Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Docket ID: [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final decision notice.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program

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

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: On January 25, 2007, NHTSA published a notice announcing a public hearing and requesting comments on an agency report titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Suggested Approaches for Future Program Enhancements.'' This notice summarizes the comments received and provides the agency's decision on how it will improve the NCAP ratings program.

For model year (MY) 2010, the agency will make changes to its existing front and side crash rating programs. For the frontal crash test program, NHTSA will maintain the 35 mph (56 kmph) full frontal barrier test protocol but will update the test dummies and associated injury criteria used to assess and assign a vehicle's frontal impact star rating. For side impact, NHTSA will maintain the current moving deformable barrier test at 38.5 mph (63 kmph) but will update that test to include new side impact test dummies and new injury criteria that are used to assign a vehicle's side impact star rating. Additionally, vehicles will also be assessed using a new pole test and a small female crash test dummy.

For rollover, the agency will continue to rate vehicles for rollover propensity, but will wait to update its rollover risk model to allow for more realworld crash data of vehicles equipped with electronic stability control.

Also for MY 2010, the agency will implement a new ratings program that will rate vehicles on the presence of select advanced technologies and establish a new overall Vehicle Safety Score that will combine the star ratings from the front, side, and rollover programs.

Finally, for the agency's vehicle labeling program, we are announcing that the side score, rather than being based only on the moving deformable barrier test, will be based on the combination of the moving deformable barrier test and the pole test. Additionally, the agency will initiate rulemaking to include the new overall crashworthiness rating on the Monroney label.

SUMMARY: Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

I. Introduction
II. Summary of Request for Comments

A. Frontal NCAP

B. Side NCAP

C. Rollover NCAP

D. Rear Impact

E. Crash Avoidance Technologies

F. Presentation and Dissemination of NCAP information

G. Manufacturer SelfCertification
III. Summary of Comments

A. Frontal NCAP

1. Impact Protocol

2. Test Dummies (in the Front Seating Position)

3. Injury Criteria

4. Test Speed

B. Side NCAP

1. Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and Implementation Time)

2. Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, Test Dummies, and Injury Criteria)

C. Rollover NCAP

1. Rollover Risk Model

2. Dynamic Rollover Structural Test

D. Rear Impact

1. Basic Information

2. Links to the IIHS

3. Dynamic Test

E. Crash Avoidance Technologies

1. Program Implementation

2. Selected Technologies

3. Rating System

F. Presentation of NCAP Information

Combined Crashworthiness Rating

G. Manufacturer SelfCertification (of NCAP Results)

H. Other Suggestions
IV. Discussion and Agency Decision

A. Frontal NCAP

B. Side NCAP

C. Rollover NCAP

D. Rear Impact

E. Crash Avoidance Technologies

F. Presentation and Dissemination of Safety Information

G. Manufacturer SelfCertification

H. Other Recommendations

I. Monroney Label
V. Conclusion
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D

I. Introduction

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. One way in which NHTSA accomplishes this mission is by providing consumer information to the public. NHTSA established the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972. Through NCAP, NHTSA currently conducts tests and provides frontal and side crash, and rollover ratings and communicates the results using a fivestar rating system. With this information, consumers can make betterinformed decisions about their purchases. In turn, manufacturers respond to the ratings by voluntarily improving the safety of their vehicles beyond the minimum Federal safety standards.

For MY 1979, when the agency began rating vehicles for frontal impact safety, fewer than 30 percent of vehicles tested would have received the top ratings of 4 or 5 stars for the driver seating position.\1\ By comparison, for MY 2007, 98 percent of vehicles received 4 and 5 stars in the frontal NCAP rating for that same seating position. Equally impressive is that while it took almost 30 years to reach this level for frontal NCAP performance, the more recent NCAP programs, like side and rollover NCAP, have started reaching this level of safety performance at a pace that can be measured in years rather than decades. The agency believes that consumers continue to consider safety in their purchasing decisions and are demanding everincreasing levels of safety.
\1\ NHTSA began using stars in model year 1994. See 69 FR 61072, Docket No. NHTSA200418765.

Similarly, recent advances in crash avoidance technology offer a new opportunity for NCAP to further enhance its ability to inform consumers about new systems and encourage them to purchase systems that NHTSA has found to be effective in improving safety.

On January 25, 2007 NHTSA published a notice outlining proposed enhancements to the NCAP activities. In this notice, we requested comments on any additional actions that the agency could undertake so that the program could continue to provide consumers with relevant safety information.\2\ These enhancements included new test dummies and injury criteria for frontal NCAP, the addition of a new side pole test, new test dummies, and new injury
[[Page 40017]]
criteria for side NCAP, an overall summary rating, and a new program to promote advanced crash avoidance technologies. Additionally, the notice announced a March 7, 2007 public hearing to allow interested parties the opportunity to address the suggested approaches for enhancing the program.

\2\ 72 FR 3473, Docket No. NHTSA200626555.

Seventysix (76) individual comments were received in response to the notice and the public hearing.\3\ Commenters offered mixed responses to the various proposals for enhancing NCAP; however, most commenters commended the agency's initiative to reexamine the program and supported the proposed approaches. This notice summarizes comments to the January 2007 notice, the March 2007 public hearing, and provides the agency's decision on how it will proceed with changes to NCAP. \3\ This count does not include duplicative or multiple comments from the same source.

I. Summary of Request for Comments

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

A. Frontal NCAP

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

B. Side NCAP

To enhance its side impact safety ratings, the agency presented two approaches for consideration. NHTSA proposed continuing to rate vehicles using the moving deformable barrier test protocol but would also encourage manufacturers to provide better head and pelvis protection by including the side impact pole test and the new test dummies recently finalized in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 ``Side Impact Protection'' prior to the performance requirements being fully phasedin.\4\ Furthermore, the agency proposed research that would focus on the assessment of the injury mechanisms in a fully equipped side impact air bag fleet. The purpose of the research would be to evaluate how serious injuries occur in the new fleet and to develop test procedures to reflect these impact conditions. The outcome of this research could lead to a new barrier test protocol (which could include increased test speed and different barrier characteristics). \4\ 73 FR 32473, Docket No. NHTSA20080104. On June 9, 2008 the agency responded to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, changing the effective date of the pole test. Now, with certain exceptions, all vehicles have to meet the upgraded pole test by September 1, 2014.

