4630 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 

1On April 7, 2014, NHTSA published a final rule 

(79 FR 19177) requiring rearview video systems. 

The rule provides a phase-in period that begins on 

May 1, 2016 and ends on May 1, 2018 when all new 

light vehicles will be required to be equipped with 

RVS. As was done with electronic stability control, 

RVS will no longer be an NCAP recommended 

technology once RVS is required on all new light 

vehicles. 

388, that the issuance of the waiver will 

have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.- 

vessel builder or a business that uses 

U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a 

waiver will not be granted. Comments 

should refer to the docket number of 

this notice and the vessel name in order 

for MARAD to properly consider the 

comments. Comments should also state 

the commenter’s interest in the waiver 

application, and address the waiver 

criteria given in 388.4 of MARAD’s 

regulations at 46 CFR part 388. 

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 

19476). 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Dated: January 20, 2015. 

Julie P. Agarwal, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01542 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0006] 

New Car Assessment Program 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

public comment on the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

(NHTSA) plan to update its New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP). If this 

plan is implemented, NHTSA would 

recommend to consumers various 

vehicle models that are equipped with 

automatic emergency braking (AEB) 

systems, which can enhance the driver’s 

ability to avoid or mitigate rear-end 

crashes. For many years, NCAP has 

provided comparative information on 

the safety of new vehicles to assist 

consumers with vehicle purchasing 

decisions. NCAP was upgraded 

beginning with model year 2011 

vehicles to include recommended crash 

avoidance technologies in its program. 

Including this information in NCAP 

allows consumers to compare not only 

the level of crash protection afforded by 

certain vehicles they are considering to 

purchase, but also the types of advanced 

crash avoidance technologies that are 

recommended by the agency to help 

them avoid crashes. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them no 

later than March 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket number above and be 

submitted by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Instructions: For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

• Privacy Act: Anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). For access to the 

docket to read background documents 

or comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical issues: Dr. Abigail 

Morgan, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, Telephone: 202–366–1810, 

Facsimile: 202–366–5930, NVS–122. 

For NCAP issues: Mr. Clarke Harper, 

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 

Telephone: 202–366–1810, Facsimile: 

202–366–5930, NVS–120. 

For legal issues: Mr. David Jasinski 

and Ms. Analiese Marchesseault, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202– 

366–2992, Facsimile: 202–366–3820, 

NCC–112. 

The mailing address for these officials 

is as follows: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP) provides 

comparative safety rating information 

on new vehicles to assist consumers 

with their vehicle purchasing decisions. 

NCAP was upgraded beginning with 

model year 2011 vehicles to include, 

among other changes, recommended 

advanced crash avoidance technologies 

when these technologies meet NCAP’s 

performance criteria. Technologies that 

were part of the 2011 upgrade were 

electronic stability control (ESC), 

forward collision warning (FCW), and 

lane departure warning (LDW). 

Subsequently, in 2014, NHTSA replaced 

ESC, which is now mandatory for all 

new light vehicles, with another 

technology, rearview video systems 

(RVS).1

FCW detects vehicles ahead and 

cautions a driver of an impending 

collision, so the driver can brake or steer 

to avoid or mitigate the collision. LDW 

monitors lane markings on the road and 

cautions a driver of unintentional lane 

drift. RVS assists the driver in seeing 

whether there are any obstructions, 

particularly a person or people, in the 

area immediately behind the vehicle. 

The RVS is generally installed in the 

rear of the vehicle and connected to a 

video screen. 

This document requests comments on 

the agency’s plan to further upgrade 

NCAP to include recommendations to 

consumers of vehicle models that are 

equipped with automatic emergency 

braking (AEB) systems, specifically 

crash imminent braking (CIB) and 

dynamic brake support (DBS), which 

can use information from an FCW 

system’s sensors to enhance the driver’s 

ability to avoid or mitigate rear-end 

crashes. CIB systems provide automatic 

braking when forward-looking sensors 

indicate that a crash is imminent and 

the driver is not braking. DBS systems 

provide supplemental braking when 

sensors determine that driver-applied 

braking is insufficient to avoid an 

imminent crash. 

This plan would add CIB and DBS to 

the three crash avoidance technologies 

that the agency currently recommends 

on the agency’s Web site, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 4631 

2See 73 FR 40016. 

3See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012– 

0057–0001. 

4See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012– 

0057–0037. 

5See 78 FR 20597. 

