Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 70681

TABLE 1.—REVISED METHODS AND CHAPTERS OF SW–846 DRAFT UPDATE IVB—Continued

Method No. Method or chapter title Sections or parts open for comment

9056A .................. Determination of Inorganic Anions by

Ion Chromatography.

All parts.

9210A .................. Potentiometric Determination of Nitrate

in Aqueous Samples with Ion-Selective Electrode.

All parts.

Note: The documents with an asterisk (*) were also in Draft Update IVA, dated January 1998, and are being released again as part of Draft

Update IVB, with some revisions and a new date of November 2000.

TABLE 2.—NEW METHODS OF SW–846 DRAFT UPDATE IVB

Method no. Method title

1040 .......................................................................................................... Test Method for Oxidizing Solids.

1050 .......................................................................................................... Test Methods to Determine Substances Likely to Spontaneously Combust.

3546 .......................................................................................................... Microwave Extraction.

3815 .......................................................................................................... Screening Solid Samples for Volatile Organics.

4425 .......................................................................................................... Screening Extracts of Environmental Samples for Planar Organic Compounds (PAHs, PCBs, Dioxins/Furans) by a Reporter Gene on a

Human Cell Line.

8085 .......................................................................................................... Compound-Independent Elemental Quantitation of Pesticides by Gas

Chromatography with Atomic Emission Detection (GC/AED).

8095 .......................................................................................................... Explosives by Gas Chromatography.

8261 .......................................................................................................... Volatile Organic Compounds by Vacuum Distillation in Combination

with Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (VD/GC/MS).

8510 .......................................................................................................... Colorimetric Screening Procedure for RDX and HMX in Soil.

8535 .......................................................................................................... Screening Procedure for Total Volatile Organic Halides in Water.

8540 .......................................................................................................... Pentachlorophenol (PCP) by UV-Induced Colorimetry.

9058 .......................................................................................................... Determination of Perchlorate Using Ion Chromatography with Chemical

Suppression Conductivity Detection.

TABLE 3.—METHOD REFERENCES PROVIDED BY SW–846 DRAFT UPDATE IVB

Method no. Method title

25D ........................................................................................................... Determination of the Volatile Organic Content of Waste Samples.

25E ........................................................................................................... Determination of Vapor Phase Organic Concentration in Waste Samples.

207–1 ........................................................................................................ Sampling Method for Isocyanates.

207–2 ........................................................................................................ Analysis for Isocyanates by High Performance Liquid Chromatography

(HPLC).

Dated: November 17, 2000.

Matthew Hale,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 00–30111 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000–7967; Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AG41

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 111, ‘‘Rearview Mirrors’’; Rear

Visibility Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On June 17, 1996, NHTSA

published a notice requesting comments

on a petition for rulemaking asking us

to require convex cross-view mirrors on

the rear of the cargo box of stepvan and

walk-in style delivery and service trucks

to allow drivers to see children behind

the trucks. In addition to reviewing the

six public comments on our notice, we

have also gathered and evaluated data to

quantify the size of this safety problem.

If off-road fatalities by vehicle type

occurred in the same proportion as onroad fatalities, an estimated 114 of these

deaths annually would involve straight

trucks over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR). These vehicles’

on-road backup fatality death rate per

vehicle mile traveled is eight times the

backup fatality rate of the second

highest vehicle type. In addition, we

have conducted research on the

feasibility of improving visibility to the

rear of these vehicles. This research

shows that a substantial area directly

behind straight trucks can be made

visible for the driver with rear crossview mirrors. Based on comments we

receive on this notice, we plan to

develop a proposal for a performance

requirement for straight trucks to detect

objects directly behind the vehicle to

prevent pedestrian deaths when the

vehicle backs up.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the

docket and notice numbers cited at the

beginning of this notice and be

submitted to: Docket Management,

Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20590. The Docket

Section is open on weekdays from 10:00

a.m. to 5 p.m.

70682 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

nonlegal issues: Mr. Chris Flanigan,

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Flanigan’s

telephone number is: (202) 366–4918.

His facsimile number is (202) 366–4329.

Please note that written comments

should be sent to the Docket Section

rather than faxed to the above contact

person.

For legal issues: Mr. Steve Wood,

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

D.C. 20590. Mr. Wood’s telephone

number is: (202) 366–2992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Mr. Dee Norton petitioned NHTSA in

1995 to amend its mirror standard

(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 111, 49 CFR 571.111) to require

convex cross-view mirrors on the rear of

the cargo box of stepvan and walk-in

style delivery and service trucks. Mr.

Norton said that his petition was

motivated by a desire to prevent any

more tragedies like the fatal crash that

killed his three-year-old grandson, C.J.

