Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11415 

Average Burden per Response: 0.5 

hours. 

Annual Burden Hours: 13,475. 

Needs and Uses: This information 

collection requires contractors to report 

IR&D projects generating annual costs in 

excess of $50,000. The information will 

provide in-process information from 

DoD-sponsored IR&D projects to 

increase the effectiveness by providing 

visibility into the technical content of 

industry IR&D activities to meet DoD 

needs. Without the collection of this 

information, DoD will be unable to 

maximize the value of the IR&D funds 

that it disburses without infringing on 

the independence of a contractor to 

choose which technologies to pursue in 

its independent research and 

development program. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection should be sent to 

Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of 

Management and Budget, Desk Officer 

for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, 

or e-mail 

Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov, with a 

copy to the Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark 

Goemrsall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP 

(DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments can be received from 30 to 60 

days after the date of this notice, but 

comments to OMB will be most useful 

if received by OMB within 30 days after 

the date of this notice. 

To request more information on this 

proposed information collection or to 

obtain a copy of the proposal and 

associated collection instruments, 

please write to the Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark 

Gomersall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP 

(DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060, 

or e-mail dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS 

Case 2010–D011 in the subject line of 

the message. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 231 

Government procurement. 

Ynette R. Shelkin, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 231—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 231 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

2. Amend section 231.205–18 by 

adding paragraph (c)(iii)(C) and revising 

the introductory text of paragraph (c)(iv) 

to read as follows: 

231.205–18 Independent research and 

development and bid and proposal costs. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(C) For a contractor’s annual IR&D 

costs in excess of $50,000 to be 

allowable, the IR&D projects generating 

the costs must be reported to the 

Defense Technical Information Center 

(DTIC) using the DTIC’s on-line input 

form and instructions. The inputs must 

be updated at least annually and when 

the project is completed. Copies of the 

input and updates must be made 

available for review by the cognizant 

administrative contracting officer (ACO) 

and the cognizant Defense Contract 

Audit Agency auditor to support the 

allowability of the costs. 

(iv) For major contractors, the 

cognizant ACO or corporate ACO 

shall— 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–4528 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0027] 

RIN 2127–AK52 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Power-Operated Window, 

Partition, and Roof Panel Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking issued 

pursuant to the Cameron Gulbransen 

Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. 

The Act directed NHTSA to initiate a 

rulemaking to consider requirements for 

automatic reversal systems (ARS) for 

power windows and to make a final 

decision. The agency has decided not to 

issue a final rule adopting any such new 

requirements and instead to terminate 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Effective March 2, 2011, the 

proposed rule published September 1, 

2009, at 74 FR 45143 is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Michael 

Pyne, NHTSA Office of Avoidance 

Standards, telephone 202–366–1810. 

For legal issues, you may call J. Edward 

Glancy, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, 

telephone 202–366–2992. You may send 

mail to these officials at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building, Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the 

reasons set forth below, we have 

decided not to issue a final rule 

adopting any new requirements for 

automatic reversal systems (ARS) and 

are withdrawing our 2009 proposal 

regarding ARS. This document explains 

our decision. 

The Cameron Gulbransen Kids 

Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (K. T. 

Safety Act) directed the Secretary of 

Transportation to initiate a rulemaking 

to consider requiring all power 

windows and panels on light motor 

vehicles to stop closing and reverse 

direction automatically when they 

detect an obstruction, to prevent 

children and others from being trapped, 

injured, or killed. It also provided the 

Secretary with discretion whether to 

issue a final rule. It stated that if the 

Secretary determines that additional 

safety requirements are reasonable, 

practicable and appropriate, the 

Secretary shall issue those 

requirements. Alternatively, it stated if 

the Secretary determines that no 

additional safety requirements meet 

those criteria, the Secretary shall report 

to Congress on the reasons for not 

issuing such requirements. 

In response to the K. T. Safety Act, the 

Department’s National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 45143; September 1, 2009) a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

proposing new requirements for ARS. 

