51002 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

9 ‘‘Proposed Research Plan on Vision Standard,’’

61 FR 28547, June 5, 1996. 

10Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93–112, 87 

Stat. 355, September 26, 1973) (29 U.S.C. 681 et 

seq.). 

including whether the current 70-degree 

horizontal FOV standard should remain. 

Readers were advised medical experts 

believe 120 degrees in each eye is the 

appropriate standard and asked to 

comment on the FOV standard, 

specifically on the effect devices such as 

mirrors might have on assisting persons 

with restricted FOV. 

There were approximately 100 

comments to the ANPRM. The majority 

of the commenters discussed concerns 

about the proposed FHWA Federal 

vision exemption program, as well as 

key issues and research related to 

monocular vision and visual acuity 

testing. 

A small group of commenters focused 

specifically on field of vision. Three 

commenters were physicians who 

directly addressed discrepancies in the 

FOV standards. Other commenters 

included two State agencies, several 

safety advocate organizations, the 

American Trucking Associations and 

the American Optometric Association. 

This group of commenters focused on 

the inadequacy of the FOV 

measurement, but no commenter offered 

data or relevant information to support 

changing this standard. 

FHWA Vision Research Plan. FHWA 

initiated a program to develop a vision 

research plan resulting in a complete 

list of visual performance parameters 

serving as the basis for a new CMV 

driver vision standard. In 1995, Star 

Mountain, Inc., under contract to the 

agency, conducted a literature review on 

this issue. FHWA also consulted with a 

panel of medical and technical experts 

to obtain their views on the design of 

the research plan. 

On June 5, 1996,9 FHWA requested 

public comment on its proposed vision 

research plan. On August 9, 1996, the 

agency held a public hearing on the 

subject in Chicago. FHWA evaluated the 

oral testimony and written comments 

and concluded the best course of action 

was to postpone vision research. First, 

it was generally agreed development of 

predictive vision tests would require 

substantial agency resources. 

Furthermore, validation of the tests 

could require using driving simulators, 

whose scientific validity was highly 

uncertain. FHWA also concluded it 

would need a large number of drivers to 

validate the new vision tests. 

Berson Panel. In September 1997, 

FHWA contracted with the Beth Israel 

Deaconess Medical Center in Boston to 

establish a panel of medical experts to 

develop medically-based 

recommendations for amending the 

current vision standard. The agency 

directed the panel to assess the FHWA 

vision standard and to make 

recommendations for changes, with 

specific limits to the scope of the 

panel’s work: 

• Recommendations must ensure 

drivers operating CMVs are physically 

qualified. 

• Recommendations must be 

consistent with national policy 

objectives expressed in the ADA and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973,10 as 

amended. 

• Recommendations must be based 

on the most current technology in visual 

assessment. 

• Recommendations should include 

any screening protocols found reliable 

for the examination of drivers. 

• The panel must rely upon sound 

medical judgment concerning the 

demands placed on the eyes of drivers 

as they operate CMVs on a daily basis. 

The Berson Panel endorsed the Ketron 

Panel recommendation to change the 

horizontal FOV standard from 70 

degrees in each eye to at least 120 

degrees in each eye. The Berson experts 

agreed the 70-degree FOV standard is 

insufficient. They cited the unique 

visual demands placed upon CMV 

drivers while stopping, accelerating, 

changing lanes, and responding to 

signage. The Berson experts believed the 

poor maneuverability of the typical 

CMV and the potential for severe injury 

and extensive property damage in a 

CMV crash justify a more stringent 

vision standard. Nevertheless, like the 

Ketron Panel Report, the Berson Report 

included no data indicating a driver 

with a horizontal FOV less than 120 

degrees in each eye is at greater risk for 

CMV crash involvement or a link 

between diminished FOV and higher 

probability of crash involvement. 

Withdrawal of Proposal 

Although considerable resources have 

been expended on assessing the vision 

standard in general and the FOV 

provision in particular, FMCSA believes 

there are insufficient crash data to 

support initiating an FOV rulemaking at 

this time. It is clear 70 degrees 

horizontal FOV represents only a 

portion of the ‘‘normal’’ FOV for most 

individuals. However, there are no data 

concerning the relationship between a 

specific horizontal FOV value(s) and 

crash causation. There also are no data 

available to help identify the minimum 

horizontal FOV necessary to safely 

operate a CMV. Therefore, FMCSA is 

withdrawing its ANPRM dated February 

28, 1992, on the vision standard for 

CMV drivers. 

