Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Automatic Emergency Braking, 8391-8395 [2017-01542]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 25, 2017 / Proposed Rules
16. This Arrangement will expire 30 days
after any Authority gives written notice to the
other Authority of its intention to terminate
the Arrangement. In the event of termination
of this Arrangement, Confidential
Information will continue to remain
confidential and will continue to be covered
by this Arrangement.
This Arrangement is executed in duplicate,
this lllday of lll.
lllllllllllllllllllll
[name of Chairman]
Chairman
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission
lllllllllllllllllllll
[name of signatory]
[title]
[name of foreign/domestic regulator]
[Exhibit A: Description of Scope of
Jurisdiction. If ABC is not enumerated in
Commission Regulations 49.17(b)(1)(i)–(vi), it
must attach the Determination Order
received from the Commission pursuant to
Commission Regulation 49.17(h). If ABC is
enumerated in Commission Regulations
49.17(b)(1)(i)–(vi), it must attach a
sufficiently detailed description of the scope
of ABC’s jurisdiction as it relates to Swap
Data maintained by SDRs.]
law and provide a process for sharing of
information. Among other things,
Congress removed a requirement that
another regulator must indemnify both
the Commission and the swap data
repository for expenses related to
litigation before data could be shared.
To date, no domestic or foreign
regulator has provided such an
indemnification. Today’s proposal
removes this requirement in the CFTC’s
own rules, makes other changes
consistent with Congressional action,
and creates a process for when and how
other regulators gain access to SDR
information that will protect
confidentiality.
I thank my fellow Commissioners
Bowen and Giancarlo for their
unanimous support for this proposal. I
also thank the hardworking CFTC staff
for all their efforts.
[FR Doc. 2017–01287 Filed 1–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13,
2017, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Note: The following appendices will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0005]
Appendices to Proposed Amendments
to the Swap Data Access Provisions of
Part 49 and Certain Other Matters—
Commission Voting Summary and
Chairman’s Statement
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Appendix 1—Commission Voting
Summary
On this matter, Chairman Massad and
Commissioners Bowen and Giancarlo
voted in the affirmative. No
Commissioner voted in the negative.
Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman
Timothy G. Massad
The increased reporting of data on
swaps transactions is an important
reform of the derivatives markets agreed
to by the G20 leaders in 2009. Today,
thanks to this reporting, regulators
across the globe are in a better position
to assess exposures and risks related to
this market. Because of the global nature
of the market, it is critical for regulators
to be able to share information, subject
to appropriate confidentiality and other
protections.
That’s why I am pleased we are
issuing this proposal, which will make
it easier for other regulators, both
domestic and foreign, to gain access to
swap data repository (SDR) swap data.
The proposal would conform our rules
to various changes Congress made in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Jan 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
49 CFR Part 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Automatic Emergency
Braking
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8391
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
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
8392
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 25, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 ‘‘selfcertification’’ 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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Jan 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 25, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Jan 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
3 Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Fatalities For the First 9 Months of 2016. DOT HS
812 358. January 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8393
corresponding quarters in the previous
years.4
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.
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 softwarecontrolled 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
4 Ibid.
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/FR2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
8394
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 25, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 safetyfocused 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.
C. Analysis of the Petition
NHTSA shares the petitioners’ belief
that AEB technologies will lead to
6 Available at https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/av/avpolicy.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Jan 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
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.
7 NHTSA press release issued March 17, 2016,
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/
us-dot-and-iihs-announce-historic-commitment-20automakers-make-automatic-emergency.
8 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 25, 2017 / Proposed Rules
IV. Conclusion
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Jan 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
8395
Public Citizen to commence a
rulemaking proceeding to require all
light vehicles to be equipped with FCW,
CIB and DBS.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30162; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
[FR Doc. 2017–01542 Filed 1–24–17; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Agencies
[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