Pedestrian AEB systems are discussed later in this RFC notice.
NHTSA does not plan to consider the capability of crash avoidance
systems to detect and respond to other objects, such as animals or road
obstructions in this NCAP upgrade. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle
manufacturers to include detection of other objects in their CIB
algorithms to avoid these other crash types.
    CIB systems typically rely on the same forward-looking sensors used
by FCW. NHTSA testing indicates CIB interventions generally occur after
the FCW alert has been issued, although NHTSA has found some
interventions to be coincident. The amount of braking authority varies
among manufacturers, with several systems achieving maximum vehicle
deceleration just prior to impact.
    CIB is one of the earliest generations of automatic braking
technologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.041

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Pedestrian Crash Avoidance Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. New Rating System

A. Overall Rating

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

B. Crashworthiness Rating

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

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

C. Crash Avoidance Rating

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16DE15.043

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

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

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

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

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

D. Pedestrian Protection Rating

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

VII. Communications Efforts in Support of NCAP Enhancements

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

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

VIII. Conclusion

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

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

IX. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

Will the agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments received
after that date.