such, NHTSA cannot reasonably anticipate those timelines in advance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Public Law 117-58, Sec. 24213(c)(1); 49 U.S.C.
32310(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also requires that the mid-term
portion of the roadmap identify and prioritize safety opportunities and
technologies that are practical and for which objective rating tests,
evaluation criteria, and other consumer data exist.\220\ In the mid-
term portion of the roadmap, NHTSA has included only those technologies
that are practical and that otherwise meet the requirements in the law.
With respect to the long-term portion of the roadmap, NHTSA must
identify and prioritize safety opportunities and technologies that
exist or are in development.\221\ NHTSA has met both of these
requirements in the following sections, prioritizing safety
opportunities and technologies that are practical and for which
objective rating tests, evaluation criteria, and other consumer data
exist in the mid-term portion, and identifying safety opportunities and
technologies that exist or are in development in the long-term portion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ Public Law 117-58, Sec. 24213(c)(1); 49 U.S.C.
32310(c)(2)(A).
    \221\ Public Law 117-58, Sec. 24213(c)(1); 49 U.S.C.
32310(c)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any safety opportunity or technology not included in this roadmap
was omitted because NHTSA is not considering inclusion in NCAP at this
time.\222\ In the next five years, addition of other technologies or
opportunities to the roadmap would be subject to NHTSA's four
prerequisites for inclusion in NCAP, the requirements of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law for inclusion in any part of the roadmap, and the
appropriateness of the technology or opportunity for a consumer
information program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ Public Law 117-58, Sec. 24213(c)(1); 49 U.S.C.
32310(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per Sec. 24213(c), NHTSA must request comment on the roadmap and
review and incorporate these comments, as appropriate.\223\ This RFC
requests comments from the public on the roadmap. NHTSA considers the
notice and comment process to be the primary form of stakeholder
engagement, though the Agency reserves the right to conduct other forms
of engagement to ensure that input received represents a diversity of
technical background and viewpoints.\224\ With regard to a roadmap,
NHTSA requests feedback on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ Public Law 117-58, Sec. 24213(c)(1); 49 U.S.C. 32310(e).
    \224\ Public Law 117-58, Sec. 24213(c)(1); 49 U.S.C. 32310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (59) Identification of safety opportunities or technologies in
development that could be included in future roadmaps,
    (60) opportunities to benefit from collaboration or harmonization
with other rating programs, and
    (61) other issues to assist with long-term planning.

2021-2022 Timeframe

     As discussed in detail in this notice, NHTSA proposes to
add four new ADAS technologies (LKS, BSD, BSI, and PAEB) in NCAP.
     In addition to improving the safety and protection of
motor vehicle occupants, NHTSA continues its efforts and focus to
improve the safety of pedestrians and vulnerable road users. NHTSA
plans to propose a crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing
program in NCAP in 2022. The pedestrian protection program would
incorporate three crashworthiness tests (i.e., head-to-hood, upper leg-
to-hood leading edge, and lower leg-to-bumper) discussed in the
December 2015 RFC.\225\ A crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing
program would measure how well passenger cars, trucks, and sport
utility vehicles protect pedestrians in the event of a crash. The
program would further complement the safety achieved by pedestrian
automatic emergency braking by measuring the safety performance of new
vehicles to pedestrian impacts and encouraging safer vehicle designs
for pedestrians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ 80 FR 78521 (Dec. 16, 2015), pp. 78547-78550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022-2023 Timeframe

     NHTSA plans to propose using the THOR-50M in NCAP's full
frontal impact tests and the WorldSID-50M in the program's side impact
barrier and side impact pole tests soon after work commences to add the
dummies to 49 CFR part 572 and FMVSSs.\226\ The Agency would inform the
public (in request for comment notices) how these crash test dummies
would be utilized in various NCAP test modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ NHTSA included new rulemakings in the Spring 2020
Regulatory Agenda that would adopt the THOR-50M and WorldSID-50M
into NHTSA's regulation for anthropomorphic test devices, 49 CFR
part 572 (https://www.reginfo.gov, RIN 2127-AM20 and https://www.reginfo.gov, RIN 2127-AM22, respectively). NHTSA also included
rulemakings that would adopt use of the THOR-50M and WorldSID-50M at
the manufacturers' option in NHTSA compliance tests for FMVSS No.
208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' (https://www.reginfo.gov, RIN
2127-AM21) and FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' (https://www.reginfo.gov, RIN 2127-AM23), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In the December 2015 notice, NHTSA announced it would like
to include a frontal oblique crash test in NCAP.\227\ In response to
that notice, commenters requested that the Agency provide the public
with additional information on the target population as well as costs
and benefits. They also argued that countermeasure studies have not
been completed and questioned the repeatability and reproducibility of
both the test procedure and the oblique moving deformable barrier.
NHTSA has continued its frontal oblique research and kept the public
informed of its findings.\228\ A cornerstone of the procedure is the
use of THOR-50M dummies in the driver and right front passenger
positions. NHTSA plans to determine in 2022 whether this new crash test
mode is appropriate for inclusion in an FMVSS and/or NCAP. If

a determination is made to include the test in NCAP, the notice and
comment process would follow soon thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ 80 FR 78521 (Dec. 16, 2015), pages 78530 through 78531;
https://one.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Small%20Overlap%20and%20Oblique%20Testing.
    \228\ See www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0016 for
document Repeatability and Reproducibility of Oblique Moving
Deformable Barrier Test Procedure (Saunders 2018); Saunders, J. and
Parent, D., ``Repeatability and Reproducibility of Oblique Moving
Deformable Barrier Test Procedure,'' SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-
1055, 2018, doi:10.4271/2018-01-1055; https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/41934 Structural Countermeasure Research Program; https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-simulation-vehicle-models Vehicle Interior and
Restraint Modeling and Structural Countermeasure Research Program
sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NHTSA will consider incorporating several additional
advanced crash avoidance technologies including lighting systems for
improved nighttime pedestrian visibility into NCAP in the near future,
and will be announcing next steps during this timeframe. These include:
(1) Adaptive driving beam headlights; (2) upgraded lower beam
headlighting; (3) semiautomatic headlamp beam-switching; and (4) rear
automatic braking for pedestrian protection.

2023-2024 Timeframe

     A multi-year consumer research effort is underway to
modernize the vehicle safety rating section of the Monroney label. Once
the consumer research is complete, the Agency plans to begin a
rulemaking action in 2023 to update the Monroney label with a new
labeling concept.
     Also in 2023, NHTSA plans to commence revising its 5-star
safety ratings system. The Agency has sought comment on several
approaches to provide consumers with vehicle safety ratings that
provide more meaningful safety information and discriminate performance
of vehicles among the fleet. NHTSA discusses this issue in detail in a
section below.

2025-2031 Timeframe

    In NHTSA's long-term component of the roadmap, NHTSA includes a
variety of technologies and foci that attempt to overcome many safety
challenges for which the technologies available may not be as mature or
may warrant additional study from NHTSA. NHTSA is seeking stakeholder
input on the appropriateness of each of these technologies for the
program and whether commenters believe that these technologies will
meet the program's four prerequisites within the next 5- or 10-year
time frame.
    NHTSA will be further assessing and developing tests for the
following crash avoidance technologies: (1) Intersection safety assist;
(2) opposing traffic safety assist; and (3) automatic emergency braking
for all vulnerable road users (including bicyclists and motorcyclists)
in all major crash scenarios including when the vehicle is turning left
or right. NHTSA will also be assessing the effectiveness of systems
that are or will become available in the fleet. The Agency hopes that
information will be available that would support a proposal in 2025 or
beyond to include these three technologies in NCAP.
    Based on comments received from stakeholders, if a technology
development is mature and the available data in the next several years
meet the Agency's four prerequisites, NHTSA would issue a proposal for
inclusion in NCAP during the five-year mid-term timeline.

VII. Adding Emerging Vehicle Technologies for Safe Driving Choices

    NCAP has traditionally focused on crashworthiness technologies that
protect the vehicle occupants in the event of a collision. The more
advanced ADAS technologies that are the focus of this notice take the
next step and provide technologies that can assist drivers, or in
certain cases correct drivers' action in ways that can avoid or
mitigate crashes. NHTSA has also begun to consider ways NCAP could be
used to encourage technologies that protect road users other than the
vehicles occupants, such as pedestrians and pedalcyclists.
    As beneficial as these technologies may be, NHTSA recognizes that
risky driving behaviors and poor driver choices continue to amplify
crash, injury, and fatality risks on our roadways. Accordingly, NHTSA
is interested in safety technologies that have the ability to address
the prevalent driver behaviors that contribute to roadway fatalities.
For example, there are several available and emerging safety
technologies that have the potential to address speeding and drowsy-,
impaired-, distracted-, and unbelted-driving, thereby reducing the risk
of crashes that lead to injury or death, which are the subjects of
analysis, research, and examination.
    NHTSA is exploring opportunities to encourage the development and
deployment of these technologies. While more must be known about the
effectiveness and consumer acceptance of these systems, NHTSA strongly
believes that these technologies will mature and show efficacy. In the
nearer term, then, the Agency sees potential in highlighting vehicles
equipped with these technologies on its website, and possibly
elsewhere, to improve public awareness, and encourage vehicle
manufacturer development and adoption. NHTSA will conduct research to
develop objective test procedures and criteria to evaluate the
performance and effectiveness of these technologies. Initiatives on
these technologies would be woven into both the first and second half
(i.e., long-term portion) of the 10-year roadmap, depending on whether
the technologies and objective tests and criteria are sufficiently
developed to meet NHTSA's four prerequisites for inclusion in NCAP.

A. Driver Monitoring Systems

    Driver monitoring systems use a variety of sensors and software to
detect and/or infer driver state based on estimation approaches. For
example, certain types of driver monitoring systems have shown promise
in detecting the state of a driver's drowsiness.\229\ As vehicle
technologies have evolved, driver monitoring systems have been more
commonly introduced and applied to various driver states, particularly
as one of the countermeasures against potential misuse of ADAS.
Currently, there are varied approaches to driver monitoring across
vehicle and equipment manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ Brown, T., Lee, J., Schwarz, C., Fiorentino, D., McDonald,
A., Traube, E., Nadler, E. (2013). Detection of Driver Impairment
from Drowsiness. 23rd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Seoul,
Republic of Korea. May 2013. Paper Number 13-0346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is considering adding driver monitoring systems as an NCAP
technology to encourage further deployment of effective driver
monitoring systems into vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment on the following
to help the Agency determine whether to implement driver monitoring
systems in NCAP:
    (62) What are the capabilities of the various available approaches
to driver monitoring systems (e.g., steering wheel sensors, eye
tracking cameras, etc.) to detect or infer different driver state
measurement or estimations (e.g., visual attention, drowsiness, medical
incapacity, etc.)? What is the associated confidence or reliability in
detecting or inferring such driver states and what supporting data
exist?
    (63) Of further interest are the types of system actions taken
based on a driver monitoring system's estimate of a driver's state.
What are the types and modes of associated warnings, interventions, and
other mitigation strategies that are most effective for different
driver states or impairments (e.g., drowsy, medical, distraction)? What
research data exist that substantiate effectiveness of these
interventions?
    (64) Are there relevant thresholds and strategies for performance
(e.g., alert versus some degree of intervention) that would warrant
some type of NCAP credit?
    (65) Since different driver states (e.g., visual distraction and
intoxication) can result in similar driving behaviors (e.g., wide
within-lane position variability), comments regarding opportunities and

tradeoffs in mitigation strategies when the originating cause is not
conclusive are of specific interest.
    (66) What types of consumer acceptance information (e.g., consumer
interest or feedback data) are available or are foreseen for
implementation of different types of driver monitoring systems and
associated mitigation strategies for driver impairment, drowsiness, or
visual inattention? Are there privacy concerns? What are the related
privacy protection strategies? Are there use or preference data on a
selectable feature that could be optionally enabled by consumers (e.g.,
for teen drivers by their parents)?