The proposal discussed the agency’s 

analysis of the injuries and fatalities 

related to power windows and the 

performance requirements that the 

agency had recently adopted for safer 

power window switches. The benefits of 

the safer switches rules will be 

increasingly realized as vehicles with 

‘‘safer switches’’ replace older vehicles 

lacking them. 

After the agency analyzed and 

considered the benefits and costs of 

installing ARS for all types of vehicle 

windows in developing the NPRM, 

NHTSA decided to propose requiring 

ARS on only one type of power 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
11416 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

window, i.e., ‘‘express-up’’ or ‘‘one-touch 

closing’’ power windows. These 

windows close without continuous 

actuation of the window switch by a 

person. NHTSA also sought comments 

on requiring ARS for other power 

windows, and explained that the agency 

could include such a requirement in a 

final rule at the end of this rulemaking 

proceeding. The agency provided 

estimates of the costs and benefits of the 

proposal and a number of other 

regulatory alternatives. NHTSA also 

announced that it would begin 

providing consumers with information 

regarding which vehicles are equipped 

with ARS at http://www.safercar.gov by 

October 2009. 

In response to its proposal, NHTSA 

received comments from vehicle 

manufacturer associations, suppliers, 

safety advocacy organizations, members 

of Congress and individuals. Vehicle 

manufacturers supported the proposal. 

In contrast, several safety advocacy 

organizations, several suppliers, and a 

number of individuals urged that the 

agency require ARS for all power 

windows. The members of Congress 

said that they believed that the agency’s 

proposal would not sufficiently achieve 

the Congressional intent of protecting 

children and asked the agency to review 

and take fully into account additional 

data submitted by commenters about the 

frequency of injuries and deaths 

involving power windows. 

Before reaching a final decision, we 

carefully considered all of the public 

comments. Among other things, we 

considered data from a survey 

conducted for and submitted by a safety 

organization relating to the incidence of 

minor injuries. We also considered cost 

estimates provided by a supplier. In the 

NPRM, we noted that because the 

agency’s estimates of less severe injuries 

were primarily based on emergency 

room data, those estimates likely 

represented a floor rather than a ceiling. 

The survey data indicate that there are 

a substantial number of minor injuries, 

although the survey does not allow us 

to estimate the number of minor injuries 

on an annual basis. 

We attempted to calculate the number 

of each type of injury based on 

information from multiple sources, 

including mortality data, hospital 

emergency department records, the 

agency’s Special Crash Investigations 

program, and survey information 

submitted during the comment period. 

For the purpose of making these 

calculations, we grouped power 

window injuries into two main 

categories. 

First, there are a very small number of 

critical and fatal power window injuries 

resulting from an occupant’s (usually a 

young child) being strangled or having 

his or her chest compressed when 

trapped by a closing power window. 

Most of these critical and fatal injuries 

have occurred in older vehicles with 

unsafe switches. They happened as a 

result of an occupant’s kneeling or 

leaning on a window switch in a vehicle 

with unprotected window switches, 

causing inadvertent window closings. 

This category of injuries has been 

addressed by our rules requiring safer 

switches. New vehicles with safety 

switches are steadily replacing the older 

vehicles without such switches, thus 

also steadily eliminating this category of 

injuries. 

Second, there is a much larger 

number of less serious, mostly minor, 

injuries, most often resulting from a 

power window’s closing on a person’s 

finger or hand. In these cases, the 

window is intentionally activated 

(presumably by the driver). The most 

common injuries involve the pinching 

of fingers. 

Given our present understanding of 

the data about the nature, source, and 

number of power window injuries, we 

believe that there are very few fatalities 

or serious injuries that any additional 

requirements for ARS could mitigate or 

prevent. They would instead address 

primarily ‘‘finger-pinch’’ type injuries. 

