The New Car Assessment Program; Suggested Approaches for Enhancements, 3473-3477 [E7-1130]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Comments should refer to
docket number MARAD–2007–27001.
Written comments may be submitted by
hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk,
U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401,
Department of Transportation, 400 7th
St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001.
You may also send comments
electronically via the Internet at https://
dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments
will become part of this docket and will
be available for inspection and copying
at the above address between 10 a.m.
and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. An
electronic version of this document and
all documents entered into this docket
is available on the World Wide Web at
https://dms.dot.gov.
Maritime Administration
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: January 19, 2007.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Daron T. Threet,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–1049 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
[Docket No. MARAD–2007–27001]
Requested Administrative Waiver of
the Coastwise Trade Laws
Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Invitation for public comments
on a requested administrative waiver of
the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel
TEXAS STAR.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105–
383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary
of Transportation, as represented by the
Maritime Administration (MARAD), is
authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.build requirement of the coastwise laws
under certain circumstances. A request
for such a waiver has been received by
MARAD. The vessel, and a brief
description of the proposed service, is
listed below. The complete application
is given in DOT docket MARAD–2007–
27001 at https://dms.dot.gov. Interested
parties may comment on the effect this
action may have on U.S. vessel builders
or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in
accordance with Pub. L. 105–383 and
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part
388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that
the issuance of the waiver will have an
unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel
builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag
vessels in that business, a waiver will
not be granted. Comments should refer
to the docket number of this notice and
the vessel name in order for MARAD to
properly consider the comments.
Comments should also state the
commenter’s interest in the waiver
application, and address the waiver
criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s
regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
February 26, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
ADDRESSES:
Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime
Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–5979.
As
described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel TEXAS STAR is:
Intended Use: ‘‘Charter (Coastwise
trade 20%).’’
Geographic Region: Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Dated: January 19, 2007.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Daron T. Threet,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–1023 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3473
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555]
The New Car Assessment Program;
Suggested Approaches for
Enhancements
The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments; Notice of
public hearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces that
the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is holding a
public hearing and is seeking comment
on a report titled, ‘‘The New Car
Assessment Program Suggested
Approaches for Future Program
Enhancements.’’ The report, published
by NHTSA, outlines both near and longterm approaches that the agency is
considering to further enhance its New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
crashworthiness and crash avoidance
activities to encourage additional safety
improvements, and to provide
consumers with relevant information
that will aid them in their new vehicle
purchasing decisions. NHTSA’s
objective with these approaches is to
improve not only overall vehicle safety
but the quality of the information that
it provides to consumers, especially
with the emergence of advanced
technologies. This notice requests
comments on the possible approaches
contained in the report and any
additional actions that could be taken to
improve motor vehicle safety
information for consumers.
Additionally, this notice announces the
agency’s intent to hold a public hearing
on its suggested approaches for
enhancing the program.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be
received no later than April 10, 2007.
Public Hearing: The public hearing
will be held on March 7, 2007, from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. at the United States
Department of Transportation (Nassif
Building), 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590; room numbers
2230–2232. Those wishing to participate
should contact Mr. Anthony Whitson no
later than February 21, 2007.
The NHTSA recommends that all
visitors arrive at least 45 minutes early
in order to facilitate entry into the
building. Visitors to the building should
enter through the Southwest Lobby to be
escorted to the hearing room.
The NHTSA will provide auxiliary
aids (sign language interpreter,
telecommunications devices for the deaf
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
3474
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
(TDDs), readers, taped tests, braille
materials, or large print materials, and
magnifying devices). Visitors requiring
these aids should contact Mrs. Gwen
Archer-Pailen at 202–366–1740, by
February 21, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Anthony Whitson, NVS–111, Office of
Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr.
Whitson can be reached by phone at
(202) 366–1740, by facsimile at (202)
493–2739, or by e-mail at
anthony.whitson@dot.gov.
Report: The report is
available on the Internet for viewing on
line in PDF format in the Department of
Transportation public docket number
26555 at https://dms.dot.gov. You may
also obtain copies of the reports free of
charge by sending a self-addressed
mailing label to Mr. Anthony Whitson
(NVS–111), The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.
Comments: You may submit
comments [identified by DOT DMS
Docket Number NHTSA–2006–26555]
by any of the following methods:
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may call Docket Management at
202–366–9324 and visit the Docket from
10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
ADDRESSES:
The
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) established
the New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) in 1978 in response to Title II
of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act of 1972. The program
strives to provide consumers with
timely, meaningful, comparative safety
information that will assist them in
making informed vehicle purchasing
decisions. As a result, NHTSA is able to
provide an incentive for manufacturers
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
to voluntarily implement vehicle design
changes to improve safety performance.
The success of NCAP can be
attributed to several activities: (1) The
assignment of safety ratings to vehicles
based on crashworthiness performance
in frontal and side impact crash tests,
and crash avoidance performance in
rollover resistance testing, (2) the
assignment of ease-of-use ratings to
child restraints, (3) the inclusion of
safety features for vehicle models, and
(4) the distribution of safety ratings and
safety features to consumers through the
Internet and the program’s ‘‘Buying a
Safer Car Guide’’ and ‘‘Buying a Safer
Car Guide for Child Passengers.’’
