[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53753-53772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17987]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-19239]
RIN 2127-AG41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition for rulemaking, this document
proposes to require straight trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of between 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kilograms
(26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a rear object detection system. The
purpose of the proposed requirement is to alert drivers to persons and
objects directly behind the vehicle, thereby reducing backing-related
deaths and injuries. This notice proposes two compliance options.
Vehicle manufacturers could satisfy the proposed requirement either by
installing a mirror system or rear video system that would make the
area to the rear of the vehicle visible to the driver. The notice also
asks a series of questions to help the agency determine whether the
proposed requirements should be extended to vehicles in other weight
classes and whether existing straight trucks engaged in interstate
commerce should be retrofitted to meet the proposed requirements, as
part of a future rulemaking.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
above 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 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC., between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., 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 heading 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
[[Page 53754]]
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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Dr. Keith Brewer, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-121), NHTSA,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-5280)
(FAX: 202-366-4329).
For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Eric Stas, Office of the
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: 202-366-2992) (FAX: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Petition for Rulemaking
B. Request for Comments
C. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
D. Comments on the ANPRM
III. Size of the Safety Problem
A. Number of Injuries and Fatalities
B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Crashes
C. Other Data and Summary
IV. Agency Proposal
A. Summary of Proposal
B. Compliance Options
1. Cross-View Mirrors
2. Rear Video Systems
C. Applicability
D. Non-Visual Systems
E. Retrofitting of Existing Commercial Vehicles
F. FMCSA Issues Related to Retrofit and Preemption
G. Effective Date
V. Benefits
VI. Costs
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notice
I. Executive Summary
In response to a petition for rulemaking, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to
require a rear object detection system on straight trucks \1\ with a
GVWR of between 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg
(26,000 pounds). Most of these vehicles have a significant blind spot
in the rear. The purpose of the proposed requirement is to provide a
uniform standard that would alert drivers of persons and objects
directly behind the vehicle and to thereby reduce backing-related
deaths and injuries. Children, the elderly, and persons with impaired
senses are target populations of particular concern in backing-related
incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``straight truck'' is a single-unit truck composed of an
undetachable cab and body. Body types routinely incorporated as part
of straight trucks include an enclosed box, flat bed, dump bed, bulk
container, or special purpose equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is proposing a regulation at this time for a number of
reasons. First, agency research has demonstrated that straight trucks
have a disproportionately higher back-up fatality rate than other
vehicle types. Research indicates that backing straight trucks annually
cause at least 79 fatalities (both on-road and off-road) and 148
injuries. The incidence rate for straight truck backing fatalities is
21.89 per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled and 29.68 per million
registered vehicles, figures 8 to 17 times greater than for passenger
vehicles.
Second, technologies currently exist that could make a substantial
area directly behind such trucks visible to the driver. Elimination of
this blind spot could significantly mitigate the backing problem
associated with these vehicles. Further, because individual States have
begun to regulate in this area, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to
develop a uniform set of requirements for rear object detection.
In developing a proposed performance standard for rear object
detection, NHTSA carefully considered a range of technologies. NHTSA
examined both visual systems (e.g., cross-view mirrors and video
cameras) and non-visual systems (e.g., sonar/infrared devices and
audible back-up alarms) in order to evaluate their efficacy in
preventing backing-related injuries and fatalities.
We believe primary responsibility for object detection should be
placed upon the driver, such that the driver has visible confirmation
that the pathway is clear before backing; non-visual systems, by their
nature, cannot provide such confirmation. Consequently, we are
proposing two compliance options that would provide a visual image to
the driver of a 3 meter (m) by 3 m area immediately behind the vehicle.
We propose that the following requirements would become effective for
covered vehicles that are manufactured one year after publication of a
final rule.
Option 1: Cross-View Mirrors
Under the first proposed compliance option, a cross-view mirror
system would be required. A cross-view mirror is typically a convex
mirror mounted on the driver's side, upper rear corner of a vehicle
that is used in conjunction with the driver's side exterior rearview
mirror to view the area directly behind a vehicle.
The cross-view mirror would be required to: (1) Have no
discontinuities in the slope of its surface; (2) be adjustable both in
the horizontal and vertical directions; (3) be installed on stable
supports on the upper rear corner of the driver's side of the vehicle;
(4) have an average radius of curvature of no less than 203 millimeters
(mm), and (5) be placed such that the geometric centers of the two
mirrors would be separated by no more than 5 m.
We also are proposing test requirements to ensure that the mirror
system provides a detection zone that would permit the driver to survey
the area behind the vehicle for obstacles before backing. The proposed
test requirements would be similar in nature to the school bus mirror
test requirements of FMVSS No. 111, which utilize a number of cylinders
to simulate objects that would be difficult or impossible to see
without the aid of mirrors.
Option 2: Rear Video Systems
Under the second proposed compliance option, a rear video system
would be required that provides the same 3 m by 3 m field of view as in
Option 1. To maximize its effectiveness, the system's monitor would be
required to be mounted as close to the centerline of the vehicle as
practicable near the top of the windshield and have an image size of
between 90 cm\2\ and 160 cm\2\. The video camera would be required to
be adjustable so that it may tilt in both the horizontal and vertical
directions, for aiming purposes, and the video monitor similarly would
be required to be adjustable so as to accommodate drivers of different
statures.
The proposed test procedures, designed to ensure compliance with
the rear video system's detection zone requirement, would be
essentially the same as those for the cross-view mirrors compliance
option.
Although we do not believe that non-visual systems alone would
achieve our safety objectives related to rear object detection, we
intend neither to require nor to prohibit the voluntary installation of
such systems by manufacturers.
Finally, although we are not proposing to do so at this time, NHTSA
is requesting comments as to whether, in the interests of safety, the
proposed requirements should be extended to vehicles in other weight
classes and whether existing commercial vehicles in the designated
weight class should be required to be retrofitted with rear object
detection systems that would comply with the new standard.
The agency estimates that requiring a visual rear detection system
would
[[Page 53755]]
result annually in a net reduction of 23 fatalities, 43 injuries, and
an estimated $32 million in property damage savings (present discounted
value). The associated cost burden is estimated to be approximately $77
million annually (in 2004 economics).
II. Background
A. Petition for Rulemaking
In March 1995, Mr. Dee Norton submitted a petition for rulemaking
to the agency seeking to amend FMVSS No. 111 to require convex, cross-
view mirrors on the rear of the cargo box of stepvans and walk-in style
delivery and service trucks. The petition was intended to prevent
future tragedies similar to one that befell Mr. Norton's grandson, who
was killed when he was struck and backed over by a delivery truck in an
apartment complex parking lot because the driver was unable to see the
area directly behind the vehicle in its side-mounted rearview mirrors.
In determining whether to grant the petition and deciding how to
substantively respond, NHTSA decided to solicit comment from the
public. To this end, NHTSA issued a request for comments, which was
later followed by an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).
B. Request for Comments
NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register on June 17, 1996,
seeking information on cross-view mirrors and other alternative rear
object detection systems (61 FR 30586).\2\ We received six comments in
response to that notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This Request for Comments and the comments subsequently
received are available in hard copy in Docket No. NHTSA-96-53.
However, for ease of reference, the Request for Comments also has
been included in the electronic docket for the present rulemaking
(Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters described a variety of available rear object detection
devices, including both visual and non-visual systems. Visual systems
include not only cross-view mirrors, but also video cameras mounted on
the rear of the vehicle that are connected to a monitor in the occupant
compartment. Existing non-visual systems include ultrasound, radar,
microwave, and infrared sensor mechanisms, which detect an object and
provide an auditory signal to the driver that an obstruction is behind
the vehicle, as well as audible alarms that sound whenever a vehicle is
backing. These comments provided initial insights that helped NHTSA to
direct the course of the rulemaking process.
C. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NHTSA issued an ANPRM on November 27, 2000, to gather further data
on key issues related to rear object detection (65 FR 70681).\3\ In
addition to a request for general comments, the ANPRM posed twenty
specific questions for public input, which were broken down into four
main categories: (1) Questions concerning rear cross-view mirrors; (2)
questions concerning rear video systems; (3) questions concerning other
rear object detection systems, and (4) other questions. Generally, the
cross-view mirror questions concerned the size, design, and placement
of mirrors, the size of the detection area behind the vehicle, the use
and capabilities of exterior, audible back-up alarms (as an alternative
to mirrors), and test procedures. The rear video systems questions
sought input regarding image size, display color, screen size and
location, need for a system failure alert, possible conflicts with
State laws against video screens/monitors in view of the driver, and
test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The questions pertaining to other rear object detection systems
asked about the capabilities and limitations of these non-visual
systems, including efforts to increase the range of sensors so that
they are effective at higher backing speeds. These questions also
raised the issue of how to craft test procedures that would ensure the
accuracy and reliability of non-visual systems under a variety of
environmental conditions. The ``other'' category of questions asked
whether manufacturers who have installed rear visibility systems have
experienced significant property damage prevention benefits, whether
this area should be regulated by the Federal government or the States,
whether and how subcategories of vehicles should be defined, and
whether existing commercial trucks in the applicable weight range
should be required to be retrofitted with rear object detection
systems.
D. Comments on the ANPRM
NHTSA received fourteen comments in response to the ANPRM,
including submissions from trade associations, automobile and rear
object detection system manufacturers, fleet operators, organized
labor, a State agency, and individuals.\4\ In addition to responding to
the questions posed in the ANPRM, commenters also raised a variety of
issues, including scope of the regulatory requirement, potential
exclusions, alternatives to regulation, maintenance and training
requirements, and preemption. The following discussion summarizes the
comments received on the ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Comments were received from: (1) The National Private Truck
Council (NPTC); (2) the American Trucking Associations (ATA); (3)
the Towing and Recovery Association of America (TRAA); (4) the
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA); (5) Ford Motor Company
(Ford); (6) Sheffield Partners LLC (Sheffield); (7) Rostra Precision
Controls, Inc. (Rostra); (8) Reliant Energy (Reliant); (9) ABC
Supply Co., Inc. (ABC); (10) Federal Express Corporation (FedEx);
(11) the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters); (12)
the New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT); (13) the Nevada
Automotive Test Center (NATC); and (14) Ronald G. Silc. These
comments can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope and Exclusions
NHTSA received a range of views regarding the scope of a regulation
for rear object detection systems. Several commenters advocated
narrowing coverage due to purported unsuitability of or lack of
necessity for such systems on certain vehicles. For example, ATA stated
that a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach would not be successful, because
there is too much diversity in equipment and operations. NTEA stated
that the rear object detection standard should only apply to ``standard
type vehicles.''
Commenters also offered numerous suggestions for vehicles which
they believe should be excluded from the requirements of an amended
standard, including tow trucks, car carriers, flat beds, stake trucks,
dump trucks, tradesmen's and mechanic's bodies, platform bodies, tank
trucks, any vehicle equipped with a crane or aerial device operating in
a rotational manner, and other special units.
