Audi of America; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 111, 56013-56017 [2019-22769]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Notices
Frequency: Annual.
Nadine Pembleton,
Director Office of Management Planning.
[FR Doc. 2019–22744 Filed 10–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0103]
Audi of America; Receipt of Petition for
Temporary Exemption From FMVSS
No. 111
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for
temporary exemption from FMVSS No.
111, ‘‘Rear Visibility’’; request for
comment.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Audi of
America (‘‘Audi’’) has petitioned
NHTSA for a temporary exemption of
vehicles from the requirements in
FMVSS No. 111 that passenger cars,
MPVs, and light trucks be equipped
with an outside mirror on the driver’s
side that meets certain field-of-view and
mounting requirements. Instead of being
equipped with FMVSS No. 111compliant outside mirrors that would
provide the required view to the rear,
the vehicles, if exempted, would be
equipped with a Camera Monitor
System (CMS) that, according to Audi,
provides the driver with a videogenerated image on a monitor. Audi
states that the video-generated image
meets the standard’s field-of-view
requirements that apply to outside
mirrors on the driver’s side. Audi
submitted its petition on the basis that
an exemption is needed to facilitate the
development and field evaluation of a
new motor vehicle safety feature (the
CMS) and that that feature provides a
level of safety at least equal to the level
of safety would be provided if the
vehicle were equipped with FMVSScompliant outside mirrors. NHTSA is
publishing this document in accordance
with statutory and administrative
provisions, and requests comments on
the petition. NHTSA has made no
judgment on the merits of the petition.
DATES: Comments on this petition must
be submitted by November 18, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel,
Telephone: 202–366–2992, Facsimile:
202–366–3820 or Markus Price, Office
of Crash Avoidance Standards,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
Telephone: 202–366–1810, Facsimile:
202–493–2990. The mailing address for
these officials is: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
This document by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground
Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
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 your
comments, please mention the docket
number of this document.
You may also call the Docket 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 https://
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, the agency encourages
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56013
a. FMVSS No. 111 Outside Mirror
Requirement
b. Statutory Authority and Regulatory
Requirements
II. Summary of Petition
a. Recent CMS-Related Regulatory
Activities
b. Description of the CMS
c. Documentation Establishing Innovative
Nature of the CMS
d. The CMS Provides a Level of Safety at
Least Equivalent to the Level of Safety
Established by Compliance With FMVSS
No. 111, and Is in the Public Interest
e. Substantiation That an Exemption
Would Facilitate Audi’s Development
and Field Evaluation of the CMS
III. Requests for Comment
IV. Completeness and Comment Period
I. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111 Outside Mirror
Requirement
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ‘‘Rear
Visibility,’’ sets out requirements to
ensure that passenger cars,
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
(MPVs), trucks, and buses, school buses,
and low-speed vehicles provide drivers
with ‘‘a clear and reasonably
unobstructed view to the rear’’ of the
vehicle. To this end, FMVSS No. 111,
S5.2 requires that passenger cars must
be equipped with an outside rearview
mirror on the driver’s side. This mirror
must provide the driver with a specified
minimum field of view, be of unit
magnification, and must be mounted
according to certain specifications.1
Similarly, FMVSS No. 111 S6 requires
that MPVs, trucks, and buses (other than
a school bus) with a Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating of 4,536 kg or less be
equipped with outside mirrors to
provide rear visibility. Vehicles subject
to S6 are required either to use ‘‘mirrors
that conform to the requirements of
S5,’’ 2 or to be equipped with mirrors on
both sides of the vehicle which meet
specified criteria for size and placement.
Currently, FMVSS No. 111 does not
permit compliance with either S5.2 or
S6 through equipment other than ‘‘an
outside mirror.’’ 3
b. Statutory Authority and Regulatory
Requirements
The National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), codified
1 S5.2 requires that vehicles be equipped with a
driver side outside mirror.
2 Note that S5 includes both an inside (S5.1) and
outside (S5.2) mirror requirement.
3 NHTSA notes, however, that FMVSS does not
prohibit the use of other technologies (such as
cameras) alongside mirrors, so long as compliant
required mirrors are present. NHTSA recently
published an ANPRM seeking comment on whether
the agency should consider amending FMVSS No.
111 to permit cameras as a compliance option in
lieu of mirrors. See 84 FR 54533.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
56014
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Notices
as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the
Secretary of Transportation authority to
exempt, on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, motor vehicles
from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard, ‘‘on terms the
Secretary considers appropriate.’’ This
authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113.
The Secretary has delegated the
authority for implementing this section
to NHTSA. 49 CFR part 1.95.
The Safety Act authorizes the
Secretary to grant a temporary
exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if
the Secretary makes certain findings.
For this petition, the relevant findings
that the Secretary must make are:
(1) The exemption is consistent with
the public interest and with the
objectives of 49 U.S.C. chapters 301
(Motor Vehicle Safety) or 325 (Bumper
Standards) (as applicable); and
(2) The exemption ‘‘would facilitate
the development or field evaluation of
a new motor vehicle safety feature that
provides a level of safety equivalent to
that of the standard.’’ 4
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555,
Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,
to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. The
petition content requirements, specified
in 49 CFR 555.5, state that a petitioner
must set forth the basis of the
application by providing the required
information under § 555.6, and the
reasons why the exemption would be in
the public interest and consistent with
the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
A petition under the basis that the
exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of a
new motor vehicle safety feature that
provides a level of safety equivalent to
that of the standard must include the
information specified in 49 CFR
555.6(b). The main requirements of that
section include: (1) A description of the
safety or impact protection features, and
research, development, and testing
documentation establishing the
innovational nature of such features; (2)
an analysis establishing that the level of
safety or impact protection of the feature
is equivalent to or exceeds the level of
safety or impact protection established
in the standard(s) from which
exemption is sought; (3) substantiation
that a temporary exemption would
facilitate the development or field
evaluation of the vehicle; and (4) a
statement of whether the Audi intends
to conform to the standard at the end of
the exemption period.
4 49
U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
II. Summary of Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113
and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555,
Audi of America and its parent
company, Audi AG (collectively,
‘‘Audi’’) 5 submitted a petition to
NHTSA (received August 7, 2018)
requesting a temporary exemption from
the driver’s side outside rearview mirror
requirements in sections S5.2, S5.2.1,
S5.2.2, and S6 of FMVSS No. 111. The
vehicles for which Audi is requesting an
exemption would be fully electric
multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs). In lieu of mirrors, Audi states
that the exempted vehicles would be
equipped with a Camera Monitoring
System (CMS) that provides the driver
with the same field of view as a
compliant outside rearview mirror.
