[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78522-78591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31323]
[[Page 78521]]
Vol. 80
Wednesday,
No. 241
December 16, 2015
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Car Assessment Program; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 /
Notices
[[Page 78522]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0119]
New Car Assessment Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides comparative
information on the safety of new vehicles to assist consumers with
vehicle purchasing decisions and encourage motor vehicle manufacturers
to make vehicle safety improvements. To keep pace with advancements in
occupant protection and the introduction of advanced technologies,
NHTSA has periodically updated the program. This notice describes and
seeks comments on NHTSA's plan to advance the capabilities and safety
outcomes of NCAP.
DATES: Comments should be submitted no later than February 16, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be
submitted by one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting
comments see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). For access to the docket to
read background documents or comments received, go to
www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For crashworthiness issues, you may
contact Jennifer N. Dang, Division Chief, New Car Assessment Program,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 202-366-1810). For
crash avoidance and advanced technology issues, you may contact Clarke
B. Harper, Crash Avoidance NCAP Manager, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards (Telephone: 202-366-1810). For legal issues, you may contact
Stephen P. Wood, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992). You
may send mail to any of these officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. April 5, 2013, Request for Comments--Brief Overview of Comments
Received
A. Crashworthiness Areas
1. Test Dummies
a. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
b. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
2. New and Refined Injury Criteria: Brain Injury Criterion, SID-
IIs Thoracic and Abdomen, Lower Leg
a. Brain Injury Criterion (BrIC)
b. SID-IIs Thoracic and Abdomen Deflection Criteria
c. Neck Injury Criterion (Nij)
d. Lower Leg
3. Other Crashworthiness Areas
a. Pedestrian Protection
b. Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes
B. Crash Avoidance and Post-Crash Technologies
1. General Crash Avoidance/Post-Crash Technologies
2. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
3. Advanced Lighting
4. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
C. Potential Changes to the Rating System
1. Update of the Rollover Risk Curve
2. Advanced Technology Systems
IV. Overview of This Notice--Purpose and Rationale
V. Areas Under Consideration for Inclusion in or Advancement of NCAP
A. Frontal Crashworthiness
1. Real-World Frontal Crash Data
2. Full Frontal Rigid Barrier Test
3. Frontal Oblique Test
4. Frontal Test Dummies
a. Hybrid III 50th Percentile Male ATD (HIII-50M)
b. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
c. Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female ATD (HIII-5F) w/
RibEyeTM
B. Side Crashworthiness
1. Real-World Side Crash Data
2. Current Side NCAP Program
3. Planned Upgrade
a. Side MDB Test
b. Side Pole Test
c. Additional Considerations
4. Side Test Dummies
a. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
b. SID-IIs ATD
c. WorldSID 5th Percentile Female ATD (WorldSID-5F)
C. Crashworthiness Pedestrian Protection
1. Real-World Pedestrian Data
2. Current NCAP Activities in the U.S./World
3. Planned Upgrade
4. Test Procedures/Devices
D. Crash Avoidance Technologies
1. Emergency Braking: Warning and Automatic Systems
a. Forward Collision Warning (FCW)
b. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB)
c. Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
2. Visibility Systems
a. Lower Beam Headlighting Performance
b. Semi-Automatic Headlight Beam Switching
c. Amber Rear Turn Signal Lamps
3. Driver Awareness and Other Technologies
a. Lane Departure Warning (LDW)
b. Rollover Resistance
c. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
4. Future Technologies
E. Pedestrian Crash Avoidance Systems
1. Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB)
2. Rear Automatic Braking
VI. New Rating System
A. Overall Rating
B. Crashworthiness Rating
C. Crash Avoidance Rating
D. Pedestrian Protection Rating
VII. Communications Efforts in Support of NCAP Enhancements
VIII. Conclusion
IX. Public Participation
X. Appendices
Appendix I: Frontal Crash Target Population
Appendix II: Planned THOR 50th Percentile Male Injury Risk
Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
Appendix III: Planned Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Injury
Risk Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
Appendix IV: Planned WorldSID 50th Percentile Male Injury Risk
Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
Appendix V: WorldSID-50M and WorldSID-5F NHTSA Test Numbers
Appendix VI: Planned SID-IIs 5th Percentile Female Injury Risk
Curves for Use in This NCAP Upgrade
Appendix VII: Pedestrian Data
Appendix VIII: Crash Avoidance Test Procedures
I. Executive Summary
This notice announces the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) plans to update the New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP). When NCAP first began providing consumers
[[Page 78523]]
with vehicle safety information derived from frontal crashworthiness
testing in 1978, consumer interest in vehicle safety and manufacturers'
attention to enhanced vehicle safety features were relatively new, and
there were 50,133 motor vehicle related deaths. Today, consumers are
more educated about vehicle safety as it has become one of the key
factors in their vehicle purchasing decisions. Vehicle manufacturers
have responded by offering safer vehicles and incorporating enhanced
safety features. All of this has translated into improved vehicle
safety performance and higher NCAP star ratings. These successes have
contributed to the recent historic reductions in motor vehicle
fatalities (32,719 in 2013).
While NHTSA's NCAP has raised consumer awareness of vehicle safety
and incentivized the production of safer vehicles, thousands of lives
continue to be lost every year in motor vehicle crashes.
This notice announces the beginning of a process NHTSA believes
will provide the agency with significantly enhanced tools and
techniques for better evaluating the safety of vehicles, generating
star ratings, and stimulating the development of even safer vehicles
for American consumers, which the agency believes will result in even
lower numbers of deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle
crashes. These include:
A new frontal oblique test to address a crash type that
continues to result in deaths and serious injuries despite the use of
seat belts, air bags, and the crashworthy structures of late-model
vehicles;
Use of the THOR 50th percentile male (THOR-50M)
anthropomorphic test device (ATD--i.e. crash test dummy) in the frontal
oblique and full frontal tests because of its advanced instrumentation
and more human-like (biofidelic) response to the forces experienced in
these crashes;
Use of the WorldSID 50th percentile male ATD (WorldSID-
50M) in both side pole and side moveable deformable barrier (MDB) tests
because of its advanced instrumentation and enhanced biofidelic (human-
like) properties;
Pedestrian crashworthiness testing to measure the extent
to which vehicles are designed to minimize injuries and fatalities to
pedestrians struck by vehicles;
An update of the rollover static stability factor (SSF)
risk curve using only crash data from newer electronic stability
control (ESC) equipped vehicles;
The addition of a crash avoidance rating based on whether
a vehicle offers any of the multiple technologies that will be added to
NCAP and whether the technologies meet NHTSA performance measures;
These technologies would include forward collision
warning, lane departure warning, blind spot detection, lower beam
headlighting technologies, semi-automatic headlamp beam switching,
amber rear turn signal lamps, rear automatic braking and pedestrian
automatic emergency braking. (A decision concerning the addition of
crash imminent braking and dynamic brake support to the technologies
recommended by NCAP is the subject of a separate proceeding recently
published.\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new approach to determining a vehicle's overall 5-star
rating that will, for the first time, incorporate advanced crash
avoidance technology features, along with ratings for crashworthiness
and pedestrian protection.
This notice describes the agency's plans for implementing the new
tools and approaches referenced above. NHTSA intends to implement these
enhancements in NCAP in 2018 beginning with the 2019 model year (MY).
The agency encourages all interested parties to provide the agency with
comprehensive comments.
As part of its efforts to support this NCAP upgrade, the agency
will be completing additional technical work. The results of these
efforts will be placed in the Docket as they are completed.
Accordingly, we recommend that interested people periodically check the
Docket for new material.
II. Background
In 2013, 32,719 people died on U.S. roads. In addition, 2,313,000
more were injured. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce vehicle-
related crashes.
The agency uses several approaches to carry out its mission
including regulations, defect investigations and recalls, and education
programs. The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is a consumer education
approach that the agency uses to help accomplish its safety mission.
NCAP provides comparative information on the safety performance and
features of new vehicles to: (1) Assist consumers with their vehicle
purchasing decisions, (2) encourage manufacturers to improve the
current safety performance and features of new vehicles, and (3)
stimulate the addition of new vehicle safety features. NCAP has a
proven legacy of driving vehicle safety improvements effectively and
quickly. Advancements to NCAP represent an opportunity to save more
lives and prevent more injuries.
NHTSA established NCAP in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972.\2\ Beginning with MY
1979, NHTSA began testing passenger vehicles for frontal impact safety
based on injury readings gathered from anthropomorphic test devices
(ATDs, also known as crash test dummies) during crash tests. Star
ratings were introduced in MY 1994 as a more consumer-friendly approach
to conveying the relative safety of vehicles subject to NCAP's crash
tests.\3\ The agency added crash tests and ratings for side impact
safety beginning in MY 1997.\4\ A new test for rollover resistance
assessment was added to the rating system in MY 2001 based on a
vehicle's measured static properties as reflected by a calculation
known as the Static Stability Factor (SSF).\5\ Beginning with MY 2004,
the NCAP rollover resistance rating was amended so that the rating is
based on not only the SSF but also the results of a dynamic vehicle
test.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law
92-513, 86 Stat. 947 (1972).
\3\ See 69 FR 61072. Docket No. NHTSA-2004-1876. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/04-23078.
\4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs.
(1997). NHTSA Releases Side Crash Test Results in New Consumer
Information Program [Press Release]. Retrieved from www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/1997/NHTSA+Releases+Side+Crash+Test+Results+in+New+Consumer+Information+Program.
\5\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs.
(2001). U.S. Department of Transportation Announces First Rollover
Resistance Ratings [Press Release]. Retrieved from www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2001/U.S.+Department+of+Transportation+Announces+First+Rollover+Resistance+Ratings.
\6\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs.
(2003). NHTSA Announces New Rollover Test [Press Release]. Retrieved
from www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2003/NHTSA+Announces+New+Rollover+Test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 2007, NHTSA published a Federal Register notice
announcing a public hearing and requesting comments on an agency report
titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Suggested Approaches
for Future Enhancements.'' \7\ Following the receipt of written
comments and testimony at a March 7, 2007, public hearing, NHTSA
published a notice on July 11, 2008, announcing specific
[[Page 78524]]
changes to NCAP.\8\ The agency made frontal and side crash ratings
criteria more stringent by upgrading crash test dummies including new
5th percentile female dummies, establishing new injury criteria, adding
a new side pole crash test, and creating a single overall vehicle score
that reflects a vehicle's combined frontal crash, side crash, and
rollover ratings. In addition, the agency added information about the
presence of advanced crash avoidance technologies in vehicles as part
of NCAP. Technologies that were demonstrated to have a potential safety
benefit and meet NHTSA's performance test measures were recommended to
consumers on www.safercar.gov, where NCAP ratings and other vehicle
safety information were posted. The agency implemented these NCAP
enhancements beginning with MY 2011 vehicles. Subsequent to these
changes to the program, the agency then initiated a rulemaking to
modify the NCAP-related information required on the Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 72 FR 3473. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0006. Available
at https://federalregister.gov/a/E7-1130.
\8\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0114. Available
at https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When NCAP was first launched in 1978, vehicle manufacturers were
slow to respond to the program by way of redesigning or making changes
to their vehicles to improve vehicle safety performance ratings.
Following the implementation of the July 11, 2008, NCAP upgrade, many
new vehicles achieved 4- and 5- star NCAP ratings very quickly, even in
new test scenarios with newly introduced ATDs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., Aram, M.,
``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th International
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No.
15-0314, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This signaled a new challenge for NHTSA. While the agency applauds
the response of manufacturers who rise to meet the safety challenges
set forth by NCAP, NHTSA is concerned that a high percentage of
vehicles receiving 4 and 5 stars diminishes the program's ability to
identify for consumers vehicles with exceptional safety performance.
NHTSA believes enhancements to NCAP should be dynamic to address
emerging available technologies, so that it can incentivize vehicle
manufacturers to continue to make safety improvements to their
vehicles.
Other NCAPs have formed around the world in the time since NHTSA's
NCAP was first established. Today the following NCAP programs operate
with missions and goals similar to those of the U.S. NCAP: Australasian
New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), New Car Assessment Program for
Southeast Asia (ASEAN NCAP), China New Car Assessment Program (C-NCAP),
The European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP), Japan New Car
Assessment Program (JNCAP), Korean New Car Assessment Program (KNCAP),
and Latin American and the Caribbean New Car Assessment Program (Latin
NCAP). These other NCAPs are in various stages of development, with
Euro NCAP, formed in 1997, among the more well-established programs.
Euro NCAP's test protocols are often referenced by other NCAP programs.
In the United States, in addition to NHTSA's NCAP, there is also
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute,
an organization funded largely by the insurance industry that conducts
its own vehicle testing and consumer vehicle safety information
program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For information concerning the IIHS program see http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These programs and NHTSA's NCAP are all associated with Global
NCAP,\11\ a recently formed international organization with a multi-
faceted mission including (1) supporting the development of new
consumer crash test programs in emerging markets, (2) providing a
platform for associated NCAPs to share information regarding best
practices and approaches to promoting vehicle safety, and (3)
researching vehicle safety technology innovations and ways of helping
to advance those technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See www.globalncap.org. This Web site also includes links
to all NCAP programs around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. April 5, 2013, Request for Comments--Brief Overview of Comments
Received
On April 5, 2013, NHTSA published a document (78 FR 20597)
requesting comments on a number of areas relating to the agency's NCAP.
The agency requested comment in areas in which the agency believes
enhancements to NCAP could be made either in the short term or over a
longer period time. A total of 58 organizations or individuals
submitted comments in response to the April 5, 2013, ``Request for
comments'' (RFC). Comments were received from associations, consultants
and research organizations, consumer organizations and advocacy groups,
a government agency, an insurance company and an insurance
organization, a publisher, suppliers to the automobile industry, a
university, and vehicle manufacturers. The remaining comments were
submitted by individuals (some anonymously). See www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180 for a full listing of the 58 commenters.
What follows is a brief summary of comments submitted in response
to the April 5, 2013, RFC and that are relevant to today's notice.
Comments received on a number of topics are not summarized in this
document because this notice does not focus on all topics included in
the April 5, 2013, document.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ These include a possible silver car rating for older
occupants, new test protocols for electric vehicles, comparative
barrier testing for a frontal crash rating, advanced child dummies,
the Hybrid III 95th percentile dummy, rear seat belt reminders, a
possible family star rating, carry back ratings, adjustments to the
baseline injury risk, and some ideas for providing better consumer
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Crashworthiness Areas
1. Test Dummies
Several commenters supported the general notion of improving test
dummies used in NCAP. Concerns included the desire to work with the
agency in the development of improved crash test dummies, the need for
users to have sufficient lead time to obtain and gain experience with
new dummies before they need to start using them in the design and
development process, and the belief that new dummies and injury
criteria should be formally introduced through a standardized
regulatory process with sufficient lead time or a phase-in.
a. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
While there was support for using the Test device for Human
Occupant Restraint (THOR) 50M dummy in frontal NCAP, commenters were
apprehensive about repeatability, reproducibility, durability, and
ease-of-use issues. They questioned whether exclusive use of THOR-50M,
instead of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male (HIII-50M) ATD, would
result in incremental safety advances. One commenter, however, urged
NHTSA to take the lead in harmonizing the performance and design of the
THOR-50M, as it has for the WorldSID-50M dummy under the UNECE World
Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).
b. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
While generally supporting the introduction of the WorldSID-50M
into NCAP for side impact testing, some commenters noted the need for
injury criteria for this ATD and the need for those criteria to be
harmonized with those being developed by Euro NCAP. Some commenters
expressed concern about the cost and lead time required for
manufacturers to obtain WorldSID dummies. Remaining technical issues
with respect to the WorldSID 5th
[[Page 78525]]
percentile female dummy (WorldSID-5F) were noted by a few commenters.
One commenter suggested that the dummy should be incorporated into NCAP
once the issues are resolved and the dummy is incorporated into Title
49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 572, ``Anthropomorphic test
devices.''
2. New and Refined Injury Criteria: Brain Injury Criterion, SID-IIs
Thoracic and Abdomen Deflection, and Neck Injury Criterion, and Lower
Leg
The agency sought public comment and supporting information on ATD
injury criteria used to predict injury potential in vehicle crash
tests.
a. Brain Injury Criterion (BrIC)
BrIC is an injury criterion for assessing brain injury resulting
from head rotation, regardless of whether or not there is a head
impact. Some commenters supported the introduction of BrIC into NCAP
while others expressed reservations about the current state of
knowledge and therefore opposed BrIC until more information becomes
available.
b. SID-IIs Thoracic and Abdomen Deflection Criteria
Some commenters supported the inclusion of thoracic and abdominal
rib deflection criteria for the SID-IIs dummy in side NCAP. Those who
opposed using these injury criteria in NCAP indicated that changes to
the injury criteria should first be considered through a rulemaking
process as part of a possible revision to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ``Side impact protection.''
c. Neck Injury Criterion (Nij)
All comments on the neck injury criterion (Nij) were critical of
the current risk curve and encouraged the agency to make revisions.
Commenters generally suggested that the current Nij risk curve
overstates the risk of neck injury, which in their opinion undercuts
the validity of certain NCAP vehicle safety ratings.
d. Lower Leg
There were only a few comments on lower leg injury criteria, but
those addressing this issue generally supported the idea of
incorporating lower leg injury criteria into NCAP. Instruments to
gather lower leg data must be thoroughly vetted, one commenter said,
and another suggested that changes to lower leg injury criteria should
be dealt with concurrently in a FMVSS 208 rulemaking and in NCAP.
3. Other Crashworthiness Areas
a. Pedestrian Protection
Many of the commenters in this area supported NHTSA basing whatever
it does with respect to pedestrian protection on Global Technical
Regulation (GTR) No. 9. Some did not support including pedestrian
safety in NCAP, arguing instead that it should be the subject of
regulation. Two commenters specifically urged NHTSA to consider using a
type of ``point system'' similar to the one currently used by Euro NCAP
to reward the implementation of advanced safety equipment such as
pedestrian protection.
b. Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes
Many commenters spoke favorably about the potential benefits that
may be derived from enhancing safety for rear seat occupants. Those in
favor of the agency conducting additional tests to assess the rear seat
environment expressed support for using the Hybrid III 5th percentile
female (HIII-5F) dummy in NCAP, but opinions varied regarding what
parameters should be evaluated in the test. Several commenters noted
that current technologies used to protect occupants in the front seats
may not be well-suited to protect those in the rear seat. One commenter
disagreed, however, saying front seat technologies should be considered
for possible application to the rear seat. Several other commenters
specifically cautioned against changes in the back seat environment
that could benefit one type of rear seat occupant while possibly
adversely affecting others.
B. Crash Avoidance and Post-Crash Technologies
1. General Crash Avoidance/Post-Crash Technologies
The inclusion of crash avoidance technologies in NCAP was supported
by many commenters. Only one commenter specifically indicated that more
data on real-world safety benefits would be needed before they could
comment on whether adding more technologies to NCAP is appropriate.
Particular interest was expressed in the following technologies: blind
spot detection, lane departure prevention/lane keeping assist, forward
automatic pedestrian detection and braking, advanced lighting, crash
imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and advanced automatic crash
notification.
Even among those who supported a specific technology as a possible
enhancement to NCAP, there were often differences in the details of how
and when the particular enhancement should be pursued and implemented.
Though there was a general sense among the commenters that adoption
rates of these technologies will continue to rise in the new light-
vehicle marketplace and therefore they should be incorporated into
NCAP, there were overwhelming differences in viewpoints about the
conditions under which these technologies should be incorporated into
NCAP.
2. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
Most of those who commented on BSD systems agreed that this
technology has the potential to provide safety benefits although safety
benefits estimates were not provided. Only some of these commenters
specifically indicated that BSD should be included in NCAP. One
commenter suggested that a vehicle should be given ``extra points'' in
NCAP if equipped with BSD while another said that BSD should be
included in the NCAP 5-star safety rating system. Another commenter
said that it should not be included in a star rating and suggested
instead including BSD and lane change assist systems in the current
NCAP approach of identifying advanced crash avoidance technology
systems with a check mark on www.safercar.gov for vehicles equipped
with those systems and that meet NCAP's performance test criteria.
3. Advanced Lighting \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Advanced lighting in the context of this program currently
includes lower beam headlighting performance, semi-automatic
headlamp beam switching, and amber rear turn signal lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters spoke favorably of the potential for advanced
lighting technologies to have a positive impact on vehicle safety. The
favorable comments suggested these commenters support the inclusion of
advanced lighting in NCAP; however, only a few of the commenters
clearly stated that advanced lighting should be included in NCAP.
Other commenters expressed the need for additional research into
the benefits of advanced lighting. Commenters also discussed the need
to modify FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment,'' so that advanced lighting technologies now approved for
use in other areas of the world can be introduced in the United States.
4. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
Most of those commenting on the 2013 RFC supported including CIB
and
[[Page 78526]]
DBS in NCAP in some way. On January 28, 2015, NHTSA published an RFC
notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency's plan to
recommend these technologies in NCAP.\14\ Comments received from the
2013 RFC notice were conveyed as part of that proceeding and will not
be repeated here. The final agency decision notice on the inclusion of
these technologies in NCAP was recently published in the same docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 80 FR 4630. Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-01461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Potential Changes to the Rating System
1. Update of the Rollover Risk Curve
Five of those who commented in this area focused on the importance
of revising the distribution of crash types used in calculating the
Overall Vehicle Score to reflect the reduction in rollover crashes
among ESC-equipped vehicles.
Those who offered specific suggestions regarding the appropriate
weighting factor for rollover in determining a vehicle's Overall
Vehicle Score suggested that it should be 10 percent. In addition to
the 10 percent for rollover, one commenter mentioned a study it had
commissioned that indicated the weighting factor for frontal and side
crash ratings should be 54 percent and 36 percent, respectively, as
opposed to the current weighting factors of 42 percent for frontal, 33
percent for side, and 25 percent for rollover.
2. Advanced Technology Systems
Some commenters asked the agency to maintain its current approach
of recommending the technologies instead of rating them while others
supported rating the technologies with stars. A few commenters
preferred a combined crash avoidance and crashworthiness rating while
others suggested that they should remain as separate ratings. Euro
NCAP's ``point system'' approach was also mentioned as a possibility
for rating, ranking, or assessing various crash avoidance technologies.
IV. Overview of This Notice
Purpose and Rationale
The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comment on the
agency's plan to advance the capabilities and safety outcomes of
NHTSA's NCAP program. The agency aims to have NCAP continue to serve as
a world leader in providing consumers with vehicle safety information
generated by the latest available vehicle safety assessment techniques
and tools. The agency believes that NCAP works best if the program
keeps pace with advancements in safety technologies and capabilities so
that consumers can be assured that evaluation criteria used provide the
most thorough measure of vehicle safety possible using the current
state-of-the-art so that only truly exceptional vehicles achieve 4- and
5-star ratings.
As discussed previously, given the high percentage of recent model
year vehicles rated by NCAP now receiving 4- and 5-star ratings, it is
an opportune time for the agency to consider further refinements to
NCAP to assure that only vehicles with truly exceptional safety
features and performance will receive 4- and 5-star ratings. In the
end, the agency's goal is for the program to provide a continuing
incentive for vehicle manufacturers to further improve the safety of
the vehicles they manufacture.
As vehicle safety innovations offering substantial safety potential
continue to emerge, the agency believes that it must also use NCAP, its
most effective means of encouraging vehicle safety improvements and
innovations through market forces, to incentivize vehicle manufacturers
to equip their vehicles with these technologies. In addition, the
agency must continually strive to expand and improve the safety
information that is conveyed to consumers and continually increase the
effectiveness with which that information is communicated. To that end,
this notice outlines NHTSA's intention to implement a new 5-star rating
system to convey vehicle safety information in three major areas--
crashworthiness, crash avoidance, and pedestrian protection.
The agency considered a variety of information in developing the
potential new approaches for NCAP discussed in this RFC notice. The
agency has reviewed comments submitted in response to the April 5,
2013, notice, evaluated its current research activities, and considered
recent recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) and other consumer organizations and advocacy groups that
encourage the inclusion of advanced technologies as part of the NCAP 5-
star safety rating system.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ On June 8, 2015, the agency received a ``Safety
Recommendation'' letter from the NTSB urging NHTSA to expand the
NCAP 5-star safety rating system to include a scale that rates the
performance of advanced technologies, specifically forward collision
avoidance systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This RFC notice outlines the agency's plan for this NCAP upgrade.
It describes in detail new program areas that NHTSA intends to add to
NCAP, the timeline to implement these enhancements, and a new way of
calculating star ratings. The agency recognizes that by sharing, and
seeking comment on its intentions, it allows the public an opportunity
to inform the agency of information relevant to this NCAP upgrade. In
addition, this RFC notice provides the automotive industry the
opportunity to begin taking the steps that will be needed to adapt to
the enhancements in this NCAP upgrade.
In the April 5, 2013, RFC notice, NHTSA noted ``there are four
prerequisites for considering an area for adoption as a new NCAP
enhancement.'' \16\ First, a safety need must be known or be capable of
being estimated based on what is known. Second, vehicle and equipment
designs must exist or at least be anticipated in prototype designs that
are capable of mitigating the safety need. Third, a safety benefit must
be estimated, based on the anticipated performance of the existing or
prototype design. Finally, it must be feasible to develop a
performance-based objective test procedure to measure the ability of
the vehicle technology to mitigate the safety issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 78 FR 20597. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-07766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent possible, these criteria will be discussed in this
RFC notice for each feature being considered. Data may not be available
for each element, but NHTSA will consider information to the extent
that it is available. NHTSA welcomes any data to support the analysis
of these criteria. NHTSA may consider other factors that are not among
the criteria listed above. Additionally, NHTSA may weight some of these
criteria differently for some features than for others, if NHTSA
believes it is in the interest of developing a robust program that
encourages safety advancements in the marketplace.
V. Areas Under Consideration for Inclusion in or Advancement of NCAP
A. Frontal Crashworthiness
1. Real-World Frontal Crash Data
In September 2009, NHTSA published a report that sought to describe
why people were still dying in frontal crashes despite the use of seat
belts, air bags, and the crashworthy structures of late-model
vehicles.\17\ The study found that many fatalities and injuries could
be attributed to crashes involving poor
[[Page 78527]]
structural engagement between a vehicle and its collision partner.
These crashes consisted mainly of corner impacts, oblique crashes,
impacts with narrow objects, and heavy vehicle underrides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Bean, J., Kahane, C., Mynatt, M., Rudd, R., Rush, C.,
Wiacek, C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,''
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To better understand and classify the injuries and fatalities from
crashes involving oblique and corner impacts, the agency took a new
approach to field data research. A 2011 report detailed this new method
to more comprehensively identify frontal crashes based on an alternate
interpretation of vehicle damage characteristics.\18\ NHTSA
incorporated this approach into its efforts to examine frontal crashes
occurring in the field data. Furthermore, recognizing that occupant
kinematics and restraint engagement differed among frontal crash types,
the agency's new method allowed for better identification of frontal
crashes with more emphasis on occupant responses than vehicle damage
characteristics. When using this method, the population of frontal
crashes generated tends to include some crashes that would previously
have been classified as side impact crashes. In this, there may be
damage located on the side plane of a given vehicle, though the
kinematics of the occupants resembles those typically seen in a
conventionally coded frontal impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``NASS
Analysis in Support of NHTSA's Frontal Small Overlap Program,'' DOT
HS 811 522, August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of this RFC notice, National Automotive Sampling
System--Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data from case years
2000 through 2013 were chosen for analysis using the new approach. The
resulting NASS-CDS data generated for this effort are contained in
Appendix I. Crashes were selected to include passenger vehicles
involved in a tow-away non-rollover crash with a Principal Direction of
Force (PDOF) between 330 degrees and 30 degrees (11 o'clock to 1
o'clock). Only non-ejected, belt-restrained occupants, who sustained
AIS 2 and higher severity injuries or were killed, were selected from
those crashes. The two crash configurations responsible for the most
injuries and fatalities in the resulting frontal crash data set are
shown in Table 1 below. They are the co-linear full overlap and the
left (driver side) oblique crash modes.
Table 1 shows the number of restrained Maximum Abbreviated Injury
Scale (MAIS) 2+ and 3+ injured and fatal occupants seated in the front
rows of vehicles involved in left oblique and co-linear full frontal
crashes.\19\ These are unadjusted, annualized occupant counts. This
means that the total weighted counts over the 14-year period are simply
divided by 14 to produce an average annual count. Case weights were not
adjusted to account for factors such as vehicle age or matching
fatality counts in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). There
were more MAIS 2+ and 3+ injured occupants from left oblique crashes
than co-linear full overlap crashes in this dataset. The numbers of
fatalities are very similar when comparing both crash types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (or MAIS) is the
maximum injury per occupant.
Table 1--Distribution of Annual Restrained MAIS 2+, MAIS 3+, and Fatal Occupants in Left Oblique and Co-Linear
Frontal Crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front row
Crash mode -----------------------------------------------
MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap.......................................... 17,634 4,037 640
Left oblique.................................................... 19,131 5,354 633
Total....................................................... 36,765 9,392 1,273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).
The occupant counts defined in Table 1 were further examined to
better understand which individual body regions in both of these
frontal crash modes sustained AIS 3+ injuries. The following body
regions were used in the classification of injuries: Head (including
face injuries, brain injuries, and skull fracture); Neck (including the
brain stem and cervical spine); Chest (thorax); Abdomen; Knee-Thigh-
Hip; Below Knee (lower leg, feet, and ankles); Spine (excluding the
cervical spine); and Upper Extremity.
Figure 1 shows the break-down of drivers with MAIS 3+ injuries in
each body region for both frontal crash modes. These unadjusted,
annualized counts indicate the number of times a given body region
sustained an AIS 3 or higher injury among the drivers in Table 1. Some
drivers may be represented in multiple columns. Some key inferences can
be made. First, drivers in oblique crashes experienced more MAIS 3+
injuries to nearly every body region than drivers in co-linear crashes.
Drivers in oblique crashes experienced more injuries to the head, neck
and cervical spine, abdomen, upper extremities, knee/thigh/hip (KTH),
and areas below the knee. Though drivers in co-linear crashes
experienced more MAIS 3+ chest injuries than drivers in oblique
crashes, these injuries were the highest in number for both crash
types. Driver injuries in both frontal crash types occurred to a wide
variety of body regions.
[[Page 78528]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.037
Figure 2 is similar to Figure 1, but provides an overview of the
MAIS 3+ injuries for the right front passenger instead. It shows a
pattern similar to the driver; MAIS 3+ injuries in left oblique crashes
outweigh the numbers of similar injuries in co-linear crashes. Right
front passengers in left oblique crashes experienced more injuries to
the head, neck and cervical spine, chest, abdomen, upper extremities,
and KTH regions than right front passengers involved in co-linear full
frontal crashes. Injuries for the right front passenger occurred to a
wide variety of body regions, which is similar to what was observed for
the driver.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.038
This real-world data analysis suggests that there is an opportunity
for the agency to continue examining the oblique crash type that was
identified as a frontal crash problem by NHTSA in 2009. Real-world co-
linear crashes that are represented in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection,'' and the current full frontal NCAP test are also
[[Page 78529]]
still resulting in serious injuries and fatalities.
2. Full Frontal Rigid Barrier Test
NCAP intends to continue conducting its current full width rigid
frontal barrier test at 56 km/h (35 mph). As shown in the 2000-2013
NASS-CDS data discussed earlier, these frontal crashes are still a
major source of injuries and fatalities in the field. However, NHTSA
intends to update the ATDs to evaluate occupant protection in NCAP's
full frontal crash. Rather than using the HIII-50M ATD, NHTSA intends
to use the THOR-50M ATD in the driver's seat of full frontal rigid
barrier tests conducted for this NCAP upgrade. NHTSA intends to
continue using the HIII-5F dummy in the right front passenger's seat of
these tests for frontal NCAP, though the ATD would now be seated at the
mid-track position rather than the full-forward position it is
currently placed in (based on the current NCAP and FMVSS No. 208 test
procedures). In every full width rigid barrier frontal NCAP test, the
agency intends to seat another HIII-5F ATD in the second row of the
vehicle, behind the right front passenger. The agency is seeking
comment on the seating procedures for these dummies in the full frontal
rigid barrier test.
The THOR-50M ATD requires a different seating procedure than the
currently used HIII-50M ATD. Some modifications are necessary in the
areas of adjusting the seat back angle, seat track, and positioning of
the legs, feet, shoulder, and other body regions related to the
inherent physical characteristics of the THOR-50M ATD. The agency is
seeking comment on draft procedures for seating a THOR-50M ATD in the
driver's seat of vehicles.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Draft seating procedures may be found in the docket for
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA seeks comment on an alternative seating procedure for the
right front passenger ATD, the HIII-5F. Currently, the HIII-5F ATD is
seated in the forward-most seating position for FMVSS No. 208 and NCAP
full frontal tests. In light of real-world data gathered from NASS-CDS,
(2000-2013 full frontal crashes, with MAIS 2+ injured occupants,
discussed further below) the agency intends to conduct research tests
with the HIII-5F ATD seated in the right front passenger seat's mid-
track location instead of the forward-most location. This data, shown
below in Figure 3, indicates that the majority of MAIS 2+ injured
occupants sit in a mid- to rear seat track position.\21\ The number of
right front passengers injured when seated in the full-forward position
was the smallest number of occupants seen in this data set. In
addition, the right front passenger seats in this data set were most
likely to be placed in the forward-mid or middle position along the
seat track. The prevalence of real-world injuries to occupants seated
at these positions, along with research indicating that higher chest
deflections may be seen for occupants seated at the mid-track
position,\22\ indicate there may be an opportunity for safety gains for
NCAP to test vehicles with the right front passenger ATD in the mid-
track position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Forward-mid is defined as the seat track position that is
halfway between forward-most and mid-track (middle), while rear-mid
is defined as the seat track position between the mid-track and
rear-most.
\22\ Tylko, S., and Bussi[egrave]res, A. ``Responses of the
Hybrid III 5th Female and 10[hyphen]year[hyphen]old ATD Seated in
the Rear Seats of Passenger Vehicles in Frontal Crash Tests.''
IRCOBI Conference 2012, Paper IRC-12-65.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.039
As such, the agency is seeking comment on the appropriateness of
potentially seating the right front passenger HIII-5F dummy in a
position that is closer to (or at) the mid-track location. NHTSA plans
to conduct research using the NCAP procedure but with the HIII-5F
seated in the mid-track location instead. The agency believes this
choice in seating location could also allow NCAP's testing to serve as
a compliment to the forward-most seating location used in FMVSS No.
208.\23\ NHTSA included a draft procedure for seating the HIII-5F ATD
in the mid-track location in the docket of this RFC notice. The agency
also included a draft procedure for seating the same ATD in the row
behind the right front passenger, but this very closely follows the
seating procedure for the current 5th
[[Page 78530]]
percentile rear passenger dummy in the side moveable deformable barrier
(MDB) NCAP test, the SID-IIs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 65 FR 30680. Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013 Notice 1.
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/00-11577.
\24\ ``U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test Procedure for the New
Car Assessment Program Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier Test,''
Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0046, September 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Frontal Oblique Test
As stated previously, NHTSA published a report in 2009 examining
why occupant fatalities are still occurring for belted occupants in air
bag-equipped vehicles involved in frontal crashes.\25\ Around this
time, the agency initiated research to develop both small overlap and
oblique test procedures.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,''
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009.
\26\ Saunders, J., Craig, M., Parent, D., ``Moving Deformable
Barrier Test Procedure for Evaluating Small Overlap/Oblique
Crashes,'' SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 5(1):2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-
0577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish a baseline for testing, NHTSA initiated research by
conducting a series of full-scale vehicle-to-vehicle tests to
understand occupant kinematics and vehicle interactions. The agency
then conducted barrier-to-vehicle tests using the MDB already in use in
FMVSS No. 214. These tests failed to produce the results seen in the
vehicle-to-vehicle tests, which prompted NHTSA to develop a more
appropriate barrier to use with the frontal oblique test
configuration.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Saunders, J., Craig, M.J., Suway, J., ``NHTSA's Test
Procedure Evaluations for Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes,'' The 22nd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0343, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting modified version of the FMVSS No. 214 MDB is called
the Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier (OMDB). Some differences between
the OMDB and the FMVSS No. 214 MDB are that the OMDB has a face plate
wider than the barrier outer track width, a suspension to prevent
bouncing at high speeds, and an optimized barrier honeycomb depth and
stiffness.\28\ The OMDB was optimized to produce target vehicle crush
patterns similar to real-world cases while minimizing the likelihood of
the rigid face plate contacting the target vehicle due to honeycomb
bottoming-out.\29\ It is heavier than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB at a weight
of 2,486 kilograms (kg) (5,480 pounds (lb)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Ibid.
