[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2993-3000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 2002-12347; Notice 01]


New Rearview Technology and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 111; Rearview Mirrors

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The agency has received two petitions asking us to amend the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for rearview mirrors. AM General 
Corporation (AM General) petitioned the agency to amend the standard to 
permit vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 
4,536 kilograms (kg) and with an overall length that is less than 508 
centimeters (cm) to have the option of being equipped with a passenger-
side convex mirror with an area of at least 323 square centimeters 
(cm\2\). Currently, these vehicles are required to have a flat 
passenger-side mirror with a reflective area of at least 323 cm\2\. The 
agency granted AM General's petition on May 23, 2001.
    In addition, Ms. Barbara Sanford petitioned the agency to amend the 
rearview mirror standard to require that all commercial trucks 
traveling on interstate highways have convex mirrors affixed to their 
front right and left fenders to give drivers of these vehicles a better 
view of the area around them while making a lane change. The agency 
granted Ms. Sanford's petition on May 21, 2001.
    This document discusses the recommendations submitted by AM General 
and Ms. Sanford and asks questions that we hope will help us to 
determine whether they would be beneficial to safety and at what cost. 
In addition to addressing the aforementioned petitions, the agency also 
wishes to take this opportunity to examine the rearview mirror standard 
as a whole to determine whether there are any amendments that can be 
made to allow consumers to utilize innovations in mirror and other 
rearview technology that have been developed since the standard was 
last amended in 1982. It should be pointed out that the changes to the 
standard that are being explored are to eliminate impediments to new 
technology. Any amendments would permit, but not require, the use of 
new technology.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2003.

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, DC 20590. It is 
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be 
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Flanigan, Office of 
Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. 
Flanigan's telephone number is (202) 366-4918 and his facsimile number 
is (202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Standard No. 111

    When standard No. 111 was promulgated in 1967, it applied only to 
passenger cars. The standard only permitted the use of mirrors of unit 
magnification (hereafter referred to as flat mirrors) at that time. On 
August 12, 1975, the agency published a final rule that extended the 
passenger car requirements to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
and buses with a GVWR 4,536 kg or less (hereafter referred to as light 
trucks) [40 FR 33825]. The final rule established requirements for 
light trucks to have either outside flat mirrors that meet passenger 
car requirements or mirrors with an area of at least 126 cm\2\.
    The August 12, 1975 notice also established requirements that 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 
between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg have flat outside mirrors with a 
reflective surface of not less than 323 cm\2\. On December 30, 1976, 
the agency published a final rule that established requirements for 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 
11,340 kg or more. The requirements specified that these vehicles have 
outside mirrors with a reflective surface of not less than 323 cm\2\.
    Until 1982, the agency allowed only flat mirrors on vehicles with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kg or less other than school buses (hereafter referred to 
as ``light vehicles''). However, on September 2, 1982, the agency 
published a final rule amending Standard No. 111 to allow constant 
radius of curvature or spherical convex mirrors (hereafter referred to 
as ``convex mirrors'') to be used on light vehicles [47 FR 38698]. The 
surface of this type of mirror is curved to increase the field of view. 
This action was in response to a May 6, 1976, petition from General 
Motors Corporation (GM). GM petitioned the agency to amend the standard 
to allow convex mirrors on the passenger side of light vehicles where 
the interior mirror did not meet the field of view requirements. GM 
pointed out in its petition that convex mirrors would provide a wider 
field of view than the flat mirrors of the same size.
    The amendment gave light vehicles that do not meet the field of 
view requirements for their interior mirror the option of having an 
outside mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror installed on 
the passenger side. The agency, however, was concerned about the 
greater difficulties in correctly judging distance and speed that occur 
using convex mirrors as a result of the distortion of the objects being 
viewed. This concern has to be balanced by the fact that convex mirrors 
greatly increase the driver's field of view and, therefore, reduce the 
necessity for head movement to detect other vehicles.
    Since convex mirrors have been permitted on the passenger side of 
light vehicles, many manufacturers have used them. Today, most light 
vehicles have a convex mirror on the passenger side. However, the 
agency still receives complaints from consumers about these mirrors. As 
described below, convex mirrors have characteristics that present 
problems for a portion of the driving public.

Currently Permitted Mirrors

    The main difference between a flat mirror and convex mirror is that 
the image of an object viewed in a convex

[[Page 2994]]

mirror is both distorted and smaller than that of the same object 
viewed in a flat mirror. Therefore, such an object appears farther away 
and could be less recognizable when viewed in a convex mirror. 
Additionally, if the object were approaching or receding, its rate of 
change in position relative to other vehicles and its speed are more 
difficult to judge as well. For example, a driver who is not familiar 
with using a convex mirror on the passenger side may determine that it 
is safe to change lanes to the right, not realizing that a vehicle to 
the right rear is too close for the maneuver to be completed safely. 
This is why convex mirrors have been permitted only in conjunction with 
flat interior mirrors. The flat interior mirror provides the correct 
depth and speed perception, whereas the convex mirror achieves greater 
field of view, but cannot give precise depth and speed perception. Even 
if the interior mirror does not meet the field of view requirements in 
the standard, it is still available for speed and distance judgment of 
vehicles that are detected in the right convex mirror, if they are also 
visible in the interior mirror.
    There have been other problems associated with the use of convex 
mirrors that include double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. Based on 
research, the agency determined that these problems could be minimized 
by placing certain restrictions on the mirror's design and by trading 
off correct speed and depth perception to achieve a greater field of 
view. If a vehicle has an interior mirror that does not meet the field 
of view requirements and the manufacturer opts to use a convex mirror 
on the passenger side, the convex mirror must meet the following three 
requirements: (1) When the radius of curvature is measured at ten 
different positions as specified in the standard, none of the radii of 
curvature readings may deviate from the average radius of curvature by 
more than plus or minus 12.5 percent; (2) the mirror must be indelibly 
marked at the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface with the 
words ``Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear''; and (3) the 
average radius of curvature cannot be less than 889 millimeters (mm) 
and not more than 1,651 mm.
    The first requirement, that the convex mirror's radius of curvature 
may not deviate more than plus or minus 12.5 percent from the average 
radius of curvature, is to ensure that the mirrors have a reasonably 
constant radius of curvature. This minimizes changes in image 
distortion across the face of the mirror. This helps reduce many of the 
reported instances of double vision, nausea, and dizziness.
    The second requirement specifies that a visible warning be marked 
on the mirror's reflective surface. Because the mirrors cause distance 
and speed distortion, i.e., the objects appear further away in the 
mirror, the agency felt that a warning should be placed in plain view 
to the vehicle operator. This is the rationale for the second 
requirement, that the mirrors be labeled with ``Objects in Mirror Are 
Closer Than They Appear.'' If the driver is aware of this label, the 
driver will be aware that this mirror is not a flat mirror, and 
hopefully not make a mistake in judgment.
    The third requirement, which specifies a minimum and maximum radii 
of curvature of the mirrors, is to ensure that the mirrors on different 
vehicles possess some level of uniformity. For example, if a person 
became accustomed to driving a vehicle with a passenger-side mirror 
radius of curvature of 2,500 mm, the same person might experience 
disorientation if he or she drove a vehicle with a passenger-side 
mirror radius of curvature of 500 mm. In Standard No. 111, the 
allowable range of radii of curvature of between 889 mm and 1,651 mm is 
based on a study performed by Vector Enterprises, Inc. (Vector) 
[``Passenger Vehicle, Light Truck, and Van Convex Mirror Optimization 
and Evaluation Studies,'' August 1980, DOT HS 805-695] in which a 
number of convex mirrors were evaluated. In this study, Vector found 
that a radius range of 1,016 mm to 1,524 mm provided the best results. 
The agency proposed this range in a 1978 notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) [43 FR 51657]. However, based on comments by manufacturers to 
the NPRM, the agency increased the range by 127 mm on each end.

Recent Innovations in Rearview Technology

Non-Planar Mirrors
    Since the last significant changes were made to Standard No. 111 in 
1982, there have been a number of innovations to rearview technology. 
The main innovation in mirror technology is the development of a hybrid 
mirror called an aspheric convex mirror (hereafter referred to as an 
``aspheric mirror''). Aspheric mirrors differ from the currently 
allowed convex mirrors in that they do not have a constant radius of 
curvature. Generally, these mirrors have a convex area with a large 
radius of curvature that provides a relatively undistorted view. 
Typically, this area constitutes approximately 60 to 80 percent of the 
mirror surface. In this portion of the mirror, the radius can be so 
large that it will appear to be flat (the radius of curvature of a flat 
mirror is infinity). The relatively flat portion of the mirror allows 
the driver to make more accurate speed and distance judgments about the 
adjacent vehicles than would be possible with a convex mirror. On 
mirrors currently being manufactured for the aftermarket and for use in 
other countries, the radius of curvature of this flatter area can range 
from 2,032 mm to 12,700 mm.
    Extending from the large radius of curvature portion of the mirror 
outward, away from the vehicle, is another area in which the radius of 
curvature gradually decreases. This portion increases the field of view 
by smoothly transitioning from the large radius of curvature in the 
relatively flat portion to a much smaller radius. Because of the 
variation in radii of curvature, the outside portion of the mirror is 
distorted much like that of a convex mirror. This is how the larger 
field of view is attained. With this larger field of view, there could 
be a reduction or even an elimination of the blind spots that currently 
exist when flat mirrors are used. The most convex (outer) area of the 
aspheric mirror can provide a field of view that is as much as 30 
percent larger than that of a similarly sized convex mirror with a 
uniform radius of curvature that satisfies the current standard.
    Because these mirrors essentially provide two different types of 
views to the rear of the vehicle, some aspheric mirrors have an etched 
line delineating where the portion of the mirror that is the 
effectively flatter section ends and the more curved section begins. 
This is done to reduce confusion about which images are distorted and 
which are less so.
Video Systems
    Due to the decrease in the cost of video monitoring equipment in 
recent years, manufacturers have begun to explore ways to incorporate 
this technology into motor vehicle rear vision systems. In these 
prototype systems, video cameras can be placed in almost any position 
on the interior or exterior of the vehicle. The cameras are wired to 
monitors in the forward of the vehicle so that they can be viewed by 
the driver. Because of the many possible mounting locations of the 
cameras, these systems can provide views to the driver that mirrors are 
not able to achieve.
    There are companies that have already begun to implement this 
technology. In addition to the mirror

[[Page 2995]]

system already required by the standard, some have provided video 
systems for an auxiliary rear view. The United Parcel Service (UPS) has 
installed video systems in approximately 65,000 of its delivery trucks. 
These systems provide the driver with a view of the area directly 
behind the vehicle and are generally used for backing purposes. The 
view is similar to that which is provided by an interior mirror in a 
passenger vehicle, but can afford a much larger field of view close to 
the vehicle.
    One of the benefits of eliminating exterior mirrors on vehicles 
would be in the area of fuel economy. Removing these mirrors would 
decrease the wind resistance on a vehicle and thus decrease the amount 
of fuel consumed. These benefits have been estimated to be as much as 
two percent fuel savings for large trucks.
    Another benefit of a video system is the ability to filter out or 
reduce visual obstructions or degradations caused by snow, rain, lack 
of light, or glare from following vehicles' headlamps. By adjusting a 
monitor's contrast, brightness, or sharpness, the image provided to the 
driver can be controlled. It is likely that these systems will be 
controlled by a computer that can detect these visual hindrances and 
automatically correct for them.

AM General's Petition

    In its September 2000 petition, AM General recommended that the 
agency amend Standard No. 111 to allow manufacturers the option of 
placing a convex passenger-side rearview mirror on light trucks with a 
GVWR of more than 4,536 kg, but with a length of less than 508 cm. 
Currently, these vehicles must have a flat passenger-side mirror with a 
reflective area of not less than 323 cm\2\. As stated above, light 
trucks with a GVWR 4,536 kg or less may be equipped with either a 
convex mirror or a flat mirror that meets passenger car requirements or 
a flat mirror with a reflective area of not less than 126 cm\2\. AM 
General proposed three conditions that these vehicles would have to 
meet to be equipped with a convex mirror: (1) The mirror should be at 
least 323 cm\2\ in area; (2) it should comply with the convex mirror 
requirements in Paragraph S5.4 of the standard; and (3) the overall 
length of the vehicle should be less than 508 cm.
    By petitioning the agency, AM General is attempting to solve a 
problem it has had with a specific vehicle it produces, the Hummer. The 
Hummer is a four-wheel-drive vehicle that, depending on the 
configuration, can have a GVWR of between 4,672 kg and 5,488 kg. 
Because the Hummer has a GVWR that is greater than 4,536 kg, it is 
required to have a flat passenger-side mirror with a reflective area of 
not less than 323 cm\2\. AM General states that a large majority of 
Hummer owners are installing small, round convex mirrors on their flat 
passenger-side mirrors to provide a better rearward field of view, 
particularly for lane changes. It has received numerous requests from 
these owners to install a full-sized convex mirror like those offered 
on similarly sized light trucks. The only explanation AM General has 
been able to provide to them is that Standard No. 111 does not allow 
such mirrors on these vehicles. Since the Hummer is essentially the 
same size as some other full size light trucks, AM General does not 
think it reasonable that it would be precluded from utilizing the same 
type of rearview mirrors as them. AM General believes that, although 
the vehicle owner's application of the small convex mirrors to the flat 
mirrors may provide some additional benefit, it is not the ultimate 
solution. A full size convex mirror would provide a larger field of 
view. In addition, the full size convex mirror would have less 
distortion, as small add-on convex mirrors, or spot mirrors, tend to 
have small radii of curvature.
    On July 26, 2000, AM General met with the agency to outline its 
concerns and to give agency staff the opportunity to drive the Hummer 
with two mirror configurations: a standard 323 cm\2\ flat mirror and a 
323 cm\2\ convex mirror. Three agency engineers examined the two mirror 
systems on the Hummer and two drove it with these systems. One engineer 
sat in the Hummer and assessed the fields of view of both mirrors 
without driving it. All three agreed that, when attempting a lane 
change to the right, the passenger-side convex mirror provided a better 
view of the rearward area when compared to the flat one. Because the 
interior rearview mirror did not provide an adequate rearward view, the 
driver would have to rely heavily on the outside mirrors. This 
increased the importance of having a wider field of view in the outside 
mirrors, even if it could cause greater distortion.
    AM General supports its petition by pointing out that in 1975, when 
Standard No. 111 was amended to require flat passenger-side mirrors on 
vehicles of over 4,536 kg GVWR, there were no vehicles in use that were 
comparable to the Hummer. In the rulemaking, the agency's rationale for 
requiring flat passenger-side mirrors was that a driver of a large 
vehicle needs an undistorted view when moving in reverse. Also, these 
larger vehicles did not typically have an interior flat mirror to aid 
in judging distance. In the final rule, the agency linked vehicle size 
to weight, stating that vehicles over 4,536 kg GVWR needed special 
mirror systems ``suited to their large size.'' Also, in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that preceded the 1975 final rule [39 FR 
15143], the agency stated that ``if the vehicle resembles a passenger 
car with regard to its rearward visibility potential, the manufacturer 
will be free to equip it with a passenger car-type mirror system.''
    AM General also cites the rationale that the agency used in the 
preamble to the 1982 final rule allowing convex mirrors on light 
vehicles, which indicated that the main safety benefit of these mirrors 
is that they provide ``an expanded field of view of the right, rear 
quadrant area adjacent to the vehicle, thus reducing the need of the 
driver to turn around to view that area directly.''
    AM General points out that, while the Hummer's overall size is 
comparable to other full size sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and 
pickups, its GVWR is considerably greater. To support this, AM General 
submitted specifications of other light trucks for comparison. These 
are outlined in the table below.

                       Comparative Specifications for Full Size SUVS and Pickups (1999 MY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Length       Height
                       Make and model                         GVWR  (kg)       (cm)         (cm)     Width  (cm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM General Hummer..........................................   4,672-5,488          469          191          220
Full Size SUVs:
    Ford Excursion.........................................         3,901          576          202          203
    Chevrolet Tahoe........................................         3,084          507          179          195
    Chevrolet Suburban.....................................         3,901          558          181          194
    Jeep Grand Cherokee....................................         2,812          461          176          184
    Nissan Pathfinder......................................         2,336          453          170          174

[[Page 2996]]

 
    Toyota Landcruiser.....................................         3,111          489          186          194
    Mitsubishi Montero.....................................         2,268          453          168          178
    Land Rover Range Rover.................................         2,250          471          182          189
                                                            ---------------
          Average..........................................         2,958          496          181          189
Full Size Pickups:
    Ford F-250 4-door......................................         3,992          577          194          203
    Dodge Ram 2500 Club Cab................................         3,992          620          185          201
    Chevy 3500 Crew Cab....................................         4,536          637          188          239
    Toyota Tacoma Xtracab..................................         2,040          516          158          169
                                                            ---------------
          Average..........................................         3,640          588          181          203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average GVWR of SUVs was 2,958 kg, with the Ford Excursion and 
Chevrolet Suburban being the highest. Both had a GVWR of 3,901 kg. The 
average GVWR of pickups was 3,640 kg, with the Chevrolet 3500 Crew Cab 
(with dual rear wheels) being the highest at 4,536 kg. The Hummer's 
greater GVWR is said to be attributable to heavy-duty features such as 
its drive train and its reinforced frame. While the GVWR of the Hummer 
is significantly greater than many full size SUVs and pickups, it is 
comparable in size.
    AM General stated that it is not aware of any studies or data 
available in either this country or any other countries that suggest 
that its recommended amendment would adversely impact motor vehicle 
safety. It also states that several countries already have similar 
requirements. ECE Regulation No. 46, June 1997, permits a wide-angle 
exterior rearview mirror on vehicles with a GVWR that is less than 
7,500 kg. Canadian Standard No. 111 allows vehicles with a GVWR of 
greater than 4,536 kg to have a passenger-side convex mirror as long as 
it is at least 323 cm \2\ in area. Australian Design Rule 14/02 allows 
vehicles to have a passenger-side convex mirror if the reflective 
surface area is equal or greater than that of a flat mirror that meets 
its field of view requirements.

Mirror Research

    On March 13, 1996, the agency convened a public meeting in Romulus, 
Michigan, to seek information from interested parties on the safety of 
mirror systems and suggestions for actions to enhance safety. A Federal 
Register notice announcing this meeting [61 FR 4624] also invited 
written comments. Of the 12 commenters, all stated that there should be 
a change in the requirements of Standard No. 111, or at least research 
should be conducted to determine if a change is needed. Attendees at 
the workshop also identified future human factors research needed for 
determining rearview mirror performance and design requirements that 
would insure that drivers could use rearview mirrors safely and 
effectively. These suggestions are outlined in a technical report 
titled ``Workshop on Rearview Mirror Human Factors Research Needs: 
Summary of Recommendations,'' [DOT HS 808 486]. The main thrust of the 
comments was that the agency should consider amending the standard to 
allow non-planar mirrors on the driver side of the vehicle. These 
mirrors are currently used on the driver side of some vehicles in 
Europe, Japan, and South Africa.
    Consistent with these suggestions from the industry, the agency 
initiated research on non-planar driver side mirrors. The agency 
contracted with the TNO Human Factors Research Institute (TNO) in the 
Netherlands to conduct this research. The resulting paper, titled 
``Non-planar Driver's Side Rearview Mirrors: A Survey of Mirror Types 
and European Driver Experience and a Driver Behavior Study on the 
Influence of Experience and Driver Age on Gap Acceptance and Vehicle 
Detection,'' [DOT HS 809 149] examined European drivers' use of non-
planar driver side mirrors. The study was conducted on European drivers 
because only flat driver side mirrors are permitted in the U.S. The 
sample of vehicles in the study consisted of 43 percent with planar 
driver side mirrors, 34 percent with convex mirrors, and 23 percent 
with aspherical mirrors. The passenger-side mirrors were predominantly 
convex (92 percent). The study found that drivers' experience with 
aspheric mirrors on the driver's side did not generally compensate for 
the negative effect of accepting smaller gaps, with the exception of 
drivers who were accustomed to convex mirrors on the driver's side. In 
addition, there was no increase in the visual workload required to 
process information in non-planar mirrors. The conclusion was that the 
relative benefits of using aspheric mirrors on the driver's side could 
outweigh the possible negative effects.
    The agency contracted with the Scientex Corporation (Scientex) to 
assess different driver side mirror designs and compare them to the 
standard flat mirror. The report, titled ``Simulator-based Assessment 
of Driver side Mirrors for Passenger Cars,'' [DOT HS 808 807] examined 
four non-planar mirrors: (1) Spherically convex, (2) a side-by-side 
design where 40 percent of the inboard area was spherically convex and 
the remaining outboard area was aspherically convex, (3) an over-under 
design that was flat on top and spherically convex below; and, (4) a 
side-by-side design where 75 percent of the inboard area was 
spherically convex and the remained outboard area was aspherical. The 
primary study variables were the size of the field of view, image 
distortion, and driver age. The test subjects were placed in a 
laboratory driving simulator and asked to use each mirror type from the 
perspective of a stationary observer waiting to merge. The subjects 
were also to use the mirrors as moving observers in a dynamic 
simulation of a lane change scenario on a freeway. The study found 
significant effects of mirror type and driver age on lane change 
decisions and decision times. For slower moving targets, the test data 
revealed a sharp increase in the size of the gap older drivers found 
acceptable for making a safe lane change when using a flat mirror, 
relative to the non-planar mirrors. For the faster moving targets, 
there was only a small increase in the size of the gap older drivers 
found acceptable for a safe lane change when using a flat mirror, 
relative to the non-planar mirrors. Also, the older drivers generally 
relied on the mirrors more rather than glancing over their shoulders. 
Scientex believed that this was due to lack of head and neck mobility. 
Moreover, it showed that there

[[Page 2997]]

are benefits to alternative mirrors with expanded fields of view in 
situations involving immediately adjacent traffic that was nearby (less 
than one car length behind the driver) when the driver does turn to 
view the area. Scientex did, however, find some unanswered questions on 
the effects of speed and distance judgment. Also, it found a need to 
better understand of the ability of drivers to adjust to non-planar 
mirrors, and realize their potential benefits.

Discussion of AM General Petition and General Mirror Issues

    While the agency agrees that it seems reasonable to allow the 
Hummer to be equipped with a convex mirror, we believe that it would be 
shortsighted only to amend Standard No. 111 in the manner requested by 
AM General. Amending the standard to allow the one known current 
vehicle model to utilize one widely-available type of technology would 
have little effect on the overall safety of motor vehicles five years 
from now. Rather than only allowing the Hummer to have passenger-side 
convex mirrors, the agency would like to take this opportunity to also 
explore amending the standard to allow appropriate new mirror and other 
rearview technology to be utilized by all vehicles. By amending the 
standard in this manner, not only will AM General be able to equip its 
Hummers with what it believes are safer mirrors, but new mirror 
technology will be able to be incorporated on all passenger vehicles.
    Research conducted by the agency and other entities, which is 
outlined above, has led the agency to believe that allowing non-planar 
mirrors on the driver and passenger side would provide an increased 
field of view and, thus, eliminate blind spots. Other countries, mostly 
in Europe, have successfully utilized new technology such as aspheric 
mirrors to enhance rearward vision.
    However, while allowing the use of new mirror technology may be 
helpful, we are concerned that some drivers may experience 
difficulties. As the aforementioned TNO and Scientex studies found, 
there are issues with non-planar mirrors that need to be addressed. 
Both studies found that some drivers had difficulty making safe lane 
change decisions using non-planar mirrors. Scientex has recommended 
that this area be further studied to determine why these problems 
occur.
    One way to account for the drivers who experience problems with the 
new technology is to include some level of interchangeability. For 
example, if a driver purchases a vehicle with an aspheric mirror and 
then determines that it is unacceptable, a flat or convex mirror would 
be available to put in its place. If the driver could not easily 
replace the problematic mirror, there might be a tendency for him or 
her to simply live with the problem and perhaps not utilize the mirror. 
Drivers forced to use mirror systems with which they are not 
comfortable would obviously not benefit from the improved technology; 
on the contrary, there would be a disbenefit. Not using a mirror could 
increase the risk of a crash.
    An issue that needs to be resolved is how large the radius of 
curvature of a mirror must be to be perceived as flat. The agency 
believes that drivers using convex mirrors with a radius of curvature 
in the 6,350 mm to 12,700 mm range would experience little to no 
difference when compared to using one that is flat. Future research in 
this area could lead to an equivalent flatness specification that would 
set the minimum radius of curvature at which a mirror provides the same 
safety benefits as a mirror with an infinite radius of curvature.
    As the standard is presently written, an aspheric mirror with a 
flat area of infinite radius that produced the minimum field of view 
would be allowed. The outer convex area could be considered a 
supplemental mirror. However, due to technological limitations, this is 
not currently possible. As stated above, we understand that the largest 
attainable radius of curvature for an aspheric mirror is about 12,700 
mm. If an equivalent flatness specification was determined, perhaps the 
advantages of aspheric mirrors could be fully utilized while 
maintaining a large portion of the mirror for speed and distance 
judgment.
    Regarding the cost of such an amendment, allowing an option to 
replace a flat mirror with a convex mirror should pose no incremental 
burden since no regulatory requirement mandating a convex mirror is 
contemplated.
    Another issue the agency has been exploring is that of glare 
produced in a vehicle's mirrors from a following vehicle's headlamps. 
In the past few years, consumers have registered many complaints with 
the agency about high-mounted headlamps on some larger light trucks. 
The headlamps on these vehicles are mounted high enough to place the 
more intense part of their low beam on a vehicle's mirrors. These high-
mounted headlamps are viewed by many drivers as dangerous and 
intimidating, in addition to being annoying and disabling.
    One approach to this problem is to require enhanced mirrors on 
vehicles. Automatic electro-mechanical dimming interior mirrors have 
been available for decades as standard equipment on luxury models and 
as an option in many vehicles. More recently, the industry has 
developed electronically dimming mirrors, typically called photochromic 
and liquid crystal automatic dimming mirrors. The advantage of these 
mirrors is that they reduce the intensities of incoming light at least 
as well as manual or electro-mechanical auto-dimming interior mirrors, 
but they also reduce glare reflected from the outside mirrors as well. 
The primary disadvantages are that these mirrors can add $100 or more 
to the cost of a new vehicle and they can lessen only the glare from 
following vehicles. There are questions below which attempt to 
determine whether there should be requirements for such systems.
    Below are a number of questions that deal specifically with AM 
General's petition as well as with the overall philosophy of amending 
Standard No. 111 to allow new technology to be utilized. To be 
considered, you must provide a rationale for your answer.
    1. Is it reasonable for the agency to permit vehicles like the 
Hummer to use passenger-side convex mirrors? What are the safety 
factors that lead to this conclusion?
    2. For use of a passenger-side convex mirror on a vehicle that is 
heavier than 4,536 kg GVWR like the Hummer, should there be a limit of 
508 cm on the length of a vehicle as AM General suggested? Is some 
other maximum vehicle length more appropriate? Should there be 
requirements based on vehicle height and/or width? What safety factors 
are involved in these issues?
    3. Should Standard No. 111 be amended to permit aspheric mirrors on 
the passenger side and/or aspheric and convex mirrors on the driver 
side? What safety rationale is there for such conclusions? At what 
vehicle dimensions, if any, (length, width, height, and weight) should 
these mirrors be restricted?
    4. If aspheric mirrors were permitted, should a definition of 
effective flatness be developed? As discussed above, the flatter area 
of an aspheric mirror that provides the speed and distance judgment is 
not perfectly flat, but the radius of curvature is usually large enough 
such that a driver would perceive the area as being flat.
    5. At what radius of curvature does the human eye begin to perceive 
a mirror as flat? At what radius of curvature do depth and closure rate 
distortion begin to be a safety factor?

[[Page 2998]]

    6. Should the effectively flat portion of the aspheric mirror be 
some minimum size, as is required of flat mirrors?
    7. Should the agency require an etched line on aspheric mirrors to 
delineate where the intersection of the flat portion of the mirror and 
the markedly curved portion begins? Why?
    8. Should the radius of curvature in the more convex portion of 
aspheric mirrors be limited? What is a reasonable range of allowable 
radii of curvature? Should the size of this section be limited? What is 
a reasonable minimum/maximum size for this portion of the mirror? To 
what extent would allowing multiple types of mirrors compromise safety? 
How could these effects be minimized? Please provide the basis for 
these answers.
    9. Should the proportion of the size of the effectively flat area 
to the curved area be specified on aspheric mirrors? Should there be 
separate field of view requirements for each of the areas? Why?
    10. We are aware of the use of aspheric mirrors on vehicles used in 
Europe and are interested in examining the criteria used for 
determining their specific characteristics. How much do these mirrors 
vary within the same or different body sizes and styles? Is there any 
data on the safety benefits and/or detriments of these mirrors as used 
in Europe? Please be specific.
    11. Should all vehicles with mirror systems using aspheric mirrors 
on the passenger side and aspheric or convex on the driver side have as 
a replacement, a flat or convex reflective element that is readily 
available for consumers to purchase? Should consumers be required to 
pay for such a replacement, or should they be available at no charge? 
How would the answers to these questions affect the decision by 
manufacturers to offer optional mirror systems?
    12. Convex and aspheric mirrors can achieve a larger field of view 
than a like-sized flat mirror. Therefore, with a system that provides 
interchangeability, the convex and aspheric mirrors will most likely 
need to be made larger than would be required to accommodate the 
possibility of replacing with a flat mirror. How would this affect the 
implementation of optional mirror systems? What would be the cost of 
supplying interchangeability?
    13. Should aspheric or convex mirrors be made mandatory on the 
driver or passenger side? Please provide justification.
    14. Does the agency need to require interior and/or exterior 
dimming mirrors? Why?
    15. If dimming mirrors are required, should they be automatic or 
actuated by the driver?
    16. What price is the public willing to pay for fully automatic 
inside and outside dimming mirrors on passenger cars? What are they 
willing to pay for these mirrors on light trucks?
    17. What are the benefits and disbenefits of mirror configurations 
that include more than one mirror surface? An agency field evaluation 
of commercial van mirrors ['Field Evaluation of Rearview Mirror Systems 
for Commercial Vehicles,'' September 1985, DOT HS 806-948] found that 
vehicles equipped with a 40-inch radius of curvature convex mirror had 
an 18 percent reduction in crashes compared to a dual flat and convex 
mirror configuration.
    18. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in the 
review of the standard? Please be specific and provide supporting data.

Discussion of Video System Issues

    While video systems can be coupled with existing mirrors to create 
an enhanced view to the driver, it is possible that these systems could 
completely replace current mirror systems in vehicles. This could 
present some unique problems. First, unlike mirror systems, video 
systems consist of electronic equipment that rely on electrical current 
for activation. If the system fails due to a fault with the electronic 
components or a lack of power, the driver could be without a rear field 
of view. The agency is concerned that, if there is not a fail-safe mode 
for these systems, an unsafe situation could occur. The agency has 
already prohibited liquid crystal dimmable mirrors because of the 
insurmountable fail-safe issues.
    Replacing mirrors on the outside of the vehicle with video screens 
on the inside of the vehicle would be a significant change in the 
manner by which drivers currently obtain the information. Drivers have 
become used to conventional mirrors, and some could have problems 
relying on a video screen for the same information. These possible 
difficulties could be exacerbated by the placement of the monitors. For 
example, if the monitors were placed outboard as close to the area 
where the outside rearview mirrors would be, drivers might not 
experience many problems with the transition. By placing them near the 
area where conventional mirrors are placed, the geometrical perspective 
to the object being viewed that is given by the mirrors would be 
preserved. However, if the monitors were more centrally located on the 
instrument panel, the lack of geometric perspective could leave drivers 
confused as to the relationship of what they are seeing in the monitor 
to the area around their vehicle. The agency believes that 
manufacturers are currently attempting to determine how to insure that 
video systems are easy to use and acceptable to drivers.
    As with the optional mirror systems discussed above, allowing the 
use of video systems would provide an option to manufacturers, and, 
thus, there would be no cost burden imposed by such a permissive rule 
change.
    Below are questions related to the use of video systems for rear 
vision. To be considered, you must provide a rationale for your 
answers.
    1. Under what condition, if any, would any failure of a video 
system be considered acceptable? Why?
    2. Given the prohibition of liquid crystal mirrors because of the 
potential for electrical failure, is there any reason to consider video 
systems? If so, explain why these would be at least as reliable as a 
conventional glass mirror.
    3. Are there any safety studies available on video systems that 
would show that their overall safety would be great enough to offset 
any loss of safety from a failure?
    4. What are the long-term safety consequences of failure to replace 
a failed video system component because of the high cost and/or lack of 
availability? What additional requirements should be imposed on these 
optional systems to assure that replacement of failed components is as 
likely as replacement of today's mirrors?
    5. If a video system failure were deemed to be an acceptable risk, 
should the agency require these systems to provide a 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.
    6. Should there be a backup system in case of failure? If so, 
please provide a description of a possible system and why it would 
achieve an acceptable safety risk. If not, please explain why.
    7. Should the location for the video monitors be specified? It is 
the agency's initial inclination that they should be placed as close as 
possible to where currently used mirrors are located. What studies have 
been done to show that any other location is acceptable?
    8. If the monitors were placed in an area away from where typical 
mirrors are mounted, how well would drivers adapt to the new location?
    9. Should the agency conduct human factors analysis to examine the 
interface

[[Page 2999]]

between the video screen and drivers? If so, what factors should be 
studied?
    10. For example, what minimum image size should be specified for 
systems using a video monitor? Should that size be different for 
different monitor locations?
    11. Should the monitor on these systems be color or black and 
white? Why?
    12. What type of control over the image characteristics should the 
driver have with these monitors? Should they be able to control 
contrast, brightness, sharpness, image size, magnification, or some 
other characteristic?
    13. What would be the cost of installing a video system in a 
passenger vehicle to be used specifically for backing operations, 
similar to the system used in recent Infiniti Q45 models?
    14. The agency has been examining methods for reducing reversing 
crashes. Video systems are one of the methods some users and 
manufacturers, such as UPS and Infiniti, have used to accomplish this. 
Should manufacturers choose to use a video system for the side view 
area, what would be the cost of adding a system to be used specifically 
for backing?

Discussion of Ms. Sanford's Petition

    In her September 1999 petition, Ms. Sanford asked us to amend 
Standard No. 111 to require that all ``commercial trucks traveling on 
the interstate highway system'' have convex mirrors mounted on their 
front right and left fenders. She claims that when convex mirrors are 
mounted on the front fenders, they eliminate a blind spot that is 
caused by the driver's elevated position with respect to most passenger 
cars. They are also helpful for lane changes. Ms. Sanford was involved 
in a crash with a heavy truck and she believes the incident could have 
been avoided had the truck been equipped with these fender-mounted 
convex mirrors.
    The heavy trucking industry is currently using these types of 
mirrors extensively. Rulemaking staff conducted two informal counts of 
the number of trucks that use these mirrors. The two counts were done 
on Interstate 95 between Washington, DC to Philadelphia, PA. It was 
found that approximately two-thirds of the large trucks (excluding cab 
over designs) were equipped with the mirrors on just the right front 
fender. Approximately 50 percent had them on both front fenders. 
Although these counts cannot provide information about the value of 
these mirrors, it does show that a large portion of the trucking 
industry sees value in them.
    Prior to the Sanford petition, the agency had decided to conduct 
research on heavy truck mirror systems, including fender-mounted 
mirrors. The objective of the study is to assess side and rearward 
visibility of heavy trucks, document current mirror design and aiming, 
develop a method to evaluate mirror fields of view, and recommend 
enhanced mirror design and aiming. The study should be completed by the 
Fall of 2003.
    Below are questions related to Ms. Sanford's petition:
    1. What percentage of new trucks is sold with these types of 
mirrors on their front fenders? What is the volume of these types of 
mirrors that are sold in the aftermarket?
    2. What percentage of trucks have the mirrors mounted on just the 
right or left fender? What percentage has them on both fenders?
    3. Do data exist to show the effectiveness of these mirrors in 
reducing lane change crashes?
    4. Because a portion of the national truck fleet already uses these 
types of mirrors, what would be the cost burden to the industry if one 
or two mirrors were required?
    5. If determined to be necessary for safety, the agency would need 
to determine whether to require these as just OEM or also as a 
requirement for vehicles in use. What would be the cost and lead-time 
necessary for these?
    6. What performance specifications, e.g., field of view, vehicle 
dimensions, mirror dimensions, mounting, labeling, should be 
established for these mirrors, if any?
    7. What truck configuration(s) would be best suited for this type 
of mirror system?

References

de Vos, Alexander. September 2000. Non-planar Driver's Side Rearview 
Mirrors: A Survey of Mirror Types and European Driver Experience and a 
Driver Behavior Study on the Influence of Experience and Driver Age on 
Gap Acceptance and Vehicle Detection. Report No. DOT HS 809 149.
Flannagan, Michael, J.; Sivak, Michael. August 1996. Workshop on 
Rearview Mirror Human Factors Research Needs: Summary of 
Recommendations. Report No. DOT HS 808 486.
Staplin, Loren; Lococo, Kathy, Sim, James J., Gish, Kenneth. October 
1998. Simulator-based Assessment of Driver side Mirrors for Passenger 
Cars. Report No. DOT HS 808 807.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This request for comment was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The agency has analyzed the 
impact of this request for comment and determined that it is not 
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency 
anticipates if a proposal and ultimately a final rule should result 
from this request for comment, new requirements would not be imposed on 
manufacturers with respect to currently regulated systems. The request 
for comment seeks to determine the ramifications of allowing new 
optional rearview technology on motor vehicles.

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, 
under ADDRESSES.

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.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information that you do not want to be 
made public, under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three 
copies of your complete submission to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
address given at the beginning of this document under For Further 
Information Contact. This submission must include the information that 
you are claiming to be private, that is, confidential business 
information. In addition, you should

[[Page 3000]]

submit two copies from which you have deleted the private information, 
to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this 
document under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing 
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should 
include a cover letter that provides the information specified in our 
confidential business information regulation, 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 at 
the beginning of this notice 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 in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we 
will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future 
rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address and times given near the beginning of this document under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also see the 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 heading of this document. 
Example: if the docket number were ``NHTSA-2000-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.''
    (4) After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the 
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see.
    You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of the word processing documents, the ``pdf'' 
versions of the documents are 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. Further, some people 
may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you 
periodically search the Docket for new material.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: January 16, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-1353 Filed 1-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P