However, the continued success of the
NCAP requires changes to be made in
the program. The NHTSA recognizes
that consumer demand has driven more
manufacturers to design vehicles and
child restraints that achieve the highest
NCAP ratings, and consequently most
vehicles and child restraints receive the
highest ratings. Similarly, with regards
to vehicle safety, recent developments
in the area of crash avoidance
technologies, amendments and
proposed amendments to several
Federal safety standards, and the need
to continue enhancing the presentation
of NCAP safety ratings to consumers
have prompted the need for a
comprehensive review of all NCAP
activities so that the program continues
to fully achieve its goals.
In analyzing what enhancements to
make to NCAP, the agency must first
consider the program’s guiding
principles. The agency believes that for
NCAP to remain effective, new
approaches should only be considered if
there is data that can be used to
measure/assess that an approach is
likely to provide significant safety
benefits. Additional considerations
include whether or not the change
would:
1. Result in safety benefits that are
evident but for which a regulation may
not be the best approach;
2. Distinguish meaningful
performance differences between
vehicles;
3. Spur research and the achievement
of safety goals that exceed regulatory
requirements; and
4. Stimulate the use and
dissemination of information so that it
is more widely used.
Below, are summarized approaches
from the technical report contained in
Docket number 26555. These
approaches represent how the agency
believes it can continue to enhance its
NCAP activities. These approaches take
into account all of the aforementioned
factors and provide a basis for initiating
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stakeholder dialogue for enhancing the
NCAP.
Approaches To Enhancing Frontal
NCAP
Data from the National Automotive
Sampling System (NASS) indicates that
most injuries in frontal crashes occur in
full-frontal and offset-frontal crashes.
Additionally, when restricted to fullfrontal crashes with adult (16- to 60year-old) front seat-belted occupants,
the maximum number of injuries occurs
at changes in velocities from 0 to 25
miles per hour. Within this grouping,
the de-habilitating and costly knee/
thigh/hip (KTH) and lower leg regions
have the highest incidence of the
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+
injuries. Neither of these regions is
currently rated by NCAP.
In Model Year (MY) 2006,
approximately 95 percent of new
vehicles achieved a four or five star
rating for the driver. A five-star rating in
the frontal NCAP test accounts for a
combined risk of head and chest injury
of 10 percent, and at this risk level
current head and chest Injury
Assessment Reference Values (IARVs)
are not likely to further reduce highspeed or low-speed injury numbers. The
statistical data analysis discussed above
indicates that future tests should focus
on full-frontal crashes, front seat
occupants, lower speeds, 16- to 60-yearold adults, and incorporate additional
body regions like the hips and legs.
Although these body regions are
currently measured during testing, they
are currently not included in the rating.
By including them, there may be
opportunity to use the existing test for
potential safety improvements.
The report discusses three approaches the
agency is considering:
(1) Maintain the current test protocol but
add femur readings to the rating to begin
addressing KTH injuries.
(2) Determine whether injury measures
obtained below the knee are predictive of real
world injury. If they are, and the readings
from the dummy would result in a
meaningful improvement to safety, they
could also be added to the rating, and
(3) Evaluate lower speed test(s). The
research would determine whether current
IARVs need to be adjusted or created, and to
assess the ability of a test device and test
procedure to accurately measure those injury
assessment values.
Approaches To Enhancing Side NCAP
NASS data indicates that the majority
of side impact crashes with serious (AIS
3+) injuries involve the primary vehicle
being impacted in the side by light
trucks or cars and that approximately 82
percent of all serious injuries to
occupants result from subject vehicles
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
being hit by passenger cars or light
trucks. The impact conditions for Side
NCAP were developed more than 20
years ago. The conditions represent side
impacts resulting in serious injuries of
occupants being struck by a vehicle
with the weight properties of an early
1980’s passenger car and the stiffness
properties of 1980’s era light truck.
The vehicle fleet has changed
significantly over the past 20 years and
similar to frontal NCAP, 87 percent of
MY ’06 vehicles receive four or five
stars. Consequently, the side NCAP
ratings are reaching the point of
providing little discrimination between
vehicles. Additionally, since the fleet
and impact conditions for side impacts
have changed over the years, and since
side impact head and other side impact
occupant protection systems have
improved over the years, it is necessary
to revisit the design of the test in an
effort to continue improving the safety
in side impact crashes.
The report discusses two approaches the
agency is considering:
(1) Encourage more manufactures to
include head protection by including the
pole test proposed for Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 prior to the
final rule being fully phased-in. This test
would continue to measure performance
while at the same time indicate to consumers
the importance of good head protection
devices, and
(2) Perform research that focuses on the
assessment of the injury mechanisms in a
fully equipped side impact air bag fleet. The
purpose would be to evaluate how serious
injuries occur in the new fleet and develop
test procedures to reflect these impact
conditions. The outcome of this research
could be used to further improve the level of
side impact protection through modification
to the side NCAP test procedures.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Approaches To Enhancing Rollover
NCAP
Although the proportion of crashes
that result in rollover is low, these
crashes seriously injure and kill about
35,000 vehicle occupants annually.
NCAP rollover resistance ratings predict
the risk of rollover in the event of a
single-vehicle crash. Estimates from the
NASS indicate that 88 percent of the
single-vehicle rollover crashes occur
after the vehicle leaves the roadway and
are often referred to as ‘‘tripped
rollovers.’’ Part of NCAP’s rating is
based on a geometric measurement
called the Static Stability Factor (SSF).
