[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65262-65263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30558]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition from Mr. Philip Sweeney to 
require audible exterior back-up warning signals on large motor 
vehicles such as school buses and city maintenance vehicles. After 
analyzing the petition and data on back-up accidents, NHTSA concludes 
that mandating audible backup warning signals may not be effective in 
minimizing collisions with pedestrians, especially young children. The 
Agency has research underway on other means to reduce such deaths and 
injuries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Mr. Medlin's telephone number is: (202) 366-5276. His facsimile 
number is (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At present, none of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards requires that a motor vehicle sound an audible 
warning signal when the vehicle is driven in reverse or backing up. By 
letter dated August 7, 1995, Mr. Philip Sweeney of San Diego, 
California, petitioned the agency to issue a standard to require an 
audible exterior maintenance vehicles. Mr. Sweeney stated in his 
petition that drivers of large vehicles have limited rear visibility, 
that young children can sometimes act impulsively, disregarding safety 
rules, and that young children have limited ability to anticipate 
safety risks.
    The agency has reviewed the circumstances associated with the 
petitioner's desired solution. It has found that pedestrian response to 
exterior audible back-up alarms already on large vehicles has been 
studied. This study looked at the human factors involved in relation to 
conventional backing-up audible warning systems. The study, ``The 
Consideration of Human Factors in the Design of a Backing-up Warning 
System'' by Duchon, James C. and Laage, Linneas W., U.S. Bureau of 
Mines, is from the 

[[Page 65263]]
``Proceedings of the Human Factors Society--30th Annual Meeting--
1986.'' The authors looked at human behavior associated with back-up 
alarms. The specific vehicles were front-end loaders in the mining 
industry. The findings were that vehicle operators lose the perception 
of responsibility for vigilant behavior and that the pedestrians in the 
area predictably become habituated to the alarm. The authors also 
discussed a discernible alarm that would activate only when there was a 
target in danger behind the vehicle, which might be more effective 
because it sounded when an object was in proximity to the rear of the 
vehicle. Unfortunately, while possibly reducing habituation, such an 
alarm does not resolve the fundamental problem with alarms--the change 
in behavior of the driver towards being less responsible for the 
backing maneuver.
    Another research effort looked at pedestrian back-up accidents and 
evaluated if an audible exterior back-up alarm would have been 
effective in preventing the accident. The study, ``An Audible 
Automobile Back-up Pedestrian Warning Device--Development and 
Evaluation'', DOT-HS-802-083, November 1976, found that accidents where 
no benefit would be expected from an audible exterior alarm included 
those where the pedestrian saw the vehicle but was unable to or did not 
avoid it (e.g. if the vehicle was backing too fast), where the vehicle 
was unoccupied, and when the victim was a child less than 5 years old. 
This last item was added because, as the petitioner appears to support, 
children have limited abilities to recognize danger signals and risky 
situations. It should be noted that children are over-represented in 
backing accidents most likely because of this limitation and because 
they cannot be seen easily behind a vehicle, even if standing.
    Thus, any solution of the back-up accident problem should be able 
to address the deaths and injuries to children age 5 years and under. 
It would appear that an audible exterior warning signal as proposed by 
the petitioner would have little value in addressing backing accidents, 
given the above findings.
    The agency is currently conducting research to investigate the 
feasibility of equipping motor vehicles with cost effective 
countermeasures to assist drivers in safely carrying out backing, lane 
change and merging maneuvers. The objectives are to determine the 
performance of one or more feasible countermeasures and to define 
specifications in performance terms without constraining the solutions 
to particular devices or technologies. Should the Agency find that 
there are cost effective solutions available when that research is 
completed, it would consider beginning a rulemaking seeking to mandate 
those performance oriented solutions.
    Concerning the petitioner's specific reference to school buses, in 
1995 an industry-developed standard requiring audible exterior back-up 
alarms for all school buses was promulgated by the National Standards 
Conference on School Transportation. Thirty-one states have chosen to 
mandate back-up alarms on school buses or recommend voluntary 
installation. Other regulatory and standards setting organizations such 
as the states can mandate audible exterior back-up alarms on such state 
and locally owned government vehicles, regardless of the level of 
effectiveness and regardless of whether the buses are new or in 
service. Thus, audible exterior back-up alarm installations on school 
buses are likely to increase at a significant rate.
    In addition, many new large trucks are voluntarily equipped with 
audible exterior back-up alarms because of Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations for work site safety that 
require a person outside of a vehicle to direct backing operations or 
that vehicles in work sites to be equipped with audible exterior back-
up alarms. Vehicle manufacturers, in response to purchasers, appear to 
be increasing the number of installations of back-up alarms on large 
trucks for the purpose of complying with the OSHA rules.
    In sum, although NHTSA continues to be concerned about collisions 
between pedestrians and vehicles that are backing up, the agency is not 
convinced that mandating audible back-up alarms on large vehicles is 
the most effective means to minimize collisions with pedestrians. In 
particular, the data do not appear to show that mandating audible 
backup alarms would result in minimizing collisions with small 
children. NHTSA therefore intends to continue its research efforts and 
to look into possible alternatives, such as the effectiveness of 
mirrors installed specifically for backing maneuvers. It is premature 
for NHTSA to make any decision about mandating any particular solution 
at this time.
    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's 
review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there is no 
reasonable possibility that the specific requirement requested by the 
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking 
proceeding. Accordingly, it denies Mr. Sweeney's petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: December 11, 1995.
Barry Felice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-30558 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M