B. Driver Distraction

    According to NHTSA's statistics, driver distraction resulted in at
least 3,000 known deaths in 2019.\230\ Often discussions regarding
distracted driving center around cell phone use and texting, but
distracted driving also includes other activities such adjusting the
radio or climate controls or accessing other in-vehicle systems. In-
vehicle devices and Human-Machine Interfaces (HMI) can be strategically
designed to avoid or limit opportunities for driver distraction.\231\
Easy access to manual controls in traditional or expected locations can
minimize the amount of time a driver's eyes are off the road and hands
are off the steering wheel, as well as the time needed for the driver
to activate the control quickly in time-critical traffic conflict
scenarios (e.g., a driver reaches to activate the horn button in a
crash-imminent situation, but finds that the control of horn activation
is not in the expected, typical location).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2020,
December). Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in 2019. (Traffic
Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 060). Washington, DC: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \231\ In 2013, NHTSA published ``Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver
Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices.'' These
voluntary guidelines apply to original equipment in-vehicle
electronic devices used by the driver to perform secondary tasks
(communications, entertainment, information gathering, navigation
tasks, etc. are considered secondary tasks) through visual-manual
means. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/04/26/2013-09883/visual-manual-nhtsa-driver-distraction-guidelines-for-in-vehicle-electronic-devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment on the following:
    (67) What in-vehicle and HMI design characteristics would be most
helpful to include in an NCAP rating that focuses on ease of use? What
research data exist to support objectively characterizing ease of use
for vehicle controls and displays?
    (68) What are specific countermeasures or approaches to mitigate
driver distraction, and what are the associated effectiveness metrics
that may be feasible and appropriate for inclusion in the NCAP program?
Methods may include driver monitoring and action strategies, HMI design
considerations, expanded in-motion secondary task lockouts, phone
application/notification limitations while paired with the vehicle,
etc.
    (69) What distraction mitigation measures could be considered for
NCAP credit?

C. Alcohol Detection

    Alcohol-impaired driving continues to be a pervasive contributing
factor to roadway fatalities, with over 10,000 deaths in the U.S. in
2019.\232\ NHTSA has explored many ways in which alcohol-impaired
driving risks can be effectively mitigated both through vehicle
technologies and strategic public outreach and enforcement.\233\ In
2020, NHTSA published a Request for Information notice seeking input on
Impaired Driving Technologies in the Federal Register.\234\
Specifically, the notice requested information on available or late
stage technology under development for impaired driving detection and
mitigation. A total of 12 comments were received.\235\ Comments were
submitted about emerging technologies that can directly measure
impairment though blood alcohol concentration at the beginning of a
trip as well as technologies that infer alcohol impairment through a
combination of driver monitoring and other vehicle sensors tracking
during the course of a trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Ibid.
    \233\ NHTSA has researched the Driver Alcohol Detection System
for Safety (DADSS) program.
    \234\ 85 FR 71987 (November 12, 2020).
    \235\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0102-0001/comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks comment on the following aspects of alcohol detection
systems:
    (70) Are there opportunities for including alcohol-impairment
technology in NCAP? What types of metrics, thresholds, and tests could
be considered? Could voluntary deployment or adoption be positively
influenced through NCAP credit?
    (71) How can NCAP procedures be described in objective terms that
could be inclusive of various approaches, such as detection systems and
inference systems? Are there particular challenges with any approach
that may need special considerations? What supporting research data
exist that document relevant performance factors such as sensing
accuracy and detection algorithm efficacy?
    (72) When a system detects alcohol-impairment during the course of
a trip, what actions could the system take in a safe manner? What are
the safety considerations related to various options that manufacturers
may be considering (e.g., speed reduction, performing a safe stop,
pulling over, or flasher activation)? How should various actions be
considered for NCAP credit?
    (73) What is known related to consumer acceptance of alcohol-
impaired driving detection and mitigation functions, and how may that
differ with respect to direct measurement approaches versus estimation
techniques using a driver monitoring system? What consumer interest or
feedback data exist relating to this topic? Are there privacy concerns
or privacy protection strategies with various approaches? What are the
related privacy protection strategies?

D. Seat Belt Interlocks

    Seat belt use in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 14,955 lives
in 2017.\236\ The national seat belt use rate in the United States was
90.7 percent in 2019.\237\ Among the 22,215 passenger vehicle occupants
killed in 2019, almost half (47 percent) were unrestrained. For those
passenger vehicle occupants who survived crashes where someone else
died, only 14 percent were unrestrained compared to 47 percent of those
who died.\238\ \239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ DOT HS 812 683. Latest agency estimate available.
    \237\ DOT HS 812 875.
    \238\ DOT HS 813 060.
    \239\ Based on known restraint use. Restraint use was unknown
for 8.7 percent of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, NHTSA uses an array of countermeasures, including the
Click It or Ticket campaign and State primary enforcement laws, to
encourage seat belt use. The Agency requires seat belt reminders for
the driver's seat.\240\ As of the 2018 model year, about 95 percent of
vehicles voluntarily offer front passenger warnings. NHTSA also informs
consumers searching for vehicle ratings on www.NHTSA.gov as to the
availability of optional front passenger and rear seat belt reminder
systems, which typically provide a visual and auditory warning to the
driver at the onset of a trip and if a passenger unbuckles during a
trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ 49 CFR 571.208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methods for detecting seat belt misuse have advanced in recent
years. A 2018 NHTSA report, ``Performance Assessment of Prototype Seat
Belt Misuse Detection System,'' showed that

the system correctly identified seat belt misuse in 95 percent of
trials on average across multiple common seat belt misuse
scenarios.\241\ This type of seat belt misuse or non-use detection
could be coupled with various types of seat belt interlock systems to
encourage seat belt use. Although NHTSA is not aware of any such system
being currently in production, various prototype systems have been
developed by manufacturers.\242\ These systems could include
transmission interlock, ignition interlock, and entertainment system
interlock. Such systems could prevent drivers from shifting into gear,
starting their vehicle, or using their vehicle's entertainment system,
respectively, if the driver and/or front passenger is unbelted. Another
potential strategy could be speed limiter interlock systems. Such a
system could first issue a seat belt reminder warning if the driver
begins driving and is unbelted, and then automatically reduce vehicle
speed to a very low speed after a certain warning period if the driver
remains unbelted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ DOT HS 812 496.
    \242\ ``NHTSA' Research on Seat Belt Interlocks,'' SAE
Government Industry Meeting, January 24-26, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA requests comment on the following related to seat belt
interlock systems:
    (74) Should NCAP consider credit for a seat belt reminder system
with a continuous or intermittent audible signal that does not cease
until the seat belt is properly buckled (i.e., after the 60 second
FMVSS No. 208 minimum)? What data are available to support associated
effectiveness? Are certain audible signal characteristics more
effective than others?
    (75) Is there an opportunity for including a seat belt interlock
assessment in NCAP?
    (76) If the Agency were to encourage seat belt interlock adoption
through NCAP, should all interlock system approaches be considered, or
only certain types? If so, which ones? What metrics could be evaluated
for each? Should differing credit be applied depending upon interlock
system approach?
    (77) Should seat belt interlocks be considered for all seating
positions in the vehicle, or only the front seats? Could there be an
opportunity for differentiation in this respect?
    (78) What information is known or anticipated with respect to
consumer acceptance of seat belt interlock systems and/or persistent
seat belt reminder systems in vehicles? What consumer interest or
feedback data exist on this topic?
    (79) Could there be an NCAP opportunity in a selectable feature
that could be optionally engaged such as in the context of a ``teen
mode'' feature?

E. Intelligent Speed Assist

    Speeding continues to be one of the critical factors in fatal
crashes on American roadways. Specifically, driving too fast for
conditions and exceeding the posted limit are two prevalent factors
that contribute to traffic crashes. For more than two decades, NHTSA
has identified speed as being a factor in at least nearly one-third of
all motor vehicle related fatalities. For example, in 2019, of the
36,096 traffic-related fatalities occurred on U.S. roadways, 9,478 of
those were positively identified as speeding-related.\243\ These totals
may underreport speeding, potentially to a significant degree, as they
are based on whether any driver in the crash was charged with a
speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated that racing,
driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit
was a contributing factor in the crash. As this reporting is based on
aggregated police actions rather than an engineering analysis of
individual crashes, it may tend to underestimate the presence of
speeding, particularly in crashes where the speeding was not clearly
obvious but still a factor in either the occurrence or severity of the
crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ Traffic Safety Facts 2019 ``A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data.'' U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Too few drivers view speeding as an immediate risk to their
personal safety or the safety of others, including pedestrians and
vulnerable road users. Yet, the consequences of speeding include:
Greater potential for loss of vehicle control; reduced effectiveness of
occupant protection equipment; increased stopping distance after the
driver perceives a danger; increased degree of crash severity leading
to more severe injuries; economic implications of a speed-related
crash; and increased fuel consumption and cost. The probability of
death, disfigurement, or debilitating injury grows with higher speed at
impact.
    NHTSA engages with State and local jurisdictions as well as
national law enforcement partners to provide funding and educational
materials which address speeding. Speed limiter features, which prevent
a vehicle from traveling over a certain speed by limiting engine power,
are available in the U.S. market and widely used in heavy-duty tractor-
trailers and other fleet-based vehicles. In addition, nearly all
vehicles are equipped with a mechanism that limits their top-end speed,
even if that speed is quite high. These systems either prevent a
vehicle from exceeding a preset specific speed regardless of location,
or they use GPS and/or camera data to determine the speed limit of the
current road and apply mitigation measures to reduce speeding. Vehicles
equipped with an intelligent speed assist system can display the
current speed limit to the driver at all times. Should the driver
exceed the speed limit for the road, the system can provide a visual or
auditory alert or actively slow the vehicle to an appropriate speed.
Typically, many existing intelligent speed assist systems can be
temporarily overridden by the driver by depressing the accelerator
pedal firmly.
    NHTSA is committed to addressing this important safety issue to
further reduce fatalities and injuries. NHTSA requests comment on the
following aspects of intelligent speed assist systems in passenger
vehicles as well as other approaches that are not discussed in this
notice.
    (80) Should NHTSA take into consideration systems, such as
intelligent speed assist systems, which determine current speed limits
and warn the driver or adjust the maximum traveling speed accordingly?
Should there be a differentiation between warning and intervention type
intelligent speed assist systems in this consideration? Should systems
that allow for some small amount of speeding over the limit before
intervening be treated the same or differently than systems that are
specifically keyed to a road's speed limit? What about for systems that
allow driver override versus systems that do not?
    (81) Are there specific protocols that should be considered when
evaluating speed assist system functionality?
    (82) What information is known or anticipated with respect to
consumer acceptance of intelligent speed assist systems? What consumer
interest or feedback data exist on this topic?
    (83) Are there other means that the Agency should consider to
prevent excessive speeding?