The SSF is highly predictive of these
‘‘tripped rollovers.’’
The NHTSA estimates that its
proposal to require Electronic Stability
Control (ESC) on all passenger vehicles
by 2012 will result in a significant
reduction in run-off-road crashes. Most
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
of the anticipated rollover reduction
from ESC is not a consequence of ESC
increasing rollover resistance. Rather, it
is a consequence of ESC preventing a
large number of single-vehicle loss-ofcontrol crashes in which the vehicle
leaves the roadway, and subsequently,
is exposed to soft soil, ditches and other
conditions that cause tripped rollovers
(which comprise about 95 percent of all
rollover crashes). None of the sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) with ESC rated
by NCAP has tipped up in the dynamic
test that assesses the vulnerability of a
vehicle to an untripped, on-road
rollover. This effect of ESC shows
improved rollover resistance scores for
SUVs. Finally, ESC could reduce the
rollover rate of those run-off-the-road
crashes that still occur if it reduces the
speed prior to the crash. When enough
real world data with ESC vehicles has
been accumulated, a need may exist to
update the statistical risk model for ESC
vehicles used to predict their rollover
rates (and compute star ratings).
The report discusses one approach the
agency is considering:
(1) Track the rollover rate and the single
vehicle crash rate of ESC vehicles to create
a new rollover risk model of the rollover rate
of ESC vehicles and SSF. When sufficient
data is available, it would then be possible
to determine whether the current model is
accurate for ESC vehicles or whether ESC
reduces rollover risk more than currently
predicted.
Approaches To Enhancing NCAP
Information on Rear Impacts
Currently NHTSA provides no
consumer information on rear impacts
and although NHTSA has recently
upgraded FMVSS No. 202 ‘‘Head
Restraints’’ to address neck injuries, the
real world data indicates that other
injuries are occurring in rear impact
collisions. Additionally, consumer
research has indicated that consumers
are concerned about rear impact
crashes.
The report discusses two approaches the
agency is considering:
(1) Explore providing consumers with
basic information concerning rear impact
crashes such as safe driving behavior and
proper adjustment of head restraints, real
world safety data by vehicle classes, and
links to the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) rear impact test results.
(2) Longer term, a dynamic test that
addresses those injuries not covered by the
agency’s current standards could be
investigated and incorporated into a ratings
program.
Approaches To Enhancing NCAP
Information on Crash Avoidance
Technologies
Various crash avoidance technologies
have been developed and are beginning
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3475
to be offered in the current vehicle fleet.
Some of these technologies have shown
effectiveness in reducing the number of
relevant crashes in NHTSA-sponsored
field operational tests. Prevention (in
the sense of avoiding the crash) and
severity reduction are not currently
included in the NCAP safety ratings,
and since a vehicle that is less likely to
crash is safer for its occupants, NHTSA
believes crash avoidance is one area in
which NCAP could be used to improve
safety by addressing beneficial crash
avoidance technologies.
The report discusses three approaches the
agency is considering:
(1) The agency could begin promoting
three priority crash avoidance safety
technologies that have been identified based
on technical maturity, fleet availability, and
available benefits data. These three
technologies are stability control, lane
departure avoidance, and rear-end/forward
collision avoidance. The agency could
highlight to consumers whether or not the
vehicles have the technology.
(2) The agency also plans to investigate the
feasibility of developing a separate crash
avoidance rating that would provide a
technology rating. Under this approach, there
are two options.
a. One option would be to develop a
simple cumulative rating. For example and
illustrative purposes only, if there were an A,
B, C letter grade rating and a vehicle had only
one technology, it would receive a C whereas
another vehicle that had all three
recommended technologies would receive an
A.
b. A second option would be to develop a
rating that would take into account the target
population and anticipated effectiveness of
the technology to decide whether a particular
type of technology would be given more
importance over another and thus prompt a
higher rating. For example, if ESC was
considered more effective and more
beneficial than lane departure, a vehicle
equipped only with ESC could get a B versus
a vehicle equipped only with lane departure
which would get a C rating.
(3) As the technologies evolve and as the
agency develops (through its research) more
information related to their safety potential,
a safety score (i.e. star rating) on individual
technologies could then be developed. These
scores would apply to technologies whose
safety effectiveness had been sufficiently
validated through research, field testing or
on-road experience. The agency would need
to ensure that it had sufficient data and that
there were meaningful distinctions between
different types of the same technology. After
such an analysis, a set of performance tests
could be developed that would be able to
distinguish a range of performance.
Approaches To Enhancing the
Presentation and Dissemination of
NCAP Information
Combined Safety Score
Several NHTSA sponsored research
reports and consumer surveys, as well
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
3476
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
as a Government Accountability Office
and a National Academy of Sciences
review of NCAP, have all pointed to the
need for an NCAP summary safety
rating. Similarly, other consumer
information programs around the world
such as the IIHS, Japan NCAP, and Euro
NCAP have developed summary ratings
that combine their respective
crashworthiness tests. The agency
would focus first on combining the
frontal and side crashworthiness ratings
using weighting factors compiled from
NASS data. This method would
combine the frontal ratings for driver
and right front passenger seating
positions with the side ratings for the
front and rear passenger seating
positions into one crashworthiness
rating and leave NHTSA’s current
rollover rating separate. The following
summary crashworthiness rating
concepts are illustrative examples for
combining vehicle crash information.
