[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8391-8395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01542]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0005]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Automatic Emergency
Braking
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a January 13, 2016 rulemaking petition
jointly submitted by Consumer Watchdog, Center for Auto Safety, and
Public Citizen. The petition requested NHTSA to begin a rulemaking
proceeding to mandate that all light vehicles be equipped with three
types of automatic emergency braking (AEB) technologies: Forward crash
warning, crash imminent braking, and dynamic brake support. NHTSA is
denying the petition because the Agency has already taken significant
steps to incentivize the installation of these technologies in a way
that allows for continued innovation and technological advancement.
First, NHTSA has expanded its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) so that
the NCAP information for a vehicle notes whether the vehicle is
equipped with one or more of these technologies. Second, it has sought
public comment on its plans to revise NCAP so that the presence and
level of performance of these technologies affects the overall rating
of light motor vehicles.
To reinforce these improvements to the NCAP program, NHTSA
encouraged and facilitated a process that resulted in 20 light vehicle
manufacturers, representing more than 99 percent of light motor vehicle
sales in the United States, committing to voluntarily installing
forward crash warning and crash imminent braking. While NHTSA's actions
will help create availability and market push for AEB technologies,
private sector organizations such as the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety and Consumer Reports are helping to create market pull
through a variety of outreach activities that are helping consumers
understand the benefits of AEB as well as differences among various
vehicle models. Together with NCAP, the industry commitment and the
actions of other stakeholders will lead to the installation of a
growing array of AEB technologies in substantially all light vehicles
and will foster innovation and competition in this technologically
dynamic area. As the manufacturers respond to NCAP and carry out their
commitments, the Agency is continuously monitoring their efforts to
assess whether additional steps, including the possibility of a
rulemaking to establish a new standard, might be needed in the future
to ensure realization of the potential benefits from the full array of
automatic emergency braking technologies.
DATES: January 18, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. David Hines, Director, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 493-
0245, Facsimile: (202) 493-2990.
For Legal Issues: Mr. Stephen P. Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, Office
of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992,
Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
B. Automatic emergency braking technologies
C. Chronology of NHTSA actions and other events related to
automatic emergency braking
II. Petition
[[Page 8392]]
III. NHTSA's consideration of the petition
A. General principles
B. Context for considering the petition
C. Analysis of the petition
IV. Conclusion
I. Background
A. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Safety Act'')
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards
for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each
safety standard must be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle
safety, and be stated in objective terms. NHTSA does not endorse any
vehicles or items of equipment. Further, NHTSA does not approve or
certify vehicles or equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a
``self-certification'' process under which each manufacturer is
responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety
standards. Pursuant to the Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act, the Agency also issues guidelines and establishes
test procedures and rating systems to encourage the development and
installation of additional and improved safety technologies under the
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for light motor vehicles.
B. Automatic Emergency Braking Technologies
An Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system uses forward-looking
sensors, typically radars and/or cameras, to detect objects, e.g.,
vehicles, ahead on the roadway. There are three complementary types of
automatic emergency braking technologies. They are listed below:
1. Forward Collision Warning (FCW)
FCW is a system that uses information from forward-looking sensors
to determine whether or not a crash is likely or unavoidable and that,
in such cases, warns the driver so the driver can brake and/or steer to
avoid a crash or minimize the force of the crash. The system is based
on two components: A sensing system capable of detecting a vehicle in
front of the subject vehicle, and a warning system sending a signal to
the driver. The sensing system consists of forward-looking radar,
LIDAR,\1\ camera systems, or a combination thereof. The sensor data are
digitally processed by a computer software algorithm that determines
whether an object it has detected poses a safety risk (e.g., whether
the object is a motor vehicle, etc.), determines if an impact with the
detected object is imminent, decides if and when a warning signal
should be sent to the driver, and finally, sends the warning signal.
