[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78522-78591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31323]



[[Page 78521]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 241

December 16, 2015

Part V





Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





New Car Assessment Program; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / 
Notices  

[[Page 78522]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0119]


New Car Assessment Program

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides comparative 
information on the safety of new vehicles to assist consumers with 
vehicle purchasing decisions and encourage motor vehicle manufacturers 
to make vehicle safety improvements. To keep pace with advancements in 
occupant protection and the introduction of advanced technologies, 
NHTSA has periodically updated the program. This notice describes and 
seeks comments on NHTSA's plan to advance the capabilities and safety 
outcomes of NCAP.

DATES: Comments should be submitted no later than February 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be 
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting 
comments see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received 
will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided.
     Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). For access to the docket to 
read background documents or comments received, go to 
www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the 
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For crashworthiness issues, you may 
contact Jennifer N. Dang, Division Chief, New Car Assessment Program, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 202-366-1810). For 
crash avoidance and advanced technology issues, you may contact Clarke 
B. Harper, Crash Avoidance NCAP Manager, Office of Crash Avoidance 
Standards (Telephone: 202-366-1810). For legal issues, you may contact 
Stephen P. Wood, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992). You 
may send mail to any of these officials at the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. April 5, 2013, Request for Comments--Brief Overview of Comments 
Received
    A. Crashworthiness Areas
    1. Test Dummies
    a. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
    b. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
    2. New and Refined Injury Criteria: Brain Injury Criterion, SID-
IIs Thoracic and Abdomen, Lower Leg
    a. Brain Injury Criterion (BrIC)
    b. SID-IIs Thoracic and Abdomen Deflection Criteria
    c. Neck Injury Criterion (Nij)
    d. Lower Leg
    3. Other Crashworthiness Areas
    a. Pedestrian Protection
    b. Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes
    B. Crash Avoidance and Post-Crash Technologies
    1. General Crash Avoidance/Post-Crash Technologies
    2. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
    3. Advanced Lighting
    4. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
    C. Potential Changes to the Rating System
    1. Update of the Rollover Risk Curve
    2. Advanced Technology Systems
IV. Overview of This Notice--Purpose and Rationale
V. Areas Under Consideration for Inclusion in or Advancement of NCAP
    A. Frontal Crashworthiness
    1. Real-World Frontal Crash Data
    2. Full Frontal Rigid Barrier Test
    3. Frontal Oblique Test
    4. Frontal Test Dummies
    a. Hybrid III 50th Percentile Male ATD (HIII-50M)
    b. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
    c. Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female ATD (HIII-5F) w/
RibEyeTM
    B. Side Crashworthiness
    1. Real-World Side Crash Data
    2. Current Side NCAP Program
    3. Planned Upgrade
    a. Side MDB Test
    b. Side Pole Test
    c. Additional Considerations
    4. Side Test Dummies
    a. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
    b. SID-IIs ATD
    c. WorldSID 5th Percentile Female ATD (WorldSID-5F)
    C. Crashworthiness Pedestrian Protection
    1. Real-World Pedestrian Data
    2. Current NCAP Activities in the U.S./World
    3. Planned Upgrade
    4. Test Procedures/Devices
    D. Crash Avoidance Technologies
    1. Emergency Braking: Warning and Automatic Systems
    a. Forward Collision Warning (FCW)
    b. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB)
    c. Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
    2. Visibility Systems
    a. Lower Beam Headlighting Performance
    b. Semi-Automatic Headlight Beam Switching
    c. Amber Rear Turn Signal Lamps
    3. Driver Awareness and Other Technologies
    a. Lane Departure Warning (LDW)
    b. Rollover Resistance
    c. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
    4. Future Technologies
    E. Pedestrian Crash Avoidance Systems
    1. Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB)
    2. Rear Automatic Braking
VI. New Rating System
    A. Overall Rating
    B. Crashworthiness Rating
    C. Crash Avoidance Rating
    D. Pedestrian Protection Rating
VII. Communications Efforts in Support of NCAP Enhancements
VIII. Conclusion
IX. Public Participation
X. Appendices
    Appendix I: Frontal Crash Target Population
    Appendix II: Planned THOR 50th Percentile Male Injury Risk 
Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
    Appendix III: Planned Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Injury 
Risk Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
    Appendix IV: Planned WorldSID 50th Percentile Male Injury Risk 
Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
    Appendix V: WorldSID-50M and WorldSID-5F NHTSA Test Numbers
    Appendix VI: Planned SID-IIs 5th Percentile Female Injury Risk 
Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
    Appendix VII: Pedestrian Data
    Appendix VIII: Crash Avoidance Test Procedures

I. Executive Summary

    This notice announces the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA) plans to update the New Car Assessment Program 
(NCAP). When NCAP first began providing consumers

[[Page 78523]]

with vehicle safety information derived from frontal crashworthiness 
testing in 1978, consumer interest in vehicle safety and manufacturers' 
attention to enhanced vehicle safety features were relatively new, and 
there were 50,133 motor vehicle related deaths. Today, consumers are 
more educated about vehicle safety as it has become one of the key 
factors in their vehicle purchasing decisions. Vehicle manufacturers 
have responded by offering safer vehicles and incorporating enhanced 
safety features. All of this has translated into improved vehicle 
safety performance and higher NCAP star ratings. These successes have 
contributed to the recent historic reductions in motor vehicle 
fatalities (32,719 in 2013).
    While NHTSA's NCAP has raised consumer awareness of vehicle safety 
and incentivized the production of safer vehicles, thousands of lives 
continue to be lost every year in motor vehicle crashes.
    This notice announces the beginning of a process NHTSA believes 
will provide the agency with significantly enhanced tools and 
techniques for better evaluating the safety of vehicles, generating 
star ratings, and stimulating the development of even safer vehicles 
for American consumers, which the agency believes will result in even 
lower numbers of deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle 
crashes. These include:
     A new frontal oblique test to address a crash type that 
continues to result in deaths and serious injuries despite the use of 
seat belts, air bags, and the crashworthy structures of late-model 
vehicles;
     Use of the THOR 50th percentile male (THOR-50M) 
anthropomorphic test device (ATD--i.e. crash test dummy) in the frontal 
oblique and full frontal tests because of its advanced instrumentation 
and more human-like (biofidelic) response to the forces experienced in 
these crashes;
     Use of the WorldSID 50th percentile male ATD (WorldSID-
50M) in both side pole and side moveable deformable barrier (MDB) tests 
because of its advanced instrumentation and enhanced biofidelic (human-
like) properties;
     Pedestrian crashworthiness testing to measure the extent 
to which vehicles are designed to minimize injuries and fatalities to 
pedestrians struck by vehicles;
     An update of the rollover static stability factor (SSF) 
risk curve using only crash data from newer electronic stability 
control (ESC) equipped vehicles;
     The addition of a crash avoidance rating based on whether 
a vehicle offers any of the multiple technologies that will be added to 
NCAP and whether the technologies meet NHTSA performance measures;
     These technologies would include forward collision 
warning, lane departure warning, blind spot detection, lower beam 
headlighting technologies, semi-automatic headlamp beam switching, 
amber rear turn signal lamps, rear automatic braking and pedestrian 
automatic emergency braking. (A decision concerning the addition of 
crash imminent braking and dynamic brake support to the technologies 
recommended by NCAP is the subject of a separate proceeding recently 
published.\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A new approach to determining a vehicle's overall 5-star 
rating that will, for the first time, incorporate advanced crash 
avoidance technology features, along with ratings for crashworthiness 
and pedestrian protection.
    This notice describes the agency's plans for implementing the new 
tools and approaches referenced above. NHTSA intends to implement these 
enhancements in NCAP in 2018 beginning with the 2019 model year (MY). 
The agency encourages all interested parties to provide the agency with 
comprehensive comments.
    As part of its efforts to support this NCAP upgrade, the agency 
will be completing additional technical work. The results of these 
efforts will be placed in the Docket as they are completed. 
Accordingly, we recommend that interested people periodically check the 
Docket for new material.

II. Background

    In 2013, 32,719 people died on U.S. roads. In addition, 2,313,000 
more were injured. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce vehicle-
related crashes.
    The agency uses several approaches to carry out its mission 
including regulations, defect investigations and recalls, and education 
programs. The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is a consumer education 
approach that the agency uses to help accomplish its safety mission. 
NCAP provides comparative information on the safety performance and 
features of new vehicles to: (1) Assist consumers with their vehicle 
purchasing decisions, (2) encourage manufacturers to improve the 
current safety performance and features of new vehicles, and (3) 
stimulate the addition of new vehicle safety features. NCAP has a 
proven legacy of driving vehicle safety improvements effectively and 
quickly. Advancements to NCAP represent an opportunity to save more 
lives and prevent more injuries.
    NHTSA established NCAP in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972.\2\ Beginning with MY 
1979, NHTSA began testing passenger vehicles for frontal impact safety 
based on injury readings gathered from anthropomorphic test devices 
(ATDs, also known as crash test dummies) during crash tests. Star 
ratings were introduced in MY 1994 as a more consumer-friendly approach 
to conveying the relative safety of vehicles subject to NCAP's crash 
tests.\3\ The agency added crash tests and ratings for side impact 
safety beginning in MY 1997.\4\ A new test for rollover resistance 
assessment was added to the rating system in MY 2001 based on a 
vehicle's measured static properties as reflected by a calculation 
known as the Static Stability Factor (SSF).\5\ Beginning with MY 2004, 
the NCAP rollover resistance rating was amended so that the rating is 
based on not only the SSF but also the results of a dynamic vehicle 
test.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law 
92-513, 86 Stat. 947 (1972).
    \3\ See 69 FR 61072. Docket No. NHTSA-2004-1876. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/04-23078.
    \4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs. 
(1997). NHTSA Releases Side Crash Test Results in New Consumer 
Information Program [Press Release]. Retrieved from www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1997/NHTSA+Releases+Side+Crash+Test+Results+in+New+Consumer+Information+Program.
    \5\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs. 
(2001). U.S. Department of Transportation Announces First Rollover 
Resistance Ratings [Press Release]. Retrieved from www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2001/U.S.+Department+of+Transportation+Announces+First+Rollover+Resistance+Ratings.
    \6\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs. 
(2003). NHTSA Announces New Rollover Test [Press Release]. Retrieved 
from www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2003/NHTSA+Announces+New+Rollover+Test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 25, 2007, NHTSA published a Federal Register notice 
announcing a public hearing and requesting comments on an agency report 
titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Suggested Approaches 
for Future Enhancements.'' \7\ Following the receipt of written 
comments and testimony at a March 7, 2007, public hearing, NHTSA 
published a notice on July 11, 2008, announcing specific

[[Page 78524]]

changes to NCAP.\8\ The agency made frontal and side crash ratings 
criteria more stringent by upgrading crash test dummies including new 
5th percentile female dummies, establishing new injury criteria, adding 
a new side pole crash test, and creating a single overall vehicle score 
that reflects a vehicle's combined frontal crash, side crash, and 
rollover ratings. In addition, the agency added information about the 
presence of advanced crash avoidance technologies in vehicles as part 
of NCAP. Technologies that were demonstrated to have a potential safety 
benefit and meet NHTSA's performance test measures were recommended to 
consumers on www.safercar.gov, where NCAP ratings and other vehicle 
safety information were posted. The agency implemented these NCAP 
enhancements beginning with MY 2011 vehicles. Subsequent to these 
changes to the program, the agency then initiated a rulemaking to 
modify the NCAP-related information required on the Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 72 FR 3473. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0006. Available 
at https://federalregister.gov/a/E7-1130.
    \8\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0114. Available 
at https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When NCAP was first launched in 1978, vehicle manufacturers were 
slow to respond to the program by way of redesigning or making changes 
to their vehicles to improve vehicle safety performance ratings. 
Following the implementation of the July 11, 2008, NCAP upgrade, many 
new vehicles achieved 4- and 5- star NCAP ratings very quickly, even in 
new test scenarios with newly introduced ATDs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., Aram, M., 
``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th International 
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 
15-0314, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This signaled a new challenge for NHTSA. While the agency applauds 
the response of manufacturers who rise to meet the safety challenges 
set forth by NCAP, NHTSA is concerned that a high percentage of 
vehicles receiving 4 and 5 stars diminishes the program's ability to 
identify for consumers vehicles with exceptional safety performance. 
NHTSA believes enhancements to NCAP should be dynamic to address 
emerging available technologies, so that it can incentivize vehicle 
manufacturers to continue to make safety improvements to their 
vehicles.
    Other NCAPs have formed around the world in the time since NHTSA's 
NCAP was first established. Today the following NCAP programs operate 
with missions and goals similar to those of the U.S. NCAP: Australasian 
New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), New Car Assessment Program for 
Southeast Asia (ASEAN NCAP), China New Car Assessment Program (C-NCAP), 
The European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP), Japan New Car 
Assessment Program (JNCAP), Korean New Car Assessment Program (KNCAP), 
and Latin American and the Caribbean New Car Assessment Program (Latin 
NCAP). These other NCAPs are in various stages of development, with 
Euro NCAP, formed in 1997, among the more well-established programs. 
Euro NCAP's test protocols are often referenced by other NCAP programs.
    In the United States, in addition to NHTSA's NCAP, there is also 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute, 
an organization funded largely by the insurance industry that conducts 
its own vehicle testing and consumer vehicle safety information 
program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For information concerning the IIHS program see http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These programs and NHTSA's NCAP are all associated with Global 
NCAP,\11\ a recently formed international organization with a multi-
faceted mission including (1) supporting the development of new 
consumer crash test programs in emerging markets, (2) providing a 
platform for associated NCAPs to share information regarding best 
practices and approaches to promoting vehicle safety, and (3) 
researching vehicle safety technology innovations and ways of helping 
to advance those technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See www.globalncap.org. This Web site also includes links 
to all NCAP programs around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. April 5, 2013, Request for Comments--Brief Overview of Comments 
Received

    On April 5, 2013, NHTSA published a document (78 FR 20597) 
requesting comments on a number of areas relating to the agency's NCAP. 
The agency requested comment in areas in which the agency believes 
enhancements to NCAP could be made either in the short term or over a 
longer period time. A total of 58 organizations or individuals 
submitted comments in response to the April 5, 2013, ``Request for 
comments'' (RFC). Comments were received from associations, consultants 
and research organizations, consumer organizations and advocacy groups, 
a government agency, an insurance company and an insurance 
organization, a publisher, suppliers to the automobile industry, a 
university, and vehicle manufacturers. The remaining comments were 
submitted by individuals (some anonymously). See www.regulations.gov, 
Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180 for a full listing of the 58 commenters.
    What follows is a brief summary of comments submitted in response 
to the April 5, 2013, RFC and that are relevant to today's notice. 
Comments received on a number of topics are not summarized in this 
document because this notice does not focus on all topics included in 
the April 5, 2013, document.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These include a possible silver car rating for older 
occupants, new test protocols for electric vehicles, comparative 
barrier testing for a frontal crash rating, advanced child dummies, 
the Hybrid III 95th percentile dummy, rear seat belt reminders, a 
possible family star rating, carry back ratings, adjustments to the 
baseline injury risk, and some ideas for providing better consumer 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Crashworthiness Areas

1. Test Dummies
    Several commenters supported the general notion of improving test 
dummies used in NCAP. Concerns included the desire to work with the 
agency in the development of improved crash test dummies, the need for 
users to have sufficient lead time to obtain and gain experience with 
new dummies before they need to start using them in the design and 
development process, and the belief that new dummies and injury 
criteria should be formally introduced through a standardized 
regulatory process with sufficient lead time or a phase-in.
a. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
    While there was support for using the Test device for Human 
Occupant Restraint (THOR) 50M dummy in frontal NCAP, commenters were 
apprehensive about repeatability, reproducibility, durability, and 
ease-of-use issues. They questioned whether exclusive use of THOR-50M, 
instead of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male (HIII-50M) ATD, would 
result in incremental safety advances. One commenter, however, urged 
NHTSA to take the lead in harmonizing the performance and design of the 
THOR-50M, as it has for the WorldSID-50M dummy under the UNECE World 
Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).
b. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
    While generally supporting the introduction of the WorldSID-50M 
into NCAP for side impact testing, some commenters noted the need for 
injury criteria for this ATD and the need for those criteria to be 
harmonized with those being developed by Euro NCAP. Some commenters 
expressed concern about the cost and lead time required for 
manufacturers to obtain WorldSID dummies. Remaining technical issues 
with respect to the WorldSID 5th

[[Page 78525]]

percentile female dummy (WorldSID-5F) were noted by a few commenters. 
One commenter suggested that the dummy should be incorporated into NCAP 
once the issues are resolved and the dummy is incorporated into Title 
49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 572, ``Anthropomorphic test 
devices.''
2. New and Refined Injury Criteria: Brain Injury Criterion, SID-IIs 
Thoracic and Abdomen Deflection, and Neck Injury Criterion, and Lower 
Leg
    The agency sought public comment and supporting information on ATD 
injury criteria used to predict injury potential in vehicle crash 
tests.
a. Brain Injury Criterion (BrIC)
    BrIC is an injury criterion for assessing brain injury resulting 
from head rotation, regardless of whether or not there is a head 
impact. Some commenters supported the introduction of BrIC into NCAP 
while others expressed reservations about the current state of 
knowledge and therefore opposed BrIC until more information becomes 
available.
b. SID-IIs Thoracic and Abdomen Deflection Criteria
    Some commenters supported the inclusion of thoracic and abdominal 
rib deflection criteria for the SID-IIs dummy in side NCAP. Those who 
opposed using these injury criteria in NCAP indicated that changes to 
the injury criteria should first be considered through a rulemaking 
process as part of a possible revision to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side impact protection.''
c. Neck Injury Criterion (Nij)
    All comments on the neck injury criterion (Nij) were critical of 
the current risk curve and encouraged the agency to make revisions. 
Commenters generally suggested that the current Nij risk curve 
overstates the risk of neck injury, which in their opinion undercuts 
the validity of certain NCAP vehicle safety ratings.
d. Lower Leg
    There were only a few comments on lower leg injury criteria, but 
those addressing this issue generally supported the idea of 
incorporating lower leg injury criteria into NCAP. Instruments to 
gather lower leg data must be thoroughly vetted, one commenter said, 
and another suggested that changes to lower leg injury criteria should 
be dealt with concurrently in a FMVSS 208 rulemaking and in NCAP.
3. Other Crashworthiness Areas
a. Pedestrian Protection
    Many of the commenters in this area supported NHTSA basing whatever 
it does with respect to pedestrian protection on Global Technical 
Regulation (GTR) No. 9. Some did not support including pedestrian 
safety in NCAP, arguing instead that it should be the subject of 
regulation. Two commenters specifically urged NHTSA to consider using a 
type of ``point system'' similar to the one currently used by Euro NCAP 
to reward the implementation of advanced safety equipment such as 
pedestrian protection.
b. Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes
    Many commenters spoke favorably about the potential benefits that 
may be derived from enhancing safety for rear seat occupants. Those in 
favor of the agency conducting additional tests to assess the rear seat 
environment expressed support for using the Hybrid III 5th percentile 
female (HIII-5F) dummy in NCAP, but opinions varied regarding what 
parameters should be evaluated in the test. Several commenters noted 
that current technologies used to protect occupants in the front seats 
may not be well-suited to protect those in the rear seat. One commenter 
disagreed, however, saying front seat technologies should be considered 
for possible application to the rear seat. Several other commenters 
specifically cautioned against changes in the back seat environment 
that could benefit one type of rear seat occupant while possibly 
adversely affecting others.

B. Crash Avoidance and Post-Crash Technologies

1. General Crash Avoidance/Post-Crash Technologies
    The inclusion of crash avoidance technologies in NCAP was supported 
by many commenters. Only one commenter specifically indicated that more 
data on real-world safety benefits would be needed before they could 
comment on whether adding more technologies to NCAP is appropriate. 
Particular interest was expressed in the following technologies: blind 
spot detection, lane departure prevention/lane keeping assist, forward 
automatic pedestrian detection and braking, advanced lighting, crash 
imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and advanced automatic crash 
notification.
    Even among those who supported a specific technology as a possible 
enhancement to NCAP, there were often differences in the details of how 
and when the particular enhancement should be pursued and implemented. 
Though there was a general sense among the commenters that adoption 
rates of these technologies will continue to rise in the new light-
vehicle marketplace and therefore they should be incorporated into 
NCAP, there were overwhelming differences in viewpoints about the 
conditions under which these technologies should be incorporated into 
NCAP.
2. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
    Most of those who commented on BSD systems agreed that this 
technology has the potential to provide safety benefits although safety 
benefits estimates were not provided. Only some of these commenters 
specifically indicated that BSD should be included in NCAP. One 
commenter suggested that a vehicle should be given ``extra points'' in 
NCAP if equipped with BSD while another said that BSD should be 
included in the NCAP 5-star safety rating system. Another commenter 
said that it should not be included in a star rating and suggested 
instead including BSD and lane change assist systems in the current 
NCAP approach of identifying advanced crash avoidance technology 
systems with a check mark on www.safercar.gov for vehicles equipped 
with those systems and that meet NCAP's performance test criteria.
3. Advanced Lighting \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Advanced lighting in the context of this program currently 
includes lower beam headlighting performance, semi-automatic 
headlamp beam switching, and amber rear turn signal lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters spoke favorably of the potential for advanced 
lighting technologies to have a positive impact on vehicle safety. The 
favorable comments suggested these commenters support the inclusion of 
advanced lighting in NCAP; however, only a few of the commenters 
clearly stated that advanced lighting should be included in NCAP.
    Other commenters expressed the need for additional research into 
the benefits of advanced lighting. Commenters also discussed the need 
to modify FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated 
equipment,'' so that advanced lighting technologies now approved for 
use in other areas of the world can be introduced in the United States.
4. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
    Most of those commenting on the 2013 RFC supported including CIB 
and

[[Page 78526]]

DBS in NCAP in some way. On January 28, 2015, NHTSA published an RFC 
notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency's plan to 
recommend these technologies in NCAP.\14\ Comments received from the 
2013 RFC notice were conveyed as part of that proceeding and will not 
be repeated here. The final agency decision notice on the inclusion of 
these technologies in NCAP was recently published in the same docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 80 FR 4630. Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-01461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Potential Changes to the Rating System

1. Update of the Rollover Risk Curve
    Five of those who commented in this area focused on the importance 
of revising the distribution of crash types used in calculating the 
Overall Vehicle Score to reflect the reduction in rollover crashes 
among ESC-equipped vehicles.
    Those who offered specific suggestions regarding the appropriate 
weighting factor for rollover in determining a vehicle's Overall 
Vehicle Score suggested that it should be 10 percent. In addition to 
the 10 percent for rollover, one commenter mentioned a study it had 
commissioned that indicated the weighting factor for frontal and side 
crash ratings should be 54 percent and 36 percent, respectively, as 
opposed to the current weighting factors of 42 percent for frontal, 33 
percent for side, and 25 percent for rollover.
2. Advanced Technology Systems
    Some commenters asked the agency to maintain its current approach 
of recommending the technologies instead of rating them while others 
supported rating the technologies with stars. A few commenters 
preferred a combined crash avoidance and crashworthiness rating while 
others suggested that they should remain as separate ratings. Euro 
NCAP's ``point system'' approach was also mentioned as a possibility 
for rating, ranking, or assessing various crash avoidance technologies.

IV. Overview of This Notice

Purpose and Rationale

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comment on the 
agency's plan to advance the capabilities and safety outcomes of 
NHTSA's NCAP program. The agency aims to have NCAP continue to serve as 
a world leader in providing consumers with vehicle safety information 
generated by the latest available vehicle safety assessment techniques 
and tools. The agency believes that NCAP works best if the program 
keeps pace with advancements in safety technologies and capabilities so 
that consumers can be assured that evaluation criteria used provide the 
most thorough measure of vehicle safety possible using the current 
state-of-the-art so that only truly exceptional vehicles achieve 4- and 
5-star ratings.
    As discussed previously, given the high percentage of recent model 
year vehicles rated by NCAP now receiving 4- and 5-star ratings, it is 
an opportune time for the agency to consider further refinements to 
NCAP to assure that only vehicles with truly exceptional safety 
features and performance will receive 4- and 5-star ratings. In the 
end, the agency's goal is for the program to provide a continuing 
incentive for vehicle manufacturers to further improve the safety of 
the vehicles they manufacture.
    As vehicle safety innovations offering substantial safety potential 
continue to emerge, the agency believes that it must also use NCAP, its 
most effective means of encouraging vehicle safety improvements and 
innovations through market forces, to incentivize vehicle manufacturers 
to equip their vehicles with these technologies. In addition, the 
agency must continually strive to expand and improve the safety 
information that is conveyed to consumers and continually increase the 
effectiveness with which that information is communicated. To that end, 
this notice outlines NHTSA's intention to implement a new 5-star rating 
system to convey vehicle safety information in three major areas--
crashworthiness, crash avoidance, and pedestrian protection.
    The agency considered a variety of information in developing the 
potential new approaches for NCAP discussed in this RFC notice. The 
agency has reviewed comments submitted in response to the April 5, 
2013, notice, evaluated its current research activities, and considered 
recent recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) and other consumer organizations and advocacy groups that 
encourage the inclusion of advanced technologies as part of the NCAP 5-
star safety rating system.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On June 8, 2015, the agency received a ``Safety 
Recommendation'' letter from the NTSB urging NHTSA to expand the 
NCAP 5-star safety rating system to include a scale that rates the 
performance of advanced technologies, specifically forward collision 
avoidance systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This RFC notice outlines the agency's plan for this NCAP upgrade. 
It describes in detail new program areas that NHTSA intends to add to 
NCAP, the timeline to implement these enhancements, and a new way of 
calculating star ratings. The agency recognizes that by sharing, and 
seeking comment on its intentions, it allows the public an opportunity 
to inform the agency of information relevant to this NCAP upgrade. In 
addition, this RFC notice provides the automotive industry the 
opportunity to begin taking the steps that will be needed to adapt to 
the enhancements in this NCAP upgrade.
    In the April 5, 2013, RFC notice, NHTSA noted ``there are four 
prerequisites for considering an area for adoption as a new NCAP 
enhancement.'' \16\ First, a safety need must be known or be capable of 
being estimated based on what is known. Second, vehicle and equipment 
designs must exist or at least be anticipated in prototype designs that 
are capable of mitigating the safety need. Third, a safety benefit must 
be estimated, based on the anticipated performance of the existing or 
prototype design. Finally, it must be feasible to develop a 
performance-based objective test procedure to measure the ability of 
the vehicle technology to mitigate the safety issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 78 FR 20597. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-07766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent possible, these criteria will be discussed in this 
RFC notice for each feature being considered. Data may not be available 
for each element, but NHTSA will consider information to the extent 
that it is available. NHTSA welcomes any data to support the analysis 
of these criteria. NHTSA may consider other factors that are not among 
the criteria listed above. Additionally, NHTSA may weight some of these 
criteria differently for some features than for others, if NHTSA 
believes it is in the interest of developing a robust program that 
encourages safety advancements in the marketplace.

V. Areas Under Consideration for Inclusion in or Advancement of NCAP

A. Frontal Crashworthiness

1. Real-World Frontal Crash Data
    In September 2009, NHTSA published a report that sought to describe 
why people were still dying in frontal crashes despite the use of seat 
belts, air bags, and the crashworthy structures of late-model 
vehicles.\17\ The study found that many fatalities and injuries could 
be attributed to crashes involving poor

[[Page 78527]]

structural engagement between a vehicle and its collision partner. 
These crashes consisted mainly of corner impacts, oblique crashes, 
impacts with narrow objects, and heavy vehicle underrides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Bean, J., Kahane, C., Mynatt, M., Rudd, R., Rush, C., 
Wiacek, C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,'' 
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To better understand and classify the injuries and fatalities from 
crashes involving oblique and corner impacts, the agency took a new 
approach to field data research. A 2011 report detailed this new method 
to more comprehensively identify frontal crashes based on an alternate 
interpretation of vehicle damage characteristics.\18\ NHTSA 
incorporated this approach into its efforts to examine frontal crashes 
occurring in the field data. Furthermore, recognizing that occupant 
kinematics and restraint engagement differed among frontal crash types, 
the agency's new method allowed for better identification of frontal 
crashes with more emphasis on occupant responses than vehicle damage 
characteristics. When using this method, the population of frontal 
crashes generated tends to include some crashes that would previously 
have been classified as side impact crashes. In this, there may be 
damage located on the side plane of a given vehicle, though the 
kinematics of the occupants resembles those typically seen in a 
conventionally coded frontal impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``NASS 
Analysis in Support of NHTSA's Frontal Small Overlap Program,'' DOT 
HS 811 522, August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this RFC notice, National Automotive Sampling 
System--Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data from case years 
2000 through 2013 were chosen for analysis using the new approach. The 
resulting NASS-CDS data generated for this effort are contained in 
Appendix I. Crashes were selected to include passenger vehicles 
involved in a tow-away non-rollover crash with a Principal Direction of 
Force (PDOF) between 330 degrees and 30 degrees (11 o'clock to 1 
o'clock). Only non-ejected, belt-restrained occupants, who sustained 
AIS 2 and higher severity injuries or were killed, were selected from 
those crashes. The two crash configurations responsible for the most 
injuries and fatalities in the resulting frontal crash data set are 
shown in Table 1 below. They are the co-linear full overlap and the 
left (driver side) oblique crash modes.
    Table 1 shows the number of restrained Maximum Abbreviated Injury 
Scale (MAIS) 2+ and 3+ injured and fatal occupants seated in the front 
rows of vehicles involved in left oblique and co-linear full frontal 
crashes.\19\ These are unadjusted, annualized occupant counts. This 
means that the total weighted counts over the 14-year period are simply 
divided by 14 to produce an average annual count. Case weights were not 
adjusted to account for factors such as vehicle age or matching 
fatality counts in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). There 
were more MAIS 2+ and 3+ injured occupants from left oblique crashes 
than co-linear full overlap crashes in this dataset. The numbers of 
fatalities are very similar when comparing both crash types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (or MAIS) is the 
maximum injury per occupant.

 Table 1--Distribution of Annual Restrained MAIS 2+, MAIS 3+, and Fatal Occupants in Left Oblique and Co-Linear
                                                 Frontal Crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Front row
                           Crash mode                            -----------------------------------------------
                                                                      MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap..........................................          17,634           4,037             640
Left oblique....................................................          19,131           5,354             633
    Total.......................................................          36,765           9,392           1,273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).

    The occupant counts defined in Table 1 were further examined to 
better understand which individual body regions in both of these 
frontal crash modes sustained AIS 3+ injuries. The following body 
regions were used in the classification of injuries: Head (including 
face injuries, brain injuries, and skull fracture); Neck (including the 
brain stem and cervical spine); Chest (thorax); Abdomen; Knee-Thigh-
Hip; Below Knee (lower leg, feet, and ankles); Spine (excluding the 
cervical spine); and Upper Extremity.
    Figure 1 shows the break-down of drivers with MAIS 3+ injuries in 
each body region for both frontal crash modes. These unadjusted, 
annualized counts indicate the number of times a given body region 
sustained an AIS 3 or higher injury among the drivers in Table 1. Some 
drivers may be represented in multiple columns. Some key inferences can 
be made. First, drivers in oblique crashes experienced more MAIS 3+ 
injuries to nearly every body region than drivers in co-linear crashes. 
Drivers in oblique crashes experienced more injuries to the head, neck 
and cervical spine, abdomen, upper extremities, knee/thigh/hip (KTH), 
and areas below the knee. Though drivers in co-linear crashes 
experienced more MAIS 3+ chest injuries than drivers in oblique 
crashes, these injuries were the highest in number for both crash 
types. Driver injuries in both frontal crash types occurred to a wide 
variety of body regions.

[[Page 78528]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.037

    Figure 2 is similar to Figure 1, but provides an overview of the 
MAIS 3+ injuries for the right front passenger instead. It shows a 
pattern similar to the driver; MAIS 3+ injuries in left oblique crashes 
outweigh the numbers of similar injuries in co-linear crashes. Right 
front passengers in left oblique crashes experienced more injuries to 
the head, neck and cervical spine, chest, abdomen, upper extremities, 
and KTH regions than right front passengers involved in co-linear full 
frontal crashes. Injuries for the right front passenger occurred to a 
wide variety of body regions, which is similar to what was observed for 
the driver.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.038

    This real-world data analysis suggests that there is an opportunity 
for the agency to continue examining the oblique crash type that was 
identified as a frontal crash problem by NHTSA in 2009. Real-world co-
linear crashes that are represented in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash 
protection,'' and the current full frontal NCAP test are also

[[Page 78529]]

still resulting in serious injuries and fatalities.
2. Full Frontal Rigid Barrier Test
    NCAP intends to continue conducting its current full width rigid 
frontal barrier test at 56 km/h (35 mph). As shown in the 2000-2013 
NASS-CDS data discussed earlier, these frontal crashes are still a 
major source of injuries and fatalities in the field. However, NHTSA 
intends to update the ATDs to evaluate occupant protection in NCAP's 
full frontal crash. Rather than using the HIII-50M ATD, NHTSA intends 
to use the THOR-50M ATD in the driver's seat of full frontal rigid 
barrier tests conducted for this NCAP upgrade. NHTSA intends to 
continue using the HIII-5F dummy in the right front passenger's seat of 
these tests for frontal NCAP, though the ATD would now be seated at the 
mid-track position rather than the full-forward position it is 
currently placed in (based on the current NCAP and FMVSS No. 208 test 
procedures). In every full width rigid barrier frontal NCAP test, the 
agency intends to seat another HIII-5F ATD in the second row of the 
vehicle, behind the right front passenger. The agency is seeking 
comment on the seating procedures for these dummies in the full frontal 
rigid barrier test.
    The THOR-50M ATD requires a different seating procedure than the 
currently used HIII-50M ATD. Some modifications are necessary in the 
areas of adjusting the seat back angle, seat track, and positioning of 
the legs, feet, shoulder, and other body regions related to the 
inherent physical characteristics of the THOR-50M ATD. The agency is 
seeking comment on draft procedures for seating a THOR-50M ATD in the 
driver's seat of vehicles.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Draft seating procedures may be found in the docket for 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment on an alternative seating procedure for the 
right front passenger ATD, the HIII-5F. Currently, the HIII-5F ATD is 
seated in the forward-most seating position for FMVSS No. 208 and NCAP 
full frontal tests. In light of real-world data gathered from NASS-CDS, 
(2000-2013 full frontal crashes, with MAIS 2+ injured occupants, 
discussed further below) the agency intends to conduct research tests 
with the HIII-5F ATD seated in the right front passenger seat's mid-
track location instead of the forward-most location. This data, shown 
below in Figure 3, indicates that the majority of MAIS 2+ injured 
occupants sit in a mid- to rear seat track position.\21\ The number of 
right front passengers injured when seated in the full-forward position 
was the smallest number of occupants seen in this data set. In 
addition, the right front passenger seats in this data set were most 
likely to be placed in the forward-mid or middle position along the 
seat track. The prevalence of real-world injuries to occupants seated 
at these positions, along with research indicating that higher chest 
deflections may be seen for occupants seated at the mid-track 
position,\22\ indicate there may be an opportunity for safety gains for 
NCAP to test vehicles with the right front passenger ATD in the mid-
track position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Forward-mid is defined as the seat track position that is 
halfway between forward-most and mid-track (middle), while rear-mid 
is defined as the seat track position between the mid-track and 
rear-most.
    \22\ Tylko, S., and Bussi[egrave]res, A. ``Responses of the 
Hybrid III 5th Female and 10[hyphen]year[hyphen]old ATD Seated in 
the Rear Seats of Passenger Vehicles in Frontal Crash Tests.'' 
IRCOBI Conference 2012, Paper IRC-12-65.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.039

    As such, the agency is seeking comment on the appropriateness of 
potentially seating the right front passenger HIII-5F dummy in a 
position that is closer to (or at) the mid-track location. NHTSA plans 
to conduct research using the NCAP procedure but with the HIII-5F 
seated in the mid-track location instead. The agency believes this 
choice in seating location could also allow NCAP's testing to serve as 
a compliment to the forward-most seating location used in FMVSS No. 
208.\23\ NHTSA included a draft procedure for seating the HIII-5F ATD 
in the mid-track location in the docket of this RFC notice. The agency 
also included a draft procedure for seating the same ATD in the row 
behind the right front passenger, but this very closely follows the 
seating procedure for the current 5th

[[Page 78530]]

percentile rear passenger dummy in the side moveable deformable barrier 
(MDB) NCAP test, the SID-IIs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 65 FR 30680. Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013 Notice 1. 
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/00-11577.
    \24\ ``U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test Procedure for the New 
Car Assessment Program Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier Test,'' 
Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0046, September 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Frontal Oblique Test
    As stated previously, NHTSA published a report in 2009 examining 
why occupant fatalities are still occurring for belted occupants in air 
bag-equipped vehicles involved in frontal crashes.\25\ Around this 
time, the agency initiated research to develop both small overlap and 
oblique test procedures.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,'' 
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009.
    \26\ Saunders, J., Craig, M., Parent, D., ``Moving Deformable 
Barrier Test Procedure for Evaluating Small Overlap/Oblique 
Crashes,'' SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 5(1):2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-
0577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish a baseline for testing, NHTSA initiated research by 
conducting a series of full-scale vehicle-to-vehicle tests to 
understand occupant kinematics and vehicle interactions. The agency 
then conducted barrier-to-vehicle tests using the MDB already in use in 
FMVSS No. 214. These tests failed to produce the results seen in the 
vehicle-to-vehicle tests, which prompted NHTSA to develop a more 
appropriate barrier to use with the frontal oblique test 
configuration.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Saunders, J., Craig, M.J., Suway, J., ``NHTSA's Test 
Procedure Evaluations for Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes,'' The 22nd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0343, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting modified version of the FMVSS No. 214 MDB is called 
the Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier (OMDB). Some differences between 
the OMDB and the FMVSS No. 214 MDB are that the OMDB has a face plate 
wider than the barrier outer track width, a suspension to prevent 
bouncing at high speeds, and an optimized barrier honeycomb depth and 
stiffness.\28\ The OMDB was optimized to produce target vehicle crush 
patterns similar to real-world cases while minimizing the likelihood of 
the rigid face plate contacting the target vehicle due to honeycomb 
bottoming-out.\29\ It is heavier than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB at a weight 
of 2,486 kilograms (kg) (5,480 pounds (lb)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Ibid.
    \29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per NHTSA's current frontal oblique testing protocol, the OMDB 
impacts a stationary vehicle at a speed of 90 km/h (56 mph).\30\ This 
vehicle is placed at a 15-degree angle and a 35-percent overlap occurs 
between the OMDB and the front end of the struck vehicle. The selected 
test condition was shown to be representative of a midsize vehicle-to-
vehicle 15-degree oblique, 50-percent overlap test, resulting in a 56 
km/h (35 mph) delta-V. When a midsize vehicle is exposed to the OMDB 
test condition it creates a longitudinal delta-V of about 56 km/h (35 
mph). The test speed was selected to be analogous with the current 
severity of the NCAP full width frontal rigid barrier test of a midsize 
vehicle.\31\ The agency has published the results of the frontal 
oblique test program several times over the past few years in public 
forums 32 33 In Saunders (2013), NHTSA also demonstrated the 
frontal oblique test protocol's repeatability. Generally, the results 
of this research have shown good agreement with the agency's continued 
examination of this particular frontal crash problem and the injuries 
and fatalities it causes. The fatalities and injuries caused by this 
crash scenario were surveyed at length in Rudd's 2011 analysis of field 
data from both the NASS-CDS and CIREN databases.\34\ The findings 
discussed in Rudd (2011) as well as the NASS-CDS analysis presented 
earlier demonstrate that there are real-world injuries occurring to the 
knee-thigh-hip, lower extremities, head, and chest. Accordingly, the 
agency's frontal oblique research tests predict a high probability of 
injury to these body regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Drawing package available in the docket for this notice.
    \31\ Saunders, J., Craig, M.J., Suway, J., ``NHTSA's Test 
Procedure Evaluations For Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes,'' 22nd ESV 
Conference, Paper No. 11-0343, 2011.
    \32\ Saunders, J. and Parent, D., ``Repeatability of a Small 
Overlap and an Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure,'' 
SAE World Congress, Paper No. 2013-01-0762, 2013.
    \33\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash 
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury risk 
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The 
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
    \34\ Rudd, R., Scarboro, M., Saunders, J., ``Injury Analysis of 
Real-World Small Overlap and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0384, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has considered existing regulations and consumer information 
programs, both within the agency and outside of the agency, in the 
development of its frontal oblique testing protocol. The most similar 
test mode is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's small overlap 
frontal test (IIHS-SO). The IIHS-SO test is a co-linear impact with a 
rigid barrier that overlaps with 25 percent of the vehicle's width, and 
for most vehicles does not engage the primary longitudinal structure of 
the front end of the vehicle. As such, the IIHS-SO test tends to drive 
structural countermeasures outside of the frame rails of the vehicle 
and strengthening of the occupant compartment.\35\ The OMDB in the 
NHTSA frontal oblique test, in contrast, does interact with at least 
one frame rail of the vehicle, often resulting in a more severe crash 
pulse that puts greater emphasis on restraint system countermeasures. 
Also, because the OMDB impacts a stationary vehicle at the same speed 
regardless of the target vehicle's mass, the frontal oblique test 
protocol is a constant energy test, which allows for the comparison of 
test results between vehicle classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Mueller, B.C., Brethwaite, A.S., Zuby, D.S., & Nolan, J. M. 
(2014). Structural Design Strategies for Improved Small Overlap 
Crashworthiness Performance. Stapp Car Crash Journal, 58, 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, the agency presented its results from testing late model, 
high sales volume vehicles.\36\ Those results indicated that many of 
these modern vehicles that perform well in tests conducted for other 
consumer information programs (including the IIHS-SO test described 
above) and air bags meeting FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection Mitigation,'' 
requirements may need additional design improvements to address real-
world injuries and fatalities in frontal oblique crashes.\37\ The 
agency intends to continue looking into the differences between the 
IIHS-SO and its own frontal oblique test. The observations in Saunders 
(2015), along with the real-world data presented previously in this 
document, indicate there is an opportunity to improve upon current 
vehicle designs in an effort to reduce fatalities and injuries in real 
world oblique crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash 
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk 
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The 
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
    \37\ See 76 FR 3212. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NCAP intends to test and rate new vehicles under a protocol very 
similar to the frontal oblique test protocol previously researched by 
the agency.\38\ The program also intends to use the associated draft 
seating procedures for the THOR-50M ATDs in both the driver's seat and 
the right front passenger's seat.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Draft test procedure available in the docket for this 
notice.
    \39\ Draft seating procedures may be found in the docket for 
this notice.

