New Car Assessment Program |
|---|
|
Daniel C. Smith
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
January 28, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4630-4634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01461]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006]
New Car Assessment Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests public comment on the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) plan to update its New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP). If this plan is implemented, NHTSA would
recommend to consumers various vehicle models that are equipped with
automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems, which can enhance the
driver's ability to avoid or mitigate rear-end crashes. For many years,
NCAP has provided comparative information on the safety of new vehicles
to assist consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions. NCAP was
upgraded beginning with model year 2011 vehicles to include recommended
crash avoidance technologies in its program. Including this information
in NCAP allows consumers to compare not only the level of crash
protection afforded by certain vehicles they are considering to
purchase, but also the types of advanced crash avoidance technologies
that are recommended by the agency to help them avoid crashes.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them no later than March 30, 2015.
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, 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: Dr. Abigail Morgan, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, Telephone: 202-366-1810, Facsimile: 202-366-5930, NVS-122.
For NCAP issues: Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, Telephone: 202-366-1810, Facsimile: 202-366-5930, NVS-120.
For legal issues: Mr. David Jasinski and Ms. Analiese
Marchesseault, Office of the Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992,
Facsimile: 202-366-3820, NCC-112.
The mailing address for these officials is as follows: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides
comparative safety rating information on new vehicles to assist
consumers with their vehicle purchasing decisions. NCAP was upgraded
beginning with model year 2011 vehicles to include, among other
changes, recommended advanced crash avoidance technologies when these
technologies meet NCAP's performance criteria. Technologies that were
part of the 2011 upgrade were electronic stability control (ESC),
forward collision warning (FCW), and lane departure warning (LDW).
Subsequently, in 2014, NHTSA replaced ESC, which is now mandatory for
all new light vehicles, with another technology, rearview video systems
(RVS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On April 7, 2014, NHTSA published a final rule (79 FR 19177)
requiring rearview video systems. The rule provides a phase-in
period that begins on May 1, 2016 and ends on May 1, 2018 when all
new light vehicles will be required to be equipped with RVS. As was
done with electronic stability control, RVS will no longer be an
NCAP recommended technology once RVS is required on all new light
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCW detects vehicles ahead and cautions a driver of an impending
collision, so the driver can brake or steer to avoid or mitigate the
collision. LDW monitors lane markings on the road and cautions a driver
of unintentional lane drift. RVS assists the driver in seeing whether
there are any obstructions, particularly a person or people, in the
area immediately behind the vehicle. The RVS is generally installed in
the rear of the vehicle and connected to a video screen.
This document requests comments on the agency's plan to further
upgrade NCAP to include recommendations to consumers of vehicle models
that are equipped with automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems,
specifically crash imminent braking (CIB) and dynamic brake support
(DBS), which can use information from an FCW system's sensors to
enhance the driver's ability to avoid or mitigate rear-end crashes. CIB
systems provide automatic braking when forward-looking sensors indicate
that a crash is imminent and the driver is not braking. DBS systems
provide supplemental braking when sensors determine that driver-applied
braking is insufficient to avoid an imminent crash.
This plan would add CIB and DBS to the three crash avoidance
technologies that the agency currently recommends on the agency's Web
site,
[[Page 4631]]
www.safercar.gov. By including CIB and DBS systems into NCAP, consumers
would receive important information regarding the safety risks
associated with rear-end crashes and the vehicle models that offer
effective countermeasures, which can assist the driver in avoiding or
mitigating these crashes. In addition, the agency believes that if it
recognizes AEB systems that meet NCAP's performance measures, and
thereby encourages consumers to purchase vehicles that are equipped
with these systems, manufacturers would have an incentive to offer
these systems on additional vehicles they produce.
Crash Imminent Braking and Dynamic Brake Support as Recommended
Advanced Technology Features
In addition to issuing star ratings based on the crashworthiness
and rollover resistance of vehicle models, the agency also provides
additional information to consumers by recommending certain advanced
crash avoidance technologies on the agency's Web site,
www.safercar.gov. For each vehicle make/model, the Web site currently
shows (in addition to a list of some of the vehicle's safety features)
the model's 5-star crashworthiness and rollover resistance ratings and
whether the vehicle model is equipped with any of the three advanced
crash avoidance safety technologies that the agency currently
recommends to consumers. NHTSA began recommending advanced crash
avoidance technologies to consumers starting with the model year
2011.\2\ The agency recommends vehicle technologies to consumers as
part of NCAP if the technology: (1) Addresses a major crash problem,
(2) is supported by information that supports its potential or actual
safety benefit, and (3) is able to be tested by repeatable performance
tests and procedures to ensure a certain level of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 73 FR 40016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more than three years, NHTSA has been carefully reviewing and
evaluating CIB and DBS systems. The agency has also conducted test
track research to better understand the performance capabilities of
these systems. This work is documented in two reports, ``Forward-
Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research Report'' (June 2012) \3\
and ``Automatic Emergency Braking System Research Report'' (August
2014).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0057-0001.
\4\ See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0057-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIB and DBS systems are two crash avoidance systems designed to
mitigate or avoid rear-end crashes. The agency's research found that
CIB and DBS systems are commercially available on a number of different
production vehicles and these systems can be tested successfully to
defined performance measures. NHTSA has developed performance measures
to ensure that CIB and DBS systems address the rear-end crash safety
problem in real-world situations by providing automatic or supplemental
vehicle braking that will help drivers mitigate or avoid rear-end
crashes. The agency found that systems meeting these performance
measures have the potential to help reduce the number of rear-end
crashes as well as deaths and injuries that result from these crashes.
Therefore, the agency believes that it is appropriate to include CIB
and DBS systems in NCAP as recommended crash avoidance technologies on
www.safercar.gov.
In addition to the agency's research on CIB and DBS systems, these
AEB technologies were among the topics included in an April 5, 2013,
Request for comments notice on a variety of potential areas for
improvement of NCAP.\5\ Most commenters supported including CIB and DBS
in NCAP. Some commenters stated generally that available research
supports the agency's conclusion that these technologies are effective
at reducing rear-end crashes with some of those commenters citing
specific research they had conducted that they deemed relevant.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 78 FR 20597.
\6\ See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0180. For
discussions of specific research see comments of Robert Bosch LLC,
NHTSA-2012-0180-0028, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS), NHTSA-2012-0180-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear-end crashes constitute a significant vehicle safety problem.
In a detailed analysis of 2006-2008 crash data,\7\ NHTSA determined
that approximately 1,700,000 rear-end crashes involving passenger
vehicles occur each year.\8\ These crashes result in approximately
1,000 deaths and 700,000 injuries annually. The size of the safety
problem has remained consistent since then. In 2012, the most recent
year for which data are available, there were a total of 1,663,000
rear-end crashes. These rear-end crashes in 2012 resulted in 1,172
deaths and 706,000 injuries, which represents 3 percent of all
fatalities and 30 percent of all injuries from motor vehicle crashes in
2012.9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These estimates were derived from NHTSA's 2006-2008 Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data and non-fatal cases in NHTSA's
2006-2008 National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates
System (NASS/GES) data.
\8\ The 1,700,000 total cited in the two NHTSA reports reflects
only crashes in which the front of a passenger vehicle impacts the
rear of another vehicle.
\9\ See NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts 2012, Page 70.
\10\ The approximately 1,000 deaths per year in 2006-2008 were
limited to two-vehicle crashes, as fatal crash data at the time did
not contain detailed information on crashes involving three or more
vehicles. This information was added starting with the 2010 data
year, and the 1,172 deaths in 2012 occurred in crashes involving any
number of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its rear-end crash analysis, the agency concluded that
AEB systems would have had a favorable impact on a little more than
one-half of rear-end crashes.\11\ The remaining crashes, which involved
circumstances such as high speed crashes resulting in a fatality in the
lead vehicle or one vehicle suddenly cutting in front of another
vehicle, were not crashes that current AEB systems would be able to
prevent or mitigate. The agency has estimated CIB and DBS system
effectiveness based on its research findings from track testing of
these systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See ``Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies
Research Report'' (June 2012). (http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA
2012-0057-0001), page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2012, the agency issued a Request for comments notice
seeking feedback on its CIB and DBS research.\12\ Ford Motor Company
indicated that the Lead Vehicle Stopped (LVS) scenario actually
consists of two scenarios, one in which the lead vehicle is actually
stopped or stationary, and one in which the lead vehicle is
decelerating and comes to a stop before the crash occurs but could have
been previously seen moving by the AEB system sensors. Additional
analysis of LVS crashes found that these crashes are evenly split
between lead vehicle stopped and lead vehicle decelerating to a stop
(LVD-S) crashes, each representing about 32 percent of the rear-end
crash population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 77 FR 39561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is issuing this document to request comments on its plan
to update NCAP. The agency believes that, through NCAP, it can help not
only to educate consumers on the role AEB technologies play in
addressing rear-end crashes, but also to utilize market incentives to
encourage wider incorporation of these important safety technologies.
The advanced crash avoidance technologies that are currently
recommended by NHTSA through NCAP (as ``Recommended Advanced Technology
Features'') are shown on www.safercar.gov. Our plan is to add CIB and
DBS systems as recommended advanced technology features on our Web
site.
[[Page 4632]]
Planned Criteria for Recognizing a Vehicle Make/Model as Having a
Recommended CIB or DBS System
For the agency to determine which CIB and DBS systems it will
recommend to consumers, NHTSA needs a means for evaluating CIB and DBS
systems. The agency has developed test procedures for both CIB and DBS
systems as part of its research effort.\13\ Although these procedures
have been designed to provide a reasonable assessment of overall system
performance, the agency may modify the number of test scenarios and the
number of test trials per test scenario to accommodate the practical
needs of NCAP. The following sections provide a brief summary of the
CIB and DBS planned test procedures. The information presented here is
intended to indicate the level of vehicle performance the test
procedures would set in order for CIB and DBS systems to receive NCAP
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Copies of the test procedures that were used by NHTSA to
conduct light vehicle AEB system evaluations in 2014 may be found at
http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The planned test procedures represent the four primary scenarios
present in the rear-end crash target population. They also include a
fifth scenario to assess whether an AEB system activates in a specific
non-crash-imminent scenario (subsequently referred to as a ``false
positive'' scenario). The five test scenarios are:
1. Lead vehicle stopped (LVS)
2. Lead vehicle moving (LVM) at a constant speed slower than the SV
3. Lead vehicle decelerating (LVD)
4. Lead vehicle decelerating to a stop (LVD-S)
5. False positive test (steel trench plate, STP)
Tables 1 and 2 present the test speeds and performance measures
developed for each of NHTSA's AEB test scenarios for CIB and DBS. As
shown in the second column of these tables, the test speeds for the
vehicle being tested (hereinafter, the subject vehicle (SV)) and for
the lead vehicle (hereinafter, principal other vehicle (POV)) are the
same for the respective CIB and DBS scenarios. However, in most cases,
the DBS performance measures specify a greater SV speed reduction than
the corresponding CIB test (the exception being the LVM test performed
with a SV speed of 25 mph). This is because the speed reductions
present during DBS evaluations are the result of the foundation brake
application plus the supplementary effect of DBS, and the foundation
brake applications used during DBS evaluations are typically commanded
earlier than the automatic brake applications during CIB tests.
Table 1--CIB Test Scenarios and System Performance Test Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speeds of Satisfactory
Scenarios vehicles performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LVS........................... SV 25 mph (40.2 Speed reduction of
km/h). >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/
POV 0 mph (0 km/ h) for at least 7 of
h). 8 valid test trials.
LVM........................... SV 25 mph (40.2 No SV-to-POV impact
km/h). for at least 7 of 8
POV 10 mph (16.1 valid test trials.
km/h).
LVM........................... SV 45 mph (72.4 Speed reduction of
km/h). >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/
POV 20 mph (32.2 h) for at least 7 of
km/h). 8 valid test trials.
LVD........................... SV 35 mph (56.3 Speed reduction of
km/h). >=10.5 mph (16.9 km/
POV 35 mph (56.3 h) for at least 7 of
km/h). 8 valid test trials.
LVD-S......................... SV 25 mph (40.2 Speed reduction of
km/h). >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/
POV 25 mph (40.2 h) for at least 7 of
km/h). 8 valid test trials.
False positive................ 25 mph (40.2 km/ Peak SV deceleration
h). <=0.25g.
False positive................ 45 mph (72.4 km/ Peak SV deceleration
h). <=0.25g.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--DBS Test Scenarios and System Performance Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speeds of Satisfactory
Scenarios vehicles performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LVS........................... SV 25 mph (40.2 No SV-to-POV impact
km/h). for at least 7 of 8
POV 0 mph (0 km/ valid test trials.
h).
LVM........................... SV 25 mph (40.2 No SV-to-POV impact
km/h). for at least 7 of 8
POV 10 mph (16.1 valid test trials.
km/h).
LVM........................... SV 45 mph (72.4 No SV-to-POV impact
km/h). for at least 7 of 8
POV 20 mph (32.2 valid test trials.
km/h).
LVD........................... SV 35 mph (56.3 No SV-to-POV impact
km/h). for at least 7 of 8
POV 35 mph (56.3 valid test trials.
km/h).
LVD-S......................... SV 25 mph (40.2 No SV-to-POV impact
km/h). for at least 7 of 8
POV 25 mph (40.2 valid test trials.
km/h).
False positive................ 25 mph (40.2 km/ Peak SV deceleration
h). <=125% of the
average peak SV
deceleration
realized during a
series of baseline
brake stops.
False positive................ 45 mph (72.4 km/ Peak SV deceleration
h). <=125% of the
average peak SV
deceleration
realized during a
series of baseline
brake stops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As currently written, each test procedure involves a total of 56
test runs (eight valid test trials for each of the seven test
scenarios). The test procedures also include time to condition the SV
brakes, including a full FMVSS No. 135 brake burnish prior to testing
and a brake warming regiment to ensure the initial brake temperature is
within a range before each test trial.
Additionally, because the DBS evaluations specify that the SV
brakes be applied, the DBS procedures include a series of eight brake
characterization tests. The purpose of these brake characterization
tests is to determine the position and force input magnitudes to be
used by the brake controller robot during test conduct. This process
determines the amount of braking to apply during DBS testing that is
[[Page 4633]]
sufficiently high to activate the DBS system being tested, yet low
enough that the SV's conventional brake assist system \14\ is not
activated. NHTSA plans to use a programmable brake controller to apply
all brake applications defined in the DBS test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Conventional brake assist system is a technology that
initiates supplemental braking based on brake pedal application rate
without the use of any forward-sensing information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also with respect to the DBS test procedure, the agency found that
in some vehicles, the brake pedal moves toward the floor during DBS
activation without the driver applying additional force to the pedal.
In this situation, the force at the brake pedal will decrease if the
brake controller maintains a constant pedal position (rather than
following it as it moves to the floor). Even though the brake pedal
position does not change, the DBS system may misinterpret this force
reduction as the driver releasing the brakes, incorrectly assuming that
strong supplemental DBS braking is no longer needed. To address this,
NHTSA has supplemented the displacement (i.e., position) feedback-based
brake applications in the DBS test procedure with an optional brake
application technique featuring ``hybrid feedback'' control, which
includes a combination of displacement and force control.
Hybrid feedback helped certain vehicles reach their DBS-enhanced
braking potential by preventing the applied brake force from falling to
zero. However, the limited data collected indicate use of hybrid-based
braking will not benefit most vehicles. With a few exceptions, vehicles
achieved better DBS performance with displacement feedback brake
applications as opposed to hybrid feedback brake applications. The
agency will work with manufacturers to understand their preference of
the optional hybrid feedback or displacement-based feedback during
NHTSA's evaluation of their vehicles.
For the purpose of conducting AEB testing, the agency designed and
manufactured a strikeable surrogate vehicle (SSV).\15\ The physical
appearance of the SSV resembles the rear section of a 2011 Ford Fiesta
hatchback. The SSV is constructed primarily from carbon fiber, which
enables the SSV to withstand repeated impacts with negligible change in
its shape over time and without causing harm to test drivers or damage
to vehicles being evaluated. If it is struck and damaged, the SSV can
be reconstructed to its original specifications. Our testing shows that
the SSV generates CIB and DBS system activation just as an actual
vehicle would. The agency plans to use the SSV to evaluate the
performance of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For details of the NHTSA designed SSV, see http://
www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0032, NHTSA's Stirkeable
Surrogate Vehicle (SSV) Design Overview, and NHTSA-2012-0057-0034,
Radar Measurements of NHTSA's Surrogate Vehicle (SSV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Participation
On what topics is the agency requesting comments?
This document requests comments on the agency's plan to recommend
CIB and DBS systems in the NCAP program. Based on comments received in
response to the April 5, 2013, Request for comments notice on a variety
of potential areas for improvement of NCAP (78 FR 20597), including CIB
and DBS, the agency believes that motor vehicle manufacturers,
suppliers, and consumer advocacy groups generally agree that consumers
would benefit from being provided with information about CIB and DBS
systems and their potential to help drivers avoid rear-end crashes.
However, the agency will consider whether there are compelling
arguments against including CIB and DBS system evaluations in NCAP.
The agency is also interested in any suggestions or observations
regarding the practical aspects of incorporating CIB and DBS system
evaluations into NCAP as recommended technologies. In particular, the
agency would be interested in any comments or suggestions regarding the
following:
Test procedures: What is the general response to the
planned test procedures? How will the combination of test scenarios and
test speeds described provide an accurate representation of real-world
CIB and DBS system performance, and how can they be improved? Can any
of the scenarios be removed from the test procedures while still
ensuring a certain level of system performance? If so, what are they
and why? Similarly, why and how should the number of test trials per
scenario be reduced? What, if any, specific improvements to the test
procedures are still necessary?
The Strikeable Surrogate Vehicle (SSV): Are there specific
elements that would cause NHTSA's SSV to be inappropriate for use in
the agency's CIB and DBS performance evaluations? If so, what are they,
and how are they a problem? Will the SSV meet the needs for CIB and DBS
evaluation for the foreseeable future? If not, why not? What
alternatives could be considered and why?
DBS Test Brake Application Strategy: We seek comment on
whether the two brake application methods defined in the DBS test
procedure, those based on displacement or hybrid control, provide NHTSA
with enough flexibility to accurately assess the performance of all DBS
systems. What specific refinements, if any, are needed to either
application method?
CIB and DBS Research: We seek comment on whether there is
any recent research concerning CIB and DBS systems that is not
reflected in the agency's research to date. If so, please provide a
reference to that research.
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.
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
[[Page 4634]]
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
ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA may
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, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-01461 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P