FMCSA has a long-term plan of 

reevaluating CMV driver health and 

wellness issues, including physical 

qualifications, medical advisory criteria, 

and safety research and policy. The 

agency plans to review the horizontal 

FOV standard under that initiative. 

Issued on: August 22, 2005. 

Warren E. Hoemann, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–17102 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21649] 

RIN 2127–AI53 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Rearview Mirrors 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of termination of 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On September 5, 2000, AM 

General Corporation submitted a 

petition for rulemaking seeking to 

amend the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard for rearview mirrors to permit 

certain vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of more than 

4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) to 

be equipped with passenger-side convex 

mirrors. The standard currently requires 

vehicles in that weight class to be 

equipped with mirrors of unit 

magnification in that location. The 

agency granted the petition on May 23, 

2001 and began to gather data to 

evaluate the request, including 

information obtained from a January 22, 

2003 Request for Comments. Based on 

analysis of the available data, NHTSA is 

terminating this rulemaking proceeding, 

because we have determined that 

convex mirrors are not an adequate 

substitute for mirrors of unit 

magnification in terms of providing 

safety benefits associated with allowing 

the driver to better judge the distance 

and speed of oncoming vehicles, 

particularly during lane change 

maneuvers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Lee, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, NVS–123, National Highway 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51003 

1 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7073–13. 

2AM General submitted specifications on a 

number of light trucks for comparative purposes. 

The intention was to demonstrate that although the 

GVWR of the Hummer H1 is substantially greater 

than many full-size SUVs and pick-up trucks, it is 

comparable in size to those vehicles. 

3As examples, the petitioner cited the following 

regulations. ECE Regulation No. 46, June 1997, 

permits a wide-angle, exterior rearview mirror on 

vehicles with a GVWR that is less than 7,500 kg 

(16,535 pounds). Canadian Standard No. 111 allows 

vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 4,536 kg 

(10,000 pounds) to have a passenger-side convex 

mirror, as long as it is at least 323 cm2 in area. 

Australian Design Rule 14/02 allows vehicles to 

have a passenger-side convex mirror if the reflective 

surface area is equal to or greater than that of a 

mirror of unit magnification that meets its field-ofview requirements. 

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone number is: (202) 366–

2720. Fax: (202) 366–7002. For legal 

issues: Eric Stas, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone number is: (202) 366–

2992. Fax: (202) 366–3820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On September 5, 2000, AM General 

Corporation (AM General) submitted a 

petition for rulemaking 1 requesting that 

NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, 

Rearview Mirrors, to allow 

manufacturers the option of installing a 

convex, passenger-side rearview mirror 

on certain light trucks with a GVWR of 

more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds). 

Specifically, AM General’s petition 

stated that: (1) The mirror should be at 

least 323 cm2 in area; (2) it should 

comply with the convex mirror 

requirements in FMVSS No. 111 S5.4, 

and (3) the overall length of the vehicle 

should be less than 508 cm. FMVSS No. 

111 currently requires each 

multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) 

and truck with a GVWR of more that 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and less than 

11,340 kg (25,000 pounds) to be 

equipped with outside mirrors of unit 

magnification (commonly referred to as 

‘‘flat mirrors’’), each with not less than 

323 cm2 of reflective surface (See S7.1). 

The following discussion outlines the 

reasoning presented in AM General’s 

petition, our analysis of the available 

information, and the basis for our 

termination of this rulemaking 

proceeding. 

By way of background, AM General 

manufactures the Hummer H1, which is 

a four-wheel-drive vehicle with a GVWR 

of 4,672 kg (10,300 pounds) to 5,488 kg 

(12,099 pounds) that was originally 

designed for the military but which is 

now being sold for commercial use. 

Because the Hummer H1 has a GVWR 

that is greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds), FMVSS No. 111 S7.1 requires 

it to have a passenger-side mirror of unit 

magnification with a reflective area of 

not less than 323 cm2. However, the 

petitioner stated that a significant 

number of Hummer H1 owners are 

affixing small, convex mirrors to their 

flat passenger-side mirrors in order to 

provide a better rearward field of view, 

and AM General has received numerous 

requests from these owners to install a 

full-sized convex mirror like those 

offered on similarly-sized light trucks. 

