[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31024-31025]
[DOCID:fr30my08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0134; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-3]

Revision of Class E Airspace; St. Mary's, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at St. Mary's, AK, to
provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). Two new SIAPs are
being developed for the St. Mary's Airport. Additionally, four SIAPs
are being amended. This action revises existing Class E airspace upward
from the surface and from 700 feet (ft.) above the surface at St.
Mary's Airport, St. Mary's, AK.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 31, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Tuesday, February 19, 2008, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class E
airspace upward from 700 ft. above the surface and from 1,200 ft. above
the surface at St. Mary's, AK (73 FR 9063). The Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking's airspace description included discussion of 1,200 ft.
airspace, which is unnecessary in this action. Additionally, the
airport coordinates are updated in this action to reflect the most
recent airport survey. The action was proposed in order to create Class
E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft while executing SIAPs
for the St. Mary's Airport. Class E controlled airspace extending
upward from the surface and from 700 ft. above the surface in the St.
Mary's Airport area is revised by this action.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed.
    The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as surface
areas are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and
effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft.
transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and
effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the
St. Mary's Airport, AK. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate
aircraft executing new and amended SIAPs, and will be depicted on
aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this
rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at the St. Mary's Airport, St. Mary's, Alaska.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and Use of
Airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the St. Mary's Airport and
represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use
the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

AAL AK E2 St. Mary's, AK [Revised]

St. Mary's Airport, AK
    (Lat. 62[deg]03'39'' N., long. 163[deg]18'07'' W.)

    Within a 6.7-mile radius of the St. Mary's Airport, and within 4
miles either side of the 202[deg] bearing from the St. Mary's
Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10 miles south of the
St. Mary's Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective

date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 St. Mary's, AK [Revised]

St. Mary's, St. Mary's Airport, AK
    (Lat. 62[deg]03'39'' N., long. 163[deg]18'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 8.7-mile radius of the St. Mary's Airport, and within 4
miles east and 8 miles west of the 202[deg] bearing from the St.
Mary's Airport, extending from the 8.7-mile radius to 16 miles south
of the St. Mary's Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on May 16, 2008.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E8-11982 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67355-67356]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP13-11-000.
    Applicants: Peoples TWP LLC.
    Description: Application for Limited Jurisidiction Blanket
Certificate of Peoples TWP LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-0003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-243-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: PFSA Cleanup to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-244-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: PFSA Clean Up to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-245-000.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: PFSA Cleanup to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-246-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: PFSA Cleanup Filing to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-247-000.
    Applicants: ANR Storage Company.
    Description: J. Aron FS Agmt to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-248-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: PFSA Cleanup to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-249-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Nexen--Integrys Agmts to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-250-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Brooklyn Union Gas Company Releases November 2012
Ramapo to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-252-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Comp.
    Description: CEGT LLC--Neg Rate Filing--November 2012 to be
effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-253-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Ameren Illinois Rate Change to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-254-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Service Agmts No. 5582, 135770 to be
effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-255-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Non-Conforming Contracts to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-256-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits Operational Purchases and
Sales Report for the twelve month period ended August 31, 2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-257-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Fuel Retention Adjustment to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-258-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: November 6-15 2012 Auction to be effective 11/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/2/12.
    Accession Number: 20121102-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-259-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: BP Energy--Exploration to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/2/12.
    Accession Number: 20121102-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-610-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: South Jersey Compliance Filing--Inservice.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-218-001.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: BG Negotiated Rate Filing Amendment to be effective
11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/1/12.
    Accession Number: 20121101-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/13/12.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: November 5, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27386 Filed 11-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58891]
[DOCID:fr05oc06-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54544 / File No. S7-12-01]

Order Extending Temporary Exemption of Banks, Savings
Associations, and Savings Banks From the Definition of ``Broker'' Under
Section 3(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

September 29, 2006.

I. Background

    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (``GLBA'') repealed the blanket
exception of banks from the definitions of ``broker'' and ``dealer''
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and
replaced it with functional exceptions incorporated in amended
definitions of ``broker'' and ``dealer.'' Under the GLBA, banks that
engage in securities activities either must conduct those activities
through a registered broker-dealer or ensure that their securities
activities fit within the terms of a functional exception to the
amended definitions of ``broker'' and ``dealer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As defined in Exchange Act Sections 3(a)(4) and 3(a)(5) [15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(4) and 78c(a)(5)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GLBA provided that the amended definitions of ``broker'' and
``dealer'' were to become effective May 12, 2001. On May 11, 2001, the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') issued interim
final rules (``Interim Rules'') to define certain terms used in, and
grant additional exemptions from, the amended definitions of ``broker''
and ``dealer.'' \2\ Among other things, the Interim Rules extended the
exceptions and exemptions granted to banks under the GLBA and Interim
Rules to savings associations and savings banks. These Rules also
included a temporary exemption that gave banks time to come into full
compliance with the more narrowly-tailored exceptions from broker-
dealer registration.\3\ To further accommodate the banking industry's
continuing compliance concerns, the Commission delayed the effective
date of the bank ``broker'' and ``dealer'' rules through a series of
orders that, among other things, ultimately extended the temporary
exemption from the definition of ``broker'' to September 30, 2006.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Definition of Terms in and Specific Exemptions for
Banks, Savings Associations, and Savings Banks Under Sections
3(a)(4) and 3(a)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange
Act Release No. 44291 (May 11, 2001), 66 FR 27760 (May 18, 2001).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.15a-7.
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 44570 (July 18, 2001); Exchange
Act Release No. 45897 (May 8, 2002); Exchange Act Release No. 46751
(Oct. 30, 2002); Exchange Act Release No. 47649 (April 8, 2003);
Exchange Act Release No. 50618 (Nov. 1, 2004); Exchange Act Release
No. 51328 (March 8, 2005); and Exchange Act Release No. 52405 (Sept.
9, 2005) (extending the exemption from the definition of ``broker''
until September 30, 2006). During this time, the Commission also
extended the temporary exemption from the definition of ``dealer''
to September 30, 2003. See Exchange Act Release No. 47366 (Feb. 13,
2003). On February 13, 2003, the Commission adopted amendments to
certain parts of the Interim Rules that define terms used in the
dealer exceptions, as well as certain dealer exemptions (``Dealer
Release''), see Exchange Act Release No. 47364 (Feb. 13, 2003), 68
FR 8686 (Feb. 24, 2003). Therefore, this order is limited to an
extension of the temporary exemption from the definition of
``broker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In previous extension orders, the Commission acknowledged ``that
banks may need as much as a year to develop compliance systems to adapt
to the GLBA in light of amended Rules. The Commission does not expect
banks to develop compliance systems for the provisions of the GLBA
discussed in the Rules until the Commission has amended the Rules.''
\5\ Consistent with those statements, when the Commission proposed
Regulation B in June 2004, to replace the Interim Rules, the Commission
also proposed a one-year delay in the Regulation's effective date.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Order Extending Temporary Exemption of Banks,
Savings Associations, and Savings Banks from the Definitions of
``Broker'' and ``Dealer'' under Sections 3(a)(4) and 3(a)(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Notice of Intent to Amend Rules,
Exchange Act Release No. 45897 (May 8, 2002), http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/34-45897.htm
.