The warning may be a visual signal, such as a light on the dash, an
audio signal, such as a chime or buzzer, or a haptic feedback signal
that applies rapid vibrations or motions to the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LIDAR is a device that uses pulsed lasers to detect nearby
stationary and moving objects in the driving environment, calculate
their distance and direction, and help to create a digital
representation of nearby objects and other driving environment
features that will be used to determine what path it is safe for a
vehicle to take.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Crash Imminent Braking (CIB)
CIB is a system that uses information from forward-looking sensors
to automatically apply the brakes in driving situations in which a
crash is likely or unavoidable and the driver makes no attempt to avoid
the crash. When an object in front of the driver's forward-moving
vehicle is detected, a computer software algorithm reviews the
available data from the input signal of the sensing system. If the
algorithm determines that a rear-end crash with another motor vehicle
is imminent, then a signal is sent to the electronic brake controller
to automatically activate the brakes of the driver's vehicle.
3. Dynamic Brake Support (DBS)
DBS is a system that uses information from forward-looking sensors
about driving situations in which a crash is likely or unavoidable to
supplement automatically the output of the brakes when the DBS system
senses that the force being applied by the driver to the brake pedal is
insufficient to avoid the crash. FCW most often works in concert with
DBS by first warning the driver of the situation and thereby providing
the opportunity for the driver to initiate the necessary braking. If
the driver's brake application is insufficient, DBS provides the
additional braking needed to avoid or mitigate the crash.
DBS is similar to CIB; the difference is that CIB activates when
the driver has not pressed on the brake pedal, and DBS activates when
the driver has pressed on the brake pedal, but not hard enough.
C. Chronology of NHTSA actions and other events related to automatic
emergency braking
July 2011--NHTSA added FCW to NCAP. (July 29, 2011; 76 Fed Reg
45453).
July 2012--NHTSA published a notice informing the public that the
Agency had, for about two years, been studying advanced braking
technologies that rely on forward-looking sensors to supplement driver
braking or to actuate automatic braking in response to an impending
crash. NHTSA stated that it believes these technologies show promise
for enhancing vehicle safety by helping drivers to avoid crashes or
mitigate the severity and effects of crashes. NHTSA solicited comments
on the results of its research thus far to help guide its continued
efforts in this area. (July 3, 2012; 77 FR 39561).
January 2015--NHTSA published a notice requesting public comments
on Agency plans for adding CIB and DBS as recommended technologies to
NCAP. (January 28, 2015; 80 FR 4630).
September 2015--NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) announced a commitment by 10 vehicle manufacturers to
install FCW and CIB in their light motor vehicles.
October 2015--NHTSA published a notice granting a petition by
Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the
Truck Safety Coalition to initiate a rulemaking to mandate the
installation of FCW, CIB, and DBS in heavy trucks and other heavy
vehicles. (October 16, 2015; 80 FR 62487).
November 2015--NHTSA published a final decision adding CIB and DBS
as recommended technologies in NCAP, effective with model year 2018.
FCW had previously been added to NCAP. Thus, if FCW, CIB or DBS were
installed in a light motor vehicle, the NCAP information for that
vehicle would note the presence of the technologies. However, the
vehicle's overall NCAP score would not be affected. (November 5, 2015;
80 FR 68604).
December 2015--NHTSA published a notice requesting public comments
on a new plan under which the scoring system would be revised such
that, in the future, the installation and performance of FCW, CIB or
DBS in a light motor vehicle would increase the vehicle's overall NCAP
score. In addition, a pedestrian safety rating would be assigned to new
vehicles, based on tests that determine how well the vehicles minimize
injuries and fatalities to pedestrians. The rating would reflect the
results from four crashworthiness pedestrian tests and the system
performance tests of two advanced crash avoidance technologies that
have the potential to avoid or mitigate crashes that involve a
pedestrian and improve pedestrian safety--pedestrian AEB and rear
automatic braking. (December 16, 2015; 80 FR 78521).
January 2016--Consumer Watchdog, Center for Auto Safety, and Public
Citizen (``Petitioners'') submitted a petition for rulemaking (dated
January
[[Page 8393]]
13, 2016) asking NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking to mandate FCW, CIB,
and DBS in all light motor vehicles.
