[Senate Report 110-275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
110-275
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 619
CAMERON GULBRANSEN KIDS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACT OF 2007
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. H.R. deg. 694
DATE deg.March 13, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred tenth congress
second session
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice-Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
THOMAS CARPER, Delaware ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret Cummisky, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Helms, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Jean Toal Eisen, Senior Advisor and Deputy Policy Director
Christine Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Paul J. Nagle, Republican Chief Counsel
Mimi Braniff, Republican Deputy Chief Counsel
Calendar No. 619
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-275
======================================================================
CAMERON GULBRANSEN KIDS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACT OF 2007
_______
March 13, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Inouye, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 694]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill joint resolution deg. (S.
H.R. deg. 694) TITLE deg. to direct the
Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the
incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside
of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment deg. with amendments deg. with an amendment
(in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill
joint resolution deg. (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
S. 694, as amended, would direct the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to issue regulations applicable to
passenger cars and light trucks that will reduce the incidence
of injury and death. The Secretary would be granted rulemaking
authority to consider requiring that power windows and panels
automatically reverse direction when they detect an
obstruction, to issue a performance standard to provide drivers
with a means of detecting the presence of a person or object
behind the vehicle, and to require that automatic transmissions
manufactured on and after September 1, 2010, include a service
brake system in which the service brake must be depressed
before the driver can shift the transmission out of a ``park''
position. The feature is intended to prevent vehicles from
rolling away.
Background and Needs
In 2006, 1,618 children ages 15 years and younger died as
passengers in motor vehicle crashes in the United States, and
approximately 206,000 were injured.\1\ In addition, many
children are killed and injured in driveway accidents, such as
backover incidents each year, and vehicles without auto-reverse
power windows and brake shift interlock systems also
contributed to a significant number of injuries and fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA--2006 Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle Crashes.
September, 2007, page 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backover: Vehicle backover injuries and deaths occur when a
person is positioned behind a vehicle without a driver's
knowledge as the driver backs up. Most victims of backovers are
children and the elderly. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimates that backover incidents cause
at least 183 fatalities and between 6,700 and 7,419 injuries
annually; however, the number of fatalities and injuries from
those incidents is subject to debate because no comprehensive
statistics are collected on vehicular accidents on private
property. Some safety groups assert that the number of
backover-related injuries and fatalities is higher. Because
these accidents often occur on private property, rather than on
public roads, they are not typically included in traffic-crash
fatality data.
In preventing backover accidents, the size of vehicle blind
spots, the area behind the vehicle where the driver cannot see
using his or her side or rear-view mirrors, is a key factor.
Generally, the larger the vehicle, the larger the blind spot.
Children are especially vulnerable since their small stature
makes them harder to see within a blind spot. As larger
vehicles, including SUVs, pickup trucks, and minivans, have
become more popular, more drivers are confronted with larger
blind spots. Currently, without a standard, automakers can
design similar-sized vehicles that have dramatically different
blind spots. For example, among midsized SUVs, a 5 foot 1 inch
driver of a 2006 Jeep Commander Limited has a 69 foot blind
spot versus an 18 foot blind spot for a similar-sized driver of
a 2005 Nissan Pathfinder LE.
In 2005, in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act, A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
Congress required the NHTSA to conduct a study of effective
methods for reducing the incidence of injury and death outside
of parked vehicles and to include an analysis of backover
prevention technology. In addition, the Senate Report
accompanying H.R. 3058, the Fiscal Year 2006 Transportation,
Treasury, HUD Appropriations bill asked for a similar study.
In November 2006, the NHSTA provided a report to Congress
entitled the Vehicle Backover Avoidance Technology Study. The
report examined on-board sensor-based warning systems and
visual-only systems that are meant to detect objects behind a
vehicle ``to evaluate their performance and potential
effectiveness in mitigating backover crashes'' involving
pedestrians. The report indicated that ``vehicle manufacturers
do not market these technologies as safety systems for
preventing drivers from inadvertently backing into
pedestrians;'' rather they are designed and marketed as parking
aids. According to the NHTSA report, in 2006 ``there were
thirty-one vehicle makes and 100 different model lines offering
a parking aid system in the U.S. market.'' There are a variety
of similar systems available in the aftermarket, some of which
espouse their abilities as both a parking aid and a safety
device.
The NHTSA tested 9 technology-based systems: 6 with sensors
only (half original equipment and half aftermarket); 2 with
sensors and cameras (1 each original equipment and
aftermarket); and 1 camera only (original equipment). Mirrors
were used in 2 additional tests. Overall, six vehicle models
were used. The data the NHTSA received reported that sensor-
based warning systems were generally able to detect adult
pedestrians but were lacking in their ability to consistently
detect child pedestrians. The report stated that camera systems
performed well visually in daylight and indoor lighted
situations, but required drivers to be able to quickly and
accurately interpret the video information to be effective.
However, in a survey of car owners with sensor or camera-based
systems, the report stated that at least 85 percent of those
who had avoidance systems installed on their vehicles thought
the systems were ``effective or very effective at providing
warnings about objects sufficiently in advance.'' The NHTSA
indicated that the agency would conduct further study on the
``serious safety problem presented by vehicle backing
crashes.''
Auto-Reverse Power Windows: Power windows cause numerous
injuries to children and adults, including broken or amputated
fingers, broken arms of small children, and strangulations of
small children resulting from the force of the window as it
rises. In a 1997 study, the NHTSA estimated that 499 people
each year suffer an injury severe enough to require a visit to
the emergency room due to power window injuries; almost a third
of those were under the age of 6, and nearly a third were
between the ages of 6 and 15.
In SAFETEA-LU, Congress required that window switch designs
be changed to the push-down, pull-up variety that cannot be
engaged by pressing against them. While the window switch
modification in SAFETEA-LU solved the problem of children
accidentally operating the windows, it did not address the
situation when someone else is closing the window on a person.
Approximately 15 to 20 percent of the vehicles in the U.S.
market use auto-reverse window technology to re-open at least
one window if sensors indicate an obstruction. According to the
NHTSA, the estimated cost of equipping a vehicle with auto-
reverse technology is $8 to $12 per window. It is anticipated
that this price would decrease through economies of scale.
Brake Transmission Shift Interlock: When a vehicle is
inadvertently put into gear or neutral, it may roll away
causing harm to bystanders or individuals in the vehicle.
Children are especially at risk because they may not know what
they did or how to stop the vehicle once they realize what is
happening. The nonprofit safety organization Kids and Cars
estimates that rollaways were responsible for approximately 86
child fatalities since 2001. The safety technology needed to
prevent these incidents is called Brake Transmission Shift
Interlock (BTSI), and it requires depressing the brake pedal to
move the gear shift. Since children typically cannot reach the
brake pedal, if BTSI is in place, there is little chance they
can shift the vehicle into gear by themselves.
In August of 2006, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and
the NHTSA crafted a voluntary agreement which requires full
implementation of BTSI not later than September 1, 2010. The
agreement states that ``any vehicle under 10,000 pounds
produced for the U.S. market, with an automatic transmission
that includes a `park' position shall have a system that
requires that the service brake be depressed before the
transmission can be shifted out of `park.''' S. 694 would
codify the agreement. Automakers participating in the voluntary
agreement include: Aston Martin, BMW Group, Ford Motor Company,
Hyundai Motor, Maserati, Nissan, Suzuki, DaimlerChrysler
Corporation, General Motors, Isuzu Motors, Mazda, Porsche,
Toyota, Ferrari, Honda, Kia Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, Subaru,
and Volkswagen Group.
Approximately 80 percent of model year (MY) 2006 motor
vehicles produced that would have been subject to this
agreement are equipped with an automatic transmission control
system designed in accordance with the requirements of this
agreement. More than 98 percent of MY 2009 motor vehicles are
forecasted to be equipped with an automatic transmission
control system designed in accordance with this agreement.
Summary of Provisions
Under S. 694, the Secretary would initiate a rulemaking
within 18 months of enactment to consider prescribing safety
standards to require power windows and panels to automatically
reverse when an obstruction is detected. S. 694 requires the
Secretary to initiate a rulemaking within 12 months of
enactment to expand the required field of view to enable a
driver to better avoid accidental backover incidents. The
Secretary would be required to phase in safety standards within
48 months after the issuance of a final rule. S. 694 would
require that motor vehicles manufactured for sale after
September 1, 2010, be equipped with a system that requires the
brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted
out of ``park.'' S. 694 also would direct the Secretary to
establish and maintain a database of nontraffic, noncrash
related motor vehicle injuries and provide information about
hazards to children in nontraffic, noncrash incident situations
to consumers.
Legislative History
On February 27, 2007, Senators Clinton and Sununu introduced
S. 694, the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of
2007, which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. A number of members of the Committee
cosponsored the measure, including Vice Chairman Stevens and
Senators Kerry, Bill Nelson, Hutchison, Lautenberg, Boxer,
Klobuchar, Rockefeller, Ensign, McCain, Dorgan, Snowe, Pryor,
and Cantwell. On February 28, 2007, the Subcommittee on
Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and Automotive Safety held a
hearing on vehicle safety for children during which testimony
was provided on S. 694.
On May 16, 2007, the Committee met in open executive session
to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by Senator Sununu that made several changes to the bill as
introduced and modified the title. By voice vote, the Committee
adopted the Sununu substitute amendment and ordered that bill
be reported.
Estimated Costs
In compliance with subsection (a)(3) of paragraph 11
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee
states that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of that subsection
in order to expedite the business of the Senate. deg.
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 694--Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007
S. 694 would establish additional safety measures in
automobiles to protect children and would require the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the
Department of Transportation to oversee the implementation of
such measures. S. 694 would require NHTSA to complete
rulemakings and issue regulations regarding certain safety
features on automobiles designed to improve the safety of
children inside and behind vehicles. The bill also would
require NHTSA to implement and to oversee the compliance of
automobile manufacturers with those regulations. Further, the
bill would require NHTSA to establish and maintain a database
of injuries and deaths involving a single vehicle that is not
in the flow of traffic and which is not involved in a crash,
and to provide information about such accidents to the public
through a consumer information program.
Based on information from NHTSA, CBO estimates that
implementing the bill would not significantly increase spending
subject to appropriation. Enacting the legislation would not
affect direct spending or revenues. The bill contains no
intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
S. 694 would impose several private-sector mandates on
certain manufacturers of motor vehicles. The bill would require
the Department of Transportation to implement new regulations
requiring that all vehicles have automatic reversal of
direction by power windows and panels when they detect an
obstruction, a rearward visibility performance standard to
prevent backing incidents, and automatic transmissions to have
an anti-rollaway system that requires the service brake to be
depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of park.
Because the cost of these mandates would depend on the rules to
be established by the Secretary of Transportation, CBO cannot
determine the exact cost of all of the mandates contained in
the bill. However, based on information from NHTSA, it is
likely that the cost will be in the billions of dollars and
thus would exceed the annual threshold as defined in UMRA for
private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted
annually for inflation).
In addition, those sources estimate the cost to comply with
the regulations for power windows would be about $25 per car.
Furthermore, those sources estimate that it would cost vehicle
manufacturers approximately $350 per car to install the
equipment that would best enhance rearward visibility. The cost
of those two mandates could amount to more than $5 billion. And
finally, the cost to comply with the mandate requiring an anti-
rollaway system would be small, since manufacturers are already
complying with this requirement.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Sarah Puro
(for federal costs) and Fatimot Ladipot (for the impact on the
private sector). This estimate was approved by Peter H.
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
Establishing new motor vehicle safety standards would require
all manufacturers to modify vehicle designs and production.
Purchasers of a new motor vehicle in which the features were
incorporated would benefit from the safety improvements.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Safety modifications in the design and manufacture as
required by S. 694 would increase the cost of some motor
vehicles.
PRIVACY
S. 694 is not anticipated to impact the privacy of consumers.
PAPERWORK
The creation and maintenance of a database on injuries and
deaths in nontraffic, noncrash events may result in additional
paperwork related to the reporting of such events to the
Secretary.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title.
