[Federal Register: July 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 140)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42309-42312]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy08-19]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-25017]
RIN 2127-AG41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition for rulemaking, in 2005 the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors'' 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 system capable of providing drivers with a view of
objects directly behind the vehicle. More refined data generated since
the 2005 NPRM shows that the sub-population of mid-sized trucks
accounts for only four of the estimated 183 fatalities per year due to
back-over accidents. In addition, the recently signed Cameron
Gulbranson Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 \1\ (K.T. Safety Act
of 2007) requires NHTSA to revise the Federal standard for rearward
visibility, specifically to reduce backing crashes involving children
and disabled people. Considering these developments, the agency
believes it more appropriate to address backing safety of straight
trucks as part of the comprehensive effort to address backing safety
generally, and that solutions should be formulated after the completion
and review of ongoing research and data gathering on backing safety. We
are therefore withdrawing this rulemaking at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-120),
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-366-5930).
For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Ari Scott, (NCC-112), Office
of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (FAX: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM
IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM
V. Agency Decision to Withdraw the Rulemaking
I. Background
In March 1995, Mr. Dee Norton, an individual, submitted a petition
for rulemaking seeking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors,'' to require convex, cross-view
mirrors on the rear of the cargo box of stepvans and walk-in style
delivery and service trucks. The requested rule 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.
The agency granted Mr. Norton's petition. However, because Mr.
Norton's solution was only one of many at that time, and the agency had
no performance specification for cross-view mirrors, NHTSA published a
request for comments in the Federal Register on June 17, 1996. The
agency sought specific information on cross-view
[[Page 42310]]
mirrors such as costs and performance specifications, and any other
alternatives with costs similar to the mirrors described by Mr. Norton
(61 FR 30586).\2\ The agency received six comments in response to that
notice. In general, commenters urged the agency to consider both visual
systems such as cameras and mirrors and non-visual systems such as
sonar or radar, to address the safety issue. Additionally, truck
manufacturers suggested that mirrors would not address the safety
problem and that there were several types of straight trucks for which
cameras would not be an effective solution. In addition to the analysis
of comments, NHTSA performed additional studies related to this
rulemaking. A program was initiated to determine the size of the safety
problem, that is, determine the number of people being backed over by a
motor vehicle of any size. Using a combination of our own Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Center for Health
Statistics data, the agency was able to estimate the number of non-
traffic crashes, including backover accidents. Next, the agency
performed research on state-of-the-art and prototype rear cross-view
mirror designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 located at http: //
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2000, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) (65 FR 70681).\3\ In addition to a request for
general comments, the ANPRM posed twenty specific questions regarding
rear cross-view mirrors, rear video systems, and rear object detection
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Although the commenters were
generally supportive of efforts to improve backing safety, many
expressed concerns about a regulatory requirement in this area. 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.
Using the information obtained from these two previous notices, the
agency then published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
September 12, 2005 (70 FR 53753).\4\ To address the identified problem
of backing-related deaths and injuries associated with straight trucks,
NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 111, to require medium 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
meters by 3 meters area immediately behind the vehicle. The NPRM set
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 also requested comments on
categories of vehicles that the agency should consider excluding from
the requirements of a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19239-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
The agency received 55 comments pursuant to our September 12, 2005,
NPRM. Comments were received from a variety of interested parties,
including consumers, a consumer advocacy group, fleet operators,
equipment manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, trade associations, the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and two
members of Congress, Representative Marsha Blackburn and Representative
Nathan Deal. These comments are available in Docket No. NHTSA-2004-
19239, and are generally summarized as follows.
Comments from consumers were generally in favor of rear object
detection systems, with several commenters urging the agency to expand
the scope of the rulemaking to include all vehicles (including
passenger vehicles). The consumer advocacy group recommended expansion
of the proposal's applicability to passenger vehicles and larger
trucks, recommended that the rule require a combination of cameras and
non-visual systems, and recommended requiring retrofitting the systems
onto existing vehicles. Conversely, one consumer suggested that we not
regulate in this area and leave the decision to install a rear object
detection system up to the purchaser of the vehicle.