Other commenters, such as NYDOT, urged NHTSA to expand coverage of
the standard to include lighter vehicles commonly used in residential
deliveries (e.g., trucks with a GVWR of 6,500 lbs. to 16,000 lbs.).
NATC suggested that other vehicles with large blind spots (e.g.,
windowless vans and light trucks with campers or canopy shells) may
also be suitable for coverage under a revised FMVSS No. 111. These
recommended changes could bring some passenger vehicles within the
ambit of the rule. NYDOT suggested consideration of a phase-in period
to permit earlier implementation of requirements for trucks that can
readily be equipped with existing technology.
In response to the questions about retrofitting, commenters
expressed divergent views. NYDOT urged NHTSA to take the lead on
retrofitting of existing vehicles so that there would not be a
patchwork of remedial activities by the 50 States. Others, such as ABC,
[[Page 53756]]
opposed retrofitting, stating that retrofitting its entire fleet would
be a ``very lengthy and costly operation.''
Rearview Mirrors
Regarding rearview mirrors, the commenters generally agreed with
NHTSA's tentative determination that cross-view mirrors should be
placed no more than 5 meters (approximately 16 feet) from the driver's
side rear view mirror, as the image size arguably becomes too small
beyond this distance to be useful to the driver. However, ATA urged
greater clarity in how NHTSA would measure the distance between the two
mirrors.
Commenters also discussed the issue of trucks that are particularly
long or high, thereby posing greater challenges in terms of rear object
detection. For example, FedEx expressed concerns about situations where
the height of a truck is so great that a top-mounted cross-view mirror
is not visible in the side mirror. NYDOT stated that some trucks
approaching 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds) may exceed the length where it
would be feasible to use a cross-view mirror system, but it urged the
agency to maintain some alternative rear object detection requirement
for such vehicles.
In the ANPRM, we requested comments on whether a 3 m by 3 m
detection area behind a vehicle would be adequate. Some commenters
suggested alternative detection zones that would be either larger or
asymmetrical, but they did not provide a strong rationale or data to
support their position. However, ATA and Ford suggested that NHTSA's
estimation of the backing speed used to calculate the detection zone
(i.e., 3 mph) underestimates actual backing speeds. These organizations
stated that a reasonable estimate of backing speeds could be in the 5
mph to 8 mph range.
Rear Video Systems
Commenters likewise expressed a range of views on rear video
systems. Some commenters, such as ABC, expressed concern about the
expense of this technology. Other commenters, such as the Teamsters,
specifically requested that NHTSA adopt a performance standard that
would permit use of video systems.
Reliant argued that the presence of a video camera may encourage
theft (presumably of the camera), but NATC made the argument that video
cameras and rear mirrors may deter theft of items from the back of the
vehicle when stopped.
In terms of the image presented by a rear video system, commenters
suggested that an acceptable size for a screen may be as small as 3.8
cm (1.5 inches) on the diagonal and as large as 25.4 cm (10 inches) on
the diagonal. NATC stated that the size of the screen needed will
depend upon the placement of the monitor relative to the driver's
seating position. Reliant expressed concern about placing a video
monitor in a truck's ``already full'' cab.
Varying views were expressed regarding screen color for rear video
monitors. Mr. Silc stated that military-green monitors are more
efficient than black-and-white monitors and that they provide three-
times better contrast to the human eye and greater visibility. However,
NATC reasoned that a black-and-white screen would be sufficient,
because color would be lost in strong daylight and a black-and-white
screen's contrast would be helpful in distinguishing objects and
movement.
Regarding placement for the video screen, one suggestion was to
have the monitor in a location similar to a car's rearview mirror,
where the driver's eyes can constantly be glancing at it. NATC urged
NHTSA to conduct human factors analysis to determine the optimal
placement of the monitor in the truck cab.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We note that NHTSA has defined and is conducting an
innovative, detailed human factors analysis to understand driver
requirements for indirect viewing surfaces in the cabs of heavy
trucks. Related static and dynamic testing was initiated in 2004 and
is expected to be completed in 2005. The results from this testing
will assist the agency in defining a performance specification to be
used to evaluate various indirect viewing technologies in future cab
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received conflicting viewpoints regarding the need for a
system failure alert for the rear video system. Mr. Silc stated that it
is unnecessary, arguing that if the screen is black, the system is
either turned off or malfunctioning, and that either situation would be
easily detectable by the driver. In contrast, the Teamsters supported
use of a failure alert, expressing concern that the image of the
monitor must reflect in real time the area behind the truck.
In response to the ANPRM's questions about State laws regulating
the existence and use of video monitors/screens in the occupant
compartment which are in view of the driver, ATA stated that such
restrictions are similar to those contained in Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulation (FMCSR) 393.88. That provision specifically prohibits
monitors that are in view of the driver that can receive a television
signal or can be used to view video tapes. However, such prohibitions
would not be applicable here, where the image presented only displays
the area to the rear of the vehicle for backing purposes and where
auxiliary video input connections are missing.
Audible Backup Alarms
The ANPRM asked a number of questions regarding the efficacy of
audible backup alarms and whether trucks equipped with OSHA-specified
alarms should be excluded from the standard's new performance
requirements. Some commenters such as NATC and ATA favored exclusion of
such vehicles, arguing that audible backup alarms provide an effective
warning for most pedestrians. As an added benefit, commenters stated
that those systems are relatively easy to maintain.
However, other commenters pointed out significant limitations
associated with backup alarm systems. NYDOT stated that young children,
who account for a disproportionate number of the fatalities and
injuries related to backing crashes, may not understand or be able to
properly respond to such alarms. Rostra stated that auditory backup
alarms do not work adequately with the hearing impaired, and the
Teamsters added that the elderly may also experience problems with such
systems (e.g., due to decreased mobility, hearing impairment). Reliant
added that these alarms can be turned off and that drivers may forget
to turn them on again, and it also stated that residential customers
frequently complain about loud backing alarms on trucks used at night.
Other Non-Visual Rear Object Detection Systems
Commenters expressed a range of views about the efficacy of a
variety of non-visual rear object detection systems, such as those
utilizing sonar and infrared technology. The Teamsters stated that
manufacturers should be permitted to use non-visual systems as well as
visual systems for rear object detection. NPTC argued that additional
data are required on the effectiveness of devices other than mirrors,
before such non-visual systems would be suitable as compliance options.
Offering yet another possible approach, Federal Express confirmed that
its vehicles are equipped with sonar backing systems used in concert
with cross-view mirrors.
Comments also were received regarding the timing of the alert and
detection capabilities provided by non-visual systems. Rostra stated
that detection time should be derived from the distance of a calibrated
test object; the speed of the alert would depend upon the distance from
the sensor and the vehicle's closing speed vis-[agrave]-vis the object.
Ford stated that typical latency times for radar and ultrasonic systems
[[Page 53757]]
are approximately 250-400 milliseconds (ms), but it added that a
system's alert time could be increased by relying on multiple sensors
to validate that the system is detecting a ``true'' target. In this
context, commenters again raised concerns that NHTSA's assumption of a
3 mph backing speed may be an underestimation.
Ford also stated that surface characteristics are very complex in
the real world and that the reflective characteristics of irregular
surfaces are infinite. Because of this inability of non-visual systems
to detect all objects, Ford argued that NHTSA must specify a limited
number of objectively defined obstacles for any certification test.
Equipment Damage
The ANPRM also asked questions about potential damage to various
rear object detection systems. Some commenters, such as Reliant, argued
that mirrors are high maintenance items due to breakage and theft.
Others suggested that damage inflicted by dirt, mud, rocks, brush, and
limbs could limit the mirrors' effectiveness. ATA stated that while
rear detection systems could be damaged by vibration and shock, it
believes that these systems could be designed to withstand most of
these conditions.
Testing
In response to questions about test procedures for the potential
new rear object detection provisions, commenters generally urged NHTSA
to conduct testing under as many different conditions as possible under
which objects would be difficult to detect. Regarding mirrors, NATC
stated that test procedures should utilize objects of various sizes,
colors, heights, and positions, and the organization urged NHTSA to
conduct testing under rugged conditions (e.g., vibration, humidity, and
extreme high and low temperatures).
For non-visual rear object detection systems, commenters stated
that a well-defined and objective standard and test methodology are
even more important, including specification of the size and shape of
objects to be detected in such tests. Ford suggested use of the
standard pole target developed by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), which the company has used since 1996 for
testing both its ultrasonic and radar systems. Furthermore, both Rostra
and NATC stated their belief that environmental conditions should be
specified as part of any performance test for non-visual systems under
the standard. Factors such as temperature, rain, snow, humidity, dirt,
driving surfaces, submersion, and mounting surfaces were specifically
mentioned as potentially affecting such systems' detection
capabilities.
Costs and Benefits
Commenters provided varying estimates regarding the cost of cross-
view mirrors, ranging from $80-$160 per truck (depending upon whether
one or two mirrors are required). ATA stated that NHTSA should factor
in the potentially frequent damage to cross-view mirrors from a variety
of sources over the life of the vehicle when determining the cost of
the regulation. Figures were not provided regarding the cost of rear
video systems, although NATC expressed doubt regarding the availability
of such systems for as little as $200, a figure mentioned in the ANPRM.
Rostra provided some figures to put the economic costs of backing
crashes in perspective, stating that back-up accidents cost U.S.
drivers over $1.3 billion per year. Sheffield qualitatively described
the benefits of a rear object detection system as including reduction
in equipment damage, repair costs, insurance rates, and downtime.
According to Rostra, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) tested six mid-size SUVs in crashes at 5 mph and found that only
two of them suffered less than $5,000 in damages during four crash
tests. Rostra stated that the cost of an object detection system is
often less than the cost of the insurance deductible incurred when
there is a collision. NATC suggested that the insurance industry could
participate in encouraging the use of these systems through monetary
incentives (presumably a reduction in premiums).
Federal vs. State Regulation
The ANPRM asked whether it would be better to allow States to
address the safety problem associated with backing trucks, because the
States routinely regulate vehicles in use and regulate by type of use.
ABC argued that due to frequent and regular interstate movement of
truck traffic, requirements for rear detection systems should be
addressed at the Federal level, asserting that a patchwork of differing
individual State standards would render compliance extremely difficult.
Need for a Requirement
There were differences of opinion among the commenters as to the
need to amend FMVSS No. 111 to set a requirement for rear object
detection. Some commenters, such as Reliant, NATC, and the Teamsters,
expressed support for a performance standard for backing vehicles,
although there was not any consensus regarding the best approach for
such standard (e.g., suggestions provided for various technologies or
driver-based backing programs). Other commenters, such as NPTC, ATA,
and FedEx opposed a federal requirement for rear object detection,
recommending instead that NHTSA support voluntary programs that leave
improvements to the discretion of the fleet operators.