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

[[Page 78531]]

    The potential exists for NCAP to encourage vehicles design changes 
that address this particular crash type. As previously noted, the 
occupants in Saunders (2015) showed a range of responses across several 
injury types.\40\ This suggests that the frontal oblique test has the 
ability to discriminate between vehicle performances and, in turn, 
could allow NCAP to offer consumers comparative safety information for 
vehicles exposed to this crash mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash 
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk 
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The 
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the agency only intends to conduct left side frontal 
oblique impact tests in NCAP. As discussed in Appendix I, left side 
oblique impacts constitute a greater proportion of real-world oblique 
crashes. Research on both the left and right frontal oblique crash 
impacts is ongoing in an effort to gain a better understanding of the 
restraint and structural countermeasures needed to combat occupant 
injury in oblique impacts on both sides of vehicles.
4. Frontal Test Dummies
a. Hybrid III 50th Percentile Male ATD (HIII-50M)
    NCAP does not intend to use the HIII-50M ATD in frontal crash tests 
in this NCAP upgrade. This dummy is still sufficient for the needs of 
regulatory standards (such as FMVSS No. 208, which assesses minimal 
performance of vehicles with this device) and will continue to be used 
in that capacity. Significant advancements in vehicle safety and 
restraint design have taken place since the HIII-50M was incorporated 
into Part 572. NCAP seeks a test device that produces the most 
biofidelic capability and response to distinguish between the levels of 
occupant protection provided by modern vehicles so that manufacturers 
are continually challenged to design safer vehicles and consumers may 
be afforded the most complete and meaningful comparative safety 
information possible. NHTSA believes that the THOR-50M ATD has this 
potential. Information on the biofidelity, anthropometry, injury 
measurement, and other capabilities of the THOR-50M ATD is included in 
the section following.
b. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
    To provide consumers with the most complete and meaningful safety 
information possible, the agency intends to implement the THOR-50M in 
both frontal NCAP crash modes. The THOR-50M would be seated in the 
driver's seat in the full frontal rigid barrier crash test, and in both 
the driver's and right front passenger's seats in the frontal oblique 
crash test.
    NHTSA currently uses the HIII-50M ATD for frontal NCAP and as one 
of the ATDs for compliance frontal crash testing, the latter falling 
under FMVSS No. 208. While the HIII-50M ATD is sufficient for the needs 
of regulatory standards including FMVSS No. 208, which ensure an 
acceptable level of safety performance has been met, NHTSA believes 
that a more sensitive evaluation tool would be beneficial to help 
differentiate between the advancements in vehicle safety developed 
since the HIII-50M ATD was incorporated into Part 572 in 1986.\41\ 
Other organizations have also announced their intentions to begin using 
the THOR-50M in consumer information settings. Euro NCAP indicated that 
it would use the THOR-50M in the development of a new offset frontal 
impact protection test in its 2020 Road Map published in March 
2015.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 51 FR 26701. Federal Register documents published 
before 1993 (Volumes 1-58) are available through a Federal 
Depository Library.
    \42\ European New Car Assessment Programme, ``2020 Roadmap,'' 
March 2015. [http://Euro NCAP.blob.core.windows.net/media/16472/euro-ncap-2020-roadmap-rev1-march-2015.pdf]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Background
    NHTSA has been researching advanced ATDs since the early 1980s. The 
goal of this research has been to create a device that represents the 
responses of human occupants in modern restraint and vehicle 
environments. NHTSA began developing the THOR-50M around the same time 
that the HIII-50M was added in 49 CFR part 572 for use in FMVSS No. 
208. The THOR-50M was designed to incorporate advances in biomechanics 
and injury prediction that were not included in the design of the HIII-
50M ATD.
    NHTSA has published its work on the THOR-50M throughout its 
development, including the THOR Alpha,\43\ THOR-NT,\44\ THOR-NT with 
Modification Kit,\45\ and THOR Metric \46\ build levels. For the 
purposes of this RFC notice, further references to the THOR-50M 
indicate 472-0000 Revision F of the THOR drawing package, released on 
the NHTSA Web site in September 2015.\47\ The performance of this ATD 
shall meet the specifications defined in the THOR-50M Qualification 
Procedures Manual.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Haffner, M., Rangarajan, N., Artis, M., Beach, D., 
Eppinger, R., & Shams, T., ``Foundations and Elements of the NHTSA 
THOR Alpha ATD Design,'' The 17th International Technical Conference 
for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 458, 2001.
    \44\ Shams, T., Rangarajan, N., McDonald, J., Wang, Y., Platten, 
G., Spade, C., Pope, P., & Haffner, M., ``Development of THOR NT: 
Enhancement of THOR Alpha--the NHTSA Advanced Frontal Dummy,'' The 
19th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 05-0455, 2005.
    \45\ Ridella, S. & Parent, D., ``Modifications to Improve the 
Durability, Usability, and Biofidelity of the THOR-NT Dummy,'' The 
22nd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0312, 2011.
    \46\ Parent, D., Craig, M., Ridella, S., & McFadden, J., 
``Thoracic Biofidelity Assessment of the THOR Mod Kit ATD,'' The 
23rd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0327, 2013.
    \47\ Drawing package available in the docket for this notice.
    \48\ Draft qualification procedures available in the docket for 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has updated the public on its THOR-50M research in various 
forums.\49\ On January 20, 2015, NHTSA held a public meeting to present 
further updates to its work with THOR-50M.\50\ NHTSA presented draft 
descriptions of updated qualification procedures and data supporting 
the repeatability and reproducibility of the THOR-50M. During this 
meeting, several industry representatives took the opportunity to 
present their research related to the ATD. NHTSA itself has used the 
THOR-50M ATD extensively in testing to support both biomechanics and 
crashworthiness research objectives.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Parent, D., ``NHTSA THOR Update,'' National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, Washington, DC, September 2013. 
[www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Biomechanics%20&%20Trauma/NHTSA_THOR_update_2013-09-30.pdf]; Parent, D., ``Applications of the 
THOR ATD in NHTSA Research,'' Society of Automotive Engineers 
Government/Industry Meeting, January 2014. [www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2014/2014-SAE-GIM_Parent.pdf]
    \50\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``THOR 
Public Meeting,'' January 20, 2015. [www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Biomechanics+&+Trauma/THOR+Public+Meetings]
    \51\ Martin, P. &Shook, L., ``NHTSA's THOR-NT Database,'' The 
20th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 07-0289, 2007; Saunders, J., Craig, M. & Suway, 
J., ``NHTSA's Test Procedure Evaluations for Small Overlap/Oblique 
Crashes,'' The 22nd International Technical Conference for the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0343, 2011; Saunders, J., 
Craig, M., & Parent, D., ``Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure 
for Evaluating Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes,'' SAE International 
Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 5(2012-01-0577), 172-195, 2012; 
Saunders, J. & Parent, D., ``Repeatability of a Small Overlap and an 
Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure,'' SAE World 
Congress, paper no. 2013-01-0762, 2013; Saunders, J. & Parent, D., 
``Assessment of an Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test 
Procedure,'' The 23rd International Technical Conference for the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0402, 2013; Forman, J., 
Michaelson, J., Kent, R., Kuppa, S., & Bostrom, O., ``Occupant 
Restraint in the Rear Seat: ATD Responses to Standard and Pre-
tensioning, Force-limiting Belt Restraints,'' Annals of Advances in 
Automotive Medicine, 52:141-54, Oct 2008; Hu, J., Fischer, K., & 
Adler, A., ``Rear Seat Occupant Protection: Safety Beyond Seat 
Belts,'' Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry 
Meeting, January 2015. [www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2015/2015SAE-Saunders-AdvOccupantProtection.pdf]; Cyliax, B., Scavnicky, M., Mueller, I., 
Zhao, J., & Hiroshi, A., ``Advanced Adaptive Restraints Program: 
Individualization of Occupant Safety Systems,'' Society of 
Automotive Engineers Government/Industry Meeting, January 2015. 
[www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2015/2015SAE-Cyliax-AARP.pdf]; Shaw, G., Lessley, D., Bolton, J., & Crandall, J., 
``Assessment of the THOR and Hybrid III Crash Dummies: Steering 
Wheel Rim Impacts to the Upper Abdomen,'' SAE Technical Paper 2004-
01-0310, 2004, doi:10.4271/2004-01-0310.

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

[[Page 78532]]

ii. THOR-50M Design
    To ensure that the dummy responds in a human-like manner in a 
vehicle crash environment it is necessary that the size and shape of 
the dummy, referred to as anthropometry, provides an accurate 
representation of a mid-sized human. To accomplish this, a study on the 
Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle Occupants (AMVO) was carried out by the 
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) to 
document the anthropometry of a mid-size (50th percentile in stature 
and weight) male occupant in an automotive seating 
posture.52 53 The AMVO anthropometry was used as a basis for 
the development of the THOR-50M design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Schneider, L. W., Robbins, D. H., Pflug, M. A., & Snyder, 
R. G., ``Development of Anthropometrically Based Design 
Specifications for an Advanced Adult Anthropomorphic Dummy Family; 
Volume 1-Procedures, Summary Findings and Appendices,'' U.S. 
Department of Transportation, DOT-HS-806-715, 1985.
    \53\ Robbins, D. H., ``Development of Anthropometrically Based 
Design Specifications for an Advanced Adult Anthropomorphic Dummy 
Family; Volume 2-Anthropometric Specifications for mid-Sized Male 
Dummy; Volume 3- Anthropometric Specifications for Small Female and 
Large Male Dummies,'' U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT-HS-806-
716 & 717, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The THOR-50M includes anatomically-correct designs in the neck, 
chest, shoulder, spine, and pelvis in order to represent the human 
occupant response in a frontal or frontal oblique vehicle crash 
environment.
    The cervical neck column of the THOR-50M has a unique design. In 
the THOR-50M, the neck is connected to the head via three separate load 
paths (two cables--anterior and posterior--and a pin joint centered 
between the cables) versus a single path for other ATDs (a pin joint 
only). The biomechanical basis of the THOR-50M neck design is well 
established.54 55 The construction of the THOR-50M neck 
allows the head to rotate relatively freely in the fore and aft 
directions. THOR can undergo low levels of uninjurious ``nodding'' 
without generating an appreciable moment at its pin joint. Because of 
this design, a THOR-specific risk curve for neck injury (discussed 
below) is better aligned with human injury risk at all levels of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ White, R. P., Zhoa, Y., Rangarajan, N., Haffner, M., 
Eppinger, R., & Kleinberger M. ``Development of an Instrumented 
Biofidelic Neck for the NHTSA Advanced Frontal Test Dummy,'' The 
15th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 96-210-W-19, 1996.
    \55\ Hoofman, M., van Ratingen, M., & Wismans, J., ``Evaluation 
of the Dynamic and Kinematic Performance of the THOR Dummy: Neck 
Performance,'' Proceeding of the International Conference on the 
Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI) Conference, pp. 497-512, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout the development of the THOR-50M ATD, specific attention 
was given to the human-like response and injury prediction capability 
of the chest. The rib cage geometry is more realistic because the 
individual ribs are angled downward to better match the human rib 
orientation.\56\ Performance requirements were selected to ensure 
human-like behavior in response to central chest impacts, oblique chest 
impacts, and steering rim impacts to the rib cage and upper 
abdomen.\57\ Better chest anthropometry means that the dummy's 
interaction with the restraint system (as the seat belt lies over the 
shoulder and across the chest, for example) is more representative of 
the interaction humans would experience. Moreover, NHTSA has previously 
identified instrumentation opportunities beyond a single-point chest 
deflection measurement system that may improve the assessment of 
thoracic loading in a vehicle environment with advanced restraint 
technology such as air bags and pretensioners.\58\ Thoracic trauma 
imparted to restrained occupants does not always occur at the same 
location on the rib cage for all occupants in all frontal crashes.\59\ 
Kuppa and Eppinger found (in a data set consisting of 71 human subjects 
in various restraint systems and crash severities) that using the 
maximum deflection from multiple measurement locations on the chest 
resulted in improved injury prediction.\60\ The THOR-50M ATD is capable 
of measuring three-dimensional deflections at four different locations 
on the rib cage. This instrumentation, coupled with its thoracic 
biofidelity,\61\ provides the THOR-50M ATD with the ability to better 
predict thoracic injuries and to potentially drive more appropriate 
restraint system countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Kent, R., Shaw, C. G., Lessley, D. J., Crandall, J. R. & 
Svensson, M. Y, ``Comparison of Belted Hybrid III, THOR, and Cadaver 
Thoracic Responses in Oblique Frontal and Full Frontal Sled Tests,'' 
Proc. SAE 2003 World Congress. Paper No. 2003-01-0160, 2003.
    \57\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
``Biomechanical Response Requirements of the THOR NHTSA Advanced 
Frontal Dummy, Revision 2005.1,'' Report No: GESAC-05-03, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, March 2005. 
[www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Biomechanics%20&%20Trauma/THOR-NT%20Advanced%20Crash%20Test%20Dummy/thorbio05_1.pdf.]
    \58\ Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F., Rinaldi, J., ``Evaluation of 
the RibEye Deflection Measurement System in the 50th Percentile 
Hybrid III Dummy.'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
DOT-HS-811-102, March 2009.
    \59\ Morgan, R. M., Eppinger, R. H., Haffner, M. P., Yoganandan, 
N., Pintar, F. A., Sances, A., Crandall, J. R., Pilkey, W. D., 
Klopp, G. S., Kallieris, D., Miltner, E., Mattern, R., Kuppa, S. M., 
& Sharpless, C. L., ``Thoracic Trauma Assessment Formulations for 
Restrained Drivers in Simulated Frontal Impacts,'' Proc. 38th Stapp 
Car Crash Conference, pp. 15-34. Society of Automotive Engineers, 
Warrendale, PA., 1994.
    \60\ Kuppa, S., & Eppinger, R., ``Development of an Improved 
Thoracic Injury Criterion,'' Proceedings of the 42nd Stapp Car Crash 
Conference, SAE No. 983153, 1998.
    \61\ Parent, D., Craig, M., Ridella, S., & McFadden, J. 
``Thoracic Biofidelity Assessment of the THOR Mod Kit ATD,'' The 
23rd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 13-0327, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The THOR-50M shoulder was developed to allow a human-like range of 
motion and includes a clavicle linkage intended to better represent the 
human shoulder interaction with shoulder belt restraints.\62\ The spine 
of the THOR-50M ATD has two flexible elements, one in the thoracic 
spine and one in the lumbar spine, which are intended to allow human-
like spinal kinematics in both frontal and oblique loading 
conditions.\63\ The pelvis was designed to represent human pelvis bone 
structure to better represent lap belt interaction,64 65 and 
the pelvis flesh was designed to represent uncompressed geometry to 
allow human-like interaction of the pelvis flesh with the vehicle 
seat.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ T[ouml]rnvall, F. V., Holmqvist, K., Davidsson, J., 
Svensson, M. Y., H[Aring]land, Y., & [Ouml]hrn, H., ``A New THOR 
Shoulder Design: A Comparison with Volunteers, the Hybrid III, and 
THOR NT,'' Traffic Injury Prevention, 8:2, 205-215, 2007.
    \63\ Haffner, M., Rangarajan, N., Artis, M., Beach, D., 
Eppinger, R., & Shams, T., ``Foundations and Elements of the NHTSA 
THOR Alpha ATD Design,'' The 17th International Technical Conference 
for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 458, 2001.
    \64\ Reynolds, H., Snow, C., & Young, J., ``Spatial Geometry of 
the Human Pelvis,'' U.S. Department of Transportation, Technical 
Report No. FAA-AM-82-9, 1982.
    \65\ Haffner, M., Rangarajan, N., Artis, M., Beach, D., 
Eppinger, R., & Shams, T., ``Foundations and Elements of the NHTSA 
THOR Alpha ATD Design,'' The 17th International Technical Conference 
for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 458, 2001.
    \66\ Shams, T., Rangarajan, N., McDonald, J., Wang, Y., Platten, 
G., Spade, C., Pope, P., & Haffner, M., ``Development of THOR NT: 
Enhancement of THOR Alpha--the NHTSA Advanced Frontal Dummy,'' The 
19th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 05-0455, 2005.

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

[[Page 78533]]

    THOR-50M ATD has instrumentation that can be used to predict injury 
risk to the head, neck, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, upper leg, and lower 
leg. Coupled with improved biofidelity in these areas, THOR-50M ATD has 
the potential to measure meaningful and appropriate sources of injury, 
especially in offset or oblique loading scenarios.
    Evidence of the ability of the THOR-50M ATD to simulate occupant 
kinematics and predict injury risk has been demonstrated through a 
combination of field studies and fleet testing in the oblique crash 
test mode. NHTSA conducted two field studies to examine the sources of 
injury and fatality in small overlap and oblique crashes using the 
Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) and NASS-CDS 
databases.\67\ \68\ The body regions that showed the highest 
average injury risk as predicted by the THOR-50M ATD in fleet testing 
were also those regions that showed the highest incidence of injury in 
the 2011 field study by Rudd et al.: \69\ knee-thigh-hip, lower 
extremity, head, and chest. Head and chest contacts observed in the 
fleet testing generally aligned with the sources of the most severe 
injuries indicated in the 2013 field study by Rudd. A majority of the 
fatalities in the field study were sourced to the head or chest, body 
regions which were also predicted to have a high risk of AIS 3+ injury 
in fleet testing. Additionally, Rudd (2011) observed that over half of 
the pelvis injuries occurred in the absence of a femur shaft fracture, 
which was mirrored in the fleet testing in that the average risk of 
acetabulum fracture was higher than the average risk of femur fracture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Rudd, R., Scarboro, M., & Saunders, J., ``Injury Analysis 
of Real-World Small Overlap and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0384, 2011.
    \68\ Rudd, R., ``Characteristics of Injuries in Fatally Injured 
Restrained Occupants in Frontal Crashes,'' The 23rd International 
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 
13-0349, 2013.
    \69\ Saunders, J., Craig, M., & Parent, D., ``Moving Deformable 
Barrier Test Procedure for Evaluating Small Overlap/Oblique 
Crashes,'' SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 5(2012-
01-0577), 172-195, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of its improved biofidelity and injury prediction 
capabilities, the THOR-50M ATD is more sensitive to the performance of 
different restraint systems. In a study of belt-only, force-limited 
belt plus air bag, and reduced force force-limited belt plus air bag 
restraint conditions in a frontal impact sled test series, the THOR-50M 
was able to differentiate between both crash severity and restraint 
performance.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Sunnev[aring]ng, C., Hynd, D., Carroll, J., & Dahlgren, M., 
``Comparison of the THORAX Demonstrator and HIII Sensitivity to 
Crash Severity and Occupant Restraint Variation,'' Proceedings of 
the 2014 IRCOBI Conference, Paper No. IRC-14-42, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Injury Criteria and Risk Curves
    To assess injury in any crash test that the THOR-50M ATD is used 
in, NCAP intends to use many of the injury criteria and risk curves 
that have been used in NHTSA research testing as previously 
published,\71\ with some modifications. These preliminary injury 
criteria and risk curves are described below and summarized in Appendix 
II of this document. The agency is seeking comment on all aspects of 
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., & Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash 
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk 
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The 
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HEAD--NHTSA intends to use the head injury criterion 
(HIC15) as a metric for assessing head injury risk in 
frontal crashes. It is currently in use in FMVSS No. 208 and frontal 
NCAP tests.\72\ \73\ As described in the 2008 NCAP Final 
Decision Notice, the risk curve associated with HIC15 in 
frontal NCAP testing represents a risk of AIS 3+ injury. However, while 
HIC15 injury assessment values in frontal NCAP testing have 
continued to decrease over time as have the field incidence of skull 
and facial fractures, the incidence of traumatic brain injury in 
frontal crashes has not decreased at a similar rate.\74\ This may be 
because the HIC15 criterion only addresses linear 
acceleration of the head, which does not completely describe the motion 
of and subsequent injury risk to the brain. To assess the risk of brain 
injury due to rotation of the head, Takhounts (2013) developed a 
kinematically based brain injury criterion (BrIC). BrIC is calculated 
by combining the angular velocities of the head about its three local 
axes compared to directionally dependent critical values. BrIC was one 
of many brain injury correlates that were considered and was found to 
have the highest correlation to two strain metrics measured in the 
brain. These strain metrics, cumulative strain and maximum principal 
strain, are the mechanical measures that have been shown to be directly 
associated with brain injury potential.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Eppinger, R., Sun, E., Bandak, F., Haffner, M., Khaewpong, 
N., Maltese, M., & Saul, R., ``Development of Improved Injury 
Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems 
II,'' NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6407-5, 1999.
    \73\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
    \74\ Takhounts, E. G., Hasija, V., Moorhouse, K., McFadden, J., 
& Craig, M., ``Development of Brain Injury Criteria (BrIC)'', 
Proceedings of the 57th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Orlando, FL, 
November 2013.
    \75\ Takhounts, E., Eppinger, R., Campbell, J., Tannous, R., 
Power, Erik., & Shook, L., ``On the Development of the SIMon Finite 
Element Head Model.'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 47 (October 
2003), pp. 107-33.; Takhounts, E., Ridella, R., Hasija, V., Tannous, 
R., Campbell, J., Malone, D., Danelson, K., Stitzel, J., Rowson, S., 
& Duma, S., ``Investigation of Traumatic Brain Injuries Using the 
Next Generation of Simulated Injury Monitor (SIMon) Finite Element 
Head Model,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 52 (November 2008), pp 
1-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NECK--NHTSA intends to use a modified, THOR-specific version of the 
neck injury criterion (Nij) as a metric for assessing neck injury in 
frontal crashes. Two approaches are being considered to address this 
difference:
    (a) Update Nij critical values. The formulation of Nij would be 
retained, but the critical values would be updated to specifically 
represent the THOR-50M ATD. In a presentation to the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) THOR Evaluation Task Group, Nightingale et 
al. proposed critical values for the THOR ATD based on age-adjusted 
post-mortem human surrogate cervical spine tolerance data.\76\ These 
critical values were based on measurements from the upper neck load 
cell alone: 2520 N in tension, 3640 N in compression, 48 Nm in flexion, 
and 72 Nm in extension. Dibb et al. recognized this as a conservative 
estimate of injury risk because it did not account for additional 
resistance to tension provided by neck musculature.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Nightingale, R., Ono, K., Pintar, F., Yoganandan, N., & 
Martin, P., ``THOR Head and Neck IARVs,'' SAE THOR Evaluation Task 
Group, 2009.
    \77\ Dibb, A., Nightingale, R., Chauncey, V., Fronheiser, L., 
Tran, L., Ottaviano, D., & Myers B., ``Comparative Structural Neck 
Responses of the THOR-NT, Hybrid III, and Human in Combined Tension-
Bending and Pure Bending,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, 50: 567-581, 
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Implement a THOR-specific injury criterion. NHTSA has conducted 
research to evaluate the neck of the THOR-50M ATD head and neck in a 
wide array of loading conditions. These data would be used to develop a 
cervical osteoligamentous spine injury criterion (Cervical Nij or 
CNij).
    CHEST--NHTSA intends to use one or more multi-point thoracic injury 
criteria to predict chest injury. A relationship between chest 
deformation and injury risk was determined through a series of matched-
pair sled tests conducted at the University of

[[Page 78534]]

Virginia.\78\ Sled tests were conducted in 12 conditions using the 
THOR-50M ATD, for which thoracic biofidelity has been demonstrated 
(Parent, 2013). The matched set of post-mortem human surrogate (PMHS) 
tests included 38 observations on 34 PMHS (four PMHS were subjected to 
a low-speed, non-injurious loading condition before injurious testing). 
Incidence of injury was quantified as AIS 3+ thoracic injury to the 
PMHS, which represents three or more fractured ribs based on the 2005 
(update 2008) version of AIS. Using the peak resultant deflection, 
measured at the maximum of the four thoracic measurement locations on 
the THOR-50M rib cage, and the incidence of PMHS injury in same test 
condition,\79\ an injury risk function was developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Crandall, J., ``Injury Criteria Development: THOR Metric 
SD-3 Shoulder Advanced Frontal Crash Test Dummy,'' NHTSA 
Biomechanics Database, Report b11117-1, September 2013.
    \79\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., & Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash 
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk 
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The 
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ABDOMEN--NHTSA intends to use a measurement based on percent 
compression to predict abdominal injury. This is a new area for NHTSA, 
because THOR is the first frontal ATD to potentially be used in 
consumer information testing that measures dynamic abdominal 
deflection. Kent et al. examined several predictors of abdominal injury 
using a porcine surrogate, and found percent compression to be the best 
injury discriminator out of the considered metrics.\80\ A risk function 
was developed to relate the percent compression to the risk of AIS 3+ 
abdominal injury. Percent compression can be measured on the THOR-50M 
ATD by dividing the maximum of the left and right peak abdominal 
deflection measurements by the undeformed depth of the abdomen measured 
at the IR-TRACC attachment points, or 238.4 millimeters (mm) (9.4 
inches (in)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Kent, R., Stacey, S., Kindig, M., Woods, W., Evans, J., 
Rouhana, S., Higuchi, K., Tanji, H., St. Lawrence, S., & Arbogast, 
K., ``Biomechanical Response of the Pediatric Abdomen, Part 2: 
Injuries and Their Correlation with Engineering Parameters,'' Stapp 
Car Crash Journal, Vol. 52, November 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PELVIS--NHTSA intends to use an acetabulum load criteria to assess 
potential pelvis injuries with the THOR ATD. Rudd 2011 demonstrated 
that pelvis injuries have been shown to occur in the absence of femur 
fractures, and as shown in Martin (2011), the THOR-50M ATD is able to 
measure the load at the interface between the greater trochanter and 
the acetabulum to assess the risk of these types of injuries. Rupp et 
al. (2009) developed a post-mortem human surrogate injury risk function 
to relate the force transmitted to the hip, the stature of the 
occupant, the hip flexion angle, and the hip abduction angle to the 
risk of a hip fracture.\81\ To relate this risk function to the THOR-
50M ATD, three substitutions are made. First, an occupant stature of 
178 centimeters (70 inches) is used to represent a 50th percentile male 
occupant. Second, since the THOR cannot record dynamic hip angles, the 
hip angles are estimated to represent the typical posture at the time 
of peak femur load in full frontal crashes (30 degrees of flexion and 
15 degrees of abduction). Third, the force measured at the THOR 
acetabulum must be related to the force measured at the hip of the 
post-mortem human surrogates used to develop the risk function. Martin 
et al. (2011) demonstrated that a scaling ratio of 1.3 could be used to 
relate the acetabulum force measured by THOR-NT to the PMHS acetabulum 
force.\82\ However, this scaling ratio may not be appropriate for the 
THOR-50M ATD because the biofidelity of the femur was updated in the 
Modification Kit.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Rupp, J. D., Flannagan, C. A., & Kuppa, S. M., 
``Development of an injury risk curve for the hip for use in frontal 
impact crash testing,'' Journal of Biomechanics 34(3):527-531, 2010.
    \82\ Martin, P. G. & Scarboro, M., ``THOR-NT: Hip Injury 
Potential in Narrow Offset and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0234, 2011.
    \83\ Ridella, S. & Parent, D., ``Modifications to Improve the 
Durability, Usability, and Biofidelity of the THOR-NT Dummy,'' The 
22nd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 11-0312, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UPPER LEG--NHTSA intends to use peak femur axial force as a metric 
for assessing femur injury risk in frontal crashes. It is currently 
used in FMVSS No. 208 and frontal NCAP. The THOR-50M ATD includes a 
femur compressive element that allows for a human-like response under 
axial compression.\84\ Thus, the human injury risk function to relate 
axial femur force to risk of AIS 2+ and 3+ injury can be used 
directly.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Ridella, S. & Parent, D., ``Modifications to Improve the 
Durability, Usability, and Biofidelity of the THOR-NT Dummy,'' The 
22nd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 11-0312, 2011.
    \85\ Kuppa, S., Wang, J., Haffner, M., & Eppinger, R., ``Lower 
Extremity Injuries and Associated Injury Criteria,'' The 17th 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 457, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LOWER LEG--NHTSA intends to use injury risk curves developed for 
the human lower extremity and applied to the lower extremity hardware 
of the THOR-50M ATD.\86\ \87\ NHTSA developed injury risk 
curves for the prediction of tibia plateau fractures using the axial 
force measured by the upper tibia load cell; tibia/fibula shaft 
fractures using the Revised Tibia Index calculated using measurements 
from the upper and lower tibia load cells; calcaneus, talus, ankle, and 
midfoot fractures using the axial force measured by the lower tibia 
load cell; and malleolar fractures and ankle ligament injuries using 
the rotation measured by the ankle potentiometer or calculated ankle 
moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Ibid.
    \87\ Kuppa, S., Haffner, M., Eppinger, R., & Saunders, J., 
``Lower Extremity Response And Trauma Assessment Using The THOR-Lx/
HIIIr And The Denton Leg In Frontal Offset Vehicle Crashes,'' The 
17th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 456, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female ATD (HIII-5F) w/RibEyeTM
    NHTSA is considering updating the HIII-5F ATD currently used in 
frontal NCAP with new RibEyeTM instrumentation for measuring 
chest deflection. The background and detail for this consideration are 
explained below.
    The HIII-5F ATD was initially developed in 1988 by a collaboration 
among First Technology Safety Systems and the SAE Biomechanics 
Subcommittees, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
and the Ohio State University.\88\ Several updates were made to the 
device through the late 1980s and 1990s to improve its ability to 
interact with modern restraints.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Humanetics Innovative Solutions, ``Hybrid III 5th Female 
Dummy--880105-000-H,'' August 2015. [www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies/frontal-impact/hybrid-iii-5th].
    \89\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's regulatory use of the HIII-5F ATD began in 1996 when the 
agency announced its comprehensive plan for reducing the dangers to 
vehicle occupants from deploying frontal air bags.\90\ The agency was 
also required to respond to section 7103 of the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) enacted in 1998.\91\ These directives 
resulted in the issuance of a final rule in 2000 that required advanced 
air bag protection for a variety of occupant sizes, including smaller 
persons represented by the HIII-5F

[[Page 78535]]

ATD.\92\ That rulemaking was the first requiring vehicle manufacturers 
to certify their products to the occupant crash protection standard, 
FMVSS No. 208, using the small female dummy in dynamic vehicle tests 
(both belted and unbelted). In MY 2011 vehicles, the agency began 
testing with the HIII-5F ATD in the right front passenger's seat of 
NCAP's 56 km/h (35 mph) full frontal rigid barrier test.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (November 
22, 1996). NHTSA Announces Comprehensive Plan to Improve Air Bag 
Technology and Reduce Air Bag Dangers [Press Release]. Retrieved 
from http://stnw.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/PressDisplay.cfm?year=1996&filename=pr112296a.html.
    \91\ ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,'' Pub. L. 
105-178, sec. 7103, 112 Stat. 107 (June 9, 1998).
    \92\ See 65 FR 30680. Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013 Notice 1. 
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/00-11577.
    \93\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620; Also see 73 FR 79206. Docket 
No. NHTSA-2006-26555. https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-30701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent studies using data from the FARS and NASS-CDS databases, 
researchers have found that in a comparable crash, belted females have 
higher risk of injury and death overall than belted males, as well as 
higher chest injury risk specifically.\94\ Differing injury patterns 
between males and females also suggest differences in restraint 
interaction and effectiveness. For example, using NASS-CDS data from 
1997 to 2011, Parenteau et al. (2013) showed that females have higher 
risk of belt- and air bag-sourced chest injuries.\95\ NHTSA also found 
that females had a higher percentage of injuries sourced to the air bag 
in frontal collisions.\96\ Thus, it remains important to assess the 
risk of injury to smaller female occupants using the currently 
available HIII-5F ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Bose D., Segui-Gomez, M., & Crandall J. ``Vulnerability of 
Female Drivers Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes: An Analysis of US 
Population at Risk,'' American Journal of Public Health 
101(12):2368-2373, 2011; Parenteau, C. S., Zuby, D., Brolin, K. B., 
et al. ``Restrained male and female occupants in frontal crashes: 
Are we different?'' Proceedings of the International Research 
Council on Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI) Conference. Paper IRC-13-
98, 2013; Kahane, C. J. ``Injury vulnerability and effectiveness of 
occupant protection technologies for older occupants and women''. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report No. DOT HS 
811 766, 2013.
    \95\ Parenteau, C. S., Zuby, D., Brolin, K. B., et al. 
``Restrained male and female occupants in frontal crashes: Are we 
different?'' Proceedings of the International Research Council on 
Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI) Conference. Paper IRC-13-98, 2013.
    \96\ Kahane, C. J. ``Injury vulnerability and effectiveness of 
occupant protection technologies for older occupants and women''. 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report No. DOT HS 
811 766, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to what was discussed above for the THOR-50M, the agency 
has identified an opportunity to improve on the type of thoracic injury 
data it collects when using the HIII-5F ATD in full frontal NCAP tests. 
In an effort to improve the quality of thoracic deflection measurements 
collected by ATDs, Boxboro Systems developed a set of optical thoracic 
instrumentation known as the RibEyeTM.\97\ The 
RibEyeTM system is comprised of up to 12 light emitting 
diodes (LEDs) which are mounted internally to the ribs of the dummy. 
Two detectors that allow the system to measure deflections in both the 
x- and y-directions receive light from the LEDs. One advantage that the 
RibEyeTM system has over traditional single-point 
potentiometers is the ability to assess asymmetric loading of the 
thorax rather than just a one dimensional deflection at the 
sternum.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Handman, D. ``Multi-point position measuring and recording 
system for anthropomorphic test devices.'' U.S. Patent Number 
7508530B1. 24 March 2009.
    \98\ Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F., Rinaldi, J., ``Evaluation of 
the RibEye Deflection Measurement System in the 50th Percentile 
Hybrid III Dummy.'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
DOT HS 811 102, March 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency intends to conduct further research on the HIII-5F ATD 
with the RibEyeTM instrumentation. Research findings 
indicate that the multi-point thoracic deflection measurement 
capability of the RibEyeTM system has the potential to 
record higher and potentially more meaningful (with respect to the 
effects of belt routing) chest deflections than a single potentiometer 
at the sternum.\99\ The agency intends to evaluate its merit in 
discriminating the multi-point thoracic deflection measurement 
capability of the RibEyeTM amongst vehicle performance in 
the full frontal NCAP environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Eggers, A. & Adolph, T., ``Evaluation of the Thoracic 
Measurement System `RibEye' in the Hybrid III 50% in Frontal Sled 
Tests,'' The 22nd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper 
Number 11-0190, 2011; Eggers, A., Eickhoff, B., Dobberstein, J., 
Zellmer, H., & Adolph, T., ``Effects of Variations in Belt Geometry, 
Double Pretensioning and Adaptive Load Limiting on Advanced Chest 
Measurements of THOR and Hybrid III,'' IRCOBI Conference, IRC-14-40, 
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has previously acknowledged that there is a need for greater 
understanding of the rear seat environment.\100\ In a double-paired 
comparison study using FARS data, NHTSA research indicated that 
restrained occupants older than 50 years were protected better in the 
front row than in the rear row.\101\ A follow-up parametric study 
indicated that while there are many design challenges that must be 
considered, certain rear seat occupants could benefit from the addition 
of advanced restraint technology like pretensioners and load 
limiters.\102\ NHTSA has continued its study of potential restraint 
countermeasures for the rear seat vehicle environment through research 
initiatives.\103\ While both occupancy and injury rates for the rear 
seat are low when compared to the front seat, there may be an 
opportunity in NCAP to better understand the needs of rear seat 
occupants, especially in consideration of modern vehicles that are 
lighter and more compact than their predecessors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See 78 FR 20597. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-07766.
    \101\ Kuppa, S., Saunders, J., & Fessahaie, O., ``Rear Seat 
Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes,'' The 19th Enhanced Safety 
of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 05-0212, 2005.
    \102\ Kent, R., Forman, J., Parent, D., & Kuppa, S., ``Rear Seat 
Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes and its Feasibility,'' The 
20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 07-0386, 
2007.
    \103\ Hu, J., & Saunders, J. ``Rear Seat Occupant Protection: 
Safety Beyond Seat Belts.'' SAE Government/Industry Meeting, January 
21, 2015. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2015/2015SAE-Saunders-AdvOccupantProtection.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the agency intends to conduct research tests with a 
HIII-5F dummy in the rear seat of full frontal tests to determine 
whether or not to include this ATD in the rear seat of full frontal 
NCAP tests. Including testing of an ATD in the rear seat of full 
frontal tests would be consistent with the testing done in other 
international vehicle safety consumer information programs such as Euro 
NCAP and Japan NCAP.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ European New Car Assessment Programme, ``Full Width 
Frontal Impact Test Protocol,'' Version 1.0.1, April 2015. [http://euroncap.blob.core.windows.net/media/17000/euro-ncap-frontal-fw-test-protocol-v101-april-2015.pdf]; European New Car Assessment 
Programme, ``Assessment Protocol--Adult Occupant Protection,'' 
Version 7.0.2, April 2015. [http://euroncap.blob.core.windows.net/media/16999/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-aop-v702-april-2015.pdf]; 
Japan NCAP, ``Collision Safety Performance Tests,'' Accessed August 
18, 2015. [www.nasva.go.jp/mamoru/en/assessment_car/crackup_measure.html].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also undertaking research efforts to procure and evaluate 
a 5th percentile female version of the THOR ATD.\105\ NHTSA expects to 
acquire several of these devices and conduct testing using them within 
the next few years. A 5th percentile female THOR ATD would have 
instrumentation that is similar to the THOR-50M ATD, including many 
improved measurement capabilities like multi-point chest and abdominal 
deflections.\106\ Its biofidelity and kinematics are expected to be an 
improvement compared to the HIII-5F ATD, especially in the context of 
rear