\29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per NHTSA's current frontal oblique testing protocol, the OMDB
impacts a stationary vehicle at a speed of 90 km/h (56 mph).\30\ This
vehicle is placed at a 15-degree angle and a 35-percent overlap occurs
between the OMDB and the front end of the struck vehicle. The selected
test condition was shown to be representative of a midsize vehicle-to-
vehicle 15-degree oblique, 50-percent overlap test, resulting in a 56
km/h (35 mph) delta-V. When a midsize vehicle is exposed to the OMDB
test condition it creates a longitudinal delta-V of about 56 km/h (35
mph). The test speed was selected to be analogous with the current
severity of the NCAP full width frontal rigid barrier test of a midsize
vehicle.\31\ The agency has published the results of the frontal
oblique test program several times over the past few years in public
forums 32 33 In Saunders (2013), NHTSA also demonstrated the
frontal oblique test protocol's repeatability. Generally, the results
of this research have shown good agreement with the agency's continued
examination of this particular frontal crash problem and the injuries
and fatalities it causes. The fatalities and injuries caused by this
crash scenario were surveyed at length in Rudd's 2011 analysis of field
data from both the NASS-CDS and CIREN databases.\34\ The findings
discussed in Rudd (2011) as well as the NASS-CDS analysis presented
earlier demonstrate that there are real-world injuries occurring to the
knee-thigh-hip, lower extremities, head, and chest. Accordingly, the
agency's frontal oblique research tests predict a high probability of
injury to these body regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Drawing package available in the docket for this notice.
\31\ Saunders, J., Craig, M.J., Suway, J., ``NHTSA's Test
Procedure Evaluations For Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes,'' 22nd ESV
Conference, Paper No. 11-0343, 2011.
\32\ Saunders, J. and Parent, D., ``Repeatability of a Small
Overlap and an Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure,''
SAE World Congress, Paper No. 2013-01-0762, 2013.
\33\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury risk
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
\34\ Rudd, R., Scarboro, M., Saunders, J., ``Injury Analysis of
Real-World Small Overlap and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0384, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has considered existing regulations and consumer information
programs, both within the agency and outside of the agency, in the
development of its frontal oblique testing protocol. The most similar
test mode is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's small overlap
frontal test (IIHS-SO). The IIHS-SO test is a co-linear impact with a
rigid barrier that overlaps with 25 percent of the vehicle's width, and
for most vehicles does not engage the primary longitudinal structure of
the front end of the vehicle. As such, the IIHS-SO test tends to drive
structural countermeasures outside of the frame rails of the vehicle
and strengthening of the occupant compartment.\35\ The OMDB in the
NHTSA frontal oblique test, in contrast, does interact with at least
one frame rail of the vehicle, often resulting in a more severe crash
pulse that puts greater emphasis on restraint system countermeasures.
Also, because the OMDB impacts a stationary vehicle at the same speed
regardless of the target vehicle's mass, the frontal oblique test
protocol is a constant energy test, which allows for the comparison of
test results between vehicle classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Mueller, B.C., Brethwaite, A.S., Zuby, D.S., & Nolan, J. M.
(2014). Structural Design Strategies for Improved Small Overlap
Crashworthiness Performance. Stapp Car Crash Journal, 58, 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the agency presented its results from testing late model,
high sales volume vehicles.\36\ Those results indicated that many of
these modern vehicles that perform well in tests conducted for other
consumer information programs (including the IIHS-SO test described
above) and air bags meeting FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection Mitigation,''
requirements may need additional design improvements to address real-
world injuries and fatalities in frontal oblique crashes.\37\ The
agency intends to continue looking into the differences between the
IIHS-SO and its own frontal oblique test. The observations in Saunders
(2015), along with the real-world data presented previously in this
document, indicate there is an opportunity to improve upon current
vehicle designs in an effort to reduce fatalities and injuries in real
world oblique crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
\37\ See 76 FR 3212. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCAP intends to test and rate new vehicles under a protocol very
similar to the frontal oblique test protocol previously researched by
the agency.\38\ The program also intends to use the associated draft
seating procedures for the THOR-50M ATDs in both the driver's seat and
the right front passenger's seat.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Draft test procedure available in the docket for this
notice.
\39\ Draft seating procedures may be found in the docket for
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78531]]
The potential exists for NCAP to encourage vehicles design changes
that address this particular crash type. As previously noted, the
occupants in Saunders (2015) showed a range of responses across several
injury types.\40\ This suggests that the frontal oblique test has the
ability to discriminate between vehicle performances and, in turn,
could allow NCAP to offer consumers comparative safety information for
vehicles exposed to this crash mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time, the agency only intends to conduct left side frontal
oblique impact tests in NCAP. As discussed in Appendix I, left side
oblique impacts constitute a greater proportion of real-world oblique
crashes. Research on both the left and right frontal oblique crash
impacts is ongoing in an effort to gain a better understanding of the
restraint and structural countermeasures needed to combat occupant
injury in oblique impacts on both sides of vehicles.
4. Frontal Test Dummies
a. Hybrid III 50th Percentile Male ATD (HIII-50M)
NCAP does not intend to use the HIII-50M ATD in frontal crash tests
in this NCAP upgrade. This dummy is still sufficient for the needs of
regulatory standards (such as FMVSS No. 208, which assesses minimal
performance of vehicles with this device) and will continue to be used
in that capacity. Significant advancements in vehicle safety and
restraint design have taken place since the HIII-50M was incorporated
into Part 572. NCAP seeks a test device that produces the most
biofidelic capability and response to distinguish between the levels of
occupant protection provided by modern vehicles so that manufacturers
are continually challenged to design safer vehicles and consumers may
be afforded the most complete and meaningful comparative safety
information possible. NHTSA believes that the THOR-50M ATD has this
potential. Information on the biofidelity, anthropometry, injury
measurement, and other capabilities of the THOR-50M ATD is included in
the section following.
b. THOR 50th Percentile Male Metric ATD (THOR-50M)
To provide consumers with the most complete and meaningful safety
information possible, the agency intends to implement the THOR-50M in
both frontal NCAP crash modes. The THOR-50M would be seated in the
driver's seat in the full frontal rigid barrier crash test, and in both
the driver's and right front passenger's seats in the frontal oblique
crash test.
NHTSA currently uses the HIII-50M ATD for frontal NCAP and as one
of the ATDs for compliance frontal crash testing, the latter falling
under FMVSS No. 208. While the HIII-50M ATD is sufficient for the needs
of regulatory standards including FMVSS No. 208, which ensure an
acceptable level of safety performance has been met, NHTSA believes
that a more sensitive evaluation tool would be beneficial to help
differentiate between the advancements in vehicle safety developed
since the HIII-50M ATD was incorporated into Part 572 in 1986.\41\
Other organizations have also announced their intentions to begin using
the THOR-50M in consumer information settings. Euro NCAP indicated that
it would use the THOR-50M in the development of a new offset frontal
impact protection test in its 2020 Road Map published in March
2015.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 51 FR 26701. Federal Register documents published
before 1993 (Volumes 1-58) are available through a Federal
Depository Library.
\42\ European New Car Assessment Programme, ``2020 Roadmap,''
March 2015. [http://Euro NCAP.blob.core.windows.net/media/16472/euro-ncap-2020-roadmap-rev1-march-2015.pdf]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Background
NHTSA has been researching advanced ATDs since the early 1980s. The
goal of this research has been to create a device that represents the
responses of human occupants in modern restraint and vehicle
environments. NHTSA began developing the THOR-50M around the same time
that the HIII-50M was added in 49 CFR part 572 for use in FMVSS No.
208. The THOR-50M was designed to incorporate advances in biomechanics
and injury prediction that were not included in the design of the HIII-
50M ATD.
NHTSA has published its work on the THOR-50M throughout its
development, including the THOR Alpha,\43\ THOR-NT,\44\ THOR-NT with
Modification Kit,\45\ and THOR Metric \46\ build levels. For the
purposes of this RFC notice, further references to the THOR-50M
indicate 472-0000 Revision F of the THOR drawing package, released on
the NHTSA Web site in September 2015.\47\ The performance of this ATD
shall meet the specifications defined in the THOR-50M Qualification
Procedures Manual.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Haffner, M., Rangarajan, N., Artis, M., Beach, D.,
Eppinger, R., & Shams, T., ``Foundations and Elements of the NHTSA
THOR Alpha ATD Design,'' The 17th International Technical Conference
for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 458, 2001.
\44\ Shams, T., Rangarajan, N., McDonald, J., Wang, Y., Platten,
G., Spade, C., Pope, P., & Haffner, M., ``Development of THOR NT:
Enhancement of THOR Alpha--the NHTSA Advanced Frontal Dummy,'' The
19th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 05-0455, 2005.
\45\ Ridella, S. & Parent, D., ``Modifications to Improve the
Durability, Usability, and Biofidelity of the THOR-NT Dummy,'' The
22nd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0312, 2011.
\46\ Parent, D., Craig, M., Ridella, S., & McFadden, J.,
``Thoracic Biofidelity Assessment of the THOR Mod Kit ATD,'' The
23rd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0327, 2013.
\47\ Drawing package available in the docket for this notice.
\48\ Draft qualification procedures available in the docket for
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has updated the public on its THOR-50M research in various
forums.\49\ On January 20, 2015, NHTSA held a public meeting to present
further updates to its work with THOR-50M.\50\ NHTSA presented draft
descriptions of updated qualification procedures and data supporting
the repeatability and reproducibility of the THOR-50M. During this
meeting, several industry representatives took the opportunity to
present their research related to the ATD. NHTSA itself has used the
THOR-50M ATD extensively in testing to support both biomechanics and
crashworthiness research objectives.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Parent, D., ``NHTSA THOR Update,'' National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Washington, DC, September 2013.
[www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Biomechanics%20&%20Trauma/NHTSA_THOR_update_2013-09-30.pdf]; Parent, D., ``Applications of the
THOR ATD in NHTSA Research,'' Society of Automotive Engineers
Government/Industry Meeting, January 2014. [www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2014/2014-SAE-GIM_Parent.pdf]
\50\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``THOR
Public Meeting,'' January 20, 2015. [www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Biomechanics+&+Trauma/THOR+Public+Meetings]
\51\ Martin, P. &Shook, L., ``NHTSA's THOR-NT Database,'' The
20th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 07-0289, 2007; Saunders, J., Craig, M. & Suway,
J., ``NHTSA's Test Procedure Evaluations for Small Overlap/Oblique
Crashes,'' The 22nd International Technical Conference for the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0343, 2011; Saunders, J.,
Craig, M., & Parent, D., ``Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure
for Evaluating Small Overlap/Oblique Crashes,'' SAE International
Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 5(2012-01-0577), 172-195, 2012;
Saunders, J. & Parent, D., ``Repeatability of a Small Overlap and an
Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure,'' SAE World
Congress, paper no. 2013-01-0762, 2013; Saunders, J. & Parent, D.,
``Assessment of an Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test
Procedure,'' The 23rd International Technical Conference for the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0402, 2013; Forman, J.,
Michaelson, J., Kent, R., Kuppa, S., & Bostrom, O., ``Occupant
Restraint in the Rear Seat: ATD Responses to Standard and Pre-
tensioning, Force-limiting Belt Restraints,'' Annals of Advances in
Automotive Medicine, 52:141-54, Oct 2008; Hu, J., Fischer, K., &
Adler, A., ``Rear Seat Occupant Protection: Safety Beyond Seat
Belts,'' Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry
Meeting, January 2015. [www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2015/2015SAE-Saunders-AdvOccupantProtection.pdf]; Cyliax, B., Scavnicky, M., Mueller, I.,
Zhao, J., & Hiroshi, A., ``Advanced Adaptive Restraints Program:
Individualization of Occupant Safety Systems,'' Society of
Automotive Engineers Government/Industry Meeting, January 2015.
[www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2015/2015SAE-Cyliax-AARP.pdf]; Shaw, G., Lessley, D., Bolton, J., & Crandall, J.,
``Assessment of the THOR and Hybrid III Crash Dummies: Steering
Wheel Rim Impacts to the Upper Abdomen,'' SAE Technical Paper 2004-
01-0310, 2004, doi:10.4271/2004-01-0310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78532]]
ii. THOR-50M Design
To ensure that the dummy responds in a human-like manner in a
vehicle crash environment it is necessary that the size and shape of
the dummy, referred to as anthropometry, provides an accurate
representation of a mid-sized human. To accomplish this, a study on the
Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle Occupants (AMVO) was carried out by the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) to
document the anthropometry of a mid-size (50th percentile in stature
and weight) male occupant in an automotive seating
posture.52 53 The AMVO anthropometry was used as a basis for
the development of the THOR-50M design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Schneider, L. W., Robbins, D. H., Pflug, M. A., & Snyder,
R. G., ``Development of Anthropometrically Based Design
Specifications for an Advanced Adult Anthropomorphic Dummy Family;
Volume 1-Procedures, Summary Findings and Appendices,'' U.S.
Department of Transportation, DOT-HS-806-715, 1985.
\53\ Robbins, D. H., ``Development of Anthropometrically Based
Design Specifications for an Advanced Adult Anthropomorphic Dummy
Family; Volume 2-Anthropometric Specifications for mid-Sized Male
Dummy; Volume 3- Anthropometric Specifications for Small Female and
Large Male Dummies,'' U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT-HS-806-
716 & 717, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The THOR-50M includes anatomically-correct designs in the neck,
chest, shoulder, spine, and pelvis in order to represent the human
occupant response in a frontal or frontal oblique vehicle crash
environment.
The cervical neck column of the THOR-50M has a unique design. In
the THOR-50M, the neck is connected to the head via three separate load
paths (two cables--anterior and posterior--and a pin joint centered
between the cables) versus a single path for other ATDs (a pin joint
only). The biomechanical basis of the THOR-50M neck design is well
established.54 55 The construction of the THOR-50M neck
allows the head to rotate relatively freely in the fore and aft
directions. THOR can undergo low levels of uninjurious ``nodding''
without generating an appreciable moment at its pin joint. Because of
this design, a THOR-specific risk curve for neck injury (discussed
below) is better aligned with human injury risk at all levels of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ White, R. P., Zhoa, Y., Rangarajan, N., Haffner, M.,
Eppinger, R., & Kleinberger M. ``Development of an Instrumented
Biofidelic Neck for the NHTSA Advanced Frontal Test Dummy,'' The
15th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 96-210-W-19, 1996.
\55\ Hoofman, M., van Ratingen, M., & Wismans, J., ``Evaluation
of the Dynamic and Kinematic Performance of the THOR Dummy: Neck
Performance,'' Proceeding of the International Conference on the
Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI) Conference, pp. 497-512, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the development of the THOR-50M ATD, specific attention
was given to the human-like response and injury prediction capability
of the chest. The rib cage geometry is more realistic because the
individual ribs are angled downward to better match the human rib
orientation.\56\ Performance requirements were selected to ensure
human-like behavior in response to central chest impacts, oblique chest
impacts, and steering rim impacts to the rib cage and upper
abdomen.\57\ Better chest anthropometry means that the dummy's
interaction with the restraint system (as the seat belt lies over the
shoulder and across the chest, for example) is more representative of
the interaction humans would experience. Moreover, NHTSA has previously
identified instrumentation opportunities beyond a single-point chest
deflection measurement system that may improve the assessment of
thoracic loading in a vehicle environment with advanced restraint
technology such as air bags and pretensioners.\58\ Thoracic trauma
imparted to restrained occupants does not always occur at the same
location on the rib cage for all occupants in all frontal crashes.\59\
Kuppa and Eppinger found (in a data set consisting of 71 human subjects
in various restraint systems and crash severities) that using the
maximum deflection from multiple measurement locations on the chest
resulted in improved injury prediction.\60\ The THOR-50M ATD is capable
of measuring three-dimensional deflections at four different locations
on the rib cage. This instrumentation, coupled with its thoracic
biofidelity,\61\ provides the THOR-50M ATD with the ability to better
predict thoracic injuries and to potentially drive more appropriate
restraint system countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Kent, R., Shaw, C. G., Lessley, D. J., Crandall, J. R. &
Svensson, M. Y, ``Comparison of Belted Hybrid III, THOR, and Cadaver
Thoracic Responses in Oblique Frontal and Full Frontal Sled Tests,''
Proc. SAE 2003 World Congress. Paper No. 2003-01-0160, 2003.
\57\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
``Biomechanical Response Requirements of the THOR NHTSA Advanced
Frontal Dummy, Revision 2005.1,'' Report No: GESAC-05-03, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, March 2005.
[www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Biomechanics%20&%20Trauma/THOR-NT%20Advanced%20Crash%20Test%20Dummy/thorbio05_1.pdf.]
\58\ Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F., Rinaldi, J., ``Evaluation of
the RibEye Deflection Measurement System in the 50th Percentile
Hybrid III Dummy.'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
DOT-HS-811-102, March 2009.
\59\ Morgan, R. M., Eppinger, R. H., Haffner, M. P., Yoganandan,
N., Pintar, F. A., Sances, A., Crandall, J. R., Pilkey, W. D.,
Klopp, G. S., Kallieris, D., Miltner, E., Mattern, R., Kuppa, S. M.,
& Sharpless, C. L., ``Thoracic Trauma Assessment Formulations for
Restrained Drivers in Simulated Frontal Impacts,'' Proc. 38th Stapp
Car Crash Conference, pp. 15-34. Society of Automotive Engineers,
Warrendale, PA., 1994.
\60\ Kuppa, S., & Eppinger, R., ``Development of an Improved
Thoracic Injury Criterion,'' Proceedings of the 42nd Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE No. 983153, 1998.
\61\ Parent, D., Craig, M., Ridella, S., & McFadden, J.
``Thoracic Biofidelity Assessment of the THOR Mod Kit ATD,'' The
23rd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 13-0327,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The THOR-50M shoulder was developed to allow a human-like range of
motion and includes a clavicle linkage intended to better represent the
human shoulder interaction with shoulder belt restraints.\62\ The spine
of the THOR-50M ATD has two flexible elements, one in the thoracic
spine and one in the lumbar spine, which are intended to allow human-
like spinal kinematics in both frontal and oblique loading
conditions.\63\ The pelvis was designed to represent human pelvis bone
structure to better represent lap belt interaction,64 65 and
the pelvis flesh was designed to represent uncompressed geometry to
allow human-like interaction of the pelvis flesh with the vehicle
seat.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ T[ouml]rnvall, F. V., Holmqvist, K., Davidsson, J.,
Svensson, M. Y., H[Aring]land, Y., & [Ouml]hrn, H., ``A New THOR
Shoulder Design: A Comparison with Volunteers, the Hybrid III, and
THOR NT,'' Traffic Injury Prevention, 8:2, 205-215, 2007.
\63\ Haffner, M., Rangarajan, N., Artis, M., Beach, D.,
Eppinger, R., & Shams, T., ``Foundations and Elements of the NHTSA
THOR Alpha ATD Design,'' The 17th International Technical Conference
for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 458, 2001.
\64\ Reynolds, H., Snow, C., & Young, J., ``Spatial Geometry of
the Human Pelvis,'' U.S. Department of Transportation, Technical
Report No. FAA-AM-82-9, 1982.
\65\ Haffner, M., Rangarajan, N., Artis, M., Beach, D.,
Eppinger, R., & Shams, T., ``Foundations and Elements of the NHTSA
THOR Alpha ATD Design,'' The 17th International Technical Conference
for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 458, 2001.
\66\ Shams, T., Rangarajan, N., McDonald, J., Wang, Y., Platten,
G., Spade, C., Pope, P., & Haffner, M., ``Development of THOR NT:
Enhancement of THOR Alpha--the NHTSA Advanced Frontal Dummy,'' The
19th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 05-0455, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78533]]
THOR-50M ATD has instrumentation that can be used to predict injury
risk to the head, neck, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, upper leg, and lower
leg. Coupled with improved biofidelity in these areas, THOR-50M ATD has
the potential to measure meaningful and appropriate sources of injury,
especially in offset or oblique loading scenarios.
Evidence of the ability of the THOR-50M ATD to simulate occupant
kinematics and predict injury risk has been demonstrated through a
combination of field studies and fleet testing in the oblique crash
test mode. NHTSA conducted two field studies to examine the sources of
injury and fatality in small overlap and oblique crashes using the
Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) and NASS-CDS
databases.\67\ \68\ The body regions that showed the highest
average injury risk as predicted by the THOR-50M ATD in fleet testing
were also those regions that showed the highest incidence of injury in
the 2011 field study by Rudd et al.: \69\ knee-thigh-hip, lower
extremity, head, and chest. Head and chest contacts observed in the
fleet testing generally aligned with the sources of the most severe
injuries indicated in the 2013 field study by Rudd. A majority of the
fatalities in the field study were sourced to the head or chest, body
regions which were also predicted to have a high risk of AIS 3+ injury
in fleet testing. Additionally, Rudd (2011) observed that over half of
the pelvis injuries occurred in the absence of a femur shaft fracture,
which was mirrored in the fleet testing in that the average risk of
acetabulum fracture was higher than the average risk of femur fracture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Rudd, R., Scarboro, M., & Saunders, J., ``Injury Analysis
of Real-World Small Overlap and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0384, 2011.
\68\ Rudd, R., ``Characteristics of Injuries in Fatally Injured
Restrained Occupants in Frontal Crashes,'' The 23rd International
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No.
13-0349, 2013.
\69\ Saunders, J., Craig, M., & Parent, D., ``Moving Deformable
Barrier Test Procedure for Evaluating Small Overlap/Oblique
Crashes,'' SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 5(2012-
01-0577), 172-195, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of its improved biofidelity and injury prediction
capabilities, the THOR-50M ATD is more sensitive to the performance of
different restraint systems. In a study of belt-only, force-limited
belt plus air bag, and reduced force force-limited belt plus air bag
restraint conditions in a frontal impact sled test series, the THOR-50M
was able to differentiate between both crash severity and restraint
performance.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Sunnev[aring]ng, C., Hynd, D., Carroll, J., & Dahlgren, M.,
``Comparison of the THORAX Demonstrator and HIII Sensitivity to
Crash Severity and Occupant Restraint Variation,'' Proceedings of
the 2014 IRCOBI Conference, Paper No. IRC-14-42, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Injury Criteria and Risk Curves
To assess injury in any crash test that the THOR-50M ATD is used
in, NCAP intends to use many of the injury criteria and risk curves
that have been used in NHTSA research testing as previously
published,\71\ with some modifications. These preliminary injury
criteria and risk curves are described below and summarized in Appendix
II of this document. The agency is seeking comment on all aspects of
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., & Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEAD--NHTSA intends to use the head injury criterion
(HIC15) as a metric for assessing head injury risk in
frontal crashes. It is currently in use in FMVSS No. 208 and frontal
NCAP tests.\72\ \73\ As described in the 2008 NCAP Final
Decision Notice, the risk curve associated with HIC15 in
frontal NCAP testing represents a risk of AIS 3+ injury. However, while
HIC15 injury assessment values in frontal NCAP testing have
continued to decrease over time as have the field incidence of skull
and facial fractures, the incidence of traumatic brain injury in
frontal crashes has not decreased at a similar rate.\74\ This may be
because the HIC15 criterion only addresses linear
acceleration of the head, which does not completely describe the motion
of and subsequent injury risk to the brain. To assess the risk of brain
injury due to rotation of the head, Takhounts (2013) developed a
kinematically based brain injury criterion (BrIC). BrIC is calculated
by combining the angular velocities of the head about its three local
axes compared to directionally dependent critical values. BrIC was one
of many brain injury correlates that were considered and was found to
have the highest correlation to two strain metrics measured in the
brain. These strain metrics, cumulative strain and maximum principal
strain, are the mechanical measures that have been shown to be directly
associated with brain injury potential.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Eppinger, R., Sun, E., Bandak, F., Haffner, M., Khaewpong,
N., Maltese, M., & Saul, R., ``Development of Improved Injury
Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems
II,'' NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6407-5, 1999.
\73\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
\74\ Takhounts, E. G., Hasija, V., Moorhouse, K., McFadden, J.,
& Craig, M., ``Development of Brain Injury Criteria (BrIC)'',
Proceedings of the 57th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Orlando, FL,
November 2013.
\75\ Takhounts, E., Eppinger, R., Campbell, J., Tannous, R.,
Power, Erik., & Shook, L., ``On the Development of the SIMon Finite
Element Head Model.'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 47 (October
2003), pp. 107-33.; Takhounts, E., Ridella, R., Hasija, V., Tannous,
R., Campbell, J., Malone, D., Danelson, K., Stitzel, J., Rowson, S.,
& Duma, S., ``Investigation of Traumatic Brain Injuries Using the
Next Generation of Simulated Injury Monitor (SIMon) Finite Element
Head Model,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 52 (November 2008), pp
1-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NECK--NHTSA intends to use a modified, THOR-specific version of the
neck injury criterion (Nij) as a metric for assessing neck injury in
frontal crashes. Two approaches are being considered to address this
difference:
(a) Update Nij critical values. The formulation of Nij would be
retained, but the critical values would be updated to specifically
represent the THOR-50M ATD. In a presentation to the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) THOR Evaluation Task Group, Nightingale et
al. proposed critical values for the THOR ATD based on age-adjusted
post-mortem human surrogate cervical spine tolerance data.\76\ These
critical values were based on measurements from the upper neck load
cell alone: 2520 N in tension, 3640 N in compression, 48 Nm in flexion,
and 72 Nm in extension. Dibb et al. recognized this as a conservative
estimate of injury risk because it did not account for additional
resistance to tension provided by neck musculature.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Nightingale, R., Ono, K., Pintar, F., Yoganandan, N., &
Martin, P., ``THOR Head and Neck IARVs,'' SAE THOR Evaluation Task
Group, 2009.
\77\ Dibb, A., Nightingale, R., Chauncey, V., Fronheiser, L.,
Tran, L., Ottaviano, D., & Myers B., ``Comparative Structural Neck
Responses of the THOR-NT, Hybrid III, and Human in Combined Tension-
Bending and Pure Bending,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, 50: 567-581,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Implement a THOR-specific injury criterion. NHTSA has conducted
research to evaluate the neck of the THOR-50M ATD head and neck in a
wide array of loading conditions. These data would be used to develop a
cervical osteoligamentous spine injury criterion (Cervical Nij or
CNij).
CHEST--NHTSA intends to use one or more multi-point thoracic injury
criteria to predict chest injury. A relationship between chest
deformation and injury risk was determined through a series of matched-
pair sled tests conducted at the University of
[[Page 78534]]
Virginia.\78\ Sled tests were conducted in 12 conditions using the
THOR-50M ATD, for which thoracic biofidelity has been demonstrated
(Parent, 2013). The matched set of post-mortem human surrogate (PMHS)
tests included 38 observations on 34 PMHS (four PMHS were subjected to
a low-speed, non-injurious loading condition before injurious testing).
Incidence of injury was quantified as AIS 3+ thoracic injury to the
PMHS, which represents three or more fractured ribs based on the 2005
(update 2008) version of AIS. Using the peak resultant deflection,
measured at the maximum of the four thoracic measurement locations on
the THOR-50M rib cage, and the incidence of PMHS injury in same test
condition,\79\ an injury risk function was developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Crandall, J., ``Injury Criteria Development: THOR Metric
SD-3 Shoulder Advanced Frontal Crash Test Dummy,'' NHTSA
Biomechanics Database, Report b11117-1, September 2013.
\79\ Saunders, J., Parent, D., & Ames, E., ``NHTSA Oblique Crash
Test Results: Vehicle Performance and Occupant Injury Risk
Assessment in Vehicles with Small Overlap Countermeasures,'' The
24th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0108, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABDOMEN--NHTSA intends to use a measurement based on percent
compression to predict abdominal injury. This is a new area for NHTSA,
because THOR is the first frontal ATD to potentially be used in
consumer information testing that measures dynamic abdominal
deflection. Kent et al. examined several predictors of abdominal injury
using a porcine surrogate, and found percent compression to be the best
injury discriminator out of the considered metrics.\80\ A risk function
was developed to relate the percent compression to the risk of AIS 3+
abdominal injury. Percent compression can be measured on the THOR-50M
ATD by dividing the maximum of the left and right peak abdominal
deflection measurements by the undeformed depth of the abdomen measured
at the IR-TRACC attachment points, or 238.4 millimeters (mm) (9.4
inches (in)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Kent, R., Stacey, S., Kindig, M., Woods, W., Evans, J.,
Rouhana, S., Higuchi, K., Tanji, H., St. Lawrence, S., & Arbogast,
K., ``Biomechanical Response of the Pediatric Abdomen, Part 2:
Injuries and Their Correlation with Engineering Parameters,'' Stapp
Car Crash Journal, Vol. 52, November 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PELVIS--NHTSA intends to use an acetabulum load criteria to assess
potential pelvis injuries with the THOR ATD. Rudd 2011 demonstrated
that pelvis injuries have been shown to occur in the absence of femur
fractures, and as shown in Martin (2011), the THOR-50M ATD is able to
measure the load at the interface between the greater trochanter and
the acetabulum to assess the risk of these types of injuries. Rupp et
al. (2009) developed a post-mortem human surrogate injury risk function
to relate the force transmitted to the hip, the stature of the
occupant, the hip flexion angle, and the hip abduction angle to the
risk of a hip fracture.\81\ To relate this risk function to the THOR-
50M ATD, three substitutions are made. First, an occupant stature of
178 centimeters (70 inches) is used to represent a 50th percentile male
occupant. Second, since the THOR cannot record dynamic hip angles, the
hip angles are estimated to represent the typical posture at the time
of peak femur load in full frontal crashes (30 degrees of flexion and
15 degrees of abduction). Third, the force measured at the THOR
acetabulum must be related to the force measured at the hip of the
post-mortem human surrogates used to develop the risk function. Martin
et al. (2011) demonstrated that a scaling ratio of 1.3 could be used to
relate the acetabulum force measured by THOR-NT to the PMHS acetabulum
force.\82\ However, this scaling ratio may not be appropriate for the
THOR-50M ATD because the biofidelity of the femur was updated in the
Modification Kit.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Rupp, J. D., Flannagan, C. A., & Kuppa, S. M.,
``Development of an injury risk curve for the hip for use in frontal
impact crash testing,'' Journal of Biomechanics 34(3):527-531, 2010.
\82\ Martin, P. G. & Scarboro, M., ``THOR-NT: Hip Injury
Potential in Narrow Offset and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0234, 2011.
\83\ Ridella, S. & Parent, D., ``Modifications to Improve the
Durability, Usability, and Biofidelity of the THOR-NT Dummy,'' The
22nd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 11-0312, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPPER LEG--NHTSA intends to use peak femur axial force as a metric
for assessing femur injury risk in frontal crashes. It is currently
used in FMVSS No. 208 and frontal NCAP. The THOR-50M ATD includes a
femur compressive element that allows for a human-like response under
axial compression.\84\ Thus, the human injury risk function to relate
axial femur force to risk of AIS 2+ and 3+ injury can be used
directly.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Ridella, S. & Parent, D., ``Modifications to Improve the
Durability, Usability, and Biofidelity of the THOR-NT Dummy,'' The
22nd International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 11-0312, 2011.
\85\ Kuppa, S., Wang, J., Haffner, M., & Eppinger, R., ``Lower
Extremity Injuries and Associated Injury Criteria,'' The 17th
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 457, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOWER LEG--NHTSA intends to use injury risk curves developed for
the human lower extremity and applied to the lower extremity hardware
of the THOR-50M ATD.\86\ \87\ NHTSA developed injury risk
curves for the prediction of tibia plateau fractures using the axial
force measured by the upper tibia load cell; tibia/fibula shaft
fractures using the Revised Tibia Index calculated using measurements
from the upper and lower tibia load cells; calcaneus, talus, ankle, and
midfoot fractures using the axial force measured by the lower tibia
load cell; and malleolar fractures and ankle ligament injuries using
the rotation measured by the ankle potentiometer or calculated ankle
moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Ibid.
\87\ Kuppa, S., Haffner, M., Eppinger, R., & Saunders, J.,
``Lower Extremity Response And Trauma Assessment Using The THOR-Lx/
HIIIr And The Denton Leg In Frontal Offset Vehicle Crashes,'' The
17th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 456, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female ATD (HIII-5F) w/RibEyeTM
NHTSA is considering updating the HIII-5F ATD currently used in
frontal NCAP with new RibEyeTM instrumentation for measuring
chest deflection. The background and detail for this consideration are
explained below.
The HIII-5F ATD was initially developed in 1988 by a collaboration
among First Technology Safety Systems and the SAE Biomechanics
Subcommittees, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
and the Ohio State University.\88\ Several updates were made to the
device through the late 1980s and 1990s to improve its ability to
interact with modern restraints.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Humanetics Innovative Solutions, ``Hybrid III 5th Female
Dummy--880105-000-H,'' August 2015. [www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies/frontal-impact/hybrid-iii-5th].
\89\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's regulatory use of the HIII-5F ATD began in 1996 when the
agency announced its comprehensive plan for reducing the dangers to
vehicle occupants from deploying frontal air bags.\90\ The agency was
also required to respond to section 7103 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) enacted in 1998.\91\ These directives
resulted in the issuance of a final rule in 2000 that required advanced
air bag protection for a variety of occupant sizes, including smaller
persons represented by the HIII-5F
[[Page 78535]]
ATD.\92\ That rulemaking was the first requiring vehicle manufacturers
to certify their products to the occupant crash protection standard,
FMVSS No. 208, using the small female dummy in dynamic vehicle tests
(both belted and unbelted). In MY 2011 vehicles, the agency began
testing with the HIII-5F ATD in the right front passenger's seat of
NCAP's 56 km/h (35 mph) full frontal rigid barrier test.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (November
22, 1996). NHTSA Announces Comprehensive Plan to Improve Air Bag
Technology and Reduce Air Bag Dangers [Press Release]. Retrieved
from http://stnw.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/PressDisplay.cfm?year=1996&filename=pr112296a.html.
\91\ ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,'' Pub. L.
105-178, sec. 7103, 112 Stat. 107 (June 9, 1998).
\92\ See 65 FR 30680. Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013 Notice 1.
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/00-11577.
\93\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620; Also see 73 FR 79206. Docket
No. NHTSA-2006-26555. https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-30701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent studies using data from the FARS and NASS-CDS databases,
researchers have found that in a comparable crash, belted females have
higher risk of injury and death overall than belted males, as well as
higher chest injury risk specifically.\94\ Differing injury patterns
between males and females also suggest differences in restraint
interaction and effectiveness. For example, using NASS-CDS data from
1997 to 2011, Parenteau et al. (2013) showed that females have higher
risk of belt- and air bag-sourced chest injuries.\95\ NHTSA also found
that females had a higher percentage of injuries sourced to the air bag
in frontal collisions.\96\ Thus, it remains important to assess the
risk of injury to smaller female occupants using the currently
available HIII-5F ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Bose D., Segui-Gomez, M., & Crandall J. ``Vulnerability of
Female Drivers Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes: An Analysis of US
Population at Risk,'' American Journal of Public Health
101(12):2368-2373, 2011; Parenteau, C. S., Zuby, D., Brolin, K. B.,
et al. ``Restrained male and female occupants in frontal crashes:
Are we different?'' Proceedings of the International Research
Council on Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI) Conference. Paper IRC-13-
98, 2013; Kahane, C. J. ``Injury vulnerability and effectiveness of
occupant protection technologies for older occupants and women''.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report No. DOT HS
811 766, 2013.
\95\ Parenteau, C. S., Zuby, D., Brolin, K. B., et al.
``Restrained male and female occupants in frontal crashes: Are we
different?'' Proceedings of the International Research Council on
Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI) Conference. Paper IRC-13-98, 2013.
\96\ Kahane, C. J. ``Injury vulnerability and effectiveness of
occupant protection technologies for older occupants and women''.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report No. DOT HS
811 766, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to what was discussed above for the THOR-50M, the agency
has identified an opportunity to improve on the type of thoracic injury
data it collects when using the HIII-5F ATD in full frontal NCAP tests.
In an effort to improve the quality of thoracic deflection measurements
collected by ATDs, Boxboro Systems developed a set of optical thoracic
instrumentation known as the RibEyeTM.\97\ The
RibEyeTM system is comprised of up to 12 light emitting
diodes (LEDs) which are mounted internally to the ribs of the dummy.
Two detectors that allow the system to measure deflections in both the
x- and y-directions receive light from the LEDs. One advantage that the
RibEyeTM system has over traditional single-point
potentiometers is the ability to assess asymmetric loading of the
thorax rather than just a one dimensional deflection at the
sternum.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Handman, D. ``Multi-point position measuring and recording
system for anthropomorphic test devices.'' U.S. Patent Number
7508530B1. 24 March 2009.
