The Crittenden Automotive Library

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)

Christopher J. Bonanti
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
June 26, 2013

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38266-38270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0076]

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests public comment on the agency's planned
update to the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). This update would
enhance the program's ability to recommend to motor vehicle consumers
various vehicle models that contain rearview video systems that would
substantially enhance the driver's ability to avoid backover crashes.
For many years, NCAP has provided comparative information on the safety
of new vehicles to assist consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions.
NCAP was most recently upgraded for model year 2011 to include
recommended crash avoidance technologies. Including this information in
NCAP not only allows consumers to better determine which vehicle models
have advanced crash avoidance safety features but also which of these
advanced features are best able to help them avoid crashes.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them no later than July 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be
submitted by one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477-78). For access to the docket
to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Markus
Price, Office of Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: 202-366-1810,
Facsimile: 202-366-5930, NVS-121.
For NCAP logistics: Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, Telephone: 202-366-1810, Facsimile: 202-366-5930, NVS-120.
The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document requests comment on the
agency's plan to upgrade the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to
include recommendations to motor vehicle consumers on vehicle models
that contain rearview video systems that can substantially enhance the
driver's ability to avoid a backover crash. The plan substitutes the
rearview video systems for electronic stability control (ESC) as a
recommended crash avoidance technology on www.safercar.gov. As ESC is
now required equipment on vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, the agency believes that it is no
longer necessary to include ESC as a recommended technology to
consumers. NCAP provides comparative information on the safety
performance and features of new vehicles to assist consumers with their
vehicle purchasing decisions. The program was most recently upgraded
for model year 2011 to include (among other changes) recommended crash
avoidance technologies. By including rearview video systems as a

[[Page 38267]]

recommended technology in NCAP, the agency believes that it can help
educate consumers on the important safety benefits of these systems and
support the provision of this important safety technology to the
American public before the effective date (for all vehicles \1\) of any
final rule resulting from the agency's current rulemaking to amend the
requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.
111.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111 covers all vehicles
(except motorcycles and trailers) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less. See 75 FR 76185.
\2\ The current proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111 included a
phase-in period covering three model years. See 75 FR 76185, 76188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planned Upgrade to NCAP Is Separate From the Rulemaking To Amend FMVSS
No. 111

Pursuant to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act
of 2007 (``K.T. Safety Act''),\3\ the agency is conducting a rulemaking
to amend FMVSS No. 111.\4\ The agency would like to emphasize that any
change to NCAP to encourage the installation of rearview video systems
to assist drivers in avoiding backover crashes is separate from the
agency's consideration of appropriate amendments to FMVSS No. 111. Any
update to NCAP as a result of this request for comment is not a
resolution to the rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 111, it does not
replace the agency's efforts in that area, nor is it an alternative to
completing the rulemaking process to amend FMVSS No. 111. However, the
agency believes that it is appropriate to conduct this separate action
to consider incorporating rearview video systems into NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Public Law 110-189, Feb. 28, 2008.
\4\ See generally Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency believes that there will be significant advantages in
incorporating rearview video systems into NCAP at this point in time.
In doing so, the agency believes that consumers will receive important
information regarding the safety risks associated with backovers and
the available vehicle models with an effective countermeasure that can
assist the driver in avoiding backover crashes. As an added benefit,
the agency believes that including rearview video systems in NCAP will
afford manufacturers recognition for designing and installing these
systems that can help drivers avoid backover crashes and incentivize
further installation of these systems. By adding rearview video systems
into NCAP at this time, the agency believes that the aforementioned
advantages can be realized not only prior to the promulgation of a
final rule to amend FMVSS No. 111 but also during any phase-in period
following the final rule's promulgation.

