies of crash data, have raised a number of issues of concern.  In the crash avoidance area, there are the problems of blocked vision of passenger car and motorcycle drivers due to the higher profile of LTVs and glare due to higher mounted headlamps on LTVs.  In the crashworthiness area, there is concern that the protection of occupants in smaller vehicles is being compromised when their vehicles collide with the larger and heavier LTVs.  As the trend toward greater private passenger use of light trucks continues, the agency has continued to extend pertinent passenger car standard requirements to LTVs, and it expects to continue to apply passenger car standards to LTVs. 

Reducing the hazards associated with vehicle incompatibility is one of the agency’s uppermost objectives.  NHTSA is attacking these problems through targeted research aimed at understanding the effects of incompatible designs, through implementing appropriate regulatory strategies, through developing consumer information to allow the marketplace to work, and through using the agency’s position to encourage vehicle manufacturers and the purchasing public to do all they can to minimize the effects of vehicle disparity. 

1. Learn the Extent of the Aggressivity and Compatibility Problem and Potential Solutions 

As referenced in the rollover section, in 2002 NHTSA identified rollover and vehicle compatibility as two of its highest safety priorities, and formed Integrated Project Teams (IPT) to conduct in-depth reviews of these and two other areas (safety belt use and impaired driving).  The IPT Report on Vehicle Compatibility was recently published in the Federal Register (68 FR36534).  The Compatibility IPT Team made wide ranging recommendations on ways to mitigate the compatibility problem, including several vehicle strategies, behavioral strategies, and roadway strategies (on which the FHWA has the lead).  Vehicle strategies include partner protection, self protection, lighting/glare efforts, and the reform of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. 

The desired end results of NHTSA’s efforts are vehicle designs that protect their occupants more and harm the occupants of struck vehicles less.  NHTSA’s analysis of 20 years worth of its NCAP crash test data reveals that a good measure of a vehicle’s Aggressivity is Average Height of Force (AHOF).  The AHOF is a single height measurement that represents the average height at which a vehicle transfers force to the rigid barrier.  Initial vehicle stiffness is among other parameters that correspond well with real world data.  NHTSA is pursuing a comprehensive crash test program to  demonstrate the feasibility of prospectively measuring these characteristics in crash tests and quantifying compatibility levels.  Initial fixed rigid barrier tests comparing vehicles of similar mass but different characteristics (i.e., AHOF) will attempt to quantify injury measurement differences attributable to the characteristics.  Vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests will then be run to investigate the characteristics’ injury effects on occupants of struck vehicles.  NHTSA is pursuing refinement of its data through development of a higher resolution load cell barrier that the IHRA working group has evaluated, and is investigating the use of a deformable face on the rigid barrier.  NHTSA and FHWA also are engaged in cooperative research that is investigating vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-roadside hardware safety.

Another avenue the agency is pursing is via upgrading side impact protection under FMVSS No. 214, which is expected to reduce serious injuries and deaths from head and chest impacts.  In addition, if an AHOF compatibility requirement appears feasible, NHTSA will investigate the desirability of modifying the FMVSS No. 214 static side door crush resistance test procedure to reflect that requirement. 

As discussed in more detail in the lighting section, glare from high-mounted headlamps on LTVs comprises a large proportion of the large number of complaints NHTSA has received in recent years.  NHTSA anticipates proposing amendments to FMVSS No. 108 within a year to address headlight mounting height and auxiliary lamps.  Furthermore, as described in the rollover section, NHTSA recognizes the effects on vehicle safety that regulation of fuel can have.  The agency will examine possible reforms to the CAFE system – and their possible positive and negative effects – to ensure that future changes have positive impacts on vehicle safety. 

Subsequent to NHTSA’s formation of these teams, the vehicle manufacturers asked the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to chair groups of experts to make suggestions for ways the industry could voluntarily improve safety in the areas of compatibility and rollover.  NHTSA welcomes the automotive industry’s acknowledgement that rollover and compatibility are significant safety problems and their commitment to develop what they believe are effective approaches to addressing these problems. 

In addition to the above research, under the 1998 Global Agreement Program of Work as well as under bilateral agreements with Canada and Japan, NHTSA is also participating in an exchange of ideas on best regulatory approaches in the area of vehicle compatibility, including the possibility of conducting joint research and testing in support of potential solutions to vehicle incompatibility.

Milestones:

Rigid barrier and vehicle-to-vehicle testing	2004
Proposal to amend FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and  associated headlamps”	2004
Final rule to reduce glare	2005
Decision on initiating vehicle crashworthiness compatibility rulemaking efforts	2004
Final regulatory action to upgrade FMVSS No. 214, “Side impact protection”	2005

IV.     Make Large Trucks Safer 

In 2001, 429,000 large trucks (gross vehicle weight rating more than 10,000 pounds) were involved in traffic crashes.  One out of 12 vehicles involved in fatal crashes was a large truck, and they accounted for one out of eight traffic fatalities.  These crashes resulted in 5,082 fatalities and 131,000 injuries:  86 percent of those killed and 77 percent of those injured were the occupants of other (light) vehicles, pedestrians or bicyclists.  Both vehicle performance and driver/vehicle interaction can be significant factors in these crashes.  Among these factors are insufficient braking capability, loss of control, driver fatigue and poor visibility.  The involvement rate of large trucks in fatal crashes per 100 million miles of truck travel has declined from 3.3 in 1990 to 2.3 in 2001.

1.  Shorten Stopping Distances and Improve Braking

Large trucks have longer stopping distances than light vehicles, increasing the chance of collisions in panic stopping situations.  Truck brake performance has been identified as a major factor contributing to crashes involving large trucks. 