\98\ Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F., Rinaldi, J., ``Evaluation of
the RibEye Deflection Measurement System in the 50th Percentile
Hybrid III Dummy.'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
DOT HS 811 102, March 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency intends to conduct further research on the HIII-5F ATD
with the RibEyeTM instrumentation. Research findings
indicate that the multi-point thoracic deflection measurement
capability of the RibEyeTM system has the potential to
record higher and potentially more meaningful (with respect to the
effects of belt routing) chest deflections than a single potentiometer
at the sternum.\99\ The agency intends to evaluate its merit in
discriminating the multi-point thoracic deflection measurement
capability of the RibEyeTM amongst vehicle performance in
the full frontal NCAP environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Eggers, A. & Adolph, T., ``Evaluation of the Thoracic
Measurement System `RibEye' in the Hybrid III 50% in Frontal Sled
Tests,'' The 22nd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper
Number 11-0190, 2011; Eggers, A., Eickhoff, B., Dobberstein, J.,
Zellmer, H., & Adolph, T., ``Effects of Variations in Belt Geometry,
Double Pretensioning and Adaptive Load Limiting on Advanced Chest
Measurements of THOR and Hybrid III,'' IRCOBI Conference, IRC-14-40,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has previously acknowledged that there is a need for greater
understanding of the rear seat environment.\100\ In a double-paired
comparison study using FARS data, NHTSA research indicated that
restrained occupants older than 50 years were protected better in the
front row than in the rear row.\101\ A follow-up parametric study
indicated that while there are many design challenges that must be
considered, certain rear seat occupants could benefit from the addition
of advanced restraint technology like pretensioners and load
limiters.\102\ NHTSA has continued its study of potential restraint
countermeasures for the rear seat vehicle environment through research
initiatives.\103\ While both occupancy and injury rates for the rear
seat are low when compared to the front seat, there may be an
opportunity in NCAP to better understand the needs of rear seat
occupants, especially in consideration of modern vehicles that are
lighter and more compact than their predecessors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See 78 FR 20597. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-07766.
\101\ Kuppa, S., Saunders, J., & Fessahaie, O., ``Rear Seat
Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes,'' The 19th Enhanced Safety
of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 05-0212, 2005.
\102\ Kent, R., Forman, J., Parent, D., & Kuppa, S., ``Rear Seat
Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes and its Feasibility,'' The
20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 07-0386,
2007.
\103\ Hu, J., & Saunders, J. ``Rear Seat Occupant Protection:
Safety Beyond Seat Belts.'' SAE Government/Industry Meeting, January
21, 2015. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2015/2015SAE-Saunders-AdvOccupantProtection.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the agency intends to conduct research tests with a
HIII-5F dummy in the rear seat of full frontal tests to determine
whether or not to include this ATD in the rear seat of full frontal
NCAP tests. Including testing of an ATD in the rear seat of full
frontal tests would be consistent with the testing done in other
international vehicle safety consumer information programs such as Euro
NCAP and Japan NCAP.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ European New Car Assessment Programme, ``Full Width
Frontal Impact Test Protocol,'' Version 1.0.1, April 2015. [http://euroncap.blob.core.windows.net/media/17000/euro-ncap-frontal-fw-test-protocol-v101-april-2015.pdf]; European New Car Assessment
Programme, ``Assessment Protocol--Adult Occupant Protection,''
Version 7.0.2, April 2015. [http://euroncap.blob.core.windows.net/media/16999/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-aop-v702-april-2015.pdf];
Japan NCAP, ``Collision Safety Performance Tests,'' Accessed August
18, 2015. [www.nasva.go.jp/mamoru/en/assessment_car/crackup_measure.html].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is also undertaking research efforts to procure and evaluate
a 5th percentile female version of the THOR ATD.\105\ NHTSA expects to
acquire several of these devices and conduct testing using them within
the next few years. A 5th percentile female THOR ATD would have
instrumentation that is similar to the THOR-50M ATD, including many
improved measurement capabilities like multi-point chest and abdominal
deflections.\106\ Its biofidelity and kinematics are expected to be an
improvement compared to the HIII-5F ATD, especially in the context of
rear
[[Page 78536]]
seat frontal impact testing. At this time, the THOR 5th has not been
refined to a full production level, so it is not yet a candidate for
consideration over the HIII-5F in frontal NCAP tests. Thus, the agency
intends to use the HIII-5F ATD in this NCAP upgrade. It also intends to
use the formulae and risk curves presented in Appendix III of this
document to assess the injury risk to this size occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``THOR 5th
Female ATD.'' Accessed August 17, 2015.
\106\ Ebert, S. & Reed, M., ``Anthropometric Evaluation of THOR-
05F.'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, UMTRI-2013-
12, April 2013; Shams, T., Huang, T.J., Rangarajan, N., Haffner, M.,
``Design Requirements for a Fifth Percentile Female Version of the
THOR ATD,'' The 18th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper
Number 421, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though three modes of potential neck injury are assessed for the
HIII-5F dummy, the maximum neck injury potentials for both dummies
under the current frontal NCAP have all resulted from the calculation
of Nij.\107\ The Nij criterion has been used to assess injury in
frontal crashes conducted by the agency both in a regulatory context
and in frontal NCAP since the 2011 model year.\108\ NCAP has seen a
general decline in HIII-5F ATD Nij values, which has helped result in
higher right front passenger star ratings.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., Aram, M.,
``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th International
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference,
Paper Number 15-0314, 2015.
\108\ Eppinger, R., Sun, E., Bandak, F., Haffner, M., Khaewpong,
N., Maltese, M., Saul, R., ``Development of Improved Injury Criteria
for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems II,''
NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6407-5, 1999.
\109\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., Aram, M.,
``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th International
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference,
Paper Number 15-0314, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Nij risk function used in NCAP with HIII-5F ATD
produces a risk value of 3.8 percent when Nij equals zero. To address
this, two corrections have been made to generate the HIII-5F Nij risk
curve being included in this notice. First, revised Nij experimental
data\110\ were used. Second, given the updated Nij values and paired
injury outcomes, survival analysis with a Weibull distribution was used
produce an AIS 3+ risk curve that passes through 0.0% for Nij equal to
zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Mertz, H.J., & Prasad, P., 2000. ``Improved neck injury
risk curves for tension and extension moment measurements of crash
dummies.'' Proceedings of the 44th Stapp Car Crash Conference,
Atlanta, GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Side Crashworthiness
1. Real-World Side Crash Data
In support of this RFC notice, a review of 10 years' worth (2004-
2013) of National Automotive Sampling System--Crashworthiness Data
System (NASS-CDS) data was conducted to understand side impact crashes
in the real world. For light vehicles in this analysis, crashes must
have been representative of those covered by the current FMVSS No. 214;
that is, (1) they must have involved another light vehicle or tall,
narrow object such as a tree or pole; (2) the direction of the highest
delta-V impact must have been between 7 and 11 o'clock for left-side
impacts and between 1 and 5 o'clock for right-side impacts; and (3) the
lateral delta-V must have been between 0-25 mph (0-40.2 km/hr). Only
tow-away, non-rollover vehicles were included. Shallow-side (sideswipe)
impacts were excluded, as were impacts with the second-highest delta-V
known to be to the top of the vehicle.\111\ Also excluded were impacts
with the second-highest delta-V known to be to the rear, front, or
undercarriage of the vehicle with a non-shallow or unknown extent of
crush. At least one occupant must have received a MAIS 2+ injury or
must have died within 30 days of the crash. Furthermore, at least one
such injured occupant must have been seated in the front or rear rows
of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes or the front row of vehicle-to-pole
crashes. All occupants younger than 13 in the front row or 8 in the
rear row or those completely ejected from the vehicle were excluded. If
an occupant sustained a head injury, it must have been to the brain,
skull, scalp, or face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Impacts with the second-highest delta-V known to be to the
top of the vehicle were excluded as this ensures that injuries are
sustained from the primary side impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All data presented for the side NCAP section is in terms of
unadjusted values and has been weighted to a certain extent. The data
has been weighted for frequency but not adjusted for various factors,
such as recent rulemakings or increased belt use. It is critical to
note that, as the final population estimates to be presented in the
Final Notice will be adjusted for these factors, the estimates
presented in this RFC notice are preliminary and are subject to change.
This preliminary analysis of crashes representing FMVSS No. 214
conditions showed an estimated 9,180 side impact crashes involving
light vehicles occurred annually, 371 (4%) of which involved a tree or
pole and 8,809 (96%) of which involved another light vehicle. In these
side impact crashes, there were an estimated 384 fatalities and 9,276
moderately-to-critically injured (AIS 2-5) occupants each year. There
were an estimated 50,606 total injuries sustained yearly during the
review period with each occupant sustaining, on average, about five
different injuries. All fatal injuries were sustained in outboard
seating positions; when excluding middle seat occupants, there were
9,229 moderately-to-critically injured occupants yearly. Further data
gathered from this study will be discussed in relevant subsections
later in this RFC notice.
2. Current Side NCAP Program
Since its introduction into NCAP in 1996, the side NCAP MDB test
has been a staple of the program's crash-testing effort. This side
test, which, except for speed, is the same as the MDB test included in
FMVSS No. 214, simulates a 90-degree intersection-style crash. Test
speed in the side NCAP MDB test is 61.9 km/h (38.5 mph), which is 8 km/
h (5 mph) faster than the speed specified in FMVSS No. 214.
The side NCAP MDB test was last upgraded in MY 2011 to include new
test dummies and advanced injury criteria. At that time, an ES-2re 50th
percentile male dummy and a SID-IIs 5th percentile female dummy were
chosen to replace the 50th percentile Side Impact Dummy with Hybrid III
head and neck (SID-H3) in the driver's seat and rear passenger's seat,
respectively. These same dummies have also been specified for use in
the FMVSS No. 214 side MDB test since the 2007 Final Rule. The FMVSS
No. 214 injury criteria adopted for the ES-2re dummy were to address
head (HIC36), chest (thoracic rib deflection), abdominal
(combined abdominal force), and pelvic (pubic symphysis force)
injuries. Injury criteria adopted for the SID-IIs ATD were to address
head (HIC36), lower spine (lower spine resultant
acceleration), and pelvic (combined pelvic force) injuries. NCAP uses
injury risk curves to assess the level of injury risk for rating
purposes. For the ES-2re dummy, NCAP uses injury risk curves for all
four body regions addressed in the regulation. NCAP uses only the head
and pelvis regions for rating SID-IIs performance because there was no
valid lower spine acceleration risk curve available at the time of the
upgraded program.
The current side NCAP program also includes an oblique vehicle-to-
pole test which was introduced in MY 2011 when the program was last
upgraded.\112\ Similar to the side MDB crash test, NCAP's side pole
crash test was based on the FMVSS No. 214 side pole test, which was
adopted into the standard in 2007.\113\ This test is designed to
simulate a side impact crash involving a tree or utility pole. In both
the side NCAP test and the FMVSS No. 214
[[Page 78537]]
compliance test, the test vehicle is towed at 32 km/h (20 mph) into a
rigid pole.\114\ The driver dummy specified for NCAP's side pole test
is a 5th percentile female SID-IIs dummy, whereas both the 5th
percentile female SID-IIs dummy and the 50th percentile male ES-2re
dummy are specified in FMVSS No. 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See 73 FR 40016. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
\113\ See 72 FR 51908. Docket No. NHTSA-29134. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/07-4360.
\114\ FMVSS No. 214 specifies a range of speeds (26 km/h to 32
km/h, or 16 mph to 20 mph), rather than one target speed as in the
side NCAP pole test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle manufacturers have been responsive to the program changes
implemented in MY 2011. A review of star rating data from NCAP's first
model year of testing compared to the most recent model year (MY 2015)
shows that average star ratings for the driver in the pole test, as
represented by the 5th percentile SID-IIs dummy, have improved 19
percent. Average ratings for both the driver and the rear passenger in
the MDB test have increased 11 percent since MY 2011. Star ratings, in
general, are now quite high for side impact protection. Most vehicles
achieved 5 stars in both side impact crash tests in MY 2015.
As a result, current side NCAP star ratings are reaching a point at
which they are no longer providing distinct discrimination between
vehicle models. To continually promote further advancements in side
occupant protection, changes to the side NCAP program are once again
appropriate. Accordingly, NHTSA intends to introduce a new, advanced,
average-size side impact test dummy that is capable of measuring
additional injuries in side impact crashes.
3. Planned Upgrade
a. Side MDB Test
Today, the agency announces its intention to once again enhance the
side MDB test for the NCAP safety ratings program in light of the
aforementioned limitations on discriminating vehicles and the agency's
recent analysis of real-world data showing a continued need to address
side impact protection. NHTSA's preliminary estimate of real-world
crash data mentioned previously indicates that an estimated 8,809 side
impact vehicle-to-vehicle crashes occurring annually had at least one
occupant receiving an injury of MAIS 2 or greater.\115\ Each year,
about 9,270 front and/or rear seat occupants received moderate-to-fatal
injuries, considered to be MAIS 2 to MAIS 6. Ninety-six percent (8,922)
of these occupants were seated in the front seat, and the remaining 4
percent (348) were seated in the rear. These occupants received
approximately 21,595 separate AIS 2+ injuries each year. For this
population, 37 percent of moderate-to-fatal injuries were to the torso,
25 percent were to the head, and 18 percent were to the pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the side MDB test itself will not change,\116\ the new
WorldSID 50th percentile male (WorldSID-50M) Standard Build Level F
(SBL F) dummy will now be specified for the driver's seat instead of
the 50th percentile ES-2re male dummy, which is used currently.\117\
The WorldSID-50M dummy's increased biofidelity, particularly in the
head, shoulder, thorax, and abdominal regions, make this dummy the best
choice for evaluating these types of injuries.\118\ The WorldSID-50M
ATD is more sensitive to oblique loads. This will be discussed further
in the WorldSID-50M ATD Biofidelity section, to be found later in this
RFC notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ ``U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test Procedure for New Car
Assessment Program Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier Test,''
Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0046, September 2013.
\117\ The test will also remain applicable to those vehicles
with a (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or less.
\118\ See WorldSID-50M Biofidelity section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SID-IIs 5th percentile female dummy will continue to occupy the
near-side rear outboard seat of the test vehicle. For small-stature
occupants in the rear outboard seat of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, 29
percent of AIS 2+ injuries were to the head, 18 percent to the pelvis,
17 percent to the chest, and 16 percent to the abdomen.\119\ Fifth-
percentile female dummies not only represent small occupants (including
vulnerable and older occupants), but they are also appropriately sized
surrogates for older children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WorldSID 5th percentile female (WorldSID-5F) dummy is currently
going through the final stages of development and robustness testing.
The WorldSID-5F ATD has improved thorax and abdominal biofidelity.
However, as discussed in a later section of this RFC, there are
remaining concerns to be addressed before it can be included in the
next NCAP upgrade.
b. Side Pole Test
NHTSA's real-world estimates indicate that about 371 side impact
vehicle-to-pole crashes occurred annually in which the front seat
occupant received an injury of MAIS 2 or greater.\120\ These occupants
received approximately 1,415 AIS 2+ injuries each year. While the
frequency with which side pole crashes occurred is low in comparison to
vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, the body regions injured tended to be
different than in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. For this population,
nearly half (49%) of the moderate-to-fatal injuries were to the head,
followed by injuries to the pelvis (15%), torso (14%), and lower limb
(13%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the side oblique pole test, the agency will not alter the test
itself.\121\ Instead, it intends to replace the SID-IIs ATD with the
WorldSID-50M ATD in the front struck-side outboard seating position. As
mentioned in previous rulemakings, the distribution of injury, severity
and types of injury were different in small-stature occupants compared
to mid-size to larger occupants.\122\ Nearly two-thirds of AIS 2+
injuries for small-stature occupants in narrow-object crashes were to
the occupant's head. Other commonly injured body regions were the lower
extremities (12%) and pelvis (11%).\123\ This differing distribution of
injury was one of the reasons that the agency decided to include the
SID-IIs ATD in the driver's seat of the existing NCAP oblique pole
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ ``U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration Laboratory Test Procedure for New Car
Assessment Program Side Impact Rigid Pole Test,'' Docket No. NHTSA-
2015-0046, September 2013.
\122\ See 73 FR 40028. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
\123\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the agency believes it is advantageous to use the most
advanced tools available. The WorldSID-50M ATD is able to more
accurately assess risk of injuries to occupants due to its improved
biofidelity.\124\ The WorldSID-50M ATD offers more realistic
anthropometry and should lead to improved head protection for real-
world occupants. Over four-fifths (82%) of the occupants sustaining
MAIS 2+ injuries from pole or tree crashes were between 165 cm (5 ft 5
in) and 180 cm (5 ft 11 in), a size well-represented by the WorldSID-
50M ATD.\125\ For this population, 35 percent of the AIS 2+ injuries
were to the head, 20 percent were to the pelvis, 16 percent were to the
chest, and 14 percent were to the lower limbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Biofidelity and anthropometry of this dummy will be
discussed later in this RFC notice.
\125\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's data analysis also supports the need for testing small-
stature occupants in the driver seating position. Even though mid-size
to larger occupants were injured more frequently
[[Page 78538]]
than small-stature occupants in narrow-object side impact crashes, the
rationale presented in previous rulemakings for using the 5th
percentile female dummy in the front near-side seat is still
compelling. The side impact standard (FMVSS No. 214), ejection
mitigation standard (FMVSS No. 226), and IIHS moderate and small offset
frontal impact tests should encourage vehicle designs which provide
adequate side impact protection for small-stature occupants' heads.
Further, the agency believes the injury mitigation techniques developed
for the WorldSID-50M ATD's torso, abdomen, and pelvis should benefit
smaller occupants. In using the WorldSID-50M in the enhanced consumer
information program, the agency is taking a complementary approach by
also relying on compliance testing and regulation.
c. Additional Considerations
Currently, NCAP's side test protocol specifies that the left
(driver) side of the vehicle be struck by the moving barrier or pole.
As part of this NCAP upgrade, NHTSA intends to exercise the option of
having the side MDB and/or pole impact either the left side or right
side of the vehicle, similar to FMVSS No. 214 protocol. Expanding the
test applicability to cover both the left and right sides should ensure
that the side impact rating includes information about the protection
offered to the occupants on both sides of a vehicle. Only one crash
test will be performed per vehicle and per crash type. The agency is
specifically seeking comment on this amendment to the NCAP protocol.
In the 2013 request for comments, NHTSA received comment on using
dummies in the non-struck side of the crash test. The agency is not
considering the inclusion of far-side dummies at this time. Pilot-
testing has not been conducted to determine which dummies would be most
suitable, which test conditions need to be adjusted, and what types of
injury data would be collected from such tests.
As part of this RFC notice, the agency is also requesting comment
on a revised seating procedure for the rear seat SID-IIs dummy in the
side MDB test. The current seating procedure has been amended to
account for new rear seat designs.
4. Side Test Dummies
a. WorldSID 50th Percentile Male ATD (WorldSID-50M)
i. Background
The WorldSID-50M ATD is a state-of-the-art side impact dummy that
was developed beginning in June 1997 under the auspices of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working group on
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (TC22/SC12/WG5). It is part of the
WorldSID family of dummies, which currently only includes the 50th
percentile male and 5th percentile female. The working group's primary
goal was to create a single, worldwide harmonized, mid-size male test
device for side impact that had enhanced injury assessment
capabilities, superior biofidelity and anthropometry, and which would
eliminate the need to use different dummies in different parts of the
world in regulation and other testing. This would also offer the
benefit of reducing total development costs for manufacturers.
While the WorldSID-50M ATD has not been used previously in NHTSA
rating programs, it is currently being used by other agencies and
organizations worldwide. Euro NCAP began using WorldSID-50M ATD in both
side barrier and side pole testing in 2015, and China-NCAP has
committed to use it in 2018. Other consumer programs, such as Korean
NCAP and ASEAN NCAP, are also considering its use, and it is being
recommended as the test device in the pole side impact Global Technical
Regulation (GTR) No. 14.\126\ The inclusion of WorldSID-50M ATD into
NCAP would further enhance harmonization, a goal supported by many of
the respondents to the agency's April 2013 request for comments notice
on NCAP enhancements. It also presents a strategy which is similar to
that employed by Euro NCAP, whereby the WorldSID-50M ATD was added to
Euro NCAP to serve as a consumer test tool prior to it being adopted
into regulation (United Nations Economic Commission of Europe (ECE)
R95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers also commented in their responses to the 2013 RFC
that the adoption of more biofidelic dummies like the WorldSID-50M ATD
will allow them to develop improved occupant protection systems and
therefore reduce injury risk to the general public.\127\ As will be
discussed later, NHTSA has evaluated the WorldSID-50M ATD using an
updated version of the NHTSA biofidelity ranking system and finds this
dummy to be superior because of its improved shoulder response,
improved thoracic response in both lateral and oblique directions,
ability to measure abdominal displacement, and durability and
repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ ``New Car Assessment Program,'' Docket No. NHTSA-2012-
0180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the outcome of the agency's biofidelity assessment of the
WorldSID-50M dummy, its injury assessment measurement capabilities, and
the broad support expressed for the dummy, both through responses to
the agency's 2013 Request for Comments and its use in other consumer
programs, the agency plans to adopt the WorldSID-50M dummy in NCAP for
use in the front struck-side seat in the side MDB test as well as the
side oblique pole test.
ii. Anthropometry, Construction, and Material Properties
As mentioned previously, to ensure that a dummy can appropriately
replicate the motion and responses of a human in a real-world crash, it
is critical that the dummy's anthropometry (i.e., size and shape)
accurately reflect the population it is intended to represent. Work
related to WorldSID-50M ATD's anthropometry was carefully conducted to
ensure this would be the final result. An anthropometrical study
conducted by UMTRI served as the basis for WorldSID-50M ATD's
anthropometry.\128\ The study was developed with consideration given to
the dummy design process and consisted of measuring actual humans in
actual vehicle seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ University of Michigan ``Development of Anthropometrically
Based Specifications for an Advanced Adult Anthropomorphic Dummy
Family'', Volume 1-2, December 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the latest ISO documentation, the WorldSID-50M dummy
stands 175 cm tall (5 ft 9 in) and weighs 74.4 kg (164.0 lb) in the
suited, half-arm configuration.\129\ This compares well to the average
height (172 cm, or 5 ft 7 in) and weight (80.6 kg, or 177.7 lb) of
front seat occupants injured in collisions with passenger vehicles and
narrow objects.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Note that the agency is proposing to use the half-arm
configuration in crash tests; the mass of this dummy when suited
with full arms is 78.3 kg (172.6 lb). All dummy weights can be found
in ISO Technical Specification, ISO/TS 15830-5 (revised 9-Jul-15).
\130\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to that mentioned for the THOR-50M dummy, the WorldSID-50M
ATD's rib cage geometry is also more similar to a human's. When seated,
the WorldSID-50M ATD's ribs are oriented nearly horizontally since they
are angled downward like a human's when standing. Furthermore, the
WorldSID-50M ATD exhibits a more anatomically correct representation of
a vehicle-seated posture as its specifications were based on a study of
[[Page 78539]]
humans in vehicle seats. The seated posture for the WorldSID-50M ATD's
lumbar spine, which is designed for more human-like thorax-pelvis
coupling, is more flexible. This causes the WorldSID-50M ATD to sit in
a more slouched position.
The WorldSID-50M ATD's ribs, which are each designed to allow a
lateral deflection of at least 75 mm (2.95 in), are made of a super-
elastic nickel-titanium alloy that allows them to deflect similarly to
a human's.\131\ The WorldSID-50M ATD has two abdomen ribs that share
the same construction, and therefore deflection behavior, as the
dummy's thorax ribs. The latest build level of the WorldSID-50M ATD
utilizes two-dimensional Infra-Red Telescoping Rods for Measuring Chest
Compression (2D IR-TRACCs). The IR-TRACCs, which are used to measure
shoulder, thoracic, and abdominal rib deflections in the WorldSID-50M
ATD, measure the change in distance between the spine box and the most
lateral point of the dummy's ribs. Previous build levels of the
WorldSID-50M ATD are equipped with one-dimensional (1D) IR-TRACCs, but
these are no longer supplied with the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``About WorldSID,''
[www.worldsid.org/aboutworldsid.htm]. Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of using the 2D IR-TRACCs, a RibEyeTM system for
the WorldSID-50M, available from Boxboro Systems, LLC, may be
used.\132\ The RibEyeTM system is the same general system
described earlier that NHTSA intends to use in the HIII-5F.
RibEyeTM, used to measure shoulder, thoracic, and abdominal
rib deflections, optically measures the change in distance in the X, Y,
and Z directions between the spine box and appropriate points on the
dummy's ribs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Hardware User's Manual, RibEye multi-point deflection
measurement system, 3-axis version for the WorldSID 50th ATD,
Boxboro Systems, LLC, February 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Biofidelity
The design and evaluation of effective occupant protection systems
is dependent upon the availability of dummies and degree of
biofidelity--those which are able to reliably and repeatedly predict
possible human injuries. Biofidelity is a measure of how well a dummy
duplicates the responses and kinematics of a human vehicle occupant
during a real-world crash event. As mentioned previously, one of the
WorldSID task group's main goals in developing the WorldSID-50M ATD was
to create a harmonized side impact dummy having superior biofidelity.
There are two main biofidelity rating systems in use today--the
International Organization for Standardization Technical Report 9790
(ISO/TR9790) classification system,\133\ and the Biofidelity Ranking
System (BRS, or BioRank) developed by NHTSA.134 135 136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5, Technical Report 9790--Road Vehicle--
Anthropomorphic side impact dummy--lateral impact response
requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy, 2000.
\134\ Rhule, H. H., Maltese, M. R., Donnelly, B. R., Eppinger,
R. H., Brunner, J. K., & Bolte, J. H. IV. ``Development of a New
Biofidelity Ranking System for Anthropomorphic Test Devices,'' Stapp
Car Crash Journal 46: 477-512, 2002.
\135\ Rhule, H., Moorhouse K., Donnelly, B., & Stricklin, J.
``Comparison of WorldSID and ES-2re Biofidelity Using an Updated
Biofidelity Ranking System,'' The 21st International Technical
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0563,
2009.
\136\ Rhule, H., Donnelly, B., Moorhouse, K., & Kang, Y.S. ``A
Methodology for Generating Objective Targets for Quantitatively
Assessing the Biofidelity of Crash Test Dummies,'' The 23rd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ISO/TR9790 biofidelity classification system utilizes a series
of drop tests, pendulum impact tests, and sled tests to determine
individual biofidelity ratings for six body regions, including the
head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.\137\ Subsequently,
the dummy is assigned an overall biofidelity rating, which is
calculated by weighting and summing the biofidelity ratings for the
individual body regions. As shown in Table 2, the scale for overall and
individual body region ratings ranges from 0 (unacceptable) to 10
(excellent), with higher numbers indicating better biofidelity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ A set of requirements is established for each test
specified for a particular body region. Dummy responses for a given
test are subsequently compared against expected corridors for each
requirement, and a rating for each requirement is then assigned.
Ratings for the individual requirements are then weighted and summed
to arrive at an overall rating for each test conducted for a
particular body region. The test ratings for any one body region are
then weighted and summed to assign an individual rating for the body
region.
Table 2--ISO Biofidelity Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent................................. > 8.6 to 10.
Good...................................... > 6.5 to 8.6.
Fair...................................... > 4.4 to 6.5.
Marginal.................................. > 2.6 to 4.4.
Unacceptable.............................. 0 to 2.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5, Technical Report 9790--Road Vehicle--
Anthropomorphic side impact dummy--lateral impact response
requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy, 2000.
The ISO WorldSID Task Group has used the ISO/TR9790 impact test
methods and biofidelity rating scale to evaluate the WorldSID-50M
ATD.\138\ The overall biofidelity rating and the assessed body regions
are shown in Table 3. The WorldSID-50M ATD, which received an ISO
rating of 8.0, is classified as having ``good'' biofidelity. It also
received overwhelmingly positive ratings for each body region. In fact,
head, shoulder, and abdominal biofidelity were rated ``excellent'', and
thoracic biofidelity was rated ``good.'' Neck and pelvis biofidelity
were rated ``fair''. Such localized biofidelity is as equally important
as overall biofidelity as this allows vehicle safety engineers to
optimize vehicle designs and enhance occupant protection in side impact
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Scherer, R., Bortenschlager, K., Akiyama, A., Tylko, S.,
Hartleib, M., and Harigae, T., ``WorldSID Production Dummy
Biomechanical Responses,'' The 21st International Technical
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0505,
2009.
Table 3--WorldSID 50th Percentile Male Side Impact Dummy Biofidelity--ISO Ratings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Neck Shoulder Thorax Abdomen Pelvis Overall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldSID.............................................. 10 5.3 10 8.2 9.3 5.1 8.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Scherer, R., Bortenschlager, K., Akiyama, A., Tylko, S., Hartleib, M., and Harigae, T., ``WorldSID Production Dummy Biomechanical Responses,''
The 21st International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0505, 2009.
NHTSA has performed its own biofidelity evaluation of the WorldSID-
50M ATD using the Biofidelity Ranking system.\139\ Like the ISO/TR9790
biofidelity classification system, this system uses pendulum impact
tests and sled tests to evaluate how well a dummy replicates the
behavior and response of a human being across various body
[[Page 78540]]
regions. Rankings are calculated for both external and internal
biofidelity. For this method, external biofidelity is a measure of how
closely the dummy simulates PMHS external loadings onto the surrounding
impact structures (as measured by pendulum and sled load plate force-
time history responses), and internal biofidelity provides a measure of
how closely the dummy's internal injury responses match those of PMHS
(e.g. rib deflection) under similar conditions.\140\ A lower ranking
indicates a closer dummy response relative to that of the mean cadaver
and thus better dummy biofidelity. A dummy with a biofidelity ranking
of less than 2.0 responds much like a human subject. The WorldSID-50M
ATD has an overall external biofidelity ranking of 2.2 and internal
biofidelity of 1.2 (without the abdomen). Biofidelity rankings of the
WorldSID-50M ATD's individual body regions are given in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Rhule, H., Moorhouse K., Donnelly, B., & Stricklin, J.
``Comparison of WorldSID and ES-2re Biofidelity Using an Updated
Biofidelity Ranking System,'' The 21st International Technical
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0563,
2009.
\140\ Rankings for either internal or external biofidelity are
based on the ratio of the cumulative variance of the dummy response
relative to the mean cadaver response and the cumulative variance of
the mean cadaver response relative to the mean plus one standard
deviation. This ratio (e.g., ranking) expresses how well a dummy
duplicates a cadaver response.
Table 4--WorldSID-50M Side Impact Dummy Biofidelity--NHTSA BioRanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Internal
Body region biofidelity biofidelity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head................................ ................ 0.3
Neck................................ ................ 0.8
Shoulder............................ 1.0 0.9
Thorax.............................. 3.2 2.0
Abdomen............................. 1.9 2.4
Pelvis.............................. 2.7 1.8
Overall (with Abdomen).............. 2.2 1.4
Overall (without Abdomen)........... -- 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Rhule, H., Moorhouse K., Donnelly, B., & Stricklin, J.
``Comparison of WorldSID and ES-2re Biofidelity Using an Updated
Biofidelity Ranking System,'' The 21st International Technical
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0563,
2009.
In addition to the biofidelity ratings assessed by the ISO WorldSID
Task Group and NHTSA, other evaluations have been conducted assessing
WorldSID-50M ATD's biofidelity, particularly with the intent to
evaluate rib deflection. One study, conducted under NHTSA contract at
the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), found that the WorldSID-50M ATD
was suitable for use in both pure lateral and oblique loading
scenarios.\141\ However, it was noted that the 2D IR-TRACCs still
underreported deflection in oblique impacts; this was not the case for
lateral impacts. The report also indicated that the lateral-most point
of the rib may not be the most adequate location for measuring thoracic
and abdominal deflections in oblique loading and that evaluation of
other deflection measurement systems may be warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Yoganandan, N., Humm, J.R., Pintar, F.A., & Brasel, K.,
``Region-specific deflection responses of WorldSID and ES2-re
devices in pure lateral and oblique side impacts,'' Stapp Car Crash
Journal, 55: pp. 351-378, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA then performed quasi-static testing to better understand how
much the IR-TRACCs can underestimate deflection from oblique loading. A
single WorldSID-50M rib was slowly compressed with a materials testing
machine at 0 degrees (lateral), 20 degrees anterior-to-lateral, and 50
degrees anterior-to-lateral while photographs and videos were taken to
document the IR-TRACC's motion. When loaded laterally, the IR-TRACC
rotated somewhat, but as the point of load application became further
from the point of IR-TRACC attachment, the IR-TRACC rotated to a
greater degree, away from the application of loading. Even when the y-
direction deflection was calculated using the rotation of the IR-TRACC
and the compression of the telescoping IR-TRACC rod, in the extreme
case of the 50-degree severely-oblique load, the IR-TRACC did not
capture the full, maximum deflection of the rib. A similar response
occurs in the SID-IIs ATD's shoulder, thoracic and abdominal ribs,
which include linear potentiometers mounted at the lateral-most point
of the rib, which will not capture maximum deflection if the point of
loading is far from the potentiometer mount location.
Although these concerns have been raised, NHTSA is aware of
research that shows that oblique crashes do not necessarily result in
oblique loading to the dummy's chest. Though seemingly
counterintuitive, Transport Canada and the Australian Government
Department of Infrastructure and Transport has found that in oblique
vehicle-to-pole crash conditions, such as those used in FMVSS No. 214,
the WorldSID-50M ATD actually experiences predominantly lateral peak
rib deflection responses.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Belcher, T., Terrell, M. & Tylko, S., ``An Assessment of
WorldSID 50th Percentile Male Injury Responses to Oblique and
Perpendicular Pole Side Impacts,'' The 22nd International Technical
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0133,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, the use of an improved deflection measurement system
may be valuable to pursue.\143\ Thus, NHTSA intends to conduct further
research to evaluate the use of RibEyeTM optical sensors in
the WorldSID-50M ATD's thorax and abdomen as an alternative to the 2D
IR-TRACCs already provided. The RibEyeTM system can measure
the deflection of the inner ribs in the X, Y, and Z directions at three
locations on each rib. This may serve to better monitor oblique
deformation of the ribs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ NHTSA research tests conducted with WorldSID dummies
outfitted with chest bands showed cases of oblique loading for both
front and rear seating locations in testing carried out using the
Side NCAP MDB protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Repeatability and Reproducibility
The WorldSID-50M ATD's body regions demonstrated good repeatability
and reproducibility when production versions of the dummy were
subjected to certification tests performed per ISO 15830-2.\144\
Repeatability is assessed by performing repeat tests on the same dummy,
and reproducibility is determined by performing repeat tests on
different dummies. Generally, a minimum of three trials were conducted
per test. Repeatability was assessed based on the percent coefficient
of variation (CV), which is defined as the standard deviation of the
samples divided by the sample mean, expressed as a percentage.
Responses having a CV
[[Page 78541]]
of less than 5 percent are generally considered as having an excellent
level of repeatability, those with a CV of 5-8 percent are considered
good, those with a CV of 8-10 percent are considered acceptable, and
those having a CV of more than 10 percent are generally considered as
having an unacceptable or poor level of repeatability. The resulting CV
for the dummy's various body parts was below 5 percent in many cases
and below 10 percent in all measured cases, with the exception of lower
spine T12 lateral acceleration when the dummy's thorax was assessed
without the arm.\145\ Values were generally in line with expectations--
a CV for injury assessment of less than or equal to 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Scherer, R., Bortenschlager, K., Akiyama, A., Tylko, S.,
Hartleib, M., & Harigae, T., ``WorldSID Production Dummy
Biomechanical Responses,'' The 21st International Technical
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No.
09-0505, 2009.
\145\ For this test, the CV was 10.7%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Seating Procedure
Although the impact protocols for the side MDB and pole tests will
remain largely unchanged, slight modifications to the test procedures
will have to be made to accommodate the new test dummy. It will be
necessary to adjust the test weight calculation to accommodate the
weight of the WorldSID-50M ATD as opposed to the current ES-2re or SID-
IIs ATDs. The agency will need to make other minor changes with respect
to data collection and reporting. Because of the WorldSID-50M ATD's
anthropometrical differences compared to the ES-2re and SID-IIs ATDs,
alterations to the seating procedure must also be made.
Several seating procedures for the WorldSID-50M ATD have been
developed: The WorldSID working group version 5.4 (WSG 5.4) and the
ISO/TS22/SC10/WG1's version (ISO/DIS 17949:2012, or GTR version). ISO/
TS22/SC10/WG1 is a group established to develop car collision test
procedures. The NHTSA WorldSID-50M ATD draft seating procedure (NWS50)
that the agency has developed, found in the docket for this RFC notice,
is based on the existing FMVSS No. 214 procedure for the ES-2re and the
WSG 5.4 seating procedures.\146\ In the NWS50 procedure, the seat
position is 20 mm (0.79 in) rearward of mid-track position, as is
prescribed in WSG 5.4. Since the WorldSID-50M ATD's legs are longer
than those of the ES-2re ATD, the adjusted seat track position at 20 mm
(0.79 in) rearward of mid-track allows the legs to be placed in a more
natural position. The final target for the H-point is modified to
account for the rearward change in seat placement along the seat track
by adding 20 mm (0.79 in) to the target H-point.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ WSG 5.4 Seating Procedure, placed in the docket of this
RFC notice.
