[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53753-53772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17987]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    <bullet> Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    <bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 53754]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 off-road) 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 cm\2\ and 160 cm\2\. 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 non-visual 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

[[Page 53755]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 cross-view 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Comments 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

[[Page 53756]]

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 military-green 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 black-and-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-visual 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-[agrave]-vis the object. 
Ford stated that typical latency times for radar and ultrasonic systems

[[Page 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 non-visual 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 well-defined 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 cross-
view 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 cross-view 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,

[[Page 53758]]

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 on-road 
fatalities and an estimated 66 off-road 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 on-road fatalities only represent a part of the problem in 
terms of backing-related incidents. Moreover, we believe that off-road 
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/off-road 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 non-motorist 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 non-motorists 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 backing-related injuries and fatalities 
that may

[[Page 53759]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of
                     Vehicle type                          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 on-road 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 x 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

[[Page 53760]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Since 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.

  Table 2.--Rate of On-Road Fatal Backing Crashes (Cumulative FARS Data
                             From 1991-1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Pedestrians and    Pedestrians and
                                      pedalcyclists      pedalcyclists
                                       killed by a        killed by a
           Vehicle type              backing vehicle    backing vehicle
                                       per million      per 100 billion
                                        registered       vehicle miles
                                         vehicles           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,

[[Page 53761]]

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 on-
road 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Read Cross-view Mirror Performance: Perception and Optical 
Measurements,'' WESTAT (November 1998) (Docket No. NHSTA-2000-7967-
18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposal also sets out other proposed requirements which the 
cross-view 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 25th-percentile 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

[[Page 53762]]

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 cross-view 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[deg] 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 cm\2\ and 160 cm\2\. 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 pick-up 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

[[Page 53763]]

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 non-visual 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ R E Sapien, J. Widman Roux, and L. Fullerton-Gleason, 
``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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53764]]

    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 non-visual 
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 ere 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The terms ``commercial motor vehicle'' and ``interstate 
commerce'' are defined under FMCSA regulations at 49 CFR 390.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 53765]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 49 CFR Part 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 49 CFR Part 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 cross-view 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As 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 cross-view 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 cross-view 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:
    <bullet> Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
    <bullet> Provide empirical evidence, wherever possible, to support 
your views.
    <bullet> If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived 
at the estimate.
    <bullet> Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    <bullet> Offer specific alternatives.
    <bullet> Reference specific sections of the notice in your 
comments, such as the

[[Page 53766]]

units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.
    <bullet> 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 
four-digit 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 backing-related 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

[[Page 53768]]

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 single-
unit 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\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec.  39:3-71.1 (West 2004).
    \23\ N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law Sec.  375(9)(e) (McKinney 
2003).
    \24\ Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec.  46.37.400 (West 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 ill-equipped 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.

[[Page 53770]]

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:


Sec.  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 cm\2\ 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 
cm<SUP>2</SUP> and not more than 160 cm<SUP>2</SUP>, 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 
Sec.  571.3, the mounting must deflect, collapse, or break away when 
subjected to a force of 400 <plus-minus> 1 Newtons (N) in any forward 
direction that is not more than 45[deg] 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 cm\2\ 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. * * *
* * * * *

[[Page 53771]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE05.003

* * * * *
    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 <plus-minus> 1 mm high and 305 <plus-
minus> 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 <plus-
minus> 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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 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 
forward-most 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 <plus-
minus> 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 
<plus-minus> 1 mm radius parallel to and

[[Page 53772]]

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. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE05.004


    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