Rearview Video Systems as a ``Recommended Advanced Technology Feature''

Beyond issuing star ratings based on the crashworthiness of vehicle
models, NCAP currently already offers additional information to
consumers regarding ``Recommended Advanced Technology Features''
through its Web site (www.safercar.gov). For each vehicle make/model,
the Web site currently shows (in addition to a list of safety features)
the model's five-star crashworthiness ratings and whether the vehicle
model is equipped with any of three advanced crash avoidance safety
technologies that NHTSA currently recommends to consumers.\5\ The
agency selected three advanced crash avoidance technologies to
recommend to consumers starting in model year 2011 because those
technologies (1) address a major crash problem, (2) have information to
project their potential safety benefit, and (3) are able to be tested
by available performance tests and procedures that can ensure an
acceptable level of performance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The three technologies currently recommended to consumers on
www.safercar.gov are: lane departure warning, forward collision
warning, and electronic stability control.
\6\ See 73 FR 40016, 40033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, the agency believes it is appropriate to include
rearview video systems as opposed to ESC as a recommended crash
avoidance technology on www.safercar.gov. While NCAP recommended ESC to
consumers before ESC became required equipment on vehicles with a GVWR
of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 126 now requires ESC on all of
those vehicles.\7\ For that reason, there is no reason to continue ESC
as a ``Recommended Advanced Technology Feature'' in NCAP. Having
considered the available information on rearview video systems, the
agency believes that such systems that provide drivers visual access to
the area directly behind their vehicles that are associated with the
highest crash risk meet the aforementioned criteria for incorporation
into NCAP. In other words, rearview video systems address a major
safety problem (backover crashes), the available information strongly
indicates that they are effective in assisting drivers at avoiding
backover crashes, and performance/test criteria are available to ensure
that such systems perform adequately to address the backover safety
problem.
As evidenced by the decision by Congress to pass the K.T. Safety
Act, backover crashes constitute a major safety problem. Backover
crashes cause a significant number of fatalities and injuries each year
because drivers cannot see the area behind the vehicle where
pedestrians can be located. The currently available information
indicates that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less alone are
involved in approximately 202 fatalities and 14,000 injuries per
year.\8\ Further, the research summarized in the NPRM to amend FMVSS
No. 111 indicates that rearview video systems (which afford drivers a
view of the area behind the vehicle) are effective in helping drivers
avoid a backover crash. Thus, the agency believes that backover crashes
are a major safety problem that can be reduced through an increased
proliferation of rearview video systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See 49 CFR Part 571.126, S8.4.
\8\ These figures differ from the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111
because these figures have been updated with the latest information
on the backover crash problem. As backover crashes often do not
occur on public roads a large portion of the available information
on this crash problem comes from the ``Not-in-Traffic Surveillance''
or ``NiTS'' system. At the time of the NPRM, only 1 year of NiTS
data was available. However, the database was most recently updated
in October 2012 with additional years of data. Combined with the
information from other NHTSA databases, the agency now estimates the
target population to be approximately 202 fatalities and 14,000
injuries per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the available information indicates that such systems meet the
agency's criteria for incorporation into NCAP as a recommended advanced
crash avoidance technology, the agency is issuing this document to
request comment on this planned update to the program. The agency
believes that, through NCAP, the agency can help educate motor vehicle
consumers on the important safety benefits that can be realized through
rearview video systems and help support the proliferation of this
important safety technology.
We note that the agency is currently also considering other updates
to NCAP. On April 5, 2013, the agency published a request for comment
in the Federal Register on a large variety of potential updates to NCAP
(including various crash avoidance and crashworthiness technologies
such as automatic collision notification systems, automatic braking
systems, improved test dummies, testing for rear seat occupants,
etc.).\9\ While each technology being considered by NHTSA is at a
different state of development, the agency believes that the available
information on rearview video systems is such that the agency can
quickly implement the relevant changes to NCAP to begin offering

[[Page 38268]]

consumers important information about the backover safety problem and
the available countermeasures. The agency believes that updating NCAP
to include rearview video systems is an appropriate change that can be
accomplished relatively quickly without any impact on the agency's
plans to implement additional technologies that are under consideration
in the April, 2013 request for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See 78 FR 20597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Two-Phase Approach for Adding Rearview Video Systems to NCAP

