manufacturers could run several tests and report only the best results;
or because manufacturers would know exactly what vehicle was being
tested, the vehicle's star ratings might not be indicative of a random
sample (as currently done by the agency). Additionally, because NHTSA
does not currently have the resources to conduct oversight over a
manufacturer's test facility, dummy certification and test setup, a
manufacturer's facilities might take more liberty than agency contract
laboratories in their testing procedures.
    These issues do not affect a manufacturer's self-certification of
compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A
manufacturer had a legal duty to report any non-compliance promptly to
NHTSA. They must also recall and remedy without charge to the purchaser
any vehicle that fails to comply with an applicable safety standard.
The manufacturer also is subject to additional penalties if it cannot
demonstrate that it had no reason to know, despite exercising
reasonable care, that the vehicle did not comply with the standard.
These are all express provisions of Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United
States Code. There are no

parallel provisions for the New Car Assessment Program.
    In addition, one of the primary reasons for allowing manufacturer
self-certification in NCAP was to allow information about new vehicles
to be provided more quickly. In this case, NHTSA has had an optional
NCAP test program in place for nearly 20 years. This allows
manufacturers to request a test of new or redesigned vehicles and get
the NCAP information out quickly to the public. Given these
considerations, NHTSA is not adopting the suggestions to permit
manufacturer self-certification of NCAP results.

H. Other Recommendations

    Several commenters, in their responses to the notice and at the
public hearing, presented other recommendations for the agency's
consideration. NHTSA has decided not to adopt any of these
recommendations at this time for the reasons outlined below.
Compatibility Assessment
    Some commenters recommended front-to-front compatibility
assessments, while others suggested vehicle aggressivity evaluations
for frontal NCAP. These commenters did not provide (and NHTSA is not
aware of) any data that would support an NCAP compatibility evaluation
at this time. The agency has a research program in this area and should
a valid compatibility metric emerge from that research, the agency will
consider it at that time.
Child Restraints
    Some commenters suggested that the agency test and rate child
restraints either in the vehicle and/or on a sled test. NHTSA has
examined this in the past and at that time concluded that: (1) A
dynamic rating for a child restraint system (CRS) was not feasible; (2)
the agency wanted to focus on ease of use ratings; and (3) limited in-
vehicle testing with a six-year old dummy did not correlate with real-
world data.\39\ However, the agency has continued to investigate CRS
and child dummy performance in the current NCAP test environment, and
their correlation to injury risks for children in real-world crashes.
The agency will take actions at such time as the test results and
analyses can be used to support such a rating program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 70 FR 29815, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increased Test Speed
    Two commenters and most automobile manufacturers stated that
increased test speeds in frontal NCAP would promote stiffer vehicle
designs and more aggressive restraints. NHTSA agrees that without an
appropriate measure of vehicle stiffness, a higher speed test could
lead to more aggressive vehicle designs. Therefore, NHTSA has decided
not to adopt a 40 mph (64 kmph) frontal NCAP test because of concerns
about vehicle compatibility, the lack of test data, and no clear
understanding of potential countermeasures that could be used by
manufacturers to achieve the top rating. In addition, the agency notes
that the current frontal NCAP test speed represents 99 percent of all
crashes, and increasing the test speed would not address a large
portion of real-world crashes.
Lighting
    Some commenters recommended that NHTSA incorporate a lighting/
visibility program into NCAP to address vehicle blind spots and glare.
The commenters did not provide (and NHTSA does not believe that there
is) sufficient data to justify incorporating a lighting or visibility
measure into NCAP at this time. The agency is conducting research in
both of these areas to better assess the safety problem and explore
what approaches and/or countermeasures should be considered. Therefore,
NHTSA has decided not to incorporate an NCAP rating for lighting or
visibility at this time.
Frontal Offset Test
    Some commenters encouraged the incorporation of a frontal offset
test into frontal NCAP. However, others did not support an offset test
stating that such a test did not provide sufficient benefit to
consumers or that it was already being done by others (e.g., IIHS).
NHTSA has been studying the offset test procedure, but we continue to
believe that further research and analysis is needed to ensure that
improved occupant protection is provided by such a test without
potential unintended consequences such as increased vehicle stiffness
and aggressivity.
Pedestrians
    Some commenters encouraged NHTSA to pursue opportunities to improve
pedestrian safety through NCAP. The agency has no pedestrian standard
at this time. While NHTSA is actively engaged in the development of a
Global Technical Regulation on pedestrian safety, we feel it would be
premature to develop a rating program before the details, test protocol
and potential benefits of this activity have been resolved. Therefore,
we are not incorporating pedestrian rating into NCAP at this time.
Frontal Pole Test
    A frontal pole test was suggested by two commenters and
specifically opposed by one. While the real-world data presented by the
IIHS seems to imply that a number of fatalities and injuries are
occurring in narrow object frontal impacts, at this time NHTSA is
unclear as to what countermeasures might be developed. Similarly, a
significant amount of research would need to be conducted to establish
a new frontal impact pole test for NCAP. Accordingly, the agency is not
adopting this proposal at this time.

I. Monroney Label

    On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Section 10307 of the Act requires new passenger
automobiles to have NCAP safety ratings displayed on the price sticker,
known as the Monroney label. As required by SAFETEA-LU, on September
12, 2006 (71 FR 53572), NHTSA published a final rule implementing this
statutory requirement, including prescribing the form, required
information, and layout of the label. The rule, set forth at 49 CFR
part 575.301, applied to covered vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2007.
    Regulation 575.301 specifies the required information for the NCAP
front, side and rollover tests. For the frontal crash, there are two
separate ratings, one for the driver and one for the right front
passenger. Similarly, two separate ratings are established for the side
crash, one for the front seat and one for the rear seat. One rating is
provided for rollover.
    Under our regulation, front, side and rollover NCAP ratings must be
placed on new vehicles manufactured 30 or more days after the
manufacturer receives notification from NHTSA of the ratings. As
explained earlier in this notice, in addition to any overall rating,
the agency will still make available on http://www.safercar.gov the
individual seating position results for each crash condition (front,
side pole, and side MDB) and for side NCAP, the front seat and rear
seat score developed from the combination of the pole and MDB test
results. However, the agency is using this notice to inform
manufacturers and other interested persons of our intent to use the new
combined side impact score

developed from the pole and MDB tests for the Monroney label. In
addition, we will initiate rulemaking to change the format and/or the
layout of the Monroney label to incorporate the new overall combined
crashworthiness rating. We believe that the combined rating and the new
side impact score will provide consumers with the information they need
to make comparative judgments on new vehicles.
    When we issue the notice of proposed rulemaking, we will address
relevant issues including changing the layout and format of the label
to incorporate this new, additional information and to address other
labeling issues such as the lead time necessary for the manufacturers
to update their labeling operations.

V. Conclusion

    NHTSA will implement these decisions regarding enhancements to NCAP
beginning with MY 2010 vehicles. For that model year, the agency will
make changes to its existing front and side testing activities
requiring all vehicles to be rated using these new protocols. With
regards to the frontal crash test program, NHTSA will maintain the 35
mph (56 kmph) full frontal barrier test protocol but will incorporate
the following body injury criteria: Head (HIC15), neck (Nij,
tension, and compression), chest (deflection), and femur (axial force).
The agency will also add the 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy in
the right front seating position. For side impact, NHTSA will maintain
the current moving deformable barrier test at 38.5 mph (63 kmph) but
will update that test to include head (HIC36), chest
(deflection), abdomen (force), and pelvic (force) injury criteria for
the ES-2re and, consistent with the safety standard, HIC36
and pelvic (force) for the SID-IIs dummy. For the MDB test, the 50th
percentile male ES-2re dummy will be used for the driver position and
the 5th percentile SID-IIs dummy for the rear seated passenger
position. Additionally, vehicles will also be assessed using a new
oblique pole test and a 5th percentile female dummy in the driver
position, using HIC36 and pelvic (force). For rollover, the
agency will continue to rate vehicles for rollover propensity, but will
wait to update its rollover risk model to allow for more real-world
crash data of vehicles equipped with electronic stability control.
    For MY 2010, the agency will also implement a new crash avoidance
program that will rate vehicles on the presence of select advanced
technologies and a new overall Vehicle Safety Score that will combine
the star ratings from the front, side, and rollover programs.

Appendix A

NCAP and IIHS Pole Test Results

                                                                          NHTSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                                                Lower spine   acetabulum
               Vehicle                       Vehicle class               SAB type            Driver test dummy        HIC36      accel (Gs)    & iliac
                                                                                force (N)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                IARV Limits............         1000           82         5525
2007 Honda Pilot.....................  SUV.....................  Curtain + Torso........  SIDIIs.................         3464           68         6649
2007 Nissan Quest....................  Van.....................  Curtain................  SIDIIs.................         5694           79         5786
2007 Ford Escape.....................  SUV.....................  Curtain + Torso........  SIDIIs.................          407           65         6515
2006 VW Passat.......................  Medium PC...............  Curtain + Torso........  SIDIIs.................          323           40         3778
2006 Subaru Impreza..................  Medium PC...............  Combo..................  SIDIIs.................          184           58         4377
2007 Toyota Avalon...................  Heavy PC................  Curtain + Torso........  SIDIIs.................          642           62         6672
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                                        Driver test               acetabulum     Overall                                                  Head       Structure/
            Vehicle                Vehicle class        SAB type           dummy         HIC15      & iliac      rating       Head/neck       Torso      Pelvis/leg    protection    safety cage
                                                                                force (N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Honda Pilot...............  SUV.............  Curtain + Torso...  SID-IIs......         167        4700  G             G             G             G             G             A
2007 Nissan Quest..............  Van.............  Curtain + Torso...  SID-IIs......         207        2900  G             G             G             G             G             A
2007 Ford Escape...............  SUV.............  Curtain + Torso...  SID-IIs......         216        5600  G             G             G             A             G             A
2006 VW Passat.................  Medium PC.......  Curtain + Torso...  SID-IIs......         168        3300  G             G             G             G             G             G
2006 Subaru Impreza............  Medium PC.......  Combo.............  SID-IIs......         325        5100  G             G             G             G             G             A
2007 Toyota Avalon.............  Heavy PC........  Curtain + Torso...  SID-IIs......         350        4100  G             G             A             G             G             A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B

Effectiveness Estimates for ESC, FCW and LDW

Electronic Stability Control (ESC)

    This effectiveness estimate comes from the report: Statistical
Analysis of the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
Systems--Final Report. Report No. DOT HS 810 794, July 2007.
    From the Executive Summary, page vii, for Road Departure--Police
Reported Crashes:
     The effectiveness of ESC for passenger cars = 45%
(weighting for the difference in crash reporting among the States).
     The effectiveness of ESC for Light Trucks and Vans
(LTV's) = 72% (weighting for the difference in crash reporting among
the States).
     Assuming an equal weighting between passenger cars and
LTVs, the average effectiveness = 59% for Road Departure Crashes.
    59% was assumed to be a best overall effectiveness estimate for
road departure crashes.

Forward Collision Warning (FCW)

    Based on field operational test (FOT) data from the Automotive
Rear-End Collision Avoidance FOT (ACAS FOT) collected from 66
participants who each drove an FCW-equipped vehicle for 3 weeks, it
was estimated that the FCW system has the potential to reduce about
15% of all rear-end crashes. The FCW system integrated rear-end
crash warning function with adaptive cruise control function. This
system becomes operational when vehicle speed exceeds 25 mph and
disengages when the speed falls below 20 mph. The participants
accumulated 98,000 miles of driving data. The FCW system operated in
the background during the first week of the FOT, providing
information about baseline driving. The final 2 weeks of the FOT
generated information

about driver performance with the FCW system while it operated in
the foreground.
    FCW system effectiveness was estimated separately in each of
nine driving conditions based on FOT data, which combined three
driving states (lead vehicle stopped, lead vehicle decelerating, and
slower constant-speed lead vehicle) and three travel speed bins
(<25, between 25 and 35, and >=35 mph). Total system effectiveness
was derived by integrating individual system effectiveness estimates
in the nine driving conditions using corresponding rear-end crash
data from the GES (see Equation (6) in Section <IP_ADDRESS> on page 4-
70). Based on available FOT data, the FCW has shown crash prevention
potential in lead vehicle stopped at speeds over 25 mph, slower
constant-speed lead vehicle at speeds below 25 and over 35 mph, and
lead vehicle decelerating at speeds over 35 mph (see Table 4-32 on
page 4-73). Using corresponding crash data by travel speed only (not
taking into account crash data by attempted avoidance maneuver),
total system effectiveness was estimated at 95% of all
rear-end crashes (see Figure 4-42 on page 4-74). However, GES crash
data on travel speed are unreliable since the travel speed variable
is coded as ``unknown'' in over 70% of the rear-end crash cases. As
an alternative to travel speed, it is recommended that the posted
limit data be used to break down the rear-end crash data. Thus by
using corresponding crash data by posted speed limit, total system
effectiveness was estimated at 1511% of all rear-end
crashes assuming that crash-involved vehicles were traveling at the
posted speed limits reported in the crash database (see Figure 4-42
on page 4-74). This safety benefit also assumes 100% system
deployment in the vehicle fleet.
    15% was assumed to be a best overall effectiveness estimate for
rear-end crash prevention.

Reference

    Najm, W.G., Stearns, M.D., Howarth, H., Koopmann, J., and Hitz,
J., ``Evaluation of an Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance
System''. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 810 569, March 2006.

Lane Departure Warning (LDW)

    The overall average crash reduction estimate range (6% to 11%)
for Lane Departure Warning was obtained from data collected during a
Road Departure Collision Warning (RDCW) System Field operational
test (FOT). The system merged and arbitrated warnings between a lane
departure warning system (referred to as a lateral drift warning
function in the study) and Curve speed warning (CSW) function. LDW
monitored the vehicle's lane position, lateral speed and available
maneuvering room. The CSW monitored the vehicle's speed and upcoming
road curvature.
    The RDCW Evaluation Final Report \1\ discusses numerous safety-
related benefits that resulted during the treatment period, when the
RDCW alerts were enabled. Most safety benefits were accrued by the
LDW portion of the RDCW system. These benefits include increased
turn signal use, improved lane keeping, and fewer crossings of a
solid lane marker at speeds above 55 mph. However, only one of these
benefits--fewer crossing of a solid lane marker--was used to
forecast a reduction in road-departure crashes. Solid lane markers
serve as the road boundary. During the treatment period and at
speeds above 55 mph, drivers crossed solid lane markers 44 percent
less often than they did in the baseline period, when RDCW alerts
were not enabled. This reduction, weighted by the national departure
crash counts at this speed range, resulted in a forecasted reduction
in road-departure crashes.
    Road-departure crash statistics presented in Section 4.1 of the
RDCW Evaluation Report.\1\

                       Table 4-1.--Road-Departure Precrash Scenarios (Thousands) GES 2003
                                                [Critical event]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Departed       Lost
                                         Vehicle  movement     road edge     control       Other      Row totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count...............................  ......................          261          208  ...........          469
Row Percent.........................  Going Straight........         55.7         44.3  ...........  ...........
Percent.............................  ......................         25.4         20.3  ...........         45.7
Count...............................  ......................          116          172  ...........          288
Row Percent.........................  Negotiating a Curve...         40.3         59.7  ...........  ...........
Percent.............................  ......................         11.3         16.7  ...........         28.0
Count...............................  ......................           65           55  ...........          120
Row Percent.........................  Initiating a Maneuver.         54.2         45.8  ...........  ...........
Percent.............................  ......................          6.3          5.4  ...........         11.7
Count...............................  ......................  ...........  ...........          150          150
Percent.............................  Other.................  ...........  ...........  ...........         14.6
Count...............................  ......................          442          435          150        1,027
Percent.............................  All Groups............         43.0         42.4         14.6  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From section 4.4.1, this results in an estimated 9,372 to 74,844
fewer road-departure crashes each year. The average of this range
equals 42,108. This range is based on full LDW availability.

Effectiveness = collisions avoided/collision population

    Collision population originates from two departure road edge
cells in Table 4-1, and equals 377,000 crashes. With full
availability, the effectiveness equals:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.008

    With the 56% availability observed in the FOT, the estimated
effectiveness estimated is (.56)(.11) = 6%.
    Since system availability may vary depending on the quality of
lane markings, a range of 6 to 11% was assumed to be the best
overall effectiveness estimate for crashes caused by lane drift.

Reference

    [1] Wilson, B.H., Stearns, M.D., Koopman, J., Yang, D.,
``Evaluation of a Road Departure Crash Warning System''. U.S.
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, DOT HS 810 854, December 2007.

Appendix C

Injury Risk Curves for the NCAP Combined Crashworthiness Rating System

    This Appendix presents the injury risk curves for various body
regions applicable to the Hybrid III 50th percentile male (HIII 50M)
and the Hybrid III 5th percentile female (HIII 5F) dummies in
frontal crash tests and the ES-2re and the SID-IIs side impact
dummies in lateral crash tests.

Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP Head

    The head injury criterion (HIC15) as a metric for assessing head
injury risk is well established and in use in FMVSS No. 208
(Eppinger et al., 1999).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.009

Where [Phi] = cumulative normal distribution

    The AIS 3+ head injury risk curve from the FMVSS No. 208
Advanced Airbag Final Economic Assessment was extended from the
Hertz (1993) AIS 2+ head injury risk curve using real-world data to
determine the relative incidence of different severity brain
injuries. Since NHTSA will assess the risk of serious or more severe
head injuries, this equation has been selected for use in NCAP
(Equation 1). Due to the uncertainty in the scaling methods, NHTSA
took the conservative approach in estimating head injury assessment
reference values for the HIII 5F dummy. As such, this equation will
also be used to assess the risk of AIS 3+ head injury for the HIII
5F dummies.

Neck

    The risk of AIS 3+ neck injury is assessed using Nij (Equation
2) as described in Eppinger et al. (1999, 2000) and currently used
in FMVSS No. 208. The equation below presents the Nij formulation
and Table 1 presents the intercept values (from FMVSS No. 208) of
Fint and Mint used in Nij.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.010

Where Fz is the axial force and My is the flexion/extension moment
measured in the upper neck load cell.

       Table 1.--Nij Intercept Values and Tension/Compression Limits for In-Position 50th Percentile Adult Male and 5th Percentile Female Dummies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nij intercepts
              Dummy              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Tension           Compression           Tension           Compression           Flexion            Extension
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIII 50M........................  4170 N............  4000 N............  6806 N............  6160 N............  310 Nm............  135 Nm.
HIII 5F.........................  2620 N............  2520 N............  4287 N............  3880 N............  155 Nm............  67 Nm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, neck injuries occur due to combination loading to
in-position occupants. As such, the Nij injury risk curve is
applicable and the agency has selected the risk curve used in the
establishment of the Advanced Air Bag rule for FMVSS No. 208 from
Eppinger. The neck tension injury risk curve was developed using the
same paired pig and dummy test data used for the development of Nij.
NHTSA assumed that the tensile neck tolerance is approximately equal
to the compressive neck tolerance. Therefore, the injury risk curve
for neck tension can also be applied to obtain neck injury risk due
to neck compression. Equations 3-5 present the risk of AIS 3+ neck
injury as a function of Nij, neck tension, and neck compression for
the HIII 50M and HIII 5F dummies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.011

Where tension--or--compression is in kV.

    The risk of AIS 3+ neck injury in the NCAP frontal crash test is
the greater of the injury risk for Nij, neck tension, and neck
compression. In general, the risk of injury obtained from Nij is
higher than that for neck tension or compression in frontal NCAP
tests.

Chest

    Eppinger et al. (1999) developed injury risk curves for chest
deflection. However, the derived injury risk curve was independent
of occupant age and was not adequately adjusted to reflect real-
world chest injury risk. As such, we have chosen to use a more
recent, peer reviewed thoracic injury risk curve using chest
deflection. Laituri et al. (2003, 2005) developed AIS 3+ thoracic
injury risk curves by analyzing published cadaveric sled test data
and then developing a transfer function between dummy chest
deflection measurements and cadaveric chest deflection under similar
impact conditions. The resulting thoracic injury risk curve is based
on dummy measured chest deflection and occupant age and was
evaluated against real world injury risk in frontal crashes. In
order to apply this AIS 3+ thoracic injury risk curve in NCAP, it
was normalized to the average age of the driving population which is
approximately 35 years. The injury risk curve based on this
evaluation for assessing risk of AIS 3+ chest injury is presented in
Equation 6 for the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. The injury
risk curve as a function of chest deflection (Equation 7) for the
HIII 5th percentile female dummy (HIII 5F) is obtained by scaling
the risk curves for the HIII 50M using the scale factor for chest
deflection (=0.817) which is the ratio of the chest depth of a 5th
percentile female to that of a 50th percentile male (Eppinger (1999)
and Mertz (2003)).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.012

Knee-Thigh-Hip

    The injury risk curve that the agency will use for the Knee-
Thigh-Hip (KTH) is the same as that reported by Eppinger et al.
(1999) in support of FMVSS No. 208 (Equation 8). The injury risk
curves represent femur and knee injury risk since most of the
injuries in the datasets that were used to develop these injury risk
curves were to the distal femur and knee and only four of the 126
tests used to develop these risks curves produced a hip fracture. In
addition, the knee injuries in this dataset were primarily
multifragmentary patellar fractures, which, like other articular
surface injuries, are associated with a high level of long-term
disability.
    The femur injury risk curve as a function of femur axial force
for the HIII 5th percentile female dummy (HIII 5F) was developed by
scaling the risk curves for the HIII 50M using a scale factor of
0.68 (Equation 9). This scale factor was proposed by Eppinger (1999)
and later by Mertz (2003) and is based on the ratio of the thigh
circumference of a 5th percentile female to that of a 50th
percentile male.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.013

Joint Probability of Injury

    The joint probability of injury to an occupant is obtained by
combining the risk of injury to each body region assuming the injury
to different body regions are independent events. Therefore the
probability of serious injury, Pjoint, is given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.014

Injury Risk Curves for Side NCAP

    The injury risk curves for the side impact dummies, ES-2re and
SID-IIs (Kuppa, 2006), were developed from biomechanical tests
involving human cadaveric subjects and detailed in NHTSA docket
(NHTSA-2007-29134).

Head

    The Head Injury Criterion (HIC), used for assessing injury risk
in frontal impacts is based on repeated drop tests of embalmed human
cadavers onto rigid and padded surfaces where the impact area was
the forehead (Lissner et al. 1960, Hodgson et al. 1972). Though
forehead impacts are representative of a frontal impact scenario,
the ECE R95 directive and Euro NCAP continue to apply HIC for head
injury assessment in lateral impact scenarios, implicitly assuming
that the head/brain injury tolerance is independent of loading
direction and impact location. Similarly, NHTSA applied HIC36 to
assess head/brain injuries in lateral crashes in the upgrade to
FMVSS No. 214 so as to harmonize with the existing FMVSS No. 201
optional pole impact test.
    Therefore, the FMVSS No. 208 AIS 3+ injury risk function
presented above for the HIII 50M and HIII 5F dummies will be used in
the NCAP side impact tests with the ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies.
However, in order to be consistent with FMVSS No. 214, HIC36 will be
used rather than HIC15 (Equation 10).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.015

Where [Phi] = cumulative normal distribution

Chest

    The risk of AIS 3+ and AIS 4+ thoracic injury for a 45 year old
(average age of the driving population involved in side impacts)
50th percentile adult male occupant as a function of maximum rib
deflection of the ES-2re side impact dummy was developed by Kuppa
(2006) by considering the injury severity to be a polychotomous
variable (AIS<3, AIS=3, AIS>3). However, this AIS 3+ injury risk
curve has a finite risk of injury even at zero mm of rib deflection.
The same cadaver and dummy test data reported by Kuppa (2006) were
reanalyzed considering the injury severity to be dichotomous (AIS<3
and AIS>=3 or AIS<4 and AIS>=4) to develop new AIS 3+ and AIS 4+
injury risk curves. Since the injury risk curves have not been
adjusted to represent the average risk of injury in real world side
crashes, NHTSA will use the AIS 4+ injury risk curve as the
corresponding AIS 3+ injury risk in NCAP. The risk of AIS 3+
thoracic injury for a 45 year old (average age of the driving
population involved in side impacts) 50th percentile adult male
occupant as a function of maximum rib deflection of the ES-2re for
use in NCAP is presented in Equation 11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.016

    FMVSS 214 final rule does not utilize rib deflection measures of
the SID IIs dummy and so they are not considered in NCAP at this
time. Additionally, because the agency does not have a valid risk
curve at this time for spine acceleration, it is also not included.

Abdomen

    The AIS 3+ abdominal injury risk curve using the total force in
the ES-2re abdomen reported by Kuppa (2006) is utilized in NCAP and
is presented in Equation 12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.017

Where F is the total force in the ES-2re abdomen in Newtons.

    Since FMVSS No. 214 does not utilize the abdominal rib
deflection measures of the SID-IIs dummy for injury assessment, no
abdominal injury risk assessment will be applied to the NCAP side
MDB test and the oblique pole test using the SID IIs dummy.

Pelvis

    NHTSA will utilize the AIS 3+ pelvic injury risk curve (Equation
13) reported by Kuppa (2006) for injury assessment with the ES-2re
driver in the side MDB NCAP test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.018

Where F is the pubic force in the ES-2re dummy in Newtons

    Kuppa (2006) developed the risk curve for AIS 2+ pelvic fracture
as a function of the sum of iliac wing and acetabular force in the
SID-IIs by scaling the normalized 50th percentile male data to that
of a 5th percentile female, accounting for older subject age,
adjusting for lower bone tolerance among female occupants, and
transforming the applied force on the cadaver to the sum of
acetabular and iliac force measured in the SID-IIs dummy. This
pelvic injury risk function for the SID-IIs is presented in Equation
14.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.019

Where F is the sum of the acetabular and iliac force in the SID-IIs
dummy in Newtons

    In developing the pelvis injury criteria for the SID-IIs, an
occupant age of 56 years was considered to correspond to the average
age of AIS 3+ injured occupants (of height less than 5 ft 4 inches)
involved in side crashes. Research has indicated that pelvic
injuries to older occupants are associated with increased mortality
(O'Brien et al. 2002; Henry et al. 2002). During a 5-year period, O'
Brien et al. and Henry et al. examined patients who sustained a
pelvic fracture and found that patients 55 years and older were more
likely to sustain a lateral compression fracture pattern and had a
higher frequency of mortality due to the injury than younger
patients (<55 years old). Due to the higher mortality rate
associated with the elderly, an AIS 2+ injury risk curve is used in
NCAP for the SID-IIs representing a 56 year old small female rather
than the AIS 3+ injury risk specified for the ES-2re dummy

Joint Probability of Injury

    The joint risk of injury to an occupant is obtained by combining
the risk of injury to the head, chest, abdomen and pelvis assuming
the injury to different body regions are independent events (as was
done for frontal impact). Note that for the SID-IIs, the risk of
chest and abdomen injury is omitted and only the risk of injury to
the head and pelvis are combined.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.020

Injury Risk In Rollover Crashes

    The Static Stability Factor (SSF) of a vehicle is defined as
one-half the track width, t, divided by h, the height of the center
of gravity above the road (SSF = t/(2 x h)). Since 2004, the NCAP
vehicle rollover rating has been calculated as a function of the
vehicle's static stability factor and its propensity to tip up in
the dynamic rollover ``fishhook'' test (68 FR 59250). The risk of
rollover in single-vehicle crashes as a function of the static
stability factor and the results of the dynamic rollover test was
estimated from the State Data System and is presented below in
Equations 15 and 16.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.021

Where SSF=static stability factor

    This model describes the absolute risk of rollover given a
single-vehicle crash. We can also describe the risk of rollover
relative to an ``average'' vehicle. For example, we could use a
``typical'' SSF (which is about 1.35 for the current fleet) for
vehicles that did not tip up in the dynamic test (which reflects the
future in the sense that when all vehicles are equipped with ESC
there will be essentially no tip-ups in the dynamic test). The risk
of rollover for a subject vehicle compared to the risk of rollover
for this baseline case describes how much more or less likely the
subject vehicle is to roll over compared to the baseline. Thus, for
example, a relative risk of rollover of 0.80 means that the subject
vehicle is 20 percent less likely to roll over than the baseline; a
relative risk of 1.25 means that the subject vehicle is 25 percent
more likely to roll over than the baseline. For certain purposes
(specifically, in producing the Vehicle Safety Score as described
elsewhere in this Notice), we treat this as equivalent to the
relative risk that a belted occupant is injured in a rollover crash
given a single-vehicle crash. This is not strictly true, but our
review of the SDS data for belted drivers indicates that it is
approximately true. Therefore, the relative risks of injury to a
belted driver in a rollover crash conditional on being involved in a
single-vehicle crash are approximately proportional to the risks of
rollover outlined above.

REFERENCES

    AAM Association of Automobile Manufacturers (1999), Comments to
the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FMVSS No. 208
Occupant Crash Protection--Air bags, NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-1999-
6407-40.
    Backaitis SH and St. Laurent A. (1986) Chest Deflection
Characteristics of Volunteers and Hybrid III Dummies. Proceedings of
the Thirtieth Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp 157-166. SAE Paper No.
861884.
    Bouquet, R., Ramet, M., Bermond, F., Vyes, C. (1998) Pelvic
Human Response to Lateral Impact, 16th International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 98-S7-W-16,
National Highway Traffic Administration, Windsor, 1998.
    Cesari D and Bouquet R. (1990) Behavior of Human Surrogates
under Belt Loading. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Stapp Car Crash
Conference, pp 73-82. SAE Paper No. 902310.
    Eppinger et al., (1999) Development of Improved Injury Criteria
for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems II,
NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6407-5.
    Eppinger et al. (2000) Supplement: Development of Improved
Injury Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive

Restraint Systems II, NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7013-3.
    Hertz E. (1993) A Note on the Head Injury Criteria (HIC) as a
Predictor of the Risk of Skull Fracture. 37th Annual Proceedings of
the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
    Hodgson, V.R. and Thomas, L. M. (1972) Effect of Long Duration
Impact on Head, SAE 72096, Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
    Horsch JD, et al. (1991) Thoracic Injury Assessment of Belt
Restraint Systems Based on Hybrid III Chest Compression. SAE Paper
No. 912895, Thirty-Fifth Stapp car Crash Conference, pp 85-108.
    International Standards Organization (ISO) Working Group 6, ISO
TC 22/SC 12/ WG 6, Road Vehicles--Injury Risk Curves to Evaluate
Occupant Protection in Side Impact, ISO/TR 12350:2002(E).
    Kent, R., Patrie, J., Benson, N. (2003) The Hybrid III dummy as
a discriminator of injurious and non-injurious restraint loading,
Forty0Seventh Annual Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine.
    Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R. (1998) ``Development of an Improved
Thoracic Injury Criterion,'' Proceedings of the 42nd Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE No. 983153.
    Kuppa, S. (2001) Lower Extremity Injuries and Associated Injury
Criteria, Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Amsterdam, June,
2001.
    Kuppa, S. (2006) Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies, Docket
No. NHTSA-2007-29134-0001.
    Laituri, T., Prasad, P., Kachnowski, B., Sullivan, K., Przybylo,
P. (2003) Prediction of AIS 3+ Thoracic Risks for Belted Occupants
in Full Engagements, Real World Frontal Impacts: Sensitivity to
Various Theoretical Risk Curves, SAE Paper No. 2003-01-1355, 2003
SAE World Congress.
    Laituri, T., Prasad, P., Sullivan, K., Frankstein, M., Thomas,
R. (2005) Derivation and Evaluation of a Provisional, Age Dependent
AIS 3+ Thoracic Risk Curve for Belted Adults in Frontal Impacts, SAE
Paper No. 2005-01-0297.
    Laituri, T., Henry, S., Sullivan, K., Prasad, P. (2006)
Derivation and Theoretical Assessment of a Set of Biomechanics-
based, AIS 2+ Risk Equations for the Knee-Thigh-Hip Complex, Stapp
Car Crash journal, Vol. 50, November 2006.
    Lissner, H. R. et al. (1960) Experimental Studies on the
Relation between Acceleration and Intracranial Pressure Changes in
Man, Surgery Gynecology and Obstetrics, pp.329-338.
    Mertz, H., Weber, D. (1982) Interpretations of the Impact
Responses of a 3-year-old child dummy relative to child injury
potential. Ninth Experimental Safety Vehicle Conference, pp. 368-
376, Kyoto, Japan.
    Mertz, H., Irwin, A., Prasad, P. (2003) Biomechanical and
Scaling Bases for Frontal and Side Impact Injury Assessment
Reference Values. Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 155-188.
    Mertz H. (1993) Anthropomorphic Test Devices, Accidental Injury,
Biomechanics, and Prevention, edited by Nahum, A., Melvin, J.,
Springer-Verlag.
    Morgan, et al. (1990) Human Cadaver and Hybrid III Responses to
Axial Impacts of the Femur, Proceedings of the 1990 International
IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts, 1990.
    NHTSA, Final Economic Assessment FMVSS No. 208 Advanced Air Bag
(2000), NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7013-2.
    Nusholtz, G., Domenico, L., Shi, Y., Eagle, P. (2003) Studies of
Neck Injury Criteria Based on Existing Biomechanical Test Data,
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, pp. 777-786.
    O' Brien, D., Luchette, F., Pereira, S., Lim, E., Seeskin, C.,
James, L., Miller, S., Davis, K., Hurst, J., Johannigman, J., Frame,
S. (2002) Pelvic Fracture in the Elderly is Associated with
Increased Mortality, Surgery, Volume 132, pp. 710-715.
    Prasad, P., Daniel, R., (1984) A biomechanical analysis of head,
neck, and torso injuries to child surrogates due to sudden torso
acceleration, SAE Paper No. 841656.
    Rupp, J., Reed, M., Kuppa, S., Wang, S., Goulet, J., Schneider,
L., ``The Tolerance of the Human Hip to Dynamic Knee Loading,''
Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 211-228, 2002.
    Rupp, J., Reed, M., Jeffreys, Y., Schneider, L. (2003). Effects
of Hip Posture on the Frontal Impact Tolerance of the Human Hip
Joint. Stapp Car Crash Journal 47:21-33.
    Rupp J., Reed, M., Madura, N., Miller, C., Kuppa, S., Schneider,
L. (2005). Comparison of the Inertial Response of the Thor-NT,
Hybrid III, and Unembalmed Cadaver to Simulated Knee-to-Knee-Bolster
Impacts. Proceedings of the 19th International Technical Conference
on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper 05-0086. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington DC.
    Rupp, J. (2006). Biomechanics of Hip Fractures in Frontal Motor
Vehicle Crashes. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI.
    Viano, et al. (1977) ``Considerations for a Femur Injury
Criterion,'' Proceedings of the Twenty-First Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE Paper No. 770925.
    Viano, D. (1989) Biomechanical Responses and Injuries in Blunt
Lateral Impact. Proc. Thirty-third Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp.
113-142, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
    Viano, D., Lau, I., Asbury, C., King, A., Begeman, P. (1989)
Biomechanics of the Human Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis in Lateral
Impact, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 553-
574.
    Walfisch, G., Fayon, C., Terriere, J., et al., ``Designing of a
Dummy's Abdomen for Detecting Injuries in Side Impact Collisions,''
5th International IRCOBI Conference, 1980.

Appendix D

Relative Risk of Injury, Vehicle Safety Score, and the Star Rating
System

Introduction

    The risk of injury to each occupant in NHTSA's Crashworthiness
Rating System is the joint probability of injury to each body region
considered for that occupant. The overall risk of injury in frontal
crashes is the average of the injury risk to the driver and
passenger in the frontal crash test. The risk of injury to the
driver in side crashes is the weighted average of the risk to the
driver in the MDB test (weight=0.8) and the pole test (weight=0.2).
The overall risk of injury in side crashes is the average of the
injury risk to the driver in side crashes (MDB and Pole) and the
injury risk to the rear seat passenger in the MDB test.
    The crashworthiness rating system provides relative risk of
injury for each occupant in each crash test condition (driver and
front outboard passenger in the frontal crash test, driver and near
side rear seat passenger in the side MDB test, driver in the oblique
pole impact test, and rollover test) and a Combined Crashworthiness
Rating Vehicle Safety Score. The relative risk of injury in each
test condition for a vehicle is computed by dividing the overall
risk of injury in each crash mode by an average baseline risk (for
example, the average risk of serious injury in the fleet or that of
a group of select vehicles in the fleet for a certain model year).
The Combined Crashworthiness Rating Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) is
obtained as a weighted average of the individual Relative Risk Score
(RRS) in each test condition.
    The RRS for each test condition and the VSS represent the risk
of injury to occupants of the vehicle relative to a baseline risk of
injury. For example, a VSS of 1.15 for a vehicle implies that the
occupants in that vehicle are 15 percent more likely to sustain
serious injury than a vehicle representing the baseline risk.

Frontal Crash Test Rating

    The historical frontal NCAP crash test data for the driver from
the model years 1995 through 2008 were examined using the injury
risk curves presented in Appendix C.
    The average risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, and femur
of the driver, computed using the injury risk curves from Appendix
C, for each vehicle of model years 2004 to 2008 is presented in
Figure 1.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.005

    When compared to data from 1995, these data indicate that the
average risk of injury to the driver by model year has been reduced
since 1995 and is less than 0.2 after MY 2002 (Table 2). If the
average performance of all the vehicles tested in NCAP each year is
used to represent the fleet of new cars, then for MY 2008, the
average risk of serious injury in the fleet is approximately 0.15.
Therefore, the baseline injury risk of 0.15 was used to compute the
relative risk of injury in frontal crashes for each vehicle (Table
3).

                            Table 1.--Probability of Injury Statistics for Drivers in NCAP Frontal Crash Tests by Model Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Average     Prob Std.                   P 25%                     P 75%
                              MY                                   prob      deviation    Minimum P     quartile     P Median     quartile    Maximum P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.........................................................         0.30         0.12         0.10         0.21         0.27         0.35         0.62
1996.........................................................         0.32         0.18         0.13         0.18         0.28         0.40         0.86
1997.........................................................         0.26         0.14         0.12         0.17         0.22         0.28         0.69
1998.........................................................         0.26         0.11         0.11         0.20         0.24         0.30         0.63
1999.........................................................         0.29         0.18         0.09         0.17         0.23         0.36         0.71
2000.........................................................         0.25         0.15         0.11         0.15         0.22         0.28         0.64
2001.........................................................         0.23         0.12         0.09         0.17         0.19         0.26         0.63
2002.........................................................         0.20         0.09         0.09         0.14         0.17         0.22         0.61
2003.........................................................         0.18         0.09         0.08         0.12         0.15         0.18         0.45
2004.........................................................         0.15         0.07         0.08         0.11         0.14         0.18         0.46
2005.........................................................         0.17         0.11         0.09         0.11         0.14         0.19         0.57
2006.........................................................         0.17         0.06         0.08         0.13         0.15         0.22         0.31
2007.........................................................         0.15         0.05         0.09         0.12         0.14         0.17         0.38
2008.........................................................         0.15         0.04         0.09         0.12         0.14         0.18         0.24
                                  Average MY 1995-2008                                          0.10         0.15         0.19         0.25         0.56
                                  Average MY 2004-2008                                          0.08         0.12         0.14         0.19         0.39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.022

    The average, minimum, maximum, and the quartiles presented in
Table 3 provide an estimate of the dispersion of Relative Risk Score
(RRS) in different model years. Since most of the current vehicles
receive four or five stars in the NCAP frontal crash tests, NHTSA
prescribed the baseline risk of 15 percent (representing the average
risk of injury to the driver in MY 2007 and MY 2008 vehicles in the
NCAP frontal crash test) to be at the border of the 4 star and 3
star rating. Other criteria used to determine the star bands were
(1) vehicles performing exceptionally well (at 0-15 percentile of
vehicles tested) are assigned a five star rating, and (2) vehicles
performing very poorly (greater than 4 standard deviations from
mean) would be assigned a one star. Attempts were also made to
maintain equidistant star band boundaries. Based on these criteria
and the distribution of relative risk of injury scores presented in
Table 3, the relationship between RRS and the number of stars was
established as presented in Table 4. The RRS is computed by (1)
rounding the injury risk to the nearest tenth of a percent in
accordance with the rounding-off method of ASTM Standard Practice E
29 for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine
Conformance with Specifications, (2) dividing the injury risk by
0.15 (15.0 percent baseline injury risk), (3) and finally rounding
the result to the nearest one hundredth in accordance to ASTM
Standard E 29. It should be noted that a vehicle which passes
compliance (with a 20 percent compliance margin) would have an
injury risk of 52.1 percent corresponding to a RRS value of 3.47.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11JY08.023

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

Side Crash Test Rating

    Because the agency did not have test data using the ES 2re or
SID IIs dummies at the NCAP test speed for the MDB test, the agency
computed the average risk of serious injury derived from relevant
MDB tests and oblique pole impact tests done in support of the FMVSS
214 side impact protection upgrade. The MDB test is conducted with
the ES-2re dummy in the front driver seat and the SID-IIs in the
rear passenger seat. The pole impact test is conduced with the SID-
IIs in the driver's seat.
    The injury risk curves for side impact reported in Appendix C
are applied to side MDB tests and oblique pole tests. These tests
were part of NHTSA's fleet evaluation for the FMVSS 214 side impact
upgrade and details and thorough analysis of these tests are
available in the NHTSA docket number NHTSA-2007-25441.
    There were six vehicles which were tested in the FMVSS 214 test
conditions (MDB impact at 53 km/h rather than the NCAP 62 km/h) as
well as the oblique pole impact with the SID-IIs dummies. The dummy
injury measures in the paired crash tests of these vehicles with the
ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies were used to determine risk of injury in
side crashes and a Relative Risk Score (RRS) for side crashes. Table
4 presents the statistics for the risk of injury (average, standard
deviation, minimum, maximum, median, and 25 and 75 percentile injury
risk values) for each dummy in the MDB and oblique pole tests using
the injury risk curves from Appendix C.
    The overall risk of injury to the driver for each vehicle is the
weighted average of the driver injury risk in the MDB test
(multiplied by 0.8) and that in the oblique pole test (multiplied by
0.2). The risk of injuries in side crashes for a vehicle is the
simple average of the injury risk of the rear seat passenger in the
MDB test and the overall driver injury risk. Table 4 also presents
the statistics for the overall risk of injury to the driver and the
risk of injury in side crashes.

                 Table 4.--Probability of Injury (P) Statistics for Different Occupants in the Side MDB and the Oblique Pole Crash Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                25%                       75%
                          Crash type                            Average P   Std. Dev. P     Min P      quartile P    Median P    quartile P     Max P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDB Driver...................................................         0.09         0.04         0.04         0.06         0.09         0.12         0.13
MDB Pass.....................................................         0.13         0.21         0.03         0.03         0.04         0.07         0.55
Pole Driver..................................................         0.64         0.39         0.13         0.32         0.79         0.93         0.98
Overall Driver...............................................         0.20         0.11         0.06         0.12         0.23         0.28         0.30
Side Impact..................................................         0.16         0.16         0.05         0.07         0.14         0.18         0.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The overall risk of injury to the driver is computed as the weighted average of the risk of driver injury in the MDB test (multiplied by 0.8)
  and the risk of driver injury in the pole test (multiplied by 0.2).
 The risk of injury in side impact is the average of the overall driver risk and the risk of rear passenger in the MDB test.

    The average risk of injury from the six MDB tests for the driver
and the rear passenger is 0.09 and 0.13, respectively. The average
risk of injury to the driver in the six oblique pole tests is 0.64
and the average overall risk of injury to the driver (combining the
MDB and pole test results) is 0.20. For these six vehicles, the
average risk of injury in side crashes is 0.16.
    In order to promote improvement in side impact safety in all the
vehicles, the baseline risk of injury to compute Relative Risk
Scores (RRS) in side crashes is taken to be 15 percent. As in
frontal crash tests, the RRS in side MDB and pole crash tests is
computed by 1) rounding the injury risk to the nearest tenth of a
percent in accordance with the rounding-off method of ASTM Standard
Practice E 29 for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine
Conformance with Specifications, 2) dividing the injury risk by 0.15
(15.0 percent baseline injury risk), 3) and finally rounding the
result to the nearest one hundredth in accordance to ASTM Standard E
29. Table 5 presents the RRS statistics corresponding to the injury
risk presented in Table 4 using a baseline injury risk of 15
percent.

                 Table 5.--Relative Risk Score (RRS) Statistics for Different Occupants in the Side MDB and the Oblique Pole Crash Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                25%                       75%
                          Crash type                           Average RRS   Std. Dev.     Min RRS      quartile    Median RRS    quartile     Max RRS
                                                                                RRS                       RRS                       RRS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDB Driver...................................................         0.60         0.25         0.28         0.42         0.59         0.80         0.87
MDB Pass.....................................................         0.86         1.39         0.20         0.21         0.28         0.45         3.69
Pole Driver..................................................         4.27         2.57         0.89         2.15         5.24         6.23         6.54
Overall Driver...............................................         1.33         0.71         0.40         0.77         1.52         1.89         2.00
Side Impact..................................................         1.09         1.05         0.30         0.49         0.90         1.17         2.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Relative Risk Score for MDB tests, pole tests, and side impacts is obtained by dividing the risk of injury in each side crash mode listed
  in Table 4 by 0.15 which represents the baseline risk of injury in side impacts.

    Vehicles for which all the dummy injury measures (for the ES-2re
and SID-IIs) in the MDB and pole tests just meet the compliance
limits, the risk of injury is 0.70 for the ES-2re and 0.42 for the
SID IIs dummies resulting in an overall risk of injury in side
crashes of 0.532, a RRS of 3.54.

Rollover Rating

    Since the proposed rollover rating is the same as that currently
used in NCAP, the current relationship between the risk of rollover
and star rating used in NCAP is applied here and is shown in Table
11. If 15 percent risk (corresponding to a 4 star rating) is used as
the baseline risk (as that in front and side crash test rating),
then the relationship between the vehicle safety score in rollover
is as shown in Table 11.

                Table 11.--Star Rating, Risk of Rollover, and the Relative Risk score in Rollover
                                      [Using a baseline risk of 15 percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Number of stars                    Risk of rollover            Relative risk score in rollover
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 star..................................  P >= 40 percent............  RRS >= 2.67
2 stars.................................  30 <= P < 40 percent.......  2.0 <= RRS < 2.67
3 stars.................................  20 <= P < 30 percent.......  1.33 <= RRS < 2.0
4 stars.................................  10 <= P < 20 percent.......  0.67 <= RRS < 1.33
5 stars.................................  P < 10 percent.............  RRS < 0.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combined Crashworthiness Rating Vehicle Safety Score

    The weighted average of the Relative Risk Scores (RRS) in front,
side, and rollover crashes is the combined crashworthiness rating
Vehicle Safety Score (VSS). The weight applied to each crash mode
represents the proportion of injury associated with that crash mode.
Since the baseline injury risk used to compute RRS in each crash
mode is 15 percent, the combined crashworthiness rating also
represents the relative risk of injury with respect to a baseline of
15 percent. The Vehicle Safety Score for the Combined
Crashworthiness Rating is computed below:

Combined Rating = (5/12) x RRS(front) + (4/12) x RRS(side) + (3/12)
x RRS(roll)

    The final VSS value is obtained by rounding the result from the
above equation to the nearest one hundredth in accordance to ASTM
Standard E 29. The star bands used for rating frontal and side
impacts are applied to the combined crashworthiness rating using VSS
and is presented in Table 12.

                                        Table 12.--Relationship Between Vehicle Safety Score and the Star Rating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       5 stars                  4 stars                  3 stars                  2 stars                 1 star
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VSS Values...................  VSS <0.67..............  0.67 <= VSS <1.00......  1.00 <= VSS < 1.33.....  1.33 <= VSS < 2.67....  VSS >= 2.67
Probability..................  P < 0.100..............  0.100 <= P < 0.150.....  0.150 <= P < 0.200.....  0.200 <= P < 0.400....  P >= 0.400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  32302, 30111, 30115, 30117,
30166, and 30168, and Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: July 3, 2008.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.

 [FR Doc. E8-15620 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38884-38885]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16036]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0379; FRL-9912-90]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application, 67760-
EUP-R, from Cheminova, Inc., 160 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA
22209, requesting an experimental use permit (EUP) for the chemical
Flutriafol. The Agency has determined that the permit may be of
regional and national significance. Therefore, because of the potential
significance, EPA is seeking comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0379, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to
field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to
obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides
if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or
one acre or more of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional and national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
    Submitter: Cheminova, Inc. (66760-EUP-R).
    Pesticide Chemical: Flutriafol.
    Summary of Request: For use on sweet corn in five states
(Minnesota, Florida, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin) each
including up to 20 plots of up to 20 acres. Foliar applications will be
made at a maximum single application rate of 0.114 lb a.i. per acre. A
maximum of two applications may be made (up to 0.22 lb a.i. per acre
per season) at a 7-day interval. The proposed length of treatment will
be one year.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to
issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: July 1, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-16036 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM
DATE:		November 16, 2017
TO:		Rulemaking docket EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204
FROM:	Jeanhee Hong, Office of Regional Counsel
		Wienke Tax, Air Division, Planning Office
RE:		State court order concerning 2015 RECLAIM amendments

We asked attorneys at the South Coast Air Quality Management District for their thoughts on the recent state court order remanding the 2015 RECLAIM amendments based on a procedural issue. In response, Bill Wong explained that the District may consider appealing the order but that, in the meantime, the RECLAIM program rules remain in effect and the District plans to implement the rules as adopted.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 17821]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification
Application

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Project No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC...............   10482-122
Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC
Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC...............  10481-069
Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC
Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC
Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC...............  9690-115
Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC
Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2021, Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water
Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC (co-licensees)
submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a copy of their
application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality
certification filed with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned
projects. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the New York DEC
of the following:
    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: March 30, 2021.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year.
    Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act: March 30, 2022.
    If the New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency's
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: March 31, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07076 Filed 4-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P