[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30585-30588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30586]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96- 53; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear View Mirrors
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Transportation.
ACTION: Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA has granted a petition for rulemaking from Mr. Dee
Norton, who petitioned the Agency to require convex cross view mirrors
on the left rear top corner of the cargo box of stepvan and walk-in
style delivery and service trucks. NHTSA's analysis of the petition and
the backup accident data concludes that this particular solution is
only one of many possible accident prevention measures. While it is
possible that mirrors can be a cost-effective solution, no performance
specifications for these mirrors yet exist. The agency has research
underway on this and other means to reduce such deaths and injuries,
particularly for children less than five years old and the elderly, who
both are over represented in the fatality numbers. The agency believes
it is premature to begin rulemaking until we obtain information on the
experience of fleets which have installed rear cross-view mirrors and
ask other key questions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section,
Room 5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. It
is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the comments be
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Mr. Jere Medlin,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Medlin's telephone number is: (202) 366-
5276. His facsimile number is (202) 366-4329. For legal issues: Mr.
Paul Atelsek, Rulemaking Division, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Atelsek's telephone
number is (202) 366-5260, and his FAX number is (202) 366-3820. Please
note that written comments should be sent to the Docket Section rather
than faxed to the above contact persons.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
By letter dated March 20, 1995, Mr. Dee Norton of Seattle,
Washington petitioned the agency to issue an amendment for 49 CFR
571.111, (Standard No. 111) to require convex cross view mirrors on the
left rear top corner of the cargo box of stepvan and walk-in style
delivery and service trucks. Mr. Norton's petition arose out of a
desire to prevent the kind of fatal crash that caused the death of his
grandson. C.J. Norton, Mr. Norton's grandson, died on May 18, 1994,
when he was struck and backed over by a diaper delivery service truck
that was backing from a stall in an apartment complex parking lot. Mr.
Norton stated in his petition that the truck was equipped with side-
mounted rearview mirrors required by Standard No. 111, but that those
mirrors did not provide the driver with a view of the area immediately
behind the truck. Mr. Norton stated that, without looking behind the
truck, the driver backed up and struck his grandson, not knowing that
the child was in the way.
Mr. Norton tried unsuccessfully to get Washington State to enact a
law to require delivery vehicles to use rear-mounted cross view
mirrors. His state believes that federal law prohibits it from issuing
any laws that are different from federal laws on the subject of
mirrors. As a consequence, Mr. Norton petitioned NHTSA for changes to
Standard No. 111.
The agency has reviewed the circumstances associated with the
petitioner's desired solution, and notes that the agency has been
conducting research to investigate the feasibility of equipping motor
vehicles with cost-effective countermeasures to assist drivers in more
safely carrying out backing, lane change and merging maneuvers
including the maneuvers described by the petitioner. The objectives are
to determine the performance of one or more feasible countermeasures
and to define specifications in performance terms without constraining
the solutions to particular devices or technologies.
NHTSA has been conducting and continues to conduct research to
determine alternative countermeasures for preventing backing crashes.
This research has focused on external auditory alarms ( ``An Audible
Automobile Back-up Pedestrian Warning Device--Development and
Evaluation'', DOT-HS-802-083, November 1976) as well as in-vehicle
warning systems and mirrors. External alarms have been found to be
ineffective deterrents for very young children, who do not understand
the sound and may even be attracted to the noise. In-vehicle warning
systems that have been studied provide drivers with in-vehicle alarms
triggered by the detection of nearby objects detected by the rear
facing sensors (typically ultrasonic, radar, or infrared). The agency
recently tested six rear object detection systems and found that object
detection technology is still in the early stages of its development
(``Hardware Evaluation Of Heavy Truck Side And Rear Object Detection
Systems'', SAE Paper No. 951010, W. Riley Garrott, Mark A. Flick, and
Elizabeth N. Mazzae) . One other system, a unit that costs over $900
and uses microwave radar technology is in voluntary use in some school
districts, to detect a moving child in front of a stationary school
bus. The agency's tests (``An Evaluation of Electronic Pedestrian
Detection Systems For School Buses'', SAE Paper No. 960518, Scott A.
Johnston, Elizabeth N. Mazzae, and W. Riley Garrott) show that such
systems were intended as a supplement, not a replacement, for cross
view mirrors and were designed to work only on stationary vehicles. The
agency will continue to evaluate the effectiveness and performance of
these types of countermeasures as new technology becomes available.
Used on certain commercial and recreational vehicles, rear video
cameras can provide the driver with a view of the blind spot, but the
expense of these systems limits their use. Some vehicles use rear
mounted convex mirrors to help the driver see objects and pedestrians
in the area directly behind the vehicle that is not covered by the
currently required mirror systems. However, the small image size in the
mirror, the distortion of the image, and the task of using the left
side mirror to see the image in the rear mounted mirror may make it
difficult for drivers to reliably detect objects and small pedestrians,
especially at night and in adverse weather. The agency is initiating a
research program to collect data on the extent of obstructed view areas
behind commercial and passenger vehicles and to determine the extent to
which low cost mirror systems can improve the driver's view in that
area. It may take two years to complete this research, data collection,
and analysis. Also, the agency has requested information from some
commercial fleet owners to gain insight on the extent of
[[Page 30587]]
the backing problem and to learn of the experiences that some have had
with rear-mounted convex mirrors. As the agency learns more about the
extent of this safety problem and potential solutions, it will be in a
better position to consider whether rulemaking to mandate performance-
oriented requirements for preventing backup crashes is appropriate.
