Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53753 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be affected. To determine whether your 

facility would be affected by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in part 372 subpart 

B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through EPA’s electronic public docket 

or by e-mail. Commenters wishing to 

submit proprietary information for 

consideration must clearly distinguish 

such information from other comments 

and clearly label it as CBI. Send 

submissions containing such 

proprietary information directly to the 

following address only, and not to the 

public docket, to ensure that proprietary 

information is not inadvertently placed 

in the docket: Attention: OEI Document 

Control Officer, Mail Code: 2822T, U.S. 

EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. You may claim 

information that you submit to EPA as 

CBI by marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI (if you submit CBI 

on disk or CD–ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is CBI). The EPA will disclose 

information claimed as CBI only to the 

extent allowed by the procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and EPA’s 

electronic public docket without prior 

notice. If you have any questions about 

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

II. Background Information 

A. What Does This Notice Do and What 

Action Does This Notice Affect? 

This notice extends the comment 

period for EPA’s June 14, 2005 notice of 

data availability concerning the 

proposed rule to add a DINP category to 

the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic 

chemicals (70 FR 34437). 

B. Why and for How Long Is EPA 

Extending the Comment Period? 

EPA received a request from the 

public for a 30-day extension of the 

comment period for the June 14, 2005 

DINP notice of data availability. The 

request was for additional time to 

review relevant information and prepare 

comments on the revised DINP hazard 

assessment that was made available for 

public comment in the notice of data 

availability. EPA considered the request 

and determined that extending the 

comment period is an appropriate 

action. Therefore, EPA is extending the 

comment period on the June 14, 2005 

notice of data availability by 30 days 

until October 12, 2005. All comments 

should be submitted following the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

All comments must be received by 

October 12, 2005. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Community right-to-know, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund. 

Dated: September 6, 2005. 

Kimberly T. Nelson, 

Assistant Administrator for Office of 

Environmental Information. 

[FR Doc. 05–18090 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004–19239] 

RIN 2127–AG41 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Rearview Mirrors 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for 

rulemaking, this document proposes to 

require straight trucks with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

between 4,536 kilograms (10,000 

pounds) and 11,793 kilograms (26,000 

pounds) to be equipped with a rear 

object detection system. The purpose of 

the proposed requirement is to alert 

drivers to persons and objects directly 

behind the vehicle, thereby reducing 

backing-related deaths and injuries. 

This notice proposes two compliance 

options. Vehicle manufacturers could 

satisfy the proposed requirement either 

by installing a mirror system or rear 

video system that would make the area 

to the rear of the vehicle visible to the 

driver. The notice also asks a series of 

questions to help the agency determine 

whether the proposed requirements 

should be extended to vehicles in other 

weight classes and whether existing 

straight trucks engaged in interstate 

commerce should be retrofitted to meet 

the proposed requirements, as part of a 

future rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 

above by any of the following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 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 http://dms.dot.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading under 

Regulatory Notices. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

53754 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1A ‘‘straight truck’’ is a single-unit truck 

composed of an undetachable cab and body. Body 

types routinely incorporated as part of straight 

trucks include an enclosed box, flat bed, dump bed, 

bulk container, or special purpose equipment. 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact Dr. 

Keith Brewer, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards (NVS–121), NHTSA, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590 (Telephone: 202–366–5280) 

(FAX: 202–366–4329). 

For legal issues, you may contact Mr. 

Eric Stas, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 

202–366–2992) (FAX: 202–366–3820). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Petition for Rulemaking 

B. Request for Comments 

C. Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

D. Comments on the ANPRM 

III. Size of the Safety Problem 

A. Number of Injuries and Fatalities 

B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing 

Crashes 

C. Other Data and Summary 

IV. Agency Proposal 

A. Summary of Proposal 

B. Compliance Options 

1. Cross-View Mirrors 

2. Rear Video Systems 

C. Applicability 

D. Non-Visual Systems 

E. Retrofitting of Existing Commercial 

Vehicles 

F. FMCSA Issues Related to Retrofit and 

Preemption 

G. Effective Date 

V. Benefits 

VI. Costs 

VII. Public Participation 

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notice 

I. Executive Summary 

In response to a petition for 

rulemaking, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

is proposing to amend Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

111, Rearview Mirrors, to require a rear 

object detection system on straight 

trucks 1 with a GVWR of between 4,536 

kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) and 

11,793 kg (26,000 pounds). Most of 

these vehicles have a significant blind 

spot in the rear. The purpose of the 

proposed requirement is to provide a 

uniform standard that would alert 

drivers of persons and objects directly 

behind the vehicle and to thereby 

reduce backing-related deaths and 

injuries. Children, the elderly, and 

persons with impaired senses are target 

populations of particular concern in 

backing-related incidents. 

NHTSA is proposing a regulation at 

this time for a number of reasons. First, 

agency research has demonstrated that 

straight trucks have a disproportionately 

higher back-up fatality rate than other 

vehicle types. Research indicates that 

backing straight trucks annually cause at 

least 79 fatalities (both on-road and offroad) and 148 injuries. The incidence 

rate for straight truck backing fatalities 

is 21.89 per 100 billion vehicle miles 

traveled and 29.68 per million 

registered vehicles, figures 8 to 17 times 

greater than for passenger vehicles. 

Second, technologies currently exist 

that could make a substantial area 

directly behind such trucks visible to 

the driver. Elimination of this blind spot 

could significantly mitigate the backing 

problem associated with these vehicles. 

Further, because individual States have 

begun to regulate in this area, NHTSA 

believes it is appropriate to develop a 

uniform set of requirements for rear 

object detection. 

In developing a proposed 

performance standard for rear object 

detection, NHTSA carefully considered 

a range of technologies. NHTSA 

examined both visual systems (e.g., 

cross-view mirrors and video cameras) 

and non-visual systems (e.g., sonar/ 

infrared devices and audible back-up 

alarms) in order to evaluate their 

efficacy in preventing backing-related 

injuries and fatalities. 

We believe primary responsibility for 

object detection should be placed upon 

the driver, such that the driver has 

visible confirmation that the pathway is 

clear before backing; non-visual 

systems, by their nature, cannot provide 

such confirmation. Consequently, we 

are proposing two compliance options 

that would provide a visual image to the 

driver of a 3 meter (m) by 3 m area 

immediately behind the vehicle. We 

propose that the following requirements 

would become effective for covered 

vehicles that are manufactured one year 

after publication of a final rule. 

Option 1: Cross-View Mirrors 

Under the first proposed compliance 

option, a cross-view mirror system 

would be required. A cross-view mirror 

is typically a convex mirror mounted on 

the driver’s side, upper rear corner of a 

vehicle that is used in conjunction with 

the driver’s side exterior rearview 

mirror to view the area directly behind 

a vehicle. 

The cross-view mirror would be 

required to: (1) Have no discontinuities 

in the slope of its surface; (2) be 

adjustable both in the horizontal and 

vertical directions; (3) be installed on 

stable supports on the upper rear corner 

of the driver’s side of the vehicle; (4) 

have an average radius of curvature of 

no less than 203 millimeters (mm), and 

(5) be placed such that the geometric 

centers of the two mirrors would be 

separated by no more than 5 m. 

We also are proposing test 

requirements to ensure that the mirror 

system provides a detection zone that 

would permit the driver to survey the 

area behind the vehicle for obstacles 

before backing. The proposed test 

requirements would be similar in nature 

to the school bus mirror test 

requirements of FMVSS No. 111, which 

utilize a number of cylinders to simulate 

objects that would be difficult or 

impossible to see without the aid of 

mirrors. 

Option 2: Rear Video Systems 

Under the second proposed 

compliance option, a rear video system 

would be required that provides the 

same 3 m by 3 m field of view as in 

Option 1. To maximize its effectiveness, 

the system’s monitor would be required 

to be mounted as close to the centerline 

of the vehicle as practicable near the top 

of the windshield and have an image 

size of between 90 cm2 and 160 cm2. 

The video camera would be required to 

be adjustable so that it may tilt in both 

the horizontal and vertical directions, 

for aiming purposes, and the video 

monitor similarly would be required to 

be adjustable so as to accommodate 

drivers of different statures. 

The proposed test procedures, 

designed to ensure compliance with the 

rear video system’s detection zone 

requirement, would be essentially the 

same as those for the cross-view mirrors 

compliance option. 

Although we do not believe that nonvisual systems alone would achieve our 

safety objectives related to rear object 

detection, we intend neither to require 

nor to prohibit the voluntary installation 

of such systems by manufacturers. 

Finally, although we are not 

proposing to do so at this time, NHTSA 

is requesting comments as to whether, 

in the interests of safety, the proposed 

requirements should be extended to 

vehicles in other weight classes and 

whether existing commercial vehicles in 

the designated weight class should be 

required to be retrofitted with rear 

object detection systems that would 

comply with the new standard. 

The agency estimates that requiring a 

visual rear detection system would 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53755 

2This Request for Comments and the comments 

subsequently received are available in hard copy in 

Docket No. NHTSA–96–53. However, for ease of 

reference, the Request for Comments also has been 

included in the electronic docket for the present 

rulemaking (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7967–25). 

3 Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7967–1. 

4Comments were received from: (1) The National 

Private Truck Council (NPTC); (2) the American 

Trucking Associations (ATA); (3) the Towing and 

Recovery Association of America (TRAA); (4) the 

National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA); (5) 

Ford Motor Company (Ford); (6) Sheffield Partners 

LLC (Sheffield); (7) Rostra Precision Controls, Inc. 

(Rostra); (8) Reliant Energy (Reliant); (9) ABC 

Supply Co., Inc. (ABC); (10) Federal Express 

Corporation (FedEx); (11) the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters); (12) the New 

York Department of Transportation (NYDOT); (13) 

the Nevada Automotive Test Center (NATC); and 

(14) Ronald G. Silc. These comments can be found 

in Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7967. 

result annually in a net reduction of 23 

fatalities, 43 injuries, and an estimated 

$32 million in property damage savings 

(present discounted value). The 

associated cost burden is estimated to be 

approximately $77 million annually (in 

2004 economics). 

II. Background 

A. Petition for Rulemaking 

In March 1995, Mr. Dee Norton 

submitted a petition for rulemaking to 

the agency seeking to amend FMVSS 

No. 111 to require convex, cross-view 

mirrors on the rear of the cargo box of 

stepvans and walk-in style delivery and 

service trucks. The petition was 

intended to prevent future tragedies 

similar to one that befell Mr. Norton’s 

grandson, who was killed when he was 

struck and backed over by a delivery 

truck in an apartment complex parking 

lot because the driver was unable to see 

the area directly behind the vehicle in 

its side-mounted rearview mirrors. 

In determining whether to grant the 

petition and deciding how to 

substantively respond, NHTSA decided 

to solicit comment from the public. To 

this end, NHTSA issued a request for 

comments, which was later followed by 

an Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM). 

B. Request for Comments 

NHTSA published a notice in the 

Federal Register on June 17, 1996, 

seeking information on cross-view 

mirrors and other alternative rear object 

detection systems (61 FR 30586).2 We 

received six comments in response to 

that notice. 

Commenters described a variety of 

available rear object detection devices, 

including both visual and non-visual 

systems. Visual systems include not 

only cross-view mirrors, but also video 

cameras mounted on the rear of the 

vehicle that are connected to a monitor 

in the occupant compartment. Existing 

non-visual systems include ultrasound, 

radar, microwave, and infrared sensor 

mechanisms, which detect an object and 

provide an auditory signal to the driver 

that an obstruction is behind the 

vehicle, as well as audible alarms that 

sound whenever a vehicle is backing. 

These comments provided initial 

insights that helped NHTSA to direct 

the course of the rulemaking process. 

C. Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

NHTSA issued an ANPRM on 

November 27, 2000, to gather further 

data on key issues related to rear object 

detection (65 FR 70681).3 In addition to 

a request for general comments, the 

ANPRM posed twenty specific 

questions for public input, which were 

broken down into four main categories: 

(1) Questions concerning rear crossview mirrors; (2) questions concerning 

rear video systems; (3) questions 

concerning other rear object detection 

systems, and (4) other questions. 

Generally, the cross-view mirror 

questions concerned the size, design, 

and placement of mirrors, the size of the 

detection area behind the vehicle, the 

use and capabilities of exterior, audible 

back-up alarms (as an alternative to 

mirrors), and test procedures. The rear 

video systems questions sought input 

regarding image size, display color, 

screen size and location, need for a 

system failure alert, possible conflicts 

with State laws against video screens/ 

monitors in view of the driver, and test 

procedures. 

The questions pertaining to other rear 

object detection systems asked about the 

capabilities and limitations of these 

non-visual systems, including efforts to 

increase the range of sensors so that 

they are effective at higher backing 

speeds. These questions also raised the 

issue of how to craft test procedures that 

would ensure the accuracy and 

reliability of non-visual systems under a 

variety of environmental conditions. 

