Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 113 / Monday, June 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28209 

Authority: Pub. L. No. 101–410, Pub. L. 

No. 104–134, 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30170, 30505, 

32308, 32309, 32507, 32709, 32710, 32912, 

and 33115 as amended; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 578.6, paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2), (d), (f)(1), and (g), are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 578.6 Civil penalties for violations of 

specified provisions of Title 49 of the United 

States Code. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Violates section 30112(a)(2) of 

Title 49 United States Code, shall be 

subject to a civil penalty of not more 

than $11,000 for each violation. A 

separate violation occurs for each motor 

vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment and for each failure or 

refusal to allow or perform an act 

required by this section. The maximum 

penalty under this paragraph for a 

related series of violations is 

$16,950,000. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The maximum civil penalty under 

this paragraph (c) for a related series of 

violations is $1,175,000. 

(d) Consumer Information—(1) 

Crashworthiness and Damage 

Susceptibility. A person that violates 49 

U.S.C. 32308(a), regarding 

crashworthiness and damage 

susceptibility, is liable to the United 

States Government for a civil penalty of 

not more than $1,100 for each violation. 

Each failure to provide information or 

comply with a regulation in violation of 

49 U.S.C. 32308(a) is a separate 

violation. The maximum penalty under 

this paragraph for a related series of 

violations is $575,000 

(2) Consumer Tire Information. A 

person that violates 49 U.S.C. 32308(c), 

regarding consumer tire information 

established under 49 U.S.C. 32304A, is 

liable to the United States Government 

for a civil penalty of not more than 

$50,000 for each violation. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 327 or a regulation prescribed 

or order issued thereunder is liable to 

the United States Government for a civil 

penalty of not more than $2,200 for each 

violation. The maximum civil penalty 

under this paragraph for a related series 

of violations is $150,000. 

* * * * * 

(g) Vehicle theft protection. (1) A 

person that violates 49 U.S.C. 

33114(a)(1)–(4) is liable to the United 

States Government for a civil penalty of 

not more than $1,100 for each violation. 

The failure of more than one part of a 

single motor vehicle to conform to an 

applicable standard under 49 U.S.C. 

33102 and 33103 is only a single 

violation. The maximum penalty under 

this paragraph for a related series of 

violations is $375,000. 

(2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 

33114(a)(5) is liable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty of not 

more than $150,000 a day for each 

violation. 

* * * * * 

Issued on: June 9, 2009. 

Stephen P. Wood, 

Acting Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–13933 Filed 6–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 581 

[Docket Number NHTSA–2009–0047] 

Bumper Standard; Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2008, the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 

petitioned the agency to amend the 

existing bumper standard, to require 

compliance by light trucks, vans, and 

sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which 

NHTSA often refers to collectively as 

LTVs. The agency had already begun reevaluating the bumper standard in 

anticipation of the vote on a Global 

Technical Regulation on pedestrian 

safety. NHTSA requests comments and 

information to assist the agency in 

determining whether to grant or deny 

the IIHS petition. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them not 

later than August 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the 

docket notice number cited at the 

beginning of this notice and be 

submitted to Docket Management, Room 

W12–140, ground level, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

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. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 

1–800–647–5527. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

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. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

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) or you may visit http:// 

docketsinfo.dot.gov/. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the street 

address listed above. The internet access 

to the docket will be at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hisham Mohamed, Consumer Standards 

Division, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE., West Building, Room W43– 

437, NVS–131, Washington, DC 20590. 

Mr. Mohamed’s telephone number is 

202–366–0307; E-mail: 

hisham.mohamed@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The agency’s bumper standard, set 

forth at 49 CFR part 581, establishes 

requirements for the impact resistance 

of vehicles in low speed front and rear 

collisions. The purpose of the standard 

is to reduce physical damage to the front 

and rear ends of a passenger motor 

vehicle from low speed collisions. The 

standard applies to passenger motor 

vehicles other than multipurpose 

passenger vehicles and low speed 

vehicles. 

The history of the Part 581 bumper 

standard has been long and complex. In 

its initial efforts in the field of bumper 

regulation, NHTSA issued Federal 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
28210 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 113 / Monday, June 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1The acronym ‘‘FARS’’ now stands for the 

‘‘Fatality Analysis Reporting System.’’ 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 215, Exterior Protection, under the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act (the Safety Act), now 

codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

FMVSS No. 215 was initially 

implemented on September 1, 1972. 