[[Page 78536]]

seat frontal impact testing. At this time, the THOR 5th has not been 
refined to a full production level, so it is not yet a candidate for 
consideration over the HIII-5F in frontal NCAP tests. Thus, the agency 
intends to use the HIII-5F ATD in this NCAP upgrade. It also intends to 
use the formulae and risk curves presented in Appendix III of this 
document to assess the injury risk to this size occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``THOR 5th 
Female ATD.'' Accessed August 17, 2015.
    \106\ Ebert, S. & Reed, M., ``Anthropometric Evaluation of THOR-
05F.'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, UMTRI-2013-
12, April 2013; Shams, T., Huang, T.J., Rangarajan, N., Haffner, M., 
``Design Requirements for a Fifth Percentile Female Version of the 
THOR ATD,'' The 18th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper 
Number 421, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though three modes of potential neck injury are assessed for the 
HIII-5F dummy, the maximum neck injury potentials for both dummies 
under the current frontal NCAP have all resulted from the calculation 
of Nij.\107\ The Nij criterion has been used to assess injury in 
frontal crashes conducted by the agency both in a regulatory context 
and in frontal NCAP since the 2011 model year.\108\ NCAP has seen a 
general decline in HIII-5F ATD Nij values, which has helped result in 
higher right front passenger star ratings.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., Aram, M., 
``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th International 
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, 
Paper Number 15-0314, 2015.
    \108\ Eppinger, R., Sun, E., Bandak, F., Haffner, M., Khaewpong, 
N., Maltese, M., Saul, R., ``Development of Improved Injury Criteria 
for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems II,'' 
NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6407-5, 1999.
    \109\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., Aram, M., 
``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th International 
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, 
Paper Number 15-0314, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current Nij risk function used in NCAP with HIII-5F ATD 
produces a risk value of 3.8 percent when Nij equals zero. To address 
this, two corrections have been made to generate the HIII-5F Nij risk 
curve being included in this notice. First, revised Nij experimental 
data\110\ were used. Second, given the updated Nij values and paired 
injury outcomes, survival analysis with a Weibull distribution was used 
produce an AIS 3+ risk curve that passes through 0.0% for Nij equal to 
zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Mertz, H.J., & Prasad, P., 2000. ``Improved neck injury 
risk curves for tension and extension moment measurements of crash 
dummies.'' Proceedings of the 44th Stapp Car Crash Conference, 
Atlanta, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Side Crashworthiness

1. Real-World Side Crash Data
    In support of this RFC notice, a review of 10 years' worth (2004-
2013) of National Automotive Sampling System--Crashworthiness Data 
System (NASS-CDS) data was conducted to understand side impact crashes 
in the real world. For light vehicles in this analysis, crashes must 
have been representative of those covered by the current FMVSS No. 214; 
that is, (1) they must have involved another light vehicle or tall, 
narrow object such as a tree or pole; (2) the direction of the highest 
delta-V impact must have been between 7 and 11 o'clock for left-side 
impacts and between 1 and 5 o'clock for right-side impacts; and (3) the 
lateral delta-V must have been between 0-25 mph (0-40.2 km/hr). Only 
tow-away, non-rollover vehicles were included. Shallow-side (sideswipe) 
impacts were excluded, as were impacts with the second-highest delta-V 
known to be to the top of the vehicle.\111\ Also excluded were impacts 
with the second-highest delta-V known to be to the rear, front, or 
undercarriage of the vehicle with a non-shallow or unknown extent of 
crush. At least one occupant must have received a MAIS 2+ injury or 
must have died within 30 days of the crash. Furthermore, at least one 
such injured occupant must have been seated in the front or rear rows 
of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes or the front row of vehicle-to-pole 
crashes. All occupants younger than 13 in the front row or 8 in the 
rear row or those completely ejected from the vehicle were excluded. If 
an occupant sustained a head injury, it must have been to the brain, 
skull, scalp, or face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Impacts with the second-highest delta-V known to be to the 
top of the vehicle were excluded as this ensures that injuries are 
sustained from the primary side impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All data presented for the side NCAP section is in terms of 
unadjusted values and has been weighted to a certain extent. The data 
has been weighted for frequency but not adjusted for various factors, 
such as recent rulemakings or increased belt use. It is critical to 
note that, as the final population estimates to be presented in the 
Final Notice will be adjusted for these factors, the estimates 
presented in this RFC notice are preliminary and are subject to change.
    This preliminary analysis of crashes representing FMVSS No. 214 
conditions showed an estimated 9,180 side impact crashes involving 
light vehicles occurred annually, 371 (4%) of which involved a tree or 
pole and 8,809 (96%) of which involved another light vehicle. In these 
side impact crashes, there were an estimated 384 fatalities and 9,276 
moderately-to-critically injured (AIS 2-5) occupants each year. There 
were an estimated 50,606 total injuries sustained yearly during the 
review period with each occupant sustaining, on average, about five 
different injuries. All fatal injuries were sustained in outboard 
seating positions; when excluding middle seat occupants, there were 
9,229 moderately-to-critically injured occupants yearly. Further data 
gathered from this study will be discussed in relevant subsections 
later in this RFC notice.
2. Current Side NCAP Program
    Since its introduction into NCAP in 1996, the side NCAP MDB test 
has been a staple of the program's crash-testing effort. This side 
test, which, except for speed, is the same as the MDB test included in 
FMVSS No. 214, simulates a 90-degree intersection-style crash. Test 
speed in the side NCAP MDB test is 61.9 km/h (38.5 mph), which is 8 km/
h (5 mph) faster than the speed specified in FMVSS No. 214.
    The side NCAP MDB test was last upgraded in MY 2011 to include new 
test dummies and advanced injury criteria. At that time, an ES-2re 50th 
percentile male dummy and a SID-IIs 5th percentile female dummy were 
chosen to replace the 50th percentile Side Impact Dummy with Hybrid III 
head and neck (SID-H3) in the driver's seat and rear passenger's seat, 
respectively. These same dummies have also been specified for use in 
the FMVSS No. 214 side MDB test since the 2007 Final Rule. The FMVSS 
No. 214 injury criteria adopted for the ES-2re dummy were to address 
head (HIC36), chest (thoracic rib deflection), abdominal 
(combined abdominal force), and pelvic (pubic symphysis force) 
injuries. Injury criteria adopted for the SID-IIs ATD were to address 
head (HIC36), lower spine (lower spine resultant 
acceleration), and pelvic (combined pelvic force) injuries. NCAP uses 
injury risk curves to assess the level of injury risk for rating 
purposes. For the ES-2re dummy, NCAP uses injury risk curves for all 
four body regions addressed in the regulation. NCAP uses only the head 
and pelvis regions for rating SID-IIs performance because there was no 
valid lower spine acceleration risk curve available at the time of the 
upgraded program.
    The current side NCAP program also includes an oblique vehicle-to-
pole test which was introduced in MY 2011 when the program was last 
upgraded.\112\ Similar to the side MDB crash test, NCAP's side pole 
crash test was based on the FMVSS No. 214 side pole test, which was 
adopted into the standard in 2007.\113\ This test is designed to 
simulate a side impact crash involving a tree or utility pole. In both 
the side NCAP test and the FMVSS No. 214

[[Page 78537]]

compliance test, the test vehicle is towed at 32 km/h (20 mph) into a 
rigid pole.\114\ The driver dummy specified for NCAP's side pole test 
is a 5th percentile female SID-IIs dummy, whereas both the 5th 
percentile female SID-IIs dummy and the 50th percentile male ES-2re 
dummy are specified in FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
    \113\ See 72 FR 51908. Docket No. NHTSA-29134. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/07-4360.
    \114\ FMVSS No. 214 specifies a range of speeds (26 km/h to 32 
km/h, or 16 mph to 20 mph), rather than one target speed as in the 
side NCAP pole test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicle manufacturers have been responsive to the program changes 
implemented in MY 2011. A review of star rating data from NCAP's first 
model year of testing compared to the most recent model year (MY 2015) 
shows that average star ratings for the driver in the pole test, as 
represented by the 5th percentile SID-IIs dummy, have improved 19 
percent. Average ratings for both the driver and the rear passenger in 
the MDB test have increased 11 percent since MY 2011. Star ratings, in 
general, are now quite high for side impact protection. Most vehicles 
achieved 5 stars in both side impact crash tests in MY 2015.
    As a result, current side NCAP star ratings are reaching a point at 
which they are no longer providing distinct discrimination between 
vehicle models. To continually promote further advancements in side 
occupant protection, changes to the side NCAP program are once again 
appropriate. Accordingly, NHTSA intends to introduce a new, advanced, 
average-size side impact test dummy that is capable of measuring 
additional injuries in side impact crashes.
3. Planned Upgrade
a. Side MDB Test
    Today, the agency announces its intention to once again enhance the 
side MDB test for the NCAP safety ratings program in light of the 
aforementioned limitations on discriminating vehicles and the agency's 
recent analysis of real-world data showing a continued need to address 
side impact protection. NHTSA's preliminary estimate of real-world 
crash data mentioned previously indicates that an estimated 8,809 side 
impact vehicle-to-vehicle crashes occurring annually had at least one 
occupant receiving an injury of MAIS 2 or greater.\115\ Each year, 
about 9,270 front and/or rear seat occupants received moderate-to-fatal 
injuries, considered to be MAIS 2 to MAIS 6. Ninety-six percent (8,922) 
of these occupants were seated in the front seat, and the remaining 4 
percent (348) were seated in the rear. These occupants received 
approximately 21,595 separate AIS 2+ injuries each year. For this 
population, 37 percent of moderate-to-fatal injuries were to the torso, 
25 percent were to the head, and 18 percent were to the pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the side MDB test itself will not change,\116\ the new 
WorldSID 50th percentile male (WorldSID-50M) Standard Build Level F 
(SBL F) dummy will now be specified for the driver's seat instead of 
the 50th percentile ES-2re male dummy, which is used currently.\117\ 
The WorldSID-50M dummy's increased biofidelity, particularly in the 
head, shoulder, thorax, and abdominal regions, make this dummy the best 
choice for evaluating these types of injuries.\118\ The WorldSID-50M 
ATD is more sensitive to oblique loads. This will be discussed further 
in the WorldSID-50M ATD Biofidelity section, to be found later in this 
RFC notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ ``U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test Procedure for New Car 
Assessment Program Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier Test,'' 
Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0046, September 2013.
    \117\ The test will also remain applicable to those vehicles 
with a (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or less.
    \118\ See WorldSID-50M Biofidelity section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SID-IIs 5th percentile female dummy will continue to occupy the 
near-side rear outboard seat of the test vehicle. For small-stature 
occupants in the rear outboard seat of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, 29 
percent of AIS 2+ injuries were to the head, 18 percent to the pelvis, 
17 percent to the chest, and 16 percent to the abdomen.\119\ Fifth-
percentile female dummies not only represent small occupants (including 
vulnerable and older occupants), but they are also appropriately sized 
surrogates for older children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WorldSID 5th percentile female (WorldSID-5F) dummy is currently 
going through the final stages of development and robustness testing. 
The WorldSID-5F ATD has improved thorax and abdominal biofidelity. 
However, as discussed in a later section of this RFC, there are 
remaining concerns to be addressed before it can be included in the 
next NCAP upgrade.
b. Side Pole Test
    NHTSA's real-world estimates indicate that about 371 side impact 
vehicle-to-pole crashes occurred annually in which the front seat 
occupant received an injury of MAIS 2 or greater.\120\ These occupants 
received approximately 1,415 AIS 2+ injuries each year. While the 
frequency with which side pole crashes occurred is low in comparison to 
vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, the body regions injured tended to be 
different than in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. For this population, 
nearly half (49%) of the moderate-to-fatal injuries were to the head, 
followed by injuries to the pelvis (15%), torso (14%), and lower limb 
(13%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the side oblique pole test, the agency will not alter the test 
itself.\121\ Instead, it intends to replace the SID-IIs ATD with the 
WorldSID-50M ATD in the front struck-side outboard seating position. As 
mentioned in previous rulemakings, the distribution of injury, severity 
and types of injury were different in small-stature occupants compared 
to mid-size to larger occupants.\122\ Nearly two-thirds of AIS 2+ 
injuries for small-stature occupants in narrow-object crashes were to 
the occupant's head. Other commonly injured body regions were the lower 
extremities (12%) and pelvis (11%).\123\ This differing distribution of 
injury was one of the reasons that the agency decided to include the 
SID-IIs ATD in the driver's seat of the existing NCAP oblique pole 
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ ``U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test Procedure for New Car 
Assessment Program Side Impact Rigid Pole Test,'' Docket No. NHTSA-
2015-0046, September 2013.
    \122\ See 73 FR 40028. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
    \123\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the agency believes it is advantageous to use the most 
advanced tools available. The WorldSID-50M ATD is able to more 
accurately assess risk of injuries to occupants due to its improved 
biofidelity.\124\ The WorldSID-50M ATD offers more realistic 
anthropometry and should lead to improved head protection for real-
world occupants. Over four-fifths (82%) of the occupants sustaining 
MAIS 2+ injuries from pole or tree crashes were between 165 cm (5 ft 5 
in) and 180 cm (5 ft 11 in), a size well-represented by the WorldSID-
50M ATD.\125\ For this population, 35 percent of the AIS 2+ injuries 
were to the head, 20 percent were to the pelvis, 16 percent were to the 
chest, and 14 percent were to the lower limbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Biofidelity and anthropometry of this dummy will be 
discussed later in this RFC notice.
    \125\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's data analysis also supports the need for testing small-
stature occupants in the driver seating position. Even though mid-size 
to larger occupants were injured more frequently

[[Page 78538]]

than small-stature occupants in narrow-object side impact crashes, the 
rationale presented in previous rulemakings for using the 5th 
percentile female dummy in the front near-side seat is still 
compelling. The side impact standard (FMVSS No. 214), ejection 
mitigation standard (FMVSS No. 226), and IIHS moderate and small offset 
frontal impact tests should encourage vehicle designs which provide 
adequate side impact protection for small-stature occupants' heads. 
Further, the agency believes the injury mitigation techniques developed 
for the WorldSID-50M ATD's torso, abdomen, and pelvis should benefit 
smaller occupants. In using the WorldSID-50M in the enhanced consumer 
information program, the agency is taking a complementary approach by 
also relying on compliance testing and regulation.
c. Additional Considerations
    Currently, NCAP's side test protocol specifies that the left 
(driver) side of the vehicle be struck by the moving barrier or pole. 
As part of this NCAP upgrade, NHTSA intends to exercise the option of 
having the side MDB and/or pole impact either the left side or right 
side of the vehicle, similar to FMVSS No. 214 protocol. Expanding the 
test applicability to cover both the left and right sides should ensure 
that the side impact rating includes information about the protection 
offered to the occupants on both sides of a vehicle. Only one crash 
test will be performed per vehicle and per crash type. The agency is 
specifically seeking comment on this amendment to the NCAP protocol.
    In the 2013 request for comments, NHTSA received comment on using 
dummies in the non-struck side of the crash test. The agency is not 
considering the inclusion of far-side dummies at this time. Pilot-
testing has not been conducted to determine which dummies would be most 
suitable, which test conditions need to be adjusted, and what types of 
injury data would be collected from such tests.
    As part of this RFC notice, the agency is also requesting comment 
on a revised seating procedure for the rear seat SID-IIs dummy in the 
side MDB test. The current seating procedure has been amended to 
account for new rear seat designs.
4. Side Test Dummies
a. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
i. Background
    The WorldSID-50M ATD is a state-of-the-art side impact dummy that 
was developed beginning in June 1997 under the auspices of the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working group on 
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (TC22/SC12/WG5). It is part of the 
WorldSID family of dummies, which currently only includes the 50th 
percentile male and 5th percentile female. The working group's primary 
goal was to create a single, worldwide harmonized, mid-size male test 
device for side impact that had enhanced injury assessment 
capabilities, superior biofidelity and anthropometry, and which would 
eliminate the need to use different dummies in different parts of the 
world in regulation and other testing. This would also offer the 
benefit of reducing total development costs for manufacturers.
    While the WorldSID-50M ATD has not been used previously in NHTSA 
rating programs, it is currently being used by other agencies and 
organizations worldwide. Euro NCAP began using WorldSID-50M ATD in both 
side barrier and side pole testing in 2015, and China-NCAP has 
committed to use it in 2018. Other consumer programs, such as Korean 
NCAP and ASEAN NCAP, are also considering its use, and it is being 
recommended as the test device in the pole side impact Global Technical 
Regulation (GTR) No. 14.\126\ The inclusion of WorldSID-50M ATD into 
NCAP would further enhance harmonization, a goal supported by many of 
the respondents to the agency's April 2013 request for comments notice 
on NCAP enhancements. It also presents a strategy which is similar to 
that employed by Euro NCAP, whereby the WorldSID-50M ATD was added to 
Euro NCAP to serve as a consumer test tool prior to it being adopted 
into regulation (United Nations Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) 
R95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers also commented in their responses to the 2013 RFC 
that the adoption of more biofidelic dummies like the WorldSID-50M ATD 
will allow them to develop improved occupant protection systems and 
therefore reduce injury risk to the general public.\127\ As will be 
discussed later, NHTSA has evaluated the WorldSID-50M ATD using an 
updated version of the NHTSA biofidelity ranking system and finds this 
dummy to be superior because of its improved shoulder response, 
improved thoracic response in both lateral and oblique directions, 
ability to measure abdominal displacement, and durability and 
repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ ``New Car Assessment Program,'' Docket No. NHTSA-2012-
0180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the outcome of the agency's biofidelity assessment of the 
WorldSID-50M dummy, its injury assessment measurement capabilities, and 
the broad support expressed for the dummy, both through responses to 
the agency's 2013 Request for Comments and its use in other consumer 
programs, the agency plans to adopt the WorldSID-50M dummy in NCAP for 
use in the front struck-side seat in the side MDB test as well as the 
side oblique pole test.
ii. Anthropometry, Construction, and Material Properties
    As mentioned previously, to ensure that a dummy can appropriately 
replicate the motion and responses of a human in a real-world crash, it 
is critical that the dummy's anthropometry (i.e., size and shape) 
accurately reflect the population it is intended to represent. Work 
related to WorldSID-50M ATD's anthropometry was carefully conducted to 
ensure this would be the final result. An anthropometrical study 
conducted by UMTRI served as the basis for WorldSID-50M ATD's 
anthropometry.\128\ The study was developed with consideration given to 
the dummy design process and consisted of measuring actual humans in 
actual vehicle seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ University of Michigan ``Development of Anthropometrically 
Based Specifications for an Advanced Adult Anthropomorphic Dummy 
Family'', Volume 1-2, December 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the latest ISO documentation, the WorldSID-50M dummy 
stands 175 cm tall (5 ft 9 in) and weighs 74.4 kg (164.0 lb) in the 
suited, half-arm configuration.\129\ This compares well to the average 
height (172 cm, or 5 ft 7 in) and weight (80.6 kg, or 177.7 lb) of 
front seat occupants injured in collisions with passenger vehicles and 
narrow objects.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Note that the agency is proposing to use the half-arm 
configuration in crash tests; the mass of this dummy when suited 
with full arms is 78.3 kg (172.6 lb). All dummy weights can be found 
in ISO Technical Specification, ISO/TS 15830-5 (revised 9-Jul-15).
    \130\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to that mentioned for the THOR-50M dummy, the WorldSID-50M 
ATD's rib cage geometry is also more similar to a human's. When seated, 
the WorldSID-50M ATD's ribs are oriented nearly horizontally since they 
are angled downward like a human's when standing. Furthermore, the 
WorldSID-50M ATD exhibits a more anatomically correct representation of 
a vehicle-seated posture as its specifications were based on a study of

[[Page 78539]]

humans in vehicle seats. The seated posture for the WorldSID-50M ATD's 
lumbar spine, which is designed for more human-like thorax-pelvis 
coupling, is more flexible. This causes the WorldSID-50M ATD to sit in 
a more slouched position.
    The WorldSID-50M ATD's ribs, which are each designed to allow a 
lateral deflection of at least 75 mm (2.95 in), are made of a super-
elastic nickel-titanium alloy that allows them to deflect similarly to 
a human's.\131\ The WorldSID-50M ATD has two abdomen ribs that share 
the same construction, and therefore deflection behavior, as the 
dummy's thorax ribs. The latest build level of the WorldSID-50M ATD 
utilizes two-dimensional Infra-Red Telescoping Rods for Measuring Chest 
Compression (2D IR-TRACCs). The IR-TRACCs, which are used to measure 
shoulder, thoracic, and abdominal rib deflections in the WorldSID-50M 
ATD, measure the change in distance between the spine box and the most 
lateral point of the dummy's ribs. Previous build levels of the 
WorldSID-50M ATD are equipped with one-dimensional (1D) IR-TRACCs, but 
these are no longer supplied with the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``About WorldSID,'' 
[www.worldsid.org/aboutworldsid.htm]. Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of using the 2D IR-TRACCs, a RibEyeTM system for 
the WorldSID-50M, available from Boxboro Systems, LLC, may be 
used.\132\ The RibEyeTM system is the same general system 
described earlier that NHTSA intends to use in the HIII-5F. 
RibEyeTM, used to measure shoulder, thoracic, and abdominal 
rib deflections, optically measures the change in distance in the X, Y, 
and Z directions between the spine box and appropriate points on the 
dummy's ribs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Hardware User's Manual, RibEye multi-point deflection 
measurement system, 3-axis version for the WorldSID 50th ATD, 
Boxboro Systems, LLC, February 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Biofidelity
    The design and evaluation of effective occupant protection systems 
is dependent upon the availability of dummies and degree of 
biofidelity--those which are able to reliably and repeatedly predict 
possible human injuries. Biofidelity is a measure of how well a dummy 
duplicates the responses and kinematics of a human vehicle occupant 
during a real-world crash event. As mentioned previously, one of the 
WorldSID task group's main goals in developing the WorldSID-50M ATD was 
to create a harmonized side impact dummy having superior biofidelity. 
There are two main biofidelity rating systems in use today--the 
International Organization for Standardization Technical Report 9790 
(ISO/TR9790) classification system,\133\ and the Biofidelity Ranking 
System (BRS, or BioRank) developed by NHTSA.134 135 136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5, Technical Report 9790--Road Vehicle--
Anthropomorphic side impact dummy--lateral impact response 
requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy, 2000.
    \134\ Rhule, H. H., Maltese, M. R., Donnelly, B. R., Eppinger, 
R. H., Brunner, J. K., & Bolte, J. H. IV. ``Development of a New 
Biofidelity Ranking System for Anthropomorphic Test Devices,'' Stapp 
Car Crash Journal 46: 477-512, 2002.
    \135\ Rhule, H., Moorhouse K., Donnelly, B., & Stricklin, J. 
``Comparison of WorldSID and ES-2re Biofidelity Using an Updated 
Biofidelity Ranking System,'' The 21st International Technical 
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0563, 
2009.
    \136\ Rhule, H., Donnelly, B., Moorhouse, K., & Kang, Y.S. ``A 
Methodology for Generating Objective Targets for Quantitatively 
Assessing the Biofidelity of Crash Test Dummies,'' The 23rd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISO/TR9790 biofidelity classification system utilizes a series 
of drop tests, pendulum impact tests, and sled tests to determine 
individual biofidelity ratings for six body regions, including the 
head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.\137\ Subsequently, 
the dummy is assigned an overall biofidelity rating, which is 
calculated by weighting and summing the biofidelity ratings for the 
individual body regions. As shown in Table 2, the scale for overall and 
individual body region ratings ranges from 0 (unacceptable) to 10 
(excellent), with higher numbers indicating better biofidelity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ A set of requirements is established for each test 
specified for a particular body region. Dummy responses for a given 
test are subsequently compared against expected corridors for each 
requirement, and a rating for each requirement is then assigned. 
Ratings for the individual requirements are then weighted and summed 
to arrive at an overall rating for each test conducted for a 
particular body region. The test ratings for any one body region are 
then weighted and summed to assign an individual rating for the body 
region.

                 Table 2--ISO Biofidelity Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent.................................  > 8.6 to 10.
Good......................................  > 6.5 to 8.6.
Fair......................................  > 4.4 to 6.5.
Marginal..................................  > 2.6 to 4.4.
Unacceptable..............................  0 to 2.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5, Technical Report 9790--Road Vehicle--
  Anthropomorphic side impact dummy--lateral impact response
  requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy, 2000.

    The ISO WorldSID Task Group has used the ISO/TR9790 impact test 
methods and biofidelity rating scale to evaluate the WorldSID-50M 
ATD.\138\ The overall biofidelity rating and the assessed body regions 
are shown in Table 3. The WorldSID-50M ATD, which received an ISO 
rating of 8.0, is classified as having ``good'' biofidelity. It also 
received overwhelmingly positive ratings for each body region. In fact, 
head, shoulder, and abdominal biofidelity were rated ``excellent'', and 
thoracic biofidelity was rated ``good.'' Neck and pelvis biofidelity 
were rated ``fair''. Such localized biofidelity is as equally important 
as overall biofidelity as this allows vehicle safety engineers to 
optimize vehicle designs and enhance occupant protection in side impact 
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Scherer, R., Bortenschlager, K., Akiyama, A., Tylko, S., 
Hartleib, M., and Harigae, T., ``WorldSID Production Dummy 
Biomechanical Responses,'' The 21st International Technical 
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0505, 
2009.

                                    Table 3--WorldSID 50th Percentile Male Side Impact Dummy Biofidelity--ISO Ratings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Head          Neck        Shoulder       Thorax        Abdomen       Pelvis        Overall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldSID..............................................           10           5.3            10           8.2           9.3           5.1           8.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Scherer, R., Bortenschlager, K., Akiyama, A., Tylko, S., Hartleib, M., and Harigae, T., ``WorldSID Production Dummy Biomechanical Responses,''
  The 21st International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0505, 2009.

    NHTSA has performed its own biofidelity evaluation of the WorldSID-
50M ATD using the Biofidelity Ranking system.\139\ Like the ISO/TR9790 
biofidelity classification system, this system uses pendulum impact 
tests and sled tests to evaluate how well a dummy replicates the 
behavior and response of a human being across various body

[[Page 78540]]

regions. Rankings are calculated for both external and internal 
biofidelity. For this method, external biofidelity is a measure of how 
closely the dummy simulates PMHS external loadings onto the surrounding 
impact structures (as measured by pendulum and sled load plate force-
time history responses), and internal biofidelity provides a measure of 
how closely the dummy's internal injury responses match those of PMHS 
(e.g. rib deflection) under similar conditions.\140\ A lower ranking 
indicates a closer dummy response relative to that of the mean cadaver 
and thus better dummy biofidelity. A dummy with a biofidelity ranking 
of less than 2.0 responds much like a human subject. The WorldSID-50M 
ATD has an overall external biofidelity ranking of 2.2 and internal 
biofidelity of 1.2 (without the abdomen). Biofidelity rankings of the 
WorldSID-50M ATD's individual body regions are given in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Rhule, H., Moorhouse K., Donnelly, B., & Stricklin, J. 
``Comparison of WorldSID and ES-2re Biofidelity Using an Updated 
Biofidelity Ranking System,'' The 21st International Technical 
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0563, 
2009.
    \140\ Rankings for either internal or external biofidelity are 
based on the ratio of the cumulative variance of the dummy response 
relative to the mean cadaver response and the cumulative variance of 
the mean cadaver response relative to the mean plus one standard 
deviation. This ratio (e.g., ranking) expresses how well a dummy 
duplicates a cadaver response.

   Table 4--WorldSID-50M Side Impact Dummy Biofidelity--NHTSA BioRanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          External          Internal
             Body region                 biofidelity       biofidelity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head................................  ................               0.3
Neck................................  ................               0.8
Shoulder............................               1.0               0.9
Thorax..............................               3.2               2.0
Abdomen.............................               1.9               2.4
Pelvis..............................               2.7               1.8
Overall (with Abdomen)..............               2.2               1.4
Overall (without Abdomen)...........                --               1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Rhule, H., Moorhouse K., Donnelly, B., & Stricklin, J.
  ``Comparison of WorldSID and ES-2re Biofidelity Using an Updated
  Biofidelity Ranking System,'' The 21st International Technical
  Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0563,
  2009.

    In addition to the biofidelity ratings assessed by the ISO WorldSID 
Task Group and NHTSA, other evaluations have been conducted assessing 
WorldSID-50M ATD's biofidelity, particularly with the intent to 
evaluate rib deflection. One study, conducted under NHTSA contract at 
the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), found that the WorldSID-50M ATD 
was suitable for use in both pure lateral and oblique loading 
scenarios.\141\ However, it was noted that the 2D IR-TRACCs still 
underreported deflection in oblique impacts; this was not the case for 
lateral impacts. The report also indicated that the lateral-most point 
of the rib may not be the most adequate location for measuring thoracic 
and abdominal deflections in oblique loading and that evaluation of 
other deflection measurement systems may be warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Yoganandan, N., Humm, J.R., Pintar, F.A., & Brasel, K., 
``Region-specific deflection responses of WorldSID and ES2-re 
devices in pure lateral and oblique side impacts,'' Stapp Car Crash 
Journal, 55: pp. 351-378, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA then performed quasi-static testing to better understand how 
much the IR-TRACCs can underestimate deflection from oblique loading. A 
single WorldSID-50M rib was slowly compressed with a materials testing 
machine at 0 degrees (lateral), 20 degrees anterior-to-lateral, and 50 
degrees anterior-to-lateral while photographs and videos were taken to 
document the IR-TRACC's motion. When loaded laterally, the IR-TRACC 
rotated somewhat, but as the point of load application became further 
from the point of IR-TRACC attachment, the IR-TRACC rotated to a 
greater degree, away from the application of loading. Even when the y-
direction deflection was calculated using the rotation of the IR-TRACC 
and the compression of the telescoping IR-TRACC rod, in the extreme 
case of the 50-degree severely-oblique load, the IR-TRACC did not 
capture the full, maximum deflection of the rib. A similar response 
occurs in the SID-IIs ATD's shoulder, thoracic and abdominal ribs, 
which include linear potentiometers mounted at the lateral-most point 
of the rib, which will not capture maximum deflection if the point of 
loading is far from the potentiometer mount location.
    Although these concerns have been raised, NHTSA is aware of 
research that shows that oblique crashes do not necessarily result in 
oblique loading to the dummy's chest. Though seemingly 
counterintuitive, Transport Canada and the Australian Government 
Department of Infrastructure and Transport has found that in oblique 
vehicle-to-pole crash conditions, such as those used in FMVSS No. 214, 
the WorldSID-50M ATD actually experiences predominantly lateral peak 
rib deflection responses.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Belcher, T., Terrell, M. & Tylko, S., ``An Assessment of 
WorldSID 50th Percentile Male Injury Responses to Oblique and 
Perpendicular Pole Side Impacts,'' The 22nd International Technical 
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0133, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, the use of an improved deflection measurement system 
may be valuable to pursue.\143\ Thus, NHTSA intends to conduct further 
research to evaluate the use of RibEyeTM optical sensors in 
the WorldSID-50M ATD's thorax and abdomen as an alternative to the 2D 
IR-TRACCs already provided. The RibEyeTM system can measure 
the deflection of the inner ribs in the X, Y, and Z directions at three 
locations on each rib. This may serve to better monitor oblique 
deformation of the ribs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ NHTSA research tests conducted with WorldSID dummies 
outfitted with chest bands showed cases of oblique loading for both 
front and rear seating locations in testing carried out using the 
Side NCAP MDB protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Repeatability and Reproducibility
    The WorldSID-50M ATD's body regions demonstrated good repeatability 
and reproducibility when production versions of the dummy were 
subjected to certification tests performed per ISO 15830-2.\144\ 
Repeatability is assessed by performing repeat tests on the same dummy, 
and reproducibility is determined by performing repeat tests on 
different dummies. Generally, a minimum of three trials were conducted 
per test. Repeatability was assessed based on the percent coefficient 
of variation (CV), which is defined as the standard deviation of the 
samples divided by the sample mean, expressed as a percentage. 
Responses having a CV

