Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors, 42309-42312 [E8-16530]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 140 / Monday, July 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules
intends to deliver under any contract
resulting from this solicitation using the
alternative compliance for commercial
derivative military articles, as specified in
paragraph (d) of the clause of this solicitation
entitled ‘‘Restriction on Acquisition of
Certain Articles Containing Specialty Metals’’
(DFARS 252.225–70X2). The offeror’s
designation of an item as a ‘‘commercial
derivative military article’’ will be subject to
Government review and approval.
(c) If the offeror has listed any commercial
derivative military articles in paragraph (b) of
this provision, the offeror certifies that, if
awarded a contract as a result of this
solicitation, and if the Government approves
the designation of the listed item(s) as
commercial derivative military articles, the
offeror and its subcontractor(s) will enter into
a contractual agreement or agreements to
purchase an amount of domestically melted
or produced specialty metal in the required
form, for use during the period of contract
performance in the production of each
commercial derivative military article and
the related commercial article, that is not less
than the Contractor’s good faith estimate of
the greater of(1) An amount equivalent to 120 percent of
the amount of specialty metal that is required
to carry out the production of the commercial
derivative military article (including the
work performed under each subcontract); or
(2) An amount equivalent to 50 percent of
the amount of specialty metal that will be
purchased by the Contractor and its
subcontractors for use during such period in
the production of the commercial derivative
military article and the related commercial
article.
(d) For the purposes of this provision, the
amount of specialty metal that is required to
carry out the production of the commercial
derivative military article includes specialty
metal contained in any item, including
commercially available off-the-shelf items,
incorporated into such commercial derivative
military articles.
(End of provision)
(1) Follow the instructions on the Defense
Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and
Strategic Sourcing Specialty Metals
Restriction Web site at https://
www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/ic/
restrictions_on_specialty_metals_
10_usc_2533b.html to report information by
contract as follows:
252.225–70X4 Reporting of commercially
available off-the-shelf items that contain
specialty metals and are incorporated into
noncommercial end items.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
As prescribed in 225.7003–5(c), use
the following clause:
REPORTING OF COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE OFF-THE-SHELF ITEMS THAT
CONTAIN SPECIALTY METALS AND ARE
INCORPORATED INTO NONCOMMERCIAL
END ITEMS (XXX 2008)
(a) Definitions. Commercially available offthe-shelf item and specialty metal, as used in
this clause, have the meanings given in the
clause of this solicitation entitled
‘‘Restriction on Acquisition of Certain
Articles Containing Specialty Metals’’
(DFARS 252.225–70X2).
(b) If the exception in paragraph (c)(2) of
the clause at DFARS 252.225–70X2,
Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Articles
Containing Specialty Metals, is used for a
commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS)
item to be incorporated into a
noncommercial end item to be delivered
under this contract, the Contractor shall—
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Jul 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
Contract awarded
Report by
Oct. 1, 2008—Dec. 30, 2008
Jan. 1, 2009—Mar. 31, 2009
Apr. 1, 2009—Jun. 30, 2009
Jul. 1, 2009—Sep. 30, 2009
Jan. 31, 2009.
Feb. 28, 2009.
Jul. 31, 2009.
Oct. 31, 2009.
(2) In accordance with the procedures
specified at the website, provide the
following information:
(i) Company Name.
(ii) Contract number and, if applicable,
order number.
(iii) Product category of acquisition (i.e.,
Aircraft, Missiles and Space Systems, Ships,
Tank-Automotive, Weapon Systems, or
Ammunition).
(iv) The 6-digit North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code of the
COTS item contained in the non-commercial
deliverable item to which the exception
applies.
(v) The total dollars of the non-commercial
items.
(vi) The total dollars of the COTS items to
which the exception applies.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. E8–16675 Filed 7–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
42309
accounts for only four of the estimated
183 fatalities per year due to back-over
accidents. In addition, the recently
signed Cameron Gulbranson Kids
Transportation Safety Act of 2007 1 (K.T.
Safety Act of 2007) requires NHTSA to
revise the Federal standard for rearward
visibility, specifically to reduce backing
crashes involving children and disabled
people. Considering these
developments, the agency believes it
more appropriate to address backing
safety of straight trucks as part of the
comprehensive effort to address backing
safety generally, and that solutions
should be formulated after the
completion and review of ongoing
research and data gathering on backing
safety. We are therefore withdrawing
this rulemaking at this time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may contact Mr.
Clarke Harper, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards (NVS–120),
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
202–366–1740) (Fax: 202–366–5930).
For legal issues, you may contact Mr.
Ari Scott, (NCC–112), Office of the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (FAX: 202–
366–3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM
IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM
V. Agency Decision to Withdraw the
Rulemaking
49 CFR Part 571
I. Background
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006–25017]
In March 1995, Mr. Dee Norton, an
individual, submitted a petition for
rulemaking seeking to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 111, ‘‘Rearview Mirrors,’’ to require
convex, cross-view mirrors on the rear
of the cargo box of stepvans and walkin style delivery and service trucks. The
requested rule 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.
The agency granted Mr. Norton’s
petition. However, because Mr. Norton’s
solution was only one of many at that
time, and the agency had no
performance specification for cross-view
mirrors, NHTSA published a request for
comments in the Federal Register on
June 17, 1996. The agency sought
specific information on cross-view
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIN 2127–AG41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Rearview Mirrors
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In response to a petition for
rulemaking, in 2005 the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) proposed to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111,
‘‘Rearview Mirrors’’ 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
system capable of providing drivers
with a view of objects directly behind
the vehicle. More refined data generated
since the 2005 NPRM shows that the
sub-population of mid-sized trucks
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1 Public
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
Law 110–189, February 28, 2008.
21JYP1
42310
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 140 / Monday, July 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
mirrors such as costs and performance
specifications, and any other
alternatives with costs similar to the
mirrors described by Mr. Norton (61 FR
30586).2 The agency received six
comments in response to that notice. In
general, commenters urged the agency
to consider both visual systems such as
cameras and mirrors and non-visual
systems such as sonar or radar, to
address the safety issue. Additionally,
truck manufacturers suggested that
mirrors would not address the safety
problem and that there were several
types of straight trucks for which
cameras would not be an effective
solution. In addition to the analysis of
comments, NHTSA performed
additional studies related to this
rulemaking. A program was initiated to
determine the size of the safety problem,
that is, determine the number of people
being backed over by a motor vehicle of
any size. Using a combination of our
own Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) and National Center for Health
Statistics data, the agency was able to
estimate the number of non-traffic
crashes, including backover accidents.
Next, the agency performed research on
state-of-the-art and prototype rear crossview mirror designs.
On November 27, 2000, NHTSA
published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (65 FR
70681).3 In addition to a request for
general comments, the ANPRM posed
twenty specific questions regarding rear
cross-view mirrors, rear video systems,
and rear object detection systems.
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. Although the commenters
were generally supportive of efforts to
improve backing safety, many expressed
concerns about a regulatory requirement
in this area. 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.
Using the information obtained from
these two previous notices, the agency
then published a Notice of Proposed
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 located at http:
//www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA–2000–
7967–25.
3 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7967–1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Jul 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 12,
2005 (70 FR 53753).4 To address the
identified problem of backing-related
deaths and injuries associated with
straight trucks, NHTSA proposed to
amend FMVSS No. 111, to require
medium 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 meters by 3 meters area
immediately behind the vehicle. The
NPRM set 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 also requested comments on
categories of vehicles that the agency
should consider excluding from the
requirements of a final rule.
II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
The agency received 55 comments
pursuant to our September 12, 2005,
NPRM. Comments were received from a
variety of interested parties, including
consumers, a consumer advocacy group,
fleet operators, equipment
manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers,
trade associations, the National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), and two members of Congress,
Representative Marsha Blackburn and
Representative Nathan Deal. These
comments are available in Docket No.
NHTSA–2004–19239, and are generally
summarized as follows.
Comments from consumers were
generally in favor of rear object
detection systems, with several
commenters urging the agency to
expand the scope of the rulemaking to
include all vehicles (including
passenger vehicles). The consumer
advocacy group recommended
expansion of the proposal’s
applicability to passenger vehicles and
larger trucks, recommended that the
rule require a combination of cameras
and non-visual systems, and
recommended requiring retrofitting the
systems onto existing vehicles.
Conversely, one consumer suggested
that we not regulate in this area and
leave the decision to install a rear object
detection system up to the purchaser of
the vehicle.
Fleet operators expressed divergent
opinions regarding the agency’s
proposal. Some delivery companies
were generally supportive of the
proposal and enthusiastic about rear
PO 00000
4 Docket
No. NHTSA–2004–19239–1.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
object detection systems. However,
fleets involved in construction
suggested that we exclude construction
service trucks from the proposed
requirements because of the potential
for ongoing maintenance problems
associated with repairing systems
subject to continuous damage in rugged
environments such as construction sites.
Fleets in the category of leasing
companies (e.g., self-move companies)
were also opposed to mandatory
regulation, again due to the potential
maintenance burden and questionable
system effectiveness, caused in part by
the equipment being used by nonprofessional drivers who might
substitute reliance on such systems for
the recommended ‘‘spotter’’ system,5
which they say has proven highly
effective in practice for such users.