    \6\ Exchange Act Release No. 49879 (June 17, 2004), 69 FR 39682
(June 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the comment period for Regulation B expired on September
1, 2004,\7\ the Commission has continued to receive comments. To date,
the Commission has received over 120 comments on the proposal,
including comments from the banking industry, banking regulators, and
members of Congress. The Commission has reviewed these comments and has
had further discussions with several commenters, including the federal
banking regulators.

II. Extension of Temporary Exemption From Definition of ``Broker''

    The Commission is carefully considering comments to determine what
final action should be taken with regard to the Regulation B proposal.
The Commission anticipates that this review process will not be
completed before the exemption from the Interim Rules relating to the
definition of ``broker'' expires on September 30, 2006.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 50056 (July 22, 2004) 69 FR
44988 (July 28, 2004) (extending comment period on Regulation B
until September 1, 2004).
    \8\ In the Interim Rules, the Commission adopted Exchange Act
Rule 15a-7, 17 CFR 240.15a-7, which, as proposed to be amended,
would provide banks and other financial institutions until January
1, 2006, to begin complying with the GLBA. In proposing Regulation
B, the Commission proposed Rule 781 as a re-designation of Rule 15a-
7. See 17 CFR 242.781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that extending the temporary
exemption for banks, savings associations, and savings banks from the
definition of ``broker'' is necessary and appropriate in the public
interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors. The
Commission believes that extending the exemption from the definition of
``broker'' until January 15, 2007, will prevent banks and other
financial institutions from unnecessarily incurring costs to comply
with the statutory scheme based on the current Interim Rules and will
give the Commission time to consider fully comments received on
Regulation B and take any final action on the proposal as necessary,
including consideration of any modification necessary to the proposed
compliance date.

III. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act,\9\
    It is hereby ordered that banks, savings associations, and savings
banks are exempt from the definition of the term ``broker'' under the
Exchange Act until January 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16443 Filed 10-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61058-61060]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0671; Project Identifier 2019-SW-036-AD; Amendment
39-21768; AD 2021-21-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This AD was
prompted by a report of damage (burns) on the tail rotor blades (TRBs).
This AD requires an inspection of each TRB for the general condition
and any evidence of burns and replacement if necessary, as specified in
a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 10, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0671.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0671; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacob Fitch, Aerospace Engineer, COS
Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0073, dated March 28, 2019
(EASA AD 2019-0073) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Leonardo S.p.a.
Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 18, 2021 (86 FR 46162). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of damage (burns) on the TRBs. The NPRM proposed to require an
inspection of each TRB for the general condition and any evidence of
burns and replacement if necessary, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage (burns) on the TRBs.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of a TRB,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. See the MCAI
for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the

public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except
for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0073 requires an inspection of each TRB for the
general condition and any evidence of burns and replacement if
necessary. This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, affects 138 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............................  3 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $255         $35,190
                                         hour = $255 (4 blades).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                  Labor cost                Parts cost                 Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement (per blade)........  2 work-hours x $85  $57,500 per blade............  $57,670 per blade.
                                  per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-21-08 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21768; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0671; Project Identifier 2019-SW-036-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 10,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0073, dated March 28,
2019 (EASA AD 2019-0073).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Codes: 3097, Ice/Rain
Protection System Wiring; 6410, Tail Rotor Blades.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of damage (burns) on the tail
rotor blades (TRBs). The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage
(burns) on the TRBs. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in loss of a TRB, possibly resulting in reduced control of
the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0073.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0073

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0073 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.

    (2) Where EASA AD 2019-0073 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where the service information required by EASA AD 2019-0073
specifies returning a part to the manufacturer, this AD does not
include that requirement.
    (4) This AD does not require the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2019-0073.
    (5) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0073 specifies to
replace if there are burn signs or other damage, for this AD, other
damage is defined as being consistent with wire overheat (e.g.,
possible melted or exposed wires).

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0073
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are not allowed.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jacob Fitch,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0073,
dated March 28, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2019-0073, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; Internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0671.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 7, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-24153 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20597-20604]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0180]

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides
comparative information on the safety of new vehicles to assist
consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions and encourage motor vehicle
manufacturers to make safety improvements. To maintain the relevance
and effectiveness of NCAP, NHTSA has periodically updated the program,
most recently in model year 2011.
    In response to the rapid development of vehicle safety
technologies, especially in the area of crash avoidance, the agency is
once again requesting public comments in order to help identify the
potential areas for improvement to the program that have the greatest
potential for producing safety benefits. This notice lists and
describes potential areas of study for improving NCAP. The agency will
use the comments it receives to aid it in developing a notice proposing
near term upgrades to NCAP. The agency will also use the comments
received in response to this notice to help it in developing a draft 5-
year plan for the NCAP program outlining research that the agency plans
to conduct as well as longer term upgrades it intends to pursue making
to NCAP.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them no later than July 5, 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 crashworthiness issues, you may
contact Ms. Jennifer N. Dang, Division Chief, New Car Assessment
Program, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
For crash avoidance and advanced technology issues, you may contact,
Mr. Clarke Harper, Crash Avoidance NCAP Coordinator (Telephone: 202-
366-1810). For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Steve Wood, Office of
Chief Counsel (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to any of
these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NVS-100, West Building, Washington, DC
20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Comments Requested
IV. Subject Areas Under Consideration for Possible Inclusion or
Refinement
    a. Crash Avoidance and Post-Crash Technology Areas Under
Consideration
    i. Warning Technologies
    1. Blind Spot Detection
    2. Advanced Lighting
    ii. Intervention Technologies
    1. Lane Departure Prevention
    2. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
    3. Automatic Pedestrian Detection and Braking (Frontal and
Rearward)
    iii. Crash Notification Technologies
    b. Crashworthiness Areas Under Consideration
    i. Rear Seat Occupants
    ii. Silver Car Rating System for Older Occupants
    iii. Pedestrian Protection

    iv. Improved Test Dummies and Injury Criteria
    1. New Test Dummies: WorldSID, THOR, Hybrid III 95th Percentile
Male
    2. New Injury Criteria: BRIC, SID-IIs Thoracic and Abdomen,
Lower Leg
    3. Refined Injury Criteria: Nij
    v. New Test Protocols for Electric Vehicles
    vi. Other Strategies
    1. Comparative Barrier Testing for Frontal Rating
    2. Advanced Child Dummies, Family Star Rating
    c. Potential Changes to the Rating System
    i. Adjustment of Baseline Injury Risk
    ii. Update of the Rollover Risk Curve
    iii. Carry Back Ratings
V. Ideas Under Consideration for Providing Better Consumer
Information
    a. Focus Group Testing on Advanced Technologies
    b. Comprehensive Consumer Research on the Monroney Label
    c. Vehicle-CRS Fit Program
    d. Child Seat Ease of Use Rating Program Upgrade
VI. Public Participation

I. Executive Summary

    The NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides vehicle
safety information that enables consumers to compare the safety
performance and features of new vehicles. This helps consumers in
making their new vehicle purchasing decisions and encourages
manufacturers to improve the safety aspects of existing vehicle designs
and include new or better safety technologies in future vehicle
designs. As recently as the 2011 model year (MY), NHTSA upgraded NCAP
to increase the stringency of the criteria that must be met to achieve
high safety ratings and to provide consumers with more vehicle safety
information. These program enhancements created additional market
forces to improve vehicle safety. In recognition that technology and
manufacturers will catch up with the safety performance criteria in
even the enhanced version of NCAP, the agency seeks to take additional
steps to encourage even more vehicle safety improvements.
    This notice discusses the various subject areas on which NHTSA is
seeking comments and information with respect to their future potential
as an enhancement to NCAP. Some of the areas are supported by current
research; others, if pursued, would require time and additional work by
the agency. The agency seeks information and public comment about each
area. Additionally, we seek suggestions regarding other program
improvements not listed in this notice. We are seeking this information
to help us plan future enhancements to the NCAP program that will
create additional incentives for manufacturers to continually improve
vehicle safety. We request information on such matters as safety
benefits, field experience, test procedures, and progress in the
development of crash avoidance technologies as well as crashworthiness
activities. All of this information will be helpful in guiding us to
develop future plans for NCAP improvements. At that time, we will again
seek additional public comment.
    The agency presents each area of interest in very brief and simple
form (without going into details about benefits, tests, costs, or
design concerns) in order to begin the process of identifying and
prioritizing the potential areas for improving NCAP. The subjects
discussed are also not listed in any particular priority order, nor
should the list be construed as a final list of items for
consideration. The agency welcomes comments on areas that are not
listed in this notice, but are areas that commenters believe we should
consider for future study and inclusion into NCAP.
    This notice is the first step in a multi-step process of planning
the next improvements to NCAP. After we receive comments, we will
evaluate the status of all areas listed in this notice, plus any new
areas that were provided by public comments. We will then use this
information to develop a draft research plan and future proposals.
Specifically, we plan to publish in the Federal Register a draft 5-year
plan that may also include a draft proposal for near term upgrades to
the NCAP program. This will be followed by a final 5-year plan and
final decision notice on the near term upgrades, if appropriate.

II. Background

    The NHTSA's NCAP provides comparative information on the safety
performance and features of new vehicles to assist consumers with their
vehicle purchasing decisions, to encourage manufacturers to improve the
current safety performance and features of new vehicles, and to
stimulate the addition of new safety features. NHTSA established NCAP
in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act of 1972. Beginning in MY 1979, NHTSA began rating
passenger vehicles for frontal impact safety based on injury readings
from dummies during crash tests. The agency added crash tests and
ratings for side impact safety beginning in MY 1997. A rating system
for rollover resistance was added in MY 2001 based on a vehicle's
measured static properties as reflected in a calculation known as the
Static Stability Factor (SSF). Beginning in MY 2004, rollover
resistance ratings were amended to present the rating, based on not
only the SSF but also the results of a dynamic vehicle test.
    On January 25, 2007, NHTSA published a Federal Register notice
announcing a public hearing and requesting comments on an agency report
titled, ``The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Suggested Approaches
for Future Enhancements.'' \1\ Following the receipt of written
comments and testimony at a March 7, 2007 public hearing, NHTSA
published a notice on July 11, 2008, announcing specific changes to
NCAP.\2\ The agency made frontal and side crash ratings criteria more
stringent by upgrading test dummies, establishing new injury criteria,
adding a new side pole crash test, and creating a single overall
vehicle score that reflects a vehicle's combined frontal crash, side
crash, and rollover ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 72 FR 3473 (January 25, 2007) (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-
0006).
    \2\ 73 FR 40016 (July 11, 2008) (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555-
0114).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the agency added information about the presence of
advanced crash avoidance technologies in vehicles to NCAP. Technologies
shown to have a safety benefit and that meet NHTSA's performance
criteria are recommended to consumers on www.safercar.gov where all
NCAP ratings are posted. The agency implemented these NCAP enhancements
beginning with MY 2011.
    At the time of these upgrades, various technologies began to
develop in the field of automotive safety, some of which have become
concurrent programs that may affect the same target crashes as advanced
crash avoidance technologies. For example, researchers are making
progress on two approaches to detecting and avoiding various potential
crashes that may result in long-term crash and injury reductions:
vehicle-to-vehicle communications (V2V) and advanced vehicle automation
that may lead to various forms of self-driving vehicles. At this time,
it is too soon to know how quickly these various advances in crash
avoidance will develop and whether they will complement each other or
progress independently. If either or both of these streams of
innovation come to fruition, they could complement each other and
increase the crash avoidance potential. NHTSA will decide in 2013 what
its next steps will be with regard to light vehicle V2V technology. The
agency is also monitoring closely developments that could lead to self-
driving cars. So,

