        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 393
        [DOT Docket No. FMCSA-02-13589]
        RIN 2126-AA80
        Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Fuel Systems

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The FMCSA proposes to revise the requirements concerning fuel tank fill rates for gasoline- and methanol-fueled light-duty vehicles contained in Subpart E of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The purpose of the proposal is to: (1) Remove a conflict between the fuel tank fill rate requirements of the FMCSRs and those of the Environmental Protection Agency for gasoline and methanol-fueled vehicles up to 14,000 pounds (lbs) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR); and (2) to make permanent the terms of the exemptions previously granted to motor carriers operating certain gasoline-fueled commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford) and by General Motors (GM). The FMCSA also proposes to incorporate into the FMCSRs previously issued regulatory guidance concerning the applicability of the agency's fuel tank rules to vehicles subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) fuel system integrity standard at the time of manufacture.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to DOT Docket Management Systems (DMS) Docket Number 13589 by any of the following methods:
          • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation subheading at the beginning of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Participation
        The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic submission and retrieval help guidelines under the “help” section of the DMS web site. If you want us to notify you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
        Background
        Section 393.67(c)(7)(ii) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), requires the fill pipe and vents of a CMV with a fuel tank of more than 25 gallons capacity to permit the tank to be filled at a rate of at least 20 gallons per minute (gpm) without fuel spillage.
        In 1999, Ford and GM filed applications for limited exemptions from this fuel system requirement.
        Ford manufactures a line of vehicles under the “Econoline” brand for additional work and sale by second-stage manufacturers, including use as CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Specifically, finished vehicles are based on a “light-truck” platform with load-or passenger-carrying capabilities that place them within the weight-or passenger-carrying thresholds of the FMCSRs.
        The fill pipe of the fuel system of these light-duty vehicles is routed to minimize its exposure in the event of a crash. Because of the design characteristics of the fuel fill-pipe and system and the vapor generated when filling such tanks with gasoline, Ford found that the fuel systems in the gasoline versions of these light-duty vehicles could not meet the FMCSA requirement of § 393.67(c)(7)(ii). However, Ford noted that the diesel versions complied with the 20 gallon per minute minimum filling rate. Ford applied for exemptions for the gasoline fueled light-duty vehicles from § 393.67(c)(7)(ii), and also 49 CFR 393.67(f)(2) and (f)(3), which require that liquid fuel tanks be marked with the manufacturer's name and display a certification label that the tank conforms to all applicable rules in § 393.67.
        On August 10, 1999, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), now the FMCSA, published a Notice of Intent to grant Ford's application for exemption (64 FR 43417). The FHWA requested public comment on Ford's application and the agency's safety analysis and presented other relevant information. After considering all the comments received, the agency granted an exemption to Ford on December 20, 1999 (64 FR 71184). In that notice (at 71185), the agency noted that the 20 gallon per minute rate, while appropriate for diesel fuel-powered vehicles, mandates that fill pipes on gasoline-powered vehicles be capable of receiving fuel at twice the maximum rate gasoline pumps are allowed to dispense fuel.1
           The vehicles in question are gasoline-fueled and are capable of receiving fuel at a rate of 17 gallons per minute.

            1 As noted in our discussion below, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard is 10 gpm.

        The FMCSA published a notice of intent on November 2, 2001 (66 FR 55727), to renew Ford's exemption and renewed the exemption on December 27, 2001 (66 FR 66970). Also on the same day, FMCSA published a Notice of Intent to extend the exemption to additional Ford vehicles of similar design (66 FR 66971). The agency granted that exemption on March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14765).
        The chronology for the GM vehicles followed a similar pattern. The vehicles that were the subject of the petition were the G-vans (Chevrolet Express and GMC Savannah) and full size C/K trucks (Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra). In a comment to the docket concerning the Ford petition, dated September 9, 1999, GM stated its support for the agency's preliminary determination and petitioned for the same exemption for its vehicles. On December 20, 1999, the FMCSA published a Notice of Intent to grant GM's application for exemption (64 FR 71186). The agency granted GM's petition on April 26, 2000 (65 FR 24531). The FMCSA published a notice of intent to renew the exemption on December 27, 2001 (66 FR 66972). It was renewed on March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14764).
        In addition to the safety regulations published by the FMCSA and the NHTSA, vehicles and internal-combustion engines are subject to environmental protection regulations published by the EPA. In many cases, they are also subject to energy-efficiency regulations published by the Department of Energy (DOE). Occasionally, these regulations published by the EPA or the DOE can have an influence on the safety regulations, as in this case.
        Related EPA Regulations
        The EPA issued four final rules under Title 40 of the CFR relevant to the fuel-tank fill rate issue. Although the EPA rules address the reduction of emissions from vehicle fueling, they are relevant to the FMCSA safety regulations concerning fuel tank fill rates. This is because they place a number of refueling regulatory requirements on various parties. These include: Controls on the dispensing rate of gasoline and methanol from pumps, the rate at which gasoline and methanol fuels can be accepted into the tanks of certain vehicles, the ability of the vehicle fuel systems to safely handle vapors released during fueling, and the ability of the fuel systems to safely prevent any spitback of fuel during the fueling process.