Audi requests a two-year exemption,
during which it asks to be permitted to
sell 2,500 exempted vehicles for each
12-month period covered by the
exemption (up to 5,000 vehicles). Audi
does not intend to make its vehicles
compliant with FMVSS No. 111 by the
end of the exemption period, but notes
that it hopes that FMVSS No. 111 would
be amended by then to permit CMS as
a compliance option instead of outside
rearview mirrors.
What follows is a summary of the
information contained in Audi’s
petition. The petition itself is available
for review in the docket for this notice.
Audi’s submission also included five
additional supporting documents,
which are cited as Attachments 1
through 5. While these supplemental
documents are not independently
summarized in this notice, they are
available for review in the docket. Audi
demonstrated the technology at
NHTSA’s headquarters on June 27, 2019
via an Audi e-tron model equipped with
a CMS instead of outside mirrors,
although NHTSA was told that the
system shown in the demonstration had
different specifications than the CMS
that would be sold pursuant to an
exemption. Because NHTSA had
outstanding questions about the CMS
that is the subject of Audi’s exemption
petition, NHTSA emailed Audi
following this demonstration to request
additional information. This
information request and subsequent
communications are also included in
the docket, and the information that
Audi provided is incorporated into this
notice. Please note that this document is
a notice of receipt which contains a
description of Audi’s petition, as well as
5 Audi of America is incorporated in Virginia,
with its headquarters in Herndon, VA. Audi AG is
incorporated in Germany, with its headquarters in
Ingolstadt, Germany.
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
some clarifying statements or questions
from NHTSA. NHTSA has not yet made
a final determination to grant or deny
the petition.
a. Recent CMS-Related Regulatory
Activities
Audi begins by providing background
on recent CMS-related regulatory
activities in the United States. Audi
explains that, in 2014, Tesla and the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
jointly filed a rulemaking petition
requesting that NHTSA amend FMVSS
No. 111 to permit certification using
CMS rather than outside rearview
mirrors.6 Audi states that, although
NHTSA has not yet determined whether
to amend FMVSS No. 111, an
exemption to enable the company to
conduct the research and development
needed to introduce a mass-market CMS
should NHTSA eventually decide to
propose such an amendment.
Audi then provides background on
international regulatory actions relating
to CMS, focusing specifically on the
international adoption of United
Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UN ECE) Regulation 46 (R46).7
R46 is an international type-approval
standard that covers ‘‘the approval of
devices for indirect vision and of motor
vehicles with regard to the installation
of these devices.’’ 8 In 2016, R46 was
revised to permit the use of either
mirrors or CMS on most new vehicles to
meet rear-view requirements. According
to Audi, roughly 50 countries, including
Japan, have adopted the amended R46,
and permit the use of CMS in lieu of
6 Audi provided a copy of the Alliance/Tesla
petition for rulemaking with this exemption
petition. The rulemaking petition, designated
‘‘Attachment 1,’’ Can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking. We note that, although NHTSA has not
officially acted on this petition, the agency did
respond to the petition by submitting a letter
containing a number of questions to Tesla and
Alliance requesting additional information that the
agency believed would be necessary to determine
whether rulemaking would be appropriate. A copy
of this letter can be found in the docket. As of the
publication of this notice, NHTSA has not received
a reply to these questions.
7 UN ECE R46 is a vehicle regulation established
under the 1958 UN ECE Agreement Concerning the
Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval and
Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor
Vehicle Equipment and Parts (the ‘‘1958
Agreement’’). The 1958 Agreement is an
international agreement that provides procedures
for establishing uniform regulations regarding new
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and
for reciprocal acceptance of type-approvals issued
under these regulations by contracting countries.
While the United States is a member of the UN ECE,
it is not a contracting party to the 1958 Agreement,
and thus is not bound by standards established
under the 1958 Agreement.
8 See https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/
trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2016/R046r6e.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Notices
outside mirrors.9 Audi also notes that
Transport Canada requested comments
on allowing camera-based rear visibility
systems in October 2016. The petition
states that Audi has received
component-level type approval for the
CMS, and is in the process of obtaining
vehicle-level type approval by
September 2018.10 11 Audi notes that its
CMS’s default view would meet the
field-of-view requirements for Class III
rear-view devices under ECE R46.12
b. Description of the CMS
Audi states that the CMS that would
be installed on exempted vehicles
would use two externally mounted
cameras, which would be located at the
base of the driver-side and passenger
-side A-pillars (at the approximate
location that outside mirrors are
typically installed on vehicles). The
cameras capture an image with a
resolution of 1289x1080 pixels, and a
refresh rate of 60 frames per second
(FPS). The cameras include pan and
zoom functionality, and the cameras’
exterior lenses are equipped with
heaters and are coated with anti-stick
material to minimize camera obstruction
due to environmental contaminants like
water, dirt, or ice.
Audi states that each camera feeds
into a control unit that performs the
processing for all CMS functions,
including converting camera data into
an image, displaying the image on
screens inside the vehicle (along with
other warnings and system
information 13), and carrying out selfdiagnostics to ensure the system
functions properly. The CMS transmits
the camera image to displays that are
located near the top forward corner of
the door, which are aimed toward the
driver. Each display provides the image
from the camera on the corresponding
side of the vehicle. The displays are
approximately 7 inches wide, and
provide a resolution of 1280x800 with a
refresh rate of 60 FPS.14 The displays
use a capacitive touch system, which
the driver can use to interact with and
manipulate the CMS, such as by
adjusting the image aim and level of
zoom. Audi states that the CMS meets
the requirements of UN ECE R46,
provides additional safety and
convenience features.15
Audi states in the petition that the
CMS meets the FMVSS No. 111 field of
view (FOV) requirements for outside
mirrors when operating in its ‘‘default
view.’’ However, the petition did not
say whether the CMS image in the
default view would be of ‘‘unit
magnification’’ (i.e., not magnified), as
56015
is required under FMVSS No. 111, or
whether the magnification level can be
changed by the driver. In addition, the
supporting documents that Audi
submitted with the petition described
three view modes other than the default
view, which Audi calls Turnview,
Parkview, and Highway view.16
However, these other view modes are
not discussed in the petition. Finally,
the petition did not provide details on
how the CMS detects and alerts the
driver to camera obstructions.
To fill these information gaps,
NHTSA sent Audi an email requesting
additional information. Audi replied in
an email sent August 1, 2019. In this
email, Audi stated that the CMS’s
default view shows an image of ‘‘unitary
magnification (about 0.32) without a
distortion.’’ We understand this to mean
that the CMS image would be magnified
such that the it would be approximately
1⁄3 the size of the image produced by a
planar mirror that meets the unit
magnification requirement of FMVSS
No. 111. Audi also stated that it is not
possible for drivers to adjust the CMS’s
magnification manually. In addition,
Audi provided details about the CMS’s
other view modes, which are
summarized in the below table:
View mode
Activation of view mode
Deactivation of view mode
Audi’s description of view
Turnview ................
Actuation of the turn signal operating
unit.
Cancellation of the turn signal operating unit.
Parkview ................
Switching to the ‘‘reverse’’ gear with
vehicle speed less than 10 km/h.
Switching out of the ‘‘reverse’’ gear, or
if the vehicle speed exceeds 10km/h.
Highwayview ..........
The vehicle’s navigation system indicates that the vehicle is on a highway, and vehicle speed is greater
than 80 km/h.
The vehicle speed drops below 70 km/
h, or the vehicle’s navigation system
indicates the vehicle has left the
highway.
An aspherical zone with an enlarged
field of view on the outer side of the
view. Audi says this reduces the size
of the blind spot.
An aspherical zone with an enlarged
field of view on the lower side of the
view. Audi says this view reduces
the size of the blind spot for parking
maneuvering.
A smaller field of view that is magnified
so that objects appear 2% larger.
Audi says this enables better detection of fast-approaching vehicles on
highways.
Regarding camera obstruction, Audi
stated that the CMS uses continuously
active video analytics to detect dirt.
Audi also stated that the camera is
equipped with a heater to clear
obstructions, and if that does not work,
the system provides the driver with a
message in the instrument cluster that
the camera needs to be cleaned.
The CMS is described in further detail
in the petition and accompanying
support documents, including NHTSA’s
email exchange with Audi. These
documents are all available in the
9 NHTSA has not taken a position on whether the
amendments to ECE R46 that permit CMS provide
a benefit to vehicle safety.
10 Although the petition does not identify the
country from which type approval is being sought,
the test report the petition cites as documentation
for type-approval appears to have been obtained
from a laboratory based in Germany. For more
information on the type-approval process, see
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/
technical-harmonisation/faq-auto_en.
11 On October 30, 2018, NHTSA received from
Audi supplemental documentation that it had
received vehicle-level type approval for its CMS.
The non-confidential portion of this documentation
can be found in the docket.
12 ECE R46, 15.2.4.3 states that a Class III mirror
must provide a view of the road that is 4 meters
wide when measured 20 meters back from the
mirror, and 1 meter wide when measured 4 meters
back from the mirror.
13 Other functions include object detection, lane
marking and warning, safe exit information, and
blind spot detection.
14 We note that the display resolution (1280x800)
is lower than resolution of the image captured by
the camera (1289x1080). The petition does not
explain what effect (if any) this difference would
have on the image displayed to the driver.
15 Audi lists four additional safety features:
Critical object detection, Marking and Warning,
Safe Exit Information, and Blind Spot Detection.
Audi does not provide information about the
operation of these safety features.
16 These views are described in the supporting
document titled ‘‘Attachment 3,’’ which can be
found in the docket for this petition.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
56016
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Notices
docket indicated in the header of this
notice.
c. Documentation Establishing
Innovative Nature of the CMS
Audi provides information about
three separate research efforts that Audi
argues establish the innovative and
safety-improving nature of CMS. Audi
first discusses a 2015 study conducted
by the German Federal Highway
Research Institute (BASt), which Audi
states investigated both technical and
human-machine interface issues relating
to CMS.17 Audi states that this study
concluded (among other things) that it
is possible for a CMS to provide a
‘‘quality’’ rear view to the driver. Audi
next summarizes a 2017 study that it
jointly conducted with Spiegel Institut
Mannheim 18 that examined the
performance and user acceptability of
CMS as compared to rearview mirrors
by having study participants use a CMS
in a variety of scenarios, both moving
and stationary.19 According to Audi,
this study found that, while some
participants initially expressed
skepticism towards CMS, once the
participants became familiar with the
system, they found it performed
comparably or better than conventional
mirrors.
Lastly, Audi describes a Naturalistic
Driving Study (NDS) that is currently
being conducted in the United States by
the Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute (VTTI), in which five vehicle
manufacturers (including Volkswagen
Group, of which Audi is a part) and two
‘‘Tier One’’ suppliers are participating.
Audi explains that this study will
compare the performance and
acceptance of CMS to that of rearview
mirrors, but states that the research is
ongoing and the results are not yet
available.
In addition to these research projects,
Audi also states that the CMS that
would be equipped on exempted
vehicles incorporates qualitative
feedback that Audi obtained from
NHTSA regarding an earlier version of
its CMS.20
17 The Final Report on this study published by
BASt can be found in the docket for this petition.
(‘‘Attachment 4’’)
18 Spiegel Institut Manheim is a German research
and consulting firm. See https://www.spiegelinstitut.de/en/about-us/who-we-are.
19 A presentation by Audi and Spiegel Institut
Mannheim describing this study and its results can
be found in the docket for this petition.
(‘‘Attachment 5’’)
20 NHTSA notes that the qualitative observations
discussed in the petition were preliminary
observations made by NHTSA researchers during an
8-week lease of a CMS-equipped Audi A4, and do
not represent an official agency position on CMS
generally or Audi’s proprietary CMS technology.
NHTSA published a report of its findings, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
d. Audi Claims That the CMS Provides
a Level of Safety At Least Equivalent to
the Level of Safety Established by
Compliance With FMVSS No. 111, and
is in the Public Interest
According to Audi, exempted vehicles
would have an equivalent level of safety
to those that comply with FMVSS No.
111 because the CMS with which they
would be equipped provides the driver
with a view of the vehicle rear that is
‘‘as good, if not better’’ than the view
available using traditional mirrors. The
petition specifically notes that the CMS
meets the field-of-view requirements for
FMVSS No. 111-compliant outside
rearview mirrors when in its default 35°
field-of-view setting. Moreover, the
CMS’s field of view can be expanded to
43° at the driver’s option.
As further evidence that the CMS
would provide an equivalent level of
safety to FMVSS No. 111-compliant
outside mirrors, Audi states that its
CMS meets the requirements of UN ECE
R46, and that the CMS is designed to
withstand 15 years of environmental
exposure to wind, moisture, dirt, and
other obstructions. Moreover, Audi
states that the CMS includes features
that mitigate possible lens obstructions,
including a heated camera lens, and the
use of a camera with a focus point well
beyond the lens, which enables the lens
to ‘‘look past’’ certain obstructions.
Audi also states that, if an obstruction
is sufficiently severe, the CMS will alert
the driver to clear the obstruction from
the camera. However, Audi does not
provide details of how this obstruction
detection system would work (alert
threshold, detection reliability, etc.).
The petition notes that the three CMS
studies that are cited (including the
ongoing VTTI study) ‘‘do not reveal a
significant safety risk associated with
CMS.’’ Moreover, the petition states that
Volkswagen sold 250 vehicles equipped
with a CMS in 2013 in Germany and
Austria pursuant to an exemption to
Europe’s standards. According to the
petition, the customer feedback received
was positive, with customers finding
that, once they were familiar with the
CMS, they found the system to be as
good or better than rearview mirrors.
The petition also states that the CMS
provides environmental benefits due to
its lower weight and improved
aerodynamics as compared to rearview
mirrors. According to the petition,
exempted vehicles equipped with a
CMS would have an additional 1.5%
battery range, or a 1 gram per kilometer
decrease in CO2 emissions, as compared
to non-exempt vehicles with rearview
mirrors. In addition, the petition notes
that the CMS is included with
additional features that provide safety
information to the driver, including
critical object detection, marking and
warning, safe exit information, and
blind-spot detection.21 According to the
petition, these features would enhance
the safety of exempted vehicles to
beyond what is required under the
FMVSS.
include both positive and negative observations, in
October 2018 (DOT HS 812 582).
21 We note that the performance specifications of
these features are not included in the petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
e. Substantiation That an Exemption
Would Facilitate Audi’s Development
and Field Evaluation of the CMS
Audi states that an exemption is
necessary for the company to conduct a
field evaluation of its CMS, through
which it will obtain data on customer
acceptance and system performance in
situations unique to the US market. To
accomplish this research, Audi states
that it intends to collect feedback from
purchasers of exempted vehicles
throughout the duration of the
exemption period. This feedback would
be collected through a survey given to
customers when they bring the vehicle
in for service, as well as though Audi’s
customer care center.
III. Requests for Comment
NHTSA seeks comment on the
information and analysis in Audi’s
petition. In particular, NHTSA is
interested in the issues raised in the
following questions:
1. Does the public agree with Audi’s
safety analysis generally?
2. Does Audi’s petition provide
sufficient information on the operation
of Audi’s CMS to enable NHTSA to
make the findings required by statute to
grant an exemption? If not, what
additional information should the Audi
provide, and why?
3. We seek comment on the safety
impact of the CMS image being
magnified by 0.32 times, as compared to
a non-magnified image that would be
produced by a compliant unit
magnification mirror.
4. While the CMS’s Turnview,
Parkview, and Highwayview modes may
provide the safety benefits that Audi
cites in its petition, it is also possible
that the switch to these alternative view
modes could have negative impacts on
safety, such as driver disorientation.
Should the agency consider placing any
restrictions on the use of these
alternative view modes as a condition of
granting the petition? If so, what should
those conditions be, and what is the
basis for those conditions?
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Notices
5. Are there data on the likelihood
that some drivers may find that they are
unable to use the CMS, but will not
know this at the time of sale? Should
NHTSA require that exempted vehicles
include a warning label to inform
potential customers of this possibility?
6. The field of view defined by S5.2.1
of FMVSS No. 111 for driver’s side
outside mirrors differs from the field of
view defined by ECE R46 for Class III
mirrors (Class III is the mirror class for
which Audi’s CMS has received type
approval according to the documents
submitted with the petition).22 In view
of these differences, what weight should
NHTSA give Audi’s statement that the
CMS complies with R46? Relatedly,
what are the testing situations unique to
the US market to which the petition
refers?
7. How and to what extent should
NHTSA consider in its safety analysis
the inclusion of safety features that
provide the driver with non-visual
information about the driving
environment (e.g., blind spot detection)?
8. How should NHTSA consider the
incomplete VTTI study cited in the
petition, especially given that the study
has not yet produced results?
9. To inform possible future
rulemaking activities in this area to
permit CMS on all vehicles in place of
mirrors, if NHTSA were to grant Audi
an exemption, should the agency
condition the exemption on submitting
reports on the on-road experiences of
Audi’s vehicles? If so, what information
should Audi be required to report?
IV. Comment Period
The agency has not made any
judgment on the merits of the petition,
and is placing a copy of the petition and
supporting information in the docket.
The agency seeks comment from the
public on the merits of Audi’s petition
for a temporary exemption from
paragraphs FMVSS No. 111, ‘‘Rear
Visibility’’. We are providing a 30-day
comment period. After considering the
petition, the public comments and other
available information, we will publish a
notice of final action on the petition in
the Federal Register.
22 FMVSS 111, S5.2 .1 states that passenger car
mirrors must provide a view of the road that is 2.4
meters wide when measured 10.7 meters behind the
mirror. ECE R46, 15.2.4.3 states that a Class III
mirror must provide a view of the road that is 4
meters wide when measured 20 meters back from
the mirror, and 1 meter wide when measured 4
meters back from the mirror. Overall, these
differences mean that the required field of view for
the driver’s side mirror under FMVSS 111 is
narrower than the required field of view for a
driver’s side Class III mirror under ECE R46 when
measured close to the mirror, but wider than ECE
R46 when measured further back from the mirror.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–22769 Filed 10–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
Privacy Act of 1974; System of
Records
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of a modified system of
records.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of
the Treasury (‘‘Treasury’’ or the
‘‘Department’’), Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, proposes
to modify a system of records titled,
‘‘Department of the Treasury, Office of
the Comptroller .220—Notices of
Proposed Changes in Employees,
Officers and Directors Tracking
System—Treasury/Comptroller.’’ This
electronic system, is used to maintain
the applications, background materials,
and tracking information related to
applications submitted by OCCregulated entities for approval of
employees, proposed directors or senior
executive officers of a national bank,
federal savings association, or federal
branches of foreign banks; and requests
from foreign banking supervisors for
information about a former or existing
employee of an OCC-regulated
institution. Records in this system may
be contained in an electronic system
used by the OCC’s Large Bank
Supervision examiners or in an
electronic system used by the OCC’s
Midsize and Community Bank
supervision examiners, depending on
the bank to which the records pertain.
Additional copies of information may be
contained in paper working files.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
November 18, 2019. The new routine
use will be applicable on November 18,
2019 unless Treasury receives
comments and determines that changes
to the system of records notice are
necessary.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted to the OCC by any of the
methods set forth below. Commenters
are encouraged to submit comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or email, if possible. Please use the title
‘‘Privacy Act’’ to facilitate the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56017
organization and distribution of the
comments. You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal—
‘‘Regulations.gov’’: Go to
www.regulations.gov. Enter ‘‘Docket ID
OCC–2019–0026’’ in the Search Box and
click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Comment
Now’’ to submit public comments.
• Click on the ‘‘Help’’ tab on the
Regulations.gov home page to get
information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for submitting
public comments.
• Email: regs.comments@
occ.treas.gov.
• Mail: Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th
Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington,
DC 20219.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th
Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington,
DC 20219.
• Fax: (571) 465–4326.
Instructions: You must include
‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket
ID OCC–2019–0026’’ in your comment.
The OCC will enter all comments
received into the docket and publish the
comments on the Regulations.gov
website without change, including any
business or personal information that
you provide such as name and address
information, email addresses, or phone
numbers. All comments received,
including attachments and other
supporting materials, are part of the
public record and subject to public
disclosure. All comments received will
be posted without change to
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make publicly available. Do
not include any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may review comments and other
related materials that pertain to this
rulemaking action by any of the
following methods:
Viewing Comments Electronically: Go
to www.regulations.gov. Enter ‘‘Docket
ID OCC–2019–0026’’ in the Search box
and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Open
Docket Folder’’ on the right side of the
screen. Comments and supporting
materials can be viewed and filtered by
clicking on ‘‘View all documents and
comments in this docket’’ and then
using the filtering tools on the left side
of the screen.
• Click on the ‘‘Help’’ tab on the
Regulations.gov home page to get
information on using Regulations.gov.
The docket may be viewed after the
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56013-56017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22769]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0103]
Audi of America; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From
FMVSS No. 111
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption from
FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear Visibility''; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Audi of
America (``Audi'') has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary exemption of
vehicles from the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that passenger cars,
MPVs, and light trucks be equipped with an outside mirror on the
driver's side that meets certain field-of-view and mounting
requirements. Instead of being equipped with FMVSS No. 111-compliant
outside mirrors that would provide the required view to the rear, the
vehicles, if exempted, would be equipped with a Camera Monitor System
(CMS) that, according to Audi, provides the driver with a video-
generated image on a monitor. Audi states that the video-generated
image meets the standard's field-of-view requirements that apply to
outside mirrors on the driver's side. Audi submitted its petition on
the basis that an exemption is needed to facilitate the development and
field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature (the CMS) and
that that feature provides a level of safety at least equal to the
level of safety would be provided if the vehicle were equipped with
FMVSS-compliant outside mirrors. NHTSA is publishing this document in
accordance with statutory and administrative provisions, and requests
comments on the petition. NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of
the petition.
DATES: Comments on this petition must be submitted by November 18,
2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief
Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820 or Markus
Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: 202-366-1810,
Facsimile: 202-493-2990. The mailing address for these officials is:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.
This document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 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 your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
You may also call the Docket 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 https://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, the agency encourages 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111 Outside Mirror Requirement
b. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Requirements
II. Summary of Petition
a. Recent CMS-Related Regulatory Activities
b. Description of the CMS
c. Documentation Establishing Innovative Nature of the CMS
d. The CMS Provides a Level of Safety at Least Equivalent to the
Level of Safety Established by Compliance With FMVSS No. 111, and Is
in the Public Interest
e. Substantiation That an Exemption Would Facilitate Audi's
Development and Field Evaluation of the CMS
III. Requests for Comment
IV. Completeness and Comment Period
I. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111 Outside Mirror Requirement
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rear
Visibility,'' sets out requirements to ensure that passenger cars,
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses, school
buses, and low-speed vehicles provide drivers with ``a clear and
reasonably unobstructed view to the rear'' of the vehicle. To this end,
FMVSS No. 111, S5.2 requires that passenger cars must be equipped with
an outside rearview mirror on the driver's side. This mirror must
provide the driver with a specified minimum field of view, be of unit
magnification, and must be mounted according to certain
specifications.\1\ Similarly, FMVSS No. 111 S6 requires that MPVs,
trucks, and buses (other than a school bus) with a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating of 4,536 kg or less be equipped with outside mirrors to provide
rear visibility. Vehicles subject to S6 are required either to use
``mirrors that conform to the requirements of S5,'' \2\ or to be
equipped with mirrors on both sides of the vehicle which meet specified
criteria for size and placement. Currently, FMVSS No. 111 does not
permit compliance with either S5.2 or S6 through equipment other than
``an outside mirror.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S5.2 requires that vehicles be equipped with a driver side
outside mirror.
\2\ Note that S5 includes both an inside (S5.1) and outside
(S5.2) mirror requirement.
\3\ NHTSA notes, however, that FMVSS does not prohibit the use
of other technologies (such as cameras) alongside mirrors, so long
as compliant required mirrors are present. NHTSA recently published
an ANPRM seeking comment on whether the agency should consider
amending FMVSS No. 111 to permit cameras as a compliance option in
lieu of mirrors. See 84 FR 54533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Requirements
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified
[[Page 56014]]
as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of Transportation
authority to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified
circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard, ``on terms the Secretary considers appropriate.'' This
authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated
the authority for implementing this section to NHTSA. 49 CFR part 1.95.
The Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to grant a temporary
exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if the Secretary makes certain
findings. For this petition, the relevant findings that the Secretary
must make are:
(1) The exemption is consistent with the public interest and with
the objectives of 49 U.S.C. chapters 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety) or 325
(Bumper Standards) (as applicable); and
(2) The exemption ``would facilitate the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature that provides a level
of safety equivalent to that of the standard.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. The petition content
requirements, specified in 49 CFR 555.5, state that a petitioner must
set forth the basis of the application by providing the required
information under Sec. 555.6, and the reasons why the exemption would
be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301.
A petition under the basis that the exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature
that provides a level of safety equivalent to that of the standard must
include the information specified in 49 CFR 555.6(b). The main
requirements of that section include: (1) A description of the safety
or impact protection features, and research, development, and testing
documentation establishing the innovational nature of such features;
(2) an analysis establishing that the level of safety or impact
protection of the feature is equivalent to or exceeds the level of
safety or impact protection established in the standard(s) from which
exemption is sought; (3) substantiation that a temporary exemption
would facilitate the development or field evaluation of the vehicle;
and (4) a statement of whether the Audi intends to conform to the
standard at the end of the exemption period.
II. Summary of Petition
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Audi of America and its parent company, Audi AG
(collectively, ``Audi'') \5\ submitted a petition to NHTSA (received
August 7, 2018) requesting a temporary exemption from the driver's side
outside rearview mirror requirements in sections S5.2, S5.2.1, S5.2.2,
and S6 of FMVSS No. 111. The vehicles for which Audi is requesting an
exemption would be fully electric multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs). In lieu of mirrors, Audi states that the exempted vehicles
would be equipped with a Camera Monitoring System (CMS) that provides
the driver with the same field of view as a compliant outside rearview
mirror. Audi requests a two-year exemption, during which it asks to be
permitted to sell 2,500 exempted vehicles for each 12-month period
covered by the exemption (up to 5,000 vehicles). Audi does not intend
to make its vehicles compliant with FMVSS No. 111 by the end of the
exemption period, but notes that it hopes that FMVSS No. 111 would be
amended by then to permit CMS as a compliance option instead of outside
rearview mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Audi of America is incorporated in Virginia, with its
headquarters in Herndon, VA. Audi AG is incorporated in Germany,
with its headquarters in Ingolstadt, Germany.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What follows is a summary of the information contained in Audi's
petition. The petition itself is available for review in the docket for
this notice. Audi's submission also included five additional supporting
documents, which are cited as Attachments 1 through 5. While these
supplemental documents are not independently summarized in this notice,
they are available for review in the docket. Audi demonstrated the
technology at NHTSA's headquarters on June 27, 2019 via an Audi e-tron
model equipped with a CMS instead of outside mirrors, although NHTSA
was told that the system shown in the demonstration had different
specifications than the CMS that would be sold pursuant to an
exemption. Because NHTSA had outstanding questions about the CMS that
is the subject of Audi's exemption petition, NHTSA emailed Audi
following this demonstration to request additional information. This
information request and subsequent communications are also included in
the docket, and the information that Audi provided is incorporated into
this notice. Please note that this document is a notice of receipt
which contains a description of Audi's petition, as well as some
clarifying statements or questions from NHTSA. NHTSA has not yet made a
final determination to grant or deny the petition.
a. Recent CMS-Related Regulatory Activities
Audi begins by providing background on recent CMS-related
regulatory activities in the United States. Audi explains that, in
2014, Tesla and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers jointly filed
a rulemaking petition requesting that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 111 to
permit certification using CMS rather than outside rearview mirrors.\6\
Audi states that, although NHTSA has not yet determined whether to
amend FMVSS No. 111, an exemption to enable the company to conduct the
research and development needed to introduce a mass-market CMS should
NHTSA eventually decide to propose such an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Audi provided a copy of the Alliance/Tesla petition for
rulemaking with this exemption petition. The rulemaking petition,
designated ``Attachment 1,'' Can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking. We note that, although NHTSA has not officially acted on
this petition, the agency did respond to the petition by submitting
a letter containing a number of questions to Tesla and Alliance
requesting additional information that the agency believed would be
necessary to determine whether rulemaking would be appropriate. A
copy of this letter can be found in the docket. As of the
publication of this notice, NHTSA has not received a reply to these
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi then provides background on international regulatory actions
relating to CMS, focusing specifically on the international adoption of
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) Regulation 46
(R46).\7\ R46 is an international type-approval standard that covers
``the approval of devices for indirect vision and of motor vehicles
with regard to the installation of these devices.'' \8\ In 2016, R46
was revised to permit the use of either mirrors or CMS on most new
vehicles to meet rear-view requirements. According to Audi, roughly 50
countries, including Japan, have adopted the amended R46, and permit
the use of CMS in lieu of
[[Page 56015]]
outside mirrors.\9\ Audi also notes that Transport Canada requested
comments on allowing camera-based rear visibility systems in October
2016. The petition states that Audi has received component-level type
approval for the CMS, and is in the process of obtaining vehicle-level
type approval by September 2018.10 11 Audi notes that its
CMS's default view would meet the field-of-view requirements for Class
III rear-view devices under ECE R46.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ UN ECE R46 is a vehicle regulation established under the
1958 UN ECE Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions
of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle
Equipment and Parts (the ``1958 Agreement''). The 1958 Agreement is
an international agreement that provides procedures for establishing
uniform regulations regarding new motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment and for reciprocal acceptance of type-approvals issued
under these regulations by contracting countries. While the United
States is a member of the UN ECE, it is not a contracting party to
the 1958 Agreement, and thus is not bound by standards established
under the 1958 Agreement.
\8\ See https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2016/R046r6e.pdf.
\9\ NHTSA has not taken a position on whether the amendments to
ECE R46 that permit CMS provide a benefit to vehicle safety.
\10\ Although the petition does not identify the country from
which type approval is being sought, the test report the petition
cites as documentation for type-approval appears to have been
obtained from a laboratory based in Germany. For more information on
the type-approval process, see https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/technical-harmonisation/faq-auto_en.
\11\ On October 30, 2018, NHTSA received from Audi supplemental
documentation that it had received vehicle-level type approval for
its CMS. The non-confidential portion of this documentation can be
found in the docket.
\12\ ECE R46, 15.2.4.3 states that a Class III mirror must
provide a view of the road that is 4 meters wide when measured 20
meters back from the mirror, and 1 meter wide when measured 4 meters
back from the mirror.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Description of the CMS
Audi states that the CMS that would be installed on exempted
vehicles would use two externally mounted cameras, which would be
located at the base of the driver-side and passenger -side A-pillars
(at the approximate location that outside mirrors are typically
installed on vehicles). The cameras capture an image with a resolution
of 1289x1080 pixels, and a refresh rate of 60 frames per second (FPS).
The cameras include pan and zoom functionality, and the cameras'
exterior lenses are equipped with heaters and are coated with anti-
stick material to minimize camera obstruction due to environmental
contaminants like water, dirt, or ice.
Audi states that each camera feeds into a control unit that
performs the processing for all CMS functions, including converting
camera data into an image, displaying the image on screens inside the
vehicle (along with other warnings and system information \13\), and
carrying out self-diagnostics to ensure the system functions properly.
The CMS transmits the camera image to displays that are located near
the top forward corner of the door, which are aimed toward the driver.
Each display provides the image from the camera on the corresponding
side of the vehicle. The displays are approximately 7 inches wide, and
provide a resolution of 1280x800 with a refresh rate of 60 FPS.\14\ The
displays use a capacitive touch system, which the driver can use to
interact with and manipulate the CMS, such as by adjusting the image
aim and level of zoom. Audi states that the CMS meets the requirements
of UN ECE R46, provides additional safety and convenience features.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Other functions include object detection, lane marking and
warning, safe exit information, and blind spot detection.
\14\ We note that the display resolution (1280x800) is lower
than resolution of the image captured by the camera (1289x1080). The
petition does not explain what effect (if any) this difference would
have on the image displayed to the driver.
\15\ Audi lists four additional safety features: Critical object
detection, Marking and Warning, Safe Exit Information, and Blind
Spot Detection. Audi does not provide information about the
operation of these safety features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audi states in the petition that the CMS meets the FMVSS No. 111
field of view (FOV) requirements for outside mirrors when operating in
its ``default view.'' However, the petition did not say whether the CMS
image in the default view would be of ``unit magnification'' (i.e., not
magnified), as is required under FMVSS No. 111, or whether the
magnification level can be changed by the driver. In addition, the
supporting documents that Audi submitted with the petition described
three view modes other than the default view, which Audi calls
Turnview, Parkview, and Highway view.\16\ However, these other view
modes are not discussed in the petition. Finally, the petition did not
provide details on how the CMS detects and alerts the driver to camera
obstructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ These views are described in the supporting document titled
``Attachment 3,'' which can be found in the docket for this
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To fill these information gaps, NHTSA sent Audi an email requesting
additional information. Audi replied in an email sent August 1, 2019.
In this email, Audi stated that the CMS's default view shows an image
of ``unitary magnification (about 0.32) without a distortion.'' We
understand this to mean that the CMS image would be magnified such that
the it would be approximately \1/3\ the size of the image produced by a
planar mirror that meets the unit magnification requirement of FMVSS
No. 111. Audi also stated that it is not possible for drivers to adjust
the CMS's magnification manually. In addition, Audi provided details
about the CMS's other view modes, which are summarized in the below
table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deactivation of view Audi's description of
View mode Activation of view mode mode view
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnview............................. Actuation of the turn Cancellation of the An aspherical zone with
signal operating unit. turn signal operating an enlarged field of
unit. view on the outer side
of the view. Audi says
this reduces the size
of the blind spot.
Parkview............................. Switching to the Switching out of the An aspherical zone with
``reverse'' gear with ``reverse'' gear, or an enlarged field of
vehicle speed less if the vehicle speed view on the lower side
than 10 km/h. exceeds 10km/h. of the view. Audi says
this view reduces the
size of the blind spot
for parking
maneuvering.
Highwayview.......................... The vehicle's The vehicle speed drops A smaller field of view
navigation system below 70 km/h, or the that is magnified so
indicates that the vehicle's navigation that objects appear 2%
vehicle is on a system indicates the larger. Audi says this
highway, and vehicle vehicle has left the enables better
speed is greater than highway. detection of fast-
80 km/h. approaching vehicles
on highways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding camera obstruction, Audi stated that the CMS uses
continuously active video analytics to detect dirt. Audi also stated
that the camera is equipped with a heater to clear obstructions, and if
that does not work, the system provides the driver with a message in
the instrument cluster that the camera needs to be cleaned.
The CMS is described in further detail in the petition and
accompanying support documents, including NHTSA's email exchange with
Audi. These documents are all available in the
[[Page 56016]]
docket indicated in the header of this notice.
c. Documentation Establishing Innovative Nature of the CMS
Audi provides information about three separate research efforts
that Audi argues establish the innovative and safety-improving nature
of CMS. Audi first discusses a 2015 study conducted by the German
Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), which Audi states
investigated both technical and human-machine interface issues relating
to CMS.\17\ Audi states that this study concluded (among other things)
that it is possible for a CMS to provide a ``quality'' rear view to the
driver. Audi next summarizes a 2017 study that it jointly conducted
with Spiegel Institut Mannheim \18\ that examined the performance and
user acceptability of CMS as compared to rearview mirrors by having
study participants use a CMS in a variety of scenarios, both moving and
stationary.\19\ According to Audi, this study found that, while some
participants initially expressed skepticism towards CMS, once the
participants became familiar with the system, they found it performed
comparably or better than conventional mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Final Report on this study published by BASt can be
found in the docket for this petition. (``Attachment 4'')
\18\ Spiegel Institut Manheim is a German research and
consulting firm. See https://www.spiegel-institut.de/en/about-us/who-we-are.
\19\ A presentation by Audi and Spiegel Institut Mannheim
describing this study and its results can be found in the docket for
this petition. (``Attachment 5'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, Audi describes a Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) that is
currently being conducted in the United States by the Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute (VTTI), in which five vehicle manufacturers
(including Volkswagen Group, of which Audi is a part) and two ``Tier
One'' suppliers are participating. Audi explains that this study will
compare the performance and acceptance of CMS to that of rearview
mirrors, but states that the research is ongoing and the results are
not yet available.
In addition to these research projects, Audi also states that the
CMS that would be equipped on exempted vehicles incorporates
qualitative feedback that Audi obtained from NHTSA regarding an earlier
version of its CMS.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ NHTSA notes that the qualitative observations discussed in
the petition were preliminary observations made by NHTSA researchers
during an 8-week lease of a CMS-equipped Audi A4, and do not
represent an official agency position on CMS generally or Audi's
proprietary CMS technology. NHTSA published a report of its
findings, which include both positive and negative observations, in
October 2018 (DOT HS 812 582).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Audi Claims That the CMS Provides a Level of Safety At Least
Equivalent to the Level of Safety Established by Compliance With FMVSS
No. 111, and is in the Public Interest
According to Audi, exempted vehicles would have an equivalent level
of safety to those that comply with FMVSS No. 111 because the CMS with
which they would be equipped provides the driver with a view of the
vehicle rear that is ``as good, if not better'' than the view available
using traditional mirrors. The petition specifically notes that the CMS
meets the field-of-view requirements for FMVSS No. 111-compliant
outside rearview mirrors when in its default 35[deg] field-of-view
setting. Moreover, the CMS's field of view can be expanded to 43[deg]
at the driver's option.
As further evidence that the CMS would provide an equivalent level
of safety to FMVSS No. 111-compliant outside mirrors, Audi states that
its CMS meets the requirements of UN ECE R46, and that the CMS is
designed to withstand 15 years of environmental exposure to wind,
moisture, dirt, and other obstructions. Moreover, Audi states that the
CMS includes features that mitigate possible lens obstructions,
including a heated camera lens, and the use of a camera with a focus
point well beyond the lens, which enables the lens to ``look past''
certain obstructions. Audi also states that, if an obstruction is
sufficiently severe, the CMS will alert the driver to clear the
obstruction from the camera. However, Audi does not provide details of
how this obstruction detection system would work (alert threshold,
detection reliability, etc.).
The petition notes that the three CMS studies that are cited
(including the ongoing VTTI study) ``do not reveal a significant safety
risk associated with CMS.'' Moreover, the petition states that
Volkswagen sold 250 vehicles equipped with a CMS in 2013 in Germany and
Austria pursuant to an exemption to Europe's standards. According to
the petition, the customer feedback received was positive, with
customers finding that, once they were familiar with the CMS, they
found the system to be as good or better than rearview mirrors.
The petition also states that the CMS provides environmental
benefits due to its lower weight and improved aerodynamics as compared
to rearview mirrors. According to the petition, exempted vehicles
equipped with a CMS would have an additional 1.5% battery range, or a 1
gram per kilometer decrease in CO2 emissions, as compared to
non-exempt vehicles with rearview mirrors. In addition, the petition
notes that the CMS is included with additional features that provide
safety information to the driver, including critical object detection,
marking and warning, safe exit information, and blind-spot
detection.\21\ According to the petition, these features would enhance
the safety of exempted vehicles to beyond what is required under the
FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ We note that the performance specifications of these
features are not included in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Substantiation That an Exemption Would Facilitate Audi's Development
and Field Evaluation of the CMS
Audi states that an exemption is necessary for the company to
conduct a field evaluation of its CMS, through which it will obtain
data on customer acceptance and system performance in situations unique
to the US market. To accomplish this research, Audi states that it
intends to collect feedback from purchasers of exempted vehicles
throughout the duration of the exemption period. This feedback would be
collected through a survey given to customers when they bring the
vehicle in for service, as well as though Audi's customer care center.
III. Requests for Comment
NHTSA seeks comment on the information and analysis in Audi's
petition. In particular, NHTSA is interested in the issues raised in
the following questions:
1. Does the public agree with Audi's safety analysis generally?
2. Does Audi's petition provide sufficient information on the
operation of Audi's CMS to enable NHTSA to make the findings required
by statute to grant an exemption? If not, what additional information
should the Audi provide, and why?
3. We seek comment on the safety impact of the CMS image being
magnified by 0.32 times, as compared to a non-magnified image that
would be produced by a compliant unit magnification mirror.
4. While the CMS's Turnview, Parkview, and Highwayview modes may
provide the safety benefits that Audi cites in its petition, it is also
possible that the switch to these alternative view modes could have
negative impacts on safety, such as driver disorientation. Should the
agency consider placing any restrictions on the use of these
alternative view modes as a condition of granting the petition? If so,
what should those conditions be, and what is the basis for those
conditions?
[[Page 56017]]
5. Are there data on the likelihood that some drivers may find that
they are unable to use the CMS, but will not know this at the time of
sale? Should NHTSA require that exempted vehicles include a warning
label to inform potential customers of this possibility?
6. The field of view defined by S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 for
driver's side outside mirrors differs from the field of view defined by
ECE R46 for Class III mirrors (Class III is the mirror class for which
Audi's CMS has received type approval according to the documents
submitted with the petition).\22\ In view of these differences, what
weight should NHTSA give Audi's statement that the CMS complies with
R46? Relatedly, what are the testing situations unique to the US market
to which the petition refers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ FMVSS 111, S5.2 .1 states that passenger car mirrors must
provide a view of the road that is 2.4 meters wide when measured
10.7 meters behind the mirror. ECE R46, 15.2.4.3 states that a Class
III mirror must provide a view of the road that is 4 meters wide
when measured 20 meters back from the mirror, and 1 meter wide when
measured 4 meters back from the mirror. Overall, these differences
mean that the required field of view for the driver's side mirror
under FMVSS 111 is narrower than the required field of view for a
driver's side Class III mirror under ECE R46 when measured close to
the mirror, but wider than ECE R46 when measured further back from
the mirror.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. How and to what extent should NHTSA consider in its safety
analysis the inclusion of safety features that provide the driver with
non-visual information about the driving environment (e.g., blind spot
detection)?
8. How should NHTSA consider the incomplete VTTI study cited in the
petition, especially given that the study has not yet produced results?
9. To inform possible future rulemaking activities in this area to
permit CMS on all vehicles in place of mirrors, if NHTSA were to grant
Audi an exemption, should the agency condition the exemption on
submitting reports on the on-road experiences of Audi's vehicles? If
so, what information should Audi be required to report?
IV. Comment Period
The agency has not made any judgment on the merits of the petition,
and is placing a copy of the petition and supporting information in the
docket.
The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Audi's
petition for a temporary exemption from paragraphs FMVSS No. 111,
``Rear Visibility''. We are providing a 30-day comment period. After
considering the petition, the public comments and other available
information, we will publish a notice of final action on the petition
in the Federal Register.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-22769 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
