Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility, 54533-54542 [2019-22036]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 http://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 http:// 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 http://www.regulations.gov without making any changes to the comments, including any personal information provided. The website http:// 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 http://www.regulations.gov website. It is the commenter’s responsibility to safeguard his or her information. Comments submitted through http:// 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 http://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.’’ http://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. http:// 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 http:// 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: http:// 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 http://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 http://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 http://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.'' http://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. 
http://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