Friday, July 11, 2008

Part II

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program; Notice

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40016 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATES: These changes to the New Car I. Introduction Assessment Program are effective for the The National Highway Traffic Safety National Highway Traffic Safety 2010 model year. Administration (NHTSA) is responsible Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For for reducing deaths, injuries, and [Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555] technical issues concerning the economic losses resulting from motor enhancements to NCAP, contact Mr. vehicle crashes. One way in which Consumer Information; New Car Nathaniel Beuse or Mr. John Hinch. NHTSA accomplishes this mission is by Assessment Program Telephone: (202) 366–9700. Facsimile: providing consumer information to the public. NHTSA established the New Car AGENCY: National Highway Traffic (202) 493–2739. For legal issues, contact Safety Administration (NHTSA), Dorothy Nakama, NHTSA Office of Assessment Program (NCAP) in 1978 in Department of Transportation (DOT). Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366– response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of ACTION: Final decision notice. 2992. Facsimile: (202) 366–3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The 1972. Through NCAP, NHTSA currently SUMMARY: On January 25, 2007, NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety conducts tests and provides frontal and published a notice announcing a public Administration, Attention: NVS–010, side crash, and rollover ratings and hearing and requesting comments on an 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., communicates the results using a five- agency report titled, ‘‘The New Car Washington, DC 20590. star rating system. With this Assessment Program (NCAP) Suggested information, consumers can make SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Approaches for Future Program better-informed decisions about their Enhancements.’’ This notice I. Introduction purchases. In turn, manufacturers summarizes the comments received and II. Summary of Request for Comments respond to the ratings by voluntarily provides the agency’s decision on how A. Frontal NCAP improving the safety of their vehicles it will improve the NCAP ratings B. Side NCAP beyond the minimum Federal safety program. C. Rollover NCAP standards. D. Rear Impact For MY 1979, when the agency began For model year (MY) 2010, the agency E. Crash Avoidance Technologies will make changes to its existing front rating vehicles for frontal impact safety, F. Presentation and Dissemination of fewer than 30 percent of vehicles tested and side crash rating programs. For the NCAP information frontal crash test program, NHTSA will would have received the top ratings of G. Manufacturer Self-Certification 4 or 5 stars for the driver seating maintain the 35 mph (56 kmph) full III. Summary of Comments 1 frontal barrier test protocol but will A. Frontal NCAP position. By comparison, for MY 2007, update the test dummies and associated 1. Impact Protocol 98 percent of vehicles received 4 and 5 injury criteria used to assess and assign 2. Test Dummies (in the Front Seating stars in the frontal NCAP rating for that a vehicle’s frontal impact star rating. For Position) same seating position. Equally impressive is that while it took almost side impact, NHTSA will maintain the 3. Injury Criteria 4. Test Speed 30 years to reach this level for frontal current moving deformable barrier test B. Side NCAP NCAP performance, the more recent at 38.5 mph (63 kmph) but will update 1. Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and NCAP programs, like side and rollover that test to include new side impact test Implementation Time) NCAP, have started reaching this level dummies and new injury criteria that 2. Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, of safety performance at a pace that can are used to assign a vehicle’s side Test Dummies, and Injury Criteria) be measured in years rather than impact star rating. Additionally, C. Rollover NCAP decades. The agency believes that vehicles will also be assessed using a 1. Rollover Risk Model consumers continue to consider safety new pole test and a small female crash 2. Dynamic Rollover Structural Test D. Rear Impact in their purchasing decisions and are test dummy. demanding ever-increasing levels of For rollover, the agency will continue 1. Basic Information 2. Links to the IIHS safety. to rate vehicles for rollover propensity, 3. Dynamic Test Similarly, recent advances in crash but will wait to update its rollover risk E. Crash Avoidance Technologies avoidance technology offer a new model to allow for more real-world 1. Program Implementation opportunity for NCAP to further crash data of vehicles equipped with 2. Selected Technologies enhance its ability to inform consumers electronic stability control. 3. Rating System about new systems and encourage them Also for MY 2010, the agency will F. Presentation of NCAP Information Combined Crashworthiness Rating to purchase systems that NHTSA has implement a new ratings program that found to be effective in improving will rate vehicles on the presence of G. Manufacturer Self-Certification (of NCAP Results) safety. select advanced technologies and On January 25, 2007 NHTSA establish a new overall Vehicle Safety H. Other Suggestions IV. Discussion and Agency Decision published a notice outlining proposed Score that will combine the star ratings A. Frontal NCAP enhancements to the NCAP activities. In from the front, side, and rollover B. Side NCAP this notice, we requested comments on programs. C. Rollover NCAP any additional actions that the agency Finally, for the agency’s vehicle D. Rear Impact could undertake so that the program labeling program, we are announcing E. Crash Avoidance Technologies could continue to provide consumers that the side score, rather than being F. Presentation and Dissemination of with relevant safety information.2 These based only on the moving deformable Safety Information G. Manufacturer Self-Certification enhancements included new test barrier test, will be based on the dummies and injury criteria for frontal combination of the moving deformable H. Other Recommendations I. Monroney Label NCAP, the addition of a new side pole barrier test and the pole test. V. Conclusion test, new test dummies, and new injury Additionally, the agency will initiate Appendix A rulemaking to include the new overall Appendix B 1 NHTSA began using stars in model year 1994. crashworthiness rating on the Monroney Appendix C See 69 FR 61072, Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18765. label. Appendix D 2 72 FR 3473, Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40017

criteria for side NCAP, an overall protocol but would also encourage sponsored field operational tests.5 summary rating, and a new program to manufacturers to provide better head Research by the agency and others has promote advanced crash avoidance and pelvis protection by including the shown that consumers are generally technologies. Additionally, the notice side impact pole test and the new test unaware of these technologies or their announced a March 7, 2007 public dummies recently finalized in Federal potential safety benefits. As a result, the hearing to allow interested parties the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) agency believed that NCAP should be opportunity to address the suggested No. 214 ‘‘Side Impact Protection’’ prior used to better highlight those beneficial approaches for enhancing the program. to the performance requirements being technologies to consumers and sought to Seventy-six (76) individual comments fully phased-in.4 Furthermore, the establish a new ratings program that were received in response to the notice agency proposed research that would evaluated vehicles on the presence of and the public hearing.3 Commenters focus on the assessment of the injury proven crash avoidance technologies. offered mixed responses to the various mechanisms in a fully equipped side Based on technical maturity, fleet proposals for enhancing NCAP; impact air bag fleet. The purpose of the availability, and available effectiveness however, most commenters commended research would be to evaluate how data, NHTSA identified three the agency’s initiative to reexamine the serious injuries occur in the new fleet technologies that fit these criteria. These program and supported the proposed and to develop test procedures to reflect technologies are ESC, LDW, and FCW. approaches. This notice summarizes these impact conditions. The outcome NHTSA proposed two possible comments to the January 2007 notice, of this research could lead to a new approaches and illustrated a possible the March 2007 public hearing, and barrier test protocol (which could implementation of the program with an provides the agency’s decision on how include increased test speed and A, B, C letter grade system. First, the it will proceed with changes to NCAP. different barrier characteristics). agency proposed that each of the technologies would have equal weight. I. Summary of Request for Comments C. Rollover NCAP For example, if a vehicle had only one In its notice, the agency presented To enhance its rollover program, the technology, it would receive a C; proposals to improve not only the agency indicated that it would continue whereas, another vehicle that had all program’s current front, side and tracking the rollover rate and the single three technologies would receive an A. rollover activities, but also approaches vehicle crash rate of vehicles equipped Approach two would attempt to to improve its information with regards with ESC to create a new rollover risk quantify a technology’s real-world to rear impact, and certain crash model. benefits by taking into account the target avoidance (or active safety) technologies population and anticipated effectiveness such as Electronic Stability Control D. Rear Impact of the technology to decide whether a (ESC). NHTSA also outlined alternatives Currently, NHTSA does not provide particular type of technology would be given more weighting than another and to enhance the presentation and consumer information on rear impacts. thus prompt a higher score. For dissemination of safety information to However, NHTSA is aware of recent example, in this scheme, if ESC was consumers, and solicited feedback for research suggesting that consumers are found to be more effective than lane additional considerations that would concerned about rear crashes. As such, departure, a vehicle equipped only with allow NCAP to remain effective and the agency proposed two approaches. ESC could receive a B versus a vehicle relevant in improving vehicle safety. First, NHTSA proposed that it could equipped only with lane departure provide consumers with basic A. Frontal NCAP warning which would receive a C rating. information on rear crashes such as safe NHTSA proposed three approaches to It was further stated that this second driving behavior, proper adjustment of enhance the frontal NCAP. The first approach could be expanded into a head restraints, real-world safety data by approach was to maintain the current more comprehensive performance-based vehicle classes, and links to the 35 mph (56 kmph) test protocol with a crash avoidance rating. As the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy, technologies evolved and as the agency (IIHS) rear impact test results. Second, but to account for injuries to the knee/ gathered more information related to as a longer term approach, the agency thigh/hip (KTH) complex. This would various versions of these technologies proposed that a dynamic test, which be accomplished by including a new and their associated safety effectiveness, addresses those injuries not covered by injury criterion into the formula used to NHTSA proposed that a safety score the agency’s current standards, could be calculate the frontal NCAP rating for the (i.e., star rating) on individual investigated and incorporated into the driver and front passenger seating technologies could then be developed ratings program. positions. Second, while keeping the (e.g., different version of ESC might test protocol the same, the agency E. Crash Avoidance Technologies yield different performance results and considered determining whether injury thus a different star rating). Technologies such as ESC, forward measures obtained below the knee using collision warning (FCW), lane departure F. Presentation and Dissemination of the Denton or Thor-Lx dummy legs are warning (LDW) and crash mitigation NCAP Information predictive of real-world injuries. Last, systems have been developed and are the agency considered evaluating Combined Crashworthiness Rating being offered in the current vehicle vehicles based on a lower test speed. Several NHTSA-sponsored research fleet. Some of these technologies have reports and consumer surveys, as well B. Side NCAP shown effectiveness in reducing the as a Government Accountability Office number of relevant crashes in To enhance its side impact safety and a National Academy of Sciences Department of Transportation (DOT)- ratings, the agency presented two review of NCAP, have all pointed to the approaches for consideration. NHTSA public’s desire for a summary safety proposed continuing to rate vehicles 4 73 FR 32473, Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0104. rating. Similarly, other consumer On June 9, 2008 the agency responded to petitions using the moving deformable barrier test for reconsideration of the final rule, changing the information programs around the world effective date of the pole test. Now, with certain 3 This count does not include duplicative or exceptions, all vehicles have to meet the upgraded 5 See 72 FR 3475, Docket No. NHTSA–2006– multiple comments from the same source. pole test by September 1, 2014. 26555.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40018 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

such as the IIHS, Japan NCAP, and be allowed to conduct and publish their narrow-object NCAP test could have an EuroNCAP use summary ratings that own NCAP ratings via a self- important impact on real-world vehicle combine their respective certification process. We indicated that crashworthiness, and would give crashworthiness tests. The agency such an approach would be one way to consumers a wide range of results to proposed two summary crashworthiness improve not only the timeliness of inform their purchasing decisions. rating concepts. In both concepts, the NCAP ratings but also to increase the Subaru suggested that NHTSA should existing rollover rating was not included number of vehicles rated by the agency. study and possibly propose a frontal in the calculation of the overall pole test for inclusion into NCAP if the summary rating, and star rating III. Summary of Comments frequency of frontal crashes with narrow boundaries would have to be developed This section provides a brief summary objects is high. However, General for both individual crash tests and the of the seventy-six (76) comments Motors North America (GM) asserted overall summary rating. submitted to the docket by vehicle that a pole test is unlikely to result in The first approach computed the manufacturers, safety advocates, public significant change or further overall crashworthiness rating by first health groups and the general public in improvement in structural stability and averaging the driver and right front response to the notice and the public resultant injury reduction. They stated passenger dummy injury results from hearing.6 It should be noted that that research in this area may yield only the frontal crash mode into a single star comments unique to the public hearing limited or incremental gains in injury rating. The same would be done for the are stated as such. mitigation, and that the public interest seating positions in the side crash mode is likely to be better served by to compute the overall side crash rating. A. Frontal NCAP channeling resources into areas that To compute the overall crashworthiness Comments regarding NHTSA’s frontal could produce greater societal benefit. rating, the overall frontal and the overall program are grouped into four 2. Test Dummies (in the Front Seating side impact performance would be categories: Impact Protocol, Test Position) combined by using weighting factors Dummies (in the Front Seating obtained from real-world data (i.e. the Position), Injury Criteria and Test With regard to test dummies, the National Automotive Sampling System Speed. Alliance stated that test dummies in (NASS)). Each individual total (overall frontal NCAP should be the same as front and overall side) would be 1. Impact Protocol those in FMVSS No. 208. Additionally, weighted by that crash mode’s The Alliance of Automobile GM, AORC, Consumers Union and the contribution to the total injuries Manufacturers (Alliance), Automotive Alliance supported the use of the 5th occurring in the real-world. Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), percentile female Hybrid III dummy in The second approach computed the Toyota Motor North America, Inc. the right front passenger position. GM overall crashworthiness rating by (Toyota), BMW of North America provided NASS data which suggested normalizing the seating positions for (BMW), Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc. that small females were over- each individual crash mode (front and (Subaru) and Volkswagen of America, represented (with regard to serious side) using the Injury Assessment Inc. (VW) supported the retention of the injuries) in the right front passenger Reference Values (IARVs) established current frontal crash test protocol at 35 seating position. GM also suggested that for that dummy, body region, and crash mph (56 kmph). Consumers Union and in the future, the 5th percentile female mode. Using the NASS data, these Public Citizen suggested adding an dummy should be used in both seating normalized values would then be offset frontal crash test rating, which positions to optimize safety. AORC multiplied by the occurrence of that Public Citizen believed would be far asserted that the substitution of the 5th injury in the real-world. Body injury more useful in assessing the structural female for the 50th percentile male regions that are coded by NASS but are integrity of different vehicle models. would demonstrate a broader not measured by the dummy and/or not Likewise, Toyota also encouraged population range of protection since selected by NHTSA for inclusion in the NHTSA to investigate ways to include some data has been shown which rating would be equally distributed information on offset collision suggests that the weighted frequency of among the remaining body regions. conditions in its NCAP program. Toyota serious and fatal injuries to women is greater than to men in the right front Presentation of Safety Information explained that their investigation of National Automotive Sampling System passenger seating position. As the consumer’s use of the Internet Crashworthiness Data System (NASS– Furthermore, Consumers Union for vehicle safety information has CDS) data showed that an asserted that the agency should grown, so has the need to consolidate overwhelming majority of frontal investigate using the 5th percentile and better present NCAP vehicle safety crashes occur in either the full overlap female and 95th percentile male information to consumers on http:// or offset condition. They believed that dummies to evaluate NCAP tests for all www.safercar.gov. The four approaches vehicle performance assessed in the sizes of vehicle occupants. Subaru proposed by the agency were: (1) offset condition should yield relevant supported the continued use of 50th Developing other topical areas under the improvements in safety technology and percentile adult male dummies in both Equipment and Safety section of the provide considerable benefit. front seating positions indicating that Web site; (2) redesigning the Web site to IIHS and Subaru recommended the this was more representative of real- improve organization; (3) improving addition of a frontal pole test to address world occupants. Subaru also asserted search capabilities on the Web site; and, significant injuries resulting from that additional tests with other (4) combining agency recall and ratings impacts with narrow objects. IIHS dummies, such as the 5th percentile database information. asserted that offset tests more closely adult female, should be done only if well supported by real-world data. G. Manufacturer Self-Certification simulate impacts with narrow objects than do full-width tests, and that a In addition to NHTSA’s proposed 3. Injury Criteria suggestions in the notice the agency also 6 These submissions are available at http:// Most vehicle manufacturers agreed sought comment at the public hearing www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA–2006– that NHTSA should develop and on whether or not manufacturers should 26555. incorporate a KTH injury criterion into