Norton. C.J. was killed when he was

struck and backed over by a diaper

delivery truck backing out of a parking

stall in an apartment parking lot. Mr.

Norton told us that the driver of the

delivery truck did not know a child was

behind the truck and could not see the

area directly behind the truck in the

truck’s rearview mirrors. Mr. Norton

asked that this situation be remedied by

NHTSA requiring a convex cross-view

mirror on the left rear top corner of the

cargo box of these trucks.

II. NHTSA’s Federal Register Notice

In response to Mr. Norton’s petition,

we published a Notice of Request for

Comments on June 17, 1996 (61 FR

30586). This notice asked the public for

information about the effectiveness of

rear cross-view mirrors, as well as the

cost of those mirrors and any

operational problems those mirrors

would present for users of these trucks.

In addition, the notice described the

research work that we had been

conducting to determine alternative

measures for preventing backing

crashes. This work includes external

audible alarms that sound when trucks

are backing, as well as in-vehicle

warning systems and mirrors. Generally

speaking, the external audible alarms

are ineffective with young children. The

in-vehicle warning systems, which

typically use ultrasound, radar, or

infrared to detect the presence of nearby

objects, were still in the early stages of

development. Another approach

described in the notice, used on certain

commercial and recreational vehicles,

was rear video cameras to give the

driver a view of the blind spot.

Although these approaches were more

costly than cross-view mirrors, NHTSA

believed they were also promising

countermeasures that should be

investigated further.

We announced that we were initiating

a research program to collect data on the

extent to which low cost mirror systems

can improve the driver’s view in the

obstructed view areas behind

commercial vehicles. At that time, we

told the public it would take several

years to complete this data collection

and analysis.

We also announced that we were

working with the Consumer Product

Safety Commission to gather data on

motor vehicle backing crashes that

occurred off public roads (for instance,

in parking lots, driveways, etc.), and so

would not be available in NHTSA’s

databases. NHTSA also stated that the

requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 111, ‘‘Rearview

Mirrors,’’ do not address the visibility of

the area directly and immediately

behind a vehicle. Accordingly, Standard

No. 111 does not preempt any State

from requiring rear cross-view mirrors

on vehicles. Our notice concluded by

asking a series of specific questions

about the safety effectiveness of rear

cross-view mirrors, any problems with

those mirrors, cost estimates for the

mirrors, and any alternatives to rear

cross-view mirrors the commenter

wanted the agency to evaluate.

III. Comments Received

We received six comments in

response to our Federal Register notice.

The International Brotherhood of

Teamsters (IBT) commented that a

courier company achieved more than a

30% reduction in backing crashes with

rear cross-view mirrors installed on

65% of their delivery vans.

Additionally, IBT said that backing

crashes account for more than 25% of

all courier crashes. IBT does not believe

this subject should be sent back to the

states for 50 separate responses, but

believes that Federal action would be

the best way to resolve the current

problem. IBT concluded by saying that

many of its members have been struck

and some killed by trucks that were

backing up, and IBT supports the effort

to require rear cross-view mirrors on the

left rear corner of the cargo box of stepvans and walk-in style delivery and

service trucks.

The American Trucking Associations,

Inc. (ATA) was less supportive. In fact,

ATA said that it does not believe a

Federal standard mandating rear crossview mirrors on certain trucks will serve

to reduce backing crashes. ATA

recommended that the selection of a

system to assist drivers in backing be

left to the discretion of the consumer.

ATA claimed that, based on its analysis

and talks with drivers of vehicles

equipped with rear cross-view mirror

systems, useful information from rear

cross-view mirrors is no longer available

when the distance between the rear

cross-view mirror and the front rear

view mirror exceeds 6.1 meters (m) and

that dimension can be considered to

establish the maximum range for the

system. ATA also said that rear crossview mirrors are most effective at

mounting heights under eight feet as

opposed to top corners locations on

cargo bodies. Additionally, ATA noted

that there are many vehicles having a

10,000 to 26,000 lb. GVWR that are not

vans and that use body configurations

that are unacceptable for rear cross-view

mirror technology—such as flat beds,

stake bodies, dump trucks, tow trucks,

tradesmen and mechanics bodies, and

the common light duty pick-up truck

bed. Finally, ATA asked that if NHTSA

were to proceed with rulemaking, it

should develop a performance standard.

Hylant MacLean (HM) commented

that, as long ago as 1991, cameras

became the preferred device for Waste

Management of North America trucks

and that monitor systems cost as low as

$200. HM also states that the

effectiveness of camera systems was

much greater than mirrors since mirrors

are difficult to keep adjusted properly,

are affected by glare, easily become

dirty, and are just plain difficult to see

anything in. HM supports the

requirement for installation of backing

safety devices, but does not recommend

limiting that application to mirrors.

Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (Advocates) agreed with HM’s

comment on this last point. Advocates

urged us to address the situation more

broadly than by a design-oriented

solution of rear cross-view mirrors.

Advocates believes that a system to

provide a reasonable level of rear

detection, even if inferior to the

expensive powered electronic systems

described in our notice, could be

valuable to provide a reasonable level of

rear detection. Finally, Advocates

recommended that property damage be

considered when calculating benefits

from this action.

Caliber System, Inc. (Caliber)

challenged the agency’s interpretation of

49 U.S.C. 30103(b), which allows states

to regulate rear cross-view mirrors on

vehicles-in-use. In the Request for

Comments, the agency outlined the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 70683

State of Washington’s belief that it, and

any other State, was prohibited from

requiring cross-view mirrors due to

Standard No. 111’s applicability. The

agency disagreed with this position in

the Request for Comments. Moreover,

since the notice was published, the

State of Washington has enacted a law

to require delivery vehicles up to 5.5 m

in length to be equipped with driver

warning backup alerts or rear-mounted

cross-view mirrors. This requirement

became effective September 30, 1998.

The agency disagrees with Caliber and

continues to maintain the position that

cross-view mirrors can be required

individually by States.

Finally, the Easter Seal Society of

Washington commented that they

supported the NHTSA research into the

effectiveness of having rear cross-view

mirrors required on all delivery trucks.

IV. Size of the Safety Problem

a. Number of Victims

To decide upon the appropriate

agency response, we needed to

determine the problem size, i.e., gather

data on the annual number of incidents

of people being backed over by a motor

vehicle of any type or size. We began by

searching our own Fatality Analysis

Reporting System (FARS) data and

found an average of 85 victims for the

years 1992 and 1993. However, by

design, a fatality is included in the

FARS database only if a motor vehicle

is involved in a crash while traveling on

a roadway customarily open to the

public. This excludes other likely

scenarios for backing deaths, e.g., events

where someone is backed over in a

driveway, parking lot, or other nonroadway locations.

We decided to address this gap in our

data by working with the National

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to

gather data on the involvement of

children with motor vehicles in nonhighway injuries and fatalities. NCHS

obtains information on the cause(s) of

death, as recorded on individual death

certificates, from each of the 50 states,

the District of Columbia, and the five

boroughs of New York City. NCHS and

FARS data for 1992 and 1993 were used

in this study to obtain average annual

estimates of the number of fatalities

associated with off-road and on-road

fatal backing crashes for children aged

1–4 and for all other ages. This work is

described in detail in a Research Note

prepared by NHTSA published in

February 1997 and titled Nonoccupant

Fatalities Associated With Backing

Crashes. The Research Note identified

85 on-road (FARS) and 390 off-road

average annual backing fatalities for the

1992–1993 time period, with the very

young (children aged one to four) being

significantly over-represented as

victims. A copy of this is in the docket

under NHTSA–98–4308.

b. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing

Crashes

Unlike NHTSA’s FARS data, the

NCHS data collected from death

certificates does not record the vehicle

type that backed over the victim. As

noted in the Research Note on backing

crashes, there are about four times as

many off-road backing fatalities as onroad backing fatalities. FARS data show

the following for 1991–1997 on-road

pedestrian and pedalcyclist deaths in

backing crashes:

CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS AND PEDALCYCLISTS KILLED

IN ON-ROAD BACKING CRASHES

[FARS data from 1991–1997]

Vehicle type Number of

people killed

Passenger car ...................... 129

Light truck/van ...................... 139

Bus ........................................ 1

Straight truck over 10,000

lbs. GVWR ........................ 81

Combination truck ................. 15

Unknown truck over 10,000

lbs. GVWR ........................ 12

Other ..................................... 2

Unknown ............................... 2

Total ............................... 381

From looking only at these numbers,

it would appear that the backing crash

problem primarily involves light

vehicles. However, we do not believe

this is a complete assessment of the

problem. It is not sufficient to consider

absolute numbers of deaths. One must

also consider relative risk. This is done

by using the number of vehicles in the

fleet and the miles driven to calculate

the rate of backing deaths for different

vehicle types. We have done this by

using estimates of registered vehicles

and vehicle miles traveled information.

The following breakdown of on-road

fatality rate information is based on

cumulative 1991–97 data:

RATE OF ON-ROAD FATAL BACKING CRASHES

[Cumulative FARS Data from 1991–1997]

Vehicle type

Pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed by a backing

vehicle per million

registered vehicles

Pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed by a backing

vehicle per 100 billion

vehicle miles traveled

Passenger cars ................................................................................................................. 0.15 ................................... 1.26

Light trucks/vans ............................................................................................................... 0.33 ................................... 2.80

Combination trucks ............................................................................................................ 1.42 ................................... 2.21

Straight trucks over 10,000 lbs. GVWR ............................................................................ 2.71 ................................... 21.89

The data on rates of fatal backing

crashes suggest that the problem is most

acute for straight trucks. This

experience is consistent with Mr.

Norton’s observation that the driver of

the straight truck has no way of

knowing if a pedestrian is directly

behind the truck when the driver is

backing up. The agency notes that buses

seem to have rearward visibility

problems similar to those of straight

trucks, but there is a near absence of

bus-related fatalities in the FARS data

on backing crashes (a total of one death

in seven years). Transit and school

buses are typically driven on a set route,

which is designed to avoid to the extent

possible situations in which the bus

must back up. Thus, the way the vehicle

is driven impacts its susceptibility to

backup fatalities.

V. Information and Activities Since the

Last Comment Period

a. Agency Research

NHTSA has conducted research to

quantify the visibility provided by the

current state-of-the-art rear cross-view

mirror designs. Our research also

compared several prototype mirrors in

terms of the ability of drivers to use

them to detect objects. The agency

believes this research shows that good

70684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

current designs of rear cross-view

mirrors can provide high detection and

recognition rates in a 3 m by 3 m area

directly behind a large step van with the

rear cross-view mirror. This area was

determined based on two factors. First,

the 3 m distance behind the vehicle is

based on stopping distance data

gathered in previously conducted

research (Hardstem, Huey, Lerner, and

Steinberg (1996)). This distance behind

the vehicle provides a small margin of

safety over these data. Second, the 3 m

along the rear of the vehicle would

ensure that the entire area along the

vehicle’s bumper could be visible. The

cross-view mirror research also showed

that the mirror must be mounted to

within 5 m from the driver’s side mirror.

Beyond 5 m, the images became too

small to recognize. This research is

published as Rear Cross-View Mirror

Performance: Perception and Optical

Measurements, DOT HS 808 824. A

copy of this is in the docket under

NHTSA–98–4308.

b. Other Developments

Since the request for comments was

published, the State of Washington has

enacted a law to require delivery

vehicles up to 5.5 m in length to be

equipped with driver warning backup

alerts or rear-mounted cross-view

mirrors. This requirement became

effective September 30, 1998. The

implementing rules in Washington

allow driver warning backup alert

devices to be any type of motion

detection device, laser device, camera,

or television device that will warn the

driver of the presence of a person or

object at a minimum distance of 1.8 m

to the rear of the vehicle across the

entire width of the rear of the vehicle.

Similarly, Washington rules allow rear

cross-view mirrors to be any type,

provided that those mirrors allow the

driver of the delivery truck to view a

minimum distance of at least 1.8 m to

the rear of the vehicle across the entire

width of the rear of the vehicle. NHTSA

is aware that some other States are also

considering such legislation.

In August of 2000, legislation that

would have required trucks with

delivery bays longer than 2.6 m to be

equipped with cross-view mirrors or

video cameras in the State of New York

was vetoed by its Governor. While the

Governor of New York believed that the

legislation was ‘‘well-intentioned,’’ it

was reported that he believed it was

flawed because it did not account for

other rear object detections systems,

such as sonar-based ones. Some of these

are described below. The authority of

local police to enforce civil penalties

also presented a problem. The sponsors

of the legislation created it in response

to incidents like one that occurred in

Ulster County where a five-year-old boy

was killed by a delivery truck backing

out of his driveway.

As we noted in our Request for

Comments, any nonidentical state

standards would be preempted if this

rulemaking culminates in the issuance

of a NHTSA safety standard for

detecting people to the rear of vehicles.

However, we would carefully consider

all existing state laws in deciding upon

what performance requirements should

be adopted in a Federal standard.

As part of a labor settlement, United

Parcel Service had agreed to study rear

cross-view mirrors on its delivery vans.

Since then, UPS said that it would

install video monitoring equipment on

its fleet by October 2001 (see Transport

Topics, August 28 2000, page 4). There

are many other fleets with rear crossview mirrors, such as Federal Express,

the United States Postal Service, and

various regional telephone companies

and delivery services and with other

rear systems. The experience of any fleet

with and without rear cross-view

mirrors or any other rear-of-vehicle

detection or vision system is very

pertinent information for this

rulemaking action. Please submit any

information, test reports, studies, and

etc. on the success and benefits of your

use of such devices.

Several commonly used vans and

passenger cars are now available with

optional rear object detection systems

that are advertised and intended for use

as parking aids—not pedestrian

detectors. Ford, GM, BMW and

Mercedes-Benz have devices that are

claimed to reliably detect when the

vehicle is about to back into a pole, but

not when it is about to back into a

person. Ford’s Reverse Sensing System

is an optionally available ultrasonic

system on its 2000 Windstar minivans at

a suggested retail price of $245. This

system uses four sensors and has a range

of up to 1.8 meters. The system is

promoted as a low-speed parking device

for assisting drivers making maneuvers

in detecting large and fixed objects to

the rear of a vehicle—not as a safety

feature. Information from Ford states

that the system consistently detects the

following objects: a shopping cart, a

lamp post and other barriers or types of

posts. Additionally, information from

Ford states that the system will not

detect, or will detect only

inconsistently, low-lying objects with

rounded edges and/or objects with a

high capacity for sound wave

absorption.

GM’s Cadillac Ultrasonic Rear Parking

Assist (supplied by Bosch) comes as

part of a $400 option package that

includes a garage door opener.

BMW also has an optional rear object

detector system with five sensors

intended to prevent property damage in

backing. BMW states that its Park

Distance Control is more of a vehicle

parking aid for proximity with a range

of 1.2 m than an actual object detection

system. Its retail price is $350.

The Mercedes-Benz Parktronic system

utilizes 10 sensors with ranges up to 1.2

m. The Mercedes-Benz of North

America press release states that the

system may detect children as well as

bumpers, but no further details are

known.

Thus, rear systems that detect some

inanimate objects are not ‘‘Star Wars’’

technology; instead, they are being

offered on vehicles right now. These

systems may be more effective than

mirrors because they offer an audible or

visual alert, instead of relying on the

driver to check the rear cross-view

mirror to be alerted to people behind the

vehicle. They are, however, relatively

expensive technologies that do not

presently reliably detect pedestrians.

Rear video camera systems are already

used on certain commercial and

recreational vehicles. These rear video

cameras are linked with a monitor

inside the cab to provide the driver with

a view of the area directly behind large

trucks. Their cost is not as low as rear

cross-view mirrors.

VI. Agency Decision to Develop a

Proposal

A. Vehicles Covered

The data indicating that 475 people

are killed in backing crashes each year

has led NHTSA to the conclusion that

it should consider proposing Federal

requirements. However, we are inclined

to limit the application of potential

Federal requirements in this area to

straight trucks with a GVWR of more

than 10,000 pounds, but not more than

26,000 pounds. This is based on the

information from FARS showing the

rate of fatal backing crashes for these

vehicles is substantially greater than

that of other vehicles. In addition, this

is based on the fact that the blind spot

behind these vehicles is large and there

is nothing the driver can do to see in

that area. NHTSA is aware that there is

also a blind spot for cars and light

trucks, but notes that it is substantially

smaller, in part because most light

vehicles have interior rear view mirrors

and rear windows, which many straight

trucks do not have. We also note that

the rearward visibility for buses should

be somewhat similar to straight trucks.

As noted above, however, our FARS

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 70685

data show only one fatal backing crash

for buses over a seven year period.

Given these data, we are not inclined to

cover buses in this rulemaking.

However, NHTSA is concerned that

the absolute numbers of vehicles

involved in fatal backing crashes

indicate that something should be done

to improve the situation for drivers of

cars and light trucks. At present, there

are practicability and effectiveness

questions regarding the issue of what

can be done to reduce fatal backing

crashes involving cars and light trucks.

For instance, rear cross-view mirrors

present special problems for cars and

light trucks because of the size of the

mirror needed relative to the size of the

vehicle and because it would be

difficult to mount the mirrors high

enough on cars and most light trucks so

that the mirrors would not themselves

be a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists.

Further, it is unlikely that the public

would accept a cross-view mirror due to

the aesthetic problems it would create.

For this reason it is highly unlikely the

agency would ever pursue this mirror

solution for passenger cars or light

trucks, except possibly for windowless

vans and similar vehicles.

Another way to improve rearward

visibility in these vehicles would be to

use rear video systems. However, this is

very expensive. Further, it may be

difficult to install a monitor large

enough to offer a helpful view in a

location where it could be seen by the

driver, yet would not pose an interior

injury hazard in the event of a crash.

Rear object detector systems are yet

another way to reduce the risk of fatal

backing crashes in cars and light trucks.