The ‘‘other’’ category of questions asked 

whether manufacturers who have 

installed rear visibility systems have 

experienced significant property 

damage prevention benefits, whether 

this area should be regulated by the 

Federal government or the States, 

whether and how subcategories of 

vehicles should be defined, and whether 

existing commercial trucks in the 

applicable weight range should be 

required to be retrofitted with rear 

object detection systems. 

D. Comments on the ANPRM 

NHTSA received fourteen comments 

in response to the ANPRM, including 

submissions from trade associations, 

automobile and rear object detection 

system manufacturers, fleet operators, 

organized labor, a State agency, and 

individuals.4 In addition to responding 

to the questions posed in the ANPRM, 

commenters also raised a variety of 

issues, including scope of the regulatory 

requirement, potential exclusions, 

alternatives to regulation, maintenance 

and training requirements, and 

preemption. The following discussion 

summarizes the comments received on 

the ANPRM. 

Scope and Exclusions 

NHTSA received a range of views 

regarding the scope of a regulation for 

rear object detection systems. Several 

commenters advocated narrowing 

coverage due to purported unsuitability 

of or lack of necessity for such systems 

on certain vehicles. For example, ATA 

stated that a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach 

would not be successful, because there 

is too much diversity in equipment and 

operations. NTEA stated that the rear 

object detection standard should only 

apply to ‘‘standard type vehicles.’’

Commenters also offered numerous 

suggestions for vehicles which they 

believe should be excluded from the 

requirements of an amended standard, 

including tow trucks, car carriers, flat 

beds, stake trucks, dump trucks, 

tradesmen’s and mechanic’s bodies, 

platform bodies, tank trucks, any 

vehicle equipped with a crane or aerial 

device operating in a rotational manner, 

and other special units. 

Other commenters, such as NYDOT, 

urged NHTSA to expand coverage of the 

standard to include lighter vehicles 

commonly used in residential deliveries 

(e.g., trucks with a GVWR of 6,500 lbs. 

to 16,000 lbs.). NATC suggested that 

other vehicles with large blind spots 

(e.g., windowless vans and light trucks 

with campers or canopy shells) may also 

be suitable for coverage under a revised 

FMVSS No. 111. These recommended 

changes could bring some passenger 

vehicles within the ambit of the rule. 

NYDOT suggested consideration of a 

phase-in period to permit earlier 

implementation of requirements for 

trucks that can readily be equipped with 

existing technology. 

In response to the questions about 

retrofitting, commenters expressed 

divergent views. NYDOT urged NHTSA 

to take the lead on retrofitting of 

existing vehicles so that there would not 

be a patchwork of remedial activities by 

the 50 States. Others, such as ABC, 

53756 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

5We note that NHTSA has defined and is 

conducting an innovative, detailed human factors 

analysis to understand driver requirements for 

indirect viewing surfaces in the cabs of heavy 

trucks. Related static and dynamic testing was 

initiated in 2004 and is expected to be completed 

in 2005. The results from this testing will assist the 

agency in defining a performance specification to be 

used to evaluate various indirect viewing 

technologies in future cab designs. 

opposed retrofitting, stating that 

retrofitting its entire fleet would be a 

‘‘very lengthy and costly operation.’’

Rearview Mirrors 

Regarding rearview mirrors, the 

commenters generally agreed with 

NHTSA’s tentative determination that 

cross-view mirrors should be placed no 

more than 5 meters (approximately 16 

feet) from the driver’s side rear view 

mirror, as the image size arguably 

becomes too small beyond this distance 

to be useful to the driver. However, 

ATA urged greater clarity in how 

NHTSA would measure the distance 

between the two mirrors. 

Commenters also discussed the issue 

of trucks that are particularly long or 

high, thereby posing greater challenges 

in terms of rear object detection. For 

example, FedEx expressed concerns 

about situations where the height of a 

truck is so great that a top-mounted 

cross-view mirror is not visible in the 

side mirror. NYDOT stated that some 

trucks approaching 11,793 kg (26,000 

pounds) may exceed the length where it 

would be feasible to use a cross-view 

mirror system, but it urged the agency 

to maintain some alternative rear object 

detection requirement for such vehicles. 

In the ANPRM, we requested 

comments on whether a 3 m by 3 m 

detection area behind a vehicle would 

be adequate. Some commenters 

suggested alternative detection zones 

that would be either larger or 

asymmetrical, but they did not provide 

a strong rationale or data to support 

their position. However, ATA and Ford 

suggested that NHTSA’s estimation of 

the backing speed used to calculate the 

detection zone (i.e., 3 mph) 

underestimates actual backing speeds. 

These organizations stated that a 

reasonable estimate of backing speeds 

could be in the 5 mph to 8 mph range. 

Rear Video Systems 

Commenters likewise expressed a 

range of views on rear video systems. 

Some commenters, such as ABC, 

expressed concern about the expense of 

this technology. Other commenters, 

such as the Teamsters, specifically 

requested that NHTSA adopt a 

performance standard that would permit 

use of video systems. 

Reliant argued that the presence of a 

video camera may encourage theft 

(presumably of the camera), but NATC 

made the argument that video cameras 

and rear mirrors may deter theft of items 

from the back of the vehicle when 

stopped. 

In terms of the image presented by a 

rear video system, commenters 

suggested that an acceptable size for a 

screen may be as small as 3.8 cm (1.5 

inches) on the diagonal and as large as 

25.4 cm (10 inches) on the diagonal. 

NATC stated that the size of the screen 

needed will depend upon the placement 

of the monitor relative to the driver’s 

seating position. Reliant expressed 

concern about placing a video monitor 

in a truck’s ‘‘already full’’ cab. 

Varying views were expressed 

regarding screen color for rear video 

monitors. Mr. Silc stated that militarygreen monitors are more efficient than 

black-and-white monitors and that they 

provide three-times better contrast to 

the human eye and greater visibility. 

However, NATC reasoned that a blackand-white screen would be sufficient, 

because color would be lost in strong 

daylight and a black-and-white screen’s 

contrast would be helpful in 

distinguishing objects and movement. 

Regarding placement for the video 

screen, one suggestion was to have the 

monitor in a location similar to a car’s 

rearview mirror, where the driver’s eyes 

can constantly be glancing at it. NATC 

urged NHTSA to conduct human factors 

analysis to determine the optimal 

placement of the monitor in the truck 

cab.5

NHTSA received conflicting 

viewpoints regarding the need for a 

system failure alert for the rear video 

system. Mr. Silc stated that it is 

unnecessary, arguing that if the screen 

is black, the system is either turned off 

or malfunctioning, and that either 

situation would be easily detectable by 

the driver. In contrast, the Teamsters 

supported use of a failure alert, 

expressing concern that the image of the 

monitor must reflect in real time the 

area behind the truck. 

In response to the ANPRM’s questions 

about State laws regulating the existence 

and use of video monitors/screens in the 

occupant compartment which are in 

view of the driver, ATA stated that such 

restrictions are similar to those 

contained in Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulation (FMCSR) 393.88. That 

provision specifically prohibits 

monitors that are in view of the driver 

that can receive a television signal or 

can be used to view video tapes. 

However, such prohibitions would not 

be applicable here, where the image 

presented only displays the area to the 

rear of the vehicle for backing purposes 

and where auxiliary video input 

connections are missing. 

Audible Backup Alarms 

The ANPRM asked a number of 

questions regarding the efficacy of 

audible backup alarms and whether 

trucks equipped with OSHA-specified 

alarms should be excluded from the 

standard’s new performance 

requirements. Some commenters such 

as NATC and ATA favored exclusion of 

such vehicles, arguing that audible 

backup alarms provide an effective 

warning for most pedestrians. As an 

added benefit, commenters stated that 

those systems are relatively easy to 

maintain. 

However, other commenters pointed 

out significant limitations associated 

with backup alarm systems. NYDOT 

stated that young children, who account 

for a disproportionate number of the 

fatalities and injuries related to backing 

crashes, may not understand or be able 

to properly respond to such alarms. 

Rostra stated that auditory backup 

alarms do not work adequately with the 

hearing impaired, and the Teamsters 

added that the elderly may also 

experience problems with such systems 

(e.g., due to decreased mobility, hearing 

impairment). Reliant added that these 

alarms can be turned off and that drivers 

may forget to turn them on again, and 

it also stated that residential customers 

frequently complain about loud backing 

alarms on trucks used at night. 

Other Non-Visual Rear Object Detection 

Systems 

Commenters expressed a range of 

views about the efficacy of a variety of 

non-visual rear object detection systems, 

such as those utilizing sonar and 

infrared technology. The Teamsters 

stated that manufacturers should be 

permitted to use non-visual systems as 

well as visual systems for rear object 

detection. NPTC argued that additional 

data are required on the effectiveness of 

devices other than mirrors, before such 

non-visual systems would be suitable as 

compliance options. Offering yet 

another possible approach, Federal 

Express confirmed that its vehicles are 

equipped with sonar backing systems 

used in concert with cross-view mirrors. 

Comments also were received 

regarding the timing of the alert and 

detection capabilities provided by nonvisual systems. Rostra stated that 

detection time should be derived from 

the distance of a calibrated test object; 

the speed of the alert would depend 

upon the distance from the sensor and 

the vehicle’s closing speed vis-a`-vis the 

object. Ford stated that typical latency 

times for radar and ultrasonic systems 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53757 

are approximately 250–400 milliseconds 

(ms), but it added that a system’s alert 

time could be increased by relying on 

multiple sensors to validate that the 

system is detecting a ‘‘true’’ target. In 

this context, commenters again raised 

concerns that NHTSA’s assumption of a 

3 mph backing speed may be an 

underestimation. 

Ford also stated that surface 

characteristics are very complex in the 

real world and that the reflective 

characteristics of irregular surfaces are 

infinite. Because of this inability of nonvisual systems to detect all objects, Ford 

argued that NHTSA must specify a 

limited number of objectively defined 

obstacles for any certification test. 

Equipment Damage 

The ANPRM also asked questions 

about potential damage to various rear 

object detection systems. Some 

commenters, such as Reliant, argued 

that mirrors are high maintenance items 

due to breakage and theft. Others 

suggested that damage inflicted by dirt, 

mud, rocks, brush, and limbs could 

limit the mirrors’ effectiveness. ATA 

stated that while rear detection systems 

could be damaged by vibration and 

shock, it believes that these systems 

could be designed to withstand most of 

these conditions. 

Testing 

In response to questions about test 

procedures for the potential new rear 

object detection provisions, commenters 

generally urged NHTSA to conduct 

testing under as many different 

conditions as possible under which 

objects would be difficult to detect. 

Regarding mirrors, NATC stated that test 

procedures should utilize objects of 

various sizes, colors, heights, and 

positions, and the organization urged 

NHTSA to conduct testing under rugged 

conditions (e.g., vibration, humidity, 

and extreme high and low 

temperatures). 

For non-visual rear object detection 

systems, commenters stated that a welldefined and objective standard and test 

methodology are even more important, 

including specification of the size and 

shape of objects to be detected in such 

tests. Ford suggested use of the standard 

pole target developed by the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), which the 

company has used since 1996 for testing 

both its ultrasonic and radar systems. 

Furthermore, both Rostra and NATC 

stated their belief that environmental 

conditions should be specified as part of 

any performance test for non-visual 

systems under the standard. Factors 

such as temperature, rain, snow, 

humidity, dirt, driving surfaces, 

submersion, and mounting surfaces 

were specifically mentioned as 

potentially affecting such systems’

detection capabilities. 

Costs and Benefits 

Commenters provided varying 

estimates regarding the cost of crossview mirrors, ranging from $80–$160 

per truck (depending upon whether one 

or two mirrors are required). ATA stated 

that NHTSA should factor in the 

potentially frequent damage to crossview mirrors from a variety of sources 

over the life of the vehicle when 

determining the cost of the regulation. 

Figures were not provided regarding the 

cost of rear video systems, although 

NATC expressed doubt regarding the 

availability of such systems for as little 

as $200, a figure mentioned in the 

ANPRM. 

Rostra provided some figures to put 

the economic costs of backing crashes in 

perspective, stating that back-up 

accidents cost U.S. drivers over $1.3 

billion per year. Sheffield qualitatively 

described the benefits of a rear object 

detection system as including reduction 

in equipment damage, repair costs, 

insurance rates, and downtime. 

According to Rostra, the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 

tested six mid-size SUVs in crashes at 5 

mph and found that only two of them 

suffered less than $5,000 in damages 

during four crash tests. Rostra stated 

that the cost of an object detection 

system is often less than the cost of the 

insurance deductible incurred when 

there is a collision. NATC suggested that 

the insurance industry could participate 

in encouraging the use of these systems 

through monetary incentives 

(presumably a reduction in premiums). 

Federal vs. State Regulation 

The ANPRM asked whether it would 

be better to allow States to address the 

safety problem associated with backing 

trucks, because the States routinely 

regulate vehicles in use and regulate by 

type of use. ABC argued that due to 

frequent and regular interstate 

movement of truck traffic, requirements 

for rear detection systems should be 

addressed at the Federal level, asserting 

that a patchwork of differing individual 

State standards would render 

compliance extremely difficult. 

Need for a Requirement 

There were differences of opinion 

among the commenters as to the need to 

amend FMVSS No. 111 to set a 

requirement for rear object detection. 

Some commenters, such as Reliant, 

NATC, and the Teamsters, expressed 

support for a performance standard for 

backing vehicles, although there was not 

any consensus regarding the best 

approach for such standard (e.g., 

suggestions provided for various 

technologies or driver-based backing 

programs). Other commenters, such as 

NPTC, ATA, and FedEx opposed a 

federal requirement for rear object 

detection, recommending instead that 

NHTSA support voluntary programs 

that leave improvements to the 

discretion of the fleet operators. 

Training and Recordkeeping 

Several commenters raised the issue 

of driver back-up training, either as a 

supplement to or substitute for rear 

object detection systems under the 

standard. The Teamsters recommended 

a requirement for employers to develop 

and implement procedures for drivers to 

follow in the event that rear object 

detection technology fails or is 

damaged, and they also supported 

required maintenance and 

recordkeeping for the system. ATA 

favored voluntary training (and possible 

operations restrictions) for drivers as the 

remedy for backing problems, stating 

that without appropriate training, 

drivers simply ignore rear object 

detection systems and their images. 

FMCSA Regulations/Funding 

NYDOT expressed concern that if 

NHTSA amends FMVSS No. 111, 

FMCSA would deem State requirements 

for cross-view mirrors or other rear 

object detection devices to be a burden 

on interstate commerce that would 

create a breach of the conditions for 

States to receive Motor Carrier Safety 

Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding. 

For example, New York State’s earlier 

proposed legislation related to rear 

object detection was vetoed by the 

Governor because it was determined to 

be incompatible with a FMCSA 

regulation, thereby jeopardizing 

millions of dollars of FMCSA grants. 

NYDOT stated that if NHTSA cannot 

persuade FMCSA to change its 

regulations, NHTSA should specify 

parameters for State action so that States 

may avoid loss of MCSAP funding. 

Several commenters stated that NHTSA 

should clearly articulate whether and to 

what extent a revised FMVSS No. 111 

preempts State requirements related to 

rear object detection. 

NTEA commented that if NHTSA 

does proceed with a rulemaking for rear 

object detection, it should convince the 

FMCSA to issue a regulation requiring 

vehicle owners to properly maintain the 

system when the vehicle is in use. 

Otherwise, NTEA argues, the standard 

alone would have little effect, 

53758 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

particularly in light of the potential for 

damage and misalignment. 

III. Size of the Safety Problem 

A. Number of Injuries and Fatalities 

In order to determine an appropriate 

regulatory response, NHTSA undertook 

an analysis designed to ascertain the 

size of the backing problem by gathering 

data on the annual number of incidents 

of people being backed over by a motor 

vehicle of any size or type, both on-road 

and off-road (e.g., in parking lots, 

driveways). The data were then 

analyzed further to determine, to the 

extent possible, the number of incidents 

attributable to straight trucks. 

Since the time of the ANPRM, our 

analysis has been refined to incorporate 

additional data. NHTSA analyzed 1999 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) data, 2000–2001 National 

Electronic Injury Surveillance System 

(NEISS) data, and 1995–1999 General 

Estimates System (GES) data. Generally, 

we found that backing injuries and 

fatalities remain a matter of ongoing 

concern, despite changes in the vehicle 

population and technology. 

The following are the highlights of 

our findings regarding injuries and 

fatalities associated with backing of 

straight trucks. Data suggest that straight 

trucks involved in backing incidents 

result annually in an estimated 79 

fatalities. This figure represents 13 onroad fatalities and an estimated 66 offroad fatalities. In addition, data suggest 

that there are annually about 148 

injuries attributable to backing straight 

trucks. We believe that these figures 

provide a conservative estimate of the 

problem, because many workplace 

incidents, a potentially significant 

source of backing injuries and fatalities, 

may go unreported. 

A more detailed summary of our 

findings is provided below, including 

the details and methodology related to 

the above statistics. However, for a more 

complete discussion of the fatality and 

injury data related to this proposal, 

please consult the Preliminary 

Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) that has 

been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

1. Fatality Data 

To obtain a general understanding of 

fatalities associated with backing 

vehicles at the time of the ANPRM, the 

agency gathered data on the annual 

number of incidents of people being 

backed over by a motor vehicle of any 

type or size. (Fatality and injuries 

specifically attributable to straight 

trucks are discussed subsequently.) To 

this end, we initially reviewed FARS 

data for 1991 to 1997. The FARS data 

system contains information on all fatal 

traffic crashes within the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

This search found a total of 381 backing 

fatalities for all vehicle types over this 

time period, or approximately 54 

fatalities per year. To verify the 

accuracy of the 1991 to 1997 data, the 

agency later analyzed 1999 FARS data, 

which revealed 58 backing fatalities. 

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. Thus, 

FARS excludes other likely scenarios for 

backing fatalities, such as events where 

someone is backed over in a driveway, 

parking lot, or in a workplace such as 

a warehouse or construction site. 

We believe it is also important to 

consider off-road fatalities because onroad fatalities only represent a part of 

the problem in terms of backing-related 

incidents. Moreover, we believe that offroad backing fatalities represent a 

significant portion of the total fatalities 

that the agency is seeking to address 

under this rulemaking and should not 

be excluded. 

To ascertain the number of off-road 

backing fatalities, the agency worked 

with the National Center for Health 

Statistics (NCHS) to gather data on these 

incidents. NCHS and NHTSA initiated a 

study utilizing 1998 death certificates in 

order to confirm the agency’s 

information regarding the frequency of 

backing-related fatalities. The report is 

based on 4,046 death certificates out of 

an estimated 5,500 cases from 1998, 

sampled from 35 states and the District 

of Columbia. As of May of 2004, the 

death certificate study is complete and 

available in the agency’s public docket 

(Docket Number NHTSA–2000–7967–

22). This study reported 91 fatalities 

occurring in 1998 due to backing 

vehicles (15 on-road and 76 off-road 

fatalities). Although the fatality data 

from the joint NCHS–NHTSA study do 

not represent a national value nor can 

they be extrapolated to one, we have 

assumed that the percent distribution 

between on- and off-road backing 

fatalities is representative of what is 

currently occurring nationally (i.e., 

16.48% on-road fatalities and 83.52% 

off-road fatalities). Based upon that 

assumption, we applied the on-road/offroad percentage distribution from the 

death certificate study to the national 

sample represented by the FARS data, 

from which we estimate that annually, 

there are 276 off-road backing fatalities. 

2. Injury Data 

In addition to fatality data, NHTSA 

conducted an inquiry into the number 

of non-fatal injuries associated with 

backing crashes. This analysis relied 

upon information drawn from the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (NEISS) and GES databases. 

However, because these two databases 

overlap, it is not possible to sum the 

results to directly determine an annual 

total of such injuries. Nevertheless, the 

available information demonstrates that 

there are a significant number of nonmotorist injuries that are attributable to 

backing vehicles. 

The NEISS database, the first source 

of injury data considered, is a 

statistically valid injury surveillance 

and follow-back system that has been 

operated by the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC) for nearly 

thirty years. The system’s primary 

purpose has been to provide timely data 

on consumer product-related injuries 

occurring in the U.S. NEISS injury data 

are gathered from the emergency 

departments of 100 hospitals selected as 

a probability sample of the more than 

5,300 U.S. hospitals with emergency 

departments. Surveillance data enable 

CPSC analysts to generate national 

estimates of the number of injuries. 

During the course of this rulemaking, 

NHTSA funded a study of the July–

December 2000 NEISS file, which 

showed 64 cases in which a pedestrian 

or a pedalcyclist was injured by a 

backing vehicle. These are the first 

relevant data available since the NEISS 

was expanded to include injuries 

sustained in motor vehicle crashes. This 

data sample translates into a six-month 

national estimate of 3,556 injuries. To 

determine whether this number may be 

summed for an annual estimate, we also 

examined the January–June 2001 NEISS 

file. The 2001 file showed 75 cases 

where a non-motorist was injured by a 

backing vehicle, which translates into 

an estimated 3,863 national injuries 

over that six-month period. Because 

there is only a small difference between 

the estimates, we believe that the rate of 

non-motorist backing injuries is fairly 

constant over the course of the year. 

Therefore, summing the two injury 

figures for the six-month periods, we 

estimate 7,419 annual injuries to nonmotorists are attributable to backing 

injuries. The GES injury data will be 

discussed subsequently, in the context 

of the data related specifically to 

straight trucks. 

3. Workplace Data 

We are also concerned about backingrelated injuries and fatalities that may 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53759 

6These cases were identified by searching 

OSHA’s Accident Investigation Search database and 

by entering appropriate key words. See http:// 

www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/inv/invl. 

occur at the workplace, which may not 

be captured in other databases for 

various reasons. Consequently, we 

examined the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration’s (OSHA) Web 

site, which documents at least 15 

fatalities with the cause listed as being 

crushed between a backing vehicle and 

a loading dock. The OSHA Web site also 

includes over 50 reports of workers 

being killed by backing vehicles.6 OSHA 

has not performed a study to catalog all 

backing-related fatalities in the 

workplace, so it is not possible to 

definitively characterize the extent of 

the problem in the workplace 

environment. However, the anecdotal 

data assembled by OSHA document the 

existence and nature of a safety concern. 

Another area of concern is 

construction sites. Under 29 CFR Part 

1926, Health and Safety Regulations for 

Construction, OSHA has issued 

requirements for back-up alarms on 

vehicles and equipment used in 

construction in order to address the 

issue of backing injuries/fatalities, 

unless someone is standing to the rear 

to direct the backing vehicle. However, 

OSHA was unable to provide any 

statistical data regarding the 

effectiveness of the required systems. 

Many backing crashes that occur in 

the workplace may go unreported to 

police, because they are handled 

privately by the businesses involved. In 

those cases, important incidence data 

may fail to be included in the FARS or 

NCHS databases, so the statistics 

generated from those sources may 

underestimate the actual backing 

problem. NHTSA would be interested in 

additional information on the backing 

crashes encountered in the workplace. 

As further indication of a backing 

problem, we are aware that several 

major employers with extensive truck 

fleets have begun equipping their 

vehicles with rear object detection 

systems, although we do not have firm 

figures regarding implementation on a 

national scale. For example, United 

Parcel Service (UPS) installed video 

monitoring systems on its entire fleet of 

65,000 delivery trucks by October 2001. 

Similarly, the United States Postal 

Service (USPS) and Potomac Electric 

Power Company (PEPCO) have 

equipped their vehicles with cross-view 

mirrors, and FedEx has installed both 

cross-view mirrors and sonar-based rear 

object detection systems on its vehicles. 

Further, NHTSA has learned that some 

trucks equipped with rear video systems 

also come with an audio feed, which 

place a microphone near the rear of a 

vehicle that is connected to a speaker 

near the driver. Such audio feed would 

allow an unnoticed person in the path 

of a backing vehicle to yell to alert the 

driver as to that person’s presence. 

While these companies were 

undoubtedly concerned with backing 

crashes that occur on public and private 

roads, we understand that prevention of 

injuries and fatalities in loading and 

docking areas of worksites was also a 

factor in adopting such equipment. 

B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing 

Crashes 

NHTSA has conducted research to 

determine the rate of involvement of 

specific types of vehicles in pedestrian 

and pedalcyclist backing fatalities, both 

on-road and off-road. As discussed 

below, NHTSA found that straight 

trucks are involved in a 

disproportionately high number of 

backing crashes resulting in pedestrian 

and pedalcyclist fatalities. 

For on-road incidents, the FARS data 

showed the following vehicle-type 

involvement for 1991–1997 pedestrian 

and pedalcyclist backing fatalities: 

TABLE 1.—CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST FATALITIES IN ON-ROAD BACKING CRASHES (FARS 

DATA FROM 1991–1997) 

Vehicle type Number of 

fatalities 

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

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

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

Straight truck over 4,536 kg GVWR .............................................................................................................................................. 81 

Unknown truck over 4,536 kg GVWR ........................................................................................................................................... 12 

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

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

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

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

Based on the above FARS data, after 

distributing unknowns, we estimate 

straight trucks were involved in 92 onroad backing fatalities over the 7 year 

period, resulting in 13 fatalities per 

year. Thus, straight trucks were 

accountable for approximately 24% of 

the on-road backing fatalities during 

that period. 

Again, attributing the same percentage 

of backing incidents for straight trucks 

that occur on-road as occur off-road (as 

reflected in Table 1) yields 66 annual 

off-road fatalities (0.24 × 276). 

Summation of the on-road and off-road 

fatalities yields 79 annual fatalities 

attributable to backing straight trucks. 

Turning to the injury data specific to 

straight trucks, we examined the data 

from the GES, which include only 

injuries incurred in police-reported 

incidents. GES data overlap the 

previously discussed NEISS data, which 

record both police-reported incidents as 

well as unreported incidents. Therefore, 

the GES data on backing-related injury 

crashes are probably not representative 

of all backing-related injury crashes, 

because the data do not include 

information about injuries from backing 

maneuvers in private areas such as 

driveways, parking lots, and work sites. 

