[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 228 (Monday, November 27, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70681-70687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30054]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-7967; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG41


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, ``Rearview 
Mirrors''; Rear Visibility Systems

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On June 17, 1996, NHTSA published a notice requesting comments 
on a petition for rulemaking asking us to require convex cross-view 
mirrors on the rear of the cargo box of stepvan and walk-in style 
delivery and service trucks to allow drivers to see children behind the 
trucks. In addition to reviewing the six public comments on our notice, 
we have also gathered and evaluated data to quantify the size of this 
safety problem. If off-road fatalities by vehicle type occurred in the 
same proportion as on-road fatalities, an estimated 114 of these deaths 
annually would involve straight trucks over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR). These vehicles' on-road backup fatality death 
rate per vehicle mile traveled is eight times the backup fatality rate 
of the second highest vehicle type. In addition, we have conducted 
research on the feasibility of improving visibility to the rear of 
these vehicles. This research shows that a substantial area directly 
behind straight trucks can be made visible for the driver with rear 
cross-view mirrors. Based on comments we receive on this notice, we 
plan to develop a proposal for a performance requirement for straight 
trucks to detect objects directly behind the vehicle to prevent 
pedestrian deaths when the vehicle backs up.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited 
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. The 
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10:00 a.m. to 5 p.m.

[[Page 70682]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Mr. Chris 
Flanigan, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Flanigan's telephone number is: 
(202) 366-4918. His facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.
    Please note that written comments should be sent to the Docket 
Section rather than faxed to the above contact person.
    For legal issues: Mr. Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Wood's 
telephone number is: (202) 366-2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

I. Background

    Mr. Dee Norton petitioned NHTSA in 1995 to amend its mirror 
standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, 49 CFR 
571.111) to require convex cross-view mirrors on the rear of the cargo 
box of stepvan and walk-in style delivery and service trucks. Mr. 
Norton said that his petition was motivated by a desire to prevent any 
more tragedies like the fatal crash that killed his three-year-old 
grandson, C.J. Norton. C.J. was killed when he was struck and backed 
over by a diaper delivery truck backing out of a parking stall in an 
apartment parking lot. Mr. Norton told us that the driver of the 
delivery truck did not know a child was behind the truck and could not 
see the area directly behind the truck in the truck's rearview mirrors. 
Mr. Norton asked that this situation be remedied by NHTSA requiring a 
convex cross-view mirror on the left rear top corner of the cargo box 
of these trucks.

II. NHTSA's Federal Register Notice

    In response to Mr. Norton's petition, we published a Notice of 
Request for Comments on June 17, 1996 (61 FR 30586). This notice asked 
the public for information about the effectiveness of rear cross-view 
mirrors, as well as the cost of those mirrors and any operational 
problems those mirrors would present for users of these trucks.
    In addition, the notice described the research work that we had 
been conducting to determine alternative measures for preventing 
backing crashes. This work includes external audible alarms that sound 
when trucks are backing, as well as in-vehicle warning systems and 
mirrors. Generally speaking, the external audible alarms are 
ineffective with young children. The in-vehicle warning systems, which 
typically use ultrasound, radar, or infrared to detect the presence of 
nearby objects, were still in the early stages of development. Another 
approach described in the notice, used on certain commercial and 
recreational vehicles, was rear video cameras to give the driver a view 
of the blind spot. Although these approaches were more costly than 
cross-view mirrors, NHTSA believed they were also promising 
countermeasures that should be investigated further.
    We announced that we were initiating a research program to collect 
data on the extent to which low cost mirror systems can improve the 
driver's view in the obstructed view areas behind commercial vehicles. 
At that time, we told the public it would take several years to 
complete this data collection and analysis.
    We also announced that we were working with the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission to gather data on motor vehicle backing crashes that 
occurred off public roads (for instance, in parking lots, driveways, 
etc.), and so would not be available in NHTSA's databases. NHTSA also 
stated that the requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors,'' do not address the visibility of the 
area directly and immediately behind a vehicle. Accordingly, Standard 
No. 111 does not preempt any State from requiring rear cross-view 
mirrors on vehicles. Our notice concluded by asking a series of 
specific questions about the safety effectiveness of rear cross-view 
mirrors, any problems with those mirrors, cost estimates for the 
mirrors, and any alternatives to rear cross-view mirrors the commenter 
wanted the agency to evaluate.