\147\ Louden, A., ``WorldSID 50th Male Seating Evaluation and
Fleet Testing,'' Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry
Meeting, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NWS50 procedure determines the mid angle of the seat pan at the
beginning of seat positioning and keeps the seat pan at the lowest
position while maintaining the mid-angle of the seat pan. This is in
contrast to WSG 5.4 and GTR versions, which allow the seat pan angle to
change if the seat pan can move to a lower position. The GTR, WSG 5.4,
and NWS50 procedures are generally the same with respect to dummy
positioning, with the exception of differences in tolerance values for
leveling the head and the thorax and pelvis tilt
sensors.148 149 150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ NHTSA WS50th Seating Procedure, placed in the docket of
this RFC notice.
\149\ WSG 5.4 Seating Procedure, placed in the docket of this
RFC notice.
\150\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Fleet Testing
The agency has some experience with the WorldSID-50M ATD in a
research capacity. NHTSA has evaluated the WorldSID-50M dummy in FMVSS
No. 214 crash test protocols. After the 2007 Final Rule was released,
an initial series of side MDB and pole tests was successfully conducted
on the MY 2005 fleet. The evaluation examined the overall performance
of the WorldSID-50M ATD. The anthropometry and testing results were
discussed in a 2009 International Technical Conference for the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles paper and at the 2008 and 2009 SAE Government
Industry Meetings.151 152 153 A second fleet evaluation
consisting of MDB and pole tests was conducted with MY 2010-2012
vehicles, in part to evaluate the seating procedure. This testing
proved the feasibility of the NWS50 procedure. More detailed results of
this testing were presented at the 2014 SAE Government Industry
Meeting,\154\ and the NHTSA database test numbers associated with this
evaluation can be found in Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Louden, A., ``Dynamic Side Impact Testing with the 50th
Percentile Male WorldSID Compared to the ES-2re,'' The 21st
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0296, 2009; ``Status of WorldSID 50th
Percentile Male Side Impact Dummy,'' European Enhanced Vehicle-
Safety Committee Working Group, 12 March 2009.
\152\ Louden, A., ``Side Impact Crash Testing with the 50th
Percentile Male WorldSID,'' Society of Automotive Engineers
Government/Industry Meeting, May 2008
\153\ Louden, A., ``50th Male WorldSID Test Results in FMVSS 214
Test Conditions & ES-2re Comparisons,'' Society of Automotive
Engineers Government/Industry Meeting, February 2009.
\154\ Louden, A. and Weston, D., ``WorldSID Status: 50th Male
and 5th Female,'' Society of Automotive Engineers, Government/
Industry Meeting, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii. Durability
The WorldSID-50M ATD was designed with durability specifications in
mind. ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5's requirements were that the dummy must remain
functional for at least ten tests in which the dummy was subjected to
loads up to 150 percent of IARVs established at the time.\155\ In the
dummy's development phase, the WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder rib was
found to permanently deform and IR-TRACC damage occurred as a result of
excessive stroking (e.g., bottoming out) during the 8.9 m/s rigid wall
sled test and the 2 m full-body drop test. Although these tests are
considered quite severe, a rib doubler was added to the outer shoulder
rib to strengthen it.\156\ This change resulted in improved durability,
as further testing undertaken by the ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5 showed no
permanent deformation of the shoulder rib or IR-TRACC damage.\157\
Furthermore, during full-scale side pole and barrier tests conducted
with the WorldSID-50M ATD in the driver and/or rear passenger struck
side position, no damage was observed for the head, neck, thorax,
pelvis, or legs during visual inspections even though some injury
readings were recorded as being up to three times the IARVs or had
achieved the maximum measurement range.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Durability Requirements and
Performance,'' [www.worldsid.org/Documentation/TG%20N394%20WorldSID%20Durability%20Requirements%20and%20Performance%2020050331.pdf]. Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
\156\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Durability Requirements and
Performance,'' [www.worldsid.org/Documentation/TG%20N394%20WorldSID%20Durability%20Requirements%20and%20Performance%2020050331.pdf]. Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
\157\ Ibid.
\158\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's testing confirmed the ISO's durability findings. NHTSA's
first round of side pole and MDB fleet testing with the WorldSID-50M
ATD resulted in only minor damage to the dummies used during the test
series. In one test, the dummy's shoulder IR-TRACC was observed to be
damaged at both ends post-test. It was also discovered that the
WorldSID-50M ATD's rib damping material de-bonded from the metal ribs
over the course of the test series. This finding led to a change in the
rib damping material.\159\ It is worth noting
[[Page 78542]]
that the damage to the shoulder IR-TRACCs only occurred during oblique
pole tests, and the vehicles tested were not certified to the oblique
pole side impact standards implemented in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Louden, A., ``Dynamic Side Impact Testing with the 50th
Percentile Male WorldSID Compared to the ES-2re,'' The 21st
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0296, 2009; ``Status of WorldSID 50th
Percentile Male Side Impact Dummy,'' European Enhanced Vehicle-
Safety Committee Working Group, 12 March 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the agency's second round of fleet testing, part of the
dummy's shoulder IR-TRACC was damaged in 2 of the 12 vehicles tested
during pole testing, but this was the only notable damage.\160\ None of
the dummy's shoulder IR-TRACCs were damaged during side MDB
testing.\161\ Future vehicles should show not only reduced intrusion
because of improvements made to strengthen vehicles' side structure,
but they should also have greater side air bag coverage to accommodate
the range of occupants subjected to FMVSS No. 214 testing, which should
serve to distribute the loads imparted to the test dummies. Side air
bags in general, particularly chest and pelvis air bags, are now seen
more often in larger vehicles.\162\ With the incorporation of such
changes, it is expected that a reduction in shoulder deflection would
be seen in future testing with FMVSS No. 214-compliant vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Louden, A., ``WorldSID 50th Male Seating Evaluation and
Fleet Testing,'' Society of Automotive Engineers Government/Industry
Meeting, January 2012.
\161\ Louden, A. & Weston, D., ``WorldSID Status: 50th Male and
5th Female,'' Society of Automotive Engineers, Government/Industry
Meeting, January 2014.
\162\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., & Aram,
M., ``The Enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five Years Later,'' The 24th
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 15-0314, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii. Instrumentation
Instrumentation for the WorldSID-50M ATD was designed to be easy to
use and to comply with recognized instrumentation standards such as SAE
J211--Instrumentation for Impact Test and ISO 6487--Measurement
Techniques in Impact Tests--Instrumentation. The dummy's
instrumentation supports the assessment of injury risk for practically
all known side impact injury criteria used in existing side impact
protocols worldwide and also supports the evaluation and optimization
of vehicle components and restraint systems.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Instrumentation,''
[www.worldsid.org/Documentation/TG%20N397%20Instrumentation%2020050401.pdf]. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WorldSID-50M ATD can be instrumented with upper and lower neck
load cells; 2D IR-TRACCs or RibEyeTM in the shoulder rib,
three thoracic ribs, and two abdomen ribs to measure displacement; a
shoulder load cell; a pubic load cell; iliac and sacrum load cell; and
accelerometers at numerous locations, including the head, upper and
lower spine, ribs, and pelvis, to measure the ``g'' levels that are
applied to the dummy during a side impact crash. Accelerometers placed
at the head center of gravity measure linear and rotational
accelerations, while angular rate sensors measure angular velocity of
the head. With respect to the dummy's upper limbs, two arm
configurations are available--half arms, which are standard, and full
arms, which are optional. The dummy's upper and lower legs include load
cells and rotational potentiometers, in addition to other sensors.
The WorldSID-50M ATD was also designed to have an optional in-dummy
data acquisition system (DAS), which is wholly contained within the
dummy and includes integrated wiring. This DAS, which has the ability
to collect up to 224 data channels, eliminates the need for a single,
large umbilical cable.\164\ Current dummies require the use of an
umbilical cable that runs from the dummy's spine to a DAS located
elsewhere--either on or off the vehicle. These cables can add weight to
the test vehicle. With the large amount of data channels possible for
the WorldSID-50M ATD, an umbilical cable is not practical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ ISO WorldSID Task Group, ``Background,''
[www.worldsid.org/Documentation/Background%2020051116.pdf]. Accessed
25 Sep 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix. Injury Criteria and Risk Curves
The construction of injury risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD was
initiated in 2004 by the ISO Technical Committee 22, Sub-committee 12,
Working Group 6 (ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6). Additional support for this
project came from the Dummy Task Force of the Association des
Constructeurs Europeens d'Automobiles (ACEA-TFD) in 2008. The ACEA-TFD
aimed to promote consensus among biomechanical experts as to the injury
risk curves that should be used. Subsequently, a group of biomechanical
experts worked to develop injury risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD
shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis.\165\ These curves, which were
released and discussed at the May 2009 meeting of ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6,
were developed using the following process: (1) An extensive review of
all available PMHS side impact test datasets (impactor tests and sled
tests) worldwide was conducted, and those test configurations that
could be reproduced using the WorldSID-50M ATD were selected, (2)
WorldSID-50M ATD responses from similar test configurations were
obtained and scaled to simulate the same test severities the PMHS were
exposed to by accounting for anthropometry differences between the PMHS
and 50th percentile dummy, and (3) the scaled WorldSID-50M ATD data was
paired with PMHS injuries for each body region and test condition to
construct injury risk curves based on commonly used statistical
methods. Although injury risk curves are historically constructed for
AIS 3+ injuries, a well-distributed sample of injured and non-injured
PMHS at this AIS level was not available for some body regions. In such
instances, risk curves were developed for other AIS levels for which
injury results were better balanced.\166\ In most cases, the AIS levels
evaluated were reduced. This should have the effect of addressing a
larger amount of injuries in the real world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Petit, P., Irwin, A.,
Hassan, J., & Praxl, N., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th
Percentile Male Dummy,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, 53: 443-476, 2009.
\166\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When injury risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD were proposed by
Petitjean et al. in 2009, there was no consensus on what injury
criteria should be adopted or which statistical method--certainty,
Mertz-Weber, consistent threshold estimate (CTE), logistic regression,
or survival analysis with Weibull distribution--should be used to
construct the injury risk curves from the test data. Ultimately,
however, in 2011, after using statistical simulations to compare the
performance of the different statistical methods, Petitjean et al.
recommended that the Weibull survival method be used over the other
statistical methods to construct injury risk curves for the WorldSID-
50M ATD.\167\ Around the same time, ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 reached consensus
on a set of guidelines that was to be used to not only build injury
risk curves, but also to recommend the risk curve that is considered to
be the most relevant to the sample studied. In 2012, Petitjean et al.
applied these guidelines to the WorldSID-50M ATD results published in
2009 in order to provide a final set of injury risk curves for the
WorldSID-50M ATD. These curves, which were specified for lateral
shoulder force, thoracic rib deflection, abdomen rib deflection, and
pubic force, were
[[Page 78543]]
ultimately recommended by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ NHTSA has historically used logistic regression to develop
injury risk curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommended risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD, as published
by Petitjean et al. in 2012, were adjusted for both 45-year-olds and
67-year-olds.\168\ The agency will decide on an appropriate age at
which to scale risk curves for the WorldSID-50M ATD once final,
adjusted population estimate data has been calculated and examined. The
injury criteria and associated risk curves NCAP intends to use for the
WorldSID-50M ATD are described below and detailed in Appendix IV of
this document. The agency intends to adopt injury criteria to address
head, shoulder, thorax, abdominal, and pelvis risk. Injury criteria for
most of these body regions (head, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis) are
currently included for the ES-2re dummy in FMVSS No. 214 and side NCAP.
The injury criteria mentioned below are generally consistent with those
recommended by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 and those currently under evaluation
by the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) for inclusion in the pole
side impact GTR. With few exceptions, they are also used currently by
Euro NCAP for rating vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Petitjean, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is seeking comment on the risk curves included herein,
as well as all aspects of the following:
HEAD--NHTSA's preliminary analysis of real-world vehicle-to-vehicle
and vehicle-to-pole side impact crashes showed that approximately one
third (34%) of all AIS 3+ injuries for front seat, medium-stature
occupants were to the head. The data reviewed showed that, of the AIS
3+ head injuries reported, 91 percent were brain injuries in vehicle-
to-vehicle crashes, and 82 percent were brain injuries in vehicle-to-
pole crashes.\169\ As mentioned previously, HIC (either 15 milliseconds
(ms) or 36 ms in duration) is a measure of only translational head
acceleration; it does not account for rotational motion of the head,
which has been commonly seen in side impact crashes and which may
induce brain injury. To account for this rotational motion, the agency
is planning to adopt the brain injury criterion, BrIC, for the
WorldSID-50M dummy. The WorldSID-50M ATD can be equipped to measure
rotational accelerations and/or rotational velocities at the head
center of gravity. If accelerations are used, they must be integrated
to obtain the rotational velocity used to calculate BrIC; however, if
rotational velocity is measured directly, no further processing is
necessary. Therefore, the agency intends to use angular rate sensors to
calculate BrIC. The AIS 3+ risk curve associated with BrIC for the
WorldSID-50M is included in Appendix IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As BrIC is intended to complement HIC rather than replace it, the
agency will continue to measure HIC36 readings in side NCAP
MDB and pole tests with the WorldSID-50M dummy. The AIS3+ risk curve
associated with HIC36 is found in Appendix IV.
SHOULDER--The agency also intends to evaluate injuries stemming
from the crash forces imparted to the WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder. The
agency's analysis of real-world vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pole
crashes showed that 13 percent of all AIS 2+ injuries reported for
medium-stature occupants in the front seat were shoulder injuries.\170\
The WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder shows excellent biofidelity; recall
that the ISO rating for the WorldSID-50M ATD's shoulder is 10, and its
NHTSA external and internal BioRank scores are 1.0 and 0.9,
respectively. Shoulder design can substantially affect dummy response
during side pole and side air bag interactions, and biofidelity is
extremely important in narrow object crashes where the margins between
minor and serious or fatal injury are relatively small.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Ibid.
\171\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has chosen to evaluate shoulder injury risk for the WorldSID-
50M ATD as a function of maximum shoulder force in the lateral
direction (Y). The associated AIS 2+ risk curve, developed by Petitjean
et al. (2012), can be found in Appendix IV.
The agency has some concern that assessing shoulder injury risk in
NCAP may prohibit manufacturers from offering the best thorax
protection, as it may be necessary for vehicle manufacturers to direct
loading in severe side impact crashes towards body regions that are
best able to withstand impact, such as the shoulder, in order to divert
loads away from more vulnerable body regions, such as the thorax. In
fact, it is for these reasons that the side pole GTR informal working
group decided not to establish a threshold for shoulder force based on
the AIS 2+ injury risk curves developed by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6.\172\ That
said, the informal working group thought it was still important to
prevent non-biofidelic (e.g., excessive) shoulder loading so that
vehicle manufacturers could not use such excessive shoulder loading to
reduce thorax loading artificially. Accordingly, the informal working
group agreed upon a maximum peak lateral shoulder force of 3.0 kN
(674.4 lb-force). The agency's fleet testing showed maximum shoulder
forces ranging from 1.2 kN (269.8 lb-force) to 2.6 kN (584.5 lb-force)
for oblique pole tests and 876 N (196.9 lb-force) to 2.3 kN (517.0 lb-
force) in the side impact MDB tests. The agency is requesting comments
on the merits of using a performance criterion limit (e.g., IARV)
instead of the AIS 2+ risk curve for shoulder force in NCAP ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitjean et al. did not recommend an injury risk curve for
shoulder deflection for the WorldSID-50M ATD because, during
development of the risk curves, shoulder deflection data was only
available for impactor tests, whereas shoulder force data was available
for both impactor and sled tests. Since a wider range of test
configurations could be used to build an injury risk curve for shoulder
force compared to shoulder deflection, only a curve for maximum
shoulder force was recommended.\173\ The decision to recommend one
injury risk per body region, injury type, and injury severity was in
keeping with the guidelines agreed to by the ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., Irwin,
A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,'' Stapp
Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency notes that it does not subscribe to these guidelines
universally. For example, the Hybrid III ATD chest deflection and
acceleration are both used as separate indicators of injury in FMVSSs.
That said, the agency is requesting comments on the merits of also
adopting a risk curve for AIS 2+ shoulder injury that is a function of
shoulder deflection, as this risk curve has also been developed by ISO/
TC22/SC12/WG6.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ ISO/TR 12350:2002(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEST--The NASS-CDS data examined showed that, in addition to the
head, the chest is one of the most common seriously injured body
regions in side crashes. Thirty-four percent of all AIS 3+ injuries to
front seat, medium-stature occupants involved in vehicle-to-vehicle and
vehicle-to-pole crashes were thoracic injuries.\175\ As such, NHTSA
intends to incorporate chest deflection injury criteria to measure
thoracic injury for the WorldSID-50M ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitjean et al., 2012 developed an injury risk function to relate
maximum thoracic and abdominal rib deflection of the WorldSID-50M ATD,
as measured
[[Page 78544]]
by a 1D IR-TRACC, to AIS 3+ thoracic skeletal (and abdominal skeletal)
injury obtained from PMHS. This risk curve, presented in Appendix IV,
is a function of both thoracic and abdominal rib deflection because the
abdominal ribs of the WorldSID-50M dummy partially overlap the thorax
ribs of a mid-size adult male.\176\ Because of this, increased loading
of the WorldSID-50M ATD's abdominal ribs would be expected to increase
the risk of both AIS 3+ thorax and AIS 3+ abdominal injuries. Although
chest deflection has been shown to be the best predictor of thoracic
injuries in side impact crashes, the agency has some concerns, as
mentioned previously, regarding the WorldSID-50M ATD's ability to
accurately measure deflections under oblique loading conditions. It
should be noted that Petitjean et al. concluded that, for impact
directions from lateral to 15[deg] forward of lateral, the injury risk
curves that would be constructed for thoracic deflection using the Y-
component of the deflection measured by a 2D IR-TRACC would be close to
those developed for deflection measured by a 1D IR-TRACC.\177\ The
authors also concluded that, for air bag tests, the deflection measured
by the 1D IR-TRACC can be used as criteria for an impact direction
between pure lateral and 30[deg] forward of lateral. However, Hynd et
al., 2004 concluded that for rearward oblique loading, a 1D IR-TRACC
would underestimate rib deflection, and therefore, a 2D IR-TRACC or
RibEyeTM may more accurately reflect actual deflection under
such loading conditions.\178\ Research with the WorldSID-50M ATD using
the optical sensing system, RibEyeTM, is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ As indicated in Petitjean 2009, the maximum of the three
thorax rib and two abdomen rib deflections was used to develop the
thorax injury risk curves. This was done to be consistent with AIS
2005, which specifies that all rib fractures are used to code
thoracic skeletal injuries.
\177\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., &
Irwin, A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,''
Stapp Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
\178\ Hynd, D., Carroll, J., Been, B., & Payne, A., ``Evaluation
of the Shoulder, Thorax, and Abdomen of the WorldSID Pre-Production
Side Impact Dummy,'' Research Laboratory Published Project Report.
2004. PPR 029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other thoracic injury criteria adopted by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 are
maximum thoracic rib and abdomen rib viscous criteria, or VC, which are
designed to address both soft tissue and skeletal injuries. The agency
has not found VC to be repeatable and reproducible in the agency's
research; \179\ however, the agency realizes that many other
organizations, including regulatory authorities, have been using VC for
the EuroSID 1 and the ES-2 dummies in side impact MDB testing,
including ECE Regulation No. 95, for many years. As ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6
has not yet been able to construct an AIS 3+ thoracic VC injury risk
curve with an acceptable quality index for the WorldSID-50M percentile
male dummy, the agency will not incorporate a peak thoracic VC into
side NCAP for the next upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ See 69 FR 28002. Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/04-10931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABDOMEN--A smaller, yet still notable, portion of real-world
injuries in side impact crashes are abdominal injuries. The agency's
review of the NASS-CDS database showed that 15% of all AIS 2+ injuries
for front seat, medium-stature occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle and
vehicle-to-pole side impact crashes were abdominal injuries.\180\ The
biofidelity rating for the WorldSID-50M ATD's abdomen is greatly
improved; the ISO rating for the WorldSID-50M's abdomen is a 9.3 and
external and internal BioRank scores are 1.9 and 2.4, respectively.
Accordingly, as part of the upgrade to NCAP, the agency intends to
include abdominal rib deflection injury criterion for the WorldSID-50M
ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas the thoracic rib deflection criterion discussed in the
previous section is designed to assess both thoracic and abdominal
skeletal injuries, the maximum abdomen rib deflection injury criterion
is designed to gauge abdominal soft tissue injuries. Risk curves
showing AIS 2+ abdomen soft tissue injury for the WorldSID-50M ATD as a
function of maximum abdomen rib deflection measured by a 1D IR-TRACC
can be found in Appendix IV.
This abdominal rib deflection injury criterion, which was developed
and recommended by Petitjean et al. and adopted by ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6,
was selected over the maximum abdomen rib VC to assess the risk of AIS
2+ abdominal soft tissue injuries because the quality index associated
with the abdomen rib deflection was better than the abdomen rib
VC.\181\ In keeping with the ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 guidelines to recommend
one injury risk per body region, injury type, and injury severity, and
in light of the agency's past experience with VC, mentioned above, the
agency will not adopt an abdominal injury criterion based on maximum
abdominal VC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., Irwin,
A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,'' Stapp
Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is requesting comment on whether it is appropriate to
also adopt a resultant lower spine injury criterion in hopes of
capturing severe lower thorax and abdomen loading that is undetected by
unidirectional deflection measurements, such as excessive loadings
behind the dummy, which may cause excessive forward rotations of the
ribs.\182\ Resultant spinal accelerations have been shown to provide a
good measure of the overall load on the thorax and, because they are
being derived from tri-axial accelerometers (x, y, and z direction),
are less sensitive to the direction of impact.\183\ Adopting an
additional criterion for lower spine acceleration would be in line with
what the informal working group has decided for the side pole GTR. The
informal working group agreed that the lower spine acceleration should
not exceed 75 g, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not
more than 3 ms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ ECE/TRANS/180/Add.14.
\183\ Kuppa, S. ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,''
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PELVIS--The agency's preliminary review of real-world data showed
that pelvis injuries represent 13% of all AIS 2+ injuries for front
seat, mid-size occupants involved in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, and
20% of all AIS 2+ injuries for these occupants in fixed narrow object
side impact crashes.\184\ To evaluate pelvis injuries in side NCAP
testing using the WorldSID-50M ATD, the agency intends to adopt pubic
force as an additional injury criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned earlier, the WorldSID-50M ATD is capable of measuring
lateral pelvis acceleration and posterior sacro-iliac loads in addition
to anterior pubic symphysis loads. At this time, however, the agency
will only incorporate pubic symphysis injury criteria for the pelvis.
The agency believes that adding a criterion to evaluate pubic symphysis
loads instead of lateral pelvis acceleration is appropriate because
most of the pelvis injuries observed in the PMHS samples reviewed by
Petitjean et al. were ilioischial rami and pubic symphysis
injuries.\185\ Furthermore, pubic force is generally considered to be a
more acceptable biomechanical measure than lateral pelvis
acceleration.\186\ The agency will also not adopt a criterion for
sacro-iliac loads because a risk curve for the sacro-iliac has not yet
been
[[Page 78545]]
developed for the WorldSID-50M ATD. However, because the agency is
aware that field evidence suggests that posterior pelvic injury may not
be detected by the pubic symphysis load cell, the agency is requesting
comment on how the pubic symphysis and sacro-iliac loads interrelate,
and whether it is possible and necessary to establish injury criteria
for both pelvic regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Petitjean, A., Trosseille, X., Praxl, N., Hynd, D., &
Irwin, A., ``Injury Risk Curves for the WorldSID 50th Male Dummy,''
Stapp Car Crash Journal, 56: 323-347, 2012.
\186\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human tolerance to pelvic loading has been established and related
to the WorldSID-50M ATD, resulting in an injury risk curve, included in
Appendix IV, to relate the measured maximum pubic symphysis force to
the risk of an AIS 2+ pelvis injury. As risk of pelvic injury is
currently assessed in side NCAP and FMVSS No. 214 at the AIS 3+ level,
the agency is requesting comments on the merits of adopting the AIS 3+
risk curve for pubic symphysis force that was also recommended by
Petitjean et al. instead.
b. SID-IIs ATD
i. Background
The SID-IIs dummy was developed by the Occupant Safety Research
Partnership (OSRP), a research group under the umbrella of the U.S.
Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), in 1993. At the time, there
was a need for an ATD that would better evaluate a smaller occupant's
biomechanical response to side impact countermeasures such as air bags.
The SID-IIs dummy represents not only a 5th percentile female but all
smaller occupants in general, including a preteen child. In the 2007
FMVSS No. 214 Final Rule, it was estimated that 34 percent of all
serious and fatal injuries to near-side occupants in side impact
crashes occurred to occupants 163 cm (5 ft 4 in) or less--occupants
best represented by the SID-IIs ATD.\187\ In narrow object side impacts
in particular, drivers of smaller-stature comprised approximately 28
percent of seriously or fatally injured occupants. Of these smaller
occupants, head, abdominal, and pelvic injuries represented a higher
proportion of serious injury than larger occupants. By including a
smaller-stature occupant in side impact crash regulations in 2007, the
agency aimed to require comprehensive side impact occupant protection
strategies for drivers of various sizes. Other organizations, such as
the IIHS, also use the SID-IIs ATD in side crash tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ See 72 FR 51909. Docket No. NHTSA-29134. https://federalregister.gov/a/07-4360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary data from NHTSA shows that a similar percentage of
small-stature occupants are being injured in side impact crashes.\188\
Thus, the agency believes it is appropriate to continue assessing risk
of injury for this occupant size. Some of the SID-IIs ATD's risk curves
will remain unchanged; these include HIC36 and combined
pelvic force. Additional injury assessments to be included in the side
impact rating are: BrIC, thoracic and abdominal rib deflection, and
lower spine resultant acceleration criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section. NHTSA data shows that 36% of AIS 3+ injuries in side
impacts occurred to occupants 5 ft 4 in or less (small-stature).
Sixteen percent of occupants in narrow object side impact crashes
which received MAIS 3+ injuries were of small-stature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Continuation of Current Injury Criteria
Currently, the SID-IIs dummy is placed in both the driver's seat of
the side oblique pole NCAP test as well as the rear passenger seat of
the side MDB NCAP test. Head acceleration and combined pelvic force are
measured and risk curves are applied to estimate the probability of
injury to each body region for rating purposes. The agency has not
received any indication that these criteria should be amended or
omitted from future iterations of NCAP; therefore, the agency intends
to continue applying the risk curves to the dummy's head and
pelvis.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ Details of these risk curves are provided in Appendix IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. New Injury Criteria Being Implemented
Thoracic and abdominal rib deflections for the SID-IIs ATD are
currently collected, but they are only being monitored at this time.
This RFC notice announces the agency's intent to add thoracic and
abdominal injury criterion to the next version of its consumer
information program for the SID-IIs ATD. It also announces the agency's
intent to incorporate lower spine resultant acceleration performance
limits and BrIC for the SID-IIs ATD into the side NCAP ratings in an
integrated manner.
BrIC--According to NHTSA's analysis, for small-stature occupants
seated in the outboard rear row in a side-impact crash, just 6 percent
of AIS 3+ injuries were head injuries. However, of those head injuries,
all were to the brain.\190\ Although this is a relatively small
proportion of injury and other body regions are injured more frequently
at this severity, traumatic brain injury can have very serious
consequences. Furthermore, the SID-IIs dummies can be instrumented with
rotational sensors. As with other dummies, HIC36 only
accounts for translational head acceleration. As such, the agency
intends to adopt BrIC in addition to HIC36 for the SID-IIs
ATD in NCAP. The AIS 3+ risk curve associated with BrIC for the SID-IIs
5th percentile dummy is included in Appendix IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoracic and Abdominal Rib Deflections--The agency did not propose
or adopt limits or risk curves for the SID-IIs ATD ribs in the 2007
FMVSS No. 214 upgrade. NHTSA was interested in solely monitoring rib
deflections and was not prepared to limit rib deflections in FMVSS No.
214 at that time, though it did acknowledge that limits were possible
for the future.\191\ Since the SID-IIs Build D ATD's inclusion into the
agency's consumer crash testing program in MY 2011, NHTSA has monitored
the rib deflections gathered in side MDB and side pole crash testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ See 72 FR 51925. Docket No. NHTSA-29134. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/07-4360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters to the agency's 2013 RFC asserted that deflection is a
better predictor of torso injury than acceleration.\192\ In terms of
real-world data, chest injuries make up 26 percent of AIS 3+ injuries
to small-stature, rear seat occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes,
and abdominal injuries account for 22 percent of AIS 3+ injuries.\193\
Thus, the agency feels that it is appropriate to incorporate thoracic
and abdominal injuries for small occupants into this NCAP upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ ``New Car Assessment Program,'' Docket No. NHTSA-2012-
0180.
\193\ NHTSA's review of NASS-CDS cases; see Real-World Data
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research from the OSRP noted that the SID-IIs dummy's linear
potentiometers may not capture the full extent of chest deflection in
oblique loading conditions.\194\ However, given the safety need, NHTSA
believes that inclusion of thoracic and abdominal injury evaluations in
NCAP should not be further delayed. The use of the SID-IIs ATD linear
potentiometers will not over predict injury risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Jensen, J., Berliner, J., Bunn, B., Pietsch, H., Handman,
D., Salloum, M., Charlebois, D., & Tylko, S., ``Evaluation of an
Alternative Thorax Deflection Device in the SID-IIs ATD,'' The 21st
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0437, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AIS 3+ and AIS 4+ risk curves for SID-IIs ATD thoracic and
abdominal deflection, respectively, can be found in Appendix IV. The
risk curves the agency intends to use have been scaled for a 56-year-
old female and have been adjusted to take into account lowered bone
density. At the time of the curve's development, the average age of an
AIS 3+ injured occupant 5 ft 4 in or less in
[[Page 78546]]
height in side crashes was found to be 56 years.\195\ Furthermore, this
approach should ensure that safety information for the vulnerable
population of occupants which the SID-IIs ATD is meant to represent is
provided to the public. The agency seeks comment on whether this is an
acceptable approach or whether the risk curves should be adjusted to a
different age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Kuppa, S. ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,''
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Spine Acceleration--Lower spine (T12) resultant acceleration
is also collected; currently, if it exceeds the criterion established
in FMVSS No. 214 (82 g), the vehicle receives a Safety Concern
designation for the applicable side impact test mode. Lower spine
resultant acceleration was not included in the agency's upgraded
consumer information program in MY 2011 because no validated risk curve
was available at the time and there was no method by which to include
performance limits in the star rating.\196\ The agency still does not
have a risk curve which it believes is appropriate for the SID-IIs
ATD's lower spine resultant acceleration, but NHTSA intends to
incorporate a performance criterion limit (IARV) for resultant lower
spine acceleration for the SID-IIs ATD in this NCAP upgrade. Although
deflection is thought to be the best indicator of injury, lower spine
acceleration indicates the magnitude of overall loading to the thorax
and may be able to detect injurious loads which the rib potentiometers
may not. The agency seeks comment on an appropriate performance
criterion limit for the SID-IIs ATD lower spine resultant acceleration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ See 73 FR 40029. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. WorldSID 5th Percentile Female ATD (WorldSID-5F)
i. Background and Current Status
After the development of the WorldSID-50M ATD in 2004, work on the
WorldSID-5F ATD was initiated by the FP6 Advanced Protection System (or
APROSYS) Integrated Project, a European Commission (EC) 6th Framework
collaboration research project.197 198 APROSYS is a
consortium of experts consisting of vehicle manufacturers, parts
suppliers, universities/research institutions, and representative
organizations from EU member states.\199\ It was anticipated that a
smaller version of the dummy could be nearly as, if not equally,
biofidelic as the larger version. The hope was to create a family of
dummies which provide consistent direction to manufacturers to design
crashworthiness countermeasures for occupants of various sizes.\200\
The first prototype was assembled in October 2005; Revision 1 (also
called Build Level B) was developed in 2007-2008. The current build
level is Build Level C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Humanetics ATD, ``WorldSID 5th Small Female Dummy,'
[www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies/side-impact/worldsid-5th].
Accessed 25 Sep 2015.
\198\ Been, B., Meijer, R., Bermond, F., Bortenschlager, K.,
Hynd, D., Martinez, L., & Ferichola, G., ``WorldSID Small Female
Side Impact Dummy Specifications and Prototype Evaluation,'' The
20th International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 07-0311, 2007.
\199\ Versmissen, T., ``APROSYS Car to pole side impact
activities,'' GRSP PSI meeting, March 2011.
\200\ Carroll, J., Goodacre, O., Hynd, D., & Petitjean, A.,
``Testing of the WorldSID-5F to Support Injury Risk Function
Development and Assessment of Other Performance Issues,'' The 23rd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0193, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the larger WorldSID ATD, the WorldSID-5F's anthropometrical
requirements were determined from the 1983 UMTRI automotive posture and
anthropometry study. The dummy's target mass is 45.8 kg (101 lb) +/-
1.2 kg (2.7 lb) when equipped with two half-arms. Similar to the
WorldSID-50M ATD, the WorldSID-5F ATD is more reclined when seated in a
vehicle seat.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ Louden, A. & Weston, D., ``WorldSID Status: 50th Male and
5th Female,'' Society of Automotive Engineers, Government/Industry
Meeting, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WorldSID-5F ATD allows for 125 dynamic measurements to be
evaluated, including those for the head, upper and lower neck,
shoulder, thorax, abdomen, lumbar spine, pelvis, femur, and tibia. The
dummy's ribs can be instrumented with 2D IR-TRACCs or with the
RibEyeTM optical measurement system, similar to the
WorldSID-50M ATD.
Biofidelity performance parameters for this dummy originated from
the WorldSID-50M ATD and were scaled for a 5th percentile female.\202\
ISO/TR9790 biofidelity evaluation tests have not been performed for
Build Level C, but testing carried out for the Build Level B dummy
showed that the WorldSID-5F ATD is as biofidelic as the WorldSID-50M
ATD.\203\ Biofidelity ratings for the Build Level B dummy are shown
below in Table 5. Humanetics believes that because the changes made for
the Build Level C dummy were relevant to handling and durability only,
they will not affect the biofidelity or dynamic response of the
dummy.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ Eggers, A., Schnottale, B., Been, B., Waagmeester, K.,
Hynd, D., Carroll, J., & Martinez, L., ``Biofidelity of the WorldSID
Small Female Revision 1 Dummy,'' The 21st International Technical
Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09-0420,
2009.
\203\ Ibid.
\204\ Humanetics ATD, ``WorldSID 5th Small Female Dummy,'
[www.humaneticsatd.com/crash-test-dummies/side-impact/worldsid-5th].
Accessed 17 Sep 2015.
Table 5--WorldSID-5F Side Impact Dummy Biofidelity--ISO Ratings
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Neck Shoulder Thorax Abdomen Pelvis Overall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldSID-5F B..................................................... 10 6.5 7.4 6.9 8.5 6.5 7.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Eggers, A., Schnottale, B., Been, B., Waagmeester, K., Hynd, D., Carroll, J., & Martinez, L., ``Biofidelity of the WorldSID Small Female Revision 1 Dummy,'' The 21st International
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Paper No. 09-0420, 2009.; 71 FR 75347
ii. Testing, Issues, and Current Status
Testing conducted with the WorldSID-5F ATD shows that there are
still issues to address concerning this dummy.
As mentioned, biofidelity testing was conducted by Eggers et al. in
2009 to determine whether the WorldSID-5F's dynamic response was
appropriate for a 5th percentile female.\205\ Six drop tests, 22
pendulum tests, and 27 sled tests were performed using a Build Level B
dummy in this series. Some of the testing was not conducted: The 10 m/s
abdominal pendulum test, for example, was not run because of a height
restriction within the test facility. In these cases, a linear trend
line was fitted to the lower-speed data and the higher-speed data was
extrapolated from the trend. This analysis found that the chest
[[Page 78547]]
may be too stiff, and the authors suggested that the use of the
resultant rib deformation, which overestimates the deformation, could
compensate for the stiffness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Eggers, A., Schnottale, B., Been, B., Waagmeester, K.,
Hynd, D., Carroll, J., and Martinez, L., ``Biofidelity of the
WorldSID Small Female Revision 1 Dummy,'' The 21st International
Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No.
09-0420, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to further evaluate the WorldSID-5F's biofidelity and
develop appropriate risk curves, TRL subjected the Build Level B dummy
to additional pendulum and sled testing.\206\ In this group of tests,
26 sled tests and 51 pendulum tests were performed. Unlike the previous
testing undertaken by Eggers et al., some higher-severity tests, such
as the 8.7 m/s Wayne State University thoracic impactor test and the 10
m/s Wayne State University pelvic impactor test, were not completed as
planned as TRL felt that the ATD reached its maximum sustainable impact
shortly after 6 m/s. Thus, the projected results from a more severe
test were again achieved by fitting a straight line to the peak
deflection results and extrapolating; TRL noted that this is not ideal.