Additionally, for the past two years the agency has enlisted the
assistance of the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and its
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to gather data on the
involvement of children with motor vehicles in nonhighway injuries and
fatalities. This effort is not yet completed. When it is completed in
1997, the Agency may be able to estimate the size of the safety problem
better than it can today.
The agency finds that the State of Washington has misinterpreted
how federal preemption affects the ability of the state to act. It is
true that under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), no State may enact or continue in
effect a standard covering the same aspect of performance as an FMVSS
unless it is identical to the FMVSS. However, there is no federal
requirement addressing the visibility of the area directly and
immediately behind the vehicle in question. Thus, NHTSA does not concur
with the State of Washington's conclusion that the preemption clause
prohibits Washington, or any other state, from requiring the use of
rear-mounted cross view mirrors on any motor vehicle. While it is true
that nonidentical state standards would become preempted if NHTSA did
adopt a performance requirement for cross view mirrors, NHTSA would
certainly consider the existing state laws in doing so.
Thus, it is possible for the petitioner and others to seek
solutions at the state level, and those solutions can have greater
immediate effect than any Federal action. Because States regulate
vehicles-in-use and the actions of drivers, a solution at the State
level of adding rear-mounted cross view mirrors to delivery service
vehicles and restrictions on how delivery service operations are
conducted, would affect all existing subject vehicles in states that
chose to implement such regulations. A Federal rule only would affect
new trucks once implemented and could take more than twenty-five years
(ref. ``Updated Vehicle Survivability and Travel Mileage Schedules'',
DOT-HS-808-339, November ,1995) before the full benefits would be
realized because of the slow rate of fleet replacement. This study
showed that 12% of light trucks were still in use 25 years later.
II. Questions on Which Comment is Requested
A. For Fleet Users of Rear Cross-View Mirrors
1. Have your vehicles' accident rates in backing incidents
decreased since you equipped your fleet with rear cross view mirrors?
Please provide any available data on your backing crash rates.
2. What percentage of your backing incidents occur off the public
roadway?
3. Under what conditions, if any, are these mirrors difficult to
use or perhaps even unusable?
a. Dark days?
b. Rainy days?
c. Shadows behind the vehicle?
d. At night with the backup lamps?
e. Other adverse conditions; please describe.
4. What comments, if any, have your drivers made regarding their
use of rear cross view mirrors? Are they generally in favor of them?
Please explain.
5. To what extent do your drivers rely on cross view mirrors while
backing? Should the driver directly inspect the area behind the truck
before entering the vehicle and backing?
6. What depth of field (behind the vehicle) can these mirrors
provide? Does this need to be increased to allow adequate reaction time
when backing?
7. Would a depth of field of six feet be practicable and
economically feasible on such mirrors?
8. Is image distortion a problem on existing rear cross-view
mirrors?
9. Are reductions in insurance premiums available for vehicles
equipped with rear cross view mirrors? How far do any such reductions
go in offsetting the cost of the mirror and its installation?
(The next three questions are for fleet operators that have installed
rear cross-view mirrors.)
10. Why did your fleet install rear cross-view mirrors?
11. What specific mirrors were used and on what specific vehicles
were these mirrors installed?
12. What were the costs of the mirrors and their installation?
B. General
1. NHTSA must analyze both the safety benefits associated with new
or added regulations and their costs. The agency therefore requests
cost estimates for rear cross-view mirrors expressed as the increase in
the cost of a new truck (say a full-size commercial van, a step-van,
high cube van, or straight truck ) with such a mirror installed. Are
these costs significantly different for the installation of the mirrors
on existing vehicles?
2. Do these mirrors present any practical problems, such as:
a. Are there any trucks up to 26,000 pounds GVWR that cannot
accommodate such mirrors?
b. Are there loading dock interference problems?
c. Are there significant driver training changes?
d. Are there mirror vibration problems or maintenance problems?
e. Are some designs of rear cross-view mirrors vastly superior in
performance to others?
f. Are depth of field or other parameters on these mirrors in need
of improvement?
g. Are there any alternatives to these mirrors that are as
inexpensive as the mirrors desired by the petitioner?
III. Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this request
for comment. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted. Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR
553.21). Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions
without regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to
encourage commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise
fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512).
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received after
the comment due date will be considered as suggestions for any future
rulemaking action. Comments on the request for comment will be
available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file
relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after the
closing
[[Page 30588]]
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine
the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rule's docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: June 12, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-15325 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P