[[Page 78541]]

of less than 5 percent are generally considered as having an excellent 
level of repeatability, those with a CV of 5-8 percent are considered 
good, those with a CV of 8-10 percent are considered acceptable, and 
those having a CV of more than 10 percent are generally considered as 
having an unacceptable or poor level of repeatability. The resulting CV 
for the dummy's various body parts was below 5 percent in many cases 
and below 10 percent in all measured cases, with the exception of lower 
spine T12 lateral acceleration when the dummy's thorax was assessed 
without the arm.\145\ Values were generally in line with expectations--
a CV for injury assessment of less than or equal to 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Scherer, R., Bortenschlager, K., Akiyama, A., Tylko, S., 
Hartleib, M., & Harigae, T., ``WorldSID Production Dummy 
Biomechanical Responses,'' The 21st International Technical 
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 
09-0505, 2009.
    \145\ For this test, the CV was 10.7%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Seating Procedure
    Although the impact protocols for the side MDB and pole tests will 
remain largely unchanged, slight modifications to the test procedures 
will have to be made to accommodate the new test dummy. It will be 
necessary to adjust the test weight calculation to accommodate the 
weight of the WorldSID-50M ATD as opposed to the current ES-2re or SID-
IIs ATDs. The agency will need to make other minor changes with respect 
to data collection and reporting. Because of the WorldSID-50M ATD's 
anthropometrical differences compared to the ES-2re and SID-IIs ATDs, 
alterations to the seating procedure must also be made.
    Several seating procedures for the WorldSID-50M ATD have been 
developed: The WorldSID working group version 5.4 (WSG 5.4) and the 
ISO/TS22/SC10/WG1's version (ISO/DIS 17949:2012, or GTR version). ISO/
TS22/SC10/WG1 is a group established to develop car collision test 
procedures. The NHTSA WorldSID-50M ATD draft seating procedure (NWS50) 
that the agency has developed, found in the docket for this RFC notice, 
is based on the existing FMVSS No. 214 procedure for the ES-2re and the 
WSG 5.4 seating procedures.\146\ In the NWS50 procedure, the seat 
position is 20 mm (0.79 in) rearward of mid-track position, as is 
prescribed in WSG 5.4. Since the WorldSID-50M ATD's legs are longer 
than those of the ES-2re ATD, the adjusted seat track position at 20 mm 
(0.79 in) rearward of mid-track allows the legs to be placed in a more 
natural position. The final target for the H-point is modified to 
account for the rearward change in seat placement along the seat track 
by adding 20 mm (0.79 in) to the target H-point.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ WSG 5.4 Seating Procedure, placed in the docket of this 
RFC notice.
    \147\ Louden, A., ``WorldSID 50th Male Seating Evaluation and 
Fleet Testing,'' Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry 
Meeting, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NWS50 procedure determines the mid angle of the seat pan at the 
beginning of seat positioning and keeps the seat pan at the lowest 
position while maintaining the mid-angle of the seat pan. This is in 
contrast to WSG 5.4 and GTR versions, which allow the seat pan angle to 
change if the seat pan can move to a lower position. The GTR, WSG 5.4, 
and NWS50 procedures are generally the same with respect to dummy 
positioning, with the exception of differences in tolerance values for 
leveling the head and the thorax and pelvis tilt 
sensors.148 149 150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ NHTSA WS50th Seating Procedure, placed in the docket of 
this RFC notice.
    \149\ WSG 5.4 Seating Procedure, placed in the docket of this 
RFC notice.
    \150\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Fleet Testing
    The agency has some experience with the WorldSID-50M ATD in a 
research capacity. NHTSA has evaluated the WorldSID-50M dummy in FMVSS 
No. 214 crash test protocols. After the 2007 Final Rule was released, 
an initial series of side MDB and pole tests was successfully conducted 
on the MY 2005 fleet. The evaluation examined the overall performance 
of the WorldSID-50M ATD. The anthropometry and testing results were 
discussed in a 2009 International Technical Conference for the Enhanced 
Safety of Vehicles paper and at the 2008 and 2009 SAE Government 
Industry Meetings.151 152 153 A second fleet evaluation 
consisting of MDB and pole tests was conducted with MY 2010-2012 
vehicles, in part to evaluate the seating procedure. This testing 
proved the feasibility of the NWS50 procedure. More detailed results of 
this testing were presented at the 2014 SAE Government Industry 
Meeting,\154\ and the NHTSA database test numbers associated with this 
evaluation can be found in Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Louden, A., ``Dynamic Side Impact Testing with the 50th 
Percentile Male WorldSID Compared to the ES-2re,'' The 21st 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0296, 2009; ``Status of WorldSID 50th 
Percentile Male Side Impact Dummy,'' European Enhanced Vehicle-
Safety Committee Working Group, 12 March 2009.
    \152\ Louden, A., ``Side Impact Crash Testing with the 50th 
Percentile Male WorldSID,'' Society of Automotive Engineers 
Government/Industry Meeting, May 2008
    \153\ Louden, A., ``50th Male WorldSID Test Results in FMVSS 214 
Test Conditions & ES-2re Comparisons,'' Society of Automotive 
Engineers Government/Industry Meeting, February 2009.
    \154\ Louden, A. and Weston, D., ``WorldSID Status: 50th Male 
and 5th Female,'' Society of Automotive Engineers, Government/
Industry Meeting, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii. Durability
    The WorldSID-50M ATD was designed with durability specifications in 
mind. ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5's requirements were that the dummy must remain 
functional for at least ten tests in which the dummy was subjected to 
loads up to 150 percent of IARVs established at the time.\155\ In the 
dummy's development phase, the WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder rib was 
found to permanently deform and IR-TRACC damage occurred as a result of 
excessive stroking (e.g., bottoming out) during the 8.9 m/s rigid wall 
sled test and the 2 m full-body drop test. Although these tests are 
considered quite severe, a rib doubler was added to the outer shoulder 
rib to strengthen it.\156\ This change resulted in improved durability, 
as further testing undertaken by the ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5 showed no 
permanent deformation of the shoulder rib or IR-TRACC damage.\157\ 
Furthermore, during full-scale side pole and barrier tests conducted 
with the WorldSID-50M ATD in the driver and/or rear passenger struck 
side position, no damage was observed for the head, neck, thorax, 
pelvis, or legs during visual inspections even though some injury 
readings were recorded as being up to three times the IARVs or had 
achieved the maximum measurement range.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Durability Requirements and 
Performance,'' [www.worldsid.org/Documentation/TG%20N394%20WorldSID%20Durability%20Requirements%20and%20Performance%2020050331.pdf]. Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
    \156\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Durability Requirements and 
Performance,'' [www.worldsid.org/Documentation/TG%20N394%20WorldSID%20Durability%20Requirements%20and%20Performance%2020050331.pdf]. Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
    \157\ Ibid.
    \158\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's testing confirmed the ISO's durability findings. NHTSA's 
first round of side pole and MDB fleet testing with the WorldSID-50M 
ATD resulted in only minor damage to the dummies used during the test 
series. In one test, the dummy's shoulder IR-TRACC was observed to be 
damaged at both ends post-test. It was also discovered that the 
WorldSID-50M ATD's rib damping material de-bonded from the metal ribs 
over the course of the test series. This finding led to a change in the 
rib damping material.\159\ It is worth noting

[[Page 78542]]

that the damage to the shoulder IR-TRACCs only occurred during oblique 
pole tests, and the vehicles tested were not certified to the oblique 
pole side impact standards implemented in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ Louden, A., ``Dynamic Side Impact Testing with the 50th 
Percentile Male WorldSID Compared to the ES-2re,'' The 21st 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0296, 2009; ``Status of WorldSID 50th 
Percentile Male Side Impact Dummy,'' European Enhanced Vehicle-
Safety Committee Working Group, 12 March 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the agency's second round of fleet testing, part of the 
dummy's shoulder IR-TRACC was damaged in 2 of the 12 vehicles tested 
during pole testing, but this was the only notable damage.\160\ None of 
the dummy's shoulder IR-TRACCs were damaged during side MDB 
testing.\161\ Future vehicles should show not only reduced intrusion 
because of improvements made to strengthen vehicles' side structure, 
but they should also have greater side air bag coverage to accommodate 
the range of occupants subjected to FMVSS No. 214 testing, which should 
serve to distribute the loads imparted to the test dummies. Side air 
bags in general, particularly chest and pelvis air bags, are now seen 
more often in larger vehicles.\162\ With the incorporation of such 
changes, it is expected that a reduction in shoulder deflection would 
be seen in future testing with FMVSS No. 214-compliant vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Louden, A., ``WorldSID 50th Male Seating Evaluation and 
Fleet Testing,'' Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry 
Meeting, January 2012.
    \161\ Louden, A. & Weston, D., ``WorldSID Status: 50th Male and 
5th Female,'' Society of Automotive Engineers, Government/Industry 
Meeting, January 2014.
    \162\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., & Aram, 
M., ``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0314, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

viii. Instrumentation
    Instrumentation for the WorldSID-50M ATD was designed to be easy to 
use and to comply with recognized instrumentation standards such as SAE 
J211--Instrumentation for Impact Test and ISO 6487--Measurement 
Techniques in Impact Tests--Instrumentation. The dummy's 
instrumentation supports the assessment of injury risk for practically 
all known side impact injury criteria used in existing side impact 
protocols worldwide and also supports the evaluation and optimization 
of vehicle components and restraint systems.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Instrumentation,'' 
[www.worldsid.org/Documentation/TG%20N397%20Instrumentation%2020050401.pdf]. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WorldSID-50M ATD can be instrumented with upper and lower neck 
load cells; 2D IR-TRACCs or RibEyeTM in the shoulder rib, 
three thoracic ribs, and two abdomen ribs to measure displacement; a 
shoulder load cell; a pubic load cell; iliac and sacrum load cell; and 
accelerometers at numerous locations, including the head, upper and 
lower spine, ribs, and pelvis, to measure the ``g'' levels that are 
applied to the dummy during a side impact crash. Accelerometers placed 
at the head center of gravity measure linear and rotational 
accelerations, while angular rate sensors measure angular velocity of 
the head. With respect to the dummy's upper limbs, two arm 
configurations are available--half arms, which are standard, and full 
arms, which are optional. The dummy's upper and lower legs include load 
cells and rotational potentiometers, in addition to other sensors.
    The WorldSID-50M ATD was also designed to have an optional in-dummy 
data acquisition system (DAS), which is wholly contained within the 
dummy and includes integrated wiring. This DAS, which has the ability 
to collect up to 224 data channels, eliminates the need for a single, 
large umbilical cable.\164\ Current dummies require the use of an 
umbilical cable that runs from the dummy's spine to a DAS located 
elsewhere--either on or off the vehicle. These cables can add weight to 
the test vehicle. With the large amount of data channels possible for 
the WorldSID-50M ATD, an umbilical cable is not practical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Background,'' 
[www.worldsid.org/Documentation/Background%2020051116.pdf]. Accessed 
25 Sep 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ix. Injury Criteria and Risk Curves
    The construction of injury risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD was 
initiated in 2004 by the ISO Technical Committee 22, Sub-committee 12, 
Working Group 6 (ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6). Additional support for this 
project came from the Dummy Task Force of the Association des 
Constructeurs Europeens d'Automobiles (ACEA-TFD) in 2008. The ACEA-TFD 
aimed to promote consensus among biomechanical experts as to the injury 
risk curves that should be used. Subsequently, a group of biomechanical 
experts worked to develop injury risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD 
shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.\165\ These curves, which were 
released and discussed at the May 2009 meeting of ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6, 
were developed using the following process: (1) An extensive review of 
all available PMHS side impact test datasets (impactor tests and sled 
tests) worldwide was conducted, and those test configurations that 
could be reproduced using the WorldSID-50M ATD were selected, (2) 
WorldSID-50M ATD responses from similar test configurations were 
obtained and scaled to simulate the same test severities the PMHS were 
exposed to by accounting for anthropometry differences between the PMHS 
and 50th percentile dummy, and (3) the scaled WorldSID-50M ATD data was 
paired with PMHS injuries for each body region and test condition to 
construct injury risk curves based on commonly used statistical 
methods. Although injury risk curves are historically constructed for 
AIS 3+ injuries, a well-distributed sample of injured and non-injured 
PMHS at this AIS level was not available for some body regions. In such 
instances, risk curves were developed for other AIS levels for which 
injury results were better balanced.\166\ In most cases, the AIS levels 
evaluated were reduced. This should have the effect of addressing a 
larger amount of injuries in the real world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Petit, P., Irwin, A., 
Hassan, J., & Praxl, N., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th 
Percentile Male Dummy,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, 53: 443-476, 2009.
    \166\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When injury risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD were proposed by 
Petitjean et al. in 2009, there was no consensus on what injury 
criteria should be adopted or which statistical method--certainty, 
Mertz-Weber, consistent threshold estimate (CTE), logistic regression, 
or survival analysis with Weibull distribution--should be used to 
construct the injury risk curves from the test data. Ultimately, 
however, in 2011, after using statistical simulations to compare the 
performance of the different statistical methods, Petitjean et al. 
recommended that the Weibull survival method be used over the other 
statistical methods to construct injury risk curves for the WorldSID-
50M ATD.\167\ Around the same time, ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 reached consensus 
on a set of guidelines that was to be used to not only build injury 
risk curves, but also to recommend the risk curve that is considered to 
be the most relevant to the sample studied. In 2012, Petitjean et al. 
applied these guidelines to the WorldSID-50M ATD results published in 
2009 in order to provide a final set of injury risk curves for the 
WorldSID-50M ATD. These curves, which were specified for lateral 
shoulder force, thoracic rib deflection, abdomen rib deflection, and 
pubic force, were

[[Page 78543]]

ultimately recommended by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ NHTSA has historically used logistic regression to develop 
injury risk curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recommended risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD, as published 
by Petitjean et al. in 2012, were adjusted for both 45-year-olds and 
67-year-olds.\168\ The agency will decide on an appropriate age at 
which to scale risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD once final, 
adjusted population estimate data has been calculated and examined. The 
injury criteria and associated risk curves NCAP intends to use for the 
WorldSID-50M ATD are described below and detailed in Appendix IV of 
this document. The agency intends to adopt injury criteria to address 
head, shoulder, thorax, abdominal, and pelvis risk. Injury criteria for 
most of these body regions (head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis) are 
currently included for the ES-2re dummy in FMVSS No. 214 and side NCAP. 
The injury criteria mentioned below are generally consistent with those 
recommended by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 and those currently under evaluation 
by the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) for inclusion in the pole 
side impact GTR. With few exceptions, they are also used currently by 
Euro NCAP for rating vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Petitjean, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is seeking comment on the risk curves included herein, 
as well as all aspects of the following:
    HEAD--NHTSA's preliminary analysis of real-world vehicle-to-vehicle 
and vehicle-to-pole side impact crashes showed that approximately one 
third (34%) of all AIS 3+ injuries for front seat, medium-stature 
occupants were to the head. The data reviewed showed that, of the AIS 
3+ head injuries reported, 91 percent were brain injuries in vehicle-
to-vehicle crashes, and 82 percent were brain injuries in vehicle-to-
pole crashes.\169\ As mentioned previously, HIC (either 15 milliseconds 
(ms) or 36 ms in duration) is a measure of only translational head 
acceleration; it does not account for rotational motion of the head, 
which has been commonly seen in side impact crashes and which may 
induce brain injury. To account for this rotational motion, the agency 
is planning to adopt the brain injury criterion, BrIC, for the 
WorldSID-50M dummy. The WorldSID-50M ATD can be equipped to measure 
rotational accelerations and/or rotational velocities at the head 
center of gravity. If accelerations are used, they must be integrated 
to obtain the rotational velocity used to calculate BrIC; however, if 
rotational velocity is measured directly, no further processing is 
necessary. Therefore, the agency intends to use angular rate sensors to 
calculate BrIC. The AIS 3+ risk curve associated with BrIC for the 
WorldSID-50M is included in Appendix IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As BrIC is intended to complement HIC rather than replace it, the 
agency will continue to measure HIC36 readings in side NCAP 
MDB and pole tests with the WorldSID-50M dummy. The AIS3+ risk curve 
associated with HIC36 is found in Appendix IV.
    SHOULDER--The agency also intends to evaluate injuries stemming 
from the crash forces imparted to the WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder. The 
agency's analysis of real-world vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pole 
crashes showed that 13 percent of all AIS 2+ injuries reported for 
medium-stature occupants in the front seat were shoulder injuries.\170\ 
The WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder shows excellent biofidelity; recall 
that the ISO rating for the WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder is 10, and its 
NHTSA external and internal BioRank scores are 1.0 and 0.9, 
respectively. Shoulder design can substantially affect dummy response 
during side pole and side air bag interactions, and biofidelity is 
extremely important in narrow object crashes where the margins between 
minor and serious or fatal injury are relatively small.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Ibid.
    \171\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has chosen to evaluate shoulder injury risk for the WorldSID-
50M ATD as a function of maximum shoulder force in the lateral 
direction (Y). The associated AIS 2+ risk curve, developed by Petitjean 
et al. (2012), can be found in Appendix IV.
    The agency has some concern that assessing shoulder injury risk in 
NCAP may prohibit manufacturers from offering the best thorax 
protection, as it may be necessary for vehicle manufacturers to direct 
loading in severe side impact crashes towards body regions that are 
best able to withstand impact, such as the shoulder, in order to divert 
loads away from more vulnerable body regions, such as the thorax. In 
fact, it is for these reasons that the side pole GTR informal working 
group decided not to establish a threshold for shoulder force based on 
the AIS 2+ injury risk curves developed by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6.\172\ That 
said, the informal working group thought it was still important to 
prevent non-biofidelic (e.g., excessive) shoulder loading so that 
vehicle manufacturers could not use such excessive shoulder loading to 
reduce thorax loading artificially. Accordingly, the informal working 
group agreed upon a maximum peak lateral shoulder force of 3.0 kN 
(674.4 lb-force). The agency's fleet testing showed maximum shoulder 
forces ranging from 1.2 kN (269.8 lb-force) to 2.6 kN (584.5 lb-force) 
for oblique pole tests and 876 N (196.9 lb-force) to 2.3 kN (517.0 lb-
force) in the side impact MDB tests. The agency is requesting comments 
on the merits of using a performance criterion limit (e.g., IARV) 
instead of the AIS 2+ risk curve for shoulder force in NCAP ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitjean et al. did not recommend an injury risk curve for 
shoulder deflection for the WorldSID-50M ATD because, during 
development of the risk curves, shoulder deflection data was only 
available for impactor tests, whereas shoulder force data was available 
for both impactor and sled tests. Since a wider range of test 
configurations could be used to build an injury risk curve for shoulder 
force compared to shoulder deflection, only a curve for maximum 
shoulder force was recommended.\173\ The decision to recommend one 
injury risk per body region, injury type, and injury severity was in 
keeping with the guidelines agreed to by the ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., Irwin, 
A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,'' Stapp 
Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that it does not subscribe to these guidelines 
universally. For example, the Hybrid III ATD chest deflection and 
acceleration are both used as separate indicators of injury in FMVSSs. 
That said, the agency is requesting comments on the merits of also 
adopting a risk curve for AIS 2+ shoulder injury that is a function of 
shoulder deflection, as this risk curve has also been developed by ISO/
TC22/SC12/WG6.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ ISO/TR 12350:2002(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CHEST--The NASS-CDS data examined showed that, in addition to the 
head, the chest is one of the most common seriously injured body 
regions in side crashes. Thirty-four percent of all AIS 3+ injuries to 
front seat, medium-stature occupants involved in vehicle-to-vehicle and 
vehicle-to-pole crashes were thoracic injuries.\175\ As such, NHTSA 
intends to incorporate chest deflection injury criteria to measure 
thoracic injury for the WorldSID-50M ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitjean et al., 2012 developed an injury risk function to relate 
maximum thoracic and abdominal rib deflection of the WorldSID-50M ATD, 
as measured

[[Page 78544]]

by a 1D IR-TRACC, to AIS 3+ thoracic skeletal (and abdominal skeletal) 
injury obtained from PMHS. This risk curve, presented in Appendix IV, 
is a function of both thoracic and abdominal rib deflection because the 
abdominal ribs of the WorldSID-50M dummy partially overlap the thorax 
ribs of a mid-size adult male.\176\ Because of this, increased loading 
of the WorldSID-50M ATD's abdominal ribs would be expected to increase 
the risk of both AIS 3+ thorax and AIS 3+ abdominal injuries. Although 
chest deflection has been shown to be the best predictor of thoracic 
injuries in side impact crashes, the agency has some concerns, as 
mentioned previously, regarding the WorldSID-50M ATD's ability to 
accurately measure deflections under oblique loading conditions. It 
should be noted that Petitjean et al. concluded that, for impact 
directions from lateral to 15[deg] forward of lateral, the injury risk 
curves that would be constructed for thoracic deflection using the Y-
component of the deflection measured by a 2D IR-TRACC would be close to 
those developed for deflection measured by a 1D IR-TRACC.\177\ The 
authors also concluded that, for air bag tests, the deflection measured 
by the 1D IR-TRACC can be used as criteria for an impact direction 
between pure lateral and 30[deg] forward of lateral. However, Hynd et 
al., 2004 concluded that for rearward oblique loading, a 1D IR-TRACC 
would underestimate rib deflection, and therefore, a 2D IR-TRACC or 
RibEyeTM may more accurately reflect actual deflection under 
such loading conditions.\178\ Research with the WorldSID-50M ATD using 
the optical sensing system, RibEyeTM, is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ As indicated in Petitjean 2009, the maximum of the three 
thorax rib and two abdomen rib deflections was used to develop the 
thorax injury risk curves. This was done to be consistent with AIS 
2005, which specifies that all rib fractures are used to code 
thoracic skeletal injuries.
    \177\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., & 
Irwin, A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,'' 
Stapp Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
    \178\ Hynd, D., Carroll, J., Been, B., & Payne, A., ``Evaluation 
of the Shoulder, Thorax, and Abdomen of the WorldSID Pre-Production 
Side Impact Dummy,'' Research Laboratory Published Project Report. 
2004. PPR 029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other thoracic injury criteria adopted by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 are 
maximum thoracic rib and abdomen rib viscous criteria, or VC, which are 
designed to address both soft tissue and skeletal injuries. The agency 
has not found VC to be repeatable and reproducible in the agency's 
research; \179\ however, the agency realizes that many other 
organizations, including regulatory authorities, have been using VC for 
the EuroSID 1 and the ES-2 dummies in side impact MDB testing, 
including ECE Regulation No. 95, for many years. As ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 
has not yet been able to construct an AIS 3+ thoracic VC injury risk 
curve with an acceptable quality index for the WorldSID-50M percentile 
male dummy, the agency will not incorporate a peak thoracic VC into 
side NCAP for the next upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See 69 FR 28002. Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/04-10931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ABDOMEN--A smaller, yet still notable, portion of real-world 
injuries in side impact crashes are abdominal injuries. The agency's 
review of the NASS-CDS database showed that 15% of all AIS 2+ injuries 
for front seat, medium-stature occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle and 
vehicle-to-pole side impact crashes were abdominal injuries.\180\ The 
biofidelity rating for the WorldSID-50M ATD's abdomen is greatly 
improved; the ISO rating for the WorldSID-50M's abdomen is a 9.3 and 
external and internal BioRank scores are 1.9 and 2.4, respectively. 
Accordingly, as part of the upgrade to NCAP, the agency intends to 
include abdominal rib deflection injury criterion for the WorldSID-50M 
ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whereas the thoracic rib deflection criterion discussed in the 
previous section is designed to assess both thoracic and abdominal 
skeletal injuries, the maximum abdomen rib deflection injury criterion 
is designed to gauge abdominal soft tissue injuries. Risk curves 
showing AIS 2+ abdomen soft tissue injury for the WorldSID-50M ATD as a 
function of maximum abdomen rib deflection measured by a 1D IR-TRACC 
can be found in Appendix IV.
    This abdominal rib deflection injury criterion, which was developed 
and recommended by Petitjean et al. and adopted by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6, 
was selected over the maximum abdomen rib VC to assess the risk of AIS 
2+ abdominal soft tissue injuries because the quality index associated 
with the abdomen rib deflection was better than the abdomen rib 
VC.\181\ In keeping with the ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 guidelines to recommend 
one injury risk per body region, injury type, and injury severity, and 
in light of the agency's past experience with VC, mentioned above, the 
agency will not adopt an abdominal injury criterion based on maximum 
abdominal VC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., Irwin, 
A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,'' Stapp 
Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is requesting comment on whether it is appropriate to 
also adopt a resultant lower spine injury criterion in hopes of 
capturing severe lower thorax and abdomen loading that is undetected by 
unidirectional deflection measurements, such as excessive loadings 
behind the dummy, which may cause excessive forward rotations of the 
ribs.\182\ Resultant spinal accelerations have been shown to provide a 
good measure of the overall load on the thorax and, because they are 
being derived from tri-axial accelerometers (x, y, and z direction), 
are less sensitive to the direction of impact.\183\ Adopting an 
additional criterion for lower spine acceleration would be in line with 
what the informal working group has decided for the side pole GTR. The 
informal working group agreed that the lower spine acceleration should 
not exceed 75 g, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not 
more than 3 ms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
    \183\ Kuppa, S. ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PELVIS--The agency's preliminary review of real-world data showed 
that pelvis injuries represent 13% of all AIS 2+ injuries for front 
seat, mid-size occupants involved in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, and 
20% of all AIS 2+ injuries for these occupants in fixed narrow object 
side impact crashes.\184\ To evaluate pelvis injuries in side NCAP 
testing using the WorldSID-50M ATD, the agency intends to adopt pubic 
force as an additional injury criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned earlier, the WorldSID-50M ATD is capable of measuring 
lateral pelvis acceleration and posterior sacro-iliac loads in addition 
to anterior pubic symphysis loads. At this time, however, the agency 
will only incorporate pubic symphysis injury criteria for the pelvis. 
The agency believes that adding a criterion to evaluate pubic symphysis 
loads instead of lateral pelvis acceleration is appropriate because 
most of the pelvis injuries observed in the PMHS samples reviewed by 
Petitjean et al. were ilioischial rami and pubic symphysis 
injuries.\185\ Furthermore, pubic force is generally considered to be a 
more acceptable biomechanical measure than lateral pelvis 
acceleration.\186\ The agency will also not adopt a criterion for 
sacro-iliac loads because a risk curve for the sacro-iliac has not yet 
been

[[Page 78545]]

developed for the WorldSID-50M ATD. However, because the agency is 
aware that field evidence suggests that posterior pelvic injury may not 
be detected by the pubic symphysis load cell, the agency is requesting 
comment on how the pubic symphysis and sacro-iliac loads interrelate, 
and whether it is possible and necessary to establish injury criteria 
for both pelvic regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., & 
Irwin, A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,'' 
Stapp Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
    \186\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Human tolerance to pelvic loading has been established and related 
to the WorldSID-50M ATD, resulting in an injury risk curve, included in 
Appendix IV, to relate the measured maximum pubic symphysis force to 
the risk of an AIS 2+ pelvis injury. As risk of pelvic injury is 
currently assessed in side NCAP and FMVSS No. 214 at the AIS 3+ level, 
the agency is requesting comments on the merits of adopting the AIS 3+ 
risk curve for pubic symphysis force that was also recommended by 
Petitjean et al. instead.
b. SID-IIs ATD
i. Background
    The SID-IIs dummy was developed by the Occupant Safety Research 
Partnership (OSRP), a research group under the umbrella of the U.S. 
Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), in 1993. At the time, there 
was a need for an ATD that would better evaluate a smaller occupant's 
biomechanical response to side impact countermeasures such as air bags. 
The SID-IIs dummy represents not only a 5th percentile female but all 
smaller occupants in general, including a preteen child. In the 2007 
FMVSS No. 214 Final Rule, it was estimated that 34 percent of all 
serious and fatal injuries to near-side occupants in side impact 
crashes occurred to occupants 163 cm (5 ft 4 in) or less--occupants 
best represented by the SID-IIs ATD.\187\ In narrow object side impacts 
in particular, drivers of smaller-stature comprised approximately 28 
percent of seriously or fatally injured occupants. Of these smaller 
occupants, head, abdominal, and pelvic injuries represented a higher 
proportion of serious injury than larger occupants. By including a 
smaller-stature occupant in side impact crash regulations in 2007, the 
agency aimed to require comprehensive side impact occupant protection 
strategies for drivers of various sizes. Other organizations, such as 
the IIHS, also use the SID-IIs ATD in side crash tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See 72 FR 51909. Docket No. NHTSA-29134. https://federalregister.gov/a/07-4360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary data from NHTSA shows that a similar percentage of 
small-stature occupants are being injured in side impact crashes.\188\ 
Thus, the agency believes it is appropriate to continue assessing risk 
of injury for this occupant size. Some of the SID-IIs ATD's risk curves 
will remain unchanged; these include HIC36 and combined 
pelvic force. Additional injury assessments to be included in the side 
impact rating are: BrIC, thoracic and abdominal rib deflection, and 
lower spine resultant acceleration criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section. NHTSA data shows that 36% of AIS 3+ injuries in side 
impacts occurred to occupants 5 ft 4 in or less (small-stature). 
Sixteen percent of occupants in narrow object side impact crashes 
which received MAIS 3+ injuries were of small-stature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Continuation of Current Injury Criteria
    Currently, the SID-IIs dummy is placed in both the driver's seat of 
the side oblique pole NCAP test as well as the rear passenger seat of 
the side MDB NCAP test. Head acceleration and combined pelvic force are 
measured and risk curves are applied to estimate the probability of 
injury to each body region for rating purposes. The agency has not 
received any indication that these criteria should be amended or 
omitted from future iterations of NCAP; therefore, the agency intends 
to continue applying the risk curves to the dummy's head and 
pelvis.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Details of these risk curves are provided in Appendix IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. New Injury Criteria Being Implemented
    Thoracic and abdominal rib deflections for the SID-IIs ATD are 
currently collected, but they are only being monitored at this time. 
This RFC notice announces the agency's intent to add thoracic and 
abdominal injury criterion to the next version of its consumer 
information program for the SID-IIs ATD. It also announces the agency's 
intent to incorporate lower spine resultant acceleration performance 
limits and BrIC for the SID-IIs ATD into the side NCAP ratings in an 
integrated manner.
    BrIC--According to NHTSA's analysis, for small-stature occupants 
seated in the outboard rear row in a side-impact crash, just 6 percent 
of AIS 3+ injuries were head injuries. However, of those head injuries, 
all were to the brain.\190\ Although this is a relatively small 
proportion of injury and other body regions are injured more frequently 
at this severity, traumatic brain injury can have very serious 
consequences. Furthermore, the SID-IIs dummies can be instrumented with 
rotational sensors. As with other dummies, HIC36 only 
accounts for translational head acceleration. As such, the agency 
intends to adopt BrIC in addition to HIC36 for the SID-IIs 
ATD in NCAP. The AIS 3+ risk curve associated with BrIC for the SID-IIs 
5th percentile dummy is included in Appendix IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thoracic and Abdominal Rib Deflections--The agency did not propose 
or adopt limits or risk curves for the SID-IIs ATD ribs in the 2007 
FMVSS No. 214 upgrade. NHTSA was interested in solely monitoring rib 
deflections and was not prepared to limit rib deflections in FMVSS No. 
214 at that time, though it did acknowledge that limits were possible 
for the future.\191\ Since the SID-IIs Build D ATD's inclusion into the 
agency's consumer crash testing program in MY 2011, NHTSA has monitored 
the rib deflections gathered in side MDB and side pole crash testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See 72 FR 51925. Docket No. NHTSA-29134. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/07-4360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters to the agency's 2013 RFC asserted that deflection is a 
better predictor of torso injury than acceleration.\192\ In terms of 
real-world data, chest injuries make up 26 percent of AIS 3+ injuries 
to small-stature, rear seat occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, 
and abdominal injuries account for 22 percent of AIS 3+ injuries.\193\ 
Thus, the agency feels that it is appropriate to incorporate thoracic 
and abdominal injuries for small occupants into this NCAP upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ ``New Car Assessment Program,'' Docket No. NHTSA-2012-
0180.
    \193\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research from the OSRP noted that the SID-IIs dummy's linear 
potentiometers may not capture the full extent of chest deflection in 
oblique loading conditions.\194\ However, given the safety need, NHTSA 
believes that inclusion of thoracic and abdominal injury evaluations in 
NCAP should not be further delayed. The use of the SID-IIs ATD linear 
potentiometers will not over predict injury risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Jensen, J., Berliner, J., Bunn, B., Pietsch, H., Handman, 
D., Salloum, M., Charlebois, D., & Tylko, S., ``Evaluation of an 
Alternative Thorax Deflection Device in the SID-IIs ATD,'' The 21st 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0437, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AIS 3+ and AIS 4+ risk curves for SID-IIs ATD thoracic and 
abdominal deflection, respectively, can be found in Appendix IV. The 
risk curves the agency intends to use have been scaled for a 56-year-
old female and have been adjusted to take into account lowered bone 
density. At the time of the curve's development, the average age of an 
AIS 3+ injured occupant 5 ft 4 in or less in

[[Page 78546]]

height in side crashes was found to be 56 years.\195\ Furthermore, this 
approach should ensure that safety information for the vulnerable 
population of occupants which the SID-IIs ATD is meant to represent is 
provided to the public. The agency seeks comment on whether this is an 
acceptable approach or whether the risk curves should be adjusted to a 
different age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ Kuppa, S. ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,'' 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lower Spine Acceleration--Lower spine (T12) resultant acceleration 
is also collected; currently, if it exceeds the criterion established 
in FMVSS No. 214 (82 g), the vehicle receives a Safety Concern 
designation for the applicable side impact test mode. Lower spine 
resultant acceleration was not included in the agency's upgraded 
consumer information program in MY 2011 because no validated risk curve 
was available at the time and there was no method by which to include 
performance limits in the star rating.\196\ The agency still does not 
have a risk curve which it believes is appropriate for the SID-IIs 
ATD's lower spine resultant acceleration, but NHTSA intends to 
incorporate a performance criterion limit (IARV) for resultant lower 
spine acceleration for the SID-IIs ATD in this NCAP upgrade. Although 
deflection is thought to be the best indicator of injury, lower spine 
acceleration indicates the magnitude of overall loading to the thorax 
and may be able to detect injurious loads which the rib potentiometers 
may not. The agency seeks comment on an appropriate performance 
criterion limit for the SID-IIs ATD lower spine resultant acceleration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See 73 FR 40029. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. WorldSID 5th Percentile Female ATD (WorldSID-5F)
i. Background and Current Status
    After the development of the WorldSID-50M ATD in 2004, work on the 
WorldSID-5F ATD was initiated by the FP6 Advanced Protection System (or 
APROSYS) Integrated Project, a European Commission (EC) 6th Framework 
collaboration research project.197 198 APROSYS is a 
consortium of experts consisting of vehicle manufacturers, parts 
suppliers, universities/research institutions, and representative 
organizations from EU member states.\199\ It was anticipated that a 
smaller version of the dummy could be nearly as, if not equally, 
biofidelic as the larger version. The hope was to create a family of 
dummies which provide consistent direction to manufacturers to design 
crashworthiness countermeasures for occupants of various sizes.\200\ 
The first prototype was assembled in October 2005; Revision 1 (also 
called Build Level B) was developed in 2007-2008. The current build 
level is Build Level C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Humanetics ATD, ``WorldSID 5th Small Female Dummy,' 
[www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies/side-impact/worldsid-5th]. 
Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
    \198\ Been, B., Meijer, R., Bermond, F., Bortenschlager, K., 
Hynd, D., Martinez, L., & Ferichola, G., ``WorldSID Small Female 
Side Impact Dummy Specifications and Prototype Evaluation,'' The 
20th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 07-0311, 2007.
    \199\ Versmissen, T., ``APROSYS Car to pole side impact 
activities,'' GRSP PSI meeting, March 2011.
    \200\ Carroll, J., Goodacre, O., Hynd, D., & Petitjean, A., 
``Testing of the WorldSID-5F to Support Injury Risk Function 
Development and Assessment of Other Performance Issues,'' The 23rd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0193, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the larger WorldSID ATD, the WorldSID-5F's anthropometrical 
requirements were determined from the 1983 UMTRI automotive posture and 
anthropometry study. The dummy's target mass is 45.8 kg (101 lb) +/- 
1.2 kg (2.7 lb) when equipped with two half-arms. Similar to the 
WorldSID-50M ATD, the WorldSID-5F ATD is more reclined when seated in a 
vehicle seat.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Louden, A. & Weston, D., ``WorldSID Status: 50th Male and 
5th Female,'' Society of Automotive Engineers, Government/Industry 
Meeting, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WorldSID-5F ATD allows for 125 dynamic measurements to be 
evaluated, including those for the head, upper and lower neck, 
shoulder, thorax, abdomen, lumbar spine, pelvis, femur, and tibia. The 
dummy's ribs can be instrumented with 2D IR-TRACCs or with the 
RibEyeTM optical measurement system, similar to the 
WorldSID-50M ATD.
    Biofidelity performance parameters for this dummy originated from 
the WorldSID-50M ATD and were scaled for a 5th percentile female.\202\ 
ISO/TR9790 biofidelity evaluation tests have not been performed for 
Build Level C, but testing carried out for the Build Level B dummy 
showed that the WorldSID-5F ATD is as biofidelic as the WorldSID-50M 
ATD.\203\ Biofidelity ratings for the Build Level B dummy are shown 
below in Table 5. Humanetics believes that because the changes made for 
the Build Level C dummy were relevant to handling and durability only, 
they will not affect the biofidelity or dynamic response of the 
dummy.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Eggers, A., Schnottale, B., Been, B., Waagmeester, K., 
Hynd, D., Carroll, J., & Martinez, L., ``Biofidelity of the WorldSID 
Small Female Revision 1 Dummy,'' The 21st International Technical 
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0420, 
2009.
    \203\ Ibid.
    \204\ Humanetics ATD, ``WorldSID 5th Small Female Dummy,' 
[www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies/side-impact/worldsid-5th]. 
Accessed 17 Sep 2015.

                                                                 Table 5--WorldSID-5F Side Impact Dummy Biofidelity--ISO Ratings
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Head            Neck          Shoulder         Thorax          Abdomen         Pelvis          Overall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldSID-5F B.....................................................              10             6.5             7.4             6.9             8.5             6.5             7.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Eggers, A., Schnottale, B., Been, B., Waagmeester, K., Hynd, D., Carroll, J., & Martinez, L., ``Biofidelity of the WorldSID Small Female Revision 1 Dummy,'' The 21st International
  Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 09-0420, 2009.; 71 FR 75347

ii. Testing, Issues, and Current Status
    Testing conducted with the WorldSID-5F ATD shows that there are 
still issues to address concerning this dummy.
    As mentioned, biofidelity testing was conducted by Eggers et al. in 
2009 to determine whether the WorldSID-5F's dynamic response was 
appropriate for a 5th percentile female.\205\ Six drop tests, 22 
pendulum tests, and 27 sled tests were performed using a Build Level B 
dummy in this series. Some of the testing was not conducted: The 10 m/s 
abdominal pendulum test, for example, was not run because of a height 
restriction within the test facility. In these cases, a linear trend 
line was fitted to the lower-speed data and the higher-speed data was 
extrapolated from the trend. This analysis found that the chest

[[Page 78547]]

may be too stiff, and the authors suggested that the use of the 
resultant rib deformation, which overestimates the deformation, could 
compensate for the stiffness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Eggers, A., Schnottale, B., Been, B., Waagmeester, K., 
Hynd, D., Carroll, J., and Martinez, L., ``Biofidelity of the 
WorldSID Small Female Revision 1 Dummy,'' The 21st International 
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 
09-0420, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to further evaluate the WorldSID-5F's biofidelity and 
develop appropriate risk curves, TRL subjected the Build Level B dummy 
to additional pendulum and sled testing.\206\ In this group of tests, 
26 sled tests and 51 pendulum tests were performed. Unlike the previous 
testing undertaken by Eggers et al., some higher-severity tests, such 
as the 8.7 m/s Wayne State University thoracic impactor test and the 10 
m/s Wayne State University pelvic impactor test, were not completed as 
planned as TRL felt that the ATD reached its maximum sustainable impact 
shortly after 6 m/s. Thus, the projected results from a more severe 
test were again achieved by fitting a straight line to the peak 
deflection results and extrapolating; TRL noted that this is not ideal. 
This analysis found that most of the ATD's body regions (shoulder, 
thorax, abdomen, and pelvis) are rather stiff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ Carroll, J., Goodacre, O., Hynd, D., & Petitjean, A., 
``Testing of the WorldSID-5F to Support Injury Risk Function 
Development and Assessment of Other Performance Issues,'' The 23rd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0193, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It also uncovered some additional dummy design issues regarding 
shoulder load cell contact with the neck bracket, iliac wing contact 
with the sacro-iliac load cell and lumbar load cell cable cover, and 
upper central iliac wing contact with the lumbar spine mounting plate. 
For the shoulder, this contact may restrict the deflection allowed to 
40 mm, depending on the vertical displacement of the rib.\207\ The 
contacts within the pelvis were causing loading in unintended areas 
within the dummy. Humanetics modified parts to evaluate whether the 
contacts would be eliminated; contacts at lower speeds did not occur, 
but testing at higher impact speeds still showed iliac contact with the 
surrounding structures.\208\ Also, prior testing with the WorldSID-50M 
ATD showed that interference may occur between the pelvic flesh and the 
lower abdominal rib, depending on how the dummy is seated. Interaction 
between the two causes the abdominal response to be stiffer. TRL's 
testing showed that this problem also exists for the WorldSID-5F ATD, 
though to a lesser degree as TRL believed that it is unlikely to occur 
with normal use of the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Ibid.
    \208\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has successfully performed full-scale vehicle crash tests 
with the WorldSID-5F prototype. In these tests, a WorldSID-50M ATD was 
seated in the driver's seat and a WorldSID-5F ATD was seated in the 
left rear seat. The vehicle was then subjected to the agency's MDB test 
at the side NCAP speed. Through these rounds of testing, it was 
determined that the WorldSID-5F ATD is durable; nothing was damaged in 
the NHTSA side MDB testing. A list of NHTSA database test numbers for 
these tests can be found in Appendix V.
    Additional dummy issues have been identified over the course of the 
WorldSID-5F's testing. Material changes must be made in the head and 
pelvis. These limitations will require redesigns of the applicable 
sections of the dummy. Furthermore, risk curves for this dummy must be 
developed. These concerns must be addressed before the WorldSID-5F can 
be included in the next NCAP upgrade.