Training and Recordkeeping
Several commenters raised the issue of driver back-up training,
either as a supplement to or substitute for rear object detection
systems under the standard. The Teamsters recommended a requirement for
employers to develop and implement procedures for drivers to follow in
the event that rear object detection technology fails or is damaged,
and they also supported required maintenance and recordkeeping for the
system. ATA favored voluntary training (and possible operations
restrictions) for drivers as the remedy for backing problems, stating
that without appropriate training, drivers simply ignore rear object
detection systems and their images.
FMCSA Regulations/Funding
NYDOT expressed concern that if NHTSA amends FMVSS No. 111, FMCSA
would deem State requirements for cross-view mirrors or other rear
object detection devices to be a burden on interstate commerce that
would create a breach of the conditions for States to receive Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding. For example, New
York State's earlier proposed legislation related to rear object
detection was vetoed by the Governor because it was determined to be
incompatible with a FMCSA regulation, thereby jeopardizing millions of
dollars of FMCSA grants.
NYDOT stated that if NHTSA cannot persuade FMCSA to change its
regulations, NHTSA should specify parameters for State action so that
States may avoid loss of MCSAP funding. Several commenters stated that
NHTSA should clearly articulate whether and to what extent a revised
FMVSS No. 111 preempts State requirements related to rear object
detection.
NTEA commented that if NHTSA does proceed with a rulemaking for
rear object detection, it should convince the FMCSA to issue a
regulation requiring vehicle owners to properly maintain the system
when the vehicle is in use. Otherwise, NTEA argues, the standard alone
would have little effect,
[[Page 53758]]
particularly in light of the potential for damage and misalignment.
III. Size of the Safety Problem
A. Number of Injuries and Fatalities
In order to determine an appropriate regulatory response, NHTSA
undertook an analysis designed to ascertain the size of the backing
problem by gathering data on the annual number of incidents of people
being backed over by a motor vehicle of any size or type, both on-road
and off-road (e.g., in parking lots, driveways). The data were then
analyzed further to determine, to the extent possible, the number of
incidents attributable to straight trucks.
Since the time of the ANPRM, our analysis has been refined to
incorporate additional data. NHTSA analyzed 1999 Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) data, 2000-2001 National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS) data, and 1995-1999 General Estimates
System (GES) data. Generally, we found that backing injuries and
fatalities remain a matter of ongoing concern, despite changes in the
vehicle population and technology.
The following are the highlights of our findings regarding injuries
and fatalities associated with backing of straight trucks. Data suggest
that straight trucks involved in backing incidents result annually in
an estimated 79 fatalities. This figure represents 13 on-road
fatalities and an estimated 66 off-road fatalities. In addition, data
suggest that there are annually about 148 injuries attributable to
backing straight trucks. We believe that these figures provide a
conservative estimate of the problem, because many workplace incidents,
a potentially significant source of backing injuries and fatalities,
may go unreported.
A more detailed summary of our findings is provided below,
including the details and methodology related to the above statistics.
However, for a more complete discussion of the fatality and injury data
related to this proposal, please consult the Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation (PRE) that has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
1. Fatality Data
To obtain a general understanding of fatalities associated with
backing vehicles at the time of the ANPRM, the agency gathered data on
the annual number of incidents of people being backed over by a motor
vehicle of any type or size. (Fatality and injuries specifically
attributable to straight trucks are discussed subsequently.) To this
end, we initially reviewed FARS data for 1991 to 1997. The FARS data
system contains information on all fatal traffic crashes within the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This search found a
total of 381 backing fatalities for all vehicle types over this time
period, or approximately 54 fatalities per year. To verify the accuracy
of the 1991 to 1997 data, the agency later analyzed 1999 FARS data,
which revealed 58 backing fatalities.
However, by design, a fatality is included in the FARS database
only if a motor vehicle is involved in a crash while traveling on a
roadway customarily open to the public. Thus, FARS excludes other
likely scenarios for backing fatalities, such as events where someone
is backed over in a driveway, parking lot, or in a workplace such as a
warehouse or construction site.
We believe it is also important to consider off-road fatalities
because on-road fatalities only represent a part of the problem in
terms of backing-related incidents. Moreover, we believe that off-road
backing fatalities represent a significant portion of the total
fatalities that the agency is seeking to address under this rulemaking
and should not be excluded.
To ascertain the number of off-road backing fatalities, the agency
worked with the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to gather
data on these incidents. NCHS and NHTSA initiated a study utilizing
1998 death certificates in order to confirm the agency's information
regarding the frequency of backing-related fatalities. The report is
based on 4,046 death certificates out of an estimated 5,500 cases from
1998, sampled from 35 states and the District of Columbia. As of May of
2004, the death certificate study is complete and available in the
agency's public docket (Docket Number NHTSA-2000-7967-22). This study
reported 91 fatalities occurring in 1998 due to backing vehicles (15
on-road and 76 off-road fatalities). Although the fatality data from
the joint NCHS-NHTSA study do not represent a national value nor can
they be extrapolated to one, we have assumed that the percent
distribution between on- and off-road backing fatalities is
representative of what is currently occurring nationally (i.e., 16.48%
on-road fatalities and 83.52% off-road fatalities). Based upon that
assumption, we applied the on-road/off-road percentage distribution
from the death certificate study to the national sample represented by
the FARS data, from which we estimate that annually, there are 276 off-
road backing fatalities.
2. Injury Data
In addition to fatality data, NHTSA conducted an inquiry into the
number of non-fatal injuries associated with backing crashes. This
analysis relied upon information drawn from the National Electronic
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) and GES databases. However, because
these two databases overlap, it is not possible to sum the results to
directly determine an annual total of such injuries. Nevertheless, the
available information demonstrates that there are a significant number
of non-motorist injuries that are attributable to backing vehicles.
The NEISS database, the first source of injury data considered, is
a statistically valid injury surveillance and follow-back system that
has been operated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for
nearly thirty years. The system's primary purpose has been to provide
timely data on consumer product-related injuries occurring in the U.S.
NEISS injury data are gathered from the emergency departments of 100
hospitals selected as a probability sample of the more than 5,300 U.S.
hospitals with emergency departments. Surveillance data enable CPSC
analysts to generate national estimates of the number of injuries.
During the course of this rulemaking, NHTSA funded a study of the
July-December 2000 NEISS file, which showed 64 cases in which a
pedestrian or a pedalcyclist was injured by a backing vehicle. These
are the first relevant data available since the NEISS was expanded to
include injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes. This data sample
translates into a six-month national estimate of 3,556 injuries. To
determine whether this number may be summed for an annual estimate, we
also examined the January-June 2001 NEISS file. The 2001 file showed 75
cases where a non-motorist was injured by a backing vehicle, which
translates into an estimated 3,863 national injuries over that six-
month period. Because there is only a small difference between the
estimates, we believe that the rate of non-motorist backing injuries is
fairly constant over the course of the year. Therefore, summing the two
injury figures for the six-month periods, we estimate 7,419 annual
injuries to non-motorists are attributable to backing injuries. The GES
injury data will be discussed subsequently, in the context of the data
related specifically to straight trucks.
3. Workplace Data
We are also concerned about backing-related injuries and fatalities
that may
[[Page 53759]]
occur at the workplace, which may not be captured in other databases
for various reasons. Consequently, we examined the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration's (OSHA) Web site, which documents at least
15 fatalities with the cause listed as being crushed between a backing
vehicle and a loading dock. The OSHA Web site also includes over 50
reports of workers being killed by backing vehicles.\6\ OSHA has not
performed a study to catalog all backing-related fatalities in the
workplace, so it is not possible to definitively characterize the
extent of the problem in the workplace environment. However, the
anecdotal data assembled by OSHA document the existence and nature of a
safety concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These cases were identified by searching OSHA's Accident
Investigation Search database and by entering appropriate key words.
See http://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/inv/invl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another area of concern is construction sites. Under 29 CFR Part
1926, Health and Safety Regulations for Construction, OSHA has issued
requirements for back-up alarms on vehicles and equipment used in
construction in order to address the issue of backing injuries/
fatalities, unless someone is standing to the rear to direct the
backing vehicle. However, OSHA was unable to provide any statistical
data regarding the effectiveness of the required systems.
Many backing crashes that occur in the workplace may go unreported
to police, because they are handled privately by the businesses
involved. In those cases, important incidence data may fail to be
included in the FARS or NCHS databases, so the statistics generated
from those sources may underestimate the actual backing problem. NHTSA
would be interested in additional information on the backing crashes
encountered in the workplace.
As further indication of a backing problem, we are aware that
several major employers with extensive truck fleets have begun
equipping their vehicles with rear object detection systems, although
we do not have firm figures regarding implementation on a national
scale. For example, United Parcel Service (UPS) installed video
monitoring systems on its entire fleet of 65,000 delivery trucks by
October 2001. Similarly, the United States Postal Service (USPS) and
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) have equipped their vehicles
with cross-view mirrors, and FedEx has installed both cross-view
mirrors and sonar-based rear object detection systems on its vehicles.
Further, NHTSA has learned that some trucks equipped with rear video
systems also come with an audio feed, which place a microphone near the
rear of a vehicle that is connected to a speaker near the driver. Such
audio feed would allow an unnoticed person in the path of a backing
vehicle to yell to alert the driver as to that person's presence. While
these companies were undoubtedly concerned with backing crashes that
occur on public and private roads, we understand that prevention of
injuries and fatalities in loading and docking areas of worksites was
also a factor in adopting such equipment.
B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Crashes
NHTSA has conducted research to determine the rate of involvement
of specific types of vehicles in pedestrian and pedalcyclist backing
fatalities, both on-road and off-road. As discussed below, NHTSA found
that straight trucks are involved in a disproportionately high number
of backing crashes resulting in pedestrian and pedalcyclist fatalities.
For on-road incidents, the FARS data showed the following vehicle-
type involvement for 1991-1997 pedestrian and pedalcyclist backing
fatalities:
Table 1.--Cumulative Number of Pedestrian and Pedalcyclist Fatalities in
On-Road Backing Crashes (FARS Data From 1991-1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Vehicle type fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger car........................................ 129
Light truck/van...................................... 139
Bus.................................................. 1
Straight truck over 4,536 kg GVWR.................... 81
Unknown truck over 4,536 kg GVWR..................... 12
Combination truck.................................... 15
Other................................................ 2
Unknown.............................................. 2
------------------
Total............................................ 381
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above FARS data, after distributing unknowns, we
estimate straight trucks were involved in 92 on-road backing fatalities
over the 7 year period, resulting in 13 fatalities per year. Thus,
straight trucks were accountable for approximately 24% of the on-road
backing fatalities during that period.
Again, attributing the same percentage of backing incidents for
straight trucks that occur on-road as occur off-road (as reflected in
Table 1) yields 66 annual off-road fatalities (0.24 x 276). Summation
of the on-road and off-road fatalities yields 79 annual fatalities
attributable to backing straight trucks.
Turning to the injury data specific to straight trucks, we examined
the data from the GES, which include only injuries incurred in police-
reported incidents. GES data overlap the previously discussed NEISS
data, which record both police-reported incidents as well as unreported
incidents. Therefore, the GES data on backing-related injury crashes
are probably not representative of all backing-related injury crashes,
because the data do not include information about injuries from backing
maneuvers in private areas such as driveways, parking lots, and work
sites.
Nevertheless, the GES data are useful for other reasons. First, the
GES data break down accidents by both vehicle type and maneuver, so it
is possible to determine the percentage of non-fatal backing injuries
attributable to straight trucks (approximately two percent). We expect
that the percentage of backing injuries for straight trucks would not
change significantly from year to year. Further, we believe that the
proportion of backing injuries attributable to straight trucks in the
GES data and the NEISS data are comparable, so
[[Page 53760]]
extrapolating to the larger NEISS database, the number of backing
injuries attributable to straight trucks would translate into
approximately 148 injuries per year (i.e., two percent of the 7,419
total injuries).
The Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation accompanying this notice
estimates the severity of these injuries attributable to backing
straight trucks, based upon the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). AIS is
an anatomically-based system that classifies individual injuries by
body region on a six-point ordinal scale of risk to life, with the MAIS
score being the maximum injury level(s) an individual receives.\7\
According to the PRE, of the anticipated annual backing injuries, there
are expected to be 120 MAIS-1 injuries, 19 MAIS-2 injuries, 7 MAIS-3
injuries, and 1 MAIS-4 injury (difference of 1 injury due to rounding).
Please consult the PRE for a more complete discussion of backing injury
severity levels (see Chapter III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The AIS system scores injuries based upon the following
levels: AIS-1 (minor injury); AIS-2 (moderate injury); AIS-3
(serious injury); AIS-4 (severe injury); AIS-5 (critical injury),
and AIS-6 (maximum injury). National Accident Sampling System, 1993
Crashworthiness Data System, Injury Coding Manual, (January 1993)
(DOT HS 807 969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we believe that the figures for cumulative number of
backing crashes and the absolute number of fatalities do not provide a
complete picture of the problem. Instead, one must consider the
relative risk posed by different types of vehicles. We have used the
number of vehicles in the fleet and the miles driven to calculate the
rate of backing deaths for different vehicle types. This calculation
was based upon estimates of registered vehicles and vehicle miles
traveled information. As demonstrated in Table 2 below, straight trucks
are significantly overrepresented in backing crashes resulting in
pedestrian and pedalcyclist fatalities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Since the time of the ANPRM, NHTSA discovered a number of
minor errors in its statistical data related to vehicle type
involvement in backing crashes. These errors were corrected prior to
incorporating the relevant information in this notice.
Table 2.--Rate of On-Road Fatal Backing Crashes (Cumulative FARS Data
From 1991-1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedestrians and Pedestrians and
pedalcyclists pedalcyclists
killed by a killed by a
Vehicle type backing vehicle backing vehicle
per million per 100 billion
registered vehicle miles
vehicles traveled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars.................... 1.05 1.26
Light trucks/vans................. 2.32 2.80
Combination trucks................ 9.94 2.21
Straight trucks over 4,356 kg GVWR 29.68 21.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 provides the rate of pedestrians and pedalcyclists killed
by straight trucks while backing is 21.89 per 100 billion vehicle miles
traveled, and 29.68 per million registered vehicles. This risk is
significantly higher than that for passenger vehicles (i.e., combining
categories of passenger cars and light trucks/vans). Based upon this
analysis, straight trucks stand out as a significant risk in terms of
backing incidents.
In its comments on the ANPRM, ATA expressed disagreement with the
agency's assessment of the size of the backing problem, arguing that
NHTSA did not quantify accurately the relative hazard associated with
each vehicle type in its risk conversion. ATA argued that considering
the number of pedestrians and pedalcyclists killed by a backing vehicle
per million registered vehicles ``will certainly overstate the rate for
straight and combination trucks relative to passenger cars and light
trucks because of the fewer number of commercial vehicles'' and that it
does not take into account the number of backings that these vehicles
perform. For the same reasons, ATA objected to NHTSA's analysis of the
number of backing-related deaths by different vehicle types per 100
billion vehicle miles traveled.
Instead, ATA argued that it is more likely that straight trucks
used for deliveries to businesses back up more as a percentage of miles
driven than do passenger cars and light trucks. According to ATA,
because straight trucks are typically utilized in local delivery
operations and can make several deliveries per day, drivers are
required to perform several backing operations per day. For this
reason, ATA stated that straight trucks are likely to have a higher
number of backings as a percentage of miles driven than private
vehicles. Conversely, ATA argued that straight trucks used in home
delivery settings, by practice, avoid backing up. This practice led ATA
to believe that vehicles used in this manner are likely to have fewer
backings related to miles traveled. Based upon these theories, ATA
concluded that straight and combination trucks are likely to be safer
relative to other types of vehicles.
We do not agree with ATA's rationale regarding quantification of
relative hazard. If it is true, as ATA argues, that straight trucks are
likely to back up more often than other types of vehicles, we believe
that straight trucks, based upon their vehicle type, would be expected
to present a greater risk in terms of backing incidents. As a result,
we would expect that installation of a rear object detection system on
straight trucks, more than on any other vehicle type, would reduce
backing-related risks.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the number of pedestrians
and pedalcyclists killed by straight trucks while backing, per 100
billion vehicle miles traveled, is eight to seventeen times greater
than for passenger vehicles. If straight trucks used in deliveries to
homes avoid backing, it is logical to assume that an inordinate amount
of fatalities involve straight trucks making business deliveries. When
one considers that large fleet carriers such as UPS, the U.S. Postal
Service, and FedEx, have all equipped their vehicles with rear object
detection systems, we are even more convinced that the remaining
straight trucks are overrepresented in the data.
In addition, there is a fundamental difference between straight
trucks and passenger vehicles, namely the fact that most straight
trucks have a large blind spot directly behind the vehicle. Passenger
vehicles, which usually have interior rearview mirrors and rear
windows, generally have a more direct view of this area. Thus,
passenger vehicle backing incidents are most likely to result from
driver error,
[[Page 53761]]
pedestrian/pedalcyclist error, or some combination thereof, problems
without a clear remedy. However, in the case of straight trucks,
visibility behind the vehicle is an objective problem amenable to
amelioration through a regulatory requirement for a rear object
detection system.
C. Other Data and Summary
NHTSA has considered comments in response to its APRM related to
the number of victims of backing crashes. NYDOT commented that New York
State has recorded 14,349 backing crashes involving trucks with an
enclosed or walk-in delivery bay that resulted in 35 deaths and 5,393
injuries between 1990 and 1999; these crashes also were said to have
resulted in 8,921 instances of property damage.
Based upon the totality of the above information, we believe that
there is a demonstrated backing problem associated with straight trucks
resulting in a significant number of injuries and fatalities. These
backing incidents occur on public roads, in private locations, and in
workplace settings. While our existing data are most complete for on-
road backing fatalities and injuries, preliminary data suggest that the
problem is even greater in off-road locations, including private
locations and in workplace settings.
IV. Agency Proposal
A. Summary of Proposal
To address the identified problem of backing-related deaths and
injuries associated with straight trucks, NHTSA is proposing to amend
FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to require straight trucks with a GVWR
of between 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds) to be
equipped with either a cross-view mirror or rear video system in order
to provide the driver with a visual image of a 3 m by 3 m area
immediately behind the vehicle. However, this requirement would not
apply to those trucks for which the detection area is already visible
through existing mirrors already required under the standard.
The NPRM sets out proposed requirements for each of these two
compliance options, as well as test procedures suitable for each
option. However, in light of concerns regarding the feasibility of
attaching rear object detection systems on certain types of trucks, we
are requesting comments on categories of vehicles that the agency
should consider excluding from the requirements of a final rule.
We propose that the requirements would be effective for new
vehicles covered under the standard that are manufactured one year or
later after publication of a final rule. However, we are also seeking
public comment to help determine whether requirements for a rear object
detection system should be extended to vehicles in other weight classes
and whether existing commercial straight trucks should be required to
be retrofitted, as part of a future rulemaking.
B. Compliance Options
In developing our proposed performance standard for rear object
detection, NHTSA carefully considered a range of technologies. NHTSA
examined both visual systems (e.g., cross-view mirrors and video
cameras) and non-visual systems (e.g., sonar/infrared devices and
audible back-up alarms) in order to evaluate their efficacy in
preventing backing-related injuries and fatalities.
We believe that primary responsibility for object detection should
be placed upon the driver, such that the driver has visible
confirmation that the pathway is clear before backing; non-visual
systems, by their nature, cannot provide such confirmation.
Consequently, we are proposing two visual systems as compliance
options, one for cross-view mirrors and another for rear video systems.
1. Cross-View Mirrors
Under proposed Option 1, vehicle manufacturers would be required to
install rear cross-view mirrors on covered vehicles so as to provide a
3 m by 3 m field of view of the area directly behind the vehicle.
NHTSA's research has determined that a 3 m by 3 m area is the maximum
detection zone that could be provided by a cross-view mirror system,
but one which we believe would be adequate in light of the standard's
safety objective.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Read Cross-view Mirror Performance: Perception and Optical
Measurements,'' WESTAT (November 1998) (Docket No. NHSTA-2000-7967-
18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of the proposed detection zone was based upon study
results that found typical backing speeds to be 3.3 mph.\10\ However,
as discussed earlier, commenters suggested that the agency's
assumptions regarding backing speed have underestimated real world
experience, although data were not provided to demonstrate this point.
If new data show that backing speeds have been significantly
underestimated, this may necessitate extension of the proposed rearward
field of view requirement. Because cross-view mirrors are not effective
in providing a field of view beyond the 3 m by 3 m zone currently
proposed, a change in calculation of backing speeds may preclude
adoption of this technology as a compliance option and instead result
in adoption of a requirement for a video camera, a device that does not
possess the same field of view limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed, the cross-view mirror would work in conjunction with
the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side of the vehicle, and
the placement of the cross-view mirror would be such that the geometric
centers of the two mirrors are separated by no more than 5 m. We have
tentatively decided that 5 m is the furthest distance at which the
mirror system could provide a meaningful image to the driver of any
object behind the vehicle, a position with which commenters generally
agreed.\11\ Longer trucks that cannot meet this requirement for maximum
distance between mirrors would be required to install a video system
that complies with Option 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This determination is based upon the findings of the WESTAT
study, which reported diminished performance at the longest mirror
separation distance tested (195 inches). ``Read Cross-view Mirror
Performance: Perception and Optical Measurements,'' WESTAT (November
1998) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposal also sets out other proposed requirements which the
cross-view mirror would be required to meet, including that it would be
required to: (1) Have no discontinuities in the slope of its surface;
(2) be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions; (3)
be installed on stable supports on the upper rear corner of the vehicle
on the driver's side, and (4) have an average radius of curvature of no
less than 203 mm as determined under paragraph S12 of existing FMVSS
No. 111.