This section would provide that the Act may be cited as the
``Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007''
or the ``K.T. Safety Act of 2007.''
Section 2. Rulemaking Regarding Child Safety.
Power Window Safety. The Secretary would be required to
initiate a rulemaking not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment to consider amending or prescribing Federal motor
vehicle safety standards to require power windows and panels to
reverse direction when they detect an obstruction in order to
prevent children from being trapped, injured, or killed. If a
final rule is issued, any phase-in of the final rule
requirements would be completed within 48 months from the date
on which the final rule was issued. If the Secretary decides
safety standards for power windows are reasonable, practicable,
and appropriate, the Secretary would prescribe them within 30
months of the date of enactment. If the Secretary decides that
no additional safety standards are reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate, the Secretary, within 30 months of the date of
enactment, would send a report to the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation describing the reasoning
for not prescribing the standards. The Secretary also would be
required to publish and publicize information disclosing which
vehicles are equipped with the auto-reverse windows and panels
and which are not.
Rearward Visibility. Within 12 months of the date of
enactment, the Secretary would be required to initiate a
rulemaking to revise the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
111 to expand the required field of view to enable the driver
to detect the presence of a person or object behind the vehicle
in order to prevent death and injury resulting from backover
incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and
disabled persons. The Secretary would be authorized to
prescribe different requirements for different types of motor
vehicles. The provision of additional mirrors, sensors,
cameras, or other technology to expand the driver's field of
view would be acceptable for the purpose of meeting the
standard. The Secretary would be required to prescribe final
standards not later than 36 months after the date of enactment.
The Secretary would be required to establish a phase-in
period for compliance with the rearward visibility standard
which could not exceed 48 months from the date on which the
final rule was issued. In establishing the phase-in period, the
Secretary would consider whether to prioritize phase-in by type
of motor vehicle based on data demonstrating the frequency by
which various types of motor vehicles have been involved in
injury causing backing incidents. If the Secretary determines
that any type of motor vehicle should be given priority, the
Secretary would be required to issue regulations that specify
which type or types of motor vehicles shall be phased-in first
and the percentages by which such motor vehicles shall be
phased-in.
Preventing Motor Vehicles from Rolling Away. This section
would require each motor vehicle manufactured for sale after
September 1, 2010, to be equipped with a system that requires
the brake to be depressed before the transmission can be
shifted out of ``park.'' This system would need to function in
any key position in which the transmission can be shifted out
of ``park.'' Failure to comply would be treated as a violation
of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment, for the
current model year, and annually thereafter through 2010, each
motor vehicle manufacturer would be required to submit to the
Secretary the make and model of light motor vehicles that are
equipped with automatic transmissions that may be shifted out
of ``park'' without depressing the brake. Not later than 30
days after receiving the information, the Secretary would be
required to publish and otherwise make available to the public
the make and model of the motor vehicles that do not comply
with the regulations.
Database on Injuries and Deaths in Non traffic, Non crash
Events. Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment,
the Secretary would establish and maintain a database of
injuries and deaths in nontraffic, noncrash events involving
light motor vehicles.
Section 3. Child Safety Information Program.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment, the
Secretary would be required to provide information about
hazards to children in nontraffic, noncrash incident situations
by supplementing an existing consumer information program
relating to child safety or by creating a new consumer
information program relating to child safety. The Secretary
would be required to utilize information collected regarding
non traffic, non crash injuries, and other relevant data from
private organizations, to establish priorities for the program.
The Secretary also would need to address ways in which parents
and caregivers can reduce risks to small children arising from
backover incidents, overheating in closed vehicles, accidental
activation of power windows, and any other risks that the
Secretary determines should be addressed. The Secretary would
be required to make information related to the program
available to the public through the Internet and other means.
Section 4. Deadlines.
If the Secretary determines that the deadlines set forth
under the bill cannot be met, this section would require the
Secretary to establish a new deadline and notify the Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate of the new deadline and reason therefor.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as
reported would make no change to existing law.