III. Comments Received

    We received six comments in response to our Federal Register 
notice. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) commented that 
a courier company achieved more than a 30% reduction in backing crashes 
with rear cross-view mirrors installed on 65% of their delivery vans. 
Additionally, IBT said that backing crashes account for more than 25% 
of all courier crashes. IBT does not believe this subject should be 
sent back to the states for 50 separate responses, but believes that 
Federal action would be the best way to resolve the current problem. 
IBT concluded by saying that many of its members have been struck and 
some killed by trucks that were backing up, and IBT supports the effort 
to require rear cross-view mirrors on the left rear corner of the cargo 
box of step-vans and walk-in style delivery and service trucks.
    The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) was less supportive. 
In fact, ATA said that it does not believe a Federal standard mandating 
rear cross-view mirrors on certain trucks will serve to reduce backing 
crashes. ATA recommended that the selection of a system to assist 
drivers in backing be left to the discretion of the consumer. ATA 
claimed that, based on its analysis and talks with drivers of vehicles 
equipped with rear cross-view mirror systems, useful information from 
rear cross-view mirrors is no longer available when the distance 
between the rear cross-view mirror and the front rear view mirror 
exceeds 6.1 meters (m) and that dimension can be considered to 
establish the maximum range for the system. ATA also said that rear 
cross-view mirrors are most effective at mounting heights under eight 
feet as opposed to top corners locations on cargo bodies. Additionally, 
ATA noted that there are many vehicles having a 10,000 to 26,000 lb. 
GVWR that are not vans and that use body configurations that are 
unacceptable for rear cross-view mirror technology--such as flat beds, 
stake bodies, dump trucks, tow trucks, tradesmen and mechanics bodies, 
and the common light duty pick-up truck bed. Finally, ATA asked that if 
NHTSA were to proceed with rulemaking, it should develop a performance 
standard.
    Hylant MacLean (HM) commented that, as long ago as 1991, cameras 
became the preferred device for Waste Management of North America 
trucks and that monitor systems cost as low as $200. HM also states 
that the effectiveness of camera systems was much greater than mirrors 
since mirrors are difficult to keep adjusted properly, are affected by 
glare, easily become dirty, and are just plain difficult to see 
anything in. HM supports the requirement for installation of backing 
safety devices, but does not recommend limiting that application to 
mirrors.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) agreed with HM's 
comment on this last point. Advocates urged us to address the situation 
more broadly than by a design-oriented solution of rear cross-view 
mirrors. Advocates believes that a system to provide a reasonable level 
of rear detection, even if inferior to the expensive powered electronic 
systems described in our notice, could be valuable to provide a 
reasonable level of rear detection. Finally, Advocates recommended that 
property damage be considered when calculating benefits from this 
action.
    Caliber System, Inc. (Caliber) challenged the agency's 
interpretation of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), which allows states to regulate 
rear cross-view mirrors on vehicles-in-use. In the Request for 
Comments, the agency outlined the

[[Page 70683]]

State of Washington's belief that it, and any other State, was 
prohibited from requiring cross-view mirrors due to Standard No. 111's 
applicability. The agency disagreed with this position in the Request 
for Comments. Moreover, since the notice was published, the State of 
Washington has enacted a law to require delivery vehicles up to 5.5 m 
in length to be equipped with driver warning backup alerts or rear-
mounted cross-view mirrors. This requirement became effective September 
30, 1998. The agency disagrees with Caliber and continues to maintain 
the position that cross-view mirrors can be required individually by 
States.
    Finally, the Easter Seal Society of Washington commented that they 
supported the NHTSA research into the effectiveness of having rear 
cross-view mirrors required on all delivery trucks.