C. Crashworthiness Pedestrian Protection

    NHTSA intends to implement vehicle crashworthiness tests for 
pedestrian safety in the NCAP program. The agency believes that 
including pedestrian protection in the NCAP program would have a 
beneficial impact on pedestrian safety. As will be discussed in a later 
section, the crashworthiness pedestrian safety assessment will be part 
of the new rating system.
1. Real-World Pedestrian Data
    Since 1975 when NHTSA began tracking fatalities, there have been 
approximately 4,000 pedestrian fatalities and 70,000 pedestrian 
injuries on U.S. roads annually. In 2012, there were 4,818 pedestrian 
fatalities, which accounted for approximately 14 percent of all motor 
vehicle-related fatalities.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ Traffic Safety Facts, 2013, Pedestrians, DOT HS 812 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of fatal pedestrian crashes involve light 
vehicles.\210\ About one-third of pedestrians who are injured are 
struck by an SUV or pickup truck (see Appendix VII, Table VII-1), which 
corresponds closely to the make-up of SUVs and pickups in the U.S. 
vehicle fleet. However, SUVs and pickups account for closer to 40 
percent of pedestrian fatalities, which suggests that injuries may be 
more severe when sustained in collisions with these vehicles. Results 
from a meta-analysis of 12 independent injury data studies showed that 
pedestrians are 2-3 times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck 
by an SUV or pickup truck than when struck by a passenger car.\211\ 
Laboratory tests reflect this real-world data 
observation.212 213 214 The higher risk of fatality 
associated with being struck by an SUV or pickup also applies to a 
vulnerable population--children. In a study conducted by Columbia 
University, school-age children (5 to 19 years old) struck by light 
trucks were found to be twice as likely to die as those struck by 
passenger cars.\215\ The risk was even greater for the younger set 
(ages 5-9); their fatality risk is four times greater from SUVs and 
pickup trucks than from passenger cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ Light vehicles (as referred to herein) include all 
vehicles with GVWR < 10,000 lbs, which generally includes all SUVs 
and pickup trucks.
    \211\ Desapriya, E. et al. (2010), ``Do light truck vehicles 
(LTV) impose greater risk of pedestrian injury than passenger cars? 
A meta-analysis and systematic review.'' Traffic Injury Prevention, 
V11:48-56, 2010.
    \212\ Kerrigan, J., Arregui, C., & Crandall, J.C., ``Pedestrian 
head impact dynamics: comparison of dummy and PMHS in small sedan 
and large SUV impacts,'' Paper No. 09-0127, The 21st International 
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, 
Stuttgart, Germany, June 15-18, 2009.
    \213\ Anderson, R. W. G. & Doecke, S. (2011), ``An analysis of 
head impact severity in simulations of collisions between 
pedestrians and SUVs, work utility vehicles, and sedans,'' Traffic 
Injury Prevention, V12(4):388-397, 2011.
    \214\ Ivarrson, B. J., Henary, B. et al. (2005), ``Significance 
of adult pedestrian torso injury,'' Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 
49: 263-77.
    \215\ DiMaggio, C., Durkin, M., & Richardson, L. ``The 
association of light trucks and vans with pediatric pedestrian 
fatality.'' Int J Injury Contr and Safety Prom 2006; 13(2):95-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparison to motor vehicle occupants, the distribution of 
pedestrian fatalities is greater for age groups that include children 
and people over 45 years old (see Appendix VII, Figure VII-1). The 
agency believes that a crashworthiness pedestrian safety program in 
NCAP is necessary to stimulate improvements in pedestrian 
crashworthiness in new light vehicles sold in the United States and 
ultimately reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries from vehicle 
crashes in the United States. Europe and Japan have responded to the 
high proportion of pedestrian fatalities compared to all traffic 
fatalities by including pedestrian protection in their respective NCAPs 
and requiring pedestrian protection through regulation. These actions 
have likely contributed to a downward trend in pedestrian fatalities in 
Europe and Japan (see Appendix VII, Figure VII-2).
    As opposed to Europe and Japan, fatalities in the United States 
have remained steady over the last 14 years (see Appendix VII, Figure 
VII-3). The agency believes that including pedestrian protection in the 
NCAP program would be a step toward realizing similar downward trends 
experienced in regions of the world that

[[Page 78548]]

include pedestrians in their consumer information programs.
2. Current NCAP Activities in the U.S./World
    NHTSA intends to implement vehicle crashworthiness tests for 
pedestrian safety. This plan follows the agency's April 2013 RFC in 
which it asked whether the agency should consider such testing in the 
NCAP program. Though opinion varied on its inclusion, a common thread 
among many commenters was a desire for worldwide harmonization of tests 
and protocols if a pedestrian testing or rating program was introduced. 
In consideration of this, the test procedures and scoring scheme that 
the agency plans to use is essentially the same as those of Euro 
NCAP.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ NHTSA's plan as to how the pedestrian safety rating will 
factor into the overall vehicle rating is discussed later in this 
document, but that will not be identical to how Euro NCAP calculates 
their overall ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The speeds at which Euro NCAP conducts its pedestrian protection 
tests are supported by the agency's data regarding speeds at which the 
greatest number of pedestrian impacts occurred. However, the agency 
plans to conduct its own tests independently from Euro NCAP.
3. Planned Upgrade
    The agency intends to use the Euro NCAP test procedures rather than 
those of KNCAP or JNCAP because the European fleet make-up, including 
vehicle sizes and classes, is more similar to the U.S. fleet. Moreover, 
the societal benefits of the Euro NCAP pedestrian component are well 
documented. Recent retrospective studies indicate that ratings are 
yielding positive results in the European Union (E.U.) based on studies 
of their effect on real-world crashes and injuries. One such study was 
reported by the Swedish Transport Administration in 2014. A correlation 
between higher rating in Euro NCAP pedestrian protection scores and 
reduced head injuries and fatalities was observed among Swedish 
pedestrians struck between January 2003 and January 2014.\217\ Similar 
observations were observed by BAST \218\ for pedestrian collisions in 
Germany in the years 2009 to 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Standroth, J. et al. (2014), ``Correlation between Euro 
NCAP pedestrian test results and injury severity in injury crashes 
with pedestrians and bicyclists in Sweden,'' Stapp Car Crash 
Journal, Vol. 58 (November 2014), pp. 213-231.
    \218\ Pastor, C., ``Correlation between pedestrian injury 
severity in real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test 
results,'' The 23rd International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0308, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is a list of Euro NCAP documents that NHTSA plans to 
use as a basis for its own test procedures:
    (1) Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.1, January 2015. This 
describes the vehicle preparation, the test devices and their 
qualification requirements, and procedures to carry out the tests.
    (2) Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 5.3.1, November 2011. If a 
vehicle manufacturer elects not to provide NHTSA with headform impact 
assessment data, the headform test protocol in V5.3.1 will be followed 
in lieu of V8.1.
    (3) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection, V12. The routine 
contained within this (Microsoft Excel) file is used to generate 
verification points to be tested by NHTSA.
    (4) Technical Bulletin TB 019, Headform to Bonnet Leading Edge 
Tests, Version 1.0, June 2014. This document describes a procedure for 
child headform testing under the special case when test grid points lie 
forward of the hood and within the grille or hood leading edge area.
    (5) Film and Photo Protocol, Version 1.1, Chapter 8--Pedestrian 
Subsystem Tests, November 2014. This document describes camera set-up 
procedure only.
    (6) Technical Bulletin, TB 013, Pedestrian CAE Models & Codes, 
Version 1.4, June 2015. This document lists various computer-aided 
engineering models that have been deemed acceptable for use by a 
vehicle manufacturer in demonstrating the operation and performance of 
an active hood.
    (7) Technical Bulletin, TB 008, Windscreen Replacement for 
Pedestrian Testing, Version 1.0, September 2009. This document 
describes exceptions on bonding agents when windshields are replaced 
during the course of a vehicle test series.
    (8) Assessment Protocol--Pedestrian Protection, Part 1--Pedestrian 
Impact Assessment, Version 8.1, June 2015. Once all test data are 
collected, this protocol is used to determine the results.
    NHTSA intends to publish and maintain its own set of procedures and 
assessment protocols. However, the agency intends for them to be 
fundamentally the same as those described above, though some revisions 
will be needed to align with the agency's current practices under NCAP. 
Among such revisions is defining how manufacturers will communicate 
with NHTSA on providing information needed to conduct tests. Also, 
revisions may be necessary to account for differences in vehicle fleet 
composition (i.e., test zone markup of large vehicles may differ 
slightly from Euro NCAP) or how the various test types are weighted to 
calculate the overall pedestrian protection score. NHTSA will consider 
whether to harmonize with any future revision put forth by Euro NCAP.
4. Test Procedures/Devices
    The pedestrian safety assessment program the agency intends to 
implement is derived from multiple tests carried out on a stationary 
vehicle. The procedures are meant to simulate a pedestrian-to-vehicle 
impact scenario of either a 6-year-old child or an average-size adult 
male walking across a street and being struck from the side by an 
oncoming vehicle traveling at 40 km/hr (25 mph). This speed was 
selected by the GTR working group in the mid-2000s and is used as the 
basis for all subsequent international pedestrian regulations. It is 
also the target speed of all other NCAP procedures. The speed of 40 km/
h (25 mph) was selected in part because the majority of pedestrian 
collisions occur at this speed or less. Though fatalities typically 
occur at higher speeds (70 km/h (43.5 mph) on average), a test speed 
above 40 km/h (25 mph) is not warranted due to the changing dynamics of 
a pedestrian-vehicle interaction as collision speeds increase. For 
pedestrian-related crashes above 40 km/h (25 mph), an initial hood-to-
torso interaction takes place in which the pedestrian tends to slide 
along the hood such that the head impact overshoots the hood and 
windshield. Moreover, the practicability of designing a vehicle front-
end to achieve a high rating becomes increasingly difficult due to 
energy dissipation required as the impact increases.
    The first point of contact occurs between the front-end of the 
vehicle and the lateral aspect of an adult pedestrian's leg near the 
knee region. As the lower leg becomes fully engaged with the vehicle 
front-end, contact is made between the leading edge of the hood and the 
lateral aspect of the pedestrian's pelvis or upper leg. Then, as the 
lower leg is kicked forward and away from the front-end of the vehicle, 
the pedestrian's upper body swings abruptly downward towards the hood 
whereupon the head strikes the vehicle. Depending on the size of the 
pedestrian and vehicle, the head strikes either the hood or the 
windshield.
    When colliding with high profile vehicles, the pedestrian's pelvis 
engages early with the vehicle's front structure. The upper body then 
rotates about the pelvis while wrapping around the hood. When a 
pedestrian is hit by a low

[[Page 78549]]

profile vehicle, only his/her lower leg is engaged by the vehicle's 
front structure and the head is likely to be projected onto the hood or 
windshield as the whole body rotates. The dynamic tests included in 
this pedestrian protection assessment program that the agency intends 
to include in this NCAP upgrade would account for both low and high 
profile vehicle impact scenarios.
    The targeted walking posture is one in which a pedestrian is side-
struck. This posture was chosen because it represents one of the more 
common interactions between vehicles and pedestrians.\219\ The side-
struck posture is also regarded as ``worst case'' scenario for 
pedestrians (as in most likely to result in serious injury or death), 
which is supported by a recent study commissioned by the E.U.,\220\ and 
the particulars for impact angle and impact velocity have been 
developed for that posture. The headforms used in the dynamic tests are 
hemispherical with no geometric characteristics for the face, which is 
beneficial in that the test procedure is generalized to mimic any head-
to-hood/windshield interaction such as one resulting from a collision 
to a pedestrian who is struck from the rear while walking along the 
shoulder of the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Neal-Sturgess, C. E., Carter, E., Hardy, R., Cuerden, R., 
Guerra, L., & Yang, J., ``APROSYS European In-Depth Pedestrian 
Database,'' The 20th International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2007.
    \220\ Soni, A., Robert, T., & Beillas, P. (2013), ``Effects of 
Pedestrian Pre[hyphen]Crash Reactions on Crash Outcomes during 
Multi[hyphen]body Simulations,'' 2013 IRCOBI Conference, Paper No. 
IRC-13-92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency plans to conduct this pedestrian safety assessment 
program through a series of dynamic tests in which impactors are 
launched into the front-end of a stationary vehicle. Three different 
types of impactors, which are described in UNECE Regulation No. 127, 
``Pedestrian protection,'' would be used to assess the front end of a 
vehicle:
     Headforms--Two separate hemispherical headforms are used 
to assess the safety performance of the hood, windshield, and A-pillar 
against a head injury to the pedestrian. One headform representing the 
head of an adult and the other the head of a 6-year-old child. Both 
measure 165 mm (6.5 in) in diameter and each has three parts: A main 
hemisphere, a vinyl covering, and an end plate. A triaxial arrangement 
of accelerometers is mounted within each. Though they look similar and 
their diameters are identical, the headforms are not the same. The 
adult headform is 4.5 kg (9.9 lb) and the child headform is 3.5 kg (7.7 
lb). The injury risk associated with the headform measurement is based 
on HIC--a function of the tri-axial linear acceleration, which is well 
established and used in numerous occupant protection FMVSSs where HIC 
of 1000 represents a 48-percent risk of skull fracture.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Eppinger, R. H., Sun, E., Bandak, F., Haffner, M., 
Khaewpong, N., Maltese, M., Kuppa, S., Nguyen, T., Takhounts, E., 
Tannous, R., Zhang, R., & Saul, R. (1999), ``Development of improved 
injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restrain 
systems--II,'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Washington, DC, November 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Upper Legform--The upper legform is used to measure how 
well the hood leading edge (or the area near the junction of the hood 
and grille) can protect a pedestrian against a hip injury and 
potentially child head or thorax injury. The upper legform impactor is 
a rigid, foam-covered device, 350 mm (13.8 in) long with a mass of 9.5 
kg (20.9 lb). The front member is equipped with strain gauges to 
measure bending moments in three positions. Two load transducers 
measure individually the forces applied at either end of the impactor. 
This test was developed by the European Experimental Vehicles Committee 
(EEVC) in the working group (WG) 7, 10, and 17. The pelvis/hip injury 
risk associated with the upper legform measurements was originally 
based on a series of crash reconstructions associating pelvis/hip 
injury with energy measurements.222 223 These injury risk 
functions were subsequently assessed in a number of studies prior to 
inclusion of this test in Euro NCAP.224 225 226 227
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ Lawrence, G., Hardy, B., & Harris, J. (1991). ``Bonnet 
Leading Edge Subsystem Test for Cars to Assess Protection for 
Pedestrians.'' The 13th International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles.
    \223\ Janssen, E., ``EEVC Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian 
Protection Afforded by Passenger Cars.'' The 15th International 
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 1996.
    \224\ Konosu, A. et al., ``A Study on Pedestrian Impact Test 
Procedure by Computer Simulation.'' The 16th International Technical 
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper Number 98-S10-
W-19, 1998.
    \225\ Matsui, Y. et al., ``Validation of Pedestrian Upper 
Legform Impact Test--Reconstruction of Pedestrian Accidents.'' The 
16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 98-S10-O-05, 1998.
    \226\ EEVC WG17 report (2002). ``Improved Test Methods to 
evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars''.
    \227\ Snedeker, J. et al. (2003). ``Assessment of Pelvis and 
Upper Leg Injury Risk in Car-Pedestrian Collisions: Comparison of 
Accident Statistics, Impactor Tests, and a Human Body Finite Element 
Model.'' 47th Stapp Car Crash Journal, p. 437-457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FlexPLI--A pedestrian leg impactor (known as FlexPLI) is 
used to assess the bumper areas's capability to protect a pedestrian 
from incurring an injury to the knee and lower leg. The FlexPLI 
consists of synthetic flesh and skin material that cover two flexible 
long-bone segments (representing the femur and tibia), and a knee 
joint. The assembled impactor has a mass of 13.2 kg (29.1 lb) and is 
928 mm (36.5 in) long. Bending moments are measured at four points 
along the length of the tibia and three points along the femur. Three 
transducers are installed in the knee joint to measure elongations of 
the medial collateral ligament (MCL), anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), 
and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). Knee ligament and bone fracture 
injury risk functions associated with FlexPLI ligament elongation and 
tibia bending moment measurements are detailed by Takahashi et al. 
(2012).\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ Takahashi, Y., et al. (2012). Development of Injury 
Probability Functions for the Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor. 
SAE Paper No. 2012-01-0277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These devices and their associated launching rigs are the same as 
those currently in use in all other international NCAP pedestrian test 
protocols. Thus, to the extent that U.S. manufacturers are testing 
vehicles using the test procedures for international NCAP programs, 
they already likely own these devices and have experience with the test 
protocols.
    The contact areas, which include the vehicle front-end, the hood 
leading edge, the hood itself, and the windshield, are the main sources 
of injury.\229\ Testing with the devices--the FlexPLI, the upper 
legform, and the headforms--would provide a means to establish separate 
safety assessment for each contact area, respectively. Multiple tests 
over the contact areas would be carried out with each device. In this 
manner, a grid pattern is formed over the entire front-end of the 
vehicle with safety scores established for each point. The scores are 
then combined to form an overall pedestrian safety score for the 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ Mallory, A., et al. (2012), ``Pedestrian injuries by 
source: serious and disabling injuries in the U.S. and European 
Cases,'' Proceedings of the 2012 AAAM Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates that including these test procedures in NCAP would 
have a positive impact on a significant portion of pedestrian injuries 
and fatalities. According to FARS and NASS General Estimates System 
(GES) 2012 data, there were 3,930 pedestrian fatalities and 65,000 
pedestrian injuries that included a frontal (10-2 o'clock) impact with 
a vehicle. Figure VII-4 in Appendix VII indicates that 9 percent of 
fatalities (FARS 2012 curve) and 69 percent of injuries (GES 2012 
curve) in 2012 occurred at or below a vehicle speed of

[[Page 78550]]

40 km/h (25 mph), which is the baseline used in Euro NCAP test 
procedures. When these percentages are applied to the total fatalities 
and injuries, the target populations are 354 [3,930*9%] fatalities and 
44,850 [65,000*69%] injuries. NHTSA's most detailed collection of 
pedestrian crash information was the Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS) 
from 1994-1998. As shown in Figure VII-4 in Appendix VII, PCDS 
indicated that 32 percent of fatalities and 78 percent of injuries 
occurred at 40 km/h or lower, which, when applied to 2012 FARS/GES 
totals, would result in higher target populations of 1,258 [3930*32%] 
fatalities and 50,700 [65,000*78%] injuries. Based on GES 2012 and PCDS 
data, speeds at which pedestrians are getting hit by vehicles today are 
not significantly different than impact speeds 20 years ago, which 
supports PCDS as a reasonable comparative dataset for examining the 
distribution of impact speeds where fatalities and injuries occur.\230\ 
Thus, a reasonable range of target population for pedestrian-related 
crashes in the United States is in the range of 354-1,258 fatalities 
and 44,850-50,700 injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ Differences between the low (FARS/GES) and the high (PCDS) 
estimates are most likely attributed to the way impact speed is 
determined: As reported by police in FARS/GES and by NHTSA accident 
investigative methods in PCDS. Considering this, PCDS estimates 
might appear more genuine. On the other hand, the PCDS is not 
considered a representative sample of the entire population and may 
be biased toward lower speed collisions. This would have the effect 
of inflating PCDS estimates of collisions under 40 km/hr. Also, any 
general improvement over time in vehicle design for pedestrian 
protection would be reflected in the (new, lower) FARS/GES 
estimates. Thus, the ranges given above are appropriate high and low 
bounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Crash Avoidance Technologies

    NHTSA believes the greatest gains in highway safety in coming years 
will result from widespread application of crash avoidance 
technologies. Accordingly, the agency seeks to expand the scope of the 
NCAP program to rate crash avoidance and advanced technologies that 
NHTSA believes have potential to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle 
crashes and incorporate those ratings into the star rating system. 
Currently, crash avoidance technologies are not included in the star 
safety rating and, instead, are listed as ``Recommended Technologies'' 
on NHTSA's Safercar.gov Web site. As of today, the agency identifies 
vehicles equipped with Forward Collision Warning, Lane Departure 
Warning, and Rearview Video Systems as the Recommended Technologies 
that meet certain performance requirements.\231\ When revisions to the 
NCAP program were implemented, NHTSA chose not to include crash 
avoidance tests in the star safety ratings based, in part, on comments 
submitted by manufacturers, trade associations, consumer groups, public 
health groups, and public citizens.\232\ Initial market research in 
2008 was inconclusive, but later market research in 2012 suggested that 
consumers may have lacked sufficient knowledge about advanced 
technologies prompting NHTSA to delay the incorporation of crash 
avoidance technologies in the star rating.\233\ These technologies are 
becoming increasingly available in the market, and as a result 
consumers are becoming more familiar with them. NHTSA believes that by 
the time the planned upgrade to NCAP becomes effective, consumers will 
have a better understanding of the potential benefits of advanced crash 
avoidance technologies, making their inclusion in the 5-star ratings 
valuable to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ Initially, NHTSA identified vehicles equipped with 
Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Forward Collision Warning and 
Lane Departure Warning as the Recommended Technologies in the prior 
round of revisions to the NCAP program, which began with MY 2011. 
ESC is now a required safety system on vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Beginning with MY2014, ESC 
was removed from the list of Recommended Technologies and Rearview 
Video Systems was added.
    \232\ On January 25, 2007 (see 72 FR 3472), NHTSA announced a 
Public Meeting (held March 7, 2007) and requested comments on a 
report titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program Suggested Approaches 
for Future Program Enhancements.'' Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555 
contains this report (file ID NHTSA-2006-26555-0005), the meeting 
transcript (file ID NHTSA-2006-26555-0093) and all of the comments. 
In the 2008 NCAP upgrade notice (73 FR 40016, 40033, July 11, 2008), 
the agency stated most [Public Meeting] commenters supported the 
proposal to implement a crash avoidance rating program. At that 
time, the agency decided to promote a selection of beneficial crash 
avoidance technologies and to defer implementation of a quantified 
rating system.
    \233\ In the 2012 follow-up quantitative study, ``Insight to 
Action, Monroney Label Research Qualitative Research Report, August 
24, 2012,'' the agency found that consumers lacked sufficient 
knowledge about advanced crash avoidance technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the intervening years, NHTSA believes that certain crash 
avoidance technologies have reached a level of technological maturity 
and will provide tangible safety benefits at reasonable costs. Further, 
the agency believes that, although we have seen a rapid increase in the 
number of passenger vehicles equipped with an expanding number of crash 
avoidance systems, some of which could be attributed to inclusion as a 
Recommended Technology, we believe that incorporating crash avoidance 
technologies into the star safety rating would help ensure that they 
are adopted more similarly to the crashworthiness tests; that is, 
faster and in more vehicles.
    Thus, the agency believes it is now appropriate to include certain 
crash avoidance technologies into the overall star rating system. NHTSA 
believes a star rating in particular is necessary for crash avoidance 
technologies because consumers are already familiar with the 5-star 
approach to safety, while simply listing the available technologies on 
the label would potentially provide information without useful context. 
This NCAP upgrade would include the following crash avoidance 
technologies into the star ratings system: (1) Forward collision 
warning, (2) crash imminent braking, (3) dynamic brake support, (4) 
lower beam headlighting performance, (5) semi-automatic headlamp beam 
switching, (6) amber rear turn signal lamps, (7) lane departure 
warning, (8) rollover resistance, and (9) blind spot detection. 
Separately, NHTSA also intends to assess two additional crash avoidance 
systems, (1) pedestrian automatic emergency braking and (2) rear 
automatic braking, but the performance safety assessment results of 
those systems would be part of the pedestrian protection rating 
category under this NCAP upgrade. Consistent with the established 
criteria outlined in the April 2013 RFC,\234\ the agency assessed 
whether the technology addresses a safety need; the system design is 
capable of mitigating the safety need; the technology provides safety 
benefit potential; and a repeatable test procedure exists. The agency 
reviewed available crash avoidance technologies and found the eleven 
crash avoidance technologies described in this RFC notice satisfy the 
established criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See 78 FR 20599, April 5, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in contrast to a vehicle's crashworthiness performance, 
which can vary yet still provide a level of occupant protection, crash 
avoidance systems generally have a binary result: Either they avoid the 
crash or they do not. As a result, the agency cannot use the range-
based star ratings found in crashworthiness and can, instead, only say 
whether the crash avoidance system on a vehicle either passes or fails 
the test. However, the agency still wishes to distinguish within the 
vehicles that pass the test to ensure that the highest ratings are for 
the safest vehicles. To do so, we recommend that stars be based on two 
criteria: Passing the test and prevalence of the technology within a 
given model line. Thus, if a vehicle model passes the test for a 
particular technology, it will get half credit if the technology is 
offered as an optional safety system and full credit if it is offered 
as standard for

[[Page 78551]]

the model. The agency believes this is a reasonable approach because it 
allows the model to achieve a higher score if the specific vehicle 
being purchased has a particular technology, thus providing a benefit 
to that consumer, while incentivizing OEMs to more quickly expand the 
set of safety technologies available as standard safety equipment for 
particular model lines. We request comment on this approach, in 
particular concerning whether there are other ways to distinguish crash 
avoidance technology star ratings among different models.
    The agency is aware of additional advanced safety applications and 
monitoring systems that are currently under development and, therefore, 
not ready for inclusion into the NCAP rating system at this time. These 
include intersection movement assist, lane keeping support, advanced 
automatic crash notification, driver alcohol detection system, and 
driver distraction guidelines. These are briefly discussed in this RFC 
notice. The agency notes that the current NCAP LDW test procedure 
includes supplemental tests for lane keeping support systems, which may 
be performed for informative purposes to expand NHTSA's knowledge of 
how such systems operate. While NHTSA believes that these systems are 
approaching the technical readiness and performance levels necessary 
before inclusion into the NCAP crash avoidance rating, NHTSA will 
consider them in the future as the technologies mature and more 
research becomes available.
    Table 6 shows available crash avoidance technologies that NHTSA 
believes could mitigate each crash type, as well as the predominant 
pre-crash scenarios within each crash type. NHTSA defined and 
statistically described this pre-crash scenario typology for light 
vehicles (passenger car, sports utility vehicle, minivan, van, and 
light pickup truck) based on the 2004 GES crash database.\235\ This 
typology consists of 37 pre-crash scenarios that depict vehicle 
movements and dynamics as well as the critical event occurring 
immediately prior to a crash. Excluding the ``other'' scenario, this 
pre-crash scenario typology represents about 99.4 percent of all light-
vehicle crashes.\236\ The percentage shown below each crash type in the 
first column of Table 6 is the 2010 incidence rate for all motor 
vehicle crashes estimated based on a fairly straightforward examination 
of the data in NHTSA's two primary databases, FARS and GES.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ DOT HS 810 767 (April 2007), available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2007/Pre-Crash_Scenario_Typology-Final_PDF_Version_5-2-07.pdf.
    \236\ The scenario labeled ``other'' in the typology encompasses 
the remaining crashes that are coded as ``Other,'' ``Unknown,'' or 
``No Impact'' in the Accident Type variable in the NASS crash 
database; possible scenarios may include hit-and-run, no driver 
present, non-collision incident and other non-specific or no-details 
scenarios.
    \237\ DOT HS 812 013 (revised May 2015), www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf.

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

[[Page 78552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.040

    As Table 6 shows, no one technology listed addresses all crash 
events. Collectively, the crash avoidance technologies listed, with the 
exception of amber rear turn signal lamps, would alert and better 
inform the driver about unsafe conditions surrounding the vehicle, and 
in some circumstances would automatically brake to avoid or mitigate a 
collision. As the agency works to quantify the individual and 
collective contributions of crash avoidance technologies, qualitative 
interpretations of the information in Table 6 suggest that vehicles 
offering more safety advances would increase the opportunities to avoid 
crashes, including those involving pedestrians and pedalcyclists. 
Ideally, as future crash avoidance technologies emerge and are 
deployed, each crash type will have multiple technologies poised to 
respond in an effort to prevent or mitigate crashes. Some technologies 
may offer modest individual contributions compared to others, but each 
has a key role to play in the overall effort to prevent or mitigate 
crashes. The three lighting technologies are impactful to three-
quarters of the crash scenarios listed. Warning technologies and AEB 
systems are expected to directly impact the incidence of approximately 
one-third of the crash scenarios listed. Rollover resistance has a 
narrow application to prevent untripped on-road rollovers and possibly 
mitigate roadway departure crashes; however, other crash avoidance 
technologies may contribute by helping to avoid a tripping mechanism 
thereby potentially preventing a rollover.
    To eliminate data voids and to improve data collection in support 
of benefit estimate calculation and the NCAP crash avoidance rating, 
NHTSA seeks to collaborate with manufacturers to improve the value of 
the coded vehicle identification number (VIN) attributes to NHTSA, by 
indicating the presence of crash avoidance

[[Page 78553]]

technologies. It is NHTSA's desire to identify crash avoidance 
technologies through a combination of characters available within the 
VIN to facilitate statistical analysis. NHTSA hopes to work with 
manufacturers to voluntarily make these changes. This effort would not 
alter any of manufacturers' current VIN requirements under Part 565. 
Manufacturers will continue to provide to NHTSA, as required by Part 
565, a key that deciphers VIN information. Additionally, this crash 
avoidance information will not communicate system performance or 
directly inform the consumer. The safety rating of the Monroney label 
and the Safercar.gov Web site would remain the primary means for the 
agency to communicate rating information to consumers. Title 49 CFR 
part 565 requires a vehicle manufacturer to assign a unique VIN to each 
vehicle that it produces. The five characters in VIN positions 4 
through 8 uniquely identify attributes of the vehicle. For passenger 
cars, the attributes are make, line, series, body type, engine type, 
and all restraint devices and their location. The characters utilized 
and their placement within the section may be determined by the vehicle 
manufacturer, but the specified attributes must be decipherable with 
information supplied by the vehicle manufacturer.
    Separately, NHTSA is developing a software catalog called the NHTSA 
Product Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing (vPIC) to organize the 
VIN information for rapid access and decoding of information that is 
submitted by the vehicle manufacturers. Access to this catalog was made 
available recently to the public.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ NHTSA Product Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing 
(vPIC) available at http://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We emphasize that NHTSA is not pursuing a change to the VIN 
requirement. The agency recognizes that capturing standard versus 
optional equipment for each VIN is a challenge. To address this 
challenge, the agency requests comment on whether to collaboratively 
pursue coding specific crash avoidance technologies and combinations 
into the VIN, which would be associated to the make, model, trim, and 
model year levels.
1. Emergency Braking: Warning and Automatic Systems
    An Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system uses forward-looking 
sensors, typically radars and/or cameras, to detect vehicles on the 
roadway. When a rear-end crash is imminent, if the driver takes no 
action, such as braking or steering, or if the driver does brake but 
does not provide enough braking to avoid the crash, the system may 
automatically apply or supplement the brakes to avoid or mitigate the 
rear-end crash. AEB systems feature technologies that provide forward 
collision warning (FCW) alerts, as well as crash imminent braking (CIB) 
and/or dynamic brake support (DBS), which are specifically designed to 
help drivers avoid, or mitigate the severity of, rear-end crashes. CIB 
systems provide automatic braking when forward-looking sensors indicate 
that a crash is imminent and the driver has not braked, whereas DBS 
systems provide supplemental braking when sensors determine that 
driver-applied braking is insufficient to avoid an imminent crash.
    Approximately 1.7 million rear-end crashes occur each year.\239\ 
Not all of these are expected to benefit from AEB technology in 
general. NHTSA has identified a target population that is the subset of 
these crashes that could potentially be avoided or mitigated by AEB 
systems. These crashes involve an estimated 2,700,000 persons per year, 
and a total annual cost of $47 billion. More than 400,000 people are 
injured and over 200 people are killed in rear-end crashes each year. 
The agency developed a detailed target population in a June 2012 
research report, finding that 910,000 crashes per year could 
potentially be avoided or mitigated with FCW, CIB, and DBS systems 
(collectively referred to as AEB systems here).\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ Automatic Emergency Braking System (AEB) Research Report, 
August 2014. Available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-
2012-0057-0037, page 9.
    \240\ Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research 
Report, NHTSA, June 2012; available at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
No. NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency intends to use a new crash avoidance rating scheme that 
would depart from the current NCAP checkmark for Recommended Advanced 
Technologies Features. AEB is one of the systems that would contribute 
to the crash avoidance rating system calculation. The evaluation 
metrics for AEB systems in the new NCAP rating would be pass-fail. If a 
vehicle satisfies the performance requirements for each test scenario, 
the vehicle would receive credit for being equipped with the 
technology. If an AEB system is offered as an optional safety 
technology, the vehicle model would receive half credit for this 
technology. If an AEB system is a standard safety technology, the 
vehicle model would receive full credit for this technology.
a. Forward Collision Warning (FCW)
    NHTSA intends to include FCW in its NCAP crash avoidance rating. 
The agency intends to use the same test procedures for FCW that it is 
currently using for the Recommended Advanced Technology Features on 
Safercar.gov.
    The FCW system is based on two components: A sensing system capable 
of detecting a vehicle in front of the subject vehicle, and a warning 
system sending a signal to the driver. The sensing system consists of 
forward-looking radar, lidar, camera systems, or a combination thereof. 
The sensor data are digitally processed by a computer software 
algorithm that determines whether an object it has detected poses a 
safety risk (e.g., is a motor vehicle, etc.), determines if an impact 
to the detected vehicle is imminent, decides if and when a warning 
signal should be sent to the driver, and finally, sends the warning 
signal. The warning may be a visual signal, such as a light on the 
dash, an audio signal, such as a chime or buzzer, or a haptic feedback 
signal that applies rapid vibrations or motions to the driver. Based on 
NCAP testing, the typical haptic signals currently used for FCW systems 
are vibrations from the seat pan and/or steering wheel. The purpose of 
the FCW system is to alert the driver to the potential crash threat. 
The desired corrective action is to have the driver assess the 
situation, recognize the pending danger, and engage braking or steering 
to evade the possible rear-end crash event. FCW systems are typically 
the first technologies deployed in an AEB system currently available in 
many production motor vehicles.
    The sensors, computers, algorithms, and warning systems used in FCW 
systems have evolved since these systems were first developed. Field 
experience and consumer feedback to vehicle manufacturers have 
reportedly enabled them to improve the reliability and consumer 
acceptance of these systems.
    NHTSA previously determined the effectiveness of FCW technology 
from a field operational test (FOT) conducted between March 2003 and 
November 2004.\241\ Sixty-six participants drove a total of about 
163,000 km during the FOT, including 64,000 km with FCW. The analysis 
of this study reported a potential FCW effectiveness of 15 percent in 
reducing rear-end crashes. Additionally, this effectiveness was 
reported in the 2008 Federal Register

[[Page 78554]]

notice which included FCW in the first phase of assessing crash 
avoidance technologies within the NCAP program.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ Evaluation of Automated Rear-End Collision Avoidance 
Systems. DOT HS 810 569, April 2006. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2006/HS910569.pdf.
    \242\ See 73 FR 40033. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency recently revisited its calculations for the target 
population and the potential benefits estimates for FCW. The agency 
also calculated the overall effectiveness of all three AEB systems 
combined, which included CIB, DBS, and FCW. Although several studies 
show potential benefits, the estimated effectiveness of the systems 
varies from study to study. Further, these studies used prototype 
systems whose performance may vary from actual production systems. 
Additionally, the target population (those crashes that would be 
favorably affected by the installation and operation of these 
technologies) is not always well-defined and also varies considerably 
between studies. Preliminary benefits estimated based on three research 
vehicles with FCW, CIB, and DBS combined could prevent 94,000-145,000 
minor injuries (AIS 1-2), 2,000-3,000 (AIS 3-5) serious injuries, and 
save 78-108 lives annually.\243\ In this analysis, FCW accounted for 
reducing 53,000 minor injuries (AIS 1-2), 1,260 serious injuries (AIS 
3-5) and 35 fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research 
Report, NHTSA, DOT, June 2012. Available at www.regulations.gov, 
NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test procedure for FCW was originally published in 2008, and 
became part of NCAP in MY 2011. Minor updates have been placed in the 
docket for this program. For the 2016 MY NCAP evaluation, NHTSA will 
use the version titled ``Forward Collision Warning System Confirmation 
Test, February 2013,'' which is available on the Safercar.gov Web site 
\244\ and in the 2006 docket for Revisions to NCAP.\245\ NHTSA will 
rely on this version to establish FCW system performance and inclusion 
in the agency's Recommended Advanced Technology Features on 
Safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ Available at www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/NCAP+Test+Procedures.
    \245\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NCAP FCW test procedure consists of three scenarios selected 
because they simulate the most frequent rear-end scenarios. The subject 
vehicle (SV) used in this test is the vehicle being assessed. The 
principle other vehicle (POV) is a vehicle directly in front of the SV. 
In NHTSA's FCW performance evaluations, the POV is a production mid-
size passenger vehicle.
    In the first FCW scenario, the lead vehicle stopped (LVS) scenario, 
the SV encounters a stopped POV on a straight road. The SV is moving at 
45 mph (72 km/h) and the POV is not moving, or 0 mph (0 km/h). To pass 
this test, the SV FCW alert must be issued when the time-to-collision 
(TTC) is at least 2.1 seconds. In the second FCW test, the lead vehicle 
decelerating (LVD) scenario, the SV follows the POV traveling on a 
straight, flat road at a constant speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) and a 
constant time gap. Then the SV encounters a decelerating POV braking at 
a constant deceleration of 0.3g. In order to pass this test, the FCW 
alert must be issued when TTC is at least 2.4 seconds. In the third FCW 
test, the lead vehicle moving (LVM) scenario, the SV encounters a 
slower-moving POV. Throughout the test, the SV is driven at 45 mph (72 
km/h) and the POV is driven at a constant speed of 20 mph (32 km/h). In 
order to pass this test, the FCW alert must be issued when TTC is at 
least 2.0 seconds. All of these tests are conducted on a straight, 
high-quality surface test track. The relative speeds and times to 
collision are calculated using a differential global positioning system 
(GPS) installed in each of the two vehicles. The tests are conducted 
using two professional drivers. If the FCW system fails to alert the 
rear driver within the required time, the driver of the SV steers away 
to avoid a collision.
    The FCW test scenarios directly relate to NHTSA crash data. These 
scenarios were developed for NCAP and added to the program in MY 2011. 
The scenarios were analyzed again in the development of the CIB and DBS 
test programs.\246\ NHTSA data indicates LVS scenario in which the 
struck vehicle was stopped at the time of impact occurred in 64 percent 
of the rear-end crashes. The LVD scenario in which the struck vehicle 
was decelerating at the time of impact occurred in 24 percent of the 
rear-impact crashes. The LVM scenario in which the struck vehicle was 
moving at a constant but slower speed, compared to the striking vehicle 
occurred in 12 percent of the rear-end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0057-0037, 
page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The time-to-collision criteria used in each scenario represents the 
estimated time that would be needed for a driver to perceive a pending 
crash, discern the correct action to take, and take the mitigating 
action.\247\ NHTSA believes that the alerts are sufficient for a driver 
to react and avoid many of these rear-end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ The time-to-collision criteria were examined in a NHTSA 
FCW performance evaluation. See www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0561.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency seeks comments on whether to only award FCW credit if 
the SV is equipped with a haptic FCW.
b. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB)
    NHTSA intends to include CIB in its overall crash avoidance rating 
for NCAP. CIB is a crash avoidance system that uses information from 
forward-looking sensors to determine whether a crash is imminent and 
whether it is appropriate to automatically apply the brakes. CIB 
systems are designed to activate automatically when a vehicle (the SV) 
is about to crash into the rear of another vehicle (the POV) and the 
SV's driver makes no attempt to avoid the crash. The systems typically 
consider whether the SV driver has applies the brakes and/or turned the 
steering wheel before intervening.
    Current CIB sensor systems include radar, lidar, and/or vision-
based camera sensors capable of detecting objects in front of the 
vehicle. Although some CIB systems currently in production can detect 
objects other than vehicles, NCAP test procedures would test the 
capability of systems to detect and activate only for vehicles in front 
of the subject vehicle. NHTSA is not planning to test a system's 
ability to detect and brake for other objects at this time. NHTSA 
believes that it will be able to accommodate alternative sensing 
methods in the future with minor test set-up modifications.
    Pedestrian AEB systems are discussed later in this RFC notice. 
NHTSA does not plan to consider the capability of crash avoidance 
systems to detect and respond to other objects, such as animals or road 
obstructions in this NCAP upgrade. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle 
manufacturers to include detection of other objects in their CIB 
algorithms to avoid these other crash types.
    CIB systems typically rely on the same forward-looking sensors used 
by FCW. NHTSA testing indicates CIB interventions generally occur after 
the FCW alert has been issued, although NHTSA has found some 
interventions to be coincident. The amount of braking authority varies 
among manufacturers, with several systems achieving maximum vehicle 
deceleration just prior to impact.
    CIB is one of the earliest generations of automatic braking 
technologies.

[[Page 78555]]

When an object in front of the forward-moving SV is detected, a 
computer software algorithm reviews the available data from the input 
signal of the sensing system. If the algorithm determines that a rear-
end crash with another motor vehicle is imminent, then a signal is sent 
to the electronic brake controller to automatically activate the SV 
brakes.
    The agency tentatively found that if CIB functionality is installed 
on all light vehicles without other AEB systems (i.e., FCW and DBS), it 
could potentially prevent approximately 40,000 minor-to-moderate 
injuries (AIS levels 1 and 2), 640 serious-to-critical injuries (AIS 
levels 3-5) and save approximately 40 lives, annually.\248\ Crash 
severity is often characterized by the speed differential associated 
with the collision. It is a measure of the difference in velocity of 
the striking and struck vehicles just before and just after the impact 
occurs. The reduction in injuries ascribed to CIB without other AEB 
systems was estimated using injury risk versus delta-v curves that have 
been previously used by the agency for its light vehicle tire pressure 
monitoring system. NASS-CDS police-reported estimates of tow-away 
crashes were adjusted to reflect all police-reported rear-impact 
crashes. At this time, all production CIB systems provide an FCW 
warning before the CIB system automatically applies the brakes. 
Therefore, safety benefits from CIB would be incremental to the 
benefits from an FCW alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0057-0037, 
page 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate CIB (and the DBS mentioned below) on the test track, 
NHTSA developed the Strikeable Surrogate Vehicle (SSV), a surrogate 
vehicle modeled after a small hatchback car and fabricated from light-
weight composite materials including carbon fiber and Kevlar[supreg]. 
The SSV appears as a ``real'' vehicle to the sensors used by 
contemporary CIB systems. For NCAP CIB tests, the agency intends to use 
the SSV as the POV.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006-0024, 
AEB Final decision notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's current CIB test procedure is comprised of three scenarios 
similar to the FCW scenarios (for a total of 4 tests) and one false-
positive test (conducted at two speeds). For this NCAP upgrade, the 
agency intends to use the CIB test procedure specified in the recent 
AEB final decision notice.\250\ In the LVS test, the SV approaches a 
stopped POV at 25 mph (40.2 km/h). In the LVM test, two SV/POV speed 
combinations would be used; first, the SV would be driven at 45 mph 
(72.4 km/h) toward a POV traveling at 20 mph (32.2 km/h); and second, 
the SV would be driven at 25 mph (40.2 km/h) toward a POV traveling at 
10 mph (16.1 km/h). In the LVD test, the SV and POV would both be 
driven at 35 mph (56.3 km/h) with an initial headway of 45.3 ft (13.8 
m), and then the POV would decelerate at 0.3g. In the Steel Trench 
Plate (STP) False Positive Test, two test speeds would be used; the SV 
would be driven over a 8 ft x 12 ft x 1 in (2.4 m x 3.7 m x 25 mm) 
steel trench plate at 45 mph (72.4 km/h) and 25 mph (40.2 km/h). Each 
scenario would be run up to seven times. To pass the NCAP performance 
criteria, the SV would need to pass five out of seven trials, and pass 
all six tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIB test scenarios directly relate to NHTSA crash data. Rear-
end crashes are coded within the NASS-GES into the three major 
categories that denote the kinematic relationship between the striking 
and struck vehicle: LVM, LVD, and LVS. NHTSA's analysis of the crash 
data in support of the June 2012 research report on CIB systems showed 
that the target population of rear-end crashes (average during the 
years 2005 through 2009) was approximately 64 percent LVS scenarios, 24 
percent LVD scenarios, and 12 percent LVM scenarios.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ See www.regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For CIB, the NCAP performance criteria are speed reductions. 
Nominally, the magnitude of the speed reduction assigned to each test 
scenario corresponds to an effective deceleration of 0.6g from a TTC of 
0.6 seconds. In the case of the CIB false positive tests, the 
performance criteria is a non-activation, where the SV must not achieve 
a peak deceleration equal to or greater than 0.5g at any time during 
its approach to the steel trench plate. These criteria were developed 
using NHTSA test data collected during 2011, and were intended to 
promote safety-beneficial and attainable performance.
    The metrics include:

                                            Table 7--CIB Test Metrics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Speed  (mph)
                                      --------------------------------------------------
            Test scenarios                 Subject                                              Criterion
                                           vehicle         Surrogate  target vehicle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Vehicle Stopped.................              25  0...............................  >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/h).
Lead Vehicle Moving..................              45  20..............................  >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/h).
Lead Vehicle Moving..................              25  10..............................  Crash Avoided.
Lead Vehicle Decelerating............              35  35..............................  >=10.5 mph (16.9 km/h).
Steel Trench Plate...................              45  Not applicable..................  No Activation
                                                                                          (Deceleration of
                                                                                          <=0.5g).
Steel Trench Plate...................              25  Not applicable..................  No Activation
                                                                                          (Deceleration of
                                                                                          <=0.5g).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If all tests are passed, the vehicle would receive credit for 
having the CIB system as calculated in the Crash Avoidance rating 
system calculation. If CIB is offered as an optional safety system, the 
vehicle model would receive half credit for this system. If CIB is 
offered as standard safety system, the vehicle model would receive full 
credit for this system.
c. Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
    DBS applies supplemental braking in situations in which the system 
has determined that the braking applied by the driver is insufficient 
to avoid a collision. Typically, DBS relies on information provided by 
forward-looking sensor(s) to determine when supplemental braking should 
be applied. FCW most often works in concert with DBS by first warning 
the driver of the situation and thereby providing the opportunity for 
the driver to initiate the necessary braking. If the driver's brake 
application is insufficient, DBS provides the additional braking needed 
to avoid or mitigate the crash.
    DBS is similar to CIB; the difference is that CIB activates when 
the driver has not applied the brake pedal, and DBS

[[Page 78556]]

will supplement the driver's brake input. When an object in front of 
the forward-moving SV is detected, a computer software algorithm 
reviews the available data from the input signal of the sensing system. 
If the algorithm determines that a collision with an object in front of 
the SV is imminent and that the driver has applied the brakes, but not 
adequately, a signal is sent to the electronic brake controller. Then 
the brake system automatically provides additional braking.
    DBS differs from a traditional brake assist system used with the 
vehicle's foundation brakes. With the foundation brakes, a conventional 
brake assist system applies additional braking by automatically 
increasing the brake power boost when the system identifies that the 
driver is in a panic-braking situation based on the driver's brake 
pedal application rate or some other means of sensing that the driver 
is in an emergency braking situation. This results in more pedal travel 
for the same braking force applied by the driver. DBS uses the forward-
looking sensor information to determine that additional braking is 
needed, unlike conventional brake assist, which uses the driver's brake 
pedal application rate to determine that the driver is attempting to 
initiate emergency braking but may not be strong enough to fully apply 
the brakes.
    While CIB and DBS are applicable to the same crash scenarios, the 
target population for CIB is a group where the driver does not apply 
the brakes before a crash. With DBS, the driver has braked 
insufficiently, and CIB is designed to address scenarios in which the 
driver has failed to brake. Using the assumptions previously defined in 
the AEB paragraph and applying them to the target population, the 
agency tentatively found that if DBS functionality alone is installed 
on all light vehicles, it could potentially prevent approximately 
107,000 minor/moderate injuries (AIS 1-2), 2,100 serious-to-critical 
injuries (AIS 3-5), and save approximately 25 lives, annually. The 
safety benefits from DBS would be incremental to the benefits from an 
FCW alert.
    The DBS test scenarios directly relate to NHTSA crash data. The 
previously described three major rear-impact crash categories that 
denote the kinematic relationship between the striking and struck 
vehicle are LVM, LVD, and LVS. NHTSA's analysis of the crash data in 
support of the June 2012 research report on CIB and DBS systems showed 
that the target population was approximately 64 percent LVS scenarios, 
24 percent LVD scenarios, and 12 percent LVM scenarios of rear-impact 
crashes.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ See www.regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to CIB, NHTSA intends to use the SSV as the POV to evaluate 
the DBS system on a test track. Also, like CIB, the agency intends to 
use the DBS test procedure specified in the recent AEB final decision 
notice. In the NCAP assessment, the DBS and the CIB systems would be 
evaluated separately, however, the DBS test procedures are nearly 
equivalent to the CIB test procedures. The DBS test brake application 
would be conducted with the use of a mechanical brake applicator, 
rather than a human test driver. Each scenario would be run up to seven 
times. To pass the NCAP performance criteria, the subject vehicle would 
need to pass five out of seven trials, and pass all the scenarios.
    The DBS performance criteria for the LVS, LVM, and LVD scenarios 
specify that the SV must avoid contact with the POV. In the case of the 
DBS false positive tests, the performance criterion is a non-
activation, where the SV must not achieve a peak deceleration >=150 
percent greater than that achieved with the vehicle's foundation brake 
system alone during its approach to the steel trench plate. If all 
tests are passed, the vehicle would receive credit for having the 
technology, as calculated in the Crash Avoidance rating system 
calculation. If DBS is offered as an optional safety system, the 
vehicle model would receive half credit for this system. If DBS is 
offered as standard safety system, the vehicle model would receive full 
credit for this system.
2. Visibility Systems
    NHTSA intends to include three lighting safety features in this 
NCAP upgrade: Lower beam headlighting performance, semi-automatic 
headlamp beam switching between upper and lower beams, and amber rear 
turn signal lamps. Guided by the limited data that exist, the agency 
believes that these visibility systems offer positive safety benefits 
with minimal burden to the manufacturers.
a. Lower Beam Headlighting Performance
    To assist driving in darkness, FMVSS No. 108 requires passenger 
cars and trucks to have a headlighting system with upper beam and lower 
beam headlamps. While FMVSS No. 108 establishes a minimum standard for 
headlamp performance which has resulted in reduced injuries and 
fatalities, NHTSA believes that lower beam headlamp performance beyond 
the minimum requirements of FMVSS No. 108 will result in additional 
safety benefits.
    The FARS database shows 47 percent (14,190 of 30,057) of the fatal 
crashes in 2013 were attributed to the light condition categories of 
dark-lighted, dark-not lighted, and dark-unknown lighting.\253\ 
Specifically for pedestrians, the FARS database shows 71 percent (3,340 
of 4,704) of the fatal crashes involving pedestrians in 2013 were 
attributed to the light condition categories of dark-lighted, dark-not 
lighted, and dark-unknown lighting. In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians were 
killed in traffic crashes, representing 14 percent of all fatalities 
that year. Pedestrians are at a higher risk of injury or fatality 
during darkness than they are during times of higher ambient 
illumination.\254\ Sullivan and Flannagan (2001) concluded that the 
risk of pedestrian deaths is substantially greater in darkness, and 
that risk difference appears to increase continuously with increased 
traffic speed. Taking these two factors together, the agency predicts 
that increased vehicle luminance will reduce the risk of pedestrian 
fatalities at night. As shown in Table 6, the lower beam headlighting 
performance maps to prevent or mitigate 13 of the 32 crash scenarios, 
including both pedestrian crash scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ FARS Database Query Tool available at www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov//QueryTool/QuerySection/SelectYear.aspx.
    \254\ Sullivan, J. M. & Flannagan, M. J. (2001). Characteristics 
of Pedestrian Risk in Darkness (UMTRI-2001-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While extended illumination distance may better inform drivers so 
as to avoid striking pedestrians, this additional light could have 
unintended consequences if it is not properly controlled to limit 
glare. As such, the test procedure presented in Appendix VIII of this 
RFC notice grades a vehicle's headlighting system's lower beams for 
seeing light far down the road, but reduces the score for a 
headlighting system that produces glare beyond 0.634 lux, measured at a 
distance of 60 m (197 ft) and at a height of 1000 mm (39.7 in) above 
the road. Unlike the current test procedure for the FMVSS No. 108 
requirement that evaluates a headlamp in a laboratory, this NCAP test 
would evaluate the headlighting system as installed on the vehicle. In 
order to support reproducibility of the test results, the headlighting 
system would be measured using seasoned bulbs and the headlamps would 
be aimed according to the manufacturer's recommendation prior to 
conducting the test. Five levels of performance would

[[Page 78557]]

be established based on the measurement of five illuminance meters 
located 75 to 115 meters (246 ft to 377 ft) (spaced 10 m (32.8 ft) 
apart) forward of the vehicle. The level of performance would be 
established based on the lower beam headlighting system's ability to 
provide 3.000 lux of light to each of the five detectors. If all five 
detectors are illuminated to at least 3.000 lux and the glare detector 
is illuminated at less than 0.634 lux, the headlighting system would 
receive full credit within the final crash avoidance rating. If the 
glare meter is illuminated beyond 0.634 lux, the headlighting systems 
scoring would be reduced as detailed in the test procedure (see the 
docket, Appendix VIII).
b. Semi-Automatic Headlamp Beam Switching
    NHTSA intends to include semi-automatic headlamp beam switching in 
its crash avoidance NCAP rating because the agency believes it could 
lead to reductions of injuries and fatalities, particularly for 
pedestrians during darkness. FMVSS No. 108 requires each vehicle to 
have the ability to switch between lower and upper beam headlamps. As 
an option, a vehicle may be equipped with a semi-automatic device to 
switch between the lower and upper beam, which means the vehicle may 
automatically switch the headlamps from upper to lower beams and back 
based on photometric sensors installed as part of the semi-automatic 
beam switching system. While these systems switch the beams 
automatically, they are not fully-automatic in that they must allow the 
driver to have control of the system and manually switch beams based on 
the driver's input. The photometric design of the upper beam headlamp 
is optimized to provide long seeing distance. However, upper beam 
headlamps provide limited protection to other roadway users against 
glare. Therefore, properly switching between the upper and lower beam 
headlamps maximizes the overall seeing distance when driving at night 
without causing glare. While state laws often impose driver upper beam 
restrictions (situations in which the upper beam cannot be used), there 
is very little information available to drivers to help them determine 
when to safely use upper beam headlamps.
    Based on studies indicating that the upper beam headlamps are used 
only 25 percent of the time in situations for which they would be 
useful without creating glare,\255\ NHTSA intends to include semi-
automatic headlamp beam switching in this NCAP upgrade. As discussed 
previously in the lower beam headlighting performance section, the 
agency believes that among other crash types, pedestrian fatalities 
that occur under dark-not-lighted conditions may be reduced or 
mitigated by additional proper use of the upper beam. As shown in Table 
6, semi-automatic headlamp beam switching maps to prevent or mitigate 
14 of the 32 crash scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ Mefford, M. L., Flannagan, M. J., & Bogard, S. E. (2006). 
Real-World Use of High-Beam Headlamps (UMTRI-2006-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Semi-automatic headlamp beam switching was reported as optional or 
standard for approximately 52 percent of the ``trim lines'' (sub-
models) listed in the 2016 Buying a Safer Car letter by the 
manufacturers. Since most semi-automatic headlamp beam switching 
devices activate above a minimum driving speed and react dynamically to 
the environment, primarily to other vehicles on the roadway, a 
traditional, passive and stationary goniometer-based laboratory test 
procedure will not suffice for confirmation of beam switching 
operation. Therefore, NHTSA intends to use vehicle related static 
measurements including confirmation of manual override capability, 
automatic dimming indicator, and mounting height, as well as two 
vehicle maneuver tests to effectively produce the semi-automatic beam 
switching device response to a suddenly appearing vehicle 
representation in a straight road scenario. The first dynamic test 
simulates an approaching vehicle, and the second dynamic test simulates 
a preceding vehicle. This test procedure will confirm that the driver 
has both the information necessary and the responsibility for final 
control of headlamp beam switching.
c. Amber Rear Turn Signal Lamps
    In 2009, NHTSA studied the effect of rear turn signal color as a 
means to reduce the frequency of passenger vehicles crashes.\256\ 
Specifically, the agency analyzed whether amber or red turn signals 
were more effective at preventing front-to-rear collisions when the 
rear-struck (leading) vehicle was engaged in a maneuver (i.e., turning, 
changing lanes, merging, or parking) where turn signals were assumed to 
be engaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ Allen (2009). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (DOT HS 811 115). Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 108 requires each vehicle to have two turn signals on the 
rear of the vehicle. The regulation provides manufacturers the option 
of installing either amber (yellow) or red rear turn signals with 
applicable performance requirements for each choice. To avoid imposing 
an unreasonable cost to society, NHTSA's lighting regulation continues 
to allow for the lower cost rear signal and visibility configurations 
that meet these requirements. Typically, the lower cost configuration 
includes one combination lamp on each of the rear corners of the 
vehicle, containing a red stop lamp, a red side marker lamp, a red turn 
signal lamp, a red rear reflex reflector, a red side reflex reflector, 
a red tail lamp, and a white backup lamp. (A separate license plate 
lamp is typically the most cost effective choice for vehicles rated in 
the NCAP information program). Such a configuration can be achieved 
using just two bulbs and a two color (red and white) lens.
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 108 is to reduce crashes and injuries by 
providing adequate illumination of the roadway and by enhancing the 
visibility of motor vehicles on public roads so that their presence is 
perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in 
darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. While the red rear 
turn signal lamp configuration provides a minimum acceptable level of 
safety, the agency believes improved safety (measured as the reduction 
in the number of rear-end crashes that resulted in property damage or 
injury) can be achieved with amber rear turn signal lamps at a cost 
comparable to red rear turn signal lamp configurations. This is 
supported by the observation of vehicle manufacturers changing the rear 
turn signal lamp color for a vehicle model from one year to the next, 
as was discussed in NHTSA Report DOT HS 811 115. The results of this 
NHTSA study estimated the effectiveness of amber rear turn signal 
lamps, as compared to red turn signal lamps, decrease the risk of two-
vehicle, rear-end crashes where the lead vehicle is turning by 5.3 
percent.\257\ That study was designed around the concept of ``switch 
pairs,'' in which make-models of passenger vehicles switched rear turn 
signal color. The crash involvement rates were computed before and 
after the switch. NHTSA estimates that there are roughly 68,550 injury 
rear-end crashes annually in which the lead vehicle is changing 
direction. As shown in Table 6, rear amber turn signal lamps map to 
prevent or mitigate 11 of the 32 crash scenarios listed. For these 
reasons,

[[Page 78558]]

NHTSA intends to include amber rear turn signals in this NCAP upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ Allen (2009). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (DOT HS 811 115). Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A test procedure for amber turn signal lamps exists in FMVSS No. 
108. For this program, NHTSA intends to use only the Tristimulus method 
(FMVSS No. 108 S14.4.1.4) for determining that the color of the rear 
turn signal lamp falls within the range of allowable amber colors. As 
is the case with the regulation, the color of light emitted must be 
within the chromaticity boundaries as follows:

y = 0.39 (red boundary)
y = 0.79-0.67x (white boundary)
y = x-0.12 (green boundary)

If the motor vehicle is equipped with amber rear turn signals meeting 
these requirements, the agency intends to give credit in the crash 
avoidance rating for these vehicles.
3. Driver Awareness and Other Technologies
    NHTSA believes crash avoidance warning systems have the potential 
to improve driver performance and reduce the incidence and severity of 
common crash situations. Analysis of manufacturer reported make/model 
features reveals that warning systems are increasingly offered in 
passenger vehicles, possibly the result of heightened levels of 
interest or demand by the consumer.
a. Lane Departure Warning (LDW)
    NHTSA intends to include LDW in its crash avoidance rating for this 
NCAP upgrade. Currently, LDW is one of the `Recommended Technologies' 
listed on the NHTSA Web site Safercar.gov.\258\ The LDW system is a 
driver aid that uses vision-based sensors to detect lane markers ahead 
of the vehicle. The LDW system alerts the driver when the vehicle is 
laterally approaching a lane boundary marker, as indicated by a solid 
line, a dashed line, or raised reflective indicators such as Botts 
dots. The LDW system may produce one or more user interfaces, such as 
an auditory alert or haptic feedback to the driver, and is often 
accompanied with a visual indicator or display icon in the instrument 
panel to indicate which side of the vehicle is departing the lane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ A video file and an animation file describing LDW are 
available at www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/safetytech/st_landing_ca.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicle-based LDW technology utilizes either GPS technology or 
forward- or downward-looking optical sensors. A GPS system compares 
position data with a high resolution map database to determine the 
vehicle location within the lane. An optical sensor system uses a 
forward looking or downward looking optical sensor with image 
processing algorithms to determine where the lane edge lines are 
located. If the turn signal is activated, the LDW system computer 
software algorithm considers the driver to be purposefully crossing the 
lane boundary marker, and no alert is issued. LDW system performance 
may be adversely affected by precipitation (e.g., rain, snow, fog) and 
roadway conditions with construction zones, unmarked intersections, and 
faded, worn, or missing lane markings.
    LDW systems are designed to help prevent crashes resulting from a 
vehicle unintentionally drifting out of its travel lane. For the light 
passenger-vehicle crashes considered over the period 2002-2006, the 
Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies (ACAT) program performed around 
15,000 simulations in order to set up the underlying virtual crash 
population; by optimizing driving scenario weights it was possible to 
produce a reasonable degree of fit to the actual (GES coded) crash 
population. ACAT estimated that a baseline set of 180,900 crashes 
annually in the United States could be reduced to about 121,600 with 
LDW in place, so that around 59,300 crashes might be prevented.\259\ 
AAA reported that LDW systems activate when vehicle speeds are above 40 
to 45 mph (64 to 72 km/h).\260\ NHTSA crash data from the period 2004 
to 2013 indicate that a lane departure maneuver was a precursor to 
approximately 40 percent of the fatal crashes involving a single 
vehicle.\261\ NHTSA determined that a vehicle departed its lane as 
characterized by the database annotation of the relation to roadway as 
Off Roadway, Shoulder, or Median.\262\ The agency believes additional 
benefits from LDW technology may contribute to the possible reduction 
in the number of head-on collisions.263 264
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ DOT HS 811 405, Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies 
(ACAT) Program--Final Report of the Volvo[hyphen]Ford[hyphen]UMTRI 
Project: Safety Impact Methodology for Lane Departure Warning--
Method Development and Estimation of Benefits, October 2010. 
Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/811405.pdf.
    \260\ AAA Status Report, Vol. 44, No. 10. November 18, 2009.
    \261\ FARS and GES.
    \262\ Ibid.
    \263\ www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Public%20Paper/SAE/2006/Barickman_LaneDepartuerWarning_final.pdf.
    \264\ IIHS, Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 5. May 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IIHS similarly estimated in a 2010 report that LDW systems 
could prevent as many as 7,500 fatal crashes, noting that while crashes 
in which vehicles drift off the road have a low incidence rate, they 
account for a large proportion of fatal crashes.\265\ In addition to 
the numbers NHTSA used in the 2008 NCAP upgrade notice,\266\ the 
Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) estimates that LDW could apply in 
approximately 3 percent of police-reported crashes.\267\ Three percent 
of the 2013 NHTSA estimated 5,687,000 police-reported crashes equates 
to 170,610 crashes that could potentially be reduced or mitigated with 
LDW crash avoidance technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ Lund, A. Drivers and Driver Assistance Systems: How well 
do they match? 2013 Driving Assessment Conference, Lake George, NY. 
June 18, 2013.
    \266\ LDW effectiveness of 6-11 percent was estimated from data 
included in NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 810 854, Evaluation of a Road 
Departure Crash Warning System, December 2007.
    \267\ IIHS Status Report, Vol. 47, No. 5. Special Issue: Crash 
Avoidance. July 3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA monitors and analyses the interaction and accumulation of 
vehicle alerts directed at drivers. Based on recently published 
technical papers describing consumer acceptance or preference of alert 
modality, the agency is aware that some drivers choose to disable the 
LDW system if they experience numerous alerts, thereby diminishing any 
safety benefit.\268\ Additionally, the agency is concerned that 
multiple and overlapping alerts may create confusion for the driver 
regarding which safety system is being activated or engaged. Rather 
than require a specific alert modality for the LDW crash avoidance 
technology, the agency intends to re-define the LDW performance 
criteria such that the LDW alert may not occur when the lateral 
position of the vehicle is greater than +1.0 ft (+0.30 m) from the lane 
line edge to pass the planned NCAP test procedure. NHTSA would not 
consider the intensity of the haptic or the feedback delivery component 
(e.g., steering wheel or seat haptic) in determining whether or not a 
vehicle received credit for LDW in NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Development of LDW technology has evolved into lane keeping support 
(LKS) systems that actively guide the vehicle within the lane by 
counter steering. In the NCAP LDW assessment, an LKS steering wheel 
movement would be considered an acceptable LDW haptic alert.
    The agency is also concerned about false activations and missed 
detections resulting from tar lines reflecting sun light or covered 
with water and other unforeseen anomalies, which would result in an 
unreliable driver warning. However, the LDW test procedure is not

[[Page 78559]]

currently structured to address these concerns. Comments are requested 
on these issues.
    LDW systems, as NHTSA currently defines them, only focus on lane 
departures while the vehicle is traveling along a straight line and 
does not account for technologies that look at curve speed warnings 
(CSW). CSW alerts the driver when he or she is traveling too fast for 
an upcoming curve. NHTSA crash data indicates off-roadway crashes occur 
substantially more often than crashes departing from the shoulder and 
median combined. NHTSA believes LDW has the potential to provide the 
driver with the vital sliver of time for rapid decision-making 
necessary to adjust and correct the vehicle direction prior to a road 
departure situation developing.
    The agency intends to continue to use the current NCAP test 
procedure titled NCAP Lane Departure Warning and LKS Test Procedure for 
NCAP,\269\ and requests comment on whether to revise certain aspects of 
the test procedures. The LDW test procedure provides the specifications 
for confirming the existence of LDW hardware. Specifically, it tests 
for the ability to detect lane presence, an unintended lane departure, 
LDW engagement, and LDW disengagement. The NCAP LDW tests are conducted 
at a constant test speed of 45 mph (72 km/h), in two different 
departure directions, left and right, using three different styles of 
roadway markings, continuous white lines, discontinuous yellow lines, 
and discontinuous raised pavement markers. Test track conditions are 
defined as a dry, uniform, solid-paved surface with high contrast line 
markings defining a single roadway lane edge. Each test series is 
repeated until five (5) valid tests are produced. LDW performance is 
evaluated by examining the proximity of the vehicle with respect to the 
edge of a lane line at the time of the LDW alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ Available at www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/NCAP+Test+Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each test trial measures whether the LDW issues an appropriate 
alert during the maneuver in order to determine a pass or fail. In the 
context of this test procedure, a lane departure is said to occur when 
any part of the two dimensional polygon used to represent the test 
vehicle breaches the inboard lane line edge. The agency requests 
comments on whether a valid trial is considered a failure if the 
distance between the inside edge of the polygon to the lane line at the 
time of the LDW warning is outside -1.0 to +1.0 ft (-0.30 to +0.30 m), 
where a negative number represents post-line position, or if no warning 
is issued. This is a change from the current NCAP test procedure which 
specifies -1.0 to +2.5 ft (-0.30 to +0.75 m). The LDW system must 
satisfy the pass criteria for 3 of 5 individual trials for each 
combination of departure direction and lane line type (60%), and pass 
20 of the 30 trials overall (66%). If more than five trials are deemed 
valid, the pass/fail criteria must be met for three of the first five 
valid trials. If LDW is offered as an optional safety system, the 
vehicle model would receive half credit for this system. If LDW is 
offered as standard safety system, the vehicle model would receive full 
credit for the system. Comments are requested on whether the agency 
should only award NCAP credit to LDW systems with haptic alerts.
b. Rollover Resistance
    Rollover crashes are complex events that reflect the interaction of 
driver, road, vehicle, and environmental factors. The term ``rollover'' 
describes the condition of at least a 90-degree rotation about the 
longitudinal axis of a vehicle,\270\ regardless of whether the vehicle 
ends up laying on its side, roof, or even returning upright on all four 
wheels. Rollovers occur in a multitude of ways. The risk of rollover is 
greater for vehicles designed with a high center of gravity in relation 
to the track width. Driver behavior and road conditions are significant 
factors in rollover crash events. Specifically, the factors that 
strongly relate to rollover fatalities are: If it was a single-vehicle 
crash, if it was a rural crash location, if it was a high-speed 
roadway, if it occurred at night, if there was an off-road tripping/
tipping mechanism, if it was a young driver, if the driver was male, if 
it was alcohol-related, if it was speed-related, if there was an 
unbelted occupant, and if an occupant was ejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ ``Rating System for Rollover Resistance, An Assessment,'' 
Transportation Research Board Special Report 265, National Research 
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Background
    Rollover is one of the most severe crash types for light vehicles. 
In 2012, 112,000 rollovers occurred as the first harmful event, 
measuring 2 percent of the 5,615,000 police-reported crashes involving 
all types of motor vehicles. In 2012, single, light-vehicle rollovers 
accounted for 6,763 occupant deaths. This represented 20 percent of 
motor vehicle fatalities in 2012, 31 percent of people who died in 
light-vehicle crashes, and 46 percent of people who died in light-
vehicle single-vehicle crashes.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ DOT HS 812 016, available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA describes rollovers as ``tripped'' or ``untripped.'' In a 
tripped rollover, the vehicle rolls over after leaving the roadway due 
to striking a curb, soft shoulder, guard rail or other object that 
``trips'' it. Crash data suggest approximately 95 percent of rollovers 
in single-vehicle crashes are tripped.\272\ A small percentage of 
rollover events are untripped, typically induced by tire and/or road 
interface friction. Whether or not a vehicle rolls when it encounters a 
tripping mechanism is highly dependent upon the ratio of two vehicle 
geometric properties, referred to as the Static Stability Factor (SSF). 
The SSF of a vehicle is calculated as one-half the track width, t, 
divided by the height of the center of gravity (c.g.) above the road, 
h; SSF = (t/2h). The inertial force that causes a vehicle to sway on 
its suspension (and roll over in extreme cases) in response to 
cornering, rapid steering reversals or striking a tripping mechanism, 
like a curb or the soft shoulder of the road, when the vehicle is 
sliding laterally, may be thought of as a force acting at the c.g. to 
pull the vehicle body laterally. A reduction in c.g. height increases 
the lateral inertial force necessary to cause rollover by reducing its 
leverage, and this is represented by an increase in the computed value 
of SSF. A wider track width also increases the lateral force necessary 
to cause rollover by increasing the leverage of the vehicle's weight in 
resisting rollover, and that advantage also increases the computed 
value of SSF. The factor of two in the computation (t/2h) makes SSF 
equal to the lateral acceleration at which rollover begins in the most 
simplified rollover analysis of a vehicle, which is represented by a 
rigid body without suspension movement or tire deflections.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ See 68 FR 59251. Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9663, Notice 3. 
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/03-25360.
    \273\ For further explanation see the description and Figure 1 
at www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/Rollover/Chapt05.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2001, the agency decided to use SSF to indicate rollover risk in 
a single-vehicle crash.\274\ Additionally, in that notice, the agency 
introduced the rollover resistance rating as a means to quantify the 
risk of a rollover if a single-vehicle crash occurs. The agency 
emphasizes that this rating does not predict the likelihood of a 
rollover crash

[[Page 78560]]

occurring only that of a rollover occurring given that a single vehicle 
crash occurs. In this rating system, the lowest rated vehicles (1 star) 
are at least 4 times more likely to rollover than the highest rated 
vehicles (5 stars).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ See 66 FR 3388. Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8298. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/01-973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rollover rating that was included as part of NCAP was based on 
a regression analysis that estimated the relationship between single-
vehicle rollover crashes and the vehicles' SSF using state crash data. 
The SSF is measured at a Vehicle Inertial Measurement Facility 
(VIMF).\275\ NHTSA acquires vehicles and measures the height of the 
vehicle c.g. The VIMF consistently measures the c.g. height location of 
a particular vehicle using the stable pendulum configuration. The test 
facility must be capable of measuring the c.g. height location to 
within 0.5 percent of the theoretical height, typically the 3-
dimensional computer generated solid model value of that vehicle. The 
track width is also measured on the same vehicle at this time. The risk 
of rollover originally calculated for the 2001 notice was based on a 
linear regression analysis of 220,000 single-vehicle crash events 
reported by 8 States (Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ ``The design of a Vehicle Inertial Measurement Facility,'' 
Heydinger, G. J. et al, SAE Paper 950309, February, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the FY 2001 DOT Appropriations Act, NHTSA funded a 
National Academy of Science (NAS) study on vehicle rollover resistance 
ratings.\276\ The study focused on two topics: Whether the SSF is a 
scientifically valid measurement that presents practical, useful 
information to the public, and a comparison of the SSF versus a test 
with rollover metrics based on dynamic driving conditions that may 
include rollover events. NAS published their report at the end of 
February 2002.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations, 2001. Public Law 106-346 (Oct. 23, 2000).
    \277\ ``Rating System for Rollover Resistance, An Assessment,'' 
Transportation Research Board Special Report 265, National Research 
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NAS study found that SSF is a scientifically valid measure of 
rollover resistance for which the underlying physics and real-word 
crash data are consistent with the conclusions that an increase in SSF 
reduces the likelihood of rollover. It also found that dynamic tests 
should complement static measures, such as SSF, rather than replace 
them in consumer information on rollover resistance. The NAS study also 
made recommendations concerning the statistical analysis of rollover 
risk and the representation of ratings methodology. The two primary 
recommendations suggested using logistic regression rather than linear 
regression for analysis of the relationship between rollover and SSF, 
and a high-resolution representation of the relationship between 
rollover and SSF than is provided in the current 5-star program.
    On October 14, 2003, NHTSA published a final policy statement 
outlining its changes to the NCAP rollover resistance rating.\278\ 
Beginning with the 2004 model year, NHTSA combined a vehicle's SSF 
measurement with its performance in a dynamic ``fishhook'' test 
maneuver presented as a single rating. The fishhook maneuver is 
performed on a smooth pavement and is a rapid steering input followed 
by an over-correction representative of a general loss-of-control 
situation. This action attempts to simulate steering maneuvers that a 
driver acting in panic might use in an effort to regain lane position 
after dropping two wheels off the roadway onto the shoulder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ See 68 FR 59250. Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9663, Notice 3. 
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/03-25360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the predicted rollover resistance ratings were 
reevaluated. Consistent with the NAS recommendations, the agency 
changed from a linear regression to a logistic regression analysis of 
the data. The sample size increased to 293,000 single-vehicle crash 
events, producing a narrow confidence interval on the repeatability of 
the relationship between SSF and rollover. In contrast, the linear 
regression analysis performed on the rollover rate of 100 make/models 
in each of the six States providing data, resulted in a sample size of 
600. In addition, a second risk curve was generated for vehicles that 
experienced a tip-up in the dynamic fishhook test.
ii. Updates to the Rollover NCAP SSF Risk Curve
    Commenters to NHTSA's 2008 NCAP upgrade notice asked NHTSA to 
collect crash data on vehicles equipped with ESC in order to develop a 
new rollover risk model. In July 2008, the agency upgraded the NCAP 
program to combine the rollover rating with the frontal and side crash 
ratings, creating a single, overall vehicle rating.\279\ No changes 
were made to the risk model at that time.\280\ However, NHTSA received 
comments requesting that the agency collect this crash data to develop 
a new rollover risk model that better describes the rollover risk of 
all vehicles that reflects the real-world benefits of ESC.\281\ To 
enhance its rollover program, the agency responded that they would 
continue to monitor the rollover rate for single-vehicle crashes 
involving ESC equipped vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ See 73 FR 40021. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
    \280\ See 73 FR 40032. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
    \281\ See 72 FR 3475. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E7-1130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The accumulation of crash data involving vehicles equipped with ESC 
has been slow. The 2003 regression analysis was based on 293,000 crash 
events. Up until recently, the agency had observed fewer than 10,000 
crashes with ESC-equipped vehicles. Previously, NHTSA was not confident 
that it could accurately redraw the risk curves using such a small 
sample size. The agency now believes that it has accumulated enough 
data to see a narrower tolerance band adequate for use in a rating 
system.
    According to the 2013 FARS, 7,500 vehicle occupants were killed in 
light-vehicle rollovers.\282\ These 2013 rollovers accounted for 34.6 
percent of the 21,667 fatalities in light vehicles that year. Of these 
7,500 fatalities, 6,254 were killed in single-vehicle rollovers. NCAP 
provides a consumer information rating program articulating the risk of 
rollover, to encourage consumers to purchase vehicles with a predicted 
lower risk of a rollover. This information enables prospective 
purchasers to make choices about new vehicles based on differences in 
rollover risk and serve as a market incentive to manufacturers to 
design their vehicles with greater rollover resistance. The consumer 
information program also informs drivers, especially those who choose 
vehicles with poorer rollover resistance, that their risk of harm can 
be greatly reduced with seat belt use to avoid ejection. The program 
seeks to remind consumers that even the highest rated vehicle can roll 
over, but that they can reduce their chance of being killed in a 
rollover by about 75 percent just by wearing their seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ Traffic Safety Facts 2012. DOT HS 812 032 available at 
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812032.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA intends to update and recalculate the risk curve using ESC 
data collected from 20 States, and to transition the rollover risk 
rating into a new crash avoidance rating. In this new rollover scoring, 
NHTSA would not be changing the dynamic rollover test. The agency 
believes that embedding rollover into the crash avoidance rating is 
more appropriate since it targets rollover

[[Page 78561]]

prevention and it also consolidates the message of reduced crash 
incidence. Rollover resistance would remain a significant component in 
the rating scheme, weighted based on its relative importance to overall 
vehicle safety. The details of how the crashworthiness rating is 
combined with the crash avoidance rating into an overall rating system 
are discussed in the rating section of this RFC notice.
    The statistical model created in 2003 combined SSF and dynamic 
maneuver test information to predict rollover risk. The agency 
performed the Fishhook test on about 25 of the 100 make/model vehicles 
for which SSF was measured and substantial State crash data was 
available.\283\ Eleven of the 25 vehicles tipped up \284\ in the 
Fishhook maneuver that was conducted in the heavy condition with a 5-
occupant load. All 11 vehicles had SSFs less than 1.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ An Experimental Examination of 26 Light Vehicles Using 
Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped Light Vehicle 
Rollover--Phase VI of NHTSA's Light Vehicle Rollover Research 
Program, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 547, 2003.
    \284\ A ``tip-up'' occurs when the two vehicle wheels lift off 
the ground 2 inches during the Fishhook test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At that time, the agency believed it was very unlikely that 
passenger cars would tip-up in the maneuver test because no tip-ups 
were observed in the passenger cars tested at the low end of the SSF 
range for passenger cars. To validate that assumption, the agency 
tested a few passenger cars each year at the low end of the SSF range. 
No tip-ups have been observed in the agency tests for any vehicle type 
since 2007. Therefore, the agency is unable to produce an estimate or a 
logistic regression curve based on tip/no-tip as a variable.
    The rollover statistical model was populated with new data and used 
logistic regression analysis to update the rollover risk curve. The 
agency examined 20 State datasets for single-vehicle crashes involving 
vehicles equipped with ESC that occurred during 2011 and 2012. Data 
were reported by Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, 
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The dataset was comprised of 11,647 
single-vehicle crashes, of which 627 resulted in rollover. For 2011, 
NHTSA used data reported by each of the 20 States for single-vehicle 
crashes involving ESC-equipped vehicles; a summation of 5,429 crashes. 
For 2012, NHTSA used data reported by 10 States for single-vehicle 
crashes involving ESC-equipped vehicles; 6,218 crashes. Table 8 shows a 
summary of the 2011 and 2012 State dataset used for the logistic 
regression analysis.

