Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility

Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility

James Clayton Owens
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
10 October 2019

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54533-54542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0021]
RIN 2127-AM02

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks public comment on permitting camera-based rear
visibility systems, commonly referred to as ``Camera Monitor Systems''
or ``CMS,'' as an alternative to inside and outside rearview mirrors.
Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rear
Visibility,'' currently requires that vehicles be equipped with
rearview mirrors to provide drivers with a view of objects that are to
their side or to their side and rear. This notice responds to two
rulemaking petitions from manufacturers seeking permission to install
CMS, instead of outside rearview mirrors, on both light vehicles and
heavy trucks. This ANPRM builds on the agency's prior efforts to obtain
supporting technical information, data, and analysis on CMS so that the
agency can determine whether these systems can provide the same level
of safety as the rearview mirrors currently required under FMVSS No.
111.

DATES: Written information should be submitted by December 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

[[Page 54534]]

instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQs''.
Mail: Docket Management Facility. M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit comments, must include the docket
number identified in the heading of this notice.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Instructions: 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 www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate
comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their
name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names
is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully considered.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Andrei Denes, Office of
Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-9544; FAX: 202-366-7003) or
Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel (Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX:
202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
a. FMVSS No. 111
b. Camera Monitor Systems
c. International Regulatory Efforts
d. Consideration of CMS in the United States
III. Summary of Research
IV. Subjects on Which NHTSA Seeks Public Comment
V. Public Participation
VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
Appendix: Aspects of Light Vehicle CMS Performance Regulated Under
UNECE R46

I. Executive Summary

Part of NHTSA's responsibility in carrying out its safety mission
is not only to develop and set new safety standards for new motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, but also to modify existing
standards as appropriate to respond to changing circumstances such as
the introduction of new technologies. Examples of previous
technological transitions that triggered the need to adapt and/or
replace requirements in the FMVSS include the replacing of analog
dashboards by digital ones, the replacing of mechanical control systems
by electronic ones, and the first production of electric vehicles in
appreciable numbers.
NHTSA is publishing this ANPRM to gather information and receive
feedback to enable the agency to decide whether (and if so, how) to
propose amending FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear visibility,'' to permit camera-
based rear visibility systems (commonly referred to as ``Camera Monitor
Systems'' or ``CMS'' \1\) as an alternative compliance option in lieu
of outside rearview mirrors or in lieu of all rearview mirrors, both
inside and outside ones. Specifically, NHTSA hopes this ANPRM, through
the public comment process, will provide the agency with additional
safety-related research and data to support a potential future
rulemaking on this subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In the balance of this notice, NHTSA uses the term ``Camera
Monitor System'' or ``CMS,'' instead of the terms ``camera-based
rear visibility systems'' and ``camera-based visibility system''.
The petitioners urge that rulemaking to permit CMS be based on ISO
16505, and UNECE R46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, FMVSS No. 111 requires that all passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses,
motorcycles be equipped with one or more rearview mirrors for rear
visibility. However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest
among industry stakeholders in using CMS to supplement or replace
rearview mirrors on both light and heavy vehicles. These systems use
rear-facing cameras mounted outside of the vehicle to capture and
transmit images to electronic visual displays mounted inside the
vehicle, in view of the driver. Over the past few years, the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed and
published performance requirements and test procedures for these
systems. These requirements and procedures have been incorporated into
the most recent update to the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe's Regulation No. 46 (UNECE R46), which has been adopted in a
number of countries in Europe and Asia. We note that, to date, only two
vehicle models equipped with a CMS in place of rearview mirrors have
been offered for sale commercially and only one of those two is in
currently production anywhere in the world, although manufacturers have
announced plans to offer additional CMS-equipped models.
In the United States, industry stakeholders have petitioned NHTSA
to modify the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 to allow the installation
of CMS as a compliance option. To date, NHTSA has received two such
petitions: one pertaining to light vehicles from the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) and Tesla, Inc. and one from
Daimler Trucks North America relating to heavy vehicles.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ In addition, NHTSA has received exemption petitions from
some manufacturers requesting permission to install such systems in
lieu of FMVSS No. 111-compliant mirrors, and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has recently granted a similar
exemption petition for commercial trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This ANPRM seeks information that the agency believes would provide
fuller understanding of the merits of these rulemaking petitions. One
reason why NHTSA is seeking additional information is because research
conducted by NHTSA and others conducted between 2006 and 2017 has
consistently shown that prototype and preproduction CMS systems can
exhibit safety-relevant performance issues such as blooming.\3\
Moreover, the CMS-related research of which NHTSA is aware does not
focus on human factors issues, such as how well drivers may be able to
acclimate to the use of CMS and potentially different image locations.
(We note that NHTSA raised these concerns and requested additional
information in letters sent to the Alliance and Tesla in 2016, but has
not