Two approaches being considered are
presented below.
(1) The overall frontal crash rating would
combine the driver and right front passenger
into a single star rating by averaging the two
seating positions together. The same would
be done for the dummies in the side crash
to compute the overall side crash rating. To
compute the overall crashworthiness rating,
the overall frontal and the overall side impact
performance would be combined by using
weighting factors obtained from the NASS.
Each individual total (overall front and
overall side) would be weighted by that crash
mode’s contribution to the total fatalities
occurring in the real world.
(2) For each individual crash mode (front
and side), this method would normalize each
IARV that NHTSA included in the rating by
established IARVs for that dummy, body
region, and crash mode. Using the NASS
data, these normalized values would then be
multiplied by the occurrence of that injury in
the real world. Body injury regions that are
coded by NASS but are not measured by the
dummy and or not selected by NHTSA for
inclusion in the rating would be equally
distributed among the remaining body
regions.
Presentation of Safety Information
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
As consumers’ use of the World Wide
Web for vehicle safety information has
grown, so has the need to consolidate
and better present NCAP vehicle safety
information to consumers on
www.safercar.gov.
The report discusses four approaches the
agency is considering:
(1) Developing other topical areas under
www.safercar.gov;
(2) Redesigning the Web site to improve
organization;
(3) Improving the search capabilities on the
Web site; and
(4) Combining agency recall and ratings
database information.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
Specific Requests for Written or Public
Comments
When commenting on the agency
report, we request that consideration
also be given to the following questions:
(1) In addition to or rather than the
advanced crash avoidance technologies
we have identified, are there others with
significant safety benefit potential that
we should consider? What are they and
what studies have been done to estimate
the potential safety benefits?
(2) Are there other approaches the
agency should consider in selecting and
rating advanced technologies? What are
the advantages of these alternative
approaches?
(3) Identify those cases where you
believe a particular approach to
enhancing the NCAP and/or NHTSA’s
planned consumer information
activities to address the approach are
inappropriate. Discuss the basis for your
position. In particular, if you believe a
particular approach is inappropriate,
discuss what you believe is a more
appropriate approach.
(4) Are there other injury criteria,
tests, and test devices we should
consider? If so, describe how they
would improve real world crash safety.
Are there reasons why the agency
should not pursue the use of injury
criteria, tests, and test devices prior to
incorporation into a Federal standard?
(5) An overall vehicle safety rating
could allow the agency to combine new
tests, crash avoidance technologies,
items not reflected by the testing
protocols into a single metric, and
vehicle weight for across class
comparisons. However, doing so might
mask certain results and also lead to
discontinuity in the ratings as
technologies are added and removed
and or new tests are added. Similarly
star ratings from year to year might not
be comparable. What are the
disadvantages and advantages for
combining all crashworthiness and
crash avoidance ratings into a single
metric? Is discontinuity in ratings
important to consumers?
(6) In September 2007, all new
vehicles will be required to display the
NCAP ratings at the point of sale. It is
anticipated that these new safety labels
will undoubtedly raise the awareness of
NCAP results. In light of this new
labeling requirement, are there other
activities the agency should be
undertaking to raise awareness of NCAP
and its safety information?
How can I influence NHTSA’s thinking
on this subject?
NHTSA welcomes public review of
the technical report and invites
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reviewers to submit written comments
so that the agency can consider these in
its deliberations on what changes to
make to NCAP.
Additionally, NHTSA will hold a
public hearing on the report to provide
interested parties an opportunity to
express their views on the future of
NCAP. Through this hearing and from
the written comments, the agency will
refine its approach to enhancing NCAP.
We will consider the information and
the views expressed at the public
hearing and in the subsequent docket
comments in making final decisions to
enhance NCAP activities. All interested
persons and organizations are invited to
attend.
To assist the agency in planning for
the hearing, members of the public must
request the opportunity to make an oral
presentation by contacting Mr. Anthony
Whitson at the address or numbers
mentioned at the beginning of this
document. Those making a presentation
will be provided 10 minutes to speak,
followed by the opportunity for NHTSA
officials to ask questions. Requests for
oral presentations and the oral
statements themselves should be
received no later than February 21,
2007.
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the Docket
number of this document (NHTSA–
2005–20132) in your comments.
Your primary comments must not be
more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach
additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the
length of the attachments.
Please send two paper copies of your
comments to Docket Management,
submit them electronically, fax them, or
use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The
mailing address is U. S. Department of
Transportation Docket Management,
Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. If you submit
your comments electronically, log onto
the Dockets Management System Web
site at https://dms.dot.gov and click on
‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions. The fax
number is 1–202–493–2251. To use the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
How can I be sure that my comments
were received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 16 / Thursday, January 25, 2007 / Notices
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, send
three copies of your complete
submission, including the information
you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, NCC–
01, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room 5219, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Include a cover letter supplying
the information specified in our
confidential business information
regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
In addition, send two copies from
which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information to
Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590, or submit them electronically.
Will the agency consider late
comments?
In our response, we will consider all
comments that Docket Management
receives before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management
receives after that date.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the Docket for new
material.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
How can I read the comments
submitted by other people?
You may read the comments by
visiting Docket Management in person
at Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC from 10 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday.