March 2016--NHTSA and IIHS announced that 20 vehicle manufacturers,
representing more than 99 percent of light motor vehicle sales in the
United States, voluntarily committed to installing FCW and CIB in
substantially all of their light motor vehicles.\2\ Under their
commitments, the manufacturers will make FCW and CIB standard on
virtually all light cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight of
8,500 lbs. or less beginning no later than September 1, 2022. FCW and
CIB will be standard on substantially all trucks with a gross vehicle
weight between 8,501 lbs. and 10,000 lbs., beginning no later than
September 1, 2025. The manufacturers further committed to submitting
annual reports on their implementation of their commitments. IIHS and
NHTSA agreed to publish progress reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The making of the commitments was preceded by a series of
meetings in late 2015 and early 2016 attended by the representatives
of the following:
Automakers
BMW, Fiat-Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai-Kia,
Jaguar Land-Rover, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru,
Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen\Audi, Volvo
Government Agencies
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Transport Canada
Non-Government Organizations
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global
Automakers, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
To keep the public informed about the progress on developing the
commitments, the agency prepared minutes of the meetings and placed
them in docket NHTSA-2015-0101, available at www.regulations.gov.
The minutes for the 6th meeting on February 1, 2016, also recounted
a January 29, 2016 meeting with other stakeholder groups: Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety, Automotive Safety Council, Consumer
Federation of American, Consumer Reports, Consumer Watchdog, Public
Citizen and Transport Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2016--Petitioners sent NHTSA a letter (dated May 23, 2016)
asking the Agency to either grant or deny their petition.
II. Petition
Petitioners submitted a petition for rulemaking, dated January 13,
2016, requesting NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking to issue a safety
standard requiring that light vehicles be equipped with three AEB
technologies: FCW, CIB and DBS. Based on their petition and their
follow-up letter submitted in May 2016, it appears that the petitioners
further intend that the Agency include in that rulemaking all of the
tests, including test speeds, either adopted or planned for inclusion
in NCAP or developed through Agency research projects. Alternatively,
the petitioners ask that the Agency explain why it was not including
any of those tests.
In support of their petition, petitioners stated the following:
It is feasible to issue a light motor vehicle AEB standard
now given that the technologies are mature and NHTSA has: Researched
the AEB technologies extensively; granted a petition for rulemaking for
heavy vehicle AEB; incorporated FCW and CIB into NCAP and announced
plans to incorporate the third AEB technology, DBS, in NCAP.
Neither a voluntary commitment nor NCAP is an adequate
substitute for a safety standard because neither is enforceable.
The commitment is not comprehensive or stringent enough.
It does not include DBS. Further, with respect to FCW and CIB, the
commitment does not include some of the performance requirements
included in NCAP. In addition, while the commitment includes other
performance requirements, it does so at reduced levels of stringency.
III. NHTSA's Consideration of the Petition
A. General Principles
Petitions for rulemaking are governed by 49 CFR part 552. Pursuant
to Part 552, the Agency conducts a technical review of the petition,
which may consist of an analysis of the material submitted, together
with information already in possession of the Agency. In deciding
whether to grant or deny a petition, the Agency considers this
technical review as well as appropriate factors, which may include,
among others, allocation of Agency resources and Agency priorities.
B. Context for Considering the Petition
1. Overview of Vehicle Safety in the United States
Two sets of numbers serve to convey the state of vehicle safety and
identify the way forward. First, in 2015, 35,092 people lost their
lives on the Nation's roadways, making motor vehicle crashes a leading
cause of death in the United States. That was an increase of more than
7 percent over the total for 2014. Preliminary figures indicate that,
for the first nine months of 2016, fatalities were up again,
approximately 8 percent, compared to the same portion of 2015.\3\ The
third quarter of 2016 represents the eighth consecutive quarter with
increases in fatalities as compared to the corresponding quarters in
the previous years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities For the
First 9 Months of 2016. DOT HS 812 358. January 2017.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, 94 percent of vehicle crashes can be traced to human
choices (e.g., choices about safety belt use or consumption of alcohol)
or error. If there were technological means to prevent those human
choices or behaviors from affecting vehicle safety, we could
potentially prevent or mitigate 19 of every 20 crashes on the road.
2. Technologies for Improving Vehicle Safety Performance and Tools for
Implementing Them
Automated vehicles, which depend on technologies like automatic
emergency braking, hold the promise of being the means that will
prevent human choice or error from causing crashes. That is why NHTSA
and the Department of Transportation have focused on trying to
accelerate the safe development and deployment of highly automated and
connected vehicles.\5\ Vehicle automation and connectedness could cut
roadway fatalities dramatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Connected vehicles are vehicles equipped with mean of
exchanging ``here I am'' messages on portions of spectrum set aside
by FCC for that purpose. The message includes, e.g., speed,
direction and GPS determined vehicle location. Vehicle can be
equipped with software that analyzes messages from nearby vehicles
to determine which vehicles may be on a collision course with it and
warn the vehicle's driver when necessary to avoid a collision. For
more information, see 82 FR 3854; January 12, 2017, available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To realize this potential, NHTSA has a variety of tools that it has
used in the past to improve vehicle safety. The primary traditional
approach to improving vehicle safety has been developing and writing
new standards prescribing detailed, specific requirements and test
procedures and then conducting a notice-and-comment rulemaking process
to adopt and implement those standards.
However, because many modern vehicle safety technologies are
software-controlled and still relatively new, they are evolving very
quickly. Standard setting at this early stage of technological
evolution must be undertaken with great care, given the risk of
inadvertently stymieing innovation and stalling the development and
introduction of successively better versions of these technologies.
Further, rulemaking, and the research that must precede it in order
to select the appropriate thresholds of performance and the test
procedures for measuring compliance, take considerable time, often six
to ten years
[[Page 8394]]
for full implementation in new vehicles. The increasing complexity of
vehicle safety technologies factors into the lengthening of the
Agency's rulemaking proceedings. In the immediate term, through
proactive collaboration with industry and other stakeholders, much has
been and can be accomplished.
Accordingly, the Agency has sought to adapt the lessons and
practices of the Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation
industry regarding proactive safety and apply them, where appropriate,
to the motor-vehicle sector. The Agency has revamped or expanded its
use of its non-rulemaking tools in an effort to be more responsive to
safety issues and more proactive about preventing them.
For several decades, NHTSA used NCAP to encourage light vehicle
manufacturers to offer, and consumers to demand, levels of crash
protection above and beyond those required by the safety standards. In
recent years, the Agency has begun to expand NCAP to encourage the
installation of safety-focused advanced crash avoidance systems.
More recently, the Agency has begun issuing guidance documents to
promote the development and adoption of safer designs of evolving,
complex electronic vehicle safety systems. Guidance documents are more
adaptive tools than standards with respect to the ease of being updated
to reflect the latest developments in these technologies. The prime
example to date of Agency guidance is the vehicle performance guidance
for automated vehicles included in the Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy \6\ issued in September 2016. This Policy is the right tool at
the right time. It answers a call from industry, state and local
governments, safety and mobility advocates and many others to lay a
clear path forward for the safe development and deployment of automated
vehicles and technologies. This Policy also allows NHTSA to work with
automakers and developers on the front end, to ensure that sound
approaches to safety are followed from the very beginning and
throughout the entire design and development process. Further, this
Policy will help us accomplish two goals: First, to make sure that new
technologies are developed and deployed safely; and second, to leave
room for flexibility and safety innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/av/av-policy.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Analysis of the Petition
NHTSA shares the petitioners' belief that AEB technologies will
lead to important safety benefits. These technologies are vital to
automated vehicles. NHTSA has already invested substantial resources
and taken significant steps to increase the installation of these
technologies by expanding NCAP and facilitating a process that resulted
in light vehicle manufacturers committing voluntarily to install
forward crash warning and crash imminent braking.
Based on its consideration and analysis of the petition, NHTSA
notes the following points:
1. NCAP is influencing light vehicle manufacturers to increase
their installation of AEB technologies and to improve their
performance.
NHTSA has already added FCW, CIB and DBS to NCAP to promote the
installation of those and other advanced crash avoidance technologies.
In addition, in December 2015, NHTSA requested comments on revising the
NCAP scoring system so that the installation of FCW, CIB or DBS in a
motor vehicle would increase that vehicle's overall NCAP score. These
revisions are already promoting wider spread installation of a broad
array of these technologies.
2. The complementary commitments made by light vehicle
manufacturers and the ratings programs of IIHS and Consumer Reports are
magnifying the effects of NCAP.
The monitoring of the industry commitment shows that there has been
an upturn in the rate of AEB installation.
3. The combined effects of the above activities are expected to
produce benefits substantially similar to those that would eventually
result from the rulemaking requested by the petitioners.
The Agency believes that the benefits of the AEB aspects of NCAP,
in combination with the benefits of the industry commitment and the
stakeholder rating programs, would be substantially similar to the
benefits of the rulemaking requested by the petitioners. The
petitioners did not make any showing to the contrary.
4. The Agency does not have evidence before it showing that there
is a market failure warranting the initiating of rulemaking.
One of the principles of regulation in Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, is that agencies seeking to initiate
rulemaking should identify the market failure that necessitates
regulation. At the current time, on account of the combined effects of
NCAP, the industry commitment, and various stakeholder rating programs,
there is not any evidence showing that there is a market failure with
respect to the offering of AEB technologies.
5. These activities will make AEB standard on new light vehicles
faster than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process.
Based on the Agency's rulemaking proceedings on complex issues in
recent years, if the Agency were to grant the petition, conduct
research, tentatively select required levels of performance, conduct a
notice-and-comment rulemaking and provide sufficient leadtime to enable
manufacturers to phase-in compliance, the delay in making AEB standard
equipment on light vehicles would be as many as three years, and
possibly longer.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NHTSA press release issued March 17, 2016, available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-and-iihs-announce-historic-commitment-20-automakers-make-automatic-emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Making AEB standard equipment earlier than could be achieved
through rulemaking will provide significant additional safety benefits.
According to IIHS estimates made in March 2016, the benefits of
making AEB standard equipment three years earlier will be to prevent
28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries during that time period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Given the success of light vehicle AEB activities described
above and the large array of rulemakings either mandated by Congress or
initiated by the Agency in response to petitions or at the Agency's
discretion, the Agency should place priority at this time on conducting
rulemakings in areas other than light-vehicle AEB.
Among the higher priority rulemakings is the one on light vehicle
vehicle-to-vehicle communication, for which the agency recently
published a notice of proposed rulemaking, and heavy vehicle AEB. As
noted above, in late 2015, NHTSA granted a petition for rulemaking to
initiate rulemaking on heavy vehicle AEB. In addition, the Agency is
involved in some nonrulemaking activities that are of higher priority,
such as the continued expansion and strengthening of NCAP and the
issuance of guidance in areas such as automated vehicles, driver
distraction and cybersecurity.
8. A rulemaking can be commenced later if it proves necessary.
As the manufacturers carryout their commitments, the Agency will
continuously monitor their efforts and assess whether and when
additional steps, including rulemaking, might be needed in the future
to ensure realization of the potential benefits from the full array of
automatic emergency braking technologies.
[[Page 8395]]
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, and for the forgoing reasons,
NHTSA hereby denies, without prejudice, the January 13, 2016 petition
by Consumer Watchdog, Center for Auto Safety, and Public Citizen to
commence a rulemaking proceeding to require all light vehicles to be
equipped with FCW, CIB and DBS.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30162;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-01542 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P