Fleet operators expressed divergent opinions regarding the agency's
proposal. Some delivery companies were generally supportive of the
proposal and enthusiastic about rear object detection systems. However,
fleets involved in construction suggested that we exclude construction
service trucks from the proposed requirements because of the potential
for ongoing maintenance problems associated with repairing systems
subject to continuous damage in rugged environments such as
construction sites. Fleets in the category of leasing companies (e.g.,
self-move companies) were also opposed to mandatory regulation, again
due to the potential maintenance burden and questionable system
effectiveness, caused in part by the equipment being used by non-
professional drivers who might substitute reliance on such systems for
the recommended ``spotter'' system,\5\ which they say has proven highly
effective in practice for such users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A spotter is a person who stands outside a vehicle to aid
the driver in backing and alert the driver of an object or person
behind the vehicle, to ensure nothing or no one is in the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment manufacturers were supportive of the intent of the
proposal, and manufacturers of mirrors and camera systems had minor
technical suggestions.
However, non-visual system equipment (e.g., sonar or radar-based)
manufacturers and Representatives Blackburn and Deal urged us to alter
the rulemaking proposal to adopt broader criteria which would allow
non-visual systems to be used to comply with the standard's
requirement.
Vehicle manufacturers asked for changes to the proposal or
exclusions for certain vehicles specific to their market. Several
manufacturers of traditional straight delivery trucks had specific
technical suggestions. Manufacturers of specialty trucks suggested
their vehicles should be excluded from the proposed requirements
because of the lack of any apparent safety need, difficulty in
installing systems based on certain vehicle configurations, and
durability problems associated with systems subject to excessive
environmental abuse. The cited specialty vehicles included ambulances,
buses, concrete trucks, refuse trucks, fire trucks, small volume
equipment trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with a GVWR of over
10,000 pounds.
Various associations also offered positions. The National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
requested that NHTSA not include a rear object detection requirement
for school buses. The Truck Manufacturers Association questioned the
appropriateness of a mandatory regulation, although it suggested that
an
[[Page 42311]]
equipment standard might be useful if this equipment is voluntarily
installed. The National Truck Equipment Association, which represents
multistage manufacturers, argued that the proposed requirements may not
be practical for certain types of vehicles, and that there could be
problems with continual maintenance for construction-type vehicles. The
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers suggested the rulemaking was
premature and should await completion of an assessment of rear object
detection systems required under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU).\6\ The Truck Renting and Leasing Association urged us to adopt
less restrictive requirements and to delay the rule until a more
accurate cost-benefit analysis could be conducted. The Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association urged the agency not to extend the proposed
requirements to combination truck trailers, arguing that such systems
would be impractical and of little benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIOSH provided insight into the scope of the backing problem in
occupational settings and studies into potential solutions.
Specifically, NIOSH provided data concerning backing accidents at
highway construction sites and field experience studies concerning
durability problems with rear video systems. Furthermore, NIOSH noted
that a system whereby workers wear a device that can alert both the
wearer and the driver of a vehicle when the wearer is in a danger zone
offers some promise in addressing backing accidents involving heavy
trucks.
III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM
As noted above, in 2005, Congress passed related mandates for the
agency as part of its SAFETEA-LU legislation, specifically, requiring
two actions by NHTSA related to backing incidents. In Section 10304,
Congress mandated NHTSA to ``conduct a study of effective methods for
reducing the incidence of injury and death outside of parked passenger
motor vehicles with a gross weight rating of not more than 10,000
pounds attributable to movement of such vehicles.'' That provision of
the Act further stipulated that the study shall, ``(1) Include an
analysis of backover prevention technology; (2) identify, evaluate, and
compare the available technologies for detecting people or objects
behind a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of not more
than 10,000 pounds for their accuracy, effectiveness, cost, and
feasibility for installation; and (3) provide an estimate of cost
saving that would result from widespread use of backover prevention
devices and technologies in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of not more than 10,000 pounds, including savings attributable
to the prevention of (A) injuries and fatalities; and (B) damage to
bumpers and other motor vehicle parts and damage to other objects.''