In addition, we are proposing test requirements to ensure that the
detection zone specified under the proposed standard would be met. The
procedures to verify compliance with these requirements are modeled in
part after the existing school bus mirror test required under paragraph
S13 of FMVSS No. 111, which utilizes a number of cylinders to simulate
objects in front of the vehicle that would be difficult or impossible
to see without the aid of mirrors. The proposed testing procedure would
utilize the driver eye location specified in the current school bus
mirror test that is based on the 25th-percentile adult female template.
The proposed rule would require that the entire top surface of all the
cylinders located at the rear of the vehicle described in the test
procedure be visible to the driver when those procedures are followed.
In our
[[Page 53762]]
proposal, we have simplified the carryover school bus procedural
dimensions being used, and we have provided tolerances when possible.
2. Rear Video Systems
Under the second compliance option, a rear video system would be
required. The minimum field of view would be the same as that specified
for the cross-view mirror option (i.e., 3 m by 3 m).
We are proposing several requirements for rear video systems.
First, the system would be required to include a monitor that depicts a
reversed image similar to what would be observed in a rearview mirror
and which is mounted in full view of the driver. The monitor would be
required to be mounted as close to the centerline of the vehicle as
practicable near the top of the windshield, but located such that the
distance from the center point of the eye location of a 25th-percentile
adult female seated in the driver's seat to the center of the monitor
is no more than 100 cm. We believe that it would be beneficial to place
the monitor in a location that is similar to that of a rearview mirror
in a passenger vehicle. Presumably, truck drivers have extensive
personal experience in driving passenger vehicles, so they would be
accustomed to checking for objects behind the vehicle in that location.
Would there be any difficulty having the monitor too close, such that
for drivers who need reading glasses, the image in the monitor would be
unfocused?
If the monitor's placement causes it to fall within the vehicle's
head impact area, the mounting would be required to deflect, collapse,
or break away when subjected to a force of 400 Newtons (N) in any
forward direction that is not more than 45[deg] from the forward
longitudinal direction, as is required for passenger car interior
mirrors pursuant to S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 111. We are concerned, however,
that a monitor that fully breaks away from its mounting could create an
additional hazard and cause potential injury in a crash. How likely is
this situation to occur, and what preventative steps could be taken?
Would it be feasible to equip the vehicle with a non-adjustable monitor
that is fully integrated into the dashboard?
This proposed compliance option also would require that the video
system's monitor have an image size between 90 cm\2\ and 160 cm\2\. We
are proposing a size range for the monitor that maintains approximately
the same size-to-distance ratio as that between the sideview mirror and
the driver. We believe that the monitor size recommended by Mr. Silc
(1.5 inches) would not be adequate. Accordingly, we believe that the
range that we have proposed would provide the driver with an image that
is of a meaningful size and that would catch the driver's attention.
The video camera would be required to be adjustable so that it may tilt
in both the horizontal and vertical directions, for aiming purposes,
and the video monitor similarly would be required to be adjustable so
as to accommodate drivers of different statures. Would any
implementation problems be expected related to the aimability
requirement for the video camera and monitor?
The proposed test procedures are intended to ensure that the
detection zone specified under the video system option is essentially
the same as that for the cross-view mirrors compliance option.
C. Applicability
NHTSA is proposing to make the new requirements for a rear object
detection system applicable to new straight trucks with a GVWR of
between 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds).
The lower bound of this weight range is based on FARS data, which
show that the rate of fatal backing crashes for these vehicles is
substantially greater than that of vehicles with lower GVWRs. The upper
bound of 11,793 kg is based on the agency's belief that it represents
the maximum weight of a typical straight truck. We note, however, that
paragraph S7 of FMVSS No. 111 currently defines requirements for a
narrower weight class between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg. Accordingly, the
agency is requesting comments on the proposed upper bound, specifically
whether straight trucks greater than 11,340 kg also should be required
to be equipped with a rear object detection system.
We note that for certain vehicles, the proposed detection zone may
be visible using the vehicle's existing mirrors already required under
FMVSS No. 111, in which case the rear object detection system that is
the subject of this proposal would not be required. Accordingly, we are
proposing that testing under the standard first be conducted to see
whether the targets are visible with the mirrors already being supplied
on that particular vehicle. If the targets are visible, the rear object
detection system would not be required.
Furthermore, we are aware that this weight classification
encompasses a wide range of vehicles of many shapes and sizes, some of
which may pose mounting and/or maintenance challenges for the rear
object detection systems that would be required under the proposal. As
a result, we might consider excluding certain types of trucks from the
standard's new requirements when we issue a final rule, particularly
where it can be demonstrated that a rear object detection system would
not be practicable. As discussed below, we are requesting additional
public input on defining appropriate categories of straight trucks for
possible exclusion.
In the ANPRM, NHTSA asked for comment on the appropriateness of
applying a requirement for rear object detection to straight trucks in
the designated weight range. A number of comments were received, the
majority of which sought exclusion for certain types of trucks (e.g.,
flat beds, stake bodies, dump trucks, common light duty pick-up truck
beds, and other high-cube or full-size van applications such as
tradesmen's or mechanic's bodies). Generally, commenters argued that
many of these vehicles have body styles which do not permit
installation of cross-view mirrors in an effective position or that the
vehicles are used in a rugged environment that would cause damage to
the mirrors or other systems, thereby requiring frequent replacement or
repair.
For example, commenters argued that under the circumstances in
which most dump trucks are used, any system that is installed is likely
to be damaged rather quickly. Commenters stated that dump trucks, as
well as other work vehicles used off-road, may experience more
vibration than vehicles used solely on-road; according to the
commenters, such usage could either damage the system or render it
ineffective due to misalignment. Commenters also argued that vibration
could cause frequent deviation of cross-view mirrors and video cameras
from their aimed position. In addition, commenters stated that other
vehicles, such as stake bodies, tow trucks, and flat beds, may have no
viable location to mount a rear object detection system.
While we acknowledge that some vehicles may not be suitable for
installation of one or more of the proposed systems, NHTSA would need
to be confident that there was no suitable system available for a given
type of vehicle before we exclude it from the safety requirement. To
help to better define the applicability of the standard once a final
rule is issued, we offer the following preliminary views on coverage,
which may be modified based upon public input.
We anticipate that it would be reasonable and practicable for the
standard to apply to trucks in the designated weight range that have
cargo boxes mounted on their chasses. Such vehicles have a
configuration suitable
[[Page 53763]]
for mounting a rear object detection device, and these vehicles are
regularly used in deliveries to both businesses and private residences.
The States of New Jersey, New York, and Washington already have applied
regulations to these types of vehicles, and we believe that it is
important for any final rule to cover them, because of their constant
presence in residential areas.
Dump trucks and tank trucks are two types of trucks that we also
believe have the potential to be covered under the standard. Vehicles
with dump bodies make regular residential deliveries of products such
as topsoil, gravel, and mulch. Commenters on the ANPRM claimed that the
rugged environment in which dump trucks sometimes operate likely would
damage any system installed on the back of the vehicle. Also, the
commenters argued that if a damaged rear vision system had to be
replaced on a regular basis, it would make the cost of the regulation
too high. However, we are concerned about the potential for injury and
fatality related to backing dump trucks. (The website of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration documents over two dozen
fatalities caused by backing dump trucks.) We believe that a more
robust system could be used which would withstand possible abuse and
still provide the vehicle operators with the necessary rear vision.
Regarding dump trucks, we seek input on the following issues. How
frequently would one expect the work environment and vehicle use
patterns to cause failure of a rear visibility system (e.g., due to
vibration, camera breakage, lens degradation)? Could a durable video
system be mounted on the backs of these types of trucks in such a way
that the camera would be protected but at the same time remain
effective (i.e., remain properly aimed at the detection zone specified
in the standard)?
Tank trucks, such as those used for delivery of home heating fuel,
water for pools, and other liquids, and for septic tank cleaning, pose
a different set of problems. Although they are not used in a rugged
environment, the design of these vehicles and the curvature of the tank
may make it impossible to use a cross-view mirror system, due to the
inability to mount a mirror in an effective location. However, we
believe that a video system with a camera mounted near the license
plate may be a viable option for providing the requisite rearward view.
More problematic are vehicles such as flat beds and stake bodies
that have no place to mount a mirror and have only a limited number of
places where a camera could be mounted. However, even unloaded, these
vehicles still may have a blind spot immediately behind the vehicle of
sufficient size that could cause a child to be hidden from view, and
once loaded with cargo, visibility would be expected to decline
further.
We invite input on these and other categories of vehicles that are
potential candidates for exclusion from the proposed standard's
requirements. We request that any such comments provide information to
demonstrate why none of the proposed compliance options would be
practicable for that class of vehicles.
In response to NYDOT's comment that NHTSA should consider extending
the standard to trucks that weigh less than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds),
we are not proposing such a requirement at this time because current
data do not support such an action. Although smaller trucks often enter
residential neighborhoods for the purposes of deliveries or other
commercial transactions, many of these vehicles are configured as
passenger-carrying vehicles, which do not have the same rear visibility
limitations as larger vehicles. Nevertheless, we are continuing our
research into injuries and fatalities associated with backing vehicles
with a GVWR of less than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), and we may revisit
this issue if data demonstrate that these vehicles pose a significant
backing problem.
We invite comment as to whether there are vehicles within the class
proposed for coverage that could meet the field of view requirements
without being equipped with a rear object detection system. What would
be examples of such vehicles? Could such vehicles continue to meet the
proposed requirements in a fully loaded condition? Should such vehicles
be excluded from the proposed requirements of the standard?
We also invite comment as to whether the proposal should be applied
to buses. Smaller buses frequently are used in areas of high pedestrian
traffic, such as around airports. In addition, school buses and city
buses are used in areas of high pedestrian density.
Comments on the following specific questions would assist the
agency in possible future rulemakings:
1. For vehicles under 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) GVWR, should further
criteria be used to identify those vehicles most likely to be used as
commercial vehicles in delivery service or which may have rear vision
constraints?
2. What would be the optimal minimum weight for delivery trucks
that should be subject to the standard's requirements for a rear object
detection system? Would it be appropriate, when the applicable vehicle
characteristics are defined, to lower the applicable weight to 2,722 kg
(6,000 pounds) GVWR, or some other weight? Would some light trucks,
such as a pick-up truck with a cargo box, benefit from a rear
visibility system?
3. Should the standard apply to vehicles over 203 cm (80 in.) in
width (or some other figure) and with no windows to the side and rear
regardless of their weight? Should wider vehicles with limited or no
visibility via windows of the proposed 3 m by 3 m area to the rear of
the vehicle be required to have a rear object detection system?
4. Should the standard apply to buses, and if so, should any types
of buses be excluded?
5. As noted above, the proposed test procedures for rear object
detection systems are modeled after the standard's test procedures for
school buses, although with simplified dimensional requirements and
tolerances for most of those dimensions. Should these modified
dimensional requirements be used for the school bus provisions as well?