Equipment manufacturers were
supportive of the intent of the proposal,
and manufacturers of mirrors and
camera systems had minor technical
suggestions.
However, non-visual system
equipment (e.g., sonar or radar-based)
manufacturers and Representatives
Blackburn and Deal urged us to alter the
rulemaking proposal to adopt broader
criteria which would allow non-visual
systems to be used to comply with the
standard’s requirement.
Vehicle manufacturers asked for
changes to the proposal or exclusions
for certain vehicles specific to their
market. Several manufacturers of
traditional straight delivery trucks had
specific technical suggestions.
Manufacturers of specialty trucks
suggested their vehicles should be
excluded from the proposed
requirements because of the lack of any
apparent safety need, difficulty in
installing systems based on certain
vehicle configurations, and durability
problems associated with systems
subject to excessive environmental
abuse. The cited specialty vehicles
included ambulances, buses, concrete
trucks, refuse trucks, fire trucks, small
volume equipment trucks, and sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) with a GVWR of
over 10,000 pounds.
Various associations also offered
positions. The National Association of
State Directors of Pupil Transportation
Services requested that NHTSA not
include a rear object detection
requirement for school buses. The Truck
Manufacturers Association questioned
the appropriateness of a mandatory
regulation, although it suggested that an
5 A spotter is a person who stands outside a
vehicle to aid the driver in backing and alert the
driver of an object or person behind the vehicle, to
ensure nothing or no one is in the way.
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 140 / Monday, July 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
equipment standard might be useful if
this equipment is voluntarily installed.
The National Truck Equipment
Association, which represents
multistage manufacturers, argued that
the proposed requirements may not be
practical for certain types of vehicles,
and that there could be problems with
continual maintenance for constructiontype vehicles. The Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers suggested
the rulemaking was premature and
should await completion of an
assessment of rear object detection
systems required under the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU).6 The Truck
Renting and Leasing Association urged
us to adopt less restrictive requirements
and to delay the rule until a more
accurate cost-benefit analysis could be
conducted. The Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association urged the
agency not to extend the proposed
requirements to combination truck
trailers, arguing that such systems
would be impractical and of little
benefit.
NIOSH provided insight into the
scope of the backing problem in
occupational settings and studies into
potential solutions. Specifically, NIOSH
provided data concerning backing
accidents at highway construction sites
and field experience studies concerning
durability problems with rear video
systems. Furthermore, NIOSH noted
that a system whereby workers wear a
device that can alert both the wearer
and the driver of a vehicle when the
wearer is in a danger zone offers some
promise in addressing backing accidents
involving heavy trucks.
III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM
As noted above, in 2005, Congress
passed related mandates for the agency
as part of its SAFETEA–LU legislation,
specifically, requiring two actions by
NHTSA related to backing incidents. In
Section 10304, Congress mandated
NHTSA to ‘‘conduct a study of effective
methods for reducing the incidence of
injury and death outside of parked
passenger motor vehicles with a gross
weight rating of not more than 10,000
pounds attributable to movement of
such vehicles.’’ That provision of the
Act further stipulated that the study
shall, ‘‘(1) Include an analysis of
backover prevention technology; (2)
identify, evaluate, and compare the
available technologies for detecting
people or objects behind a motor vehicle
with a gross vehicle weight rating of not
more than 10,000 pounds for their
6 Pub.
L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Jul 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
accuracy, effectiveness, cost, and
feasibility for installation; and (3)
provide an estimate of cost saving that
would result from widespread use of
backover prevention devices and
technologies in motor vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of not more
than 10,000 pounds, including savings
attributable to the prevention of (A)
injuries and fatalities; and (B) damage to
bumpers and other motor vehicle parts
and damage to other objects.’’
Under section 10305 of the Act,
Congress directed the agency as follows:
‘‘(a) In General.—In conjunction with
the study required in section 10304, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration shall establish a method
to collect and maintain data on the
number and types of injuries and deaths
involving motor vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating of not more than
10,000 pounds in non-traffic incidents’’
and ‘‘(b) data collection and
publication.—The Secretary of
Transportation shall publish the data
collected under subsection (a) no less
frequently than biennially.’’
In response to section 10304 of
SAFETEA–LU, a report of the agency’s
study of technologies with possible
application to reducing deaths and
injuries from backing passenger vehicles
was submitted to Congress in November
2006. That report is titled, ‘‘Vehicle
Backover Avoidance Technology
Study,’’ and is available in the
Department of Transportation docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
NHTSA–25579–0003.
In this Report to Congress, NHTSA
reported on several systems currently
available as original equipment on
vehicles or as aftermarket products to
evaluate their performance and
potential effectiveness in mitigating
backover crashes. The backover
prevention technologies that are
currently offered by vehicle
manufacturers are marketed as ‘‘parking
aids,’’ which are designed to assist
attentive drivers in performing low
speed parking maneuvers. Some
aftermarket systems using similar
technologies are being marketed as
safety devices. NHTSA testing that
predated SAFETEA–LU showed that the
performance of sensor-based (ultrasonic
and radar) parking aids in detecting
child pedestrians behind the vehicle
was typically poor, sporadic and limited
in range. Based on calculation of the
distance required to stop from a typical
backing speed, detection ranges
exhibited by the systems tested were not
sufficient to prevent collisions with
pedestrians or other objects. Of the
technologies tested for their potential to
reduce backover incidents, the camera-
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42311
based system may have the greatest
potential to provide drivers with
reliable assistance in identifying people
in the path of the vehicle when backing.
However, the agency is concerned that
the human factors issues surrounding
camera systems are not well understood,
issues such as: Will drivers use cameras
if they are installed? Will they be relied
on too much, to the exclusion of
actually looking to the rear of a vehicle
and checking rear view mirrors? Will
new patterns of driver behavior that
emerge if cameras are in place enhance
the safe operation of vehicles?
In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA
conducted research specifically aimed
at evaluating the performance of various
mirror, sensor and video systems for
medium trucks. All the systems were
purchased in the aftermarket. The
systems evaluated include three sensor
systems, one sensor/rear video
combination system, one rear video
system, and one rear cross-view mirror
system. The results indicated that
sensor-based systems were poor,
sporadic, and limited in range with
regards to their ability to consistently
detect child pedestrians and objects.
Additionally, the mirror system image
was insufficient to allow drivers to see
a small object behind a vehicle and
would not be a very effective means of
allowing drivers to see behind vehicles.
Video systems provided excellent
images but only under well-lit, goodweather conditions. The agency has
conducted similar research involving
light vehicles with similar results.
At this time, the agency does not
know whether drivers would use the
information from the video displays of
rear object detection systems and if they
did whether they would do so in
enough time to prevent back-over
incidents. Agency research involving
driver use of rearward visual images in
passenger vehicles is underway. This
research will examine drivers’ use of
rearview video systems during backing
maneuvers to assess their potential to
reduce the incidence of collisions with
rear obstacles and pedestrians. While
performance testing of sensor-based
backing systems and field of view
measurement for rearview video
systems give data to quantify their
likelihood to ‘‘perceive’’ an obstacle
behind a vehicle, only examining
drivers’ use of the systems can provide
a sense of the potential effectiveness of
the systems in preventing crashes. The
main purpose of the study is to
determine (1) whether drivers of
vehicles equipped with camera systems
look at the display prior to and/or
during backing and (2) whether use of
the system affects backing performance
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
42312
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 140 / Monday, July 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(i.e., obstacle avoidance success). We
expect to complete the testing portion of
this research in 2008 and believe that
the findings of this study will apply to
the performance of typical drivers of all
straight trucks.
During the preparation of the Report
to Congress, the agency also developed
more refined non-traffic crash data than
was reported in the 2005 NPRM.7 The
agency estimated in the Report to
Congress, that there is an average of 183
fatalities annually for all backover
crashes, which is below what was
estimated in the NPRM. Our more
recent data analysis focusing on trucks
of the sort that were addressed in the
original petition, is indicating that this
a sub-population of straight trucks
(those less than 20 feet in length),
accounts for 2 of the estimated 183
fatalities per year due to back-over
accidents. Similarly, when all straight
trucks from 10,000 to 26,000 pounds
GVWR (including those less-than-20feet) are included, the number of
fatalities from backovers accounts for
only 4 fatalities per year.8
In response to sections 2012 and
10305 of SAFETEA–LU, the agency’s
National Center for Statistics and
Analysis is currently exploring
expanded approaches to gathering both
injury and fatality data on non-traffic
incidents, which include non-traffic
backing crashes that occur on private
property, in driveways, and in parking
facilities. The primary issues facing
NHTSA in the collection of data on nontraffic crashes are the collection of
fatality and injury counts and the
detailed data at the event level needed
to fully understand the circumstances
surrounding the crash. The agency
conducted a review of existing systems
within NHTSA, surveillance systems in
other Federal agencies, and non-Federal
sources to determine the feasibility for
collecting non-traffic fatality and injury
counts and detailed crash data. The
review suggested possible expansion of
‘‘Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 111,
Rear Detection System for Single Unit Trucks’’ in
Docket No. 25017.
8 ‘‘Estimation of Backover Fatalities’’ at https://
www.regulation.gov, Docket NHTA–25579.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
7 See
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Jul 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
NHTSA’s existing crash databases and
the use of other Federal agencies,
especially the National Center for
Health Statistics and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, which
operate surveillance systems that may
provide some useful information in
arriving at a better estimate of the
backover safety problem. However, the
review of the non-Federal sources
including hospital systems, emergency
medical services systems, insurance
company data, and news media
databases found that they were
generally incomplete or lacked the
detail needed by NHTSA to understand
the circumstances surrounding backing
incidents.
Based upon this review, efforts to
collect both the fatality and injury data
and detailed collision data are
underway. The agency is currently
using the existing Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) infrastructure
to collect information about non-traffic
crash fatalities and the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
infrastructure for non-traffic injuries.
Similarly, the agency’s Special Crash
Investigation team is conducting
detailed investigations of backovers
involving light passenger vehicles.
IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM
On February 28, 2008, the President
signed the K.T. Safety Act of 2007.
Section 2(b) of this law requires that
within 12 months of the President’s
signing the bill, NHTSA must initiate
rulemaking to expand the required
driver’s field of view behind vehicles to
reduce deaths and injuries from backing
crashes, especially crashes involving
small children and disabled people.
NHTSA must issue a final rule no later
than three years after the President signs
the bill. Section 2(c)(1) of this law
requires that the expanded rear
visibility requirements be phased-in.
Section 2(c)(2) requires NHTSA to
consider whether the phase-in should
give priority to particular types of motor
vehicles if NHTSA finds that there are
any differences in the frequency with
which individual types are involved in
backing crashes.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The new law does not specifically
influence the straight trucks at issue in
this rulemaking. The K.T. Safety Act of
2007 is applicable only to motor
vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds
or less (see section 2(e)). However, as
explained above, the agency believes
that additional data on backovers
collected by the agency, with regard to
all vehicles, will allow us to address
this problem in a more comprehensive
manner.
V. Agency Decision To Withdraw the
Rulemaking
The agency is charged by the new law
to take a comprehensive look at backing
safety for all types of motor vehicles. As
described above, the agency has a great
deal of research and data gathering
currently underway that will allow us to
develop appropriate and effective
improvements to backing safety. The
agency needs to better understand the
effectiveness of the video-based
systems. We believe the results of
NHTSA’s current study that will be
completed in 2008 will substantially
improve our understanding of how
video systems are used by drivers and
therefore their potential to reduce the
backover risk. Given this, the agency
believes that efforts to address medium
truck backing safety by itself should
held in abeyance pending the research
and data gathering, and that this
problem should be addressed as a part
of the agency’s comprehensive approach
to backing safety.
Accordingly, we have decided to
withdraw this rulemaking and
incorporate medium trucks into
consideration of a possible broad based
approach, including passenger vehicles,
to addressing the backing safety
problem.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued: July 15, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8–16530 Filed 7–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 140 (Monday, July 21, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42309-42312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16530]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-25017]
RIN 2127-AG41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition for rulemaking, in 2005 the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors'' 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 system capable of providing drivers with a view of
objects directly behind the vehicle. More refined data generated since
the 2005 NPRM shows that the sub-population of mid-sized trucks
accounts for only four of the estimated 183 fatalities per year due to
back-over accidents. In addition, the recently signed Cameron
Gulbranson Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 \1\ (K.T. Safety Act
of 2007) requires NHTSA to revise the Federal standard for rearward
visibility, specifically to reduce backing crashes involving children
and disabled people. Considering these developments, the agency
believes it more appropriate to address backing safety of straight
trucks as part of the comprehensive effort to address backing safety
generally, and that solutions should be formulated after the completion
and review of ongoing research and data gathering on backing safety. We
are therefore withdrawing this rulemaking at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-120),
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-366-5930).
For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Ari Scott, (NCC-112), Office
of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (FAX: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM
IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM
V. Agency Decision to Withdraw the Rulemaking
I. Background
In March 1995, Mr. Dee Norton, an individual, submitted a petition
for rulemaking seeking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors,'' to require convex, cross-view
mirrors on the rear of the cargo box of stepvans and walk-in style
delivery and service trucks. The requested rule 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.
The agency granted Mr. Norton's petition. However, because Mr.
Norton's solution was only one of many at that time, and the agency had
no performance specification for cross-view mirrors, NHTSA published a
request for comments in the Federal Register on June 17, 1996. The
agency sought specific information on cross-view
[[Page 42310]]
mirrors such as costs and performance specifications, and any other
alternatives with costs similar to the mirrors described by Mr. Norton
(61 FR 30586).\2\ The agency received six comments in response to that
notice. In general, commenters urged the agency to consider both visual
systems such as cameras and mirrors and non-visual systems such as
sonar or radar, to address the safety issue. Additionally, truck
manufacturers suggested that mirrors would not address the safety
problem and that there were several types of straight trucks for which
cameras would not be an effective solution. In addition to the analysis
of comments, NHTSA performed additional studies related to this
rulemaking. A program was initiated to determine the size of the safety
problem, that is, determine the number of people being backed over by a
motor vehicle of any size. Using a combination of our own Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Center for Health
Statistics data, the agency was able to estimate the number of non-
traffic crashes, including backover accidents. Next, the agency
performed research on state-of-the-art and prototype rear cross-view
mirror designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 located at http: //
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2000, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) (65 FR 70681).\3\ In addition to a request for
general comments, the ANPRM posed twenty specific questions regarding
rear cross-view mirrors, rear video systems, and rear object detection
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Although the commenters were
generally supportive of efforts to improve backing safety, many
expressed concerns about a regulatory requirement in this area. 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.
Using the information obtained from these two previous notices, the
agency then published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
September 12, 2005 (70 FR 53753).\4\ To address the identified problem
of backing-related deaths and injuries associated with straight trucks,
NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 111, to require medium 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
meters by 3 meters area immediately behind the vehicle. The NPRM set
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 also requested comments on
categories of vehicles that the agency should consider excluding from
the requirements of a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19239-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
The agency received 55 comments pursuant to our September 12, 2005,
NPRM. Comments were received from a variety of interested parties,
including consumers, a consumer advocacy group, fleet operators,
equipment manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, trade associations, the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and two
members of Congress, Representative Marsha Blackburn and Representative
Nathan Deal. These comments are available in Docket No. NHTSA-2004-
19239, and are generally summarized as follows.
Comments from consumers were generally in favor of rear object
detection systems, with several commenters urging the agency to expand
the scope of the rulemaking to include all vehicles (including
passenger vehicles). The consumer advocacy group recommended expansion
of the proposal's applicability to passenger vehicles and larger
trucks, recommended that the rule require a combination of cameras and
non-visual systems, and recommended requiring retrofitting the systems
onto existing vehicles. Conversely, one consumer suggested that we not
regulate in this area and leave the decision to install a rear object
detection system up to the purchaser of the vehicle.
Fleet operators expressed divergent opinions regarding the agency's
proposal. Some delivery companies were generally supportive of the
proposal and enthusiastic about rear object detection systems. However,
fleets involved in construction suggested that we exclude construction
service trucks from the proposed requirements because of the potential
for ongoing maintenance problems associated with repairing systems
subject to continuous damage in rugged environments such as
construction sites. Fleets in the category of leasing companies (e.g.,
self-move companies) were also opposed to mandatory regulation, again
due to the potential maintenance burden and questionable system
effectiveness, caused in part by the equipment being used by non-
professional drivers who might substitute reliance on such systems for
the recommended ``spotter'' system,\5\ which they say has proven highly
effective in practice for such users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A spotter is a person who stands outside a vehicle to aid
the driver in backing and alert the driver of an object or person
behind the vehicle, to ensure nothing or no one is in the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment manufacturers were supportive of the intent of the
proposal, and manufacturers of mirrors and camera systems had minor
technical suggestions.
However, non-visual system equipment (e.g., sonar or radar-based)
manufacturers and Representatives Blackburn and Deal urged us to alter
the rulemaking proposal to adopt broader criteria which would allow
non-visual systems to be used to comply with the standard's
requirement.
Vehicle manufacturers asked for changes to the proposal or
exclusions for certain vehicles specific to their market. Several
manufacturers of traditional straight delivery trucks had specific
technical suggestions. Manufacturers of specialty trucks suggested
their vehicles should be excluded from the proposed requirements
because of the lack of any apparent safety need, difficulty in
installing systems based on certain vehicle configurations, and
durability problems associated with systems subject to excessive
environmental abuse. The cited specialty vehicles included ambulances,
buses, concrete trucks, refuse trucks, fire trucks, small volume
equipment trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with a GVWR of over
10,000 pounds.
Various associations also offered positions. The National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
requested that NHTSA not include a rear object detection requirement
for school buses. The Truck Manufacturers Association questioned the
appropriateness of a mandatory regulation, although it suggested that
an
[[Page 42311]]
equipment standard might be useful if this equipment is voluntarily
installed. The National Truck Equipment Association, which represents
multistage manufacturers, argued that the proposed requirements may not
be practical for certain types of vehicles, and that there could be
problems with continual maintenance for construction-type vehicles. The
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers suggested the rulemaking was
premature and should await completion of an assessment of rear object
detection systems required under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU).\6\ The Truck Renting and Leasing Association urged us to adopt
less restrictive requirements and to delay the rule until a more
accurate cost-benefit analysis could be conducted. The Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association urged the agency not to extend the proposed
requirements to combination truck trailers, arguing that such systems
would be impractical and of little benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIOSH provided insight into the scope of the backing problem in
occupational settings and studies into potential solutions.
Specifically, NIOSH provided data concerning backing accidents at
highway construction sites and field experience studies concerning
durability problems with rear video systems. Furthermore, NIOSH noted
that a system whereby workers wear a device that can alert both the
wearer and the driver of a vehicle when the wearer is in a danger zone
offers some promise in addressing backing accidents involving heavy
trucks.
III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM
As noted above, in 2005, Congress passed related mandates for the
agency as part of its SAFETEA-LU legislation, specifically, requiring
two actions by NHTSA related to backing incidents. In Section 10304,
Congress mandated NHTSA to ``conduct a study of effective methods for
reducing the incidence of injury and death outside of parked passenger
motor vehicles with a gross weight rating of not more than 10,000
pounds attributable to movement of such vehicles.'' That provision of
the Act further stipulated that the study shall, ``(1) Include an
analysis of backover prevention technology; (2) identify, evaluate, and
compare the available technologies for detecting people or objects
behind a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of not more
than 10,000 pounds for their accuracy, effectiveness, cost, and
feasibility for installation; and (3) provide an estimate of cost
saving that would result from widespread use of backover prevention
devices and technologies in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of not more than 10,000 pounds, including savings attributable
to the prevention of (A) injuries and fatalities; and (B) damage to
bumpers and other motor vehicle parts and damage to other objects.''
Under section 10305 of the Act, Congress directed the agency as
follows: ``(a) In General.--In conjunction with the study required in
section 10304, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall
establish a method to collect and maintain data on the number and types
of injuries and deaths involving motor vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds in non-traffic incidents''
and ``(b) data collection and publication.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall publish the data collected under subsection (a) no
less frequently than biennially.''
In response to section 10304 of SAFETEA-LU, a report of the
agency's study of technologies with possible application to reducing
deaths and injuries from backing passenger vehicles was submitted to
Congress in November 2006. That report is titled, ``Vehicle Backover
Avoidance Technology Study,'' and is available in the Department of
Transportation docket at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
25579-0003.
In this Report to Congress, NHTSA reported on several systems
currently available as original equipment on vehicles or as aftermarket
products to evaluate their performance and potential effectiveness in
mitigating backover crashes. The backover prevention technologies that
are currently offered by vehicle manufacturers are marketed as
``parking aids,'' which are designed to assist attentive drivers in
performing low speed parking maneuvers. Some aftermarket systems using
similar technologies are being marketed as safety devices. NHTSA
testing that predated SAFETEA-LU showed that the performance of sensor-
based (ultrasonic and radar) parking aids in detecting child
pedestrians behind the vehicle was typically poor, sporadic and limited
in range. Based on calculation of the distance required to stop from a
typical backing speed, detection ranges exhibited by the systems tested
were not sufficient to prevent collisions with pedestrians or other
objects. Of the technologies tested for their potential to reduce
backover incidents, the camera-based system may have the greatest
potential to provide drivers with reliable assistance in identifying
people in the path of the vehicle when backing. However, the agency is
concerned that the human factors issues surrounding camera systems are
not well understood, issues such as: Will drivers use cameras if they
are installed? Will they be relied on too much, to the exclusion of
actually looking to the rear of a vehicle and checking rear view
mirrors? Will new patterns of driver behavior that emerge if cameras
are in place enhance the safe operation of vehicles?
In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA conducted research
specifically aimed at evaluating the performance of various mirror,
sensor and video systems for medium trucks. All the systems were
purchased in the aftermarket. The systems evaluated include three
sensor systems, one sensor/rear video combination system, one rear
video system, and one rear cross-view mirror system. The results
indicated that sensor-based systems were poor, sporadic, and limited in
range with regards to their ability to consistently detect child
pedestrians and objects. Additionally, the mirror system image was
insufficient to allow drivers to see a small object behind a vehicle
and would not be a very effective means of allowing drivers to see
behind vehicles. Video systems provided excellent images but only under
well-lit, good-weather conditions. The agency has conducted similar
research involving light vehicles with similar results.
At this time, the agency does not know whether drivers would use
the information from the video displays of rear object detection
systems and if they did whether they would do so in enough time to
prevent back-over incidents. Agency research involving driver use of
rearward visual images in passenger vehicles is underway. This research
will examine drivers' use of rearview video systems during backing
maneuvers to assess their potential to reduce the incidence of
collisions with rear obstacles and pedestrians. While performance
testing of sensor-based backing systems and field of view measurement
for rearview video systems give data to quantify their likelihood to
``perceive'' an obstacle behind a vehicle, only examining drivers' use
of the systems can provide a sense of the potential effectiveness of
the systems in preventing crashes. The main purpose of the study is to
determine (1) whether drivers of vehicles equipped with camera systems
look at the display prior to and/or during backing and (2) whether use
of the system affects backing performance
[[Page 42312]]
(i.e., obstacle avoidance success). We expect to complete the testing
portion of this research in 2008 and believe that the findings of this
study will apply to the performance of typical drivers of all straight
trucks.
During the preparation of the Report to Congress, the agency also
developed more refined non-traffic crash data than was reported in the
2005 NPRM.\7\ The agency estimated in the Report to Congress, that
there is an average of 183 fatalities annually for all backover
crashes, which is below what was estimated in the NPRM. Our more recent
data analysis focusing on trucks of the sort that were addressed in the
original petition, is indicating that this a sub-population of straight
trucks (those less than 20 feet in length), accounts for 2 of the
estimated 183 fatalities per year due to back-over accidents.
Similarly, when all straight trucks from 10,000 to 26,000 pounds GVWR
(including those less-than-20-feet) are included, the number of
fatalities from backovers accounts for only 4 fatalities per year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 111, Rear Detection
System for Single Unit Trucks'' in Docket No. 25017.
\8\ ``Estimation of Backover Fatalities'' at https://
www.regulation.gov, Docket NHTA-25579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to sections 2012 and 10305 of SAFETEA-LU, the agency's
National Center for Statistics and Analysis is currently exploring
expanded approaches to gathering both injury and fatality data on non-
traffic incidents, which include non-traffic backing crashes that occur
on private property, in driveways, and in parking facilities. The
primary issues facing NHTSA in the collection of data on non-traffic
crashes are the collection of fatality and injury counts and the
detailed data at the event level needed to fully understand the
circumstances surrounding the crash. The agency conducted a review of
existing systems within NHTSA, surveillance systems in other Federal
agencies, and non-Federal sources to determine the feasibility for
collecting non-traffic fatality and injury counts and detailed crash
data. The review suggested possible expansion of NHTSA's existing crash
databases and the use of other Federal agencies, especially the
National Center for Health Statistics and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, which operate surveillance systems that may provide some
useful information in arriving at a better estimate of the backover
safety problem. However, the review of the non-Federal sources
including hospital systems, emergency medical services systems,
insurance company data, and news media databases found that they were
generally incomplete or lacked the detail needed by NHTSA to understand
the circumstances surrounding backing incidents.
Based upon this review, efforts to collect both the fatality and
injury data and detailed collision data are underway. The agency is
currently using the existing Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
infrastructure to collect information about non-traffic crash
fatalities and the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
infrastructure for non-traffic injuries. Similarly, the agency's
Special Crash Investigation team is conducting detailed investigations
of backovers involving light passenger vehicles.
IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM
On February 28, 2008, the President signed the K.T. Safety Act of
2007. Section 2(b) of this law requires that within 12 months of the
President's signing the bill, NHTSA must initiate rulemaking to expand
the required driver's field of view behind vehicles to reduce deaths
and injuries from backing crashes, especially crashes involving small
children and disabled people. NHTSA must issue a final rule no later
than three years after the President signs the bill. Section 2(c)(1) of
this law requires that the expanded rear visibility requirements be
phased-in. Section 2(c)(2) requires NHTSA to consider whether the
phase-in should give priority to particular types of motor vehicles if
NHTSA finds that there are any differences in the frequency with which
individual types are involved in backing crashes.
The new law does not specifically influence the straight trucks at
issue in this rulemaking. The K.T. Safety Act of 2007 is applicable
only to motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (see
section 2(e)). However, as explained above, the agency believes that
additional data on backovers collected by the agency, with regard to
all vehicles, will allow us to address this problem in a more
comprehensive manner.
V. Agency Decision To Withdraw the Rulemaking
The agency is charged by the new law to take a comprehensive look
at backing safety for all types of motor vehicles. As described above,
the agency has a great deal of research and data gathering currently
underway that will allow us to develop appropriate and effective
improvements to backing safety. The agency needs to better understand
the effectiveness of the video-based systems. We believe the results of
NHTSA's current study that will be completed in 2008 will substantially
improve our understanding of how video systems are used by drivers and
therefore their potential to reduce the backover risk. Given this, the
agency believes that efforts to address medium truck backing safety by
itself should held in abeyance pending the research and data gathering,
and that this problem should be addressed as a part of the agency's
comprehensive approach to backing safety.
Accordingly, we have decided to withdraw this rulemaking and
incorporate medium trucks into consideration of a possible broad based
approach, including passenger vehicles, to addressing the backing
safety problem.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued: July 15, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-16530 Filed 7-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
