U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69—010 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2008

110–275 

Calendar No. 619 

CAMERON GULBRANSEN KIDS 

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACT OF 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 694 

MARCH 13, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HELMS, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

JEAN TOAL EISEN, Senior Advisor and Deputy Policy Director 

CHRISTINE KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL J. NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

MIMI BRANIFF, Republican Deputy Chief Counsel 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
Calendar No. 619 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–275 

CAMERON GULBRANSEN KIDS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

ACT OF 2007 

MARCH 13, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 694] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 694) to direct the Secretary of 

Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child 

injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) 

and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

S. 694, as amended, would direct the Secretary of Transportation 

(Secretary) to issue regulations applicable to passenger cars and 

light trucks that will reduce the incidence of injury and death. The 

Secretary would be granted rulemaking authority to consider requiring that power windows and panels automatically reverse direction when they detect an obstruction, to issue a performance 

standard to provide drivers with a means of detecting the presence 

of a person or object behind the vehicle, and to require that automatic transmissions manufactured on and after September 1, 2010, 

include a service brake system in which the service brake must be 

depressed before the driver can shift the transmission out of a 

‘‘park’’ position. The feature is intended to prevent vehicles from 

rolling away. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
2 

1 NHTSA—2006 Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle Crashes. September, 2007, page 103. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

In 2006, 1,618 children ages 15 years and younger died as passengers in motor vehicle crashes in the United States, and approximately 206,000 were injured.1 In addition, many children are killed 

and injured in driveway accidents, such as backover incidents each 

year, and vehicles without auto-reverse power windows and brake 

shift interlock systems also contributed to a significant number of 

injuries and fatalities. 

Backover: Vehicle backover injuries and deaths occur when a 

person is positioned behind a vehicle without a driver’s knowledge 

as the driver backs up. Most victims of backovers are children and 

the elderly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) estimates that backover incidents cause at least 183 fatalities and between 6,700 and 7,419 injuries annually; however, 

the number of fatalities and injuries from those incidents is subject 

to debate because no comprehensive statistics are collected on vehicular accidents on private property. Some safety groups assert 

that the number of backover-related injuries and fatalities is higher. Because these accidents often occur on private property, rather 

than on public roads, they are not typically included in traffic-crash 

fatality data. 

In preventing backover accidents, the size of vehicle blind spots, 

the area behind the vehicle where the driver cannot see using his 

or her side or rear-view mirrors, is a key factor. Generally, the 

larger the vehicle, the larger the blind spot. Children are especially 

vulnerable since their small stature makes them harder to see 

within a blind spot. As larger vehicles, including SUVs, pickup 

trucks, and minivans, have become more popular, more drivers are 

confronted with larger blind spots. Currently, without a standard, 

automakers can design similar-sized vehicles that have dramatically different blind spots. For example, among midsized SUVs, a 

5 foot 1 inch driver of a 2006 Jeep Commander Limited has a 69 

foot blind spot versus an 18 foot blind spot for a similar-sized driver of a 2005 Nissan Pathfinder LE. 

In 2005, in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act, A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Congress required the NHTSA to conduct a study of effective methods for reducing the incidence of injury and death outside of parked vehicles 

and to include an analysis of backover prevention technology. In 

addition, the Senate Report accompanying H.R. 3058, the Fiscal 

Year 2006 Transportation, Treasury, HUD Appropriations bill 

asked for a similar study. 

In November 2006, the NHSTA provided a report to Congress entitled the Vehicle Backover Avoidance Technology Study. The report 

examined on-board sensor-based warning systems and visual-only 

systems that are meant to detect objects behind a vehicle ‘‘to evaluate their performance and potential effectiveness in mitigating 

backover crashes’’ involving pedestrians. The report indicated that ‘‘vehicle manufacturers do not market these technologies as safety 

systems for preventing drivers from inadvertently backing into pedestrians;’’ rather they are designed and marketed as parking aids. 