In order to accomplish the goals outlined above as quickly as
possible, the agency plans to use a two-phase approach to incorporate
this change into NCAP. As described above, the agency provides
information for each vehicle model on www.safercar.gov concerning the
vehicle's five-star crashworthiness ratings, stating whether the
vehicle model has a ``Recommended Advanced Technology Feature,'' and
listing the major safety features available on the vehicle model. By
leveraging these different sections of the Web site, the agency
believes it can quickly inform consumers of the availability of this
important safety technology through the following two phases.
Phase 1: The agency would immediately begin to list
rearview video systems in the ``safety feature'' section for each
vehicle model on www.safercar.gov that has this safety feature
available.
Phase 2: As soon as the agency is able to verify that the
vehicle model has a rearview video system meeting certain basic
criteria (as further discussed below) the agency would recognize those
vehicle models as having a ``Recommended Advanced Technology Feature''
on the www.safercar.gov Web site.
The agency believes that this two-phase approach minimizes the
amount of time that is needed for the agency to begin providing
information in the short term. At the same time, the agency believes
that this approach would maximize the usefulness of the information
available to consumers in the long run. In order to recommend rearview
video systems as a technology to consumers that can help drivers avoid
backover crashes, the agency would establish certain basic criteria
that these rearview video systems installed in participating vehicle
models must meet. Thus, under this approach, the agency would be able
to begin providing information to consumers quickly under Phase 1 and
follow up with additional information in Phase 2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ While the agency believes that this two-phase approach can
bring information regarding these systems to the consumers as soon
as possible, the agency's planned approach would not require the
completion of phase 1 before phase 2. In other words, if the agency
is able to verify that the rearview video system installed on a
vehicle model meets the aforementioned basic requirements the agency
could list that vehicle model as having a ``Recommended Advanced
Technology Feature'' immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We note that the advanced crash avoidance technologies that are
currently recommended by NHTSA through NCAP (as ``Recommended Advanced
Technology Features'') are shown on www.safercar.gov and not included
on the Monroney label.\11\ Our plan to update NCAP to adopt rearview
video systems as a recommended technology feature is, at least
initially, likewise to show the technology on that Web site and not on
the vehicle's Monroney label. We are considering whether to incorporate
additional advanced crash avoidance technologies into NCAP. When we
have determined which additional technologies will be incorporated, we
will consider whether we should initiate a rulemaking to determine
whether and how the incorporated advanced technologies should be
included on the Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ The Monroney label is a label that is required to be
affixed on a motor vehicle prior to the delivery of the vehicle to a
dealer. See 15 U.S.C. 1232. This label is required to show certain
safety ratings from NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basic Criteria for Recognizing a Model as Having a Recommended Rearview
Video System

In order to recommend rearview video systems to the motor vehicle
consumer, the agency would need to ensure that such systems are
designed to address the backover safety problem (and not merely
designed as a convenience feature aimed at assisting drivers in parking
maneuvers). The agency believes that, due to the nature of NCAP as a
consumer information program, the agency needs to ensure that the
criteria for recommending a rearview video system to consumers
appropriately distinguishes systems designed to assist drivers in
avoiding backover crashes and does not misrepresent the capabilities of
systems designed to assist drivers conducting parking maneuvers.
Towards this end, the agency believes that three basic criteria are
necessary. To be designed for the purpose addressing the backover
safety problem, the agency believes that the rearview video system (at
a minimum) needs to:
(1) Show a visual image of a minimum area behind the vehicle that
is associated with the greatest crash risk,
(2) Show this area at a sufficient size so as to enable the driver
to make judgments about the objects behind the vehicle, and
(3) Show this area quickly enough to provide the driver with the
relevant information before he/she begins the backing maneuver.
Thus, for purposes of incorporating rearview video systems into
NCAP as a recommended technology, the agency would (in Phase 2)
recommend to consumers vehicle models with rearview video systems that
meet field of view, image size, and response time \12\ criteria that
were proposed in the agency's NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111. We believe
that adopting these criteria from the FMVSS No. 111 NPRM appropriately
ensures that the systems recommended by NCAP will be designed for the
purpose of avoiding backover crashes. Further, these criteria from the
FMVSS No. 111 NPRM have been developed for the purpose of providing an
objective method for determining whether a rearview video system can
address the safety problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ As discussed below, NCAP would specify a test procedure to
evaluate the response time criterion proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the agency believes that these three criteria strike an
appropriate balance between the agency's interest in recommending to
consumers vehicles with systems that are designed to address a major
safety problem (as opposed to assisting drivers in conducting parking
maneuvers) and the agency's interest in avoiding the establishment of
too many criteria that may discourage manufacturer participation in
this aspect of NCAP.

Field of View and Image Size

The field of view and image size requirements from the FMVSS No.
111 NPRM are designed to ensure that rearview video systems afford
drivers visual access to a 20-foot by 10-foot zone directly behind the
vehicle. They further ensure that the image displayed to the driver is
large enough to enable the driver to make judgments about the objects
in the image and avoid a crash with those objects. The agency believes
that these criteria apply to the most basic functions that the rearview
video system needs to perform in order to address the backover safety
problem. As discussed in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111, we believe
that the field of view criterion for a 20-foot by 10-foot zone \13\
directly behind the

[[Page 38269]]

vehicle covers the areas behind the vehicle that are associated with
the greatest backover crash risk.\14\ Further, the available research
indicates that the image size criterion (that the test objects
contained in the rearview image subtend to a visual angle of at least 5
minutes of arc \15\) will help ensure that drivers are able to make
judgments about the objects contained in the rearview image.\16\ By
including these two criteria in our assessment of whether a particular
vehicle model's rearview video system is listed as a ``Recommended
Advanced Technology Feature,'' the agency believes that rearview video
systems that are recommended to consumers will be designed to
reasonably assist drivers in avoiding backover crashes. The agency
plans to utilize the test procedures proposed in the NPRM to evaluate
conformity with these criteria for the purposes of NCAP.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 proposed testing the field
of view requirement by placing 7 test objects along the perimeter of
the 20-foot by 10-foot zone behind the vehicle. See 75 FR 76186,
76244. The first row of test objects is place 1 foot behind the
vehicle bumper, the second row is placed 10 feet behind the vehicle
bumper, and the last row is placed 20 feet behind the vehicle
bumper. The proposal required the entirety of each test object in
the second and third rows to be visible in the rearview image and a
minimum 150-mm wide portion of first row of objects be visible in
order to accommodate the large variety of vehicles that have a GVWR
of 10,000 lbs. or less. We plan to adopt this same testing
methodology to assess conformity with the NCAP rearview video system
criteria.
\14\ See 75 FR 76186, 76227.
\15\ The NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 proposed two requirements
relating to image size. See id. First the horizontal width of the 3
test objects in the last row along the 20-foot by 10-foot zone
subtend to an average visual angle of 5 minutes of arc. Second, for
each of those test objects, the subtended angle must not subtend to
any angle less than 3 minutes of arc. We plan to continue to use
this approach in evaluating conformity with the NCAP rearview video
system criteria.
\16\ The available research cited in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No.
111 states that a driver can make judgments about an object if the
object is shown at a subtended angle of 5 minutes of arc. See 75 FR
76186, 76229.
\17\ The agency plans to utilize the test procedure described in
S14.1 of the proposed regulatory text in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No.
111. See 75 FR 76186, 76246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response Time

In addition, the response time requirement from the NPRM to amend
FMVSS No. 111 is designed to ensure that the rearview image (meeting
the criteria above) is shown to the driver in a timely fashion. The
agency believes that this requirement is especially important because,
regardless of the quality of the image shown to the driver, if the
image is not shown before a driver begins a backing maneuver, then it
is unlikely that the rearview video system will be able to assist the
driver in avoiding a backover crash. Thus, we plan to adopt the 2.0
second response time requirement from the proposal to amend FMVSS No.
111 as a criterion for rearview video systems in NCAP.\18\ As in the
proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111, the agency plans to evaluate
conformity with this criterion based on the time that the vehicle is
shifted into reverse. In other words, the NCAP criterion would state
that the rearview image must be displayed within 2.0 seconds after the
vehicle transmission is shifted into reverse. As the agency explained
in the FMVSS No. 111 NPRM, we believe the 2.0-second limit is
appropriate given the amount of time necessary for rearview video
systems to conduct the necessary system checks and the activation times
that are achievable by liquid crystal displays.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See 75 FR 76186, 76245.
\19\ See 75 FR 76186, 76230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, in response to the proposal, the agency received various
comments from vehicle manufacturers stating that (depending on the
initialization process of the vehicle tested) the response time of the
rearview image can be delayed significantly if the vehicle is shifted
into reverse immediately after starting the engine. The manufacturers
further suggested that the agency adopt a vehicle initialization test
procedure to condition the vehicle prior to testing for the 2.0-second
response time. The agency recognizes that, for assessing conformity
with the NCAP criteria, it is important to establish the state of the
vehicle prior to testing for response time. Thus, in order to address
the manufacturers' concerns, we plan to include the following vehicle
conditioning procedure when assessing conformity with the NCAP response
time criterion.

Image response time test procedure. The temperature inside the
vehicle during this test is any temperature between 15[deg]C and
25[deg]C. Immediately prior to commencing the actions listed in
subparagraphs (a)-(c) of this paragraph, all components of the
rearview video system are in a powered off state. Then:
(a) open the driver's door,
(b) activate the starting system using the key,\20\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The terms ``starting system'' and ``key'' have the same
meanings that these terms have in FMVSS No. 114. See 49 CFR Part
571.114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immediately after the vehicle is conditioned in accordance with the
above procedure, the agency would select the reverse gear in the
vehicle and measure the 2.0-second response time. We believe that this
conditioning procedure will provide additional certainty to
manufacturers regarding the conditions under which the agency would
assess conformity with the NCAP 2.0-second response time criterion.
Further we believe that this method will still ensure that the rearview
image is available to the driver at a time that is appropriate for a
driver relying on it to avoid a backover crash. Our naturalistic
driving data \21\ indicate that approximately 90% of the time drivers
do not select the reverse gear to begin the backing maneuver less than
4.25 seconds after opening the vehicle's door. In other words, only
approximately 10% of the time drivers enter their vehicle and select
the reverse gear in less than 4.25 seconds. Thus, we believe that the
vehicle conditioning procedure shown above reasonably approximates the
real world conditions under which drivers would use these systems and
that a vehicle conforming to the 2.0 second criteria under those test
conditions would have the rearview image available for the driver in a
timely fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ These data are information NHTSA prepared in support of the
research report titled ``On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview
Video Systems.'' See Mazzae, E. N., et al. (2008). On-Road Study of
Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 811 024. A summary of these
naturalistic driving data prepared for that study (as it pertains to
the length of time drivers take to select the reverse gear) is
available in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

On what topics is the agency requesting comments?

This document requests comments on the agency's plan to incorporate
rearview video systems into NCAP. However, this document is not
intended to solicit comments concerning our proposed rule to amend
FMVSS No. 111. The comment period on that proposed rule closed on April
18, 2011.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.

[[Page 38270]]

Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

Will the agency consider late comments?

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

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received at the address given above under
Comments. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.
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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

Issued in Washington, DC, on: June 19, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.

Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-15208 Filed 6-21-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P