Since the Hummer H1 is roughly the 

same size as some other full-size light 

trucks (albeit of greater weight), AM 

General does not believe that a rational 

basis exists for the standard to preclude 

utilization of a convex rearview mirrors 

on SUVs like the Hummer H1 although 

its GVWR is greater than 4,536 kg 

(10,000 pounds).2

AM General further argued that in 

1975, when FMVSS No. 111 was 

amended to require passenger-side 

mirrors of unit magnification on 

vehicles of over 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds) GVWR (40 FR 33825 (August 

12, 1975)), there were not any vehicles 

in use that were comparable to the 

Hummer H1. The petitioner stated that 

because the Hummer’s interior rearview 

mirror admittedly does not provide an 

adequate rearward view, it has found 

that drivers tend to rely heavily on the 

vehicle’s outside mirrors. According to 

AM General, this increases the 

importance of having a wider field of 

view in the outside mirrors, even if 

greater distortion results. 

The petitioner also argued that the 

rulemaking history of FMVSS No. 111 

supports, or at least would permit, its 

requested change. According to the 

petitioner, in its 1975 rulemaking, the 

agency’s rationale for requiring 

passenger-side mirrors of unit 

magnification in this context was that a 

driver of a large vehicle needs an 

undistorted view when moving in 

reverse and that these larger vehicles 

did not typically have an interior mirror 

of unit magnification to aid in judging 

distance. AM General stated that 

although the agency’s reasoning 

primarily pertained to vehicle size, in 

the final rule, the agency decided to link 

vehicle size to weight, stating that 

vehicles over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) 

GVWR needed special mirror systems 

‘‘suited to their large size.’’ (39 FR 

15143, 15144 (May 1, 1974)) 

AM General also argued that in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

that preceded the 1975 final rule (39 FR 

15143, 15144 (May 1, 1974)), the agency 

stated, ‘‘[i]f the vehicle resembles a 

passenger car with regard to its rearward 

visibility potential, the manufacturer 

will be free to equip it with a passenger 

car-type mirror system.’’ AM General 

further cited the rationale that the 

agency used in the preamble to the 1982 

final rule allowing convex mirrors on 

light vehicles, which indicated that the 

main safety benefit of these mirrors is 

that they provide ‘‘an expanded field of 

view of the right, rear quadrant area 

adjacent to the vehicle, thus reducing 

the need of the driver to turn around to 

view that area directly.’’ (47 FR 38698, 

38699 (Sept. 2, 1982).) According to AM 

General, the primary consideration for 

mirror selection should be size, not 

weight; therefore, because the Hummer 

H1 has a size similar to many MPVs, 

installation of passenger-side convex 

mirrors should be permissible. 

Although AM General did not provide 

a safety benefit study, it stated that it is 

not aware of any studies or data 

suggesting that its recommended 

amendment would adversely impact 

motor vehicle safety. Moreover, AM 

General stated that several countries 

already have similar requirements.3

The agency granted the petition on 

May 23, 2001 and began to gather data 

to evaluate the merits of its requested 

change. To this end, on January 22, 

2003, the agency published a Request 

for Comments on this petition and other 

related issues related to mirrors (68 FR 

2993). (The Request for Comments and 

comments submitted pursuant to that 

request may be found in Docket No. 

NHTSA–2002–12347.) The notice also 

discussed past and on going mirror 

research for possible future regulatory 

requirements. All individuals who 

commented on the AM General petition 

supported the option of installing 

convex mirrors for vehicles with a 

GVWR of greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds). However, the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) 

and Ford Motor Company (Ford) stated 

that for very long vehicles, a planar 

mirror may be needed for certain 

loading dock and other off-road backing 

maneuvers. 

II. Reason for Termination 

The agency is terminating this 

rulemaking proceeding for the following 

reasons. Despite public commenters’

expressions of support for a convex 

mirror option for the vehicles in 

question, the agency remains concerned 

about the difficulties that drivers may 

encounter in correctly judging distance 

and speed of approaching traffic if the 

vehicle is only equipped with a convex 

51004 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

mirror. As stated in the Request for 

Comments, although convex mirrors are 

permitted on the passenger side of light 

vehicles, the agency still receives 

complaints from consumers about these 

mirrors. ‘‘There have been other 

problems associated with the use of 

convex mirrors that include double 

vision, eyestrain, and nausea.’’ (68 FR 

2993, 2994 (January 22, 2003)) 

In response to the Request for 

Comments, most commenters stated that 

length should be the only relevant factor 

in determining the use of a mirror of 

unit magnification or a convex mirror in 

a vehicle and that NHTSA should 

undertake further study to determine 

the maximum allowable length for a 

given mirror type. However, the 

Alliance and Ford stated that an outside 

passenger-side mirror of unit 

magnification may be needed for certain 

loading dock and other off-road backing 

maneuvers. Thus, if a vehicle such as 

the Hummer H1 were to tow a long 

object such as a trailer, the view 

provided by the interior mirror of unit 

magnification may be obstructed. In 

such situations, an outside passengerside mirror of unit magnification would 

be beneficial during lane change and 

backing maneuvers. 