According to the NHTSA report, in 2006 ‘‘there were thirty-one vehicle makes and 100 different model lines offering a parking aid 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
3 

system in the U.S. market.’’ There are a variety of similar systems 

available in the aftermarket, some of which espouse their abilities 

as both a parking aid and a safety device. 

The NHTSA tested 9 technology-based systems: 6 with sensors 

only (half original equipment and half aftermarket); 2 with sensors 

and cameras (1 each original equipment and aftermarket); and 1 

camera only (original equipment). Mirrors were used in 2 additional tests. Overall, six vehicle models were used. The data the 

NHTSA received reported that sensor-based warning systems were 

generally able to detect adult pedestrians but were lacking in their 

ability to consistently detect child pedestrians. The report stated 

that camera systems performed well visually in daylight and indoor 

lighted situations, but required drivers to be able to quickly and accurately interpret the video information to be effective. However, in 

a survey of car owners with sensor or camera-based systems, the 

report stated that at least 85 percent of those who had avoidance 

systems installed on their vehicles thought the systems were ‘‘effective or very effective at providing warnings about objects sufficiently in advance.’’ The NHTSA indicated that the agency would 

conduct further study on the ‘‘serious safety problem presented by 

vehicle backing crashes.’’

Auto-Reverse Power Windows: Power windows cause numerous injuries to children and adults, including broken or amputated 

fingers, broken arms of small children, and strangulations of small 

children resulting from the force of the window as it rises. In a 

1997 study, the NHTSA estimated that 499 people each year suffer 

an injury severe enough to require a visit to the emergency room 

due to power window injuries; almost a third of those were under 

the age of 6, and nearly a third were between the ages of 6 and 

15. 

In SAFETEA-LU, Congress required that window switch designs 

be changed to the push-down, pull-up variety that cannot be engaged by pressing against them. While the window switch modification in SAFETEA-LU solved the problem of children accidentally 

operating the windows, it did not address the situation when someone else is closing the window on a person. Approximately 15 to 20 

percent of the vehicles in the U.S. market use auto-reverse window 

technology to re-open at least one window if sensors indicate an obstruction. According to the NHTSA, the estimated cost of equipping 

a vehicle with auto-reverse technology is $8 to $12 per window. It 

is anticipated that this price would decrease through economies of 

scale. 

Brake Transmission Shift Interlock: When a vehicle is inadvertently put into gear or neutral, it may roll away causing harm 

to bystanders or individuals in the vehicle. Children are especially 

at risk because they may not know what they did or how to stop 

the vehicle once they realize what is happening. The nonprofit safety organization Kids and Cars estimates that rollaways were responsible for approximately 86 child fatalities since 2001. The safety technology needed to prevent these incidents is called Brake 

Transmission Shift Interlock (BTSI), and it requires depressing the 

brake pedal to move the gear shift. Since children typically cannot 

reach the brake pedal, if BTSI is in place, there is little chance 

they can shift the vehicle into gear by themselves. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
4 

In August of 2006, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the 

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the 

NHTSA crafted a voluntary agreement which requires full implementation of BTSI not later than September 1, 2010. The agreement states that ‘‘any vehicle under 10,000 pounds produced for 

the U.S. market, with an automatic transmission that includes a 

‘park’ position shall have a system that requires that the service 

brake be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of 

‘park.’’’ S. 694 would codify the agreement. Automakers participating in the voluntary agreement include: Aston Martin, BMW 

Group, Ford Motor Company, Hyundai Motor, Maserati, Nissan, 

Suzuki, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, General Motors, Isuzu Motors, Mazda, Porsche, Toyota, Ferrari, Honda, Kia Motors, 

Mitsubishi Motors, Subaru, and Volkswagen Group. 

Approximately 80 percent of model year (MY) 2006 motor vehicles produced that would have been subject to this agreement are 

equipped with an automatic transmission control system designed 

in accordance with the requirements of this agreement. More than 

98 percent of MY 2009 motor vehicles are forecasted to be equipped 

with an automatic transmission control system designed in accordance with this agreement. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

Under S. 694, the Secretary would initiate a rulemaking within 

18 months of enactment to consider prescribing safety standards to 

require power windows and panels to automatically reverse when 

an obstruction is detected. S. 694 requires the Secretary to initiate 

a rulemaking within 12 months of enactment to expand the required field of view to enable a driver to better avoid accidental 

backover incidents. The Secretary would be required to phase in 

safety standards within 48 months after the issuance of a final 

rule. S. 694 would require that motor vehicles manufactured for 

sale after September 1, 2010, be equipped with a system that requires the brake to be depressed before the transmission can be 

shifted out of ‘‘park.’’ S. 694 also would direct the Secretary to establish and maintain a database of nontraffic, noncrash related 

motor vehicle injuries and provide information about hazards to 

children in nontraffic, noncrash incident situations to consumers. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On February 27, 2007, Senators Clinton and Sununu introduced 

S. 694, the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of 2007, 

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. A number of members of the Committee cosponsored the measure, including Vice Chairman Stevens and Senators 

Kerry, Bill Nelson, Hutchison, Lautenberg, Boxer, Klobuchar, 

Rockefeller, Ensign, McCain, Dorgan, Snowe, Pryor, and Cantwell. 

On February 28, 2007, the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and Automotive Safety held a hearing on vehicle safety for 

children during which testimony was provided on S. 694. 

On May 16, 2007, the Committee met in open executive session 

to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 

Senator Sununu that made several changes to the bill as introduced and modified the title. By voice vote, the Committee adopted 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
5 

the Sununu substitute amendment and ordered that bill be reported. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 694—Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 

2007 

S. 694 would establish additional safety measures in automobiles 

to protect children and would require the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the Department of Transportation to oversee the implementation of such measures. S. 694 

would require NHTSA to complete rulemakings and issue regulations regarding certain safety features on automobiles designed to 

improve the safety of children inside and behind vehicles. The bill 

also would require NHTSA to implement and to oversee the compliance of automobile manufacturers with those regulations. Further, 

the bill would require NHTSA to establish and maintain a database of injuries and deaths involving a single vehicle that is not in 

the flow of traffic and which is not involved in a crash, and to provide information about such accidents to the public through a consumer information program. 

Based on information from NHTSA, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would not significantly increase spending subject 

to appropriation. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct 

spending or revenues. The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

S. 694 would impose several private-sector mandates on certain 

manufacturers of motor vehicles. The bill would require the Department of Transportation to implement new regulations requiring that all vehicles have automatic reversal of direction by power 

windows and panels when they detect an obstruction, a rearward 

visibility performance standard to prevent backing incidents, and 

automatic transmissions to have an anti-rollaway system that requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission 

can be shifted out of park. Because the cost of these mandates 

would depend on the rules to be established by the Secretary of 

Transportation, CBO cannot determine the exact cost of all of the 

mandates contained in the bill. However, based on information 

from NHTSA, it is likely that the cost will be in the billions of dollars and thus would exceed the annual threshold as defined in 

UMRA for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted 

annually for inflation). 

In addition, those sources estimate the cost to comply with the 

regulations for power windows would be about $25 per car. Furthermore, those sources estimate that it would cost vehicle manufacturers approximately $350 per car to install the equipment that 

would best enhance rearward visibility. The cost of those two mandates could amount to more than $5 billion. And finally, the cost 

to comply with the mandate requiring an anti-rollaway system 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
6 

would be small, since manufacturers are already complying with 

this requirement. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Sarah Puro (for federal costs) and Fatimot Ladipot (for the impact on the private sector). This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

Establishing new motor vehicle safety standards would require 

all manufacturers to modify vehicle designs and production. Purchasers of a new motor vehicle in which the features were incorporated would benefit from the safety improvements. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Safety modifications in the design and manufacture as required 

by S. 694 would increase the cost of some motor vehicles. 

PRIVACY

S. 694 is not anticipated to impact the privacy of consumers. 

PAPERWORK

The creation and maintenance of a database on injuries and 

deaths in nontraffic, noncrash events may result in additional paperwork related to the reporting of such events to the Secretary. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title. 