        The four EPA rules are: (1) A final rule concerning evaporative emissions testing and fuel pump dispensing rates, issued March 24, 1993 (58 FR 16002), (2) a final rule concerning on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems to control refueling emissions, published in the Federal Register on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16262), (3) a final rule concerning Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Highway Heavy-Duty Engines, published in the Federal Register on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54693), and (4) a final rule for covering, among other things, on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems for heavy-duty vehicles, issued October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59895).
        The 1993 rule added § 80.22(j) to Title 40 setting a maximum dispensing rate of 10 gallons (37.9 liters (L)) per minute (/m) for most gasoline and methanol pumps, effective January 1, 1996. Certain facilities with low sales volume were given two additional years to comply. It also added new regulations which address, among other things, the standard for the fuel-dispensing spitback test for 1996 and later model year light-duty vehicles (0-6000 lbs GVWR) (§ 86.096-8), 1996 and later model year light-duty trucks (6,001-8,500 lbs GVWR) (§ 86.096-9), and 1996 and later model year Otto-cycle (standard four-cycle electronic ignition) heavy-duty vehicles (8,501-10,000 lbs GVWR) and engines (§ 86.096-10).
        The 1994 rule sets forth additional requirements for controlling vehicle refueling emissions through the use of vehicle-based systems (that is, on-board vapor recovery (ORVR) systems). The requirements are to be phased in beginning with model year 1998 for light-duty vehicles, model year 2001 for light-duty trucks (0-6000 lbs GVWR), and model year 2004 for light-duty trucks (6,001-8,500 lbs GVWR). The 1994 rule carries forward the spitback standard published in 1993, although the EPA provides an alternative assessment procedure that is combined with the ORVR testing requirement.
        Although the EPA had proposed that heavy-duty vehicles (8,501-10,000 lbs GVWR) be subject to the same on-board vapor recovery requirements as light-duty vehicles, it decided not to include them in the 1994 final rule. EPA noted that only a small number of heavy-duty vehicles are gasoline powered, and that its final rule would apply to 91 percent of all gasoline-fueled trucks. EPA's spitback and ORVR rules are not applicable to diesel fuels and diesel fueled vehicles because the Reid Vapor Pressure 2
           of diesel fuel is very low (e.g., less than 1 pound per square inch (psi)) and, thus, spitback and refueling emissions are insignificant.

            2 The pressure exerted by a vapor in equilibrium with the solid or liquid phase of the same substance. Also, the partial pressure of the substance in the atmosphere above the solid or the liquid. (Source: http://chemengineer.miningco.com:80/library/glossary/bldef9050.htm)

        The EPA 1997 final rule adopted a new emissions standard and related provisions for diesel heavy-duty engines intended for highway operation. The standards affect emission levels and durability of emissions controls. They apply beginning with the 2004 model year.3

            3 The terms of the Consent Decree that accelerated the compliance date to October 1, 2002 affects engines in diesel-fueled CMVs that are not the subject of this NPRM.

        The EPA final rule concerning control of emissions from highway heavy-duty engines, published October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59896) adopted ORVR standards for model year 2005 and later heavy-duty vehicles (see 40 CFR 86.1816-05(e)). ORVR standards are applicable to all complete heavy-duty vehicles 4
           from 8,501 lbs GVWR to 10,000 lbs GVWR. The ORVR standards will be phased in with 80 percent compliance required in 2005 model year vehicles and 100 percent compliance required in 2006 model year and later vehicles.

            4 The Clean Air Act defines heavy-duty vehicles as those with a GVWR of greater than 6,000 pounds. However, EPA has classified vehicles between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds GVWR as light-duty vehicles, while treating them as heavy-duty for statutory pruposes. See 65 FR 59897 (October 6, 2000), at 59898.

        However, as noted above, EPA requirements on evaporative emissions limit fuel-dispensing rates for gasoline and methanol pumps. The rates may not exceed 10 gpm (37.9 L/m). This action was taken to ensure that vehicles designed to prevent spitback during refueling at 10 gpm would not experience in-use fueling rates beyond the rate they were designed to accommodate. Also, a 10 gpm maximum fuel-dispensing rate is an inherent design parameter for vehicles designed to meet ORVR emission standards. ORVR vehicles that are refueled at dispensing rates above 10 gpm would likely exceed ORVR emissions standards because the vehicle's carbon canister is not designed to adsorb hydrocarbon vapors satisfactorily at these higher dispensing rates.

        Retailers and wholesale purchasers-consumers handling over 10,000 gallons (37,854 L) of fuel per month were required to comply with the EPA final rule starting July 1, 1996. Other retailers and wholesale purchasers-consumers were required to comply by January 1, 1998. Any dispensing pump that is dedicated exclusively to heavy-duty vehicles, boats, or airplanes is exempt from this requirement. EPA intends to make future rule changes to clarify that: (1) The 10 gpm refueling requirement also applies to ethanol pumps; and (2) the exemption does not apply to pumps used to refuel heavy-duty vehicles which meet ORVR emissions standards (that is, the exemption only applies to heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR).
        Inconsistency Between FMCSA and EPA Fuel Tank Fill Rate Requirements
        The changes in the EPA regulation created an inconsistency between the fuel tank fill rate requirements of FMCSA and those of the EPA. As discussed above, § 393.67(c)(7)(ii) of the FMCSRs requires a CMV fuel tank of 25 or more gallons capacity to accept fuel at a fill rate of at least 20 gpm. That is twice the maximum nozzle flow rate of 10 gpm for gasoline and methanol fuel pumps allowed by EPA regulations at 40 CFR 80.22(j). Ford and GM brought this inconsistency to the attention of the FMCSA as it applies to vehicles defined at 49 CFR 390.5, which are subject to the FMCSRs, and, by extension, State regulations compatible with Part 393. It is also twice the maximum fill fuel dispensing rate specified by the EPA at 40 CFR 80.22(j), and twice the fuel fill rate specified for the various fuel spitback tests at 40 CFR 86.1246-96.

        The EPA regulations concerning gasoline dispensing rates have already been implemented, and pumps subject to the regulations (i.e., all pumps except those dedicated to heavy-duty vehicles, boats, or planes) were required to comply with the 10 gpm (37.9 L/m) maximum dispensing rate requirements by January 1, 1998. Furthermore, depending upon the vehicle class, many of today's vehicles are already designed to meet ORVR and spitback emissions standards based on the EPA 10 gpm fuel fill rate requirements. Considering both of these issues, the 20-gallon per minute fill rate required under the FMCSRs is incompatible with the EPA regulations for those vehicles. It is possible that some of the gasoline- or methanol-fueled vehicles with GVWRs above 8,500 lbs GVWR might be fueled at facilities not subject to the EPA regulation on fuel dispensing rates. However, as noted in the agency's August 10, 1999 notice concerning the original Ford petition, Ford believed the 20-gpm rate:

          “ * * * to be more a subject of convenience. With virtually all filling stations using the industry standard automatic shut-off nozzles, it is unlikely that fuel will be spilled even while using a high flow rate delivery system. These standard nozzles substantially reduce any potential safety risk introduced by filling an Econoline vehicle at a rate above its capacity of 17 gallons per minute.”

        Ford also noted that the 17-gpm rate is only 15 percent less than the FMCSA requirement at § 393.65 (64 FR 43417, at 43418).
        The original applications for exemptions from Ford, and subsequently from GM, sought temporary solutions to the inconsistency between FMCSA safety regulations intended to prevent potential injuries from the spillage of fuel during the refueling process, and EPA regulations intended to protect against environmental harm resulting from fuel spillage and the release of fuel vapors into the atmosphere. This rulemaking is intended to provide a long-term resolution to the inconsistency between these safety and environmental regulations, while ensuring that the respective goals of FMCSA and EPA are not compromised.