D. Non-Visual Systems
After carefully considering the merits of a range of rear object
detection devices, we have tentatively concluded that current non-
visual systems (e.g., sonar/infrared systems and back-up alarms that
emit an audible warning) do not provide by themselves an adequate and
effective means of rear object detection for the following reasons.
Foremost, we are concerned that non-visual systems, particularly
back-up alarms, implicitly shift the detection burden from the driver
to persons who might unwittingly end up in the path of the backing
vehicle. We remain particularly concerned that children, the primary
focus of the protections contemplated by this rulemaking, often would
be unable to comprehend and/or appropriately respond to an audible
signal. We also note that a 2003 study reported that preschool children
did not respond to audible back-up alarms with avoidance behavior,
although about half of them did look toward the vehicle or halt their
gait.\12\ While we understand that some non-visual systems (e.g.,
infrared systems) have the ability to detect children in some
circumstances, we are not convinced that they will be able to do so
consistently in all cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ R E Sapien, J. Widman Roux, and L. Fullerton-Gleason,
``Children's Response to a Commercial Back-up Warning Device,'' 9
Injury Prevention 87-88 (2003). See Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-21
for information related to this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53764]]
Research on the capabilities of these non-visual systems is
extremely limited, and we are concerned about the lack of human factor
testing, which involves an assessment of how people interact with a
given piece of equipment. For example, in some instances, a non-visual
system may tend to give false warnings or fail to provide any warning,
such as when a truck is backing on an incline or a decline. When
backing a truck up a hill, the hill itself may enter into the sensors'
detection area and cause the system to alert the driver that an
obstacle is present. Backing the truck down a hill can also be
problematic for non-visual systems, because obstacles may be below the
system's detection zone, and consequently, the driver would not receive
any warning. Although the driver may get out to investigate the first
few times, warnings in similar situations may be ignored once the
driver is familiar with a certain area or simply becomes aware that
hills of a certain grade trigger the warning device.
In addition, we believe that the virtually infinite number of
characteristics of object surface reflectivities and other factors
would render a test procedure for non-visual systems either ineffective
(due to the omission of some possible object characteristics) or overly
burdensome (if an attempt is made to include a large range of test
objects).
In sum, we believe that if a rear object detection system allows a
driver to actually see a child or other person, the driver would be
more likely to take appropriate action and to prevent a collision.
Although we are not proposing a compliance option utilizing non-visual
systems, we are not prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from installing
them voluntarily. Although such systems do not add significantly to the
safety benefits to be gained through the visual requirements proposed,
they do not appear to cause substantial harm. There is no reason for
the agency to preclude vehicle makers from providing non-visual systems
as an additional customer feature.
We also considered the role of driver training, but we do not
believe that it is an adequate substitute for the visual image provided
by a rear object detection system. The nature of such training would
vary according to the form and function of the myriad straight trucks
on U.S. roadways. However, such training could be a useful supplement
to each of the proposed rear object detection systems, both in terms of
understanding and successfully using that system, and otherwise
promoting safe backing practices.
E. Retrofitting of Existing Commercial Vehicles
Recently, NHTSA was delegated authority to promulgate safety
standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to
initial manufacture ere the standards are based upon and similar to a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated, either
simultaneously or previously, under chapter 301 of Title 49 U.S.C. (see
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50(n)). This authority to
promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles reflects the
fact that certain safety features may have sufficiently significant
value to warrant their incorporation in existing commercial vehicles
that transport property or passengers in interstate commerce.\13\ When
utilizing this ``retrofit'' authority, NHTSA plans to coordinate with
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regarding any such
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The terms ``commercial motor vehicle'' and ``interstate
commerce'' are defined under FMCSA regulations at 49 CFR 390.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time, we are not proposing to require any existing
commercial straight trucks to be retrofitted to meet the standard's
newly proposed requirements for rear object detection systems. However,
we are soliciting additional comments on several questions related to
retrofitting, in the event that NHTSA later determines that such a
requirement would be appropriate. The following discussion reflects our
preliminary thinking regarding the feasibility and value of
retrofitting existing commercial vehicles to meet the proposed
requirements for an amended FVMSS No. 111.
Experience suggests that equipping existing commercial straight
trucks with rear object detection systems would provide safety and
economic benefits. As with new trucks, owners of existing commercial
trucks would benefit from the elimination of the sizable blind spot
directly behind their vehicles; with such systems, drivers would be
able to see children and other pedestrians (safety benefit), as well as
poles and other obstructions before any collision-related damage occurs
(economic benefit). However, there also would be costs. We are
exploring the possibility of retrofitting these commercial vehicles as
a means of maximizing the benefit of the proposed requirement. Would
any special problems be anticipated with retrofitting specific vehicle
types? Should certain commercial vehicles be excluded from any future
retrofitting requirement?
The States of New Jersey, New York, and Washington presumably
considered such benefits and costs when passing legislation requiring
the retrofitting of trucks in those States with rear object detection
systems. As a further example, UPS, one of the largest delivery
companies, has chosen to retrofit its vehicles with video systems.
Thus, experience suggests that retrofitting in this context has been
deemed by some to be reasonable, economically feasible, and
practicable. In addition, requiring retrofitting of existing commercial
vehicles would permit the public to realize the full benefit of these
safety devices approximately ten years sooner than would otherwise
occur, if only new vehicles were required to be so equipped.
Public input on the following questions would assist the agency
regarding retrofitting. What are expected to be the potential costs and
benefits of retrofitting existing commercial vehicles with a rear
object detection system consistent with the proposed requirements for
FMVSS No. 111? Should any types of such vehicles be excluded? How much
lead time would be required to retrofit existing commercial vehicles to
meet the proposed requirements for rear object detection?
F. FMCSA Issues Related To Retrofit and Preemption
In light of the comments of the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYDOT) and the National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA) pertaining to FMCSA preemption of State law, we believe that it
is necessary to clarify the scope and nature of FMCSA's policies and
programs. NHTSA consulted with FMCSA in drafting the current proposal,
and FMCSA provided the following input, particularly regarding how its
regulations and programs would impact a State's efforts to adopt rear
object detection requirements for vehicles operating within the State.
According to FMCSA, that agency does not consider a State's
adoption of safety requirements that are identical to the FMVSSs
(applicable only to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective
date of the safety standard) to be a matter of concern under the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP).\14\ The example referenced
by the NYDOT in its comments concerned the State's efforts to adopt a
rear object detection system requirement applicable to vehicles
operated in interstate commerce, prior to NHTSA's
[[Page 53765]]
publication of a rulemaking proposal on the subject. FMCSA concluded
that the State should either limit the applicability of its requirement
to commercial motor vehicles operating exclusively in intrastate
commerce or adopt requirements compatible with the FMVSSs, in the event
NHTSA adopts requirements for a rear object detection system.
Therefore, if NHTSA amends FMVSS No. 111 to require a rear object
detection system, FMCSA stated that it would not consider a State's
adoption of those requirements for vehicles manufactured on or after
the effective date to be inconsistent with the MCSAP regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 49 CFR Part 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, with regard to NTEA's remarks, FMCSA stated that it
is committed to ensuring that its requirements for vehicle parts and
accessories necessary for safe operations \15\ are consistent with the
requirements under NHTSA's FMVSSs. Part 393 of the FMCSA's safety
regulations already includes many cross-references to specific
requirements under the FMVSSs, such as lamps and reflectors, anti-lock
braking systems (ABS), automatic brake adjusters, rear impact guards
and protection, seat belts, and emergency exits on school buses. If
NHTSA amends FMVSS No. 111 to require a rear object detection system,
FMCSA stated that it would consider amending 49 CFR Part 393 to require
motor carriers operating in interstate commerce to ensure that such
systems are maintained. According to FMCSA, amending Part 393 also
would result in the States being required under the MCSAP to adopt
compatible motor carrier safety regulations within three years of the
effective date of the FMCSA rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 49 CFR Part 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Effective Date
We are proposing to require covered new vehicles to comply with the
rear object detection requirements to prevent backing deaths and
injuries one year after publication of a final rule. We have
tentatively concluded that a relatively rapid implementation schedule
would be appropriate. Installation of cross-view mirrors would not
involve substantial engineering efforts or changes in manufacturing
processes. Manufacturers might need additional time to implement more
technically demanding video systems, although we believe that one year
would provide sufficient time for manufacturers to incorporate these
systems as well.
V. Benefits
The agency estimates that this proposal would result in a net
reduction of 23 fatalities and 43 injuries annually once all single-
unit trucks are equipped with a rear object detection system, assuming
a 33% effectiveness rate for these crash avoidance devices.\16\ The
present discounted value of anticipated property damage savings is
estimated to be $32 million annually (at a 3-percent discount rate). In
most of these cases, the benefits would result from the ability of the
rear object detection system to allow the driver to prevent the
collision entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As discussed in Chapter IV of the PRE, NHTSA's estimation
of the effectiveness of rear object detection systems is based upon
two public comments referencing a 1984 pilot study conducted by
FedEx in four cities that found that backing incidents were reduced
by 33 percent when cross-view mirrors were installed. Although the
study itself was not made directly available, the Nevada Automotive
Test Center provided the 33 percent figure (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-
7967-7), and the Teamsters qualitatively discussed that a reduction
in incidents occurred (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-8). We have
decided to use the same value for the effectiveness of video camera
systems, although we believe that such systems may be somewhat more
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRE provides additional detail regarding benefits, including
values at a 7-percent discount rate and a discussion of the methodology
used in calculating those benefits (see Chapter IV of the PRE).
In addition, because our estimate of the effectiveness of rear
object detection systems (33 percent) is based primarily upon the
findings of a single study conducted by Federal Express in 1984, the
agency decided to include a sensitivity analysis in the PRE to examine
how different effectiveness rates would impact the results of our cost
and benefit analyses. Accordingly, in the sensitivity analysis, we have
examined the net costs, benefits, and cost per equivalent life saved if
rear object detection systems were 20 percent, 40 percent, and 60
percent effective (see Chapter VII of the PRE).
VI. Costs
Although discussed more fully in the PRE (see Chapters V and VII),
the following summarizes our estimation of the costs associated with
this proposal to require rear object detection systems in new straight
trucks. The agency estimates that about 18 percent of the 365,000 new
single-unit trucks sold annually have cross-view mirrors or video
cameras, leaving the remaining 299,300 new trucks affected by this
rulemaking. In addition, based on the agency-sponsored study discussed
previously, we have tentatively determined that 5 meters is the maximum
distance between a cross-view mirror (mounted at the rear of a truck)
and an outside rearview mirror (mounted next to the driver) that would
provides a meaningful image. Under the proposal, trucks with a mirror
separation of more than 5 meters would be required to use a camera
system.