F. Rear Seat Child Reminder Assist

    Data indicate that since 1998, nearly 900 children (an average of
38 per year) have died in the U.S. of hyperthermia (vehicular
heatstroke) because they were left or became trapped in a hot vehicle.
2018 and 2019 saw a record number of vehicular heatstroke related
deaths at 53

each year.\244\ Children were in the vehicles due to a variety of
circumstances--some gain entry to a parked vehicle, whereas over 50
percent are forgotten in the vehicle by caregivers.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ www.noheatstroke.org.
    \245\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these tragedies, many companies have developed
aftermarket devices to remind parents and caregivers that a child may
be left inside the vehicle. NHTSA has assessed several products and
developed a test methodology for evaluating future products.\246\ NHTSA
subsequently opened a public docket inviting all interested parties to
submit information regarding efforts or technological innovations to
help prevent vehicular heatstroke.\247\ Also, NHTSA has media
campaigns, such as ``Where's Baby? Look Before You Lock,'' to raise
awareness to parents and caregivers on the dangers of vehicular
heatstroke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ Rudd, R., Prasad, A., Weston, D., & Wietholter, K. (2015,
July). Functional assessment of unattended child reminder systems.
(Report No. DOT HS 812 187). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
    \247\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2019-0126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent years, in-vehicle rear seat child reminder technology has
been introduced into a number of vehicle makes and models. Many of
these technological solutions utilize ``door logic'' to determine if
there is potentially a child in the rear seat of the vehicle. The
vehicle door logic checks to see if the rear seat doors were opened and
closed at the start of the trip and then displays a reminder in the
dash board with an audio cue for the driver to check the back seat when
the vehicle is turned off. In September 2019, the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers (now
collectively known as the Alliance for Automotive Innovation) announced
that a voluntary agreement had been formed by its member companies to
incorporate rear seat child reminder systems into their vehicles as
standard equipment no later than the 2025 model year.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ https://www.autosinnovate.org/safety/heatstroke/Automakers%20Commit%20to%20Helping%20Combat%20Child%20Heatstroke.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA requests comment on the following issues related to rear seat
child reminder systems designed to prevent vehicular heatstroke.
    (84) If NHTSA considers this technology for inclusion in NCAP, are
door logic solutions sufficient? Should NHTSA only consider systems
that detect the presence of a child?
    (85) What research data exist to substantiate differences in
effectiveness of these system types?
    (86) Are there specific protocols that should be considered when
evaluating these in-vehicle rear seat child reminder systems?
    (87) What information is known or anticipated with respect to
consumer acceptance of integrated rear seat child reminder systems in
vehicles? What consumer interest or feedback data exist on this topic?

VIII. Revising the 5-Star Safety Rating System

    NHTSA is seeking comment on several approaches to provide consumers
with vehicle safety ratings that provide more meaningful safety
information and provide consumers with more ways to determine relative
performance of vehicles among the fleet. In the current 5-star safety
ratings system, as described in detail in the July 2008 final decision
notice, injury readings recorded from crash test dummies used in NCAP's
frontal impact, side impact barrier, and side impact pole tests are
assessed using injury risk curves designed to predict the chance of a
vehicle's occupant receiving similar injuries.\249\ For each occupant
in each crash test, the risks of injury to each body region assessed
are combined to produce a combined probability of injury to each
occupant. The combined probabilities of injury for each occupant are
divided by a predetermined baseline risk of injury. This baseline risk
of injury approximates the fleet average injury risk for each crash
test. Dividing each combined occupant probability of injury by the
baseline risk of injury results in a relative assessment of that
occupant's combined injury risk versus a known fleet average. These
calculations result in six summary scores for each vehicle representing
the relative risk of injury for the following occupants: (1) The driver
and front seat passenger in the frontal impact test; (2) the driver and
rear seat passenger in the side impact barrier test; (3) the driver in
the side impact pole test; and (4) the relative risk for all occupants
in rollovers with respect to a baseline injury risk. These relative
risks are then converted to star ratings to help consumers make
informed vehicle purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ 73 FR 40016 (July 11, 2008), http://regulations.gov,
Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-0114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA seeks public comment on a few potential concepts it could use
to develop a new 5-star safety ratings system in the future. Some areas
of consideration discussed below could be used in conjunction with one
another, while others could work better as standalone options. Ideally,
any future 5-star safety ratings system should not only fulfill the
program mission, but also be sufficiently flexible to allow for
continuing updates to NCAP to encourage further vehicle safety
improvements.

A. Points-Based Ratings System Concept

    NHTSA is seeking comment on the use of a potential points-based
system to calculate future 5-star safety ratings for the
crashworthiness testing program when the Agency decides to update that
program. In this system, star ratings could be assigned directly from
point values related to the results from crash test dummies. The
current system is based on a linear combination of the probability of
injury for multiple body regions, some at different severity levels,
which can result in some body regions being overlooked. A point-based
system, on the other hand, would provide more flexibility to target
injury criteria more representative of real-world injury incidence. The
Agency believes that this potential method would provide more
flexibility in the future when updating the program through a phased
approach. For instance, new testing devices (e.g., crash test dummies),
procedures, injury measurements, or other criteria could be added to
the 5-star-ratings system. Points could be based on critical injury
risk curve values or on criteria, such as reference values from
existing Federal regulations or other Agency data.
    This points-based rating system approach would be similar to those
used in other vehicle safety consumer information programs such as IIHS
and Euro NCAP. Upper and lower performance targets would be established
for each test dummy body region assessed in crash tests. Maximum points
would be awarded if Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) meet the
lower target or better. A linearized number of points would be awarded
for injury assessment values that are between the lower and upper
targets. No points would be assigned for those that exceed the upper
target for the respective body region (or perhaps the entire occupant).
Risk curves would no longer be used exclusively to calculate a combined
injury probability from the various body regions and ultimately star
ratings. Critical risk curve values, IARVs, or other accepted injury
limits would be used to establish performance targets and related
points assignments.

    In addition to the injury criteria currently included in the 5-star
safety ratings system, data to support several other injury criteria
are collected for Agency monitoring and consumer information on the
respective NCAP dummies (Hybrid III and ES-2re 50th percentile males,
Hybrid III and SID-IIs 5th percentile females). NHTSA is seeking
comment on whether any additional measurements that are not part of the
existing 5-star ratings system are appropriate for use in a points-
based calculation of the future star ratings.
    Currently, if measurements of certain injury criteria that are
included in related FMVSSs exceed standard limits, the Agency would
assign a ``safety concern'' designation on its website and on the
vehicle window sticker (Monroney label).\250\ If measurements of
certain injury criteria that are not part of FMVSSs exceed established
limits, the Agency highlights those on its website (but not on the
Monroney label) with footnotes. In both of these cases, the Agency
seeks to inform consumers of potentially higher injury risks in body
regions that are not captured by the existing 5-star safety ratings
system. The Agency recognizes that consumer confusion may result from
the presentation of a vehicle with high (4- or 5-star) ratings that is
also assigned a safety concern or injury-related footnote. One
potential solution to reduce confusion would be to implement a points-
based system that allows the Agency to include the assessment of all
injuries within the calculation of the star rating, even those that may
not have associated risk curves. Thus, the Agency is seeking comment on
the appropriate method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, NHTSA is exploring several options regarding the
distribution of points across a potential points-based ratings system.
Real-world data could be used to apportion the total number of
available points to each crash mode, dummy, and/or injury value
according to severity or prevalence in the field. Alternatively, each
dummy or injury value could be allotted the same number of points,
effectively normalizing each dummy or injury.

B. Baseline Risk Concept

    Support for adjusting the baseline risk value associated with 5-
star safety ratings has been mixed in the past, with some in favor and
others advising against it.\251\ As mentioned earlier, the Agency is
again seeking comment on whether the baseline risk concept should be
preserved when considering updates to its 5-star safety ratings system
in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ This is based on comments by participants in the October
1, 2018 public meeting and respondents to the related docket https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2018-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the July 2008 final decision establishing the existing 5-star
safety ratings system, the concept of a relative star rating system was
introduced for the first time.\252\ As discussed previously, after
injury readings from various body regions are converted to combined
probabilities of injury risks, those combined probabilities are divided
by a baseline (or average) risk of injury that is an approximation of
the vehicle fleet average injury risk. Star ratings generated in NCAP
today are a measure of how much more (or less) occupant protection the
vehicle affords when compared to an ``average'' vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ Prior to the 2010 program enhancements, NCAP star ratings
were based on an absolute, independent scale of combined injury
probability. That is, the combined probability of injury from a
given occupant was converted directly into a star rating with no
intermediate calculation except rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the baseline risk as described in the July 2008
notice was to update its value at regular intervals so that, as the
average risk of injury decreased over time, ratings could become more
stringent without changing the underlying criteria. In practice, the
baseline risk has never been adjusted, which results in recent star
ratings being assigned using an older benchmark less representative of
current vehicle safety levels.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ Park, B., Rockwell, T., Collins, L., Smith, C., Aram, M.
(2015), The enhanced U.S. NCAP: Five years later. 24th Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 2015, Paper
Number 15-0314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Half-Star Ratings

    In the December 2015 notice, the Agency sought comments on the
merits of providing ratings to consumers in half-star increments.
Commenters were generally supportive of the notion. In this notice,
NHTSA continues to seek comment on whether the Agency should
disseminate its 5-star safety ratings with half-star increments. This
approach could allow better discrimination of vehicle performance for
consumer information purposes by creating additional levels within the
existing 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-star levels. Though the Agency has not
conducted consumer research on this potential approach, NHTSA believes
that the public is familiar with the general impression of half-star
ratings as it is commonly found in other consumer product rating
schemes.
    Future crashworthiness 5-star safety ratings systems most likely
would contain more elements on which vehicles are assessed. Thus, NHTSA
believes that using half-star increments may be necessary in future
rating systems because they allow better discrimination of vehicle
safety performance. The half-star increments, depending on future
Agency decisions, could create anywhere from 9 to 11 levels \254\ of
discrimination for use in rating vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ Depending on possible rating scales from 0-5 stars, 0.5-5
stars, or 1-5 stars, the amount of total distinct ratings available
would vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA could design any half-star rating system to require a vehicle
to reach the minimum threshold for receiving that rating level. Ratings
in a system such as this would be ``rounded down'' to the nearest half-
or whole-star rating and would not be ``rounded up'' to the next half-
or whole-star rating.

D. Decimal Ratings

    NHTSA is also seeking comments on whether it should consider
assigning star ratings using a decimal format in addition to or in
place of assigning whole- or half-star ratings. The decimal rating
could be based on a conversion of NCAP test results by using a linear
function approach. For instance, in the current 5-star safety ratings
system, this could be achieved by relating a linear function to the VSS
calculation and its associated ranges. In a potential future 5-star
safety ratings system, like one where the previously discussed points-
based concept is used, a decimal value could also be easily integrated.
Providing NCAP ratings in decimal format could provide consumers with
an additional, high delineation method of discriminating vehicle
performance among the fleet for purchasing reasons.
    Considering these ongoing Agency initiatives currently being
pursued for future NCAP upgrades, NHTSA requests comment on the
following:
    (88) What approaches are most effective to provide consumers with
vehicle safety ratings that provide meaningful information and
discriminate performance of vehicles among the fleet?
    Specifically with regard to a points-based rating system, the
Agency seeks comment on the following:
    (89) Is the use of additional injury criteria/body regions that are
not part of the existing 5-star ratings system appropriate for use in a
points-based calculation of future star ratings? Some injury criteria
do not have associated risk curves. Are these regions appropriate to
include, and if so, what is the appropriate method by which to include
them?
    Regarding the baseline risk concept and the general concept of
relative

ratings, NHTSA is seeking comment on the following:
    (90) Should a crashworthiness 5-star safety ratings system continue
to measure a vehicle's performance based on a known or expected fleet
average performer, or should it return to an absolute system of rating
vehicles?
    (91) Considering the basic structure of the current ratings system
(combined injury risk), the potential overlapping target populations
for crashworthiness and ADAS program elements, as well as other
potential concepts mentioned in this document such as a points-based
system, what would the best method of calculating the vehicle fleet
average performance be?
    (92) Should the vehicle fleet average performance be updated at
regular intervals, and if so, how often?
    (93) What is the most appropriate way to disseminate these updates
or changes to the public?
    Considering a change in approach to how to present star ratings to
the public, NHTSA seeks comment on the following:
    (94) Should the Agency disseminate its 5-star ratings with half-
star increments?
    (95) Should the Agency assign star ratings using a decimal format
in addition to or in place of whole- or half-stars?

E. Rollover Resistance Testing Program

    Currently, there are two rollover resistance tests that the Agency
conducts and are part of the existing 5-star safety ratings system. The
first component of this assessment is the static measurement of the
vehicle's center of gravity height and the track width to determine the
vehicle's static stability factor. The second component of this
assessment is the dynamic rollover test (Fishhook test) that simulates
a driver taking a panic steering action in a loss-of-control situation.
The Agency uses two formulas (no tip-up and tip-up results) for
calculating the risk of rollover and then assigns a rollover rating
based on the risk. NHTSA sought comment on the approach published in
the December 2015 notice to recalculate its current rollover risk curve
given the full implementation of electronic stability control (ESC)
systems as standard equipment in all vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2011. Commenters who responded to the December 2015 notice
were generally supportive of the Agency's desire to update the rollover
risk curve to reflect the role of ESC deployment. However, few specific
comments on the appropriateness of the approach that was described in
the notice were received at the time.
    NHTSA is not proposing changes to its two existing rollover
resistance tests at this time. However, when the Agency proposes
changes to the existing 5-star ratings system, it may be feasible to
consider an update to how it assesses the rollover resistance testing
component. Thus, the Agency is seeking comment on whether any future
overall vehicle ratings should continue to include rollover resistance
evaluations. Also, if the Agency updates the rollover risk curve,
suggestions on how to transition that data into a future overall
vehicle rating would be encouraged. The Agency expects that any future
overall vehicle ratings would, at minimum, require reweighting the
contribution of each test mode to that overall rating and thus the need
to determine the most appropriate program area to include the rollover
resistance tests.
    (96) Should the Agency continue to include rollover resistance
evaluations in its future overall ratings?

IX. Other Activities

A. Programmatic Challenges With Self-Reported Data

    Since model year 2011, vehicle manufacturers have been reporting to
NHTSA their internal test data that show whether vehicles equipped with
the recommended ADAS technologies pass NCAP's system performance test
requirements in order to receive credit from the Agency. NHTSA assesses
the information provided and then assigns check marks for systems whose
conformance with NCAP's performance test requirements are supported by
the data. As the Agency stated in its July 2008 final decision notice,
commenters were generally supportive of NHTSA's plan to use self-
reported data from the vehicle manufacturers, in conjunction with its
own spot-check verification testing, to determine whether vehicles met
NCAP's system performance test requirements.\255\ The process by which
the Agency has accepted self-reported ADAS technology data for
recommended technologies has been crucial to the successful
administration of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ 72 FR 3473 (Jan. 25, 2007), Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, this process has not been without challenges. Throughout
the administration of the ADAS assessment program in NCAP, NHTSA has
identified inconsistencies in vehicle manufacturers' self-reported data
submissions. The Agency has determined that many of these
inconsistencies stem from unfamiliarity with NCAP's system performance
test procedures, including the use of test targets and other
parameters.
    It is critical to maintain program credibility and public trust
when accepting manufacturers' ADAS self-reported data and disseminating
it to the public. One approach to addressing some of the aforementioned
challenges is to encourage all vehicle manufacturers to provide NHTSA
with ADAS self-reported data from an independent test facility that
meets criteria demonstrating competence in NCAP testing protocols. For
instance, NHTSA's rigorous procurement process for awarding contracts
to test laboratories provides that qualified laboratories meet specific
competence requirements.
    To address the challenges mentioned above, NHTSA is considering
refusing to accept self-reported data and not posting recommendations
for the vehicle's systems on its website, when:
     Manufacturers' self-reported ADAS test data is provided
from a test facility that is not designated as NHTSA's contracted test
laboratory, or
     The corresponding ADAS tests are not conducted in
accordance with NCAP's testing protocols (including test devices).
    NHTSA seeks comment on the following:
    (97) Considering the Agency's goal of maintaining the integrity of
the program, should NHTSA accept self-reported test data that is
generated by test laboratories that are not NHTSA's contracted test
laboratories? If no, why not? If yes, what criteria are most relevant
for evaluating whether a given laboratory can acceptably conduct ADAS
performance tests for NCAP such that the program's credibility is
upheld?
    (98) As the ADAS assessment program in NCAP continues to grow in
the future to include new ADAS technologies and more complex test
procedures, what other means would best address the following program
challenges: Methods of data collection, maintaining data integrity and
public trust, and managing test failures, particularly during
verification testing?

B. Website Updates

    NHTSA uses its website and the safety rating section of the
Monroney label to convey to consumers vehicle safety information
provided by NCAP. Although the Monroney label is an important tool
NHTSA uses to communicate vehicle safety ratings to consumers at the
point of sale, it has limitations:

    (1) The Agency must undergo a rulemaking action to change any of
its content, including minor and non-substantive changes.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ The Agency implemented the Monroney label requirement by
regulation (49 CFR 575.302) pursuant to Section 10307 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act; A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The label is limited to a certain size, only some of which is
dedicated to NCAP information, which only allows for the communication
of limited safety information.
    (3) By virtue of being posted on individual vehicles, the label
provides limited utility as a comparative shopping tool unless compared
to labels on vehicles in the same physical location.
    Thus, NHTSA uses its website to communicate a wealth of information
about vehicle safety beyond what is displayed on the Monroney label.
NHTSA has structured the information displayed on its website to align
with the structure of the Monroney label. The same crashworthiness and
rollover star ratings are shown on both the label and the website.
However, crash avoidance (ADAS technologies) recommendations are not
included on the Monroney label because they were too new to be included
at the time of the most recent Monroney label update, whereas they are
provided on the website.
    In light of the Monroney label limitations, increasingly complex
vehicle ratings and results, and NHTSA's desire to communicate safety
information as timely as possible, NHTSA is considering enhancing the
information on its website. However, some of these enhancements may
necessitate that the information provided on the Monroney label and
website deviate from one another in structure or in content. There are
limitations on the amount of information that can be usefully conveyed
on the Monroney label, so NHTSA is currently considering placing some
information on the website alone. However, while it makes sense to
provide additional information and comparative tools on the website,
NHTSA is concerned that consumers could be confused if the information
in both places is not presented in the same manner. For example, the
Monroney label is currently limited to displaying whole star ratings.
If, as a result of this RFC, NHTSA decides to improve the
differentiation between vehicles by displaying star ratings on its
website using new methods like a decimal equivalent value or half-
stars, such a discrepancy between the Monroney label and the website
may confuse consumers.
    During the October 2018 public meeting, Consumers Union suggested
that NHTSA could provide ratings on its website in a ``more granular,
sortable and readily comparable manner.'' Currently, the website's
functionality allows for users to input limited search terms. For
instance, a consumer may search for all vehicles in a given model year,
all vehicles of a specific make, or vehicles with a specific model
name. Consumers may then filter these results by body style, but the
current body style categories are very broad and can encompass hundreds
of models. Consumers are currently limited to viewing ten vehicle
models at a time in search results, meaning that they may need to sift
through many pages of results if they are simply browsing and do not
have a particular make or model in mind. NHTSA plans to address these
issues by improving the organization and versatility of the safety
ratings data presented to the public.
    Once a consumer selects a vehicle for further details, they may
choose to compare up to three vehicles, but they must input the year,
make, and model of the vehicles to be compared. NHTSA intends to make
changes to its www.nhtsa.gov user interface to allow for simpler
comparisons between vehicle manufacturers and types. For example, when
a consumer searches for safety rating information for a particular make
and model, similar vehicles could also be shown. These vehicles could
be classified according to body style. The Agency expects to make other
changes to NHTSA.gov to increase the comparability of safety
information.
    NHTSA continues to seek comment on the following aspects of vehicle
information provided on its website:
    (99) What is the potential for consumer confusion if information on
the Monroney label and on the website differs, and how can this
confusion be lessened?
    (100) What types of vehicles do consumers compare during their
search for a new vehicle? Do consumers often consider vehicles with
different body styles (e.g., midsized sedan versus large sport
utility)?
    (101) When searching for vehicle safety information, do consumers
have a clear understanding for which vehicles they are seeking
information, or do they browse through vehicle ratings to identify
vehicles they may wish to purchase?
    (102) When classifying vehicles by body style, what degree of
classification is most appropriate? For example, when purchasing a
passenger vehicle, do consumers consider all passenger vehicles, or are
they inclined to narrow their searches to vehicles of a subset of
passenger vehicles (e.g., subcompact passenger vehicle)?
    (103) Within the context of the updates considered in this notice,
what is the most important top-level safety-related information that
consumers should be able to compare amongst vehicles? Which of these
pieces of information should consumers be able to use to sort and
filter search results?

C. Database Changes

    NHTSA wishes to take this opportunity to inform the public about
other ways the Agency is significantly enhancing the NCAP program. We
have undertaken a considerable developmental effort to modernize the
OEM submission process and our processing of data, so that consumer
information can be provided to consumers quickly and accurately. We are
not requesting comment in this section but are presenting this
information for the benefit of the reader.
    Each year NHTSA requests vehicle manufacturers to submit new model
year vehicle information voluntarily on new passenger cars and light
trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or
less. This information is used by NCAP primarily for consumer
information on the Agency's website, presentation on the vehicle window
stickers, and for the selection of new model year vehicles to be tested
under NCAP.
    The manner in which NHTSA and vehicle manufacturers communicate
information has changed over the years--from mailed letters and faxes
to spreadsheets and emails. However, NHTSA realized a modernized
process of data submission, collection, analysis, and dissemination is
necessary due to the ever-growing list of data elements needed to
support an evolving test portfolio and diverse vehicle fleet. In the
last model year alone, more than 400 makes and models of passenger
vehicles were sold in the United States, thus requiring vehicle
manufacturers not only to assemble detailed new vehicle data and submit
them to NHTSA, but also NHTSA to collect, sort, and analyze tremendous
amounts of information.
    Managing this data has become more complex, utilizing electronic
spreadsheets and email. In addition to processing spreadsheets from
more than 20 organizations, maintaining version control, checking data
for accuracy, clarifying ambiguities, sending ratings letters, and
processing requests have limited the ability of the Agency's current IT
systems in storing and

analyzing data. These limitations have been exacerbated by the
incorporation of ADAS assessments into NCAP, which accepts self-
reported test data from vehicle manufacturers. Historically, these ADAS
technologies have been available in a mix of vehicles within a
technology package or trim line at the make and model level, which can
cause consumer confusion as to which vehicles have the technologies.
Furthermore, as NCAP is only able to offer consumer information details
at the make and model level, the additional complexity of parsing trim
lines and technology packages has been overly burdensome given NHTSA's
current resources and limitations.
    NHTSA is mindful that any expansion in NCAP's ADAS assessment
program will create a long-term need to collect considerably more data
elements from vehicle manufacturers. The current data collection
process of spreadsheets and emails will not suffice to fulfill this
need. To that end, NHTSA has undertaken a multi-year, multi-phase
project to modernize the way in which NCAP communicates with and
receives data from relevant stakeholders. NHTSA is currently developing
a new, secure online web portal and database that will be used to send,
receive, track, store, and process program data elements and
communications.
    The first phase of this online portal and database development
focuses on the data submission process from the vehicle manufacturers
to NHTSA. The online web portal would allow designated representatives
from each vehicle manufacturer to submit data and correspondence by
secure and trackable means. Vehicle manufacturers would be able to have
multiple representatives contribute to and approve the data
submissions, and submissions could be done in a more dedicated and
focused manner than is currently feasible with conventional
spreadsheets. The data submission application would include business
rules to help vehicle manufacturers identify invalid data or
typographical errors. The database portion of the project would allow
NHTSA not only to capture and store data more efficiently, but also to
manage program functions more quickly--such as faster posting of NCAP
ratings to the Agency's website. In addition, it would allow NCAP to
determine twin and carryover status in a timelier manner. Furthermore,
the database is significantly more flexible and robust than existing
spreadsheets and would allow more accurate processing of manufacturers'
self-reported data submitted for the ADAS assessment program as well as
the side air bag out-of-position testing program. In addition, this
database would allow NCAP to review vehicle fleet trends and easily
compare and track changes in individual vehicle models from one model
year to the next. This phase of the project has already produced a
prototype, and NHTSA has received preliminary feedback from initial
beta testing.
    A second phase of the project will focus on data and correspondence
between NHTSA and its test laboratories. NCAP collects vehicle-specific
test setup information from the vehicle manufacturer and separately
transmits this data to its designated test laboratory. This phase of
the project would streamline the way in which the program communicates
its day-to-day operations that include the review, transmission, and
archive of test data. The result of these upgrades would allow NCAP to
schedule tests, review test data, analyze test anomalies and failures,
respond to manufacturer contests, and publish safety ratings in a
timelier manner.

X. Economic Analysis

    The various changes in NCAP discussed in this proposal all enable a
rating system that improves consumer awareness of ADAS safety features,
and encourages manufacturers to accelerate their adoption. This
accelerated adoption of ADAS would drive any economic and societal
impacts that result from these changes, and are thus the focus of this
discussion of economic analysis. Hence, the Agency has considered the
potential economic effects for ADAS technologies proposed for inclusion
in NCAP and the potential benefit of introducing a rating system for
ADAS technologies.
    Unlike crashworthiness safety features, where safety improvements
are attributable to improved occupant protection when a crash occurs,
the impact that ADAS technologies have on fatality and injury rates is
a direct function of their effectiveness in preventing crashes or
reducing the severity of the crashes they are designed to mitigate.
This effectiveness is typically measured by using real-world
statistical data, laboratory testing, or Agency expertise.
    With respect to vehicle safety, the Agency believes, as discussed
in detail in this notice, the four proposed ADAS technologies have the
potential to reduce vehicle crashes and injury severities further. As
cited in this notice, researchers have conducted preliminary studies to
estimate the effectiveness of ADAS technologies. Although these studies
have been limited to certain models or manufacturers, which may not
represent the entire fleet, they do illustrate how these systems can
provide safety benefits. Thus, although the Agency does not have
sufficient data to determine the monetized safety impacts resulting
from these technologies in a way similar to that frequently done for
mandated technologies--when compared to the future without the proposed
update to NCAP, NHTSA expects that these changes would likely have
substantial positive safety effects by promoting earlier and more
widespread deployment of these technologies.
    NCAP also helps address the issue of asymmetric information (i.e.,
when one party in a transaction is in possession of more information
than the other), which can be considered a market failure.\257\
Regarding consumer information, the introduction of a potential new
ADAS rating system is anticipated to provide consumers additional
vehicle safety information (e.g., rating based on ADAS performance and
capability as well as the types of ADAS in vehicles) as opposed to the
information provided in the current program (e.g., check mark based on
ADAS performance as pass/fail) to help them make more informed
purchasing decisions by better presenting the relative safety benefits
of different ADAS technologies. NHTSA believes that the future ADAS
rating would increase consumer awareness and understanding of the
safety benefits in these technologies, and, in turn, incentivize
vehicle manufacturers to offer the ADAS technologies that lead to
higher ratings across a broader selection of their vehicles.
Furthermore, as these ADAS technologies mature and become more reliable
and efficient, a large portion of vehicles equipped with such systems
would achieve higher ADAS ratings, and in turn consumers would have an
increasing number of safer vehicles to choose from. There is an
unquantifiable value to consumers in receiving accurate and comparable
performance information about those technologies among manufacturers,
makes, and models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ See.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to NHTSA sponsored research,\258\ IIHS/HLDI predicted
that the number of vehicles equipped with ADAS technologies, including
BSW and Lane Keeping Warning, will increase

substantially from 2020 to 2030 and reach near full market penetration
in 2050. Although the Agency has limited data on costs of ADAS
technologies to consumers, assuming consumer demand for safety remains
high, the future ADAS rating system would likely accelerate the full
adaptation of the four technologies included in this RFC--not to
mention the four existing ones. Nevertheless, the Agency does not have
sufficient data, such as unit cost and information on how soon the full
adaptation will be reached with the ADAS rating, to predict the net
increase in cost to consumers, with a high degree of certainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ See https://www.iihs.org/media/9517c308-c8d5-42e6-80fd-a69ecd9d2128/3aaYqQ/HLDI%20Research/Bulletins/hldi_bulletin_37-11.pdf. Bulletin Vol. 34, No. 28: September 2017, ``Predicted
availability and fitment of safety features on registered
vehicles,'' Highway Loss Data Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Public Participation

    Interested parties are strongly encouraged to submit thorough and
detailed comments relating to each of the relevant areas discussed in
this notice. Please see Appendix B for a summarized list of specific
questions that have been posed in this notice. Comments submitted will
help the Agency make informed decisions as it strives to advance NCAP
by encouraging continuous safety improvements for new vehicles and
enhancing consumer information.
    How do I prepare and submit comments?
    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ Wang, J.-S. (2019, March), Target crash population for
crash avoidance technologies in passenger vehicles (Report No. DOT
HS 812 653), Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Will the Agency consider late comments?
    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the Agency will also consider comments received
after that date. Please note that even after the comment closing date,
we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it
becomes available. Accordingly, we recommend that interested people
periodically check the docket for new material. You may read the
comments received at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours
of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also
see the comments on the internet, identified by the docket number at
the heading of this notice, at www.regulations.gov.

XII. Appendices

Appendix A. Target Population Statistics for Crash Scenarios
259
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ The crash scenarios referenced for the FCW/CIB/DBS target
population are those that comprise the subset of the 84 mutually
exclusive pre-crash scenarios analyzed by VOLPE (Report No. DOT HS
812 745) that were considered relevant for the forward collision
prevention crash category (Report No. DOT HS 812 653). Each of the
84 scenarios is assigned a pre-assigned number and is followed by a
brief description.

                              Table A-1--Target Population Statistics, FCW/CIB/DBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MAIS 1-5
              Crash scenarios \260\                   Crashes       Fatalities       injuries          PDOVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Rear-End, Lead Vehicle (LV) Stopped........       1,099,868             474         561,842       1,719,177
2001 Rear-End, LV Slower........................         174,217             527          97,402         252,341
2002 Rear-End, LV Decelerated...................         374,624             155         196,731         587,031
2003 Rear-End, Other In-lane Vehicle Higher                  598               3             273             829
 Speed..........................................
2009 Rear-End, Other/Unspecified................          50,105              70          24,951          77,034
2300 Rear-End Possible, Other In-lane Vehicle              1,842              37             839           2,510
 Stopped........................................
2301 Rear-End Possible, Other In-lane Vehicle                813               6             486           1,063
 Slower.........................................
2302 Rear-End Possible, Other In-lane Vehicle              1,475               3             860           1,900
 Decelerated....................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Total..............................       1,703,541           1,275         883,386       2,641,884
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of Total Crashes....................            29.4             3.8            31.5            36.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table A-2--Target Population for LDW/LKA/LCA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MAIS 1-5
                 Crash scenarios                      Crashes       Fatalities       injuries          PDOVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 1V Rollover 1st Event.......................           4,411              63           3,155           2,104
150 2+V Rollover 1st Event......................             243               3             337             197
1000 1V, Roadway Departure (RD).................         966,709           9,751         359,238         679,402
1050 2+V, Roadway Departure.....................          43,957           1,021          32,069          55,856

1100 1V Cross Centerline/Median.................           8,560              75           2,910           6,214
1150 2+V Cross Centerline/Median................           3,427             106           2,678           4,239
3000 ST Opposite Dir(OD), Head-On...............          32,751           2,761          37,848          23,992
3009 ST OD Forward Impact, Other................             115              11              69             135
3100 ST OD, Angle Sideswipe.....................          62,214           1,042          38,655          86,054
3200 Head-On Possible, Other Vehicle Encroaching           4,008              11           2,979           5,019
 OD.............................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Total..............................       1,126,397          14,844         479,939         863,213
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of Total Crashes....................            19.4            44.3            17.1            11.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table A-3--Target Population for BSD/BSI/LCM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MAIS 1-5
                 Crash scenarios                      Crashes       Fatalities       injuries          PDOVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8000 LCM in Rear End............................          48,749             128          26,040          71,977
8001 LCM in ST SD Forward Impact................             212               4              62             371
8002 LCM in ST SD AS............................         371,504             332         129,595         651,962
8003 LCM CT VT SD...............................          58,389              40          20,685          99,476
8004 LCM Other..................................          24,216              38          11,924          36,940
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Total..............................         503,070             542         188,304         860,726
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of Total Crashes....................             8.7             1.6             6.7            11.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Table A-4--Target Population for PAEB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MAIS 1-5
                 Crash scenarios                      Crashes       Fatalities       injuries          PDOVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
300 1V2Ped RD, Forward Impact...................          60,322           3,264          57,480           1,836
309 1V2Ped, Other...............................             306              26             264               0
350 2+V2Ped.....................................             511             259             452               0
400 1V2Cyc RD, Forward Impact...................          50,094             531          45,529           4,910
409 1V2Cyc, Other/Unspecified...................             175               4             172               0
450 2+V2Cyc.....................................             234              23             169             239
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Total..............................         111,641           4,106         104,066           6,985
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of Total Crashes....................             1.9            12.3             3.7             0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Table A-5--Target Population for RAB/RvAB/RCTA Technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MAIS 1-5
                 Crash scenarios                      Crashes       Fatalities       injuries          PDOVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302 1V2Ped, Backup..............................           2,811              44           2,590              88
402 1V2Cyc, Backup..............................             439               3             407              48
602 1V2ParkedV, Backup..........................          41,957               2           5,293          40,389
802 1V2Fixed Object, Backup.....................           1,824               2             217           1,732
6000 Backing Up to Vehicle/Object...............         101,503              23          26,761         189,059
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Combined Total..............................         148,533              74          35,268         231,317
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Percent of Total Crashes....................             2.6             0.2             1.3             3.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                Table A-6--Mapping of Crash Scenarios With Safety Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Crash scenarios                             1 FCW/CIB/DBS    2 LDW/LKA/LCA    3 BSD/BSI/LCM        4 PAEB       5 RAB/RvAB/RTA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 1V Rollover 1st Event..........................................  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
150 2+V Rollover 1st Event.........................................  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
200 1V Jackknife 1st Event.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
250 2+V Jackknife 1st Event........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
300 1V2Pedestrian Roadway Departure, Forward Impact................  ...............  ...............  ...............           ...............
302 1V2 Pedestrian, Backup.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

309 1V2 Pedestrian, Specifics Other/Unknown........................  ...............  ...............  ...............           ...............
350 2+V2 Pedestrian................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............           ...............
400 1V2Cyclist Roadway Departure, Forward Impact...................  ...............  ...............  ...............           ...............
402 1V2Cyclist, Backup.............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
409 1V2Cyclist, Specifics Other/Unknown............................  ...............  ...............  ...............           ...............
450 2+V2Cyclist....................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............           ...............
500 1V2Animal Roadway Departure, Avoid Animal......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
502 1V2Animal, Backup..............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
509 1V2Animal, Specifics Other/Unknown.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
550 2+V2Animal.....................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
600 1V2Parked Vehicle Roadway Departure, Forward Impact............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
602 1V2Parked Vehicle, Backup......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
609 1V2Parked Vehicle, Specifics Other/Unknown.....................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
650 2+V2Parked Vehicle.............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
700 1V2Other Non-Fixed Object Roadway Departure, Forward Impact....  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
701 1V2Other Non-Fixed Object Roadway Departure, Traction Loss.....  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
702 1V2Other Non-Fixed Object, Backup..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
709 1V2Other Non-Fixed Object, Other...............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
750 2+V2Other Non-Fixed Object.....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
800 1V2Fixed Object Roadway Departure, Forward Impact..............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
801 1V2Fixed Object Roadway Departure, Traction Loss...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
802 1V2Fixed Object, Backup........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
809 1V2Fixed Object, Other.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
850 2+V2Fixed Object...............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
1000 1V, Roadway Departure.........................................  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
1001 1V RD, Traction Loss..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
1002 1V RD, Avoid Vehicle/Pedestrian/Animal........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
1003 1V Forward Impact, Ped or Animal..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
1004 1V Forward Impact, End Departure..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
1005 1V Forward Impact, Specifics Other/Unknown....................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
1009 1V Other/No Impact............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
1050 2+V, Roadway Departure........................................  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
1100 1V Cross Centerline/Median....................................  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
1150 2+V Cross Centerline/Median *.................................  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
2000 Rear-End, Lead Vehicle Stopped................................           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2001 Rear-End, LV Slower...........................................           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2002 Rear-End, LV Decelerated......................................           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2003 Rear-End, Other In-lane Vehicle Higher Speed..................           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2009 Rear-End, Specifics Other/Unknown.............................           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2101 Same Trafficway Same Direction Forward Impact, Loss Control...  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2102 Rear-End Possible, Same Trafficway Same Direction Forward       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Impact, Avoid Vehicle.............................................
2103 Same Trafficway Same Direction Forward Impact, Avoid Objects..  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2109 Rear-End Possible, Same Trafficway Same Direction Forward       ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Impact, Specifics Other/Unknown...................................
2200 Same Trafficway Same..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Direction, Angle-Sideswipe.........................................
2300 Rear-End Possible, Other In-lane Vehicle Stopped..............           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2301 Rear-End Possible, Other In-lane Vehicle Slower...............           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
2302 Rear-End Possible, Other In-lane Vehicle Decelerated..........           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
3000 Same Trafficway Opposite Direction, Head-On...................  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
3001 Same Trafficway Opposite Direction Forward Impact, Traction     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Loss..............................................................
3002 Same Trafficway Opposite Direction Forward Impact, Avoid        ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Vehicle...........................................................
3003 Same Trafficway Opposite Direction Forward Impact, Avoid        ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Object............................................................
3009 Same Trafficway Opposite Direction Forward Impact, Other......  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
3100 Same Trafficway Opposite Direction, Angle Sideswipe...........  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............
3200 Head-On Possible, Other Vehicle Encroaching Opposite Direction  ...............           ...............  ...............  ...............

4000 Change Trafficway Vehicle Turning, Turn Across Path, Initial    ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Opposite Direction................................................
4001 Change Trafficway Vehicle Turning, Turn Across Path, Initial    ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Same Direction....................................................
4009 Change Trafficway Vehicle Turning, Turn Across Path, Specifics  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Other/Unknown.....................................................
4100 Change Trafficway Vehicle Turning, Turn Into Path, Into Same    ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Direction.........................................................
4101 Change Trafficway Vehicle Turning, Turn Into Path, Into         ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Opposite Direction................................................
4109 Change Trafficway Vehicle Turning, Turn Into Path, Specifics    ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Other/Unknown.....................................................
5000 Intersect Paths, Straight Across Path.........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
5009 Intersect Paths, Straight Path, Specifics, Specifics Other/     ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
 Unknown...........................................................
6000 Backing Up to Vehicle/Object..................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
7000 1V Negotiating a Curve........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
7050 2+V Negotiating a Curve.......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
8000 Lane Change/Merge Before Rear-End.............................  ...............  ...............           ...............  ...............
8001 Lane Change/Merge in Same Trafficway Same Direction Forward     ...............  ...............           ...............  ...............
 Impact............................................................
8002 Lane Change/Merge in Same Trafficway Same Direction Angle       ...............  ...............           ...............  ...............
 Sideswipe.........................................................
8003 Lane Change/Merge in Change Trafficway Vehicle Turning Initial  ...............  ...............           ...............  ...............
 Same Direction....................................................
8004 Lane Change/Merge Other.......................................  ...............  ...............           ...............  ...............
9000 Equipment Failure.............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
9020 Loss of Control Due to Tire/Engine/Poor Road..................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
9030 2+V, Left/Right Turn, Unspecified.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
9040 2+V U-Turn....................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
9050 2+V Backing to Moving Vehicle.................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
9060 2+V No Impact.................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
9070 2+V Other.....................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
9999 2+V Unknown...................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B. Questions Asked Throughout This Notice

III. ADAS Performance Testing Program

    (1) Should the Agency award credit to vehicles equipped with LDW
systems that provide a passing alert, regardless of the alert type?
Why or why not? Are there any LDW alert modalities, such as visual-
only warnings, that the Agency should not consider acceptable when
determining whether a vehicle meets NCAP's performance test
criteria? If so, why? Should the Agency consider only certain alert
modalities (such as haptic warnings) because they are more effective
at re-engaging the driver and/or have higher consumer acceptance? If
so, which one(s) and why?
    (2) If NHTSA were to adopt the lane keeping assist test methods
from the Euro NCAP LSS protocol for the Agency's LKS test procedure,
should the LDW test procedure be removed from its NCAP program
entirely and an LDW requirement be integrated into the LKS test
procedure instead? Why or why not? For systems that have both LDW
and LKS capabilities, the Agency would simply turn off LKS to
conduct the LDW test if both systems are to be assessed separately.
What tolerances would be appropriate for each test, and why?
    (3) LKS system designs provide steering and/or braking to
address lane departures (e.g., when a driver is distracted). To help
re-engage a driver, should the Agency specify that an LDW alert must
be provided when the LKS is activated? Why or why not?
    (4) Do commenters agree that the Agency should remove the Botts'
Dots test scenario from the current LDW test procedure since this
lane marking type is being removed from use in California? If not,
why?
    (5) Is the Euro NCAP maximum excursion limit of 0.3 m (1.0 ft.)
over the lane marking (as defined with respect to the inside edge of
the lane line) for LKS technology acceptable, or should the limit be
reduced to account for crashes occurring on roads with limited
shoulder width? If the tolerance should be reduced, what tolerance
would be appropriate and why? Should this tolerance be adopted for
LDW in addition to LKS? Why or why not?
    (6) In its LSS Protocol, Euro NCAP specifies use of a 1,200 m
(3,937.0 ft.) curve and a series of increasing lateral offsets to
establish the desired lateral velocity of the SV towards the lane
line it must respond to. Preliminary NHTSA tests have indicated that
use of a 200 m (656.2 ft.) curve radius provides a clearer
indication of when an LKS intervention occurs when compared to the
baseline tests performed without LKS, a process specified by the
Euro NCAP LSS protocol. This is because the small curve radius
allows the desired SV lateral velocity to be more quickly
established; requires less initial lateral offset within the travel
lane; and allows for a longer period of steady state lateral
velocity to be realized before an LKS intervention occurs. Is use of
a 200 m (656.2 ft.) curve radius, rather than 1,200 m (3,937.0 ft.),
acceptable for inclusion in a NHTSA LKS test procedure? Why or why
not?
    (7) Euro NCAP's LSS protocol specifies a single line lane to
evaluate system performance. However, since certain LKS systems may
require two lane lines before they can be enabled, should the Agency
use a single line or two lines lane in its test procedure? Why?
    (8) Should NHTSA consider adding Euro NCAP's road edge detection
test to its NCAP program to begin addressing crashes where lane
markings may not be present? If not, why? If so, should the test be
added for LDW, LKS, or both technologies?
    (9) The LKS and ``Road Edge'' recovery tests defined in the Euro
NCAP LSS protocol specify that a range of lateral velocities from
0.2 to 0.5 m/s (0.7 to 1.6 ft./s) be used to assess system
performance, and that this range is representative of the lateral
velocities associated with unintended lane departures (i.e., not an
intended lane change). However, in the same protocol, Euro NCAP also
specifies a range of lateral velocities from 0.3 to 0.6 m/s (1.0 to
2.0 ft./s) be used to represent unintended lane

departures during ``Emergency Lane Keeping--Oncoming vehicle'' and
``Emergency Lane Keeping--Overtaking vehicle'' tests. To encourage
the most robust LKS system performance, should NHTSA consider a
combination of the two Euro NCAP unintended departure ranges,
lateral velocities from 0.2 to 0.6 m/s (0.7 to 2.0 ft./s), for
inclusion in the Agency's LKS evaluation? Why or why not?
    (10) As discussed above, the Agency is concerned about LKS
performance on roads that are curved. As such, can the Agency
correlate better LKS system performance at higher lateral velocities
on straight roads with better curved road performance? Why or why
not? Furthermore, can the Agency assume that a vehicle that does not
exceed the maximum excursion limits at higher lateral velocities on
straight roads will have superior curved road performance compared
to a vehicle that only meets the excursion limits at lower lateral
velocities on straight roads? Why or why not? And lastly, can the
Agency assume the steering intervention while the vehicle is
negotiating a curve is sustained long enough for a driver to re-
engage? If not, why?
    (11) The Agency would like to be assured that when a vehicle is
redirected after an LKS system intervenes to prevent a lane
departure when tested on one side, if it approaches the lane marker
on the side not tested, the LKS will again engage to prevent a
secondary lane departure by not exceeding the same maximum excursion
limit established for the first side. To prevent potential secondary
lane departures, should the Agency consider modifying the Euro NCAP
``lane keep assist'' evaluation criteria to be consistent with
language developed for NHTSA's BSI test procedure to prevent this
issue? Why or why not? NHTSA's test procedure states the SV BSI
intervention shall not cause the SV to travel 0.3 m (1 ft.) or more
beyond the inboard edge of the lane line separating the SV travel
lane from the lane adjacent and to the right of it within the
validity period. To assess whether this occurs, a second lane line
is required (only one line is specified in the Euro NCAP LSS
protocol for LKS testing). Does the introduction of a second lane
line have the potential to confound LKS testing? Why or why not?
    (12) Since most fatal road departure and opposite direction
crashes occur at higher posted and known travel speeds, should the
LKS test speed be increased, or does the current test speed
adequately indicate performance at higher speeds, especially on
straight roads? Why or why not?
    (13) The Agency recognizes that the LKS test procedure currently
contains many test conditions (i.e., line type and departure
direction). Is it necessary for the Agency to perform all test
conditions to address the safety problem adequately, or could NCAP
test only certain conditions to minimize test burden? For instance,
should the Agency consider incorporating the test conditions for
only one departure direction if the vehicle manufacturer provides
test data to assure comparable system performance for the other
direction? Or, should the Agency consider adopting only the most
challenging test conditions? If so, which conditions are most
appropriate? For instance, do the dashed line test conditions
provide a greater challenge to vehicles than the solid line test
conditions?
    (14) What is the appropriate number of test trials to adopt for
each LKS test condition, and why? Also, what is an appropriate pass
rate for the LKS tests, and why?
    (15) Are there any aspects of NCAP's current LDW or proposed LKS
test procedure that need further refinement or clarification? Is so,
what additional refinements or clarifications are necessary?
    (16) Should all BSW testing be conducted without the turn signal
indicator activated? Why or why not? If the Agency was to modify the
BSW test procedure to stipulate activation of the turn signal
indicator, should the test vehicle be required to provide an audible
or haptic warning that another vehicle is in its blind zone, or is a
visual warning sufficient? If a visual warning is sufficient, should
it continually flash, at a minimum, to provide a distinction from
the blind spot status when the turn signal is not in use? Why or why
not?
    (17) Is it appropriate for the Agency to use the Straight Lane
Pass-by Test to quantify and ultimately differentiate a vehicle's
BSW capability based on its ability to provide acceptable warnings
when the POV has entered the SV's blind spot (as defined by the
blind zone) for varying POV-SV speed differentials? Why or why not?
    (18) Is using the GVT as the strikeable POV in the BSI test
procedure appropriate? Is using Revision G in NCAP appropriate? Why
or why not?
    (19) The Agency recognizes that the BSW test procedure currently
contains two test scenarios that have multiple test conditions
(e.g., test speeds and POV approach directions (left and right side
of the SV)). Is it necessary for the Agency to perform all test
scenarios and test conditions to address the real-world safety
problem adequately, or could it test only certain scenarios or
conditions to minimize test burden in NCAP? For instance, should the
Agency consider incorporating only the most challenging test
conditions into NCAP, such as the ones with the greatest speed
differential, or choose to perform the test conditions having the
lowest and highest speeds? Should the Agency consider only
performing the test conditions where the POV passes by the SV on the
left side if the vehicle manufacturer provides test data to assure
the left side pass-by tests are also representative of system
performance during right side pass-by tests? Why or why not?
    (20) Given the Agency's concern about the amount of system
performance testing under consideration in this RFC, it seeks input
on whether to include a BSI false positive test. Is a false positive
assessment needed to insure system robustness and high customer
satisfaction? Why or why not?
    (21) The BSW test procedure includes 7 repeated trials for each
test condition (i.e., test speed and POV approach direction). Is
this an appropriate number of repeat trials? Why or why not? What is
the appropriate number of test trials to adopt for each BSI test
scenario, and why? Also, what is an appropriate pass rate for each
of the two tests, BSW and BSI, and why is it appropriate?
    (22) Is it reasonable to perform only BSI tests in conjunction
with activation of the turn signal? Why or why not? If the turn
signal is not used, how can the operation of BSI be differentiated
from the heading adjustments resulting from an LKS intervention?
Should the SV's LKS system be switched off during conduct of the
Agency's BSI evaluations? Why or why not?
    (23) Is the proposed test speed range, 10 kph (6.2 mph) to 60
kph (37.3 mph), to be assessed in 10 kph (6.2 mph) increments, most
appropriate for PAEB test scenarios S1 and S4? Why or why not?
    (24) The Agency has proposed to include Scenarios S1 a-e and S4
a-c in its NCAP assessment. Is it necessary for the Agency to
perform all test scenarios and test conditions proposed in this RFC
notice to address the safety problem adequately, or could NCAP test
only certain scenarios or conditions to minimize test burden but
still address an adequate proportion of the safety problem? Why or
why not? If it is not necessary for the Agency to perform all test
scenarios or test conditions, which scenarios/conditions should be
assessed? Although they are not currently proposed for inclusion,
should the Agency also adopt the false positive test conditions, S1f
and S1g? Why or why not?
    (25) Given that a large portion of pedestrian fatalities and
injuries occur under dark lighting conditions, the Agency has
proposed to perform testing for the included test conditions (i.e.,
S1 a-e and S4 a-c) under dark lighting conditions (i.e., nighttime)
in addition to daylight test conditions for test speed range 10 kph
(6.2 mph) to 60 kph (37.3 mph). NHTSA proposes that a vehicle's
lower beams would provide the source of light during the nighttime
assessments. However, if the SV is equipped with advanced lighting
systems such as semiautomatic headlamp beam switching and/or
adaptive driving beam head lighting system, they shall be enabled
during the nighttime PAEB assessment. Is this testing approach
appropriate? Why or why not? Should the Agency conduct PAEB
evaluation tests with only the vehicle's lower beams and disable or
not use any other advanced lighting systems?
    (26) Should the Agency consider performing PAEB testing under
dark conditions with a vehicle's upper beams as a light source? If
yes, should this lighting condition be assessed in addition to the
proposed dark test condition, which would utilize only a vehicle's
lower beams along with any advanced lighting system enabled, or in
lieu of the proposed dark testing condition? Should the Agency also
evaluate PAEB performance in dark lighting conditions with overhead
lights? Why or why not? What test scenarios, conditions, and
speed(s) are appropriate for nighttime (i.e., dark lighting
conditions) testing in NCAP, and why?
    (27) To reduce test burden in NCAP, the Agency proposed to
perform one test per test speed until contact occurs, or until the
vehicle's relative impact velocity exceeds 50 percent of the initial
speed of the subject vehicle for the given test condition. If
contact occurs and if the vehicle's relative impact velocity is less
than or equal to 50 percent