You may also see the comments on
the Internet by taking the following
steps:
A. Go to the Docket Management
System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (https://
dms.dot.gov).
B. On that page, click on ‘‘Simple
Search.’’
C. On the next page (https://
dms.dot.gov/search/
searchFormSimple.cfm/) type in the
five-digit Docket number shown at the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2007
Jkt 211001
beginning of this Notice (20132). Click
on ‘‘Search.’’
D. On the next page, which contains
Docket summary information for the
Docket you selected, click on the
desired comments. You may also
download the comments.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Dated: January 18, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–1130 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. AB–1000X]
Georgia Southwestern Railroad, Inc.—
Abandonment Exemption—in Barbour
County, AL
On January 5, 2007, Georgia
Southwestern Railroad, Inc. (GSWR),
filed with the Board a petition under 49
U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903–05 1 to
abandon a 4.54-mile line of railroad
extending from milepost H–334.46, at
Eufaula, to milepost H–339.00, near
Eufaula, in Barbour County, AL. The
line traverses United States Postal
Service Zip Code 36027.
The line does not contain federally
granted rights-of-way. Any
documentation in GSWR’s possession
will be made available promptly to
those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees
will be protected by the conditions set
forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.—
Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91
(1979).
By issuing this notice, the Board is
instituting an exemption proceeding
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final
decision will be issued by April 25,
2007.
Any offer of financial assistance
(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will
be due no later than 10 days after
service of a decision granting the
petition for exemption. Each OFA must
be accompanied by a $1,300 filing fee.
See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).
1 In addition to an exemption from the prior
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903, GSWR
seeks exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10904 (offer of
financial assistance procedures) and 49 U.S.C.
10905 (public use conditions). GSWR states that it
has agreed to donate the subject line to the City of
Eufaula for the purpose of constructing a trail along
the corridor and that the City’s Federal grant money
for the project is about to expire. GSWR’s request
for exemption from sections 10904 and 10905 will
be addressed in the final decision.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3477
All interested persons should be
aware that, following abandonment of
rail service and salvage of the line, the
line may be suitable for other public
use, including interim trail use. Any
request for a public use condition under
49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail
banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be
due no later than February 14, 2007.
Each trail use request must be
accompanied by a $200 filing fee. See 49
CFR 1002.2(f)(27).
All filings in response to this notice
must refer to STB Docket No. AB–
1000X, and must be sent to: (1) Surface
Transportation Board, 1925 K Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001; and
(2) Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F
Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC
20005. Replies to the petition are due on
or before February 14, 2007.
Persons seeking further information
concerning abandonment procedures
may contact the Board’s Office of Public
Services at (202) 565–1592 or refer to
the full abandonment or discontinuance
regulations at 49 CFR part 1152.
Questions concerning environmental
issues may be directed to the Board’s
Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA) at (202) 565–1539. [Assistance for
the hearing impaired is available
through the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.]
An environmental assessment (EA) (or
environmental impact statement (EIS), if
necessary) prepared by SEA will be
served upon all parties of record and
upon any agencies or other persons who
commented during its preparation.
Other interested persons may contact
SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS).
EAs in these abandonment proceedings
normally will be made available within
60 days of the filing of the petition. The
deadline for submission of comments on
the EA will generally be within 30 days
of its service.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: January 17, 2007.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–913 Filed 1–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 16 (Thursday, January 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3473-3477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1130]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555]
The New Car Assessment Program; Suggested Approaches for
Enhancements
AGENCY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments; Notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is holding a public hearing and is seeking
comment on a report titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program Suggested
Approaches for Future Program Enhancements.'' The report, published by
NHTSA, outlines both near and long-term approaches that the agency is
considering to further enhance its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
crashworthiness and crash avoidance activities to encourage additional
safety improvements, and to provide consumers with relevant information
that will aid them in their new vehicle purchasing decisions. NHTSA's
objective with these approaches is to improve not only overall vehicle
safety but the quality of the information that it provides to
consumers, especially with the emergence of advanced technologies. This
notice requests comments on the possible approaches contained in the
report and any additional actions that could be taken to improve motor
vehicle safety information for consumers. Additionally, this notice
announces the agency's intent to hold a public hearing on its suggested
approaches for enhancing the program.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received no later than April 10,
2007.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held on March 7, 2007,
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the United States Department of Transportation
(Nassif Building), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; room
numbers 2230-2232. Those wishing to participate should contact Mr.
Anthony Whitson no later than February 21, 2007.
The NHTSA recommends that all visitors arrive at least 45 minutes
early in order to facilitate entry into the building. Visitors to the
building should enter through the Southwest Lobby to be escorted to the
hearing room.
The NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids (sign language interpreter,
telecommunications devices for the deaf
[[Page 3474]]
(TDDs), readers, taped tests, braille materials, or large print
materials, and magnifying devices). Visitors requiring these aids
should contact Mrs. Gwen Archer-Pailen at 202-366-1740, by February 21,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Whitson, NVS-111, Office
of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Whitson can be reached
by phone at (202) 366-1740, by facsimile at (202) 493-2739, or by e-
mail at anthony.whitson@dot.gov.
ADDRESSES: Report: The report is available on the Internet for viewing
on line in PDF format in the Department of Transportation public docket
number 26555 at https://dms.dot.gov. You may also obtain copies of the
reports free of charge by sending a self-addressed mailing label to Mr.