the agency has been carefully monitoring the progress of research
programs that are on the horizon.
    Motor vehicle manufacturers have made improvements to existing
safety technologies since the notice upgrading the NCAP program was
published in 2008. Since that time, new areas of innovation have
emerged. Some of these technological innovations in vehicle safety have
the potential to offer substantial safety benefits. The agency is
issuing this notice to solicit comment on which emerging safety
technologies offer the greatest promise in terms of agency research and
inclusion in NCAP. We are also soliciting feedback on possible ways for
NCAP to provide better consumer information. Our next steps are to use
information gathered from the public in response to this notice and
data from our research efforts to develop a draft 5-year plan and
potentially propose near-term enhancements to the program.

III. Comments Requested

    A brief summary of each of the safety and consumer information
program areas under consideration is provided in the next section. We
recognize that some of the following areas of study are better
positioned to yield enhancements into NCAP sooner than others. Thus,
depending on the amount of additional research that must be performed
for some of the following areas of studies, we note that some areas
could be considered for NCAP over the near term, and others would be
need to be revisited as the research progresses. If there are areas
that are not included in the list of areas from which enhancements to
the NCAP could be possible, please identify those areas in your
comments.
    In general, there are four prerequisites for considering an area
for adoption as a new NCAP enhancement. First, a safety need must be
known or be capable of being estimated based on what is known. Next,
vehicle and equipment designs must exist or at least be anticipated in
prototype designs that are capable of mitigating the safety need.
Third, a safety benefit must be estimated, based on the anticipated
performance of the existing or prototype design. Finally, it must be
feasible to develop a performance-based objective test procedure to
measure the ability of the vehicle technology to mitigate the safety
issue.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The agency's July 11, 2008 notice announcing enhancements to
NCAP discussed how the agency applied these three factors to
particular technologies when we decided to promote electronic
stability control (ESC), lane departure warning (LDW), and forward
collision warning (FCW) to consumers through NCAP. 73 FR 40016 (July
11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is a list of general questions that the agency requests
commenters to answer for each of the subject areas summarized in this
notice. Commenters are encouraged to use these questions as the basis
for shaping their comments on each of the areas. Information provided
by commenters will assist the agency in deciding which areas should be
included in the agency's draft 5-year plan or possibly proposed as one
of a number of near term enhancements to NCAP. The agency has the
following general questions for each area of study described in the
next section:
     Is there a safety benefit that could be obtained and that
can be demonstrated in the form of projected lives saved and/or
injuries prevented and crashes reduced?
     Are there objective test procedures or industry standards
that would measure performance differences?
     Are the relevant vehicle safety improvements or
technologies that would be encouraged sufficiently mature for mass
production (i.e., product repeatability and reliability)?
     Is there research to support incorporating the area into
NCAP?
    [cir] Can a test procedure be developed that would enable the
agency to comparatively rate the improvements or technologies
encouraged by a suggested improvement to NCAP?
    [cir] Are there data to support a robust estimate of the potential
safety benefits (in terms of crashes prevented and lives saved/injuries
prevented)?
     Would the suggested areas of study be ones for which NCAP
could create the market forces necessary to encourage the adoption of
particular vehicle safety improvements or technology?
    [cir] In what manner should the consumer information about the
suggested areas of study be presented so as to create the market forces
necessary to encourage the relevant safety improvements or
technologies?
     Would the potential change or addition to NCAP result in
consumers getting timely and meaningful information?
    We note that there are three areas on which the agency has already
separately sought public comment or is engaged in research: Crash
Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic Brake Support (DBS),\4\ the Vehicle-
Child Restraint System (CRS) Fit Program,\5\ and the Monroney label
consumer research. In the case of both CIB/DBS and the Vehicle-CRS Fit
Program, the agency has already separately sought comment, and the
deadline for the receipt of comments has passed. The agency is now
reviewing the comments. The agency is currently conducting consumer
research on the Monroney label. A Federal Register notice seeking
public comment on possible future changes to the Monroney label will be
published when that research is complete. Given these ongoing efforts,
the agency is not seeking through this notice to obtain additional
comments on these three areas. The agency urges commenters to address
areas other than the three areas mentioned above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 77 FR 39561 (July 3, 2012) (Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0057-
0002).
    \5\ 76 FR 10637 (February 25, 2011) (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-
00062-0001) and 76 FR 16472 (March 23, 2011) (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-
00062-0003) correcting comment period deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next two sections discuss potential areas of study for
improving safety and providing better consumer information.

IV. Subject Areas Under Consideration for Possible Inclusion or
Refinement

a. Crash Avoidance and Post-Crash Technology Areas Under Consideration

    In this section, the agency has included the advanced crash
avoidance or advanced driver assistance technologies that we believe
are the most common crash avoidance approaches being discussed today by
either the automotive industry or the agency. We have also included
post-crash technology.
i. Warning Technologies
1. Blind Spot Detection
    The agency has been studying blind spot detection (BSD)
technology.\6\ Blind spots are areas toward the rear and the side of
the vehicle that are not visible to the driver in any mirror or that
are not within the peripheral vision of the driver. BSD systems warn
drivers of the presence of vehicles that are in adjacent lanes, but
cannot be seen because those vehicles are in their vehicle's blind
spots. The usual circumstance in which warnings are provided is when a
driver is steering into an adjacent parallel lane and cannot see that
there is a moving vehicle, such as another car or a motorcycle, in that
lane moving at approximately the same speed and slightly behind the
driver's vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Swenson, et al., ``Safety Evaluation Of Lane Change
Collision Avoidance Systems Using The National Advanced Driving
Simulator,'' 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles, 2005, Paper 05-0249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Typically, radar sensors in a BSD system detect vehicles, including
motorcycles, in adjacent lanes. When a driver starts to make an
intentional or unintentional lane change, an alert is

activated to warn the driver of the presence of a vehicle or vehicles
that are in adjacent lanes and in the vehicle's side blind spot. The
driver is warned using audio, visual or haptic warnings. As currently
designed, BSD systems only warn the driver; they do not initiate
automatic evasive maneuvers.
    Blind spot detection systems are already being installed in some
vehicle models as optional equipment. These systems are not regulated,
nor are the warning systems standardized. The degree of sensitivity as
to when to warn the driver is at the discretion of each vehicle
manufacturer. We are not aware of any performance tests that exist for
this technology. If commenters suggest blind spot detection as an area
for incorporation in NCAP, the agency would be particularly interested
in comments regarding methods of comparatively evaluating BSD systems
(e.g., the detection reliability, the driver interface, etc.) and
estimation of safety benefits.
2. Advanced Lighting
    The subject of adding advanced frontal lighting to NCAP has been
discussed for almost a decade.\7\ Advanced frontal lighting can provide
enhanced nighttime visibility. For example, advanced headlights
currently available in production vehicles can aid drivers who are
turning their vehicles by swiveling and providing more light in the
direction in which the vehicle is turning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Summary Report of NHTSA's Forward Lighting Research
Program,'' DOT HS 811 007, July 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that some advanced lighting technologies in production in
other parts of the world are not currently permitted in the U.S. It is
not the intention of this notice to promote or solicit comments on
lighting systems that do not meet the current applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). However, comments are requested on
potential advanced frontal lighting systems that would meet FMVSS
No.108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.'' What
are the potential systems and are there data that quantify the
potential safety benefits?
ii. Intervention Technologies
1. Lane Departure Prevention
    Lane departure prevention, or automatic lane-keeping, builds upon
(or expands the safety potential of) lane departure warning systems by
providing steering and/or braking input to the vehicle to correct
unintentional drifting across lane markers. If commenters suggest lane
departure prevention as an area for incorporation in NCAP, the agency
would be particularly interested in comments regarding methods of
comparatively evaluating such systems. In addition, comments are
requested on the comparative benefits of lane departure systems that
automatically intervene versus systems that issue warnings only.
2. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
    The agency has been studying forward collision advanced braking
technologies that provide various types of automatic braking in
response to an impending crash. Such technologies show promise for
enhancing the safety of vehicles by helping drivers to avoid crashes or
by reducing the effects of crashes. Forward collision advanced braking
technologies, in particular Crash Imminent Braking (CIB) and Dynamic
Brake Support (DBS), are designed to address the most prevalent type of
two-vehicle collision: front-to-rear collisions.
    In a July 3, 2012 request for comments notice,\8\ NHTSA
preliminarily estimated the annual number of lives saved for DBS alone
would be 3 to 19 lives and CIB alone would be 38 to 63 lives, upon full
market penetration of these technologies.\9\ As indicated earlier,
today's notice is not asking for a repeat of comments submitted in
response to the July 3, 2012 notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 37951 (July 3, 2012) (Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0057-
0002).
    \9\ ``Forward Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research
Report,'' (Docket No. NHTSA 2012-0057-0001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Automatic Pedestrian Detection and Braking (Frontal and Rearward)
    Pedestrian detection and automatic braking are systems that are
aimed to avoid or minimize pedestrian impacts and injuries. Such
systems can provide both frontal and rearward pedestrian detection and
automatic braking. Systems are already in production for low speed
front and rear pedestrian impact prevention in some vehicle models.
    These technologies use sensing systems similar to that are used for
vehicle and lane marker detection. Different technologies are currently
being implemented and different test procedures are being developed
worldwide, although some test procedure complexities still exist. One
example of a test procedure complexity is the need for a crash
avoidance test dummy that would provide a radar and/or camera
recognition signature that approximates that of a human and is durable
enough to withstand any testing impacts. Comments are requested on
methods of addressing and resolving these complexities.
iii. Crash Notification Technologies
    Automatic Collision Notification (ACN) is a vehicle system that
detects severe crashes and their location and automatically notifies a
public safety answering point (PSAP) or a 9-1-1 call center either
directly or through a third party. Crashes are detected by various
vehicle sensors, and an ACN system notification typically occurs in
crashes severe enough to result in air bag or seat belt pretensioner
deployment. The location of the crash is transmitted using a global
positioning system (GPS) technology. The notification that ACN systems
can provide allows for earlier arrival of emergency personnel.
    Advanced Automatic Collision Notification (AACN) systems evolved
from ACN systems. The additional data elements AACN systems can
transmit include, but are not limited to, prediction of injury
severity, crash delta-V (velocity change during the crash), direction
of impact, safety belt status, air bag deployment status, number of
impact events, and the occurrence of a rollover. The Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) convened a series of meetings of the National
Expert Panel on Field Triage to consider the potential contributions of
AACN. The panel concluded that AACN shows promise in improving health
outcomes for severely injured crash patients by: predicting the
likelihood of serious injury in vehicle occupants; decreasing response
times by emergency medical personnel; assisting with field triage
destination and transportation decisions; and decreasing time to
definitive trauma care.
    However, the data elements and the algorithms for predicting injury
are not currently standardized. NHTSA and the CDC are currently
exploring a wide range of issues relating to AACN and evaluations of
potential standards for data transmission and injury severity
prediction and considerations for system specifications and
evaluations. An agency decision regarding next steps for AACN is
planned for 2013.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and
Research Priority Plan 2011-2013,'' 76 FR 17808 (March 31, 2011)
(Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Crashworthiness Areas Under Consideration

i. Rear Seat Occupants
    In recent years, improvements that have been made to the front seat
crash environment have significantly decreased the risk of injuries and

fatalities for front seat occupants involved in frontal crashes. While
exposure and injury rates for rear seat occupants overall are still
relatively low, there is an emerging need to further understand the
rear seat environment in recent model year vehicles, particularly in
consideration of lighter and more compact vehicle designs. Comments are
requested on the availability of any data that illustrate whether
safety benefits can be realized through encouraging additional safety
improvements and/or technologies including rear seat belt reminders
targeted at protecting the rear seat environment.
    One possibility is to dynamically test rear seats and seat belts in
our frontal crash tests to evaluate their safety performance.
Initially, this could be pursued with the 5th percentile adult female
Hybrid III dummy. The agency plans to begin exploring the feasibility
of testing with a 5th percentile Hybrid III dummy in the rear seat of
frontal NCAP tests and the feasibility of developing an associated
rating system. Comments are requested as to other potential approaches.
ii. Silver Car Rating System for Older Occupants
    As the U.S. population shifts in coming years, more vehicle drivers
and passengers will be 65 and older. Typically, older vehicle occupants
are less able than younger occupants to withstand crash forces when
they are involved in a crash. Therefore, the agency is conducting
workshops and developing comprehensive vehicle and behavioral
strategies to improve older driver crash protection.
    A ``silver car'' rating system in NCAP could be developed as a tool
for providing crash safety information for older consumers. Such a
rating system could be presented in addition to the primary five-star
NCAP rating system. Ultimately, older consumers could use NCAP silver
car rating information to help them select and purchase vehicles that
would be potentially safer for them. For example, inflatable seat belts
or technologies that help prevent low speed pedal misapplication may
have potential benefits for older occupants. Comments are requested as
to what types of modifications to the current test procedures or test
thresholds would enable the program to specifically measure the crash
forces that would be imparted to elderly vehicle occupants. Are there
aspects of vehicle performance, currently not evaluated by NCAP that
would particularly address the needs of older vehicle occupants?
iii. Pedestrian Protection
    Pedestrian fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle crashes
remain a relatively high number in the United States. In fact,
pedestrian deaths (4,280) accounted for 13 percent of all traffic
fatalities in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2010.\11\ This is a 4
percent increase from the number reported in 2009.\12\ The agency is
developing a rulemaking proposal based on Global Technical Regulation
(GTR) No. 9, ``Pedestrian Safety.'' We are testing and evaluating the
headform hood impact procedure. We are also evaluating the Flex-PLI
legform in support of a decision on its incorporation into GTR No. 9.
Comments are requested as to (1) whether the agency should consider
incorporating future pedestrian crashworthiness requirements into NCAP,
(2) what areas of light vehicles (e.g., bumpers, hoods, etc.) the
agency should focus its efforts, and (3) how the agency should consider
the crashworthiness requirements on vehicles with automatic pedestrian
and braking systems. The agency is not requesting comments from this
notice for the regulation process. As mentioned previously, the agency
will use comments it receives from this notice to develop a notice
proposing near term upgrades to NCAP and a draft 5-year plan for the
NCAP program outlining research that the agency plans to conduct as
well as longer term upgrades it intends to pursue making to NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic
Safety Facts--2010 Data (DOT HS 811 625).
    \12\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic
Safety Facts--2009 Data (DOT HS 811 394).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Improved Test Dummies and Injury Criteria
1. New Test Dummies: WorldSID, THOR, Hybrid III 95th Percentile Male
    As part of its international harmonization efforts under the
auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe World
Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), the agency has
been working with the Informal Working Group on Side Impact Dummies
under Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) to develop a new family of
side impact crash test dummies (known as the WorldSID dummies). These
test devices are representative of the 50th percentile male and 5th
percentile female. The goal in developing these dummies is to create
worldwide harmonized test devices for side impact with enhanced injury
assessment capabilities and improved durability, repeatability, and
reproducibility.
    Over the past several years, NHTSA has conducted an evaluation of
the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy. This evaluation has included,
among other things, an assessment of the dummy's biofidelic response,
its long-term durability, and the repeatability and reproducibility of
test results. NHTSA is working with the international biomechanics
community in a cooperative research effort to complete the development
and evaluation of the WorldSID 5th percentile female dummy. Upon
completion, responses from the WorldSID 50th male and 5th percentile
female dummies under comparable conditions will be compared to those
from the ES-2re and SID-IIs dummies, respectively, which are currently
specified for use in FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact protection,'' as well
as in NCAP side impact tests.
    In addition, the agency has been working on completing the
development of the THOR 50th percentile male and 5th percentile female
advanced frontal crash test dummies. Recent enhancements to the 50th
percentile male dummy included modification to the head, neck, thorax,
abdomen, pelvis, femur and knee. Injury risk curves and injury criteria
for the dummy are under development. Work is planned to adapt updates
made for the 50th percentile male dummy into the THOR 5th percentile
female dummy. Agency decisions are planned in 2013 and 2014 for the
THOR 50th percentile male and 5th percentile female dummies,
respectively.
    Finally, the agency is considering testing vehicles with a frontal
test dummy that represents a large male as part of the NCAP effort to
provide consumers with a broad spectrum of vehicle evaluation data.
This dummy, referred to as the 95th percentile adult male Hybrid III
dummy, represents a six foot two inch (6'2'') tall male weighing 223
pounds. Although this dummy is not currently specified in NHTSA's
regulations, this dummy has been used for research studies and
developmental testing for decades. Inclusion of the 95th percentile
adult male dummy and its corresponding injury criteria in a consumer
information program could provide larger consumers with information
more applicable to their protection while riding in a vehicle. This
would also encourage vehicle manufacturers to expand their crash
protection envelopes to cover a broader range of occupant sizes.
    Comments are requested on the suitability of incorporating the

aforementioned test dummies into NCAP. What effect would the
incorporation of a particular test dummy have on the vehicle ratings?
What other test dummy designs should the agency consider?
2. New injury criteria: BRIC, SID-IIs Thoracic and Abdomen, Lower Leg
    The agency has been researching a new brain injury measure known as
the Brain Injury Criteria (BRIC),\13\ to protect vehicle occupants
against brain injury with an emphasis on injuries that are
rotationally-induced. BRIC utilizes instrumentation in the dummy
headform to collect head rotational data that is ultimately used to
predict injury risk. NHTSA is currently collecting headform rotational
data in NCAP tests to gain an understanding of the new vehicle fleet
performance. Predicted injury risk in the fleet testing will then be
compared to real-world injury risk based on available field data. Such
a criterion could be applied to the various NCAP crash testing programs
(i.e., frontal, side pole, side moving deformable barrier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Takhounts et al., ``Kinematic Rotational Brain Injury
Criterion (BRIC),'' 22nd International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2011, Paper 11-0263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is also considering the merits of including thoracic and
abdominal rib deflection injury criteria for the small female side
impact dummy (i.e., the SID-IIs). Incorporating such criteria could
encourage safety improvements that would mitigate injuries to body
regions not currently regulated by safety standards or evaluated by the
side NCAP rating scheme. The current SID-IIs crash test dummies are
equipped for measuring these data and the agency collects and monitors
them for all side NCAP crash tests. However, at the present time, NCAP
simply adds footnotes to the vehicle safety rating information to
inform consumers when excessive values are recorded.
    The agency may also consider the merit of adding a lower leg injury
criterion for the 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy in the frontal
NCAP rating scheme to drive vehicle countermeasures that would mitigate
driver lower leg injuries and the associated societal cost. The THOR-Lx
and THOR-FLx lower leg retrofit kits for use on the 50th percentile
male and 5th percentile female adult Hybrid III dummies, respectively,
are instrumentation tools under agency evaluation that would be used to
measure the lower leg injury criterion.
    Comments are requested as to whether there are other injury
criteria that the agency should consider. Would the existing test
dummies be sufficient for the suggested injury criteria? How should the
agency incorporate ratings based on the new injury criteria in the
manner that is useful to the consumer?
3. Refined Injury Criteria: Nij
    Since the introduction of the frontal neck injury criterion, Nij,
over a decade ago, the agency has been monitoring the correlation
between Nij and real-world crash data. Specifically, we are looking at
relevant neck injury field risk in frontal NCAP-type crashes using
National Automotive Sampling System--Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-
CDS) data. Furthermore, the agency has been analyzing existing
biomechanical data and various neck injury risk curve alternatives. We
are also assessing the role of these neck injury risk curves on recent
NCAP test data (model years 2011-2012).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This activity is related to comments raised during the
previous NCAP upgrade (i.e., regarding the non-zero offset in the
Nij curve used to calculate injury risk for the purposes of
computing star ratings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. New Test Protocols for Electric Vehicles
    A growing number of electric vehicles that are or will be available
in the market use lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries for propulsion power.
Because Li-ion battery technology is relatively new to the automotive
industry, safety standards specific to the use of this technology in
automotive applications are still under development. Although NHTSA is
unaware of any real-world crashes involving Li-ion battery-powered
vehicles that have resulted in a safety concern, the agency is focused
on understanding the potential safety risks stemming from crashes
involving these vehicles.
    In the near term, the agency plans to research additional test
protocols that will be run in addition to the existing FMVSS No. 305,
``Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock
protection,'' and NCAP test procedures of electric vehicles using Li-
ion-battery propulsion systems.\15\ The agency plans to examine the
potential safety hazards associated with the health, stability, and
functionality of the battery system after a vehicle is involved in a
crash. Specifically, the protocol will examine the vehicle's ability to
structurally protect the battery in a crash and the health of the
battery and associated components. The information gathered from this
evaluation will build on the agency's ongoing electric vehicle safety
efforts and will help lay the groundwork for future research and/or
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This effort is to improve our current post-crash laboratory
test procedures for batteries to ensure that our test labs have the
most current and complete safety protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Other Strategies
1. Comparative Barrier Testing for Frontal Rating
    Star ratings for vehicles of widely differing masses and type
cannot be directly compared using the full frontal rigid barrier crash
test. The full frontal rigid barrier crash test represents a crash
between two vehicles of similar weight and geometry. Thus, frontal
crash test ratings of two vehicles cannot be compared unless those
vehicles are in the same class and within 250 pounds of one another.
Similarly, since the Overall Vehicle Score encompasses the frontal
rating, the Overall Vehicle Scores of two vehicles cannot be compared
unless the two vehicles have similar mass. Thus, there is a desire to
provide consumers with a more useful tool for their vehicle purchasing
decisions, (i.e., one that consumers can use to compare directly the
safety of vehicles of widely varying weights and types). Potential
changes may include changing the frontal barrier test configuration to
provide a better safety comparison given the weight disparity among
vehicles in the U.S. fleet.
2. Advanced Child Dummies, Family Star Rating
    The agency is aware that consumers often wish to know which
vehicles are the safest for their children. Thus, providing a
crashworthiness rating for vehicles based on the protection they offer
to both front seat adult occupants and rear seat child occupants would
support consumer interests. Earlier this notice discussed adding a 5th
percentile adult female Hybrid III dummy to the rear seat of frontal
NCAP tests. An expansion of this concept would be to explore the
potential for adding advanced child dummies to one or more of its
crashworthiness test modes and explore the feasibility of providing
consumers with a ``family star rating.'' NHTSA plans to use data
obtained from the agency's biomechanics research to support the
development and evaluation of an advanced 6-year-old child frontal
impact dummy, followed by the 3- and 10-year-old child frontal impact
dummies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NHTSA's Biomechanics Research Plan, 2011-2015 (DOT HS 811
474).

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

c. Potential Changes to the Rating System

i. Adjustment of Baseline Injury Risk
    Safety ratings under the enhanced NCAP that went into effect for MY
2011 are based on how a vehicle's risk of injury reflected in NCAP
tests compares to a baseline injury risk of approximately 15 percent
for all crash types. The baseline injury risk was derived from agency
crash data for MY 2007 and 2008 vehicles. In the July 11, 2008 Federal
Register notice announcing the NCAP enhancements, the agency indicated
that it would periodically review the crash performance of the vehicle
fleet, as reflected by NCAP test data. Now is an appropriate time for
such a review.
    In the short time since the enhanced NCAP was implemented, the
frontal and side crash test ratings of NCAP tested vehicles have
improved. Crash data from newer model year vehicles could be used to
reassess the baseline injury risk that is currently used to determine
the respective crashworthiness safety ratings for the frontal and side
crash test programs. Additionally, the rollover contribution to the
baseline injury risk has changed due to the introduction of ESC in all
new vehicles as of September 1, 2011. Rollover risk could be
recalculated in the near future based on new data and a vehicle fleet
equipped with ESC. (This is discussed further in the next section.)
ii. Update of the Rollover Risk Curve
    The agency established a criterion in 2001 that reflected the risk
of a rollover in a single-vehicle crash based primarily on two vehicle
characteristics: The vehicle width at the tires and the height of the
vehicle's center of gravity. The rollover risk derived from these
measurements, known as a vehicle's Static Stability Factor (SSF), was
based on 226,117 real-world crashes.\17\ In 2003, the agency added a
dynamic test to the rollover evaluation and updated the risk curve for
the SSF model. This 2003 rollover risk was based on 293,000 single-
vehicle crashes.\18\ The SSF and the dynamic test created a slightly
modified rollover risk rating for MY 2004 and newer vehicles.
Subsequent to the creation of the SSF and dynamic test evaluations,
manufacturers began a progressive conversion of the light vehicle fleet
from a fleet with no anti-rollover technology to one equipped with ESC.
Since September 1, 2011, all new light vehicles sold in the United
States have been required to be equipped with ESC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 68 FR 59290 (October 14, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9663;
Notice 3).
    \18\ 68 FR 59258 (October 14, 2003) (Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9663;
Notice 3).
    \19\ Multi-stage manufacturers and alterers were permitted to
delay complying with the ESC requirement until September 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2008 NCAP upgrade notice, the agency stated that it would
recalculate the risk of rollover and reformulate the rollover rating
system to reflect the vehicle fleet change. However, since the
accumulation of crash data for ESC-equipped vehicles has been
progressing slowly, we have delayed the reformulation of the rollover
rating system until a time when more crash data are available.
iii. Carry Back Ratings
    Under the existing NCAP protocols, new model year vehicles that
have no design changes from the previous model year can have their NCAP
ratings carried over to the new model year. Every year, after reviewing
annual submissions from the vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA determines
which vehicle ratings should be carried over to the new model year
without retesting. The issue of whether a particular rating should be
carried over is considered independently for each aspect of performance
tested under the NCAP program. For example, it is possible that,
between model years, a model was changed in such a way as to make it
appropriate for the model to have its frontal crash ratings carried
over, but not its side crash ratings carried over. NHTSA uses carry
over ratings to avoid the time and expense of unnecessary re-testing
and to increase the percentage of new vehicles that have NCAP ratings
each year. We are also considering a similar approach for advanced
crash avoidance technologies. In other words, if the previous model
year vehicle is equipped with an identical advanced technology system
that received credit for meeting NHTSA's performance criteria, the
current model year would also be given similar credit.
    NHTSA is considering whether it would be appropriate to carry back
ratings, i.e., apply the ratings of test vehicles produced in the new
model year to similar vehicles produced in previous model year(s), but
that were not rated. In other words, vehicle models that were tested in
the new model year, but were not changed from and rated in the previous
model year could have the new model year ratings applied to previous
model year(s). Doing this would depend on whether the new model year
design is identical \20\ to the previous model year design. Similar to
the carry over ratings policy, the carry back policy would provide
increased consumer information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Identical vehicle models are those that have not been
redesigned with structural changes and are equipped with similar
safety equipment (i.e., restraint systems, air bags, crash avoidance
sensors, algorithms, etc.) from one model year to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Ideas Under Consideration for Providing Better Consumer Information

a. Focus Group Testing on Advanced Technologies

    As part of the 2008 upgrade of NCAP, the agency performed focus
group testing on the desire for advanced crash avoidance technology
information. At that time, consumers indicated that they wanted to know
if specific beneficial advanced technologies were provided on specific
vehicle models. To that end, the agency identified three beneficial
advanced technologies: Electronic stability control, lane departure
warning, and forward collision warning and placed a description of and
recommendation for each of them on the agency's Web site
www.safercar.gov. For each of these technologies, the agency specified
minimum performance criteria. If a vehicle model is equipped with one
of the technologies and if the manufacturer self-certifies that the
model meets the minimum performance criteria for that technology, the
agency places a symbol illustrating that technology next to the entry
for that model on www.safercar.gov.
    Given the passage of time and rapid pace of electronic
communications, the agency is planning to revisit how consumers would
like advanced technology information presented to them. In 2013, we
plan to conduct focus group testing to determine if consumers would
like alternative methods of having advanced technology information
communicated and if ratings of advanced technologies, rather than the
current approach of recommending advanced technologies, are preferred.

b. Comprehensive Consumer Research on the Monroney Label

    NHTSA plans to conduct comprehensive consumer research on the
design and use of the NCAP safety ratings portion of the Monroney
label.\21\ Through this research, the agency will explore where
consumers look for safety information and how consumers use the
Monroney label when making their vehicle purchasing decisions. It will

also evaluate the Monroney label content comprehension and identify
potential tradeoffs involved in alternative approaches. The results of
this research will help guide effective changes to the safety ratings
section of the Monroney label, and identify potential communication
approaches to use in a consumer education program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Information Collection Request for the Consumer Research
Program on the Monroney label (ICR Number<PHONE_NUMBER>-001),
www.reginfo.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Vehicle-CRS Fit Program

    As indicated in Section III of this notice, the agency has already
separately sought public comment regarding the Vehicle-CRS Fit program
in a Federal Register ``Request for comments'' notice published on
February 25, 2011.\22\ Thus, the agency is not seeking through this
notice to obtain additional comments on this program. This proposed
voluntary program is intended to have vehicle manufacturers evaluate
CRSs for compatibility with a specific vehicle model based on a set of
objective criteria. Vehicle manufacturers would provide NHTSA with a
list of recommended CRSs that they have determined fit in their
vehicles, and NHTSA would in turn publish that information. The agency
plans to spot-check the CRS-vehicle combinations to ensure they
actually comply with the requirements of the new voluntary Vehicle-CRS
Fit program. A final decision notice for this program is currently
being developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 76 FR 10637 (February 25, 2011) (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-
00062-0001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Child Seat Ease of Use Rating Program Upgrade

    In response to Section 14(g) of the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, NHTSA
established a yearly Ease of Use assessment program for add-on child
restraints. Since the program was established, the most notable
improvements are ones that have been made to child restraint harness
designs, labels and manuals. On February 1, 2008, the agency enhanced
the program by including new rating features and criteria, adjusting
the scoring systems, and using stars to display the Ease of Use
ratings.
    The agency is now considering additional improvements to the Ease
of Use Program to address added CRS features that are not currently
assessed, but may have an effect on usability. Additionally, it may be
necessary to strengthen the current rating criteria since manufacturers
continually make improvements to their products. Comments are requested
on what additional CRS features should be addressed and what aspects of
the current rating criteria should be strengthened.

VI. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery), from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket by one of the methods given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the 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.
    You may read the comments received at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA 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 on: March 28, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-07766 Filed 4-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P