6See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012– 

0180. For discussions of specific research see 

comments of Robert Bosch LLC, NHTSA–2012– 

0180–0028, and the Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety (IIHS), NHTSA–2012–0180–0026. 

7These estimates were derived from NHTSA’s 

2006–2008 Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) data and non-fatal cases in NHTSA’s 2006– 

2008 National Automotive Sampling System 

General Estimates System (NASS/GES) data. 

8The 1,700,000 total cited in the two NHTSA 

reports reflects only crashes in which the front of 

a passenger vehicle impacts the rear of another 

vehicle. 

9See NHTSA’s Traffic Safety Facts 2012, Page 70. 

10The approximately 1,000 deaths per year in 

2006–2008 were limited to two-vehicle crashes, as 

fatal crash data at the time did not contain detailed 

information on crashes involving three or more 

vehicles. This information was added starting with 

the 2010 data year, and the 1,172 deaths in 2012 

occurred in crashes involving any number of 

vehicles. 

11See ‘‘Forward-Looking Advanced Braking 

Technologies Research Report’’ (June 2012). (http:// 

www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012–0057–0001), 

page 12. 

12See 77 FR 39561. 

www.safercar.gov. By including CIB and 

DBS systems into NCAP, consumers 

would receive important information 

regarding the safety risks associated 

with rear-end crashes and the vehicle 

models that offer effective 

countermeasures, which can assist the 

driver in avoiding or mitigating these 

crashes. In addition, the agency believes 

that if it recognizes AEB systems that 

meet NCAP’s performance measures, 

and thereby encourages consumers to 

purchase vehicles that are equipped 

with these systems, manufacturers 

would have an incentive to offer these 

systems on additional vehicles they 

produce. 

Crash Imminent Braking and Dynamic 

Brake Support as Recommended 

Advanced Technology Features 

In addition to issuing star ratings 

based on the crashworthiness and 

rollover resistance of vehicle models, 

the agency also provides additional 

information to consumers by 

recommending certain advanced crash 

avoidance technologies on the agency’s 

Web site, www.safercar.gov. For each 

vehicle make/model, the Web site 

currently shows (in addition to a list of 

some of the vehicle’s safety features) the 

model’s 5-star crashworthiness and 

rollover resistance ratings and whether 

the vehicle model is equipped with any 

of the three advanced crash avoidance 

safety technologies that the agency 

currently recommends to consumers. 

NHTSA began recommending advanced 

crash avoidance technologies to 

consumers starting with the model year 

2011.2 The agency recommends vehicle 

technologies to consumers as part of 

NCAP if the technology: (1) Addresses 

a major crash problem, (2) is supported 

by information that supports its 

potential or actual safety benefit, and (3) 

is able to be tested by repeatable 

performance tests and procedures to 

ensure a certain level of performance. 

For more than three years, NHTSA 

has been carefully reviewing and 

evaluating CIB and DBS systems. The 

agency has also conducted test track 

research to better understand the 

performance capabilities of these 

systems. This work is documented in 

two reports, ‘‘Forward-Looking 

Advanced Braking Technologies 

Research Report’’ (June 2012) 3 and 

‘‘Automatic Emergency Braking System 

Research Report’’ (August 2014).4

CIB and DBS systems are two crash 

avoidance systems designed to mitigate 

or avoid rear-end crashes. The agency’s 

research found that CIB and DBS 

systems are commercially available on a 

number of different production vehicles 

and these systems can be tested 

successfully to defined performance 

measures. NHTSA has developed 

performance measures to ensure that 

CIB and DBS systems address the rearend crash safety problem in real-world 

situations by providing automatic or 

supplemental vehicle braking that will 

help drivers mitigate or avoid rear-end 

crashes. The agency found that systems 

meeting these performance measures 

have the potential to help reduce the 

number of rear-end crashes as well as 

deaths and injuries that result from 

these crashes. Therefore, the agency 

believes that it is appropriate to include 

CIB and DBS systems in NCAP as 

recommended crash avoidance 

technologies on www.safercar.gov. 

In addition to the agency’s research 

on CIB and DBS systems, these AEB 

technologies were among the topics 

included in an April 5, 2013, Request 

for comments notice on a variety of 

potential areas for improvement of 

NCAP.5 Most commenters supported 

including CIB and DBS in NCAP. Some 

commenters stated generally that 

available research supports the agency’s 

conclusion that these technologies are 

effective at reducing rear-end crashes 

with some of those commenters citing 

specific research they had conducted 

that they deemed relevant.6

Rear-end crashes constitute a 

significant vehicle safety problem. In a 

detailed analysis of 2006–2008 crash 

data,7 NHTSA determined that 

approximately 1,700,000 rear-end 

crashes involving passenger vehicles 

occur each year.8 These crashes result in 

approximately 1,000 deaths and 700,000 

injuries annually. The size of the safety 

problem has remained consistent since 

then. In 2012, the most recent year for 

which data are available, there were a 

total of 1,663,000 rear-end crashes. 

These rear-end crashes in 2012 resulted 

in 1,172 deaths and 706,000 injuries, 

which represents 3 percent of all 

fatalities and 30 percent of all injuries 

from motor vehicle crashes in 2012.9 10

As part of its rear-end crash analysis, 

the agency concluded that AEB systems 

would have had a favorable impact on 

a little more than one-half of rear-end 

crashes.11 The remaining crashes, which 

involved circumstances such as high 

speed crashes resulting in a fatality in 

the lead vehicle or one vehicle suddenly 

cutting in front of another vehicle, were 

not crashes that current AEB systems 

would be able to prevent or mitigate. 

The agency has estimated CIB and DBS 

system effectiveness based on its 

research findings from track testing of 

these systems. 

In July 2012, the agency issued a 

Request for comments notice seeking 

feedback on its CIB and DBS research.12

Ford Motor Company indicated that the 

Lead Vehicle Stopped (LVS) scenario 

actually consists of two scenarios, one 

in which the lead vehicle is actually 

stopped or stationary, and one in which 

the lead vehicle is decelerating and 

comes to a stop before the crash occurs 

but could have been previously seen 

moving by the AEB system sensors. 

Additional analysis of LVS crashes 

found that these crashes are evenly split 

between lead vehicle stopped and lead 

vehicle decelerating to a stop (LVD–S) 

crashes, each representing about 32 

percent of the rear-end crash 

population. 

The agency is issuing this document 

to request comments on its plan to 

update NCAP. The agency believes that, 

through NCAP, it can help not only to 

educate consumers on the role AEB 

technologies play in addressing rear-end 

crashes, but also to utilize market 

incentives to encourage wider 

incorporation of these important safety 

technologies. 

The advanced crash avoidance 

technologies that are currently 

recommended by NHTSA through 

NCAP (as ‘‘Recommended Advanced 

Technology Features’’) are shown on 

www.safercar.gov. Our plan is to add 

CIB and DBS systems as recommended 

advanced technology features on our 

Web site. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 

13Copies of the test procedures that were used by 

NHTSA to conduct light vehicle AEB system 

evaluations in 2014 may be found at http://

www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA–2012–0057–0038. 

Planned Criteria for Recognizing a 

Vehicle Make/Model as Having a 

Recommended CIB or DBS System 

For the agency to determine which 

CIB and DBS systems it will recommend 

to consumers, NHTSA needs a means 

for evaluating CIB and DBS systems. 

The agency has developed test 

procedures for both CIB and DBS 

systems as part of its research effort.13

Although these procedures have been 

designed to provide a reasonable 

assessment of overall system 

performance, the agency may modify 

the number of test scenarios and the 

number of test trials per test scenario to 

accommodate the practical needs of 

NCAP. The following sections provide a 

brief summary of the CIB and DBS 

planned test procedures. The 

information presented here is intended 

to indicate the level of vehicle 

performance the test procedures would 

set in order for CIB and DBS systems to 

receive NCAP recommendation. 

The planned test procedures represent 

the four primary scenarios present in 

the rear-end crash target population. 

They also include a fifth scenario to 

assess whether an AEB system activates 

in a specific non-crash-imminent 

scenario (subsequently referred to as a 

‘‘false positive’’ scenario). The five test 

scenarios are: 

1. Lead vehicle stopped (LVS) 

2. Lead vehicle moving (LVM) at a 

constant speed slower than the SV 

3. Lead vehicle decelerating (LVD) 

4. Lead vehicle decelerating to a stop 

(LVD–S) 

5. False positive test (steel trench plate, 

STP) 

Tables 1 and 2 present the test speeds 

and performance measures developed 

for each of NHTSA’s AEB test scenarios 

for CIB and DBS. As shown in the 

second column of these tables, the test 

speeds for the vehicle being tested 

(hereinafter, the subject vehicle (SV)) 

and for the lead vehicle (hereinafter, 

principal other vehicle (POV)) are the 

same for the respective CIB and DBS 

scenarios. However, in most cases, the 

DBS performance measures specify a 

greater SV speed reduction than the 

corresponding CIB test (the exception 

being the LVM test performed with a SV 

speed of 25 mph). This is because the 

speed reductions present during DBS 

evaluations are the result of the 

foundation brake application plus the 

supplementary effect of DBS, and the 

foundation brake applications used 

during DBS evaluations are typically 

commanded earlier than the automatic 

brake applications during CIB tests. 