Therefore, of the 299,300 trucks, we estimate a counter-measure
distribution of about 25 percent with mirrors and 75 percent with a
camera system. The estimated consumer cost per vehicle, including
installation, for an 8-inch diameter mirror and hardware is $51.64, for
a 10-inch diameter mirror and hardware is $56.85, and for a camera
system, monitor, and mounting hardware is $325.10. It is possible that
there may be some maintenance and repair costs associated with rear
object detection systems, although we do not have information as to the
frequency or extent of such activities. We invite comments regarding
maintenance and repair costs associated with the rear object detection
systems discussed in this proposal.
Based upon this information, the total consumer cost of this
proposal is estimated to be $77 million annually (in 2004 economics).
The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated to be $2.3 million (at
a 3-percent discount rate).
VII. Public Participation
How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Notice?
In developing this notice, NHTSA tried to address the concerns of
all stakeholders. Your comments will help us determine what standard
should be set for rear object detection as part of FMVSS No. 111. We
invite you to provide different views on the questions we ask, new
approaches and technologies about which we did not ask, new data, how
this notice may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome
your views on all aspects of this notice, but we especially request
comments on the specific questions articulated throughout this
document. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the
suggestions below:
Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
Provide empirical evidence, wherever possible, to support
your views.
If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at the estimate.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer specific alternatives.
Reference specific sections of the notice in your
comments, such as the
[[Page 53766]]
units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.
Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number of
the proceeding as part of your comments.
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including any
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain
instructions for filing your document electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail. Each electronic filer will
receive electronic confirmation that his or her submission has been
received.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter delineating that information, as specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (See 49 CFR part 512).
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read Comments Submitted By Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also review filed public comments on the Internet. To read
the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
(Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-2002-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'') After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded
comments are not word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Furthermore, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for
new material.
Data Quality Act Statement
Pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data
submitted by third parties to be relied upon and used by the agency, it
must also meet the information quality standards set forth in the DOT
Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, members of the public should
consult the guidelines in preparing information submissions to the
agency. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notice
A. Vehicle Safety Act
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective
terms.\17\ These motor vehicle safety standards set a minimum standard
for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance.\18\ When
prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety information.\19\ The Secretary also must
consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for the type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
for which it is prescribed and the extent to which the standard will
further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and
associated deaths.\20\ The responsibility for promulgation of Federal
motor vehicle safety standards has been delegated to NHTSA.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\18\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\19\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\20\ Id.
\21\ 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing to require a rear object detection system for straight
trucks, the agency carefully considered these statutory requirements.
First, this proposal is preceded by both a Request for Comments and
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which facilitated the efforts
of the agency to obtain and consider relevant motor vehicle safety
information, as well as public comments. Further, in preparing this
document, the agency carefully evaluated previous agency research and
vehicle testing relevant to this proposal. We also conducted a new
death certificate study to ascertain the number of backing-related
fatalities and injuries, and we updated our analyses to determine the
relevant target population and potential costs and benefits of our
proposal. In sum, this document reflects our consideration of all
relevant, available motor vehicle safety information.
Second, to ensure that the proposed rear object detection
requirements are practicable, the agency considered the cost,
availability, and suitability of various rear object detection systems
for mounting on straight trucks, consistent with our safety objectives.
We note that the visual systems contemplated under the proposal (i.e.,
cross-view mirrors and video cameras) are already installed on many
vehicles proposed for coverage under these amendments. However, we have
requested comments as to types of
[[Page 53767]]
vehicles for which such systems would be impracticable due to rugged
work environments or the lack of an appropriate mounting location; if
such practicability concerns cannot be resolved, the agency may find it
appropriate to exclude such vehicles from the requirements of the final
rule. Although the costs for some rear object detection systems (i.e.,
video cameras) may be relatively high, we believe that manufacturers
would be able to pass these costs on to vehicle customers without
experiencing appreciable changes in sales. In sum, we believe that this
proposal to prevent deaths and injuries associated with backing
straight trucks is practicable.
Third, the proposed regulatory text following this preamble is
stated in objective terms in order to specify precisely what
performance is required and how performance will be tested to ensure
compliance with the standard. Specifically, the proposal sets forth
performance requirements for both cross-view mirrors and video systems.
Mirrors and video cameras are familiar technologies, and we do not
believe that the specifications for these devices themselves or their
placement are likely to be misinterpreted.
The proposal also includes test requirements for visual detection
of a 3 m by 3 m area behind the vehicle, as marked by a set of test
cylinders. This test is modeled after a similar test for object
detection in front of school buses, which has been part of the standard
for a number of years. Thus, the agency believes that this test
procedure is sufficiently objective and would not result in any
uncertainty as to whether a given vehicle satisfies the proposed rear
object detection requirements.
Fourth, we believe that this proposal will meet the need for motor
vehicle safety because the proposed rear object detection requirement
would eliminate the blind spot directly behind most straight trucks and
allow visual confirmation by the driver that the way is clear, thereby
preventing backing-related deaths and injuries.
Finally, we believe that this proposal is reasonable and
appropriate for motor vehicles subject to the proposed requirements. As
discussed elsewhere in this notice, the agency is concerned with the
amount of fatalities and serious injuries related from backing straight
trucks. Our statistical data indicates that vehicles subject to the
proposed requirements have a high rate of backing incidents resulting
in death and injury. Available evidence also suggests that rear object
detection systems are an effective countermeasure in these situations.
Accordingly, we believe that this proposal is appropriate for covered
vehicles that are or would become subject to these provisions of FMVSS
No. 111 because it furthers the agency's objective of preventing deaths
and serious injuries associated with backing incidents.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This rulemaking document was reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866.
Further, this action has been determined to be ``significant'' under
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). As discussed in the Preliminary
Regulatory Evaluation (PRE), this rulemaking amending FMVSS No. 111 to
require installation of rear object detection systems on certain new
vehicles is expected have a total consumer cost estimated at $77
million annually (in 2004 economics).
The agency has prepared a separate document (i.e., the PRE)
addressing in detail the benefits and costs of the proposed rule, as
well as alternatives considered. A copy of the PRE is being placed in
the docket.
As discussed in that document and in the preceding sections of this
notice, requiring a rear object detection system on straight trucks has
the potential to prevent a number of backing-related deaths and
injuries, thereby furthering the agency's safety mission. Straight
trucks have an incidence rate for backing fatalities that is 8 to 17
times greater than for passenger vehicles. However, by requiring
installation of either a cross-view mirror or rear video camera, we
believe that it would be possible to eliminate the blind spot behind
these vehicles, to permit vehicle operators to have visual confirmation
that the area immediately behind the vehicle is clear, and to thereby
reduce the number of backing-related injuries and fatalities.
We estimate that this proposal would result in a net reduction of
23 fatalities and 43 injuries annually once all straight trucks are
equipped with a rear object detection system, assuming a 33 percent
effectiveness rate for these crash avoidance devices. The present
discounted value of anticipated property damage savings is estimated to
be $32 million annually. In most cases, these benefits would result
from the ability of the system to prevent the collision entirely.
Our estimation of the cost of the proposed rule is based upon the
following. We estimate that about 18 percent of the 365,000 new
straight trucks sold annually already come equipped with a rear object
detection system that would meet the proposed requirements of the rule.
That leaves the remaining 299,300 new straight trucks affected by this
rulemaking. Because agency-sponsored research has shown 5 meters to be
the maximum distance between a cross-view mirror and an outside
rearview mirror that could provide a meaningful image, under this
proposal, trucks with a mirror separation of more than 5 meters would
be required to use a camera system. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates a
counter-measure distribution of about 25 percent for mirrors and 75
percent for cameras. The estimated consumer cost per vehicle, including
installation, for an 8-inch diameter mirror and hardware is $51.64, for
a 10-inch diameter mirror and hardware is $56.85, and for a camera
system, monitoring, and mounting hardware is $325.10. The cost per
equivalent life saved is estimated to be $2.3 million.
Although the costs for some rear object detection systems may be
fairly substantial, we believe that single-unit truck manufacturers
would be able to pass these costs on to vehicle customers without
experiencing appreciable changes in sales. It is expected that the
proposed requirements and associated costs would apply evenly across
the industry and not adversely impact any one segment of that industry.
As part of this rulemaking, the agency considered a number of
regulatory alternatives. We considered a variety of
[[Page 53768]]
systems for rear object, but we decided that a visual system was needed
in the interest of safety, in order to provide the driver with a view
of the backing vehicle's pathway and to maintain driver responsibility
for safe operation of the vehicle while backing. We also considered the
use of detection zones of different sizes and the possibility of
excluding certain types of vehicles from the proposed requirements.
Once again, a complete discussion of these issues related to benefits,
costs, and alternatives may be found in the PRE.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory or flexibility analysis is required if the head
of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and has included a regulatory
flexibility analysis in the PRE. This analysis discusses potential
regulatory alternatives that the agency considered that would still
meet the identified safety need of eliminating the blind spot behind
straight trucks. Alternatives considered included the use of detection
zones of different sizes and exclusion of certain types of vehicles
from the proposed requirements.
To summarize the conclusions of that analysis, the agency believes
that the proposal would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses. There are a substantial number
of single-unit truck manufacturers (about 750 in the U.S.), and the
cost of video cameras is relatively high. We estimate that there are
approximately 12 mirror manufacturers, of which 3 are small businesses.
We do not expect manufacturers of video cameras to be classified as
small businesses.
As with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard, single-
unit truck manufacturers would be required to certify the vehicle's
compliance with all applicable FMVSSs. However, we anticipate that
single-unit truck manufacturers would pass the cost of the rear object
detection system on to consumers. Further, we believe that the increase
in price would have a small impact, at most, on the sales of single-
unit trucks, because such vehicles are usually a necessary expense for
businesses conducting routine operations. We also expect that the
proposed requirements and associated costs would apply evenly across
the industry and not adversely impact any one segment of that industry.
We expect that the proposed requirements could have a small
positive economic impact on mirror manufacturers, due to increased
sales volumes.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with
State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and
local officials early in the process of developing the proposed
regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with Federalism
implications and that preempts a State law unless the agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
regulation.
The proposed rule to amend this Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is being issued pursuant to NHTSA's statutory authority under
section 30111 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301),
and was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria set
forth in Executive Order 13132. The agency determined that the rule
would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant
consultations with State and local officials or the preparation of a
Federalism summary impact statement. This proposed rule would not have
any substantial effects on the States, or on the current distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. The
reason is that this proposed rule, if made final, would apply to motor
vehicle manufacturers, and not to the States or local governments.
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this proposed rule. We would note that States may comment on this
proposal and that one State (New York) did comment on the ANPRM.
Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. provides, ``When a motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political
subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the
standard prescribed under this chapter.''
If adopted, our proposed amendments would preempt all state
statutes, regulations and common law requirements that differ with it.
More specifically, the amended FMVSS No. 111 would preempt State
requirements for a rear object detection system on new motor vehicles
that is not the same as the one that would be required under the
standard. Thus, for example, it would preempt aspects of at least three
State laws currently in force (i.e., provisions in New Jersey,\22\ New
York,\23\ and Washington \24\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 39:3-71.1 (West 2004).