As to the argument that certain 

foreign jurisdictions permit use of 

passenger-side convex mirrors on 

vehicles with similar weights, we do not 

find that argument compelling, because 

the existence of such regulations does 

not resolve our previously-discussed 

concerns regarding the efficacy of such 

mirrors in judging speed and distance of 

approaching vehicles. As noted above, 

we have concerns that the Hummer H1’s 

interior mirror of unit magnification 

may be obstructed during certain 

applications. The agency has long held 

the position that in general MPVs, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg (10,000 pounds) or more must be 

equipped with exterior mirrors of unit 

magnification with a reflective surface 

of not less than 323 cm2. Our analysis 

of the available information does not 

support a change to that requirement for 

the exterior mirror on the side of the 

vehicle opposite of the driver. Some 

vehicles of similar size to the Hummer 

H1 have no rear windows, are not 

equipped with an interior mirror, but 

are equipped to tow a trailer. Therefore, 

it would be beneficial for these vehicles 

to have a flat exterior mirror on the side 

of the vehicle opposite the driver for use 

during lane change and backing 

maneuvers. 

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, 

this completes the agency’s technical 

review of the petition for rulemaking. 

For the reasons discussed above, 

NHTSA has concluded that there is no 

reasonable possibility that the 

amendment requested by the petitioner 

would be issued at the conclusion of the 

rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the 

agency has decided to terminate the 

present rulemaking action. 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: August 23, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–17066 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 050819225–5225–01; I.D. 

080505A] 

RIN 0648–AS59 

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic 

Species Fisheries; Annual 

Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulation 

to implement the annual harvest 

guideline for Pacific mackerel in the 

U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off 

the Pacific coast. The Coastal Pelagic 

Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and its implementing regulations 

require NMFS to set an annual harvest 

guideline for Pacific mackerel based on 

the formula in the FMP. The intended 

effect of this action is to propose 

allowable harvest levels for Pacific 

mackerel off the Pacific coast. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 13, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule identified by I.D. 

080505A by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 0648–AS59.SWR@noaa.gov. 

Include I.D. 080505A in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (562) 980–4047. 

• Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional 

Administrator, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. 

The report Assessment of the Pacific 

Mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Stock for 

U.S. Management in the 2005–2006 

Season, and an economic analysis may 

be obtained at the address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tonya L. Wick, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, (562) 980–4036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP, 

which was implemented by publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register 

on December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), 

divides management unit species into 

the categories of actively managed and 

monitored. Harvest guidelines of 

actively managed species (Pacific 

sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based 

on formulas applied to current biomass 

estimates. Biomass estimates are not 

calculated for species that are only 

monitored (jack mackerel, northern 

anchovy, and market squid). 

At a public meeting each year, the 

biomass for each actively managed 

species is reviewed by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council’s 

(Council) CPS Management Team 

(Team). The biomass, harvest guideline, 

and status of the fisheries are then 

reviewed at a public meeting of the 

Council’s CPS Advisory Subpanel 

(Subpanel). This information is also 

reviewed by the Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC). The 

Council reviews reports from the Team, 

Subpanel, and SSC, then, after 

providing time for public comment, 

makes its recommendation to NMFS. 

The annual harvest guideline and 

season structure are published by NMFS 

in the Federal Register as soon as 

practicable before the beginning of the 

appropriate fishing season. The Pacific 

mackerel season begins on July 1 of each 

year and ends on June 30 of the 

following year. 

The Team meeting took place at the 

office of the NMFS, Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, in La Jolla, California, 

on May 18, 2005. The Subpanel and 

SSC meetings took place in conjunction 

with the June 13–18, 2005, Council 

meeting in Foster City, California. 

The size of the Pacific mackerel 

population was estimated using a newly 

modified version of the integrated stock 

assessment model called Age-structured 

Assessment Program (ASAP). Using this 

new ASAP model was recommended by 

the Coastal Pelagic Species Stock 

Assessment Review panel meeting held 

on June 16, 2004, in La Jolla, California. 

This new ASAP model replaces the old 

modified virtual population analysis 

stock assessment model used in 

previous years. ASAP is a flexible