TABLE 1—CIB TEST SCENARIOS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE TEST MEASURES

Scenarios Speeds of vehicles Satisfactory performance 

LVS .................................................. SV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) .................

POV 0 mph (0 km/h) 

Speed reduction of ≥9.8 mph (15.8 km/h) for at least 7 of 8 valid test 

trials. 

LVM ................................................. SV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) .................

POV 10 mph (16.1 km/h) 

No SV-to-POV impact for at least 7 of 8 valid test trials. 

LVM ................................................. SV 45 mph (72.4 km/h) .................

POV 20 mph (32.2 km/h) 

Speed reduction of ≥9.8 mph (15.8 km/h) for at least 7 of 8 valid test 

trials. 

LVD ................................................. SV 35 mph (56.3 km/h) .................

POV 35 mph (56.3 km/h) 

Speed reduction of ≥10.5 mph (16.9 km/h) for at least 7 of 8 valid 

test trials. 

LVD–S ............................................. SV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) .................

POV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) 

Speed reduction of ≥9.8 mph (15.8 km/h) for at least 7 of 8 valid test 

trials. 

False positive .................................. 25 mph (40.2 km/h) ....................... Peak SV deceleration ≤0.25g. 

False positive .................................. 45 mph (72.4 km/h) ....................... Peak SV deceleration ≤0.25g. 

TABLE 2—DBS TEST SCENARIOS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Scenarios Speeds of vehicles Satisfactory performance 

LVS .................................................. SV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) .................

POV 0 mph (0 km/h) 

No SV-to-POV impact for at least 7 of 8 valid test trials. 

LVM ................................................. SV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) .................

POV 10 mph (16.1 km/h) 

No SV-to-POV impact for at least 7 of 8 valid test trials. 

LVM ................................................. SV 45 mph (72.4 km/h) .................

POV 20 mph (32.2 km/h) 

No SV-to-POV impact for at least 7 of 8 valid test trials. 

LVD ................................................. SV 35 mph (56.3 km/h) .................

POV 35 mph (56.3 km/h) 

No SV-to-POV impact for at least 7 of 8 valid test trials. 

LVD–S ............................................. SV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) .................

POV 25 mph (40.2 km/h) 

No SV-to-POV impact for at least 7 of 8 valid test trials. 

False positive .................................. 25 mph (40.2 km/h) ....................... Peak SV deceleration ≤125% of the average peak SV deceleration 

realized during a series of baseline brake stops. 

False positive .................................. 45 mph (72.4 km/h) ....................... Peak SV deceleration ≤125% of the average peak SV deceleration 

realized during a series of baseline brake stops. 

As currently written, each test 

procedure involves a total of 56 test 

runs (eight valid test trials for each of 

the seven test scenarios). The test 

procedures also include time to 

condition the SV brakes, including a full 

FMVSS No. 135 brake burnish prior to 

testing and a brake warming regiment to 

ensure the initial brake temperature is 

within a range before each test trial. 

Additionally, because the DBS 

evaluations specify that the SV brakes 

be applied, the DBS procedures include 

a series of eight brake characterization 

tests. The purpose of these brake 

characterization tests is to determine the 

position and force input magnitudes to 

be used by the brake controller robot 

during test conduct. This process 

determines the amount of braking to 

apply during DBS testing that is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 4633 

14Conventional brake assist system is a 

technology that initiates supplemental braking 

based on brake pedal application rate without the 

use of any forward-sensing information. 

15For details of the NHTSA designed SSV, see 

http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA–2012–0057– 

0032, NHTSA’s Stirkeable Surrogate Vehicle (SSV) 

Design Overview, and NHTSA–2012–0057–0034, 

Radar Measurements of NHTSA’s Surrogate Vehicle 

(SSV). 

sufficiently high to activate the DBS 

system being tested, yet low enough that 

the SV’s conventional brake assist 

system 14 is not activated. NHTSA plans 

to use a programmable brake controller 

to apply all brake applications defined 

in the DBS test procedure. 