However, as noted above, there are not

yet commercially available systems that

can reliably detect pedestrians and

children to the rear of the vehicle. The

agency will reevaluate the need for and

practicability of means of avoiding fatal

backing crashes as technology

progresses and performance is

improved. However, public comment is

specifically invited on the agency’s

current intentions of limiting the

requirements to straight trucks with a

GVWR between 10,000 and 26,000

pounds. We are especially interested in

the data and analysis the commenter

believes supports covering additional

groups of vehicles.

The agency is unaware of any

industry or international requirements

regarding the cross-view mirrors. We

would appreciate any information

commenters may be aware of on this.

B. Required Performance

A performance standard would

specify the test environment for the

system (e.g., ambient lighting, contrast,

etc.), the required target detection area,

the characteristics of the targets,

acceptable information for the driver

(such as the characteristics of the invehicle audible alarm for detector

systems, which might vary with the

proximity to the target) and other

parameters requisite for safety. NHTSA

is interested in learning what the public

believes should be considered

acceptable performance criteria.

NHTSA always tries to establish

standards that are as performanceoriented as possible. We specify the

required safety performance that must

be achieved and allow manufacturers to

select whatever means they prefer to

achieve the specified performance. In

this case, we plan to develop a

performance standard that would

specify conditions under which the

driver either must be provided with a

view, or must be alerted to the presence

of a pedestrian, in an area of 3 m by 3

m directly to the rear of the truck. This

would permit manufacturers to select

from rear cross-view mirrors, rear object

detector systems, or rear video systems,

among presently-available technologies.

However, we would propose to limit the

applicability of rear cross-view mirrors

to situations where the mirrors are no

more than 5 m from the driver’s side

outside rear view mirror. This limitation

would be based on our research finding

that the image size in the mirror is too

small at greater distances. We would

like the public to comment on this

intended position and on the research

that supports this tentative conclusion.

C. Contemplated Effective Date

We would contemplate that these new

requirements to prevent backing deaths

go into place beginning with vehicles

manufactured one year after publication

of a final rule. This relatively quick

implementation is based on the

simplicity of attaching rear cross-view

mirrors on straight trucks. It would not

involve substantial engineering efforts

or changes in the manufacturing

process. Manufacturers would likely

need more time to implement the more

technically demanding systems (rear

object detection and rear video). It is not

our intent to limit solutions to mirrors.

However, it appears we are not at a

point where these other systems are

understood well enough to specify

desired or undesired performance,

which may prevent them from being

viable alternatives to mirrors. But, we

request comment on this tentative

conclusion.

VII. Questions on Which Answers and

Comments Are Requested

A. Concerning Rear Cross-View Mirrors

1. Would limiting installation of rearcross-view mirrors to maximum side

and rear cross-view mirror separation

distances of 5 m assure adequate image

size without specifying a minimum size

and image distortion and a test

procedure to measure compliance? If

not, what minimum image size and

image distortion criteria must be

specified to assure adequate mirror

performance? What types of objective

criteria should be specified to assure

adequacy? How should the values for

those criteria be selected? Provide the

basis for your answers.

2. Is the 3 m by 3 m area being

considered an appropriate size for the

rear detection area? Would it be

appropriate to allow vehicles to

partially meet the standard with the

field of view provided with the side

view mirrors or would the cross-view

mirrors have to provide the full view?

Should the requirements be similar to

the existing field of view requirements

of school buses, where an array of

objects is placed in the rear of the

vehicle for determination of the field of

view? Should the requirements be based

on detecting objects as small as a young

child laying on the ground?

3. Should any truck equipped with an

OSHA specified exterior, audible

backup alarm system be excluded from

these performance requirements. For

example, would the tailgate shock and

vibration on a dump truck cause

premature failure of mirrors, as well as

other detectors and cameras? Please

provide all available data to support

your views. What information is

available on the effectiveness of OSHA

exterior audible backup alarm systems

especially for non-work zone areas

where small children are present? What

information is available for comparing

exterior audible alarms with a direct or

indirect vision and detection system?

4. NHTSA currently is considering a

test for visibility that would be

conducted on crushed gray stone

surfaces in full cloud cover conditions

with low reflectance, monotone targets

(cylinders) which are about one foot in

height and one foot in diameter. Are

there any comments on these conditions

and how to specify them? Are there any

other conditions which the agency

should consider in the requirements?

5. Some straight trucks may not be

able to use the existing designs of crossview mirrors. Is there a mirror design

that would be practicable for vehicles

whose design is other than a rectangular

solid?

70686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

B. Concerning Rear Video Systems

6. What minimum image size should

be specified for systems using a video

screen? In lieu of specifying an image

size, should we specify a minimum size

for the video screen? What size should

be specified? Should it be color or black

and white?