On October 20, 1972, Congress 

enacted the Motor Vehicle Information 

and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings 

Act). Title I of that Act, now codified as 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 325, provided for 

promulgation of bumper standards to 

reduce the economic loss resulting from 

damage to passenger motor vehicles 

involved in motor vehicle accidents. 

The statute specifies that when 

prescribing a bumper standard, the 

agency must design the standard to 

obtain the maximum feasible reduction 

of costs to the public, considering the 

costs and benefits of carrying out the 

standard; the effect of the standard on 

insurance costs and legal fees and costs; 

savings in consumer time and 

inconvenience; and health and safety, 

including emission standards. 49 U.S.C. 

32502(d). 

Pursuant to both the authority of the 

Cost Savings Act and the Safety Act, 

NHTSA established the Part 581 

Bumper Standard in 1976. 41 RF 9346 

(March 4, 1976). As adopted, this 

standard combined the safety features of 

FMVSS 215 with new damage resistance 

criteria intended to promote consumer 

cost savings. There have been a number 

of amendments to the bumper standard 

since that time. 

NHTSA’s bumper standard does not 

apply to vehicles classified as trucks 

(because they are not passenger motor 

vehicles) or multipurpose passenger 

vehicles (because they are a type of 

passenger motor vehicles excluded by 

the agency when it established the 

bumper standard) the category which 

includes vehicles commonly referred to 

as SUVs. The Cost Savings Act 

specifically excludes trucks from any 

bumper standards and allows the 

agency to exempt multipurpose 

passenger vehicles from bumper 

standards. Both of these vehicle types 

could be regulated under the authority 

of the Safety Act. Since trucks are 

excluded from bumper standards under 

the Cost Saving Act, any bumper 

standard for these vehicles would need 

to be issued solely on the criteria 

included in the Safety Act. 

In the past NHTSA has denied 

petitions to extend the bumper standard 

to trucks and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles. In August 1984, the agency 

denied two petitions for rulemaking, 

asking the agency to establish safety 

requirements for bumpers on vehicles 

other than passenger cars (49 FR 34049, 

Aug. 28, 1984). The first petitioner 

requested the agency to establish a 

bumper height requirement for all 

vehicles. The second petitioner 

requested the agency to require rear 

bumpers on pick-up trucks. 

NHTSA responded by stating that 

while it was conceivable that a bumper 

height requirement for vehicles other 

than passenger cars could result in some 

slight, non-quantifiable safety benefits 

relating to unrepaired damage, the 

agency was unaware of any data 

indicating any significant safety 

problem with bumpers (or lack of rear 

bumper) on pick-up trucks, vans or 

utility vehicles, relating to mismatch 

problems, crash energy management, or 

side impact intrusion. Neither petitioner 

provided any such data. 

In its response, NHTSA also stated 

that in considering possible rulemaking, 

the agency must consider both safety 

issues and whether a proposed 

requirement would be reasonable, 

practicable and appropriate for the 

particular type of motor vehicle or item 

of motor vehicle equipment for which it 

is prescribed. This is specifically 

required by the Safety Act. 

The agency concluded that 

establishing a bumper height 

requirement for vehicles other than 

passenger cars or requiring rear bumpers 

on pick-up trucks could significantly 

reduce the utility of the vehicle types in 

question. At that time, the agency did 

not have data showing that there was a 

safety problem that would justify 

rulemaking. 

In February 1991, the agency again 

denied a petition for rulemaking 

regarding bumper heights for small 

trucks and SUVs (56 FR 7826, Feb. 26, 

1991). The petitioner was concerned 

that these vehicles could override the 

hood of passenger cars in crashes. In 

responding to the petition, the agency 

noted that the bumper standard did not 

apply to trucks or multipurpose 

passenger vehicles. NHTSA stated that 

it believed it would be inappropriate to 

require bumpers of these vehicles to be 

at the same height as those of passenger 

cars. The agency stated that these types 

of vehicles require greater ground 

clearance than passenger cars, to enable 

them to clear obstacles and hazards 

characteristic of commercial and 

occasional off-road operation. The 

agency stated that, for the same reason, 

requiring underride guards on trucks 

and multipurpose passenger vehicles 

would be inappropriate. The 

requirement recommended by the 

petitioner would have significantly 

reduced the utility of the vehicle types 

in question. Therefore, the agency 

believed that such a requirement would 

not be reasonable, practicable or 

appropriate for these vehicle types. 