This section would provide that the Act may be cited as the 

‘‘Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007’’ or 

the ‘‘K.T. Safety Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Rulemaking Regarding Child Safety. 

Power Window Safety. The Secretary would be required to initiate a rulemaking not later than 18 months after the date of enactment to consider amending or prescribing Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards to require power windows and panels to reverse 

direction when they detect an obstruction in order to prevent children from being trapped, injured, or killed. If a final rule is issued, 

any phase-in of the final rule requirements would be completed 

within 48 months from the date on which the final rule was issued. 

If the Secretary decides safety standards for power windows are 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate, the Secretary would prescribe them within 30 months of the date of enactment. If the Secretary decides that no additional safety standards are reasonable, 

practicable, and appropriate, the Secretary, within 30 months of 

the date of enactment, would send a report to the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation describing 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
7 

the reasoning for not prescribing the standards. The Secretary also 

would be required to publish and publicize information disclosing 

which vehicles are equipped with the auto-reverse windows and 

panels and which are not. 

Rearward Visibility. Within 12 months of the date of enactment, the Secretary would be required to initiate a rulemaking to 

revise the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 to expand 

the required field of view to enable the driver to detect the presence of a person or object behind the vehicle in order to prevent 

death and injury resulting from backover incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons. The Secretary would be authorized to prescribe different requirements for 

different types of motor vehicles. The provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other technology to expand the driver’s 

field of view would be acceptable for the purpose of meeting the 

standard. The Secretary would be required to prescribe final standards not later than 36 months after the date of enactment. 

The Secretary would be required to establish a phase-in period 

for compliance with the rearward visibility standard which could 

not exceed 48 months from the date on which the final rule was 

issued. In establishing the phase-in period, the Secretary would 

consider whether to prioritize phase-in by type of motor vehicle 

based on data demonstrating the frequency by which various types 

of motor vehicles have been involved in injury causing backing incidents. If the Secretary determines that any type of motor vehicle 

should be given priority, the Secretary would be required to issue 

regulations that specify which type or types of motor vehicles shall 

be phased-in first and the percentages by which such motor vehicles shall be phased-in. 

Preventing Motor Vehicles from Rolling Away. This section 

would require each motor vehicle manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010, to be equipped with a system that requires the 

brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out 

of ‘‘park.’’ This system would need to function in any key position 

in which the transmission can be shifted out of ‘‘park.’’ Failure to 

comply would be treated as a violation of a Federal motor vehicle 

safety standard. 

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment, for the current model year, and annually thereafter through 2010, each motor 

vehicle manufacturer would be required to submit to the Secretary 

the make and model of light motor vehicles that are equipped with 

automatic transmissions that may be shifted out of ‘‘park’’ without 

depressing the brake. Not later than 30 days after receiving the information, the Secretary would be required to publish and otherwise make available to the public the make and model of the motor 

vehicles that do not comply with the regulations. 

Database on Injuries and Deaths in Non traffic, Non crash 

Events. Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment, the 

Secretary would establish and maintain a database of injuries and 

deaths in nontraffic, noncrash events involving light motor vehicles. 

Section 3. Child Safety Information Program. 

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment, the Secretary would be required to provide information about hazards to 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
8 

children in nontraffic, noncrash incident situations by 

supplementing an existing consumer information program relating 

to child safety or by creating a new consumer information program 

relating to child safety. The Secretary would be required to utilize 

information collected regarding non traffic, non crash injuries, and 

other relevant data from private organizations, to establish priorities for the program. The Secretary also would need to address 

ways in which parents and caregivers can reduce risks to small 

children arising from backover incidents, overheating in closed vehicles, accidental activation of power windows, and any other risks 

that the Secretary determines should be addressed. The Secretary 

would be required to make information related to the program 

available to the public through the Internet and other means. 

Section 4. Deadlines. 

If the Secretary determines that the deadlines set forth under 

the bill cannot be met, this section would require the Secretary to 

establish a new deadline and notify the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of the new 

deadline and reason therefor. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS
(9) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with REPORTS