Frontal New Car Assessment Program, 75536-75541 [05-24268]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75536
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
detecting proper swing span seating
than that described in the FRA’s
Technical Manual.
Applicant’s justification for relief:
BNSF fully expects the actual rail
surface and alignment to be maintained
within the 3/8 inch required by 236.312;
however, BNSF’s Bridge Engineers feel
that additional easer bar clearance is
needed to reliably operate this bridge
because of its particular design. The
Hannibal Bridge does not have wedges
or rollers, and instead has end lifts on
each corner of the swing span. BNSF
has installed, at great expense, a rather
elaborate mechanical proximity sensor
device, near the deck level at each of the
four corners of the bridge, to detect that
the bridge is properly seated. While this
approach to detecting locking is not the
same as described in the FRA’s
Technical Manual, BNSF’s Bridge
Engineers believe it accurately detects
when the swing span is properly seated,
clearly the intent of the rule. These
devices are designed to detect that all
four corners are within 3/8 inch of the
proper seated position vertically and, on
two of the corners, within 3/8 inch of
proper horizontal alignment. BNSF
respectfully submits that while the
method of detecting bridge locking and
rail surface/alignment on their Hannibal
Bridge might not be conventional or
familiar, it is completely safe and
complies with the intent of 49 CFR
236.312.
Any interested party desiring to
protest the granting of an application
shall set forth specifically the grounds
upon which the protest is made, and
include a concise statement of the
interest of the party in the proceeding.
Additionally, one copy of the protest
shall be furnished to the applicant at the
address listed above.
All communications concerning this
proceeding should be identified by the
docket number and must be submitted
to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket
Management Facility, Room PI–401,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Communications received within 45
days of the date of this notice will be
considered by the FRA before final
action is taken. Comments received after
that date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are
available for examination during regular
business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the
above facility. All documents in the
public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the internet
at the docket facility’s Web site at https://
dms.dot.gov.
FRA wishes to inform all potential
commenters that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–
78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FRA expects to be able to determine
these matters without an oral hearing.
However, if a specific request for an oral
hearing is accompanied by a showing
that the party is unable to adequately
present his or her position by written
statements, an application may be set
for public hearing.
Issued in Washington, DC on December 15,
2005.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E5–7570 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Notice of Application for Approval of
Discontinuance or Modification of a
Railroad Signal System or Relief From
the Requirements of Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 236
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49
U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad
has petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) seeking approval
for the discontinuance or modification
of the signal system or relief from the
requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as
detailed below.
[Docket Number FRA–2005–23065]
Applicant: Canadian Pacific Railway,
Mr. Robert R. Otis, Manager Signal
and Communication, Metro 94
Business Center, 425 Etna Street—
Suite 38, St. Paul, Minnesota 55106.
The Canadian Pacific Railway seeks
approval of the proposed modification
of the traffic control system, at milepost
3.22, just west of Lyndale Avenue, on
the Paynesville Subdivision, near
Minneapolis, Minnesota, consisting of
the discontinuance and removal of the
power-operated derail. The proposed
change is associated with a plan to
install a new stand-a-lone remotecontrolled derail, just outside the actual
yard tracks, at milepost 3.65.
The reason given for the proposed
changes is due to safety concerns about
the derail’s location and operation.
Any interested party desiring to
protest the granting of an application
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
shall set forth specifically the grounds
upon which the protest is made, and
include a concise statement of the
interest of the party in the proceeding.
Additionally, one copy of the protest
shall be furnished to the applicant at the
address listed above.
All communications concerning this
proceeding should be identified by the
docket number and must be submitted
to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket
Management Facility, Room PL–401
(Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Communications received within 45
days of the date of this notice will be
considered by the FRA before final
action is taken. Comments received after
that date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are
available for examination during regular
business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the
above facility. All documents in the
public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the internet
at the docket facility’s Web site at https://
dms.dot.gov.
FRA wishes to inform all potential
commenters that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–
78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FRA expects to be able to determine
these matters without an oral hearing.
However, if a specific request for an oral
hearing is accompanied by a showing
that the party is unable to adequately
present his or her position by written
statements, an application may be set
for public hearing.
Issued in Washington, DC on December 15,
2005.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E5–7566 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–04–18765]
Frontal New Car Assessment Program
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
Response to comments, notice
of decision.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: On October 14, 2004, NHTSA
published a notice requesting comments
on possible alternatives to revise the
agency’s test procedures for frontal
impact New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) testing. This notice summarizes
the comments received and provides the
agency’s decision on how we will
proceed. The agency has decided to
maintain the full-frontal barrier test
procedure, the test speed of 35 mph (56
km/h), the current test dummies, and
the current rating system until the
further research and analysis are
completed.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all submissions
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
petition (or signing the petition, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues concerning the upgrade
to frontal NCAP, contact Mr. Brian Park
of the New Car Assessment Program.
Telephone: (202) 366–6012. Facsimile:
(202) 493–2739. Electronic Mail:
Brian.Park@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal
issues, contact Stephen Wood of the
Office of Chief Counsel. Telephone:
(202) 366–2992. Facsimile: (202) 366–
3820. Electronic Mail:
Stephen.Wood@nhtsa.dot.gov. You may
send mail to these officials at: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Summary of Request for Comments
III. Summary of Comments
IV. Discussion and Agency Decision
V. Conclusion
Appendix A–NASS Analysis of Full-Frontal
Crashes
I. Introduction
The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is responsible
for reducing deaths, injuries, and
economic losses resulting from motor
vehicle crashes. One way in which
NHTSA accomplishes this mission is by
providing consumer information to the
public. Currently, NHTSA conducts
tests and provides frontal, side, and
rollover stability vehicle safety ratings
to consumers through the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP). With this
information, consumers can make
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
better-educated decisions about their
purchases, thereby providing market
forces that encourage automakers to
further improve the safety of their
vehicles.
Since 1978, the test procedure for
NCAP’s frontal crash test program has
been similar to the frontal barrier test
procedure used in Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, ‘‘Occupant Crash Protection,’’
except that the NCAP test has been
conducted at a speed of 5 mph (8 km/
h) above that specified in FMVSS No.
208. Recent amendments to FMVSS No.
208 will require vehicles to be tested at
an increased speed of 35 mph (56 km/
h) for the belted Hybrid III 50th
percentile male dummy, the same test
procedure as the current frontal NCAP.1
Consequently, on October 14, 2004,
NHTSA published a notice requesting
comments on what revisions should
occur, if any, to the test procedures and
or rating system used in frontal NCAP.2
Seventeen comments were received in
response to the notice. While most of
the commenters did not object to
keeping the current frontal NCAP, they
did offer mixed responses on the
different options for modifying the
current test procedure. Additionally,
most commenters supported the idea of
changing the current rating system in
some way, and generally recommended
that any changes made to the program
should reflect real world crash data.
Though they did not submit comments
directly to the notice, a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) study
suggested that the agency should
include different injury measurements
and additional occupant sizes in both
the frontal and side crash test-rating
systems.3 This notice summarizes
comments to the 2004 notice, and
provides the agency’s decision on how
we will proceed.
II. Summary of Request for Comments
In our notice requesting comments on
possible alternatives to current NCAP
test procedures and/or rating system,
the alternatives offered were as follows:
(1) Maintaining the current program, (2)
modifying the test procedure, and (3)
changing the rating system.
The first option offered for
consideration was to maintain the
current program. Under this option,
NCAP test results could be used for
1 This
requirement is phased in during a period
beginning on September 1, 2007, and ending on
September 1, 2011.
2 70FR 23078, Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18765.
3 GAO–05–370, Report to Congressional
Committees, Vehicle Safety, ‘‘Opportunities Exist to
Enhance NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program,’’
April 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75537
testing compliance with the FMVSS No.
208 and vice-versa, thereby maintaining
or perhaps increasing the amount of
consumer information provided by the
agency.
The second option offered for
consideration was to modify the current
test procedure. Three modifications
were described. The first was to increase
the current test speed; that is, to test the
vehicles as outlined in FMVSS No. 208,
but at a faster speed. As the test speed
of the FMVSS No. 208 test will be raised
from 30 mph (48 km/h) to 35 mph (56
km/h), the NCAP test speed could also
be increased by 5 mph (8km/h) from 35
mph (56 km/h) to 40 mph (64 km/h).
This test could also serve as a
compliance indicant. The second
variation was to add a variety of
dummies. The Hybrid III 5th percentile
female dummy could be placed in the
driver position with the Hybrid III 50th
percentile male dummy in the passenger
position, or vice-versa. Additionally,
rear seat occupants could include one or
more of the Hybrid III family of child
dummies with their appropriate child
restraints. The third modification was to
add another test procedure, such as an
offset frontal test, either as a
replacement or in addition to the fullfrontal barrier test.
The third option offered for
consideration was to make changes to
the rating system. Two changes were
offered for consideration under this
approach. One possible change was to
modify the star rating bands so that the
combined chance of a serious injury to
the head or chest would be 5 percent or
lower (as opposed to the current 10
percent limit) for a vehicle to receive
five stars. The injury probability ranges
required for the other star ratings would
also be adjusted accordingly. A second
modification was to add new injury
metrics to the star rating like neck (Nij),
chest deflection, femur loads and tibia
index. These injury metrics are
currently measured in the NCAP test,
but are not used to compute the star
rating.
III. Summary of Comments
This section provides a brief
summarization of the seventeen
comments submitted to the docket by
vehicle manufacturers, safety advocates,
and the general public.4
Maintaining the Current Program
General Motors Corporation (GM) and
Daimler Chrysler Corporation
(DaimlerChrysler) did not object to
maintaining the current frontal NCAP
4 These submissions are available at https://
dms.dot.gov in docket number 2004–18765.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
75538
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
test for the immediate future. GM
suggested maintaining the current
program until the Advanced Air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208 have
been phased in completely.
DaimlerChrysler also agreed with
maintaining the current program, citing
the need for an analysis of consumer
perception of NCAP ratings and how the
ratings are used in their purchasing and
leasing decisions. Additionally,
DaimlerChrysler suggested that changes
to the program could lead to consumer
confusion regarding comparisons
between vehicles tested with the current
procedure to those tested under a
revised rating system.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates), the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and
Public Citizen expressed concerns with
maintaining the current frontal program.
The Advocates believe that the changes
to FMVSS No. 208 will make the NCAP
crash tests irrelevant. IIHS stated that,
‘‘* * * the remaining performance
differences among new vehicles are
unlikely to translate into important
differences in occupant protection in
real-world crashes.’’ Public Citizen
reiterated the fact that most new
vehicles receive four-or five-star ratings,
stated that ‘‘the frontal NCAP program
should be made more comprehensive,’’
and suggested achieving this by
including structural integrity and more
body regions to the rating.
Modifying the Test Procedure
Increase Test Speed
Both Advocates and Public Citizen
favored an increase of the frontal test
speed from 35 mph (56 km/h) to 40 mph
(64 km/h). Public Citizen suggested that
deadly frontal crashes occur
disproportionately at speeds above the
current NCAP speed, based on 2003
data on fatal head-on crashes from
NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS). The Advocates
acknowledged that the full-barrier crash
test is primarily a test of restraint system
effectiveness. They suggested a higher
test speed could lead to further
improvements for both air bags and seat
belts, but that it might increase vehicle
stiffness and air bag aggressiveness.
They further suggested that this could
be countered by implementing a new
rating system that modified the score
based on a compatibility ‘‘modifier.’’
GM, Nissan North America, Inc.
(Nissan), Honda Motor Company Ltd.
and American Honda Motor Company
(Honda), Ford Motor Company (Ford),
the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
(AIAM), and IIHS were opposed to an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
increase of test speed. They all
suggested that the higher test speed
could lead to increased vehicle stiffness
and more aggressive air bags, which in
turn would diminish any increased
benefits. Nissan and IIHS also
specifically questioned the real-world
benefits of a higher test speed.
Testing With Different Dummies
With regard to adopting the Hybrid III
5th percentile adult female test dummy
into the frontal test procedure, GM,
Public Citizen, and Bidez & Associates
supported this option. However, they
disagreed on how the dummy should be
adopted. GM recommended replacing
the Hybrid III 50th percentile dummy
with the Hybrid III 5th percentile
dummy and maintaining one single test.
Public Citizen, on the other hand,
supported running one test with the
Hybrid III 50th and 5th dummies in the
driver and passenger seats followed by
a second test with the dummies in
switched positions. Bidez & Associates
felt that the 5th percentile dummy
should be added to an offset frontal test
rather than the current full-frontal
barrier test.
Nissan, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Magna
Steyr, AIAM, and IIHS all objected to
either replacing the Hybrid III 50th
percentile dummy with the Hybrid III
5th percentile dummy or including the
5th percentile into frontal NCAP testing.
Nissan suggested that the 50th
percentile occupant represents the
largest percentage of injured occupants
and thus there is no reason to include
the 5th percentile. Ford cited that the
addition of the 5th percentile into NCAP
testing could have adverse effects
(though no specifics were given) and
that the agency should do additional
research. DaimlerChrysler referenced
the agency’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for adding the Hybrid III
5th percentile dummy to FMVSS No.
208 and stated that potential benefits for
including this dummy were
‘‘statistically minor, an overestimate,
and can’t be absolutely quantified.’’
AIAM likewise suggested that the
agency consider real world conditions
before adding the Hybrid III 5th
percentile dummy to the NCAP. IIHS
suggested that assessing different sizes
of dummies in FMVSS No. 208 is fine,
but there is no evidence that it will
provide any benefit in NCAP testing.
NHTSA had also offered for
consideration testing with child
dummies in the rear seats. GM, Nissan,
and BMW objected to testing with child
dummies that utilize child restraint
systems (CRS). These commenters cited
test burden due to the large number of
different child restraint models
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
available, and consumer confusion as
reasons not to pursue this option. The
commenters suggested that consumers
could become confused when trying to
interpret safety ratings using only one
child restraint model out of the large
number that are currently available.
Additionally, Nissan stated that it was
unclear whether the dummy’s response
would be attributable to the design of
the CRS or to the vehicle itself. GM,
however, did think adding child
dummies to the rear seat has merit, but
indicated that additional research was
required to fully comprehend how to
effectively evaluate vehicles for rear
occupant protection.
Ford, Evenflo, Advocates, Public
Citizen, and Bidez & Associates all
supported the inclusion of restrained
child dummies in frontal NCAP.
Advocates and Public Citizen did not
offer further comment. Ford suggested
that if the agency decides to test with
child dummies, only the three-year-old
Hybrid III dummy in a uniform (or
standard) production CRS with Lower
Anchors and Top Tethers for Children
(LATCH) should be used since that test
mode has been most thoroughly
evaluated by the agency. Evenflo also
favored this approach, but they
recommended using a CRS surrogate in
lieu of a production CRS in order to
ensure year-to-year consistency. Bidez &
Associates added that they would like to
see three child dummies in the rear seat
of every vehicle: A Hybrid-III three-yearold, six-year-old, and ten-year-old. The
three-year old would be restrained in a
CRS recommended by the vehicle
manufacturer and the six- and ten-yearold dummies would be restrained in the
two outboard rear-seating positions by
vehicle belts.
Offset Frontal Test
Subaru, Nissan, BMW, Porsche, IIHS,
Magna Steyr, the Advocates, and Public
Citizen encouraged the adoption of a
frontal offset test procedure to replace
the full-frontal barrier test. Most
emphasized that a large percentage of
frontal offset crashes occurs in the real
world, and that these crashes may be
more frequent than full-frontal crashes.
Some also provided recommendations
regarding the overlap percentage,
deformable barrier, and other test
procedure specifics. Honda favored the
addition of a frontal offset test, and
suggested that a full-width deformable
barrier (FDB) test to enhance vehicle
crash compatibility be simultaneously
introduced.
GM, Ford, and AIAM did not support
the adoption of an offset test. GM
pointed out that IIHS conducts 40
percent frontal offset crash tests and that
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
if NHTSA adopted the same test, the
additional test would be redundant.
Ford stated concerns that a safety rating
based on an offset test would cause a
break in the safety ratings, such as a 3star performer in the offset test receiving
a 5-star rating in the full-frontal test,
leading to consumer confusion. AIAM
commented that an offset test would be
premature without research of the
benefits and disadvantages, particularly
with regards to vehicle compatibility
and aggressivity.
Changing the Rating System
Change Star Rating Limits
IIHS, GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and
Honda were opposed to changing the
star rating limits. IIHS and GM
questioned the real world benefits of
changing the star rating bands. Ford,
DaimlerChrysler, and Honda cautioned
against the undesired consequences of
changing the star bands, particularly in
changing the five-star criteria. Daimler
Chrysler expressed that in order to
differentiate current vehicles, they
would support half-star ratings. Daimler
Chrysler said that ‘‘creating a 5-star
rating based on a 5 percent risk of
serious injury would likely lead to more
aggressive vehicle and restraint counter
measures with possible adverse realworld occupant safety and crash
compatibility consequences.’’ Honda, on
the other hand, said that a tougher fivestar rating with the current head and
chest injury curves could make vehicles
and/or restraints softer, which could
provide disbenefits for higher speed
crashes and compromise protection for
larger occupants.
AIAM also questioned the influence
that new star bands would have on the
repeatability (consistency from one test
to the next) of star ratings. IIHS
suggested that changing the star rating
limits would only result in vehicle
manufacturers making tweaks and small
adjustments and would not have a
meaningful impact on vehicle
crashworthiness in the real world. The
Advocates did not disagree with
changing the star rating limits, but
suggested that other proposed changes
would yield much more meaningful
results.
Public Citizen favored changing the
star rating limits, suggesting that the
new star ratings should increase
stringency. Public Citizen recommended
using 5 percent or less for head and
chest injury to attain a five star rating.
Nissan also considered this approach
reasonable, provided that NHTSA could
explain the relationship between the
new and current calculation method,
and that previously tested vehicles have
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
their safety rating revised according to
the new rating system.
Add New Injury Metrics to Star Rating
Most respondents either supported
adding injury measures to the rating
system or did not comment on the issue.
The Advocates supported the addition
of new injury metrics, but
recommended separate ratings for the
different injury criteria so that
consumers can differentiate between
life-threatening injuries and serious
non-life-threatening injuries. Nissan did
not object to additional injury metrics
provided that the new inclusions would
be supported by real world data, and
that previously tested vehicles have
their safety ratings revised.
Ford proposed that HIC calculated
over a 15 millisecond duration (HIC 15)
and chest deflection be used to replace
the role of HIC36 and chest acceleration
in the frontal NCAP tests. GM, Porsche,
and DaimlerChrysler also recommended
the use of chest deflection instead of
chest acceleration, as it might be a better
predictor of chest injury.
As neck load data is currently
collected in NCAP tests, both Porsche
and Subaru supported the use of Nij.
DaimlerChrysler objected to the
inclusion of Nij due to what they
believe is inappropriate interaction
between air bags and the neck of the
Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy.
None of the responders objected to the
inclusion of femur criteria into the
rating, as most stated that femur criteria
have already been established and are
addressed in current vehicle designs.
For lower leg (tibia) criteria, only
Subaru and GM considered the use of
the lower leg to be beneficial. GM stated
this could reduce the number of
debilitating injuries. However, Porsche
and GM commented that lower leg
injury mechanics are not simple and a
better understanding of the relationship
between full-frontal crashes and lower
leg injuries is needed.
IV. Discussion and Agency Decision
In reviewing the comments to the
2004 Notice, it is apparent that there is
no single prevailing opinion as to the
future direction that should be pursued
in revising the frontal NCAP. While
Public Citizen and the Advocates
favored an increase in the test speed, the
auto companies and IIHS were all
opposed. Incorporation of an offset
frontal test was favored by a number of
the commenters, including the IIHS, but
several auto manufacturers raised
various concerns. Likewise, most
comments did not favor changing the
star rating limits, although Public
Citizen did recommend revisions to
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75539
increase the stringency of the star
ratings. There were also widely
divergent views regarding incorporation
of different dummies into the frontal
NCAP test program. One area in which
there seemed to be some agreement was
in support of adding more injury
measures to the rating system.
NHTSA has maintained several
guiding principles when considering
additions and/or revisions to NCAP.
These include ensuring that NCAP
complements FMVSS performance
requirements and other agency
programs in promoting automotive
safety, providing meaningful
information to the consumers,
encouraging safety improvement
through market forces, and assuring the
integrity of the rating program for
consumers. This requires that the NCAP
information be provided in a timely
manner that is readily understood by
the consumers, that considers changing
vehicle trends, and perhaps most
importantly, is supported by sound data
and research. Although the comments
provided to the 2004 notice have been
helpful in offering approaches that
warrant consideration in revising the
frontal NCAP, there was little
substantive data or research provided
that is necessary to establish a revised
program with such far reaching public
policy automotive safety implications.
The safety advances for frontal
occupant protection envisioned a
generation ago have now been
incorporated into FMVSS No. 208. For
emerging technologies, it is not apparent
which will most effectively advance
frontal occupant protection safety.
NASS data (Appendix A) show that the
current NCAP crash severity, with an
impact velocity of 35 mph and delta-V
of about 41–45 mph, represents all
except about 0.2% of all frontal
occupant injury crashes. As noted by
Public Citizen, about 7% of the AIS 3+
injuries occur above this crash severity.
However, the agency also notes that
over 84% of the AIS 2+ and one-half of
the AIS 3+ injuries occur at a delta-V of
less than 25 mph. Included in these are
many of the lower extremity injuries
that are encompassed in the offset
frontal efforts currently being
considered and researched by NHTSA.5
Further, safety implications for the older
population is also a consideration that
needs to be assessed in determining
effective ways to revise the frontal
NCAP to be most meaningful for
5 70 FR 49248, Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21698,
Occupant Crash Protection; Anthoropomorphic Test
Devices; Instrumented Lower Legs for 50th
Percentile Male and 5th Percentile Female Hybrid
III Dummies.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
75540
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
consumers and relevant to the real
world crashes.
Based on the foregoing and
considering the comments received to
the 2004 notice, we have decided that
the most prudent approach for the
frontal NCAP is to maintain the current
test and rating procedures until we have
established the sound science necessary
to provide a basis for revising the
program in a manner that it would be
most meaningful for the consumers
while ensuring that safety is advanced
without unintended consequences. We
have initiated a comprehensive review
of our entire NCAP program to assure
that it continues to most effectively
complement FMVSS performance
requirements and other agency
programs in promoting automotive
safety, particularly with the rapid
emergence of new technologies. The
review will include a further
examination of the various options
presented for upgrade to frontal NCAP,
including rating vehicles for child
occupant protection; the research,
testing, and analysis needed; and the
real world implications. We expect to
have a course of action determined in
2006.
V. Conclusion
The agency believes that there is
insufficient scientific basis to propose
any revisions to the frontal NCAP at this
time. We are therefore maintaining the
full-frontal barrier test procedure, the
test speed of 35 mph (56 km/h), the
current test dummies, and the current
rating system. We have come to this
conclusion based on our evaluation of
the comments received, real world data,
available test data, and recent
congressional mandates. We believe that
further research and analysis is needed
to establish a new frontal NCAP that
complements existing FMVSS and
drives the market towards improved
safety for frontal occupant protection
without unintended consequences.
Accordingly, we will conduct the
additional analyses necessary for the
development of a new frontal rating
program that will continue to provide
meaningful information to the
consumers and thereby encourage safety
improvement through market forces.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115,
30117, 30166, and 30168, and Pub.L. 106–
414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.
Appendix A—NASS
Frontal Crashes
Analysis of Full-
The National Automotive Sampling
System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data
System (CDS) and the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) are two of the
data systems that NHTSA uses to gain
insight into real world crash data.
Generally, the NASS provides detailed
specifics on sampled towaway crashes
while FARS provides a broad overview
of the fatal crash data.
TABLE A1.—AIS 1+ INJURED OCCUPANTS IN TOWED LIGHT VEHICLES (<=8,500 POUNDS GVWR) 13 YEARS AND OLDER
IN THE FRONT-OUTBOARD SEATS, WITH BELTS AND AIR BAGS IN FULL-FRONTAL CRASHES WITHOUT MISSING INJURY
OR DAMAGE DATA 1995–2003 ADJUSTED ANNUAL ESTIMATES
DV (mph)
00–05
06–10
11–15
16–20
21–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
51–55
56–60
61–65
Frequency
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
Percent
1593.53
67774.50
78315.78
39186.10
13017.71
5730.69
1498.65
1139.64
355.58
311.57
84.16
30.61
12.67
0.76
32.42
37.46
18.74
6.23
2.74
0.72
0.55
0.17
0.15
0.04
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
frequency
1593.53
69368.03
147683.80
186869.90
199887.60
205618.30
207117.00
208256.60
208612.20
208923.80
209007.90
209038.50
209051.20
Cumulative
percent
0.76
33.18
70.64
89.39
95.62
98.36
99.07
99.62
99.79
99.94
99.98
99.99
100.00
TABLE A2.—MODERATELY INJURED (AIS 2+) OCCUPANTS IN TOWED LIGHT VEHICLES (<=8,500 POUNDS GVWR) 13
YEARS AND OLDER IN THE FRONT-OUTBOARD SEATS, WITH BELTS AND AIR BAGS IN FULL-FRONTAL CRASHES WITHOUT MISSING INJURY OR DAMAGE DATA 1995–2003 ADJUSTED ANNUAL ESTIMATES
DV (mph)
06–10
11–15
16–20
21–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
51–55
56–60
61–65
Frequency
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Percent
6152.10
8308.73
8306.68
2831.48
2057.39
994.54
775.82
269.86
303.22
84.16
30.61
12.67
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20.42
27.58
27.57
9.40
6.83
3.30
2.58
0.90
1.01
0.28
0.10
0.04
20DEN1
Cumulative
frequency
6152.10
14460.83
22767.51
25598.99
27656.39
28650.93
29426.75
29696.60
29999.82
30083.99
30114.59
30127.26
Cumulative
percent
20.42
48.00
75.57
84.97
91.80
95.10
97.67
98.57
99.58
99.86
99.96
100.00
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Notices
75541
TABLE A3.—SERIOUSLY INJURED (AIS 3+) OCCUPANTS IN TOWED LIGHT VEHICLES (<=8,500 POUNDS GVWR) 13 YEARS
AND OLDER IN THE FRONT-OUTBOARD SEATS, WITH BELTS AND AIR BAGS IN FULL-FRONTAL CRASHES WITHOUT
MISSING INJURY OR DAMAGE DATA 1995–2003 ADJUSTED ANNUAL ESTIMATES
DV (mph)
06–10
11–15
16–20
21–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
51–55
56–60
61–65
Frequency
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
Issued on: December 15, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05–24268 Filed 12–15–05; 2:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
December 13, 2005.
The Department of Treasury has
submitted the following public
information collection requirement(s) to
OMB for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Department of the Treasury
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before January 19, 2006
to be assured of consideration.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB)
OMB Number: 1513–0051.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title Application for an Alcohol Fuel
Producer under 26 U.S.C. 5181.
Form: TTB form F 5110.74.
Description: This form is used by
persons who wish to produce and
receive spirits for the production of
alcohol fuels as a business or for their
own use and for State and local
registration where required. The form
describes the person(s) applying for the
permit, location of the proposed
operation, type of material used for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:23 Dec 19, 2005
Jkt 208001
355.40
380.33
1005.39
1294.51
741.61
661.87
276.35
216.40
234.22
84.16
30.61
12.67
production and amount of spirits to be
produced.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 394
hour.
OMB Number: 1513–0111.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title COLAs Online Access Request.
Form: TTB form F 5013.2.
Description: The information on this
form will be used by TTB to
authenticate end users on the system to
electronically file Certificates of Label
Approval (COLAs). The system will
authenticate end users by comparing
information submitted to records in
multiple databases.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 344
hour.
Clearance Officer: Frank Foote (202)
927–9347, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310
G. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt
(202) 395–7316, Office of Management
and Budget Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Michael A. Robinson,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E5–7513 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
[OMB Control No. 2900–0205]
Proposed Information Collection
Activity: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
Veterans Health
Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Percent
6.71
7.18
18.99
24.45
14.01
12.50
5.22
4.09
4.42
1.59
0.58
0.24
Cumulative
frequency
355.40
735.73
1741.12
3035.63
3777.24
4439.11
4715.47
4931.86
5166.08
5250.24
5280.85
5293.52
Cumulative
percent
6.71
13.90
32.89
57.35
71.36
83.86
89.08
93.17
97.59
99.18
99.76
100.00
SUMMARY: The Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the
proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995, Federal agencies are required to
publish notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of
information, including each proposal
revision of a currently approved
collection, and allow 60 days for public
comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments for information
needed to evaluate a candidate’s
credentials for employment with VA.
DATES: Written comments and
recommendations on the proposed
collection of information should be
received on or before February 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
on the collection of information to Ann
W. Bickoff (193E1), Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
ann.bickoff@va.gov. Please refer to
‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0205’’ in any
correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann
W. Bickoff at (202) 273–8310 or FAX
(202) 273–9381.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44
U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies
must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each
collection of information they conduct
or sponsor. This request for comment is
being made pursuant to Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following
collection of information, VHA invites
comments on: (1) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of VHA’s
functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75536-75541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24268]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-04-18765]
Frontal New Car Assessment Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
[[Page 75537]]
ACTION: Response to comments, notice of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 14, 2004, NHTSA published a notice requesting
comments on possible alternatives to revise the agency's test
procedures for frontal impact New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
testing. This notice summarizes the comments received and provides the
agency's decision on how we will proceed. The agency has decided to
maintain the full-frontal barrier test procedure, the test speed of 35
mph (56 km/h), the current test dummies, and the current rating system
until the further research and analysis are completed.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
submissions received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the petition (or signing the petition, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues concerning the
upgrade to frontal NCAP, contact Mr. Brian Park of the New Car
Assessment Program. Telephone: (202) 366-6012. Facsimile: (202) 493-
2739. Electronic Mail: Brian.Park@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal issues,
contact Stephen Wood of the Office of Chief Counsel. Telephone: (202)
366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. Electronic Mail:
Stephen.Wood@nhtsa.dot.gov. You may send mail to these officials at:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Summary of Request for Comments
III. Summary of Comments
IV. Discussion and Agency Decision
V. Conclusion
Appendix A-NASS Analysis of Full-Frontal Crashes
I. Introduction
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and economic losses
resulting from motor vehicle crashes. One way in which NHTSA
accomplishes this mission is by providing consumer information to the
public. Currently, NHTSA conducts tests and provides frontal, side, and
rollover stability vehicle safety ratings to consumers through the New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP). With this information, consumers can
make better-educated decisions about their purchases, thereby providing
market forces that encourage automakers to further improve the safety
of their vehicles.
Since 1978, the test procedure for NCAP's frontal crash test
program has been similar to the frontal barrier test procedure used in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash
Protection,'' except that the NCAP test has been conducted at a speed
of 5 mph (8 km/h) above that specified in FMVSS No. 208. Recent
amendments to FMVSS No. 208 will require vehicles to be tested at an
increased speed of 35 mph (56 km/h) for the belted Hybrid III 50th
percentile male dummy, the same test procedure as the current frontal
NCAP.\1\ Consequently, on October 14, 2004, NHTSA published a notice
requesting comments on what revisions should occur, if any, to the test
procedures and or rating system used in frontal NCAP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This requirement is phased in during a period beginning on
September 1, 2007, and ending on September 1, 2011.
\2\ 70FR 23078, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seventeen comments were received in response to the notice. While
most of the commenters did not object to keeping the current frontal
NCAP, they did offer mixed responses on the different options for
modifying the current test procedure. Additionally, most commenters
supported the idea of changing the current rating system in some way,
and generally recommended that any changes made to the program should
reflect real world crash data. Though they did not submit comments
directly to the notice, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study
suggested that the agency should include different injury measurements
and additional occupant sizes in both the frontal and side crash test-
rating systems.\3\ This notice summarizes comments to the 2004 notice,
and provides the agency's decision on how we will proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO-05-370, Report to Congressional Committees, Vehicle
Safety, ``Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA's New Car Assessment
Program,'' April 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Request for Comments
In our notice requesting comments on possible alternatives to
current NCAP test procedures and/or rating system, the alternatives
offered were as follows: (1) Maintaining the current program, (2)
modifying the test procedure, and (3) changing the rating system.
The first option offered for consideration was to maintain the
current program. Under this option, NCAP test results could be used for
testing compliance with the FMVSS No. 208 and vice-versa, thereby
maintaining or perhaps increasing the amount of consumer information
provided by the agency.
The second option offered for consideration was to modify the
current test procedure. Three modifications were described. The first
was to increase the current test speed; that is, to test the vehicles
as outlined in FMVSS No. 208, but at a faster speed. As the test speed
of the FMVSS No. 208 test will be raised from 30 mph (48 km/h) to 35
mph (56 km/h), the NCAP test speed could also be increased by 5 mph
(8km/h) from 35 mph (56 km/h) to 40 mph (64 km/h). This test could also
serve as a compliance indicant. The second variation was to add a
variety of dummies. The Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy could be
placed in the driver position with the Hybrid III 50th percentile male
dummy in the passenger position, or vice-versa. Additionally, rear seat
occupants could include one or more of the Hybrid III family of child
dummies with their appropriate child restraints. The third modification
was to add another test procedure, such as an offset frontal test,
either as a replacement or in addition to the full-frontal barrier
test.
The third option offered for consideration was to make changes to
the rating system. Two changes were offered for consideration under
this approach. One possible change was to modify the star rating bands
so that the combined chance of a serious injury to the head or chest
would be 5 percent or lower (as opposed to the current 10 percent
limit) for a vehicle to receive five stars. The injury probability
ranges required for the other star ratings would also be adjusted
accordingly. A second modification was to add new injury metrics to the
star rating like neck (Nij), chest deflection, femur loads and tibia
index. These injury metrics are currently measured in the NCAP test,
but are not used to compute the star rating.
III. Summary of Comments
This section provides a brief summarization of the seventeen
comments submitted to the docket by vehicle manufacturers, safety
advocates, and the general public.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These submissions are available at https://dms.dot.gov in
docket number 2004-18765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining the Current Program
General Motors Corporation (GM) and Daimler Chrysler Corporation
(DaimlerChrysler) did not object to maintaining the current frontal
NCAP
[[Page 75538]]
test for the immediate future. GM suggested maintaining the current
program until the Advanced Air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 have
been phased in completely. DaimlerChrysler also agreed with maintaining
the current program, citing the need for an analysis of consumer
perception of NCAP ratings and how the ratings are used in their
purchasing and leasing decisions. Additionally, DaimlerChrysler
suggested that changes to the program could lead to consumer confusion
regarding comparisons between vehicles tested with the current
procedure to those tested under a revised rating system.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and Public Citizen
expressed concerns with maintaining the current frontal program. The
Advocates believe that the changes to FMVSS No. 208 will make the NCAP
crash tests irrelevant. IIHS stated that, ``* * * the remaining
performance differences among new vehicles are unlikely to translate
into important differences in occupant protection in real-world
crashes.'' Public Citizen reiterated the fact that most new vehicles
receive four-or five-star ratings, stated that ``the frontal NCAP
program should be made more comprehensive,'' and suggested achieving
this by including structural integrity and more body regions to the
rating.
Modifying the Test Procedure
Increase Test Speed
Both Advocates and Public Citizen favored an increase of the
frontal test speed from 35 mph (56 km/h) to 40 mph (64 km/h). Public
Citizen suggested that deadly frontal crashes occur disproportionately
at speeds above the current NCAP speed, based on 2003 data on fatal
head-on crashes from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
The Advocates acknowledged that the full-barrier crash test is
primarily a test of restraint system effectiveness. They suggested a
higher test speed could lead to further improvements for both air bags
and seat belts, but that it might increase vehicle stiffness and air
bag aggressiveness. They further suggested that this could be countered
by implementing a new rating system that modified the score based on a
compatibility ``modifier.''
GM, Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), Honda Motor Company Ltd.
and American Honda Motor Company (Honda), Ford Motor Company (Ford),
the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM),
and IIHS were opposed to an increase of test speed. They all suggested
that the higher test speed could lead to increased vehicle stiffness
and more aggressive air bags, which in turn would diminish any
increased benefits. Nissan and IIHS also specifically questioned the
real-world benefits of a higher test speed.
Testing With Different Dummies
With regard to adopting the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female
test dummy into the frontal test procedure, GM, Public Citizen, and
Bidez & Associates supported this option. However, they disagreed on
how the dummy should be adopted. GM recommended replacing the Hybrid
III 50th percentile dummy with the Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy and
maintaining one single test. Public Citizen, on the other hand,
supported running one test with the Hybrid III 50th and 5th dummies in
the driver and passenger seats followed by a second test with the
dummies in switched positions. Bidez & Associates felt that the 5th
percentile dummy should be added to an offset frontal test rather than
the current full-frontal barrier test.
Nissan, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Magna Steyr, AIAM, and IIHS all
objected to either replacing the Hybrid III 50th percentile dummy with
the Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy or including the 5th percentile
into frontal NCAP testing. Nissan suggested that the 50th percentile
occupant represents the largest percentage of injured occupants and
thus there is no reason to include the 5th percentile. Ford cited that
the addition of the 5th percentile into NCAP testing could have adverse
effects (though no specifics were given) and that the agency should do
additional research. DaimlerChrysler referenced the agency's Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for adding the Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy to
FMVSS No. 208 and stated that potential benefits for including this
dummy were ``statistically minor, an overestimate, and can't be
absolutely quantified.'' AIAM likewise suggested that the agency
consider real world conditions before adding the Hybrid III 5th
percentile dummy to the NCAP. IIHS suggested that assessing different
sizes of dummies in FMVSS No. 208 is fine, but there is no evidence
that it will provide any benefit in NCAP testing.
NHTSA had also offered for consideration testing with child dummies
in the rear seats. GM, Nissan, and BMW objected to testing with child
dummies that utilize child restraint systems (CRS). These commenters
cited test burden due to the large number of different child restraint
models available, and consumer confusion as reasons not to pursue this
option. The commenters suggested that consumers could become confused
when trying to interpret safety ratings using only one child restraint
model out of the large number that are currently available.
Additionally, Nissan stated that it was unclear whether the dummy's
response would be attributable to the design of the CRS or to the
vehicle itself. GM, however, did think adding child dummies to the rear
seat has merit, but indicated that additional research was required to
fully comprehend how to effectively evaluate vehicles for rear occupant
protection.
Ford, Evenflo, Advocates, Public Citizen, and Bidez & Associates
all supported the inclusion of restrained child dummies in frontal
NCAP. Advocates and Public Citizen did not offer further comment. Ford
suggested that if the agency decides to test with child dummies, only
the three-year-old Hybrid III dummy in a uniform (or standard)
production CRS with Lower Anchors and Top Tethers for Children (LATCH)
should be used since that test mode has been most thoroughly evaluated
by the agency. Evenflo also favored this approach, but they recommended
using a CRS surrogate in lieu of a production CRS in order to ensure
year-to-year consistency. Bidez & Associates added that they would like
to see three child dummies in the rear seat of every vehicle: A Hybrid-
III three-year-old, six-year-old, and ten-year-old. The three-year old
would be restrained in a CRS recommended by the vehicle manufacturer
and the six- and ten-year-old dummies would be restrained in the two
outboard rear-seating positions by vehicle belts.
Offset Frontal Test
Subaru, Nissan, BMW, Porsche, IIHS, Magna Steyr, the Advocates, and
Public Citizen encouraged the adoption of a frontal offset test
procedure to replace the full-frontal barrier test. Most emphasized
that a large percentage of frontal offset crashes occurs in the real
world, and that these crashes may be more frequent than full-frontal
crashes. Some also provided recommendations regarding the overlap
percentage, deformable barrier, and other test procedure specifics.
Honda favored the addition of a frontal offset test, and suggested that
a full-width deformable barrier (FDB) test to enhance vehicle crash
compatibility be simultaneously introduced.
GM, Ford, and AIAM did not support the adoption of an offset test.
GM pointed out that IIHS conducts 40 percent frontal offset crash tests
and that
[[Page 75539]]
if NHTSA adopted the same test, the additional test would be redundant.
Ford stated concerns that a safety rating based on an offset test would
cause a break in the safety ratings, such as a 3-star performer in the
offset test receiving a 5-star rating in the full-frontal test, leading
to consumer confusion. AIAM commented that an offset test would be
premature without research of the benefits and disadvantages,
particularly with regards to vehicle compatibility and aggressivity.
Changing the Rating System
Change Star Rating Limits
IIHS, GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Honda were opposed to changing
the star rating limits. IIHS and GM questioned the real world benefits
of changing the star rating bands. Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Honda
cautioned against the undesired consequences of changing the star
bands, particularly in changing the five-star criteria. Daimler
Chrysler expressed that in order to differentiate current vehicles,
they would support half-star ratings. Daimler Chrysler said that
``creating a 5-star rating based on a 5 percent risk of serious injury
would likely lead to more aggressive vehicle and restraint counter
measures with possible adverse real-world occupant safety and crash
compatibility consequences.'' Honda, on the other hand, said that a
tougher five-star rating with the current head and chest injury curves
could make vehicles and/or restraints softer, which could provide
disbenefits for higher speed crashes and compromise protection for
larger occupants.
AIAM also questioned the influence that new star bands would have
on the repeatability (consistency from one test to the next) of star
ratings. IIHS suggested that changing the star rating limits would only
result in vehicle manufacturers making tweaks and small adjustments and
would not have a meaningful impact on vehicle crashworthiness in the
real world. The Advocates did not disagree with changing the star
rating limits, but suggested that other proposed changes would yield
much more meaningful results.
Public Citizen favored changing the star rating limits, suggesting
that the new star ratings should increase stringency. Public Citizen
recommended using 5 percent or less for head and chest injury to attain
a five star rating. Nissan also considered this approach reasonable,
provided that NHTSA could explain the relationship between the new and
current calculation method, and that previously tested vehicles have
their safety rating revised according to the new rating system.
Add New Injury Metrics to Star Rating
Most respondents either supported adding injury measures to the
rating system or did not comment on the issue. The Advocates supported
the addition of new injury metrics, but recommended separate ratings
for the different injury criteria so that consumers can differentiate
between life-threatening injuries and serious non-life-threatening
injuries. Nissan did not object to additional injury metrics provided
that the new inclusions would be supported by real world data, and that
previously tested vehicles have their safety ratings revised.
Ford proposed that HIC calculated over a 15 millisecond duration
(HIC 15) and chest deflection be used to replace the role of HIC36 and
chest acceleration in the frontal NCAP tests. GM, Porsche, and
DaimlerChrysler also recommended the use of chest deflection instead of
chest acceleration, as it might be a better predictor of chest injury.
As neck load data is currently collected in NCAP tests, both
Porsche and Subaru supported the use of Nij. DaimlerChrysler objected
to the inclusion of Nij due to what they believe is inappropriate
interaction between air bags and the neck of the Hybrid III 5th
percentile dummy.
None of the responders objected to the inclusion of femur criteria
into the rating, as most stated that femur criteria have already been
established and are addressed in current vehicle designs. For lower leg
(tibia) criteria, only Subaru and GM considered the use of the lower
leg to be beneficial. GM stated this could reduce the number of
debilitating injuries. However, Porsche and GM commented that lower leg
injury mechanics are not simple and a better understanding of the
relationship between full-frontal crashes and lower leg injuries is
needed.
IV. Discussion and Agency Decision
In reviewing the comments to the 2004 Notice, it is apparent that
there is no single prevailing opinion as to the future direction that
should be pursued in revising the frontal NCAP. While Public Citizen
and the Advocates favored an increase in the test speed, the auto
companies and IIHS were all opposed. Incorporation of an offset frontal
test was favored by a number of the commenters, including the IIHS, but
several auto manufacturers raised various concerns. Likewise, most
comments did not favor changing the star rating limits, although Public
Citizen did recommend revisions to increase the stringency of the star
ratings. There were also widely divergent views regarding incorporation
of different dummies into the frontal NCAP test program. One area in
which there seemed to be some agreement was in support of adding more
injury measures to the rating system.
NHTSA has maintained several guiding principles when considering
additions and/or revisions to NCAP. These include ensuring that NCAP
complements FMVSS performance requirements and other agency programs in
promoting automotive safety, providing meaningful information to the
consumers, encouraging safety improvement through market forces, and
assuring the integrity of the rating program for consumers. This
requires that the NCAP information be provided in a timely manner that
is readily understood by the consumers, that considers changing vehicle
trends, and perhaps most importantly, is supported by sound data and
research. Although the comments provided to the 2004 notice have been
helpful in offering approaches that warrant consideration in revising
the frontal NCAP, there was little substantive data or research
provided that is necessary to establish a revised program with such far
reaching public policy automotive safety implications.
The safety advances for frontal occupant protection envisioned a
generation ago have now been incorporated into FMVSS No. 208. For
emerging technologies, it is not apparent which will most effectively
advance frontal occupant protection safety. NASS data (Appendix A) show
that the current NCAP crash severity, with an impact velocity of 35 mph
and delta-V of about 41-45 mph, represents all except about 0.2% of all
frontal occupant injury crashes. As noted by Public Citizen, about 7%
of the AIS 3+ injuries occur above this crash severity. However, the
agency also notes that over 84% of the AIS 2+ and one-half of the AIS
3+ injuries occur at a delta-V of less than 25 mph. Included in these
are many of the lower extremity injuries that are encompassed in the
offset frontal efforts currently being considered and researched by
NHTSA.\5\ Further, safety implications for the older population is also
a consideration that needs to be assessed in determining effective ways
to revise the frontal NCAP to be most meaningful for
[[Page 75540]]
consumers and relevant to the real world crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 70 FR 49248, Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21698, Occupant Crash
Protection; Anthoropomorphic Test Devices; Instrumented Lower Legs
for 50th Percentile Male and 5th Percentile Female Hybrid III
Dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the foregoing and considering the comments received to the
2004 notice, we have decided that the most prudent approach for the
frontal NCAP is to maintain the current test and rating procedures
until we have established the sound science necessary to provide a
basis for revising the program in a manner that it would be most
meaningful for the consumers while ensuring that safety is advanced
without unintended consequences. We have initiated a comprehensive
review of our entire NCAP program to assure that it continues to most
effectively complement FMVSS performance requirements and other agency
programs in promoting automotive safety, particularly with the rapid
emergence of new technologies. The review will include a further
examination of the various options presented for upgrade to frontal
NCAP, including rating vehicles for child occupant protection; the
research, testing, and analysis needed; and the real world
implications. We expect to have a course of action determined in 2006.
V. Conclusion
The agency believes that there is insufficient scientific basis to
propose any revisions to the frontal NCAP at this time. We are
therefore maintaining the full-frontal barrier test procedure, the test
speed of 35 mph (56 km/h), the current test dummies, and the current
rating system. We have come to this conclusion based on our evaluation
of the comments received, real world data, available test data, and
recent congressional mandates. We believe that further research and
analysis is needed to establish a new frontal NCAP that complements
existing FMVSS and drives the market towards improved safety for
frontal occupant protection without unintended consequences.
Accordingly, we will conduct the additional analyses necessary for the
development of a new frontal rating program that will continue to
provide meaningful information to the consumers and thereby encourage
safety improvement through market forces.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, and
30168, and Pub.L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.
Appendix A--NASS Analysis of Full-Frontal Crashes
The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data
System (CDS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) are two
of the data systems that NHTSA uses to gain insight into real world
crash data. Generally, the NASS provides detailed specifics on sampled
towaway crashes while FARS provides a broad overview of the fatal crash
data.
Table A1.--AIS 1+ Injured Occupants in Towed Light Vehicles (<=8,500 Pounds GVWR) 13 Years and Older in the
Front-Outboard Seats, With Belts and Air Bags in Full-Frontal Crashes Without Missing Injury or Damage Data 1995-
2003 Adjusted Annual Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Cumulative
DV (mph) Frequency Percent frequency percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00-05........................................... 1593.53 0.76 1593.53 0.76
06-10........................................... 67774.50 32.42 69368.03 33.18
11-15........................................... 78315.78 37.46 147683.80 70.64
16-20........................................... 39186.10 18.74 186869.90 89.39
21-25........................................... 13017.71 6.23 199887.60 95.62
26-30........................................... 5730.69 2.74 205618.30 98.36
31-35........................................... 1498.65 0.72 207117.00 99.07
36-40........................................... 1139.64 0.55 208256.60 99.62
41-45........................................... 355.58 0.17 208612.20 99.79
46-50........................................... 311.57 0.15 208923.80 99.94
51-55........................................... 84.16 0.04 209007.90 99.98
56-60........................................... 30.61 0.01 209038.50 99.99
61-65........................................... 12.67 0.01 209051.20 100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A2.--Moderately Injured (AIS 2+) Occupants in Towed Light Vehicles (<=8,500 Pounds GVWR) 13 Years and
Older in the Front-Outboard Seats, With Belts and Air Bags in Full-Frontal Crashes Without Missing Injury or
Damage Data 1995-2003 Adjusted Annual Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Cumulative
DV (mph) Frequency Percent frequency percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-10........................................... 6152.10 20.42 6152.10 20.42
11-15........................................... 8308.73 27.58 14460.83 48.00
16-20........................................... 8306.68 27.57 22767.51 75.57
21-25........................................... 2831.48 9.40 25598.99 84.97
26-30........................................... 2057.39 6.83 27656.39 91.80
31-35........................................... 994.54 3.30 28650.93 95.10
36-40........................................... 775.82 2.58 29426.75 97.67
41-45........................................... 269.86 0.90 29696.60 98.57
46-50........................................... 303.22 1.01 29999.82 99.58
51-55........................................... 84.16 0.28 30083.99 99.86
56-60........................................... 30.61 0.10 30114.59 99.96
61-65........................................... 12.67 0.04 30127.26 100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75541]]
Table A3.--Seriously Injured (AIS 3+) Occupants in Towed Light Vehicles (<=8,500 Pounds GVWR) 13 Years and Older
in the Front-Outboard Seats, With Belts and Air Bags in Full-Frontal Crashes Without Missing Injury or Damage
Data 1995-2003 Adjusted Annual Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Cumulative
DV (mph) Frequency Percent frequency percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-10........................................... 355.40 6.71 355.40 6.71
11-15........................................... 380.33 7.18 735.73 13.90
16-20........................................... 1005.39 18.99 1741.12 32.89
21-25........................................... 1294.51 24.45 3035.63 57.35
26-30........................................... 741.61 14.01 3777.24 71.36
31-35........................................... 661.87 12.50 4439.11 83.86
36-40........................................... 276.35 5.22 4715.47 89.08
41-45........................................... 216.40 4.09 4931.86 93.17
46-50........................................... 234.22 4.42 5166.08 97.59
51-55........................................... 84.16 1.59 5250.24 99.18
56-60........................................... 30.61 0.58 5280.85 99.76
61-65........................................... 12.67 0.24 5293.52 100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued on: December 15, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-24268 Filed 12-15-05; 2:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