Under section 10305 of the Act, Congress directed the agency as
follows: ``(a) In General.--In conjunction with the study required in
section 10304, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall
establish a method to collect and maintain data on the number and types
of injuries and deaths involving motor vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds in non-traffic incidents''
and ``(b) data collection and publication.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall publish the data collected under subsection (a) no
less frequently than biennially.''
In response to section 10304 of SAFETEA-LU, a report of the
agency's study of technologies with possible application to reducing
deaths and injuries from backing passenger vehicles was submitted to
Congress in November 2006. That report is titled, ``Vehicle Backover
Avoidance Technology Study,'' and is available in the Department of
Transportation docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
25579-0003.
In this Report to Congress, NHTSA reported on several systems
currently available as original equipment on vehicles or as aftermarket
products to evaluate their performance and potential effectiveness in
mitigating backover crashes. The backover prevention technologies that
are currently offered by vehicle manufacturers are marketed as
``parking aids,'' which are designed to assist attentive drivers in
performing low speed parking maneuvers. Some aftermarket systems using
similar technologies are being marketed as safety devices. NHTSA
testing that predated SAFETEA-LU showed that the performance of sensor-
based (ultrasonic and radar) parking aids in detecting child
pedestrians behind the vehicle was typically poor, sporadic and limited
in range. Based on calculation of the distance required to stop from a
typical backing speed, detection ranges exhibited by the systems tested
were not sufficient to prevent collisions with pedestrians or other
objects. Of the technologies tested for their potential to reduce
backover incidents, the camera-based system may have the greatest
potential to provide drivers with reliable assistance in identifying
people in the path of the vehicle when backing. However, the agency is
concerned that the human factors issues surrounding camera systems are
not well understood, issues such as: Will drivers use cameras if they
are installed? Will they be relied on too much, to the exclusion of
actually looking to the rear of a vehicle and checking rear view
mirrors? Will new patterns of driver behavior that emerge if cameras
are in place enhance the safe operation of vehicles?
In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA conducted research
specifically aimed at evaluating the performance of various mirror,
sensor and video systems for medium trucks. All the systems were
purchased in the aftermarket. The systems evaluated include three
sensor systems, one sensor/rear video combination system, one rear
video system, and one rear cross-view mirror system. The results
indicated that sensor-based systems were poor, sporadic, and limited in
range with regards to their ability to consistently detect child
pedestrians and objects. Additionally, the mirror system image was
insufficient to allow drivers to see a small object behind a vehicle
and would not be a very effective means of allowing drivers to see
behind vehicles. Video systems provided excellent images but only under
well-lit, good-weather conditions. The agency has conducted similar
research involving light vehicles with similar results.
At this time, the agency does not know whether drivers would use
the information from the video displays of rear object detection
systems and if they did whether they would do so in enough time to
prevent back-over incidents. Agency research involving driver use of
rearward visual images in passenger vehicles is underway. This research
will examine drivers' use of rearview video systems during backing
maneuvers to assess their potential to reduce the incidence of
collisions with rear obstacles and pedestrians. While performance
testing of sensor-based backing systems and field of view measurement
for rearview video systems give data to quantify their likelihood to
``perceive'' an obstacle behind a vehicle, only examining drivers' use
of the systems can provide a sense of the potential effectiveness of
the systems in preventing crashes. The main purpose of the study is to
determine (1) whether drivers of vehicles equipped with camera systems
look at the display prior to and/or during backing and (2) whether use
of the system affects backing performance
[[Page 42312]]
(i.e., obstacle avoidance success). We expect to complete the testing
portion of this research in 2008 and believe that the findings of this
study will apply to the performance of typical drivers of all straight
trucks.
During the preparation of the Report to Congress, the agency also
developed more refined non-traffic crash data than was reported in the
2005 NPRM.\7\ The agency estimated in the Report to Congress, that
there is an average of 183 fatalities annually for all backover
crashes, which is below what was estimated in the NPRM. Our more recent
data analysis focusing on trucks of the sort that were addressed in the
original petition, is indicating that this a sub-population of straight
trucks (those less than 20 feet in length), accounts for 2 of the
estimated 183 fatalities per year due to back-over accidents.
Similarly, when all straight trucks from 10,000 to 26,000 pounds GVWR
(including those less-than-20-feet) are included, the number of
fatalities from backovers accounts for only 4 fatalities per year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 111, Rear Detection
System for Single Unit Trucks'' in Docket No. 25017.
\8\ ``Estimation of Backover Fatalities'' at http://
www.regulation.gov, Docket NHTA-25579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to sections 2012 and 10305 of SAFETEA-LU, the agency's
National Center for Statistics and Analysis is currently exploring
expanded approaches to gathering both injury and fatality data on non-
traffic incidents, which include non-traffic backing crashes that occur
on private property, in driveways, and in parking facilities. The
primary issues facing NHTSA in the collection of data on non-traffic
crashes are the collection of fatality and injury counts and the
detailed data at the event level needed to fully understand the
circumstances surrounding the crash. The agency conducted a review of
existing systems within NHTSA, surveillance systems in other Federal
agencies, and non-Federal sources to determine the feasibility for
collecting non-traffic fatality and injury counts and detailed crash
data. The review suggested possible expansion of NHTSA's existing crash
databases and the use of other Federal agencies, especially the
National Center for Health Statistics and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, which operate surveillance systems that may provide some
useful information in arriving at a better estimate of the backover
safety problem. However, the review of the non-Federal sources
including hospital systems, emergency medical services systems,
insurance company data, and news media databases found that they were
generally incomplete or lacked the detail needed by NHTSA to understand
the circumstances surrounding backing incidents.
Based upon this review, efforts to collect both the fatality and
injury data and detailed collision data are underway. The agency is
currently using the existing Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
infrastructure to collect information about non-traffic crash
fatalities and the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
infrastructure for non-traffic injuries. Similarly, the agency's
Special Crash Investigation team is conducting detailed investigations
of backovers involving light passenger vehicles.
IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM
On February 28, 2008, the President signed the K.T. Safety Act of
2007. Section 2(b) of this law requires that within 12 months of the
President's signing the bill, NHTSA must initiate rulemaking to expand
the required driver's field of view behind vehicles to reduce deaths
and injuries from backing crashes, especially crashes involving small
children and disabled people. NHTSA must issue a final rule no later
than three years after the President signs the bill. Section 2(c)(1) of
this law requires that the expanded rear visibility requirements be
phased-in. Section 2(c)(2) requires NHTSA to consider whether the
phase-in should give priority to particular types of motor vehicles if
NHTSA finds that there are any differences in the frequency with which
individual types are involved in backing crashes.
The new law does not specifically influence the straight trucks at
issue in this rulemaking. The K.T. Safety Act of 2007 is applicable
only to motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (see
section 2(e)). However, as explained above, the agency believes that
additional data on backovers collected by the agency, with regard to
all vehicles, will allow us to address this problem in a more
comprehensive manner.
V. Agency Decision To Withdraw the Rulemaking
The agency is charged by the new law to take a comprehensive look
at backing safety for all types of motor vehicles. As described above,
the agency has a great deal of research and data gathering currently
underway that will allow us to develop appropriate and effective
improvements to backing safety. The agency needs to better understand
the effectiveness of the video-based systems. We believe the results of
NHTSA's current study that will be completed in 2008 will substantially
improve our understanding of how video systems are used by drivers and
therefore their potential to reduce the backover risk. Given this, the
agency believes that efforts to address medium truck backing safety by
itself should held in abeyance pending the research and data gathering,
and that this problem should be addressed as a part of the agency's
comprehensive approach to backing safety.
Accordingly, we have decided to withdraw this rulemaking and
incorporate medium trucks into consideration of a possible broad based
approach, including passenger vehicles, to addressing the backing
safety problem.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued: July 15, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-16530 Filed 7-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P