The major issue facing NHTSA is identifying what performance requirements should be established in FMVSS No. 121 to ensure a minimum requirement for stopping capabilities and fail-safe performance.  As part of this effort, the agency is conducting test track evaluations and operational (fleet test) evaluations on ECBS-equipped vehicles.  One promising method to shorten truck stopping distances may be through disc air brakes with electronic control.  Stopping distances could be reduced by as much as 30 percent through the use of disc brakes and more powerful front axle brakes.  Rulemaking revisions to FMVSS No. 121 published in 2003 identified performance requirements for ABS on straight trucks/buses.

Electronically controlled braking systems (ECBS) offer many potential benefits to the trucking industry in the areas of safety, reliability, enhanced driver feedback, and maintainability for heavy air-braked vehicles.  ECBS are being tested by the Department and a number of manufacturers under the IVI program.  These systems are intended to replace the current pneumatic brake application signal with an electronic actuation signal. 

NHTSA also will look at increasing foundation brake capacity and improving tractor-trailer brake compatibility.  NHTSA also hopes to pursue rulemaking to improve heavy truck tire performance, including upgrading the requirements for FMVSS No. 119 and requiring the use of TPMS on commercial vehicles over 10,000 GVWR.  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that NHTSA assess the safety benefits of adding traction control to antilock brake systems.  NHTSA is conducting related research on this recommendation. 

Milestones:

Research ABS braking-in-a-curve performance requirements for trailers	-2003
NPRM for braking-in-a-curve performance requirements for trailers	2004
Final regulatory action on braking-in-a-curve performance trailers test requirements for	2006
ANPRM on truck tractor stopping distance	2003
ECBS field operational tests	2003-2006
NPRM on truck tractor stopping distance	2004
Final rule on truck tractor stopping distance	2005
Research on braking (reducing stopping distance) for straight trucks/buses	2004-2005
Decision on how to proceed for  reducing stopping distance for straight trucks/buses	2006

2. Reduce Heavy Vehicle Tire Failures

Heat buildup is the primary cause of tire failure.  Heat buildup in tires may result from under-inflation, overloading, high speed operation, sub-par tire design, or a combination of these factors.  Also, vehicles operating with low tire air pressure have reduced handling capability and fuel economy.  Computer chip technology now exists that can monitor tire inflation and warn the driver of impending tire failure (TPMS – see Section I.E.1).  Some of the advances in reducing tire failures on heavy trucks have begun and will continue to appear in passenger car tires. 

Milestones:

Testing for FMVSS 119 upgrade	2003
NPRM to upgrade requirements for new heavy truck tires	2004
Final Rule to upgrade requirements for new heavy truck tires	2005
Research on performance requirements for retreaded tires	2003
Decision on whether to develop new standard for retread tires	2004-2005
Final rule for a new standard (tentative) for retread tires	2006
Research on heavy truck TPMS	2004
Decision on how to proceed on heavy truck TPMS	2005

3. Drowsy Driver Sensing System

NHTSA has been conducting advanced engineering development to develop a sensor for a warning system to alert drivers before they fall asleep.  The purpose of this system is to reduce the more than 100,000 injuries and deaths associated with drowsiness involving both commercial and passenger vehicles.  NHTSA data suggests that approximately 100,000 crashes per year, including 1,357 fatal crashes and approximately 71,000 injury crashes, involved drowsiness.  Drivers are often unaware of their deteriorating condition or, even when they are aware, are often motivated to keep driving.  A drowsiness detection and warning system can help reduce alertness‑related crashes by helping to maintain alertness until it is safe to stop and rest. 

Drowsiness is named as the top driving problem at trucking summit meetings. The role of drowsiness in crashes may be largely underestimated due to unreported off‑roadway crashes, police inability to verify drowsiness, and driver reporting error.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in a Final Rule published in April 2003 on Hours of Service for Commercial Drivers, discussed its potential interest in drowsy driver sensing systems.

Milestones:

Drowsy driver sensing system field operational test	2003-5
Decision on how to proceed / performance specification requirements for heavy trucks	2006

V.      Protect Special Populations 

A.  Children 

Four hundred and ninety-seven children under the age of five died and 60,000 were injured as occupants in light vehicle crashes in 2001.  (Another 428 children from the age of five to nine were killed and 73,000 were injured in light vehicle crashes.)  Research shows that child safety seats, when used correctly, can reduce fatalities among children less than five years old by 71 percent. That makes child safety seats one of the most effective safety innovations ever developed.  As more new vehicles with dual air bags enter the market, there are increased concerns about children who are riding unrestrained, incorrectly restrained, or in rear‑facing child seats in front of an air bag.  Use of child restraints is now required in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  Data indicate that the combination of high‑quality child restraints and the increased use of these restraints as a result of mandatory usage laws has significantly reduced the risk of child fatality in motor vehicle crashes.  In 2001, an estimated 269 children under age five were saved as a result of child restraint use.

NHTSA published a new rule in 1999 that requires motor vehicles and add‑on child restraints be equipped with a means independent of vehicle safety belts for securing the child restraints to vehicle seats.  These universal child restraint anchorage systems, Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH), for attaching child seats to the vehicle are expected to significantly reduce deaths and injuries to infants and toddlers from improperly installed child safety seats.  The agency issued a Final Rule in 2003 responding to petitions for reconsideration to FMVSS No. 225, “Child Restraint Anchorage Systems.”  Dynamic side impact test research is continuing for requirements for child restraint systems to protect children during side impacts.