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40019

the NCAP frontal rating. They noted that in FMVSS No. 208. Furthermore, VW At the public hearing, Consumers a KTH assessment would drive vehicle believed that these test devices must be Federation of America (CFA) and the countermeasures that could mitigate validated, and the applicable injury Center for Auto Safety (CAS) suggested lower leg injuries and also yield criteria and rating must be verified for that NHTSA increase test speeds and important information relevant to correlation with real-world safety. challenge manufacturers to post the vehicle design. Likewise, adding KTH Some commenters suggested that all highest speed at which their vehicles and/or lower leg injury criteria to the injury criteria incorporated in FMVSS are tested, in order to differentiate NCAP rating protocol could expand the No. 208 (beyond head injury criteria and amongst the performance of vehicles. usefulness of the NCAP system by chest acceleration criteria) should also However, the Alliance, Consumers addressing the societal cost of be included in frontal NCAP. Union, AIAM and Subaru opposed a Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ Specifically, Honda, Ford, GM, the higher speed test for frontal NCAP. The injuries. The Alliance, Autoliv, Alliance, and Autoliv supported the Alliance stated that field data did not Consumers Union and IIHS also inclusion of a chest deflection criterion show the need for higher test speeds. supported NHTSA’s efforts to into the frontal NCAP rating based on AIAM and Consumers Union did not incorporate a KTH injury criterion into NASS–CDS data indicating a substantial believe that increasing crash test speeds the frontal program. However, IIHS number of injuries to ribs and internal would benefit the overall safety of urged the agency to concentrate its organs resulting in AIS 3+ or higher occupants; but rather, it could cause research tests on serious injuries and severity injuries. However, Honda stated vehicles to become stiffer. Subaru fatalities in frontal impacts to encourage that the current chest deflection asserted that a higher speed test is not more protective vehicle design. calibration procedure may not be representative of the vast majority of Additionally, Autoliv stated that appropriate to assure that chest fatal crashes, does not enhance NCAP’s although a reduction in KTH injuries deflection measurements are accurate consumer information goals, and risks would have a significant impact on enough to provide useful data. GM and increasing vehicle aggressiveness. societal cost, they believed that it would the Alliance recommended including a have little effect in reducing fatalities. chest compression criterion into frontal B. Side NCAP Nissan North America (Nissan) stated NCAP. The Alliance urged NHTSA to Comments regarding NHTSA’s side that the agency should consider a KTH conduct research on neck (tension) program are divided into the following assessment only after further study is injury criteria before including it into categories: Oblique Pole Test (Test conducted. Instead, Nissan urged frontal NCAP. However, GM suggested Dummies and Implementation Time), NHTSA to harmonize knee and thigh that the agency add neck injury criteria Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, injury values with those required in to frontal NCAP since these criteria are Test Dummies, and Injury Criteria), and Japanese and European regulations. already measured by the Hybrid III Side NCAP Research. Likewise, the Association of dummies and included in FMVSS No. International Automobile Manufacturers 208. 1. Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and (AIAM) did not believe that the agency Implementation Time) 4. Test Speed should move expeditiously to include a GM, Subaru, Toyota, the Alliance, and KTH criterion in the current frontal With regards to adopting a lower test Autoliv agreed with the agency’s NCAP program since the agency had speed, the Alliance, GM and Volvo proposal to incorporate an oblique pole identified crashes of lower test speed as agreed with NHTSA’s analysis and test into NCAP. However, with regards the primary concern regarding leg supported the agency’s proposal to to adopting the oblique pole test prior injuries. They recommended that conduct more research on lower test to the completion of the FMVSS No. 214 NHTSA present the analysis and results speeds. However, VW questioned pole test phase-in, BMW, Ford, Toyota, of their KTH research for public whether lower speed crashes and the Alliance, asserted that such comment prior to including a KTH represented a greater risk of occupant action would be premature, and these criterion in the frontal program. injury than the current NCAP test commenters suggested that NHTSA For lower leg assessments, several procedure. Therefore, VW as well as the adopt the test after the oblique pole test commenters suggested that additional Alliance believed that an additional test had been fully phased-in. Furthermore, research was needed to determine in frontal NCAP would add significant Subaru suggested that 3 years be whether injury measures obtained expense and strain on available allowed after the agency announced a below the knee were predictive of real- resources without any commensurate new test before rating vehicles under the world injury. GM noted that adding a advantages or benefit. new test protocol. femur load injury criterion to frontal Subaru asserted that they did not Toyota explained that they NCAP would drive many of the same support adding low speed bumper tests understood NHTSA’s intention to use vehicle countermeasures that would to frontal NCAP since those tests would an early introduction of the pole test to mitigate lower leg injuries. overlap with existing IIHS tests. drive the installation of advanced head With regards to what Two individual commenters, Mr. protection systems (like curtain airbags), anthropomorphic test device (ATD) Dainius Dalmotas and Dr. Harold Mertz but they believed that significant could be used for these new criteria stated that a full vehicle crash test benefits in head protection were already (KTH and lower leg), Honda specifically designed to promote enhanced chest being realized from the introduction of stated that a KTH assessment would be protection in low-to-moderate speed curtain air bags, which was driven by possible using the Denton dummy leg. frontal crashes would be most industry’s commitment to the industry For injuries to the lower leg (below the promising since the vast majority of voluntary compatibility requirements.7 knee), Honda, Subaru, Nissan, and serious and fatal injuries among belted Volvo Cars of North America, LLC drivers occur at collision speeds of 25 7 IIHS and the Alliance created a voluntary (Volvo), suggested that the agency adopt mph (40 kmph) or less. They also agreement wherein automotive manufacturers the Thor-Lx legs in the future. The asserted that incentives to promote agreed to improve occupant protection in front and side crashes involving cars and light trucks. For Alliance did not support the improved safety in low-to-moderate front-to-side impacts, most automakers agreed to introduction of either the Denton or speed frontal impacts were lacking and design their vehicles to meet the head injury Thor-Lx legs unless they were included could be addressed through NCAP. Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40020 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

Therefore, Toyota recommended additional side impact protection. frequently injured occupant type at the additional investigation into whether Nissan also believed that incorporating driver position is an adult male. there are merits of an early introduction the pole test into NCAP is unnecessary Autoliv asserted that the ES–2re of an oblique pole test into NCAP. to encourage head protection in new dummy should be used for the front Honda recommended adding to the vehicles. seating position in both the oblique pole existing side impact test by introducing IIHS stated that the current NCAP and MDB tests, as this dummy a second side impact test that is similar barrier test did not fully address the mix represents the largest percentage of front to the current IIHS moving deformable of vehicles on the road and that the seat occupants. They also recommended barrier (MDB) test.8 Honda suggested agency needed to improve the existing the SID–IIs dummy for the rear seating that this would extend the coverage of side impact barrier. IIHS suggested position to provide information on NHTSA’s side impact testing, be more giving greater priority to adopting or protection for older children and small representative of real-world crashes, and modifying the IIHS side impact barrier adults seated in the rear. GM also help to provide a more realistic rather than incorporating a new oblique recommended the SID–IIs dummy for assessment of a vehicle’s pole test. However, GM asserted that the the rear seating position because more crashworthiness in these types of two- pole test is structurally more frail persons tend to sit in the rear, the vehicle collisions. challenging than the IIHS MDB test, and SID–IIs dummy is tuned for frail If the agency went forward with an that the IIHS MDB test and the pole test occupants, and placement in the rear oblique pole test, Subaru recommended will not necessarily drive installation of will import safety improvements across a side impact assessment based on two the same air bag solutions. the range of occupants. tests (the oblique pole test and IIHS’s 2. Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, 3. Side NCAP Research MDB test) with head injury criteria and Test Dummies, and Injury Criteria) the SID–IIs dummy, as long as the As a longer term approach, the agency results could be combined into a single NHTSA proposed a new side NCAP suggested research into the moving rating. BMW and the Alliance suggested barrier test protocol that would include barrier test protocol to address injuries that the 5th percentile female SID–IIs new dummies and additional injury and fatalities that might occur in dummy be used for the driver position criteria. The Alliance supported the vehicles equipped with curtain and side in the oblique pole test. BMW asserted maintenance of the current barrier test impact air bags. The agency indicated that the smaller SID–IIs dummy is most but they suggested a revised, lower test this research could lead to a new appropriate for determining the speed of 33.5 mph (54 kmph). barrier, an increased barrier test speed, geometric coverage area required for a With regards to the incorporation of and a reevaluation of the impact curtain airbag. The Alliance believed new dummies into the side MDB test, configuration. that it is appropriate to test only with the Alliance, Subaru, Honda, Nissan, The Alliance, AIAM, Honda and the 5th percentile female dummy in the Volvo, and AIAM proposed the Subaru agreed that NHTSA should front seating position because this is a incorporation of WorldSID into NCAP. analyze real-world side impact crashes very severe test condition, and it would Specifically, Volvo and the Alliance for vehicles with side curtain airbags. serve to meet the intent of NCAP while suggested that the WorldSID dummy However, the Alliance recommended minimizing additional test burdens on should be introduced in FMVSS No. 214 that the agency and automotive industry NHTSA and the automotive industry. and NCAP simultaneously. Honda should develop more experience with Honda, Nissan and VW did not stated that the WorldSID dummy the new pole test and test dummies support the inclusion of an oblique pole provides excellent biofidelity, and does before considering any increase in test test into side NCAP. Honda believed not present problems with rib guide speeds. In addition, the Alliance that introducing an oblique pole test shape that the ES–2re dummy appears asserted that future research should would be a temporary measure until the to have based on their evaluation. AORC evaluate whether it would be beneficial test was fully phased-in as a believed that the current test dummy for NCAP to harmonize with the requirement for FMVSS No. 214. To does not adequately address head existing IIHS barrier. comply with the requirements of injuries, and they encouraged NHTSA to Toyota supported additional research FMVSS No. 214, the head protection use either EuroSID–2 and/or the SID–IIs efforts to gain a better understanding of benefits of the oblique pole test would side impact dummy. the potential for and the necessity of already have been realized in every Volvo recommended that the changes to the test device and vehicle, so there would be little dummies and injury criteria for the configuration for vehicles equipped practical benefit to consumers as a NCAP side barrier test procedures be the with side airbags. Furthermore, Toyota result of temporarily including such a same as they are for FMVSS No. 214. stated that questions remain relating to test in NCAP. VW and Nissan, similar Volvo supported the addition of head barrier characteristics, injury criteria to Toyota, stated that automobile injury criteria in the NCAP evaluation and appropriate ATDs that should be manufacturers were already committed for the side barrier; however, they researched from relevant field data.9 to front-to-side impact protection, and would prefer that the NCAP criteria Autoliv recommended that NHTSA that the addition of a side impact pole limits are set more stringent in order to research increasing the test speed and test would provide no added incentive encourage manufacturers to exceed the develop a single test that would assess for the manufacturers to implement performance standards outlined in the both the head and thorax injury legal requirement. BMW recommended protection systems installed in newer performance requirements of NHTSA’s FMVSS No. that NHTSA use the ES–2re dummy for vehicles. Autoliv also suggested that the 201 side-pole test or the IIHS moving deformable the driver position in the MDB test adoption of the WorldSID dummy barrier test. By September 1, 2007, at least half of would be suitable if incorporated into all new passenger vehicles would meet one of the because the SID–IIs dummy is already two requirements, and by September 1, 2009 model included in the MDB test conducted by Part 572 and FMVSS No. 214. year, all new passenger vehicles would meet the IIHS, and the biofidelity of the SID–IIs head injury requirements of the Institute’s moving dummy in these types of impacts is well 9 In particular, Toyota recommended continued deformable barrier test. understood. GM also suggested the ES– investigation into previously identified concerns 8 This test would represent an SUV to subject with the performance of the SID–IIs upper arm, vehicle crash (IIHS Side Impact Crash Evaluation 2re dummy for the driver position since which they believed was not biofidelic and affected test procedure—SICE). the most frequent occupant, and most the thoracic rib response.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40021

Additionally, Delphi opposed releasing (ARCCA) urged the agency to consider consumer education that included a new regulation under FMVSS No. 214 a dynamic test to assess body structure, material such as safety tips and safe and then promoting a different set of seat belt design (including pretension), driving practices. barrier protocols, dummy types and side curtain airbags, roof strength, door injury metrics for side NCAP evaluation locks and retention, and the retention of 2. Links to the IIHS since that decision could cause window glazing. In particular, Public The IIHS endorsed the agency’s misdirection for original equipment Citizen believed that a rollover NCAP proposal and offered their head restraint manufacturers and suppliers. rating should be based on a vehicle’s evaluation information for posting on ability to resist rollover and to protect C. Rollover NCAP occupants in a rollover crash. They the agency’s Web site. Toyota believes Comments regarding NHTSA’s suggested a rating that included ejection that the IIHS results are only one way rollover program are grouped into the as a consideration since this would to assess rear impact performance, and following categories: Rollover Risk provide valuable information about a thus the agency should be cautious and Model and Dynamic Rollover Structural vehicle’s ability to prevent death or thorough when determining what rear Test. serious injury in a rollover crash. impact evaluation should be part of a future NCAP evaluation. They also 1. Rollover Risk Model Additionally, the rating should measure rollover propensity, as well as stated that ample consideration should Most commenters supported the crashworthiness measures of be given to passive and active head development of a new rollover risk performance in a rollover crash. restraint concepts in order to maintain model. Several commenters agreed that The Center for Injury Research (CIR) benefits from all design types. real-world crash data was necessary to recommended that an NCAP rollover The Alliance felt that NHTSA’s develop an effective rollover risk model. test be dynamic and somewhat more proposal did not seem consistent with Specifically, the Alliance, AIAM, the severe than a dynamic compliance the principle of the Federal government National Automobile Dealers standard. According to CIR, a dynamic independently generating all NCAP Association (NADA), and VW each test for use as both a safety compliance commented that NHTSA should collect standard and as an NCAP test can and data. Rather, they advocated that the new crash data for rollover NCAP. In should be developed simultaneously agency should investigate further the particular, the Alliance and Ford with action on the roof crush standard. injury mechanism of whiplash and then recommended that the agency collect Moreover, CFA and CAS recommended choose which responses to evaluate crash data on both ESC and non-ESC adding a rollover test with comparative based on biomechanics. Similarly, GM equipped vehicles to develop a new roof crush tests, while IIHS suggested discouraged NHTSA from implementing rollover risk model that better describes that NHTSA should conduct additional this option. According to GM, links to rollover risk for all vehicles, but also research on roof crush. Bidez and the IIHS Web site might imply that accurately reflects the differences Associates stated that a meaningful NHTSA has given full endorsement of between ESC and non-ESC vehicles. rollover crashworthiness test must IIHS methodology and interpretations, Toyota believed that the update to include roof deformation, seat belt and some consumers may even rollover NCAP should reflect real-world performance, door opening, and conclude that IIHS is a government benefits of ESC on rollover risk, and that window breakage. They emphasized agency. the rollover rating should be combined that protection should be assessed for (with advanced technologies) into an front and rear passengers, adults and 3. Dynamic Test overall crash avoidance rating. AIAM children, and that the Jordan Rollover The Alliance believed that NHTSA suggested that NHTSA consider System (JRS) holds great promise. should first evaluate potential adjusting a vehicle’s rollover risk rating Conversely, the Alliance, Ford and effectiveness and safety benefits prior to to reflect the safety benefits of ESC or Nissan opposed the use of JRS in NCAP. incorporating a rear crash rating into adopt some other means of The Alliance commented, and Ford and NCAP. Consumers Union stated that communicating those benefits to Nissan stated at the public meeting that rear impact whiplash injuries are consumers. there has been no JRS tests conducted debilitating to those involved and cause Recognizing that since such a data with an instrumented dummy and a large cost to society. Consumers Union collection and analysis cannot be therefore, the JRS test results cannot be completed in the near term, Ford, the related scientifically to the real-world recommended that NHTSA look at Alliance and Volvo suggested that in the risk of injury in a rollover crash. IIHS’s work on rear impact testing to near term, an additional rollover NCAP determine whether developing NCAP star should be awarded to those vehicles D. Rear Impact ratings for rear impact results would be equipped with an ESC system to Comments regarding NHTSA’s rear cost effective. Public Citizen suggested recognize the benefits of ESC. impact NCAP activity are divided into that the agency develop a rear-impact Specifically, the Alliance recommended the following categories: Basic crash NCAP rating, especially at speeds that NHTSA provide additional Information, Links to the IIHS, and of 35 to 40 mph (56 to 64 kmph) to information in the form of a footnote on Dynamic Test. improve rear-impact occupant the agency’s Web site and in the Safer 1. Basic Information protection and seat back strength. Car brochure that explains the benefits Furthermore, ARCCA stated that rear of ESC and why these benefits warrant Commenters presented similar views impact testing for fuel integrity should an additional star. on how NHTSA should provide be utilized, and that this type of testing consumers with basic information 2. Dynamic Rollover Structural Test would enable the agency to assess concerning rear impact crashes in an occupant kinematics and interactions in Some commenters encouraged NCAP publication. GM, Toyota, Subaru rear impacts. NHTSA to develop a test for structural and VW supported the inclusion of integrity to enhance rollover NCAP. information on the proper adjustment Nissan recommended that NHTSA Specifically, Consumers Union, Public and utilization of head restraint harmonize with the global technical Citizen and ARCCA Incorporated systems. Additionally, GM supported regulation (GTR) dynamic test

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40022 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

procedure.10 GM stated that the each function of a particular system has potential benefits could be assessed, and development of a dynamic test by from the driver’s point of view, and they could be included in the initial NHTSA should be considered only after include a clear explanation of the implementation of a crash avoidance recent revisions to FMVSS No. 202 are actions the system can take to enhance NCAP. GM felt that limiting crash assessed. According to GM, if the safety. Honda, along with Delphi, avoidance technologies to the three regulatory changes are shown to be suggested the development of identified by the agency would effective in mitigating injury, a rear assessment-weighting coefficients unnecessarily limit the potential safety impact NCAP could be better directed derived from a system’s expected benefits to consumers. toward areas not fully addressed by the benefits and the frequency of the crash current regulation. Similarly, while type (using appropriate U.S. databases) 3. Rating System Subaru did not support new that the system is supposed to address. a. Cumulative Rating (NHTSA’s requirements for FMVSS No. 202a in the BMW suggested a program that would Approach 1) accomplish the agency’s goals without short term, they asserted that NHTSA There was little support for NHTSA’s over-promising consumers on expected needs to educate consumers on the proposed Approach 1. In the short term, performance and avoid crediting proper use and adjustment of head only Nissan supported a simple systems prematurely. They suggested a restraints. However, Subaru believed cumulative rating whereby each priority that in the long term, NHTSA should program that would differentiate technology would be weighted the focus on the study of whiplash-type technologies with real-world same. Both the Alliance and GM were injury mechanisms and applicable effectiveness from those whose opposed to this approach. GM believed countermeasures. effectiveness numbers were generated by some other means. They also that a cumulative rating would not E. Crash Avoidance Technologies suggested that NHTSA and discriminate among the three Comments regarding NCAP manufacturers collaborate on ways to technologies, and they would prefer that information on crash avoidance educate consumers on emerging NHTSA weight appropriately safety- technologies are grouped into three technologies with promising capabilities enhancing features based on their categories: Program Implementation, and proven benefits. relative benefits. The Alliance stated Selected Technologies, and Rating Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes) that the effectiveness of the selected System. recommended that NHTSA work with technologies was not equal, and the automotive industry before providing equal weighting would 1. Program Implementation developing crash avoidance ratings. To significantly mislead the consumer as to Most commenters encouraged NHTSA develop future ratings they, along with their relative safety benefits. to implement a new component into Continental Automotive Systems, Rather than a star rating or the use of NCAP to rate vehicles on the presence supported the idea of creating an a cumulative rating, BMW suggested a of crash avoidance technologies. They advisory panel that represents the ‘‘thumbs up’’ rating system to assist agreed that such a program would help viewpoints of all manufacturers consumers in quickly and intuitively educate consumers about these competing in the U.S. market. distinguishing among technologies on technologies and encourage Nissan agreed with the agency’s the basis of maturity. BMW believed manufacturers to include them in more desire to implement this new program. that this approach would deliver to vehicles. According to Ford, the first They also stated that the agency should consumers two levels of information: step would be to identify promising identify immediately its priority which technologies have the potential technologies with measurable real- technologies through a press release, on for success and which technologies have world safety benefits. Next, those items the NCAP Web site, through the a history of success. Furthermore, BMW must be assessed using developed ‘‘Buying a Safer Car’’ brochure, and on felt that this approach would reduce the performance based metrics, and finally, each vehicle’s NCAP summary Web need for NHTSA to research, analyze the assessments should be used to page. and document the actual benefits of a develop crash avoidance NCAP ratings IIHS and NADA were not convinced technology. Mercedes believed that that balance rating flexibility with of the need for NCAP crash avoidance NCAP should issue publications that stability. ratings at this time. IIHS suggested that would rank the merits of emerging GM emphasized an overarching NHTSA should not rate vehicle crash technologies in a manner similar to that principle that crash avoidance NCAP avoidance technologies, since the used in the IIHS status reports, and that should be biased toward including agency cannot currently identify which NHTSA should communicate with the features that have a high likelihood of systems are most effective. industry so that public safety messages improving safety. GM suggested further could be coordinated with industry that the agency consider a wording 2. Selected Technologies advertisements. revision, perhaps to ‘Collision Nissan and Delphi agreed with the Avoidance and Post-Crash Safety three technologies selected by the b. Effectiveness Rating (NHTSA’s (CAPS)’ NCAP so that a technology such agency. However, GM and Toyota Approach 2) as Automatic Collision Notification believed that there were additional Nissan, in the long term, along with could be considered and included. crash avoidance technologies that Toyota, Volvo, Public Citizen, AORC, Honda encouraged NHTSA to should be promoted because they would the Alliance, AIAM and GM favored the consider a program that would define provide safety value to consumers. For agency’s proposed Approach 2 of the various crash avoidance brevity, we chose not to list them all in establishing an effectiveness rating for technologies. They stated that these this document, but they included such crash avoidance technologies. Toyota, definitions should be based on the effect things as daytime running lights, however, believed that it would be ideal backover prevention technology, and to develop information related to each 10 See http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2007/ advanced collision notification. GM new technology’s safety potential and to wp29/WP29-143-23r1e.doc. This is an agreement to begin work on Phase 2 of this GTR, which will further believed that there were data for establish a ‘‘Graduated Comprehensive analyze a revised dynamic test procedure some of these crash avoidance Crash Avoidance Rating System’’ incorporating the BioRID–II dummy. technologies and methods by which concept. They also recommended

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40023

further study to expand the list of Honda supported a combined could compromise NHTSA-sanctioned technologies beyond ESC, lane crashworthiness rating that covers a vehicle ratings because of results departure warning and forward collision wide variety of real-world collisions. obtained through spot-checking warning to include systems such as rear Honda recommended compatibility (presumably conducted by NHTSA). pre-collision preparation/warning, testing that assesses performance in Bidez and Associates, Consumers Union emergency stop signal, blind zone alert, crashes between two vehicles with and Public Citizen urged NHTSA to vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to- different geometries and/or weights. consider a manufacturer self-certifying infrastructure communications. Further, they recommended weighting process in which the industry would coefficients for each region of the crash test and rate its own vehicles and F. Presentation of NCAP Information test dummy, representing specific types undergo spot checking of their test Comments regarding the presentation of injuries, based on real-world crash results by NHTSA. According to these and dissemination of NCAP focused and injury data. commenters, the benefit of such a mainly on a combined crashworthiness The Alliance generally supported the program would be to disseminate NCAP rating. A few commenters offered concept of a combined crashworthiness test information on newly-introduced suggestions on the dissemination of rating. They believed that it is possible vehicles more rapidly than under the NCAP information. NADA suggested to combine the different body regions current system. that NHTSA develop, maintain and into a single star rating for both frontal H. Other Suggestions make available a database of non-agency and side. However, they noted that the sources of credible vehicle safety frontal NCAP ratings are vehicle-weight In addition to the approaches that information. The CAS and CFA dependent while the side NCAP ratings NHTSA had proposed to further suggested that the agency implement are generally weight independent. Thus, enhance its NCAP crashworthiness and additional and more sophisticated the Alliance asserted that a combined crash avoidance activities, commenters systems that deliver safety information crashworthiness rating would be submitted other recommendations to the at the point of sale. They believed this comparable only within vehicle weight agency. These comments on other information should be beyond the class. Moreover, AIAM urged NHTSA to possible approaches to improving NCAP agency’s new NCAP labeling program ensure that a single rating is meaningful are grouped into the following (no examples were given). in terms of real-world performance to categories: Child Restraints and Rear drive safety improvements in all crash Seat Testing, Lighting, and Pedestrians. Combined Crashworthiness Rating modes. They recommended that 1. Child Restraints Most responders to the NCAP notice changes to the star system be considered expressed support for an overall only if based on appropriate research Public Citizen suggested that NHTSA involving consumer surveys or focus crashworthiness rating that combined incorporate a dynamic child restraint groups, and not on intuitive judgments the results from all the crash modes system (CRS) test into NCAP in all crash about what data presentation is most (front and side) tested. However, IIHS modes (including frontal, rollover, side effective. cautioned that an all-encompassing and rear crashes). They recommended Public Citizen supported a single that a six-year old Hybrid III dummy be single rating may allow some poor rating if it were weighted with respect performance qualities to be hidden restrained in a backless booster and a to saving lives and preventing injuries. 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy under the umbrella rating. Therefore, They also suggested that NHTSA use a they urged NHTSA to provide be placed in a 3-point belt in both rear- letter grade rating system instead of outboard seating positions. ARCCA consumers with all of the scores in each ‘‘stars.’’ Volkswagen believed that the crash mode to allow them to choose recommended adding instrumented agency should consider a single crash child dummies to the outboard- which vehicle to purchase. rating only until a crash avoidance Additionally, Delphi, Public Citizen and designated seating positions in the rear NCAP rating grows in substance and to investigate issues associated with Bidez and Associates noted that while a scope. Delphi expressed that a single overall crashworthiness rating accommodations and crash performance combined crashworthiness rating would of rear-seated occupants resulting from would simplify information for obscure safety benefits; rather, they consumers, it could also confuse cargo. supported a Euro NCAP style point Bidez & Associates asserted that the consumers if not based on sound system and recommended that key science. agency should build upon and leverage performance-based assessments be the experience of EuroNCAP in child Toyota believed there is merit to presented as the primary information protection to force design innovation in combining ratings for crashworthiness and that feature-based indicators be rear seat safety for six to twelve-year evaluations to provide the consumer presented as of secondary importance. olds.11 They believed there was a need with a comprehensive summary of the to enhance frontal impact protection of crash performance of the vehicle in G. Manufacturer Self-Certification (of nine to twelve-year old children who front and side impacts. They NCAP Results) are properly belted in the rear seat. recommended weighting the injuries With regards to manufacturers Their research for restrained nine to and assessment in each impact providing their own NCAP test results, twelve-year old children suggested that condition by the distribution of serious GM and Toyota supported the rear seat occupants had a risk of serious injuries (AIS3+) and fatalities. After implementation of a type-approval injury 78 percent higher than that of determining the weighting factors for program wherein NHTSA would front seat occupants. They estimated each injury, each impact configuration oversee NCAP testing conducted by the that the overall injury rate for all should receive similar ‘‘Field Relevance manufacturer. GM felt that NHTSA’s restrained nine to twelve-year olds in all Weighting’’ based on frequency, severe attendance (or the presence of a NHTSA crash types was 38 percent higher in the injury risk, and occupancy. Because of representative) would allow appropriate rear seat than in the front seat. As such, the small number of fatalities in NASS, scrutiny of the testing and ensure Toyota suggested exploring FARS consumer confidence in such a program. 11 The commenter did not provide specific detail augmented with the Multiple Cause of Additionally, they strongly discouraged as to what design innovations have occurred as a Death (MCOD) database. implementation of any program that result of the EuroNCAP activity.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40024 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

Bidez & Associates recommended that present among belted occupants in the pedestrian safety. Public Citizen NHTSA immediately warn consumers, rear seat. encouraged NHTSA to issue a retract its message to parents about Individual commenter Mr. Todd pedestrian NCAP test and an placing children in the rear, and force Saczalski recommended rear seat testing accompanying safety standard. They the automobile industry to upgrade the with adult and child dummies and child also challenged NHTSA to follow the safety of the rear occupant area of the restraints to assess the difficulty exiting lead of the rest of the world by taking existing and future vehicle fleet. the vehicle and to examine injuries due a far more aggressive stand against the Subaru, GM and the Alliance opposed to seat back failure. The Children’s dangers vehicles pose to pedestrians implementation of a CRS test into Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) stated and to raise the bar for pedestrian safety NCAP. GM asserted that there can be no that the agency should place an older in its discussions for a Global Technical meaningful dynamic NCAP test for CRS belt-restrained dummy, such as the six Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian safety. or ten-year old Hybrid III child dummy, until there is a meaningful way to tie a IV. Discussion and Agency Decision CRS NCAP performance rating to real- in the rear seat of the NCAP frontal test world performance. They believed that to better understand rear restraint A. Frontal NCAP it is inappropriate to invent a test and systems for child occupants. Additionally, they encouraged the use In the comments to the notice and the claim correlation to real-world safety public hearing concerning performance improvements without of a belt-positioning booster seat with the six-year old Hybrid III dummy. enhancements to frontal NCAP, most sound data to back this claim. These manufacturers and vehicle safety commenters felt that using child safety Subaru did not support adding dummies to the rear seating position. advocates supported the retention of the seats in NCAP vehicle tests would current frontal crash test protocol at 35 confound the test results and would not Subaru stated that it might not be possible, with the current front seat mph (56 kmph). Additionally, several lead to a meaningful vehicle or CRS positioning procedure, to properly comments suggested that NCAP injury rating. Additionally, the Alliance position a 50th percentile male Hybrid criteria and metrics be consistent with asserted that the real-world safety III dummy in the rear seat of some FMVSS No. 208. Most responders benefits of child restraints demonstrate vehicles; the result could be favored using the KTH injury metric the children are already very well- inconsistent performance evaluations (after additional research) but also protected in the rear seat. As such, they across all vehicles. encouraged the inclusion of other injury believed that adding child dummies in criteria such as neck and chest 3. Lighting child restraints to the rear seating deflection. Some commenters suggested position for front or side NCAP testing Some public commenters expressed that the agency immediately evaluate would not maximize advancements in concerns about lighting and glare lower leg injuries with the Thor-Lx child protection. related to daytime running lights dummy, while others recommended Volvo suggested that if the agency (DRLs). However, the glare comments that NHTSA harmonize with Japan and wanted to develop a child restraint test, were focused on the agency’s Euro NCAP on lower leg assessments. then the test should be performed on a rulemaking activity and not its The agency’s analysis and decisions on sled, and they asserted that there should consumer information activity. frontal NCAP are grouped by categories: be improvements in FMVSS No. 213. Therefore, daytime running lights are Test Dummies, Injury Criteria and their According to Volvo, the restrictions for not discussed in this notice. GM stated associated Risk Curves, and Lower design and testing of the restraints, as that numerous field effectiveness Speed Testing. set up in this standard, basically studies conducted throughout the world prohibit innovative concepts with show that DRLs could prevent some Test Dummies improved performance for reducing crashes. Citing an analysis of field data Comments pertaining to the adoption misuse and improper installation and suggesting that under daytime of additional test dummies included for improving safety performance in a conditions, daytime running lights can wide support for the 5th percentile crash. To improve child safety, prevent 5 percent of opposite direction female Hybrid III dummy, including its Consumers Union recommended that crashes and 12 percent of pedestrian placement in the right front seating NHTSA pursue research toward an and pedalcyclist crashes, GM position. Others recommended that the NCAP rating on (rear) vehicle visibility encouraged NHTSA to expand the agency include a 95th percentile male since they believed that data from Kids installation of DRLs and include this Hybrid III dummy in frontal NCAP. It and Cars and others suggest that technology in its crash avoidance rating was also suggested that dummies be children are most at risk from poor so that manufacturers will be placed in the rear seat for the purpose visibility and blind zones around the encouraged to install them and provide of rating vehicles. vehicle. additional collision avoidance benefit. In response to these comments, 2. Rear Seat Testing 4. Pedestrians NHTSA has decided to include the 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy in Adding rear seat dummies into the Consumers Union recommended that the right front passenger seating frontal NCAP program was encouraged NHTSA study the work of auto safety position. GM provided the most by some commenters. In particular, researchers in other countries to compelling evidence, and the agency AORC and Bidez and Associates determine whether a pedestrian-friendly reexamined its own data and reached suggested the addition of the 5th NCAP rating would be effective in the the same conclusion.12 That is, the real- percentile female or the 10-year old United States. Consumers Union noted dummy. However, AORC asserted that that Honda has taken a leadership role 12 The agency’s analysis found, based on NASS– an analysis of field data would be in designing a dummy for testing CDS estimates from 1997–2006, that the risk of AIS needed to determine the most pedestrian safety and designing its 2+ injury for smaller belted occupants in the right appropriate dummy and seating vehicles with pedestrian safety in mind. front passenger seating position is 33% greater than that of a mid-sized adult belted occupant in the position, and that dummy development They urged NHTSA to consider using same seating position in full frontal crashes (0–40 may be required in this area to better the Honda pedestrian dummy and to delta velocities, non-rollover cases, age ranges from measure abdominal injuries that may be pursue other opportunities to improve 13 years old or older, height for small adult: Less

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40025

world data suggest that the smaller Injury Criteria and Risk Curves No. 208. The AIS 3+ chest deflection injury risk curve that the agency will females were at greater risk and more With regards to frontal NCAP injury use in NCAP was developed in 2003 by likely to be seated in the right front criteria, the agency agrees with the Laituri et al.17 The agency chose this position in frontal crashes. The agency commenters and has decided to include risk curve for deflection because, as believes that this dummy’s all of the FMVSS No. 208 body regions noted by the agency during the FMVSS incorporation into the NCAP frontal into the frontal NCAP rating system. As No. 208 advanced air bag rulemaking, program is reflective of real-world crash suggested by many commenters, the conditions. the chest deflection risk curve agency believes that their inclusion will published by the agency was not used NHTSA has chosen, however, not to not only add to the robustness of vehicle to establish the performance limits include the 95th percentile male Hybrid evaluations, but it will make the criteria currently in FMVSS No. 208. III dummy in frontal NCAP at this time. used to assign NCAP frontal ratings The agency will be using an AIS 2+ The 95th percentile male Hybrid III consistent with those used in FMVSS risk curve for the femur because most dummy has not been evaluated for No. 208 and in other frontal-crash femur fractures are either of the AIS 2 robustness, reproducibility, and vehicle assessment programs. It will or AIS 3 injury severity. Additionally, repeatability in laboratory impact also allow the agency to incorporate all the AIS 2+ femur risk curve was conditions and it has only undergone safety concerns related to injury criteria primarily developed from multi- very limited sled and vehicle testing. As readings into the calculation of the fragmentary patellar fractures, which, frontal rating thus eliminating the need such, we believe additional research like other articular surface injuries, are to use the safety concern symbol.14 and testing with this dummy is associated with a high level of However, unlike the current NCAP necessary before it can be included into disability. As such, using an AIS 2+ program which uses chest acceleration frontal NCAP. injury risk curve will help ensure that to assess thoracic injury risk, the new debilitating multi-fragmentary patellar With regards to placing adult frontal program will focus instead on fractures are addressed.18 dummies in the rear seating positions of peak chest deflection instead. We NHTSA has decided not to frontal NCAP tests, NHTSA believes believe that the inclusion of chest incorporate an advanced KTH risk curve that more analysis is needed before a deflection into frontal NCAP will into frontal NCAP at this time. In rating program that includes rear seat encourage development of restraint consideration of the comments received occupants can be established. The systems that will further reduce the risk and because this risk curve is agency has conducted some limited of thoracic injuries.15 This is especially undergoing additional evaluation, the testing with both the 50th and 5th true given a manufacturer’s compliance agency felt it would be premature to percentile Hybrid III adult dummies in margin with the chest acceleration limit include it in NCAP. However, we do the rear seat under a full frontal impact of 60 G’s and the fact that the FMVSS believe that the inclusion of a femur condition. However, these preliminary No. 208 belted test is now conducted at injury criterion, as indicated above, will results did not correlate to findings in the same speed as the frontal NCAP test. lead to improved bolster design. the real-world and additional research is Accordingly, frontal NCAP will include Similarly, when coupled with the other necessary to better understand the the following body regions and injury injury criteria for chest deflection and results.13 Similarly, none of the criteria: Head (HIC15), neck (Nij, tension, neck, will lead to overall improved commenters that suggested an NCAP and compression), chest (deflection), restraint system designs. NHTSA has rating program for the rear seat provided and femur (axial force). The risk curves also decided not to harmonize its NCAP the necessary data to establish how such that will be used for these criteria are femur injury values with those of a program would lead to meaningful described below. EuroNCAP and Japan NCAP. The improvements in safety. As indicated in our proposal, NHTSA agency evaluated the rating schemes of is also adopting AIS 3+ and AIS 2+ these international programs along with The agency has decided not to injury risk curves to assess the risk of that from the IIHS. These programs use incorporate the use of the lower legs injury to front seat occupants.16 This a sliding scale to rate vehicles as from the Thor dummy to evaluate lower approach is different from the current opposed to injury risk curves. As such, leg injuries into the program at this NCAP rating system which uses AIS 4+ as will be explained later in this time. The agency is awaiting the (severe) injury risk curves. The new risk document, because we have chosen to completion of research currently in curves will focus vehicle performance maintain our current methodology for progress by an SAE task group. on more frequently occurring injuries combining injury risk we cannot Additionally, this tool has not than severe (AIS 4+) or critical (AIS 5+) substitute sliding scales for risk undergone the necessary robustness, injuries. curves.19 reproducibility, and repeatability testing With the exception of chest The injury risk curves used in the that the agency believes is necessary for deflection, the AIS 3+ injury risk curves NCAP frontal crash test program for the incorporation into an NCAP ratings that will be used by the agency in NCAP 50th percentile male Hybrid III and 5th program. are the same as those used for FMVSS percentile female Hybrid III dummies

than 65 inches, and height for mid-sized adult: approximately ±3% compared to chest deflection International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, 65–73 inches). which was approximately ±4%. and MacKenzie, E. (1986), The Public Health 13 Kuppa, S., Saunders, J., Fessahaie, O., Rear 16 Details of these injury risk curves are provided Impact of Lower Extremity Trauma, SAE Paper No. Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes, Paper in Appendix C, Injury Risk Curves for the NCAP 861932, Symposium on Biomechanics and Medical No. 05–0212, Nineteenth ESV Conference, Combined Crashworthiness Rating System. Aspects of Lower Limb Injuries, San Diego. Washington DC (2005). 17 Laituri, T., Prasad, P., Sullivan, K., Frankstein, 19 The sliding scales in these programs relate 14 A safety concern symbol is a test occurrence M., Thomas, R. (2005), Derivation and Evaluation that is not reflected in a vehicle’s star rating but that of a Provisional, Age Dependent AIS 3+ Thoracic injury measures to point values without equating NHTSA feels is of significant importance that the Risk Curve for Belted Adults in Frontal Impacts, them to probability of injury. However, risk curves event should be communicated to consumers. SAE Paper No. 2005–01–0297. equate the injury measures to expected risks of 15 The agency evaluated new MY 2005–2007 18 See Ore, L., Tanner, B., States, J. (1993), injury. tested vehicles and found that for acceleration, the Accident Investigation and Impairment Study of standard deviation for risk of injury was Lower Extremity Injury, SAE Paper No. 930096, SAE

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40026 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

are shown below. How these injury risk vehicle’s frontal NCAP star rating will curves will be combined to generate a be discussed later in Section IV–F. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.000 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40027

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C mechanisms, dummy biofidelity, and suggested that side impact test Lower Test Speed risk curves to proceed. procedures and injury criteria be B. Side NCAP consistent with FMVSS No. 214. A lower test speed for frontal NCAP Finally, IIHS encouraged NHTSA to was supported by some commenters but Most commenters supported the adopt or modify their current moving an almost equal number opposed such agency’s proposal to incorporate an deformable barrier (MDB). The agency’s an NCAP test. In light of the real-world oblique pole test into the program, with analysis and decisions on side NCAP studies conducted by the agency and several suggesting that this test should are grouped into the following some of the commenters, NHTSA has be adopted after the completion of the categories: MDB Design, MDB Test decided that additional research is FMVSS No. 214 phase-in. Additionally, Speed, Oblique Pole Test, Test necessary to fully address the proposal several responses encouraged the Dummies in the MDB and Oblique Pole for a lower test speed. At this time, the adoption of new test dummies for side Tests, and Injury Criteria and their agency has insufficient data with NCAP including WorldSID, SID–IIs and associated Risk Curves. respect to test speed, injury ES–2re dummies. Commenters also

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.001 40028 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

MDB Design ‘‘Good’’ or ‘‘Acceptable’’ performance in a. MDB Test The agency has decided against any the IIHS barrier test had dummy head NHTSA has decided to incorporate modifications to the existing moving and pelvis injury readings, for some the new 50th percentile male ES–2re deformable barrier. Instead, we will vehicles, that were significantly higher dummy into the driver seating position 22 evaluate the IIHS MDB (including the than the IIHS test indicated. These test and the 5th percentile female SID–IIs crabbed vs. perpendicular results indicate that the use of the dummy in the rear seating position for configuration) as part of a more oblique pole test in NCAP will demand the MDB test as adopted in the FMVSS comprehensive approach that is more robust countermeasure designs No. 214 Final Rule. The agency selected currently underway. This research will leading to higher levels of safety the 50th percentile male ES–2re dummy help the agency decide what properties performance. in the driver position because its weight a new MDB should have. As noted in Because the pole test can evaluate and height is more representative of the the FMVSS No. 214 Final Rule,20 only one seating position at a time, most average driving population than is the initiatives to improve vehicle commenters were in support of running SID–IIs dummy. The 5th percentile SID– compatibility between passenger cars one pole test. Several stated that IIs dummy was selected for the rear and light truck vehicles in side crashes conducting multiple side impact pole seating position because it is closer in are likely to change the characteristics tests with different sizes of dummies height to the average outboard rear seat of striking vehicles in the future.21 As would introduce significant test burden. occupant than the 50th percentile ES– such, we believe these new We have decided to add the oblique 2re dummy, and its placement in the characteristics should be included in pole test procedure specified in the rear seat will lead to a more demanding any upgraded MDB. FMVSS No. 214 Final Rule for all test.23 vehicles tested by NCAP. Therefore, MDB Test Speed b. Oblique Pole Test rather than conducting a pole test for There was little support for an each outboard seating position in the NHTSA has decided to conduct only increased test speed for side NCAP, vehicle, we will conduct only one test one oblique pole impact test with the while some urged the agency to to evaluate the front seat outboard 5th percentile female SID–IIs dummy in maintain or lower the current speed. As performance of vehicles. NHTSA the driver position. As stated in our indicated in our request for comments, believes that a single pole test with one recent FMVSS No. 214 Final Rule, small the real-world data indicates that the dummy will provide consumers with stature drivers (height up to 5 feet 4 current test speed is largely information on side pole performance inches) comprise approximately 28 representative of real-world crashes in without introducing significant test percent of seriously or fatally injured which serious and fatal injuries occur; burden to both NHTSA and drivers in narrow object side impacts. In yet, increasing the test speed by 5 mph manufacturers. addition, real-world crash data suggests (8 kmph) would capture approximately that small stature occupants have a 5,000 more serious and fatal injuries. No Test Dummies in the MDB and Oblique higher proportion of head, abdominal, commenters disagreed with this data. Pole Tests and pelvic injuries and a lesser However, NHTSA has not conducted proportion of chest injuries than median any testing at this increased test speed Outside of those commenters who suggested use of the World SID, most stature occupants. with the ES–2re or SID–IIs dummies, So while we selected the 50th commenters supported the and we want to better understand what percentile dummy for the front seating incorporation of the new, recently countermeasures would be developed if position in the MDB test (because it federalized side impact crash test the test speed in side NCAP were represents the average driver), for the dummies into side NCAP. Some increased to 43.5 mph (71 kmph) or pole test we are selecting the 5th specifically proposed that the agency higher. As such, NHTSA has decided to percentile dummy as the driver because use the 50th percentile male ES–2re maintain the current test speed and we in collisions with narrow objects, the dummy for the driver seating position will evaluate the test speed as part of 5th percentile has the higher risk of and the 5th percentile female SID–IIs our more comprehensive research work injury. Additionally, since we are dummy for the rear seating position in that is already underway. conducting the MDB test with the 50th the MDB test. For an oblique pole test, percentile dummy in the driver seating Oblique Pole Test most encouraged the use of the SID–IIs position and the 5th percentile dummy Most commenters supported dummy in the driver seating position. in the driver seating position for the incorporating an oblique pole test into Several commenters recommended NCAP. However, some opposed this pole test, manufacturers will have to that the agency incorporate the encompass a broader range of seating proposal, stating that a pole test would WorldSID dummy into Part 572 and not add an incentive for manufacturers positions with their vehicle and side NCAP. For both test configurations restraint system designs. to provide additional head side impact (pole and MDB), the agency has decided protection beyond the IIHS side impact not to incorporate this dummy into Injury Criteria and Risk Curves test. The agency does not agree with NCAP at this time. Although the agency As with frontal NCAP, several these commenters. As we stated in the has been conducting testing and commenters stated that the injury FMVSS No. 214 Final Rule, we believe evaluation to determine the suitability metrics used in NCAP should be that the pole test in conjunction with of incorporating the WorldSID into Part consistent with the safety standard that our current MDB will drive better head, 572 and side impact crash tests, further serves as their basis. In the case of side chest and pelvis protection than work remains to be completed before its NCAP, the safety standard is FMVSS conducting the IIHS side impact test use in NCAP can occur. No. 214. Several commenters stated that alone. Recent pole tests conducted on vehicles that were found to have Test dummy selection for the MDB and the pole test are discussed below. 23 In the testing which supported the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade, both the 5th and the 50th percentile 20 72 FR 51908, Docket No. NHTSA–2007–29134. dummies passed the MDB test but the rear was 21 69 FR at 27992, Docket No. NHTSA–2004– 22 See Appendix A, NCAP and IIHS Pole Test more stringent and difficult for the 5th percentile 17694. Results. dummy.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40029

the adoption of the 50th percentile male pelvic (force) for the SID–IIs dummy.24 agency will use in side NCAP are the ES–2re and 5th percentile female SID– NHTSA believes that these criteria and same as those used for the recent IIs dummies and their associated injury their inclusion in side NCAP will lead upgrade to FMVSS No. 214.25 criteria from FMVSS No. 214 would to a more robust rating. Similarly, it will The table below presents the facilitate a more comprehensive also allow the inclusion of head- and applicable injury criteria and associated assessment of side impact injury. pelvic-related injury criteria in the injury risk curves for each dummy that NHTSA agrees with these commenters calculation of the side rating without will be used in the side NCAP vehicle and has decided to incorporate head the need for the safety concern symbol. rating. How these injury risk curves will Similarly, the injury risk curves that the be combined to generate a vehicle’s side (HIC36), chest (deflection), abdomen (force), and pelvic (force) injury criteria NCAP star rating will be discussed later 24 We note that for the SID IIs, we are not in Section IV–F. as well as applicable risk curves to rate incorporating spine acceleration at this time. Even BILLING CODE 4910–13–P vehicles for the ES–2re and, consistent though this measure is included in the new FMVSS No. 214, we do not have a risk curve that has been with the safety standard, HIC36 and validated at this time to include in our rating 25 Details of these injury risk curves are provided scheme for rating vehicles for side impact in Appendix C, Injury Risk Curves for the NCAP protection. Combined Crashworthiness Rating System.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40030 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.002 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40031

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C will provide an incentive for others to C. Rollover NCAP Lead Time begin and/or accelerate their processes for improvement as well. Finally, rating Several commenters suggested that While most commenters supported vehicles on both their performance in the agency add an additional star to the the inclusion of the pole test in NCAP, the pole test and the MDB test, which Rollover NCAP rating for vehicles an almost equal number suggested that will now incorporate HIC and other equipped with ESC. They suggested the the test not be incorporated until after criteria, will help foster an environment extra star be supplemented by a footnote saying, ‘‘equipped with electronic FMVSS No. 214 is fully phased-in. for vehicle manufacturers to design stability control.’’ In addition, one NHTSA does not agree with these better side impact designs for the head, commenters. NHTSA believes that some commenter suggested that a star be chest and pelvis, and allow consumers manufacturers have begun to design subtracted from vehicles not equipped to make more informed choices based vehicles to meet the pole test and we with ESC. Commenters also on these new tests. want consumers to be aware of those recommended that NHTSA incorporate vehicles. Additionally, we believe that a new, dynamic structural test into conducting the pole test for MY 2010 rollover NCAP. The agency’s analysis

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.003 40032 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

and decisions regarding NHTSA’s bands are set at 10 percent, adding a star appears consistent with the newer data, rollover program are grouped into two to the rollover risk rating could suggest possibly (at least in part) because of the categories: Rollover Risk and Injury Risk to consumers that ESC would reduce a sampling variability associated with the Models and Dynamic Rollover and particular vehicle’s risk of rollover by relatively small ESC subset. A larger Structural Test. up to 10 percent in a given crash. This sample may produce different results, could result in unsupported and Rollover Risk and Injury Risk Models and we will recalibrate the estimates if inaccurate vehicle ratings. we determine conclusively (that is, With regards to the agency’s proposal The current rollover risk model was beyond the effects of statistical to develop a new rollover risk model, fit using crash data collected several variability) that the current estimates do the agency agrees with commenters’ years ago (at a time when ESC was not describe the newer data. In the concerns about the effects of ESC on the available in relatively few vehicles). We rollover risk model. However, we do not are monitoring the fit of the model to meantime, we will continue to use the agree that is appropriate to add or newer data and, in particular, to data for risk estimated from the vehicle’s Static subtract a star in the rollover rating to ESC-equipped vehicles. We have Stability Factor (SSF) and its propensity account for ESC. The current rollover identified 7,000 single-vehicle crashes to tip up in the dynamic rollover rating is the result of a detailed analysis with NCAP-tested vehicles equipped ‘‘fishhook’’ test as described in 68 FR of a vehicle’s potential risk of rollover with ESC in our State Data System 59250 (October 14, 2003). These are if a crash is initiated. Given that the star (SDS). At this time, the current model provided below:

1 Vehicles not tipping in dynamic test: Rollover risk = 1+e22.8891+1.1686×−Ln ( SSF 0.9)

1 Vehicles tipping in dynamic test: Rollover risk = 1+e2.6968+1.1686×−Ln (SSF 0.9)

Where SSF=static stability factor the JRS test can be conducted with with the commenters that providing the This model describes the absolute risk dummies to demonstrate whether IIHS results on our Web site could lead of rollover given a single-vehicle crash. vehicle roof performance meets to consumers believing that the agency As will be discussed later, we will objective injury and ejection criteria for has approved, in particular, their include ESC in the new NCAP Crash belted and unbelted occupants. As part dynamic test procedure. In addition, we Avoidance Rating. We feel this will be of our roof crush upgrade, the agency note that the test dummy used by IIHS much more effective in highlighting the has received numerous comments has not been approved for regulatory importance of ESC and other potentially regarding the JRS device.27 The JRS and use, and some of the injury criteria used life-saving technologies. other dynamic rollover procedures are for this assessment have not been being addressed as a part of the roof correlated with real-world injury. Dynamic Rollover and Structural Test crush rulemaking currently underway. We also see very little benefit to In their public hearing testimony, Therefore, a decision on its consumers in publishing IIHS’s static Ford suggested that NCAP dynamic appropriateness for incorporation into head restraint ratings of Good, rollover protocol be aligned with NCAP would be premature at this time. Acceptable, Marginal, etc. on http:// compliance protocol for ESC to D. Rear Impact www.safercar.gov. The agency’s minimize the risk of unintended upgraded head restraint regulation With regards to rear impact NCAP, consequences from the program. The (FMVSS No. 202a) will begin an 80% some commenters urged the agency to agency does not agree with this phase-in for front seats in MY 2010. Any include a rear impact crash test rating suggestion. These tests have manufacturer certifying their head and/or the IIHS test results in NCAP. significantly different performance restraint to the static option of FMVSS Others indicated that linkage to IIHS requirements and are intended to No. 202a, according to IIHS’s current could appear to be an agency measure different dynamic vehicle scheme, would be placed in the Good or endorsement of the IIHS testing and that responses. In the future, it may be Acceptable category. Most of those not it would be premature to incorporate a possible to address the likelihood of achieving a Good rating will be new rear impact dynamic test into aligning the new ESC compliance test adjustable head restraints that IIHS NCAP since the effect of the new with the NCAP dynamic rollover ‘‘fish- downgrades by one category simply FMVSS No. 202a requirements is hook’’ test, but additional research is because they are adjustable. Thus, there unknown at this time.28 Rather, they needed before these two tests can be would be very little meaningful suggested that NHTSA educate combined. Neither test measures the difference in the rating. consumers on the proper use and responses from the other test; therefore, For those manufacturers certifying adjustment of head restraints. neither test could be used as a substitute their head restraints to the dynamic NHTSA does not agree that a dynamic option in FMVSS No. 202a, the static for the other. test would be premature at this time Some commenters suggested a IIHS rating would not provide a since such an option exists in our meaningful metric of performance. The structural rollover test; in particular, FMVSS No. 202a. However, we do agree NHTSA received comments regarding agency also contemplated publishing the actual numerical values of static the Jordan Rollover System (JRS) test surface moves along the track and contacts the roof device.26 Some commenters believe that structure. height and backset that the IIHS 27 See Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22143. measures but have decided against this 26 The JRS device rotates a vehicle body structure 28 By MY 2012, 100% of front and rear seats will course. We believe that consumers on a rotating apparatus (‘‘spit’’) while the road have to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 202a. would find this information confusing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.007 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40033

and difficult to interpret. As such, rather available benefits data and performance EFFECTIVENESS ESTIMATES FOR ESC, than providing the IIHS data on our test procedures to be included in a FCW, AND LDW—Continued Web site, we have decided to update rating program. http://www.safercar.gov to include We believe that both FCW and LDW System Effectiveness information related to proper head will address major crash problems seen (percent) restraint adjustment. on U.S. roadways. FCW is designed to address primarily rear-end crashes, FCW ...... 15 E. Crash Avoidance Technologies which account for approximately 30 LDW ...... 6–11 Most commenters supported the percent of all crashes, while LDW is NHTSA believes that the FOT results agency’s proposal to implement a crash designed to address crashes due to for FCW and LDW are applicable for avoidance ratings program. However, unintended lane drift. Crash types that estimating real-world safety benefits there were two commenters who did not may result from lane drift include road since these technologies were evaluated believe that a crash avoidance rating departure and opposite direction in the same real-world driving program was needed at this time. Two crashes. The NCAP report showed that environment in which they would be commenters suggested that NHTSA rear-end road departure, and opposite deployed. In general, in an FOT, the work with the automotive industry to direction crashes represent a significant create an advisory panel to develop a amount of the total maximum AIS 3+ major variables impacting a crash avoidance rating system. injuries.29 Results from large scale field technology’s safety benefits, including Additionally, most responses did not tests for FCW and LDW provided differences in individual driving styles favor a cumulative rating system; effectiveness and benefit information for and behavior, system performance, and instead, several commenters each technology and suggest that FCW driver acceptance, are taken into emphasized the importance of selecting and LDW have the potential to account. Likewise, critical safety advanced technologies and developing a significantly reduce the number of incidents (i.e. near-crash incidents that rating system based on real-world crashes that occur in the U.S.30 occur during the FOT) data are recorded effectiveness. Furthermore, several Additionally, NHTSA used data from and evaluated to determine if the commenters recommended that the these field operational tests (FOTs), as technology provided a safety benefit in agency consider other advanced well as additional agency research, to terms of critical incident reduction. technologies beyond ESC, FCW and finalize performance tests establishing Assuming a proportional relationship LDW. minimum performance criteria for FCW between near-crash events and actual NHTSA agrees that a rating system and LDW so that vehicles can be rated crashes, critical incident data are further that incorporates a crash avoidance on their presence.31 For ESC, because it evaluated using statistical methods to system’s estimated benefit is ideal. We had been in the field for some time, we estimate crash reduction benefits. In the also believe that we should establish used real-world data to establish field tests for FCW and LDW systems, this new program quickly for two effectiveness and then used the test NHTSA provided technical management reasons. First, we want to draw a greater procedure which accompanied the Final and the Volpe National Transportation distinction for consumers regarding Rule (FMVSS No. 126) to develop a Systems Center performed an vehicles that are being equipped with performance test and minimum independent evaluation to estimate ESC during the phase-in period. Second, performance criteria.32 The table below safety benefits which included rigorous in addition to ESC, there are other new presents NHTSA’s effectiveness statistical analysis. safety technologies which exist today estimate values for ESC, FCW, and NHTSA believes that ESC, FCW and that can assist a driver in preventing LDW.33 A range was used for LDW to LDW are the only crash avoidance severe and frequently occurring crashes. reflect potential system availability technologies that meet the agency’s We believe that through NCAP, we can variation due to lane marking quality. criteria for inclusion in a crash provide an incentive to encourage avoidance rating program at this time. accelerated deployment of these new, EFFECTIVENESS ESTIMATES FOR ESC, That is, all three address a major crash advanced technologies. The agency’s FCW, AND LDW problem, safety benefit projections have analysis and decisions on new crash been assessed, and performance tests and procedures are available to ensure avoidance ratings program are grouped System Effectiveness into the following categories: Selected (percent) an acceptable performance level. The Technologies and Rating System. agency acknowledges that many other ESC ...... 59 technologies were identified by Selected Technologies commenters such as collision mitigation Those commenters who supported 29 See http://www.safercar.gov/ braking systems, lane keeping assist newcarassessmentenhancements-2007.pdf at page establishment of a program that would 18, Table 6. systems, and side object detection promote crash avoidance technologies 30 LDW effectiveness estimated from data technologies. However, at this time the agreed with the agency’s selection of included in NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 810 854, agency does not have enough data to ESC, FCW and LDW as beneficial Evaluation of a Road Departure Crash Warning estimate the safety benefits of these System, December 2007. FCW effectiveness technologies. Others believed that the estimated from data included in NHTSA Report No. systems, and therefore will not promote agency should expand its list to DOT HS 810 569, Evaluation of an Automotive these other technologies at this time. encompass crash avoidance, Rear-End Collision Avoidance System, March 2006. Through our current research crashworthiness and post-crash 31 See Docket No. NHTSA–2007–27662 for ESC, activities and/or information obtained technologies so as not to limit the LDW, and FCW test procedures. from the automotive industry and the 32 See NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 810 794, The potential safety information that could Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness of public, the agency anticipates that it be provided to consumers. NHTSA Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems-Final will gain information on the benefits believes that ESC, FCW and LDW are Report, July 2007. See also 72 FR 17236, Docket No. and performance capabilities of other the only technologies that meet the NHTSA–2007–27662. advanced safety technologies. If the 33 See Appendix B, Effectiveness Estimates for agency anticipates making changes to agency’s criteria and are mature enough ESC, FCW and LDW for a summary explanation of for inclusion in a crash avoidance rating how overall effectiveness estimate values were the rating system or the technologies program. That is, all three have generated. that the agency has chosen to promote

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40034 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

as that information is gathered, the With regards to what type of rating following categories: Presentation of agency will seek public input on the system should be used, participants Safety Information and Combined appropriateness of such changes. At this overwhelmingly preferred a rating Crashworthiness Rating. time, we anticipate using similar criteria system that was a simple list approach. Presentation of Safety Information (addresses a major crash problem, Additionally, focus group participants assessed safety benefits, and established unanimously agreed that the use of Some commenters supported performance tests and procedures) to colors is not visually appealing to fully consumer education materials such as determine technologies for future comprehend what they are viewing. In safety tips and safe driving practices. program inclusion. the treatments tested by the agency, Others suggested that NHTSA develop, single check marks as opposed to maintain and make available a database Rating System multiple check marks to indicate a of non-agency sources of credible vehicle safety information. Finally, Generally, there was little support for technologies importance were preferred some commenters suggested that the a crash avoidance rating system based by most participants. Additionally, to agency provide additional information on a cumulative concept (e.g., the more display and communicate the at the point of sale (beyond that technology you have; the higher the information, consumers stated that a required by the new labeling program). rating). Instead, several commenters single check mark or the use of text NHTSA agrees with many of these preferred that the agency develop a (indicating standard or optional) is the most understandable way to illustrate suggestions. NHTSA continuously rating system based on a computation of investigates ways to improve marketing benefits to be expected from the crash the presence of crash prevention technologies, though neither marking the NCAP vehicle ratings program. We avoidance technologies of a rated will place the results of our enhanced vehicle. Regardless of approach, these was overwhelmingly preferred. Participants overwhelmingly objected marketing studies in Docket No. commenters all suggested that the to the multiple checks, star markings NHTSA–02004–19104, as they are agency use a star rating system to inform and A–D grading scale, saying they were completed. consumers about the presence of very difficult to understand, despite advanced technologies. BMW and Combined Crashworthiness Rating having an associated key. Several Mercedes suggested a simpler approach participants also stated that if there Most commenters supported an whereby technologies would essentially were a technology or several overall crashworthiness rating that be listed without regards to their technologies that were more important combined the results from all test effectiveness and without summing than the others, than that should be conditions. Honda and Toyota provided them into an overall rating crash specifically communicated or noted on some details but GM and Ford provided avoidance rating. BMW offered an the layout and inferred, not the use of very specific information on how this approach where all technologies would stars, individual letter grades, or new rating could be calculated. Some all be treated equally but where those multiple check marks. commenters cautioned that an overall technologies that had been proven The agency believes that the rating would overly simplify beneficial by real world studies would preference for the use of check marks or information for consumers, and that it somehow (in their scheme solid green text over the use of an effectiveness could mislead consumers if poor and hollow thumbs were used) be approach may be rooted in the fact that performance were hidden under an denoted differently. Similarly, Mercedes participants (and to the extent that they umbrella rating. Given the general suggested a simple ranking system for are reflective in general of new car support for an overall rating and the technologies. buyers) may not fully grasp the public’s desire for simpler information, To gauge consumer understanding importance of these features. For NHTSA is implementing a new overall and acceptance of these various example, participants generally stated crashworthiness rating that combines systems, NHTSA tested the cumulative that they think of these features as ‘‘nice the results of the front, side and rollover approach, the effectiveness approach, to haves’’ rather than ‘‘must haves’’ programs. and the list approach with groups of because they are not yet aware of how NHTSA will provide a summary consumers.34 NHTSA conducted four the features can reduce fatalities. As crashworthiness rating for each vehicle focus group sessions in the DC area with such, the agency intends to continue (which we will call the Vehicle Safety participants who had to qualify as either monitor the public’s understanding of Score) plus individual scores for each a primary or shared decision maker with this new rating program and if necessary occupant in each crash condition for respect to automobile purchases for change the way in which ratings are that vehicle (as a set of relative risk their household and intended to communicated to the public. For now, measures). This is in accordance with purchase a new or used automobile in based on these focus group results, the comments from Delphi, Public Citizen, the next two years. Participants in both agency will use text to communicate the Bidez and Associates, and the IIHS who groups were also screened to ensure standard or optional presence of ESC, expressed concern over individual test they had some level of concern about LDW, and FCW on vehicles. results being masked and that the safety of automobiles and the groups individual scores in each crash mode F. Presentation and Dissemination of should continue to be provided to the represented a mix of age, education, and Safety Information income. The agency tested letters, stars, consumer. Scores for vehicles will be words, check marks, and color schemes Some commenters encouraged the provided to the consumer via a star (for standard and optional availability) agency to disseminate additional and rating system where the new bands for depending on which one of the three more sophisticated consumer 1 to 5 stars were determined by the approaches was being tested. The information but no specific examples mean and dispersion of the risk of agency also tested a subset of these were given. Most commenters discussed injury in each crash test condition (front treatments in an on-line forum. and supported the agency’s proposal for and side) and the risk of rollover. a combined crashworthiness rating. The Although NHTSA’s previous proposal 34 The full study report is available http:// agency’s analysis and decisions on the did not suggest including the rollover www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA–02004– presentation and dissemination of safety risk rating in the crashworthiness rating, 19104. information are divided into the the agency has now decided to do so.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40035

The agency’s decision to include the which are injury risk to the head and injury risk might confuse consumers rollover rating in the combined rating is pelvis. who seek a broader assessment of safety consistent with the 1996 Transportation In GM’s proposal, the normalized performance than one limited to the Research Board recommendation,35 and injury measures for different body driver. Ford proposed using the straight we believe that its inclusion provides a regions are combined by weighting each average of the risks of injury for the more complete summary rating. Below, by the proportion of injuries associated driver and the passenger to obtain the we describe how the frontal and side with each injury measure. The result of overall injury risk. NHTSA agrees with scores are developed and how these this method does not represent either an Ford’s suggested approach. scores are combined with the rollover absolute injury risk or a relative injury However, rather than use the score to create an overall score. risk (as in NHTSA’s method). Therefore, percentages calculated from the Consistent with what has already the risk levels of different vehicles are probability of injury results (as is been presented, NHTSA has selected the not quantifiable. In addition, Ford stated currently done), NHTSA will be following test conditions, test dummies that GM’s proposal assumes a linear computing the relative risk for each and injury criteria to develop its relationship between the dummy seating position and each test condition. combined rating: response and injury risk, when This relative risk measure provides an • One frontal impact crash test (full generally the relationship is non-linear. estimate of an occupant’s risk of injury frontal rigid barrier crash test at 35 mph Therefore, Ford expressed that GM’s compared to a baseline injury risk. The (56 kmph)) with a 50th percentile male proposal could result in an inaccurate score for each occupant in each test Hybrid III dummy in the driver position estimation of the relative vehicle safety condition is computed by dividing the and a 5th percentile female Hybrid III performance. NHTSA agrees with this overall risk of injury in each test dummy in the front passenger seating assessment and has chosen to use the condition by a baseline risk of injury. As position. joint probability of injury formula, as it will be explained below, the baseline • One side impact crash test (38.5 does now, to combine injury risks to risk of injury in each test condition is mph (62 kmph) with NHTSA’s moving different body regions for an occupant. an approximation of the fleet average deformable barrier (MDB) crabbed at 27 However, the agency notes that injury risk for that test condition. The degrees into the side of vehicle) with an computation of the joint probability baseline risk of injury is set once and ES–2re dummy in the front seating requires there to be quality data reused for subsequent model years. This position and a SID-IIs dummy in the available for all of the injury risks being allows cross-year comparisons with rear seating position on the struck side combined. Similarly, to compute the future fleets.36 This operation results in of the vehicle. overall summary rating, data must also six summary scores for each vehicle • An oblique pole impact test (20 be available from all of the tests to representing the relative risk of injury mph (32 kmph)) at 75 degrees into a 25 prevent a model from not being rated. for the driver and passenger in the cm diameter pole including the SID-IIs As such, the agency has included frontal crash test and side MDB test, the dummy in the front seating position. redundant sensor measurement driver in the oblique pole test, and the • Dynamic maneuvering (fish-hook) capability in the test dummies (where relative risk for all occupants in rollover test and static stability factor possible), grouped tests (front, side, and rollovers with respect to a baseline (SSF). rollover) together, and worked with our injury risk. As such, the scores indicate • All applicable injury criteria. test labs to ensure that they are using how a particular vehicle compares to a • Use of injury risk curves. the most up to date calibration baseline risk and these are the scores procedures. In this way, we hope to (star ratings) that will be presented to a. Combining Injury Risk From Different alleviate the potential loss of data and Body Regions consumers on the Web site and in subsequently, vehicles with incomplete agency publications. The agency has chosen to maintain its ratings. To compute a vehicle’s overall risk of current method for combining injury b. Risk of Injury by Seating Position and injury in frontal crash tests, NHTSA has metrics for any seating position in its Test Condition decided to use the simple average of the test. That is, the risk of injury to each For each vehicle, the risk of injury is probability of injury to the driver and body region are assumed to be front passenger. The risk of injury to the independent events and can be estimated from six test results, which are: (1) Driver in frontal crash, (2) driver in side crashes is calculated as statistically combined to determine the the weighted average of the combined joint probability of injury to the passenger in frontal crash, (3) driver in side MDB crash, (4) rear seat passenger probability of injury of the driver in the occupant using the following equation: MDB test (weighted by 80 percent) and p(A or B) = p(A)+p(B)¥p(A)*p(B) where in side MDB crash, (5) driver in oblique pole impact, and (6) rollover potential that of the driver in the oblique pole test A and B are the independent events. (weighted by 20 percent). The weights Using injury risk curves for different in single-vehicle crashes using rollover test results. Ford suggested that the reflect the proportion of belted driver body regions, this method results in an fatalities in real-world crashes overall risk of injury for the occupant. agency combine results using a simple average, but GM suggested a weighted represented by the MDB and pole tests For the two adult Hybrid III dummies in MY 1999 and newer vehicles (FMVSS there are four independent events to approach to combine results. To combine the risk of injury by No. 214 Final Rule, Docket No. NHTSA– combine, which are injury risk to the occupant seating position, GM 2007–29134). The overall risk of injury head, neck, chest, and femur/knee. For suggested weighting based on occupant in side crashes is then computed as the the ES–2re dummy, there are also four demographics and the relative average of the risk of injury to the driver independent events, which are injury frequency of exposure by seating in side impacts (weighted average from risk to the head, chest, abdomen, and position. Ford commented that this MDB and pole test results) and the pelvis, while for the SID–IIs dummy, approach would undervalue NCAP test probability of injury to the rear seat there are only 2 independent events results for passengers since the 36 In the future, the baseline could be adjusted to 35 See Transportation Research Board, Shopping proportion of drivers is far greater than reflect vehicle designs. However, the agency would For Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety that of passengers. Ford asserted that seek public input on the issue before such an Information. TRB Special Report 248 (1996). this method of obtaining the overall adjustment would occur.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40036 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

passenger in the MDB test. For rollover, of applying significantly higher weight because the rear seat has a relatively low in order to combine the risk from the to the driver than the passenger based occupancy rate. However, when rollover test with the risk of injuries on occupancy rates in each seating combining the pole test results with the obtained from the crash test, the agency position. NHTSA believes that GM’s MDB results for the front seat, we do has assumed that a belted occupant in proposal would not encourage believe that weighting by crash test a single-vehicle crash p(roll) has the manufacturers to offer advanced safety condition is appropriate. In this way, same relative risk of injury as the risk systems to all seating positions, thereby the results from the pole tests are of rollover given a single vehicle crash. resulting in reduced protection to some. proportional to their occurrence and do As suggested in Ford’s proposal, This is especially significant in the side not mask a vehicles performance in the NHTSA is adopting this method of MDB crash test where the SID–IIs MDB test, possibly providing an averaging the risk of injury between the dummy in the rear seat generally inaccurate portrayal of the vehicle. driver and the passenger to obtain an demonstrates a higher risk of injury than The figure below graphically overall injury risk for each crash mode the driver. Under GM’s approach, the illustrates the method of combining the to ensure equal weighting for all seating rear seating position would have far less different risks. positions. This is unlike GM’s approach value than the driver seating position BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40037

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C in each crash mode.37 This approach is NCAP frontal crash test and the c. Combined Crashworthiness Rating similar to GM’s proposal of combining combined crashworthiness rating the crash test results using a weighted (which includes the frontal crash test The agency’s combined average. results) depends on vehicle mass, and crashworthiness rating, the Vehicle Since the NCAP frontal crash test cannot be compared across vehicle Safety Score (VSS), is computed as the involves a vehicle with a fixed rigid weight classes. In contrast, on an weighted average of the three summary barrier, it represents a crash between individual basis, the side crash (pole scores for front, side, and rollover. The two vehicles of the same weight. and MDB) test results and the rollover weight factors applied (5⁄12 for frontal Therefore, the safety rating from the results can be compared across vehicle crashes, 4⁄12 for side crashes, and 3⁄12 rollovers) reflect the proportion of classes. 37 These model years were chosen to reflect newer injuries for belted occupants (in vehicle designs and to obtain a statistically robust vehicles of model year 1999 and later) trend from the NASS/CDS data.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.004 40038 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

d. Determination of Baseline Risk and existing NCAP frontal crash test data for injury risk to the nearest tenth of a Star Bands the 50th percentile male Hybrid III percent in accordance with the NHTSA will continue to use the star dummy in the driver seating position. rounding-off method of ASTM Standard rating system to provide an individual To determine the star bands for Practice E 29 for Using Significant Digits crashworthiness rating for each seating frontal NCAP, NHTSA selected a in Test Data to Determine Conformance position, each crash mode, and their baseline risk of 15 percent (representing with Specifications, (2) dividing the combination. However under the new the average risk of injury to the driver injury risk by 0.15 (15.0 percent system, stars will be interpreted in MY 2008 vehicles in the NCAP baseline injury risk), (3) and finally differently. Bands for 1 to 5 stars were frontal crash test) to serve as the break rounding the result to the nearest one determined by the mean and dispersion point for the 4 star and 3 star rating. hundredth in accordance to ASTM of the risk of injury in all three test Other criteria used to determine the star Standard E 29. bands were (1) vehicles performing conditions (front, side, and rollover). As with frontal NCAP, this same In the NCAP frontal tests, the average exceptionally well (At 0–15 percentile methodology was applied to the scores risk of injury to the driver in all 2008 of vehicles tested) are assigned a five model year vehicles is 15 percent ± 5 star rating, and (2) Vehicles performing in the side MDB and oblique pole tests percent. Based on our NCAP injury data very poorly (greater than 4 standard as well as the combined for the 50th percentile male seated in deviations from mean) would be crashworthiness Vehicle Safety Score. the right front passenger seat, we expect assigned a one star. Attempts were also The agency found, for a limited number that a 5th percentile seated in that same made to maintain equidistant star band of newer vehicles tested to both the seating position would have a similar boundaries. Based on these criteria and MDB and Pole test, that when the MDB distribution. Therefore, the agency the distribution of the relative risk of test results were combined with the pole selected a baseline injury risk of 15 injury scores of MY 2008 vehicles, the test, the average risk was 15%. As such, percent to compute the frontal relative relationship between the Relative Risk for side NCAP, the combined risk scores. A relationship between Score (RRS) and the number of stars was crashworthiness rating also represents relative risk of injury and the number of established, and is presented below. The the relative risk of injury with respect to stars assigned was developed using the RRS is computed by (1) rounding the an injury risk of 15 percent.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RELATIVE RISK AND THE STAR BANDS FOR FRONT AND SIDE CRASH TESTS USING 15 PERCENT RISK OF INJURY AS THE FLEET AVERAGE

5 stars 4 stars 3 stars 2 stars 1 star

RRS Values ...... RRS < 0.67 ...... 0.67 ≤ RRS < 1.00 1.00 ≤ RRS < 1.33 1.33 ≤ RRS < RRS ≥ 2.67. 2.67. Probability ...... P < 0.100 ...... 0.100 ≤ P < 0.150 0.150 ≤ P < 0.200 0.200 ≤ P < 0.400 P ≥ 0.400.

Similarly for rollover, we selected a of rollover, which produces the relative baseline risk of 15 percent for the risk risk measures shown below.38

CURRENT NCAP STAR RATING IN ROLLOVER AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RELATIVE RISK IN ROLLOVER USING 15 PERCENT RISK OF INJURY AS THE BASELINE

Relative risk score in Number of stars Risk of rollover rollover

1 star ...... P ≥0.40 ...... RRS ≥2.67. 2 stars ...... 0.30 ≤P <0.40 ...... 2.00 ≤RRS <2.67. 3 stars ...... 0.20 ≤P <0.30 ...... 1.33 ≤RRS <2.00. 4 stars ...... 0.10 ≤P <0.20 ...... 0.67 ≤RRS <1.33. 5 stars ...... P <0.10 ...... P <0.67.

G. Manufacturer Self-Certification Additionally, because NHTSA does not NHTSA. They must also recall and currently have the resources to conduct remedy without charge to the purchaser Several commenters suggested that oversight over a manufacturer’s test any vehicle that fails to comply with an NHTSA consider a self-certification facility, dummy certification and test applicable safety standard. The process in which NHTSA would oversee setup, a manufacturer’s facilities might manufacturer also is subject to the testing conducted by the take more liberty than agency contract manufacturer. However, it seems additional penalties if it cannot laboratories in their testing procedures. possible that manufacturers could run demonstrate that it had no reason to several tests and report only the best These issues do not affect a know, despite exercising reasonable results; or because manufacturers would manufacturer’s self-certification of care, that the vehicle did not comply know exactly what vehicle was being compliance with the Federal motor with the standard. These are all express tested, the vehicle’s star ratings might vehicle safety standards. A provisions of Title 49, Chapter 301 of not be indicative of a random sample (as manufacturer had a legal duty to report the United States Code. There are no currently done by the agency). any non-compliance promptly to

38 See Appendix D, Probability of Injury, Vehicle Safety Score, and the Star Rating System.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40039

parallel provisions for the New Car Increased Test Speed before the details, test protocol and Assessment Program. Two commenters and most potential benefits of this activity have In addition, one of the primary automobile manufacturers stated that been resolved. Therefore, we are not reasons for allowing manufacturer self- increased test speeds in frontal NCAP incorporating pedestrian rating into NCAP at this time. certification in NCAP was to allow would promote stiffer vehicle designs information about new vehicles to be and more aggressive restraints. NHTSA Frontal Pole Test agrees that without an appropriate provided more quickly. In this case, A frontal pole test was suggested by measure of vehicle stiffness, a higher NHTSA has had an optional NCAP test two commenters and specifically speed test could lead to more aggressive program in place for nearly 20 years. opposed by one. While the real-world vehicle designs. Therefore, NHTSA has This allows manufacturers to request a data presented by the IIHS seems to decided not to adopt a 40 mph (64 test of new or redesigned vehicles and imply that a number of fatalities and kmph) frontal NCAP test because of get the NCAP information out quickly to injuries are occurring in narrow object concerns about vehicle compatibility, the public. Given these considerations, frontal impacts, at this time NHTSA is the lack of test data, and no clear NHTSA is not adopting the suggestions unclear as to what countermeasures understanding of potential to permit manufacturer self-certification might be developed. Similarly, a countermeasures that could be used by of NCAP results. significant amount of research would manufacturers to achieve the top rating. need to be conducted to establish a new In addition, the agency notes that the H. Other Recommendations frontal impact pole test for NCAP. current frontal NCAP test speed Accordingly, the agency is not adopting Several commenters, in their represents 99 percent of all crashes, and this proposal at this time. responses to the notice and at the public increasing the test speed would not hearing, presented other address a large portion of real-world I. Monroney Label recommendations for the agency’s crashes. On August 10, 2005, the President consideration. NHTSA has decided not Lighting signed into law the Safe, Accountable, to adopt any of these recommendations Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Some commenters recommended that at this time for the reasons outlined Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU). NHTSA incorporate a lighting/visibility below. Section 10307 of the Act requires new program into NCAP to address vehicle passenger automobiles to have NCAP Compatibility Assessment blind spots and glare. The commenters safety ratings displayed on the price did not provide (and NHTSA does not Some commenters recommended sticker, known as the Monroney label. believe that there is) sufficient data to front-to-front compatibility assessments, As required by SAFETEA–LU, on justify incorporating a lighting or September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53572), while others suggested vehicle visibility measure into NCAP at this NHTSA published a final rule aggressivity evaluations for frontal time. The agency is conducting research implementing this statutory NCAP. These commenters did not in both of these areas to better assess the requirement, including prescribing the provide (and NHTSA is not aware of) safety problem and explore what any data that would support an NCAP approaches and/or countermeasures form, required information, and layout compatibility evaluation at this time. should be considered. Therefore, of the label. The rule, set forth at 49 CFR The agency has a research program in NHTSA has decided not to incorporate part 575.301, applied to covered this area and should a valid an NCAP rating for lighting or visibility vehicles manufactured on or after compatibility metric emerge from that at this time. September 1, 2007. research, the agency will consider it at Regulation 575.301 specifies the that time. Frontal Offset Test required information for the NCAP Some commenters encouraged the front, side and rollover tests. For the Child Restraints incorporation of a frontal offset test into frontal crash, there are two separate ratings, one for the driver and one for Some commenters suggested that the frontal NCAP. However, others did not support an offset test stating that such the right front passenger. Similarly, two agency test and rate child restraints separate ratings are established for the either in the vehicle and/or on a sled a test did not provide sufficient benefit to consumers or that it was already side crash, one for the front seat and one test. NHTSA has examined this in the being done by others (e.g., IIHS). for the rear seat. One rating is provided past and at that time concluded that: (1) NHTSA has been studying the offset test for rollover. A dynamic rating for a child restraint procedure, but we continue to believe Under our regulation, front, side and system (CRS) was not feasible; (2) the that further research and analysis is rollover NCAP ratings must be placed agency wanted to focus on ease of use needed to ensure that improved on new vehicles manufactured 30 or ratings; and (3) limited in-vehicle occupant protection is provided by such more days after the manufacturer testing with a six-year old dummy did a test without potential unintended receives notification from NHTSA of the 39 not correlate with real-world data. consequences such as increased vehicle ratings. As explained earlier in this However, the agency has continued to stiffness and aggressivity. notice, in addition to any overall rating, investigate CRS and child dummy the agency will still make available on performance in the current NCAP test Pedestrians http://www.safercar.gov the individual environment, and their correlation to Some commenters encouraged seating position results for each crash injury risks for children in real-world NHTSA to pursue opportunities to condition (front, side pole, and side crashes. The agency will take actions at improve pedestrian safety through MDB) and for side NCAP, the front seat such time as the test results and NCAP. The agency has no pedestrian and rear seat score developed from the analyses can be used to support such a standard at this time. While NHTSA is combination of the pole and MDB test rating program. actively engaged in the development of results. However, the agency is using a Global Technical Regulation on this notice to inform manufacturers and 39 See 70 FR 29815, Docket No. NHTSA–2004– pedestrian safety, we feel it would be other interested persons of our intent to 18682. premature to develop a rating program use the new combined side impact score

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40040 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

developed from the pole and MDB tests NCAP beginning with MY 2010 percentile male ES–2re dummy will be for the Monroney label. In addition, we vehicles. For that model year, the used for the driver position and the 5th will initiate rulemaking to change the agency will make changes to its existing percentile SID–IIs dummy for the rear format and/or the layout of the front and side testing activities requiring seated passenger position. Additionally, Monroney label to incorporate the new all vehicles to be rated using these new vehicles will also be assessed using a overall combined crashworthiness protocols. With regards to the frontal new oblique pole test and a 5th rating. We believe that the combined crash test program, NHTSA will percentile female dummy in the driver rating and the new side impact score maintain the 35 mph (56 kmph) full position, using HIC36 and pelvic (force). will provide consumers with the frontal barrier test protocol but will For rollover, the agency will continue to information they need to make incorporate the following body injury rate vehicles for rollover propensity, but comparative judgments on new criteria: Head (HIC15), neck (Nij, tension, will wait to update its rollover risk vehicles. and compression), chest (deflection), model to allow for more real-world When we issue the notice of proposed and femur (axial force). The agency will crash data of vehicles equipped with rulemaking, we will address relevant also add the 5th percentile female electronic stability control. issues including changing the layout Hybrid III dummy in the right front For MY 2010, the agency will also and format of the label to incorporate seating position. For side impact, implement a new crash avoidance this new, additional information and to NHTSA will maintain the current program that will rate vehicles on the address other labeling issues such as the moving deformable barrier test at 38.5 presence of select advanced lead time necessary for the mph (63 kmph) but will update that test technologies and a new overall Vehicle manufacturers to update their labeling to include head (HIC36), chest Safety Score that will combine the star operations. (deflection), abdomen (force), and pelvic ratings from the front, side, and rollover (force) injury criteria for the ES–2re and, programs. V. Conclusion consistent with the safety standard, Appendix A NHTSA will implement these HIC36 and pelvic (force) for the SID–IIs decisions regarding enhancements to dummy. For the MDB test, the 50th NCAP and IIHS Pole Test Results NHTSA

Combined Lower spine acetabulum Vehicle Vehicle class SAB type Driver test dummy HIC36 accel (Gs) & iliac force (N)

IARV Limits ...... 1000 82 5525 2007 Honda Pilot ...... SUV ...... Curtain + Torso ... SIDIIs ...... 3464 68 6649 2007 Nissan Quest ...... Van ...... Curtain ...... SIDIIs ...... 5694 79 5786 2007 Ford Escape ...... SUV ...... Curtain + Torso ... SIDIIs ...... 407 65 6515 2006 VW Passat ...... Medium PC ...... Curtain + Torso ... SIDIIs ...... 323 40 3778 2006 Subaru Impreza ...... Medium PC ...... Combo ...... SIDIIs ...... 184 58 4377 2007 Toyota Avalon ...... Heavy PC ...... Curtain + Torso ... SIDIIs ...... 642 62 6672

Combined Driver acetab- Head Structure/ Vehicle Vehicle SAB type test HIC15 ulum & Overall Head/ Torso Pelvis/leg protec- safety class dummy iliac force rating neck tion cage (N)

2007 Honda Pilot SUV ...... Curtain + Torso ... SID–IIs .. 167 4700 G G G G G A 2007 Nissan Van ...... Curtain + Torso ... SID–IIs .. 207 2900 G G G G G A Quest. 2007 Ford Escape SUV ...... Curtain + Torso ... SID–IIs .. 216 5600 G G G A G A 2006 VW Passat Medium PC Curtain + Torso ... SID–IIs .. 168 3300 G G G G G G 2006 Subaru Medium PC Combo ...... SID–IIs .. 325 5100 G G G G G A Impreza. 2007 Toyota Heavy PC ... Curtain + Torso ... SID–IIs .. 350 4100 G G A G G A Avalon.

Appendix B • The effectiveness of ESC for Light Trucks 66 participants who each drove an FCW- and Vans (LTV’s) = 72% (weighting for the equipped vehicle for 3 weeks, it was Effectiveness Estimates for ESC, FCW and difference in crash reporting among the estimated that the FCW system has the LDW States). potential to reduce about 15% of all rear-end Electronic Stability Control (ESC) • Assuming an equal weighting between crashes. The FCW system integrated rear-end passenger cars and LTVs, the average This effectiveness estimate comes from the crash warning function with adaptive cruise effectiveness = 59% for Road Departure report: Statistical Analysis of the control function. This system becomes Crashes. operational when vehicle speed exceeds 25 Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control 59% was assumed to be a best overall (ESC) Systems—Final Report. Report No. mph and disengages when the speed falls effectiveness estimate for road departure below 20 mph. The participants accumulated DOT HS 810 794, July 2007. crashes. From the Executive Summary, page vii, for 98,000 miles of driving data. The FCW Road Departure—Police Reported Crashes: Forward Collision Warning (FCW) system operated in the background during • The effectiveness of ESC for passenger Based on field operational test (FOT) data the first week of the FOT, providing cars = 45% (weighting for the difference in from the Automotive Rear-End Collision information about baseline driving. The final crash reporting among the States). Avoidance FOT (ACAS FOT) collected from 2 weeks of the FOT generated information

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40041

about driver performance with the FCW posted limit data be used to break down the function in the study) and Curve speed system while it operated in the foreground. rear-end crash data. Thus by using warning (CSW) function. LDW monitored the FCW system effectiveness was estimated corresponding crash data by posted speed vehicle’s lane position, lateral speed and separately in each of nine driving conditions limit, total system effectiveness was available maneuvering room. The CSW based on FOT data, which combined three estimated at 15±11% of all rear-end crashes monitored the vehicle’s speed and upcoming driving states (lead vehicle stopped, lead assuming that crash-involved vehicles were road curvature. vehicle decelerating, and slower constant- traveling at the posted speed limits reported The RDCW Evaluation Final Report 1 speed lead vehicle) and three travel speed in the crash database (see Figure 4–42 on discusses numerous safety-related benefits bins (<25, between 25 and 35, and ≥35 mph). page 4–74). This safety benefit also assumes that resulted during the treatment period, Total system effectiveness was derived by 100% system deployment in the vehicle fleet. when the RDCW alerts were enabled. Most integrating individual system effectiveness 15% was assumed to be a best overall safety benefits were accrued by the LDW estimates in the nine driving conditions effectiveness estimate for rear-end crash portion of the RDCW system. These benefits using corresponding rear-end crash data from prevention. include increased turn signal use, improved the GES (see Equation (6) in Section 4.2.2.3 Reference lane keeping, and fewer crossings of a solid on page 4–70). Based on available FOT data, Najm, W.G., Stearns, M.D., Howarth, H., lane marker at speeds above 55 mph. the FCW has shown crash prevention Koopmann, J., and Hitz, J., ‘‘Evaluation of an However, only one of these benefits—fewer potential in lead vehicle stopped at speeds Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance crossing of a solid lane marker—was used to over 25 mph, slower constant-speed lead System’’. U.S. Department of Transportation, forecast a reduction in road-departure vehicle at speeds below 25 and over 35 mph, National Highway Traffic Safety crashes. Solid lane markers serve as the road and lead vehicle decelerating at speeds over Administration, DOT HS 810 569, March boundary. During the treatment period and at 35 mph (see Table 4–32 on page 4–73). Using 2006. speeds above 55 mph, drivers crossed solid corresponding crash data by travel speed lane markers 44 percent less often than they only (not taking into account crash data by Lane Departure Warning (LDW) did in the baseline period, when RDCW attempted avoidance maneuver), total system The overall average crash reduction alerts were not enabled. This reduction, effectiveness was estimated at 9±5% of all estimate range (6% to 11%) for Lane weighted by the national departure crash rear-end crashes (see Figure 4–42 on page 4– Departure Warning was obtained from data counts at this speed range, resulted in a 74). However, GES crash data on travel speed collected during a Road Departure Collision forecasted reduction in road-departure are unreliable since the travel speed variable Warning (RDCW) System Field operational crashes. is coded as ‘‘unknown’’ in over 70% of the test (FOT). The system merged and arbitrated Road-departure crash statistics presented rear-end crash cases. As an alternative to warnings between a lane departure warning in Section 4.1 of the RDCW Evaluation travel speed, it is recommended that the system (referred to as a lateral drift warning Report.1

TABLE 4–1.—ROAD-DEPARTURE PRECRASH SCENARIOS (THOUSANDS) GES 2003 [Critical event]

Vehicle Departed movement road edge Lost control Other Row totals

Count ...... 261 208 ...... 469 Row Percent ...... Going Straight ...... 55.7 44.3 ...... Percent ...... 25.4 20.3 ...... 45.7 Count ...... 116 172 ...... 288 Row Percent ...... Negotiating a Curve ...... 40.3 59.7 ...... Percent ...... 11.3 16.7 ...... 28.0 Count ...... 65 55 ...... 120 Row Percent ...... Initiating a Maneuver ...... 54.2 45.8 ...... Percent ...... 6.3 5.4 ...... 11.7 Count ...... 150 150 Percent ...... Other ...... 14.6 Count ...... 442 435 150 1,027 Percent ...... All Groups ...... 43.0 42.4 14.6 ......

From section 4.4.1, this results in an With the 56% availability observed in the Appendix C estimated 9,372 to 74,844 fewer road- FOT, the estimated effectiveness estimated is Injury Risk Curves for the NCAP Combined departure crashes each year. The average of (.56)(.11) = 6%. Crashworthiness Rating System this range equals 42,108. This range is based Since system availability may vary on full LDW availability. depending on the quality of lane markings, This Appendix presents the injury risk a range of 6 to 11% was assumed to be the curves for various body regions applicable to Effectiveness = collisions avoided/collision the Hybrid III 50th percentile male (HIII 50M) best overall effectiveness estimate for crashes population and the Hybrid III 5th percentile female (HIII caused by lane drift. Collision population originates from two 5F) dummies in frontal crash tests and the departure road edge cells in Table 4–1, and Reference ES–2re and the SID–IIs side impact dummies in lateral crash tests. equals 377,000 crashes. With full availability, [1] Wilson, B.H., Stearns, M.D., Koopman, the effectiveness equals: J., Yang, D., ‘‘Evaluation of a Road Departure Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP Head Crash Warning System’’. U.S. Department of The head injury criterion (HIC ) as a 42108 15 ≈ 11%() 1 Transportation, National Highway Traffic metric for assessing head injury risk is well 377000 Safety Administration, DOT HS 810 854, established and in use in FMVSS No. 208 December 2007. (Eppinger et al., 1999).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.008 40042 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

1n (.HIC15) − 7 45231 PAIS()3+=Φ  (1)  0. 73998 

Where F = cumulative normal distribution scaling methods, NHTSA took the presents the Nij formulation and Table 1 The AIS 3+ head injury risk curve from the conservative approach in estimating head presents the intercept values (from FMVSS FMVSS No. 208 Advanced Airbag Final injury assessment reference values for the No. 208) of Fint and Mint used in Nij. Economic Assessment was extended from the HIII 5F dummy. As such, this equation will Hertz (1993) AIS 2+ head injury risk curve also be used to assess the risk of AIS 3+ head F M injury for the HIII 5F dummies. =+z y using real-world data to determine the Nij (2) relative incidence of different severity brain Neck FintM int injuries. Since NHTSA will assess the risk of The risk of AIS 3+ neck injury is assessed Where F is the axial force and M is the serious or more severe head injuries, this z y using Nij (Equation 2) as described in flexion/extension moment measured in equation has been selected for use in NCAP Eppinger et al. (1999, 2000) and currently the upper neck load cell. (Equation 1). Due to the uncertainty in the used in FMVSS No. 208. The equation below

TABLE 1.—NIJ INTERCEPT VALUES AND TENSION/COMPRESSION LIMITS FOR IN-POSITION 50TH PERCENTILE ADULT MALE AND 5TH PERCENTILE FEMALE DUMMIES

Nij intercepts Dummy Compres- Compres- Tension sion Tension sion Flexion Extension

HIII 50M ...... 4170 N ...... 4000 N ...... 6806 N ...... 6160 N ...... 310 Nm ...... 135 Nm. HIII 5F ...... 2620 N ...... 2520 N ...... 4287 N ...... 3880 N ...... 155 Nm ...... 67 Nm.

In general, neck injuries occur due to curve was developed using the same paired injury risk due to neck compression. combination loading to in-position pig and dummy test data used for the Equations 3–5 present the risk of AIS 3+ neck occupants. As such, the Nij injury risk curve development of Nij. NHTSA assumed that injury as a function of Nij, neck tension, and is applicable and the agency has selected the the tensile neck tolerance is approximately neck compression for the HIII 50M and HIII risk curve used in the establishment of the equal to the compressive neck tolerance. 5F dummies. Advanced Air Bag rule for FMVSS No. 208 Therefore, the injury risk curve for neck from Eppinger. The neck tension injury risk tension can also be applied to obtain neck

1 HIII 50M and HIII 5F: P(AIS 3+) = −∗ (3) 1+e3.227 1. 969 Nij

1 HIII 550M: P(AIS3+) = (4) 1+e10.9745−∗2. 375 Tension_or_Compression

1 HHIII 5F: P(AIS 3+) = ((5) 1+e10.958−∗3. 770 Tension_or_Compression

Where tension_or_compression is in kV. recent, peer reviewed thoracic injury risk average age of the driving population which The risk of AIS 3+ neck injury in the NCAP curve using chest deflection. Laituri et al. is approximately 35 years. The injury risk frontal crash test is the greater of the injury (2003, 2005) developed AIS 3+ thoracic curve based on this evaluation for assessing risk for Nij, neck tension, and neck injury risk curves by analyzing published risk of AIS 3+ chest injury is presented in compression. In general, the risk of injury cadaveric sled test data and then developing Equation 6 for the Hybrid III 50th percentile obtained from Nij is higher than that for neck a transfer function between dummy chest male dummy. The injury risk curve as a tension or compression in frontal NCAP tests. deflection measurements and cadaveric chest function of chest deflection (Equation 7) for Chest deflection under similar impact conditions. the HIII 5th percentile female dummy (HIII Eppinger et al. (1999) developed injury risk The resulting thoracic injury risk curve is 5F) is obtained by scaling the risk curves for curves for chest deflection. However, the based on dummy measured chest deflection the HIII 50M using the scale factor for chest derived injury risk curve was independent of and occupant age and was evaluated against deflection (=0.817) which is the ratio of the occupant age and was not adequately real world injury risk in frontal crashes. In chest depth of a 5th percentile female to that adjusted to reflect real-world chest injury order to apply this AIS 3+ thoracic injury risk of a 50th percentile male (Eppinger (1999) risk. As such, we have chosen to use a more curve in NCAP, it was normalized to the and Mertz (2003)).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.009 EN11JY08.010 EN11JY08.011 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40043

1 50th percentile P(AIS3+) = 0. 4612 (6) 1+e12.597−∗−∗0..( 05861 35 1 568 ChesstDefl)

1 5th percentile P(AIS3+)= 0. 4612 (7) 1+e12.597−0. 05861∗− 35 1.( 568 ∗ChestDefl/ 0.817 )

Knee-Thigh-Hip distal femur and knee and only four of the female dummy (HIII 5F) was developed by The injury risk curve that the agency will 126 tests used to develop these risks curves scaling the risk curves for the HIII 50M using produced a hip fracture. In addition, the knee use for the Knee-Thigh-Hip (KTH) is the a scale factor of 0.68 (Equation 9). This scale injuries in this dataset were primarily factor was proposed by Eppinger (1999) and same as that reported by Eppinger et al. multifragmentary patellar fractures, which, later by Mertz (2003) and is based on the (1999) in support of FMVSS No. 208 like other articular surface injuries, are (Equation 8). The injury risk curves represent associated with a high level of long-term ratio of the thigh circumference of a 5th femur and knee injury risk since most of the disability. percentile female to that of a 50th percentile injuries in the datasets that were used to The femur injury risk curve as a function male. develop these injury risk curves were to the of femur axial force for the HIII 5th percentile

1 50th percentile P(AIS 2+)= (8) 1+e5.7949−0. 5196 Femur_Force

1 5th percentile P(AIS 2+)= (99) 1+e5.7949−0. 7619 Femur_Force

Joint Probability of Injury of injury to each body region assuming the probability of serious injury, Pjoint, is given The joint probability of injury to an injury to different body regions are by: occupant is obtained by combining the risk independent events. Therefore the

=−−()×−()×−()×− PPPPPjoint 11 head 1 neck 1 chest() 1 femur

Injury Risk Curves for Side NCAP human cadavers onto rigid and padded injuries in lateral crashes in the upgrade to The injury risk curves for the side impact surfaces where the impact area was the FMVSS No. 214 so as to harmonize with the dummies, ES–2re and SID–IIs (Kuppa, 2006), forehead (Lissner et al. 1960, Hodgson et al. existing FMVSS No. 201 optional pole were developed from biomechanical tests 1972). Though forehead impacts are impact test. involving human cadaveric subjects and representative of a frontal impact scenario, Therefore, the FMVSS No. 208 AIS 3+ the ECE R95 directive and Euro NCAP detailed in NHTSA docket (NHTSA–2007– injury risk function presented above for the 29134). continue to apply HIC for head injury assessment in lateral impact scenarios, HIII 50M and HIII 5F dummies will be used Head implicitly assuming that the head/brain in the NCAP side impact tests with the ES– The Head Injury Criterion (HIC), used for injury tolerance is independent of loading 2re and SID–IIs dummies. However, in order assessing injury risk in frontal impacts is direction and impact location. Similarly, to be consistent with FMVSS No. 214, HIC36 based on repeated drop tests of embalmed NHTSA applied HIC36 to assess head/brain will be used rather than HIC15 (Equation 10).

1n (.HIC36) − 7 45231 PAIS()3+=Φ  (10)  0. 73998 

Where F = cumulative normal distribution severity to be a polychotomous variable adjusted to represent the average risk of (AIS<3, AIS=3, AIS>3). However, this AIS 3+ injury in real world side crashes, NHTSA Chest injury risk curve has a finite risk of injury will use the AIS 4+ injury risk curve as the The risk of AIS 3+ and AIS 4+ thoracic even at zero mm of rib deflection. The same corresponding AIS 3+ injury risk in NCAP. injury for a 45 year old (average age of the cadaver and dummy test data reported by The risk of AIS 3+ thoracic injury for a 45 driving population involved in side impacts) Kuppa (2006) were reanalyzed considering year old (average age of the driving 50th percentile adult male occupant as a the injury severity to be dichotomous (AIS<3 population involved in side impacts) 50th function of maximum rib deflection of the and AIS≥3 or AIS<4 and AIS≥4) to develop percentile adult male occupant as a function ES–2re side impact dummy was developed new AIS 3+ and AIS 4+ injury risk curves. of maximum rib deflection of the ES–2re for by Kuppa (2006) by considering the injury Since the injury risk curves have not been use in NCAP is presented in Equation 11.

1 pAIS(3+) = (11) 1+e(5.3895−∗0. 0919 max. rib. defl. )

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.012 EN11JY08.013 EN11JY08.014 EN11JY08.015 EN11JY08.016 40044 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

FMVSS 214 final rule does not utilize rib 1 of AIS 3+ injured occupants (of height less deflection measures of the SID IIs dummy than 5 ft 4 inches) involved in side crashes. p(AIS3+) = 7.5969−∗0. 0011 F (13) and so they are not considered in NCAP at 1+e Research has indicated that pelvic injuries to this time. Additionally, because the agency Where F is the pubic force in the ES–2re older occupants are associated with does not have a valid risk curve at this time dummy in Newtons increased mortality (O’Brien et al. 2002; for spine acceleration, it is also not included. Henry et al. 2002). During a 5-year period, O’ Kuppa (2006) developed the risk curve for Brien et al. and Henry et al. examined Abdomen AIS 2+ pelvic fracture as a function of the patients who sustained a pelvic fracture and The AIS 3+ abdominal injury risk curve sum of iliac wing and acetabular force in the using the total force in the ES–2re abdomen SID-IIs by scaling the normalized 50th found that patients 55 years and older were reported by Kuppa (2006) is utilized in NCAP percentile male data to that of a 5th more likely to sustain a lateral compression and is presented in Equation 12. percentile female, accounting for older fracture pattern and had a higher frequency subject age, adjusting for lower bone of mortality due to the injury than younger 1 tolerance among female occupants, and patients (<55 years old). Due to the higher mortality rate associated with the elderly, an pAIS(3+) = 6.04044−∗0. 002133 F (12) transforming the applied force on the cadaver 1+e to the sum of acetabular and iliac force AIS 2+ injury risk curve is used in NCAP for Where F is the total force in the ES–2re measured in the SID–IIs dummy. This pelvic the SID–IIs representing a 56 year old small abdomen in Newtons. injury risk function for the SID–IIs is female rather than the AIS 3+ injury risk Since FMVSS No. 214 does not utilize the presented in Equation 14. specified for the ES–2re dummy abdominal rib deflection measures of the Joint Probability of Injury SID-IIs dummy for injury assessment, no 1 The joint risk of injury to an occupant is abdominal injury risk assessment will be p(AIS2+) = (14) 6.3055−∗0. 00094 F obtained by combining the risk of injury to applied to the NCAP side MDB test and the 1+e the head, chest, abdomen and pelvis oblique pole test using the SID IIs dummy. Where F is the sum of the acetabular and assuming the injury to different body regions Pelvis iliac force in the SID–IIs dummy in are independent events (as was done for NHTSA will utilize the AIS 3+ pelvic Newtons frontal impact). Note that for the SID–IIs, the injury risk curve (Equation 13) reported by In developing the pelvis injury criteria for risk of chest and abdomen injury is omitted Kuppa (2006) for injury assessment with the the SID-IIs, an occupant age of 56 years was and only the risk of injury to the head and ES–2re driver in the side MDB NCAP test. considered to correspond to the average age pelvis are combined.

=−−()×−()×−()×− PPPPPjoint 11 head 1 chest 1 abdomen() 1 pelvis

Injury Risk In Rollover Crashes 2004, the NCAP vehicle rollover rating has vehicle crashes as a function of the static The Static Stability Factor (SSF) of a been calculated as a function of the vehicle’s stability factor and the results of the dynamic vehicle is defined as one-half the track width, static stability factor and its propensity to tip rollover test was estimated from the State t, divided by h, the height of the center of up in the dynamic rollover ‘‘fishhook’’ test Data System and is presented below in gravity above the road (SSF = t/(2 × h)). Since (68 FR 59250). The risk of rollover in single- Equations 15 and 16.

1 Vehicles not tipping in dynamic test : Rollover risk = (15) 1+e2..8891+1.1686×−Ln ( SSF 0.9)

1 Vehicles tipping in dynamic ttest : Rollover risk = (16) 1+e2.6968+1.1686×−Ln ( SSF 0.9)

Where SSF=static stability factor elsewhere in this Notice), we treat this as Proceedings of the Thirtieth Stapp Car Crash This model describes the absolute risk of equivalent to the relative risk that a belted Conference, pp 157–166. SAE Paper No. rollover given a single-vehicle crash. We can occupant is injured in a rollover crash given 861884. also describe the risk of rollover relative to a single-vehicle crash. This is not strictly Bouquet, R., Ramet, M., Bermond, F., Vyes, an ‘‘average’’ vehicle. For example, we could true, but our review of the SDS data for C. (1998) Pelvic Human Response to Lateral use a ‘‘typical’’ SSF (which is about 1.35 for belted drivers indicates that it is Impact, 16th International Technical the current fleet) for vehicles that did not tip approximately true. Therefore, the relative Conference on the Enhanced Safety of up in the dynamic test (which reflects the risks of injury to a belted driver in a rollover Vehicles, Paper No. 98–S7–W–16, National future in the sense that when all vehicles are crash conditional on being involved in a Highway Traffic Administration, Windsor, equipped with ESC there will be essentially single-vehicle crash are approximately 1998. no tip-ups in the dynamic test). The risk of proportional to the risks of rollover outlined Cesari D and Bouquet R. (1990) Behavior rollover for a subject vehicle compared to the above. of Human Surrogates under Belt Loading. risk of rollover for this baseline case Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Stapp Car describes how much more or less likely the REFERENCES Crash Conference, pp 73–82. SAE Paper No. subject vehicle is to roll over compared to the AAM Association of Automobile 902310. baseline. Thus, for example, a relative risk of Manufacturers (1999), Comments to the Eppinger et al., (1999) Development of rollover of 0.80 means that the subject Supplemental Notice of Proposed Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment vehicle is 20 percent less likely to roll over Rulemaking FMVSS No. 208 Occupant Crash of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems than the baseline; a relative risk of 1.25 Protection—Air bags, NHTSA Docket No. II, NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA–1999–6407– means that the subject vehicle is 25 percent NHTSA–1999–6407–40. 5. more likely to roll over than the baseline. For Backaitis SH and St. Laurent A. (1986) Eppinger et al. (2000) Supplement: certain purposes (specifically, in producing Chest Deflection Characteristics of Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Vehicle Safety Score as described Volunteers and Hybrid III Dummies. the Assessment of Advanced Automotive

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.017 EN11JY08.018 EN11JY08.019 EN11JY08.020 EN11JY08.021 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40045

Restraint Systems II, NHTSA Docket No. Ninth Experimental Safety Vehicle Human Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis in NHTSA–2000–7013–3. Conference, pp. 368–376, Kyoto, Japan. Lateral Impact, Accident Analysis and Hertz E. (1993) A Note on the Head Injury Mertz, H., Irwin, A., Prasad, P. (2003) Prevention, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 553–574. Criteria (HIC) as a Predictor of the Risk of Biomechanical and Scaling Bases for Frontal Walfisch, G., Fayon, C., Terriere, J., et al., Skull Fracture. 37th Annual Proceedings of and Side Impact Injury Assessment Reference ‘‘Designing of a Dummy’s Abdomen for the Association for the Advancement of Values. Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 47, pp. Detecting Injuries in Side Impact Collisions,’’ Automotive Medicine. 155–188. 5th International IRCOBI Conference, 1980. Hodgson, V.R. and Thomas, L. M. (1972) Mertz H. (1993) Anthropomorphic Test Effect of Long Duration Impact on Head, SAE Devices, Accidental Injury, Biomechanics, Appendix D 72096, Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash and Prevention, edited by Nahum, A., Relative Risk of Injury, Vehicle Safety Score, Conference, Society of Automotive Melvin, J., Springer-Verlag. and the Star Rating System Engineers, Warrendale, PA. Morgan, et al. (1990) Human Cadaver and Horsch JD, et al. (1991) Thoracic Injury Hybrid III Responses to Axial Impacts of the Introduction Assessment of Belt Restraint Systems Based Femur, Proceedings of the 1990 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of The risk of injury to each occupant in on Hybrid III Chest Compression. SAE Paper NHTSA’s Crashworthiness Rating System is No. 912895, Thirty-Fifth Stapp car Crash Impacts, 1990. the joint probability of injury to each body Conference, pp 85–108. NHTSA, Final Economic Assessment region considered for that occupant. The International Standards Organization (ISO) FMVSS No. 208 Advanced Air Bag (2000), overall risk of injury in frontal crashes is the Working Group 6, ISO TC 22/SC 12/ WG 6, NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7013–2. average of the injury risk to the driver and Road Vehicles—Injury Risk Curves to Nusholtz, G., Domenico, L., Shi, Y., Eagle, passenger in the frontal crash test. The risk Evaluate Occupant Protection in Side Impact, P. (2003) Studies of Neck Injury Criteria ISO/TR 12350:2002(E). Based on Existing Biomechanical Test Data, of injury to the driver in side crashes is the Kent, R., Patrie, J., Benson, N. (2003) The Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, weighted average of the risk to the driver in Hybrid III dummy as a discriminator of pp. 777–786. the MDB test (weight=0.8) and the pole test O’ Brien, D., Luchette, F., Pereira, S., Lim, injurious and non-injurious restraint loading, (weight=0.2). The overall risk of injury in E., Seeskin, C., James, L., Miller, S., Davis, K., Forty0Seventh Annual Proceedings, side crashes is the average of the injury risk Hurst, J., Johannigman, J., Frame, S. (2002) Association for the Advancement of to the driver in side crashes (MDB and Pole) Pelvic Fracture in the Elderly is Associated Automotive Medicine. and the injury risk to the rear seat passenger with Increased Mortality, Surgery, Volume Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R. (1998) in the MDB test. 132, pp. 710–715. The crashworthiness rating system ‘‘Development of an Improved Thoracic Prasad, P., Daniel, R., (1984) A Injury Criterion,’’ Proceedings of the 42nd provides relative risk of injury for each biomechanical analysis of head, neck, and occupant in each crash test condition (driver Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE No. torso injuries to child surrogates due to 983153. and front outboard passenger in the frontal sudden torso acceleration, SAE Paper No. crash test, driver and near side rear seat Kuppa, S. (2001) Lower Extremity Injuries 841656. passenger in the side MDB test, driver in the and Associated Injury Criteria, Proceedings Rupp, J., Reed, M., Kuppa, S., Wang, S., oblique pole impact test, and rollover test) of the Seventeenth International Technical Goulet, J., Schneider, L., ‘‘The Tolerance of and a Combined Crashworthiness Rating Conference on the Enhanced Safety of the Human Hip to Dynamic Knee Loading,’’ Vehicles, Amsterdam, June, 2001. Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 211– Vehicle Safety Score. The relative risk of Kuppa, S. (2006) Injury Criteria for Side 228, 2002. injury in each test condition for a vehicle is Impact Dummies, Docket No. NHTSA–2007– Rupp, J., Reed, M., Jeffreys, Y., Schneider, computed by dividing the overall risk of 29134–0001. L. (2003). Effects of Hip Posture on the injury in each crash mode by an average Laituri, T., Prasad, P., Kachnowski, B., Frontal Impact Tolerance of the Human Hip baseline risk (for example, the average risk of Sullivan, K., Przybylo, P. (2003) Prediction of Joint. Stapp Car Crash Journal 47:21–33. serious injury in the fleet or that of a group AIS 3+ Thoracic Risks for Belted Occupants Rupp J., Reed, M., Madura, N., Miller, C., of select vehicles in the fleet for a certain in Full Engagements, Real World Frontal Kuppa, S., Schneider, L. (2005). Comparison model year). The Combined Crashworthiness Impacts: Sensitivity to Various Theoretical of the Inertial Response of the Thor-NT, Rating Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) is obtained Risk Curves, SAE Paper No. 2003–01–1355, Hybrid III, and Unembalmed Cadaver to as a weighted average of the individual 2003 SAE World Congress. Simulated Knee-to-Knee-Bolster Impacts. Relative Risk Score (RRS) in each test Laituri, T., Prasad, P., Sullivan, K., Proceedings of the 19th International condition. Frankstein, M., Thomas, R. (2005) Derivation Technical Conference on the Enhanced The RRS for each test condition and the and Evaluation of a Provisional, Age Safety of Vehicles, Paper 05–0086. National VSS represent the risk of injury to occupants Dependent AIS 3+ Thoracic Risk Curve for Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of the vehicle relative to a baseline risk of Belted Adults in Frontal Impacts, SAE Paper Washington DC. injury. For example, a VSS of 1.15 for a No. 2005–01–0297. Rupp, J. (2006). Biomechanics of Hip vehicle implies that the occupants in that Laituri, T., Henry, S., Sullivan, K., Prasad, Fractures in Frontal Motor Vehicle Crashes. vehicle are 15 percent more likely to sustain P. (2006) Derivation and Theoretical Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of serious injury than a vehicle representing the Assessment of a Set of Biomechanics-based, Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. baseline risk. AIS 2+ Risk Equations for the Knee-Thigh- Viano, et al. (1977) ‘‘Considerations for a Frontal Crash Test Rating Hip Complex, Stapp Car Crash journal, Vol. Femur Injury Criterion,’’ Proceedings of the 50, November 2006. Twenty-First Stapp Car Crash Conference, The historical frontal NCAP crash test data Lissner, H. R. et al. (1960) Experimental SAE Paper No. 770925. for the driver from the model years 1995 Studies on the Relation between Acceleration Viano, D. (1989) Biomechanical Responses through 2008 were examined using the injury and Intracranial Pressure Changes in Man, and Injuries in Blunt Lateral Impact. Proc. risk curves presented in Appendix C. Surgery Gynecology and Obstetrics, pp.329– Thirty-third Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. The average risk of injury to the head, 338. 113–142, Society of Automotive Engineers, neck, chest, and femur of the driver, Mertz, H., Weber, D. (1982) Interpretations Warrendale, PA. computed using the injury risk curves from of the Impact Responses of a 3-year-old child Viano, D., Lau, I., Asbury, C., King, A., Appendix C, for each vehicle of model years dummy relative to child injury potential. Begeman, P. (1989) Biomechanics of the 2004 to 2008 is presented in Figure 1.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40046 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

When compared to data from 1995, these (Table 2). If the average performance of all in the fleet is approximately 0.15. Therefore, data indicate that the average risk of injury the vehicles tested in NCAP each year is used the baseline injury risk of 0.15 was used to to the driver by model year has been reduced to represent the fleet of new cars, then for compute the relative risk of injury in frontal since 1995 and is less than 0.2 after MY 2002 MY 2008, the average risk of serious injury crashes for each vehicle (Table 3).

TABLE 1.—PROBABILITY OF INJURY STATISTICS FOR DRIVERS IN NCAP FRONTAL CRASH TESTS BY MODEL YEAR

Average Prob Std. P 25% P 75% MY prob deviation Minimum P quartile P Median quartile Maximum P

1995 ...... 0.30 0.12 0.10 0.21 0.27 0.35 0.62 1996 ...... 0.32 0.18 0.13 0.18 0.28 0.40 0.86 1997 ...... 0.26 0.14 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.69 1998 ...... 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.63 1999 ...... 0.29 0.18 0.09 0.17 0.23 0.36 0.71 2000 ...... 0.25 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.28 0.64 2001 ...... 0.23 0.12 0.09 0.17 0.19 0.26 0.63 2002 ...... 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.61 2003 ...... 0.18 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.45 2004 ...... 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.46 2005 ...... 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.19 0.57 2006 ...... 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.22 0.31 2007 ...... 0.15 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.38 2008 ...... 0.15 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.24 Average MY 1995–2008 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.25 0.56 Average MY 2004–2008 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.19 0.39

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.005 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40047

The average, minimum, maximum, and the exceptionally well (at 0–15 percentile of in accordance with the rounding-off method quartiles presented in Table 3 provide an vehicles tested) are assigned a five star rating, of ASTM Standard Practice E 29 for Using estimate of the dispersion of Relative Risk and (2) vehicles performing very poorly Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Score (RRS) in different model years. Since (greater than 4 standard deviations from Conformance with Specifications, (2) most of the current vehicles receive four or mean) would be assigned a one star. dividing the injury risk by 0.15 (15.0 percent five stars in the NCAP frontal crash tests, Attempts were also made to maintain baseline injury risk), (3) and finally rounding NHTSA prescribed the baseline risk of 15 equidistant star band boundaries. Based on the result to the nearest one hundredth in percent (representing the average risk of these criteria and the distribution of relative accordance to ASTM Standard E 29. It should injury to the driver in MY 2007 and MY 2008 risk of injury scores presented in Table 3, the be noted that a vehicle which passes vehicles in the NCAP frontal crash test) to be relationship between RRS and the number of compliance (with a 20 percent compliance at the border of the 4 star and 3 star rating. stars was established as presented in Table 4. margin) would have an injury risk of 52.1 Other criteria used to determine the star The RRS is computed by (1) rounding the percent corresponding to a RRS value of 3.47. bands were (1) vehicles performing injury risk to the nearest tenth of a percent BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.022 40048 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 EN11JY08.023 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices 40049

Side Crash Test Rating were part of NHTSA’s fleet evaluation for the standard deviation, minimum, maximum, Because the agency did not have test data FMVSS 214 side impact upgrade and details median, and 25 and 75 percentile injury risk using the ES 2re or SID IIs dummies at the and thorough analysis of these tests are values) for each dummy in the MDB and NCAP test speed for the MDB test, the agency available in the NHTSA docket number oblique pole tests using the injury risk curves computed the average risk of serious injury NHTSA–2007–25441. from Appendix C. derived from relevant MDB tests and oblique There were six vehicles which were tested The overall risk of injury to the driver for pole impact tests done in support of the in the FMVSS 214 test conditions (MDB each vehicle is the weighted average of the FMVSS 214 side impact protection upgrade. impact at 53 km/h rather than the NCAP 62 driver injury risk in the MDB test (multiplied The MDB test is conducted with the ES–2re km/h) as well as the oblique pole impact by 0.8) and that in the oblique pole test dummy in the front driver seat and the SID– with the SID–IIs dummies. The dummy (multiplied by 0.2). The risk of injuries in IIs in the rear passenger seat. The pole impact injury measures in the paired crash tests of side crashes for a vehicle is the simple test is conduced with the SID–IIs in the these vehicles with the ES–2re and SID–IIs average of the injury risk of the rear seat driver’s seat. dummies were used to determine risk of passenger in the MDB test and the overall The injury risk curves for side impact injury in side crashes and a Relative Risk driver injury risk. Table 4 also presents the reported in Appendix C are applied to side Score (RRS) for side crashes. Table 4 presents statistics for the overall risk of injury to the MDB tests and oblique pole tests. These tests the statistics for the risk of injury (average, driver and the risk of injury in side crashes.

TABLE 4.—PROBABILITY OF INJURY (P) STATISTICS FOR DIFFERENT OCCUPANTS IN THE SIDE MDB AND THE OBLIQUE POLE CRASH TESTS

25% quartile 75% quartile Crash type Average P Std. Dev. P Min P P Median P P Max P

MDB Driver...... 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.13 MDB Pass...... 0.13 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.55 Pole Driver...... 0.64 0.39 0.13 0.32 0.79 0.93 0.98 Overall Driver...... 0.20 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.23 0.28 0.30 Side Impact...... 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.18 0.43 • The overall risk of injury to the driver is computed as the weighted average of the risk of driver injury in the MDB test (multiplied by 0.8) and the risk of driver injury in the pole test (multiplied by 0.2). • The risk of injury in side impact is the average of the overall driver risk and the risk of rear passenger in the MDB test.

The average risk of injury from the six In order to promote improvement in side Test Data to Determine Conformance with MDB tests for the driver and the rear impact safety in all the vehicles, the baseline Specifications, 2) dividing the injury risk by passenger is 0.09 and 0.13, respectively. The risk of injury to compute Relative Risk Scores 0.15 (15.0 percent baseline injury risk), 3) average risk of injury to the driver in the six (RRS) in side crashes is taken to be 15 and finally rounding the result to the nearest percent. As in frontal crash tests, the RRS in oblique pole tests is 0.64 and the average one hundredth in accordance to ASTM side MDB and pole crash tests is computed overall risk of injury to the driver (combining by 1) rounding the injury risk to the nearest Standard E 29. Table 5 presents the RRS the MDB and pole test results) is 0.20. For tenth of a percent in accordance with the statistics corresponding to the injury risk these six vehicles, the average risk of injury rounding-off method of ASTM Standard presented in Table 4 using a baseline injury in side crashes is 0.16. Practice E 29 for Using Significant Digits in risk of 15 percent.

TABLE 5.—RELATIVE RISK SCORE (RRS) STATISTICS FOR DIFFERENT OCCUPANTS IN THE SIDE MDB AND THE OBLIQUE POLE CRASH TESTS

Average Std. Dev. 25% quartile Median 75% quartile Crash type RRS RRS Min RRS RRS RRS RRS Max RRS

MDB Driver...... 0.60 0.25 0.28 0.42 0.59 0.80 0.87 MDB Pass...... 0.86 1.39 0.20 0.21 0.28 0.45 3.69 Pole Driver...... 4.27 2.57 0.89 2.15 5.24 6.23 6.54 Overall Driver...... 1.33 0.71 0.40 0.77 1.52 1.89 2.00 Side Impact...... 1.09 1.05 0.30 0.49 0.90 1.17 2.84 • The Relative Risk Score for MDB tests, pole tests, and side impacts is obtained by dividing the risk of injury in each side crash mode listed in Table 4 by 0.15 which represents the baseline risk of injury in side impacts.

Vehicles for which all the dummy injury Rollover Rating percent risk (corresponding to a 4 star rating) measures (for the ES–2re and SID–IIs) in the Since the proposed rollover rating is the is used as the baseline risk (as that in front MDB and pole tests just meet the compliance same as that currently used in NCAP, the and side crash test rating), then the limits, the risk of injury is 0.70 for the ES– current relationship between the risk of relationship between the vehicle safety score 2re and 0.42 for the SID IIs dummies rollover and star rating used in NCAP is in rollover is as shown in Table 11. resulting in an overall risk of injury in side applied here and is shown in Table 11. If 15 crashes of 0.532, a RRS of 3.54.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 40050 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 134 / Friday, July 11, 2008 / Notices

TABLE 11.—STAR RATING, RISK OF ROLLOVER, AND THE RELATIVE RISK SCORE IN ROLLOVER [Using a baseline risk of 15 percent]

Relative risk score in Number of stars Risk of rollover rollover

1 star ...... P ≥ 40 percent ...... RRS ≥ 2.67 2 stars ...... 30 ≤ P < 40 percent ...... 2.0 ≤ RRS < 2.67 3 stars ...... 20 ≤ P < 30 percent ...... 1.33 ≤ RRS < 2.0 4 stars ...... 10 ≤ P < 20 percent ...... 0.67 ≤ RRS < 1.33 5 stars ...... P < 10 percent ...... RRS < 0.67

Combined Crashworthiness Rating Vehicle used to compute RRS in each crash mode is The final VSS value is obtained by Safety Score 15 percent, the combined crashworthiness rounding the result from the above equation The weighted average of the Relative Risk rating also represents the relative risk of to the nearest one hundredth in accordance Scores (RRS) in front, side, and rollover injury with respect to a baseline of 15 to ASTM Standard E 29. The star bands used crashes is the combined crashworthiness percent. The Vehicle Safety Score for the for rating frontal and side impacts are Combined Crashworthiness Rating is rating Vehicle Safety Score (VSS). The weight applied to the combined crashworthiness computed below: applied to each crash mode represents the rating using VSS and is presented in Table Combined Rating = (5/12) × RRS(front) + (4/ proportion of injury associated with that 12. crash mode. Since the baseline injury risk 12) × RRS(side) + (3/12) × RRS(roll)

TABLE 12.—RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VEHICLE SAFETY SCORE AND THE STAR RATING

5 stars 4 stars 3 stars 2 stars 1 star

VSS Values ...... VSS <0.67 ...... 0.67 ≤ VSS <1.00 1.00 ≤ VSS < 1.33 1.33 ≤ VSS < 2.67 VSS ≥ 2.67 Probability ...... P < 0.100 ...... 0.100 ≤ P < 0.150 0.150 ≤ P < 0.200 0.200 ≤ P < 0.400 P ≥ 0.400

Authority: 49 U.S.C. §§ 32302, 30111, 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of Issued on: July 3, 2008. 30115, 30117, 30166, and 30168, and Pub. L. authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8–15620 Filed 7–10–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:17 Jul 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11JYN2.SGM 11JYN2 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2