of the initial SV speed for the given combination of test speed and
test condition, an additional four test trials will be conducted at
the given test speed and test condition, and the SV must meet the
passing performance criterion (i.e., no contact) for at least three
out of those five test trials in order to be assessed at the next
incremental test speed. Is this an appropriate approach to assess
PAEB system performance in NCAP, or should a certain number of test
trials be required for each assessed test speed? Why or why not? If
a certain number of repeat tests is more appropriate, how many test
trials should be conducted, and why?
    (28) Is a performance criterion of ``no contact'' appropriate
for the proposed PAEB test conditions? Why or why not?
Alternatively, should the Agency require minimum speed reductions or
specify a maximum allowable SV-to-mannequin impact speed for any or
all of the proposed test conditions (i.e., test scenario and test
speed combination)? If yes, why, and for which test conditions? For
those test conditions, what speed reductions would be appropriate?
Alternatively, what maximum allowable impact speed would be
appropriate?
    (29) If the SV contacts the pedestrian mannequin during the
initial trial for a given test condition and test speed combination,
NHTSA proposes to conduct additional test trials only if the
relative impact velocity observed during that trial is less than or
equal to 50 percent of the initial speed of the SV. For a test speed
of 60 kph (37.3 mph), this maximum relative impact velocity is
nominally 30 kph (18.6 mph), and for a test speed of 10 kph (6.2
mph), the maximum relative impact velocity is nominally 5 kph (3.1
mph). Is this an appropriate limit on the maximum relative impact
velocity for the proposed range of test speeds? If not, why? Note
that the tests in Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 9 for
pedestrian crashworthiness protection simulates a pedestrian impact
at 40 kph (24.9 mph).
    (30) For each lighting condition, the Agency is proposing 6 test
speeds (i.e., those performed from 10 to 60 kph (6.2 to 37.3 mph) in
increments of 10 kph (6.2 mph)) for each of the 8 proposed test
conditions (S1a, b, c, d, and e and S4a, b, and c). This results in
a total of 48 unique combinations of test conditions and test speeds
to be evaluated per lighting condition, or 96 total combinations for
both light conditions. The Agency mentions later in the ADAS Ratings
System section, that it plans to use check marks, as is done
currently, to give credit to vehicles that (1) are equipped with the
recommended ADAS technologies, and (2) pass the applicable system
performance test requirements for each ADAS technology included in
NCAP until it issues (1) a final decision notice announcing the new
ADAS rating system and (2) a final rule to amend the safety rating
section of the vehicle window sticker (Monroney label). For the
purposes of providing credit for a technology using check marks,
what is an appropriate minimum overall pass rate for PAEB
performance evaluation? For example, should a vehicle be said to
meet the PAEB performance requirements if it passes two-thirds of
the 96 unique combinations of test conditions and test speeds for
the two lighting conditions (i.e., passes 64 unique combinations of
test conditions and test speeds)?
    (31) Given previous support from commenters to include S2 and S3
scenarios in the program at some point in the future and the results
of AAA's testing for one of the turning conditions, NHTSA seeks
comment on an appropriate timeframe for including S2 and S3
scenarios into the Agency's NCAP. Also, NHTSA requests from vehicle
manufacturers information on any currently available models designed
to address, and ideally achieve crash avoidance during conduct of
the S2 and S3 scenarios to support Agency evaluation for a future
program upgrade.
    (32) Should the Agency adopt the articulated mannequins into the
PAEB test procedure as proposed? Why or why not?
    (33) In addition to tests performed under daylight conditions,
the Agency is proposing to evaluate the performance of PAEB systems
during nighttime conditions where a large percentage of real-world
pedestrian fatalities occur. Are there other technologies and
information available to the public that the Agency can evaluate
under nighttime conditions?
    (34) Are there other safety areas that NHTSA should consider as
part of this or a future upgrade for pedestrian protection?
    (35) Are there any aspects of NCAP's proposed PAEB test
procedure that need further refinement or clarification before
adoption? If so, what additional refinement or clarification is
necessary, and why?
    (36) Considering not only the increasing number of cyclists
killed on U.S. roads but also the limitations of current AEB systems
in detecting cyclists, the Agency seeks comment on the appropriate
timeframe for adding a cyclist component to NCAP and requests from
vehicle manufacturers information on any currently available models
that have the capability to validate the cyclist target and test
procedures used by Euro NCAP to support evaluation for a future NCAP
program upgrade.
    (37) In addition to the test procedures used by Euro NCAP, are
there others that NHTSA should consider to address the cyclist crash
population in the U.S. and effectiveness of systems?
    (38) For the Agency's FCW tests:

--If the Agency retains one or more separate tests for FCW, should
it award credit solely to vehicles equipped with FCW systems that
provide a passing audible alert? Or, should it also consider
awarding credit to vehicles equipped with FCW systems that provide
passing haptic alerts? Are there certain haptic alert types that
should be excluded from consideration (if the Agency was to award
credit to vehicles with haptic alerts that pass NCAP tests) because
they may be a nuisance to drivers such that they are more likely to
disable the system? Do commenters believe that haptic alerts can be
accurately and objectively assessed? Why or why not? Is it
appropriate for the Agency to refrain from awarding credit to FCW
systems that provide only a passing visual alert? Why or why not? If
the Agency assesses the sufficiency of the FCW alert in the context
of CIB (and PAEB) tests, what type of FCW alert(s) would be
acceptable for use in defining the timing of the release of the SV
accelerator pedal, and why?
--Is it most appropriate to test the middle (or next latest) FCW
system setting in lieu of the default setting when performing FCW
and AEB (including PAEB) NCAP tests on vehicles that offer multiple
FCW timing adjustment settings? Why or why not? If not, what use
setting would be most appropriate?
--Should the Agency consider consolidating FCW and CIB testing such
that NCAP's CIB test scenarios would serve as an indicant of FCW
operation? Why or why not? The Agency has proposed that if it
combines the two tests, it would evaluate the presence of a
vehicle's FCW system during its CIB tests by requiring the SV
accelerator pedal be fully released within 500 ms after the FCW
alert is issued. If no FCW alert is issued during a CIB test, the SV
accelerator pedal will be fully released within 500 ms after the
onset of CIB system braking (as defined by the instant SV
deceleration reaches at least 0.5g). If no FCW alert is issued and
the vehicle's CIB system does not offer any braking, release of the
SV accelerator pedal will not be required prior to impact with the
POV. The Agency notes that it has also proposed these test
procedural changes for its PAEB tests as well. Is this assessment
method for FCW operation reasonable? Why or why not?
--If the Agency continues to assess FCW systems separately from CIB,
how should the current FCW performance criteria (i.e., TTCs) be
amended if the Agency aligns the corresponding maximum SV test
speeds, POV speeds, SV-to-POV headway, POV deceleration magnitude,
etc., as applicable, with the proposed CIB tests, and why? What
assessment method should be used--one trial per scenario, or
multiple trials, and why? If multiple trials should be required, how
many would be appropriate, and why? Also, what would be an
acceptable pass rate, and why?
--Is it desirable for NCAP to perform one FCW test scenario (instead
of the three that are currently included in NCAP's FCW test
procedure), conducted at the corresponding maximum SV test speed,
POV speed, SV-to-POV headway (as applicable), POV deceleration
magnitude, etc. of the proposed CIB test to serve as an indicant of
FCW system performance? If so, which test scenario from NCAP's FCW
test procedure is appropriate?
--Are there additional or alternative test scenarios or test
conditions that the Agency should consider incorporating into the
FCW test procedure, such as those at even higher test speeds than
those proposed for the CIB tests, or those having increased
complexity? If so, should the current FCW performance criteria
(i.e., TTCs) and/or test scenario specifications be amended, and to
what extent?

    (39) For the Agency's CIB tests:
--Are the SV and POV speeds, SV-to-POV headway, deceleration
magnitude, etc. the Agency has proposed for NCAP's CIB tests

appropriate? Why or why not? If not, what speeds, headway(s),
deceleration magnitude(s) are appropriate, and why? Should the
Agency adopt a POV deceleration magnitude of 0.6 g for its LVD CIB
test in lieu of 0.5 g proposed? Why or why not?
--Should the Agency consider adopting additional higher tests speeds
(i.e., 60, 70, and/or 80 kph (37.3, 43.5, and/or 49.7 mph)) for the
CIB (and potentially DBS) LVD test scenario in NCAP? Why or why not?
If additional speeds are included, what headway and deceleration
magnitude would be appropriate for each additional test speed, and
why?
--Is a performance criterion of ``no contact'' appropriate for the
proposed CIB and DBS test conditions? Why or why not? Alternatively,
should the Agency require minimum speed reductions or specify a
maximum allowable SV-to-POV impact speed for any or all of the
proposed test conditions (i.e., test scenario and test speed
combination)? If yes, why, and for which test conditions? For those
test conditions, what speed reductions would be appropriate?
Alternatively, what maximum allowable impact speed would be
appropriate?

    (40) For the Agency's DBS tests:
--Should the Agency remove the DBS test scenarios from NCAP? Why or
why not? Alternatively, should the Agency conduct the DBS LVS and
LVM tests at only the highest test speeds proposed for CIB--70 and
80 kph (43.5 and 49.7 mph)? Why or why not? If the Agency also
adopted these higher tests speeds (70 and 80 kph (43.5 and 49.7
mph)) for the LVD CIB test, should it also conduct the LVD DBS test
at these same speeds? Why or why not?
--If the Agency continues to perform DBS testing in NCAP, is it
appropriate to revise when the manual (robotic) brake application is
initiated to a time that corresponds to 1.0 second after the FCW
alert is issued (regardless of whether a CIB activation occurs after
the FCW alert but before initiation of the manual brake
application)? If not, why, and what prescribed TTC values would be
appropriate for the modified DBS test conditions?

    (41) Is the assessment method NHTSA has proposed for the CIB and
DBS tests (i.e., one trial per test speed with speed increments of
10 kph (6.2 mph) for each test condition and repeat trials only in
the event of POV contact) appropriate? Why or why not? Should an
alternative assessment method such as multiple trials be required
instead? If yes, why? If multiple trials should be required, how
many would be appropriate, and why? Also, what would be an
acceptable pass rate, and why? If the proposed assessment method is
appropriate, it is acceptable even for the LVD test scenario if only
one or two test speeds are selected for inclusion? Or, is it more
appropriate to alternatively require 7 trials for each test speed,
and require that 5 out of the 7 trials conducted pass the ``no
contact'' performance criterion?
    (42) The Agency's proposal to (1) consolidate its FCW and CIB
tests such that the CIB tests would also serve as an indicant of FCW
operation, (2) assess 14 test speeds for CIB (5 for LVS, 5 for LVM,
and potentially 4 for LVD), and (3) assess 6 tests speeds for DBS (2
for LVS, 2 for LVM, and potentially 2 for LVD), would result in a
total of 20 unique combinations of test conditions and test speeds
to be evaluated for AEB. What is an appropriate minimum pass rate
for AEB performance evaluation? For example, a vehicle is considered
to meet the AEB performance if it passes two-thirds of the 20 unique
combinations of test conditions and test speeds (i.e., passes 14
unique combinations of test conditions and test speeds).
    (43) As fused camera-radar forward-looking sensors are becoming
more prevalent in the vehicle fleet, and the Agency has not observed
any instances of false positive test failures during any of its CIB
or DBS testing, is it appropriate to remove the false positive STP
assessments from NCAP's AEB (i.e., CIB and DBS) evaluation matrix in
this NCAP update? Why or why not?
    (44) For vehicles with regenerative braking that have setting
options, the Agency is proposing to choose the ``off'' setting, or
the setting that provides the lowest deceleration when the
accelerator is fully released. As mentioned, this proposal also
applies to the Agency's PAEB tests. Are the proposed settings
appropriate? Why or why not? Will regenerative braking introduce
additional complications for the Agency's AEB and PAEB testing, and
how could the Agency best address them?
    (45) Should NCAP adopt any additional AEB tests or alter its
current tests to address the ``changing'' rear-end crash problem? If
so, what tests should be added, or how should current tests be
modified?
    (46) Are there any aspects of NCAP's current FCW, CIB, and/or
DBS test procedure(s) that need further refinement or clarification?
If so, what refinements or clarifications are necessary, and why?
    (47) Would a 250 ms overlap of SV throttle and brake pedal
application be acceptable in instances where no FCW alert has been
issued by the prescribed TTC in a DBS test, or where the FCW alert
occurs very close to the brake activation. If a 250 ms overlap is
not acceptable, what overlap would be acceptable?
    (48) Should the Agency pursue research in the future to assess
AEB system performance under less than ideal environmental
conditions? If so, what environmental conditions would be
appropriate?
    (49) The Agency requests comment on the use of the GVT in lieu
of the SSV in future AEB NCAP testing,
    (50) The Agency requests comment on whether Revisions F and G
should be considered equivalent for AEB testing.
    (51) The Agency requests comment on whether NHTSA should adopt a
revision of the GVT other than Revision G for use in AEB testing in
NCAP.

IV. ADAS Rating System

    With regard to a future ADAS rating system, the Agency seeks
comments on the following:
    (52) The components and development of a full-scale ADAS rating
system,