C. Rollover NCAP

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

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

E. Crash Avoidance Technologies

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

\5\ See 72 FR 3475, Docket No. NHTSA200626555.

NHTSA proposed two possible approaches and illustrated a possible implementation of the program with an A, B, C letter grade system. First, the agency proposed that each of the technologies would have equal weight. For example, if a vehicle had only one technology, it would receive a C; whereas, another vehicle that had all three technologies would receive an A. Approach two would attempt to quantify a technology's realworld benefits by taking into account the target population and anticipated effectiveness of the technology to decide whether a particular type of technology would be given more weighting than another and thus prompt a higher score. For example, in this scheme, if ESC was found to be more effective than lane departure, a vehicle equipped only with ESC could receive a B versus a vehicle equipped only with lane departure warning which would receive a C rating.

It was further stated that this second approach could be expanded into a more comprehensive performancebased crash avoidance rating. As the technologies evolved and as the agency gathered more information related to various versions of these technologies and their associated safety effectiveness, NHTSA proposed that a safety score (i.e., star rating) on individual technologies could then be developed (e.g., different version of ESC might yield different performance results and thus a different star rating).
F. Presentation and Dissemination of NCAP Information

Combined Crashworthiness Rating

Several NHTSAsponsored research reports and consumer surveys, as well as a Government Accountability Office and a National Academy of Sciences review of NCAP, have all pointed to the public's desire for a summary safety rating. Similarly, other consumer information programs around the world
[[Page 40018]]
such as the IIHS, Japan NCAP, and EuroNCAP use summary ratings that combine their respective crashworthiness tests. The agency proposed two summary crashworthiness rating concepts. In both concepts, the existing rollover rating was not included in the calculation of the overall summary rating, and star rating boundaries would have to be developed for both individual crash tests and the overall summary rating.

The first approach computed the overall crashworthiness rating by first averaging the driver and right front passenger dummy injury results from the frontal crash mode into a single star rating. The same would be done for the seating positions in the side crash mode to compute the overall side crash rating. To compute the overall crashworthiness rating, the overall frontal and the overall side impact performance would be combined by using weighting factors obtained from realworld data (i.e. the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)). Each individual total (overall front and overall side) would be weighted by that crash mode's contribution to the total injuries occurring in the realworld.

The second approach computed the overall crashworthiness rating by normalizing the seating positions for each individual crash mode (front and side) using the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) established for that dummy, body region, and crash mode. Using the NASS data, these normalized values would then be multiplied by the occurrence of that injury in the realworld. Body injury regions that are coded by NASS but are not measured by the dummy and/or not selected by NHTSA for inclusion in the rating would be equally distributed among the remaining body regions.

Presentation of Safety Information

As the consumer's use of the Internet for vehicle safety information has grown, so has the need to consolidate and better present NCAP vehicle safety information to consumers on http:// www.safercar.gov. The four approaches proposed by the agency were: (1) Developing other topical areas under the Equipment and Safety section of the Web site; (2) redesigning the Web site to improve organization; (3) improving search capabilities on the Web site; and, (4) combining agency recall and ratings database information.

G. Manufacturer SelfCertification

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

III. Summary of Comments

This section provides a brief summary of the seventysix (76) comments submitted to the docket by vehicle manufacturers, safety advocates, public health groups and the general public in response to the notice and the public hearing.\6\ It should be noted that comments unique to the public hearing are stated as such.
\6\ These submissions are available at http:// www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA200626555.

A. Frontal NCAP

Comments regarding NHTSA's frontal program are grouped into four categories: Impact Protocol, Test Dummies (in the Front Seating Position), Injury Criteria and Test Speed.

1. Impact Protocol

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota), BMW of North America (BMW), Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc. (Subaru) and Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) supported the retention of the current frontal crash test protocol at 35 mph (56 kmph). Consumers Union and Public Citizen suggested adding an offset frontal crash test rating, which Public Citizen believed would be far more useful in assessing the structural integrity of different vehicle models. Likewise, Toyota also encouraged NHTSA to investigate ways to include information on offset collision conditions in its NCAP program. Toyota explained that their investigation of National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASSCDS) data showed that an overwhelming majority of frontal crashes occur in either the full overlap or offset condition. They believed that vehicle performance assessed in the offset condition should yield relevant improvements in safety technology and provide considerable benefit.

IIHS and Subaru recommended the addition of a frontal pole test to address significant injuries resulting from impacts with narrow objects. IIHS asserted that offset tests more closely simulate impacts with narrow objects than do fullwidth tests, and that a narrowobject NCAP test could have an important impact on realworld vehicle crashworthiness, and would give consumers a wide range of results to inform their purchasing decisions. Subaru suggested that NHTSA should study and possibly propose a frontal pole test for inclusion into NCAP if the frequency of frontal crashes with narrow objects is high. However, General Motors North America (GM) asserted that a pole test is unlikely to result in significant change or further improvement in structural stability and resultant injury reduction. They stated that research in this area may yield only limited or incremental gains in injury mitigation, and that the public interest is likely to be better served by channeling resources into areas that could produce greater societal benefit.

2. Test Dummies (in the Front Seating Position)

With regard to test dummies, the Alliance stated that test dummies in frontal NCAP should be the same as those in FMVSS No. 208. Additionally, GM, AORC, Consumers Union and the Alliance supported the use of the 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy in the right front passenger position. GM provided NASS data which suggested that small females were overrepresented (with regard to serious injuries) in the right front passenger seating position. GM also suggested that in the future, the 5th percentile female dummy should be used in both seating positions to optimize safety. AORC asserted that the substitution of the 5th female for the 50th percentile male would demonstrate a broader population range of protection since some data has been shown which suggests that the weighted frequency of serious and fatal injuries to women is greater than to men in the right front passenger seating position.

Furthermore, Consumers Union asserted that the agency should investigate using the 5th percentile female and 95th percentile male dummies to evaluate NCAP tests for all sizes of vehicle occupants. Subaru supported the continued use of 50th percentile adult male dummies in both front seating positions indicating that this was more representative of realworld occupants. Subaru also asserted that additional tests with other dummies, such as the 5th percentile adult female, should be done only if well supported by realworld data. 3. Injury Criteria

Most vehicle manufacturers agreed that NHTSA should develop and incorporate a KTH injury criterion into
[[Page 40019]]
the NCAP frontal rating. They noted that a KTH assessment would drive vehicle countermeasures that could mitigate lower leg injuries and also yield important information relevant to vehicle design. Likewise, adding KTH and/or lower leg injury criteria to the NCAP rating protocol could expand the usefulness of the NCAP system by addressing the societal cost of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ injuries. The Alliance, Autoliv, Consumers Union and IIHS also supported NHTSA's efforts to incorporate a KTH injury criterion into the frontal program. However, IIHS urged the agency to concentrate its research tests on serious injuries and fatalities in frontal impacts to encourage more protective vehicle design. Additionally, Autoliv stated that although a reduction in KTH injuries would have a significant impact on societal cost, they believed that it would have little effect in reducing fatalities.

Nissan North America (Nissan) stated that the agency should consider a KTH assessment only after further study is conducted. Instead, Nissan urged NHTSA to harmonize knee and thigh injury values with those required in Japanese and European regulations. Likewise, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) did not believe that the agency should move expeditiously to include a KTH criterion in the current frontal NCAP program since the agency had identified crashes of lower test speed as the primary concern regarding leg injuries. They recommended that NHTSA present the analysis and results of their KTH research for public comment prior to including a KTH criterion in the frontal program.

For lower leg assessments, several commenters suggested that additional research was needed to determine whether injury measures obtained below the knee were predictive of realworld injury. GM noted that adding a femur load injury criterion to frontal NCAP would drive many of the same vehicle countermeasures that would mitigate lower leg injuries.

With regards to what anthropomorphic test device (ATD) could be used for these new criteria (KTH and lower leg), Honda specifically stated that a KTH assessment would be possible using the Denton dummy leg. For injuries to the lower leg (below the knee), Honda, Subaru, Nissan, and Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (Volvo), suggested that the agency adopt the ThorLx legs in the future. The Alliance did not support the introduction of either the Denton or ThorLx legs unless they were included in FMVSS No. 208. Furthermore, VW believed that these test devices must be validated, and the applicable injury criteria and rating must be verified for correlation with realworld safety.

Some commenters suggested that all injury criteria incorporated in FMVSS No. 208 (beyond head injury criteria and chest acceleration criteria) should also be included in frontal NCAP. Specifically, Honda, Ford, GM, the Alliance, and Autoliv supported the inclusion of a chest deflection criterion into the frontal NCAP rating based on NASSCDS data indicating a substantial number of injuries to ribs and internal organs resulting in AIS 3+ or higher severity injuries. However, Honda stated that the current chest deflection calibration procedure may not be appropriate to assure that chest deflection measurements are accurate enough to provide useful data. GM and the Alliance recommended including a chest compression criterion into frontal NCAP. The Alliance urged NHTSA to conduct research on neck (tension) injury criteria before including it into frontal NCAP. However, GM suggested that the agency add neck injury criteria to frontal NCAP since these criteria are already measured by the Hybrid III dummies and included in FMVSS No. 208.

4. Test Speed

With regards to adopting a lower test speed, the Alliance, GM and Volvo agreed with NHTSA's analysis and supported the agency's proposal to conduct more research on lower test speeds. However, VW questioned whether lower speed crashes represented a greater risk of occupant injury than the current NCAP test procedure. Therefore, VW as well as the Alliance believed that an additional test in frontal NCAP would add significant expense and strain on available resources without any commensurate advantages or benefit.

Subaru asserted that they did not support adding low speed bumper tests to frontal NCAP since those tests would overlap with existing IIHS tests.

Two individual commenters, Mr. Dainius Dalmotas and Dr. Harold Mertz stated that a full vehicle crash test designed to promote enhanced chest protection in lowtomoderate speed frontal crashes would be most promising since the vast majority of serious and fatal injuries among belted drivers occur at collision speeds of 25 mph (40 kmph) or less. They also asserted that incentives to promote improved safety in lowtomoderate speed frontal impacts were lacking and could be addressed through NCAP.

At the public hearing, Consumers Federation of America (CFA) and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) suggested that NHTSA increase test speeds and challenge manufacturers to post the highest speed at which their vehicles are tested, in order to differentiate amongst the performance of vehicles. However, the Alliance, Consumers Union, AIAM and Subaru opposed a higher speed test for frontal NCAP. The Alliance stated that field data did not show the need for higher test speeds. AIAM and Consumers Union did not believe that increasing crash test speeds would benefit the overall safety of occupants; but rather, it could cause vehicles to become stiffer. Subaru asserted that a higher speed test is not representative of the vast majority of fatal crashes, does not enhance NCAP's consumer information goals, and risks increasing vehicle aggressiveness.

B. Side NCAP

Comments regarding NHTSA's side program are divided into the following categories: Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and
Implementation Time), Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, Test Dummies, and Injury Criteria), and Side NCAP Research.
1. Oblique Pole Test (Test Dummies and Implementation Time)

GM, Subaru, Toyota, the Alliance, and Autoliv agreed with the agency's proposal to incorporate an oblique pole test into NCAP. However, with regards to adopting the oblique pole test prior to the completion of the FMVSS No. 214 pole test phasein, BMW, Ford, Toyota, and the Alliance, asserted that such action would be premature, and these commenters suggested that NHTSA adopt the test after the oblique pole test had been fully phasedin. Furthermore, Subaru suggested that 3 years be allowed after the agency announced a new test before rating vehicles under the new test protocol.

Toyota explained that they understood NHTSA's intention to use an early introduction of the pole test to drive the installation of advanced head protection systems (like curtain airbags), but they believed that significant benefits in head protection were already being realized from the introduction of curtain air bags, which was driven by industry's commitment to the industry voluntary compatibility requirements.\7\
[[Page 40020]]
Therefore, Toyota recommended additional investigation into whether there are merits of an early introduction of an oblique pole test into NCAP. Honda recommended adding to the existing side impact test by introducing a second side impact test that is similar to the current IIHS moving deformable barrier (MDB) test.\8\ Honda suggested that this would extend the coverage of NHTSA's side impact testing, be more representative of realworld crashes, and help to provide a more realistic assessment of a vehicle's crashworthiness in these types of twovehicle collisions.
\7\ IIHS and the Alliance created a voluntary agreement wherein automotive manufacturers agreed to improve occupant protection in front and side crashes involving cars and light trucks. For front toside impacts, most automakers agreed to design their vehicles to meet the head injury performance requirements of NHTSA's FMVSS No. 201 sidepole test or the IIHS moving deformable barrier test. By September 1, 2007, at least half of all new passenger vehicles would meet one of the two requirements, and by September 1, 2009 model year, all new passenger vehicles would meet the head injury requirements of the Institute's moving deformable barrier test. \8\ This test would represent an SUV to subject vehicle crash (IIHS Side Impact Crash Evaluation test procedureSICE).

If the agency went forward with an oblique pole test, Subaru recommended a side impact assessment based on two tests (the oblique pole test and IIHS's MDB test) with head injury criteria and the SID IIs dummy, as long as the results could be combined into a single rating. BMW and the Alliance suggested that the 5th percentile female SIDIIs dummy be used for the driver position in the oblique pole test. BMW asserted that the smaller SIDIIs dummy is most appropriate for determining the geometric coverage area required for a curtain airbag. The Alliance believed that it is appropriate to test only with the 5th percentile female dummy in the front seating position because this is a very severe test condition, and it would serve to meet the intent of NCAP while minimizing additional test burdens on NHTSA and the automotive industry.

Honda, Nissan and VW did not support the inclusion of an oblique pole test into side NCAP. Honda believed that introducing an oblique pole test would be a temporary measure until the test was fully phased in as a requirement for FMVSS No. 214. To comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 214, the head protection benefits of the oblique pole test would already have been realized in every vehicle, so there would be little practical benefit to consumers as a result of temporarily including such a test in NCAP. VW and Nissan, similar to Toyota, stated that automobile manufacturers were already committed to fronttoside impact protection, and that the addition of a side impact pole test would provide no added incentive for the manufacturers to implement additional side impact protection. Nissan also believed that incorporating the pole test into NCAP is unnecessary to encourage head protection in new vehicles.

IIHS stated that the current NCAP barrier test did not fully address the mix of vehicles on the road and that the agency needed to improve the existing side impact barrier. IIHS suggested giving greater priority to adopting or modifying the IIHS side impact barrier rather than incorporating a new oblique pole test. However, GM asserted that the pole test is structurally more challenging than the IIHS MDB test, and that the IIHS MDB test and the pole test will not necessarily drive installation of the same air bag solutions.
2. Moving Barrier Protocol (Test Speed, Test Dummies, and Injury Criteria)

NHTSA proposed a new side NCAP barrier test protocol that would include new dummies and additional injury criteria. The Alliance supported the maintenance of the current barrier test but they suggested a revised, lower test speed of 33.5 mph (54 kmph).

With regards to the incorporation of new dummies into the side MDB test, the Alliance, Subaru, Honda, Nissan, Volvo, and AIAM proposed the incorporation of WorldSID into NCAP. Specifically, Volvo and the Alliance suggested that the WorldSID dummy should be introduced in FMVSS No. 214 and NCAP simultaneously. Honda stated that the WorldSID dummy provides excellent biofidelity, and does not present problems with rib guide shape that the ES2re dummy appears to have based on their evaluation. AORC believed that the current test dummy does not adequately address head injuries, and they encouraged NHTSA to use either EuroSID2 and/or the SIDIIs side impact dummy.

Volvo recommended that the dummies and injury criteria for the NCAP side barrier test procedures be the same as they are for FMVSS No. 214. Volvo supported the addition of head injury criteria in the NCAP evaluation for the side barrier; however, they would prefer that the NCAP criteria limits are set more stringent in order to encourage manufacturers to exceed the performance standards outlined in the legal requirement. BMW recommended that NHTSA use the ES2re dummy for the driver position in the MDB test because the SIDIIs dummy is already included in the MDB test conducted by IIHS, and the biofidelity of the SIDIIs dummy in these types of impacts is well understood. GM also suggested the ES2re dummy for the driver position since the most frequent occupant, and most frequently injured occupant type at the driver position is an adult male.

Autoliv asserted that the ES2re dummy should be used for the front seating position in both the oblique pole and MDB tests, as this dummy represents the largest percentage of front seat occupants. They also recommended the SIDIIs dummy for the rear seating position to provide information on protection for older children and small adults seated in the rear. GM also recommended the SIDIIs dummy for the rear seating position because more frail persons tend to sit in the rear, the SID IIs dummy is tuned for frail occupants, and placement in the rear will import safety improvements across the range of occupants.

3. Side NCAP Research

As a longer term approach, the agency suggested research into the moving barrier test protocol to address injuries and fatalities that might occur in vehicles equipped with curtain and side impact air bags. The agency indicated this research could lead to a new barrier, an increased barrier test speed, and a reevaluation of the impact configuration.

The Alliance, AIAM, Honda and Subaru agreed that NHTSA should analyze realworld side impact crashes for vehicles with side curtain airbags. However, the Alliance recommended that the agency and automotive industry should develop more experience with the new pole test and test dummies before considering any increase in test speeds. In addition, the Alliance asserted that future research should evaluate whether it would be beneficial for NCAP to harmonize with the existing IIHS barrier.

Toyota supported additional research efforts to gain a better understanding of the potential for and the necessity of changes to the test device and configuration for vehicles equipped with side airbags. Furthermore, Toyota stated that questions remain relating to barrier characteristics, injury criteria and appropriate ATDs that should be researched from relevant field data.\9\
\9\ In particular, Toyota recommended continued investigation into previously identified concerns with the performance of the SID IIs upper arm, which they believed was not biofidelic and affected the thoracic rib response.

Autoliv recommended that NHTSA research increasing the test speed and develop a single test that would assess both the head and thorax injury protection systems installed in newer vehicles. Autoliv also suggested that the adoption of the WorldSID dummy would be suitable if incorporated into Part 572 and FMVSS No. 214.
[[Page 40021]]
Additionally, Delphi opposed releasing a new regulation under FMVSS No. 214 and then promoting a different set of barrier protocols, dummy types and injury metrics for side NCAP evaluation since that decision could cause misdirection for original equipment manufacturers and suppliers.

C. Rollover NCAP

Comments regarding NHTSA's rollover program are grouped into the following categories: Rollover Risk Model and Dynamic Rollover Structural Test.

1. Rollover Risk Model

Most commenters supported the development of a new rollover risk model. Several commenters agreed that realworld crash data was necessary to develop an effective rollover risk model. Specifically, the Alliance, AIAM, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and VW each commented that NHTSA should collect new crash data for rollover NCAP. In particular, the Alliance and Ford recommended that the agency collect crash data on both ESC and nonESC equipped vehicles to develop a new rollover risk model that better describes rollover risk for all vehicles, but also accurately reflects the differences between ESC and nonESC vehicles. Toyota believed that the update to rollover NCAP should reflect realworld benefits of ESC on rollover risk, and that the rollover rating should be combined (with advanced technologies) into an overall crash avoidance rating. AIAM suggested that NHTSA consider adjusting a vehicle's rollover risk rating to reflect the safety benefits of ESC or adopt some other means of communicating those benefits to consumers.

Recognizing that since such a data collection and analysis cannot be completed in the near term, Ford, the Alliance and Volvo suggested that in the near term, an additional rollover NCAP star should be awarded to those vehicles equipped with an ESC system to recognize the benefits of ESC. Specifically, the Alliance recommended that NHTSA provide additional information in the form of a footnote on the agency's Web site and in the Safer Car brochure that explains the benefits of ESC and why these benefits warrant an additional star. 2. Dynamic Rollover Structural Test

Some commenters encouraged NHTSA to develop a test for structural integrity to enhance rollover NCAP. Specifically, Consumers Union, Public Citizen and ARCCA Incorporated (ARCCA) urged the agency to consider a dynamic test to assess body structure, seat belt design (including pretension), side curtain airbags, roof strength, door locks and retention, and the retention of window glazing. In particular, Public Citizen believed that a rollover NCAP rating should be based on a vehicle's ability to resist rollover and to protect occupants in a rollover crash. They suggested a rating that included ejection as a consideration since this would provide valuable information about a vehicle's ability to prevent death or serious injury in a rollover crash. Additionally, the rating should measure rollover propensity, as well as crashworthiness measures of performance in a rollover crash.

The Center for Injury Research (CIR) recommended that an NCAP rollover test be dynamic and somewhat more severe than a dynamic compliance standard. According to CIR, a dynamic test for use as both a safety compliance standard and as an NCAP test can and should be developed simultaneously with action on the roof crush standard. Moreover, CFA and CAS recommended adding a rollover test with comparative roof crush tests, while IIHS suggested that NHTSA should conduct additional research on roof crush. Bidez and Associates stated that a meaningful rollover crashworthiness test must include roof deformation, seat belt performance, door opening, and window breakage. They emphasized that protection should be assessed for front and rear passengers, adults and children, and that the Jordan Rollover System (JRS) holds great promise. Conversely, the Alliance, Ford and Nissan opposed the use of JRS in NCAP. The Alliance commented, and Ford and Nissan stated at the public meeting that there has been no JRS tests conducted with an instrumented dummy and therefore, the JRS test results cannot be related scientifically to the realworld risk of injury in a rollover crash.

D. Rear Impact

Comments regarding NHTSA's rear impact NCAP activity are divided into the following categories: Basic Information, Links to the IIHS, and Dynamic Test.

1. Basic Information

Commenters presented similar views on how NHTSA should provide consumers with basic information concerning rear impact crashes in an NCAP publication. GM, Toyota, Subaru and VW supported the inclusion of information on the proper adjustment and utilization of head restraint systems. Additionally, GM supported consumer education that included material such as safety tips and safe driving practices.

2. Links to the IIHS

The IIHS endorsed the agency's proposal and offered their head restraint evaluation information for posting on the agency's Web site. Toyota believes that the IIHS results are only one way to assess rear impact performance, and thus the agency should be cautious and thorough when determining what rear impact evaluation should be part of a future NCAP evaluation. They also stated that ample consideration should be given to passive and active head restraint concepts in order to maintain benefits from all design types.

The Alliance felt that NHTSA's proposal did not seem consistent with the principle of the Federal government independently generating all NCAP data. Rather, they advocated that the agency should investigate further the injury mechanism of whiplash and then choose which responses to evaluate based on biomechanics. Similarly, GM discouraged NHTSA from implementing this option. According to GM, links to the IIHS Web site might imply that NHTSA has given full endorsement of IIHS methodology and interpretations, and some consumers may even conclude that IIHS is a government agency.

3. Dynamic Test

The Alliance believed that NHTSA should first evaluate potential effectiveness and safety benefits prior to incorporating a rear crash rating into NCAP. Consumers Union stated that rear impact whiplash injuries are debilitating to those involved and cause a large cost to society. Consumers Union recommended that NHTSA look at IIHS's work on rear impact testing to determine whether developing NCAP ratings for rear impact results would be cost effective. Public Citizen suggested that the agency develop a rearimpact crash NCAP rating, especially at speeds of 35 to 40 mph (56 to 64 kmph) to improve rearimpact occupant protection and seat back strength. Furthermore, ARCCA stated that rear impact testing for fuel integrity should be utilized, and that this type of testing would enable the agency to assess occupant kinematics and interactions in rear impacts.

Nissan recommended that NHTSA harmonize with the global technical regulation (GTR) dynamic test
[[Page 40022]]
procedure.\10\ GM stated that the development of a dynamic test by NHTSA should be considered only after recent revisions to FMVSS No. 202 are assessed. According to GM, if the regulatory changes are shown to be effective in mitigating injury, a rear impact NCAP could be better directed toward areas not fully addressed by the current regulation. Similarly, while Subaru did not support new requirements for FMVSS No. 202a in the short term, they asserted that NHTSA needs to educate consumers on the proper use and adjustment of head restraints. However, Subaru believed that in the long term, NHTSA should focus on the study of whiplashtype injury mechanisms and applicable countermeasures. \10\ See http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2007/wp29/WP29143 23r1e.doc. This is an agreement to begin work on Phase 2 of this GTR, which will analyze a revised dynamic test procedure
incorporating the BioRIDII dummy.

E. Crash Avoidance Technologies

Comments regarding NCAP information on crash avoidance technologies are grouped into three categories: Program Implementation, Selected Technologies, and Rating System.

1. Program Implementation

Most commenters encouraged NHTSA to implement a new component into NCAP to rate vehicles on the presence of crash avoidance technologies. They agreed that such a program would help educate consumers about these technologies and encourage manufacturers to include them in more vehicles. According to Ford, the first step would be to identify promising technologies with measurable realworld safety benefits. Next, those items must be assessed using developed performance based metrics, and finally, the assessments should be used to develop crash avoidance NCAP ratings that balance rating flexibility with stability.

GM emphasized an overarching principle that crash avoidance NCAP should be biased toward including features that have a high likelihood of improving safety. GM suggested further that the agency consider a wording revision, perhaps to `Collision Avoidance and PostCrash Safety (CAPS)' NCAP so that a technology such as Automatic Collision Notification could be considered and included.

Honda encouraged NHTSA to consider a program that would define the various crash avoidance technologies. They stated that these definitions should be based on the effect each function of a particular system has from the driver's point of view, and include a clear explanation of the actions the system can take to enhance safety. Honda, along with Delphi, suggested the development of assessment weighting coefficients derived from a system's expected benefits and the frequency of the crash type (using appropriate U.S. databases) that the system is supposed to address.

BMW suggested a program that would accomplish the agency's goals without overpromising consumers on expected performance and avoid crediting systems prematurely. They suggested a program that would differentiate technologies with realworld effectiveness from those whose effectiveness numbers were generated by some other means. They also suggested that NHTSA and manufacturers collaborate on ways to educate consumers on emerging technologies with promising capabilities and proven benefits.

MercedesBenz (Mercedes) recommended that NHTSA work with the automotive industry before developing crash avoidance ratings. To develop future ratings they, along with Continental Automotive Systems, supported the idea of creating an advisory panel that represents the viewpoints of all manufacturers competing in the U.S. market.

Nissan agreed with the agency's desire to implement this new program. They also stated that the agency should identify immediately its priority technologies through a press release, on the NCAP Web site, through the ``Buying a Safer Car'' brochure, and on each vehicle's NCAP summary Web page.

IIHS and NADA were not convinced of the need for NCAP crash avoidance ratings at this time. IIHS suggested that NHTSA should not rate vehicle crash avoidance technologies, since the agency cannot currently identify which systems are most effective.

2. Selected Technologies

Nissan and Delphi agreed with the three technologies selected by the agency. However, GM and Toyota believed that there were additional crash avoidance technologies that should be promoted because they would provide safety value to consumers. For brevity, we chose not to list them all in this document, but they included such things as daytime running lights, backover prevention technology, and advanced collision notification. GM further believed that there were data for some of these crash avoidance technologies and methods by which potential benefits could be assessed, and they could be included in the initial implementation of a crash avoidance NCAP. GM felt that limiting crash avoidance technologies to the three identified by the agency would unnecessarily limit the potential safety benefits to consumers. 3. Rating System

a. Cumulative Rating (NHTSA's Approach 1)

There was little support for NHTSA's proposed Approach 1. In the short term, only Nissan supported a simple cumulative rating whereby each priority technology would be weighted the same. Both the Alliance and GM were opposed to this approach. GM believed that a cumulative rating would not discriminate among the three technologies, and they would prefer that NHTSA weight appropriately safetyenhancing features based on their relative benefits. The Alliance stated that the effectiveness of the selected technologies was not equal, and providing equal weighting would significantly mislead the consumer as to their relative safety benefits.

Rather than a star rating or the use of a cumulative rating, BMW suggested a ``thumbs up'' rating system to assist consumers in quickly and intuitively distinguishing among technologies on the basis of maturity. BMW believed that this approach would deliver to consumers two levels of information: which technologies have the potential for success and which technologies have a history of success. Furthermore, BMW felt that this approach would reduce the need for NHTSA to research, analyze and document the actual benefits of a technology. Mercedes believed that NCAP should issue publications that would rank the merits of emerging technologies in a manner similar to that used in the IIHS status reports, and that NHTSA should communicate with the industry so that public safety messages could be coordinated with industry advertisements.

b. Effectiveness Rating (NHTSA's Approach 2)

Nissan, in the long term, along with Toyota, Volvo, Public Citizen, AORC, the Alliance, AIAM and GM favored the agency's proposed Approach 2 of establishing an effectiveness rating for crash avoidance technologies. Toyota, however, believed that it would be ideal to develop information related to each new technology's safety potential and to establish a ``Graduated Comprehensive Crash Avoidance Rating System'' concept. They also recommended
[[Page 40023]]
further study to expand the list of technologies beyond ESC, lane departure warning and forward collision warning to include systems such as rear precollision preparation/warning, emergency stop signal, blind zone alert, vehicletovehicle and vehicletoinfrastructure
communications.

F. Presentation of NCAP Information

Comments regarding the presentation and dissemination of NCAP focused mainly on a combined crashworthiness rating. A few commenters offered suggestions on the dissemination of NCAP information. NADA suggested that NHTSA develop, maintain and make available a database of nonagency sources of credible vehicle safety information. The CAS and CFA suggested that the agency implement additional and more sophisticated systems that deliver safety information at the point of sale. They believed this information should be beyond the agency's new NCAP labeling program (no examples were given).

Combined Crashworthiness Rating

Most responders to the NCAP notice expressed support for an overall crashworthiness rating that combined the results from all the crash modes (front and side) tested. However, IIHS cautioned that an all encompassing single rating may allow some poor performance qualities to be hidden under the umbrella rating. Therefore, they urged NHTSA to provide consumers with all of the scores in each crash mode to allow them to choose which vehicle to purchase. Additionally, Delphi, Public Citizen and Bidez and Associates noted that while a single overall crashworthiness rating would simplify information for consumers, it could also confuse consumers if not based on sound science.

Toyota believed there is merit to combining ratings for crashworthiness evaluations to provide the consumer with a comprehensive summary of the crash performance of the vehicle in front and side impacts. They recommended weighting the injuries and assessment in each impact condition by the distribution of serious injuries (AIS3+) and fatalities. After determining the weighting factors for each injury, each impact configuration should receive similar ``Field Relevance Weighting'' based on frequency, severe injury risk, and occupancy. Because of the small number of fatalities in NASS, Toyota suggested exploring FARS augmented with the Multiple Cause of Death (MCOD) database.

Honda supported a combined crashworthiness rating that covers a wide variety of realworld collisions. Honda recommended compatibility testing that assesses performance in crashes between two vehicles with different geometries and/or weights. Further, they recommended weighting coefficients for each region of the crash test dummy, representing specific types of injuries, based on realworld crash and injury data.

The Alliance generally supported the concept of a combined crashworthiness rating. They believed that it is possible to combine the different body regions into a single star rating for both frontal and side. However, they noted that the frontal NCAP ratings are vehicleweight dependent while the side NCAP ratings are generally weight independent. Thus, the Alliance asserted that a combined crashworthiness rating would be comparable only within vehicle weight class. Moreover, AIAM urged NHTSA to ensure that a single rating is meaningful in terms of realworld performance to drive safety improvements in all crash modes. They recommended that changes to the star system be considered only if based on appropriate research involving consumer surveys or focus groups, and not on intuitive judgments about what data presentation is most effective.

Public Citizen supported a single rating if it were weighted with respect to saving lives and preventing injuries. They also suggested that NHTSA use a letter grade rating system instead of ``stars.'' Volkswagen believed that the agency should consider a single crash rating only until a crash avoidance NCAP rating grows in substance and scope. Delphi expressed that a combined crashworthiness rating would obscure safety benefits; rather, they supported a Euro NCAP style point system and recommended that key performancebased assessments be presented as the primary information and that featurebased indicators be presented as of secondary importance.

G. Manufacturer SelfCertification (of NCAP Results)

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

In addition to the approaches that NHTSA had proposed to further enhance its NCAP crashworthiness and crash avoidance activities, commenters submitted other recommendations to the agency. These comments on other possible approaches to improving NCAP are grouped into the following categories: Child Restraints and Rear Seat Testing, Lighting, and Pedestrians.

1. Child Restraints

Public Citizen suggested that NHTSA incorporate a dynamic child restraint system (CRS) test into NCAP in all crash modes (including frontal, rollover, side and rear crashes). They recommended that a six year old Hybrid III dummy be restrained in a backless booster and a 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy be placed in a 3point belt in both rearoutboard seating positions. ARCCA recommended adding instrumented child dummies to the outboarddesignated seating positions in the rear to investigate issues associated with accommodations and crash performance of rearseated occupants resulting from cargo.

Bidez & Associates asserted that the agency should build upon and leverage the experience of EuroNCAP in child protection to force design innovation in rear seat safety for six to twelveyear olds.\11\ They believed there was a need to enhance frontal impact protection of nine to twelveyear old children who are properly belted in the rear seat. Their research for restrained nine to twelveyear old children suggested that rear seat occupants had a risk of serious injury 78 percent higher than that of front seat occupants. They estimated that the overall injury rate for all restrained nine to twelveyear olds in all crash types was 38 percent higher in the rear seat than in the front seat. As such,
[[Page 40024]]
Bidez & Associates recommended that NHTSA immediately warn consumers, retract its message to parents about placing children in the rear, and force the automobile industry to upgrade the safety of the rear occupant area of the existing and future vehicle fleet.
\11\ The commenter did not provide specific detail as to what design innovations have occurred as a result of the EuroNCAP activity.

Subaru, GM and the Alliance opposed implementation of a CRS test into NCAP. GM asserted that there can be no meaningful dynamic NCAP test for CRS until there is a meaningful way to tie a CRS NCAP performance rating to realworld performance. They believed that it is inappropriate to invent a test and claim correlation to realworld safety performance improvements without sound data to back this claim. These commenters felt that using child safety seats in NCAP vehicle tests would confound the test results and would not lead to a meaningful vehicle or CRS rating. Additionally, the Alliance asserted that the realworld safety benefits of child restraints demonstrate the children are already very wellprotected in the rear seat. As such, they believed that adding child dummies in child restraints to the rear seating position for front or side NCAP testing would not maximize advancements in child protection.

Volvo suggested that if the agency wanted to develop a child restraint test, then the test should be performed on a sled, and they asserted that there should be improvements in FMVSS No. 213. According to Volvo, the restrictions for design and testing of the restraints, as set up in this standard, basically prohibit innovative concepts with improved performance for reducing misuse and improper installation and for improving safety performance in a crash. To improve child safety, Consumers Union recommended that NHTSA pursue research toward an NCAP rating on (rear) vehicle visibility since they believed that data from Kids and Cars and others suggest that children are most at risk from poor visibility and blind zones around the vehicle.

2. Rear Seat Testing

Adding rear seat dummies into the frontal NCAP program was encouraged by some commenters. In particular, AORC and Bidez and Associates suggested the addition of the 5th percentile female or the 10year old dummy. However, AORC asserted that an analysis of field data would be needed to determine the most appropriate dummy and seating position, and that dummy development may be required in this area to better measure abdominal injuries that may be present among belted occupants in the rear seat.

Individual commenter Mr. Todd Saczalski recommended rear seat testing with adult and child dummies and child restraints to assess the difficulty exiting the vehicle and to examine injuries due to seat back failure. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) stated that the agency should place an older beltrestrained dummy, such as the six or tenyear old Hybrid III child dummy, in the rear seat of the NCAP frontal test to better understand rear restraint systems for child occupants. Additionally, they encouraged the use of a beltpositioning booster seat with the sixyear old Hybrid III dummy.

Subaru did not support adding dummies to the rear seating position. Subaru stated that it might not be possible, with the current front seat positioning procedure, to properly position a 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy in the rear seat of some vehicles; the result could be inconsistent performance evaluations across all vehicles.

3. Lighting

Some public commenters expressed concerns about lighting and glare related to daytime running lights (DRLs). However, the glare comments were focused on the agency's rulemaking activity and not its consumer information activity. Therefore, daytime running lights are not discussed in this notice. GM stated that numerous field effectiveness studies conducted throughout the world show that DRLs could prevent some crashes. Citing an analysis of field data suggesting that under daytime conditions, daytime running lights can prevent 5 percent of opposite direction crashes and 12 percent of pedestrian and pedalcyclist crashes, GM encouraged NHTSA to expand the installation of DRLs and include this technology in its crash avoidance rating so that manufacturers will be encouraged to install them and provide additional collision avoidance benefit.

4. Pedestrians

Consumers Union recommended that NHTSA study the work of auto safety researchers in other countries to determine whether a pedestrianfriendly NCAP rating would be effective in the United States. Consumers Union noted that Honda has taken a leadership role in designing a dummy for testing pedestrian safety and designing its vehicles with pedestrian safety in mind. They urged NHTSA to consider using the Honda pedestrian dummy and to pursue other opportunities to improve pedestrian safety. Public Citizen encouraged NHTSA to issue a pedestrian NCAP test and an accompanying safety standard. They also challenged NHTSA to follow the lead of the rest of the world by taking a far more aggressive stand against the dangers vehicles pose to pedestrians and to raise the bar for pedestrian safety in its discussions for a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian safety.
IV. Discussion and Agency Decision

A. Frontal NCAP

In the comments to the notice and the public hearing concerning enhancements to frontal NCAP, most manufacturers and vehicle safety advocates supported the retention of the current frontal crash test protocol at 35 mph (56 kmph). Additionally, several comments suggested that NCAP injury criteria and metrics be consistent with FMVSS No. 208. Most responders favored using the KTH injury metric (after additional research) but also encouraged the inclusion of other injury criteria such as neck and chest deflection. Some commenters suggested that the agency immediately evaluate lower leg injuries with the ThorLx dummy, while others recommended that NHTSA harmonize with Japan and Euro NCAP on lower leg assessments. The agency's analysis and decisions on frontal NCAP are grouped by categories: Test Dummies, Injury Criteria and their associated Risk Curves, and Lower Speed Testing.

Test Dummies

Comments pertaining to the adoption of additional test dummies included wide support for the 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy, including its placement in the right front seating position. Others recommended that the agency include a 95th percentile male Hybrid III dummy in frontal NCAP. It was also suggested that dummies be placed in the rear seat for the purpose of rating vehicles.

In response to these comments, NHTSA has decided to include the 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy in the right front passenger seating position. GM provided the most compelling evidence, and the agency reexamined its own data and reached the same conclusion.\12\ That is, the real
[[Page 40025]]
world data suggest that the smaller females were at greater risk and more likely to be seated in the right front position in frontal crashes. The agency believes that this dummy's incorporation into the NCAP frontal program is reflective of realworld crash conditions. \12\ The agency's analysis found, based on NASSCDS estimates from 19972006, that the risk of AIS 2+ injury for smaller belted occupants in the right front passenger seating position is 33% greater than that of a midsized adult belted occupant in the same seating position in full frontal crashes (040 delta velocities, nonrollover cases, age ranges from 13 years old or older, height for small adult: Less than 65 inches, and height for midsized adult: 6573 inches).

NHTSA has chosen, however, not to include the 95th percentile male Hybrid III dummy in frontal NCAP at this time. The 95th percentile male Hybrid III dummy has not been evaluated for robustness,
reproducibility, and repeatability in laboratory impact conditions and it has only undergone very limited sled and vehicle testing. As such, we believe additional research and testing with this dummy is necessary before it can be included into frontal NCAP.

With regards to placing adult dummies in the rear seating positions of frontal NCAP tests, NHTSA believes that more analysis is needed before a rating program that includes rear seat occupants can be established. The agency has conducted some limited testing with both the 50th and 5th percentile Hybrid III adult dummies in the rear seat under a full frontal impact condition. However, these preliminary results did not correlate to findings in the realworld and additional research is necessary to better understand the results.\13\ Similarly, none of the commenters that suggested an NCAP rating program for the rear seat provided the necessary data to establish how such a program would lead to meaningful improvements in safety.
\13\ Kuppa, S., Saunders, J., Fessahaie, O., Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes, Paper No. 050212, Nineteenth ESV Conference, Washington DC (2005).

The agency has decided not to incorporate the use of the lower legs from the Thor dummy to evaluate lower leg injuries into the program at this time. The agency is awaiting the completion of research currently in progress by an SAE task group. Additionally, this tool has not undergone the necessary robustness, reproducibility, and repeatability testing that the agency believes is necessary for incorporation into an NCAP ratings program.

Injury Criteria and Risk Curves

With regards to frontal NCAP injury criteria, the agency agrees with the commenters and has decided to include all of the FMVSS No. 208 body regions into the frontal NCAP rating system. As suggested by many commenters, the agency believes that their inclusion will not only add to the robustness of vehicle evaluations, but it will make the criteria used to assign NCAP frontal ratings consistent with those used in FMVSS No. 208 and in other frontalcrash vehicle assessment programs. It will

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For technical issues concerning the enhancements to NCAP, contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse or Mr. John Hinch. Telephone: (202) 3669700. Facsimile: (202) 4932739. For legal issues, contact Dorothy Nakama, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 3662992. Facsimile: (202) 3663820. You may send mail to these officials at: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: NVS010, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.