[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