7. NHTSA currently is considering

tests for video systems on crushed gray

stone surfaces in full cloud cover

conditions with low reflectance targets

(cylinders) which are about one foot in

height and one foot in diameter. Are

there any comments on these conditions

or procedures?

8. Should NHTSA specify a location

for the video screen? Obviously, we

want the images to be easy for the driver

to see, but we do not want the screen

to be in a position where it would pose

a hazard to the driver in a crash or

where it would distract the driver.

Please provide whatever data are

available to support your

recommendations.

9. Should NHTSA require video

systems to provide a system failure alert

to warn the driver of a system problem?

If so, what performance requirements

should be established for the system

failure alert? If not, please explain why.

10. Should NHTSA conduct human

factor analysis to examine the interface

between video screen and drivers?

11. The existence and use of a video

monitor/screen for any reason is

prohibited by a number of states’ laws.

What have been the consequences of

these laws on the installation and use of

rear video systems?

C. Concerning Rear Object Detection

Systems

12. What surface characteristics,

signal absorption or other characteristics

value should be specified for the

targets? Are there any data available on

the ultrasonic wave absorption and

radar reflection of children and other

pedestrians in various types of clothing,

and on the required temperature(s) of

the target for infrared sensor detection?

How quickly would/should a backing

driver be alerted to the presence of a

child who walks into the path of a

backing vehicle?

13. Should NHTSA specify tests to

ensure system detection accuracy and

reliability, or would demonstrating

performance under the conditions in

our performance test be adequate?

14. One problem with the sensors in

rear object detection systems is that

currently, they are only effective at low

backing speeds (a maximum of

approximately 3 mph). The agency

believes that backing speeds vary greatly

depending on the conditions; is this a

valid assumption? Are efforts currently

underway to increase the range of the

sensors so they could be effective at

backing speeds above 3 mph?

15. Is it necessary to specify rain, fog,

temperature and wind extremes in the

performance tests to assure that rear

object detection systems will perform

acceptably in the real world? If so,

please suggest appropriate conditions. If

not, please explain why.

D. Other Questions

16. For manufacturers who have

installed cross-view mirror systems or

an other equivalent system, have the

property damage benefits outweighed

the cost of installing the devices? Please

provide details if possible.

17. Does the State of Washington’s

backup alert device range requirement

of 1.8 m rearward, assure adequate

protection for children and pedestrians

behind moving trucks, or is it

appropriate to extend it out to 3 m, as

NHTSA is considering? Please provide

all data that support your position.

18. Because the states can regulate all

vehicles-in-use, and also by type of use,

as opposed to NHTSA’s authority over

only new vehicles, would it be better to

allow states to address this safety

problem? Please explain your reasoning.

19. NHTSA’s vehicle categories are

rather generic compared to those used

by states which more fully describe the

appearance and intended use. Should

NHTSA proceed to define sub-categories

of vehicles? If so, why, and how could

it be done?

20. With NHTSA’s recently acquired

ability to require retrofitting of safety

devices on commercial motor vehicles,

we would like information on the costs

and complexities of retrofitting the

applicable trucks with cross-view

mirrors. This information would be

helpful in the event that we include

retrofitting in a future proposal.

VIII. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The Office of Management and Budget

has informed NHTSA that it will not

review this rulemaking action under

Executive Order 12866. It has been

determined that the rulemaking action

is not significant under Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures. Our cost estimate, is about

$75 for an installed OEM cross-view

mirror. Based on 1996 sales data, we

estimate that about 137,000 trucks

greater than 10,000 but less than 26,001

lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

(GVWR) were sold that would likely be

regulated. Thus, the potential costs

would be in the range of $10.3M.

Accordingly, it does not appear to be

economically significant. If NHTSA

proceeds to a notice of proposed

rulemaking in this area, the agency will

have more detailed estimates of both the

costs and safety benefits, that would be

based on a more defined proposal.

IX. Procedures for Filing Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this request for

comment. Comments must not exceed

15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. (49 CFR Part

512).

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received after the comment due date

will be considered as suggestions for

any future rulemaking action.

Comments on the request for comment

will be available for inspection in the

docket. The NHTSA will continue to file

relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rule’s docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 70687

Issued on: November 20, 2000.

Noble N. Bowie,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–30054 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–7938]

Child Restraint Systems Safety Plan

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

availability of a planning document that

describes the agency’s ongoing and

planned initiatives to improve the safety

of motor vehicle occupants from birth

through age 10. To realize our goal to

have every child be protected by an

appropriate, and properly used child

restraint system on every trip, NHTSA

has developed a child restraint system

plan that employs three key strategies:

Encourage correct use of child restraints

for all children; ensure that child

restraint systems provide optimal

protection; and provide consumers with

useful information on restraining their

children. For each of the defined

strategies, the plan provides background

information, describes recent agency

actions, and presents ongoing and

planned programs to achieve our goals.