\23\ N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law Sec. 375(9)(e) (McKinney
2003).
\24\ Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 46.37.400 (West 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposal reflects careful balancing of a variety of
considerations and objectives in this field. As a primary matter, we
believe that the proposal should reflect the fact that drivers have the
responsibility to ensure that the pathway is clear before backing the
vehicle. To this end, the NPRM is proposing several technological
options that would ensure that drivers can visually confirm that the
pathway is clear, including cross-view mirrors, a rear video camera, or
even the driver's vision (if the configuration of the vehicle is such
that the driver can see all relevant test points). We have concerns
that non-visual systems, such as infrared and sonar systems, may not be
sufficiently reliable or provide the same level of certainty as visual
[[Page 53769]]
systems. We are also concerned that other systems, such as audible
back-up alarms, could shift the burden to the person behind the backing
vehicle to get out of the way; some pedestrians (e.g., children, the
elderly) may be ill-equipped to take the necessary evasive action in
those situations. Thus, we believe that requiring a visual rear object
detection system, as proposed, would adequately address the identified
backing problem with straight trucks.
We also intend to specify a uniform set of requirements for rear
object detection systems installed on straight trucks consistent with
the Federal system established by Congress. Congress provided NHTSA
with the responsibility to establish performance standards to ensure
that motor vehicles--including straight trucks--are manufactured in
such a way as to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. Congress gave
FMCSA the responsibility to ensure that straight trucks are
operationally safe in accordance with a uniform Federal, rather than a
myriad of State, operational standards. As noted above, FMCSA has
concluded that States should adopt requirements consistent with the
FMVSS or should limit State requirements to vehicles that will operate
solely in intrastate commerce. Although we do not propose to prohibit
the voluntary installation of supplemental systems by manufacturers, we
believe our proposal addresses the safety need and that supplemental
State or local requirements would subvert the Federal safety program
Congress has established between NHTSA and FMCSA.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), the agency has considered whether this
proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. We conclude that it
would not have such an effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not
adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to
the extent that the State requirement imposes a higher level of
performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use.
49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final
rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may
file a suit in court.
F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental,
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not ``economically significant,'' as defined in Executive Order
12866.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. NHTSA has
determined that, if made final, this proposed rule would not impose any
``collection of information'' burdens on the public, within the meaning
of the PRA. This rulemaking would not impose any filing or
recordkeeping requirements on any manufacturer or any other party. For
this reason, we discuss neither electronic filing and recordkeeping nor
do we discuss a fully electronic reporting option.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to
provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. The NTTAA does not apply to symbols.
NHTSA is not aware of any voluntary consensus standards related to
the proposed rear object detection systems that are available at this
time. However, NHTSA will consider any such standards as they become
available.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
of why that alternative was not adopted.
This proposal will not result in the expenditure of $100 million or
more by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to
the private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking action for the purposes
of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined
that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact
on the quality of the human environment.
K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
[[Page 53770]]
L. Privacy Act
Please note that 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.111 would be amended by revising S4, S7, S7.1, S8,
S8.1, and S13 Figure 3, and by adding new S7.2, S7.2.1, S7.2.2, S14,
S14.1, S14.2, S14.3, S14.4, S14.5, S14.6, and Figure 5 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.111 Standard No. 111; Rearview mirrors.
* * * * *
S4. Definitions
Convex mirror means a mirror having a curved reflective surface
whose shape is the same as that of the exterior surface of a section of
a sphere.
Effective mirror surface means the portions of a mirror that
reflect images, excluding the mirror rim or mounting brackets.
Straight truck means a single-unit truck composed of an
undetachable cab and body.
Unit magnification mirror means a plane or flat mirror with a
reflective surface through which the angular height and width of the
image of an object is equal to the angular height and width of the
object when viewed directly at the same distance except for flaws that
do not exceed normal manufacturing tolerances. For the purposes of this
regulation, a prismatic day-night adjustment rearview mirror, one of
whose positions provides unit magnification, is considered a unit
magnification mirror.
* * * * *
S7. Requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks
with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and less than 11,793 kg and buses,
other than school buses, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg.
S7.1 Each multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck with a GVWR of
more than 4,536 kg and less than 11,793 kg and each bus, other than a
school bus, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg must have outside mirrors
of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm\2\ of reflective
surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle.
The mirrors must be located so as to provide the driver a view to the
rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in
the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene.
S7.2 When tested in accordance with the procedures of S14, each
straight truck with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and less than 11,793
kg must have either a convex cross-view mirror that meets the
requirements of S7.2.1 or a video monitoring system that meets the
requirements of S7.2.2. However, this requirement does not apply if the
straight truck equipped with the mirrors specified in S7.1 or the
mirrors specified in S7.1 and S5.1 can comply with S7.2.1(a), when
tested in accordance with S14.
S7.2.1 Cross-view Mirror. A convex mirror must be located with
stable supports on the upper rear corner of the vehicle on the driver's
side, such that:
(a) The entire top surface of all the test cylinders (right
circular in shape) must be visible;
(b) Its geometric center must be no more than 5,000 mm from the
geometric center of the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side;
(c) It must not have any discontinuities or flaws that exceed
normal manufacturing tolerances in the slope of its surface;
(d) It must provide for adjustment by tilting in both the
horizontal and vertical directions; and
(e) It must have an average radius of curvature of no less than 203
mm, as determined under S12.
S7.2.2 Video Monitoring System. A video monitoring system must be
located on the vehicle and have properties such that:
(a) The entire top surface of all the test cylinders (right
circular in shape) must be visible;
(b) It must include a video monitor mounted in full view of the
driver;
(c) The monitor must be mounted as close to the centerline of the
vehicle as practicable near the top of the windshield, but located such
that the distance from the center point of the eye location of a 25th-
percentile adult female seated in the driver's seat to the center of
the monitor is no more than 1,000 mm;
(d) The system must provide an image size of not less than 90
cm2 and not more than 160 cm2, and the image must
be reversed to show the scene as if it were viewed through a rearview
mirror;
(e) The video camera and monitor each must be adjustable by tilting
in both the horizontal and vertical directions;
(f) The system must provide an image only when the vehicle's
transmission is in reverse; and
(g) If the monitor is in the head impact area, as defined in 49 CFR
Sec. 571.3, the mounting must deflect, collapse, or break away when
subjected to a force of 400 1 Newtons (N) in any forward
direction that is not more than 45[deg] from the forward longitudinal
direction.
S8. Requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks
with a GVWR of 11,793 kg or more.
S8.1 Each multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck with a GVWR of
11,793 kg or more must have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each
with not less than 323 cm\2\ reflective surface, installed with stable
supports on both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors must be located so
as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the
vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical
directions to view the rearward scene.
* * * * *
S13. School bus mirror test procedures. * * *
* * * * *
[[Page 53771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE05.003
* * * * *
S14. Cross-view mirror and video system test procedures. When
determining compliance with the requirements of S7.2, the vehicle is
tested in accordance with the following conditions and procedures.
S14.1 Utilize cylinders of a color which provides a high contrast
with the surface on which the vehicle is parked.
S14.2 The cylinders are 305 1 mm high and 305 1 mm in diameter.
S14.3 Place the cylinders at locations as specified in S14.3(a)
through S14.3(d) below and as illustrated in Figure 5.
(a) Place cylinders G, H, and I so that they are tangent to a
transverse vertical plane tangent to the rearward-most surface of the
vehicle's rear bumper. Place cylinders D, E, and F so that their
centers are located in a transverse vertical plane that is 1,500 10 mm rearward of a transverse vertical plane passing through
the centers of cylinders G, H, and I. Place cylinders A, B, and C so
that their centers are located in a transverse vertical plane that is
3,000 10 mm rearward of the transverse vertical plane
passing through the centers of cylinders G, H, and I.
(b) Place cylinders B, E, and H so that their centers are within 10
mm of the longitudinal vertical plane that passes through the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline.
(c) Place cylinders A, D, and G so that their centers are in a
longitudinal vertical plane that is 1,500 10 mm, toward
the passenger side, from the longitudinal vertical plane passing
through the center of cylinders B, E, and H.
(d) Place cylinders C, F, and I so that their centers are in a
longitudinal vertical plane that is 1,500 10 mm, toward
the driver side, from the longitudinal vertical plane passing through
the centers of cylinders B, E, and H.
S14.4 The driver's eye location is the eye location of a 25th-
percentile adult female, when seated in the driver's seat as follows:
(a) The center point of the driver's eye location is the point
located 685 5 mm vertically above the intersection of the
seat cushion and the seat back at the longitudinal centerline of the
seat.
(b) Adjust the driver's seat to the midway point between the
forward-most and rearward-most positions. If there is not an adjustment
position at the midway point, use the closest adjustment position to
the rear of the midpoint. If the seat is separately adjustable in the
vertical direction, adjust it to the lowest position. If the seat back
is adjustable, adjust the seat back angle to the manufacturer's nominal
design riding position in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
S14.5 Adjustment of Viewing Devices.
(a) If a cross-view mirror is used, adjust the driver's side
exterior mirror and the cross-view mirror in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations before the test. If there are no
manufacturer's recommendations, adjust the mirrors to meet the field-
of-view requirements herein. The mirrors must not be moved or
readjusted thereafter.
(b) If a video system is used, adjust the monitor and video camera
in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. If there are no
manufacturer's recommendations, adjust the monitor and video camera to
meet the field-of-view requirements herein. The monitor and video
camera must not be moved or readjusted thereafter.
(c) If an inside rearview mirror is used, adjust the mirror to
achieve the field of view specified in S5.1.1.
S14.6 Determination of Compliance.
(a) If mirrors are used for compliance purposes, place a 35 mm or
larger format camera, or video camera, so that the center of its image
plane is located at the center point of the driver's eye location or at
any single point within a semicircular area established by a 152 1 mm radius parallel to and forward of the center point
(determined in accordance with Figure 3 of S13). With the camera or
video camera at any location on or within the semicircle, look through
the camera or video camera at the driver's side mirror (or the inside
rearview mirror if so equipped) and determine if the entire top surface
of each cylinder is directly visible, and photograph the results. If a
video camera is used, the monitor's output may be recorded for the test
results.
(b) If a video system is used for compliance purposes, place a 35
mm or larger format camera, or video camera, so that the center of its
image plane is located at the center point of the driver's eye location
or at any single point within a semicircular area established by a 152
1 mm radius parallel to and
[[Page 53772]]
forward of the center point (determined in accordance with Figure 3 of
S13). With the camera or video camera at any location on or within the
semicircle, look through the camera or video camera at the video system
monitor and determine if the entire top surface of each cylinder is
directly visible, and photograph the results. If a video camera is
used, the monitor's output may be recorded for the test results.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE05.004
Issued: September 2, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-17987 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P