There is considerable uncertainty 

about benefits estimates, particularly 

with respect to preventing or mitigating 

the less serious, mostly minor, injuries 

involving a power window closing on a 

person’s finger or hand. The agency has 

no data to indicate just how effective 

ARS is in reducing finger-pinch type 

injuries, because the number of fingerpinch type injuries is not collected in 

any data source. While the available 

information suggests that there may be 

a relatively large number of these 

injuries, we do not know how many 

occur annually; the survey results do 

not include or enable us to make a 

reliable estimate. The only information 

we have about the severity of those 

injuries is that in a survey respondent 

population of 1,001 people, 3 out of 33 

people injured sometime in their 

lifetime indicated that they had sought 

medical attention for a power window 

related injury, indicating that this was a 

very minor injury for most. The 

company that conducted the survey did 

not ask those respondents about the 

nature of their injury, the type or model 

year of vehicle and the type of power 

window involved, or the seating 

position they were occupying at the 

time of their injury. Thus, we do not 

have clear information about the 

severity or source of these injuries. 

Further, there is substantial 

uncertainty as to the proper way of 

valuing them for purposes of analyzing 

benefits and costs. For the NPRM, we 

did not have a method for valuing the 

cost of minor, non-crash injuries and so 

instead assumed values based on the 

comprehensive costs for persons who 

are injured in crashes ($16,799 for 

person whose maximum injury level 

was a minor injury). However, this 

approach had the effect of overstating 

the value because the costs associated 

with a person who experiences a minor 

‘‘finger-pinch’’ type injury are not 

comparable to the costs associated with 

a person who is injured in a crash. In 

the latter situation, the person’s entire 

body is typically exposed to crash 

forces, and the average person 

experiencing minor injuries in a crash 

has more than one such injury. The 

agency still does not have a generally 

accepted method for valuing the much 

lower cost of these more minor, noncrash injuries. 

We also considered the possibility of 

people being entrapped without being 

injured. While entrapment without an 

injury is theoretically possible, e.g., in 

situations of partial window enclosure, 

we are not aware of any evidence that 

this is an actual problem. 

In reaching a final decision regarding 

this rulemaking, we considered the 

statutory provision providing that the 

Department is to issue a final rule in 

this area only if it determines that 

additional safety standards are 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate. 

After considering the comments and 

available data, we have determined for 

the reasons stated above that there is not 

sufficient information to make a 

determination at this time that a 

requirement for ARS for power 

windows that do not already have this 

feature would, or would not, be 

reasonable, practicable and appropriate. 

Such a rule would be costly, but we 

cannot determine with any certainty 

whether the costs would be reasonable 

given the potential benefits. Those 

benefits would almost wholly consist of 

an uncertain number of minor injuries. 

We also considered an alternative 

approach of requiring automakers to 

continue their currently voluntary 

practice of providing ARS for ‘‘expressup’’ or ‘‘one-touch closing’’ power 

windows and to specifying an ARS test 

requirement. The alternative we 

proposed included an ARS test 

requirement based on a United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

regulation (R21). We believe that this 

alternative, if implemented, would 

result in minimal benefits and nearly no 

costs because vehicle manufacturers are 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 11417 

1http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/ 

Child+Safety/Keeping+Kids+Safe:+Inside+&+Out. 

already voluntarily equipping their 

‘‘express-up’’ or ‘‘one-touch closing’’ 

power windows with ARS that are 

either ECE compliant or nearly ECE 

compliant. 

We have also considered further 

whether safety would be materially 

improved by adopting the proposed 

alternative that requires ARS for 

express-up windows. Thus far, 

manufacturers have been voluntarily 

providing ARS for all express up 

windows. There is no reason at present 

to believe that vehicle manufacturers 

will discontinue this current practice. 

Moreover, the benefits of specifying the 

ECE R21 test requirement would be 

minimal. Given these considerations, 

adopting the proposed rule would not, 

at present, advance the child safety goal 

of the K. T. Safety Act. We do not read 

the statutory language to require 

issuance of such a rule, and we have 

accordingly decided not to issue a rule 

in this proceeding. 

We plan to monitor power window 

designs on new vehicles and data 

relevant to power window injuries. If a 

new entrant in the U.S. market began 

importing vehicles with express up 

windows lacking ARS or if a 

manufacturer discontinued its current 

voluntary practice of providing ARS, we 

would reexamine our options. 

The K. T. Safety Act specifies that if 

the Department does not issue a rule 

requiring ARS for power windows, it 

must make available to the public 

through the Internet and other means 

information indicating which vehicles 

with power windows and/or panels are 

or are not equipped with ARS. The 

Department has been or will be using 

several methods to provide this 

information since October 2009. We 

have been using our Five-Star safety 

rating program at http:// 

www.safercar.gov to indicate whether 

particular make-models have ARS. To 

improve this program and help ensure 

that vehicles that are listed have 

effective ARS, we plan to list vehicles 

as having ARS only if they have ECE 

compliant ARS (as determined in a test 

procedure that in the near future we 

will place in Docket number NHTSA— 

2006–26555—accessible at http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or the slightly 

more stringent ARS test requirement 

that we developed for power windows 

systems that operate when the key is not 

in the ignition. 

We are also including general 

information about power window safety 

in our ‘‘Buying a Safer Car for Child 

Passengers’’ brochure and at our new 

Web site ‘‘Keeping Kids Safe: Inside and 

Out’’.1

Based on the foregoing discussion, we 

are withdrawing our 2009 notice of 

proposed rulemaking published at 74 

FR 45143 on September 1, 2009, and 

terminating rulemaking. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: February 25, 2011. 

Joseph S. Carra, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4734 Filed 2–28–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0162] 

RIN 2127–AK43 

Public Workshop and Hearing for Rear 

Visibility; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard, Rearview Mirrors, Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, LowSpeed Vehicles; Phase-in Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking: 

Announcement of a public technical 

workshop, a public hearing and reopening of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: On December 7, 2010, 

NHTSA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking proposing to amend the 

agency’s Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard on rearview mirrors to improve 

the ability of a driver of a vehicle to 

detect pedestrians in the area 

immediately behind the vehicle and 

thereby minimize the likelihood of the 

vehicle striking a pedestrian while the 

vehicle is moving backward. NHTSA is 

announcing two separate public events 

relating to this proposal. The first event, 

a public technical workshop, will be 

held on March 11, 2011, to discuss 

technical issues relevant to the test 

procedure described in the proposed 

rule. The second event, a public 

hearing, will be held on March 23, 2011 

to provide an opportunity for the public 

to present oral testimony regarding the 

proposal. The dates, times, locations, 

and framework for these public events 

are announced in this notice. In order to 

facilitate the submission of written 

comments in connection with these two 

events, the comment period for the 

proposed rule will be reopened for a 

period of 45 days. In a separate 

document appearing in today’s edition 

of the Federal Register, the agency is 

correcting various minor errors 

regarding metric conversions, section 

cross references and other matters. 

DATES: Workshop: NHTSA will hold the 

public technical workshop on March 11, 

2011, beginning at 9 a.m. and 

continuing until 12 p.m., local time, at 

the location indicated in the ADDRESSES

section below. 

Public hearing: The public hearing 

will be held on March 23, 2011, 

beginning at 9 a.m. and continuing until 

3 p.m. at the location indicated in the 

ADDRESSES section below. If you would 

like to present oral testimony at either 

of these public events, please contact 

the person identified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, at least 5 days 

before the meeting. 

Comments: The comment period for 

the proposed rule published December 

7, 2010, at 75 FR 76186 is reopened. 

Comments will be accepted until April 

18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The March 11 public 

technical workshop will be held at the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration Vehicle and Research 

Test Center, 10820 State Route 347— 

Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319. 

The March 23 public hearing will be 

held in the media center at the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you would like to present oral testimony 

at either of these public events, please 

contact Mr. Markus Price at DOT by the 

date specified under DATES, at: Office of 

Crash Avoidance, Visibility and Injury 

Prevention Division, NHTSA, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590; 

telephone number: (202) 366–0098; fax 

number: (202) 493–2990; e-mail 

address: markus.price@dot.gov 

(preferred method of registration). 

Please provide the following 

information: The event at which you 

would like to speak; the time you wish 

to speak (morning or afternoon) at the 

hearing; your name and affiliation and 

the number of the individuals from your 

affiliation who are planning to attend; 

your address, e-mail address, telephone 

and fax numbers; and any 

accommodations you may need, such as 

a sign language interpreter. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule would expand the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS