Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility, 54533-54542 [2019-22036]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
attributable to the excess contribution,
as determined under the rules set forth
in § 1.408–11 (treating references to an
IRA as references to an ABLE account,
and references to returned contributions
under section 408(d)(4) as references to
excess compensation contributions), to
the employed designated beneficiary.
The employed designated beneficiary,
or the person acting on the employed
designated beneficiary’s behalf, is
responsible for identifying any excess
compensation contribution and for
requesting the return of the excess
compensation contribution. The excess
compensation contribution, if requested,
must be received by the employed
designated beneficiary on or before the
due date (including extensions) of the
Federal income tax return of the
employed designated beneficiary for the
taxable year in which the excess
compensation contribution is made.
(f) Applicability date. The rules of this
section apply to taxable years beginning
after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL REGULATIONS IN THE Federal
Register].
Kirsten Wielobob,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019–21477 Filed 10–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD
29 CFR Part 103
RIN 3142–AA16
Representation—Case Procedures:
Election Bars; Proof of Majority
Support in Construction Industry
Collective-Bargaining Relationships
AGENCY:
National Labor Relations
Board.
Notice of extension of time to
submit comments.
ACTION:
The National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register of August 12, 2019, seeking
comments from the public regarding its
proposed amendments to Part 103 of its
Rules and Regulations, specifically
concerning the Board’s blocking charge
policy, the voluntary recognition bar,
and Section 9(a) recognition in the
construction industry. The date to
submit comments to the Notice is
extended for 60 days.
DATES: Comments to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking must be received
by the Board on or before December 10,
2019. Comments replying to the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
comments submitted during the initial
comment period must be received by
the Board on or before December 24,
2019.
ADDRESSES:
Internet—Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Electronic comments may be submitted
through https://www.regulations.gov.
Delivery—Comments should be sent
by mail or hand delivery to: Roxanne
Rothschild, Executive Secretary,
National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570–
0001. Because of security precautions,
the Board continues to experience
delays in U.S. mail delivery. You should
take this into consideration when
preparing to meet the deadline for
submitting comments. The Board
encourages electronic filing. It is not
necessary to send comments if they
have been filed electronically with
regulations.gov. If you send comments,
the Board recommends that you confirm
receipt of your delivered comments by
contacting (202) 273–1940 (this is not a
toll-free number). Individuals with
hearing impairments may call 1–866–
315–6572 (TTY/TDD).
Only comments submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov, hand
delivered, or mailed will be accepted; ex
parte communications received by the
Board will be made part of the
rulemaking record and will be treated as
comments only insofar as appropriate.
Comments will be available for public
inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov and during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST)
at the above address.
The Board will post, as soon as
practicable, all comments received on
https://www.regulations.gov without
making any changes to the comments,
including any personal information
provided. The website https://
www.regulations.gov is the Federal
eRulemaking portal, and all comments
posted there are available and accessible
to the public. The Board requests that
comments include full citations or
internet links to any authority relied
upon. The Board cautions commenters
not to include personal information
such as Social Security numbers,
personal addresses, telephone numbers,
and email addresses in their comments,
as such submitted information will
become viewable by the public via the
https://www.regulations.gov website. It is
the commenter’s responsibility to
safeguard his or her information.
Comments submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov will not include
the commenter’s email address unless
the commenter chooses to include that
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54533
information as part of his or her
comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roxanne Rothschild, Executive
Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington,
DC 20570–0001, (202) 273–1940 (this is
not a toll-free number), 1–866–315–6572
(TTY/TDD).
Dated: October 4, 2019.
Roxanne Rothschild,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–22041 Filed 10–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0021]
RIN 2127–AM02
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 111, Rear Visibility
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
NHTSA seeks public
comment on permitting camera-based
rear visibility systems, commonly
referred to as ‘‘Camera Monitor
Systems’’ or ‘‘CMS,’’ as an alternative to
inside and outside rearview mirrors.
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS) No. 111, ‘‘Rear Visibility,’’
currently requires that vehicles be
equipped with rearview mirrors to
provide drivers with a view of objects
that are to their side or to their side and
rear. This notice responds to two
rulemaking petitions from
manufacturers seeking permission to
install CMS, instead of outside rearview
mirrors, on both light vehicles and
heavy trucks. This ANPRM builds on
the agency’s prior efforts to obtain
supporting technical information, data,
and analysis on CMS so that the agency
can determine whether these systems
can provide the same level of safety as
the rearview mirrors currently required
under FMVSS No. 111.
DATES: Written information should be
submitted by December 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document or by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
54534
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
instructions for submitting comments
on the electronic docket site by clicking
on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQs’’.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility.
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation. 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Regardless of how you submit
comments, must include the docket
number identified in the heading of this
notice.
You may call the Docket Management
Facility at 202–366–9826.
Instructions: 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 www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
decision-making process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the
commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy. In
order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of
names is completely optional. Whether
or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully
considered.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to
www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact Mr. Andrei Denes, Office of
Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone:
202–366–9544; FAX: 202–366–7003) or
Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief
Counsel (Phone: 202–366–2992; FAX:
202–366–3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
II. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111
b. Camera Monitor Systems
c. International Regulatory Efforts
d. Consideration of CMS in the United
States
III. Summary of Research
IV. Subjects on Which NHTSA Seeks Public
Comment
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
Appendix: Aspects of Light Vehicle CMS
Performance Regulated Under UNECE
R46
I. Executive Summary
Part of NHTSA’s responsibility in
carrying out its safety mission is not
only to develop and set new safety
standards for new motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment, but also to
modify existing standards as
appropriate to respond to changing
circumstances such as the introduction
of new technologies. Examples of
previous technological transitions that
triggered the need to adapt and/or
replace requirements in the FMVSS
include the replacing of analog
dashboards by digital ones, the
replacing of mechanical control systems
by electronic ones, and the first
production of electric vehicles in
appreciable numbers.
NHTSA is publishing this ANPRM to
gather information and receive feedback
to enable the agency to decide whether
(and if so, how) to propose amending
FMVSS No. 111, ‘‘Rear visibility,’’ to
permit camera-based rear visibility
systems (commonly referred to as
‘‘Camera Monitor Systems’’ or ‘‘CMS’’ 1)
as an alternative compliance option in
lieu of outside rearview mirrors or in
lieu of all rearview mirrors, both inside
and outside ones. Specifically, NHTSA
hopes this ANPRM, through the public
comment process, will provide the
agency with additional safety-related
research and data to support a potential
future rulemaking on this subject.
Currently, FMVSS No. 111 requires
that all passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school
buses, motorcycles be equipped with
one or more rearview mirrors for rear
visibility. However, in recent years,
there has been a growing interest among
industry stakeholders in using CMS to
supplement or replace rearview mirrors
on both light and heavy vehicles. These
systems use rear-facing cameras
mounted outside of the vehicle to
capture and transmit images to
1 In the balance of this notice, NHTSA uses the
term ‘‘Camera Monitor System’’ or ‘‘CMS,’’ instead
of the terms ‘‘camera-based rear visibility systems’’
and ‘‘camera-based visibility system’’. The
petitioners urge that rulemaking to permit CMS be
based on ISO 16505, and UNECE R46.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
electronic visual displays mounted
inside the vehicle, in view of the driver.
Over the past few years, the
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) has developed
and published performance
requirements and test procedures for
these systems. These requirements and
procedures have been incorporated into
the most recent update to the United
Nations Economic Commission for
Europe’s Regulation No. 46 (UNECE
R46), which has been adopted in a
number of countries in Europe and Asia.
We note that, to date, only two vehicle
models equipped with a CMS in place
of rearview mirrors have been offered
for sale commercially and only one of
those two is in currently production
anywhere in the world, although
manufacturers have announced plans to
offer additional CMS-equipped models.
In the United States, industry
stakeholders have petitioned NHTSA to
modify the requirements of FMVSS No.
111 to allow the installation of CMS as
a compliance option. To date, NHTSA
has received two such petitions: one
pertaining to light vehicles from the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(the Alliance) and Tesla, Inc. and one
from Daimler Trucks North America
relating to heavy vehicles.2
This ANPRM seeks information that
the agency believes would provide
fuller understanding of the merits of
these rulemaking petitions. One reason
why NHTSA is seeking additional
information is because research
conducted by NHTSA and others
conducted between 2006 and 2017 has
consistently shown that prototype and
preproduction CMS systems can exhibit
safety-relevant performance issues such
as blooming.3 Moreover, the CMSrelated research of which NHTSA is
aware does not focus on human factors
issues, such as how well drivers may be
able to acclimate to the use of CMS and
potentially different image locations.
(We note that NHTSA raised these
concerns and requested additional
information in letters sent to the
Alliance and Tesla in 2016, but has not
2 In addition, NHTSA has received exemption
petitions from some manufacturers requesting
permission to install such systems in lieu of FMVSS
No. 111-compliant mirrors, and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has recently
granted a similar exemption petition for commercial
trucks.
3 Blooming is a type of image distortion that
occurs on a video display when the scene being
shown on the display includes an intensely bright
light source. On the display, the light from that light
source bleeds or spills into adjacent areas of the
image. The spillover effect is particularly noticeable
in any dark areas of the image immediately adjacent
to the bright area. This could potentially occur in
a CMS-equipped vehicle when other vehicles’
headlights shine at night into the CMS camera.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
yet received a response.4) NHTSA hopes
that the comments received in response
to this ANPRM will provide the agency
with information (along with data) that
addresses these concerns.
II. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111
FMVSS No. 111, ‘‘Rear visibility,’’
sets out performance requirements for
new motor vehicles for the purpose of
‘‘reduc[ing] the number of deaths and
injuries that occur when the driver of a
motor vehicle does not have a clear and
reasonably unobstructed view to the
rear.’’ 5 Among these is the requirement
that all passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school
buses, and motorcycles, be equipped
with inside and, at least on the driver’s
side, outside rearview mirrors. The
mirrors must be must be mounted
according to certain specifications, and
must provide the driver with a specified
minimum field of view. The FMVSS No.
111 requirements relating to rearview
mirrors have been largely unchanged for
several decades.6
Although FMVSS No. 111 sets the
minimum requirements for mirrors, an
overwhelming majority of vehicle
manufacturers voluntarily exceed the
minimum rearview mirror requirements
set forth in FMVSS No. 111 to satisfy
customer demand and ensure an
efficient, global-scale manufacturing
and marketing process.
Manufacturers voluntarily exceed the
standard’s rearview mirror requirements
in two major ways. First, most light
vehicle manufacturers voluntarily equip
new passenger cars with a passengerside outside rearview mirror, in
addition to the required inside rearview
mirror, even though such a passengerside mirror is required for light vehicles
only if the inside rearview mirror does
not meet field of view requirements. A
driver-side outside rearview mirror is
required on all vehicles. Second, most
manufacturers equip vehicles with
outside rearview mirrors that are
substantially larger than required under
the standard.
4 These letters may be found in the docket
identified in the header of the document.
5 49 CFR 571.111.
6 We note that, although the agency recently
amended FMVSS No. 111 in 2014 to require that
most vehicles provide a backup camera system, that
requirement will not be discussed in this notice.
Although CMS and backup camera systems would
likely operate in a similar way, the systems serve
different safety purposes and are used in different
circumstances, as backup cameras are only
intended to assist the driver while backing up.
Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the safety
concerns with CMS are not comparable to those
with backup camera systems, but lessons from
backup cameras can and will inform any potential
rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
b. Camera Monitor Systems
In recent years, there has been
growing interest among industry
stakeholders both in the United States
and abroad in being allowed to install
CMS, in lieu of inside and/or outside
rearview mirrors.7 A vehicle equipped
with a CMS uses exterior cameras
mounted on the sides and/or rear of the
vehicle to capture an image of the rear
and/or side of the vehicle, which the
system transmits to one or more
electronic visual displays are located in
the occupant compartment within view
of the driver.
A CMS’s cameras are typically
mounted on the exterior of the vehicle
near where traditional rearview mirrors
would be installed, so that they provide
a similar field of view. Conversely, the
visual displays showing the rearview
image to the driver may be mounted in
a variety of locations in the interior of
the vehicle, because there is no need for
there to be a direct line of sight between
the cameras and the visual displays.
Although most prototype CMSs that
NHTSA has seen have displays
mounted on or near the vehicle’s
A-pillars, in the vicinity of where a
traditional outside rearview mirror
would be located, other configurations
are possible.8 For example, CMS could
use a single electronic visual display
located in the position of a traditional
inside rearview mirror or in the center
of the dashboard to display images from
side-mounted cameras either separately
or as a combined (i.e., ‘‘stitched’’) image
that integrates a center rearview image.9
c. International Regulatory Efforts
International standards and regulatory
bodies have taken steps in recent years
to develop performance standards and
test procedures for CMS. Most notably,
7 It should be noted that, while FMVSS No. 111
requires that new vehicles be equipped with
mirrors, it does not prohibit manufacturers from
supplementing those mirrors with CMS or other
features, and in fact, some manufacturers have been
offering CMSs as optional equipment. For example,
since 2013, Honda has been offering its
LaneWatchTM system which uses a camera in the
passenger-side outside rearview mirror to capture
the area to the right of the vehicle and displays this
side rearview image in the vehicle’s center console
display when the driver activates the right turn
signal or the LaneWatchTM button is pressed.
8 See, e.g., photo of the ‘‘interior of a Volkswagen
XL–1 concept with a side-view camera has a screen
on the passenger side to check outside the vehicle.’’
https://www.autonews.com/article/20140407/
OEM06/304079935/teslas-push-to-replace-sideview-mirrors-sparks-safety-fears. Accessed January
30, 2018.
9 ‘‘Gentex to Offer Unique Three-Camera
Automotive Rear Vision System’’ January 5, 2017
https://ir.gentex.com/news-releases/news-releasedetails/gentex-offer-unique-three-cameraautomotive-rear-vision-system Accessed March 4,
2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54535
in 2015, the ISO published ISO 16505,
‘‘Road vehicles—Ergonomic and
performance aspects of Camera Monitor
Systems—Requirements and test
procedures,’’ which includes detailed
test procedures for evaluating the
performance of cameras and displays
used in CMSs. In addition, UNECE R46,
the type-approval standard used by
most European countries for ‘‘devices
for indirect vision,’’ 10 was amended in
2016 to incorporate much of ISO 16505
and now permits CMSs.11 CMSs are
now permitted as an alternative to
mirrors in the dozens of countries for
which UNECE R46 is in force without
objection.12 We note that, to date, only
two vehicle models equipped with a
CMS in place of rearview mirrors have
been offered for sale commercially, and
only one of those two is in production
anywhere in the world. 13 However, at
least one manufacturer has announced
plans to offer further CMS equipped
models.14
d. Consideration of CMS in the United
States
In the United States, industry
stakeholders have requested that
NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 111 to
permit CMS as an alternative to
rearview mirrors. In 2014, NHTSA
received a petition from the Alliance
and Tesla, Inc. requesting that the
agency modify the requirements of
FMVSS No. 111 to ‘‘allow the use of
camera-based rear and/or side vision
systems [i.e., CMS] as a compliance
option for meeting the performance
requirements specified for rear and/or
side view mirrors for each location
where conventional mirrors are
currently required or permitted (i.e.,
applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.111
S.5, S.6).’’ 15 In 2015, NHTSA received
a similar petition relating to heavy
vehicles from Daimler Trucks North
America (DTNA).16 Both of these
10 UNECE R46 sets out field of view requirements
that are comparable to those for inside and outside
mirrors in FMVSS No. 111. Prior to the 2016
revision, UNECE R46 required that vehicles meet
those field of view requirements using mirrors.
11 See Appendix for a brief description of the
UNECE R46 CMS requirements.
12 See ‘‘Adoption of Amendments to Regulation
No. 46’’ (July 10, 2017), https://treaties.un.org/doc/
Publication/CN/2017/CN.358.2017-Eng.pdf.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
13 2019 Lexus ES CMS version commercialized
only in Japan, and the 250-vehicle limited
production 2014 VW XL–1 commercialized in E.U.
under the type approval process before the
publication of the latest version of UNECE R46,
allowing CMS.
14 Audi E-tron CMS option is expected to be
available for purchase in E.U. in 2019.
15 This petitions and related documents can be
found at Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0021–0001.
16 Id.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
54536
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
petitions cited improved fuel economy
(not safety) as the primary benefit of
allowing this change. Neither petition
provided objective data or analysis to
aid the agency in determining the net
effect on safety of amending FMVSS No.
111 to permit a CMS compliance option
for rear visibility.17 18
Although NHTSA has not yet formally
responded to these petitions,19 in
September 2017, Velvac (a mirror
manufacturer for the truck, commercial
and RV industries) sent a letter to
NHTSA expressing concerns over
possible safety impacts should NHTSA
decide to grant a petition to amend
FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS as a
compliance option.20 Velvac argued that
ISO 16505 should not be applied to U.S.
vehicles without making changes to the
requirements to account for U.S.specific vehicle configurations and
applications. Velvac also suggested that
a hybrid regulatory approach that would
require the installation of both a camera
and a mirror would be preferable.
Velvac’s reasoning was that FMVSS No.
111 already provides manufacturers the
flexibility to use a hybrid approach
(CMS technology in combination with
an aerodynamic FMVSS No. 111compliant mirror system) to achieve the
fuel economy, aerodynamic, and
visibility improvements while still
17 DTNA’s petition argued that CMS ‘‘can provide
an expanded field of view’’ and ‘‘eliminate blind
spots,’’ and asserted that the ‘‘technology can
achieve the same or better level of safety as outside
rearview mirrors in providing the driver a view to
the rear along both sides of the vehicle.’’ However,
it did not provide evidence to support these claims.
18 While recent interest among stakeholders has
focused primarily on replacing outside mirrors with
CMS, at least one manufacturer—Cadillac—has
commercially produced a passenger car equipped
with a CMS which provides drivers with a view of
objects to the rear. We explained in a 2016
interpretation that Cadillac’s CMS, which is
integrated into the vehicle’s inside mirror, was
permissible because FMVSS No. 111 does not
require that a passenger car’s inside mirror meet the
inside mirror field-of-view requirements (S5.1.1), if
the vehicle is equipped with compliant driver’s and
passenger’s side outside mirrors. See letter to Brian
Latouf (Feb. 22, 2016), available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/full-display-mirrorsystem-1-gm-feb-11.
19 On June 30, 2016, in response to the Alliance/
Tesla petition, NHTSA sent a letter to both
petitioners requesting additional information to
enable the agency to evaluate the petition. The
safety-relevant questions posed in the letter focused
on human factors information gaps and
performance concerns, and requested input
regarding performance requirements and test
procedure details that would be needed to ensure
that camera-based systems provide an equivalent
level of safety to that of standard rearview mirrors.
NHTSA notes that, because the agency did not
receive a complete response to that letter from
either petitioner, many of the questions in this
ANPRM are based on the questions in that letter.
20 Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0007–0005.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
addressing the human factors issues and
maintaining a fail-safe mechanism.
The issue of permitting CMS as a
compliance option for rear visibility was
again raised in comments submitted in
response to the DOT’s October 2, 2017
Notice of Regulatory Review (82 FR
45750).21 Comments by the Alliance
reiterated its support of its rulemaking
petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 to
improve fuel economy, and further
asserted that CMS could expand the
driver’s field of view.22 Comments by
the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association also supported amending
FMVSS No. 111 on the basis that
installing CMS, in lieu of mirrors, on
large trucks would reduce aerodynamic
drag and potentially expand the driver’s
field of view.23
III. Summary of Research
To evaluate the safety impacts of
CMS, NHTSA has conducted its own
research and testing, examined the
research and testing done by others, and
requested research data from industry
stakeholders. This research is
summarized below. In addition,
NHTSA’s own research reports on this
subject can be found in the docket for
this ANPRM.
From 2006 to 2011, NHTSA
conducted a multi-year research project
to develop of performance specifications
for a CMS that would supplement
(rather than replace) traditional mirrors
on heavy vehicles.24 25 26 The CMS
studied in this research was designed to
supplement traditional mirrors by
providing ‘‘enhanced views to the sides
and rear of a heavy vehicle with an
operating envelope that includes
daytime and nighttime, as well as clear
and inclement weather.’’ 27 NHTSA
believed that such a supplemental CMS
would be beneficial to safety because it
would improve the situational
awareness of the heavy vehicle driver,
thereby reducing sideswipe crashes
21 In that notice, the Department sought public
comments on existing rules and other agency
actions that are good candidates for repeal,
replacement, suspension, or modification.
22 Docket No. DOT–OST–2017–0069–2700.
23 Docket No. DOT–OST–2017–0069–2786.
24 ‘‘Development of a Performance Specification
for Camera/Video Imaging Systems on Heavy
Vehicles—Final Report: Specifications.’’ July 2008,
DOT HS 810 958. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
25 ‘‘Development of a Performance Specification
for Camera/Video Imaging Systems on Heavy
Vehicles—Final Report: Supporting Research.’’ July
2008, DOT HS 810 960. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
26 ‘‘Field Demonstration of Heavy Vehicle
Camera/Video Imaging Systems: Final Report.’’ June
2011, DOT HS 811 475. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
27 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
when heavy vehicles merge or change
lanes. To explore CMS performance
specifications, researchers conducted
analyses of driver needs and human
factors, examinations of video
technology, systems analyses, focus
groups and on-road tests. Researchers
also conducted a study that surveyed
commercial drivers using supplemental
CMS, in which they observed neutral
and potentially positive findings with
respect to safety-critical events and
drivers’ forward attention.28 They also
identified a number of potential safety
concerns or challenges. For example,
drivers indicated that the glare
produced from the system’s electronic
visual displays was ‘‘too bright and
affected their ability to see details in the
forward roadway’’ and that ‘‘glare from
the visual displays could be
uncomfortable at night.’’ 29
In 2015, the German Federal Highway
Research Institute (BASt) published a
report summarizing a study that directly
compared outside rearview mirrors with
a CMS for side rearview image display
in passenger vehicle models and heavy
trucks under various testing conditions.
30 The study concluded that a CMS that
meets ‘‘specific quality criteria’’ can
provide ‘‘sufficient’’ rear visibility for
drivers.31 The study also found that the
change from outside rearview mirrors to
a CMS requires a period of driver
familiarization, but noted that the
familiarization period is ‘‘relatively
short,’’ and that it does not necessarily
result in ‘‘safety-critical situations.’’ 32
The BASt study provided valuable
insight into the operational capabilities
of CMS technology at the time, and
looked into some human factor issues,
such as how long or frequently drivers
glanced at the CMS when performing
various driving maneuvers as compared
to mirrors. However, the BASt study left
a number of questions unanswered,
including what minimum quality
criteria for a CMS would provide the
same level of safety as mirrors, and
whether the time it takes for a driver to
become acclimated to the system will
affect vehicle safety. The study also
28 ‘‘Field Demonstration of Heavy Vehicle
Camera/Video Imaging Systems: Final Report.’’ June
2011, DOT HS 811 475. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
29 Id. The report concluded that the issue of
display glare was ‘‘resolvable,’’ although
subsequent research suggests the issue still persists
in more advanced CMS displays.
30 ‘‘Camera-Monitor Systems as a Replacement for
Exterior Mirrors in Cars and Trucks’’ (2015).
Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt).
31 Id.
32 Id. According to the study, a ‘‘safety critical’’
task is one that requires four glances at the CMS,
and that the glances have a mean duration of more
than 2 seconds.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
notes, but does not explore, the safety
impact of the inherent differences
between the image provide by a CMS
and the image provided by a mirror.
Specifically, the BASt study notes that
mirrors provide 3-dimensional spatial
information to drivers,33 and that
mirrors allow drivers to change the field
of view through head movements,
neither of which is possible with a CMS.
In 2017, NHTSA conducted
additional testing to further evaluate the
performance of prototype light vehicle
CMS to determine whether there were
any potential safety concerns, with
particular focus on the quality of the
image displayed by the CMS.34
NHTSA’s study compared the observed
performance of a prototype CMS
installed on a MY 2016 Audi A4, with
traditional mirrors installed on a 2017
Audi A4. Researchers compared the
performance of the prototype CMS with
traditional rearview mirrors in a variety
of environments, including public
roads, test track courses, and a
laboratory. The systems were tested in
different environments, including
public roads, laboratories, and test track
facilities. Tests were performed in both
day and night conditions, and in
conditions with various levels of
precipitation.35 Although researchers
found that the CMS was generally
usable in most environments, and
provided a better image than mirrors in
certain conditions (such as in dusk or
dawn lighting conditions), researchers
identified a number of potential safety
concerns, including:
• The image appeared to be
horizontally compressed, such that
objects displayed on the CMS screen
were narrower and thus more difficult
to detect.
• The CMS display was mounted
lower than traditional mirrors, which
may be temporarily disorienting for
drivers. (It should be noted, however,
that despite initial disorientation,
drivers were able to acclimate to the
CMS.)
• The display appeared very bright in
certain conditions, even when set to
‘‘nighttime’’ mode, which may
negatively impact the driver’s ability to
see obstacles at night.
• The system appeared to have
blooming and lens flare that exceeded
33 Although the images that mirrors produce are
2-dimensional, mirrors permit drivers to perceive
depth through stereoscopy.
34 ‘‘Examination of Prototype Camera-Based
Visibility System for Light Vehicle Outside Mirror
Replacement’’ (2018), DOT HS 812 582.
35 Since NHTSA had access to the leased systemequipped vehicle for only a short period of time,
a limited amount of testing was performed. Tests
performed were ones for which needed equipment
and test facilities were readily available.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
the level permitted under the new ISO
standard for CMS under certain
conditions.
• In rainy conditions, droplets on the
lens would obscure the image displayed
to the driver.
The full report describing this study
along with related documents may be
viewed online in the docket for this
ANPRM.
In addition to the governmentsponsored research described above,
NHTSA is aware of two other studies
that examined relevant issues relating to
rearview display locations. The first of
these, is a naturalistic study by Ali and
Bazilah published in 2014, in which
researchers observed the on-road
driving behavior of subjects using
vehicles equipped only with CMS and
no rearview mirrors.36 37 The study
found that the use of the CMS in the
study improved drivers’ attention to the
forward roadway, but increased off-road
downward glances at the center
rearview display and motion sickness,
leading the authors to recommend
against a low location for a rearview
display. In 2016, Large et al. published
a similar study based on observations of
subjects using a driving simulator of a
vehicles equipped with a CMS.
Researchers analyzed drivers’ eye glance
behavior and subjective feedback for
five layouts of three in-vehicle displays
(one rear and two side view displays)
versus traditional mirrors during
overtaking maneuvers performed
without urgency.38 The study found that
subjects tended to prefer a CMS display
layout that matched traditional mirror
locations.
Finally, NHTSA has been made aware
through media reports that some portion
of the driving population not be
physiologically capable of using CMS.
In February of 2018, Steve Downing, the
Chief Executive Officer of Gentex, Inc.
(a CMS manufacturer), stated that the
company had observed that ‘‘roughly 5
to 10 percent of motorists suffer motion
sickness or have depth-of-vision
problems’’ when viewing the video
36 Mohamed Ali, J.S. and Bazilah, F. (2014).
‘‘Mirrorless Car: A Feasibility Study.’’ Applied
Mechanics & Materials, 663: 649–654.
37 The sideview CMS screens (which replaced the
outside rearview mirrors) were positioned in the
dashboard immediately to the left and right sides
of the instrument panel, while the center rearview
CMS screen (which replaced the inside rearview
mirror) was positioned in place of the instrument
panel.
38 Large, D.R., Crundall, E., Burnett, G., Harvey,
C. and Konstantopoulos, P. (2016). ‘‘Driving
without Wings: The Effect of Different Digital
Mirror Locations on the Visual Behaviour,
Performance and Opinions of Drivers.’’ Applied
Ergonomics 55: 138–148.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54537
image.39 NHTSA researchers have
personally experienced this
phenomenon when driving CMSequipped test vehicles, but this
information is, at present, anecdotal.
NHTSA is not aware of any research
having been done in this area, but the
possibility that some percentage of
drivers cannot use a CMS is something
that NHTSA believes deserves further
research.
IV. Subjects on Which NHTSA Seeks
Public Comment
Although NHTSA believes that CMS
is a promising technology, the agency
has some lingering safety concerns that
it believes should be addressed prior to
deciding whether to propose amending
FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS as a
compliance option for rear visiblity.
Accordingly, the agency has compiled a
list of issues on which the agency
requests additional information to
adequately evaluate the safety of
permitting CMS as an alternative
compliance option to rearview mirrors.
NHTSA invites comments on all aspects
of permitting camera-based technologies
to be installed as an alternative to
mirrors to meet the FMVSS No. 111 rear
visibility requirements. However, the
agency requests that commenters
provide as much research, evidence,
and/or objective data as possible to
support their comments to inform the
agency in determining the appropriate
next steps.
Existing Industry Standards
(1) Please provide research data
concerning the safety impacts of
replacing rearview mirrors with CMS.
Please explain your view of the
significance of those data. In addition,
please explain your views on how CMSequipped vehicles would impact light
and heavy vehicle driver behavior and
situational awareness while driving.
(2) Are the physical properties of
mirrors necessary to meet the stated
purpose of FMVSS No. 111 to provide
a ‘‘clear and reasonably unobstructed
view?’’ As an example, because each eye
of a driver viewing objects reflected in
a mirror has a slightly different angle of
view of those objects, just as the eyes of
a driver viewing those objects directly
would have, mirrors provide depth
perception similar to that provided by
direct vision. As another example,
mirrors offer drivers the possibility to
modify their field of view rapidly by
39 ‘‘Gentex’s two-way mirror strategy Balancing
core product with advanced digital displays’’
February 19, 2018. Automotive News. https://
www.autonews.com/article/20180219/OEM06/
180219767/gentex-mirrors-technology. Accessed
October 18, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
54538
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
looking at the mirror from different
angles. To what extent could possible
CMS features which cannot be provided
using mirrors (e.g., zoom, night vision)
offset the loss of these mirror-specific
properties?
(3) We seek comment on the
performance of current world-market
vehicles equipped with CMS when
evaluated according to the ISO 16505/
UNECE R46 standards. In particular, we
seek comment on the performance
requirements in these standards, and the
on-road performance of CMS that meet
these standards. Please identify any
performance requirements for CMS that
you believe are not stringent enough, are
too stringent, or are unnecessary, and
explain the basis for your beliefs. Please
identify any requirements that you
believe should be added and explain the
basis for your beliefs. Which CMS have
performed relatively well, and which
have performed relatively poorly, on the
road? What explains the difference in
performance?
System Field of View and Related Test
Procedures
(4) We seek comment on whether and,
if so, why minimum field of view
requirements for CMS should differ
from the current minimum field of view
requirements for mirrors under FMVSS
No. 111. Petitioners have stated that
providing drivers with expanded views,
larger than those required by FMVSS
No. 111, would be advantageous. What
data exist to support this assertion?
What, if any, potential advantages and
disadvantages, such as increased eye
glance durations, may be observed for
wide-view images? Please provide
research or data that addresses how
wider views will affect image quality.
(5) We seek comment on whether
NHTSA should permit CMSs that use
multiple cameras to provide multiple
fields of view to the driver in the same
image display area. In particular, we
seek comment on the safety benefits/
disbenefits of permitting multiple fields
of view. As an example, CMS that
operate using multiple fields of view
might have missing sections on the
processed image, or image latency
issues stemming from increased
processing time. What are the concerns,
if any, regarding a multi-camera
visibility system and how can they be
mitigated?
(6) NHTSA considered whether there
might be any opportunities to combine
either the cameras or the displays for
the CMS with the camera or display for
backup camera system that is required
by FMVSS No. 111. The agency
tentatively concludes that there would
not be any such opportunities. Although
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
CMS and backup camera systems would
likely operate in a similar way, the
systems serve different safety purposes
and are used in different circumstances.
Specifically, the purpose of a CMS
would be to assist the driver in avoiding
all crashes during normal driving, while
the purpose of a backup camera is to
assist the driver in avoiding backover
crashes while in reverse. Perhaps more
important, given the likely differences
between the field of view and display
image quality parameters that would
apply to CMS versus backup camera
systems, NHTSA believes it is unlikely
that it would be technically possible to
combine the two systems in such a way
that they share either a camera or
display monitor.40 NHTSA requests
comments on this tentative conclusion.
Image Quality and Related Test
Procedures
(7) We seek comment on the
minimum quality of the image
presented on a CMS electronic visual
display to provide the same level of
safety as traditional FMVSS No. 111compliant mirrors, as well as how image
quality could be objectively measured.
In particular, we seek comment on what
would be the appropriate minimum
camera and visual display parameters
and performance metrics for a CMS (i.e.,
camera/display resolution, screen
brightness, contrast, color, tone, and
their adjustments). Should the
parameters and metrics for a CMS differ
from those for a backup camera system
and, if so, how and to what extent? To
what extent do existing CMS regulations
(e.g., ISO 16505/UNECE R46) provide
objective and repeatable performance
requirements and test procedures to
evaluate image quality? To the extent
that those regulations do not provide
such requirements and procedures,
what changes or additions would need
to be made? What new procedures, if
any, would be needed to evaluate image
quality appropriately and what has been
done to develop such procedures?
(8) We seek comment on what
disruptive display aberrations
(blooming, etc.) should be addressed if
the agency were to develop a CMS
performance standard. To what extent
do existing CMS regulations (e.g., ISO
16505/UNECE R46) provide objective,
and repeatable performance test
40 NHTSA believes that sharing a camera would
not be possible because the CMS camera would
need to be aimed much higher than the backup
camera, and that sharing a single display area
would not be possible because both the CMS and
backup camera images would need to be displayed
simultaneously to provide the driver with all
required fields of view when the vehicle is in
reverse.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
procedures to evaluate display
aberrations? What new procedures, if
any, would be needed to evaluate
display aberrations appropriately and
what has been done to develop such
procedures?
Rearview Image Display Type Related
Human Factors
(9) We seek comment on what
research has been done to identify and
address human factors issues like eye
strain or visual fatigue from long
periods of intermittent electronic visual
display viewing. While we are
particularly interested in research
comparing driver eye strain and/or
visual fatigue for users of a CMS versus
users of traditional rearview mirrors,
other analogous research could be
useful.
(10) We seek comment on research
concerning differences in the ability of
drivers to visually discern and focus on
objects in an electronic visual display as
compared to objects reflected by
traditional rearview mirrors.
(11) We seek comment on how a
driver should be alerted that a CMS is
not operating correctly, such as during
a malfunction or a software update.
Side Rearview Image Display Locations,
Driver Acclimation, and Related Test
Procedures
(12) We seek comment on whether
and how placing the CMS displays in
non-traditional locations (e.g., in the
center console) would affect vehicle
safety, as compared to placing the
displays close to where the outside
rearview mirrors would be mounted
near the A-pillars. In particular, we seek
research concerning the impact of
different image locations on the level of
safety and performance among any
driver demographic, and whether
different image locations may lead to
driver confusion.
(13) We seek comment on whether
research has been performed concerning
the impacts of glare from sunlight and
other vehicles’ headlights on the CMS
display, and whether test procedures
have been developed to measure glare.
If performance requirements and test
procedures have not yet been developed
to address these problems, when and
how can they be developed? What are
potential strategies to mitigate glare to
ensure that useful images would be
provided to drivers over the greatest
range of conditions possible.
Camera Durability, Reliability, and
Related Test Procedures
(14) We seek comment on the
anticipated lifespan of the electronic
visual display and camera components
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
that would be installed in a typical
CMS. Will the performance (e.g., display
brightness) of components be
maintained within specifications
consistent with desired image quality
over that lifespan, or will performance
decrease due to age and/or being subject
to outdoor conditions with wide
temperature ranges and precipitation?
(15) We seek comment on the
anticipated reliability of CMS as
compared to outside rearview mirrors,
including any reliability data that may
be available for production or prototype
CMSs.
(16) We seek comment on the
anticipated replacement cost for a CMS
that becomes inoperable due to damage
or malfunction, and how that cost
compares to the replacement cost of
traditional powered and unpowered
outside rearview mirrors.
(17) We seek comment on whether
and, if so, how a CMS can be
weatherproofed to prevent
condensation, or large water droplets,
forming inside the camera enclosure,
which could reduce image clarity.
NHTSA has observed condensation in
cameras mounted on the underside of
outside rearview mirrors of recent
model year production vehicles
resulting in part of the camera view
being unusable (e.g., the water blocks a
portion of the camera’s field of view).
How should adequate weatherproofing
be defined? Would the durability tests
in FVMSS No. 111, S14.3 for backup
cameras be sufficient, and if so, why?
What other test procedures exist for
demonstrating adequate
weatherproofing of cameras, and have
those procedures been validated?
(18) Depending on the mounting
location, cameras may be subject to
environmentally-caused lens
obstructions (e.g., dirt, ice, rain drops).
We seek comment on how to prevent or
mitigate such lens obstructions. What
performance requirements and
associated test procedures simulating
these conditions have been developed to
evaluate whether the camera is
providing a useful image?
System Availability When Vehicle
Ignition Is Off
(19) Although it is not one of the
primary safety purpose of rearview
mirrors, drivers often use the outside
rearview mirrors after turning off the
ignition and preparing to exit the
vehicle to determine whether it is safe
to open the vehicle door when parked
alongside a traffic lane. We seek
comment on whether NHTSA consider
requiring that a CMS be capable of
serving this function by being
operational in some capacity either at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
all times or for a specified period of
time after opening the driver’s car door.
What new performance criteria would
need to be developed for this purpose
and what has been done to develop
those criteria?
Miscellaneous
(20) Are there any other safety
concerns that are closely related to the
performance of CMS that are not
addressed in this notice? If so, what are
they, and what is the degree of their
importance?
(21) We seek comment on the
potential short-term and long-term
economic impacts of CMS. In particular,
we seek comment on the level of
consumer interest in vehicles equipped
with CMS. We also seek comment on
the extent of reduced drag associated
with the installation of CMS and on the
resulting amount of improved fuel
economy. Finally, we seek comment on
the magnitude of the cost differential
between equipping a vehicle with CMS
and equipping a vehicle with rearview
mirrors, and on the extent to which
improved fuel economy would offset
increased equipment costs associated
with CMS.
V. Public Participation
(a) How can I influence NHTSA’s
thinking on this subject?
NHTSA welcomes public review of
this ANPRM. NHTSA will consider the
comments and information received in
developing its eventual proposal for
how to proceed on permitting CMS
technology as a compliance option for
the outside rearview mirror
requirements of FMVSS No. 111.
(b) How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed in the correct
docket, please include the docket
number of this document (NHTSA–
2018–0021) in your comments.
Your primary comments should not
be more than 15 pages long. However,
you may attach additional documents,
such as supporting data or research, to
your primary comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit one copy (two copies if
submitting by mail or hand delivery) of
your comments, including the
attachments, to the docket following the
instructions given above under
ADDRESSES. Please note, if you are
submitting comments electronically as a
PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the
documents submitted be scanned using
the Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54539
process, thus allowing NHTSA to search
and copy certain portions of your
submission. Please note that pursuant to
the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and
used by the agency, it must meet the
information quality standards set forth
in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act
guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage
you to consult the guidelines in
preparing your comments. OMB’s
guidelines may be accessed at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-02-22/
pdf/R2-59.pdf; DOT’s guidelines may be
accessed at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/docs/DOT%20Information
%20Dissemination%20
Quality%20Guidelines.pdf.
(c) How can I be sure that my comments
were received?
If you submit comments by hard copy
and wish Docket Management to notify
you upon its receipt of your comments,
enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope containing
your comments. Upon receiving your
comments, Docket Management will
return the postcard by mail. If you
submit comments electronically, your
comments should appear automatically
in Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0021 on
https://www.regulations.gov. If they do
not appear within two weeks of posting,
we suggest that you call the Docket
Management Facility at 1–800–647–
5527.
(d) How do I submit confidential
business information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
must submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information that you claim to be
confidential business information, to the
Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
In addition, you should submit a copy
(two copies if submitting by mail or
hand delivery) from which you have
deleted the claimed confidential
business information to the docket by
one of the methods given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you
should include a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in
NHTSA’s confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR part
512).
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
54540
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(e) Will the agency consider late
comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments
received before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent
possible, NHTSA will also consider
comments received after that date.
(f) How can I read the comments
submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received
at the address given in the ADDRESSES
section. The hours of the docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also read the comments on the
internet, identified by the docket
number at the heading of this notice, at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Please note that, even after the
comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in
the docket as it becomes available.
Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, NHTSA
recommends that you periodically
check the docket for new material.
VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
a. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ’’Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ’’significant’’ and therefore
subject to OMB review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of
this ANPRM under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, and the
DOT’s regulatory policies and
procedures found in DOT Order 2100.6,
‘‘Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings.’’ As discussed above, the
agency lacks the necessary information
to develop a proposal at this time due
to a number of unanswered questions
and unresolved considerations. This
rulemaking has been determined to be
not ‘‘significant’’ under DOT Order
2100.6 and the policies of the Office of
Management and Budget.
b. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs)
This action is not subject to the
requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017) because it is an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
c. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., no analysis is
required for an ANPRM. However,
vehicle manufacturers and equipment
manufacturers are encouraged to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
comment if they identify any aspects of
the potential rulemaking that may apply
to them.
d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
As an ANPRM, NHTSA does not
believe that this document raises
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. NHTSA believes that
federalism issues would be more
appropriately considered if and when
the agency proposes changes to FMVSS
No. 111 to permit CMS.
e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
With respect to the review of the
promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996) requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies
the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, while
promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) clearly specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. This document is consistent
with that requirement.
f. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. There are no information
collection requirements associated with
this ANPRM. Any information
collection requirements and the
associated burdens will be discussed in
detail once a proposal has been issued.
g. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to
evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law (e.g.,
the statutory provisions regarding
NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standards bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA
directs us to provide Congress (through
OMB) with explanations when we
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards. As NHTSA has not yet
developed specific regulatory
requirements, the NTTAA does not
apply for purposes of this ANPRM.
h. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits,
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure of
State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). NHTSA has determined that this
ANPRM would not result in
expenditures by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, in excess of $100 million
annually.
i. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking
action for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has preliminarily determined that
implementation of this rulemaking
action would not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment.
j. Plain Language
The Plain Language Writing Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111–274) requires that
Federal agencies write documents in a
clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. While the Act does not cover
regulations, Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 require each agency to write all
notices in plain language that is simple
and easy to understand. Application of
the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following
questions:
• Have we organized the material to
suit the public’s needs?
• Is the discussion in the notice
clearly written?
• Does the notice contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this ANPRM.
k. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
54541
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
APPENDIX—ASPECTS OF LIGHT VEHICLE CMS PERFORMANCE REGULATED UNDER UNECE R46
UNECE R46
citation
Aspect of performance 41
Description
Structural design ....................................................
Requirement that the CMS meet various size, shape, and material restrictions.
Requirement that CMS monitor luminance be adjustable .............................
Monitor Luminance .................................................
System availability indicator ...................................
Requirement that the CMS indicate to the driver if the system is unavailable.
Requirement that the monitor show a uniform image. Limits for luminance
when measured at various viewing angles (directional uniformity) and at
various locations on the screen (lateral uniformity).
Monitor luminance and contrast limits for different conditions (direct sunlight, diffuse ambient light, sunset and night).
Requirement that the CMS be able to display a minimum tonal range of
distinguishable different grey steps 42.
Requirement that the CMS be able to accurately reproduce certain colors 43.
Requirement that CMS image aberrations be noted in the owner’s manual
Limits for the white stripes artifact appearing on an image created by very
bright light sources.
Limits for the area of image loss caused by bright lights flooding the image
(blooming) and light scattering inside the lens (lens flare).
Requirements for CMS to show distinctively two point light sources (e.g.
passing beam headlights).
Requirements for the monitor to accurately show zones of different tones,
or colors, without blurring the boundaries between set zones. Limits are
provided for the horizontal and vertical direction.
Requirements for resolution of the CMS to show a sufficiently clear image
at various distances.
Limits for the level of distortion of the CMS image relative to a rectilinear or
pinhole projection.
Requirement that the monitor be free of flicker 44 ..........................................
Requirement that the CMS operate at a minimum frame rate, and that the
movements of objects in front of the camera be rendered smooth and
fluid.
Limit on the amount of time permitted for the monitor to form an image 45 ..
Limit on the time delay between when an event occurs and when it is rendered on the monitor.
Requirement that an externally mounted CMS camera meet certain impact
requirements.
Requirement that CMS devices meet the same minimum field of vision requirements as mirror.
Requirements for when and under what conditions a CMS must activate or
deactivate.
In default view the system is required to show the minimum required field
of vision.
Requirements relating to what information may be overlaid on the CMS
image, and limits on the size of overlays.
Requirement that the magnification of the CMS image be within a certain
range.
Requirement for the minimum distinguishable details observable in an
image.
Limits for the ratio of horizontal to vertical magnification of the image .........
Requirements relating to where the monitors may be located inside the vehicle and how the left and right fields of vision may be displayed.
Monitor isotropy ......................................................
Luminance and contrast rendering ........................
Grey scale rendering ..............................................
Color rendering .......................................................
Image artifacts (aberrations) ..................................
Smear .....................................................................
Blooming and lens flare .........................................
Point light sources ..................................................
Sharpness ..............................................................
Depth of field ..........................................................
Geometric distortion ...............................................
Flicker .....................................................................
Frame rate ..............................................................
Image formation time .............................................
System latency .......................................................
Impact testing .........................................................
Field of vision .........................................................
Activation and deactivation ....................................
Default view ............................................................
Overlays .................................................................
Magnification factor ................................................
Resolution ...............................................................
Magnification aspect ratio ......................................
Monitors ..................................................................
41 Performance metrics used for these aspects of
performance are performed per ISO 16505:2015,
unless otherwise noted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
42 Grey
scale chart per ISO 14524:2009.
coordinates per CIE 1976 UCS.
43 Color
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44 Test
45 Test
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
6.2.2.1
6.2.2.3.1,
6.2.2.3.5.1
6.2.2.3.2,
16.1.2
6.2.2.3.3.1
6.2.2.3.3.2
6.2.2.3.3.3
6.2.2.3.3.4
6.2.2.3.3.5
6.2.2.3.3.5.1
6.2.2.3.3.5.2
6.2.2.3.3.5.3
6.2.2.3.3.6.1
6.2.2.3.3.6.2
6.2.2.3.3.7
6.2.2.3.3.8.1
6.2.2.3.4.1.
6.2.2.3.4.2
6.2.2.3.4.3
6.3.1
15.2.4
16.1.1
16.1.1.1
16.1.1.3
16.1.3.1
16.1.3.2
performed per ISO 13406–2:2001.
performed per ISO 9241–305:2008.
10OCP1
16.1.4
16.1.5
54542
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–22036 Filed 10–9–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2017–0018;
4500030115]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding for the
Bone Cave Harvestman
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition finding
and initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to delist the
Bone Cave harvestman as an endangered
or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we
find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that delisting the
Bone Cave harvestman may be
warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this document, we
announce that we plan to initiate a
review of the status of the Bone Cave
harvestman to determine whether
delisting the species is warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are requesting
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding the species.
Based on the status review, we will
issue a 12-month finding that will
address whether or not delisting the
Bone Cave harvestman is warranted, in
accordance with the Act.
DATES: This finding was made on
October 10, 2019. As we commence
work on the status review, we seek any
new information concerning the status
of, or threats to, the species or its habitat
and relevant conservation measures in
place. We will consider any relevant
information that we receive during our
work on the status review.
ADDRESSES: Supporting documents: A
summary of the basis for the petition
finding is available on https://
www.regulations.gov under docket
number FWS–R2–ES–2017–0018. In
addition, this supporting information is
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Oct 09, 2019
Jkt 250001
hours by contacting the person specified
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Submitting information: If you have
new scientific or commercial data or
other information concerning the status
of, or threats to, the Bone Cave
harvestman, please provide those data
or information by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter docket number FWS–R2–ES–
2017–0018. Then, click on the ‘‘Search’’
button. After finding the correct
document, you may submit information
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ If your
information will fit in the provided
comment box, please use this feature of
https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most
compatible with our information review
procedures. If you attach your
information as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word.
If you attach multiple comments (such
as form letters), our preferred format is
a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2017–
0018, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send information
only by the methods described above.
We will post all information we receive
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Zerrenner, telephone: 505–761–
4781, email: adam_zerrenner@fws.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf, please call the Federal
Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth the
procedures for adding a species to, or
removing a species from, the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists) in 50 CFR
part 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act
requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to add a species to
the Lists (i.e., ‘‘list’’ a species), remove
a species from the Lists (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a
species), or change a listed species’
status from endangered to threatened or
from threatened to endangered (i.e.,
‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make this finding within 90 days of
our receipt of the petition and publish
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
The Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service revised the regulations
at 50 CFR 424.14 to clarify the
procedures under which the Services
evaluate petitions effective October 27,
2016 (81 FR 66462; September 27,
2016). We originally received the
petition that is the subject of this
document on June 2, 2014, with
supplemental information received on
October 6, 2016. We therefore evaluated
this petition under the 50 CFR 424.14
requirements that were in effect prior to
October 27, 2016, as those requirements
applied when the petition and
supplemental information were
received. At that time, our standard for
substantial scientific or commercial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day petition finding was ‘‘that amount
of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)).
A species may be determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The
five factors are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (Factor
E).
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to, or are reasonably likely to,
affect individuals of a species
negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54533-54542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22036]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0021]
RIN 2127-AM02
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks public comment on permitting camera-based rear
visibility systems, commonly referred to as ``Camera Monitor Systems''
or ``CMS,'' as an alternative to inside and outside rearview mirrors.
Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rear
Visibility,'' currently requires that vehicles be equipped with
rearview mirrors to provide drivers with a view of objects that are to
their side or to their side and rear. This notice responds to two
rulemaking petitions from manufacturers seeking permission to install
CMS, instead of outside rearview mirrors, on both light vehicles and
heavy trucks. This ANPRM builds on the agency's prior efforts to obtain
supporting technical information, data, and analysis on CMS so that the
agency can determine whether these systems can provide the same level
of safety as the rearview mirrors currently required under FMVSS No.
111.
DATES: Written information should be submitted by December 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
[[Page 54534]]
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQs''.
Mail: Docket Management Facility. M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit comments, must include the docket
number identified in the heading of this notice.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Instructions: 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 www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate
comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their
name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names
is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully considered.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Andrei Denes, Office of
Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-9544; FAX: 202-366-7003) or
Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel (Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX:
202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111
b. Camera Monitor Systems
c. International Regulatory Efforts
d. Consideration of CMS in the United States
III. Summary of Research
IV. Subjects on Which NHTSA Seeks Public Comment
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
Appendix: Aspects of Light Vehicle CMS Performance Regulated Under
UNECE R46
I. Executive Summary
Part of NHTSA's responsibility in carrying out its safety mission
is not only to develop and set new safety standards for new motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, but also to modify existing
standards as appropriate to respond to changing circumstances such as
the introduction of new technologies. Examples of previous
technological transitions that triggered the need to adapt and/or
replace requirements in the FMVSS include the replacing of analog
dashboards by digital ones, the replacing of mechanical control systems
by electronic ones, and the first production of electric vehicles in
appreciable numbers.
NHTSA is publishing this ANPRM to gather information and receive
feedback to enable the agency to decide whether (and if so, how) to
propose amending FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear visibility,'' to permit camera-
based rear visibility systems (commonly referred to as ``Camera Monitor
Systems'' or ``CMS'' \1\) as an alternative compliance option in lieu
of outside rearview mirrors or in lieu of all rearview mirrors, both
inside and outside ones. Specifically, NHTSA hopes this ANPRM, through
the public comment process, will provide the agency with additional
safety-related research and data to support a potential future
rulemaking on this subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the balance of this notice, NHTSA uses the term ``Camera
Monitor System'' or ``CMS,'' instead of the terms ``camera-based
rear visibility systems'' and ``camera-based visibility system''.
The petitioners urge that rulemaking to permit CMS be based on ISO
16505, and UNECE R46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, FMVSS No. 111 requires that all passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses,
motorcycles be equipped with one or more rearview mirrors for rear
visibility. However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest
among industry stakeholders in using CMS to supplement or replace
rearview mirrors on both light and heavy vehicles. These systems use
rear-facing cameras mounted outside of the vehicle to capture and
transmit images to electronic visual displays mounted inside the
vehicle, in view of the driver. Over the past few years, the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed and
published performance requirements and test procedures for these
systems. These requirements and procedures have been incorporated into
the most recent update to the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe's Regulation No. 46 (UNECE R46), which has been adopted in a
number of countries in Europe and Asia. We note that, to date, only two
vehicle models equipped with a CMS in place of rearview mirrors have
been offered for sale commercially and only one of those two is in
currently production anywhere in the world, although manufacturers have
announced plans to offer additional CMS-equipped models.
In the United States, industry stakeholders have petitioned NHTSA
to modify the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 to allow the installation
of CMS as a compliance option. To date, NHTSA has received two such
petitions: one pertaining to light vehicles from the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) and Tesla, Inc. and one from
Daimler Trucks North America relating to heavy vehicles.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition, NHTSA has received exemption petitions from
some manufacturers requesting permission to install such systems in
lieu of FMVSS No. 111-compliant mirrors, and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has recently granted a similar
exemption petition for commercial trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ANPRM seeks information that the agency believes would provide
fuller understanding of the merits of these rulemaking petitions. One
reason why NHTSA is seeking additional information is because research
conducted by NHTSA and others conducted between 2006 and 2017 has
consistently shown that prototype and preproduction CMS systems can
exhibit safety-relevant performance issues such as blooming.\3\
Moreover, the CMS-related research of which NHTSA is aware does not
focus on human factors issues, such as how well drivers may be able to
acclimate to the use of CMS and potentially different image locations.
(We note that NHTSA raised these concerns and requested additional
information in letters sent to the Alliance and Tesla in 2016, but has
not
[[Page 54535]]
yet received a response.\4\) NHTSA hopes that the comments received in
response to this ANPRM will provide the agency with information (along
with data) that addresses these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Blooming is a type of image distortion that occurs on a
video display when the scene being shown on the display includes an
intensely bright light source. On the display, the light from that
light source bleeds or spills into adjacent areas of the image. The
spillover effect is particularly noticeable in any dark areas of the
image immediately adjacent to the bright area. This could
potentially occur in a CMS-equipped vehicle when other vehicles'
headlights shine at night into the CMS camera.
\4\ These letters may be found in the docket identified in the
header of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111
FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear visibility,'' sets out performance
requirements for new motor vehicles for the purpose of ``reduc[ing] the
number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor
vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the
rear.'' \5\ Among these is the requirement that all passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and
motorcycles, be equipped with inside and, at least on the driver's
side, outside rearview mirrors. The mirrors must be must be mounted
according to certain specifications, and must provide the driver with a
specified minimum field of view. The FMVSS No. 111 requirements
relating to rearview mirrors have been largely unchanged for several
decades.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 49 CFR 571.111.
\6\ We note that, although the agency recently amended FMVSS No.
111 in 2014 to require that most vehicles provide a backup camera
system, that requirement will not be discussed in this notice.
Although CMS and backup camera systems would likely operate in a
similar way, the systems serve different safety purposes and are
used in different circumstances, as backup cameras are only intended
to assist the driver while backing up. Accordingly, NHTSA believes
that the safety concerns with CMS are not comparable to those with
backup camera systems, but lessons from backup cameras can and will
inform any potential rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although FMVSS No. 111 sets the minimum requirements for mirrors,
an overwhelming majority of vehicle manufacturers voluntarily exceed
the minimum rearview mirror requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 111 to
satisfy customer demand and ensure an efficient, global-scale
manufacturing and marketing process.
Manufacturers voluntarily exceed the standard's rearview mirror
requirements in two major ways. First, most light vehicle manufacturers
voluntarily equip new passenger cars with a passenger-side outside
rearview mirror, in addition to the required inside rearview mirror,
even though such a passenger-side mirror is required for light vehicles
only if the inside rearview mirror does not meet field of view
requirements. A driver-side outside rearview mirror is required on all
vehicles. Second, most manufacturers equip vehicles with outside
rearview mirrors that are substantially larger than required under the
standard.
b. Camera Monitor Systems
In recent years, there has been growing interest among industry
stakeholders both in the United States and abroad in being allowed to
install CMS, in lieu of inside and/or outside rearview mirrors.\7\ A
vehicle equipped with a CMS uses exterior cameras mounted on the sides
and/or rear of the vehicle to capture an image of the rear and/or side
of the vehicle, which the system transmits to one or more electronic
visual displays are located in the occupant compartment within view of
the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ It should be noted that, while FMVSS No. 111 requires that
new vehicles be equipped with mirrors, it does not prohibit
manufacturers from supplementing those mirrors with CMS or other
features, and in fact, some manufacturers have been offering CMSs as
optional equipment. For example, since 2013, Honda has been offering
its LaneWatch\TM\ system which uses a camera in the passenger-side
outside rearview mirror to capture the area to the right of the
vehicle and displays this side rearview image in the vehicle's
center console display when the driver activates the right turn
signal or the LaneWatch\TM\ button is pressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A CMS's cameras are typically mounted on the exterior of the
vehicle near where traditional rearview mirrors would be installed, so
that they provide a similar field of view. Conversely, the visual
displays showing the rearview image to the driver may be mounted in a
variety of locations in the interior of the vehicle, because there is
no need for there to be a direct line of sight between the cameras and
the visual displays. Although most prototype CMSs that NHTSA has seen
have displays mounted on or near the vehicle's A-pillars, in the
vicinity of where a traditional outside rearview mirror would be
located, other configurations are possible.\8\ For example, CMS could
use a single electronic visual display located in the position of a
traditional inside rearview mirror or in the center of the dashboard to
display images from side-mounted cameras either separately or as a
combined (i.e., ``stitched'') image that integrates a center rearview
image.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., photo of the ``interior of a Volkswagen XL-1
concept with a side-view camera has a screen on the passenger side
to check outside the vehicle.'' https://www.autonews.com/article/20140407/OEM06/304079935/teslas-push-to-replace-side-view-mirrors-sparks-safety-fears. Accessed January 30, 2018.
\9\ ``Gentex to Offer Unique Three-Camera Automotive Rear Vision
System'' January 5, 2017 https://ir.gentex.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gentex-offer-unique-three-camera-automotive-rear-vision-system Accessed March 4, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. International Regulatory Efforts
International standards and regulatory bodies have taken steps in
recent years to develop performance standards and test procedures for
CMS. Most notably, in 2015, the ISO published ISO 16505, ``Road
vehicles--Ergonomic and performance aspects of Camera Monitor Systems--
Requirements and test procedures,'' which includes detailed test
procedures for evaluating the performance of cameras and displays used
in CMSs. In addition, UNECE R46, the type-approval standard used by
most European countries for ``devices for indirect vision,'' \10\ was
amended in 2016 to incorporate much of ISO 16505 and now permits
CMSs.\11\ CMSs are now permitted as an alternative to mirrors in the
dozens of countries for which UNECE R46 is in force without
objection.\12\ We note that, to date, only two vehicle models equipped
with a CMS in place of rearview mirrors have been offered for sale
commercially, and only one of those two is in production anywhere in
the world. \13\ However, at least one manufacturer has announced plans
to offer further CMS equipped models.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ UNECE R46 sets out field of view requirements that are
comparable to those for inside and outside mirrors in FMVSS No. 111.
Prior to the 2016 revision, UNECE R46 required that vehicles meet
those field of view requirements using mirrors.
\11\ See Appendix for a brief description of the UNECE R46 CMS
requirements.
\12\ See ``Adoption of Amendments to Regulation No. 46'' (July
10, 2017), https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2017/CN.358.2017-Eng.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2019.
\13\ 2019 Lexus ES CMS version commercialized only in Japan, and
the 250-vehicle limited production 2014 VW XL-1 commercialized in
E.U. under the type approval process before the publication of the
latest version of UNECE R46, allowing CMS.
\14\ Audi E-tron CMS option is expected to be available for
purchase in E.U. in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Consideration of CMS in the United States
In the United States, industry stakeholders have requested that
NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS as an alternative to rearview
mirrors. In 2014, NHTSA received a petition from the Alliance and
Tesla, Inc. requesting that the agency modify the requirements of FMVSS
No. 111 to ``allow the use of camera-based rear and/or side vision
systems [i.e., CMS] as a compliance option for meeting the performance
requirements specified for rear and/or side view mirrors for each
location where conventional mirrors are currently required or permitted
(i.e., applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.111 S.5, S.6).'' \15\ In 2015,
NHTSA received a similar petition relating to heavy vehicles from
Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA).\16\ Both of these
[[Page 54536]]
petitions cited improved fuel economy (not safety) as the primary
benefit of allowing this change. Neither petition provided objective
data or analysis to aid the agency in determining the net effect on
safety of amending FMVSS No. 111 to permit a CMS compliance option for
rear visibility.17 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This petitions and related documents can be found at Docket
No. NHTSA-2018-0021-0001.
\16\ Id.
\17\ DTNA's petition argued that CMS ``can provide an expanded
field of view'' and ``eliminate blind spots,'' and asserted that the
``technology can achieve the same or better level of safety as
outside rearview mirrors in providing the driver a view to the rear
along both sides of the vehicle.'' However, it did not provide
evidence to support these claims.
\18\ While recent interest among stakeholders has focused
primarily on replacing outside mirrors with CMS, at least one
manufacturer--Cadillac--has commercially produced a passenger car
equipped with a CMS which provides drivers with a view of objects to
the rear. We explained in a 2016 interpretation that Cadillac's CMS,
which is integrated into the vehicle's inside mirror, was
permissible because FMVSS No. 111 does not require that a passenger
car's inside mirror meet the inside mirror field-of-view
requirements (S5.1.1), if the vehicle is equipped with compliant
driver's and passenger's side outside mirrors. See letter to Brian
Latouf (Feb. 22, 2016), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/full-display-mirror-system-1-gm-feb-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NHTSA has not yet formally responded to these
petitions,\19\ in September 2017, Velvac (a mirror manufacturer for the
truck, commercial and RV industries) sent a letter to NHTSA expressing
concerns over possible safety impacts should NHTSA decide to grant a
petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS as a compliance
option.\20\ Velvac argued that ISO 16505 should not be applied to U.S.
vehicles without making changes to the requirements to account for
U.S.-specific vehicle configurations and applications. Velvac also
suggested that a hybrid regulatory approach that would require the
installation of both a camera and a mirror would be preferable.
Velvac's reasoning was that FMVSS No. 111 already provides
manufacturers the flexibility to use a hybrid approach (CMS technology
in combination with an aerodynamic FMVSS No. 111-compliant mirror
system) to achieve the fuel economy, aerodynamic, and visibility
improvements while still addressing the human factors issues and
maintaining a fail-safe mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ On June 30, 2016, in response to the Alliance/Tesla
petition, NHTSA sent a letter to both petitioners requesting
additional information to enable the agency to evaluate the
petition. The safety-relevant questions posed in the letter focused
on human factors information gaps and performance concerns, and
requested input regarding performance requirements and test
procedure details that would be needed to ensure that camera-based
systems provide an equivalent level of safety to that of standard
rearview mirrors. NHTSA notes that, because the agency did not
receive a complete response to that letter from either petitioner,
many of the questions in this ANPRM are based on the questions in
that letter.
\20\ Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0007-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of permitting CMS as a compliance option for rear
visibility was again raised in comments submitted in response to the
DOT's October 2, 2017 Notice of Regulatory Review (82 FR 45750).\21\
Comments by the Alliance reiterated its support of its rulemaking
petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 to improve fuel economy, and further
asserted that CMS could expand the driver's field of view.\22\ Comments
by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association also supported
amending FMVSS No. 111 on the basis that installing CMS, in lieu of
mirrors, on large trucks would reduce aerodynamic drag and potentially
expand the driver's field of view.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In that notice, the Department sought public comments on
existing rules and other agency actions that are good candidates for
repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification.
\22\ Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0069-2700.
\23\ Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0069-2786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Research
To evaluate the safety impacts of CMS, NHTSA has conducted its own
research and testing, examined the research and testing done by others,
and requested research data from industry stakeholders. This research
is summarized below. In addition, NHTSA's own research reports on this
subject can be found in the docket for this ANPRM.
From 2006 to 2011, NHTSA conducted a multi-year research project to
develop of performance specifications for a CMS that would supplement
(rather than replace) traditional mirrors on heavy
vehicles.24 25 26 The CMS studied in this research was
designed to supplement traditional mirrors by providing ``enhanced
views to the sides and rear of a heavy vehicle with an operating
envelope that includes daytime and nighttime, as well as clear and
inclement weather.'' \27\ NHTSA believed that such a supplemental CMS
would be beneficial to safety because it would improve the situational
awareness of the heavy vehicle driver, thereby reducing sideswipe
crashes when heavy vehicles merge or change lanes. To explore CMS
performance specifications, researchers conducted analyses of driver
needs and human factors, examinations of video technology, systems
analyses, focus groups and on-road tests. Researchers also conducted a
study that surveyed commercial drivers using supplemental CMS, in which
they observed neutral and potentially positive findings with respect to
safety-critical events and drivers' forward attention.\28\ They also
identified a number of potential safety concerns or challenges. For
example, drivers indicated that the glare produced from the system's
electronic visual displays was ``too bright and affected their ability
to see details in the forward roadway'' and that ``glare from the
visual displays could be uncomfortable at night.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Development of a Performance Specification for Camera/
Video Imaging Systems on Heavy Vehicles--Final Report:
Specifications.'' July 2008, DOT HS 810 958. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\25\ ``Development of a Performance Specification for Camera/
Video Imaging Systems on Heavy Vehicles--Final Report: Supporting
Research.'' July 2008, DOT HS 810 960. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
\26\ ``Field Demonstration of Heavy Vehicle Camera/Video Imaging
Systems: Final Report.'' June 2011, DOT HS 811 475. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\27\ Id.
\28\ ``Field Demonstration of Heavy Vehicle Camera/Video Imaging
Systems: Final Report.'' June 2011, DOT HS 811 475. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\29\ Id. The report concluded that the issue of display glare
was ``resolvable,'' although subsequent research suggests the issue
still persists in more advanced CMS displays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
published a report summarizing a study that directly compared outside
rearview mirrors with a CMS for side rearview image display in
passenger vehicle models and heavy trucks under various testing
conditions. \30\ The study concluded that a CMS that meets ``specific
quality criteria'' can provide ``sufficient'' rear visibility for
drivers.\31\ The study also found that the change from outside rearview
mirrors to a CMS requires a period of driver familiarization, but noted
that the familiarization period is ``relatively short,'' and that it
does not necessarily result in ``safety-critical situations.'' \32\ The
BASt study provided valuable insight into the operational capabilities
of CMS technology at the time, and looked into some human factor
issues, such as how long or frequently drivers glanced at the CMS when
performing various driving maneuvers as compared to mirrors. However,
the BASt study left a number of questions unanswered, including what
minimum quality criteria for a CMS would provide the same level of
safety as mirrors, and whether the time it takes for a driver to become
acclimated to the system will affect vehicle safety. The study also
[[Page 54537]]
notes, but does not explore, the safety impact of the inherent
differences between the image provide by a CMS and the image provided
by a mirror. Specifically, the BASt study notes that mirrors provide 3-
dimensional spatial information to drivers,\33\ and that mirrors allow
drivers to change the field of view through head movements, neither of
which is possible with a CMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Camera-Monitor Systems as a Replacement for Exterior
Mirrors in Cars and Trucks'' (2015). Federal Highway Research
Institute (BASt).
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id. According to the study, a ``safety critical'' task is
one that requires four glances at the CMS, and that the glances have
a mean duration of more than 2 seconds.
\33\ Although the images that mirrors produce are 2-dimensional,
mirrors permit drivers to perceive depth through stereoscopy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, NHTSA conducted additional testing to further evaluate the
performance of prototype light vehicle CMS to determine whether there
were any potential safety concerns, with particular focus on the
quality of the image displayed by the CMS.\34\ NHTSA's study compared
the observed performance of a prototype CMS installed on a MY 2016 Audi
A4, with traditional mirrors installed on a 2017 Audi A4. Researchers
compared the performance of the prototype CMS with traditional rearview
mirrors in a variety of environments, including public roads, test
track courses, and a laboratory. The systems were tested in different
environments, including public roads, laboratories, and test track
facilities. Tests were performed in both day and night conditions, and
in conditions with various levels of precipitation.\35\ Although
researchers found that the CMS was generally usable in most
environments, and provided a better image than mirrors in certain
conditions (such as in dusk or dawn lighting conditions), researchers
identified a number of potential safety concerns, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Examination of Prototype Camera-Based Visibility System
for Light Vehicle Outside Mirror Replacement'' (2018), DOT HS 812
582.
\35\ Since NHTSA had access to the leased system-equipped
vehicle for only a short period of time, a limited amount of testing
was performed. Tests performed were ones for which needed equipment
and test facilities were readily available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The image appeared to be horizontally compressed, such
that objects displayed on the CMS screen were narrower and thus more
difficult to detect.
The CMS display was mounted lower than traditional
mirrors, which may be temporarily disorienting for drivers. (It should
be noted, however, that despite initial disorientation, drivers were
able to acclimate to the CMS.)
The display appeared very bright in certain conditions,
even when set to ``nighttime'' mode, which may negatively impact the
driver's ability to see obstacles at night.
The system appeared to have blooming and lens flare that
exceeded the level permitted under the new ISO standard for CMS under
certain conditions.
In rainy conditions, droplets on the lens would obscure
the image displayed to the driver.
The full report describing this study along with related documents
may be viewed online in the docket for this ANPRM.
In addition to the government-sponsored research described above,
NHTSA is aware of two other studies that examined relevant issues
relating to rearview display locations. The first of these, is a
naturalistic study by Ali and Bazilah published in 2014, in which
researchers observed the on-road driving behavior of subjects using
vehicles equipped only with CMS and no rearview
mirrors.36 37 The study found that the use of the CMS in the
study improved drivers' attention to the forward roadway, but increased
off-road downward glances at the center rearview display and motion
sickness, leading the authors to recommend against a low location for a
rearview display. In 2016, Large et al. published a similar study based
on observations of subjects using a driving simulator of a vehicles
equipped with a CMS. Researchers analyzed drivers' eye glance behavior
and subjective feedback for five layouts of three in-vehicle displays
(one rear and two side view displays) versus traditional mirrors during
overtaking maneuvers performed without urgency.\38\ The study found
that subjects tended to prefer a CMS display layout that matched
traditional mirror locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Mohamed Ali, J.S. and Bazilah, F. (2014). ``Mirrorless Car:
A Feasibility Study.'' Applied Mechanics & Materials, 663: 649-654.
\37\ The sideview CMS screens (which replaced the outside
rearview mirrors) were positioned in the dashboard immediately to
the left and right sides of the instrument panel, while the center
rearview CMS screen (which replaced the inside rearview mirror) was
positioned in place of the instrument panel.
\38\ Large, D.R., Crundall, E., Burnett, G., Harvey, C. and
Konstantopoulos, P. (2016). ``Driving without Wings: The Effect of
Different Digital Mirror Locations on the Visual Behaviour,
Performance and Opinions of Drivers.'' Applied Ergonomics 55: 138-
148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NHTSA has been made aware through media reports that some
portion of the driving population not be physiologically capable of
using CMS. In February of 2018, Steve Downing, the Chief Executive
Officer of Gentex, Inc. (a CMS manufacturer), stated that the company
had observed that ``roughly 5 to 10 percent of motorists suffer motion
sickness or have depth-of-vision problems'' when viewing the video
image.\39\ NHTSA researchers have personally experienced this
phenomenon when driving CMS-equipped test vehicles, but this
information is, at present, anecdotal. NHTSA is not aware of any
research having been done in this area, but the possibility that some
percentage of drivers cannot use a CMS is something that NHTSA believes
deserves further research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Gentex's two-way mirror strategy Balancing core product
with advanced digital displays'' February 19, 2018. Automotive News.
https://www.autonews.com/article/20180219/OEM06/180219767/gentex-mirrors-technology. Accessed October 18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Subjects on Which NHTSA Seeks Public Comment
Although NHTSA believes that CMS is a promising technology, the
agency has some lingering safety concerns that it believes should be
addressed prior to deciding whether to propose amending FMVSS No. 111
to permit CMS as a compliance option for rear visiblity. Accordingly,
the agency has compiled a list of issues on which the agency requests
additional information to adequately evaluate the safety of permitting
CMS as an alternative compliance option to rearview mirrors. NHTSA
invites comments on all aspects of permitting camera-based technologies
to be installed as an alternative to mirrors to meet the FMVSS No. 111
rear visibility requirements. However, the agency requests that
commenters provide as much research, evidence, and/or objective data as
possible to support their comments to inform the agency in determining
the appropriate next steps.
Existing Industry Standards
(1) Please provide research data concerning the safety impacts of
replacing rearview mirrors with CMS. Please explain your view of the
significance of those data. In addition, please explain your views on
how CMS-equipped vehicles would impact light and heavy vehicle driver
behavior and situational awareness while driving.
(2) Are the physical properties of mirrors necessary to meet the
stated purpose of FMVSS No. 111 to provide a ``clear and reasonably
unobstructed view?'' As an example, because each eye of a driver
viewing objects reflected in a mirror has a slightly different angle of
view of those objects, just as the eyes of a driver viewing those
objects directly would have, mirrors provide depth perception similar
to that provided by direct vision. As another example, mirrors offer
drivers the possibility to modify their field of view rapidly by
[[Page 54538]]
looking at the mirror from different angles. To what extent could
possible CMS features which cannot be provided using mirrors (e.g.,
zoom, night vision) offset the loss of these mirror-specific
properties?
(3) We seek comment on the performance of current world-market
vehicles equipped with CMS when evaluated according to the ISO 16505/
UNECE R46 standards. In particular, we seek comment on the performance
requirements in these standards, and the on-road performance of CMS
that meet these standards. Please identify any performance requirements
for CMS that you believe are not stringent enough, are too stringent,
or are unnecessary, and explain the basis for your beliefs. Please
identify any requirements that you believe should be added and explain
the basis for your beliefs. Which CMS have performed relatively well,
and which have performed relatively poorly, on the road? What explains
the difference in performance?
System Field of View and Related Test Procedures
(4) We seek comment on whether and, if so, why minimum field of
view requirements for CMS should differ from the current minimum field
of view requirements for mirrors under FMVSS No. 111. Petitioners have
stated that providing drivers with expanded views, larger than those
required by FMVSS No. 111, would be advantageous. What data exist to
support this assertion? What, if any, potential advantages and
disadvantages, such as increased eye glance durations, may be observed
for wide-view images? Please provide research or data that addresses
how wider views will affect image quality.
(5) We seek comment on whether NHTSA should permit CMSs that use
multiple cameras to provide multiple fields of view to the driver in
the same image display area. In particular, we seek comment on the
safety benefits/disbenefits of permitting multiple fields of view. As
an example, CMS that operate using multiple fields of view might have
missing sections on the processed image, or image latency issues
stemming from increased processing time. What are the concerns, if any,
regarding a multi-camera visibility system and how can they be
mitigated?
(6) NHTSA considered whether there might be any opportunities to
combine either the cameras or the displays for the CMS with the camera
or display for backup camera system that is required by FMVSS No. 111.
The agency tentatively concludes that there would not be any such
opportunities. Although CMS and backup camera systems would likely
operate in a similar way, the systems serve different safety purposes
and are used in different circumstances. Specifically, the purpose of a
CMS would be to assist the driver in avoiding all crashes during normal
driving, while the purpose of a backup camera is to assist the driver
in avoiding backover crashes while in reverse. Perhaps more important,
given the likely differences between the field of view and display
image quality parameters that would apply to CMS versus backup camera
systems, NHTSA believes it is unlikely that it would be technically
possible to combine the two systems in such a way that they share
either a camera or display monitor.\40\ NHTSA requests comments on this
tentative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ NHTSA believes that sharing a camera would not be possible
because the CMS camera would need to be aimed much higher than the
backup camera, and that sharing a single display area would not be
possible because both the CMS and backup camera images would need to
be displayed simultaneously to provide the driver with all required
fields of view when the vehicle is in reverse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image Quality and Related Test Procedures
(7) We seek comment on the minimum quality of the image presented
on a CMS electronic visual display to provide the same level of safety
as traditional FMVSS No. 111-compliant mirrors, as well as how image
quality could be objectively measured. In particular, we seek comment
on what would be the appropriate minimum camera and visual display
parameters and performance metrics for a CMS (i.e., camera/display
resolution, screen brightness, contrast, color, tone, and their
adjustments). Should the parameters and metrics for a CMS differ from
those for a backup camera system and, if so, how and to what extent? To
what extent do existing CMS regulations (e.g., ISO 16505/UNECE R46)
provide objective and repeatable performance requirements and test
procedures to evaluate image quality? To the extent that those
regulations do not provide such requirements and procedures, what
changes or additions would need to be made? What new procedures, if
any, would be needed to evaluate image quality appropriately and what
has been done to develop such procedures?
(8) We seek comment on what disruptive display aberrations
(blooming, etc.) should be addressed if the agency were to develop a
CMS performance standard. To what extent do existing CMS regulations
(e.g., ISO 16505/UNECE R46) provide objective, and repeatable
performance test procedures to evaluate display aberrations? What new
procedures, if any, would be needed to evaluate display aberrations
appropriately and what has been done to develop such procedures?
Rearview Image Display Type Related Human Factors
(9) We seek comment on what research has been done to identify and
address human factors issues like eye strain or visual fatigue from
long periods of intermittent electronic visual display viewing. While
we are particularly interested in research comparing driver eye strain
and/or visual fatigue for users of a CMS versus users of traditional
rearview mirrors, other analogous research could be useful.
(10) We seek comment on research concerning differences in the
ability of drivers to visually discern and focus on objects in an
electronic visual display as compared to objects reflected by
traditional rearview mirrors.
(11) We seek comment on how a driver should be alerted that a CMS
is not operating correctly, such as during a malfunction or a software
update.
Side Rearview Image Display Locations, Driver Acclimation, and Related
Test Procedures
(12) We seek comment on whether and how placing the CMS displays in
non-traditional locations (e.g., in the center console) would affect
vehicle safety, as compared to placing the displays close to where the
outside rearview mirrors would be mounted near the A-pillars. In
particular, we seek research concerning the impact of different image
locations on the level of safety and performance among any driver
demographic, and whether different image locations may lead to driver
confusion.
(13) We seek comment on whether research has been performed
concerning the impacts of glare from sunlight and other vehicles'
headlights on the CMS display, and whether test procedures have been
developed to measure glare. If performance requirements and test
procedures have not yet been developed to address these problems, when
and how can they be developed? What are potential strategies to
mitigate glare to ensure that useful images would be provided to
drivers over the greatest range of conditions possible.
Camera Durability, Reliability, and Related Test Procedures
(14) We seek comment on the anticipated lifespan of the electronic
visual display and camera components
[[Page 54539]]
that would be installed in a typical CMS. Will the performance (e.g.,
display brightness) of components be maintained within specifications
consistent with desired image quality over that lifespan, or will
performance decrease due to age and/or being subject to outdoor
conditions with wide temperature ranges and precipitation?
(15) We seek comment on the anticipated reliability of CMS as
compared to outside rearview mirrors, including any reliability data
that may be available for production or prototype CMSs.
(16) We seek comment on the anticipated replacement cost for a CMS
that becomes inoperable due to damage or malfunction, and how that cost
compares to the replacement cost of traditional powered and unpowered
outside rearview mirrors.
(17) We seek comment on whether and, if so, how a CMS can be
weatherproofed to prevent condensation, or large water droplets,
forming inside the camera enclosure, which could reduce image clarity.
NHTSA has observed condensation in cameras mounted on the underside of
outside rearview mirrors of recent model year production vehicles
resulting in part of the camera view being unusable (e.g., the water
blocks a portion of the camera's field of view). How should adequate
weatherproofing be defined? Would the durability tests in FVMSS No.
111, S14.3 for backup cameras be sufficient, and if so, why? What other
test procedures exist for demonstrating adequate weatherproofing of
cameras, and have those procedures been validated?
(18) Depending on the mounting location, cameras may be subject to
environmentally-caused lens obstructions (e.g., dirt, ice, rain drops).
We seek comment on how to prevent or mitigate such lens obstructions.
What performance requirements and associated test procedures simulating
these conditions have been developed to evaluate whether the camera is
providing a useful image?
System Availability When Vehicle Ignition Is Off
(19) Although it is not one of the primary safety purpose of
rearview mirrors, drivers often use the outside rearview mirrors after
turning off the ignition and preparing to exit the vehicle to determine
whether it is safe to open the vehicle door when parked alongside a
traffic lane. We seek comment on whether NHTSA consider requiring that
a CMS be capable of serving this function by being operational in some
capacity either at all times or for a specified period of time after
opening the driver's car door. What new performance criteria would need
to be developed for this purpose and what has been done to develop
those criteria?
Miscellaneous
(20) Are there any other safety concerns that are closely related
to the performance of CMS that are not addressed in this notice? If so,
what are they, and what is the degree of their importance?
(21) We seek comment on the potential short-term and long-term
economic impacts of CMS. In particular, we seek comment on the level of
consumer interest in vehicles equipped with CMS. We also seek comment
on the extent of reduced drag associated with the installation of CMS
and on the resulting amount of improved fuel economy. Finally, we seek
comment on the magnitude of the cost differential between equipping a
vehicle with CMS and equipping a vehicle with rearview mirrors, and on
the extent to which improved fuel economy would offset increased
equipment costs associated with CMS.
V. Public Participation
(a) How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?
NHTSA welcomes public review of this ANPRM. NHTSA will consider the
comments and information received in developing its eventual proposal
for how to proceed on permitting CMS technology as a compliance option
for the outside rearview mirror requirements of FMVSS No. 111.
(b) How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed in the correct docket, please include the docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2018-0021) in your comments.
Your primary comments should not be more than 15 pages long.
However, you may attach additional documents, such as supporting data
or research, to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy
certain portions of your submission. Please note that pursuant to the
Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and
used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set
forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-02-22/pdf/R2-59.pdf; DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/DOT%20Information%20Dissemination%20Quality%20Guidelines.pdf.
(c) How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you submit comments by hard copy and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail. If you submit comments electronically, your comments should
appear automatically in Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0021 on https://www.regulations.gov. If they do not appear within two weeks of posting,
we suggest that you call the Docket Management Facility at 1-800-647-
5527.
(d) How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information that you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
In addition, you should submit a copy (two copies if submitting by
mail or hand delivery) from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information to the docket by one of the methods
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in
NHTSA's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
[[Page 54540]]
(e) Will the agency consider late comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider comments received after
that date.
(f) How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received at the address given in the
ADDRESSES section. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the
same location. You may also read the comments on the internet,
identified by the docket number at the heading of this notice, at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
NHTSA recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.
VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
a. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ''Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ''significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, and the DOT's regulatory policies and
procedures found in DOT Order 2100.6, ``Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings.'' As discussed above, the agency lacks the necessary
information to develop a proposal at this time due to a number of
unanswered questions and unresolved considerations. This rulemaking has
been determined to be not ``significant'' under DOT Order 2100.6 and
the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.
b. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs)
This action is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because it is an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
c. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
no analysis is required for an ANPRM. However, vehicle manufacturers
and equipment manufacturers are encouraged to comment if they identify
any aspects of the potential rulemaking that may apply to them.
d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
As an ANPRM, NHTSA does not believe that this document raises
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment. NHTSA believes that federalism issues would be
more appropriately considered if and when the agency proposes changes
to FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS.
e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
f. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are no
information collection requirements associated with this ANPRM. Any
information collection requirements and the associated burdens will be
discussed in detail once a proposal has been issued.
g. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers. The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. As NHTSA has not yet developed specific regulatory
requirements, the NTTAA does not apply for purposes of this ANPRM.
h. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure of State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). NHTSA has
determined that this ANPRM would not result in expenditures by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, in excess of $100 million annually.
i. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has preliminarily
determined that implementation of this rulemaking action would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
j. Plain Language
The Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires
that Federal agencies write documents in a clear, concise, and well-
organized manner. While the Act does not cover regulations, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 require each agency to write all notices in
plain language that is simple and easy to understand. Application of
the principles of plain language includes consideration of the
following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Is the discussion in the notice clearly written?
Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that
is not clear?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this ANPRM.
k. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number
[[Page 54541]]
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the
Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN
contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this
action in the Unified Agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Performance metrics used for these aspects of performance
are performed per ISO 16505:2015, unless otherwise noted.
\42\ Grey scale chart per ISO 14524:2009.
\43\ Color coordinates per CIE 1976 UCS.
\44\ Test performed per ISO 13406-2:2001.
\45\ Test performed per ISO 9241-305:2008.
Appendix--Aspects of Light Vehicle CMS Performance Regulated Under UNECE
R46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNECE R46
Aspect of performance \41\ Description citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural design................. Requirement that the 6.2.2.1
CMS meet various
size, shape, and
material
restrictions.
Monitor Luminance................. Requirement that CMS 6.2.2.3.1,
monitor luminance 6.2.2.3.5.1
be adjustable.
System availability indicator..... Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.2,
CMS indicate to the 16.1.2
driver if the
system is
unavailable.
Monitor isotropy.................. Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.1
monitor show a
uniform image.
Limits for
luminance when
measured at various
viewing angles
(directional
uniformity) and at
various locations
on the screen
(lateral
uniformity).
Luminance and contrast rendering.. Monitor luminance 6.2.2.3.3.2
and contrast limits
for different
conditions (direct
sunlight, diffuse
ambient light,
sunset and night).
Grey scale rendering.............. Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.3
CMS be able to
display a minimum
tonal range of
distinguishable
different grey
steps \42\.
Color rendering................... Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.4
CMS be able to
accurately
reproduce certain
colors \43\.
Image artifacts (aberrations)..... Requirement that CMS 6.2.2.3.3.5
image aberrations
be noted in the
owner's manual.
Smear............................. Limits for the white 6.2.2.3.3.5.1
stripes artifact
appearing on an
image created by
very bright light
sources.
Blooming and lens flare........... Limits for the area 6.2.2.3.3.5.2
of image loss
caused by bright
lights flooding the
image (blooming)
and light
scattering inside
the lens (lens
flare).
Point light sources............... Requirements for CMS 6.2.2.3.3.5.3
to show
distinctively two
point light sources
(e.g. passing beam
headlights).
Sharpness......................... Requirements for the 6.2.2.3.3.6.1
monitor to
accurately show
zones of different
tones, or colors,
without blurring
the boundaries
between set zones.
Limits are provided
for the horizontal
and vertical
direction.
Depth of field.................... Requirements for 6.2.2.3.3.6.2
resolution of the
CMS to show a
sufficiently clear
image at various
distances.
Geometric distortion.............. Limits for the level 6.2.2.3.3.7
of distortion of
the CMS image
relative to a
rectilinear or
pinhole projection.
Flicker........................... Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.8.1
monitor be free of
flicker \44\.
Frame rate........................ Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.4.1.
CMS operate at a
minimum frame rate,
and that the
movements of
objects in front of
the camera be
rendered smooth and
fluid.
Image formation time.............. Limit on the amount 6.2.2.3.4.2
of time permitted
for the monitor to
form an image \45\.
System latency.................... Limit on the time 6.2.2.3.4.3
delay between when
an event occurs and
when it is rendered
on the monitor.
Impact testing.................... Requirement that an 6.3.1
externally mounted
CMS camera meet
certain impact
requirements.
Field of vision................... Requirement that CMS 15.2.4
devices meet the
same minimum field
of vision
requirements as
mirror.
Activation and deactivation....... Requirements for 16.1.1
when and under what
conditions a CMS
must activate or
deactivate.
Default view...................... In default view the 16.1.1.1
system is required
to show the minimum
required field of
vision.
Overlays.......................... Requirements 16.1.1.3
relating to what
information may be
overlaid on the CMS
image, and limits
on the size of
overlays.
Magnification factor.............. Requirement that the 16.1.3.1
magnification of
the CMS image be
within a certain
range.
Resolution........................ Requirement for the 16.1.3.2
minimum
distinguishable
details observable
in an image.
Magnification aspect ratio........ Limits for the ratio 16.1.4
of horizontal to
vertical
magnification of
the image.
Monitors.......................... Requirements 16.1.5
relating to where
the monitors may be
located inside the
vehicle and how the
left and right
fields of vision
may be displayed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54542]]
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-22036 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