[[Page 54535]]

yet received a response.\4\) NHTSA hopes that the comments received in
response to this ANPRM will provide the agency with information (along
with data) that addresses these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Blooming is a type of image distortion that occurs on a
video display when the scene being shown on the display includes an
intensely bright light source. On the display, the light from that
light source bleeds or spills into adjacent areas of the image. The
spillover effect is particularly noticeable in any dark areas of the
image immediately adjacent to the bright area. This could
potentially occur in a CMS-equipped vehicle when other vehicles'
headlights shine at night into the CMS camera.
\4\ These letters may be found in the docket identified in the
header of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

a. FMVSS No. 111

FMVSS No. 111, ``Rear visibility,'' sets out performance
requirements for new motor vehicles for the purpose of ``reduc[ing] the
number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor
vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the
rear.'' \5\ Among these is the requirement that all passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and
motorcycles, be equipped with inside and, at least on the driver's
side, outside rearview mirrors. The mirrors must be must be mounted
according to certain specifications, and must provide the driver with a
specified minimum field of view. The FMVSS No. 111 requirements
relating to rearview mirrors have been largely unchanged for several
decades.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 49 CFR 571.111.
\6\ We note that, although the agency recently amended FMVSS No.
111 in 2014 to require that most vehicles provide a backup camera
system, that requirement will not be discussed in this notice.
Although CMS and backup camera systems would likely operate in a
similar way, the systems serve different safety purposes and are
used in different circumstances, as backup cameras are only intended
to assist the driver while backing up. Accordingly, NHTSA believes
that the safety concerns with CMS are not comparable to those with
backup camera systems, but lessons from backup cameras can and will
inform any potential rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although FMVSS No. 111 sets the minimum requirements for mirrors,
an overwhelming majority of vehicle manufacturers voluntarily exceed
the minimum rearview mirror requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 111 to
satisfy customer demand and ensure an efficient, global-scale
manufacturing and marketing process.
Manufacturers voluntarily exceed the standard's rearview mirror
requirements in two major ways. First, most light vehicle manufacturers
voluntarily equip new passenger cars with a passenger-side outside
rearview mirror, in addition to the required inside rearview mirror,
even though such a passenger-side mirror is required for light vehicles
only if the inside rearview mirror does not meet field of view
requirements. A driver-side outside rearview mirror is required on all
vehicles. Second, most manufacturers equip vehicles with outside
rearview mirrors that are substantially larger than required under the
standard.

b. Camera Monitor Systems

In recent years, there has been growing interest among industry
stakeholders both in the United States and abroad in being allowed to
install CMS, in lieu of inside and/or outside rearview mirrors.\7\ A
vehicle equipped with a CMS uses exterior cameras mounted on the sides
and/or rear of the vehicle to capture an image of the rear and/or side
of the vehicle, which the system transmits to one or more electronic
visual displays are located in the occupant compartment within view of
the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ It should be noted that, while FMVSS No. 111 requires that
new vehicles be equipped with mirrors, it does not prohibit
manufacturers from supplementing those mirrors with CMS or other
features, and in fact, some manufacturers have been offering CMSs as
optional equipment. For example, since 2013, Honda has been offering
its LaneWatch\TM\ system which uses a camera in the passenger-side
outside rearview mirror to capture the area to the right of the
vehicle and displays this side rearview image in the vehicle's
center console display when the driver activates the right turn
signal or the LaneWatch\TM\ button is pressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A CMS's cameras are typically mounted on the exterior of the
vehicle near where traditional rearview mirrors would be installed, so
that they provide a similar field of view. Conversely, the visual
displays showing the rearview image to the driver may be mounted in a
variety of locations in the interior of the vehicle, because there is
no need for there to be a direct line of sight between the cameras and
the visual displays. Although most prototype CMSs that NHTSA has seen
have displays mounted on or near the vehicle's A-pillars, in the
vicinity of where a traditional outside rearview mirror would be
located, other configurations are possible.\8\ For example, CMS could
use a single electronic visual display located in the position of a
traditional inside rearview mirror or in the center of the dashboard to
display images from side-mounted cameras either separately or as a
combined (i.e., ``stitched'') image that integrates a center rearview
image.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See, e.g., photo of the ``interior of a Volkswagen XL-1
concept with a side-view camera has a screen on the passenger side
to check outside the vehicle.'' http://www.autonews.com/article/20140407/OEM06/304079935/teslas-push-to-replace-side-view-mirrors-sparks-safety-fears. Accessed January 30, 2018.
\9\ ``Gentex to Offer Unique Three-Camera Automotive Rear Vision
System'' January 5, 2017 https://ir.gentex.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gentex-offer-unique-three-camera-automotive-rear-vision-system Accessed March 4, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. International Regulatory Efforts

International standards and regulatory bodies have taken steps in
recent years to develop performance standards and test procedures for
CMS. Most notably, in 2015, the ISO published ISO 16505, ``Road
vehicles--Ergonomic and performance aspects of Camera Monitor Systems--
Requirements and test procedures,'' which includes detailed test
procedures for evaluating the performance of cameras and displays used
in CMSs. In addition, UNECE R46, the type-approval standard used by
most European countries for ``devices for indirect vision,'' \10\ was
amended in 2016 to incorporate much of ISO 16505 and now permits
CMSs.\11\ CMSs are now permitted as an alternative to mirrors in the
dozens of countries for which UNECE R46 is in force without
objection.\12\ We note that, to date, only two vehicle models equipped
with a CMS in place of rearview mirrors have been offered for sale
commercially, and only one of those two is in production anywhere in
the world. \13\ However, at least one manufacturer has announced plans
to offer further CMS equipped models.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ UNECE R46 sets out field of view requirements that are
comparable to those for inside and outside mirrors in FMVSS No. 111.
Prior to the 2016 revision, UNECE R46 required that vehicles meet
those field of view requirements using mirrors.
\11\ See Appendix for a brief description of the UNECE R46 CMS
requirements.
\12\ See ``Adoption of Amendments to Regulation No. 46'' (July
10, 2017), https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2017/CN.358.2017-Eng.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2019.
\13\ 2019 Lexus ES CMS version commercialized only in Japan, and
the 250-vehicle limited production 2014 VW XL-1 commercialized in
E.U. under the type approval process before the publication of the
latest version of UNECE R46, allowing CMS.
\14\ Audi E-tron CMS option is expected to be available for
purchase in E.U. in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Consideration of CMS in the United States

In the United States, industry stakeholders have requested that
NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS as an alternative to rearview
mirrors. In 2014, NHTSA received a petition from the Alliance and
Tesla, Inc. requesting that the agency modify the requirements of FMVSS
No. 111 to ``allow the use of camera-based rear and/or side vision
systems [i.e., CMS] as a compliance option for meeting the performance
requirements specified for rear and/or side view mirrors for each
location where conventional mirrors are currently required or permitted
(i.e., applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.111 S.5, S.6).'' \15\ In 2015,
NHTSA received a similar petition relating to heavy vehicles from
Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA).\16\ Both of these

[[Page 54536]]

petitions cited improved fuel economy (not safety) as the primary
benefit of allowing this change. Neither petition provided objective
data or analysis to aid the agency in determining the net effect on
safety of amending FMVSS No. 111 to permit a CMS compliance option for
rear visibility.17 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ This petitions and related documents can be found at Docket
No. NHTSA-2018-0021-0001.
\16\ Id.
\17\ DTNA's petition argued that CMS ``can provide an expanded
field of view'' and ``eliminate blind spots,'' and asserted that the
``technology can achieve the same or better level of safety as
outside rearview mirrors in providing the driver a view to the rear
along both sides of the vehicle.'' However, it did not provide
evidence to support these claims.
\18\ While recent interest among stakeholders has focused
primarily on replacing outside mirrors with CMS, at least one
manufacturer--Cadillac--has commercially produced a passenger car
equipped with a CMS which provides drivers with a view of objects to
the rear. We explained in a 2016 interpretation that Cadillac's CMS,
which is integrated into the vehicle's inside mirror, was
permissible because FMVSS No. 111 does not require that a passenger
car's inside mirror meet the inside mirror field-of-view
requirements (S5.1.1), if the vehicle is equipped with compliant
driver's and passenger's side outside mirrors. See letter to Brian
Latouf (Feb. 22, 2016), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/full-display-mirror-system-1-gm-feb-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although NHTSA has not yet formally responded to these
petitions,\19\ in September 2017, Velvac (a mirror manufacturer for the
truck, commercial and RV industries) sent a letter to NHTSA expressing
concerns over possible safety impacts should NHTSA decide to grant a
petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS as a compliance
option.\20\ Velvac argued that ISO 16505 should not be applied to U.S.
vehicles without making changes to the requirements to account for
U.S.-specific vehicle configurations and applications. Velvac also
suggested that a hybrid regulatory approach that would require the
installation of both a camera and a mirror would be preferable.
Velvac's reasoning was that FMVSS No. 111 already provides
manufacturers the flexibility to use a hybrid approach (CMS technology
in combination with an aerodynamic FMVSS No. 111-compliant mirror
system) to achieve the fuel economy, aerodynamic, and visibility
improvements while still addressing the human factors issues and
maintaining a fail-safe mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ On June 30, 2016, in response to the Alliance/Tesla
petition, NHTSA sent a letter to both petitioners requesting
additional information to enable the agency to evaluate the
petition. The safety-relevant questions posed in the letter focused
on human factors information gaps and performance concerns, and
requested input regarding performance requirements and test
procedure details that would be needed to ensure that camera-based
systems provide an equivalent level of safety to that of standard
rearview mirrors. NHTSA notes that, because the agency did not
receive a complete response to that letter from either petitioner,
many of the questions in this ANPRM are based on the questions in
that letter.
\20\ Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0007-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of permitting CMS as a compliance option for rear
visibility was again raised in comments submitted in response to the
DOT's October 2, 2017 Notice of Regulatory Review (82 FR 45750).\21\
Comments by the Alliance reiterated its support of its rulemaking
petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 to improve fuel economy, and further
asserted that CMS could expand the driver's field of view.\22\ Comments
by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association also supported
amending FMVSS No. 111 on the basis that installing CMS, in lieu of
mirrors, on large trucks would reduce aerodynamic drag and potentially
expand the driver's field of view.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ In that notice, the Department sought public comments on
existing rules and other agency actions that are good candidates for
repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification.
\22\ Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0069-2700.
\23\ Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0069-2786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Research

To evaluate the safety impacts of CMS, NHTSA has conducted its own
research and testing, examined the research and testing done by others,
and requested research data from industry stakeholders. This research
is summarized below. In addition, NHTSA's own research reports on this
subject can be found in the docket for this ANPRM.
From 2006 to 2011, NHTSA conducted a multi-year research project to
develop of performance specifications for a CMS that would supplement
(rather than replace) traditional mirrors on heavy
vehicles.24 25 26 The CMS studied in this research was
designed to supplement traditional mirrors by providing ``enhanced
views to the sides and rear of a heavy vehicle with an operating
envelope that includes daytime and nighttime, as well as clear and
inclement weather.'' \27\ NHTSA believed that such a supplemental CMS
would be beneficial to safety because it would improve the situational
awareness of the heavy vehicle driver, thereby reducing sideswipe
crashes when heavy vehicles merge or change lanes. To explore CMS
performance specifications, researchers conducted analyses of driver
needs and human factors, examinations of video technology, systems
analyses, focus groups and on-road tests. Researchers also conducted a
study that surveyed commercial drivers using supplemental CMS, in which
they observed neutral and potentially positive findings with respect to
safety-critical events and drivers' forward attention.\28\ They also
identified a number of potential safety concerns or challenges. For
example, drivers indicated that the glare produced from the system's
electronic visual displays was ``too bright and affected their ability
to see details in the forward roadway'' and that ``glare from the
visual displays could be uncomfortable at night.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ ``Development of a Performance Specification for Camera/
Video Imaging Systems on Heavy Vehicles--Final Report:
Specifications.'' July 2008, DOT HS 810 958. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\25\ ``Development of a Performance Specification for Camera/
Video Imaging Systems on Heavy Vehicles--Final Report: Supporting
Research.'' July 2008, DOT HS 810 960. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
\26\ ``Field Demonstration of Heavy Vehicle Camera/Video Imaging
Systems: Final Report.'' June 2011, DOT HS 811 475. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\27\ Id.
\28\ ``Field Demonstration of Heavy Vehicle Camera/Video Imaging
Systems: Final Report.'' June 2011, DOT HS 811 475. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\29\ Id. The report concluded that the issue of display glare
was ``resolvable,'' although subsequent research suggests the issue
still persists in more advanced CMS displays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2015, the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
published a report summarizing a study that directly compared outside
rearview mirrors with a CMS for side rearview image display in
passenger vehicle models and heavy trucks under various testing
conditions. \30\ The study concluded that a CMS that meets ``specific
quality criteria'' can provide ``sufficient'' rear visibility for
drivers.\31\ The study also found that the change from outside rearview
mirrors to a CMS requires a period of driver familiarization, but noted
that the familiarization period is ``relatively short,'' and that it
does not necessarily result in ``safety-critical situations.'' \32\ The
BASt study provided valuable insight into the operational capabilities
of CMS technology at the time, and looked into some human factor
issues, such as how long or frequently drivers glanced at the CMS when
performing various driving maneuvers as compared to mirrors. However,
the BASt study left a number of questions unanswered, including what
minimum quality criteria for a CMS would provide the same level of
safety as mirrors, and whether the time it takes for a driver to become
acclimated to the system will affect vehicle safety. The study also

[[Page 54537]]

notes, but does not explore, the safety impact of the inherent
differences between the image provide by a CMS and the image provided
by a mirror. Specifically, the BASt study notes that mirrors provide 3-
dimensional spatial information to drivers,\33\ and that mirrors allow
drivers to change the field of view through head movements, neither of
which is possible with a CMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ ``Camera-Monitor Systems as a Replacement for Exterior
Mirrors in Cars and Trucks'' (2015). Federal Highway Research
Institute (BASt).
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id. According to the study, a ``safety critical'' task is
one that requires four glances at the CMS, and that the glances have
a mean duration of more than 2 seconds.
\33\ Although the images that mirrors produce are 2-dimensional,
mirrors permit drivers to perceive depth through stereoscopy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2017, NHTSA conducted additional testing to further evaluate the
performance of prototype light vehicle CMS to determine whether there
were any potential safety concerns, with particular focus on the
quality of the image displayed by the CMS.\34\ NHTSA's study compared
the observed performance of a prototype CMS installed on a MY 2016 Audi
A4, with traditional mirrors installed on a 2017 Audi A4. Researchers
compared the performance of the prototype CMS with traditional rearview
mirrors in a variety of environments, including public roads, test
track courses, and a laboratory. The systems were tested in different
environments, including public roads, laboratories, and test track
facilities. Tests were performed in both day and night conditions, and
in conditions with various levels of precipitation.\35\ Although
researchers found that the CMS was generally usable in most
environments, and provided a better image than mirrors in certain
conditions (such as in dusk or dawn lighting conditions), researchers
identified a number of potential safety concerns, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ ``Examination of Prototype Camera-Based Visibility System
for Light Vehicle Outside Mirror Replacement'' (2018), DOT HS 812
582.
\35\ Since NHTSA had access to the leased system-equipped
vehicle for only a short period of time, a limited amount of testing
was performed. Tests performed were ones for which needed equipment
and test facilities were readily available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The image appeared to be horizontally compressed, such
that objects displayed on the CMS screen were narrower and thus more
difficult to detect.
The CMS display was mounted lower than traditional
mirrors, which may be temporarily disorienting for drivers. (It should
be noted, however, that despite initial disorientation, drivers were
able to acclimate to the CMS.)
The display appeared very bright in certain conditions,
even when set to ``nighttime'' mode, which may negatively impact the
driver's ability to see obstacles at night.
The system appeared to have blooming and lens flare that
exceeded the level permitted under the new ISO standard for CMS under
certain conditions.
In rainy conditions, droplets on the lens would obscure
the image displayed to the driver.
The full report describing this study along with related documents
may be viewed online in the docket for this ANPRM.
In addition to the government-sponsored research described above,
NHTSA is aware of two other studies that examined relevant issues
relating to rearview display locations. The first of these, is a
naturalistic study by Ali and Bazilah published in 2014, in which
researchers observed the on-road driving behavior of subjects using
vehicles equipped only with CMS and no rearview
mirrors.36 37 The study found that the use of the CMS in the
study improved drivers' attention to the forward roadway, but increased
off-road downward glances at the center rearview display and motion
sickness, leading the authors to recommend against a low location for a
rearview display. In 2016, Large et al. published a similar study based
on observations of subjects using a driving simulator of a vehicles
equipped with a CMS. Researchers analyzed drivers' eye glance behavior
and subjective feedback for five layouts of three in-vehicle displays
(one rear and two side view displays) versus traditional mirrors during
overtaking maneuvers performed without urgency.\38\ The study found
that subjects tended to prefer a CMS display layout that matched
traditional mirror locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Mohamed Ali, J.S. and Bazilah, F. (2014). ``Mirrorless Car:
A Feasibility Study.'' Applied Mechanics & Materials, 663: 649-654.
\37\ The sideview CMS screens (which replaced the outside
rearview mirrors) were positioned in the dashboard immediately to
the left and right sides of the instrument panel, while the center
rearview CMS screen (which replaced the inside rearview mirror) was
positioned in place of the instrument panel.
\38\ Large, D.R., Crundall, E., Burnett, G., Harvey, C. and
Konstantopoulos, P. (2016). ``Driving without Wings: The Effect of
Different Digital Mirror Locations on the Visual Behaviour,
Performance and Opinions of Drivers.'' Applied Ergonomics 55: 138-
148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, NHTSA has been made aware through media reports that some
portion of the driving population not be physiologically capable of
using CMS. In February of 2018, Steve Downing, the Chief Executive
Officer of Gentex, Inc. (a CMS manufacturer), stated that the company
had observed that ``roughly 5 to 10 percent of motorists suffer motion
sickness or have depth-of-vision problems'' when viewing the video
image.\39\ NHTSA researchers have personally experienced this
phenomenon when driving CMS-equipped test vehicles, but this
information is, at present, anecdotal. NHTSA is not aware of any
research having been done in this area, but the possibility that some
percentage of drivers cannot use a CMS is something that NHTSA believes
deserves further research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ ``Gentex's two-way mirror strategy Balancing core product
with advanced digital displays'' February 19, 2018. Automotive News.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20180219/OEM06/180219767/gentex-mirrors-technology. Accessed October 18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Subjects on Which NHTSA Seeks Public Comment

Although NHTSA believes that CMS is a promising technology, the
agency has some lingering safety concerns that it believes should be
addressed prior to deciding whether to propose amending FMVSS No. 111
to permit CMS as a compliance option for rear visiblity. Accordingly,
the agency has compiled a list of issues on which the agency requests
additional information to adequately evaluate the safety of permitting
CMS as an alternative compliance option to rearview mirrors. NHTSA
invites comments on all aspects of permitting camera-based technologies
to be installed as an alternative to mirrors to meet the FMVSS No. 111
rear visibility requirements. However, the agency requests that
commenters provide as much research, evidence, and/or objective data as
possible to support their comments to inform the agency in determining
the appropriate next steps.

Existing Industry Standards

(1) Please provide research data concerning the safety impacts of
replacing rearview mirrors with CMS. Please explain your view of the
significance of those data. In addition, please explain your views on
how CMS-equipped vehicles would impact light and heavy vehicle driver
behavior and situational awareness while driving.
(2) Are the physical properties of mirrors necessary to meet the
stated purpose of FMVSS No. 111 to provide a ``clear and reasonably
unobstructed view?'' As an example, because each eye of a driver
viewing objects reflected in a mirror has a slightly different angle of
view of those objects, just as the eyes of a driver viewing those
objects directly would have, mirrors provide depth perception similar
to that provided by direct vision. As another example, mirrors offer
drivers the possibility to modify their field of view rapidly by

[[Page 54538]]

looking at the mirror from different angles. To what extent could
possible CMS features which cannot be provided using mirrors (e.g.,
zoom, night vision) offset the loss of these mirror-specific
properties?
(3) We seek comment on the performance of current world-market
vehicles equipped with CMS when evaluated according to the ISO 16505/
UNECE R46 standards. In particular, we seek comment on the performance
requirements in these standards, and the on-road performance of CMS
that meet these standards. Please identify any performance requirements
for CMS that you believe are not stringent enough, are too stringent,
or are unnecessary, and explain the basis for your beliefs. Please
identify any requirements that you believe should be added and explain
the basis for your beliefs. Which CMS have performed relatively well,
and which have performed relatively poorly, on the road? What explains
the difference in performance?

System Field of View and Related Test Procedures

(4) We seek comment on whether and, if so, why minimum field of
view requirements for CMS should differ from the current minimum field
of view requirements for mirrors under FMVSS No. 111. Petitioners have
stated that providing drivers with expanded views, larger than those
required by FMVSS No. 111, would be advantageous. What data exist to
support this assertion? What, if any, potential advantages and
disadvantages, such as increased eye glance durations, may be observed
for wide-view images? Please provide research or data that addresses
how wider views will affect image quality.
(5) We seek comment on whether NHTSA should permit CMSs that use
multiple cameras to provide multiple fields of view to the driver in
the same image display area. In particular, we seek comment on the
safety benefits/disbenefits of permitting multiple fields of view. As
an example, CMS that operate using multiple fields of view might have
missing sections on the processed image, or image latency issues
stemming from increased processing time. What are the concerns, if any,
regarding a multi-camera visibility system and how can they be
mitigated?
(6) NHTSA considered whether there might be any opportunities to
combine either the cameras or the displays for the CMS with the camera
or display for backup camera system that is required by FMVSS No. 111.
The agency tentatively concludes that there would not be any such
opportunities. Although CMS and backup camera systems would likely
operate in a similar way, the systems serve different safety purposes
and are used in different circumstances. Specifically, the purpose of a
CMS would be to assist the driver in avoiding all crashes during normal
driving, while the purpose of a backup camera is to assist the driver
in avoiding backover crashes while in reverse. Perhaps more important,
given the likely differences between the field of view and display
image quality parameters that would apply to CMS versus backup camera
systems, NHTSA believes it is unlikely that it would be technically
possible to combine the two systems in such a way that they share
either a camera or display monitor.\40\ NHTSA requests comments on this
tentative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ NHTSA believes that sharing a camera would not be possible
because the CMS camera would need to be aimed much higher than the
backup camera, and that sharing a single display area would not be
possible because both the CMS and backup camera images would need to
be displayed simultaneously to provide the driver with all required
fields of view when the vehicle is in reverse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Image Quality and Related Test Procedures

(7) We seek comment on the minimum quality of the image presented
on a CMS electronic visual display to provide the same level of safety
as traditional FMVSS No. 111-compliant mirrors, as well as how image
quality could be objectively measured. In particular, we seek comment
on what would be the appropriate minimum camera and visual display
parameters and performance metrics for a CMS (i.e., camera/display
resolution, screen brightness, contrast, color, tone, and their
adjustments). Should the parameters and metrics for a CMS differ from
those for a backup camera system and, if so, how and to what extent? To
what extent do existing CMS regulations (e.g., ISO 16505/UNECE R46)
provide objective and repeatable performance requirements and test
procedures to evaluate image quality? To the extent that those
regulations do not provide such requirements and procedures, what
changes or additions would need to be made? What new procedures, if
any, would be needed to evaluate image quality appropriately and what
has been done to develop such procedures?
(8) We seek comment on what disruptive display aberrations
(blooming, etc.) should be addressed if the agency were to develop a
CMS performance standard. To what extent do existing CMS regulations
(e.g., ISO 16505/UNECE R46) provide objective, and repeatable
performance test procedures to evaluate display aberrations? What new
procedures, if any, would be needed to evaluate display aberrations
appropriately and what has been done to develop such procedures?

Rearview Image Display Type Related Human Factors

(9) We seek comment on what research has been done to identify and
address human factors issues like eye strain or visual fatigue from
long periods of intermittent electronic visual display viewing. While
we are particularly interested in research comparing driver eye strain
and/or visual fatigue for users of a CMS versus users of traditional
rearview mirrors, other analogous research could be useful.
(10) We seek comment on research concerning differences in the
ability of drivers to visually discern and focus on objects in an
electronic visual display as compared to objects reflected by
traditional rearview mirrors.
(11) We seek comment on how a driver should be alerted that a CMS
is not operating correctly, such as during a malfunction or a software
update.

Side Rearview Image Display Locations, Driver Acclimation, and Related
Test Procedures

(12) We seek comment on whether and how placing the CMS displays in
non-traditional locations (e.g., in the center console) would affect
vehicle safety, as compared to placing the displays close to where the
outside rearview mirrors would be mounted near the A-pillars. In
particular, we seek research concerning the impact of different image
locations on the level of safety and performance among any driver
demographic, and whether different image locations may lead to driver
confusion.
(13) We seek comment on whether research has been performed
concerning the impacts of glare from sunlight and other vehicles'
headlights on the CMS display, and whether test procedures have been
developed to measure glare. If performance requirements and test
procedures have not yet been developed to address these problems, when
and how can they be developed? What are potential strategies to
mitigate glare to ensure that useful images would be provided to
drivers over the greatest range of conditions possible.

Camera Durability, Reliability, and Related Test Procedures

(14) We seek comment on the anticipated lifespan of the electronic
visual display and camera components

[[Page 54539]]

that would be installed in a typical CMS. Will the performance (e.g.,
display brightness) of components be maintained within specifications
consistent with desired image quality over that lifespan, or will
performance decrease due to age and/or being subject to outdoor
conditions with wide temperature ranges and precipitation?
(15) We seek comment on the anticipated reliability of CMS as
compared to outside rearview mirrors, including any reliability data
that may be available for production or prototype CMSs.
(16) We seek comment on the anticipated replacement cost for a CMS
that becomes inoperable due to damage or malfunction, and how that cost
compares to the replacement cost of traditional powered and unpowered
outside rearview mirrors.
(17) We seek comment on whether and, if so, how a CMS can be
weatherproofed to prevent condensation, or large water droplets,
forming inside the camera enclosure, which could reduce image clarity.
NHTSA has observed condensation in cameras mounted on the underside of
outside rearview mirrors of recent model year production vehicles
resulting in part of the camera view being unusable (e.g., the water
blocks a portion of the camera's field of view). How should adequate
weatherproofing be defined? Would the durability tests in FVMSS No.
111, S14.3 for backup cameras be sufficient, and if so, why? What other
test procedures exist for demonstrating adequate weatherproofing of
cameras, and have those procedures been validated?
(18) Depending on the mounting location, cameras may be subject to
environmentally-caused lens obstructions (e.g., dirt, ice, rain drops).
We seek comment on how to prevent or mitigate such lens obstructions.
What performance requirements and associated test procedures simulating
these conditions have been developed to evaluate whether the camera is
providing a useful image?

System Availability When Vehicle Ignition Is Off

(19) Although it is not one of the primary safety purpose of
rearview mirrors, drivers often use the outside rearview mirrors after
turning off the ignition and preparing to exit the vehicle to determine
whether it is safe to open the vehicle door when parked alongside a
traffic lane. We seek comment on whether NHTSA consider requiring that
a CMS be capable of serving this function by being operational in some
capacity either at all times or for a specified period of time after
opening the driver's car door. What new performance criteria would need
to be developed for this purpose and what has been done to develop
those criteria?

Miscellaneous

(20) Are there any other safety concerns that are closely related
to the performance of CMS that are not addressed in this notice? If so,
what are they, and what is the degree of their importance?
(21) We seek comment on the potential short-term and long-term
economic impacts of CMS. In particular, we seek comment on the level of
consumer interest in vehicles equipped with CMS. We also seek comment
on the extent of reduced drag associated with the installation of CMS
and on the resulting amount of improved fuel economy. Finally, we seek
comment on the magnitude of the cost differential between equipping a
vehicle with CMS and equipping a vehicle with rearview mirrors, and on
the extent to which improved fuel economy would offset increased
equipment costs associated with CMS.

V. Public Participation

(a) How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?

NHTSA welcomes public review of this ANPRM. NHTSA will consider the
comments and information received in developing its eventual proposal
for how to proceed on permitting CMS technology as a compliance option
for the outside rearview mirror requirements of FMVSS No. 111.

(b) How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed in the correct docket, please include the docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2018-0021) in your comments.
Your primary comments should not be more than 15 pages long.
However, you may attach additional documents, such as supporting data
or research, to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy
certain portions of your submission. Please note that pursuant to the
Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and
used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set
forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-02-22/pdf/R2-59.pdf; DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/DOT%20Information%20Dissemination%20Quality%20Guidelines.pdf.

If you submit comments by hard copy and 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. If you submit comments electronically, your comments should
appear automatically in Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0021 on https://www.regulations.gov. If they do not appear within two weeks of posting,
we suggest that you call the Docket Management Facility at 1-800-647-
5527.

(d) How do I submit confidential business information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information that you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
In addition, you should submit a copy (two copies if submitting by
mail or hand delivery) from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information to the docket by one of the methods
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in
NHTSA's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

[[Page 54540]]

(e) Will the agency consider late comments?

NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider comments received after
that date.

(f) How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received at the address given in the
ADDRESSES section. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the
same location. You may also read the comments on the internet,
identified by the docket number at the heading of this notice, at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
NHTSA recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.

VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

a. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 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 OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, and the DOT's regulatory policies and
procedures found in DOT Order 2100.6, ``Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings.'' As discussed above, the agency lacks the necessary
information to develop a proposal at this time due to a number of
unanswered questions and unresolved considerations. This rulemaking has
been determined to be not ``significant'' under DOT Order 2100.6 and
the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.

b. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs)

This action is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because it is an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
no analysis is required for an ANPRM. However, vehicle manufacturers
and equipment manufacturers are encouraged to comment if they identify
any aspects of the potential rulemaking that may apply to them.

d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

As an ANPRM, NHTSA does not believe that this document raises
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment. NHTSA believes that federalism issues would be
more appropriately considered if and when the agency proposes changes
to FMVSS No. 111 to permit CMS.

e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

f. 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. There are no
information collection requirements associated with this ANPRM. Any
information collection requirements and the associated burdens will be
discussed in detail once a proposal has been issued.

g. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or 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. The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. As NHTSA has not yet developed specific regulatory
requirements, the NTTAA does not apply for purposes of this ANPRM.

h. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 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 of 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). NHTSA has
determined that this ANPRM would not result in expenditures by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, in excess of $100 million annually.

i. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has preliminarily
determined that implementation of this rulemaking action would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

j. Plain Language

The Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires
that Federal agencies write documents in a clear, concise, and well-
organized manner. While the Act does not cover regulations, Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 require each agency to write all notices in
plain language that is simple and easy to understand. Application of
the principles of plain language includes consideration of the
following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Is the discussion in the notice clearly written?
Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that
is not clear?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this ANPRM.

k. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number

[[Page 54541]]

(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Performance metrics used for these aspects of performance
are performed per ISO 16505:2015, unless otherwise noted.
\42\ Grey scale chart per ISO 14524:2009.
\43\ Color coordinates per CIE 1976 UCS.
\44\ Test performed per ISO 13406-2:2001.
\45\ Test performed per ISO 9241-305:2008.

Appendix--Aspects of Light Vehicle CMS Performance Regulated Under UNECE
R46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNECE R46
Aspect of performance \41\ Description citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural design................. Requirement that the 6.2.2.1
CMS meet various
size, shape, and
material
restrictions.
Monitor Luminance................. Requirement that CMS 6.2.2.3.1,
monitor luminance 6.2.2.3.5.1
be adjustable.
System availability indicator..... Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.2,
CMS indicate to the 16.1.2
driver if the
system is
unavailable.
Monitor isotropy.................. Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.1
monitor show a
uniform image.
Limits for
luminance when
measured at various
viewing angles
(directional
uniformity) and at
various locations
on the screen
(lateral
uniformity).
Luminance and contrast rendering.. Monitor luminance 6.2.2.3.3.2
and contrast limits
for different
conditions (direct
sunlight, diffuse
ambient light,
sunset and night).
Grey scale rendering.............. Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.3
CMS be able to
display a minimum
tonal range of
distinguishable
different grey
steps \42\.
Color rendering................... Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.4
CMS be able to
accurately
reproduce certain
colors \43\.
Image artifacts (aberrations)..... Requirement that CMS 6.2.2.3.3.5
image aberrations
be noted in the
owner's manual.
Smear............................. Limits for the white 6.2.2.3.3.5.1
stripes artifact
appearing on an
image created by
very bright light
sources.
Blooming and lens flare........... Limits for the area 6.2.2.3.3.5.2
of image loss
caused by bright
lights flooding the
image (blooming)
and light
scattering inside
the lens (lens
flare).
Point light sources............... Requirements for CMS 6.2.2.3.3.5.3
to show
distinctively two
point light sources
(e.g. passing beam
headlights).
Sharpness......................... Requirements for the 6.2.2.3.3.6.1
monitor to
accurately show
zones of different
tones, or colors,
without blurring
the boundaries
between set zones.
Limits are provided
for the horizontal
and vertical
direction.
Depth of field.................... Requirements for 6.2.2.3.3.6.2
resolution of the
CMS to show a
sufficiently clear
image at various
distances.
Geometric distortion.............. Limits for the level 6.2.2.3.3.7
of distortion of
the CMS image
relative to a
rectilinear or
pinhole projection.
Flicker........................... Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.3.8.1
monitor be free of
flicker \44\.
Frame rate........................ Requirement that the 6.2.2.3.4.1.
CMS operate at a
minimum frame rate,
and that the
movements of
objects in front of
the camera be
rendered smooth and
fluid.
Image formation time.............. Limit on the amount 6.2.2.3.4.2
of time permitted
for the monitor to
form an image \45\.
System latency.................... Limit on the time 6.2.2.3.4.3
delay between when
an event occurs and
when it is rendered
on the monitor.
Impact testing.................... Requirement that an 6.3.1
externally mounted
CMS camera meet
certain impact
requirements.
Field of vision................... Requirement that CMS 15.2.4
devices meet the
same minimum field
of vision
requirements as
mirror.
Activation and deactivation....... Requirements for 16.1.1
when and under what
conditions a CMS
must activate or
deactivate.
Default view...................... In default view the 16.1.1.1
system is required
to show the minimum
required field of
vision.
Overlays.......................... Requirements 16.1.1.3
relating to what
information may be
overlaid on the CMS
image, and limits
on the size of
overlays.
Magnification factor.............. Requirement that the 16.1.3.1
magnification of
the CMS image be
within a certain
range.
Resolution........................ Requirement for the 16.1.3.2
minimum
distinguishable
details observable
in an image.
Magnification aspect ratio........ Limits for the ratio 16.1.4
of horizontal to
vertical
magnification of
the image.
Monitors.......................... Requirements 16.1.5
relating to where
the monitors may be
located inside the
vehicle and how the
left and right
fields of vision
may be displayed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 54542]]

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-22036 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P