IV. Size of the Safety Problem

a. Number of Victims

    To decide upon the appropriate agency response, we needed to 
determine the problem size, i.e., gather data on the annual number of 
incidents of people being backed over by a motor vehicle of any type or 
size. We began by searching our own Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS) data and found an average of 85 victims for the years 1992 and 
1993. 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. This excludes other likely 
scenarios for backing deaths, e.g., events where someone is backed over 
in a driveway, parking lot, or other non-roadway locations.
    We decided to address this gap in our data by working with the 
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to gather data on the 
involvement of children with motor vehicles in non-highway injuries and 
fatalities. NCHS obtains information on the cause(s) of death, as 
recorded on individual death certificates, from each of the 50 states, 
the District of Columbia, and the five boroughs of New York City. NCHS 
and FARS data for 1992 and 1993 were used in this study to obtain 
average annual estimates of the number of fatalities associated with 
off-road and on-road fatal backing crashes for children aged 1-4 and 
for all other ages. This work is described in detail in a Research Note 
prepared by NHTSA published in February 1997 and titled Nonoccupant 
Fatalities Associated With Backing Crashes. The Research Note 
identified 85 on-road (FARS) and 390 off-road average annual backing 
fatalities for the 1992-1993 time period, with the very young (children 
aged one to four) being significantly over-represented as victims. A 
copy of this is in the docket under NHTSA-98-4308.

b. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Crashes

    Unlike NHTSA's FARS data, the NCHS data collected from death 
certificates does not record the vehicle type that backed over the 
victim. As noted in the Research Note on backing crashes, there are 
about four times as many off-road backing fatalities as on-road backing 
fatalities. FARS data show the following for 1991-1997 on-road 
pedestrian and pedalcyclist deaths in backing crashes:

  Cumulative Number of Pedestrians and Pedalcyclists Killed in On-Road
                             Backing Crashes
                       [FARS data from 1991-1997]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                      Vehicle type                         people killed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger car...........................................             129
Light truck/van.........................................             139
Bus.....................................................               1
Straight truck over 10,000 lbs. GVWR....................              81
Combination truck.......................................              15
Unknown truck over 10,000 lbs. GVWR.....................              12
Other...................................................               2
Unknown.................................................               2
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From looking only at these numbers, it would appear that the 
backing crash problem primarily involves light vehicles. However, we do 
not believe this is a complete assessment of the problem. It is not 
sufficient to consider absolute numbers of deaths. One must also 
consider relative risk. This is done by using the number of vehicles in 
the fleet and the miles driven to calculate the rate of backing deaths 
for different vehicle types. We have done this by using estimates of 
registered vehicles and vehicle miles traveled information. The 
following breakdown of on-road fatality rate information is based on 
cumulative 1991-97 data:

                                      Rate of On-Road Fatal Backing Crashes
                                      [Cumulative FARS Data from 1991-1997]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed  Pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed
           Vehicle type                by a backing vehicle per million     by a backing vehicle per 100 billion
                                             registered vehicles                   vehicle miles traveled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................  0.15.................................  1.26
Light trucks/vans.................  0.33.................................  2.80
Combination trucks................  1.42.................................  2.21
Straight trucks over 10,000 lbs.    2.71.................................  21.89
 GVWR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data on rates of fatal backing crashes suggest that the problem 
is most acute for straight trucks. This experience is consistent with 
Mr. Norton's observation that the driver of the straight truck has no 
way of knowing if a pedestrian is directly behind the truck when the 
driver is backing up. The agency notes that buses seem to have rearward 
visibility problems similar to those of straight trucks, but there is a 
near absence of bus-related fatalities in the FARS data on backing 
crashes (a total of one death in seven years). Transit and school buses 
are typically driven on a set route, which is designed to avoid to the 
extent possible situations in which the bus must back up. Thus, the way 
the vehicle is driven impacts its susceptibility to backup fatalities.

V. Information and Activities Since the Last Comment Period

a. Agency Research

    NHTSA has conducted research to quantify the visibility provided by 
the current state-of-the-art rear cross-view mirror designs. Our 
research also compared several prototype mirrors in terms of the 
ability of drivers to use them to detect objects. The agency believes 
this research shows that good

[[Page 70684]]

current designs of rear cross-view mirrors can provide high detection 
and recognition rates in a 3 m by 3 m area directly behind a large step 
van with the rear cross-view mirror. This area was determined based on 
two factors. First, the 3 m distance behind the vehicle is based on 
stopping distance data gathered in previously conducted research 
(Hardstem, Huey, Lerner, and Steinberg (1996)). This distance behind 
the vehicle provides a small margin of safety over these data. Second, 
the 3 m along the rear of the vehicle would ensure that the entire area 
along the vehicle's bumper could be visible. The cross-view mirror 
research also showed that the mirror must be mounted to within 5 m from 
the driver's side mirror. Beyond 5 m, the images became too small to 
recognize. This research is published as Rear Cross-View Mirror 
Performance: Perception and Optical Measurements, DOT HS 808 824. A 
copy of this is in the docket under NHTSA-98-4308.

b. Other Developments

    Since the request for comments was published, the State of 
Washington has enacted a law to require delivery vehicles up to 5.5 m 
in length to be equipped with driver warning backup alerts or rear-
mounted cross-view mirrors. This requirement became effective September 
30, 1998. The implementing rules in Washington allow driver warning 
backup alert devices to be any type of motion detection device, laser 
device, camera, or television device that will warn the driver of the 
presence of a person or object at a minimum distance of 1.8 m to the 
rear of the vehicle across the entire width of the rear of the vehicle. 
Similarly, Washington rules allow rear cross-view mirrors to be any 
type, provided that those mirrors allow the driver of the delivery 
truck to view a minimum distance of at least 1.8 m to the rear of the 
vehicle across the entire width of the rear of the vehicle. NHTSA is 
aware that some other States are also considering such legislation.
    In August of 2000, legislation that would have required trucks with 
delivery bays longer than 2.6 m to be equipped with cross-view mirrors 
or video cameras in the State of New York was vetoed by its Governor. 
While the Governor of New York believed that the legislation was 
``well-intentioned,'' it was reported that he believed it was flawed 
because it did not account for other rear object detections systems, 
such as sonar-based ones. Some of these are described below. The 
authority of local police to enforce civil penalties also presented a 
problem. The sponsors of the legislation created it in response to 
incidents like one that occurred in Ulster County where a five-year-old 
boy was killed by a delivery truck backing out of his driveway.
    As we noted in our Request for Comments, any nonidentical state 
standards would be preempted if this rulemaking culminates in the 
issuance of a NHTSA safety standard for detecting people to the rear of 
vehicles. However, we would carefully consider all existing state laws 
in deciding upon what performance requirements should be adopted in a 
Federal standard.
    As part of a labor settlement, United Parcel Service had agreed to 
study rear cross-view mirrors on its delivery vans. Since then, UPS 
said that it would install video monitoring equipment on its fleet by 
October 2001 (see Transport Topics, August 28 2000, page 4). There are 
many other fleets with rear cross-view mirrors, such as Federal 
Express, the United States Postal Service, and various regional 
telephone companies and delivery services and with other rear systems. 
The experience of any fleet with and without rear cross-view mirrors or 
any other rear-of-vehicle detection or vision system is very pertinent 
information for this rulemaking action. Please submit any information, 
test reports, studies, and etc. on the success and benefits of your use 
of such devices.
    Several commonly used vans and passenger cars are now available 
with optional rear object detection systems that are advertised and 
intended for use as parking aids--not pedestrian detectors. Ford, GM, 
BMW and Mercedes-Benz have devices that are claimed to reliably detect 
when the vehicle is about to back into a pole, but not when it is about 
to back into a person. Ford's Reverse Sensing System is an optionally 
available ultrasonic system on its 2000 Windstar minivans at a 
suggested retail price of $245. This system uses four sensors and has a 
range of up to 1.8 meters. The system is promoted as a low-speed 
parking device for assisting drivers making maneuvers in detecting 
large and fixed objects to the rear of a vehicle--not as a safety 
feature. Information from Ford states that the system consistently 
detects the following objects: a shopping cart, a lamp post and other 
barriers or types of posts. Additionally, information from Ford states 
that the system will not detect, or will detect only inconsistently, 
low-lying objects with rounded edges and/or objects with a high 
capacity for sound wave absorption.
    GM's Cadillac Ultrasonic Rear Parking Assist (supplied by Bosch) 
comes as part of a $400 option package that includes a garage door 
opener.
    BMW also has an optional rear object detector system with five 
sensors intended to prevent property damage in backing. BMW states that 
its Park Distance Control is more of a vehicle parking aid for 
proximity with a range of 1.2 m than an actual object detection system. 
Its retail price is $350.
    The Mercedes-Benz Parktronic system utilizes 10 sensors with ranges 
up to 1.2 m. The Mercedes-Benz of North America press release states 
that the system may detect children as well as bumpers, but no further 
details are known.
    Thus, rear systems that detect some inanimate objects are not 
``Star Wars'' technology; instead, they are being offered on vehicles 
right now. These systems may be more effective than mirrors because 
they offer an audible or visual alert, instead of relying on the driver 
to check the rear cross-view mirror to be alerted to people behind the 
vehicle. They are, however, relatively expensive technologies that do 
not presently reliably detect pedestrians.
    Rear video camera systems are already used on certain commercial 
and recreational vehicles. These rear video cameras are linked with a 
monitor inside the cab to provide the driver with a view of the area 
directly behind large trucks. Their cost is not as low as rear cross-
view mirrors.

VI. Agency Decision to Develop a Proposal

A. Vehicles Covered

    The data indicating that 475 people are killed in backing crashes 
each year has led NHTSA to the conclusion that it should consider 
proposing Federal requirements. However, we are inclined to limit the 
application of potential Federal requirements in this area to straight 
trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, but not more than 26,000 
pounds. This is based on the information from FARS showing the rate of 
fatal backing crashes for these vehicles is substantially greater than 
that of other vehicles. In addition, this is based on the fact that the 
blind spot behind these vehicles is large and there is nothing the 
driver can do to see in that area. NHTSA is aware that there is also a 
blind spot for cars and light trucks, but notes that it is 
substantially smaller, in part because most light vehicles have 
interior rear view mirrors and rear windows, which many straight trucks 
do not have. We also note that the rearward visibility for buses should 
be somewhat similar to straight trucks. As noted above, however, our 
FARS

[[Page 70685]]

data show only one fatal backing crash for buses over a seven year 
period. Given these data, we are not inclined to cover buses in this 
rulemaking.
    However, NHTSA is concerned that the absolute numbers of vehicles 
involved in fatal backing crashes indicate that something should be 
done to improve the situation for drivers of cars and light trucks. At 
present, there are practicability and effectiveness questions regarding 
the issue of what can be done to reduce fatal backing crashes involving 
cars and light trucks. For instance, rear cross-view mirrors present 
special problems for cars and light trucks because of the size of the 
mirror needed relative to the size of the vehicle and because it would 
be difficult to mount the mirrors high enough on cars and most light 
trucks so that the mirrors would not themselves be a hazard to 
pedestrians and cyclists. Further, it is unlikely that the public would 
accept a cross-view mirror due to the aesthetic problems it would 
create. For this reason it is highly unlikely the agency would ever 
pursue this mirror solution for passenger cars or light trucks, except 
possibly for windowless vans and similar vehicles.
    Another way to improve rearward visibility in these vehicles would 
be to use rear video systems. However, this is very expensive. Further, 
it may be difficult to install a monitor large enough to offer a 
helpful view in a location where it could be seen by the driver, yet 
would not pose an interior injury hazard in the event of a crash. Rear 
object detector systems are yet another way to reduce the risk of fatal 
backing crashes in cars and light trucks. However, as noted above, 
there are not yet commercially available systems that can reliably 
detect pedestrians and children to the rear of the vehicle. The agency 
will reevaluate the need for and practicability of means of avoiding 
fatal backing crashes as technology progresses and performance is 
improved. However, public comment is specifically invited on the 
agency's current intentions of limiting the requirements to straight 
trucks with a GVWR between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds. We are especially 
interested in the data and analysis the commenter believes supports 
covering additional groups of vehicles.
    The agency is unaware of any industry or international requirements 
regarding the cross-view mirrors. We would appreciate any information 
commenters may be aware of on this.

B. Required Performance

    A performance standard would specify the test environment for the 
system (e.g., ambient lighting, contrast, etc.), the required target 
detection area, the characteristics of the targets, acceptable 
information for the driver (such as the characteristics of the in-
vehicle audible alarm for detector systems, which might vary with the 
proximity to the target) and other parameters requisite for safety. 
NHTSA is interested in learning what the public believes should be 
considered acceptable performance criteria.
    NHTSA always tries to establish standards that are as performance-
oriented as possible. We specify the required safety performance that 
must be achieved and allow manufacturers to select whatever means they 
prefer to achieve the specified performance. In this case, we plan to 
develop a performance standard that would specify conditions under 
which the driver either must be provided with a view, or must be 
alerted to the presence of a pedestrian, in an area of 3 m by 3 m 
directly to the rear of the truck. This would permit manufacturers to 
select from rear cross-view mirrors, rear object detector systems, or 
rear video systems, among presently-available technologies. However, we 
would propose to limit the applicability of rear cross-view mirrors to 
situations where the mirrors are no more than 5 m from the driver's 
side outside rear view mirror. This limitation would be based on our 
research finding that the image size in the mirror is too small at 
greater distances. We would like the public to comment on this intended 
position and on the research that supports this tentative conclusion.

C. Contemplated Effective Date

    We would contemplate that these new requirements to prevent backing 
deaths go into place beginning with vehicles manufactured one year 
after publication of a final rule. This relatively quick implementation 
is based on the simplicity of attaching rear cross-view mirrors on 
straight trucks. It would not involve substantial engineering efforts 
or changes in the manufacturing process. Manufacturers would likely 
need more time to implement the more technically demanding systems 
(rear object detection and rear video). It is not our intent to limit 
solutions to mirrors. However, it appears we are not at a point where 
these other systems are understood well enough to specify desired or 
undesired performance, which may prevent them from being viable 
alternatives to mirrors. But, we request comment on this tentative 
conclusion.

VII. Questions on Which Answers and Comments Are Requested

A. Concerning Rear Cross-View Mirrors

    1. Would limiting installation of rear-cross-view mirrors to 
maximum side and rear cross-view mirror separation distances of 5 m 
assure adequate image size without specifying a minimum size and image 
distortion and a test procedure to measure compliance? If not, what 
minimum image size and image distortion criteria must be specified to 
assure adequate mirror performance? What types of objective criteria 
should be specified to assure adequacy? How should the values for those 
criteria be selected? Provide the basis for your answers.
    2. Is the 3 m by 3 m area being considered an appropriate size for 
the rear detection area? Would it be appropriate to allow vehicles to 
partially meet the standard with the field of view provided with the 
side view mirrors or would the cross-view mirrors have to provide the 
full view? Should the requirements be similar to the existing field of 
view requirements of school buses, where an array of objects is placed 
in the rear of the vehicle for determination of the field of view? 
Should the requirements be based on detecting objects as small as a 
young child laying on the ground?
    3. Should any truck equipped with an OSHA specified exterior, 
audible backup alarm system be excluded from these performance 
requirements. For example, would the tailgate shock and vibration on a 
dump truck cause premature failure of mirrors, as well as other 
detectors and cameras? Please provide all available data to support 
your views. What information is available on the effectiveness of OSHA 
exterior audible backup alarm systems especially for non-work zone 
areas where small children are present? What information is available 
for comparing exterior audible alarms with a direct or indirect vision 
and detection system?
    4. NHTSA currently is considering a test for visibility that would 
be conducted on crushed gray stone surfaces in full cloud cover 
conditions with low reflectance, monotone targets (cylinders) which are 
about one foot in height and one foot in diameter. Are there any 
comments on these conditions and how to specify them? Are there any 
other conditions which the agency should consider in the requirements?
    5. Some straight trucks may not be able to use the existing designs 
of cross-view mirrors. Is there a mirror design that would be 
practicable for vehicles whose design is other than a rectangular 
solid?

