# New Car Assessment Program

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-31323

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** December 16, 2015
- **Citation:** 80 FR 78522

## Text

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/RibEye
TM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crash mode
Front row
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.

EN16DE15.037

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.

EN16DE15.038

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

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 Bussières, A. “Responses of the Hybrid III 5th Female and 10‐year‐old ATD Seated in the Rear Seats of Passenger Vehicles in Frontal Crash Tests.” IRCOBI Conference 2012, Paper IRC-12-65.

EN16DE15.039

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

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.

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.

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
Törnvall, F. V., Holmqvist, K., Davidsson, J., Svensson, M. Y., HÅland, Y., & Öhrn, 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.

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
Sunnevång, 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 (HIC
15
) 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 HIC
15
in frontal NCAP testing represents a risk of AIS 3+ injury. However, while HIC
15
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 HIC
15
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

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/RibEye
TM

NHTSA is considering updating the HIII-5F ATD currently used in frontal NCAP with new RibEye
TM
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

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 RibEye
TM
.
97

The RibEye
TM
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 RibEye
TM
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 RibEye
TM
instrumentation. Research findings indicate that the multi-point thoracic deflection measurement capability of the RibEye
TM
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 RibEye
TM
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

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 (HIC
36
), 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 (HIC
36
), 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

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

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

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 RibEye
TM
system for the WorldSID-50M, available from Boxboro Systems, LLC, may be used.
132

The RibEye
TM
system is the same general system described earlier that NHTSA intends to use in the HIII-5F. RibEye
TM
, 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 biofideli

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-31323. Public record. Not legal advice.