New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), 38266-38270 [2013-15208]

Download as PDF TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 38266 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. D Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. D U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. 7. Virtual Workshop. In addition to the usual methods for filing electronic comments, the Commission is allowing comments in this proceeding to be filed by posting comments at http:// www.fcc.gov/blog/wcb-cost-modelvirtual-workshop-2012. Persons wishing to examine the record in this proceeding are encouraged to examine the record on ECFS and the Virtual Workshop. Although Virtual Workshop commenters may choose to provide identifying information or may comment anonymously, anonymous comments will not be part of the record in this proceeding and accordingly will not be relied on by the Commission in reaching its conclusions in this rulemaking. The Commission will not rely on anonymous postings in reaching conclusions in this matter because of the difficulty in verifying the accuracy of information in anonymous postings. Should posters provide identifying information, they should be aware that although such information will not be posted on the blog, it will be publicly available for inspection upon request. 8. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 418–0432 (tty). 9. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS. These documents will also be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY–A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 229001 Federal Communications Commission. Kimberly A. Scardino, Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. 2013–15172 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 575 [Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0076] New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Request for comments. AGENCY: This document requests public comment on the agency’s planned update to the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). This update would enhance the program’s ability to recommend to motor vehicle consumers various vehicle models that contain rearview video systems that would substantially enhance the driver’s ability to avoid backover crashes. For many years, NCAP has provided comparative information on the safety of new vehicles to assist consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions. NCAP was most recently upgraded for model year 2011 to include recommended crash avoidance technologies. Including this information in NCAP not only allows consumers to better determine which vehicle models have advanced crash avoidance safety features but also which of these advanced features are best able to help them avoid crashes. DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them no later than July 26, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be submitted by one of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. • Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http:// www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Markus Price, Office of Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: 202–366–1810, Facsimile: 202–366–5930, NVS–121. For NCAP logistics: Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: 202–366–1810, Facsimile: 202–366–5930, NVS–120. The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document requests comment on the agency’s plan to upgrade the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include recommendations to motor vehicle consumers on vehicle models that contain rearview video systems that can substantially enhance the driver’s ability to avoid a backover crash. The plan substitutes the rearview video systems for electronic stability control (ESC) as a recommended crash avoidance technology on www.safercar.gov. As ESC is now required equipment on vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, the agency believes that it is no longer necessary to include ESC as a recommended technology to consumers. NCAP provides comparative information on the safety performance and features of new vehicles to assist consumers with their vehicle purchasing decisions. The program was most recently upgraded for model year 2011 to include (among other changes) recommended crash avoidance technologies. By including rearview video systems as a E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS recommended technology in NCAP, the agency believes that it can help educate consumers on the important safety benefits of these systems and support the provision of this important safety technology to the American public before the effective date (for all vehicles 1) of any final rule resulting from the agency’s current rulemaking to amend the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 111.2 Planned Upgrade to NCAP Is Separate From the Rulemaking To Amend FMVSS No. 111 Pursuant to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (‘‘K.T. Safety Act’’),3 the agency is conducting a rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 111.4 The agency would like to emphasize that any change to NCAP to encourage the installation of rearview video systems to assist drivers in avoiding backover crashes is separate from the agency’s consideration of appropriate amendments to FMVSS No. 111. Any update to NCAP as a result of this request for comment is not a resolution to the rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 111, it does not replace the agency’s efforts in that area, nor is it an alternative to completing the rulemaking process to amend FMVSS No. 111. However, the agency believes that it is appropriate to conduct this separate action to consider incorporating rearview video systems into NCAP. The agency believes that there will be significant advantages in incorporating rearview video systems into NCAP at this point in time. In doing so, the agency believes that consumers will receive important information regarding the safety risks associated with backovers and the available vehicle models with an effective countermeasure that can assist the driver in avoiding backover crashes. As an added benefit, the agency believes that including rearview video systems in NCAP will afford manufacturers recognition for designing and installing these systems that can help drivers avoid backover crashes and incentivize further installation of these systems. By adding rearview video systems into NCAP at this time, the agency believes that the aforementioned advantages can be realized not only prior to the 1 The proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111 covers all vehicles (except motorcycles and trailers) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. See 75 FR 76185. 2 The current proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111 included a phase-in period covering three model years. See 75 FR 76185, 76188. 3 Public Law 110–189, Feb. 28, 2008. 4 See generally Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0162. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 229001 promulgation of a final rule to amend FMVSS No. 111 but also during any phase-in period following the final rule’s promulgation. Rearview Video Systems as a ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Feature’’ Beyond issuing star ratings based on the crashworthiness of vehicle models, NCAP currently already offers additional information to consumers regarding ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Features’’ through its Web site (www.safercar.gov). For each vehicle make/model, the Web site currently shows (in addition to a list of safety features) the model’s five-star crashworthiness ratings and whether the vehicle model is equipped with any of three advanced crash avoidance safety technologies that NHTSA currently recommends to consumers.5 The agency selected three advanced crash avoidance technologies to recommend to consumers starting in model year 2011 because those technologies (1) address a major crash problem, (2) have information to project their potential safety benefit, and (3) are able to be tested by available performance tests and procedures that can ensure an acceptable level of performance.6 At this point, the agency believes it is appropriate to include rearview video systems as opposed to ESC as a recommended crash avoidance technology on www.safercar.gov. While NCAP recommended ESC to consumers before ESC became required equipment on vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 126 now requires ESC on all of those vehicles.7 For that reason, there is no reason to continue ESC as a ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Feature’’ in NCAP. Having considered the available information on rearview video systems, the agency believes that such systems that provide drivers visual access to the area directly behind their vehicles that are associated with the highest crash risk meet the aforementioned criteria for incorporation into NCAP. In other words, rearview video systems address a major safety problem (backover crashes), the available information strongly indicates that they are effective in assisting drivers at avoiding backover crashes, and performance/test criteria are available to ensure that such systems perform adequately to address the backover safety problem. 5 The three technologies currently recommended to consumers on www.safercar.gov are: lane departure warning, forward collision warning, and electronic stability control. 6 See 73 FR 40016, 40033. 7 See 49 CFR Part 571.126, S8.4. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 38267 As evidenced by the decision by Congress to pass the K.T. Safety Act, backover crashes constitute a major safety problem. Backover crashes cause a significant number of fatalities and injuries each year because drivers cannot see the area behind the vehicle where pedestrians can be located. The currently available information indicates that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less alone are involved in approximately 202 fatalities and 14,000 injuries per year.8 Further, the research summarized in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 indicates that rearview video systems (which afford drivers a view of the area behind the vehicle) are effective in helping drivers avoid a backover crash. Thus, the agency believes that backover crashes are a major safety problem that can be reduced through an increased proliferation of rearview video systems. As the available information indicates that such systems meet the agency’s criteria for incorporation into NCAP as a recommended advanced crash avoidance technology, the agency is issuing this document to request comment on this planned update to the program. The agency believes that, through NCAP, the agency can help educate motor vehicle consumers on the important safety benefits that can be realized through rearview video systems and help support the proliferation of this important safety technology. We note that the agency is currently also considering other updates to NCAP. On April 5, 2013, the agency published a request for comment in the Federal Register on a large variety of potential updates to NCAP (including various crash avoidance and crashworthiness technologies such as automatic collision notification systems, automatic braking systems, improved test dummies, testing for rear seat occupants, etc.).9 While each technology being considered by NHTSA is at a different state of development, the agency believes that the available information on rearview video systems is such that the agency can quickly implement the relevant changes to NCAP to begin offering 8 These figures differ from the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 because these figures have been updated with the latest information on the backover crash problem. As backover crashes often do not occur on public roads a large portion of the available information on this crash problem comes from the ‘‘Not-in-Traffic Surveillance’’ or ‘‘NiTS’’ system. At the time of the NPRM, only 1 year of NiTS data was available. However, the database was most recently updated in October 2012 with additional years of data. Combined with the information from other NHTSA databases, the agency now estimates the target population to be approximately 202 fatalities and 14,000 injuries per year. 9 See 78 FR 20597. E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1 38268 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules consumers important information about the backover safety problem and the available countermeasures. The agency believes that updating NCAP to include rearview video systems is an appropriate change that can be accomplished relatively quickly without any impact on the agency’s plans to implement additional technologies that are under consideration in the April, 2013 request for comment. TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS A Two-Phase Approach for Adding Rearview Video Systems to NCAP In order to accomplish the goals outlined above as quickly as possible, the agency plans to use a two-phase approach to incorporate this change into NCAP. As described above, the agency provides information for each vehicle model on www.safercar.gov concerning the vehicle’s five-star crashworthiness ratings, stating whether the vehicle model has a ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Feature,’’ and listing the major safety features available on the vehicle model. By leveraging these different sections of the Web site, the agency believes it can quickly inform consumers of the availability of this important safety technology through the following two phases. • Phase 1: The agency would immediately begin to list rearview video systems in the ‘‘safety feature’’ section for each vehicle model on www.safercar.gov that has this safety feature available. • Phase 2: As soon as the agency is able to verify that the vehicle model has a rearview video system meeting certain basic criteria (as further discussed below) the agency would recognize those vehicle models as having a ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Feature’’ on the www.safercar.gov Web site. The agency believes that this twophase approach minimizes the amount of time that is needed for the agency to begin providing information in the short term. At the same time, the agency believes that this approach would maximize the usefulness of the information available to consumers in the long run. In order to recommend rearview video systems as a technology to consumers that can help drivers avoid backover crashes, the agency would establish certain basic criteria that these rearview video systems installed in participating vehicle models must meet. Thus, under this approach, the agency would be able to begin providing information to consumers quickly under Phase 1 and follow up VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 229001 with additional information in Phase 2.10 We note that the advanced crash avoidance technologies that are currently recommended by NHTSA through NCAP (as ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Features’’) are shown on www.safercar.gov and not included on the Monroney label.11 Our plan to update NCAP to adopt rearview video systems as a recommended technology feature is, at least initially, likewise to show the technology on that Web site and not on the vehicle’s Monroney label. We are considering whether to incorporate additional advanced crash avoidance technologies into NCAP. When we have determined which additional technologies will be incorporated, we will consider whether we should initiate a rulemaking to determine whether and how the incorporated advanced technologies should be included on the Monroney label. Basic Criteria for Recognizing a Model as Having a Recommended Rearview Video System In order to recommend rearview video systems to the motor vehicle consumer, the agency would need to ensure that such systems are designed to address the backover safety problem (and not merely designed as a convenience feature aimed at assisting drivers in parking maneuvers). The agency believes that, due to the nature of NCAP as a consumer information program, the agency needs to ensure that the criteria for recommending a rearview video system to consumers appropriately distinguishes systems designed to assist drivers in avoiding backover crashes and does not misrepresent the capabilities of systems designed to assist drivers conducting parking maneuvers. Towards this end, the agency believes that three basic criteria are necessary. To be designed for the purpose addressing the backover safety problem, the agency believes that the rearview video system (at a minimum) needs to: 10 While the agency believes that this two-phase approach can bring information regarding these systems to the consumers as soon as possible, the agency’s planned approach would not require the completion of phase 1 before phase 2. In other words, if the agency is able to verify that the rearview video system installed on a vehicle model meets the aforementioned basic requirements the agency could list that vehicle model as having a ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Feature’’ immediately. 11 The Monroney label is a label that is required to be affixed on a motor vehicle prior to the delivery of the vehicle to a dealer. See 15 U.S.C. 1232. This label is required to show certain safety ratings from NCAP. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (1) Show a visual image of a minimum area behind the vehicle that is associated with the greatest crash risk, (2) Show this area at a sufficient size so as to enable the driver to make judgments about the objects behind the vehicle, and (3) Show this area quickly enough to provide the driver with the relevant information before he/she begins the backing maneuver. Thus, for purposes of incorporating rearview video systems into NCAP as a recommended technology, the agency would (in Phase 2) recommend to consumers vehicle models with rearview video systems that meet field of view, image size, and response time 12 criteria that were proposed in the agency’s NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111. We believe that adopting these criteria from the FMVSS No. 111 NPRM appropriately ensures that the systems recommended by NCAP will be designed for the purpose of avoiding backover crashes. Further, these criteria from the FMVSS No. 111 NPRM have been developed for the purpose of providing an objective method for determining whether a rearview video system can address the safety problem. Finally, the agency believes that these three criteria strike an appropriate balance between the agency’s interest in recommending to consumers vehicles with systems that are designed to address a major safety problem (as opposed to assisting drivers in conducting parking maneuvers) and the agency’s interest in avoiding the establishment of too many criteria that may discourage manufacturer participation in this aspect of NCAP. Field of View and Image Size The field of view and image size requirements from the FMVSS No. 111 NPRM are designed to ensure that rearview video systems afford drivers visual access to a 20-foot by 10-foot zone directly behind the vehicle. They further ensure that the image displayed to the driver is large enough to enable the driver to make judgments about the objects in the image and avoid a crash with those objects. The agency believes that these criteria apply to the most basic functions that the rearview video system needs to perform in order to address the backover safety problem. As discussed in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111, we believe that the field of view criterion for a 20-foot by 10-foot zone 13 directly behind the 12 As discussed below, NCAP would specify a test procedure to evaluate the response time criterion proposed in the NPRM. 13 The NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 proposed testing the field of view requirement by placing 7 E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules vehicle covers the areas behind the vehicle that are associated with the greatest backover crash risk.14 Further, the available research indicates that the image size criterion (that the test objects contained in the rearview image subtend to a visual angle of at least 5 minutes of arc 15) will help ensure that drivers are able to make judgments about the objects contained in the rearview image.16 By including these two criteria in our assessment of whether a particular vehicle model’s rearview video system is listed as a ‘‘Recommended Advanced Technology Feature,’’ the agency believes that rearview video systems that are recommended to consumers will be designed to reasonably assist drivers in avoiding backover crashes. The agency plans to utilize the test procedures proposed in the NPRM to evaluate conformity with these criteria for the purposes of NCAP.17 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Response Time In addition, the response time requirement from the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 is designed to ensure that the rearview image (meeting the criteria above) is shown to the driver in a timely fashion. The agency believes that this requirement is especially important because, regardless of the quality of the image shown to the driver, if the image is not shown before a driver begins a backing maneuver, then it is unlikely that the rearview video system will be able to assist the driver in test objects along the perimeter of the 20-foot by 10foot zone behind the vehicle. See 75 FR 76186, 76244. The first row of test objects is place 1 foot behind the vehicle bumper, the second row is placed 10 feet behind the vehicle bumper, and the last row is placed 20 feet behind the vehicle bumper. The proposal required the entirety of each test object in the second and third rows to be visible in the rearview image and a minimum 150-mm wide portion of first row of objects be visible in order to accommodate the large variety of vehicles that have a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. We plan to adopt this same testing methodology to assess conformity with the NCAP rearview video system criteria. 14 See 75 FR 76186, 76227. 15 The NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 proposed two requirements relating to image size. See id. First the horizontal width of the 3 test objects in the last row along the 20-foot by 10-foot zone subtend to an average visual angle of 5 minutes of arc. Second, for each of those test objects, the subtended angle must not subtend to any angle less than 3 minutes of arc. We plan to continue to use this approach in evaluating conformity with the NCAP rearview video system criteria. 16 The available research cited in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 states that a driver can make judgments about an object if the object is shown at a subtended angle of 5 minutes of arc. See 75 FR 76186, 76229. 17 The agency plans to utilize the test procedure described in S14.1 of the proposed regulatory text in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111. See 75 FR 76186, 76246. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:30 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 229001 avoiding a backover crash. Thus, we plan to adopt the 2.0 second response time requirement from the proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111 as a criterion for rearview video systems in NCAP.18 As in the proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111, the agency plans to evaluate conformity with this criterion based on the time that the vehicle is shifted into reverse. In other words, the NCAP criterion would state that the rearview image must be displayed within 2.0 seconds after the vehicle transmission is shifted into reverse. As the agency explained in the FMVSS No. 111 NPRM, we believe the 2.0-second limit is appropriate given the amount of time necessary for rearview video systems to conduct the necessary system checks and the activation times that are achievable by liquid crystal displays.19 However, in response to the proposal, the agency received various comments from vehicle manufacturers stating that (depending on the initialization process of the vehicle tested) the response time of the rearview image can be delayed significantly if the vehicle is shifted into reverse immediately after starting the engine. The manufacturers further suggested that the agency adopt a vehicle initialization test procedure to condition the vehicle prior to testing for the 2.0-second response time. The agency recognizes that, for assessing conformity with the NCAP criteria, it is important to establish the state of the vehicle prior to testing for response time. Thus, in order to address the manufacturers’ concerns, we plan to include the following vehicle conditioning procedure when assessing conformity with the NCAP response time criterion. Image response time test procedure. The temperature inside the vehicle during this test is any temperature between 15°C and 25°C. Immediately prior to commencing the actions listed in subparagraphs (a)–(c) of this paragraph, all components of the rearview video system are in a powered off state. Then: (a) open the driver’s door, (b) activate the starting system using the key,20 and (c) place the vehicle in reverse at any time not less than 4 seconds after the driver’s door is opened. Immediately after the vehicle is conditioned in accordance with the above procedure, the agency would select the reverse gear in the vehicle and measure the 2.0-second response time. We believe that this conditioning 18 See 75 FR 76186, 76245. 75 FR 76186, 76230. 20 The terms ‘‘starting system’’ and ‘‘key’’ have the same meanings that these terms have in FMVSS No. 114. See 49 CFR Part 571.114. 19 See PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 38269 procedure will provide additional certainty to manufacturers regarding the conditions under which the agency would assess conformity with the NCAP 2.0-second response time criterion. Further we believe that this method will still ensure that the rearview image is available to the driver at a time that is appropriate for a driver relying on it to avoid a backover crash. Our naturalistic driving data 21 indicate that approximately 90% of the time drivers do not select the reverse gear to begin the backing maneuver less than 4.25 seconds after opening the vehicle’s door. In other words, only approximately 10% of the time drivers enter their vehicle and select the reverse gear in less than 4.25 seconds. Thus, we believe that the vehicle conditioning procedure shown above reasonably approximates the real world conditions under which drivers would use these systems and that a vehicle conforming to the 2.0 second criteria under those test conditions would have the rearview image available for the driver in a timely fashion. Public Participation On what topics is the agency requesting comments? This document requests comments on the agency’s plan to incorporate rearview video systems into NCAP. However, this document is not intended to solicit comments concerning our proposed rule to amend FMVSS No. 111. The comment period on that proposed rule closed on April 18, 2011. How do I prepare and submit comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. 21 These data are information NHTSA prepared in support of the research report titled ‘‘On-Road Study of Drivers’ Use of Rearview Video Systems.’’ See Mazzae, E. N., et al. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers’ Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 811 024. A summary of these naturalistic driving data prepared for that study (as it pertains to the length of time drivers take to select the reverse gear) is available in Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0162–0227. E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1 38270 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. How do I submit confidential business information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand delivery), from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the docket by one of the methods given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA’s confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512). TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Will the agency consider late comments? NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments received after that date. How can I read the comments submitted by other people? You may read the comments received at the address given above under Comments. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov. Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new material. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:23 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 229001 name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit http:// www.dot.gov/privacy.html. Issued in Washington, DC, on: June 19, 2013 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95. Christopher J. Bonanti, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2013–15208 Filed 6–21–13; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 130501429–3429–01] RIN 0648–XC659 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule To Revise the Code of Federal Regulations for Species Under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: We, NMFS, announce proposed revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to clarify and update the descriptions of species under NMFS’ jurisdiction that are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Revisions include format changes to our lists of threatened and endangered species, revisions to regulatory language explaining our lists, updates to the descriptions of certain listed West Coast salmonid species to add or remove hatchery stocks consistent with our recently completed five-year reviews under ESA section 4(c)(2), and corrections to regulatory text to fix inadvertent errors from previous rulemakings and update crossreferences. We do not propose to add or remove any species to or from our lists, change the status of any listed species, or add or revise any critical habitat designation. SUMMARY: Comments and information regarding the proposed revisions must be received (See ADDRESSES) no later DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 than 5 p.m. Pacific Time on August 26, 2013. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by the code NOAA–NMFS–2013–0100 by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20130100, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. • Mail: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this notice contact Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (301) 427–8403; for information on the 5-year status reviews of Pacific salmonids, contact Steve Stone, NMFS, Northwest Region (503) 231–2317. Copies of the 5-year status reviews can be found on our Web sites at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/listing/ reviews.htm and http:// www.nwr.noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4 of the ESA provides for both NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to make determinations as to the endangered or threatened status of ‘‘species’’ in response to petitions or on their own initiative. In accordance with the ESA, we (NMFS) make determinations as to the threatened or endangered status of species by regulation. These regulations provide the text for each species listing and include the content required by the ESA Section 4(c)(1). We enumerate and maintain a list of species under our jurisdiction which we have determined to be threatened or endangered at 50 E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1

Agencies

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


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0076]


New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be 
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting 
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the 
Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.
     Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). For access to the docket 
to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the 
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

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

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

[[Page 38267]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 38268]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Field of View and Image Size

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

[[Page 38269]]

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

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

Response Time

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

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

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

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

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

    (c) place the vehicle in reverse at any time not less than 4 
seconds after the driver's door is opened.

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

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

Public Participation

On what topics is the agency requesting comments?

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

How do I prepare and submit comments?

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

[[Page 38270]]

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

Will the agency consider late comments?

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

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received at the address given above under 
Comments. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same 
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by 
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new 
material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.


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

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