This analysis found that most of the ATD's body regions (shoulder,
thorax, abdomen, and pelvis) are rather stiff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Carroll, J., Goodacre, O., Hynd, D., & Petitjean, A.,
``Testing of the WorldSID-5F to Support Injury Risk Function
Development and Assessment of Other Performance Issues,'' The 23rd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0193, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also uncovered some additional dummy design issues regarding
shoulder load cell contact with the neck bracket, iliac wing contact
with the sacro-iliac load cell and lumbar load cell cable cover, and
upper central iliac wing contact with the lumbar spine mounting plate.
For the shoulder, this contact may restrict the deflection allowed to
40 mm, depending on the vertical displacement of the rib.\207\ The
contacts within the pelvis were causing loading in unintended areas
within the dummy. Humanetics modified parts to evaluate whether the
contacts would be eliminated; contacts at lower speeds did not occur,
but testing at higher impact speeds still showed iliac contact with the
surrounding structures.\208\ Also, prior testing with the WorldSID-50M
ATD showed that interference may occur between the pelvic flesh and the
lower abdominal rib, depending on how the dummy is seated. Interaction
between the two causes the abdominal response to be stiffer. TRL's
testing showed that this problem also exists for the WorldSID-5F ATD,
though to a lesser degree as TRL believed that it is unlikely to occur
with normal use of the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ Ibid.
\208\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has successfully performed full-scale vehicle crash tests
with the WorldSID-5F prototype. In these tests, a WorldSID-50M ATD was
seated in the driver's seat and a WorldSID-5F ATD was seated in the
left rear seat. The vehicle was then subjected to the agency's MDB test
at the side NCAP speed. Through these rounds of testing, it was
determined that the WorldSID-5F ATD is durable; nothing was damaged in
the NHTSA side MDB testing. A list of NHTSA database test numbers for
these tests can be found in Appendix V.
Additional dummy issues have been identified over the course of the
WorldSID-5F's testing. Material changes must be made in the head and
pelvis. These limitations will require redesigns of the applicable
sections of the dummy. Furthermore, risk curves for this dummy must be
developed. These concerns must be addressed before the WorldSID-5F can
be included in the next NCAP upgrade.
C. Crashworthiness Pedestrian Protection
NHTSA intends to implement vehicle crashworthiness tests for
pedestrian safety in the NCAP program. The agency believes that
including pedestrian protection in the NCAP program would have a
beneficial impact on pedestrian safety. As will be discussed in a later
section, the crashworthiness pedestrian safety assessment will be part
of the new rating system.
1. Real-World Pedestrian Data
Since 1975 when NHTSA began tracking fatalities, there have been
approximately 4,000 pedestrian fatalities and 70,000 pedestrian
injuries on U.S. roads annually. In 2012, there were 4,818 pedestrian
fatalities, which accounted for approximately 14 percent of all motor
vehicle-related fatalities.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ Traffic Safety Facts, 2013, Pedestrians, DOT HS 812 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of fatal pedestrian crashes involve light
vehicles.\210\ About one-third of pedestrians who are injured are
struck by an SUV or pickup truck (see Appendix VII, Table VII-1), which
corresponds closely to the make-up of SUVs and pickups in the U.S.
vehicle fleet. However, SUVs and pickups account for closer to 40
percent of pedestrian fatalities, which suggests that injuries may be
more severe when sustained in collisions with these vehicles. Results
from a meta-analysis of 12 independent injury data studies showed that
pedestrians are 2-3 times more likely to suffer a fatality when struck
by an SUV or pickup truck than when struck by a passenger car.\211\
Laboratory tests reflect this real-world data
observation.212 213 214 The higher risk of fatality
associated with being struck by an SUV or pickup also applies to a
vulnerable population--children. In a study conducted by Columbia
University, school-age children (5 to 19 years old) struck by light
trucks were found to be twice as likely to die as those struck by
passenger cars.\215\ The risk was even greater for the younger set
(ages 5-9); their fatality risk is four times greater from SUVs and
pickup trucks than from passenger cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Light vehicles (as referred to herein) include all
vehicles with GVWR < 10,000 lbs, which generally includes all SUVs
and pickup trucks.
\211\ Desapriya, E. et al. (2010), ``Do light truck vehicles
(LTV) impose greater risk of pedestrian injury than passenger cars?
A meta-analysis and systematic review.'' Traffic Injury Prevention,
V11:48-56, 2010.
\212\ Kerrigan, J., Arregui, C., & Crandall, J.C., ``Pedestrian
head impact dynamics: comparison of dummy and PMHS in small sedan
and large SUV impacts,'' Paper No. 09-0127, The 21st International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference,
Stuttgart, Germany, June 15-18, 2009.
\213\ Anderson, R. W. G. & Doecke, S. (2011), ``An analysis of
head impact severity in simulations of collisions between
pedestrians and SUVs, work utility vehicles, and sedans,'' Traffic
Injury Prevention, V12(4):388-397, 2011.
\214\ Ivarrson, B. J., Henary, B. et al. (2005), ``Significance
of adult pedestrian torso injury,'' Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med
49: 263-77.
\215\ DiMaggio, C., Durkin, M., & Richardson, L. ``The
association of light trucks and vans with pediatric pedestrian
fatality.'' Int J Injury Contr and Safety Prom 2006; 13(2):95-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comparison to motor vehicle occupants, the distribution of
pedestrian fatalities is greater for age groups that include children
and people over 45 years old (see Appendix VII, Figure VII-1). The
agency believes that a crashworthiness pedestrian safety program in
NCAP is necessary to stimulate improvements in pedestrian
crashworthiness in new light vehicles sold in the United States and
ultimately reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries from vehicle
crashes in the United States. Europe and Japan have responded to the
high proportion of pedestrian fatalities compared to all traffic
fatalities by including pedestrian protection in their respective NCAPs
and requiring pedestrian protection through regulation. These actions
have likely contributed to a downward trend in pedestrian fatalities in
Europe and Japan (see Appendix VII, Figure VII-2).
As opposed to Europe and Japan, fatalities in the United States
have remained steady over the last 14 years (see Appendix VII, Figure
VII-3). The agency believes that including pedestrian protection in the
NCAP program would be a step toward realizing similar downward trends
experienced in regions of the world that
[[Page 78548]]
include pedestrians in their consumer information programs.
2. Current NCAP Activities in the U.S./World
NHTSA intends to implement vehicle crashworthiness tests for
pedestrian safety. This plan follows the agency's April 2013 RFC in
which it asked whether the agency should consider such testing in the
NCAP program. Though opinion varied on its inclusion, a common thread
among many commenters was a desire for worldwide harmonization of tests
and protocols if a pedestrian testing or rating program was introduced.
In consideration of this, the test procedures and scoring scheme that
the agency plans to use is essentially the same as those of Euro
NCAP.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ NHTSA's plan as to how the pedestrian safety rating will
factor into the overall vehicle rating is discussed later in this
document, but that will not be identical to how Euro NCAP calculates
their overall ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The speeds at which Euro NCAP conducts its pedestrian protection
tests are supported by the agency's data regarding speeds at which the
greatest number of pedestrian impacts occurred. However, the agency
plans to conduct its own tests independently from Euro NCAP.
3. Planned Upgrade
The agency intends to use the Euro NCAP test procedures rather than
those of KNCAP or JNCAP because the European fleet make-up, including
vehicle sizes and classes, is more similar to the U.S. fleet. Moreover,
the societal benefits of the Euro NCAP pedestrian component are well
documented. Recent retrospective studies indicate that ratings are
yielding positive results in the European Union (E.U.) based on studies
of their effect on real-world crashes and injuries. One such study was
reported by the Swedish Transport Administration in 2014. A correlation
between higher rating in Euro NCAP pedestrian protection scores and
reduced head injuries and fatalities was observed among Swedish
pedestrians struck between January 2003 and January 2014.\217\ Similar
observations were observed by BAST \218\ for pedestrian collisions in
Germany in the years 2009 to 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Standroth, J. et al. (2014), ``Correlation between Euro
NCAP pedestrian test results and injury severity in injury crashes
with pedestrians and bicyclists in Sweden,'' Stapp Car Crash
Journal, Vol. 58 (November 2014), pp. 213-231.
\218\ Pastor, C., ``Correlation between pedestrian injury
severity in real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test
results,'' The 23rd International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0308, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a list of Euro NCAP documents that NHTSA plans to
use as a basis for its own test procedures:
(1) Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.1, January 2015. This
describes the vehicle preparation, the test devices and their
qualification requirements, and procedures to carry out the tests.
(2) Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 5.3.1, November 2011. If a
vehicle manufacturer elects not to provide NHTSA with headform impact
assessment data, the headform test protocol in V5.3.1 will be followed
in lieu of V8.1.
(3) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection, V12. The routine
contained within this (Microsoft Excel) file is used to generate
verification points to be tested by NHTSA.
(4) Technical Bulletin TB 019, Headform to Bonnet Leading Edge
Tests, Version 1.0, June 2014. This document describes a procedure for
child headform testing under the special case when test grid points lie
forward of the hood and within the grille or hood leading edge area.
(5) Film and Photo Protocol, Version 1.1, Chapter 8--Pedestrian
Subsystem Tests, November 2014. This document describes camera set-up
procedure only.
(6) Technical Bulletin, TB 013, Pedestrian CAE Models & Codes,
Version 1.4, June 2015. This document lists various computer-aided
engineering models that have been deemed acceptable for use by a
vehicle manufacturer in demonstrating the operation and performance of
an active hood.
(7) Technical Bulletin, TB 008, Windscreen Replacement for
Pedestrian Testing, Version 1.0, September 2009. This document
describes exceptions on bonding agents when windshields are replaced
during the course of a vehicle test series.
(8) Assessment Protocol--Pedestrian Protection, Part 1--Pedestrian
Impact Assessment, Version 8.1, June 2015. Once all test data are
collected, this protocol is used to determine the results.
NHTSA intends to publish and maintain its own set of procedures and
assessment protocols. However, the agency intends for them to be
fundamentally the same as those described above, though some revisions
will be needed to align with the agency's current practices under NCAP.
Among such revisions is defining how manufacturers will communicate
with NHTSA on providing information needed to conduct tests. Also,
revisions may be necessary to account for differences in vehicle fleet
composition (i.e., test zone markup of large vehicles may differ
slightly from Euro NCAP) or how the various test types are weighted to
calculate the overall pedestrian protection score. NHTSA will consider
whether to harmonize with any future revision put forth by Euro NCAP.
4. Test Procedures/Devices
The pedestrian safety assessment program the agency intends to
implement is derived from multiple tests carried out on a stationary
vehicle. The procedures are meant to simulate a pedestrian-to-vehicle
impact scenario of either a 6-year-old child or an average-size adult
male walking across a street and being struck from the side by an
oncoming vehicle traveling at 40 km/hr (25 mph). This speed was
selected by the GTR working group in the mid-2000s and is used as the
basis for all subsequent international pedestrian regulations. It is
also the target speed of all other NCAP procedures. The speed of 40 km/
h (25 mph) was selected in part because the majority of pedestrian
collisions occur at this speed or less. Though fatalities typically
occur at higher speeds (70 km/h (43.5 mph) on average), a test speed
above 40 km/h (25 mph) is not warranted due to the changing dynamics of
a pedestrian-vehicle interaction as collision speeds increase. For
pedestrian-related crashes above 40 km/h (25 mph), an initial hood-to-
torso interaction takes place in which the pedestrian tends to slide
along the hood such that the head impact overshoots the hood and
windshield. Moreover, the practicability of designing a vehicle front-
end to achieve a high rating becomes increasingly difficult due to
energy dissipation required as the impact increases.
The first point of contact occurs between the front-end of the
vehicle and the lateral aspect of an adult pedestrian's leg near the
knee region. As the lower leg becomes fully engaged with the vehicle
front-end, contact is made between the leading edge of the hood and the
lateral aspect of the pedestrian's pelvis or upper leg. Then, as the
lower leg is kicked forward and away from the front-end of the vehicle,
the pedestrian's upper body swings abruptly downward towards the hood
whereupon the head strikes the vehicle. Depending on the size of the
pedestrian and vehicle, the head strikes either the hood or the
windshield.
When colliding with high profile vehicles, the pedestrian's pelvis
engages early with the vehicle's front structure. The upper body then
rotates about the pelvis while wrapping around the hood. When a
pedestrian is hit by a low
[[Page 78549]]
profile vehicle, only his/her lower leg is engaged by the vehicle's
front structure and the head is likely to be projected onto the hood or
windshield as the whole body rotates. The dynamic tests included in
this pedestrian protection assessment program that the agency intends
to include in this NCAP upgrade would account for both low and high
profile vehicle impact scenarios.
The targeted walking posture is one in which a pedestrian is side-
struck. This posture was chosen because it represents one of the more
common interactions between vehicles and pedestrians.\219\ The side-
struck posture is also regarded as ``worst case'' scenario for
pedestrians (as in most likely to result in serious injury or death),
which is supported by a recent study commissioned by the E.U.,\220\ and
the particulars for impact angle and impact velocity have been
developed for that posture. The headforms used in the dynamic tests are
hemispherical with no geometric characteristics for the face, which is
beneficial in that the test procedure is generalized to mimic any head-
to-hood/windshield interaction such as one resulting from a collision
to a pedestrian who is struck from the rear while walking along the
shoulder of the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ Neal-Sturgess, C. E., Carter, E., Hardy, R., Cuerden, R.,
Guerra, L., & Yang, J., ``APROSYS European In-Depth Pedestrian
Database,'' The 20th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2007.
\220\ Soni, A., Robert, T., & Beillas, P. (2013), ``Effects of
Pedestrian Pre[hyphen]Crash Reactions on Crash Outcomes during
Multi[hyphen]body Simulations,'' 2013 IRCOBI Conference, Paper No.
IRC-13-92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency plans to conduct this pedestrian safety assessment
program through a series of dynamic tests in which impactors are
launched into the front-end of a stationary vehicle. Three different
types of impactors, which are described in UNECE Regulation No. 127,
``Pedestrian protection,'' would be used to assess the front end of a
vehicle:
Headforms--Two separate hemispherical headforms are used
to assess the safety performance of the hood, windshield, and A-pillar
against a head injury to the pedestrian. One headform representing the
head of an adult and the other the head of a 6-year-old child. Both
measure 165 mm (6.5 in) in diameter and each has three parts: A main
hemisphere, a vinyl covering, and an end plate. A triaxial arrangement
of accelerometers is mounted within each. Though they look similar and
their diameters are identical, the headforms are not the same. The
adult headform is 4.5 kg (9.9 lb) and the child headform is 3.5 kg (7.7
lb). The injury risk associated with the headform measurement is based
on HIC--a function of the tri-axial linear acceleration, which is well
established and used in numerous occupant protection FMVSSs where HIC
of 1000 represents a 48-percent risk of skull fracture.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ Eppinger, R. H., Sun, E., Bandak, F., Haffner, M.,
Khaewpong, N., Maltese, M., Kuppa, S., Nguyen, T., Takhounts, E.,
Tannous, R., Zhang, R., & Saul, R. (1999), ``Development of improved
injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restrain
systems--II,'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC, November 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Legform--The upper legform is used to measure how
well the hood leading edge (or the area near the junction of the hood
and grille) can protect a pedestrian against a hip injury and
potentially child head or thorax injury. The upper legform impactor is
a rigid, foam-covered device, 350 mm (13.8 in) long with a mass of 9.5
kg (20.9 lb). The front member is equipped with strain gauges to
measure bending moments in three positions. Two load transducers
measure individually the forces applied at either end of the impactor.
This test was developed by the European Experimental Vehicles Committee
(EEVC) in the working group (WG) 7, 10, and 17. The pelvis/hip injury
risk associated with the upper legform measurements was originally
based on a series of crash reconstructions associating pelvis/hip
injury with energy measurements.222 223 These injury risk
functions were subsequently assessed in a number of studies prior to
inclusion of this test in Euro NCAP.224 225 226 227
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ Lawrence, G., Hardy, B., & Harris, J. (1991). ``Bonnet
Leading Edge Subsystem Test for Cars to Assess Protection for
Pedestrians.'' The 13th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles.
\223\ Janssen, E., ``EEVC Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian
Protection Afforded by Passenger Cars.'' The 15th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 1996.
\224\ Konosu, A. et al., ``A Study on Pedestrian Impact Test
Procedure by Computer Simulation.'' The 16th International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper Number 98-S10-
W-19, 1998.
\225\ Matsui, Y. et al., ``Validation of Pedestrian Upper
Legform Impact Test--Reconstruction of Pedestrian Accidents.'' The
16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 98-S10-O-05, 1998.
\226\ EEVC WG17 report (2002). ``Improved Test Methods to
evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars''.
\227\ Snedeker, J. et al. (2003). ``Assessment of Pelvis and
Upper Leg Injury Risk in Car-Pedestrian Collisions: Comparison of
Accident Statistics, Impactor Tests, and a Human Body Finite Element
Model.'' 47th Stapp Car Crash Journal, p. 437-457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FlexPLI--A pedestrian leg impactor (known as FlexPLI) is
used to assess the bumper areas's capability to protect a pedestrian
from incurring an injury to the knee and lower leg. The FlexPLI
consists of synthetic flesh and skin material that cover two flexible
long-bone segments (representing the femur and tibia), and a knee
joint. The assembled impactor has a mass of 13.2 kg (29.1 lb) and is
928 mm (36.5 in) long. Bending moments are measured at four points
along the length of the tibia and three points along the femur. Three
transducers are installed in the knee joint to measure elongations of
the medial collateral ligament (MCL), anterior cruciate ligament (ACL),
and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). Knee ligament and bone fracture
injury risk functions associated with FlexPLI ligament elongation and
tibia bending moment measurements are detailed by Takahashi et al.
(2012).\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ Takahashi, Y., et al. (2012). Development of Injury
Probability Functions for the Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor.
SAE Paper No. 2012-01-0277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These devices and their associated launching rigs are the same as
those currently in use in all other international NCAP pedestrian test
protocols. Thus, to the extent that U.S. manufacturers are testing
vehicles using the test procedures for international NCAP programs,
they already likely own these devices and have experience with the test
protocols.
The contact areas, which include the vehicle front-end, the hood
leading edge, the hood itself, and the windshield, are the main sources
of injury.\229\ Testing with the devices--the FlexPLI, the upper
legform, and the headforms--would provide a means to establish separate
safety assessment for each contact area, respectively. Multiple tests
over the contact areas would be carried out with each device. In this
manner, a grid pattern is formed over the entire front-end of the
vehicle with safety scores established for each point. The scores are
then combined to form an overall pedestrian safety score for the
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ Mallory, A., et al. (2012), ``Pedestrian injuries by
source: serious and disabling injuries in the U.S. and European
Cases,'' Proceedings of the 2012 AAAM Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA estimates that including these test procedures in NCAP would
have a positive impact on a significant portion of pedestrian injuries
and fatalities. According to FARS and NASS General Estimates System
(GES) 2012 data, there were 3,930 pedestrian fatalities and 65,000
pedestrian injuries that included a frontal (10-2 o'clock) impact with
a vehicle. Figure VII-4 in Appendix VII indicates that 9 percent of
fatalities (FARS 2012 curve) and 69 percent of injuries (GES 2012
curve) in 2012 occurred at or below a vehicle speed of
[[Page 78550]]
40 km/h (25 mph), which is the baseline used in Euro NCAP test
procedures. When these percentages are applied to the total fatalities
and injuries, the target populations are 354 [3,930*9%] fatalities and
44,850 [65,000*69%] injuries. NHTSA's most detailed collection of
pedestrian crash information was the Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS)
from 1994-1998. As shown in Figure VII-4 in Appendix VII, PCDS
indicated that 32 percent of fatalities and 78 percent of injuries
occurred at 40 km/h or lower, which, when applied to 2012 FARS/GES
totals, would result in higher target populations of 1,258 [3930*32%]
fatalities and 50,700 [65,000*78%] injuries. Based on GES 2012 and PCDS
data, speeds at which pedestrians are getting hit by vehicles today are
not significantly different than impact speeds 20 years ago, which
supports PCDS as a reasonable comparative dataset for examining the
distribution of impact speeds where fatalities and injuries occur.\230\
Thus, a reasonable range of target population for pedestrian-related
crashes in the United States is in the range of 354-1,258 fatalities
and 44,850-50,700 injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Differences between the low (FARS/GES) and the high (PCDS)
estimates are most likely attributed to the way impact speed is
determined: As reported by police in FARS/GES and by NHTSA accident
investigative methods in PCDS. Considering this, PCDS estimates
might appear more genuine. On the other hand, the PCDS is not
considered a representative sample of the entire population and may
be biased toward lower speed collisions. This would have the effect
of inflating PCDS estimates of collisions under 40 km/hr. Also, any
general improvement over time in vehicle design for pedestrian
protection would be reflected in the (new, lower) FARS/GES
estimates. Thus, the ranges given above are appropriate high and low
bounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Crash Avoidance Technologies
NHTSA believes the greatest gains in highway safety in coming years
will result from widespread application of crash avoidance
technologies. Accordingly, the agency seeks to expand the scope of the
NCAP program to rate crash avoidance and advanced technologies that
NHTSA believes have potential to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle
crashes and incorporate those ratings into the star rating system.
Currently, crash avoidance technologies are not included in the star
safety rating and, instead, are listed as ``Recommended Technologies''
on NHTSA's Safercar.gov Web site. As of today, the agency identifies
vehicles equipped with Forward Collision Warning, Lane Departure
Warning, and Rearview Video Systems as the Recommended Technologies
that meet certain performance requirements.\231\ When revisions to the
NCAP program were implemented, NHTSA chose not to include crash
avoidance tests in the star safety ratings based, in part, on comments
submitted by manufacturers, trade associations, consumer groups, public
health groups, and public citizens.\232\ Initial market research in
2008 was inconclusive, but later market research in 2012 suggested that
consumers may have lacked sufficient knowledge about advanced
technologies prompting NHTSA to delay the incorporation of crash
avoidance technologies in the star rating.\233\ These technologies are
becoming increasingly available in the market, and as a result
consumers are becoming more familiar with them. NHTSA believes that by
the time the planned upgrade to NCAP becomes effective, consumers will
have a better understanding of the potential benefits of advanced crash
avoidance technologies, making their inclusion in the 5-star ratings
valuable to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\231\ Initially, NHTSA identified vehicles equipped with
Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Forward Collision Warning and
Lane Departure Warning as the Recommended Technologies in the prior
round of revisions to the NCAP program, which began with MY 2011.
ESC is now a required safety system on vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Beginning with MY2014, ESC
was removed from the list of Recommended Technologies and Rearview
Video Systems was added.
\232\ On January 25, 2007 (see 72 FR 3472), NHTSA announced a
Public Meeting (held March 7, 2007) and requested comments on a
report titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program Suggested Approaches
for Future Program Enhancements.'' Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555
contains this report (file ID NHTSA-2006-26555-0005), the meeting
transcript (file ID NHTSA-2006-26555-0093) and all of the comments.
In the 2008 NCAP upgrade notice (73 FR 40016, 40033, July 11, 2008),
the agency stated most [Public Meeting] commenters supported the
proposal to implement a crash avoidance rating program. At that
time, the agency decided to promote a selection of beneficial crash
avoidance technologies and to defer implementation of a quantified
rating system.
\233\ In the 2012 follow-up quantitative study, ``Insight to
Action, Monroney Label Research Qualitative Research Report, August
24, 2012,'' the agency found that consumers lacked sufficient
knowledge about advanced crash avoidance technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the intervening years, NHTSA believes that certain crash
avoidance technologies have reached a level of technological maturity
and will provide tangible safety benefits at reasonable costs. Further,
the agency believes that, although we have seen a rapid increase in the
number of passenger vehicles equipped with an expanding number of crash
avoidance systems, some of which could be attributed to inclusion as a
Recommended Technology, we believe that incorporating crash avoidance
technologies into the star safety rating would help ensure that they
are adopted more similarly to the crashworthiness tests; that is,
faster and in more vehicles.
Thus, the agency believes it is now appropriate to include certain
crash avoidance technologies into the overall star rating system. NHTSA
believes a star rating in particular is necessary for crash avoidance
technologies because consumers are already familiar with the 5-star
approach to safety, while simply listing the available technologies on
the label would potentially provide information without useful context.
This NCAP upgrade would include the following crash avoidance
technologies into the star ratings system: (1) Forward collision
warning, (2) crash imminent braking, (3) dynamic brake support, (4)
lower beam headlighting performance, (5) semi-automatic headlamp beam
switching, (6) amber rear turn signal lamps, (7) lane departure
warning, (8) rollover resistance, and (9) blind spot detection.
Separately, NHTSA also intends to assess two additional crash avoidance
systems, (1) pedestrian automatic emergency braking and (2) rear
automatic braking, but the performance safety assessment results of
those systems would be part of the pedestrian protection rating
category under this NCAP upgrade. Consistent with the established
criteria outlined in the April 2013 RFC,\234\ the agency assessed
whether the technology addresses a safety need; the system design is
capable of mitigating the safety need; the technology provides safety
benefit potential; and a repeatable test procedure exists. The agency
reviewed available crash avoidance technologies and found the eleven
crash avoidance technologies described in this RFC notice satisfy the
established criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ See 78 FR 20599, April 5, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in contrast to a vehicle's crashworthiness performance,
which can vary yet still provide a level of occupant protection, crash
avoidance systems generally have a binary result: Either they avoid the
crash or they do not. As a result, the agency cannot use the range-
based star ratings found in crashworthiness and can, instead, only say
whether the crash avoidance system on a vehicle either passes or fails
the test. However, the agency still wishes to distinguish within the
vehicles that pass the test to ensure that the highest ratings are for
the safest vehicles. To do so, we recommend that stars be based on two
criteria: Passing the test and prevalence of the technology within a
given model line. Thus, if a vehicle model passes the test for a
particular technology, it will get half credit if the technology is
offered as an optional safety system and full credit if it is offered
as standard for
[[Page 78551]]
the model. The agency believes this is a reasonable approach because it
allows the model to achieve a higher score if the specific vehicle
being purchased has a particular technology, thus providing a benefit
to that consumer, while incentivizing OEMs to more quickly expand the
set of safety technologies available as standard safety equipment for
particular model lines. We request comment on this approach, in
particular concerning whether there are other ways to distinguish crash
avoidance technology star ratings among different models.
The agency is aware of additional advanced safety applications and
monitoring systems that are currently under development and, therefore,
not ready for inclusion into the NCAP rating system at this time. These
include intersection movement assist, lane keeping support, advanced
automatic crash notification, driver alcohol detection system, and
driver distraction guidelines. These are briefly discussed in this RFC
notice. The agency notes that the current NCAP LDW test procedure
includes supplemental tests for lane keeping support systems, which may
be performed for informative purposes to expand NHTSA's knowledge of
how such systems operate. While NHTSA believes that these systems are
approaching the technical readiness and performance levels necessary
before inclusion into the NCAP crash avoidance rating, NHTSA will
consider them in the future as the technologies mature and more
research becomes available.
Table 6 shows available crash avoidance technologies that NHTSA
believes could mitigate each crash type, as well as the predominant
pre-crash scenarios within each crash type. NHTSA defined and
statistically described this pre-crash scenario typology for light
vehicles (passenger car, sports utility vehicle, minivan, van, and
light pickup truck) based on the 2004 GES crash database.\235\ This
typology consists of 37 pre-crash scenarios that depict vehicle
movements and dynamics as well as the critical event occurring
immediately prior to a crash. Excluding the ``other'' scenario, this
pre-crash scenario typology represents about 99.4 percent of all light-
vehicle crashes.\236\ The percentage shown below each crash type in the
first column of Table 6 is the 2010 incidence rate for all motor
vehicle crashes estimated based on a fairly straightforward examination
of the data in NHTSA's two primary databases, FARS and GES.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ DOT HS 810 767 (April 2007), available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2007/Pre-Crash_Scenario_Typology-Final_PDF_Version_5-2-07.pdf.
\236\ The scenario labeled ``other'' in the typology encompasses
the remaining crashes that are coded as ``Other,'' ``Unknown,'' or
``No Impact'' in the Accident Type variable in the NASS crash
database; possible scenarios may include hit-and-run, no driver
present, non-collision incident and other non-specific or no-details
scenarios.
\237\ DOT HS 812 013 (revised May 2015), www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78552]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.040
As Table 6 shows, no one technology listed addresses all crash
events. Collectively, the crash avoidance technologies listed, with the
exception of amber rear turn signal lamps, would alert and better
inform the driver about unsafe conditions surrounding the vehicle, and
in some circumstances would automatically brake to avoid or mitigate a
collision. As the agency works to quantify the individual and
collective contributions of crash avoidance technologies, qualitative
interpretations of the information in Table 6 suggest that vehicles
offering more safety advances would increase the opportunities to avoid
crashes, including those involving pedestrians and pedalcyclists.
Ideally, as future crash avoidance technologies emerge and are
deployed, each crash type will have multiple technologies poised to
respond in an effort to prevent or mitigate crashes. Some technologies
may offer modest individual contributions compared to others, but each
has a key role to play in the overall effort to prevent or mitigate
crashes. The three lighting technologies are impactful to three-
quarters of the crash scenarios listed. Warning technologies and AEB
systems are expected to directly impact the incidence of approximately
one-third of the crash scenarios listed. Rollover resistance has a
narrow application to prevent untripped on-road rollovers and possibly
mitigate roadway departure crashes; however, other crash avoidance
technologies may contribute by helping to avoid a tripping mechanism
thereby potentially preventing a rollover.
To eliminate data voids and to improve data collection in support
of benefit estimate calculation and the NCAP crash avoidance rating,
NHTSA seeks to collaborate with manufacturers to improve the value of
the coded vehicle identification number (VIN) attributes to NHTSA, by
indicating the presence of crash avoidance
[[Page 78553]]
technologies. It is NHTSA's desire to identify crash avoidance
technologies through a combination of characters available within the
VIN to facilitate statistical analysis. NHTSA hopes to work with
manufacturers to voluntarily make these changes. This effort would not
alter any of manufacturers' current VIN requirements under Part 565.
Manufacturers will continue to provide to NHTSA, as required by Part
565, a key that deciphers VIN information. Additionally, this crash
avoidance information will not communicate system performance or
directly inform the consumer. The safety rating of the Monroney label
and the Safercar.gov Web site would remain the primary means for the
agency to communicate rating information to consumers. Title 49 CFR
part 565 requires a vehicle manufacturer to assign a unique VIN to each
vehicle that it produces. The five characters in VIN positions 4
through 8 uniquely identify attributes of the vehicle. For passenger
cars, the attributes are make, line, series, body type, engine type,
and all restraint devices and their location. The characters utilized
and their placement within the section may be determined by the vehicle
manufacturer, but the specified attributes must be decipherable with
information supplied by the vehicle manufacturer.
Separately, NHTSA is developing a software catalog called the NHTSA
Product Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing (vPIC) to organize the
VIN information for rapid access and decoding of information that is
submitted by the vehicle manufacturers. Access to this catalog was made
available recently to the public.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ NHTSA Product Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing
(vPIC) available at http://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We emphasize that NHTSA is not pursuing a change to the VIN
requirement. The agency recognizes that capturing standard versus
optional equipment for each VIN is a challenge. To address this
challenge, the agency requests comment on whether to collaboratively
pursue coding specific crash avoidance technologies and combinations
into the VIN, which would be associated to the make, model, trim, and
model year levels.
1. Emergency Braking: Warning and Automatic Systems
An Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system uses forward-looking
sensors, typically radars and/or cameras, to detect vehicles on the
roadway. When a rear-end crash is imminent, if the driver takes no
action, such as braking or steering, or if the driver does brake but
does not provide enough braking to avoid the crash, the system may
automatically apply or supplement the brakes to avoid or mitigate the
rear-end crash. AEB systems feature technologies that provide forward
collision warning (FCW) alerts, as well as crash imminent braking (CIB)
and/or dynamic brake support (DBS), which are specifically designed to
help drivers avoid, or mitigate the severity of, rear-end crashes. CIB
systems provide automatic braking when forward-looking sensors indicate
that a crash is imminent and the driver has not braked, whereas DBS
systems provide supplemental braking when sensors determine that
driver-applied braking is insufficient to avoid an imminent crash.
Approximately 1.7 million rear-end crashes occur each year.\239\
Not all of these are expected to benefit from AEB technology in
general. NHTSA has identified a target population that is the subset of
these crashes that could potentially be avoided or mitigated by AEB
systems. These crashes involve an estimated 2,700,000 persons per year,
and a total annual cost of $47 billion. More than 400,000 people are
injured and over 200 people are killed in rear-end crashes each year.
The agency developed a detailed target population in a June 2012
research report, finding that 910,000 crashes per year could
potentially be avoided or mitigated with FCW, CIB, and DBS systems
(collectively referred to as AEB systems here).\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ Automatic Emergency Braking System (AEB) Research Report,
August 2014. Available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-
2012-0057-0037, page 9.
\240\ Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research
Report, NHTSA, June 2012; available at www.regulations.gov, Docket
No. NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency intends to use a new crash avoidance rating scheme that
would depart from the current NCAP checkmark for Recommended Advanced
Technologies Features. AEB is one of the systems that would contribute
to the crash avoidance rating system calculation. The evaluation
metrics for AEB systems in the new NCAP rating would be pass-fail. If a
vehicle satisfies the performance requirements for each test scenario,
the vehicle would receive credit for being equipped with the
technology. If an AEB system is offered as an optional safety
technology, the vehicle model would receive half credit for this
technology. If an AEB system is a standard safety technology, the
vehicle model would receive full credit for this technology.
a. Forward Collision Warning (FCW)
NHTSA intends to include FCW in its NCAP crash avoidance rating.
The agency intends to use the same test procedures for FCW that it is
currently using for the Recommended Advanced Technology Features on
Safercar.gov.
The FCW system is based on two components: A sensing system capable
of detecting a vehicle in front of the subject vehicle, and a warning
system sending a signal to the driver. The sensing system consists of
forward-looking radar, lidar, camera systems, or a combination thereof.
The sensor data are digitally processed by a computer software
algorithm that determines whether an object it has detected poses a
safety risk (e.g., is a motor vehicle, etc.), determines if an impact
to the detected vehicle is imminent, decides if and when a warning
signal should be sent to the driver, and finally, sends the warning
signal. The warning may be a visual signal, such as a light on the
dash, an audio signal, such as a chime or buzzer, or a haptic feedback
signal that applies rapid vibrations or motions to the driver. Based on
NCAP testing, the typical haptic signals currently used for FCW systems
are vibrations from the seat pan and/or steering wheel. The purpose of
the FCW system is to alert the driver to the potential crash threat.
The desired corrective action is to have the driver assess the
situation, recognize the pending danger, and engage braking or steering
to evade the possible rear-end crash event. FCW systems are typically
the first technologies deployed in an AEB system currently available in
many production motor vehicles.
The sensors, computers, algorithms, and warning systems used in FCW
systems have evolved since these systems were first developed. Field
experience and consumer feedback to vehicle manufacturers have
reportedly enabled them to improve the reliability and consumer
acceptance of these systems.
NHTSA previously determined the effectiveness of FCW technology
from a field operational test (FOT) conducted between March 2003 and
November 2004.\241\ Sixty-six participants drove a total of about
163,000 km during the FOT, including 64,000 km with FCW. The analysis
of this study reported a potential FCW effectiveness of 15 percent in
reducing rear-end crashes. Additionally, this effectiveness was
reported in the 2008 Federal Register
[[Page 78554]]
notice which included FCW in the first phase of assessing crash
avoidance technologies within the NCAP program.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ Evaluation of Automated Rear-End Collision Avoidance
Systems. DOT HS 810 569, April 2006. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2006/HS910569.pdf.
\242\ See 73 FR 40033. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency recently revisited its calculations for the target
population and the potential benefits estimates for FCW. The agency
also calculated the overall effectiveness of all three AEB systems
combined, which included CIB, DBS, and FCW. Although several studies
show potential benefits, the estimated effectiveness of the systems
varies from study to study. Further, these studies used prototype
systems whose performance may vary from actual production systems.
Additionally, the target population (those crashes that would be
favorably affected by the installation and operation of these
technologies) is not always well-defined and also varies considerably
between studies. Preliminary benefits estimated based on three research
vehicles with FCW, CIB, and DBS combined could prevent 94,000-145,000
minor injuries (AIS 1-2), 2,000-3,000 (AIS 3-5) serious injuries, and
save 78-108 lives annually.\243\ In this analysis, FCW accounted for
reducing 53,000 minor injuries (AIS 1-2), 1,260 serious injuries (AIS
3-5) and 35 fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research
Report, NHTSA, DOT, June 2012. Available at www.regulations.gov,
NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test procedure for FCW was originally published in 2008, and
became part of NCAP in MY 2011. Minor updates have been placed in the
docket for this program. For the 2016 MY NCAP evaluation, NHTSA will
use the version titled ``Forward Collision Warning System Confirmation
Test, February 2013,'' which is available on the Safercar.gov Web site
\244\ and in the 2006 docket for Revisions to NCAP.\245\ NHTSA will
rely on this version to establish FCW system performance and inclusion
in the agency's Recommended Advanced Technology Features on
Safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ Available at www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/NCAP+Test+Procedures.