        As stated in the August 10, 1999 notice (at 43418), the gasoline-fueled Ford Econoline Series light-truck-platform vehicles in question were and continue (during the 2-year exemption) to be built with the fuel tanks mounted between the frame rails. They use a fuel pipe system routed to minimize exposure in the event of a crash. The maximum filling rate does not exceed 17 gpm. Thus, as far as those Ford vehicles for the exempted series were concerned, the agency subsequently determined the intent of the FMCSR safety requirement was satisfied because the fill rate was only slightly less than the FMCSR-mandated rate (December 20, 1999; 64 FR 71184, at 71185). That is, for those vehicles not fueled at facilities dispensing gasoline at the EPA-mandated limit of 10 gpm, i.e., those vehicles that might be fueled at locations used exclusively for refueling heavy-duty vehicles, the agency determined that the level of safety would be equivalent to the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with § 393.67(c)(7)(ii).
        As stated in the FMCSA December 20, 1999 notice (64 FR 71186, at 71187), the GM G and C/K vehicles were and continue to be equipped with fuel tanks mounted between the frame rails. They use a fill pipe system conforming to EPA requirements. Furthermore, for those vehicles with a GVWR of less than 14,000 lbs (6,400 kilograms (kg)), the EPA requires the vehicle to pass its Fuel Dispensing Spitback test (40 CFR § 86.099-10(b)2(C); §§ 86.1811 through 1815 paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) (in each case), and § 86.1816-05(d)(4)).5
           Thus again, for the duration of the 2-year exemption, FMCSA determined that safety concerns associated with different fill rates are addressed by the requirement that these vehicles must successfully comply with the spitback test.

            5 In a final rule concerning evaporative emissions test procedures (40 CFR 86, published March 24, 1993 [58 FR 16002]), EPA noted that heavy-duty vehicles over 14,000 lbs (6,400 kg) GVWR are typically designed with filler necks so short that fuel can be dispensed directly into the fuel tank. These vehicles would therefore not be expected to experience spitback. Therefore, they are exempt from the spitback test requirements (58 FR 16002, at 16006).

        In the original December 20, 1999 notice concerning the GM petition (at 71187), GM agreed with Ford that the 20 gallon per minute fill requirement is a matter of convenience. The GM vehicles that were the subject of its petition for a 2-year exemption were and continue to be equipped with fuel systems similar to those of the Ford vehicles, that is, with fuel tanks mounted between the frame rails, and designed to conform to FMVSS 301 requirements.
        GM also suggested that the applicability of the FMCSA's fuel fill rate regulation should be restricted to vehicles equipped with side-mounted fuel tanks. GM contended that many of the FMCSR requirements were developed for heavy-duty vehicles, rather than the type of vehicles that were the subject of its petition. Many heavy-duty vehicles with side-mounted fuel tanks have fill openings directly on the fuel tank. Heavy-duty vehicles are also likely to be fueled at a location where the fuel fill rate exceeds 10 gallons per minute. (As noted earlier in this document, only pumps used exclusively to fuel heavy trucks, boats, and airplanes are exempt from the EPA's fuel dispensing rate requirement.)
        The FMCSA agrees with the assessment that the current FMCSR 20 gpm minimum fuel tank fill-rate has become a customer convenience requirement rather than a safety requirement for all vehicles. FMCSA further believes the EPA design constraints the vehicles must comply with for emissions and fuel spitback testing adequately address any problems such vehicles could encounter during refueling.
        Proposal Concerning Fuel Fill Rate Requirements

        As discussed in the FHWA's August 10, 1999 Notice of Application from Ford Motor Company (64 FR 43417, at 43418), FMCSA believes the fill pipe capacity criterion, when applied to gasoline-powered vehicles, is inconsistent with EPA regulations concerning gasoline fuel pumps. The FMCSR mandates that these vehicles be capable of receiving fuel at twice the maximum rate that these pumps are allowed to dispense fuel by EPA regulations. The FMCSA also continues to believe that a revision to the fuel fill rate requirements should not present a safety problem because the vehicles using the fill pipe and fueling system designs under consideration here are not likely to be fueled at locations where fuel could be dispensed at the higher rate.
        The FMCSA believes that the other existing regulatory requirements, including a restricted fuel-pump dispensing rate, fuel fill rate for many (if not most) of these light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, plus required spitback and on-board refueling tests adequately address the safety of fueling these vehicles. (These requirements are discussed in detail under the above heading “Related EPA Regulations.”) Therefore, the FMCSA proposes to require gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds (3,744 kg) or less to comply with the applicable spitback and onboard refueling regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR parts 86 and 88 (part 88 concerns clean-fuel vehicles). For gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds (6,400 kg) or less, the FMCSA proposes to require that the vehicle comply with the applicable fuel-spitback prevention regulations and onboard refueling regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR part 86.
        Applicability of FMVSS 301 to Certain Additional CMVs
        The FMCSA periodically codifies published regulatory guidance. Therefore, this NPRM also proposes to place in the FMCSRs previously published FMCSA regulatory guidance concerning the applicability of FMVSS 301 (Fuel System Integrity) to CMVs that have a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less. In addition to the concern raised about the Ford and GM vehicles, there is another family of vehicles that fall under the definition of CMVs: Passenger vehicles designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver), in interstate commerce, and similar vehicles carrying placardable amounts of hazardous materials.
        The existing Regulatory Guidance, published on April 4, 1997 (65 FR 16369, at 16417), reads as follows:

            Question: Must a motor vehicle that meets the definition of a “commercial motor vehicle” in § 390.5 because it transports hazardous materials in a quantity requiring placarding under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180) comply with the fuel system requirements of Subpart E of Part 393, even though it has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less?

            Guidance: No. FMVSS No. 301 contains fuel system integrity requirements for passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and use fuel with a boiling point above 0 deg. Celsius (32 deg. Fahrenheit). Subpart E of part 393 was issued to provide fuel system requirements to cover motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,001 or more pounds. FMVSS No. 301 adequately addresses the fuel systems of placarded motor vehicles with a GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds and compliance with subpart E of part 393 would be redundant. However, commercial motor vehicles that are not covered by FMVSS No. 301 must continue to comply with subpart E of part 393.

        Motor vehicles that meet the fuel system integrity requirements of NHTSA § 571.301 would be exempt from the requirements of FMCSA Subpart E of Part 393. The FMCSA proposes to include this provision under § 393.67 rather than § 393.65. Since the NHTSA standard deals with the overall integrity of liquid fuel systems, referencing it in the FMCSRs would take the place of a set of component-oriented standards for the class of smaller vehicles that are considered CMVs under the FMCSRs.
        Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Regulatory Notices

          Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.) You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

        Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        The FMCSA has determined that this proposed regulatory action is not significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under the regulatory policies and procedures of the DOT.
        This proposed rule would revise the regulations concerning the fuel systems of certain light-duty vehicles used as CMVs. First, it would exclude from the fuel system integrity requirements of the FMCSRs certain light-duty vehicles that are required to comply with the fuel system integrity requirements of FMVSS 301. Second, it would revise the requirements of section 393.67, Fill pipe, to bring them into conformity with EPA regulations. The FMCSA believes these changes would simplify motor carriers' ability to comply with the FMCSRs, and would not diminish the safe operation of these vehicles.
        Based on the information presented here, FMCSA anticipates that this rulemaking will have minimal economic impact on the interstate motor carrier industry. Unless a motor carrier operates pumps that are used exclusively to fuel heavy-duty vehicles, motor carriers have been required to comply with the limitation on fueling rate since January 1, 1998.

        Under provisions of The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Vehicle Safety Act”) (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., codified at 49 U.S.C. 30112) and NHTSA's implementing regulations, vehicles must be certified to meet all applicable FMVSSs at the time of their manufacture. Since the fuel systems of vehicles under 10,000 lbs GVWR are required to comply with FMVSS 301, there is no need for the FMCSA to require a separate fuel certification label on the fuel tanks of these vehicles.
        This rulemaking imposes no requirements that would generate new costs for motor carriers. Those entities would see no change to their operations, provided they ensure that their CMVs with GVWRs of up to 10,000 pounds already comply with FMVSS 301, and their gasoline- and methanol-fueled CMVs comply with the applicable EPA regulations. This rulemaking is being proposed to harmonize the fuel system integrity requirements of FMCSA with those of the NHTSA and the EPA.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) the FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rulemaking on small entities. Motor carriers would not be subject to any new requirements under this proposal. Generally, they would only have access to vehicles that comply with the FMVSSs and the EPA requirements. As a result, motor carriers may incur only minimal new costs, considerably less than the guideline of $100 million or more in any one year.

        Therefore, the FMCSA has preliminarily determined that this regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FMCSA invites public comment on this determination.

        Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
        This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
        Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (April 23, 1997, 62 FR 19885), requires that agencies issuing “economically significant” rules that concern an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children must include an evaluation of the environmental health and safety effects of the regulation on children. Section 5 of Executive Order 13045 directs an agency to submit for a “covered regulatory action” an evaluation of its environmental health or safety effects on children.
        The agency has determined that this proposed rule is not a “covered regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 13045. First, this NPRM is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866. Second, the agency has no reason to believe that the proposed rule would result in an environmental health risk or safety risk that would disproportionately affect children. The vehicles that are the subject of this rulemaking are required to comply with both NHTSA and EPA standards concerning fuel system integrity and fuel tank fill rate. The agency has preliminarily determined that the proposed rule would have no significant environmental impacts.
        Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
        This proposed rule would revise the FMCSRs concerning fuel system integrity and fuel tank fill rate, as they apply to gasoline-fueled CMVs, to bring them into conformance with current NHTSA and EPA regulations. It would also make permanent the exemptions previously granted at the request of Ford and GM.
        No new action is required on the part of those motor carriers that currently operate or plan to operate on U.S. highways, because these vehicles are already required to comply with the NHTSA and EPA requirements referenced in this proposal. If the FMCSA issues a final rule, motor carriers operating vehicles on or after that rule's effective date, in compliance with the NHTSA and EPA requirements, would not need to apply for an exemption.
        The FMCSA therefore has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule has no taking implications under the Fifth Amendment or Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999. The FMCSA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States.
        These proposed changes to the FMCSRs would not directly preempt any State law or regulation. They would not impose additional costs or burdens on the States. Although the States are required to adopt part 393 as a condition for receiving Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants, the additional training and orientation that would be required for roadside enforcement officials would be minimal, and it would be covered under the existing grant program. Also, this action would not have a significant effect on the States' ability to execute traditional State governmental functions.
        Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
        Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This proposed action would not involve an information collection that is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has preliminarily determined in an environmental assessment (EA) that this proposed action would not have an adverse effect on the quality of the environment. A copy of the EA is contained in the public docket.
        This notice of proposed rulemaking involves: (1) A revision of the FMCSRs' CMV fuel fill rate requirements to align them with those of the EPA for gasoline and methanol-fueled vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR; (2) making permanent the terms of the exemptions previously granted to motor carriers operating certain gasoline-fueled commercial motor vehicles manufactured by Ford and by GM; and (3) incorporating into the FMCSRs previously issued regulatory guidance concerning the applicability of the agency's fuel tank rules to vehicles subject to the NHTSA fuel system integrity standard at the time of manufacture.
        The agency's proposed revision to the FMCSRs would not cause a change in the EPA's regulations, nor would it require a change in the design, operation, or fueling of these vehicles. It would simply acknowledge the existence of a different set of fuel fill-rate regulations for gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles, promulgated by the EPA to improve air quality by reducing vapor emissions from refueling, which were not considered at the time the fuel tank fill rate provision was added to the FMCSRs in 1952. The proposal would also make permanent the exemptions previously granted to motor carriers operating certain gasoline-fueled CMVs manufactured by Ford and GM which comply with the EPA regulations applicable to them. Finally, the proposal would also explicitly acknowledge these vehicles' compliance with FMVSS 301, thus eliminating redundancy with NHTSA regulations. The FMCSA has preliminarily determined that these proposals would have no significant impact on the environment. Thus, the proposed action does not require an environmental impact statement. FMCSA invites comments from the public to assess any potential environmental impacts associated with this proposal.
        Energy Effects

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have preliminarily determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It would revise the regulations concerning fuel system integrity and fuel tank fill rate, as they apply to gasoline-fueled CMVs, to bring them into conformance with current NHTSA and EPA regulations. It has no direct relation to energy consumption. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
        Unfunded Mandates