Also with respect to the DBS test 

procedure, the agency found that in 

some vehicles, the brake pedal moves 

toward the floor during DBS activation 

without the driver applying additional 

force to the pedal. In this situation, the 

force at the brake pedal will decrease if 

the brake controller maintains a 

constant pedal position (rather than 

following it as it moves to the floor). 

Even though the brake pedal position 

does not change, the DBS system may 

misinterpret this force reduction as the 

driver releasing the brakes, incorrectly 

assuming that strong supplemental DBS 

braking is no longer needed. To address 

this, NHTSA has supplemented the 

displacement (i.e., position) feedbackbased brake applications in the DBS test 

procedure with an optional brake 

application technique featuring ‘‘hybrid 

feedback’’ control, which includes a 

combination of displacement and force 

control. 

Hybrid feedback helped certain 

vehicles reach their DBS-enhanced 

braking potential by preventing the 

applied brake force from falling to zero. 

However, the limited data collected 

indicate use of hybrid-based braking 

will not benefit most vehicles. With a 

few exceptions, vehicles achieved better 

DBS performance with displacement 

feedback brake applications as opposed 

to hybrid feedback brake applications. 

The agency will work with 

manufacturers to understand their 

preference of the optional hybrid 

feedback or displacement-based 

feedback during NHTSA’s evaluation of 

their vehicles. 

For the purpose of conducting AEB 

testing, the agency designed and 

manufactured a strikeable surrogate 

vehicle (SSV).15 The physical 

appearance of the SSV resembles the 

rear section of a 2011 Ford Fiesta 

hatchback. The SSV is constructed 

primarily from carbon fiber, which 

enables the SSV to withstand repeated 

impacts with negligible change in its 

shape over time and without causing 

harm to test drivers or damage to 

vehicles being evaluated. If it is struck 

and damaged, the SSV can be 

reconstructed to its original 

specifications. Our testing shows that 

the SSV generates CIB and DBS system 

activation just as an actual vehicle 

would. The agency plans to use the SSV 

to evaluate the performance of vehicles. 

Public Participation 

On what topics is the agency requesting 

comments? 

This document requests comments on 

the agency’s plan to recommend CIB 

and DBS systems in the NCAP program. 

Based on comments received in 

response to the April 5, 2013, Request 

for comments notice on a variety of 

potential areas for improvement of 

NCAP (78 FR 20597), including CIB and 

DBS, the agency believes that motor 

vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and 

consumer advocacy groups generally 

agree that consumers would benefit 

from being provided with information 

about CIB and DBS systems and their 

potential to help drivers avoid rear-end 

crashes. However, the agency will 

consider whether there are compelling 

arguments against including CIB and 

DBS system evaluations in NCAP. 

The agency is also interested in any 

suggestions or observations regarding 

the practical aspects of incorporating 

CIB and DBS system evaluations into 

NCAP as recommended technologies. In 

particular, the agency would be 

interested in any comments or 

suggestions regarding the following: 

• Test procedures: What is the 

general response to the planned test 

procedures? How will the combination 

of test scenarios and test speeds 

described provide an accurate 

representation of real-world CIB and 

DBS system performance, and how can 

they be improved? Can any of the 

scenarios be removed from the test 

procedures while still ensuring a certain 

level of system performance? If so, what 

are they and why? Similarly, why and 

how should the number of test trials per 

scenario be reduced? What, if any, 

specific improvements to the test 

procedures are still necessary? 

• The Strikeable Surrogate Vehicle 

(SSV): Are there specific elements that 

would cause NHTSA’s SSV to be 

inappropriate for use in the agency’s 

CIB and DBS performance evaluations? 

If so, what are they, and how are they 

a problem? Will the SSV meet the needs 

for CIB and DBS evaluation for the 

foreseeable future? If not, why not? 

What alternatives could be considered 

and why? 

• DBS Test Brake Application 

Strategy: We seek comment on whether 

the two brake application methods 

defined in the DBS test procedure, those 

based on displacement or hybrid 

control, provide NHTSA with enough 

flexibility to accurately assess the 

performance of all DBS systems. What 

specific refinements, if any, are needed 

to either application method? 

• CIB and DBS Research: We seek 

comment on whether there is any recent 

research concerning CIB and DBS 

systems that is not reflected in the 

agency’s research to date. If so, please 

provide a reference to that research. 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are filed correctly in the 

docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 

NHTSA established this limit to 

encourage you to write your primary 

comments in a concise fashion. 