Anthony Whitson (NVS-111), The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Comments: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket
Number NHTSA-2006-26555] by any of the following methods:
Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324 and visit the Docket
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) established the New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act of 1972. The program strives to provide consumers
with timely, meaningful, comparative safety information that will
assist them in making informed vehicle purchasing decisions. As a
result, NHTSA is able to provide an incentive for manufacturers to
voluntarily implement vehicle design changes to improve safety
performance.
The success of NCAP can be attributed to several activities: (1)
The assignment of safety ratings to vehicles based on crashworthiness
performance in frontal and side impact crash tests, and crash avoidance
performance in rollover resistance testing, (2) the assignment of ease-
of-use ratings to child restraints, (3) the inclusion of safety
features for vehicle models, and (4) the distribution of safety ratings
and safety features to consumers through the Internet and the program's
``Buying a Safer Car Guide'' and ``Buying a Safer Car Guide for Child
Passengers.''
However, the continued success of the NCAP requires changes to be
made in the program. The NHTSA recognizes that consumer demand has
driven more manufacturers to design vehicles and child restraints that
achieve the highest NCAP ratings, and consequently most vehicles and
child restraints receive the highest ratings. Similarly, with regards
to vehicle safety, recent developments in the area of crash avoidance
technologies, amendments and proposed amendments to several Federal
safety standards, and the need to continue enhancing the presentation
of NCAP safety ratings to consumers have prompted the need for a
comprehensive review of all NCAP activities so that the program
continues to fully achieve its goals.
In analyzing what enhancements to make to NCAP, the agency must
first consider the program's guiding principles. The agency believes
that for NCAP to remain effective, new approaches should only be
considered if there is data that can be used to measure/assess that an
approach is likely to provide significant safety benefits. Additional
considerations include whether or not the change would:
1. Result in safety benefits that are evident but for which a
regulation may not be the best approach;
2. Distinguish meaningful performance differences between vehicles;
3. Spur research and the achievement of safety goals that exceed
regulatory requirements; and
4. Stimulate the use and dissemination of information so that it is
more widely used.
Below, are summarized approaches from the technical report
contained in Docket number 26555. These approaches represent how the
agency believes it can continue to enhance its NCAP activities. These
approaches take into account all of the aforementioned factors and
provide a basis for initiating stakeholder dialogue for enhancing the
NCAP.
Approaches To Enhancing Frontal NCAP
Data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) indicates
that most injuries in frontal crashes occur in full-frontal and offset-
frontal crashes. Additionally, when restricted to full-frontal crashes
with adult (16- to 60-year-old) front seat-belted occupants, the
maximum number of injuries occurs at changes in velocities from 0 to 25
miles per hour. Within this grouping, the de-habilitating and costly
knee/thigh/hip (KTH) and lower leg regions have the highest incidence
of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ injuries. Neither of these
regions is currently rated by NCAP.
In Model Year (MY) 2006, approximately 95 percent of new vehicles
achieved a four or five star rating for the driver. A five-star rating
in the frontal NCAP test accounts for a combined risk of head and chest
injury of 10 percent, and at this risk level current head and chest
Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) are not likely to further
reduce high-speed or low-speed injury numbers. The statistical data
analysis discussed above indicates that future tests should focus on
full-frontal crashes, front seat occupants, lower speeds, 16- to 60-
year-old adults, and incorporate additional body regions like the hips
and legs. Although these body regions are currently measured during
testing, they are currently not included in the rating. By including
them, there may be opportunity to use the existing test for potential
safety improvements.
The report discusses three approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Maintain the current test protocol but add femur readings to
the rating to begin addressing KTH injuries.
(2) Determine whether injury measures obtained below the knee
are predictive of real world injury. If they are, and the readings
from the dummy would result in a meaningful improvement to safety,
they could also be added to the rating, and
(3) Evaluate lower speed test(s). The research would determine
whether current IARVs need to be adjusted or created, and to assess
the ability of a test device and test procedure to accurately
measure those injury assessment values.
Approaches To Enhancing Side NCAP
NASS data indicates that the majority of side impact crashes with
serious (AIS 3+) injuries involve the primary vehicle being impacted in
the side by light trucks or cars and that approximately 82 percent of
all serious injuries to occupants result from subject vehicles
[[Page 3475]]
being hit by passenger cars or light trucks. The impact conditions for
Side NCAP were developed more than 20 years ago. The conditions
represent side impacts resulting in serious injuries of occupants being
struck by a vehicle with the weight properties of an early 1980's
passenger car and the stiffness properties of 1980's era light truck.
The vehicle fleet has changed significantly over the past 20 years
and similar to frontal NCAP, 87 percent of MY '06 vehicles receive four
or five stars. Consequently, the side NCAP ratings are reaching the
point of providing little discrimination between vehicles.
Additionally, since the fleet and impact conditions for side impacts
have changed over the years, and since side impact head and other side
impact occupant protection systems have improved over the years, it is
necessary to revisit the design of the test in an effort to continue
improving the safety in side impact crashes.
The report discusses two approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Encourage more manufactures to include head protection by
including the pole test proposed for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 214 prior to the final rule being fully phased-
in. This test would continue to measure performance while at the
same time indicate to consumers the importance of good head
protection devices, and
(2) Perform research that focuses on the assessment of the
injury mechanisms in a fully equipped side impact air bag fleet. The
purpose would be to evaluate how serious injuries occur in the new
fleet and develop test procedures to reflect these impact
conditions. The outcome of this research could be used to further
improve the level of side impact protection through modification to
the side NCAP test procedures.
Approaches To Enhancing Rollover NCAP
Although the proportion of crashes that result in rollover is low,
these crashes seriously injure and kill about 35,000 vehicle occupants
annually. NCAP rollover resistance ratings predict the risk of rollover
in the event of a single-vehicle crash. Estimates from the NASS
indicate that 88 percent of the single-vehicle rollover crashes occur
after the vehicle leaves the roadway and are often referred to as
``tripped rollovers.'' Part of NCAP's rating is based on a geometric
measurement called the Static Stability Factor (SSF). The SSF is highly
predictive of these ``tripped rollovers.''
The NHTSA estimates that its proposal to require Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) on all passenger vehicles by 2012 will result
in a significant reduction in run-off-road crashes. Most of the
anticipated rollover reduction from ESC is not a consequence of ESC
increasing rollover resistance. Rather, it is a consequence of ESC
preventing a large number of single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes in
which the vehicle leaves the roadway, and subsequently, is exposed to
soft soil, ditches and other conditions that cause tripped rollovers
(which comprise about 95 percent of all rollover crashes). None of the
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with ESC rated by NCAP has tipped up in
the dynamic test that assesses the vulnerability of a vehicle to an
untripped, on-road rollover. This effect of ESC shows improved rollover
resistance scores for SUVs. Finally, ESC could reduce the rollover rate
of those run-off-the-road crashes that still occur if it reduces the
speed prior to the crash. When enough real world data with ESC vehicles
has been accumulated, a need may exist to update the statistical risk
model for ESC vehicles used to predict their rollover rates (and
compute star ratings).
The report discusses one approach the agency is considering:
(1) Track the rollover rate and the single vehicle crash rate of
ESC vehicles to create a new rollover risk model of the rollover
rate of ESC vehicles and SSF. When sufficient data is available, it
would then be possible to determine whether the current model is
accurate for ESC vehicles or whether ESC reduces rollover risk more
than currently predicted.
Approaches To Enhancing NCAP Information on Rear Impacts
Currently NHTSA provides no consumer information on rear impacts
and although NHTSA has recently upgraded FMVSS No. 202 ``Head
Restraints'' to address neck injuries, the real world data indicates
that other injuries are occurring in rear impact collisions.
Additionally, consumer research has indicated that consumers are
concerned about rear impact crashes.
The report discusses two approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Explore providing consumers with basic information
concerning rear impact crashes such as safe driving behavior and
proper adjustment of head restraints, real world safety data by
vehicle classes, and links to the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) rear impact test results.
(2) Longer term, a dynamic test that addresses those injuries
not covered by the agency's current standards could be investigated
and incorporated into a ratings program.
Approaches To Enhancing NCAP Information on Crash Avoidance
Technologies
Various crash avoidance technologies have been developed and are
beginning to be offered in the current vehicle fleet. Some of these
technologies have shown effectiveness in reducing the number of
relevant crashes in NHTSA-sponsored field operational tests. Prevention
(in the sense of avoiding the crash) and severity reduction are not
currently included in the NCAP safety ratings, and since a vehicle that
is less likely to crash is safer for its occupants, NHTSA believes
crash avoidance is one area in which NCAP could be used to improve
safety by addressing beneficial crash avoidance technologies.
The report discusses three approaches the agency is considering:
(1) The agency could begin promoting three priority crash
avoidance safety technologies that have been identified based on
technical maturity, fleet availability, and available benefits data.
These three technologies are stability control, lane departure
avoidance, and rear-end/forward collision avoidance. The agency
could highlight to consumers whether or not the vehicles have the
technology.
(2) The agency also plans to investigate the feasibility of
developing a separate crash avoidance rating that would provide a
technology rating. Under this approach, there are two options.
a. One option would be to develop a simple cumulative rating.
For example and illustrative purposes only, if there were an A, B, C
letter grade rating and a vehicle had only one technology, it would
receive a C whereas another vehicle that had all three recommended
technologies would receive an A.
b. A second option would be to develop a rating that would take
into account the target population and anticipated effectiveness of
the technology to decide whether a particular type of technology
would be given more importance over another and thus prompt a higher
rating. For example, if ESC was considered more effective and more
beneficial than lane departure, a vehicle equipped only with ESC
could get a B versus a vehicle equipped only with lane departure
which would get a C rating.
(3) As the technologies evolve and as the agency develops
(through its research) more information related to their safety
potential, a safety score (i.e. star rating) on individual
technologies could then be developed. These scores would apply to
technologies whose safety effectiveness had been sufficiently
validated through research, field testing or on-road experience. The
agency would need to ensure that it had sufficient data and that
there were meaningful distinctions between different types of the
same technology. After such an analysis, a set of performance tests
could be developed that would be able to distinguish a range of
performance.
Approaches To Enhancing the Presentation and Dissemination of NCAP
Information
Combined Safety Score
Several NHTSA sponsored research reports and consumer surveys, as
well
[[Page 3476]]
as a Government Accountability Office and a National Academy of
Sciences review of NCAP, have all pointed to the need for an NCAP
summary safety rating. Similarly, other consumer information programs
around the world such as the IIHS, Japan NCAP, and Euro NCAP have
developed summary ratings that combine their respective crashworthiness
tests. The agency would focus first on combining the frontal and side
crashworthiness ratings using weighting factors compiled from NASS
data. This method would combine the frontal ratings for driver and
right front passenger seating positions with the side ratings for the
front and rear passenger seating positions into one crashworthiness
rating and leave NHTSA's current rollover rating separate. The
following summary crashworthiness rating concepts are illustrative
examples for combining vehicle crash information. Two approaches being
considered are presented below.
(1) The overall frontal crash rating would combine the driver
and right front passenger into a single star rating by averaging the
two seating positions together. The same would be done for the
dummies in the side crash to compute the overall side crash rating.
To compute the overall crashworthiness rating, the overall frontal
and the overall side impact performance would be combined by using
weighting factors obtained from the NASS. Each individual total
(overall front and overall side) would be weighted by that crash
mode's contribution to the total fatalities occurring in the real
world.
(2) For each individual crash mode (front and side), this method
would normalize each IARV that NHTSA included in the rating by
established IARVs for that dummy, body region, and crash mode. Using
the NASS data, these normalized values would then be multiplied by
the occurrence of that injury in the real world. Body injury regions
that are coded by NASS but are not measured by the dummy and or not
selected by NHTSA for inclusion in the rating would be equally
distributed among the remaining body regions.
Presentation of Safety Information
As consumers' use of the World Wide Web for vehicle safety
information has grown, so has the need to consolidate and better
present NCAP vehicle safety information to consumers on
www.safercar.gov.
The report discusses four approaches the agency is considering:
(1) Developing other topical areas under www.safercar.gov;
(2) Redesigning the Web site to improve organization;
(3) Improving the search capabilities on the Web site; and
(4) Combining agency recall and ratings database information.
Specific Requests for Written or Public Comments
When commenting on the agency report, we request that consideration
also be given to the following questions:
(1) In addition to or rather than the advanced crash avoidance
technologies we have identified, are there others with significant
safety benefit potential that we should consider? What are they and
what studies have been done to estimate the potential safety benefits?
(2) Are there other approaches the agency should consider in
selecting and rating advanced technologies? What are the advantages of
these alternative approaches?
(3) Identify those cases where you believe a particular approach to
enhancing the NCAP and/or NHTSA's planned consumer information
activities to address the approach are inappropriate. Discuss the basis
for your position. In particular, if you believe a particular approach
is inappropriate, discuss what you believe is a more appropriate
approach.
(4) Are there other injury criteria, tests, and test devices we
should consider? If so, describe how they would improve real world
crash safety. Are there reasons why the agency should not pursue the
use of injury criteria, tests, and test devices prior to incorporation
into a Federal standard?
(5) An overall vehicle safety rating could allow the agency to
combine new tests, crash avoidance technologies, items not reflected by
the testing protocols into a single metric, and vehicle weight for
across class comparisons. However, doing so might mask certain results
and also lead to discontinuity in the ratings as technologies are added
and removed and or new tests are added. Similarly star ratings from
year to year might not be comparable. What are the disadvantages and
advantages for combining all crashworthiness and crash avoidance
ratings into a single metric? Is discontinuity in ratings important to
consumers?
(6) In September 2007, all new vehicles will be required to display
the NCAP ratings at the point of sale. It is anticipated that these new
safety labels will undoubtedly raise the awareness of NCAP results. In
light of this new labeling requirement, are there other activities the
agency should be undertaking to raise awareness of NCAP and its safety
information?
How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?
NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report and invites
reviewers to submit written comments so that the agency can consider
these in its deliberations on what changes to make to NCAP.
Additionally, NHTSA will hold a public hearing on the report to
provide interested parties an opportunity to express their views on the
future of NCAP. Through this hearing and from the written comments, the
agency will refine its approach to enhancing NCAP. We will consider the
information and the views expressed at the public hearing and in the
subsequent docket comments in making final decisions to enhance NCAP
activities. All interested persons and organizations are invited to
attend.
To assist the agency in planning for the hearing, members of the
public must request the opportunity to make an oral presentation by
contacting Mr. Anthony Whitson at the address or numbers mentioned at
the beginning of this document. Those making a presentation will be
provided 10 minutes to speak, followed by the opportunity for NHTSA
officials to ask questions. Requests for oral presentations and the
oral statements themselves should be received no later than February
21, 2007.
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2005-20132) in your comments.
Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management,
submit them electronically, fax them, or use the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. The mailing address is U. S. Department of Transportation
Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. If you submit your comments electronically, log onto the Dockets
Management System Web site at https://dms.dot.gov and click on ``Help''
to obtain instructions. The fax number is 1-202-493-2251. To use the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your
[[Page 3477]]
comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, NCC-01, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in
our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room
PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit them
electronically.
Will the agency consider late comments?
In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket
Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing
date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person
at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC from 10 a.m. to
5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the
following steps:
A. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (https://dms.dot.gov).
B. On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
C. On the next page (https://dms.dot.gov/search/
searchFormSimple.cfm/) type in the five-digit Docket number shown at
the beginning of this Notice (20132). Click on ``Search.''
D. On the next page, which contains Docket summary information for
the Docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also
download the comments.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Dated: January 18, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-1130 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