\245\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCAP FCW test procedure consists of three scenarios selected
because they simulate the most frequent rear-end scenarios. The subject
vehicle (SV) used in this test is the vehicle being assessed. The
principle other vehicle (POV) is a vehicle directly in front of the SV.
In NHTSA's FCW performance evaluations, the POV is a production mid-
size passenger vehicle.
In the first FCW scenario, the lead vehicle stopped (LVS) scenario,
the SV encounters a stopped POV on a straight road. The SV is moving at
45 mph (72 km/h) and the POV is not moving, or 0 mph (0 km/h). To pass
this test, the SV FCW alert must be issued when the time-to-collision
(TTC) is at least 2.1 seconds. In the second FCW test, the lead vehicle
decelerating (LVD) scenario, the SV follows the POV traveling on a
straight, flat road at a constant speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) and a
constant time gap. Then the SV encounters a decelerating POV braking at
a constant deceleration of 0.3g. In order to pass this test, the FCW
alert must be issued when TTC is at least 2.4 seconds. In the third FCW
test, the lead vehicle moving (LVM) scenario, the SV encounters a
slower-moving POV. Throughout the test, the SV is driven at 45 mph (72
km/h) and the POV is driven at a constant speed of 20 mph (32 km/h). In
order to pass this test, the FCW alert must be issued when TTC is at
least 2.0 seconds. All of these tests are conducted on a straight,
high-quality surface test track. The relative speeds and times to
collision are calculated using a differential global positioning system
(GPS) installed in each of the two vehicles. The tests are conducted
using two professional drivers. If the FCW system fails to alert the
rear driver within the required time, the driver of the SV steers away
to avoid a collision.
The FCW test scenarios directly relate to NHTSA crash data. These
scenarios were developed for NCAP and added to the program in MY 2011.
The scenarios were analyzed again in the development of the CIB and DBS
test programs.\246\ NHTSA data indicates LVS scenario in which the
struck vehicle was stopped at the time of impact occurred in 64 percent
of the rear-end crashes. The LVD scenario in which the struck vehicle
was decelerating at the time of impact occurred in 24 percent of the
rear-impact crashes. The LVM scenario in which the struck vehicle was
moving at a constant but slower speed, compared to the striking vehicle
occurred in 12 percent of the rear-end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0057-0037,
page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time-to-collision criteria used in each scenario represents the
estimated time that would be needed for a driver to perceive a pending
crash, discern the correct action to take, and take the mitigating
action.\247\ NHTSA believes that the alerts are sufficient for a driver
to react and avoid many of these rear-end crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ The time-to-collision criteria were examined in a NHTSA
FCW performance evaluation. See www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0561.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency seeks comments on whether to only award FCW credit if
the SV is equipped with a haptic FCW.
b. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB)
NHTSA intends to include CIB in its overall crash avoidance rating
for NCAP. CIB is a crash avoidance system that uses information from
forward-looking sensors to determine whether a crash is imminent and
whether it is appropriate to automatically apply the brakes. CIB
systems are designed to activate automatically when a vehicle (the SV)
is about to crash into the rear of another vehicle (the POV) and the
SV's driver makes no attempt to avoid the crash. The systems typically
consider whether the SV driver has applies the brakes and/or turned the
steering wheel before intervening.
Current CIB sensor systems include radar, lidar, and/or vision-
based camera sensors capable of detecting objects in front of the
vehicle. Although some CIB systems currently in production can detect
objects other than vehicles, NCAP test procedures would test the
capability of systems to detect and activate only for vehicles in front
of the subject vehicle. NHTSA is not planning to test a system's
ability to detect and brake for other objects at this time. NHTSA
believes that it will be able to accommodate alternative sensing
methods in the future with minor test set-up modifications.
Pedestrian AEB systems are discussed later in this RFC notice.
NHTSA does not plan to consider the capability of crash avoidance
systems to detect and respond to other objects, such as animals or road
obstructions in this NCAP upgrade. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle
manufacturers to include detection of other objects in their CIB
algorithms to avoid these other crash types.
CIB systems typically rely on the same forward-looking sensors used
by FCW. NHTSA testing indicates CIB interventions generally occur after
the FCW alert has been issued, although NHTSA has found some
interventions to be coincident. The amount of braking authority varies
among manufacturers, with several systems achieving maximum vehicle
deceleration just prior to impact.
CIB is one of the earliest generations of automatic braking
technologies.
[[Page 78555]]
When an object in front of the forward-moving SV is detected, a
computer software algorithm reviews the available data from the input
signal of the sensing system. If the algorithm determines that a rear-
end crash with another motor vehicle is imminent, then a signal is sent
to the electronic brake controller to automatically activate the SV
brakes.
The agency tentatively found that if CIB functionality is installed
on all light vehicles without other AEB systems (i.e., FCW and DBS), it
could potentially prevent approximately 40,000 minor-to-moderate
injuries (AIS levels 1 and 2), 640 serious-to-critical injuries (AIS
levels 3-5) and save approximately 40 lives, annually.\248\ Crash
severity is often characterized by the speed differential associated
with the collision. It is a measure of the difference in velocity of
the striking and struck vehicles just before and just after the impact
occurs. The reduction in injuries ascribed to CIB without other AEB
systems was estimated using injury risk versus delta-v curves that have
been previously used by the agency for its light vehicle tire pressure
monitoring system. NASS-CDS police-reported estimates of tow-away
crashes were adjusted to reflect all police-reported rear-impact
crashes. At this time, all production CIB systems provide an FCW
warning before the CIB system automatically applies the brakes.
Therefore, safety benefits from CIB would be incremental to the
benefits from an FCW alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0057-0037,
page 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate CIB (and the DBS mentioned below) on the test track,
NHTSA developed the Strikeable Surrogate Vehicle (SSV), a surrogate
vehicle modeled after a small hatchback car and fabricated from light-
weight composite materials including carbon fiber and Kevlar[supreg].
The SSV appears as a ``real'' vehicle to the sensors used by
contemporary CIB systems. For NCAP CIB tests, the agency intends to use
the SSV as the POV.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006-0024,
AEB Final decision notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's current CIB test procedure is comprised of three scenarios
similar to the FCW scenarios (for a total of 4 tests) and one false-
positive test (conducted at two speeds). For this NCAP upgrade, the
agency intends to use the CIB test procedure specified in the recent
AEB final decision notice.\250\ In the LVS test, the SV approaches a
stopped POV at 25 mph (40.2 km/h). In the LVM test, two SV/POV speed
combinations would be used; first, the SV would be driven at 45 mph
(72.4 km/h) toward a POV traveling at 20 mph (32.2 km/h); and second,
the SV would be driven at 25 mph (40.2 km/h) toward a POV traveling at
10 mph (16.1 km/h). In the LVD test, the SV and POV would both be
driven at 35 mph (56.3 km/h) with an initial headway of 45.3 ft (13.8
m), and then the POV would decelerate at 0.3g. In the Steel Trench
Plate (STP) False Positive Test, two test speeds would be used; the SV
would be driven over a 8 ft x 12 ft x 1 in (2.4 m x 3.7 m x 25 mm)
steel trench plate at 45 mph (72.4 km/h) and 25 mph (40.2 km/h). Each
scenario would be run up to seven times. To pass the NCAP performance
criteria, the SV would need to pass five out of seven trials, and pass
all six tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIB test scenarios directly relate to NHTSA crash data. Rear-
end crashes are coded within the NASS-GES into the three major
categories that denote the kinematic relationship between the striking
and struck vehicle: LVM, LVD, and LVS. NHTSA's analysis of the crash
data in support of the June 2012 research report on CIB systems showed
that the target population of rear-end crashes (average during the
years 2005 through 2009) was approximately 64 percent LVS scenarios, 24
percent LVD scenarios, and 12 percent LVM scenarios.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ See www.regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For CIB, the NCAP performance criteria are speed reductions.
Nominally, the magnitude of the speed reduction assigned to each test
scenario corresponds to an effective deceleration of 0.6g from a TTC of
0.6 seconds. In the case of the CIB false positive tests, the
performance criteria is a non-activation, where the SV must not achieve
a peak deceleration equal to or greater than 0.5g at any time during
its approach to the steel trench plate. These criteria were developed
using NHTSA test data collected during 2011, and were intended to
promote safety-beneficial and attainable performance.
The metrics include:
Table 7--CIB Test Metrics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed (mph)
--------------------------------------------------
Test scenarios Subject Criterion
vehicle Surrogate target vehicle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Vehicle Stopped................. 25 0............................... >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/h).
Lead Vehicle Moving.................. 45 20.............................. >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/h).
Lead Vehicle Moving.................. 25 10.............................. Crash Avoided.
Lead Vehicle Decelerating............ 35 35.............................. >=10.5 mph (16.9 km/h).
Steel Trench Plate................... 45 Not applicable.................. No Activation
(Deceleration of
<=0.5g).
Steel Trench Plate................... 25 Not applicable.................. No Activation
(Deceleration of
<=0.5g).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all tests are passed, the vehicle would receive credit for
having the CIB system as calculated in the Crash Avoidance rating
system calculation. If CIB is offered as an optional safety system, the
vehicle model would receive half credit for this system. If CIB is
offered as standard safety system, the vehicle model would receive full
credit for this system.
c. Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
DBS applies supplemental braking in situations in which the system
has determined that the braking applied by the driver is insufficient
to avoid a collision. Typically, DBS relies on information provided by
forward-looking sensor(s) to determine when supplemental braking should
be applied. FCW most often works in concert with DBS by first warning
the driver of the situation and thereby providing the opportunity for
the driver to initiate the necessary braking. If the driver's brake
application is insufficient, DBS provides the additional braking needed
to avoid or mitigate the crash.
DBS is similar to CIB; the difference is that CIB activates when
the driver has not applied the brake pedal, and DBS
[[Page 78556]]
will supplement the driver's brake input. When an object in front of
the forward-moving SV is detected, a computer software algorithm
reviews the available data from the input signal of the sensing system.
If the algorithm determines that a collision with an object in front of
the SV is imminent and that the driver has applied the brakes, but not
adequately, a signal is sent to the electronic brake controller. Then
the brake system automatically provides additional braking.
DBS differs from a traditional brake assist system used with the
vehicle's foundation brakes. With the foundation brakes, a conventional
brake assist system applies additional braking by automatically
increasing the brake power boost when the system identifies that the
driver is in a panic-braking situation based on the driver's brake
pedal application rate or some other means of sensing that the driver
is in an emergency braking situation. This results in more pedal travel
for the same braking force applied by the driver. DBS uses the forward-
looking sensor information to determine that additional braking is
needed, unlike conventional brake assist, which uses the driver's brake
pedal application rate to determine that the driver is attempting to
initiate emergency braking but may not be strong enough to fully apply
the brakes.
While CIB and DBS are applicable to the same crash scenarios, the
target population for CIB is a group where the driver does not apply
the brakes before a crash. With DBS, the driver has braked
insufficiently, and CIB is designed to address scenarios in which the
driver has failed to brake. Using the assumptions previously defined in
the AEB paragraph and applying them to the target population, the
agency tentatively found that if DBS functionality alone is installed
on all light vehicles, it could potentially prevent approximately
107,000 minor/moderate injuries (AIS 1-2), 2,100 serious-to-critical
injuries (AIS 3-5), and save approximately 25 lives, annually. The
safety benefits from DBS would be incremental to the benefits from an
FCW alert.
The DBS test scenarios directly relate to NHTSA crash data. The
previously described three major rear-impact crash categories that
denote the kinematic relationship between the striking and struck
vehicle are LVM, LVD, and LVS. NHTSA's analysis of the crash data in
support of the June 2012 research report on CIB and DBS systems showed
that the target population was approximately 64 percent LVS scenarios,
24 percent LVD scenarios, and 12 percent LVM scenarios of rear-impact
crashes.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ See www.regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to CIB, NHTSA intends to use the SSV as the POV to evaluate
the DBS system on a test track. Also, like CIB, the agency intends to
use the DBS test procedure specified in the recent AEB final decision
notice. In the NCAP assessment, the DBS and the CIB systems would be
evaluated separately, however, the DBS test procedures are nearly
equivalent to the CIB test procedures. The DBS test brake application
would be conducted with the use of a mechanical brake applicator,
rather than a human test driver. Each scenario would be run up to seven
times. To pass the NCAP performance criteria, the subject vehicle would
need to pass five out of seven trials, and pass all the scenarios.
The DBS performance criteria for the LVS, LVM, and LVD scenarios
specify that the SV must avoid contact with the POV. In the case of the
DBS false positive tests, the performance criterion is a non-
activation, where the SV must not achieve a peak deceleration >=150
percent greater than that achieved with the vehicle's foundation brake
system alone during its approach to the steel trench plate. If all
tests are passed, the vehicle would receive credit for having the
technology, as calculated in the Crash Avoidance rating system
calculation. If DBS is offered as an optional safety system, the
vehicle model would receive half credit for this system. If DBS is
offered as standard safety system, the vehicle model would receive full
credit for this system.
2. Visibility Systems
NHTSA intends to include three lighting safety features in this
NCAP upgrade: Lower beam headlighting performance, semi-automatic
headlamp beam switching between upper and lower beams, and amber rear
turn signal lamps. Guided by the limited data that exist, the agency
believes that these visibility systems offer positive safety benefits
with minimal burden to the manufacturers.
a. Lower Beam Headlighting Performance
To assist driving in darkness, FMVSS No. 108 requires passenger
cars and trucks to have a headlighting system with upper beam and lower
beam headlamps. While FMVSS No. 108 establishes a minimum standard for
headlamp performance which has resulted in reduced injuries and
fatalities, NHTSA believes that lower beam headlamp performance beyond
the minimum requirements of FMVSS No. 108 will result in additional
safety benefits.
The FARS database shows 47 percent (14,190 of 30,057) of the fatal
crashes in 2013 were attributed to the light condition categories of
dark-lighted, dark-not lighted, and dark-unknown lighting.\253\
Specifically for pedestrians, the FARS database shows 71 percent (3,340
of 4,704) of the fatal crashes involving pedestrians in 2013 were
attributed to the light condition categories of dark-lighted, dark-not
lighted, and dark-unknown lighting. In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians were
killed in traffic crashes, representing 14 percent of all fatalities
that year. Pedestrians are at a higher risk of injury or fatality
during darkness than they are during times of higher ambient
illumination.\254\ Sullivan and Flannagan (2001) concluded that the
risk of pedestrian deaths is substantially greater in darkness, and
that risk difference appears to increase continuously with increased
traffic speed. Taking these two factors together, the agency predicts
that increased vehicle luminance will reduce the risk of pedestrian
fatalities at night. As shown in Table 6, the lower beam headlighting
performance maps to prevent or mitigate 13 of the 32 crash scenarios,
including both pedestrian crash scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ FARS Database Query Tool available at www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov//QueryTool/QuerySection/SelectYear.aspx.
\254\ Sullivan, J. M. & Flannagan, M. J. (2001). Characteristics
of Pedestrian Risk in Darkness (UMTRI-2001-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While extended illumination distance may better inform drivers so
as to avoid striking pedestrians, this additional light could have
unintended consequences if it is not properly controlled to limit
glare. As such, the test procedure presented in Appendix VIII of this
RFC notice grades a vehicle's headlighting system's lower beams for
seeing light far down the road, but reduces the score for a
headlighting system that produces glare beyond 0.634 lux, measured at a
distance of 60 m (197 ft) and at a height of 1000 mm (39.7 in) above
the road. Unlike the current test procedure for the FMVSS No. 108
requirement that evaluates a headlamp in a laboratory, this NCAP test
would evaluate the headlighting system as installed on the vehicle. In
order to support reproducibility of the test results, the headlighting
system would be measured using seasoned bulbs and the headlamps would
be aimed according to the manufacturer's recommendation prior to
conducting the test. Five levels of performance would
[[Page 78557]]
be established based on the measurement of five illuminance meters
located 75 to 115 meters (246 ft to 377 ft) (spaced 10 m (32.8 ft)
apart) forward of the vehicle. The level of performance would be
established based on the lower beam headlighting system's ability to
provide 3.000 lux of light to each of the five detectors. If all five
detectors are illuminated to at least 3.000 lux and the glare detector
is illuminated at less than 0.634 lux, the headlighting system would
receive full credit within the final crash avoidance rating. If the
glare meter is illuminated beyond 0.634 lux, the headlighting systems
scoring would be reduced as detailed in the test procedure (see the
docket, Appendix VIII).
b. Semi-Automatic Headlamp Beam Switching
NHTSA intends to include semi-automatic headlamp beam switching in
its crash avoidance NCAP rating because the agency believes it could
lead to reductions of injuries and fatalities, particularly for
pedestrians during darkness. FMVSS No. 108 requires each vehicle to
have the ability to switch between lower and upper beam headlamps. As
an option, a vehicle may be equipped with a semi-automatic device to
switch between the lower and upper beam, which means the vehicle may
automatically switch the headlamps from upper to lower beams and back
based on photometric sensors installed as part of the semi-automatic
beam switching system. While these systems switch the beams
automatically, they are not fully-automatic in that they must allow the
driver to have control of the system and manually switch beams based on
the driver's input. The photometric design of the upper beam headlamp
is optimized to provide long seeing distance. However, upper beam
headlamps provide limited protection to other roadway users against
glare. Therefore, properly switching between the upper and lower beam
headlamps maximizes the overall seeing distance when driving at night
without causing glare. While state laws often impose driver upper beam
restrictions (situations in which the upper beam cannot be used), there
is very little information available to drivers to help them determine
when to safely use upper beam headlamps.
Based on studies indicating that the upper beam headlamps are used
only 25 percent of the time in situations for which they would be
useful without creating glare,\255\ NHTSA intends to include semi-
automatic headlamp beam switching in this NCAP upgrade. As discussed
previously in the lower beam headlighting performance section, the
agency believes that among other crash types, pedestrian fatalities
that occur under dark-not-lighted conditions may be reduced or
mitigated by additional proper use of the upper beam. As shown in Table
6, semi-automatic headlamp beam switching maps to prevent or mitigate
14 of the 32 crash scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ Mefford, M. L., Flannagan, M. J., & Bogard, S. E. (2006).
Real-World Use of High-Beam Headlamps (UMTRI-2006-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-automatic headlamp beam switching was reported as optional or
standard for approximately 52 percent of the ``trim lines'' (sub-
models) listed in the 2016 Buying a Safer Car letter by the
manufacturers. Since most semi-automatic headlamp beam switching
devices activate above a minimum driving speed and react dynamically to
the environment, primarily to other vehicles on the roadway, a
traditional, passive and stationary goniometer-based laboratory test
procedure will not suffice for confirmation of beam switching
operation. Therefore, NHTSA intends to use vehicle related static
measurements including confirmation of manual override capability,
automatic dimming indicator, and mounting height, as well as two
vehicle maneuver tests to effectively produce the semi-automatic beam
switching device response to a suddenly appearing vehicle
representation in a straight road scenario. The first dynamic test
simulates an approaching vehicle, and the second dynamic test simulates
a preceding vehicle. This test procedure will confirm that the driver
has both the information necessary and the responsibility for final
control of headlamp beam switching.
c. Amber Rear Turn Signal Lamps
In 2009, NHTSA studied the effect of rear turn signal color as a
means to reduce the frequency of passenger vehicles crashes.\256\
Specifically, the agency analyzed whether amber or red turn signals
were more effective at preventing front-to-rear collisions when the
rear-struck (leading) vehicle was engaged in a maneuver (i.e., turning,
changing lanes, merging, or parking) where turn signals were assumed to
be engaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Allen (2009). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (DOT HS 811 115). Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 108 requires each vehicle to have two turn signals on the
rear of the vehicle. The regulation provides manufacturers the option
of installing either amber (yellow) or red rear turn signals with
applicable performance requirements for each choice. To avoid imposing
an unreasonable cost to society, NHTSA's lighting regulation continues
to allow for the lower cost rear signal and visibility configurations
that meet these requirements. Typically, the lower cost configuration
includes one combination lamp on each of the rear corners of the
vehicle, containing a red stop lamp, a red side marker lamp, a red turn
signal lamp, a red rear reflex reflector, a red side reflex reflector,
a red tail lamp, and a white backup lamp. (A separate license plate
lamp is typically the most cost effective choice for vehicles rated in
the NCAP information program). Such a configuration can be achieved
using just two bulbs and a two color (red and white) lens.
The purpose of FMVSS No. 108 is to reduce crashes and injuries by
providing adequate illumination of the roadway and by enhancing the
visibility of motor vehicles on public roads so that their presence is
perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in
darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. While the red rear
turn signal lamp configuration provides a minimum acceptable level of
safety, the agency believes improved safety (measured as the reduction
in the number of rear-end crashes that resulted in property damage or
injury) can be achieved with amber rear turn signal lamps at a cost
comparable to red rear turn signal lamp configurations. This is
supported by the observation of vehicle manufacturers changing the rear
turn signal lamp color for a vehicle model from one year to the next,
as was discussed in NHTSA Report DOT HS 811 115. The results of this
NHTSA study estimated the effectiveness of amber rear turn signal
lamps, as compared to red turn signal lamps, decrease the risk of two-
vehicle, rear-end crashes where the lead vehicle is turning by 5.3
percent.\257\ That study was designed around the concept of ``switch
pairs,'' in which make-models of passenger vehicles switched rear turn
signal color. The crash involvement rates were computed before and
after the switch. NHTSA estimates that there are roughly 68,550 injury
rear-end crashes annually in which the lead vehicle is changing
direction. As shown in Table 6, rear amber turn signal lamps map to
prevent or mitigate 11 of the 32 crash scenarios listed. For these
reasons,
[[Page 78558]]
NHTSA intends to include amber rear turn signals in this NCAP upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ Allen (2009). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (DOT HS 811 115). Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A test procedure for amber turn signal lamps exists in FMVSS No.
108. For this program, NHTSA intends to use only the Tristimulus method
(FMVSS No. 108 S14.4.1.4) for determining that the color of the rear
turn signal lamp falls within the range of allowable amber colors. As
is the case with the regulation, the color of light emitted must be
within the chromaticity boundaries as follows:
y = 0.39 (red boundary)
y = 0.79-0.67x (white boundary)
y = x-0.12 (green boundary)
If the motor vehicle is equipped with amber rear turn signals meeting
these requirements, the agency intends to give credit in the crash
avoidance rating for these vehicles.
3. Driver Awareness and Other Technologies
NHTSA believes crash avoidance warning systems have the potential
to improve driver performance and reduce the incidence and severity of
common crash situations. Analysis of manufacturer reported make/model
features reveals that warning systems are increasingly offered in
passenger vehicles, possibly the result of heightened levels of
interest or demand by the consumer.
a. Lane Departure Warning (LDW)
NHTSA intends to include LDW in its crash avoidance rating for this
NCAP upgrade. Currently, LDW is one of the `Recommended Technologies'
listed on the NHTSA Web site Safercar.gov.\258\ The LDW system is a
driver aid that uses vision-based sensors to detect lane markers ahead
of the vehicle. The LDW system alerts the driver when the vehicle is
laterally approaching a lane boundary marker, as indicated by a solid
line, a dashed line, or raised reflective indicators such as Botts
dots. The LDW system may produce one or more user interfaces, such as
an auditory alert or haptic feedback to the driver, and is often
accompanied with a visual indicator or display icon in the instrument
panel to indicate which side of the vehicle is departing the lane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ A video file and an animation file describing LDW are
available at www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/safetytech/st_landing_ca.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle-based LDW technology utilizes either GPS technology or
forward- or downward-looking optical sensors. A GPS system compares
position data with a high resolution map database to determine the
vehicle location within the lane. An optical sensor system uses a
forward looking or downward looking optical sensor with image
processing algorithms to determine where the lane edge lines are
located. If the turn signal is activated, the LDW system computer
software algorithm considers the driver to be purposefully crossing the
lane boundary marker, and no alert is issued. LDW system performance
may be adversely affected by precipitation (e.g., rain, snow, fog) and
roadway conditions with construction zones, unmarked intersections, and
faded, worn, or missing lane markings.
LDW systems are designed to help prevent crashes resulting from a
vehicle unintentionally drifting out of its travel lane. For the light
passenger-vehicle crashes considered over the period 2002-2006, the
Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies (ACAT) program performed around
15,000 simulations in order to set up the underlying virtual crash
population; by optimizing driving scenario weights it was possible to
produce a reasonable degree of fit to the actual (GES coded) crash
population. ACAT estimated that a baseline set of 180,900 crashes
annually in the United States could be reduced to about 121,600 with
LDW in place, so that around 59,300 crashes might be prevented.\259\
AAA reported that LDW systems activate when vehicle speeds are above 40
to 45 mph (64 to 72 km/h).\260\ NHTSA crash data from the period 2004
to 2013 indicate that a lane departure maneuver was a precursor to
approximately 40 percent of the fatal crashes involving a single
vehicle.\261\ NHTSA determined that a vehicle departed its lane as
characterized by the database annotation of the relation to roadway as
Off Roadway, Shoulder, or Median.\262\ The agency believes additional
benefits from LDW technology may contribute to the possible reduction
in the number of head-on collisions.263 264
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ DOT HS 811 405, Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies
(ACAT) Program--Final Report of the Volvo[hyphen]Ford[hyphen]UMTRI
Project: Safety Impact Methodology for Lane Departure Warning--
Method Development and Estimation of Benefits, October 2010.
Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/811405.pdf.
\260\ AAA Status Report, Vol. 44, No. 10. November 18, 2009.
\261\ FARS and GES.
\262\ Ibid.
\263\ www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Public%20Paper/SAE/2006/Barickman_LaneDepartuerWarning_final.pdf.
\264\ IIHS, Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 5. May 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIHS similarly estimated in a 2010 report that LDW systems
could prevent as many as 7,500 fatal crashes, noting that while crashes
in which vehicles drift off the road have a low incidence rate, they
account for a large proportion of fatal crashes.\265\ In addition to
the numbers NHTSA used in the 2008 NCAP upgrade notice,\266\ the
Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) estimates that LDW could apply in
approximately 3 percent of police-reported crashes.\267\ Three percent
of the 2013 NHTSA estimated 5,687,000 police-reported crashes equates
to 170,610 crashes that could potentially be reduced or mitigated with
LDW crash avoidance technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ Lund, A. Drivers and Driver Assistance Systems: How well
do they match? 2013 Driving Assessment Conference, Lake George, NY.
June 18, 2013.
\266\ LDW effectiveness of 6-11 percent was estimated from data
included in NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 810 854, Evaluation of a Road
Departure Crash Warning System, December 2007.
\267\ IIHS Status Report, Vol. 47, No. 5. Special Issue: Crash
Avoidance. July 3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA monitors and analyses the interaction and accumulation of
vehicle alerts directed at drivers. Based on recently published
technical papers describing consumer acceptance or preference of alert
modality, the agency is aware that some drivers choose to disable the
LDW system if they experience numerous alerts, thereby diminishing any
safety benefit.\268\ Additionally, the agency is concerned that
multiple and overlapping alerts may create confusion for the driver
regarding which safety system is being activated or engaged. Rather
than require a specific alert modality for the LDW crash avoidance
technology, the agency intends to re-define the LDW performance
criteria such that the LDW alert may not occur when the lateral
position of the vehicle is greater than +1.0 ft (+0.30 m) from the lane
line edge to pass the planned NCAP test procedure. NHTSA would not
consider the intensity of the haptic or the feedback delivery component
(e.g., steering wheel or seat haptic) in determining whether or not a
vehicle received credit for LDW in NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of LDW technology has evolved into lane keeping support
(LKS) systems that actively guide the vehicle within the lane by
counter steering. In the NCAP LDW assessment, an LKS steering wheel
movement would be considered an acceptable LDW haptic alert.
The agency is also concerned about false activations and missed
detections resulting from tar lines reflecting sun light or covered
with water and other unforeseen anomalies, which would result in an
unreliable driver warning. However, the LDW test procedure is not
[[Page 78559]]
currently structured to address these concerns. Comments are requested
on these issues.
LDW systems, as NHTSA currently defines them, only focus on lane
departures while the vehicle is traveling along a straight line and
does not account for technologies that look at curve speed warnings
(CSW). CSW alerts the driver when he or she is traveling too fast for
an upcoming curve. NHTSA crash data indicates off-roadway crashes occur
substantially more often than crashes departing from the shoulder and
median combined. NHTSA believes LDW has the potential to provide the
driver with the vital sliver of time for rapid decision-making
necessary to adjust and correct the vehicle direction prior to a road
departure situation developing.
The agency intends to continue to use the current NCAP test
procedure titled NCAP Lane Departure Warning and LKS Test Procedure for
NCAP,\269\ and requests comment on whether to revise certain aspects of
the test procedures. The LDW test procedure provides the specifications
for confirming the existence of LDW hardware. Specifically, it tests
for the ability to detect lane presence, an unintended lane departure,
LDW engagement, and LDW disengagement. The NCAP LDW tests are conducted
at a constant test speed of 45 mph (72 km/h), in two different
departure directions, left and right, using three different styles of
roadway markings, continuous white lines, discontinuous yellow lines,
and discontinuous raised pavement markers. Test track conditions are
defined as a dry, uniform, solid-paved surface with high contrast line
markings defining a single roadway lane edge. Each test series is
repeated until five (5) valid tests are produced. LDW performance is
evaluated by examining the proximity of the vehicle with respect to the
edge of a lane line at the time of the LDW alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ Available at www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/NCAP+Test+Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each test trial measures whether the LDW issues an appropriate
alert during the maneuver in order to determine a pass or fail. In the
context of this test procedure, a lane departure is said to occur when
any part of the two dimensional polygon used to represent the test
vehicle breaches the inboard lane line edge. The agency requests
comments on whether a valid trial is considered a failure if the
distance between the inside edge of the polygon to the lane line at the
time of the LDW warning is outside -1.0 to +1.0 ft (-0.30 to +0.30 m),
where a negative number represents post-line position, or if no warning
is issued. This is a change from the current NCAP test procedure which
specifies -1.0 to +2.5 ft (-0.30 to +0.75 m). The LDW system must
satisfy the pass criteria for 3 of 5 individual trials for each
combination of departure direction and lane line type (60%), and pass
20 of the 30 trials overall (66%). If more than five trials are deemed
valid, the pass/fail criteria must be met for three of the first five
valid trials. If LDW is offered as an optional safety system, the
vehicle model would receive half credit for this system. If LDW is
offered as standard safety system, the vehicle model would receive full
credit for the system. Comments are requested on whether the agency
should only award NCAP credit to LDW systems with haptic alerts.
b. Rollover Resistance
Rollover crashes are complex events that reflect the interaction of
driver, road, vehicle, and environmental factors. The term ``rollover''
describes the condition of at least a 90-degree rotation about the
longitudinal axis of a vehicle,\270\ regardless of whether the vehicle
ends up laying on its side, roof, or even returning upright on all four
wheels. Rollovers occur in a multitude of ways. The risk of rollover is
greater for vehicles designed with a high center of gravity in relation
to the track width. Driver behavior and road conditions are significant
factors in rollover crash events. Specifically, the factors that
strongly relate to rollover fatalities are: If it was a single-vehicle
crash, if it was a rural crash location, if it was a high-speed
roadway, if it occurred at night, if there was an off-road tripping/
tipping mechanism, if it was a young driver, if the driver was male, if
it was alcohol-related, if it was speed-related, if there was an
unbelted occupant, and if an occupant was ejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ ``Rating System for Rollover Resistance, An Assessment,''
Transportation Research Board Special Report 265, National Research
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Background
Rollover is one of the most severe crash types for light vehicles.
In 2012, 112,000 rollovers occurred as the first harmful event,
measuring 2 percent of the 5,615,000 police-reported crashes involving
all types of motor vehicles. In 2012, single, light-vehicle rollovers
accounted for 6,763 occupant deaths. This represented 20 percent of
motor vehicle fatalities in 2012, 31 percent of people who died in
light-vehicle crashes, and 46 percent of people who died in light-
vehicle single-vehicle crashes.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ DOT HS 812 016, available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA describes rollovers as ``tripped'' or ``untripped.'' In a
tripped rollover, the vehicle rolls over after leaving the roadway due
to striking a curb, soft shoulder, guard rail or other object that
``trips'' it. Crash data suggest approximately 95 percent of rollovers
in single-vehicle crashes are tripped.\272\ A small percentage of
rollover events are untripped, typically induced by tire and/or road
interface friction. Whether or not a vehicle rolls when it encounters a
tripping mechanism is highly dependent upon the ratio of two vehicle
geometric properties, referred to as the Static Stability Factor (SSF).
The SSF of a vehicle is calculated as one-half the track width, t,
divided by the height of the center of gravity (c.g.) above the road,
h; SSF = (t/2h). The inertial force that causes a vehicle to sway on
its suspension (and roll over in extreme cases) in response to
cornering, rapid steering reversals or striking a tripping mechanism,
like a curb or the soft shoulder of the road, when the vehicle is
sliding laterally, may be thought of as a force acting at the c.g. to
pull the vehicle body laterally. A reduction in c.g. height increases
the lateral inertial force necessary to cause rollover by reducing its
leverage, and this is represented by an increase in the computed value
of SSF. A wider track width also increases the lateral force necessary
to cause rollover by increasing the leverage of the vehicle's weight in
resisting rollover, and that advantage also increases the computed
value of SSF. The factor of two in the computation (t/2h) makes SSF
equal to the lateral acceleration at which rollover begins in the most
simplified rollover analysis of a vehicle, which is represented by a
rigid body without suspension movement or tire deflections.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ See 68 FR 59251. Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9663, Notice 3.
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/03-25360.
\273\ For further explanation see the description and Figure 1
at www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/Rollover/Chapt05.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, the agency decided to use SSF to indicate rollover risk in
a single-vehicle crash.\274\ Additionally, in that notice, the agency
introduced the rollover resistance rating as a means to quantify the
risk of a rollover if a single-vehicle crash occurs. The agency
emphasizes that this rating does not predict the likelihood of a
rollover crash
[[Page 78560]]
occurring only that of a rollover occurring given that a single vehicle
crash occurs. In this rating system, the lowest rated vehicles (1 star)
are at least 4 times more likely to rollover than the highest rated
vehicles (5 stars).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ See 66 FR 3388. Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8298. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/01-973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rollover rating that was included as part of NCAP was based on
a regression analysis that estimated the relationship between single-
vehicle rollover crashes and the vehicles' SSF using state crash data.
The SSF is measured at a Vehicle Inertial Measurement Facility
(VIMF).\275\ NHTSA acquires vehicles and measures the height of the
vehicle c.g. The VIMF consistently measures the c.g. height location of
a particular vehicle using the stable pendulum configuration. The test
facility must be capable of measuring the c.g. height location to
within 0.5 percent of the theoretical height, typically the 3-
dimensional computer generated solid model value of that vehicle. The
track width is also measured on the same vehicle at this time. The risk
of rollover originally calculated for the 2001 notice was based on a
linear regression analysis of 220,000 single-vehicle crash events
reported by 8 States (Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ ``The design of a Vehicle Inertial Measurement Facility,''
Heydinger, G. J. et al, SAE Paper 950309, February, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the FY 2001 DOT Appropriations Act, NHTSA funded a
National Academy of Science (NAS) study on vehicle rollover resistance
ratings.\276\ The study focused on two topics: Whether the SSF is a
scientifically valid measurement that presents practical, useful
information to the public, and a comparison of the SSF versus a test
with rollover metrics based on dynamic driving conditions that may
include rollover events. NAS published their report at the end of
February 2002.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2001. Public Law 106-346 (Oct. 23, 2000).
\277\ ``Rating System for Rollover Resistance, An Assessment,''
Transportation Research Board Special Report 265, National Research
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAS study found that SSF is a scientifically valid measure of
rollover resistance for which the underlying physics and real-word
crash data are consistent with the conclusions that an increase in SSF
reduces the likelihood of rollover. It also found that dynamic tests
should complement static measures, such as SSF, rather than replace
them in consumer information on rollover resistance. The NAS study also
made recommendations concerning the statistical analysis of rollover
risk and the representation of ratings methodology. The two primary
recommendations suggested using logistic regression rather than linear
regression for analysis of the relationship between rollover and SSF,
and a high-resolution representation of the relationship between
rollover and SSF than is provided in the current 5-star program.