However, you may attach necessary 

additional documents to your 

comments. There is no limit on the 

length of the attachments. 

Please submit one copy (two copies if 

submitting by mail or hand delivery) of 

your comments, including the 

attachments, to the docket following the 

instructions given above under 

ADDRESSES. Please note, if you are 

submitting comments electronically as a 

PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the 

documents submitted be scanned using 

an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) 

process, thus allowing the agency to 

search and copy certain portions of your 

submissions. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Office of 

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 

address given above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you 

may submit a copy (two copies if 

submitting by mail or hand delivery), 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to the docket by one of the 

methods given above under ADDRESSES. 

When you send a comment containing 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4634 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 

information specified in NHTSA’s 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR part 512). 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, the agency will also consider 

comments received after that date. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

at the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are 

indicated above in the same location. 

You may also see the comments on the 

Internet, identified by the docket 

number at the heading of this notice, at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Please note that, even after the 

comment closing date, NHTSA may 

continue to file relevant information in 

the docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, the agency 

recommends that you periodically 

check the docket for new material. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477-78) or you may visit http://

www.dot.gov/privacy.html. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01461 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35897] 

R. J. Corman Railroad Company/

Carolina Lines, LLC—Acquisition and 

Operation Exemption—The Baltimore 

and Annapolis Railroad Company d/b/ 

a Carolina Southern Railroad Company 

R. J. Corman Railroad Company/

Carolina Lines, LLC (RJC-Carolina), a 

noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to 

acquire from The Baltimore and 

Annapolis Railroad Company d/b/a 

Carolina Southern Railroad Company 

(CALA) and operate two interconnected 

rail lines totaling approximately 74.9 

miles in North Carolina and South 

Carolina (the Line). The Line extends 

from: (1) Milepost AL 326.0, at Mullins, 

S.C., to milepost AC 290.0, at 

Whiteville, N.C.; and (2) milepost ACH 

297.2, at Chadbourn, N.C., to milepost 

ACH 336.1, at Conway, S.C. RJCCarolina will also acquire one mile of 

incidental, local trackage rights from 

CALA, extending between milepost AC 

290.0 and milepost AC 289.0, at or near 

Whiteville. 

This transaction is related to a 

concurrently filed verified notice of 

exemption in R. J. Corman Railroad 

Group—Continuance in Control 

Exemption—R. J. Corman Railroad/

Carolina Lines, Docket No. FD 35898, in 

which R. J. Corman Railroad Group, 

LLC, and R. J. Corman Railroad 

Company, LLC, seek Board approval 

under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue 

in control of RJC-Carolina upon RJCCarolina’s becoming a Class III rail 

carrier. 

RJC-Carolina certifies that its 

projected revenues upon consummation 

of the proposed transaction will not 

result in the creation of a Class I or Class 

II rail carrier and states that its projected 

annual revenues will not exceed $5 

million. 

RJC-Carolina states that it intends to 

consummate the proposed transaction 

on or after February 11, 2015, the 

effective date of the exemption (30 days 

after the verified notice was filed). 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. Petitions to stay must be 

filed no later than February 4, 2015 (at 

least seven days before the exemption 

becomes effective). 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 

35897, must be filed with the Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, a copy of each pleading must 

be served on Robert A. Wimbish, 

Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker 

Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606– 

2832. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ 

Decided: January 23, 2015. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Raina S. White, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01553 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

Notice and Request for Comments 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: 60-day notice and request for 

comments: Application to Open a 

Billing Account. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3519 (PRA), the Surface Transportation 

Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its 

intent to request from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) an 

extension of approval without revision 

of a currently approved information 

collection: Application to Open a 

Billing Account. The information 

collection is described in detail below. 

Comments are requested concerning: (1) 

The accuracy of the Board’s burden 

estimates; (2) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (3) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, when 

appropriate; and (4) whether this 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Board, including 

whether the collection has practical 

utility. Submitted comments will be 

summarized and included in the 

Board’s request for OMB approval. 

Description of Collection 

Title: Application to Open a Billing 

Account. 

OMB Control Number: 2140–0006. 

STB Form Number: STB Form 1032. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Rail carriers, shippers, 

and others doing business before the 

STB. 

Number of Respondents: 5. 

Estimated Time per Response: Less 

than .08 hours, based on actual survey 

of respondents. 

Frequency: One time per respondent. 

Total Burden Hours (annually 

including all respondents): Less than 0.4 

hours. 

Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost: No 

‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens associated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES