Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors, 53753-53772 [05-17987]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53753-53772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-19239]
RIN 2127-AG41


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for rulemaking, this document 
proposes to require straight trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of between 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kilograms 
(26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a rear object detection system. The 
purpose of the proposed requirement is to alert drivers to persons and 
objects directly behind the vehicle, thereby reducing backing-related 
deaths and injuries. This notice proposes two compliance options. 
Vehicle manufacturers could satisfy the proposed requirement either by 
installing a mirror system or rear video system that would make the 
area to the rear of the vehicle visible to the driver. The notice also 
asks a series of questions to help the agency determine whether the 
proposed requirements should be extended to vehicles in other weight 
classes and whether existing straight trucks engaged in interstate 
commerce should be retrofitted to meet the proposed requirements, as 
part of a future rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
above by any of the following methods:
     Web site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC., between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or

[[Page 53754]]

comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Dr. Keith Brewer, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-121), NHTSA, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-5280) 
(FAX: 202-366-4329).
    For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Eric Stas, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 
(Telephone: 202-366-2992) (FAX: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Petition for Rulemaking
    B. Request for Comments
    C. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
    D. Comments on the ANPRM
III. Size of the Safety Problem
    A. Number of Injuries and Fatalities
    B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Crashes
    C. Other Data and Summary
IV. Agency Proposal
    A. Summary of Proposal
    B. Compliance Options
    1. Cross-View Mirrors
    2. Rear Video Systems
    C. Applicability
    D. Non-Visual Systems
    E. Retrofitting of Existing Commercial Vehicles
    F. FMCSA Issues Related to Retrofit and Preemption
    G. Effective Date
V. Benefits
VI. Costs
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notice

I. Executive Summary

    In response to a petition for rulemaking, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to amend Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to 
require a rear object detection system on straight trucks \1\ with a 
GVWR of between 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg 
(26,000 pounds). Most of these vehicles have a significant blind spot 
in the rear. The purpose of the proposed requirement is to provide a 
uniform standard that would alert drivers of persons and objects 
directly behind the vehicle and to thereby reduce backing-related 
deaths and injuries. Children, the elderly, and persons with impaired 
senses are target populations of particular concern in backing-related 
incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``straight truck'' is a single-unit truck composed of an 
undetachable cab and body. Body types routinely incorporated as part 
of straight trucks include an enclosed box, flat bed, dump bed, bulk 
container, or special purpose equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is proposing a regulation at this time for a number of 
reasons. First, agency research has demonstrated that straight trucks 
have a disproportionately higher back-up fatality rate than other 
vehicle types. Research indicates that backing straight trucks annually 
cause at least 79 fatalities (both on-road and off-road) and 148 
injuries. The incidence rate for straight truck backing fatalities is 
21.89 per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled and 29.68 per million 
registered vehicles, figures 8 to 17 times greater than for passenger 
vehicles.
    Second, technologies currently exist that could make a substantial 
area directly behind such trucks visible to the driver. Elimination of 
this blind spot could significantly mitigate the backing problem 
associated with these vehicles. Further, because individual States have 
begun to regulate in this area, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to 
develop a uniform set of requirements for rear object detection.
    In developing a proposed performance standard for rear object 
detection, NHTSA carefully considered a range of technologies. NHTSA 
examined both visual systems (e.g., cross-view mirrors and video 
cameras) and non-visual systems (e.g., sonar/infrared devices and 
audible back-up alarms) in order to evaluate their efficacy in 
preventing backing-related injuries and fatalities.
    We believe primary responsibility for object detection should be 
placed upon the driver, such that the driver has visible confirmation 
that the pathway is clear before backing; non-visual systems, by their 
nature, cannot provide such confirmation. Consequently, we are 
proposing two compliance options that would provide a visual image to 
the driver of a 3 meter (m) by 3 m area immediately behind the vehicle. 
We propose that the following requirements would become effective for 
covered vehicles that are manufactured one year after publication of a 
final rule.

Option 1: Cross-View Mirrors

    Under the first proposed compliance option, a cross-view mirror 
system would be required. A cross-view mirror is typically a convex 
mirror mounted on the driver's side, upper rear corner of a vehicle 
that is used in conjunction with the driver's side exterior rearview 
mirror to view the area directly behind a vehicle.
    The cross-view mirror would be required to: (1) Have no 
discontinuities in the slope of its surface; (2) be adjustable both in 
the horizontal and vertical directions; (3) be installed on stable 
supports on the upper rear corner of the driver's side of the vehicle; 
(4) have an average radius of curvature of no less than 203 millimeters 
(mm), and (5) be placed such that the geometric centers of the two 
mirrors would be separated by no more than 5 m.
    We also are proposing test requirements to ensure that the mirror 
system provides a detection zone that would permit the driver to survey 
the area behind the vehicle for obstacles before backing. The proposed 
test requirements would be similar in nature to the school bus mirror 
test requirements of FMVSS No. 111, which utilize a number of cylinders 
to simulate objects that would be difficult or impossible to see 
without the aid of mirrors.

Option 2: Rear Video Systems

    Under the second proposed compliance option, a rear video system 
would be required that provides the same 3 m by 3 m field of view as in 
Option 1. To maximize its effectiveness, the system's monitor would be 
required to be mounted as close to the centerline of the vehicle as 
practicable near the top of the windshield and have an image size of 
between 90 cm\2\ and 160 cm\2\. The video camera would be required to 
be adjustable so that it may tilt in both the horizontal and vertical 
directions, for aiming purposes, and the video monitor similarly would 
be required to be adjustable so as to accommodate drivers of different 
statures.
    The proposed test procedures, designed to ensure compliance with 
the rear video system's detection zone requirement, would be 
essentially the same as those for the cross-view mirrors compliance 
option.
    Although we do not believe that non-visual systems alone would 
achieve our safety objectives related to rear object detection, we 
intend neither to require nor to prohibit the voluntary installation of 
such systems by manufacturers.
    Finally, although we are not proposing to do so at this time, NHTSA 
is requesting comments as to whether, in the interests of safety, the 
proposed requirements should be extended to vehicles in other weight 
classes and whether existing commercial vehicles in the designated 
weight class should be required to be retrofitted with rear object 
detection systems that would comply with the new standard.
    The agency estimates that requiring a visual rear detection system 
would

[[Page 53755]]

result annually in a net reduction of 23 fatalities, 43 injuries, and 
an estimated $32 million in property damage savings (present discounted 
value). The associated cost burden is estimated to be approximately $77 
million annually (in 2004 economics).

II. Background

A. Petition for Rulemaking

    In March 1995, Mr. Dee Norton submitted a petition for rulemaking 
to the agency seeking to amend FMVSS No. 111 to require convex, cross-
view mirrors on the rear of the cargo box of stepvans and walk-in style 
delivery and service trucks. The petition was intended to prevent 
future tragedies similar to one that befell Mr. Norton's grandson, who 
was killed when he was struck and backed over by a delivery truck in an 
apartment complex parking lot because the driver was unable to see the 
area directly behind the vehicle in its side-mounted rearview mirrors.
    In determining whether to grant the petition and deciding how to 
substantively respond, NHTSA decided to solicit comment from the 
public. To this end, NHTSA issued a request for comments, which was 
later followed by an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

B. Request for Comments

    NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register on June 17, 1996, 
seeking information on cross-view mirrors and other alternative rear 
object detection systems (61 FR 30586).\2\ We received six comments in 
response to that notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This Request for Comments and the comments subsequently 
received are available in hard copy in Docket No. NHTSA-96-53. 
However, for ease of reference, the Request for Comments also has 
been included in the electronic docket for the present rulemaking 
(Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters described a variety of available rear object detection 
devices, including both visual and non-visual systems. Visual systems 
include not only cross-view mirrors, but also video cameras mounted on 
the rear of the vehicle that are connected to a monitor in the occupant 
compartment. Existing non-visual systems include ultrasound, radar, 
microwave, and infrared sensor mechanisms, which detect an object and 
provide an auditory signal to the driver that an obstruction is behind 
the vehicle, as well as audible alarms that sound whenever a vehicle is 
backing. These comments provided initial insights that helped NHTSA to 
direct the course of the rulemaking process.

C. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    NHTSA issued an ANPRM on November 27, 2000, to gather further data 
on key issues related to rear object detection (65 FR 70681).\3\ In 
addition to a request for general comments, the ANPRM posed twenty 
specific questions for public input, which were broken down into four 
main categories: (1) Questions concerning rear cross-view mirrors; (2) 
questions concerning rear video systems; (3) questions concerning other 
rear object detection systems, and (4) other questions. Generally, the 
cross-view mirror questions concerned the size, design, and placement 
of mirrors, the size of the detection area behind the vehicle, the use 
and capabilities of exterior, audible back-up alarms (as an alternative 
to mirrors), and test procedures. The rear video systems questions 
sought input regarding image size, display color, screen size and 
location, need for a system failure alert, possible conflicts with 
State laws against video screens/monitors in view of the driver, and 
test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The questions pertaining to other rear object detection systems 
asked about the capabilities and limitations of these non-visual 
systems, including efforts to increase the range of sensors so that 
they are effective at higher backing speeds. These questions also 
raised the issue of how to craft test procedures that would ensure the 
accuracy and reliability of non-visual systems under a variety of 
environmental conditions. The ``other'' category of questions asked 
whether manufacturers who have installed rear visibility systems have 
experienced significant property damage prevention benefits, whether 
this area should be regulated by the Federal government or the States, 
whether and how subcategories of vehicles should be defined, and 
whether existing commercial trucks in the applicable weight range 
should be required to be retrofitted with rear object detection 
systems.

D. Comments on the ANPRM

    NHTSA received fourteen comments in response to the ANPRM, 
including submissions from trade associations, automobile and rear 
object detection system manufacturers, fleet operators, organized 
labor, a State agency, and individuals.\4\ In addition to responding to 
the questions posed in the ANPRM, commenters also raised a variety of 
issues, including scope of the regulatory requirement, potential 
exclusions, alternatives to regulation, maintenance and training 
requirements, and preemption. The following discussion summarizes the 
comments received on the ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Comments were received from: (1) The National Private Truck 
Council (NPTC); (2) the American Trucking Associations (ATA); (3) 
the Towing and Recovery Association of America (TRAA); (4) the 
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA); (5) Ford Motor Company 
(Ford); (6) Sheffield Partners LLC (Sheffield); (7) Rostra Precision 
Controls, Inc. (Rostra); (8) Reliant Energy (Reliant); (9) ABC 
Supply Co., Inc. (ABC); (10) Federal Express Corporation (FedEx); 
(11) the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters); (12) 
the New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT); (13) the Nevada 
Automotive Test Center (NATC); and (14) Ronald G. Silc. These 
comments can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope and Exclusions
    NHTSA received a range of views regarding the scope of a regulation 
for rear object detection systems. Several commenters advocated 
narrowing coverage due to purported unsuitability of or lack of 
necessity for such systems on certain vehicles. For example, ATA stated 
that a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach would not be successful, because 
there is too much diversity in equipment and operations. NTEA stated 
that the rear object detection standard should only apply to ``standard 
type vehicles.''
    Commenters also offered numerous suggestions for vehicles which 
they believe should be excluded from the requirements of an amended 
standard, including tow trucks, car carriers, flat beds, stake trucks, 
dump trucks, tradesmen's and mechanic's bodies, platform bodies, tank 
trucks, any vehicle equipped with a crane or aerial device operating in 
a rotational manner, and other special units.
    Other commenters, such as NYDOT, urged NHTSA to expand coverage of 
the standard to include lighter vehicles commonly used in residential 
deliveries (e.g., trucks with a GVWR of 6,500 lbs. to 16,000 lbs.). 
NATC suggested that other vehicles with large blind spots (e.g., 
windowless vans and light trucks with campers or canopy shells) may 
also be suitable for coverage under a revised FMVSS No. 111. These 
recommended changes could bring some passenger vehicles within the 
ambit of the rule. NYDOT suggested consideration of a phase-in period 
to permit earlier implementation of requirements for trucks that can 
readily be equipped with existing technology.
    In response to the questions about retrofitting, commenters 
expressed divergent views. NYDOT urged NHTSA to take the lead on 
retrofitting of existing vehicles so that there would not be a 
patchwork of remedial activities by the 50 States. Others, such as ABC,

[[Page 53756]]

opposed retrofitting, stating that retrofitting its entire fleet would 
be a ``very lengthy and costly operation.''
Rearview Mirrors
    Regarding rearview mirrors, the commenters generally agreed with 
NHTSA's tentative determination that cross-view mirrors should be 
placed no more than 5 meters (approximately 16 feet) from the driver's 
side rear view mirror, as the image size arguably becomes too small 
beyond this distance to be useful to the driver. However, ATA urged 
greater clarity in how NHTSA would measure the distance between the two 
mirrors.
    Commenters also discussed the issue of trucks that are particularly 
long or high, thereby posing greater challenges in terms of rear object 
detection. For example, FedEx expressed concerns about situations where 
the height of a truck is so great that a top-mounted cross-view mirror 
is not visible in the side mirror. NYDOT stated that some trucks 
approaching 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds) may exceed the length where it 
would be feasible to use a cross-view mirror system, but it urged the 
agency to maintain some alternative rear object detection requirement 
for such vehicles.
    In the ANPRM, we requested comments on whether a 3 m by 3 m 
detection area behind a vehicle would be adequate. Some commenters 
suggested alternative detection zones that would be either larger or 
asymmetrical, but they did not provide a strong rationale or data to 
support their position. However, ATA and Ford suggested that NHTSA's 
estimation of the backing speed used to calculate the detection zone 
(i.e., 3 mph) underestimates actual backing speeds. These organizations 
stated that a reasonable estimate of backing speeds could be in the 5 
mph to 8 mph range.
Rear Video Systems
    Commenters likewise expressed a range of views on rear video 
systems. Some commenters, such as ABC, expressed concern about the 
expense of this technology. Other commenters, such as the Teamsters, 
specifically requested that NHTSA adopt a performance standard that 
would permit use of video systems.
    Reliant argued that the presence of a video camera may encourage 
theft (presumably of the camera), but NATC made the argument that video 
cameras and rear mirrors may deter theft of items from the back of the 
vehicle when stopped.
    In terms of the image presented by a rear video system, commenters 
suggested that an acceptable size for a screen may be as small as 3.8 
cm (1.5 inches) on the diagonal and as large as 25.4 cm (10 inches) on 
the diagonal. NATC stated that the size of the screen needed will 
depend upon the placement of the monitor relative to the driver's 
seating position. Reliant expressed concern about placing a video 
monitor in a truck's ``already full'' cab.
    Varying views were expressed regarding screen color for rear video 
monitors. Mr. Silc stated that military-green monitors are more 
efficient than black-and-white monitors and that they provide three-
times better contrast to the human eye and greater visibility. However, 
NATC reasoned that a black-and-white screen would be sufficient, 
because color would be lost in strong daylight and a black-and-white 
screen's contrast would be helpful in distinguishing objects and 
movement.
    Regarding placement for the video screen, one suggestion was to 
have the monitor in a location similar to a car's rearview mirror, 
where the driver's eyes can constantly be glancing at it. NATC urged 
NHTSA to conduct human factors analysis to determine the optimal 
placement of the monitor in the truck cab.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that NHTSA has defined and is conducting an 
innovative, detailed human factors analysis to understand driver 
requirements for indirect viewing surfaces in the cabs of heavy 
trucks. Related static and dynamic testing was initiated in 2004 and 
is expected to be completed in 2005. The results from this testing 
will assist the agency in defining a performance specification to be 
used to evaluate various indirect viewing technologies in future cab 
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received conflicting viewpoints regarding the need for a 
system failure alert for the rear video system. Mr. Silc stated that it 
is unnecessary, arguing that if the screen is black, the system is 
either turned off or malfunctioning, and that either situation would be 
easily detectable by the driver. In contrast, the Teamsters supported 
use of a failure alert, expressing concern that the image of the 
monitor must reflect in real time the area behind the truck.
    In response to the ANPRM's questions about State laws regulating 
the existence and use of video monitors/screens in the occupant 
compartment which are in view of the driver, ATA stated that such 
restrictions are similar to those contained in Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulation (FMCSR) 393.88. That provision specifically prohibits 
monitors that are in view of the driver that can receive a television 
signal or can be used to view video tapes. However, such prohibitions 
would not be applicable here, where the image presented only displays 
the area to the rear of the vehicle for backing purposes and where 
auxiliary video input connections are missing.
Audible Backup Alarms
    The ANPRM asked a number of questions regarding the efficacy of 
audible backup alarms and whether trucks equipped with OSHA-specified 
alarms should be excluded from the standard's new performance 
requirements. Some commenters such as NATC and ATA favored exclusion of 
such vehicles, arguing that audible backup alarms provide an effective 
warning for most pedestrians. As an added benefit, commenters stated 
that those systems are relatively easy to maintain.
    However, other commenters pointed out significant limitations 
associated with backup alarm systems. NYDOT stated that young children, 
who account for a disproportionate number of the fatalities and 
injuries related to backing crashes, may not understand or be able to 
properly respond to such alarms. Rostra stated that auditory backup 
alarms do not work adequately with the hearing impaired, and the 
Teamsters added that the elderly may also experience problems with such 
systems (e.g., due to decreased mobility, hearing impairment). Reliant 
added that these alarms can be turned off and that drivers may forget 
to turn them on again, and it also stated that residential customers 
frequently complain about loud backing alarms on trucks used at night.
Other Non-Visual Rear Object Detection Systems
    Commenters expressed a range of views about the efficacy of a 
variety of non-visual rear object detection systems, such as those 
utilizing sonar and infrared technology. The Teamsters stated that 
manufacturers should be permitted to use non-visual systems as well as 
visual systems for rear object detection. NPTC argued that additional 
data are required on the effectiveness of devices other than mirrors, 
before such non-visual systems would be suitable as compliance options. 
Offering yet another possible approach, Federal Express confirmed that 
its vehicles are equipped with sonar backing systems used in concert 
with cross-view mirrors.
    Comments also were received regarding the timing of the alert and 
detection capabilities provided by non-visual systems. Rostra stated 
that detection time should be derived from the distance of a calibrated 
test object; the speed of the alert would depend upon the distance from 
the sensor and the vehicle's closing speed vis-[agrave]-vis the object. 
Ford stated that typical latency times for radar and ultrasonic systems

[[Page 53757]]

are approximately 250-400 milliseconds (ms), but it added that a 
system's alert time could be increased by relying on multiple sensors 
to validate that the system is detecting a ``true'' target. In this 
context, commenters again raised concerns that NHTSA's assumption of a 
3 mph backing speed may be an underestimation.
    Ford also stated that surface characteristics are very complex in 
the real world and that the reflective characteristics of irregular 
surfaces are infinite. Because of this inability of non-visual systems 
to detect all objects, Ford argued that NHTSA must specify a limited 
number of objectively defined obstacles for any certification test.
Equipment Damage
    The ANPRM also asked questions about potential damage to various 
rear object detection systems. Some commenters, such as Reliant, argued 
that mirrors are high maintenance items due to breakage and theft. 
Others suggested that damage inflicted by dirt, mud, rocks, brush, and 
limbs could limit the mirrors' effectiveness. ATA stated that while 
rear detection systems could be damaged by vibration and shock, it 
believes that these systems could be designed to withstand most of 
these conditions.
Testing
    In response to questions about test procedures for the potential 
new rear object detection provisions, commenters generally urged NHTSA 
to conduct testing under as many different conditions as possible under 
which objects would be difficult to detect. Regarding mirrors, NATC 
stated that test procedures should utilize objects of various sizes, 
colors, heights, and positions, and the organization urged NHTSA to 
conduct testing under rugged conditions (e.g., vibration, humidity, and 
extreme high and low temperatures).
    For non-visual rear object detection systems, commenters stated 
that a well-defined and objective standard and test methodology are 
even more important, including specification of the size and shape of 
objects to be detected in such tests. Ford suggested use of the 
standard pole target developed by the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), which the company has used since 1996 for 
testing both its ultrasonic and radar systems. Furthermore, both Rostra 
and NATC stated their belief that environmental conditions should be 
specified as part of any performance test for non-visual systems under 
the standard. Factors such as temperature, rain, snow, humidity, dirt, 
driving surfaces, submersion, and mounting surfaces were specifically 
mentioned as potentially affecting such systems' detection 
capabilities.
Costs and Benefits
    Commenters provided varying estimates regarding the cost of cross-
view mirrors, ranging from $80-$160 per truck (depending upon whether 
one or two mirrors are required). ATA stated that NHTSA should factor 
in the potentially frequent damage to cross-view mirrors from a variety 
of sources over the life of the vehicle when determining the cost of 
the regulation. Figures were not provided regarding the cost of rear 
video systems, although NATC expressed doubt regarding the availability 
of such systems for as little as $200, a figure mentioned in the ANPRM.
    Rostra provided some figures to put the economic costs of backing 
crashes in perspective, stating that back-up accidents cost U.S. 
drivers over $1.3 billion per year. Sheffield qualitatively described 
the benefits of a rear object detection system as including reduction 
in equipment damage, repair costs, insurance rates, and downtime.
    According to Rostra, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS) tested six mid-size SUVs in crashes at 5 mph and found that only 
two of them suffered less than $5,000 in damages during four crash 
tests. Rostra stated that the cost of an object detection system is 
often less than the cost of the insurance deductible incurred when 
there is a collision. NATC suggested that the insurance industry could 
participate in encouraging the use of these systems through monetary 
incentives (presumably a reduction in premiums).
Federal vs. State Regulation
    The ANPRM asked whether it would be better to allow States to 
address the safety problem associated with backing trucks, because the 
States routinely regulate vehicles in use and regulate by type of use. 
ABC argued that due to frequent and regular interstate movement of 
truck traffic, requirements for rear detection systems should be 
addressed at the Federal level, asserting that a patchwork of differing 
individual State standards would render compliance extremely difficult.
Need for a Requirement
    There were differences of opinion among the commenters as to the 
need to amend FMVSS No. 111 to set a requirement for rear object 
detection. Some commenters, such as Reliant, NATC, and the Teamsters, 
expressed support for a performance standard for backing vehicles, 
although there was not any consensus regarding the best approach for 
such standard (e.g., suggestions provided for various technologies or 
driver-based backing programs). Other commenters, such as NPTC, ATA, 
and FedEx opposed a federal requirement for rear object detection, 
recommending instead that NHTSA support voluntary programs that leave 
improvements to the discretion of the fleet operators.
Training and Recordkeeping
    Several commenters raised the issue of driver back-up training, 
either as a supplement to or substitute for rear object detection 
systems under the standard. The Teamsters recommended a requirement for 
employers to develop and implement procedures for drivers to follow in 
the event that rear object detection technology fails or is damaged, 
and they also supported required maintenance and recordkeeping for the 
system. ATA favored voluntary training (and possible operations 
restrictions) for drivers as the remedy for backing problems, stating 
that without appropriate training, drivers simply ignore rear object 
detection systems and their images.
FMCSA Regulations/Funding
    NYDOT expressed concern that if NHTSA amends FMVSS No. 111, FMCSA 
would deem State requirements for cross-view mirrors or other rear 
object detection devices to be a burden on interstate commerce that 
would create a breach of the conditions for States to receive Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding. For example, New 
York State's earlier proposed legislation related to rear object 
detection was vetoed by the Governor because it was determined to be 
incompatible with a FMCSA regulation, thereby jeopardizing millions of 
dollars of FMCSA grants.
    NYDOT stated that if NHTSA cannot persuade FMCSA to change its 
regulations, NHTSA should specify parameters for State action so that 
States may avoid loss of MCSAP funding. Several commenters stated that 
NHTSA should clearly articulate whether and to what extent a revised 
FMVSS No. 111 preempts State requirements related to rear object 
detection.
    NTEA commented that if NHTSA does proceed with a rulemaking for 
rear object detection, it should convince the FMCSA to issue a 
regulation requiring vehicle owners to properly maintain the system 
when the vehicle is in use. Otherwise, NTEA argues, the standard alone 
would have little effect,

[[Page 53758]]

particularly in light of the potential for damage and misalignment.

III. Size of the Safety Problem

A. Number of Injuries and Fatalities

    In order to determine an appropriate regulatory response, NHTSA 
undertook an analysis designed to ascertain the size of the backing 
problem by gathering data on the annual number of incidents of people 
being backed over by a motor vehicle of any size or type, both on-road 
and off-road (e.g., in parking lots, driveways). The data were then 
analyzed further to determine, to the extent possible, the number of 
incidents attributable to straight trucks.
    Since the time of the ANPRM, our analysis has been refined to 
incorporate additional data. NHTSA analyzed 1999 Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS) data, 2000-2001 National Electronic Injury 
Surveillance System (NEISS) data, and 1995-1999 General Estimates 
System (GES) data. Generally, we found that backing injuries and 
fatalities remain a matter of ongoing concern, despite changes in the 
vehicle population and technology.
    The following are the highlights of our findings regarding injuries 
and fatalities associated with backing of straight trucks. Data suggest 
that straight trucks involved in backing incidents result annually in 
an estimated 79 fatalities. This figure represents 13 on-road 
fatalities and an estimated 66 off-road fatalities. In addition, data 
suggest that there are annually about 148 injuries attributable to 
backing straight trucks. We believe that these figures provide a 
conservative estimate of the problem, because many workplace incidents, 
a potentially significant source of backing injuries and fatalities, 
may go unreported.
    A more detailed summary of our findings is provided below, 
including the details and methodology related to the above statistics. 
However, for a more complete discussion of the fatality and injury data 
related to this proposal, please consult the Preliminary Regulatory 
Evaluation (PRE) that has been placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

1. Fatality Data

    To obtain a general understanding of fatalities associated with 
backing vehicles at the time of the ANPRM, the agency gathered data on 
the annual number of incidents of people being backed over by a motor 
vehicle of any type or size. (Fatality and injuries specifically 
attributable to straight trucks are discussed subsequently.) To this 
end, we initially reviewed FARS data for 1991 to 1997. The FARS data 
system contains information on all fatal traffic crashes within the 50 
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This search found a 
total of 381 backing fatalities for all vehicle types over this time 
period, or approximately 54 fatalities per year. To verify the accuracy 
of the 1991 to 1997 data, the agency later analyzed 1999 FARS data, 
which revealed 58 backing fatalities.
    However, by design, a fatality is included in the FARS database 
only if a motor vehicle is involved in a crash while traveling on a 
roadway customarily open to the public. Thus, FARS excludes other 
likely scenarios for backing fatalities, such as events where someone 
is backed over in a driveway, parking lot, or in a workplace such as a 
warehouse or construction site.
    We believe it is also important to consider off-road fatalities 
because on-road fatalities only represent a part of the problem in 
terms of backing-related incidents. Moreover, we believe that off-road 
backing fatalities represent a significant portion of the total 
fatalities that the agency is seeking to address under this rulemaking 
and should not be excluded.
    To ascertain the number of off-road backing fatalities, the agency 
worked with the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to gather 
data on these incidents. NCHS and NHTSA initiated a study utilizing 
1998 death certificates in order to confirm the agency's information 
regarding the frequency of backing-related fatalities. The report is 
based on 4,046 death certificates out of an estimated 5,500 cases from 
1998, sampled from 35 states and the District of Columbia. As of May of 
2004, the death certificate study is complete and available in the 
agency's public docket (Docket Number NHTSA-2000-7967-22). This study 
reported 91 fatalities occurring in 1998 due to backing vehicles (15 
on-road and 76 off-road fatalities). Although the fatality data from 
the joint NCHS-NHTSA study do not represent a national value nor can 
they be extrapolated to one, we have assumed that the percent 
distribution between on- and off-road backing fatalities is 
representative of what is currently occurring nationally (i.e., 16.48% 
on-road fatalities and 83.52% off-road fatalities). Based upon that 
assumption, we applied the on-road/off-road percentage distribution 
from the death certificate study to the national sample represented by 
the FARS data, from which we estimate that annually, there are 276 off-
road backing fatalities.

2. Injury Data

    In addition to fatality data, NHTSA conducted an inquiry into the 
number of non-fatal injuries associated with backing crashes. This 
analysis relied upon information drawn from the National Electronic 
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) and GES databases. However, because 
these two databases overlap, it is not possible to sum the results to 
directly determine an annual total of such injuries. Nevertheless, the 
available information demonstrates that there are a significant number 
of non-motorist injuries that are attributable to backing vehicles.
    The NEISS database, the first source of injury data considered, is 
a statistically valid injury surveillance and follow-back system that 
has been operated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for 
nearly thirty years. The system's primary purpose has been to provide 
timely data on consumer product-related injuries occurring in the U.S. 
NEISS injury data are gathered from the emergency departments of 100 
hospitals selected as a probability sample of the more than 5,300 U.S. 
hospitals with emergency departments. Surveillance data enable CPSC 
analysts to generate national estimates of the number of injuries.
    During the course of this rulemaking, NHTSA funded a study of the 
July-December 2000 NEISS file, which showed 64 cases in which a 
pedestrian or a pedalcyclist was injured by a backing vehicle. These 
are the first relevant data available since the NEISS was expanded to 
include injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes. This data sample 
translates into a six-month national estimate of 3,556 injuries. To 
determine whether this number may be summed for an annual estimate, we 
also examined the January-June 2001 NEISS file. The 2001 file showed 75 
cases where a non-motorist was injured by a backing vehicle, which 
translates into an estimated 3,863 national injuries over that six-
month period. Because there is only a small difference between the 
estimates, we believe that the rate of non-motorist backing injuries is 
fairly constant over the course of the year. Therefore, summing the two 
injury figures for the six-month periods, we estimate 7,419 annual 
injuries to non-motorists are attributable to backing injuries. The GES 
injury data will be discussed subsequently, in the context of the data 
related specifically to straight trucks.

3. Workplace Data

    We are also concerned about backing-related injuries and fatalities 
that may

[[Page 53759]]

occur at the workplace, which may not be captured in other databases 
for various reasons. Consequently, we examined the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration's (OSHA) Web site, which documents at least 
15 fatalities with the cause listed as being crushed between a backing 
vehicle and a loading dock. The OSHA Web site also includes over 50 
reports of workers being killed by backing vehicles.\6\ OSHA has not 
performed a study to catalog all backing-related fatalities in the 
workplace, so it is not possible to definitively characterize the 
extent of the problem in the workplace environment. However, the 
anecdotal data assembled by OSHA document the existence and nature of a 
safety concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These cases were identified by searching OSHA's Accident 
Investigation Search database and by entering appropriate key words. 
See https://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/inv/invl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another area of concern is construction sites. Under 29 CFR Part 
1926, Health and Safety Regulations for Construction, OSHA has issued 
requirements for back-up alarms on vehicles and equipment used in 
construction in order to address the issue of backing injuries/
fatalities, unless someone is standing to the rear to direct the 
backing vehicle. However, OSHA was unable to provide any statistical 
data regarding the effectiveness of the required systems.
    Many backing crashes that occur in the workplace may go unreported 
to police, because they are handled privately by the businesses 
involved. In those cases, important incidence data may fail to be 
included in the FARS or NCHS databases, so the statistics generated 
from those sources may underestimate the actual backing problem. NHTSA 
would be interested in additional information on the backing crashes 
encountered in the workplace.
    As further indication of a backing problem, we are aware that 
several major employers with extensive truck fleets have begun 
equipping their vehicles with rear object detection systems, although 
we do not have firm figures regarding implementation on a national 
scale. For example, United Parcel Service (UPS) installed video 
monitoring systems on its entire fleet of 65,000 delivery trucks by 
October 2001. Similarly, the United States Postal Service (USPS) and 
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) have equipped their vehicles 
with cross-view mirrors, and FedEx has installed both cross-view 
mirrors and sonar-based rear object detection systems on its vehicles. 
Further, NHTSA has learned that some trucks equipped with rear video 
systems also come with an audio feed, which place a microphone near the 
rear of a vehicle that is connected to a speaker near the driver. Such 
audio feed would allow an unnoticed person in the path of a backing 
vehicle to yell to alert the driver as to that person's presence. While 
these companies were undoubtedly concerned with backing crashes that 
occur on public and private roads, we understand that prevention of 
injuries and fatalities in loading and docking areas of worksites was 
also a factor in adopting such equipment.

B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Crashes

    NHTSA has conducted research to determine the rate of involvement 
of specific types of vehicles in pedestrian and pedalcyclist backing 
fatalities, both on-road and off-road. As discussed below, NHTSA found 
that straight trucks are involved in a disproportionately high number 
of backing crashes resulting in pedestrian and pedalcyclist fatalities.
    For on-road incidents, the FARS data showed the following vehicle-
type involvement for 1991-1997 pedestrian and pedalcyclist backing 
fatalities:

Table 1.--Cumulative Number of Pedestrian and Pedalcyclist Fatalities in
           On-Road Backing Crashes (FARS Data From 1991-1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of
                     Vehicle type                          fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger car........................................                129
Light truck/van......................................                139
Bus..................................................                  1
Straight truck over 4,536 kg GVWR....................                 81
Unknown truck over 4,536 kg GVWR.....................                 12
Combination truck....................................                 15
Other................................................                  2
Unknown..............................................                  2
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................                381
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above FARS data, after distributing unknowns, we 
estimate straight trucks were involved in 92 on-road backing fatalities 
over the 7 year period, resulting in 13 fatalities per year. Thus, 
straight trucks were accountable for approximately 24% of the on-road 
backing fatalities during that period.
    Again, attributing the same percentage of backing incidents for 
straight trucks that occur on-road as occur off-road (as reflected in 
Table 1) yields 66 annual off-road fatalities (0.24 x 276). Summation 
of the on-road and off-road fatalities yields 79 annual fatalities 
attributable to backing straight trucks.
    Turning to the injury data specific to straight trucks, we examined 
the data from the GES, which include only injuries incurred in police-
reported incidents. GES data overlap the previously discussed NEISS 
data, which record both police-reported incidents as well as unreported 
incidents. Therefore, the GES data on backing-related injury crashes 
are probably not representative of all backing-related injury crashes, 
because the data do not include information about injuries from backing 
maneuvers in private areas such as driveways, parking lots, and work 
sites.
    Nevertheless, the GES data are useful for other reasons. First, the 
GES data break down accidents by both vehicle type and maneuver, so it 
is possible to determine the percentage of non-fatal backing injuries 
attributable to straight trucks (approximately two percent). We expect 
that the percentage of backing injuries for straight trucks would not 
change significantly from year to year. Further, we believe that the 
proportion of backing injuries attributable to straight trucks in the 
GES data and the NEISS data are comparable, so

[[Page 53760]]

extrapolating to the larger NEISS database, the number of backing 
injuries attributable to straight trucks would translate into 
approximately 148 injuries per year (i.e., two percent of the 7,419 
total injuries).
    The Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation accompanying this notice 
estimates the severity of these injuries attributable to backing 
straight trucks, based upon the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). AIS is 
an anatomically-based system that classifies individual injuries by 
body region on a six-point ordinal scale of risk to life, with the MAIS 
score being the maximum injury level(s) an individual receives.\7\ 
According to the PRE, of the anticipated annual backing injuries, there 
are expected to be 120 MAIS-1 injuries, 19 MAIS-2 injuries, 7 MAIS-3 
injuries, and 1 MAIS-4 injury (difference of 1 injury due to rounding). 
Please consult the PRE for a more complete discussion of backing injury 
severity levels (see Chapter III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The AIS system scores injuries based upon the following 
levels: AIS-1 (minor injury); AIS-2 (moderate injury); AIS-3 
(serious injury); AIS-4 (severe injury); AIS-5 (critical injury), 
and AIS-6 (maximum injury). National Accident Sampling System, 1993 
Crashworthiness Data System, Injury Coding Manual, (January 1993) 
(DOT HS 807 969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we believe that the figures for cumulative number of 
backing crashes and the absolute number of fatalities do not provide a 
complete picture of the problem. Instead, one must consider the 
relative risk posed by different types of vehicles. We have used the 
number of vehicles in the fleet and the miles driven to calculate the 
rate of backing deaths for different vehicle types. This calculation 
was based upon estimates of registered vehicles and vehicle miles 
traveled information. As demonstrated in Table 2 below, straight trucks 
are significantly overrepresented in backing crashes resulting in 
pedestrian and pedalcyclist fatalities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Since the time of the ANPRM, NHTSA discovered a number of 
minor errors in its statistical data related to vehicle type 
involvement in backing crashes. These errors were corrected prior to 
incorporating the relevant information in this notice.

  Table 2.--Rate of On-Road Fatal Backing Crashes (Cumulative FARS Data
                             From 1991-1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Pedestrians and    Pedestrians and
                                      pedalcyclists      pedalcyclists
                                       killed by a        killed by a
           Vehicle type              backing vehicle    backing vehicle
                                       per million      per 100 billion
                                        registered       vehicle miles
                                         vehicles           traveled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger cars....................               1.05               1.26
Light trucks/vans.................               2.32               2.80
Combination trucks................               9.94               2.21
Straight trucks over 4,356 kg GVWR              29.68              21.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 provides the rate of pedestrians and pedalcyclists killed 
by straight trucks while backing is 21.89 per 100 billion vehicle miles 
traveled, and 29.68 per million registered vehicles. This risk is 
significantly higher than that for passenger vehicles (i.e., combining 
categories of passenger cars and light trucks/vans). Based upon this 
analysis, straight trucks stand out as a significant risk in terms of 
backing incidents.
    In its comments on the ANPRM, ATA expressed disagreement with the 
agency's assessment of the size of the backing problem, arguing that 
NHTSA did not quantify accurately the relative hazard associated with 
each vehicle type in its risk conversion. ATA argued that considering 
the number of pedestrians and pedalcyclists killed by a backing vehicle 
per million registered vehicles ``will certainly overstate the rate for 
straight and combination trucks relative to passenger cars and light 
trucks because of the fewer number of commercial vehicles'' and that it 
does not take into account the number of backings that these vehicles 
perform. For the same reasons, ATA objected to NHTSA's analysis of the 
number of backing-related deaths by different vehicle types per 100 
billion vehicle miles traveled.
    Instead, ATA argued that it is more likely that straight trucks 
used for deliveries to businesses back up more as a percentage of miles 
driven than do passenger cars and light trucks. According to ATA, 
because straight trucks are typically utilized in local delivery 
operations and can make several deliveries per day, drivers are 
required to perform several backing operations per day. For this 
reason, ATA stated that straight trucks are likely to have a higher 
number of backings as a percentage of miles driven than private 
vehicles. Conversely, ATA argued that straight trucks used in home 
delivery settings, by practice, avoid backing up. This practice led ATA 
to believe that vehicles used in this manner are likely to have fewer 
backings related to miles traveled. Based upon these theories, ATA 
concluded that straight and combination trucks are likely to be safer 
relative to other types of vehicles.
    We do not agree with ATA's rationale regarding quantification of 
relative hazard. If it is true, as ATA argues, that straight trucks are 
likely to back up more often than other types of vehicles, we believe 
that straight trucks, based upon their vehicle type, would be expected 
to present a greater risk in terms of backing incidents. As a result, 
we would expect that installation of a rear object detection system on 
straight trucks, more than on any other vehicle type, would reduce 
backing-related risks.
    Furthermore, it is important to note that the number of pedestrians 
and pedalcyclists killed by straight trucks while backing, per 100 
billion vehicle miles traveled, is eight to seventeen times greater 
than for passenger vehicles. If straight trucks used in deliveries to 
homes avoid backing, it is logical to assume that an inordinate amount 
of fatalities involve straight trucks making business deliveries. When 
one considers that large fleet carriers such as UPS, the U.S. Postal 
Service, and FedEx, have all equipped their vehicles with rear object 
detection systems, we are even more convinced that the remaining 
straight trucks are overrepresented in the data.
    In addition, there is a fundamental difference between straight 
trucks and passenger vehicles, namely the fact that most straight 
trucks have a large blind spot directly behind the vehicle. Passenger 
vehicles, which usually have interior rearview mirrors and rear 
windows, generally have a more direct view of this area. Thus, 
passenger vehicle backing incidents are most likely to result from 
driver error,

[[Page 53761]]

pedestrian/pedalcyclist error, or some combination thereof, problems 
without a clear remedy. However, in the case of straight trucks, 
visibility behind the vehicle is an objective problem amenable to 
amelioration through a regulatory requirement for a rear object 
detection system.

C. Other Data and Summary

    NHTSA has considered comments in response to its APRM related to 
the number of victims of backing crashes. NYDOT commented that New York 
State has recorded 14,349 backing crashes involving trucks with an 
enclosed or walk-in delivery bay that resulted in 35 deaths and 5,393 
injuries between 1990 and 1999; these crashes also were said to have 
resulted in 8,921 instances of property damage.
    Based upon the totality of the above information, we believe that 
there is a demonstrated backing problem associated with straight trucks 
resulting in a significant number of injuries and fatalities. These 
backing incidents occur on public roads, in private locations, and in 
workplace settings. While our existing data are most complete for on-
road backing fatalities and injuries, preliminary data suggest that the 
problem is even greater in off-road locations, including private 
locations and in workplace settings.

IV. Agency Proposal

A. Summary of Proposal

    To address the identified problem of backing-related deaths and 
injuries associated with straight trucks, NHTSA is proposing to amend 
FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to require straight trucks with a GVWR 
of between 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds) to be 
equipped with either a cross-view mirror or rear video system in order 
to provide the driver with a visual image of a 3 m by 3 m area 
immediately behind the vehicle. However, this requirement would not 
apply to those trucks for which the detection area is already visible 
through existing mirrors already required under the standard.
    The NPRM sets out proposed requirements for each of these two 
compliance options, as well as test procedures suitable for each 
option. However, in light of concerns regarding the feasibility of 
attaching rear object detection systems on certain types of trucks, we 
are requesting comments on categories of vehicles that the agency 
should consider excluding from the requirements of a final rule.
    We propose that the requirements would be effective for new 
vehicles covered under the standard that are manufactured one year or 
later after publication of a final rule. However, we are also seeking 
public comment to help determine whether requirements for a rear object 
detection system should be extended to vehicles in other weight classes 
and whether existing commercial straight trucks should be required to 
be retrofitted, as part of a future rulemaking.

B. Compliance Options

    In developing our proposed performance standard for rear object 
detection, NHTSA carefully considered a range of technologies. NHTSA 
examined both visual systems (e.g., cross-view mirrors and video 
cameras) and non-visual systems (e.g., sonar/infrared devices and 
audible back-up alarms) in order to evaluate their efficacy in 
preventing backing-related injuries and fatalities.
    We believe that primary responsibility for object detection should 
be placed upon the driver, such that the driver has visible 
confirmation that the pathway is clear before backing; non-visual 
systems, by their nature, cannot provide such confirmation. 
Consequently, we are proposing two visual systems as compliance 
options, one for cross-view mirrors and another for rear video systems.

1. Cross-View Mirrors

    Under proposed Option 1, vehicle manufacturers would be required to 
install rear cross-view mirrors on covered vehicles so as to provide a 
3 m by 3 m field of view of the area directly behind the vehicle. 
NHTSA's research has determined that a 3 m by 3 m area is the maximum 
detection zone that could be provided by a cross-view mirror system, 
but one which we believe would be adequate in light of the standard's 
safety objective.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Read Cross-view Mirror Performance: Perception and Optical 
Measurements,'' WESTAT (November 1998) (Docket No. NHSTA-2000-7967-
18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Selection of the proposed detection zone was based upon study 
results that found typical backing speeds to be 3.3 mph.\10\ However, 
as discussed earlier, commenters suggested that the agency's 
assumptions regarding backing speed have underestimated real world 
experience, although data were not provided to demonstrate this point. 
If new data show that backing speeds have been significantly 
underestimated, this may necessitate extension of the proposed rearward 
field of view requirement. Because cross-view mirrors are not effective 
in providing a field of view beyond the 3 m by 3 m zone currently 
proposed, a change in calculation of backing speeds may preclude 
adoption of this technology as a compliance option and instead result 
in adoption of a requirement for a video camera, a device that does not 
possess the same field of view limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the cross-view mirror would work in conjunction with 
the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side of the vehicle, and 
the placement of the cross-view mirror would be such that the geometric 
centers of the two mirrors are separated by no more than 5 m. We have 
tentatively decided that 5 m is the furthest distance at which the 
mirror system could provide a meaningful image to the driver of any 
object behind the vehicle, a position with which commenters generally 
agreed.\11\ Longer trucks that cannot meet this requirement for maximum 
distance between mirrors would be required to install a video system 
that complies with Option 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This determination is based upon the findings of the WESTAT 
study, which reported diminished performance at the longest mirror 
separation distance tested (195 inches). ``Read Cross-view Mirror 
Performance: Perception and Optical Measurements,'' WESTAT (November 
1998) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposal also sets out other proposed requirements which the 
cross-view mirror would be required to meet, including that it would be 
required to: (1) Have no discontinuities in the slope of its surface; 
(2) be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions; (3) 
be installed on stable supports on the upper rear corner of the vehicle 
on the driver's side, and (4) have an average radius of curvature of no 
less than 203 mm as determined under paragraph S12 of existing FMVSS 
No. 111.
    In addition, we are proposing test requirements to ensure that the 
detection zone specified under the proposed standard would be met. The 
procedures to verify compliance with these requirements are modeled in 
part after the existing school bus mirror test required under paragraph 
S13 of FMVSS No. 111, which utilizes a number of cylinders to simulate 
objects in front of the vehicle that would be difficult or impossible 
to see without the aid of mirrors. The proposed testing procedure would 
utilize the driver eye location specified in the current school bus 
mirror test that is based on the 25th-percentile adult female template. 
The proposed rule would require that the entire top surface of all the 
cylinders located at the rear of the vehicle described in the test 
procedure be visible to the driver when those procedures are followed. 
In our

[[Page 53762]]

proposal, we have simplified the carryover school bus procedural 
dimensions being used, and we have provided tolerances when possible.
2. Rear Video Systems
    Under the second compliance option, a rear video system would be 
required. The minimum field of view would be the same as that specified 
for the cross-view mirror option (i.e., 3 m by 3 m).
    We are proposing several requirements for rear video systems. 
First, the system would be required to include a monitor that depicts a 
reversed image similar to what would be observed in a rearview mirror 
and which is mounted in full view of the driver. The monitor would be 
required to be mounted as close to the centerline of the vehicle as 
practicable near the top of the windshield, but located such that the 
distance from the center point of the eye location of a 25th-percentile 
adult female seated in the driver's seat to the center of the monitor 
is no more than 100 cm. We believe that it would be beneficial to place 
the monitor in a location that is similar to that of a rearview mirror 
in a passenger vehicle. Presumably, truck drivers have extensive 
personal experience in driving passenger vehicles, so they would be 
accustomed to checking for objects behind the vehicle in that location. 
Would there be any difficulty having the monitor too close, such that 
for drivers who need reading glasses, the image in the monitor would be 
unfocused?
    If the monitor's placement causes it to fall within the vehicle's 
head impact area, the mounting would be required to deflect, collapse, 
or break away when subjected to a force of 400 Newtons (N) in any 
forward direction that is not more than 45[deg] from the forward 
longitudinal direction, as is required for passenger car interior 
mirrors pursuant to S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 111. We