[[Page 70686]]

B. Concerning Rear Video Systems

    6. What minimum image size should be specified for systems using a 
video screen? In lieu of specifying an image size, should we specify a 
minimum size for the video screen? What size should be specified? 
Should it be color or black and white?
    7. NHTSA currently is considering tests for video systems on 
crushed gray stone surfaces in full cloud cover conditions with low 
reflectance targets (cylinders) which are about one foot in height and 
one foot in diameter. Are there any comments on these conditions or 
procedures?
    8. Should NHTSA specify a location for the video screen? Obviously, 
we want the images to be easy for the driver to see, but we do not want 
the screen to be in a position where it would pose a hazard to the 
driver in a crash or where it would distract the driver. Please provide 
whatever data are available to support your recommendations.
    9. Should NHTSA require video systems to provide a system failure 
alert to warn the driver of a system problem? If so, what performance 
requirements should be established for the system failure alert? If 
not, please explain why.
    10. Should NHTSA conduct human factor analysis to examine the 
interface between video screen and drivers?
    11. The existence and use of a video monitor/screen for any reason 
is prohibited by a number of states' laws. What have been the 
consequences of these laws on the installation and use of rear video 
systems?

C. Concerning Rear Object Detection Systems

    12. What surface characteristics, signal absorption or other 
characteristics value should be specified for the targets? Are there 
any data available on the ultrasonic wave absorption and radar 
reflection of children and other pedestrians in various types of 
clothing, and on the required temperature(s) of the target for infrared 
sensor detection? How quickly would/should a backing driver be alerted 
to the presence of a child who walks into the path of a backing 
vehicle?
    13. Should NHTSA specify tests to ensure system detection accuracy 
and reliability, or would demonstrating performance under the 
conditions in our performance test be adequate?
    14. One problem with the sensors in rear object detection systems 
is that currently, they are only effective at low backing speeds (a 
maximum of approximately 3 mph). The agency believes that backing 
speeds vary greatly depending on the conditions; is this a valid 
assumption? Are efforts currently underway to increase the range of the 
sensors so they could be effective at backing speeds above 3 mph?
    15. Is it necessary to specify rain, fog, temperature and wind 
extremes in the performance tests to assure that rear object detection 
systems will perform acceptably in the real world? If so, please 
suggest appropriate conditions. If not, please explain why.

D. Other Questions

    16. For manufacturers who have installed cross-view mirror systems 
or an other equivalent system, have the property damage benefits 
outweighed the cost of installing the devices? Please provide details 
if possible.
    17. Does the State of Washington's backup alert device range 
requirement of 1.8 m rearward, assure adequate protection for children 
and pedestrians behind moving trucks, or is it appropriate to extend it 
out to 3 m, as NHTSA is considering? Please provide all data that 
support your position.
    18. Because the states can regulate all vehicles-in-use, and also 
by type of use, as opposed to NHTSA's authority over only new vehicles, 
would it be better to allow states to address this safety problem? 
Please explain your reasoning.
    19. NHTSA's vehicle categories are rather generic compared to those 
used by states which more fully describe the appearance and intended 
use. Should NHTSA proceed to define sub-categories of vehicles? If so, 
why, and how could it be done?
    20. With NHTSA's recently acquired ability to require retrofitting 
of safety devices on commercial motor vehicles, we would like 
information on the costs and complexities of retrofitting the 
applicable trucks with cross-view mirrors. This information would be 
helpful in the event that we include retrofitting in a future proposal.

VIII. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget has informed NHTSA that it will 
not review this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866. It has 
been determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under 
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. Our 
cost estimate, is about $75 for an installed OEM cross-view mirror. 
Based on 1996 sales data, we estimate that about 137,000 trucks greater 
than 10,000 but less than 26,001 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 
(GVWR) were sold that would likely be regulated. Thus, the potential 
costs would be in the range of $10.3M. Accordingly, it does not appear 
to be economically significant. If NHTSA proceeds to a notice of 
proposed rulemaking in this area, the agency will have more detailed 
estimates of both the costs and safety benefits, that would be based on 
a more defined proposal.

IX. Procedures for Filing Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this request 
for comment. 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 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.


[[Page 70687]]


    Issued on: November 20, 2000.
Noble N. Bowie,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-30054 Filed 11-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P