        This proposed rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The FMCSA merely seeks to implement a regulation that is inherently a design requirement for the vehicle and does not lend itself to roadside verification. Persons performing inspections at the roadside would likely receive orientation on this proposal (if it becomes a rule) as part of their regular in-service training. However, they would not be trained, equipped, or expected to check fuel tank fill rates at the roadside. Also, since the FMCSA is proposing to codify an existing exemption that had already been provided for light-duty CMVs with certain VINs, the agency anticipates that minimal, if any, additional training would be required. The inspectors would only need to refer to a reference card listing those grandfathered VINs. To the extent that States incur costs due to implementation of this proposal, they would be minimal and covered under the existing MCSAP grant program.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393
          Highway and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety.

        In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA proposes to amend title 49, CFR, subchapter B, chapter III, part 393 as follows:

          PART 393—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 393 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.

          2. Section 393.67 is proposed to be amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and (f)(4), and revising paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:

            § 393.67
            Liquid Fuel Tanks.
            (a) * * *
            (7) Motor vehicles that meet the fuel system integrity requirements of 49 CFR 571.301 are exempt from the requirements of this subpart, as they apply to the vehicle's fueling system.

            (c) * * *
            (7) Fill pipe.

            (i) Each fill pipe must be designed and constructed to minimize the risk of fuel spillage during fueling operations and when the vehicle is involved in a crash.
            (ii) For diesel-fueled vehicles, the fill pipe and vents of a fuel tank having a capacity of more than 25 gallons (94.75 L) of fuel must permit filling the tank with fuel at a rate of at least 75.8 L/m (20 gallons per minute) without fuel spillage.
            (iii) For gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds (3,744 kg) or less, the vehicle must permit filling the tank with fuel dispensed at the applicable fill rate required by the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 80.22.
            (iv) For gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds (6,400 kg) or less, the vehicle must comply with the applicable fuel-spitback prevention and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR part 86.
            (v) Each fill pipe must be fitted with a cap that can be fastened securely over the opening in the fill pipe. Screw threads or a bayonet-type point are methods of conforming to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.

            (f) * * *
            (f)(4) Exception. The following previously exempted vehicles are not required to carry the certification and marking specified in Paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section:
            (i) First group of Ford E-Series vehicles identified as follows: The vehicle identification numbers (VINs) contain E30, E37, E39, E40, or E47 codes in the fifth, sixth, and seventh positions. The fuel tanks are marked with Ford part numbers F3UA-9002-G*, F3UA-9002-H*, F4UA-9002-V*, F4UA-9002-X*, F5UA-9002-V*, F5UA-9002-X*, F6UA-9002-Y*, F6UA-9002-Z*, F7UA-9002-C*, and F7UA-9002D* where the asterisk (*) represents a “wild card” character (any character of the alphabet).
            (ii) Second group of Ford E-Series vehicles identified as follows: The VINs contain E35 or E55 codes in the fifth, sixth, and seventh positions. The fuel tanks are marked with Ford part numbers F3UA-9002-G*, F3UA-9002-H*, F4UA-9002-V*, F4UA-9002-X*, F5UA-9002-V*, F5UA-9002-X*, F6UA-9002-Y*, F6UA-9002-Z*, F7UA-9002-C*, F7UA-9002D*, YC25-9002-D* (a new fuel tank for E37 series vehicles), or 2C24-9002-E* (a new fuel tank for E55 series vehicles) where the asterisk (*) represents a “wild card” character (any character of the alphabet).
            (iii) Ford F-Series vehicles identified as follows: The VINs contain an F53 code in the fifth, sixth, and seventh positions. The fuel tanks are marked with part numbers 1C34-9K007-F*, 1C34-9K007-G*, and 1C34-9K007-H* where the asterisk (*) represents a “wild card” character (any character of the alphabet).
            (iv) GM G-Vans (Chevrolet Express and GMC Savanna) and full-sized C/K trucks (Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra) with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds identified as follows: The VINs contain either a “J” or a “K” in the fourth position. In addition, the seventh position of the VINs on the G-Van would contain a “1.”

            Issued on: November 4, 2003.
            Annette M. Sandberg,
            Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 03-28255 Filed 11-10-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        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

          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 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 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.

        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