                                  Table 8--Summary of 2011 and 2012 State Data Used To Generate the Rollover Risk Curve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2011                                            2012
                          State                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Non-rollover      Rollover          Total       Non-rollover      Rollover          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE......................................................              29               2              31              88               2              90
FL......................................................             624              26             650         No data         No data         No data
IA......................................................             123              12             135             237              22             259
IL......................................................             319              19             338         No data         No data         No data
IN......................................................             283               0             283             723              17             740
KS......................................................              92               2              94             266               7             273
KY......................................................             211              17             228             464              50             514
MD......................................................             133              14             147             310              31             341
MI......................................................             619              34             653           1,344              74           1,418
MO......................................................             204              22             226         No data         No data         No data
NC......................................................             407              43             450           1,028              87           1,115
ND......................................................              17               4              21         No data         No data         No data
NE......................................................              67               4              71             213              13             226
NJ......................................................             503              18             521           1,199              43           1,242
NM......................................................              55               3              58         No data         No data         No data
NY......................................................             793               4             797         No data         No data         No data
PA......................................................             383              39             422         No data         No data         No data
WA......................................................              73               8              81         No data         No data         No data
WI......................................................             203               9             212         No data         No data         No data
WY......................................................              10               1              11         No data         No data         No data
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................           5,148             281           5,429           5,872             346           6,218
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new dataset included 197 different makes/models for which the 
SSF had been calculated within NCAP; the SSF ranged from 1.07 to 1.53. 
The new dataset contained two vehicle types, passenger cars and light 
truck vehicles, including pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans. To accomplish 
the rollover analysis, it is more appropriate to use the state dataset 
because it provides the ability to filter for ESC-equipped vehicles 
rather than the NHTSA FARS database, which is not sufficiently 
granular. FARS contains two data elements; rollover and rollover 
location. The rollover data element has attributes of no rollover, 
tripped rollover, untripped rollover, and unknown type rollover. The 
rollover location data element has attributes of no rollover, on 
roadway, on shoulder, on median/separator, in gore, on roadside, 
outside of trafficway, in parking lane/zone, and unknown. The State 
dataset distribution compares similarly to the FARS number of vehicles 
involved in fatal crashes with a rollover occurrence. Table 9 
summarizes the 2011 and 2012 rollover data for the number of single-
vehicle crashes for ESC-equipped vehicles by vehicle type. For 
comparison, Table 10 summarizes the number of vehicles involved in 
fatal crashes with a rollover occurrence by vehicle type, as reported 
in FARS. In the new rollover model dataset, pickup trucks appear to be 
slightly underrepresented and SUVs appear to be slightly 
overrepresented compared with the FARS data.

[[Page 78562]]



              Table 9--Summary of 2011 and 2012 State Data Used To Generate the Rollover Risk Curve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Single-vehicle crashes (ESC-equipped vehicles)                  Proportion, by
          Vehicle type           ------------------------------------------------    Number of     vehicle type
                                       2011            2012            Total         rollovers          (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car...................           2,803           3,280           6,083             262              42
Pickup..........................             636             768           1,404              92              15
SUV.............................           1,823           1,931           3,754             259              41
Van.............................             167             239             406              14               2
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           5,429           6,218          11,647             627             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Data System.


                                         Table 10--Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes With a Rollover Occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2011                            2012                         2011 + 2012
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Vehicle type                           Vehicles                        Vehicles                                       Proportion,
                                                            involved in      Rollover       involved in      Number of       Number of      by vehicle
                                                           fatal crashes    occurrence     fatal crashes     rollovers       rollovers       type (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car...........................................          17,508           2,680          18,269           2,827           5,507              38
Pickup..................................................           7,790           2,050           8,001           2,117           4,167              28
SUV.....................................................           6,787           2,128           7,118           2,170           4,298              29
Van.....................................................           2,187             365           2,173             316             681               5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          34,272           7,223          35,561           7,430          14,653             100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS.

    The agency performed a logistic regression analysis of the 11,647 
single-vehicle crash events. The dependent variable in this analysis is 
vehicle rollover, while the independent variables are SSF, light 
condition, driver age, driver gender, and the State indicator variable. 
The SAS[supreg] logistic regression program used these variables to 
compute the model. The SAS[supreg] statistical analysis software output 
tables are available in the docket for this RFC notice. Figure 4 shows 
a plot of the predicted rollover probability versus the SSF for the 20-
State dataset. Figure 5 is a plot of the average predicted probability 
of rollover for each SSF in the dataset. Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate 
the relationship between SSF and the predicted probability of rollover, 
that at every level of SSF the predicted probability of rollover is 
less than it was estimated to be in 2003. The flatter curve for the 
2011 + 2012 dataset aligns with increased vehicle SSFs, the expected 
effect of ESC on rollover frequency, and the reduced observation of 
rollover in single-vehicle crashes.

[[Page 78563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.041

    A statistical risk model is not currently possible for untripped 
rollover crashes because they are relatively rare events and they 
cannot be reliably identified in the State crash reports. The method 
applied earlier, using test track data, did not work, because vehicles 
do not routinely tip-up in testing. NHTSA intends to continue to use 
the current SSF-based approach to rate resistance to tripped rollovers 
in this NCAP upgrade. Field data collected over the past 10 years shows 
95 to 97 percent of the rollovers are tripped. The agency has no data 
that suggests this will change.
    The agency has worked for decades to reduce the number of rollovers 
and the resulting injuries and fatalities. Three safety standards 
related to rollover have

[[Page 78564]]

been promulgated or amended. These are: FMVSS No. 126, ``Electronic 
stability control,'' FMVSS No. 216, ``Roof crush resistance,'' and 
FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.'' 285 286 287
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ 72 FR 17236. Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27662. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/07-1649.
    \286\ 74 FR 22348. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/E9-10431.
    \287\ 76 FR 3212. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004. Available at 
https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-547 corrected 76 FR 10524. 
Available at https://federalregister.gov/aC1-2011-547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress funded NHTSA's rollover NCAP program and directed the 
agency to enhance the program under section 12 of the Transportation 
Recall, Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 
November 2000.\288\ In response to this mandate, NHTSA created a 
dynamic maneuver known as the Fishhook test, a double steering 
maneuver, conducted at speeds of up to 50 mph. The maneuver is 
performed with an automated steering controller, and the reverse steer 
of the Fishhook maneuver would be timed to coincide with the maximum 
roll angle to create an objective ``worst case'' for all vehicles 
regardless of differences in resonant roll frequency, which is the 
vehicle's natural roll response. This NCAP driving maneuver test 
represents an on-road untripped rollover crash, which represents less 
than 5 percent of rollover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ Public Law 106-414, November 1, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rollover resistance test matrix consists of a static 
measurement and a dynamic maneuver test. NHTSA intends to continue to 
use the same two tests it is using to determine the current rollover 
resistance NCAP rating. First, the SSF is measured statically in a 
laboratory, using the VIMF. The movement of the table predicts the 
height of the center of gravity. The track width of the vehicle is 
measured, and the SSF is accurately calculated. NHTSA believes that 
including the average SSF in the NCAP crash avoidance rating, and 
making the SSF available to consumers would lead to an improved fleet 
average SSF. Analysis of the first 10 years of NCAP make-model data 
shows the average SSF for SUVs improved from 1.17 to 1.21.\289\ This 
correlates to an average reduction in the risk of rollover in a single-
vehicle crash for SUVs of 11.8 percent. Similarly for passenger cars, 
the average SSF remained the same at 1.41. With a c.g. lower than SUVs, 
passenger cars have better SSFs. The second test uses the Fishhook test 
on a large test area, attempting to tip up the vehicle. These two tests 
combined provide the risk of rollover, and the current Monroney safety 
label rollover resistance star rating.\290\ Vehicles with a higher 
c.g., such as an SUV, van or pickup truck typically have a higher 
rollover propensity than a passenger car with a lower c.g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ NHTSA internal research analysis.
    \290\ The Monroney label on each new vehicle offered for sale in 
the United States displays a safety star rating for expected 
rollover performance based on the predicted rollover rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initially, five levels of risk were defined based on dividing the 
linear regression curve into 5 bands, representing the 1- through 5-
star bands, similar to the rating system for the current NCAP 
crashworthiness ratings. The 1-star rating corresponds to a risk of 
greater than 40-percent chance of rollover in a single-vehicle crash. 
The 5-star rating represents a less than 10-percent risk of rollover in 
a single-vehicle crash. Currently, the predicted rollover rate 
translates to an NCAP star rating such that 1 star is awarded for a 
rollover rate greater than 40 percent; 2 stars, greater than 30 percent 
and less than 40 percent; 3 stars, greater than 20 percent and less 
than 30 percent; 4 stars, greater than 10 percent and less than 20 
percent; 5 stars, less than or equal to 10 percent. This approach 
achieved NHTSA's goal of presenting risk-based ratings. With a flatter 
rollover risk curve, defining the star bands is less obvious and more 
challenging. As expected, vehicles equipped with ESC have a much 
smaller predicted rollover probability, including vehicles with low 
SSFs. The range of the average predicted probability of vehicle 
rollover for ESC-equipped vehicles is significantly smaller than the 
current range. The agency intends to shift the star bands for a 
rollover risk curve of ESC-equipped vehicles such that 1 star would be 
awarded for a rollover rate greater than 0.08 percent (or SSF <= 1.07); 
stars, greater than 0.06 percent and less than 0.08 percent (or 1.07 <= 
SSF 1.15); 3 stars, greater than 0.04 percent and less than 0.06 
percent (or 1.15 <= SSF 1.32); 4 stars, greater than 0.030 percent and 
less than 0.04 percent (or 1.32 <= SSF > 1.50); 5 stars, less than 
0.030 (or SSF > 1.50). Comments are requested on these adjusted 
rollover star bands.
    In this upgrade of NCAP crash avoidance rating, NHTSA intends to 
calculate the contribution of rollover resistance as a proportion of 
the maximum number of points awarded for rollover resistance. The 
credit for rollover resistance would be the number of stars earned 
based on the SSF divided by five, and then multiplied by the rollover 
resistance rating point value.
c. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
    NHTSA intends to include BSD in its crash avoidance rating for this 
NCAP upgrade. BSD systems use digital camera imaging technology or 
radar sensor technology to detect one or more vehicles in either of the 
adjacent lanes that may not be apparent to the driver. The system warns 
the driver of an approaching vehicle's presence to help facilitate safe 
lane changes. If the blind spot warnings are ignored, some systems 
include enhanced capability to intervene by applying brakes or 
adjusting steering to guide the vehicle back into the unobstructed 
lane. However, NHTSA does not plan to rate the system's capability to 
initiate automatic avoidance maneuvers in its NCAP rating at this time.
    The BSD system processes the sensor information and presents 
visual, audible, and/or haptic warnings to the driver. A visual alert 
is usually an indicator in the side mirror glass, inside edge of the 
mirror housing, or on the A-pillar inside the car. If enabled, the 
manner in which the light is illuminated often depends on the driving 
situation. When another vehicle is present in an adjacent lane, and 
within the driver's blind spot, systems will typically illuminate the 
warning light continuously. When the driver activates the turn signal 
in the direction of the adjacent vehicle, the warning light will often 
flash. Some systems will also present an audible or haptic alert 
coincident with the flashing light.
    As stated in NHTSA's ``Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking 
and Research Priority Plan, 2011 to 2013,'' the agency examined the 
potential of sensors and mirrors to detect vehicles in blind spots to 
assist in lane changing maneuvers.\291\ Using data from GES during the 
period 2003-2007, a target population for which blind spot detection 
technology would apply is estimated to be an average of 96,100 crashes 
annually, resulting in approximately 4,700 injuries per year and 146 
fatalities per year.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/2011-2013_Vehicle_Safety-Fuel_Economy_Rulemaking-Research_Priority_Plan.pdf.
    \292\ NHTSA internal research analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anecdotal evidence from IIHS and AAA indicates that BSD systems 
have the potential to provide safety benefits and appear to be most 
effective when the equipped vehicle is passing, being passed, or 
preparing to make a lane change.\293\ Lane change maneuvers may be 
planned or unplanned by drivers,

[[Page 78565]]

and they may or may not involve use of the turn signal. Market research 
indicates that BSD systems consistently rate high or desirable in 
consumer interest surveys among various safety systems.\294\ However, 
reduced crash rates are not easily isolated to blind spot detection 
technology specifically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ AAA Automotive Engineering, Evaluation of Blind Spot 
Monitoring and Blind Spot Intervention Technologies, 2014.
    \294\ DOT HS 811 516, Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems 
(IVBSS) Light Vehicle Field Operational Test Independent Evaluation, 
October 2011; and J.D. Power's 2015 Tech Choice Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A May 2010 study funded by IIHS estimated that outside rearview 
mirror assist systems could prevent 395,000 vehicle crashes annually, 
potentially avoiding 20,000 injuries and 393 fatalities.\295\ IIHS 
determined that 2011 crash data suggests 350,000 single- and two-
vehicle crashes involved vehicles merging or changing lanes, which 
resulted in 665 fatal crashes and 59,000 injury causing crashes. The 
Bosch crash causation study, based on 2011 data from the NHTSA NASS 
database, indicated that five percent of all collisions with injuries 
and fatalities occurred between vehicles travelling in the same 
direction.\296\ Bosch concluded that a significant portion of these 
collisions are attributable to drivers not being aware of other 
vehicles in their vicinity at the time of a lane change maneuver. Bosch 
determined that this accounted for over 77,000 collisions per year in 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ IIHS Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 5, May 20, 2010.
    \296\ Comment submitted by Robert Bosch, LLC, at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA research suggests the benefits of BSD systems may be smaller 
than the industry studies cited; however, consensus is building that 
drivers may benefit from BSD systems that offer the potential to reduce 
crash rates, and by extension, reduce injuries and fatalities in lane 
change related crash scenarios. NHTSA used simulation to estimate blind 
spot detection effectiveness for a generic sensor and found it to be 
between 42 percent and 65 percent, indicating prevention of 40,000 to 
62,000 crashes, 2,000 to 3,000 injuries, and 61 to 95 fatalities.\297\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ NHTSA internal research simulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAA reported that BSD systems they tested worked well, however, 
they cautioned that these systems are not a substitute for an engaged 
driver and BSD system performance can vary greatly. The agency 
recognizes that differences in the detection capabilities and operating 
conditions will likely exist among the currently available BSD systems. 
For instance, one manufacturer may describe their system's capabilities 
as demonstrating designed performance for higher speed lane change 
events, whereas another manufacturer may emphasize its system's 
augmentation of the driver's visual awareness rather than a level of 
effectiveness for preventing crashes. The agency anticipates a wide 
range of NCAP test results initially, due in part to the competing OEM 
perspectives as well as the establishment of performance criteria in 
this RFC notice.
    The agency intends to use the draft BSD test procedure included in 
Appendix VIII to assess vehicles for this NCAP upgrade. The agency 
seeks comment on these procedures. Each NCAP vehicle equipped with a 
BSD system would be subjected to three performance tests to determine 
whether the system displays the warning when other vehicles are in a 
driver's blind zone, independent of activation of the vehicle's turn 
signal. Because weather and environmental conditions (e.g., snow, rain, 
and fog) can disrupt radar signals and digital camera images, the NCAP 
tests would be conducted under dry conditions with the ambient 
temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and below 90 [deg]F (32 
[deg]C). Similarly, the NCAP test conditions would minimize shadows and 
sunlight at sunrise and sunset in an effort to reduce false-positive 
alerts. The NCAP blind spot detection tests are designed to detect 
vehicles only, not motorcycles, pedalcycles, humans, or animals. 
Comments are requested on whether the NCAP test should include 
detection of motorcycles.
    NCAP would test vehicles equipped with BSD systems under three 
driving scenarios; straight-lane, POV pass-by, POV and Secondary Other 
Vehicle (SOV) pass-by. The POV and SOV configurations would be mid-size 
sedans. The straight-lane scenario is very relevant to blind spot 
detection testing as it is the scenario that is most likely to be 
encountered in every day driving.\298\ In the straight-lane test, both 
the SV and POV are driven in separate but parallel lanes with the POV 
driven longitudinally past the SV. In every NCAP blind spot detection 
test, the SV would be driven at a constant speed of 45 mph. For the 
straight-lane scenario, the POV would be driven at increased speeds of 
5, 10 and 15 mph above the SV, as well as at the same speed to test for 
false-positives. This test mirrors the ISO 17387 standard test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \298\ DOT HS 812 045, July 2014. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2014/812045_Blind-Spot-Monitoring-in-Light-Vehicles-System-Performance.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second scenario, the POV pass-by scenario, is another scenario 
likely to be encountered in every day driving situations for vehicles 
travelling at highway speeds. The objective of the POV pass-by test is 
to determine if the system identifies a POV making a combined lane 
change and pass-by. The third scenario, the POV and SOV pass-by 
scenario, is similar to the straight-lane scenario but with the use of 
a third vehicle. The objective of the POV and SOV pass-by test is to 
determine if both the left and the right blind spot detection sensors 
activate simultaneously and to determine if there is any interaction 
when activating a turn signal on only one side of the SV while both 
sensors may be indicating alerts.
    Each BSD system test would be performed once, unless there are any 
invalid test parameters or a failure then the test would be repeated. 
Two consecutive failures results in a BSD system fail. The left and 
right sides of the SV would be tested for the straight-lane and POV 
pass-by scenarios, with the SV turn signal activated for one trial and 
off for the other trial. The BSD system must detect the POV in both 
trials. For the POV and SOV pass-by scenario, the SV turn signals would 
not be activated.
4. Future Technologies
    Several advanced technologies that are good candidates for this 
consumer information program are in various stages of development but 
are not ready at this time. For example, intersection movement assist 
(IMA), lane keeping support (LKS) systems, automatic collision 
notification (ACN)/advanced automatic collision notification (AACN) 
systems, distraction guidelines, and driver alcohol detection system 
for safety (DADSS). These technologies are briefly described below. 
NHTSA is researching these technologies and requests comment on them to 
aid this research.
    IMA is a prototype crash avoidance technology that relies on 
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. Rather than relying on 
sensors, radar, or cameras, IMA uses on-board dedicated short-range 
radio communication devices to transmit messages about a vehicle's 
speed, heading, brake status, and other information to other vehicles 
capable of receiving those messages and translating them into alerts 
and warnings, which the driver can then respond to in order to avoid a 
crash. Current IMA prototype designs may be able to warn drivers about 
5 types of junction-crossing crashes which collectively represent 26 
percent of all crashes occurring in the crash

[[Page 78566]]

population and 23 percent of comprehensive costs.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ DOT HS 812 014, August 2014. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/V2V/Readiness-of-V2V-Technology-for-Application-812014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LKS systems are extensions of the current lane departure warning 
systems that actively guide the vehicle within the lane. LKS, also 
known as lane centering, gently provides corrective guidance of the 
vehicle, without overpowering the driver's control of the vehicle.
    AACN systems notify a public safety answering point (9-1-1), either 
directly or through a third party, of a crash when that crash reaches a 
minimum severity (e.g., air bag deployment). In addition to providing 
response personnel an earlier notification of the crash, the AACN 
system will transmit information regarding the location of the crash. 
These systems also have the capability to predict the severity of the 
crash and can indicate when there is a high probability of severe 
injury. This injury severity prediction could be used by emergency 
personnel to change how they respond to a crash and what type of 
hospital to take the patient to (e.g., community hospital versus level 
I trauma center).
    In April 2010, NHTSA released an overview of the agency's Driver 
Distraction Program,\300\ which summarized steps that the agency 
intends to take to help in its long-term goal of eliminating a specific 
category of crashes attributable to driver distraction. Phase 1 of the 
NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines was developed for original 
equipment in-vehicle interfaces that allow the driver to perform 
secondary tasks through visual-manual means.\301\ The Guidelines 
specify criteria and a test method for assessing whether a secondary 
task performed using an in-vehicle device may be acceptable in terms of 
the distraction performance metrics while driving. The Guidelines 
identify secondary tasks that interfere excessively with a driver's 
ability to safely control their vehicle and to categorize those tasks 
as ones that are not acceptable for performance by the driver while 
driving. Phases 2 and 3 of the Driver Distraction Guidelines are under 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053-0001.
    \301\ See 78 FR 24818, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053-0135. 
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-09883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DADSS program is a collaborative research partnership between 
industry and NHTSA to assess and develop alcohol-detection technologies 
to prevent vehicles from being operated by drivers with a blood alcohol 
concentration (BAC) that exceeds the legal limit as set by the State. 
Through the DADSS research program, the agency intends to explore the 
feasibility of, the potential benefits of, and the potential challenges 
associated with a more widespread use of in-vehicle technology to 
prevent alcohol-impaired driving.

E. Pedestrian Crash Avoidance Systems

    New vehicle technologies are shifting the automotive safety culture 
from a dual focus of helping drivers avoid crashes and protecting 
vehicle occupants from the inevitable crashes that would occur to a 
triple focused approach with the addition of advanced systems that 
enable protecting pedestrians. Accordingly, the agency intends to 
increase its focus on advanced technologies that aim to protect not 
just vehicle occupants but pedestrians. Two crash avoidance 
technologies that the agency intends to include in this NCAP upgrade 
and rate their system performance in the pedestrian protection rating 
category are discussed below. NHTSA requests comment on these systems, 
and their readiness for inclusion in NCAP.
1. Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB)
    NHTSA is researching systems that will automatically brake for 
pedestrians, in addition to automatically braking for vehicles. PAEB 
would provide automatic braking for vehicles when pedestrians are in 
the forward path of travel and the driver has taken insufficient action 
to avoid an imminent crash. Table 6 shows PAEB systems map to two of 
the 32 crash scenarios.
    PAEB, like CIB, is a vehicle crash avoidance system that uses 
information from forward-looking sensors to automatically apply or 
supplement the brakes in certain driving situations in which the system 
determines a pedestrian is in imminent danger of being hit by the 
vehicle. Many PAEB systems use the same sensors and technologies used 
by CIB and DBS; systems designed to help drivers avoid or mitigate the 
severity of rear-impact crashes with other vehicles. Like AEB 
technology, current PAEB systems typically use vision-cameras as the 
enabling sensor technology, however some systems also use a combination 
of cameras and radar sensors.
    Unlike CIB and DBS, which address rear-impact crash scenarios, many 
pedestrian crashes occur when a pedestrian is crossing the street in 
front of the vehicle. In these pedestrian crash scenarios, there may 
not be enough time to provide the driver with an advanced FCW alert 
before the PAEB system must automatically apply the brakes.
    NHTSA has conducted research in this area and intends to include 
PAEB in this NCAP upgrade. Pedestrians are one of the few groups of 
road users to experience an increase (8%) in fatalities in the United 
States in 2012, totaling 4,818 deaths that year.\302\ Of these deaths, 
3,930 fatalities occurred in frontal crashes (as stated earlier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \302\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2015). 
Traffic Safety Facts--Pedestrians (DOT HS 812 124). Available at 
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812124.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For AEB systems, detecting a pedestrian and preventing an impact is 
more complex than detecting a vehicle. Pedestrians move in all 
directions, change directions quickly, wear a variety of clothing 
materials with colors that may blend into the background, are a wide 
variety of sizes, and may be in an array of positions, from stationary 
to lying on the road. Pedestrians' appearances can appear to be more 
variable than cars to AEB systems. Additionally, the time to collision 
from when a system first detects a pedestrian might be shorter than for 
a car because they are moving at slow speeds, may be crossing the road 
in front of the car, they are much smaller than a vehicle, and they may 
be obscured by cars parked on the side of the road. NHTSA crash data 
indicates pedestrians may be anywhere on the roadway, at all times of 
the day and night, moving in every possible direction; sometimes 
crossing interstate roadways to take short-cuts and at other times 
simply crossing in a crosswalk.
    NHTSA has completed a substantial amount of research into PAEB and 
has collaborated with Volpe, the National Transportation Systems 
Center. NHTSA is currently working on research that could eventually 
support the inclusion of PAEB into NCAP. This effort includes the 
assessment of mannequins (pose-able and/or articulated), PAEB testing 
apparatuses and PAEB test procedures. Volpe is currently working on a 
new safety benefit analysis for PAEB systems that will include new 
estimates for the benefits of PAEB in combination with different safety 
systems.
    A recent analysis of the physical settings for pre-crash scenarios 
and vehicle-pedestrian maneuvers identified trends for these pedestrian 
crashes. Four scenarios were identified as the most commonly occurring 
situations during pedestrian crashes and are

[[Page 78567]]

recommended to maximize the potential safety benefits of PAEB 
systems.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ Barickman and Albrecht, SAE Government Industry Meeting, 
2015, ``Pedestrian Crash Avoidance Research Program Update.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The four scenarios are (S1) vehicle going straight and pedestrian 
crossing the road, (S2) vehicle turning right and pedestrian crossing 
the road, (S3) vehicle turning left and pedestrian crossing the road, 
and (S4) vehicle going straight and pedestrian walking along/against 
traffic. These 4 scenarios addressed 67 percent of the 20 most frequent 
conditions involved with intersections, pedestrian location, 
crosswalks, and road geometry during 2005 to 2009. Of these four 
scenarios, S1 represents 88 percent of the occurrences of the top 20 
pedestrian fatality scenarios. These 4 recommended scenarios 
encompassed 98 percent of all functional years lost and direct economic 
cost of all vehicle-pedestrian crashes in 2005 to 2009.
    S1 is the most frequent pre-crash scenario and therefore has the 
highest values for the functional years lost and direct economic cost 
measures. S2 and S3 address the common turning scenarios observed in 
the crash data. Although S2 and S3 scenarios result in less severe 
injuries, NHTSA believes PAEB systems include these scenarios to 
function effectively. The agency requests comment on current PAEB 
system functionality in turning situations, as well as system 
capabilities in the future. Scenario S4, pedestrian walking along/
against traffic, has the second highest fatality rate, and would 
require PAEB systems to have high-accuracy pedestrian detection at high 
travel speeds to address these scenarios.
    The typical methods for avoiding a crash are to slow down or stop. 
A driver may attempt to steer the vehicle around a pedestrian in some 
cases. However, the pedestrian may also be attempting to flee the line 
of travel of the vehicle, so steering may create a more hazardous 
situation. Braking is the preferred action for avoiding striking a 
pedestrian or reducing the possible injury to the pedestrian. (Steering 
to avoid the pedestrian may cause another type accident or even steer 
toward the moving pedestrian.) Even if the collision is not avoided, 
the vehicle speed may be significantly reduced and the pedestrian's 
injuries may not be as severe as would have occurred without braking, 
particularly with the pedestrian crashworthiness changes to NCAP as 
discussed in section V.C of this RFC notice. NHTSA believes the best 
automatic system characteristic would be to automatically apply the 
brakes in the event of an imminent collision.
    For scenario S1, NHTSA has determined that PAEB systems may be 
effective at reducing 83 percent of the crashes involving walking 
pedestrians that received a MAIS 3+ injury/fatality. NHTSA data from 
2009 suggests these safety benefits would be 317 severe injuries or 
fatalities avoided annually.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ DOT HS 811 998, ``Target Crashes and Safety Benefits 
Estimation Methodology for Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation 
Systems,'' April 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the agency is still refining the pedestrian test 
scenarios. With the help of the industry/government collaborative 
effort known as Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP), NHTSA has 
made significant progress in developing the PAEB performance tests. The 
potential test procedure includes a pedestrian in a straight roadway 
and the subject vehicle moving in a straight path. The potential test 
scenarios captured by this procedure include walking across the road 
(S1), walking along the roadway (S4), two different vehicle speeds 10 
and 25 mph (16 and 40 km/h), three different mannequin speeds 
(stationary, walking, running), two different sized mannequins (child, 
adult), and false activations (e.g., curves, hillcrests, light 
conditions, erratic pedestrian movement).
    NHTSA has used light-weight adult and child pedestrian dummies. 
These dummies are both somewhat realistic looking and have radar 
reflective properties.
    In developing the test procedure, three general apparatus concepts 
were identified for transporting the pedestrian mannequins in a test 
run. These included two overhead, gantry-style designs and one moving 
sled arrangement. Several adaptations of each concept were also 
considered. The overhead suspended truss was selected by CAMP to 
conduct baseline and validation research. NHTSA is using a ground-based 
moving sled arrangement for current PAEB research.
    It should be noted that testing in the PAEB program assumes 
considerable speed reduction (crash mitigation) or in some cases 
complete avoidance maneuver by the production vehicle to accomplish 
pedestrian protection. Some PAEB systems have shown avoidance 
capabilities at the vehicle test speeds that are being considered. The 
intent of the performance tests is to establish realistic scenarios and 
to measure vehicle PAEB performance.
2. Rear Automatic Braking
    NHTSA has funded studies of motor vehicle advanced technologies 
that will help drivers avoid pedestrian impacts. Recently, the agency 
established a FMVSS requiring rearview video systems in passenger 
vehicles, providing a view of a 10-foot wide by 20-foot long area 
behind the vehicle. The agency intends to include rear automatic 
braking systems in this NCAP upgrade, which is separate from and in 
addition to the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear 
visibility,'' for light vehicles manufactured on or after May 1, 2018, 
to provide the driver with a rearview image.
    NHTSA expects rear visibility systems to have a substantial impact 
on the over 200 pedestrians killed each year resulting from backover 
crashes. Rear visibility systems meeting the minimum performance 
standards of FMVSS No. 111 rely on the driver to view the rearview 
image and then act appropriately to avoid a pedestrian crash. The 
agency expects that 58 to 69 lives will be saved by rear visibility 
systems each year when fully implemented. However, rear visibility 
systems will not completely solve the backover crash problem; 141 to 
152 lives are expected to be lost each year in backover crashes, even 
with rear visibility systems on all new light vehicles. As shown in 
Table 6, rear automatic braking could potentially prevent or mitigate a 
crash in 7 of the 32 crash scenarios listed.
    For NCAP purposes, a rear automatic braking system is defined as a 
system that applies the vehicle's brakes, independent of driver action, 
in response to the presence of an object in a specified area behind the 
vehicle during backing. For NCAP, NHTSA's test procedure would assess 
the rear automatic braking systems' ability to detect pedestrians and 
brake the vehicle to a stop to avoid a crash. While avoiding slow 
moving or stationary objects such as poles and parked vehicles may 
provide economic benefits for drivers, NHTSA is focusing on reducing 
fatalities and injuries, and therefore on system performance to avoid 
crashes with pedestrians.
    Information pertaining to the ability of a rear automatic braking 
system to aid in avoiding pedestrian crashes may be difficult for an 
individual consumer to obtain in a uniform way that can be easily 
understood and compared across manufacturers. The NCAP program would 
serve as a trusted source for consumers for pedestrian crash avoidance 
information.

[[Page 78568]]

    Accompanying this RFC notice, the agency is publishing a draft test 
procedure that evaluates rear automatic braking systems. Including this 
assessment in NCAP would encourage manufacturers to add technology that 
would automatically detect and avoid rearward pedestrian crashes. NHTSA 
intends to use the test procedure identified in Appendix VIII and 
contained in the docket to assess the ability of a rear automatic 
braking system to avoid striking pedestrians behind the vehicle by 
using a static surrogate child pedestrian ATD. The posable mannequin is 
tuned for RADAR, infrared, and optical features. NHTSA expects the 
technology (explained in more detail below), now focused on large 
objects approaching a backing vehicle, will evolve to the point where 
it will effectively and reliably detect pedestrians, warn drivers and, 
if appropriate, apply the brakes automatically to stop the vehicle.
    For the 2014 model year, NHTSA is aware of only two vehicle makes 
and models that offered rearward collision avoidance systems, both of 
which were described as not able to detect every object. This advanced 
safety feature was available on both vehicles as options. NHTSA 
purchased two 2014 model year vehicles equipped with rear automatic 
braking systems for testing. One manufacturer's literature explained 
that their ``Automatic Front and Rear Braking'' will apply emergency 
braking automatically in certain driveway, parking lot and heavy 
traffic conditions if it detects a vehicle in front of or behind the 
subject vehicle. Additionally, it was noted that under many conditions 
these systems will not detect children, pedestrians, bicyclists, or 
animals. Similarly, the second vehicle owner's manual explained that 
the radar sensors of their ``Back-up Collision Intervention'' system 
detect approaching (moving) vehicles. Neither owner's manual 
characterized the rearward detection and collision avoidance system as 
being able to detect pedestrians. Both systems were described as 
automatically applying vehicle brakes in certain circumstances.
    The sensor technologies used in automatic braking systems are known 
to have the ability to detect pedestrians, to some extent. Using the 
two 2014 makes and models with rearward collision avoidance systems, 
NHTSA conducted its own experimental testing to determine how well the 
systems respond to pedestrians and other test objects (e.g., cone, 
pole, surrogate vehicle, ride-on toy). In the test, the subject vehicle 
was allowed to coast backward while maintaining centerline alignment 
with a longitudinal line marked on the ground until the rear automatic 
braking feature intervened by automatically engaging the service brakes 
bringing the vehicle to a stop or until the vehicle contacted the test 
object. The initial test results indicate that detection performance is 
not consistent across all test objects. When the NHTSA test report is 
published, a copy will be entered into the docket. The results of this 
experimental testing served as the basis for the draft test procedure 
that is included in Appendix VIII and on which the agency seeks 
comment.
    Similar to the forward AEB systems, the metrics for rear automatic 
braking system tests would be a pass-fail criterion. If all the tests 
are passed, the vehicle would get credit for having the technology. 
This would be calculated in the pedestrian rating calculation. If a 
rear automatic braking technology is offered as an optional safety 
technology, the vehicle model would receive half credit for this 
technology. If a rear automatic braking technology is a standard safety 
technology, the vehicle model would receive full credit for this 
technology.