NHTSA also noted that while the 

agency recognized that many of these 

other vehicles were manufactured with 

bumpers mounted somewhat higher 

than passenger car bumpers, it did not 

have evidence of any significant safety 

problems resulting from those 

differences. Additionally, the agency 

analyzed data from the 1989 Fatal 

Accident Reporting System (FARS) 

file 1, a census of all fatal motor vehicle 

crashes on U.S. roads. The analysis 

indicated that there were no incidences 

of underride or override reported as a 

specific cause of the car occupant 

fatality, and the agency stated it was 

unaware of any data indicating a safety 

problem to be addressed by a 

rulemaking addressing bumper heights 

of pickup trucks, vans or sport utility 

vehicles. However, a review of the 2007 

FARS data on ‘‘Deaths among 

Occupants of Passenger Cars with 

Underride or Override Reported’’ shows 

that the data includes 206 occupants 

who died in cars with underride or 

override reported, including 34 in 

crashes that involved at least one light 

truck or van. Thirteen of these fatalities 

occurred in two-vehicle crashes. All 13 

involved a pickup truck, and 10 

involved front damage to the car. The 

agency notes that although this data 

reflects that some fatalities have 

involved occupants who died in cars 

with underride or override reported, the 

data does not reflect the travel or crash 

speed for these crashes. We note that the 

crash or travel speed for these crashes 

could be above the speed requirements 

of the bumper standard. 

The IIHS Petition 

In July 2008 the Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety (IIHS) petitioned 

NHTSA to extend the bumper standard 

to light trucks, vans, and SUVs 

(collectively, LTVs). The IIHS stated 

that it is legal to sell new LTVs in the 

United States without any bumpers, and 

this produces several undesirable 

consequences. The IIHS stated that 

many LTVs provide virtually no 

protection for vital safety-related parts 

such as headlights and taillights, which 

often sustain damage in low-speed 

collisions. The IIHS stated that LTVs 

owners have to pay for expensive 

repairs to fenders, grilles, and other 

parts that sustain unnecessary damage 

in low-speed collisions. Further, IIHS 

stated that vehicle manufacturers which 

choose to equip their LTVs with 

bumpers do not have to make them 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 113 / Monday, June 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28211 

2 Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0089. 

compatible in height with passenger 

vehicle bumpers. IIHS stated that LTV 

bumpers can be much higher than car 

bumpers, which results in excessive 

damage to the passenger vehicles with 

which they collide at low speeds. 

The IIHS also stated that crash test 

results and data from insurance claims 

demonstrate the safety and property 

damage consequences of allowing 

inadequate bumpers, or none at all, on 

LTVs. The petitioner stated that by 

applying passenger vehicle bumper 

requirements to LTVs, NHTSA would 

make bumpers more compatible across 

the range of passenger vehicles. The 

petitioner also stated that this would 

enhance occupant safety and, at the 

same time, reduce costly damage to 

property in low-speed collisions, a 

subject which NHTSA and the 

automotive industry are addressing in 

the broader issue of vehicle 

compatibility. (Docket: NHTSA–2003– 

14623). 

We note that NHTSA had already 

begun re-evaluating the bumper 

standard in anticipation of a vote on the 

Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on 

pedestrian safety, (see notice at 73 FR 

55201 for further discussion of the 

GTR). The agency is also aware that 

there has been a significant change in 

vehicle registration in the U.S. that has 

resulted from an increased market shift 

to light trucks since the most recent 

revision of the bumper standard in 

1982. The IIHS petition on its own does 

not provide sufficient support for the 

requested action, but our evaluation 

leads us to think that it may be an 

appropriate time to reconsider past 

agency decisions on extending the 

bumper standard to other vehicles. 

NHTSA requests comments to assist 

the agency in deciding whether to grant 

or deny the IIHS petition. To inform the 

agency’s decision, the following are key 

issues that the agency would like 

commenters to address. In particular, 

the agency requests that commenters 

include documents, studies, test 

protocols, data, or references which 

support their comments. 

Cost/Benefits 

(1) The petitioner reported that crash 

tests demonstrate that there are bumper 

height mismatches between SUVs and 

passenger cars based on four tested MY 

2008 SUVs and five tested MY 2004 

SUVs. The petitioner reported that crash 

tests with greater bumper mismatches 

tend to produce damage with higher 

repair costs. Are these results 

representative of the current SUV fleet? 

Are the results likely to reflect the 

future mix of SUVs? Are there any 

comparable data available for other 

LTVs? 

(2) Are there any estimates of the 

costs and benefits of extending the 

bumper standard to LTVs? Can these 

costs and benefits be estimated 

separately for SUVs, minivans, and 

pickups? Can these costs and benefits be 

estimated separately for unibody and 

body on frame SUVs, and for different 

SUVs by size? Can these costs and 

benefits be estimated separately for the 

front and rear bumpers? Also, what 

would be the specific safety benefits of 

extending the bumper standard to these 

vehicles (separate from other types of 

benefits)? 

(3) Should NHTSA consider a moreextensive upgrade to the bumper 

standard for all light vehicles? Does the 

current standard adequately protect 

passenger cars, given the current and 

projected mix of crash partners? What 

are the estimated repair costs for 

vehicles with matching and 

mismatching bumpers at various crash 

speeds (for example, 2.5 and 5 mph)? 

Can the benefits and costs be estimated 

separately for the front and rear 

bumpers? 

(4) Over the past decades, the 

passenger vehicle fleet has shifted from 

a fleet containing primarily cars to a 

fleet with a much higher percentage of 

light trucks. FHWA data show that 

growth in total miles driven by ‘‘Twoaxle, four-tire trucks,’’ a category that 

includes most or all light trucks used as 

passenger vehicles, averaged 5.1% 

annually from 1985 through 2005.2

While the future mix of the fleet is 

uncertain, the agency seeks comment 

and data on the current usage patterns 

for light trucks. Since past agency 

decisions have focused on the utility of 

these vehicles, are there any data that 

provide the current usage patterns of 

light trucks? Are there vehicle features 

that distinguish light trucks which are 

primarily work vehicles from those that 

are used primarily as passenger 

vehicles? 

(5) For an LTV, what is the probability 

of being involved in low speed crashes 

over the vehicle’s lifetime? And what is 

the difference in repair and 

inconvenience costs for matching and 

mismatching vehicle bumpers? Also 

what is the frequency of vehicle crashes 

at various low speed impacts (for 

example, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 mph)? Please 

provide data. 

Vehicle Compatibility 

Bumper mismatch represents one 

aspect of the broader issue of vehicle 

compatibility being addressed by 

NHTSA and the automotive industry. 

NHTSA is addressing self-protection in 

the near-term through improved side 

impact protection. On September 11, 

2007 (72 FR 51908), the agency 

published a final rule upgrading the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 214, ‘‘Side 

impact protection,’’ to assure head and 

improved chest protection in side 

crashes. It will lead to the installation of 

new technologies such as side curtain 

air bags, which are capable of improving 

head and thorax protection to occupants 

of vehicles that crash into poles and 

trees and vehicles that are laterally 

struck by a higher-riding vehicle. 

To improve partner protection for 

occupants in struck vehicles, NHTSA 

has conducted research enabling the 

effect of matching height of the frontal 

structures and stiffness. NHTSA is also 

pursuing refinement of its data 

collection to enhance the better 

understanding of the fleet geometry 

during crashes. 

In addition to NHTSA’s initiatives, 

the automobile industry has developed 

and committed to a set of voluntary 

design guidelines and performance 

criteria for enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle 

compatibility. One of the requirement 

options is for the light truck’s primary 

frontal energy absorbing structure to 

geometrically overlap at least 50 percent 

of the zone established by NHTSA in its 

bumper standard (49 CFR part 581) for 

passenger cars. An alternative to this 

option is for a secondary structure to 

have a lower edge no higher than the 

bottom of the Part 581 bumper zone. By 

September 1, 2009, 100 percent of 

participating manufacturers’ new light 

truck production intended for sale in 

the United States must comply with one 

of these approaches. 

(6) IIHS reported that Ford has 

reduced the bumper height mismatch 

for one of its popular SUVs without 

compromising vehicle function on 

loading ramps and off-road. What data 

are available to support this statement? 

How have the design changes on this 

vehicle changed its approach and 

departure angles? What were the tradeoffs, if any, in reducing the bumperheight mismatch for this vehicle? Would 

there be problems in redesigning other 

LTVs to comply with the bumper 

standard and what would these 

problems be? What will be the cost of 

redesigning LTVs to comply with the 

bumper standard? 

(7) What data are available to indicate 

any significant safety problem with 

bumpers (or lack of rear bumper) on 

pick-up trucks, vans or utility vehicles, 

relating to mismatch problems, crash 

energy management, or side impact 

intrusion? 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
28212 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 113 / Monday, June 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(8) How much overlap in bumper 

height is needed between the front of 

one vehicle and the rear of another 

vehicle to eliminate or reduce bumper 

mismatch? 

(9) Is there a way to define vehicle 

characteristics that require a higher 

bumper, such that some LTVs could be 

exempt from a bumper height standard, 

while others would be required to 

supply bumpers of certain heights? 

(10) Please provide data to support 

incidences of underride or override 

reported as a specific cause of vehicle 

occupant injury or fatality. What is the 

availability of data indicating a safety 

problem that could have been addressed 

by a rulemaking addressing bumper 

heights of pickup trucks, vans or sport 

utility vehicles? Please provide specific 

details. 

(11) To what extent does the U.S. fleet 

of LTVs meet the bumper standard 

requirements? What are the bumper 

costs, weights and heights (i.e. 

measurements of the bumper structural 

element from the ground) of the 

different types of LTVs in the U.S. fleet? 

Pedestrian Safety 

(12) Ongoing work on the pedestrian 

safety GTR has shown that changes in 

the vehicle geometry can have a 

profound effect on pedestrian leg 

injuries when struck by the front 

bumper. Any decision to change the 

bumper standard should therefore 

consider, if not provide, an in-depth 

analysis of pedestrian injuries and 

fatalities related to the bumper standard. 

Are there any analyses on the effect of 

vehicle frontal geometry changes on 

pedestrian safety that could happen as 

a result if LTVs were required to comply 

with the existing bumper standard? 

Please provide information on these 

analyses. 

(13) What impact would a change to 

the bumper standard have on the 

potential for manufacturers to also meet 

the pedestrian safety GTR requirements? 

Please provide information on that data. 

New Technologies 

(14) Vehicle height could be adjusted 

for on or off-road usage, for example, by 

using air suspension. Recent 

development in materials and designs 

has helped introduce height adjustable 

suspension on some SUVs. What is the 

available data on the feasibility, costs 

and benefits of using vehicle height 

adjustment technologies to comply with 

a requirement for these vehicles to meet 

the current bumper standard? Are there 

any data on the extent to which SUVs 

operated on the public roads have their 

height adjusted to on-road position? 

Please provide information on these 

data. 

Statutory Criteria 

(15) As noted earlier, since trucks are 

excluded from bumper standards under 

the Cost Savings Act, any bumper 

standards for these vehicles would need 

to meet the criteria in the Safety Act. 

The current bumper standard was 

developed under the criteria of the Cost 

Savings Act. Could a straight forward 

extension of the bumper standard to 

trucks be justified under the criteria of 

the Safety Act alone? If so, how? If not, 

why not? 

Public Participation 

A. How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your primary comments must not be 

more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 

553.21). However, you may attach 

additional documents to your primary 

comments. There is no limit on the 

length of the attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. 

Comments may also be submitted to 

the docket electronically on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

B. How can I be sure my comments were 

received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

C. How do I submit confidential 

business information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, send 

three copies of your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Include a cover letter supplying the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR part 512). 

In addition, send two copies from 

which you have deleted the claimed 

confidential business information to 

Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES, or submit 

them electronically through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

D. Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. 

E. How can I read the comments 

submitted by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by the Docket Management at the 

address given under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. To read the 

comments on the Internet, go to http: 

//www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information on the 

docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the docket for new 

material. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32502; 322, 30111, 

30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: June 4, 2009. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–13531 Filed 6–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS