[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75536-75541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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: [email protected]. For legal issues, 
contact Stephen Wood of the Office of Chief Counsel. Telephone: (202) 
366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. Electronic Mail: 
[email protected]. 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 http://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