VI. New Rating System

A. Overall Rating

    NHTSA is planning to change the way NCAP rates vehicles for safety. 
An effective rating system: (a) Provides consumers with easy-to-
understand information about vehicle safety, (b) provides meaningful 
comparative information about the safety of vehicles, and (c) provides 
incentive for the design of safer vehicles. As such, NHTSA believes an 
effective rating program will discriminate truly good performance in 
safety and spur continuous vehicle safety improvement.
    The current NCAP rating system comprises an overall rating score 
(also known as Vehicle Safety Score or Overall Vehicle Score), which is 
computed as the field-weighted scores from the full frontal crash, side 
crash (side MDB and side pole), and rollover resistance tests. It is 
based on a 5-star rating scale that ranges from 1 to 5 stars, with 5 
stars being the highest. The overall rating score does not include 
assessment of existing advanced crash avoidance technologies 
recommended under the NCAP program, which are listed as Recommended 
Technologies on the agency's Safercar.gov Web site.
    This NCAP upgrade described in this RFC notice would provide an 
overall star rating and individual star ratings for crashworthiness, 
crash avoidance, and pedestrian protection categories. Past market 
research conducted by NHTSA reveal that consumers prefer a simplified 
rating and process. Therefore, NHTSA intends to ensure the revised star 
rating and process is simplified and easy to understand.
    While star ratings would be maintained as a range from 1 to 5 
stars, the agency is also planning to use half stars to allow better 
discrimination of safety so that consumers can make informed purchasing 
decisions. The planned approaches for determining the crashworthiness, 
crash avoidance, and pedestrian star ratings are described in the 
following sections.
    NHTSA request comment on the general decision to only provide 
category rather than test-based star ratings, as well as comment on how 
to best combine the individual categories in an easy to understand 
manner. The agency is also interested in any other possible approaches 
not mentioned in this RFC notice.

B. Crashworthiness Rating

    NHTSA intends to provide a single-star rating for the 
crashworthiness performance of new vehicles by evaluating a vehicle's 
performance in four crash test modes (full frontal rigid barrier, 
frontal oblique, side MDB, and side pole). Depending upon the test, one 
to three crash test dummies will be used for assessment. Each dummy has 
numerous body regions for which criteria to assess the risk of injury 
will be evaluated.
    The following describes how NHTSA could use the results from 
various crash test modes in calculating a vehicle's crashworthiness 
star rating. The agency is seeking comment on the following approaches 
and other alternatives.
Assessing Injury Criteria
    The agency is considering the following approaches for assessing 
injury criteria in the dummies used in the crash tests.
     Based on calculated injury risk--Use injury risk functions 
for each body region that has an injury risk function available and 
that is applicable to the dummy involved.
     Based on a fixed range of performance criteria--A set of 
performance criteria can be implemented using injury risk curves, 
existing Federal regulations, other agency data, or a combination 
thereof. One possible implementation of this approach could be similar 
to the Euro NCAP approach, where lower and upper performance targets 
would be set for each body region assessed, and a point system would be 
used for the given occupant. Full points would be awarded

[[Page 78569]]

for achieving the upper target or better, a linearized number of points 
would be awarded for performance between the lower and upper targets, 
and no points would be awarded for the given occupant if the lower 
performance target is not met.
     Based on current fleet performance--Similar to current 
NCAP, injury assessment could be determined based on relative fleet 
performance in NCAP tests. One possible implementation of this approach 
would result in the best-performing vehicle receiving the highest score 
and the worst-performing vehicle receiving the lowest score.
Combining Each Injury Criteria for an Occupant Seating Location Score
    For combining the injury criteria from several body regions into a 
combined injury risk or score for each occupant seating location, the 
following approaches are under consideration:
     Equal weighting for all body regions--Weight all body 
regions equally and calculate a joint probability of injury (or joint 
score) for a given occupant based on all available injury criteria or 
body regions. This essentially reflects the approach currently used in 
NCAP.
     Weighting using field data--Injury criteria for the body 
regions could be weighted based on the incidence, cost, mortality, or 
severity of injury, and then combined into a joint probability (or 
joint score) for that occupant seating position.
     Partial weighting using field data, subject to 
constraints--Injury criteria for body regions that have a low incidence 
of injury for a given occupant seating location would alternatively be 
evaluated using a constraint method with an established threshold. For 
example, for a given occupant, body regions of higher significance 
could be assessed through a joint probability of injury approach, and 
body regions of less significance could be assessed using a constraint 
method whereby a minimum performance must be met. A possible 
implementation of the constraint method could be, for example, if the 
measured risk of injury exceeds a predetermined threshold, the score 
for the given occupant seating location would not be fully awarded. 
Instead, it would be capped at a certain level.
Combining Each Occupant Seating Location Score Into a Test Mode Score 
and Into a Total Crashworthiness Rating
    There are also several approaches to combining the score of each 
occupant seating location into a single combined score for each test 
mode or for the overall crashworthiness rating:
     Equal weighting for all occupants--Each dummy seating 
location would be weighted equally and the injury risks would be 
combined into a single test mode score. This approach could be carried 
out using a combined probability, a sum, or an average. This is 
essentially the approach used currently for the frontal NCAP 
assessment.
     Weighting using field data--The injury risk for each dummy 
location would be weighted based on the incidence, risk, occupancy, or 
other field-relevant data and then combined into a single test mode 
score.
     Partial weighting using field data, subject to 
constraints--Partial weighting using field data can be used for seating 
positions in a given crash mode that exceed a threshold criterion, such 
as percent occupancy or percent of overall fatalities. For those below 
a threshold value, a constraint system can be implemented whereby a 
minimum performance must be met before a given score is awarded in 
either the test mode or the total crashworthiness rating.
    NHTSA seeks comment on these various approaches as well as other 
potential approaches not mentioned in this RFC notice.

C. Crash Avoidance Rating

    As mentioned above, the agency intends to establish a new rating 
system for crash avoidance and advanced technology systems. To continue 
the accepted method of consumer information, a 5-star safety rating is 
preferred. Upon adoption of the planned rating, NHTSA intends to 
discontinue its practice of recommending advanced technologies on 
Safercar.gov. The agency may begin listing technologies that are 
available but that have not achieved the NCAP level of performance in 
the Safety Features box on the second page of each vehicle rating on 
Safercar.gov. All recent vehicle models that have a rearview video 
system are listed in this box, even if they do not achieve all of the 
performance in the NCAP test procedure. Currently, the agency intends 
to include 11 crash avoidance and advanced technology systems as part 
of the new rating system for the NCAP upgrade; 9 technologies in the 
crash avoidance rating described in this section and 2 crash avoidance 
technologies in the pedestrian rating that is described in the next 
section. NHTSA selected these systems for inclusion in NCAP based on 
potential safety benefits.
    The rating methodology for the crash avoidance and advanced 
technology systems under consideration would be based on a point 
system. For each technology, a point value for full or half credit 
would be determined. The maximum point value of all technologies 
earning full credit would equal 100 points. The point value of each 
individual technology, (designated A or B, etc. below) is based on the 
proportion of their individual benefit potential divided by the sum of 
all the benefits estimated for all of the technologies in the crash 
avoidance program projected onto a 100-point scale.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.042

    Each technology then has its own total credit value toward the 
possible 100-point maximum score system. For technologies with pass or 
fail criterion, the credit may be awarded as total credit for pass 
performance or as no credit for fail performance. For example, a 
vehicle having a forward collision warning system might earn a 12-point 
credit toward the 100-point maximum score if it is standard equipment 
on that vehicle with acceptable performance.
    Credit may be adjusted to a lesser value for several reasons. One 
reason would be in order to rate the performance of a particular 
technology into stratified levels of performance. For example, rating 
CIB by the amount of speed reduction can be divided into 5 levels of 
performance. A second example is the rollover rating. The rollover 
rating, currently a 5-star system, is based on the vehicle's static 
stability factor (SSF) and whether it tipped up in a dynamic test. The 
credit for rollover would be adjusted by 1/5th for each star earned 
with SSF. Equation 2 below is an example of how an adjusted credit 
would be calculated for rollover.

[[Page 78570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.043

    A second reason for adjusting the credit would be if the system is 
offered as optional equipment. Differentiation is introduced such that 
the vehicle would receive half credit for a technology that was offered 
as optional equipment with a take rate (i.e., options exercised by the 
consumer) above a pre-determined level and full credit for a technology 
that was standard equipment.
    The overall score is than the sum of all the credits for all 
technologies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.044

    The crash avoidance star rating scale may be a simple conversion of 
1 star for every 20 credit points accumulated. A possible star-rating 
scale would be as follows in Table 11.

                 Table 11--Crash Avoidance Rating Scale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CA point total                          CA rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-19......................................  1 star.
20-39.....................................  2 star.
40-59.....................................  3 star.
60-79.....................................  4 star.
80-100....................................  5 star.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As listed and shown in the table below, the crash avoidance systems 
would be separated into three categories with maximum points awarded to 
each technology:
     Category 1: Forward warning and AEB would include FCW (12 
points), CIB (12 points), and DBS (11 points)--cumulative 35 points 
total.
     Category 2: Visibility would include lower beam 
headlighting (15 points), semi-automatic headlamp beam switching (9 
points), and amber rear turn signal lamps (6 points)--cumulative 30 
points total.
     Category 3: Driver Awareness/Other would include LDW (7 
points), blind spot detection (8 points), and rollover resistance (20 
points)--cumulative 35 points total.

                  Table 12--CA Technology Point Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Crash avoidance technology                   Point value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Forward Warning and AEB                     35 total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCW.......................................  12.
CIB.......................................  12.
DBS.......................................  11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Visibility                            30 total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower beam headlighting...................  15.
Semi-automatic headlamp beam switching....  9.
Amber rear turn signal lamps..............  6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Driver Awareness/Other                      35 total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDW.......................................  7.
Blind Spot Detection......................  8.
Rollover Resistance.......................  20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Pedestrian Protection Rating

    NHTSA intends to rate vehicles for pedestrian protection using 
results from the four crashworthiness pedestrian tests (two headform, 
one upper legform, and one lower legform) and system performance tests 
of two advanced crash avoidance technologies that have the potential to 
avoid or mitigate crashes that involve a pedestrian and improve 
pedestrian safety--PAEB and rear automatic braking. From a consumer 
perspective, the agency believes that it is beneficial to aggregate the 
scores of PAEB and rear automatic braking systems with a vehicle's 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection scores so that a separate, single 
pedestrian protection score could be clearly distinguished from the 
other two ratings (crashworthiness and crash avoidance) for consumers. 
Consumers could then make informed purchasing decisions for their 
families about whether to purchase vehicles that are equipped with 
these pedestrian safety related features and technologies and rated in 
one category--pedestrian protection. Alternatively, the agency 
acknowledges that including these forward and rear automatic braking 
technologies in the crash avoidance rating calculation (instead of in 
the pedestrian protection rating calculation) may be an effective means 
to encourage market penetration of these crash avoidance technologies. 
NHTSA seeks comment on the best approach to assess and rate a vehicle's 
various pedestrian protection performance features.
    For the crashworthiness pedestrian score, NHTSA intends to use the 
same (or similar) scoring system and apportioning that Euro NCAP uses 
in accordance with the Assessment Protocol, ``Pedestrian Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 8.1, June 2015.'' In 
short, the crashworthiness pedestrian safety scoring would be 
apportioned as follows:
     \2/3\ of the score would be based on headform tests.
     \1/6\ of the score would be based on upper legform tests.
     \1/6\ of the score would be based on lower legform tests.
    For the pedestrian crash avoidance score, the vehicle would receive 
credit for being equipped with the technology, provided that vehicle 
satisfies the performance requirements for each test scenario. If a 
PAEB or rear automatic braking system is offered as an optional safety 
technology, the vehicle model would receive half credit for the 
technology. If a PAEB or rear automatic braking system is offered as a 
standard safety technology, the vehicle model would receive full credit 
for the technology.
    The agency requests comments on the approach to aggregate the four 
crashworthiness pedestrian test results with the two pedestrian crash 
avoidance test results into one pedestrian protection rating.

VII. Communications Efforts in Support of NCAP Enhancements

    As NHTSA implements this NCAP upgrade planned for 2018 beginning 
with MY 2019 vehicles, communicating these changes to the public will 
be critical to ensure that consumers understand how the program will 
help them make informed choices about vehicle safety and incentivize 
improvements in vehicle safety. NHTSA's efforts may include executing a 
comprehensive communications plan utilizing outreach strategies to 
inform and equip new vehicle shoppers with the latest vehicle safety 
information. The agency plans to publish a final decision notice in 
2016, which will describe this NCAP upgrade in detail. The agency plans 
to begin its outreach efforts in the three years following that,

[[Page 78571]]

prior to the planned program implementation in 2018. NHTSA is 
considering the following activities to effectively promote awareness 
of the changes in this NCAP upgrade and its new 5-Star Safety Ratings 
system:
     Consumer Information--As the vehicle research and 
purchasing process has largely shifted to online, so has the need to 
better convey vehicle safety information on Safercar.gov. Approaches to 
improving consumer information may include:
    [cir] Enhancing topical areas under the 5-Star Safety Ratings and 
Safety Technologies sections on Safercar.gov--These areas may include 
providing more consumer-friendly information on NCAP's safety testing 
and criteria, results from individual crash test modes, as well as 
emerging vehicle safety technologies that are of significant interest 
to consumers.
    [cir] Restructuring NCAP-related content on Safercar.gov to improve 
organization--Because the Safercar.gov site and its topics have grown, 
there is a need to reevaluate the landing page and reorganize some of 
the content so that consumers can more easily access safety 
information.
    [cir] Improving the search functionality on the Web site--With the 
large amount of information in the NCAP database, more flexible search 
functionality is needed. NHTSA will look into improving the search 
function through the introduction of both advanced search programming 
and the introduction of new search features. Common search feature 
requests to the agency include providing consumers with the option to 
search by crash avoidance technology or by star rating across vehicle 
class.
    [cir] Creating engaging and interactive digital materials--In this 
digital age, consumers are more likely to watch video than read text-
heavy content when learning about vehicle safety. NHTSA will explore 
creating digital materials that utilize videos (live-action, animated, 
or interactive) to educate consumers about the NCAP program.
    [cir] Weaving simple, high-level messages into digital materials--
Communicating this NCAP upgrade using clear, concise and consumer-
friendly language is vital. Also, digital material that will be 
available on Safercar.gov will include consistent messaging.
     Dealer Toolkit--NHTSA intends to create tailored material 
describing important points about this NCAP upgrade to distribute to 
vehicle dealers. This material would help get dealers up-to-speed about 
the program enhancements so that they could communicate the changes to 
prospective vehicle purchasers. The material could include technical 
and tailored language required to effectively describe the new 
enhancements, including but not limited to the following:
    [cir] Need for the new program;
    [cir] Explanation of the key changes from the existing to the new 
program;
    [cir] Benefits of the new program; and
    [cir] List of the most anticipated questions from consumers.
    In addition to material that educates dealers and dealer 
salesforces, NHTSA may also create material for distribution at the 
point of sale. For example, fact sheets or a 1-pager with frequently 
asked questions about NHTSA's new 5-Star Safety Ratings program could 
be on-hand so that prospective vehicle purchasers can learn how the 
program enhancements affect them and why it is important to make safety 
a priority in their vehicle purchases. This point-of-sale material 
could also include consistent branding and direct consumers to 
Safercar.gov where they can learn more about the program enhancements.
     Partner Outreach--Utilizing existing relationships and 
developing new partnerships with the online automotive community to 
better educate consumers and help distribute the messages to a broader 
audience would ensure that consumers are informed about the new program 
improvements. These third-party relationships would expand the agency's 
reach. NHTSA could work with existing third-party organizations and 
recruit additional partners to promote content on Safercar.gov. The 
agency believes that working with its partners will play a key role in 
the success of the launch of this NCAP upgrade. The agency is 
considering the following actions:
    [cir] Develop collateral materials with partners to distribute 
through relevant channels;
    [cir] Provide key messages and talking points about the new program 
enhancements to partners to distribute through their internal and 
external communications channels; and
    [cir] Secure speaking opportunities with NHTSA officials at partner 
events to discuss the new program enhancements.
     Social Media--Messaging on NHTSA's social media platforms 
will also be important to inform consumers about the new program 
enhancements, by maintaining a steady drumbeat of messages. NHTSA would 
monitor its social media channels and respond to online 
``conversations'' in real-time, which would help increase engagement 
surrounding the new program improvements. NHTSA would also identify 
opportunities to re-tweet and re-post online influencers who interact 
with NHTSA's content. This would give users recognition for sharing 
NHTSA's content and also vary posts on the social media channel.
     Press Event--A series of media announcements from the U.S. 
Department of Transportation and NHTSA's officials about the new 
program would be made over the next few years to inform the public 
about this NCAP upgrade.
    Once the agency considers the public comments and makes a final 
decision about what changes will be made to NCAP, it will address as 
appropriate, any applicable vehicle labeling issues relating to the 
Monroney label, commonly known as the vehicle window sticker.

VIII. Conclusion

    Since its inception, NCAP has stimulated the development of safer 
vehicles. The agency recognizes the need to continually encourage 
improvements in the safety of vehicles by expanding the areas vehicle 
manufacturers need to consider in designing their vehicles and by 
making more challenging the tests and criteria on which NCAP star 
ratings are based. Only by doing this will NHTSA, and thereby 
consumers, be able to continue to identify vehicles with truly 
exceptional safety features and performance.
    This RFC notice identifies a number of new areas the agency intends 
to add to NCAP as well as new assessment tools and tests. These include 
(1) adding a new frontal oblique crash test; (2) using a THOR 50th 
percentile male crash test dummy in the frontal oblique and full 
frontal tests; (3) replacing one of the dummies currently used in side 
crash testing with the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy; (4) 
updating the rollover static stability factor risk curve to account for 
newer ESC-equipped vehicles that are less likely to be involved in 
rollover crashes; (5) adding crashworthiness pedestrian testing to 
measure the extent to which vehicles are designed to minimize injuries 
and fatalities to pedestrians struck by vehicles; (6) adding multiple 
new vehicle safety technologies to a group of advanced technologies 
already in NCAP; and (7) creating a new rating system that will account 
for all elements of NCAP--crashworthiness, crash avoidance, and 
pedestrian protection. Each of these areas has been discussed in detail 
above. As indicated earlier, the agency will be conducting additional 
technical work in some of these areas, the results of which will be 
made

[[Page 78572]]

publicly available no later than the agency's release of the final 
decision notice.
    The agency intends to issue a final decision notice regarding the 
new tools and approaches detailed in this RFC notice in 2016. NHTSA 
plans to implement these enhancements in NCAP in 2018, beginning with 
MY 2019 and later vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. 
Interested parties are strongly encouraged to submit thorough and 
detailed comments relating to each of the areas discussed in this RFC 
notice. Comments submitted will help to inform the agency's decisions 
in each of these areas as it continues to advance its NCAP program to 
encourage continuous safety improvements of new vehicles in the United 
States.

IX. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand 
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket 
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if 
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA 
asks that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character 
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy 
certain portions of your submissions.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, 
you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand 
delivery), from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to the docket by one of the methods given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential 
business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

Will the agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of 
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To 
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments received 
after that date.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Accordingly, we recommend that interested people 
periodically check the Docket for new material.
    You may read the comments received at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same 
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by 
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at 
www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

X. Appendices

Appendix I: Frontal Crash Target Population

    Recent NHTSA efforts have resulted in a more refined approach to 
analyzing frontal crash field data, from data sources such as the 
National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-
CDS) and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN), than 
has been used in the past. The refined approach was developed to 
categorize frontal crashes more in terms of expected occupant 
kinematics during the crash event, as occupant motion and restraint 
engagement are more relevant to injury causation than the specifics of 
the vehicle damage (e.g., frontal plane crush). The new approach does 
not facilitate direct comparison with prior frontal crash target 
populations. The refined method is still based on vehicle damage 
characteristics such as Collision Deformation Classification (CDC) and 
vehicle crush measures,\305\ but separates crashes into groups that are 
intended to be more indicative of occupant kinematic response. One 
feature of the new approach is the inclusion of some crashes that would 
previously have been considered side impact crashes due to the vehicle 
damage being on the side plane (based on the CDC area of 
deformation).\306\ Those side impacts result in frontal-like occupant 
kinematics, and are more appropriately grouped into a frontal crash 
target population rather than a side impact target population when 
assessing frontal crash injury causation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \305\ SAE J224 March 1980 Collision Deformation Classification.
    \306\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``NASS 
Analysis in Support of NHTSA's Frontal Small Overlap Program,'' DOT 
HS 811 522, August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASS-CDS data from case years 2000 through 2013 were chosen to 
establish the frontal crash target population. Passenger vehicles 
involved in tow-away non-rollover crashes were eligible for inclusion. 
The CDC of the most significant event was used to initially select 
frontal and frontal-oriented side impact crashes for analysis according 
to the following criteria: \307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ See SAE J224, March 1980, Collision Deformation 
Classification for a guide to the acronyms used here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Specific
  General area of damage (GAD1)       horizontal      Direction of force
                                    location (SHL1)         (DOF1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F...............................  Any...............  Any.
L...............................  F, Y..............  11,12,1 o'clock.
R...............................  F, Y..............  11,12,1 o'clock.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elements of the CDC coding are described in SAE J224. The choice of
  which combinations of codes is determined by NHTSA. See DOT HS 811
  522.


[[Page 78573]]

    The Frontal Impact Taxonomy (FIT) uses the CDC, crush profile, 
principal direction of force (PDOF), and vehicle class-specific 
geometry indicators \308\ to identify and classify frontal crash types 
within the broad set of crashes described above based on the amount of 
overlap and the angle (obliquity) of the impact. This approach was 
developed to more comprehensively identify small overlap crashes, which 
had been identified as a potential area for frontal impact 
crashworthiness enhancements.\309\ Occupant inclusion requirements for 
the frontal target population consisted of belt-restrained occupants, 
who were not completely ejected, and who sustained an AIS 2+ injury or 
were killed. The seat positions and ages considered are summarized 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ These are generic dimensions, by vehicle class, that are 
used as a guide for determining whether the damage is small overlap 
or not. See Bean, J., Kahane, C., Mynatt, M., Rudd, R., Rush, C., & 
Wiacek, C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,'' 
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009 for more detail.
    \309\ Bean, J., Kahane, C., Mynatt, M., Rudd, R., Rush, C., & 
Wiacek, C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,'' 
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Seat row                      Position         Age [years]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................  Outboard only (11,13).          13+
2..................................  All (21, 22, 23)......           8+
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first step in applying the FIT is to identify small overlap 
crashes based on the CDC alone for cases with damage described by GAD1 
of F and SHL1 of L or R.\310\ That subset of small overlap crashes is 
then augmented by the addition of crashes meeting a small overlap 
definition based on class-based vehicle geometry and crush. This crush-
based assessment looks at the damage relative to the longitudinal frame 
rails for cases where the CDC may not indicate a small overlap impact 
based on the damage type coded by SHL1 (e.g., when SHL1 is either Y 
(left+center) or Z (right+center)). The frontal-oriented side plane 
impacts with GAD1 of L or R are examined from a crush perspective 
relative to vehicle class-specific geometry. In other words, when 
certain damage, and impact vector (PDOF) characteristics are met, the 
crash will be considered a small overlap frontal crash by the FIT. 
Frontal crashes not identified as small overlap at this stage are then 
classified based on the crush profile relative to the frame rail 
locations into left partial overlap, right partial overlap, or narrow 
center impacts if crush measures are defined. Remaining frontal crashes 
are considered full overlap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After crashes have been classified based on the extent of overlap, 
they are categorized as either co-linear or oblique based on the coded 
PDOF value. All small overlap crashes, even with 0[deg] PDOF angles, 
are considered oblique to the side of crush based on findings from 
laboratory research.\311\ All full overlap and partial overlap crashes 
with non-zero PDOF angles are considered oblique. Full overlap crashes 
with 0[deg] PDOF angle are considered co-linear. Partial overlap 
crashes with 0[deg] PDOF angle are divided between oblique and co-
linear based on findings of the study reported by Rudd et al. (2011). 
In that study, approximately 20 percent of the 0[deg] partial offset 
cases resulted in oblique occupant kinematics (to the side of 
crush).\312\ Therefore, NASS-CDS case weights are apportioned 20 
percent to oblique and 80 percent to co-linear for partial overlap 
0[deg] crashes. Note that the narrow center-impact partial overlap 
crashes are considered a special category, and will not be further 
broken into oblique or co-linear groups as they are not specifically 
addressed by any of the planned tests. For the purposes of this frontal 
target population, the crashes are further restricted to those with 
PDOF angles between 330[deg] to 0[deg] and 0[deg] to 30[deg]. There are 
no restrictions on the impacted object or on the model year of the case 
vehicle.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ Saunders, J. & Parent, D., ``Repeatability of a Small 
Overlap and an Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure,'' 
SAE World Congress, Paper No. 2013-01-0762, 2013.
    \312\ Rudd, R., Scarboro, M., & Saunders, J., ``Injury Analysis 
of Real-World Small Overlap and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd 
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0384, 2011.
    \313\ NHTSA is currently investigating this topic, and may 
revise its approach to categorizing frontal crashes as either co-
linear or oblique.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data are presented on an occupant basis, so the counts do not 
correspond to the number of vehicles meeting a particular crash 
description. There may be more than one occupant in a given vehicle. A 
tree diagram depicting the breakdown of the relevant frontal crash 
occupants considered in this analysis is provided in Figure I-1. The 
weighted 14-year total count of MAIS 2+ or fatal occupants in each 
level is shown. Data presented in this analysis have not been adjusted 
to account for air bag presence, changes in data collection procedures 
by case year, and to match fatality counts from the Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS). The counts presented are therefore only 
indicative of relative contributions--actual counts may differ.
    Table I-1 shows counts of the occupants further broken down by MAIS 
2+, MAIS 3+, or fatal and by seat row. Note that some fatally-injured 
occupants do not have injury data coded, and are therefore not 
represented in the MAIS 2+ or 3+ columns. This leads to small 
differences in calculated totals from Table I-1 and Figure I-1. Another 
difference between the counts shown in Figure I-1 and Table I-1 is that 
variant impacts, in which the PDOF angle is from the opposite side of 
the partial overlap, are merged into the ``Other'' category due to 
their unique occupant kinematics characteristics. Partial overlap 
crashes where the angle of obliquity is on the same side as the crush 
are considered coincident.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \314\ Halloway, D., Pintar, F., Saunders, J., & Barsan-Anelli, 
A. (2012) ``Classifiers to Augment the CDC System to Distinguish the 
Role of Structure in a Frontal Impact Taxonomy.'' SAE International 
Journal of Passenger Cars--Mechanical Systems, 5(2):778-788.

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

[[Page 78574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.045


    Table I-1--Distribution of Total Weighted Occupants for the Fourteen Year Period by Crash Type (Overlap) and Obliquity for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal
                                                                     Severity Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Front row                                                 Second row
              Overlap              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Obliquity           MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal          MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full..............................  Co-linear...........         147,234          34,351           7,162           2,578             330              98
                                    Left................         124,204          29,343           3,843           2,045           1,173              84
                                    Right...............          89,851          26,986           3,033             936             323              82
Left moderate.....................  Co-linear...........          85,518          17,662           1,432             627             255               0
                                    Left................          47,278          16,352           1,864           3,725             845             426
Right moderate....................  Co-linear...........          39,055          10,067             813             728             141              52
                                    Right...............          43,922           7,998             589           1,096             109               0
Left small........................  Co-linear...........          28,251           9,697             616             831             440               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Left................          51,000          16,038           2,252             630              52               0
Right small.......................  Co-linear...........          29,584           7,798             813              42               4               0
                                    Right...............          26,361           6,609             346           1,004              78               0
Narrow center.....................  All angles..........          64,971          22,302           3,041             907             568             228
Other.............................  *...................          51,574          10,187           1,241             817             250               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ....................         828,803         215,390          27,045          15,966           4,568             970
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes small and moderate overlap crashes with variant obliquity (e.g. left small overlap with right oblique PDOF angle). Source: NASS-CDS (2000-
  2013)

    With left and right partial overlap broken out into co-linear and 
coincident groups, the next step is to look at co-linear versus oblique 
crashes. The counts in Table I-1 are combined into co-linear full 
overlap, oblique, and co-linear moderate overlap groups and annualized 
by dividing by the number of case years (14) included in the analysis. 
It is important to note that Table I-2 does not distinguish between 
left and right oblique crashes--they are pooled together at this stage.

[[Page 78575]]



                           Table I-2--Distribution of Occupants by Crash Obliquity for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal Severity Levels
                                                        [Annualized unadjusted occupants counts]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Front row                                      Second row
                       Crash mode                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal          MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap..................................          10,517           2,454             512             184              24               7
Co-linear moderate overlap..............................           8,898           1,981             160              97              28               4
Oblique.................................................          31,461           8,630             954             736             216              42
Narrow center...........................................           4,641           1,593             217              65              41              16
Other frontal *.........................................           3,684             728              89              58              18               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          59,200          15,385           1,932           1,140             326              69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Other frontal includes variant impacts and crashes that cannot be categorized due to missing data.
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).

    Left oblique and right oblique crashes are similar in that the 
occupants' trajectories are not straight forward relative to the 
vehicle interior, but the side of obliquity results in the near-side 
and far-side occupants experiencing different conditions (a driver 
would be considered a near-side occupant in a left oblique crash while 
the right front passenger would be a far-side occupant). Left oblique 
crashes represent a greater proportion of the oblique crashes, and 
Table I-3 excludes the right oblique crashes (although 80% of the 
0[deg] right moderate overlap crashes have been accounted for in the 
co-linear full overlap category).

              Table I-3--Distribution of Occupants in Left Oblique and Co-Linear Frontal Crashes for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal Severity Levels
                                                        [Annualized unadjusted occupants counts]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Front row                                      Second row
                       Crash mode                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal          MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap..................................          12,747           3,028             558             226              32              10
Co-linear left moderate overlap.........................           6,108           1,262             102              45              18               0
Left oblique............................................          17,910           5,102             613             517             179              36
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          36,765           9,392           1,273             787             229              46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).

    Applying the 80/20 rule previously described for the 0[deg] left 
moderate overlap crashes leads to the counts shown in Table I-4, which 
shows the annualized target population for co-linear and left oblique 
frontal crashes. A graphical depiction of the distribution of MAIS 2+ 
counts is shown in Figure I-2. The counts shown are annualized, 
unadjusted counts, and represent the number of MAIS 2+, 3+, or fatal 
occupants in each crash and obliquity group.

   Table I-4--Distribution of Occupants in Left Oblique and Co-Linear Frontal Crashes for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal Severity Levels After Redefining the
                                            Dataset Using NHTSA's Approach on Categorizing Oblique Crashes *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Front row                                      Second row
                       Crash mode                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal          MAIS 2+         MAIS 3+          Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap..................................          17,634           4,037             640             261              46              10
Left oblique............................................          19,131           5,354             633             525             183              36
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          36,765           9,392           1,273             787             229              46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the co-linear moderate overlap crashes, 20% were assigned to their respective oblique category with the remaining 80% being assigned to the co-
  linear category.
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).


[[Page 78576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.046

    Using the co-linear and left oblique crash groups described above, 
the injuries are examined in further detail by looking at counts of 
occupants sustaining MAIS 3+ injuries by body region. The body regions 
described below are based on the AIS body region identifier (first 
digit of AIS code) with some exceptions. The head includes face 
injuries, brain injuries (except brain stem), and skull fractures. The 
neck region includes soft tissue neck, cervical spine, brain stem, 
internal carotid artery, and vertebral artery injuries. The lower 
extremity is broken into a knee, thigh, hip (KTH) region and a below 
knee region.

     Table I-5--Counts of Occupants Sustaining MAIS 3+ Injuries by Body Region (Annualized Unadjusted Occupants Counts) in Co-Linear Frontal Crashes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Right front      Front row      Second row      Second row      Second row
                       Body region                            Driver         passenger         total           left            right           total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head....................................................             628              50             678               3               7              10
Neck & C-spine..........................................             214              20             234               1               2               3
Chest...................................................           1,629             250           1,879               4              11              15
Abdomen.................................................             325              37             362               3              11              14
Knee/Thigh/Hip..........................................             808             127             935               2               3               5
Below Knee..............................................             642              53             695               0               0               0
T&L-spine...............................................             242              19             261               4               4               8
Upper Extremity.........................................             564             140             704               2               0               2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).


[[Page 78577]]


      Table I-6--Counts of Occupants Sustaining MAIS 3+ Injuries by Body Region (Annualized Unadjusted Occupants Counts) in Oblique Frontal Crashes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Right front      Front row      Second row      Second row      Second row
                       Body region                            Driver         passenger         total           left            right           total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head....................................................             696              76             771              66              14              80
Neck & C-spine..........................................             421              24             445              25              24              49
Chest...................................................           1,430             345           1,775             100              86             186
Abdomen.................................................             499             121             620             132              34             166
Knee/Thigh/Hip..........................................           1,285             133           1,418              30               8              38
Below Knee..............................................           1,012              26           1,038              80               3              83
T&L-spine...............................................              43              46              89              34              26              60
Upper Extremity.........................................           1,145             187           1,332             276              42             318
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).


[[Page 78578]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.047


[[Page 78579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.048


[[Page 78580]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.049


[[Page 78581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.050


[[Page 78582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.051


[[Page 78583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.052


[[Page 78584]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.053


[[Page 78585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.054


[[Page 78586]]

Appendix V: WorldSID-50M and WorldSID-5F NHTSA Test Numbers

                                            Table 1--Test Numbers of NHTSA WorldSID-50M and WorldSID-5F Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Test Nos.
                                              Size               Year                Make                  Model         -------------------------------
                                                                                                                               Pole             MDB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car......................  Compact..............            2010  Suzuki...............  SX4..................            7658            8349
                                                                      2010  Kia..................  Forte................            7657            8348
                                     Mid-Size.............            2011  Hyundai..............  Sonata...............            7653            8351
                                                                      2010  Buick................  LaCrosse.............            7654            8352
                                     Large................            2011  Cadillac.............  CTS..................            7661            8346
SUV/Crossover......................  Compact..............            2011  Hyundai..............  Tucson...............            7659            8347
                                     Mid-Size.............            2011  Acura................  MDX..................            7656            8353
                                                                      2010  Chevy................  Traverse.............            7655      Not tested
                                     Large................            2011  Jeep.................  Grand Cherokee.......            7660            8345
                                                                      2011  Ford.................  Explorer.............            7662            8344
Truck..............................  Mid-Size.............            2010  Ford.................  F150.................            7652            8343
Van................................  .....................            2011  Honda................  Odyssey..............            7663            8350
Other..............................  .....................            2012  Chevy................  Traverse.............      Not tested            8354
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 78587]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.055


[[Page 78588]]



Appendix VII: Pedestrian Data

         Table VII-1--Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities in Single-Vehicle Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable vehicles                Class of vehicle.........          Injuries
                                                 Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered by proposed pedestrian     Passenger cars...........       30,071       48,373        1,781        2,879
 safety regulation.                Minivans.................        3,476                       218
                                   Cross-over vehicles......        3,776                       270
                                   Small SUVs and pickups...       11,050                       610
                                   Large SUVs and vans......        4,960       11,811          308          839
                                   Large pickup trucks......        6,851  ...........          531  ...........
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
Not covered......................  Large trucks or buses....            2,202
                                                     445
                                   Motorcycles..............             641
                                                     29
                                   Unknown vehicle..........            9,149
                                                     626
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                   Totals...................           72,176
                                                    4,818
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Automotive Sampling System--General
  Estimates System (NASS GES).


[[Page 78589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.056


[[Page 78590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.057


[[Page 78591]]

Appendix VIII: Crash Avoidance Test Procedures

    Crash Avoidance test procedures discussed in this Request for 
Comment may be found in the docket identified at the beginning of this 
RFC notice. Duplicate copies of test procedures already incorporated 
into the NCAP program will also reside at the NHTSA Web site via this 
link: www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/NCAP+Test+Procedures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Crash avoidance technology        Test procedure           Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Rear Turn Signal Lamps..  Amber Rear Turn Signal  New, Draft.
                                 Lamps Confirmation
                                 Test for NCAP
                                 (Working Draft),
                                 December 2015.
Blind Spot Detection..........  Blind Spot Detection    New, Draft.
                                 System Confirmation
                                 Test (Working Draft),
                                 December 2015.
Crash Imminent Braking........  Crash Imminent Brake    Existing.
                                 System Performance
                                 Evaluation for NCAP
                                 (Working Draft),
                                 September 2015.
Dynamic Brake Support.........  Dynamic Brake Support   Existing.
                                 System Performance
                                 Evaluation
                                 Confirmation Test,
                                 September 2015.
Forward Collision Warning.....  Forward Collision       Existing.
                                 Warning System
                                 Confirmation Test
                                 (February 2013).
Lane Departure Warning........  Lane Departure Warning  Existing.
                                 System Confirmation
                                 Test and Lane Keeping
                                 Support Performance
                                 Documentation
                                 (February 2013).
Lower Beam Headlighting.......  Lower Beam              New, Draft.
                                 Headlighting
                                 Visibility
                                 Confirmation Test
                                 (December 2015).
Rear automatic braking........  Rear Automatic Braking  New, Draft.
                                 Feature Confirmation
                                 Test Procedure
                                 (December 2015).
Rollover Resistance...........  Laboratory Test         Existing.
                                 Procedure for Dynamic
                                 Rollover, The
                                 Fishhook Maneuver
                                 Test Procedure (March
                                 2013).
                                Laboratory Test         Existing.
                                 Procedure for
                                 Rollover Stability
                                 Measurement for NCAP
                                 Static Stability
                                 Factor (SSF)
                                 Measurement (March
                                 2013).
Semi-automatic Headlamp Beam    Semiautomatic Headlamp  New, Draft.
 Switching.                      Beam Switching Device
                                 Confirmation Test
                                 (Working Draft),
                                 December 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Issued in Washington, DC on December 8, 2015. Under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-31323 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-C