On October 14, 2003, NHTSA published a final policy statement
outlining its changes to the NCAP rollover resistance rating.\278\
Beginning with the 2004 model year, NHTSA combined a vehicle's SSF
measurement with its performance in a dynamic ``fishhook'' test
maneuver presented as a single rating. The fishhook maneuver is
performed on a smooth pavement and is a rapid steering input followed
by an over-correction representative of a general loss-of-control
situation. This action attempts to simulate steering maneuvers that a
driver acting in panic might use in an effort to regain lane position
after dropping two wheels off the roadway onto the shoulder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ See 68 FR 59250. Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9663, Notice 3.
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/03-25360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the predicted rollover resistance ratings were
reevaluated. Consistent with the NAS recommendations, the agency
changed from a linear regression to a logistic regression analysis of
the data. The sample size increased to 293,000 single-vehicle crash
events, producing a narrow confidence interval on the repeatability of
the relationship between SSF and rollover. In contrast, the linear
regression analysis performed on the rollover rate of 100 make/models
in each of the six States providing data, resulted in a sample size of
600. In addition, a second risk curve was generated for vehicles that
experienced a tip-up in the dynamic fishhook test.
ii. Updates to the Rollover NCAP SSF Risk Curve
Commenters to NHTSA's 2008 NCAP upgrade notice asked NHTSA to
collect crash data on vehicles equipped with ESC in order to develop a
new rollover risk model. In July 2008, the agency upgraded the NCAP
program to combine the rollover rating with the frontal and side crash
ratings, creating a single, overall vehicle rating.\279\ No changes
were made to the risk model at that time.\280\ However, NHTSA received
comments requesting that the agency collect this crash data to develop
a new rollover risk model that better describes the rollover risk of
all vehicles that reflects the real-world benefits of ESC.\281\ To
enhance its rollover program, the agency responded that they would
continue to monitor the rollover rate for single-vehicle crashes
involving ESC equipped vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ See 73 FR 40021. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
\280\ See 73 FR 40032. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E8-15620.
\281\ See 72 FR 3475. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E7-1130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accumulation of crash data involving vehicles equipped with ESC
has been slow. The 2003 regression analysis was based on 293,000 crash
events. Up until recently, the agency had observed fewer than 10,000
crashes with ESC-equipped vehicles. Previously, NHTSA was not confident
that it could accurately redraw the risk curves using such a small
sample size. The agency now believes that it has accumulated enough
data to see a narrower tolerance band adequate for use in a rating
system.
According to the 2013 FARS, 7,500 vehicle occupants were killed in
light-vehicle rollovers.\282\ These 2013 rollovers accounted for 34.6
percent of the 21,667 fatalities in light vehicles that year. Of these
7,500 fatalities, 6,254 were killed in single-vehicle rollovers. NCAP
provides a consumer information rating program articulating the risk of
rollover, to encourage consumers to purchase vehicles with a predicted
lower risk of a rollover. This information enables prospective
purchasers to make choices about new vehicles based on differences in
rollover risk and serve as a market incentive to manufacturers to
design their vehicles with greater rollover resistance. The consumer
information program also informs drivers, especially those who choose
vehicles with poorer rollover resistance, that their risk of harm can
be greatly reduced with seat belt use to avoid ejection. The program
seeks to remind consumers that even the highest rated vehicle can roll
over, but that they can reduce their chance of being killed in a
rollover by about 75 percent just by wearing their seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ Traffic Safety Facts 2012. DOT HS 812 032 available at
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812032.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA intends to update and recalculate the risk curve using ESC
data collected from 20 States, and to transition the rollover risk
rating into a new crash avoidance rating. In this new rollover scoring,
NHTSA would not be changing the dynamic rollover test. The agency
believes that embedding rollover into the crash avoidance rating is
more appropriate since it targets rollover
[[Page 78561]]
prevention and it also consolidates the message of reduced crash
incidence. Rollover resistance would remain a significant component in
the rating scheme, weighted based on its relative importance to overall
vehicle safety. The details of how the crashworthiness rating is
combined with the crash avoidance rating into an overall rating system
are discussed in the rating section of this RFC notice.
The statistical model created in 2003 combined SSF and dynamic
maneuver test information to predict rollover risk. The agency
performed the Fishhook test on about 25 of the 100 make/model vehicles
for which SSF was measured and substantial State crash data was
available.\283\ Eleven of the 25 vehicles tipped up \284\ in the
Fishhook maneuver that was conducted in the heavy condition with a 5-
occupant load. All 11 vehicles had SSFs less than 1.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ An Experimental Examination of 26 Light Vehicles Using
Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped Light Vehicle
Rollover--Phase VI of NHTSA's Light Vehicle Rollover Research
Program, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 547, 2003.
\284\ A ``tip-up'' occurs when the two vehicle wheels lift off
the ground 2 inches during the Fishhook test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At that time, the agency believed it was very unlikely that
passenger cars would tip-up in the maneuver test because no tip-ups
were observed in the passenger cars tested at the low end of the SSF
range for passenger cars. To validate that assumption, the agency
tested a few passenger cars each year at the low end of the SSF range.
No tip-ups have been observed in the agency tests for any vehicle type
since 2007. Therefore, the agency is unable to produce an estimate or a
logistic regression curve based on tip/no-tip as a variable.
The rollover statistical model was populated with new data and used
logistic regression analysis to update the rollover risk curve. The
agency examined 20 State datasets for single-vehicle crashes involving
vehicles equipped with ESC that occurred during 2011 and 2012. Data
were reported by Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The dataset was comprised of 11,647
single-vehicle crashes, of which 627 resulted in rollover. For 2011,
NHTSA used data reported by each of the 20 States for single-vehicle
crashes involving ESC-equipped vehicles; a summation of 5,429 crashes.
For 2012, NHTSA used data reported by 10 States for single-vehicle
crashes involving ESC-equipped vehicles; 6,218 crashes. Table 8 shows a
summary of the 2011 and 2012 State dataset used for the logistic
regression analysis.
Table 8--Summary of 2011 and 2012 State Data Used To Generate the Rollover Risk Curve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012
State -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-rollover Rollover Total Non-rollover Rollover Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE...................................................... 29 2 31 88 2 90
FL...................................................... 624 26 650 No data No data No data
IA...................................................... 123 12 135 237 22 259
IL...................................................... 319 19 338 No data No data No data
IN...................................................... 283 0 283 723 17 740
KS...................................................... 92 2 94 266 7 273
KY...................................................... 211 17 228 464 50 514
MD...................................................... 133 14 147 310 31 341
MI...................................................... 619 34 653 1,344 74 1,418
MO...................................................... 204 22 226 No data No data No data
NC...................................................... 407 43 450 1,028 87 1,115
ND...................................................... 17 4 21 No data No data No data
NE...................................................... 67 4 71 213 13 226
NJ...................................................... 503 18 521 1,199 43 1,242
NM...................................................... 55 3 58 No data No data No data
NY...................................................... 793 4 797 No data No data No data
PA...................................................... 383 39 422 No data No data No data
WA...................................................... 73 8 81 No data No data No data
WI...................................................... 203 9 212 No data No data No data
WY...................................................... 10 1 11 No data No data No data
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 5,148 281 5,429 5,872 346 6,218
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new dataset included 197 different makes/models for which the
SSF had been calculated within NCAP; the SSF ranged from 1.07 to 1.53.
The new dataset contained two vehicle types, passenger cars and light
truck vehicles, including pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans. To accomplish
the rollover analysis, it is more appropriate to use the state dataset
because it provides the ability to filter for ESC-equipped vehicles
rather than the NHTSA FARS database, which is not sufficiently
granular. FARS contains two data elements; rollover and rollover
location. The rollover data element has attributes of no rollover,
tripped rollover, untripped rollover, and unknown type rollover. The
rollover location data element has attributes of no rollover, on
roadway, on shoulder, on median/separator, in gore, on roadside,
outside of trafficway, in parking lane/zone, and unknown. The State
dataset distribution compares similarly to the FARS number of vehicles
involved in fatal crashes with a rollover occurrence. Table 9
summarizes the 2011 and 2012 rollover data for the number of single-
vehicle crashes for ESC-equipped vehicles by vehicle type. For
comparison, Table 10 summarizes the number of vehicles involved in
fatal crashes with a rollover occurrence by vehicle type, as reported
in FARS. In the new rollover model dataset, pickup trucks appear to be
slightly underrepresented and SUVs appear to be slightly
overrepresented compared with the FARS data.
[[Page 78562]]
Table 9--Summary of 2011 and 2012 State Data Used To Generate the Rollover Risk Curve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-vehicle crashes (ESC-equipped vehicles) Proportion, by
Vehicle type ------------------------------------------------ Number of vehicle type
2011 2012 Total rollovers (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car................... 2,803 3,280 6,083 262 42
Pickup.......................... 636 768 1,404 92 15
SUV............................. 1,823 1,931 3,754 259 41
Van............................. 167 239 406 14 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 5,429 6,218 11,647 627 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Data System.
Table 10--Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes With a Rollover Occurrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2011 + 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type Vehicles Vehicles Proportion,
involved in Rollover involved in Number of Number of by vehicle
fatal crashes occurrence fatal crashes rollovers rollovers type (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car........................................... 17,508 2,680 18,269 2,827 5,507 38
Pickup.................................................. 7,790 2,050 8,001 2,117 4,167 28
SUV..................................................... 6,787 2,128 7,118 2,170 4,298 29
Van..................................................... 2,187 365 2,173 316 681 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 34,272 7,223 35,561 7,430 14,653 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS.
The agency performed a logistic regression analysis of the 11,647
single-vehicle crash events. The dependent variable in this analysis is
vehicle rollover, while the independent variables are SSF, light
condition, driver age, driver gender, and the State indicator variable.
The SAS[supreg] logistic regression program used these variables to
compute the model. The SAS[supreg] statistical analysis software output
tables are available in the docket for this RFC notice. Figure 4 shows
a plot of the predicted rollover probability versus the SSF for the 20-
State dataset. Figure 5 is a plot of the average predicted probability
of rollover for each SSF in the dataset. Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate
the relationship between SSF and the predicted probability of rollover,
that at every level of SSF the predicted probability of rollover is
less than it was estimated to be in 2003. The flatter curve for the
2011 + 2012 dataset aligns with increased vehicle SSFs, the expected
effect of ESC on rollover frequency, and the reduced observation of
rollover in single-vehicle crashes.
[[Page 78563]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.041
A statistical risk model is not currently possible for untripped
rollover crashes because they are relatively rare events and they
cannot be reliably identified in the State crash reports. The method
applied earlier, using test track data, did not work, because vehicles
do not routinely tip-up in testing. NHTSA intends to continue to use
the current SSF-based approach to rate resistance to tripped rollovers
in this NCAP upgrade. Field data collected over the past 10 years shows
95 to 97 percent of the rollovers are tripped. The agency has no data
that suggests this will change.
The agency has worked for decades to reduce the number of rollovers
and the resulting injuries and fatalities. Three safety standards
related to rollover have
[[Page 78564]]
been promulgated or amended. These are: FMVSS No. 126, ``Electronic
stability control,'' FMVSS No. 216, ``Roof crush resistance,'' and
FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.'' 285 286 287
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 72 FR 17236. Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27662. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/07-1649.
\286\ 74 FR 22348. Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/E9-10431.
\287\ 76 FR 3212. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0004. Available at
https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-547 corrected 76 FR 10524.
Available at https://federalregister.gov/aC1-2011-547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress funded NHTSA's rollover NCAP program and directed the
agency to enhance the program under section 12 of the Transportation
Recall, Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act of
November 2000.\288\ In response to this mandate, NHTSA created a
dynamic maneuver known as the Fishhook test, a double steering
maneuver, conducted at speeds of up to 50 mph. The maneuver is
performed with an automated steering controller, and the reverse steer
of the Fishhook maneuver would be timed to coincide with the maximum
roll angle to create an objective ``worst case'' for all vehicles
regardless of differences in resonant roll frequency, which is the
vehicle's natural roll response. This NCAP driving maneuver test
represents an on-road untripped rollover crash, which represents less
than 5 percent of rollover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Public Law 106-414, November 1, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rollover resistance test matrix consists of a static
measurement and a dynamic maneuver test. NHTSA intends to continue to
use the same two tests it is using to determine the current rollover
resistance NCAP rating. First, the SSF is measured statically in a
laboratory, using the VIMF. The movement of the table predicts the
height of the center of gravity. The track width of the vehicle is
measured, and the SSF is accurately calculated. NHTSA believes that
including the average SSF in the NCAP crash avoidance rating, and
making the SSF available to consumers would lead to an improved fleet
average SSF. Analysis of the first 10 years of NCAP make-model data
shows the average SSF for SUVs improved from 1.17 to 1.21.\289\ This
correlates to an average reduction in the risk of rollover in a single-
vehicle crash for SUVs of 11.8 percent. Similarly for passenger cars,
the average SSF remained the same at 1.41. With a c.g. lower than SUVs,
passenger cars have better SSFs. The second test uses the Fishhook test
on a large test area, attempting to tip up the vehicle. These two tests
combined provide the risk of rollover, and the current Monroney safety
label rollover resistance star rating.\290\ Vehicles with a higher
c.g., such as an SUV, van or pickup truck typically have a higher
rollover propensity than a passenger car with a lower c.g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ NHTSA internal research analysis.
\290\ The Monroney label on each new vehicle offered for sale in
the United States displays a safety star rating for expected
rollover performance based on the predicted rollover rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially, five levels of risk were defined based on dividing the
linear regression curve into 5 bands, representing the 1- through 5-
star bands, similar to the rating system for the current NCAP
crashworthiness ratings. The 1-star rating corresponds to a risk of
greater than 40-percent chance of rollover in a single-vehicle crash.
The 5-star rating represents a less than 10-percent risk of rollover in
a single-vehicle crash. Currently, the predicted rollover rate
translates to an NCAP star rating such that 1 star is awarded for a
rollover rate greater than 40 percent; 2 stars, greater than 30 percent
and less than 40 percent; 3 stars, greater than 20 percent and less
than 30 percent; 4 stars, greater than 10 percent and less than 20
percent; 5 stars, less than or equal to 10 percent. This approach
achieved NHTSA's goal of presenting risk-based ratings. With a flatter
rollover risk curve, defining the star bands is less obvious and more
challenging. As expected, vehicles equipped with ESC have a much
smaller predicted rollover probability, including vehicles with low
SSFs. The range of the average predicted probability of vehicle
rollover for ESC-equipped vehicles is significantly smaller than the
current range. The agency intends to shift the star bands for a
rollover risk curve of ESC-equipped vehicles such that 1 star would be
awarded for a rollover rate greater than 0.08 percent (or SSF <= 1.07);
stars, greater than 0.06 percent and less than 0.08 percent (or 1.07 <=
SSF 1.15); 3 stars, greater than 0.04 percent and less than 0.06
percent (or 1.15 <= SSF 1.32); 4 stars, greater than 0.030 percent and
less than 0.04 percent (or 1.32 <= SSF > 1.50); 5 stars, less than
0.030 (or SSF > 1.50). Comments are requested on these adjusted
rollover star bands.
In this upgrade of NCAP crash avoidance rating, NHTSA intends to
calculate the contribution of rollover resistance as a proportion of
the maximum number of points awarded for rollover resistance. The
credit for rollover resistance would be the number of stars earned
based on the SSF divided by five, and then multiplied by the rollover
resistance rating point value.
c. Blind Spot Detection (BSD)
NHTSA intends to include BSD in its crash avoidance rating for this
NCAP upgrade. BSD systems use digital camera imaging technology or
radar sensor technology to detect one or more vehicles in either of the
adjacent lanes that may not be apparent to the driver. The system warns
the driver of an approaching vehicle's presence to help facilitate safe
lane changes. If the blind spot warnings are ignored, some systems
include enhanced capability to intervene by applying brakes or
adjusting steering to guide the vehicle back into the unobstructed
lane. However, NHTSA does not plan to rate the system's capability to
initiate automatic avoidance maneuvers in its NCAP rating at this time.
The BSD system processes the sensor information and presents
visual, audible, and/or haptic warnings to the driver. A visual alert
is usually an indicator in the side mirror glass, inside edge of the
mirror housing, or on the A-pillar inside the car. If enabled, the
manner in which the light is illuminated often depends on the driving
situation. When another vehicle is present in an adjacent lane, and
within the driver's blind spot, systems will typically illuminate the
warning light continuously. When the driver activates the turn signal
in the direction of the adjacent vehicle, the warning light will often
flash. Some systems will also present an audible or haptic alert
coincident with the flashing light.
As stated in NHTSA's ``Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking
and Research Priority Plan, 2011 to 2013,'' the agency examined the
potential of sensors and mirrors to detect vehicles in blind spots to
assist in lane changing maneuvers.\291\ Using data from GES during the
period 2003-2007, a target population for which blind spot detection
technology would apply is estimated to be an average of 96,100 crashes
annually, resulting in approximately 4,700 injuries per year and 146
fatalities per year.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/2011-2013_Vehicle_Safety-Fuel_Economy_Rulemaking-Research_Priority_Plan.pdf.
\292\ NHTSA internal research analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anecdotal evidence from IIHS and AAA indicates that BSD systems
have the potential to provide safety benefits and appear to be most
effective when the equipped vehicle is passing, being passed, or
preparing to make a lane change.\293\ Lane change maneuvers may be
planned or unplanned by drivers,
[[Page 78565]]
and they may or may not involve use of the turn signal. Market research
indicates that BSD systems consistently rate high or desirable in
consumer interest surveys among various safety systems.\294\ However,
reduced crash rates are not easily isolated to blind spot detection
technology specifically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ AAA Automotive Engineering, Evaluation of Blind Spot
Monitoring and Blind Spot Intervention Technologies, 2014.
\294\ DOT HS 811 516, Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems
(IVBSS) Light Vehicle Field Operational Test Independent Evaluation,
October 2011; and J.D. Power's 2015 Tech Choice Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A May 2010 study funded by IIHS estimated that outside rearview
mirror assist systems could prevent 395,000 vehicle crashes annually,
potentially avoiding 20,000 injuries and 393 fatalities.\295\ IIHS
determined that 2011 crash data suggests 350,000 single- and two-
vehicle crashes involved vehicles merging or changing lanes, which
resulted in 665 fatal crashes and 59,000 injury causing crashes. The
Bosch crash causation study, based on 2011 data from the NHTSA NASS
database, indicated that five percent of all collisions with injuries
and fatalities occurred between vehicles travelling in the same
direction.\296\ Bosch concluded that a significant portion of these
collisions are attributable to drivers not being aware of other
vehicles in their vicinity at the time of a lane change maneuver. Bosch
determined that this accounted for over 77,000 collisions per year in
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ IIHS Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 5, May 20, 2010.
\296\ Comment submitted by Robert Bosch, LLC, at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA research suggests the benefits of BSD systems may be smaller
than the industry studies cited; however, consensus is building that
drivers may benefit from BSD systems that offer the potential to reduce
crash rates, and by extension, reduce injuries and fatalities in lane
change related crash scenarios. NHTSA used simulation to estimate blind
spot detection effectiveness for a generic sensor and found it to be
between 42 percent and 65 percent, indicating prevention of 40,000 to
62,000 crashes, 2,000 to 3,000 injuries, and 61 to 95 fatalities.\297\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ NHTSA internal research simulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAA reported that BSD systems they tested worked well, however,
they cautioned that these systems are not a substitute for an engaged
driver and BSD system performance can vary greatly. The agency
recognizes that differences in the detection capabilities and operating
conditions will likely exist among the currently available BSD systems.
For instance, one manufacturer may describe their system's capabilities
as demonstrating designed performance for higher speed lane change
events, whereas another manufacturer may emphasize its system's
augmentation of the driver's visual awareness rather than a level of
effectiveness for preventing crashes. The agency anticipates a wide
range of NCAP test results initially, due in part to the competing OEM
perspectives as well as the establishment of performance criteria in
this RFC notice.
The agency intends to use the draft BSD test procedure included in
Appendix VIII to assess vehicles for this NCAP upgrade. The agency
seeks comment on these procedures. Each NCAP vehicle equipped with a
BSD system would be subjected to three performance tests to determine
whether the system displays the warning when other vehicles are in a
driver's blind zone, independent of activation of the vehicle's turn
signal. Because weather and environmental conditions (e.g., snow, rain,
and fog) can disrupt radar signals and digital camera images, the NCAP
tests would be conducted under dry conditions with the ambient
temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and below 90 [deg]F (32
[deg]C). Similarly, the NCAP test conditions would minimize shadows and
sunlight at sunrise and sunset in an effort to reduce false-positive
alerts. The NCAP blind spot detection tests are designed to detect
vehicles only, not motorcycles, pedalcycles, humans, or animals.
Comments are requested on whether the NCAP test should include
detection of motorcycles.
NCAP would test vehicles equipped with BSD systems under three
driving scenarios; straight-lane, POV pass-by, POV and Secondary Other
Vehicle (SOV) pass-by. The POV and SOV configurations would be mid-size
sedans. The straight-lane scenario is very relevant to blind spot
detection testing as it is the scenario that is most likely to be
encountered in every day driving.\298\ In the straight-lane test, both
the SV and POV are driven in separate but parallel lanes with the POV
driven longitudinally past the SV. In every NCAP blind spot detection
test, the SV would be driven at a constant speed of 45 mph. For the
straight-lane scenario, the POV would be driven at increased speeds of
5, 10 and 15 mph above the SV, as well as at the same speed to test for
false-positives. This test mirrors the ISO 17387 standard test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ DOT HS 812 045, July 2014. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2014/812045_Blind-Spot-Monitoring-in-Light-Vehicles-System-Performance.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second scenario, the POV pass-by scenario, is another scenario
likely to be encountered in every day driving situations for vehicles
travelling at highway speeds. The objective of the POV pass-by test is
to determine if the system identifies a POV making a combined lane
change and pass-by. The third scenario, the POV and SOV pass-by
scenario, is similar to the straight-lane scenario but with the use of
a third vehicle. The objective of the POV and SOV pass-by test is to
determine if both the left and the right blind spot detection sensors
activate simultaneously and to determine if there is any interaction
when activating a turn signal on only one side of the SV while both
sensors may be indicating alerts.
Each BSD system test would be performed once, unless there are any
invalid test parameters or a failure then the test would be repeated.
Two consecutive failures results in a BSD system fail. The left and
right sides of the SV would be tested for the straight-lane and POV
pass-by scenarios, with the SV turn signal activated for one trial and
off for the other trial. The BSD system must detect the POV in both
trials. For the POV and SOV pass-by scenario, the SV turn signals would
not be activated.
4. Future Technologies
Several advanced technologies that are good candidates for this
consumer information program are in various stages of development but
are not ready at this time. For example, intersection movement assist
(IMA), lane keeping support (LKS) systems, automatic collision
notification (ACN)/advanced automatic collision notification (AACN)
systems, distraction guidelines, and driver alcohol detection system
for safety (DADSS). These technologies are briefly described below.
NHTSA is researching these technologies and requests comment on them to
aid this research.
IMA is a prototype crash avoidance technology that relies on
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. Rather than relying on
sensors, radar, or cameras, IMA uses on-board dedicated short-range
radio communication devices to transmit messages about a vehicle's
speed, heading, brake status, and other information to other vehicles
capable of receiving those messages and translating them into alerts
and warnings, which the driver can then respond to in order to avoid a
crash. Current IMA prototype designs may be able to warn drivers about
5 types of junction-crossing crashes which collectively represent 26
percent of all crashes occurring in the crash
[[Page 78566]]
population and 23 percent of comprehensive costs.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ DOT HS 812 014, August 2014. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/V2V/Readiness-of-V2V-Technology-for-Application-812014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LKS systems are extensions of the current lane departure warning
systems that actively guide the vehicle within the lane. LKS, also
known as lane centering, gently provides corrective guidance of the
vehicle, without overpowering the driver's control of the vehicle.
AACN systems notify a public safety answering point (9-1-1), either
directly or through a third party, of a crash when that crash reaches a
minimum severity (e.g., air bag deployment). In addition to providing
response personnel an earlier notification of the crash, the AACN
system will transmit information regarding the location of the crash.
These systems also have the capability to predict the severity of the
crash and can indicate when there is a high probability of severe
injury. This injury severity prediction could be used by emergency
personnel to change how they respond to a crash and what type of
hospital to take the patient to (e.g., community hospital versus level
I trauma center).
In April 2010, NHTSA released an overview of the agency's Driver
Distraction Program,\300\ which summarized steps that the agency
intends to take to help in its long-term goal of eliminating a specific
category of crashes attributable to driver distraction. Phase 1 of the
NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines was developed for original
equipment in-vehicle interfaces that allow the driver to perform
secondary tasks through visual-manual means.\301\ The Guidelines
specify criteria and a test method for assessing whether a secondary
task performed using an in-vehicle device may be acceptable in terms of
the distraction performance metrics while driving. The Guidelines
identify secondary tasks that interfere excessively with a driver's
ability to safely control their vehicle and to categorize those tasks
as ones that are not acceptable for performance by the driver while
driving. Phases 2 and 3 of the Driver Distraction Guidelines are under
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053-0001.
\301\ See 78 FR 24818, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053-0135.
Available at https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-09883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DADSS program is a collaborative research partnership between
industry and NHTSA to assess and develop alcohol-detection technologies
to prevent vehicles from being operated by drivers with a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) that exceeds the legal limit as set by the State.
Through the DADSS research program, the agency intends to explore the
feasibility of, the potential benefits of, and the potential challenges
associated with a more widespread use of in-vehicle technology to
prevent alcohol-impaired driving.
E. Pedestrian Crash Avoidance Systems
New vehicle technologies are shifting the automotive safety culture
from a dual focus of helping drivers avoid crashes and protecting
vehicle occupants from the inevitable crashes that would occur to a
triple focused approach with the addition of advanced systems that
enable protecting pedestrians. Accordingly, the agency intends to
increase its focus on advanced technologies that aim to protect not
just vehicle occupants but pedestrians. Two crash avoidance
technologies that the agency intends to include in this NCAP upgrade
and rate their system performance in the pedestrian protection rating
category are discussed below. NHTSA requests comment on these systems,
and their readiness for inclusion in NCAP.
1. Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB)
NHTSA is researching systems that will automatically brake for
pedestrians, in addition to automatically braking for vehicles. PAEB
would provide automatic braking for vehicles when pedestrians are in
the forward path of travel and the driver has taken insufficient action
to avoid an imminent crash. Table 6 shows PAEB systems map to two of
the 32 crash scenarios.
PAEB, like CIB, is a vehicle crash avoidance system that uses
information from forward-looking sensors to automatically apply or
supplement the brakes in certain driving situations in which the system
determines a pedestrian is in imminent danger of being hit by the
vehicle. Many PAEB systems use the same sensors and technologies used
by CIB and DBS; systems designed to help drivers avoid or mitigate the
severity of rear-impact crashes with other vehicles. Like AEB
technology, current PAEB systems typically use vision-cameras as the
enabling sensor technology, however some systems also use a combination
of cameras and radar sensors.
Unlike CIB and DBS, which address rear-impact crash scenarios, many
pedestrian crashes occur when a pedestrian is crossing the street in
front of the vehicle. In these pedestrian crash scenarios, there may
not be enough time to provide the driver with an advanced FCW alert
before the PAEB system must automatically apply the brakes.
NHTSA has conducted research in this area and intends to include
PAEB in this NCAP upgrade. Pedestrians are one of the few groups of
road users to experience an increase (8%) in fatalities in the United
States in 2012, totaling 4,818 deaths that year.\302\ Of these deaths,
3,930 fatalities occurred in frontal crashes (as stated earlier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\302\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2015).
Traffic Safety Facts--Pedestrians (DOT HS 812 124). Available at
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812124.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For AEB systems, detecting a pedestrian and preventing an impact is
more complex than detecting a vehicle. Pedestrians move in all
directions, change directions quickly, wear a variety of clothing
materials with colors that may blend into the background, are a wide
variety of sizes, and may be in an array of positions, from stationary
to lying on the road. Pedestrians' appearances can appear to be more
variable than cars to AEB systems. Additionally, the time to collision
from when a system first detects a pedestrian might be shorter than for
a car because they are moving at slow speeds, may be crossing the road
in front of the car, they are much smaller than a vehicle, and they may
be obscured by cars parked on the side of the road. NHTSA crash data
indicates pedestrians may be anywhere on the roadway, at all times of
the day and night, moving in every possible direction; sometimes
crossing interstate roadways to take short-cuts and at other times
simply crossing in a crosswalk.
NHTSA has completed a substantial amount of research into PAEB and
has collaborated with Volpe, the National Transportation Systems
Center. NHTSA is currently working on research that could eventually
support the inclusion of PAEB into NCAP. This effort includes the
assessment of mannequins (pose-able and/or articulated), PAEB testing
apparatuses and PAEB test procedures. Volpe is currently working on a
new safety benefit analysis for PAEB systems that will include new
estimates for the benefits of PAEB in combination with different safety
systems.
A recent analysis of the physical settings for pre-crash scenarios
and vehicle-pedestrian maneuvers identified trends for these pedestrian
crashes. Four scenarios were identified as the most commonly occurring
situations during pedestrian crashes and are
[[Page 78567]]
recommended to maximize the potential safety benefits of PAEB
systems.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ Barickman and Albrecht, SAE Government Industry Meeting,
2015, ``Pedestrian Crash Avoidance Research Program Update.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four scenarios are (S1) vehicle going straight and pedestrian
crossing the road, (S2) vehicle turning right and pedestrian crossing
the road, (S3) vehicle turning left and pedestrian crossing the road,
and (S4) vehicle going straight and pedestrian walking along/against
traffic. These 4 scenarios addressed 67 percent of the 20 most frequent
conditions involved with intersections, pedestrian location,
crosswalks, and road geometry during 2005 to 2009. Of these four
scenarios, S1 represents 88 percent of the occurrences of the top 20
pedestrian fatality scenarios. These 4 recommended scenarios
encompassed 98 percent of all functional years lost and direct economic
cost of all vehicle-pedestrian crashes in 2005 to 2009.
S1 is the most frequent pre-crash scenario and therefore has the
highest values for the functional years lost and direct economic cost
measures. S2 and S3 address the common turning scenarios observed in
the crash data. Although S2 and S3 scenarios result in less severe
injuries, NHTSA believes PAEB systems include these scenarios to
function effectively. The agency requests comment on current PAEB
system functionality in turning situations, as well as system
capabilities in the future. Scenario S4, pedestrian walking along/
against traffic, has the second highest fatality rate, and would
require PAEB systems to have high-accuracy pedestrian detection at high
travel speeds to address these scenarios.
The typical methods for avoiding a crash are to slow down or stop.
A driver may attempt to steer the vehicle around a pedestrian in some
cases. However, the pedestrian may also be attempting to flee the line
of travel of the vehicle, so steering may create a more hazardous
situation. Braking is the preferred action for avoiding striking a
pedestrian or reducing the possible injury to the pedestrian. (Steering
to avoid the pedestrian may cause another type accident or even steer
toward the moving pedestrian.) Even if the collision is not avoided,
the vehicle speed may be significantly reduced and the pedestrian's
injuries may not be as severe as would have occurred without braking,
particularly with the pedestrian crashworthiness changes to NCAP as
discussed in section V.C of this RFC notice. NHTSA believes the best
automatic system characteristic would be to automatically apply the
brakes in the event of an imminent collision.
For scenario S1, NHTSA has determined that PAEB systems may be
effective at reducing 83 percent of the crashes involving walking
pedestrians that received a MAIS 3+ injury/fatality. NHTSA data from
2009 suggests these safety benefits would be 317 severe injuries or
fatalities avoided annually.\304\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ DOT HS 811 998, ``Target Crashes and Safety Benefits
Estimation Methodology for Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation
Systems,'' April 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, the agency is still refining the pedestrian test
scenarios. With the help of the industry/government collaborative
effort known as Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP), NHTSA has
made significant progress in developing the PAEB performance tests. The
potential test procedure includes a pedestrian in a straight roadway
and the subject vehicle moving in a straight path. The potential test
scenarios captured by this procedure include walking across the road
(S1), walking along the roadway (S4), two different vehicle speeds 10
and 25 mph (16 and 40 km/h), three different mannequin speeds
(stationary, walking, running), two different sized mannequins (child,
adult), and false activations (e.g., curves, hillcrests, light
conditions, erratic pedestrian movement).
NHTSA has used light-weight adult and child pedestrian dummies.
These dummies are both somewhat realistic looking and have radar
reflective properties.
In developing the test procedure, three general apparatus concepts
were identified for transporting the pedestrian mannequins in a test
run. These included two overhead, gantry-style designs and one moving
sled arrangement. Several adaptations of each concept were also
considered. The overhead suspended truss was selected by CAMP to
conduct baseline and validation research. NHTSA is using a ground-based
moving sled arrangement for current PAEB research.
It should be noted that testing in the PAEB program assumes
considerable speed reduction (crash mitigation) or in some cases
complete avoidance maneuver by the production vehicle to accomplish
pedestrian protection. Some PAEB systems have shown avoidance
capabilities at the vehicle test speeds that are being considered. The
intent of the performance tests is to establish realistic scenarios and
to measure vehicle PAEB performance.
2. Rear Automatic Braking
NHTSA has funded studies of motor vehicle advanced technologies
that will help drivers avoid pedestrian impacts. Recently, the agency
established a FMVSS requiring rearview video systems in passenger
vehicles, providing a view of a 10-foot wide by 20-foot long area
behind the vehicle. The agency intends to include rear automatic
braking systems in this NCAP upgrade, which is separate from and in
addition to the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear
visibility,'' for light vehicles manufactured on or after May 1, 2018,
to provide the driver with a rearview image.
NHTSA expects rear visibility systems to have a substantial impact
on the over 200 pedestrians killed each year resulting from backover
crashes. Rear visibility systems meeting the minimum performance
standards of FMVSS No. 111 rely on the driver to view the rearview
image and then act appropriately to avoid a pedestrian crash. The
agency expects that 58 to 69 lives will be saved by rear visibility
systems each year when fully implemented. However, rear visibility
systems will not completely solve the backover crash problem; 141 to
152 lives are expected to be lost each year in backover crashes, even
with rear visibility systems on all new light vehicles. As shown in
Table 6, rear automatic braking could potentially prevent or mitigate a
crash in 7 of the 32 crash scenarios listed.
For NCAP purposes, a rear automatic braking system is defined as a
system that applies the vehicle's brakes, independent of driver action,
in response to the presence of an object in a specified area behind the
vehicle during backing. For NCAP, NHTSA's test procedure would assess
the rear automatic braking systems' ability to detect pedestrians and
brake the vehicle to a stop to avoid a crash. While avoiding slow
moving or stationary objects such as poles and parked vehicles may
provide economic benefits for drivers, NHTSA is focusing on reducing
fatalities and injuries, and therefore on system performance to avoid
crashes with pedestrians.
Information pertaining to the ability of a rear automatic braking
system to aid in avoiding pedestrian crashes may be difficult for an
individual consumer to obtain in a uniform way that can be easily
understood and compared across manufacturers. The NCAP program would
serve as a trusted source for consumers for pedestrian crash avoidance
information.
[[Page 78568]]
Accompanying this RFC notice, the agency is publishing a draft test
procedure that evaluates rear automatic braking systems. Including this
assessment in NCAP would encourage manufacturers to add technology that
would automatically detect and avoid rearward pedestrian crashes. NHTSA
intends to use the test procedure identified in Appendix VIII and
contained in the docket to assess the ability of a rear automatic
braking system to avoid striking pedestrians behind the vehicle by
using a static surrogate child pedestrian ATD. The posable mannequin is
tuned for RADAR, infrared, and optical features. NHTSA expects the
technology (explained in more detail below), now focused on large
objects approaching a backing vehicle, will evolve to the point where
it will effectively and reliably detect pedestrians, warn drivers and,
if appropriate, apply the brakes automatically to stop the vehicle.
For the 2014 model year, NHTSA is aware of only two vehicle makes
and models that offered rearward collision avoidance systems, both of
which were described as not able to detect every object. This advanced
safety feature was available on both vehicles as options. NHTSA
purchased two 2014 model year vehicles equipped with rear automatic
braking systems for testing. One manufacturer's literature explained
that their ``Automatic Front and Rear Braking'' will apply emergency
braking automatically in certain driveway, parking lot and heavy
traffic conditions if it detects a vehicle in front of or behind the
subject vehicle. Additionally, it was noted that under many conditions
these systems will not detect children, pedestrians, bicyclists, or
animals. Similarly, the second vehicle owner's manual explained that
the radar sensors of their ``Back-up Collision Intervention'' system
detect approaching (moving) vehicles. Neither owner's manual
characterized the rearward detection and collision avoidance system as
being able to detect pedestrians. Both systems were described as
automatically applying vehicle brakes in certain circumstances.
The sensor technologies used in automatic braking systems are known
to have the ability to detect pedestrians, to some extent. Using the
two 2014 makes and models with rearward collision avoidance systems,
NHTSA conducted its own experimental testing to determine how well the
systems respond to pedestrians and other test objects (e.g., cone,
pole, surrogate vehicle, ride-on toy). In the test, the subject vehicle
was allowed to coast backward while maintaining centerline alignment
with a longitudinal line marked on the ground until the rear automatic
braking feature intervened by automatically engaging the service brakes
bringing the vehicle to a stop or until the vehicle contacted the test
object. The initial test results indicate that detection performance is
not consistent across all test objects. When the NHTSA test report is
published, a copy will be entered into the docket. The results of this
experimental testing served as the basis for the draft test procedure
that is included in Appendix VIII and on which the agency seeks
comment.
Similar to the forward AEB systems, the metrics for rear automatic
braking system tests would be a pass-fail criterion. If all the tests
are passed, the vehicle would get credit for having the technology.
This would be calculated in the pedestrian rating calculation. If a
rear automatic braking technology is offered as an optional safety
technology, the vehicle model would receive half credit for this
technology. If a rear automatic braking technology is a standard safety
technology, the vehicle model would receive full credit for this
technology.
VI. New Rating System
A. Overall Rating
NHTSA is planning to change the way NCAP rates vehicles for safety.
An effective rating system: (a) Provides consumers with easy-to-
understand information about vehicle safety, (b) provides meaningful
comparative information about the safety of vehicles, and (c) provides
incentive for the design of safer vehicles. As such, NHTSA believes an
effective rating program will discriminate truly good performance in
safety and spur continuous vehicle safety improvement.
The current NCAP rating system comprises an overall rating score
(also known as Vehicle Safety Score or Overall Vehicle Score), which is
computed as the field-weighted scores from the full frontal crash, side
crash (side MDB and side pole), and rollover resistance tests. It is
based on a 5-star rating scale that ranges from 1 to 5 stars, with 5
stars being the highest. The overall rating score does not include
assessment of existing advanced crash avoidance technologies
recommended under the NCAP program, which are listed as Recommended
Technologies on the agency's Safercar.gov Web site.
This NCAP upgrade described in this RFC notice would provide an
overall star rating and individual star ratings for crashworthiness,
crash avoidance, and pedestrian protection categories. Past market
research conducted by NHTSA reveal that consumers prefer a simplified
rating and process. Therefore, NHTSA intends to ensure the revised star
rating and process is simplified and easy to understand.
While star ratings would be maintained as a range from 1 to 5
stars, the agency is also planning to use half stars to allow better
discrimination of safety so that consumers can make informed purchasing
decisions. The planned approaches for determining the crashworthiness,
crash avoidance, and pedestrian star ratings are described in the
following sections.
NHTSA request comment on the general decision to only provide
category rather than test-based star ratings, as well as comment on how
to best combine the individual categories in an easy to understand
manner. The agency is also interested in any other possible approaches
not mentioned in this RFC notice.
B. Crashworthiness Rating
NHTSA intends to provide a single-star rating for the
crashworthiness performance of new vehicles by evaluating a vehicle's
performance in four crash test modes (full frontal rigid barrier,
frontal oblique, side MDB, and side pole). Depending upon the test, one
to three crash test dummies will be used for assessment. Each dummy has
numerous body regions for which criteria to assess the risk of injury
will be evaluated.
The following describes how NHTSA could use the results from
various crash test modes in calculating a vehicle's crashworthiness
star rating. The agency is seeking comment on the following approaches
and other alternatives.
Assessing Injury Criteria
The agency is considering the following approaches for assessing
injury criteria in the dummies used in the crash tests.
Based on calculated injury risk--Use injury risk functions
for each body region that has an injury risk function available and
that is applicable to the dummy involved.
Based on a fixed range of performance criteria--A set of
performance criteria can be implemented using injury risk curves,
existing Federal regulations, other agency data, or a combination
thereof. One possible implementation of this approach could be similar
to the Euro NCAP approach, where lower and upper performance targets
would be set for each body region assessed, and a point system would be
used for the given occupant. Full points would be awarded
[[Page 78569]]
for achieving the upper target or better, a linearized number of points
would be awarded for performance between the lower and upper targets,
and no points would be awarded for the given occupant if the lower
performance target is not met.
Based on current fleet performance--Similar to current
NCAP, injury assessment could be determined based on relative fleet
performance in NCAP tests. One possible implementation of this approach
would result in the best-performing vehicle receiving the highest score
and the worst-performing vehicle receiving the lowest score.
Combining Each Injury Criteria for an Occupant Seating Location Score
For combining the injury criteria from several body regions into a
combined injury risk or score for each occupant seating location, the
following approaches are under consideration:
Equal weighting for all body regions--Weight all body
regions equally and calculate a joint probability of injury (or joint
score) for a given occupant based on all available injury criteria or
body regions. This essentially reflects the approach currently used in
NCAP.
Weighting using field data--Injury criteria for the body
regions could be weighted based on the incidence, cost, mortality, or
severity of injury, and then combined into a joint probability (or
joint score) for that occupant seating position.
Partial weighting using field data, subject to
constraints--Injury criteria for body regions that have a low incidence
of injury for a given occupant seating location would alternatively be
evaluated using a constraint method with an established threshold. For
example, for a given occupant, body regions of higher significance
could be assessed through a joint probability of injury approach, and
body regions of less significance could be assessed using a constraint
method whereby a minimum performance must be met. A possible
implementation of the constraint method could be, for example, if the
measured risk of injury exceeds a predetermined threshold, the score
for the given occupant seating location would not be fully awarded.
Instead, it would be capped at a certain level.
Combining Each Occupant Seating Location Score Into a Test Mode Score
and Into a Total Crashworthiness Rating
There are also several approaches to combining the score of each
occupant seating location into a single combined score for each test
mode or for the overall crashworthiness rating:
Equal weighting for all occupants--Each dummy seating
location would be weighted equally and the injury risks would be
combined into a single test mode score. This approach could be carried
out using a combined probability, a sum, or an average. This is
essentially the approach used currently for the frontal NCAP
assessment.
Weighting using field data--The injury risk for each dummy
location would be weighted based on the incidence, risk, occupancy, or
other field-relevant data and then combined into a single test mode
score.
Partial weighting using field data, subject to
constraints--Partial weighting using field data can be used for seating
positions in a given crash mode that exceed a threshold criterion, such
as percent occupancy or percent of overall fatalities. For those below
a threshold value, a constraint system can be implemented whereby a
minimum performance must be met before a given score is awarded in
either the test mode or the total crashworthiness rating.
NHTSA seeks comment on these various approaches as well as other
potential approaches not mentioned in this RFC notice.
C. Crash Avoidance Rating
As mentioned above, the agency intends to establish a new rating
system for crash avoidance and advanced technology systems. To continue
the accepted method of consumer information, a 5-star safety rating is
preferred. Upon adoption of the planned rating, NHTSA intends to
discontinue its practice of recommending advanced technologies on
Safercar.gov. The agency may begin listing technologies that are
available but that have not achieved the NCAP level of performance in
the Safety Features box on the second page of each vehicle rating on
Safercar.gov. All recent vehicle models that have a rearview video
system are listed in this box, even if they do not achieve all of the
performance in the NCAP test procedure. Currently, the agency intends
to include 11 crash avoidance and advanced technology systems as part
of the new rating system for the NCAP upgrade; 9 technologies in the
crash avoidance rating described in this section and 2 crash avoidance
technologies in the pedestrian rating that is described in the next
section. NHTSA selected these systems for inclusion in NCAP based on
potential safety benefits.
The rating methodology for the crash avoidance and advanced
technology systems under consideration would be based on a point
system. For each technology, a point value for full or half credit
would be determined. The maximum point value of all technologies
earning full credit would equal 100 points. The point value of each
individual technology, (designated A or B, etc. below) is based on the
proportion of their individual benefit potential divided by the sum of
all the benefits estimated for all of the technologies in the crash
avoidance program projected onto a 100-point scale.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.042
Each technology then has its own total credit value toward the
possible 100-point maximum score system. For technologies with pass or
fail criterion, the credit may be awarded as total credit for pass
performance or as no credit for fail performance. For example, a
vehicle having a forward collision warning system might earn a 12-point
credit toward the 100-point maximum score if it is standard equipment
on that vehicle with acceptable performance.
Credit may be adjusted to a lesser value for several reasons. One
reason would be in order to rate the performance of a particular
technology into stratified levels of performance. For example, rating
CIB by the amount of speed reduction can be divided into 5 levels of
performance. A second example is the rollover rating. The rollover
rating, currently a 5-star system, is based on the vehicle's static
stability factor (SSF) and whether it tipped up in a dynamic test. The
credit for rollover would be adjusted by 1/5th for each star earned
with SSF. Equation 2 below is an example of how an adjusted credit
would be calculated for rollover.
[[Page 78570]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.043
A second reason for adjusting the credit would be if the system is
offered as optional equipment. Differentiation is introduced such that
the vehicle would receive half credit for a technology that was offered
as optional equipment with a take rate (i.e., options exercised by the
consumer) above a pre-determined level and full credit for a technology
that was standard equipment.
The overall score is than the sum of all the credits for all
technologies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.044
The crash avoidance star rating scale may be a simple conversion of
1 star for every 20 credit points accumulated. A possible star-rating
scale would be as follows in Table 11.
Table 11--Crash Avoidance Rating Scale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA point total CA rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-19...................................... 1 star.
20-39..................................... 2 star.
40-59..................................... 3 star.
60-79..................................... 4 star.
80-100.................................... 5 star.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As listed and shown in the table below, the crash avoidance systems
would be separated into three categories with maximum points awarded to
each technology:
Category 1: Forward warning and AEB would include FCW (12
points), CIB (12 points), and DBS (11 points)--cumulative 35 points
total.
Category 2: Visibility would include lower beam
headlighting (15 points), semi-automatic headlamp beam switching (9
points), and amber rear turn signal lamps (6 points)--cumulative 30
points total.
Category 3: Driver Awareness/Other would include LDW (7
points), blind spot detection (8 points), and rollover resistance (20
points)--cumulative 35 points total.
Table 12--CA Technology Point Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash avoidance technology Point value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward Warning and AEB 35 total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCW....................................... 12.
CIB....................................... 12.
DBS....................................... 11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility 30 total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower beam headlighting................... 15.
Semi-automatic headlamp beam switching.... 9.
Amber rear turn signal lamps.............. 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Awareness/Other 35 total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDW....................................... 7.
Blind Spot Detection...................... 8.
Rollover Resistance....................... 20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Pedestrian Protection Rating
NHTSA intends to rate vehicles for pedestrian protection using
results from the four crashworthiness pedestrian tests (two headform,
one upper legform, and one lower legform) and system performance tests
of two advanced crash avoidance technologies that have the potential to
avoid or mitigate crashes that involve a pedestrian and improve
pedestrian safety--PAEB and rear automatic braking. From a consumer
perspective, the agency believes that it is beneficial to aggregate the
scores of PAEB and rear automatic braking systems with a vehicle's
crashworthiness pedestrian protection scores so that a separate, single
pedestrian protection score could be clearly distinguished from the
other two ratings (crashworthiness and crash avoidance) for consumers.
Consumers could then make informed purchasing decisions for their
families about whether to purchase vehicles that are equipped with
these pedestrian safety related features and technologies and rated in
one category--pedestrian protection. Alternatively, the agency
acknowledges that including these forward and rear automatic braking
technologies in the crash avoidance rating calculation (instead of in
the pedestrian protection rating calculation) may be an effective means
to encourage market penetration of these crash avoidance technologies.
NHTSA seeks comment on the best approach to assess and rate a vehicle's
various pedestrian protection performance features.
For the crashworthiness pedestrian score, NHTSA intends to use the
same (or similar) scoring system and apportioning that Euro NCAP uses
in accordance with the Assessment Protocol, ``Pedestrian Protection,
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 8.1, June 2015.'' In
short, the crashworthiness pedestrian safety scoring would be
apportioned as follows:
\2/3\ of the score would be based on headform tests.
\1/6\ of the score would be based on upper legform tests.
\1/6\ of the score would be based on lower legform tests.
For the pedestrian crash avoidance score, the vehicle would receive
credit for being equipped with the technology, provided that vehicle
satisfies the performance requirements for each test scenario. If a
PAEB or rear automatic braking system is offered as an optional safety
technology, the vehicle model would receive half credit for the
technology. If a PAEB or rear automatic braking system is offered as a
standard safety technology, the vehicle model would receive full credit
for the technology.
The agency requests comments on the approach to aggregate the four
crashworthiness pedestrian test results with the two pedestrian crash
avoidance test results into one pedestrian protection rating.
VII. Communications Efforts in Support of NCAP Enhancements
As NHTSA implements this NCAP upgrade planned for 2018 beginning
with MY 2019 vehicles, communicating these changes to the public will
be critical to ensure that consumers understand how the program will
help them make informed choices about vehicle safety and incentivize
improvements in vehicle safety. NHTSA's efforts may include executing a
comprehensive communications plan utilizing outreach strategies to
inform and equip new vehicle shoppers with the latest vehicle safety
information. The agency plans to publish a final decision notice in
2016, which will describe this NCAP upgrade in detail. The agency plans
to begin its outreach efforts in the three years following that,
[[Page 78571]]
prior to the planned program implementation in 2018. NHTSA is
considering the following activities to effectively promote awareness
of the changes in this NCAP upgrade and its new 5-Star Safety Ratings
system:
Consumer Information--As the vehicle research and
purchasing process has largely shifted to online, so has the need to
better convey vehicle safety information on Safercar.gov. Approaches to
improving consumer information may include:
[cir] Enhancing topical areas under the 5-Star Safety Ratings and
Safety Technologies sections on Safercar.gov--These areas may include
providing more consumer-friendly information on NCAP's safety testing
and criteria, results from individual crash test modes, as well as
emerging vehicle safety technologies that are of significant interest
to consumers.
[cir] Restructuring NCAP-related content on Safercar.gov to improve
organization--Because the Safercar.gov site and its topics have grown,
there is a need to reevaluate the landing page and reorganize some of
the content so that consumers can more easily access safety
information.
[cir] Improving the search functionality on the Web site--With the
large amount of information in the NCAP database, more flexible search
functionality is needed. NHTSA will look into improving the search
function through the introduction of both advanced search programming
and the introduction of new search features. Common search feature
requests to the agency include providing consumers with the option to
search by crash avoidance technology or by star rating across vehicle
class.
[cir] Creating engaging and interactive digital materials--In this
digital age, consumers are more likely to watch video than read text-
heavy content when learning about vehicle safety. NHTSA will explore
creating digital materials that utilize videos (live-action, animated,
or interactive) to educate consumers about the NCAP program.
[cir] Weaving simple, high-level messages into digital materials--
Communicating this NCAP upgrade using clear, concise and consumer-
friendly language is vital. Also, digital material that will be
available on Safercar.gov will include consistent messaging.
Dealer Toolkit--NHTSA intends to create tailored material
describing important points about this NCAP upgrade to distribute to
vehicle dealers. This material would help get dealers up-to-speed about
the program enhancements so that they could communicate the changes to
prospective vehicle purchasers. The material could include technical
and tailored language required to effectively describe the new
enhancements, including but not limited to the following:
[cir] Need for the new program;
[cir] Explanation of the key changes from the existing to the new
program;
[cir] Benefits of the new program; and
[cir] List of the most anticipated questions from consumers.
In addition to material that educates dealers and dealer
salesforces, NHTSA may also create material for distribution at the
point of sale. For example, fact sheets or a 1-pager with frequently
asked questions about NHTSA's new 5-Star Safety Ratings program could
be on-hand so that prospective vehicle purchasers can learn how the
program enhancements affect them and why it is important to make safety
a priority in their vehicle purchases. This point-of-sale material
could also include consistent branding and direct consumers to
Safercar.gov where they can learn more about the program enhancements.
Partner Outreach--Utilizing existing relationships and
developing new partnerships with the online automotive community to
better educate consumers and help distribute the messages to a broader
audience would ensure that consumers are informed about the new program
improvements. These third-party relationships would expand the agency's
reach. NHTSA could work with existing third-party organizations and
recruit additional partners to promote content on Safercar.gov. The
agency believes that working with its partners will play a key role in
the success of the launch of this NCAP upgrade. The agency is
considering the following actions:
[cir] Develop collateral materials with partners to distribute
through relevant channels;
[cir] Provide key messages and talking points about the new program
enhancements to partners to distribute through their internal and
external communications channels; and
[cir] Secure speaking opportunities with NHTSA officials at partner
events to discuss the new program enhancements.
Social Media--Messaging on NHTSA's social media platforms
will also be important to inform consumers about the new program
enhancements, by maintaining a steady drumbeat of messages. NHTSA would
monitor its social media channels and respond to online
``conversations'' in real-time, which would help increase engagement
surrounding the new program improvements. NHTSA would also identify
opportunities to re-tweet and re-post online influencers who interact
with NHTSA's content. This would give users recognition for sharing
NHTSA's content and also vary posts on the social media channel.
Press Event--A series of media announcements from the U.S.
Department of Transportation and NHTSA's officials about the new
program would be made over the next few years to inform the public
about this NCAP upgrade.
Once the agency considers the public comments and makes a final
decision about what changes will be made to NCAP, it will address as
appropriate, any applicable vehicle labeling issues relating to the
Monroney label, commonly known as the vehicle window sticker.
VIII. Conclusion
Since its inception, NCAP has stimulated the development of safer
vehicles. The agency recognizes the need to continually encourage
improvements in the safety of vehicles by expanding the areas vehicle
manufacturers need to consider in designing their vehicles and by
making more challenging the tests and criteria on which NCAP star
ratings are based. Only by doing this will NHTSA, and thereby
consumers, be able to continue to identify vehicles with truly
exceptional safety features and performance.
This RFC notice identifies a number of new areas the agency intends
to add to NCAP as well as new assessment tools and tests. These include
(1) adding a new frontal oblique crash test; (2) using a THOR 50th
percentile male crash test dummy in the frontal oblique and full
frontal tests; (3) replacing one of the dummies currently used in side
crash testing with the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy; (4)
updating the rollover static stability factor risk curve to account for
newer ESC-equipped vehicles that are less likely to be involved in
rollover crashes; (5) adding crashworthiness pedestrian testing to
measure the extent to which vehicles are designed to minimize injuries
and fatalities to pedestrians struck by vehicles; (6) adding multiple
new vehicle safety technologies to a group of advanced technologies
already in NCAP; and (7) creating a new rating system that will account
for all elements of NCAP--crashworthiness, crash avoidance, and
pedestrian protection. Each of these areas has been discussed in detail
above. As indicated earlier, the agency will be conducting additional
technical work in some of these areas, the results of which will be
made
[[Page 78572]]
publicly available no later than the agency's release of the final
decision notice.
The agency intends to issue a final decision notice regarding the
new tools and approaches detailed in this RFC notice in 2016. NHTSA
plans to implement these enhancements in NCAP in 2018, beginning with
MY 2019 and later vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 2018.
Interested parties are strongly encouraged to submit thorough and
detailed comments relating to each of the areas discussed in this RFC
notice. Comments submitted will help to inform the agency's decisions
in each of these areas as it continues to advance its NCAP program to
encourage continuous safety improvements of new vehicles in the United
States.
IX. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA
asks that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery), from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket by one of the methods given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
Will the agency consider late comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments received
after that date.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Accordingly, we recommend that interested people
periodically check the Docket for new material.
You may read the comments received at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at
www.regulations.gov.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
X. Appendices
Appendix I: Frontal Crash Target Population
Recent NHTSA efforts have resulted in a more refined approach to
analyzing frontal crash field data, from data sources such as the
National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-
CDS) and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN), than
has been used in the past. The refined approach was developed to
categorize frontal crashes more in terms of expected occupant
kinematics during the crash event, as occupant motion and restraint
engagement are more relevant to injury causation than the specifics of
the vehicle damage (e.g., frontal plane crush). The new approach does
not facilitate direct comparison with prior frontal crash target
populations. The refined method is still based on vehicle damage
characteristics such as Collision Deformation Classification (CDC) and
vehicle crush measures,\305\ but separates crashes into groups that are
intended to be more indicative of occupant kinematic response. One
feature of the new approach is the inclusion of some crashes that would
previously have been considered side impact crashes due to the vehicle
damage being on the side plane (based on the CDC area of
deformation).\306\ Those side impacts result in frontal-like occupant
kinematics, and are more appropriately grouped into a frontal crash
target population rather than a side impact target population when
assessing frontal crash injury causation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ SAE J224 March 1980 Collision Deformation Classification.
\306\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``NASS
Analysis in Support of NHTSA's Frontal Small Overlap Program,'' DOT
HS 811 522, August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASS-CDS data from case years 2000 through 2013 were chosen to
establish the frontal crash target population. Passenger vehicles
involved in tow-away non-rollover crashes were eligible for inclusion.
The CDC of the most significant event was used to initially select
frontal and frontal-oriented side impact crashes for analysis according
to the following criteria: \307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ See SAE J224, March 1980, Collision Deformation
Classification for a guide to the acronyms used here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific
General area of damage (GAD1) horizontal Direction of force
location (SHL1) (DOF1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F............................... Any............... Any.
L............................... F, Y.............. 11,12,1 o'clock.
R............................... F, Y.............. 11,12,1 o'clock.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elements of the CDC coding are described in SAE J224. The choice of
which combinations of codes is determined by NHTSA. See DOT HS 811
522.
[[Page 78573]]
The Frontal Impact Taxonomy (FIT) uses the CDC, crush profile,
principal direction of force (PDOF), and vehicle class-specific
geometry indicators \308\ to identify and classify frontal crash types
within the broad set of crashes described above based on the amount of
overlap and the angle (obliquity) of the impact. This approach was
developed to more comprehensively identify small overlap crashes, which
had been identified as a potential area for frontal impact
crashworthiness enhancements.\309\ Occupant inclusion requirements for
the frontal target population consisted of belt-restrained occupants,
who were not completely ejected, and who sustained an AIS 2+ injury or
were killed. The seat positions and ages considered are summarized
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ These are generic dimensions, by vehicle class, that are
used as a guide for determining whether the damage is small overlap
or not. See Bean, J., Kahane, C., Mynatt, M., Rudd, R., Rush, C., &
Wiacek, C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,''
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009 for more detail.
\309\ Bean, J., Kahane, C., Mynatt, M., Rudd, R., Rush, C., &
Wiacek, C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags,''
DOT HS 811 202, September 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat row Position Age [years]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. Outboard only (11,13). 13+
2.................................. All (21, 22, 23)...... 8+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first step in applying the FIT is to identify small overlap
crashes based on the CDC alone for cases with damage described by GAD1
of F and SHL1 of L or R.\310\ That subset of small overlap crashes is
then augmented by the addition of crashes meeting a small overlap
definition based on class-based vehicle geometry and crush. This crush-
based assessment looks at the damage relative to the longitudinal frame
rails for cases where the CDC may not indicate a small overlap impact
based on the damage type coded by SHL1 (e.g., when SHL1 is either Y
(left+center) or Z (right+center)). The frontal-oriented side plane
impacts with GAD1 of L or R are examined from a crush perspective
relative to vehicle class-specific geometry. In other words, when
certain damage, and impact vector (PDOF) characteristics are met, the
crash will be considered a small overlap frontal crash by the FIT.
Frontal crashes not identified as small overlap at this stage are then
classified based on the crush profile relative to the frame rail
locations into left partial overlap, right partial overlap, or narrow
center impacts if crush measures are defined. Remaining frontal crashes
are considered full overlap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After crashes have been classified based on the extent of overlap,
they are categorized as either co-linear or oblique based on the coded
PDOF value. All small overlap crashes, even with 0[deg] PDOF angles,
are considered oblique to the side of crush based on findings from
laboratory research.\311\ All full overlap and partial overlap crashes
with non-zero PDOF angles are considered oblique. Full overlap crashes
with 0[deg] PDOF angle are considered co-linear. Partial overlap
crashes with 0[deg] PDOF angle are divided between oblique and co-
linear based on findings of the study reported by Rudd et al. (2011).
In that study, approximately 20 percent of the 0[deg] partial offset
cases resulted in oblique occupant kinematics (to the side of
crush).\312\ Therefore, NASS-CDS case weights are apportioned 20
percent to oblique and 80 percent to co-linear for partial overlap
0[deg] crashes. Note that the narrow center-impact partial overlap
crashes are considered a special category, and will not be further
broken into oblique or co-linear groups as they are not specifically
addressed by any of the planned tests. For the purposes of this frontal
target population, the crashes are further restricted to those with
PDOF angles between 330[deg] to 0[deg] and 0[deg] to 30[deg]. There are
no restrictions on the impacted object or on the model year of the case
vehicle.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ Saunders, J. & Parent, D., ``Repeatability of a Small
Overlap and an Oblique Moving Deformable Barrier Test Procedure,''
SAE World Congress, Paper No. 2013-01-0762, 2013.
\312\ Rudd, R., Scarboro, M., & Saunders, J., ``Injury Analysis
of Real-World Small Overlap and Oblique Frontal Crashes,'' The 22nd
International Technical Conference for the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 11-0384, 2011.
\313\ NHTSA is currently investigating this topic, and may
revise its approach to categorizing frontal crashes as either co-
linear or oblique.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data are presented on an occupant basis, so the counts do not
correspond to the number of vehicles meeting a particular crash
description. There may be more than one occupant in a given vehicle. A
tree diagram depicting the breakdown of the relevant frontal crash
occupants considered in this analysis is provided in Figure I-1. The
weighted 14-year total count of MAIS 2+ or fatal occupants in each
level is shown. Data presented in this analysis have not been adjusted
to account for air bag presence, changes in data collection procedures
by case year, and to match fatality counts from the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS). The counts presented are therefore only
indicative of relative contributions--actual counts may differ.
Table I-1 shows counts of the occupants further broken down by MAIS
2+, MAIS 3+, or fatal and by seat row. Note that some fatally-injured
occupants do not have injury data coded, and are therefore not
represented in the MAIS 2+ or 3+ columns. This leads to small
differences in calculated totals from Table I-1 and Figure I-1. Another
difference between the counts shown in Figure I-1 and Table I-1 is that
variant impacts, in which the PDOF angle is from the opposite side of
the partial overlap, are merged into the ``Other'' category due to
their unique occupant kinematics characteristics. Partial overlap
crashes where the angle of obliquity is on the same side as the crush
are considered coincident.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\ Halloway, D., Pintar, F., Saunders, J., & Barsan-Anelli,
A. (2012) ``Classifiers to Augment the CDC System to Distinguish the
Role of Structure in a Frontal Impact Taxonomy.'' SAE International
Journal of Passenger Cars--Mechanical Systems, 5(2):778-788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78574]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.045
Table I-1--Distribution of Total Weighted Occupants for the Fourteen Year Period by Crash Type (Overlap) and Obliquity for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal
Severity Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front row Second row
Overlap ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obliquity MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full.............................. Co-linear........... 147,234 34,351 7,162 2,578 330 98
Left................ 124,204 29,343 3,843 2,045 1,173 84
Right............... 89,851 26,986 3,033 936 323 82
Left moderate..................... Co-linear........... 85,518 17,662 1,432 627 255 0
Left................ 47,278 16,352 1,864 3,725 845 426
Right moderate.................... Co-linear........... 39,055 10,067 813 728 141 52
Right............... 43,922 7,998 589 1,096 109 0
Left small........................ Co-linear........... 28,251 9,697 616 831 440 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left................ 51,000 16,038 2,252 630 52 0
Right small....................... Co-linear........... 29,584 7,798 813 42 4 0
Right............... 26,361 6,609 346 1,004 78 0
Narrow center..................... All angles.......... 64,971 22,302 3,041 907 568 228
Other............................. *................... 51,574 10,187 1,241 817 250 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... .................... 828,803 215,390 27,045 15,966 4,568 970
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes small and moderate overlap crashes with variant obliquity (e.g. left small overlap with right oblique PDOF angle). Source: NASS-CDS (2000-
2013)
With left and right partial overlap broken out into co-linear and
coincident groups, the next step is to look at co-linear versus oblique
crashes. The counts in Table I-1 are combined into co-linear full
overlap, oblique, and co-linear moderate overlap groups and annualized
by dividing by the number of case years (14) included in the analysis.
It is important to note that Table I-2 does not distinguish between
left and right oblique crashes--they are pooled together at this stage.
[[Page 78575]]
Table I-2--Distribution of Occupants by Crash Obliquity for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal Severity Levels
[Annualized unadjusted occupants counts]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front row Second row
Crash mode -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap.................................. 10,517 2,454 512 184 24 7
Co-linear moderate overlap.............................. 8,898 1,981 160 97 28 4
Oblique................................................. 31,461 8,630 954 736 216 42
Narrow center........................................... 4,641 1,593 217 65 41 16
Other frontal *......................................... 3,684 728 89 58 18 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 59,200 15,385 1,932 1,140 326 69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Other frontal includes variant impacts and crashes that cannot be categorized due to missing data.
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).
Left oblique and right oblique crashes are similar in that the
occupants' trajectories are not straight forward relative to the
vehicle interior, but the side of obliquity results in the near-side
and far-side occupants experiencing different conditions (a driver
would be considered a near-side occupant in a left oblique crash while
the right front passenger would be a far-side occupant). Left oblique
crashes represent a greater proportion of the oblique crashes, and
Table I-3 excludes the right oblique crashes (although 80% of the
0[deg] right moderate overlap crashes have been accounted for in the
co-linear full overlap category).
Table I-3--Distribution of Occupants in Left Oblique and Co-Linear Frontal Crashes for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal Severity Levels
[Annualized unadjusted occupants counts]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front row Second row
Crash mode -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap.................................. 12,747 3,028 558 226 32 10
Co-linear left moderate overlap......................... 6,108 1,262 102 45 18 0
Left oblique............................................ 17,910 5,102 613 517 179 36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 36,765 9,392 1,273 787 229 46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).
Applying the 80/20 rule previously described for the 0[deg] left
moderate overlap crashes leads to the counts shown in Table I-4, which
shows the annualized target population for co-linear and left oblique
frontal crashes. A graphical depiction of the distribution of MAIS 2+
counts is shown in Figure I-2. The counts shown are annualized,
unadjusted counts, and represent the number of MAIS 2+, 3+, or fatal
occupants in each crash and obliquity group.
Table I-4--Distribution of Occupants in Left Oblique and Co-Linear Frontal Crashes for MAIS 2+, 3+, and Fatal Severity Levels After Redefining the
Dataset Using NHTSA's Approach on Categorizing Oblique Crashes *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front row Second row
Crash mode -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal MAIS 2+ MAIS 3+ Fatal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-linear full overlap.................................. 17,634 4,037 640 261 46 10
Left oblique............................................ 19,131 5,354 633 525 183 36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 36,765 9,392 1,273 787 229 46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the co-linear moderate overlap crashes, 20% were assigned to their respective oblique category with the remaining 80% being assigned to the co-
linear category.
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).
[[Page 78576]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.046
Using the co-linear and left oblique crash groups described above,
the injuries are examined in further detail by looking at counts of
occupants sustaining MAIS 3+ injuries by body region. The body regions
described below are based on the AIS body region identifier (first
digit of AIS code) with some exceptions. The head includes face
injuries, brain injuries (except brain stem), and skull fractures. The
neck region includes soft tissue neck, cervical spine, brain stem,
internal carotid artery, and vertebral artery injuries. The lower
extremity is broken into a knee, thigh, hip (KTH) region and a below
knee region.
Table I-5--Counts of Occupants Sustaining MAIS 3+ Injuries by Body Region (Annualized Unadjusted Occupants Counts) in Co-Linear Frontal Crashes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right front Front row Second row Second row Second row
Body region Driver passenger total left right total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head.................................................... 628 50 678 3 7 10
Neck & C-spine.......................................... 214 20 234 1 2 3
Chest................................................... 1,629 250 1,879 4 11 15
Abdomen................................................. 325 37 362 3 11 14
Knee/Thigh/Hip.......................................... 808 127 935 2 3 5
Below Knee.............................................. 642 53 695 0 0 0
T&L-spine............................................... 242 19 261 4 4 8
Upper Extremity......................................... 564 140 704 2 0 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).
[[Page 78577]]
Table I-6--Counts of Occupants Sustaining MAIS 3+ Injuries by Body Region (Annualized Unadjusted Occupants Counts) in Oblique Frontal Crashes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right front Front row Second row Second row Second row
Body region Driver passenger total left right total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head.................................................... 696 76 771 66 14 80
Neck & C-spine.......................................... 421 24 445 25 24 49
Chest................................................... 1,430 345 1,775 100 86 186
Abdomen................................................. 499 121 620 132 34 166
Knee/Thigh/Hip.......................................... 1,285 133 1,418 30 8 38
Below Knee.............................................. 1,012 26 1,038 80 3 83
T&L-spine............................................... 43 46 89 34 26 60
Upper Extremity......................................... 1,145 187 1,332 276 42 318
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NASS-CDS (2000-2013).
[[Page 78578]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.047
[[Page 78579]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.048
[[Page 78580]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.049
[[Page 78581]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.050
[[Page 78582]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.051
[[Page 78583]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.052
[[Page 78584]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.053
[[Page 78585]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.054
[[Page 78586]]
Appendix V: WorldSID-50M and WorldSID-5F NHTSA Test Numbers
Table 1--Test Numbers of NHTSA WorldSID-50M and WorldSID-5F Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Nos.
Size Year Make Model -------------------------------
Pole MDB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car...................... Compact.............. 2010 Suzuki............... SX4.................. 7658 8349
2010 Kia.................. Forte................ 7657 8348
Mid-Size............. 2011 Hyundai.............. Sonata............... 7653 8351
2010 Buick................ LaCrosse............. 7654 8352
Large................ 2011 Cadillac............. CTS.................. 7661 8346
SUV/Crossover...................... Compact.............. 2011 Hyundai.............. Tucson............... 7659 8347
Mid-Size............. 2011 Acura................ MDX.................. 7656 8353
2010 Chevy................ Traverse............. 7655 Not tested
Large................ 2011 Jeep................. Grand Cherokee....... 7660 8345
2011 Ford................. Explorer............. 7662 8344
Truck.............................. Mid-Size............. 2010 Ford................. F150................. 7652 8343
Van................................ ..................... 2011 Honda................ Odyssey.............. 7663 8350
Other.............................. ..................... 2012 Chevy................ Traverse............. Not tested 8354
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 78587]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.055
[[Page 78588]]
Appendix VII: Pedestrian Data
Table VII-1--Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities in Single-Vehicle Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable vehicles Class of vehicle......... Injuries
Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered by proposed pedestrian Passenger cars........... 30,071 48,373 1,781 2,879
safety regulation. Minivans................. 3,476 218
Cross-over vehicles...... 3,776 270
Small SUVs and pickups... 11,050 610
Large SUVs and vans...... 4,960 11,811 308 839
Large pickup trucks...... 6,851 ........... 531 ...........
---------------------------------------------------
Not covered...................... Large trucks or buses.... 2,202
445
Motorcycles.............. 641
29
Unknown vehicle.......... 9,149
626
---------------------------------------------------
Totals................... 72,176
4,818
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Automotive Sampling System--General
Estimates System (NASS GES).
[[Page 78589]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.056
[[Page 78590]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.057
[[Page 78591]]
Appendix VIII: Crash Avoidance Test Procedures
Crash Avoidance test procedures discussed in this Request for
Comment may be found in the docket identified at the beginning of this
RFC notice. Duplicate copies of test procedures already incorporated
into the NCAP program will also reside at the NHTSA Web site via this
link: www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/NCAP+Test+Procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash avoidance technology Test procedure Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Rear Turn Signal Lamps.. Amber Rear Turn Signal New, Draft.
Lamps Confirmation
Test for NCAP
(Working Draft),
December 2015.
Blind Spot Detection.......... Blind Spot Detection New, Draft.
System Confirmation
Test (Working Draft),
December 2015.
Crash Imminent Braking........ Crash Imminent Brake Existing.
System Performance
Evaluation for NCAP
(Working Draft),
September 2015.
Dynamic Brake Support......... Dynamic Brake Support Existing.
System Performance
Evaluation
Confirmation Test,
September 2015.
Forward Collision Warning..... Forward Collision Existing.
Warning System
Confirmation Test
(February 2013).
Lane Departure Warning........ Lane Departure Warning Existing.
System Confirmation
Test and Lane Keeping
Support Performance
Documentation
(February 2013).
Lower Beam Headlighting....... Lower Beam New, Draft.
Headlighting
Visibility
Confirmation Test
(December 2015).
Rear automatic braking........ Rear Automatic Braking New, Draft.
Feature Confirmation
Test Procedure
(December 2015).
Rollover Resistance........... Laboratory Test Existing.
Procedure for Dynamic
Rollover, The
Fishhook Maneuver
Test Procedure (March
2013).
Laboratory Test Existing.
Procedure for
Rollover Stability
Measurement for NCAP
Static Stability
Factor (SSF)
Measurement (March
2013).
Semi-automatic Headlamp Beam Semiautomatic Headlamp New, Draft.
Switching. Beam Switching Device
Confirmation Test
(Working Draft),
December 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC on December 8, 2015. Under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-31323 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C