NHTSA seeks public review and

comment on the planning document.

Comments received will be evaluated

and incorporated, as appropriate, into

the planned agency activities.

DATES: Comments must be received no

later than December 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may

obtain a copy of the planning document

by downloading a copy of the document

from the Docket Management System,

U.S. Department of Transportation, at

the address provided below, or from

NHTSA’s website at http://

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/

childps. Alternatively, interested

persons may obtain a copy of the

document by contacting the agency

officials listed in the section titled, FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,

immediately below.

Submit written comments to the

Docket Management System, U.S.

Department of Transportation, PL 401,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

D.C. 20590–0001. Comments should

refer to the Docket Number (NHTSA–

7938) and be submitted in two copies.

If you wish to receive confirmation of

receipt of your written comments,

include a self-addressed, stamped

postcard.

Comments may also be submitted to

the docket electronically by logging onto

the Docket Management System website

at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help &

Information’’ to obtain instructions for

filing the comment electronically. In

every case, the comment should refer to

the docket number.

The Docket Management System is

located on the Plaza level of the Nassif

Building at the Department of

Transportation at the above address.

You can review public dockets there

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. You can also review

comments on-line at the DOT Docket

Management System web site at ‘‘http:/

/dms.dot.gov/.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Cathy Gotschall, Office of Plans and

Policy, NPP–12, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Room

5208, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

202–366–1653. Email:

cgotschall@nhtsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

February 2000, NHTSA held a public

meeting to discuss child restraint

system issues. Soon after that meeting,

Senator Fitzgerald (R-Illinois)

introduced ‘‘The Child Passenger Safety

Act of 2000’’ (S. 2070). A similar bill

(H.R. 4145) was introduced in the House

by Congressman Shimkus (R-Illinois) .

On May 16, 2000, Deputy Administrator

Millman testified before the House

Commerce Committee Subcommittee on

Telecommunications, Trade and

Consumer Protection. At that hearing,

she discussed the agency’s child

passenger safety programs and stated

that the agency would release a child

restraint system plan for public

comment.

NHTSA put together nine teams of

agency experts to review all of the

recommendations from the public

meeting and from the House and Senate

Bills and other sources. On November 1,

2000, the Transportation Recall

Enhancement, Accountability and

Documentation (TREAD) Act was

enacted. Section 14 of the TREAD Act

requires NHTSA to conduct rulemaking

on side impact testing for child

restraints and to consider several other

related rulemaking actions. This draft

plan includes the requirements of the

TREAD Act, as well as those

recommendations from the public that

were considered to yield the biggest

safety gains for child motor vehicle

occupants.

The draft plan focuses on three

strategies. The first strategy in the plan

examines ways to increase restraint use

among all children and to ensure that

the appropriate restraint systems are

used correctly. NHTSA estimates that if

all children aged 0–4 years old were

restrained in safety seats, 173 lives

could have been saved in 1998.

Additional studies have shown that as

many as 68 additional deaths to

children aged 0–6 years old could be

prevented each year by eliminating

misuse of safety seats. The agency

conducts national campaigns to educate

the public about the importance of

buckling children into child restraint

systems.

The second strategy is to improve

existing standards for the performance

and testing of child restraint systems.

Since NHTSA first began regulating

child safety seats in 1971, the agency

has instituted numerous improvements

to the original Federal safety standard,

including the incorporation of dynamic

performance testing, labeling

improvements, and the recent

introduction of a simplified,

standardized system for anchoring

safety seats in cars. This system, called

the Lower Anchors and Tethers for

Children (LATCH) system, may save as

many as 50 lives and avert up to 3,000

serious injuries annually. In addition to

research and the rulemaking initiatives

described in this plan, NHTSA has

urged child seat manufacturers to

increase the margin by which they

comply with the existing standards.

The safest child restraint systems

available can prevent death and injury

only if they are purchased and used

correctly. The final strategy calls for

improved mechanisms for getting safety

information to consumers. The agency

works closely with states, health

communities, law enforcement agencies,

and safety advocates to disseminate

information to parents and caregivers on

the correct installation and proper use

of child restraint systems. NHTSA is

committed to improving the information

it provides to consumers both on the

performance and proper use of child

restraint systems as well as on defect

investigations and safety recalls.

This document announces the

availability of the document for public

review and comment. The plan will be

posted on NHTSA’s website on

November 20, 2000. Received comments

will be evaluated and incorporated, as

appropriate, into the planned agency

activities.