Nevertheless, the GES data are useful 

for other reasons. First, the GES data 

break down accidents by both vehicle 

type and maneuver, so it is possible to 

determine the percentage of non-fatal 

backing injuries attributable to straight 

trucks (approximately two percent). We 

expect that the percentage of backing 

injuries for straight trucks would not 

change significantly from year to year. 

Further, we believe that the proportion 

of backing injuries attributable to 

straight trucks in the GES data and the 

NEISS data are comparable, so 

53760 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

7The AIS system scores injuries based upon the 

following levels: AIS–1 (minor injury); AIS–2 

(moderate injury); AIS–3 (serious injury); AIS–4 

(severe injury); AIS–5 (critical injury), and AIS–6 

(maximum injury). National Accident Sampling 

System, 1993 Crashworthiness Data System, Injury 

Coding Manual, (January 1993) (DOT HS 807 969). 

8Since the time of the ANPRM, NHTSA 

discovered a number of minor errors in its 

statistical data related to vehicle type involvement 

in backing crashes. These errors were corrected 

prior to incorporating the relevant information in 

this notice. 

extrapolating to the larger NEISS 

database, the number of backing injuries 

attributable to straight trucks would 

translate into approximately 148 

injuries per year (i.e., two percent of the 

7,419 total injuries). 

The Preliminary Regulatory 

Evaluation accompanying this notice 

estimates the severity of these injuries 

attributable to backing straight trucks, 

based upon the Abbreviated Injury Scale 

(AIS). AIS is an anatomically-based 

system that classifies individual injuries 

by body region on a six-point ordinal 

scale of risk to life, with the MAIS score 

being the maximum injury level(s) an 

individual receives.7 According to the 

PRE, of the anticipated annual backing 

injuries, there are expected to be 120 

MAIS–1 injuries, 19 MAIS–2 injuries, 7 

MAIS–3 injuries, and 1 MAIS–4 injury 

(difference of 1 injury due to rounding). 

Please consult the PRE for a more 

complete discussion of backing injury 

severity levels (see Chapter III). 

However, we believe that the figures 

for cumulative number of backing 

crashes and the absolute number of 

fatalities do not provide a complete 

picture of the problem. Instead, one 

must consider the relative risk posed by 

different types of vehicles. We have 

used the number of vehicles in the fleet 

and the miles driven to calculate the 

rate of backing deaths for different 

vehicle types. This calculation was 

based upon estimates of registered 

vehicles and vehicle miles traveled 

information. As demonstrated in Table 

2 below, straight trucks are significantly 

overrepresented in backing crashes 

resulting in pedestrian and pedalcyclist 

fatalities.8

TABLE 2.—RATE OF ON-ROAD FATAL BACKING CRASHES (CUMULATIVE FARS DATA FROM 1991–1997) 

Vehicle type 

Pedestrians and 

pedalcyclists killed 

by a backing vehicle per million registered vehicles 

Pedestrians and 

pedalcyclists killed 

by a backing vehicle per 100 billion 

vehicle miles 

traveled 

Passenger cars ............................................................................................................................................ 1.05 1.26 

Light trucks/vans .......................................................................................................................................... 2.32 2.80 

Combination trucks ...................................................................................................................................... 9.94 2.21 

Straight trucks over 4,356 kg GVWR .......................................................................................................... 29.68 21.89 

Table 2 provides the rate of 

pedestrians and pedalcyclists killed by 

straight trucks while backing is 21.89 

per 100 billion vehicle miles traveled, 

and 29.68 per million registered 

vehicles. This risk is significantly higher 

than that for passenger vehicles (i.e., 

combining categories of passenger cars 

and light trucks/vans). Based upon this 

analysis, straight trucks stand out as a 

significant risk in terms of backing 

incidents. 

In its comments on the ANPRM, ATA 

expressed disagreement with the 

agency’s assessment of the size of the 

backing problem, arguing that NHTSA 

did not quantify accurately the relative 

hazard associated with each vehicle 

type in its risk conversion. ATA argued 

that considering the number of 

pedestrians and pedalcyclists killed by 

a backing vehicle per million registered 

vehicles ‘‘will certainly overstate the 

rate for straight and combination trucks 

relative to passenger cars and light 

trucks because of the fewer number of 

commercial vehicles’’ and that it does 

not take into account the number of 

backings that these vehicles perform. 

For the same reasons, ATA objected to 

NHTSA’s analysis of the number of 

backing-related deaths by different 

vehicle types per 100 billion vehicle 

miles traveled. 

Instead, ATA argued that it is more 

likely that straight trucks used for 

deliveries to businesses back up more as 

a percentage of miles driven than do 

passenger cars and light trucks. 

According to ATA, because straight 

trucks are typically utilized in local 

delivery operations and can make 

several deliveries per day, drivers are 

required to perform several backing 

operations per day. For this reason, 

ATA stated that straight trucks are likely 

to have a higher number of backings as 

a percentage of miles driven than 

private vehicles. Conversely, ATA 

argued that straight trucks used in home 

delivery settings, by practice, avoid 

backing up. This practice led ATA to 

believe that vehicles used in this 

manner are likely to have fewer 

backings related to miles traveled. Based 

upon these theories, ATA concluded 

that straight and combination trucks are 

likely to be safer relative to other types 

of vehicles. 

We do not agree with ATA’s rationale 

regarding quantification of relative 

hazard. If it is true, as ATA argues, that 

straight trucks are likely to back up 

more often than other types of vehicles, 

we believe that straight trucks, based 

upon their vehicle type, would be 

expected to present a greater risk in 

terms of backing incidents. As a result, 

we would expect that installation of a 

rear object detection system on straight 

trucks, more than on any other vehicle 

type, would reduce backing-related 

risks. 

Furthermore, it is important to note 

that the number of pedestrians and 

pedalcyclists killed by straight trucks 

while backing, per 100 billion vehicle 

miles traveled, is eight to seventeen 

times greater than for passenger 

vehicles. If straight trucks used in 

deliveries to homes avoid backing, it is 

logical to assume that an inordinate 

amount of fatalities involve straight 

trucks making business deliveries. 

When one considers that large fleet 

carriers such as UPS, the U.S. Postal 

Service, and FedEx, have all equipped 

their vehicles with rear object detection 

systems, we are even more convinced 

that the remaining straight trucks are 

overrepresented in the data. 

In addition, there is a fundamental 

difference between straight trucks and 

passenger vehicles, namely the fact that 

most straight trucks have a large blind 

spot directly behind the vehicle. 

Passenger vehicles, which usually have 

interior rearview mirrors and rear 

windows, generally have a more direct 

view of this area. Thus, passenger 

vehicle backing incidents are most 

likely to result from driver error, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53761 

9 ‘‘Read Cross-view Mirror Performance: 

Perception and Optical Measurements,’’ WESTAT 

(November 1998) (Docket No. NHSTA–2000–7967–

18). 

10 Id. at 48. 

11This determination is based upon the findings 

of the WESTAT study, which reported diminished 

performance at the longest mirror separation 

distance tested (195 inches). ‘‘Read Cross-view 

Mirror Performance: Perception and Optical 

Measurements,’’ WESTAT (November 1998) 

(Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7967–18). 

pedestrian/pedalcyclist error, or some 

combination thereof, problems without 

a clear remedy. However, in the case of 

straight trucks, visibility behind the 

vehicle is an objective problem 

amenable to amelioration through a 

regulatory requirement for a rear object 

detection system. 

C. Other Data and Summary 

NHTSA has considered comments in 

response to its APRM related to the 

number of victims of backing crashes. 

NYDOT commented that New York 

State has recorded 14,349 backing 

crashes involving trucks with an 

enclosed or walk-in delivery bay that 

resulted in 35 deaths and 5,393 injuries 

between 1990 and 1999; these crashes 

also were said to have resulted in 8,921 

instances of property damage. 

Based upon the totality of the above 

information, we believe that there is a 

demonstrated backing problem 

associated with straight trucks resulting 

in a significant number of injuries and 

fatalities. These backing incidents occur 

on public roads, in private locations, 

and in workplace settings. While our 

existing data are most complete for onroad backing fatalities and injuries, 

preliminary data suggest that the 

problem is even greater in off-road 

locations, including private locations 

and in workplace settings. 

IV. Agency Proposal 

A. Summary of Proposal 

To address the identified problem of 

backing-related deaths and injuries 

associated with straight trucks, NHTSA 

is proposing to amend FMVSS No. 111, 

Rearview Mirrors, to require straight 

trucks with a GVWR of between 4,536 

kg (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg 

(26,000 pounds) to be equipped with 

either a cross-view mirror or rear video 

system in order to provide the driver 

with a visual image of a 3 m by 3 m area 

immediately behind the vehicle. 

However, this requirement would not 

apply to those trucks for which the 

detection area is already visible through 

existing mirrors already required under 

the standard. 

The NPRM sets out proposed 

requirements for each of these two 

compliance options, as well as test 

procedures suitable for each option. 

However, in light of concerns regarding 

the feasibility of attaching rear object 

detection systems on certain types of 

trucks, we are requesting comments on 

categories of vehicles that the agency 

should consider excluding from the 

requirements of a final rule. 

We propose that the requirements 

would be effective for new vehicles 

covered under the standard that are 

manufactured one year or later after 

publication of a final rule. However, we 

are also seeking public comment to help 

determine whether requirements for a 

rear object detection system should be 

extended to vehicles in other weight 

classes and whether existing 

commercial straight trucks should be 

required to be retrofitted, as part of a 

future rulemaking. 

B. Compliance Options 

In developing our proposed 

performance standard for rear object 

detection, NHTSA carefully considered 

a range of technologies. NHTSA 

examined both visual systems (e.g., 

cross-view mirrors and video cameras) 

and non-visual systems (e.g., sonar/ 

infrared devices and audible back-up 

alarms) in order to evaluate their 

efficacy in preventing backing-related 

injuries and fatalities. 

We believe that primary responsibility 

for object detection should be placed 

upon the driver, such that the driver has 

visible confirmation that the pathway is 

clear before backing; non-visual 

systems, by their nature, cannot provide 

such confirmation. Consequently, we 

are proposing two visual systems as 

compliance options, one for cross-view 

mirrors and another for rear video 

systems. 

1. Cross-View Mirrors 

Under proposed Option 1, vehicle 

manufacturers would be required to 

install rear cross-view mirrors on 

covered vehicles so as to provide a 3 m 

by 3 m field of view of the area directly 

behind the vehicle. NHTSA’s research 

has determined that a 3 m by 3 m area 

is the maximum detection zone that 

could be provided by a cross-view 

mirror system, but one which we 

believe would be adequate in light of 

the standard’s safety objective.9

Selection of the proposed detection 

zone was based upon study results that 

found typical backing speeds to be 3.3 

mph.10 However, as discussed earlier, 

commenters suggested that the agency’s 

assumptions regarding backing speed 

have underestimated real world 

experience, although data were not 

provided to demonstrate this point. If 

new data show that backing speeds have 

been significantly underestimated, this 

may necessitate extension of the 

proposed rearward field of view 

requirement. Because cross-view 

mirrors are not effective in providing a 

field of view beyond the 3 m by 3 m 

zone currently proposed, a change in 

calculation of backing speeds may 

preclude adoption of this technology as 

a compliance option and instead result 

in adoption of a requirement for a video 

camera, a device that does not possess 

the same field of view limitations. 

As proposed, the cross-view mirror 

would work in conjunction with the 

outside rearview mirror on the driver’s 

side of the vehicle, and the placement 

of the cross-view mirror would be such 

that the geometric centers of the two 

mirrors are separated by no more than 

5 m. We have tentatively decided that 

5 m is the furthest distance at which the 

mirror system could provide a 

meaningful image to the driver of any 

object behind the vehicle, a position 

with which commenters generally 

agreed.11 Longer trucks that cannot meet 

this requirement for maximum distance 

between mirrors would be required to 

install a video system that complies 

with Option 2. 

Our proposal also sets out other 

proposed requirements which the crossview mirror would be required to meet, 

including that it would be required to: 

(1) Have no discontinuities in the slope 

of its surface; (2) be adjustable both in 

the horizontal and vertical directions; 

(3) be installed on stable supports on the 

upper rear corner of the vehicle on the 

driver’s side, and (4) have an average 

radius of curvature of no less than 203 

mm as determined under paragraph S12 

of existing FMVSS No. 111. 

In addition, we are proposing test 

requirements to ensure that the 

detection zone specified under the 

proposed standard would be met. The 

procedures to verify compliance with 

these requirements are modeled in part 

after the existing school bus mirror test 

required under paragraph S13 of 

FMVSS No. 111, which utilizes a 

number of cylinders to simulate objects 

in front of the vehicle that would be 

difficult or impossible to see without 

the aid of mirrors. The proposed testing 

procedure would utilize the driver eye 

location specified in the current school 

bus mirror test that is based on the 25thpercentile adult female template. The 

proposed rule would require that the 

entire top surface of all the cylinders 

located at the rear of the vehicle 

described in the test procedure be 

visible to the driver when those 

procedures are followed. In our 

53762 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

proposal, we have simplified the 

carryover school bus procedural 

dimensions being used, and we have 

provided tolerances when possible. 

2. Rear Video Systems 

Under the second compliance option, 

a rear video system would be required. 

The minimum field of view would be 

the same as that specified for the crossview mirror option (i.e., 3 m by 3 m). 

We are proposing several 

requirements for rear video systems. 

First, the system would be required to 

include a monitor that depicts a 

reversed image similar to what would be 

observed in a rearview mirror and 

which is mounted in full view of the 

driver. The monitor would be required 

to be mounted as close to the centerline 

of the vehicle as practicable near the top 

of the windshield, but located such that 

the distance from the center point of the 

eye location of a 25th-percentile adult 

female seated in the driver’s seat to the 

center of the monitor is no more than 

100 cm. We believe that it would be 

beneficial to place the monitor in a 

location that is similar to that of a 

rearview mirror in a passenger vehicle. 

Presumably, truck drivers have 

extensive personal experience in driving 

passenger vehicles, so they would be 

accustomed to checking for objects 

behind the vehicle in that location. 

Would there be any difficulty having the 

monitor too close, such that for drivers 

who need reading glasses, the image in 

the monitor would be unfocused? 

If the monitor’s placement causes it to 

fall within the vehicle’s head impact 

area, the mounting would be required to 

deflect, collapse, or break away when 

subjected to a force of 400 Newtons (N) 

in any forward direction that is not 

more than 45° from the forward 

longitudinal direction, as is required for 

passenger car interior mirrors pursuant 

to S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 111. We are 

concerned, however, that a monitor that 

fully breaks away from its mounting 

could create an additional hazard and 

cause potential injury in a crash. How 

likely is this situation to occur, and 

what preventative steps could be taken? 

Would it be feasible to equip the vehicle 

with a non-adjustable monitor that is 

fully integrated into the dashboard? 

This proposed compliance option also 

would require that the video system’s 

monitor have an image size between 90 

cm2 and 160 cm2. We are proposing a 

size range for the monitor that maintains 

approximately the same size-to-distance 

ratio as that between the sideview 

mirror and the driver. We believe that 

the monitor size recommended by Mr. 

Silc (1.5 inches) would not be adequate. 

Accordingly, we believe that the range 

that we have proposed would provide 

the driver with an image that is of a 

meaningful size and that would catch 

the driver’s attention. The video camera 

would be required to be adjustable so 

that it may tilt in both the horizontal 

and vertical directions, for aiming 

purposes, and the video monitor 

similarly would be required to be 

adjustable so as to accommodate drivers 

of different statures. Would any 

implementation problems be expected 

related to the aimability requirement for 

the video camera and monitor? 

The proposed test procedures are 

intended to ensure that the detection 

zone specified under the video system 

option is essentially the same as that for 

the cross-view mirrors compliance 

option. 

C. Applicability 

NHTSA is proposing to make the new 

requirements for a rear object detection 

system applicable to new straight trucks 

with a GVWR of between 4,536 kg 

(10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg (26,000 

pounds). 

The lower bound of this weight range 

is based on FARS data, which show that 

the rate of fatal backing crashes for these 

vehicles is substantially greater than 

that of vehicles with lower GVWRs. The 

upper bound of 11,793 kg is based on 

the agency’s belief that it represents the 

maximum weight of a typical straight 

truck. We note, however, that paragraph 

S7 of FMVSS No. 111 currently defines 

requirements for a narrower weight 

class between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg. 

Accordingly, the agency is requesting 

comments on the proposed upper 

bound, specifically whether straight 

trucks greater than 11,340 kg also 

should be required to be equipped with 

a rear object detection system. 

We note that for certain vehicles, the 

proposed detection zone may be visible 

using the vehicle’s existing mirrors 

already required under FMVSS No. 111, 

in which case the rear object detection 

system that is the subject of this 

proposal would not be required. 

Accordingly, we are proposing that 

testing under the standard first be 

conducted to see whether the targets are 

visible with the mirrors already being 

supplied on that particular vehicle. If 

the targets are visible, the rear object 

detection system would not be required. 

Furthermore, we are aware that this 

weight classification encompasses a 

wide range of vehicles of many shapes 

and sizes, some of which may pose 

mounting and/or maintenance 

challenges for the rear object detection 

systems that would be required under 

the proposal. As a result, we might 

consider excluding certain types of 

trucks from the standard’s new 

requirements when we issue a final rule, 

particularly where it can be 

demonstrated that a rear object 

detection system would not be 

practicable. As discussed below, we are 

requesting additional public input on 

defining appropriate categories of 

straight trucks for possible exclusion. 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA asked for 

comment on the appropriateness of 

applying a requirement for rear object 

detection to straight trucks in the 

designated weight range. A number of 

comments were received, the majority of 

which sought exclusion for certain types 

of trucks (e.g., flat beds, stake bodies, 

dump trucks, common light duty pickup truck beds, and other high-cube or 

full-size van applications such as 

tradesmen’s or mechanic’s bodies). 

Generally, commenters argued that 

many of these vehicles have body styles 

which do not permit installation of 

cross-view mirrors in an effective 

position or that the vehicles are used in 

a rugged environment that would cause 

damage to the mirrors or other systems, 

thereby requiring frequent replacement 

or repair. 

For example, commenters argued that 

under the circumstances in which most 

dump trucks are used, any system that 

is installed is likely to be damaged 

rather quickly. Commenters stated that 

dump trucks, as well as other work 

vehicles used off-road, may experience 

more vibration than vehicles used solely 

on-road; according to the commenters, 

such usage could either damage the 

system or render it ineffective due to 

misalignment. Commenters also argued 

that vibration could cause frequent 

deviation of cross-view mirrors and 

video cameras from their aimed 

position. In addition, commenters stated 

that other vehicles, such as stake bodies, 

tow trucks, and flat beds, may have no 

viable location to mount a rear object 

detection system. 

While we acknowledge that some 

vehicles may not be suitable for 

installation of one or more of the 

proposed systems, NHTSA would need 

to be confident that there was no 

suitable system available for a given 

type of vehicle before we exclude it 

from the safety requirement. To help to 

better define the applicability of the 

standard once a final rule is issued, we 

offer the following preliminary views on 

coverage, which may be modified based 

upon public input. 

We anticipate that it would be 

reasonable and practicable for the 

standard to apply to trucks in the 

designated weight range that have cargo 

boxes mounted on their chasses. Such 

vehicles have a configuration suitable 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53763 

12R E Sapien, J. Widman Roux, and L. FullertonGleason, ‘‘Children’s Response to a Commercial 

Back-up Warning Device,’’ 9 Injury Prevention 87–

88 (2003). See Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7967–21 

for information related to this study. 

for mounting a rear object detection 

device, and these vehicles are regularly 

used in deliveries to both businesses 

and private residences. The States of 

New Jersey, New York, and Washington 

already have applied regulations to 

these types of vehicles, and we believe 

that it is important for any final rule to 

cover them, because of their constant 

presence in residential areas. 

Dump trucks and tank trucks are two 

types of trucks that we also believe have 

the potential to be covered under the 

standard. Vehicles with dump bodies 

make regular residential deliveries of 

products such as topsoil, gravel, and 

mulch. Commenters on the ANPRM 

claimed that the rugged environment in 

which dump trucks sometimes operate 

likely would damage any system 

installed on the back of the vehicle. 

Also, the commenters argued that if a 

damaged rear vision system had to be 

replaced on a regular basis, it would 

make the cost of the regulation too high. 

However, we are concerned about the 

potential for injury and fatality related 

to backing dump trucks. (The website of 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration documents over two 

dozen fatalities caused by backing dump 

trucks.) We believe that a more robust 

system could be used which would 

withstand possible abuse and still 

provide the vehicle operators with the 

necessary rear vision. 

Regarding dump trucks, we seek input 

on the following issues. How frequently 

would one expect the work environment 

and vehicle use patterns to cause failure 

of a rear visibility system (e.g., due to 

vibration, camera breakage, lens 

degradation)? Could a durable video 

system be mounted on the backs of 

these types of trucks in such a way that 

the camera would be protected but at 

the same time remain effective (i.e., 

remain properly aimed at the detection 

zone specified in the standard)? 

Tank trucks, such as those used for 

delivery of home heating fuel, water for 

pools, and other liquids, and for septic 

tank cleaning, pose a different set of 

problems. Although they are not used in 

a rugged environment, the design of 

these vehicles and the curvature of the 

tank may make it impossible to use a 

cross-view mirror system, due to the 

inability to mount a mirror in an 

effective location. However, we believe 

that a video system with a camera 

mounted near the license plate may be 

a viable option for providing the 

requisite rearward view. 

More problematic are vehicles such as 

flat beds and stake bodies that have no 

place to mount a mirror and have only 

a limited number of places where a 

camera could be mounted. However, 

even unloaded, these vehicles still may 

have a blind spot immediately behind 

the vehicle of sufficient size that could 

cause a child to be hidden from view, 

and once loaded with cargo, visibility 

would be expected to decline further. 

We invite input on these and other 

categories of vehicles that are potential 

candidates for exclusion from the 

proposed standard’s requirements. We 

request that any such comments provide 

information to demonstrate why none of 

the proposed compliance options would 

be practicable for that class of vehicles. 

In response to NYDOT’s comment 

that NHTSA should consider extending 

the standard to trucks that weigh less 

than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), we are 

not proposing such a requirement at this 

time because current data do not 

support such an action. Although 

smaller trucks often enter residential 

neighborhoods for the purposes of 

deliveries or other commercial 

transactions, many of these vehicles are 

configured as passenger-carrying 

vehicles, which do not have the same 

rear visibility limitations as larger 

vehicles. Nevertheless, we are 

continuing our research into injuries 

and fatalities associated with backing 

vehicles with a GVWR of less than 4,536 

kg (10,000 pounds), and we may revisit 

this issue if data demonstrate that these 

vehicles pose a significant backing 

problem. 

We invite comment as to whether 

there are vehicles within the class 

proposed for coverage that could meet 

the field of view requirements without 

being equipped with a rear object 

detection system. What would be 

examples of such vehicles? Could such 

vehicles continue to meet the proposed 

requirements in a fully loaded 

condition? Should such vehicles be 

excluded from the proposed 

requirements of the standard? 

We also invite comment as to whether 

the proposal should be applied to buses. 

Smaller buses frequently are used in 

areas of high pedestrian traffic, such as 

around airports. In addition, school 

buses and city buses are used in areas 

of high pedestrian density. 

Comments on the following specific 

questions would assist the agency in 

possible future rulemakings: 

1. For vehicles under 4,536 kg (10,000 

pounds) GVWR, should further criteria 

be used to identify those vehicles most 

likely to be used as commercial vehicles 

in delivery service or which may have 

rear vision constraints? 

2. What would be the optimal 

minimum weight for delivery trucks 

that should be subject to the standard’s 

requirements for a rear object detection 

system? Would it be appropriate, when 

the applicable vehicle characteristics are 

defined, to lower the applicable weight 

to 2,722 kg (6,000 pounds) GVWR, or 

some other weight? Would some light 

trucks, such as a pick-up truck with a 

cargo box, benefit from a rear visibility 

system? 

3. Should the standard apply to 

vehicles over 203 cm (80 in.) in width 

(or some other figure) and with no 

windows to the side and rear regardless 

of their weight? Should wider vehicles 

with limited or no visibility via 

windows of the proposed 3 m by 3 m 

area to the rear of the vehicle be 

required to have a rear object detection 

system? 

4. Should the standard apply to buses, 

and if so, should any types of buses be 

excluded? 

5. As noted above, the proposed test 

procedures for rear object detection 

systems are modeled after the standard’s 

test procedures for school buses, 

although with simplified dimensional 

requirements and tolerances for most of 

those dimensions. Should these 

modified dimensional requirements be 

used for the school bus provisions as 

well? 

D. Non-Visual Systems 

After carefully considering the merits 

of a range of rear object detection 

devices, we have tentatively concluded 

that current non-visual systems (e.g., 

sonar/infrared systems and back-up 

alarms that emit an audible warning) do 

not provide by themselves an adequate 

and effective means of rear object 

detection for the following reasons. 

Foremost, we are concerned that nonvisual systems, particularly back-up 

alarms, implicitly shift the detection 

burden from the driver to persons who 

might unwittingly end up in the path of 

the backing vehicle. We remain 

particularly concerned that children, the 

primary focus of the protections 

contemplated by this rulemaking, often 

would be unable to comprehend and/or 

appropriately respond to an audible 

signal. We also note that a 2003 study 

reported that preschool children did not 

respond to audible back-up alarms with 

avoidance behavior, although about half 

of them did look toward the vehicle or 

halt their gait.12 While we understand 

that some non-visual systems (e.g., 

infrared systems) have the ability to 

detect children in some circumstances, 

we are not convinced that they will be 

able to do so consistently in all cases. 

53764 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

13The terms ‘‘commercial motor vehicle’’ and 

‘‘interstate commerce’’ are defined under FMCSA 

regulations at 49 CFR 390.5. 14See 49 CFR Part 350. 

Research on the capabilities of these 

non-visual systems is extremely limited, 

and we are concerned about the lack of 

human factor testing, which involves an 

assessment of how people interact with 

a given piece of equipment. For 

example, in some instances, a nonvisual system may tend to give false 

warnings or fail to provide any warning, 

such as when a truck is backing on an 

incline or a decline. When backing a 

truck up a hill, the hill itself may enter 

into the sensors’ detection area and 

cause the system to alert the driver that 

an obstacle is present. Backing the truck 

down a hill can also be problematic for 

non-visual systems, because obstacles 

may be below the system’s detection 

zone, and consequently, the driver 

would not receive any warning. 

Although the driver may get out to 

investigate the first few times, warnings 

in similar situations may be ignored 

once the driver is familiar with a certain 

area or simply becomes aware that hills 

of a certain grade trigger the warning 

device. 

In addition, we believe that the 

virtually infinite number of 

characteristics of object surface 

reflectivities and other factors would 

render a test procedure for non-visual 

systems either ineffective (due to the 

omission of some possible object 

characteristics) or overly burdensome (if 

an attempt is made to include a large 

range of test objects). 

In sum, we believe that if a rear object 

detection system allows a driver to 

actually see a child or other person, the 

driver would be more likely to take 

appropriate action and to prevent a 

collision. Although we are not 

proposing a compliance option utilizing 

non-visual systems, we are not 

prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from 

installing them voluntarily. Although 

such systems do not add significantly to 

the safety benefits to be gained through 

the visual requirements proposed, they 

do not appear to cause substantial harm. 

There is no reason for the agency to 

preclude vehicle makers from providing 

non-visual systems as an additional 

customer feature. 

We also considered the role of driver 

training, but we do not believe that it is 

an adequate substitute for the visual 

image provided by a rear object 

detection system. The nature of such 

training would vary according to the 

form and function of the myriad straight 

trucks on U.S. roadways. However, such 

training could be a useful supplement to 

each of the proposed rear object 

detection systems, both in terms of 

understanding and successfully using 

that system, and otherwise promoting 

safe backing practices. 

E. Retrofitting of Existing Commercial 

Vehicles 

Recently, NHTSA was delegated 

authority to promulgate safety standards 

for commercial motor vehicles and 

equipment subsequent to initial 

manufacture where the standards are 

based upon and similar to a Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard 

promulgated, either simultaneously or 

previously, under chapter 301 of Title 

49 U.S.C. (see delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50(n)). This authority to 

promulgate safety standards for 

commercial motor vehicles reflects the 

fact that certain safety features may have 

sufficiently significant value to warrant 

their incorporation in existing 

commercial vehicles that transport 

property or passengers in interstate 

commerce.13 When utilizing this 

‘‘retrofit’’ authority, NHTSA plans to 

coordinate with the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration regarding 

any such provision. 

At this time, we are not proposing to 

require any existing commercial straight 

trucks to be retrofitted to meet the 

standard’s newly proposed 

requirements for rear object detection 

systems. However, we are soliciting 

additional comments on several 

questions related to retrofitting, in the 

event that NHTSA later determines that 

such a requirement would be 

appropriate. The following discussion 

reflects our preliminary thinking 

regarding the feasibility and value of 

retrofitting existing commercial vehicles 

to meet the proposed requirements for 

an amended FVMSS No. 111. 

Experience suggests that equipping 

existing commercial straight trucks with 

rear object detection systems would 

provide safety and economic benefits. 

As with new trucks, owners of existing 

commercial trucks would benefit from 

the elimination of the sizable blind spot 

directly behind their vehicles; with such 

systems, drivers would be able to see 

children and other pedestrians (safety 

benefit), as well as poles and other 

obstructions before any collision-related 

damage occurs (economic benefit). 

However, there also would be costs. We 

are exploring the possibility of 

retrofitting these commercial vehicles as 

a means of maximizing the benefit of the 

proposed requirement. Would any 

special problems be anticipated with 

retrofitting specific vehicle types? 

Should certain commercial vehicles be 

excluded from any future retrofitting 

requirement? 

The States of New Jersey, New York, 

and Washington presumably considered 

such benefits and costs when passing 

legislation requiring the retrofitting of 

trucks in those States with rear object 

detection systems. As a further example, 

UPS, one of the largest delivery 

companies, has chosen to retrofit its 

vehicles with video systems. Thus, 

experience suggests that retrofitting in 

this context has been deemed by some 

to be reasonable, economically feasible, 

and practicable. In addition, requiring 

retrofitting of existing commercial 

vehicles would permit the public to 

realize the full benefit of these safety 

devices approximately ten years sooner 

than would otherwise occur, if only new 

vehicles were required to be so 

equipped. 

Public input on the following 

questions would assist the agency 

regarding retrofitting. What are expected 

to be the potential costs and benefits of 

retrofitting existing commercial vehicles 

with a rear object detection system 

consistent with the proposed 

requirements for FMVSS No. 111? 

Should any types of such vehicles be 

excluded? How much lead time would 

be required to retrofit existing 

commercial vehicles to meet the 

proposed requirements for rear object 

detection? 

F. FMCSA Issues Related To Retrofit 

and Preemption 

In light of the comments of the New 

York State Department of 

Transportation (NYDOT) and the 

National Truck Equipment Association 

(NTEA) pertaining to FMCSA 

preemption of State law, we believe that 

it is necessary to clarify the scope and 

nature of FMCSA’s policies and 

programs. NHTSA consulted with 

FMCSA in drafting the current proposal, 

and FMCSA provided the following 

input, particularly regarding how its 

regulations and programs would impact 

a State’s efforts to adopt rear object 

detection requirements for vehicles 

operating within the State. 

According to FMCSA, that agency 

does not consider a State’s adoption of 

safety requirements that are identical to 

the FMVSSs (applicable only to vehicles 

manufactured on or after the effective 

date of the safety standard) to be a 

matter of concern under the Motor 

Carrier Safety Assistance Program 

(MCSAP).14 The example referenced by 

the NYDOT in its comments concerned 

the State’s efforts to adopt a rear object 

detection system requirement applicable 

to vehicles operated in interstate 

commerce, prior to NHTSA’s 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53765 

15See 49 CFR Part 393. 

16As discussed in Chapter IV of the PRE, 

NHTSA’s estimation of the effectiveness of rear 

object detection systems is based upon two public 

comments referencing a 1984 pilot study conducted 

by FedEx in four cities that found that backing 

incidents were reduced by 33 percent when crossview mirrors were installed. Although the study 

itself was not made directly available, the Nevada 

Automotive Test Center provided the 33 percent 

figure (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7967–7), and the 

Teamsters qualitatively discussed that a reduction 

in incidents occurred (Docket No. NHTSA–2000–

7967–8). We have decided to use the same value for 

the effectiveness of video camera systems, although 

we believe that such systems may be somewhat 

more effective. 

publication of a rulemaking proposal on 

the subject. FMCSA concluded that the 

State should either limit the 

applicability of its requirement to 

commercial motor vehicles operating 

exclusively in intrastate commerce or 

adopt requirements compatible with the 

FMVSSs, in the event NHTSA adopts 

requirements for a rear object detection 

system. Therefore, if NHTSA amends 

FMVSS No. 111 to require a rear object 

detection system, FMCSA stated that it 

would not consider a State’s adoption of 

those requirements for vehicles 

manufactured on or after the effective 

date to be inconsistent with the MCSAP 

regulations. 

Additionally, with regard to NTEA’s 

remarks, FMCSA stated that it is 

committed to ensuring that its 

requirements for vehicle parts and 

accessories necessary for safe 

operations 15 are consistent with the 

requirements under NHTSA’s FMVSSs. 

Part 393 of the FMCSA’s safety 

regulations already includes many 

cross-references to specific requirements 

under the FMVSSs, such as lamps and 

reflectors, anti-lock braking systems 

(ABS), automatic brake adjusters, rear 

impact guards and protection, seat belts, 

and emergency exits on school buses. If 

NHTSA amends FMVSS No. 111 to 

require a rear object detection system, 

FMCSA stated that it would consider 

amending 49 CFR Part 393 to require 

motor carriers operating in interstate 

commerce to ensure that such systems 

are maintained. According to FMCSA, 

amending Part 393 also would result in 

the States being required under the 

MCSAP to adopt compatible motor 

carrier safety regulations within three 

years of the effective date of the FMCSA 

rulemaking. 

G. Effective Date 

We are proposing to require covered 

new vehicles to comply with the rear 

object detection requirements to prevent 

backing deaths and injuries one year 

after publication of a final rule. We have 

tentatively concluded that a relatively 

rapid implementation schedule would 

be appropriate. Installation of crossview mirrors would not involve 

substantial engineering efforts or 

changes in manufacturing processes. 

Manufacturers might need additional 

time to implement more technically 

demanding video systems, although we 

believe that one year would provide 

sufficient time for manufacturers to 

incorporate these systems as well. 

V. Benefits 

The agency estimates that this 

proposal would result in a net reduction 

of 23 fatalities and 43 injuries annually 

once all single-unit trucks are equipped 

with a rear object detection system, 

assuming a 33% effectiveness rate for 

these crash avoidance devices.16 The 

present discounted value of anticipated 

property damage savings is estimated to 

be $32 million annually (at a 3-percent 

discount rate). In most of these cases, 

the benefits would result from the 

ability of the rear object detection 

system to allow the driver to prevent the 

collision entirely. 

The PRE provides additional detail 

regarding benefits, including values at a 

7-percent discount rate and a discussion 

of the methodology used in calculating 

those benefits (see Chapter IV of the 

PRE). 

In addition, because our estimate of 

the effectiveness of rear object detection 

systems (33 percent) is based primarily 

upon the findings of a single study 

conducted by Federal Express in 1984, 

the agency decided to include a 

sensitivity analysis in the PRE to 

examine how different effectiveness 

rates would impact the results of our 

cost and benefit analyses. Accordingly, 

in the sensitivity analysis, we have 

examined the net costs, benefits, and 

cost per equivalent life saved if rear 

object detection systems were 20 

percent, 40 percent, and 60 percent 

effective (see Chapter VII of the PRE). 

VI. Costs 

Although discussed more fully in the 

PRE (see Chapters V and VII), the 

following summarizes our estimation of 

the costs associated with this proposal 

to require rear object detection systems 

in new straight trucks. The agency 

estimates that about 18 percent of the 

365,000 new single-unit trucks sold 

annually have cross-view mirrors or 

video cameras, leaving the remaining 

299,300 new trucks affected by this 

rulemaking. In addition, based on the 

agency-sponsored study discussed 

previously, we have tentatively 

determined that 5 meters is the 

maximum distance between a crossview mirror (mounted at the rear of a 

truck) and an outside rearview mirror 

(mounted next to the driver) that would 

provides a meaningful image. Under the 

proposal, trucks with a mirror 

separation of more than 5 meters would 

be required to use a camera system. 

Therefore, of the 299,300 trucks, we 

estimate a counter-measure distribution 

of about 25 percent with mirrors and 75 

percent with a camera system. The 

estimated consumer cost per vehicle, 

including installation, for an 8-inch 

diameter mirror and hardware is $51.64, 

for a 10-inch diameter mirror and 

hardware is $56.85, and for a camera 

system, monitor, and mounting 

hardware is $325.10. It is possible that 

there may be some maintenance and 

repair costs associated with rear object 

detection systems, although we do not 

have information as to the frequency or 

extent of such activities. We invite 

comments regarding maintenance and 

repair costs associated with the rear 

object detection systems discussed in 

this proposal. 

Based upon this information, the total 

consumer cost of this proposal is 

estimated to be $77 million annually (in 

2004 economics). The cost per 

equivalent life saved is estimated to be 

$2.3 million (at a 3-percent discount 

rate). 

VII. Public Participation 

How Can I Influence NHTSA’s Thinking 

on This Notice? 

In developing this notice, NHTSA 

tried to address the concerns of all 

stakeholders. Your comments will help 

us determine what standard should be 

set for rear object detection as part of 

FMVSS No. 111. We invite you to 

provide different views on the questions 

we ask, new approaches and 

technologies about which we did not 

ask, new data, how this notice may 

affect you, or other relevant information. 

We welcome your views on all aspects 

of this notice, but we especially request 

comments on the specific questions 

articulated throughout this document. 

Your comments will be most effective if 

you follow the suggestions below: 

• Explain your views and reasoning 

as clearly as possible. 

• Provide empirical evidence, 

wherever possible, to support your 

views. 

• If you estimate potential costs, 

explain how you arrived at the estimate. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

• Offer specific alternatives. 

• Reference specific sections of the 

notice in your comments, such as the 

53766 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

17 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

18 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 

19 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 

20 Id. 

21 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50. 

units or page numbers of the preamble, 

or the regulatory sections. 

• Be sure to include the name, date, 

and docket number of the proceeding as 

part of your comments. 

How Do I Prepare and Submit 

Comments? 

Your comments must be written in 

English. To ensure that your comments 

are correctly filed in the Docket, please 

include the docket number of this 

document in your comments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including any attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. 

Comments may also be submitted to 

the docket electronically by logging onto 

the Dockets Management System Web 

site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help & Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to 

obtain instructions for filing your 

document electronically. 

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments 

Were Received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. Each electronic filer will receive 

electronic confirmation that his or her 

submission has been received. 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business 

Information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter delineating that information, as 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (See 49 CFR part 

512). 

Will the Agency Consider Late 

Comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management receives a comment 

too late for us to consider it in 

developing a rule (assuming that one is 

issued), we will consider that comment 

as an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read Comments Submitted 

By Other People? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. 

You may also review filed public 

comments on the Internet. To read the 

comments on the Internet, take the 

following steps: 

(1) Go to the Docket Management 

System (DMS) Web page of the 

Department of Transportation (http:// 

dms.dot.gov/). 

(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’

(3) On the next page (http:// 

dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the 

beginning of this document. (Example: 

If the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–

2002–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’) 

After typing the docket number, click on 

‘‘search.’’

(4) On the next page, which contains 

docket summary information for the 

docket you selected, click on the desired 

comments. You may download the 

comments. However, since the 

comments are imaged documents, 

instead of word processing documents, 

the downloaded comments are not word 

searchable. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. 

Furthermore, some people may submit 

late comments. Accordingly, we 

recommend that you periodically check 

the Docket for new material. 

Data Quality Act Statement 

Pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in 

order for substantive data submitted by 

third parties to be relied upon and used 

by the agency, it must also meet the 

information quality standards set forth 

in the DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, members of the public 

should consult the guidelines in 

preparing information submissions to 

the agency. DOT’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/ 

submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf. 

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notice 

A. Vehicle Safety Act 

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor 

Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), 

the Secretary of Transportation is 

responsible for prescribing motor 

vehicle safety standards that are 

practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and are stated in 

objective terms.17 These motor vehicle 

safety standards set a minimum 

standard for motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment performance.18

When prescribing such standards, the 

Secretary must consider all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 

information.19 The Secretary also must 

consider whether a proposed standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the type of motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed and the extent to which the 

standard will further the statutory 

purpose of reducing traffic accidents 

and associated deaths.20 The 

responsibility for promulgation of 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

has been delegated to NHTSA.21

In proposing to require a rear object 

detection system for straight trucks, the 

agency carefully considered these 

statutory requirements. 

First, this proposal is preceded by 

both a Request for Comments and an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, which facilitated the 

efforts of the agency to obtain and 

consider relevant motor vehicle safety 

information, as well as public 

comments. Further, in preparing this 

document, the agency carefully 

evaluated previous agency research and 

vehicle testing relevant to this proposal. 

We also conducted a new death 

certificate study to ascertain the number 

of backing-related fatalities and injuries, 

and we updated our analyses to 

determine the relevant target population 

and potential costs and benefits of our 

proposal. In sum, this document reflects 

our consideration of all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 

information. 

Second, to ensure that the proposed 

rear object detection requirements are 

practicable, the agency considered the 

cost, availability, and suitability of 

various rear object detection systems for 

mounting on straight trucks, consistent 

with our safety objectives. We note that 

the visual systems contemplated under 

the proposal (i.e., cross-view mirrors 

and video cameras) are already installed 

on many vehicles proposed for coverage 

under these amendments. However, we 

have requested comments as to types of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53767 

vehicles for which such systems would 

be impracticable due to rugged work 

environments or the lack of an 

appropriate mounting location; if such 

practicability concerns cannot be 

resolved, the agency may find it 

appropriate to exclude such vehicles 

from the requirements of the final rule. 

Although the costs for some rear object 

detection systems (i.e., video cameras) 

may be relatively high, we believe that 

manufacturers would be able to pass 

these costs on to vehicle customers 

without experiencing appreciable 

changes in sales. In sum, we believe that 

this proposal to prevent deaths and 

injuries associated with backing straight 

trucks is practicable. 

Third, the proposed regulatory text 

following this preamble is stated in 

objective terms in order to specify 

precisely what performance is required 

and how performance will be tested to 

ensure compliance with the standard. 

Specifically, the proposal sets forth 

performance requirements for both 

cross-view mirrors and video systems. 

Mirrors and video cameras are familiar 

technologies, and we do not believe that 

the specifications for these devices 

themselves or their placement are likely 

to be misinterpreted. 

The proposal also includes test 

requirements for visual detection of a 3 

m by 3 m area behind the vehicle, as 

marked by a set of test cylinders. This 

test is modeled after a similar test for 

object detection in front of school buses, 

which has been part of the standard for 

a number of years. Thus, the agency 

believes that this test procedure is 

sufficiently objective and would not 

result in any uncertainty as to whether 

a given vehicle satisfies the proposed 

rear object detection requirements. 

Fourth, we believe that this proposal 

will meet the need for motor vehicle 

safety because the proposed rear object 

detection requirement would eliminate 

the blind spot directly behind most 

straight trucks and allow visual 

confirmation by the driver that the way 

is clear, thereby preventing backingrelated deaths and injuries. 

Finally, we believe that this proposal 

is reasonable and appropriate for motor 

vehicles subject to the proposed 

requirements. As discussed elsewhere 

in this notice, the agency is concerned 

with the amount of fatalities and serious 

injuries related from backing straight 

trucks. Our statistical data indicates that 

vehicles subject to the proposed 

requirements have a high rate of backing 

incidents resulting in death and injury. 

Available evidence also suggests that 

rear object detection systems are an 

effective countermeasure in these 

situations. Accordingly, we believe that 

this proposal is appropriate for covered 

vehicles that are or would become 

subject to these provisions of FMVSS 

No. 111 because it furthers the agency’s 

objective of preventing deaths and 

serious injuries associated with backing 

incidents. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and to 

the requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This rulemaking document was 

reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866. 

Further, this action has been determined 

to be ‘‘significant’’ under the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). As 

discussed in the Preliminary Regulatory 

Evaluation (PRE), this rulemaking 

amending FMVSS No. 111 to require 

installation of rear object detection 

systems on certain new vehicles is 

expected have a total consumer cost 

estimated at $77 million annually (in 

2004 economics). 

The agency has prepared a separate 

document (i.e., the PRE) addressing in 

detail the benefits and costs of the 

proposed rule, as well as alternatives 

considered. A copy of the PRE is being 

placed in the docket. 

As discussed in that document and in 

the preceding sections of this notice, 

requiring a rear object detection system 

on straight trucks has the potential to 

prevent a number of backing-related 

deaths and injuries, thereby furthering 

the agency’s safety mission. Straight 

trucks have an incidence rate for 

backing fatalities that is 8 to 17 times 

greater than for passenger vehicles. 

However, by requiring installation of 

either a cross-view mirror or rear video 

camera, we believe that it would be 

possible to eliminate the blind spot 

behind these vehicles, to permit vehicle 

operators to have visual confirmation 

that the area immediately behind the 

vehicle is clear, and to thereby reduce 

the number of backing-related injuries 

and fatalities. 

We estimate that this proposal would 

result in a net reduction of 23 fatalities 

and 43 injuries annually once all 

straight trucks are equipped with a rear 

object detection system, assuming a 33 

percent effectiveness rate for these crash 

avoidance devices. The present 

discounted value of anticipated 

property damage savings is estimated to 

be $32 million annually. In most cases, 

these benefits would result from the 

ability of the system to prevent the 

collision entirely. 

Our estimation of the cost of the 

proposed rule is based upon the 

following. We estimate that about 18 

percent of the 365,000 new straight 

trucks sold annually already come 

equipped with a rear object detection 

system that would meet the proposed 

requirements of the rule. That leaves the 

remaining 299,300 new straight trucks 

affected by this rulemaking. Because 

agency-sponsored research has shown 5 

meters to be the maximum distance 

between a cross-view mirror and an 

outside rearview mirror that could 

provide a meaningful image, under this 

proposal, trucks with a mirror 

separation of more than 5 meters would 

be required to use a camera system. 

Accordingly, NHTSA estimates a 

counter-measure distribution of about 

25 percent for mirrors and 75 percent 

for cameras. The estimated consumer 

cost per vehicle, including installation, 

for an 8-inch diameter mirror and 

hardware is $51.64, for a 10-inch 

diameter mirror and hardware is $56.85, 

and for a camera system, monitoring, 

and mounting hardware is $325.10. The 

cost per equivalent life saved is 

estimated to be $2.3 million. 

Although the costs for some rear 

object detection systems may be fairly 

substantial, we believe that single-unit 

truck manufacturers would be able to 

pass these costs on to vehicle customers 

without experiencing appreciable 

changes in sales. It is expected that the 

proposed requirements and associated 

costs would apply evenly across the 

industry and not adversely impact any 

one segment of that industry. 

As part of this rulemaking, the agency 

considered a number of regulatory 

alternatives. We considered a variety of 

53768 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

22N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:3–71.1 (West 2004). 

23N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(9)(e) 

(McKinney 2003). 

24Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 46.37.400 (West 2004). 

systems for rear object, but we decided 

that a visual system was needed in the 

interest of safety, in order to provide the 

driver with a view of the backing 

vehicle’s pathway and to maintain 

driver responsibility for safe operation 

of the vehicle while backing. We also 

considered the use of detection zones of 

different sizes and the possibility of 

excluding certain types of vehicles from 

the proposed requirements. Once again, 

a complete discussion of these issues 

related to benefits, costs, and 

alternatives may be found in the PRE. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory or flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this rulemaking action under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and has 

included a regulatory flexibility analysis 

in the PRE. This analysis discusses 

potential regulatory alternatives that the 

agency considered that would still meet 

the identified safety need of eliminating 

the blind spot behind straight trucks. 

Alternatives considered included the 

use of detection zones of different sizes 

and exclusion of certain types of 

vehicles from the proposed 

requirements. 

To summarize the conclusions of that 

analysis, the agency believes that the 

proposal would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses. There are a 

substantial number of single-unit truck 

manufacturers (about 750 in the U.S.), 

and the cost of video cameras is 

relatively high. We estimate that there 

are approximately 12 mirror 

manufacturers, of which 3 are small 

businesses. We do not expect 

manufacturers of video cameras to be 

classified as small businesses. 

As with any other Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard, single-unit 

truck manufacturers would be required 

to certify the vehicle’s compliance with 

all applicable FMVSSs. However, we 

anticipate that single-unit truck 

manufacturers would pass the cost of 

the rear object detection system on to 

consumers. Further, we believe that the 

increase in price would have a small 

impact, at most, on the sales of singleunit trucks, because such vehicles are 

usually a necessary expense for 

businesses conducting routine 

operations. We also expect that the 

proposed requirements and associated 

costs would apply evenly across the 

industry and not adversely impact any 

one segment of that industry. 

We expect that the proposed 

requirements could have a small 

positive economic impact on mirror 

manufacturers, due to increased sales 

volumes. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 

NHTSA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

NHTSA also may not issue a regulation 

with Federalism implications and that 

preempts a State law unless the agency 

consults with State and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

The proposed rule to amend this 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 

being issued pursuant to NHTSA’s 

statutory authority under section 30111 

of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301), and was analyzed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132. The agency determined that the 

rule would not have sufficient 

Federalism implications to warrant 

consultations with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

Federalism summary impact statement. 

This proposed rule would not have any 

substantial effects on the States, or on 

the current distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. The reason is that this 

proposed rule, if made final, would 

apply to motor vehicle manufacturers, 

and not to the States or local 

governments. Thus, the requirements of 

Section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this proposed rule. We would 

note that States may comment on this 

proposal and that one State (New York) 

did comment on the ANPRM. 

Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. 

provides, ‘‘When a motor vehicle safety 

standard is in effect under this chapter, 

a State or a political subdivision of a 

State may prescribe or continue in effect 

a standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance of a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment only if the 

standard is identical to the standard 

prescribed under this chapter.’’

If adopted, our proposed amendments 

would preempt all state statutes, 

regulations and common law 

requirements that differ with it. More 

specifically, the amended FMVSS No. 

111 would preempt State requirements 

for a rear object detection system on 

new motor vehicles that is not the same 

as the one that would be required under 

the standard. Thus, for example, it 

would preempt aspects of at least three 

State laws currently in force (i.e., 

provisions in New Jersey,22 New York,23

and Washington 24). 

Our proposal reflects careful 

balancing of a variety of considerations 

and objectives in this field. As a primary 

matter, we believe that the proposal 

should reflect the fact that drivers have 

the responsibility to ensure that the 

pathway is clear before backing the 

vehicle. To this end, the NPRM is 

proposing several technological options 

that would ensure that drivers can 

visually confirm that the pathway is 

clear, including cross-view mirrors, a 

rear video camera, or even the driver’s 

vision (if the configuration of the 

vehicle is such that the driver can see 

all relevant test points). We have 

concerns that non-visual systems, such 

as infrared and sonar systems, may not 

be sufficiently reliable or provide the 

same level of certainty as visual 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53769 

systems. We are also concerned that 

other systems, such as audible back-up 

alarms, could shift the burden to the 

person behind the backing vehicle to get 

out of the way; some pedestrians (e.g., 

children, the elderly) may be illequipped to take the necessary evasive 

action in those situations. Thus, we 

believe that requiring a visual rear 

object detection system, as proposed, 

would adequately address the identified 

backing problem with straight trucks. 

We also intend to specify a uniform 

set of requirements for rear object 

detection systems installed on straight 

trucks consistent with the Federal 

system established by Congress. 

Congress provided NHTSA with the 

responsibility to establish performance 

standards to ensure that motor 

vehicles—including straight trucks—are 

manufactured in such a way as to meet 

the need for motor vehicle safety. 

Congress gave FMCSA the responsibility 

to ensure that straight trucks are 

operationally safe in accordance with a 

uniform Federal, rather than a myriad of 

State, operational standards. As noted 

above, FMCSA has concluded that 

States should adopt requirements 

consistent with the FMVSS or should 

limit State requirements to vehicles that 

will operate solely in intrastate 

commerce. Although we do not propose 

to prohibit the voluntary installation of 

supplemental systems by 

manufacturers, we believe our proposal 

addresses the safety need and that 

supplemental State or local 

requirements would subvert the Federal 

safety program Congress has established 

between NHTSA and FMCSA. 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), the agency has 

considered whether this proposed rule 

would have any retroactive effect. We 

conclude that it would not have such an 

effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever 

a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

is in effect, a State may not adopt or 

maintain a safety standard applicable to 

the same aspect of performance which 

is not identical to the Federal standard, 

except to the extent that the State 

requirement imposes a higher level of 

performance and applies only to 

vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49 

U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for 

judicial review of final rules 

establishing, amending, or revoking 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file a 

suit in court. 

F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April 

23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) 

is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

the agency has reason to believe may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets 

both criteria, the agency must evaluate 

the environmental health or safety 

effects of the planned rule on children, 

and explain why the planned regulation 

is preferable to other potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the agency. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

‘‘economically significant,’’ as defined 

in Executive Order 12866. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a federal agency unless the collection 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

NHTSA has determined that, if made 

final, this proposed rule would not 

impose any ‘‘collection of information’’

burdens on the public, within the 

meaning of the PRA. This rulemaking 

would not impose any filing or 

recordkeeping requirements on any 

manufacturer or any other party. For 

this reason, we discuss neither 

electronic filing and recordkeeping nor 

do we discuss a fully electronic 

reporting option. 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency 

to evaluate and use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs us to provide Congress 

(through OMB) with explanations when 

the agency decides not to use available 

and applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. The NTTAA does not apply 

to symbols. 

NHTSA is not aware of any voluntary 

consensus standards related to the 

proposed rear object detection systems 

that are available at this time. However, 

NHTSA will consider any such 

standards as they become available. 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires the agency to identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the agency to adopt an 

alternative other than the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the agency publishes with 

the final rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This proposal will not result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, 

this proposal is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

J. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed 

rulemaking action for the purposes of 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The agency has determined that 

implementation of this action will not 

have any significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. 

K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

53770 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

L. Privacy Act 

Please note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–

78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR 

part 571 as follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 

of Title 49 would continue to read as 

follows: 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.111 would be amended 

by revising S4, S7, S7.1, S8, S8.1, and 

S13 Figure 3, and by adding new S7.2, 

S7.2.1, S7.2.2, S14, S14.1, S14.2, S14.3, 

S14.4, S14.5, S14.6, and Figure 5 to read 

as follows: 

§ 571.111 Standard No. 111; Rearview 

mirrors. 

* * * * * 

S4. Definitions 

Convex mirror means a mirror having 

a curved reflective surface whose shape 

is the same as that of the exterior surface 

of a section of a sphere. 

Effective mirror surface means the 

portions of a mirror that reflect images, 

excluding the mirror rim or mounting 

brackets. 

Straight truck means a single-unit 

truck composed of an undetachable cab 

and body. 

Unit magnification mirror means a 

plane or flat mirror with a reflective 

surface through which the angular 

height and width of the image of an 

object is equal to the angular height and 

width of the object when viewed 

directly at the same distance except for 

flaws that do not exceed normal 

manufacturing tolerances. For the 

purposes of this regulation, a prismatic 

day-night adjustment rearview mirror, 

one of whose positions provides unit 

magnification, is considered a unit 

magnification mirror. 

* * * * * 

S7. Requirements for multipurpose 

passenger vehicles and trucks with a 

GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and less 

than 11,793 kg and buses, other than 

school buses, with a GVWR of more 

than 4,536 kg. 

S7.1 Each multipurpose passenger 

vehicle and truck with a GVWR of more 

than 4,536 kg and less than 11,793 kg 

and each bus, other than a school bus, 

with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg 

must have outside mirrors of unit 

magnification, each with not less than 

323 cm2 of reflective surface, installed 

with stable supports on both sides of the 

vehicle. The mirrors must be located so 

as to provide the driver a view to the 

rear along both sides of the vehicle and 

shall be adjustable both in the 

horizontal and vertical directions to 

view the rearward scene. 

S7.2 When tested in accordance 

with the procedures of S14, each 

straight truck with a GVWR of more 

than 4,536 kg and less than 11,793 kg 

must have either a convex cross-view 

mirror that meets the requirements of 

S7.2.1 or a video monitoring system that 

meets the requirements of S7.2.2. 

However, this requirement does not 

apply if the straight truck equipped with 

the mirrors specified in S7.1 or the 

mirrors specified in S7.1 and S5.1 can 

comply with S7.2.1(a), when tested in 

accordance with S14. 

S7.2.1 Cross-view Mirror. A convex 

mirror must be located with stable 

supports on the upper rear corner of the 

vehicle on the driver’s side, such that: 

(a) The entire top surface of all the 

test cylinders (right circular in shape) 

must be visible; 

(b) Its geometric center must be no 

more than 5,000 mm from the geometric 

center of the outside rearview mirror on 

the driver’s side; 

(c) It must not have any 

discontinuities or flaws that exceed 

normal manufacturing tolerances in the 

slope of its surface; 

(d) It must provide for adjustment by 

tilting in both the horizontal and 

vertical directions; and 

(e) It must have an average radius of 

curvature of no less than 203 mm, as 

determined under S12. 

S7.2.2 Video Monitoring System. A 

video monitoring system must be 

located on the vehicle and have 

properties such that: 

(a) The entire top surface of all the 

test cylinders (right circular in shape) 

must be visible; 

(b) It must include a video monitor 

mounted in full view of the driver; 

(c) The monitor must be mounted as 

close to the centerline of the vehicle as 

practicable near the top of the 

windshield, but located such that the 

distance from the center point of the eye 

location of a 25th-percentile adult 

female seated in the driver’s seat to the 

center of the monitor is no more than 

1,000 mm; 

(d) The system must provide an image 

size of not less than 90 cm2 and not 

more than 160 cm2, and the image must 

be reversed to show the scene as if it 

were viewed through a rearview mirror; 

(e) The video camera and monitor 

each must be adjustable by tilting in 

both the horizontal and vertical 

directions; 

(f) The system must provide an image 

only when the vehicle’s transmission is 

in reverse; and 

(g) If the monitor is in the head 

impact area, as defined in 49 CFR 

§ 571.3, the mounting must deflect, 

collapse, or break away when subjected 

to a force of 400 ± 1 Newtons (N) in any 

forward direction that is not more than 

45° from the forward longitudinal 

direction. 

S8. Requirements for multipurpose 

passenger vehicles and trucks with a 

GVWR of 11,793 kg or more. 

S8.1 Each multipurpose passenger 

vehicle and truck with a GVWR of 

11,793 kg or more must have outside 

mirrors of unit magnification, each with 

not less than 323 cm2 reflective surface, 

installed with stable supports on both 

sides of the vehicle. The mirrors must 

be located so as to provide the driver a 

view to the rear along both sides of the 

vehicle and must be adjustable both in 

the horizontal and vertical directions to 

view the rearward scene. 

* * * * * 

S13. School bus mirror test 

procedures. * * * 

* * * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 53771 

* * * * * 

S14. Cross-view mirror and video 

system test procedures. When 

determining compliance with the 

requirements of S7.2, the vehicle is 

tested in accordance with the following 

conditions and procedures. 

S14.1 Utilize cylinders of a color 

which provides a high contrast with the 

surface on which the vehicle is parked. 

S14.2 The cylinders are 305 ± 1 mm 

high and 305 ± 1 mm in diameter. 

S14.3 Place the cylinders at 

locations as specified in S14.3(a) 

through S14.3(d) below and as 

illustrated in Figure 5. 

(a) Place cylinders G, H, and I so that 

they are tangent to a transverse vertical 

plane tangent to the rearward-most 

surface of the vehicle’s rear bumper. 

Place cylinders D, E, and F so that their 

centers are located in a transverse 

vertical plane that is 1,500 ± 10 mm 

rearward of a transverse vertical plane 

passing through the centers of cylinders 

G, H, and I. Place cylinders A, B, and 

C so that their centers are located in a 

transverse vertical plane that is 3,000 ± 

10 mm rearward of the transverse 

vertical plane passing through the 

centers of cylinders G, H, and I. 

(b) Place cylinders B, E, and H so that 

their centers are within 10 mm of the 

longitudinal vertical plane that passes 

through the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline. 

(c) Place cylinders A, D, and G so that 

their centers are in a longitudinal 

vertical plane that is 1,500 ± 10 mm, 

toward the passenger side, from the 

longitudinal vertical plane passing 

through the center of cylinders B, E, and 

H. 

(d) Place cylinders C, F, and I so that 

their centers are in a longitudinal 

vertical plane that is 1,500 ± 10 mm, 

toward the driver side, from the 

longitudinal vertical plane passing 

through the centers of cylinders B, E, 

and H. 

S14.4 The driver’s eye location is 

the eye location of a 25th-percentile 

adult female, when seated in the 

driver’s seat as follows: 

(a) The center point of the driver’s eye 

location is the point located 685 ± 5 mm 

vertically above the intersection of the 

seat cushion and the seat back at the 

longitudinal centerline of the seat. 

(b) Adjust the driver’s seat to the 

midway point between the forwardmost and rearward-most positions. If 

there is not an adjustment position at 

the midway point, use the closest 

adjustment position to the rear of the 

midpoint. If the seat is separately 

adjustable in the vertical direction, 

adjust it to the lowest position. If the 

seat back is adjustable, adjust the seat 

back angle to the manufacturer’s 

nominal design riding position in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

S14.5 Adjustment of Viewing 

Devices. 

(a) If a cross-view mirror is used, 

adjust the driver’s side exterior mirror 

and the cross-view mirror in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations before the test. If 

there are no manufacturer’s 

recommendations, adjust the mirrors to 

meet the field-of-view requirements 

herein. The mirrors must not be moved 

or readjusted thereafter. 

(b) If a video system is used, adjust 

the monitor and video camera in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. If there are no 

manufacturer’s recommendations, 

adjust the monitor and video camera to 

meet the field-of-view requirements 

herein. The monitor and video camera 

must not be moved or readjusted 

thereafter. 

(c) If an inside rearview mirror is 

used, adjust the mirror to achieve the 

field of view specified in S5.1.1. 

S14.6 Determination of Compliance. 

(a) If mirrors are used for compliance 

purposes, place a 35 mm or larger 

format camera, or video camera, so that 

the center of its image plane is located 

at the center point of the driver’s eye 

location or at any single point within a 

semicircular area established by a 152 ± 

1 mm radius parallel to and forward of 

the center point (determined in 

accordance with Figure 3 of S13). With 

the camera or video camera at any 

location on or within the semicircle, 

look through the camera or video 

camera at the driver’s side mirror (or the 

inside rearview mirror if so equipped) 

and determine if the entire top surface 

of each cylinder is directly visible, and 

photograph the results. If a video 

camera is used, the monitor’s output 

may be recorded for the test results. 

(b) If a video system is used for 

compliance purposes, place a 35 mm or 

larger format camera, or video camera, 

so that the center of its image plane is 

located at the center point of the driver’s 

eye location or at any single point 

within a semicircular area established 

by a 152 ± 1 mm radius parallel to and 


EP12SE05.003</GPH>
53772 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 175 / Monday, September 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

forward of the center point (determined 

in accordance with Figure 3 of S13). 

With the camera or video camera at any 

location on or within the semicircle, 

look through the camera or video 

camera at the video system monitor and 

determine if the entire top surface of 

each cylinder is directly visible, and 

photograph the results. If a video 

camera is used, the monitor’s output 

may be recorded for the test results. 

Issued: September 2, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–17987 Filed 9–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


EP12SE05.004</GPH>