1.  Upgrade Child Restraint Requirements 

To improve the protection of children in crashes, NHTSA has recently upgraded FMVSS No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems.”  The changes address a number of areas, including use of improved test devices with upgraded biofidelity and the development of a bench seat fixture that is more representative of the seat geometry for the current vehicle fleet.  NHTSA drafted a Child Restraint Plan, consolidating many of the agency’s objectives for child restraints, but the 2000 TREAD Act overtook that plan and mandates many of the activities discussed in the plan.  Under TREAD, NHTSA was directed to consider minimizing head injuries from side impact collisions, and whether to require improved protection in side and rear crashes.  TREAD also mandated a child restraint rating program and a determination whether to add child restraint systems (CRS) to NCAP testing. 

NHTSA issued an NPRM for upgrading FMVSS No. 213 in May 2002, and the Final Rule in June 2003.  The rule made a number of revisions to the federal safety standard for child restraint systems, including incorporating improved test dummies (Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old and CRABI 12-month-old) and updated procedures used to test child restraints, new or revised injury criteria to assess the dynamic performance of child restraints, and extension of the standard’s requirements to apply it to child restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds.  Previously, the standard applied to child restraint systems for children weighing up to 50 pounds, but children must weigh approximately 80 pounds to fit properly in a safety belt without a booster seat.  Part of NHTSA’s efforts, therefore, was to extend FMVSS No. 213 to cover child restraint seats certified for children weighing between 50 and 80 pounds.  Initially, NHTSA has developed a weighted six-year-old dummy, eventually to be replaced by a ten-year-old dummy.    The action is intended to make child restraints even more effective in protecting children from the risk of death or serious injury in motor vehicle crashes.  NHTSA issued the standard upgrade Final Rule in June 2003.  The development of new standards requirements per TREAD for child restraint systems to protect children during side impacts will proceed once the agency has completed its research and testing and gathered sufficient information for rulemaking.

NHTSA published a Final Rule to improve child restraint labels and instructions in October 2002 and a Final Rule announcing the final child restraint ratings program in November 2002.  In August 2002, NHTSA completed a five-year strategic plan and budget for a booster seat education plan, and later in 2002 it completed a booster seat study and sent its report to Congress. 

NHTSA is conducting additional studies and rulemaking activities for child restraints under another legislative mandate, Anton’s Law, which was signed into law in December 2002.  Anton’s Law aims to raise the level of protection for larger children, those over 50 pounds (approximately ages 4 to 8 or 10).  The law requires NHTSA to:  Establish performance requirements for child restraints, including booster seats, for children weighing over 50 pounds; develop and evaluate a 10-year-old child dummy; require lap and shoulder belts for all seating positions (notably the center rear seat) for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and evaluate integrated child restraints and booster seats and report its findings to Congress.  NHTSA also is working with Contracting Parties of the 1998 Agreement on the development of a GTR that would address the safe use of child restraints worldwide.     

Milestones:

            Upgrade FMVSS No. 213

Report to Congress on FMVSS No. 213 issues not incorporated in the 2003 final regulatory action	2003
Testing to support making CRS more effective in protecting children in frontal crashes and to support agency work in support of Anton’s Law	2003-2004
Research on new three-year-old dummy (Q3S) for side impact	2003-2004
Support for HIII-10C NPRM and Final Rule	2003-2004
NPRM establishing performance requirements for CRS for larger children, per Anton’s Law	2004
NPRM on  HIII 10-year-old dummy	2004
Research on pediatric thorax, head and neck injuries to better understand such injuries and contribute to the development of next generation child dummies	-2004
Child injury tolerance investigation through case reconstruction to provide improved injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for use with child dummies	-2004
Decision on how to proceed / next steps for three-year-old dummy (Q3S) for side impact	2004-2005
Testing to support making CRS more effective in protecting children in side crashes, including determining the most common side crash injury causes and developing a representative sled test procedure	-2006
Decision on whether to propose side impact requirements for CRS	2006
Final regulatory action on HIII 10-year-old dummy	2005
Final Rule establishing performance requirements for CRS for larger children, per Anton’s Law	2005
Testing, evaluation and harmonization of side impact dummies (new child Q series and child HIII series)	-2006+
FMVSS No. 208
NPRM proposing the requirement of rear center lap/shoulder belts in vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds	2003
Final regulatory action on rear center lap/shoulder belt requirement	2004

2. Improve School Bus Safety

The safety record for school bus transportation exceeds that of all other modes of travel.  Students are nearly eight times safer riding in a school bus than in cars.  Each school day, 440,000 public school buses transport 23.5 million children.  On average, about seven passengers die in school bus crashes each year.  In 2001, 12 school bus passengers and 6 school bus drivers died and 7,000 were injured, and another 22 pedestrians and 4 bicyclists were killed when struck by a school bus.  NHTSA has several standards relating to school bus safety.  NHTSA’s requirements for compartmentalization on large and small school buses, plus safety belts on small buses contribute to the safe environment. 

NHTSA continues to search for effective ways to prevent these tragedies and to make school bus travel even safer.  Amendments to the school bus standards have improved traffic control warning devices and emergency exits.  To increase protection for disabled school bus passengers, the agency developed rules for occupant restraint systems and anchorages and wheelchair securement and anchorages that became effective in 1994.  School buses are unique as the only class of vehicles with requirements for securing wheelchairs, and these requirements apply to all school buses regardless of size. 

The NTSB has recommended that NHTSA evaluate occupant restraint systems, including those presently required for small school buses, and add requirements based on its evaluation.  In 1998, NHTSA developed a test plan for the next generation of school bus occupant protection, including testing various school bus child restraints so it could finalize its proposed guidelines on how to transport preschool-aged children on buses. 

NHTSA provided a report to Congress in May 2002 assessing occupant protection in school buses.  In that report, NHTSA concluded that lap belts have little, if any, benefit in reducing serious or fatal injuries in severe frontal crashes, and could increase the incidence of serious neck injuries and possibly abdominal injury among young passengers in severe frontal crashes.  Any increased risks associated with their use in small school buses is more than offset by preventing ejections.  Small school buses weigh less, have different crash dynamics, and are more prone to rollover than large school buses.   Combination lap/shoulder belts, if used properly, could save one life a year, but improper use could cause serious neck injury or abdominal injury.  Lap/shoulder belts could reduce bus capacity and add more than $100 million in annual costs.  Since school buses are the safest way to and from school, even the smallest reduction in the number of bus riders could result in more children being killed or injured when using alternative methods of transportation.   

NHTSA’s research program is focusing on side impact protection.  Other school bus safety improvements the agency is considering include:  increasing seat back height to reduce the potential for passenger override in crashes; requiring lap/shoulder restraints on smaller buses (lap belts are now required); considering seat redesign for better restraint fit for passengers aged six and above; evaluating the efficacy of roof crush protection; and developing test procedures for voluntarily installed lap/shoulder belts. 

Milestones:

Conduct regulatory review of FMVSS 222	2003
NPRM for FMVSS No. 222 for improved passenger protection	2004
Testing in support of Final Rule and cost assessment	2003-2004
Final regulatory action on FMVSS No. 222 occupant protection upgrades	2005
Decisions on how to proceed / next steps relating to the sidewall padding requirements under FMVSS No. 222	2004

B.  People with Disabilities 

NHTSA works to assure motor vehicle safety for the small but vulnerable population of persons with disabilities – without hindering their access to personal transportation.   

A Final Rule exempting businesses that modify vehicles to accommodate people with disabilities from the agency’s “make inoperative” prohibitions was published in February 2001.  Also, we have produced and distributed a consumer brochure, Adapting Motor Vehicles for Persons with Disabilities, about adaptive equipment and modified vehicles.  As described in the previous section of this report (V.A.2), the agency has adopted requirements for securing wheelchairs and their occupants traveling in school buses to afford increased protection for disabled passengers.  

The original draft of this plan had milestones for rulemakings for vehicle platform lifts.  Since then, in December 2002, NHTSA published a Final Rule that established two new safety standards:  an equipment standard, FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems for Accessible Motor Vehicles; and a vehicle standard, FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installation.  The equipment standard establishes performance requirements for platform lifts, and the vehicle standard requires manufacturers who install lifts to use lifts that meet the equipment standard, to install them according to the lift manufacturer’s instructions, and to provide certain information to lift users.  Based on incomplete information, we estimate that at least 1,366 people were injured in lift-related incidents in 1991-1995.  The regulation, applicable to all motor vehicles, should prevent deaths and injuries associated with the use of platform lifts for people with disabilities. 

Milestones:

Continue assessment of adaptive equipment safety issues

-2006+

            C.  Older Population   

The nation’s population of older adults - those more than 65 years old - will grow by more than 50 percent between now and 2020.  The population age 70 and over grew nearly twice as fast as the total population from 1990 to 2000.  By 2030, we will have more than twice the number of older drivers that we now have.  Studies have predicted substantial problems if we fail to take adequate steps to meet the transportation needs of our changing population.  At current crash rates, the number of fatalities involving older drivers in 2030 could be three to four times the 1995 rate.  A portent of the future is that older drivers, though involved in relatively few crashes (due to factors such as driving fewer miles), have a statistically high risk of crashes when they do drive - and older drivers are driving more each year.  Although societal fatality rates have been declining for several years, older drivers and vehicle occupants are dying at alarmingly increasing rates.  Light vehicle occupants age 65 and up suffered 5,396 fatalities and 218,000 non-fatal injuries in 2001. 

Older drivers frequently have slowed reaction times, greater sensitivity to glare, a narrowed field of view, and difficulty noticing all the critical objects in their visual field.  Also, physical frailty contributes to older persons’ over-representation in fatal and severe occupant injury rates.  Crash statistics show that older drivers have a higher percentage of their crashes in intersections than drivers of other ages.  A new agency study found two noticeable differences that help explain injury risk differences by age:  1) Older people are more likely to travel in passenger cars than younger people who frequently use light trucks; and  2) seriously injured older occupants are more likely to be involved in side impact crashes than their younger counterparts.  This last finding may make a case for increased attention to vehicle engagement in side impact crashes and to vehicle technologies that can help drivers avoid side collisions.  NHTSA’s efforts to address compatibility problems between SUVs and passenger cars also could provide significant benefits in this area.   

In general, all rulemaking activities will consider the special needs of older drivers and occupants.  NHTSA is conducting and evaluating research (in addition to behavioral research) on several fronts to use advanced in-vehicle technologies to help older drivers meet their driving needs while preserving their transportation mobility, freedom and convenience.  Some of the new technologies are being developed under the Department of Transportation’s Intelligent Transportation Systems program.  These technologies include collision warnings, near-object detection systems while backing and changing lanes, night vision enhancement, and route guidance.  Later possible advances include intelligent cruise control and forward collision avoidance systems.  The success and practicality of these systems will depend in large measure on designing them to help drivers with special needs without distracting or confusing them, and NHTSA will carefully evaluate and weigh the benefits and liabilities to older drivers for safe vehicle operation.  Also, FHWA is working to adapt roadway design to the older population.

In addition, efforts have been and will continue to be made to make automobiles safer for fragile occupants, and their needs increasingly will be a factor to consider in assessments of vehicle crashworthiness standards.  Older persons are generally less able to withstand and recover from the trauma of crashes, and they face a much higher likelihood that a crash will prove fatal.  FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant Crash Protection,” has required the installation of driver and passenger frontal air bags in passenger cars and light trucks and vans (LTVs) since model years 1998 and 1999 respectively.  To improve safety for older and small occupants, NHTSA allowed depowered air bags in 1997 and amended the standard again to require vehicles to be equipped with advanced air bags starting in model year 2004.  In addition, some manufacturers have installed force limiting and pretensioning devices in their safety belt systems that can help mitigate serious injuries to older occupants. 

The crash dummies the agency uses are sufficiently precisely instrumented to account for the frailer skeletal structures of older people, and the agency has and will continue to adjust the injury criteria it uses to better represent older people. Crash dummy enhancements and/or revised injury tolerance criteria for existing dummies that replicate the features of older motorists could  be used to design and test improved air bag systems, inflatable safety belts, force limiting safety belts, side air bags, knee bolsters and other occupant protection systems to maximize protection for older users. 

A cross-agency working group was formed in 1999 to focus on older drivers and passengers.  In addition to surveys already conducted, NHTSA will conduct surveys and research to identify additional problems specific to older drivers and occupants of motor vehicles.  Candidate issues to be explored include:  nighttime lighting and glare, controls and displays, vehicle features that create distractions to driving tasks, adequacy of mirrors, and comfort and convenience of safety belts.  Based upon these activities, rulemaking plans can be developed, and the Office of Rulemaking will track technological developments in the auto industry that are designed for and marketed to the older driver.  In addition, a data analysis study will be conducted once enough cars are on the road that have these features to see if they are producing lower crash or injury rates.  One trend that may warrant study is that there has been a decline over that past five years in fatalities and incapacitating injuries to people between the ages of 65 and 74. 

Older pedestrians have the highest fatality rates among different age groups, and NHTSA may consider the need for new requirements for exterior vehicle designs less injurious to pedestrians.  The agency will conduct research over the next few years to gather information on pedestrian safety issues and injury mechanisms.  Such efforts could lead to the development of internationally harmonized head and leg component test procedures.

Milestones:

Data analysis to identify risk factors in fatalities and injuries for the oldest occupants	2003
Targeted research to study the dynamic response of older people to particular impact and consider age adjusting existing age  criteria	2004-2006+

VI. Appendix A:  Other Active Areas, 2003-2006

This appendix discusses several additional regulatory activities, particularly regulatory-related research activities, that may extend beyond the four-year horizon of this document.  Although important regulatory (and potential regulatory) goals, these projects do not rise to the same level of immediate high priority as the activities included in the main body of this report. 

Integrated Seats

Advanced seating and belt designs and systems present significant safety benefits in frontal and other crashes as well as in rear crashes.  Some newer safety belts have adjustable upper belts that let occupants change the position of the shoulder strap to accommodate their size.  Safety belt pretensioners retract the safety belt to remove excess slack, almost instantly, in a crash.  Energy management features allow safety belts to yield during a severe crash to prevent forces on the shoulder belt from concentrating too much on the chest.  These features include load limiters built into the shoulder belt retractor and/or tear stitching in the webbing that causes the safety belt to extend gradually.

Integrated safety belt systems mount the entire safety belt system directly to the seat, rather than to the floor or pillar. This allows the safety belt to move with the occupant when they move the seat.  Integrated systems provide a more consistent and comfortable fit and are intended to more effectively hold occupants in their seats during a crash.  NHTSA has been petitioned to modify the current regulations to incorporate a more realistic test procedure for integrated seats.  The agency is conducting research to develop a test procedure to evaluate integrated seats.  After conducting research on integrated seats, we plan to decide in 2003-2004 on the next steps for FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, and FMVSS No. 210, Safety belt Assembly Anchorages, to accommodate improved seat designs such as integrated seats, as well as to address a related enforceability issue.  In 2004  the agency will decide on how to proceed  and  next steps for amending FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems    and FMVSS No. 210, Safety belt Assembly Anchorages to address integrated seats, with final regulatory action in 2005-2006.

Improve Motorcycle Safety

The most common danger associated with motorcycles is head injury (and associated death).  In 2001, 3,181 motorcycle drivers and passengers died and 60,000 were injured.  These fatalities comprise eight percent of all traffic fatalities, although motorcycles represent approximately two percent of the total vehicle fleet.  Motorcycle crashes are highly dangerous to their occupants, and these deaths and injuries, after many years of decline, have been increasing since the late 1990s.   In 2001, 39 percent of all motorcycle drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding, a figure twice that for passenger car and light truck drivers, and the percentage of alcohol involvement was 37 percent higher for motorcyclists.  Approximately half of those killed were not wearing helmets.  Motorcycle helmet use has been the most effective countermeasure in the effort to reduce these injuries and deaths.  NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 674 motorcyclists in 2001, and could have saved an additional 444 lives if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.  While other programs within NHTSA aim to increase helmet use, the agency’s regulation, FMVSS No. 218, makes sure that helmets are as safe and effective as possible.  The last update to the motorcycle helmet standard in 1988 extended its test requirements to all helmet sizes and established improved helmet test procedures.  NHTSA is exploring the need to upgrade the standard, including addressing comfort and labeling requirements.

The agency is considering undertaking a crash data collection effort that is jointly funded by the Offices of Traffic Injury Control, Applied Research, and Rulemaking.  Various issues are being brought to the agency by means of petitions for rulemaking, interpretations and letters requesting action regarding motorcycle designs and associated injuries.  To respond to these requests (and to contribute to the international effort to further the state of knowledge of motorcycle safety), we need research to assess literature to determine injury types and severity and to relate them to motorcycle design and operation.  To evaluate motorcycle braking standards, NHTSA will research and collect crash data and literature.  Then, the agency will initiate rulemaking to update the standards.  NHTSA is undertaking conspicuity research, and it published a Final Rule to reduce the minimum hand lever and foot pedal force for fade and water recovery tests in August 2001. 

Address Motorcoach Safety Issues

The crash of a motorcoach in Canada that killed four U.S. school children has raised Congressional interest in motorcoach safety.  On average, motorcoach crashes cause 10 deaths annually.  In the 1990s, 20 of 46 motorcoach crashes involved rollover, and occupant ejection was a significant cause of death.  NHTSA has met with the motorcoach industry and held a public meeting in April 2002 with Transport Canada to explore motorcoach safety.  It also is examining safety recommendations made by the NTSB.  Among the potential issues explored at the public meeting were emergency evacuation and window glazing, improved braking and rollover stability control, occupant protection, roof crush improvements and advanced restraint systems.  The Department of Transportation plans research on motorcoach safety issues in 2004-2005. After conducting research,  NHTSA will consider rulemaking to upgrade motorcoach passenger crash protection.  The agency also plans to conduct research on motorcoach stability control to prevent crashes.

Pedestrian Protection   

In 2001, 4,882 pedestrians died and 78,000 were injured in traffic crashes, representing two percent of all traffic crash injuries and 11 percent of traffic fatalities.  The problem is even larger in developing countries around the world, and the international community, through the United Nations, is working on the development of a global technical regulation on pedestrian safety.  The International Harmonization Research Activity (IHRA) pedestrian working group is developing test procedures for adult and child head impact and adult leg injury.  The U.N. WP29 GRSP Committee has initiated an effort to develop a Global Technical Regulation under the 1998 U.N. agreement, and NHTSA is actively participating in this effort.
Underride Protection for Single Unit Trucks

Many heavy truck crashes involve car-into-truck rear underride crashes, especially at night, which occur due to the car driver’s inability to see the truck ahead until immediately prior to impact.  Because of the truck’s mass and geometry, the occupant compartment of a passenger car can be penetrated and severely damaged by the truck frame.  Aside from crash avoidance improvements in vehicle braking, steering characteristics, conspicuity, and efforts to reduce alcohol and sleep related crashes, NHTSA also has enacted crashworthiness rules to improve underride protection. NHTSA has two standards that require and regulate rear impact guards for truck trailers and semi-trailers, but single unit trucks are exempted from these requirements.  The agency conducts ongoing efforts to collect reliable data to support a regulatory decision to end or not end the exemption.  One potential way to address the problem of vehicle crashes into the rear of single unit trucks could be to prevent such crashes from occurring.  The agency might find that increasing truck conspicuity is a cost-effective method of preventing rear crashes involving single unit trucks and therefore work to extend the requirements of reflective devices from trailer trucks to single unit trucks.  Following  problem identification and data analysis, feasibility study of alternative countermeasures, and testing and research on countermeasure effectiveness and development in 2004, a decision on how to proceed  and  next steps  will be made in 2004-5.

Electronic Data Recorders (EDR)

Information collected by crash data recorders, which are being introduced by some manufacturers, can provide the agency with useful information for crash and crash causation analysis.  EDRs allow investigators to gain direct pre-crash and crash information such as pre-impact vehicle acceleration and driver steering and braking, air bag deployment timing, and whether safety belts were buckled.  EDRs can provide more specific information to crash investigators, which will lead to a more accurate account of the events leading up to and following a crash.  This, in turn, can contribute to more effective safety rulemakings and other safety actions.  NHTSA is looking at the future potential for EDRs in crashworthiness evaluations.  The agency is conducting a research program in which it collects EDR data from real world crashes to analyze the data's accuracy and to compare it to traditional forensic crash investigation methods.  The agency will provide feedback so EDR manufacturers can improve their systems.    (For more information on EDRs, see NHTSA’s website at

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/index.html.)  

Accelerator Controls

Over the past several years, NHTSA has responded to interpretation letters from manufacturers by drawing analogies between traditional mechanical component and new electronic systems.   Now that electronic accelerator controls are becoming increasingly commonplace, the agency determined that revisions to FMVSS No. 124, Accelerator control systems, were needed to accommodate electronic control systems.   A NPRM was published in July 2002.  The proposal neither increases nor decreases the scope of the standard, but makes the standard clear and adequate in its application to electronic accelerator controls.  The NPRM proposed regulatory language that specifically addresses “throttle” in the context of electronic control systems to explain how the standard applies to electronic control systems. 

Low Speed Vehicles

NHTSA published a final rule establishing a new FMVSS No. 500, “Low-speed vehicles (LSV),” in 1998.  This new FMVSS and vehicle classification responded to the growing public interest in using golf cars and other similarly-sized small vehicles to make short trips for shopping, social and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other planned, self-contained communities.  These vehicles, many of which are electric-powered, offer comparatively low-cost, energy-efficient, low-emission, quiet transportation.  Electric LSVs are also known as Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs).  The original definition of a LSV excluded trucks – NHTSA is preparing a response, expected this summer, to petitions for rulemaking requesting the agency to remove that exclusion from the definition. The agency also will conduct research to develop performance requirements for safety belts, tires, braking and speed determination, leading to an NPRM later in 2003.  NHTSA published an NPRM on LSV conspicuity in 2002 that proposes requiring lights on at all times, a slow moving vehicle symbol, warning label, and side marker lamps / retro reflectors, with the Final Rule expected in 2004.

VII.   Appendix B:  Vehicle Safety Information for Consumers 

NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides the public with comparative vehicle safety information.  This program and other vehicle safety public information and education activities are crucial components in NHTSA’s efforts to improve safety on the nation’s highways.  The agency also spends and distributes to partners considerable resources to educate the public about safe highway behavior, such as using restraints properly and not driving when impaired by alcohol or drugs. 

An effective way to help consumers enhance the market for safety is to provide them with more comparative vehicle safety information, including crash test ratings and available safety features.  Increasingly, consumers are demanding such information and are basing their purchasing decisions on it.  Their choices, in turn, affect the extent and speed with which manufacturers incorporate new safety features and improved safety performance into their vehicles.  Through these means, market forces, in lieu of regulations, improve the safety characteristics of vehicles on the road.  The average number of visits to the popular NCAP section of the NHTSA website has increased from 3,000 per week in 1997 to 40,000 per week in 2003.

The NHTSA carries out considerable outreach efforts to partner private sector organizations and companies to provide vehicle safety information to the public and to enhance the market for safety.  The agency produces and distributes brochures including:  Buying a Safer Car, which includes comparative (NCAP) ratings and safety features by vehicle make/model; Buying a Safer Car for Child Passengers; Adapting Motor Vehicles for Persons with Disabilities; Tire Safety Information, and child safety seat Ease-of-Use Ratings.  On an on-going basis, the NCAP program considers additional vehicle safety information that will help consumers make informed decisions.  A recent example is the planned inclusion of information on enhanced safety belt reminder systems in NCAP new car safety features.

NCAP frontal and side impact ratings programs provide crucial information to consumers about the relative crashworthiness of light vehicles.  In FY 2003 testing of about 81 passenger vehicles will cover 85 percent of new vehicles for these crash modes.  The vehicles will be split almost evenly between the front and the side.  In addition, the agency will consider potential changes to its frontal crash NCAP parameters to coincide with more stringent requirements under FMVSS No. 208, which in 2008 will increase the speeds at which vehicles are crash tested for compliance with the standard.  In MY 2008, the belted 50^th percentile male test procedure in FMVSS No. 208 will increase from 30 mph to 35 mph for 26% of the vehicle fleet, essentially becoming the frontal NCAP test procedure.  Traditionally, the frontal NCAP testing program has been a more severe test than the standard.  NHTSA is currently evaluating several test procedure options and is exploring ways to revise the frontal NCAP test program.  The agency expects to publish a Request for Comments in the fall of 2003.    

As with the frontal crash test environment, NHTSA recognizes that the U.S. side impact environment has changed significantly in recent years.  NHTSA plans to issue an NPRM in early 2004 to upgrade FMVSS No. 214, to address emerging issues in the field such as head injuries in side crashes and small occupant protection in side crashes.  The NCAP side impact testing program is modeled after FMVSS No. 214.  As such, any changes to FMVSS No. 214 would be evaluated and explored for their merit in a consumer information test program.  Additionally, NHTSA is currently exploring ways to incorporate the head injury data recorded during its side impact test into the side impact star rating. 

A demonstration of the dynamic rollover program will evaluate Model Year 2003 vehicles, followed by publication of the final test methods in the Federal Register.  Implementation of the dynamic test program is slated for the Model Year 2004 NCAP.  Plans are to rate approximately 70 vehicles for rollover resistance which will provide rollover information for approximately 70 percent of the vehicle fleet. 

There are other potential candidates for handling-related NCAP information.  Many crashes could be prevented if vehicles had greater capabilities to maneuver safely around dangerous situations.  NHTSA is looking at the possibility of providing this additional information on vehicle handling after the time frame covered by this plan.  The agency will develop handling and stability tests for dynamic driving maneuvers that could provide more complete NCAP consumer information on handling.   NHTSA will conduct research in the 2006 to 2007 time frame, to be followed by a decision on how to proceed based on the research.  

NHTSA is developing a brake performance program to evaluate stopping distances for light vehicles 10,000 pounds and under.  A demonstration program includes tests for 36 Model Year 2003 vehicles.

Headlamp performance is a longer-term effort.  Following the development program for a rating system, the next step is to demonstrate a potential rating scheme for NHTSA evaluation of whether an NCAP program should be considered. 

Finally, NHTSA implemented ratings of child restraint system (CRS) ease-of-use in 2003, and it is pilot testing CRS sled-testing and in-vehicle programs for future implementation. 

A.  Consumer Information on Child Restraints   

NHTSA’s strategy to protect children includes encouraging the use of child restraint systems (CRS), ensuring restraints provide optimal protection, and providing consumers with useful information on restraining their children.  Approximately 80 percent of child restraints are used incorrectly.  The TREAD Act contained several provisions that dealt with child restraints. Another provision mandates a review of CRS labels and instructions.  In response to a provision on upgrading the labeling requirements for child restraints, in October 2002, NHTSA published a Final Rule to improve child restraint labels and instructions.  Other provisions require the agency to consider placing child restraints in vehicles NHTSA crash tests for NCAP and to establish a child restraint safety rating consumer information program.  In November 2002, the agency issued a Final Rule that includes a child restraint ease of use safety rating program, the intent to explore a dynamic test based on FMVSS No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems” and the intent to place CRS in the frontal NCAP vehicle test.   NHTSA posted its first ease-of-use ratings on its NCAP website in June 2003, and it expects to provide ease-of-use rating for approximately 95 percent of the child restraints on the market in its first year of ratings.  In 2003 and 2004 NHTSA will continue to evaluate the CRS dynamic and vehicle child protection pilot programs.  Should the results of these two pilot programs prove to contain beneficial consumer information, NHTSA will issue a notice for a proposed safety rating program.

Milestones:

Conduct frontal crash tests and sled tests with CRS	2003-4
Final agency decision on crash and sled tests for consumer information	2004
Possible implementation of CRS dynamic and vehicle child protection	2005

B.  Consumer Information on Light Vehicle Rollover   

In December 1998, NHTSA decided to develop consumer information on rollover resistance as an addition to the existing NCAP.  Based on driving maneuver (dynamic) tests conducted in 1997-98 and published in 1999, NHTSA decided to use the static stability factor (SSF) measure (the relationship between a vehicle’s center of gravity height and the width of its wheel track) as the measure of rollover resistance.  This decision was made for a number of reasons: the SSF is a good measure for both tripped and untripped rollover; the SSF is highly correlated with actual crash statistics; the SSF has the least potential for unintended consequences; and the SSF can be measured accurately and explained to consumers. 

NHTSA published a Request for Comments in June 2000 on the SSF as the basis for a 5-star rating program on the rollover resistance of light vehicles.  Subsequently, at the request of Congress, we engaged the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to do a study of the SSF rating and the use of 5-star ratings for rollover resistance.  The NAS study, which NHTSA received on February 20, 2002, concluded that the SSF was a valid measure but recommended dynamic rollover ratings as a valuable supplement to the SSF. 

In an additional development, the TREAD Act directs NHTSA to develop a dynamic test to rate light vehicle rollover resistance, and to carry out such tests by November 2002 and disseminate the results to the public.  The agency began extensive research in April 2001 in support of TREAD, and completed research in December 2002.  An NPRM was published in October 2002 announcing the proposal for the dynamic test. 

Milestones:

Begin dynamic rollover resistance demonstration test program	2003
Final Rule, Dynamic Rollover Rating Program for NCAP	2003
Publish combined SSF/dynamic rollover ratings	2004

C.  Consumer Information on Braking Performance

NHTSA has been conducting vehicle braking and consumer focus group testing to identify a test protocol for providing consumers with comparative brake performance information for light vehicles.  The program, which includes measurements for stopping distance and ABS performance at speeds of 60 mph on different road surfaces, has the potential to improve vehicle brake performance through market forces.  A Request for Comments on the braking NCAP test procedure was published July 17, 2001.

If successful tests can be developed, program vehicles from the NCAP static and dynamic rollover tests would be evaluated for braking performance.  A compilation of test results would provide comparison information for similar models of vehicles within a vehicle category and also highlight differences between major categories of light vehicles. 

Milestones:

Brake performance demonstration program	2003
Final agency decision on brake performance ratings information	2004

D.  Consumer Information on Light Vehicle Headlighting Performance 

NHTSA hopes to establish a headlighting NCAP-type system to provide consumers with information that will influence a safer vehicle purchase.  NHTSA believes that the roadway illumination and glare performance of the lower and upper beams should be rated relative to their compliance robustness and the consumer pleasing aspects of the resultant illumination.  If the agency proceeds with this program, it hopes to progress in time to collect and publish MY 2005 data.

Milestones:

Protocol development, testing, and test data analysis	2003
Decision on whether to provide headlighting ratings, pending results of testing	2004

E. Summary Safety Score 

In response to the National Academy of Sciences Shopping for Safety report, and in the interest of providing the most comprehensive vehicle safety information to consumers, NHTSA embarked on the development of a summary safety score using NCAP frontal, side, and static stability factor ratings (when the SSF ratings became available in 2001).  Subsequent to the initial investigation of the methodology and analysis using NCAP results and real world data, it was determined to wait for final development of the measure until the dynamic rollover ratings were available and a feasible measure of vehicle aggressivity is developed.  NHTSA will finalize the combined rating following completion of these elements.  NHTSA will revise the summary safety score as necessitated by future (beyond the time frame for this plan) changes to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 crash tests, and new ratings programs, if any, added to NCAP. 

Milestones:

Publish latest version of Vehicle Size and Safety report	2003
Publish final notice on the dynamic rollover rating program	2003
Conduct development work incorporating dynamic rollover ratings	2004
Final decision whether to incorporate a Summary Safety Score into the consumer information program)	2005-2006

VIII.  Appendix C:  Regulatory Review Plan Description

The Regulatory Review Plan was developed in 2002.  On a seven year cycle, each FMVSS is subjected to the following assessment components to determine the need to update and/or upgrade the standard.

A. Safety Problem Assessment - NHTSA databases and other data are explored to identify safety problems that could be addressed through revised performance requirements for vehicle systems.  Sources may include FARS, NASS, GES, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and Office of Defects Investigation data, and other sources such as manufacturer data and technical reports. 

B.  Other Societal Factors - A listing is included of other societal factors that might influence the need to amend a FMVSS or develop a new FMVSS.   Factors may include:  demographics (e.g. growth in certain population groups such as older drivers and passengers), societal values (e.g. protection of children), or vehicle safety problems in certain areas of the country (e.g. low speed vehicles)

C.  Technology, Enforceability and Other Standards Review - The technology review focuses on developments in the system(s) affected by the subject standard in the past 10 years, prospects for the immediate future (5 years out) and prospects for the longer term future (5+ years).   Enforceability problems and issues of current standards are reviewed.  A listing and brief description also is included of other standards related to the vehicle systems addressed by the FMVSS.  These may include national and international standards (ECE, Canada, etc) or voluntary industry consensus standards (ISO, SAE, ASTM).  Information sources may include manufacturers, suppliers, industry organizations, published sources, the Internet, and site visits. 

D.  Summary Regulatory Review Report - The results of Sections A., B. and C. are combined into a summary report. The report includes an additional section, Recommendations, which also provides the reasoning and underlying bases for the recommendations on the need for (and recommended time frames) for updating and/or upgrading the standard.