Federal Register, Volume 75 Issue 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76186-76250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30353]

[[Page 76185]]

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

Part IV

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors; Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles Phase-In Reporting
Requirements; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 76186]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162]
RIN 2127-AK43

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors; Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles Phase-In Reporting
Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007
directs NHTSA to issue a final rule amending the agency's Federal motor
vehicle safety standard on rearview mirrors to improve the ability of a
driver to detect pedestrians in the area immediately behind his or her
vehicle and thereby minimize the likelihood of a vehicle's striking a
pedestrian while its driver is backing the vehicle. Pursuant to this
mandate, NHTSA is proposing to expand the required field of view for
all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and
low-speed vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or less, gross vehicle
weight. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to specify an area immediately
behind each vehicle that the driver must be able to see when the
vehicle's transmission is in reverse. It appears that, in the near
term, the only technology available with the ability to comply with
this proposal would be a rear visibility system that includes a rear-
mounted video camera and an in-vehicle visual display. Adoption of this
proposal would significantly reduce fatalities and injuries caused by
backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the
elderly, and other pedestrians.
In light of the difficulty of effectively addressing of the
backover safety problem through technologies other than camera systems
and given the differences in the effectiveness and cost of the
available technologies, we developed several alternatives that,
compared to the proposal, offer less, but at least in one case still
substantial, benefits and do so at reduced cost. We seek comment on
those alternatives and on other possible ways to achieve the statutory
objective and meet the statutory requirements at lower cost.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the
docket receives them not later than February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Mr. Markus Price, Office of Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: (202) 666-
0098. Facsimile: (202) 666-7002. For legal issues, you may contact Mr.
Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-2992.
Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: NVS-010,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007
B. Applicability
C. Backover Crash Safety Problem
i. Definitions and Summary
ii. Backover Crash Risk by Crash and Vehicle Type
iii. Backover Crash Risk by Victim Age
iv. Special Crash Investigation of Backover Crashes
v. Analysis of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location Using
Monte Carlo Simulation
D. Comparative Regulatory Requirements
i. Current FMVSS No. 111
ii. Relevant European Regulations (Also United Kingdom and
Australia)
iii. Relevant Regulations in Japan and Korea
iv. State Regulations
III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Technologies To Mitigate Backover Crashes
i. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors
ii. Rearview Video Systems
iii. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems
iv. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video Camera) Systems
v. Other Technologies
B. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility
C. Rear Visibility Measurement
D. Possible Countermeasure Performance Specifications
E. Summary of Comments Received
i. Measurement of Rear Blind Zone Area and Its Use as a Basis
for Determination of Countermeasure Need
ii. Application of Countermeasures Among Vehicle Types
iii. Use and Efficacy of Rear-Mounted Mirror Systems, and Convex
Driver's-Side Mirrors
iv. Use of Monte Carlo Simulation of Backover Crash Risk for
Development of a Required Countermeasure Coverage Area
v. Use and Efficacy of Sensor-Based Systems
vi. Use and Efficacy of Rearview Video Systems
vii. Characteristics of Rearview Video Systems
viii. Development of a Performance-Based or Technology-Neutral
Standard
ix. Other Issues
x. Suggested Alternative Proposals
xi. Costs and Benefits
F. Questions Posed and Summary Response
i. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility
ii. Drivers' Use and Associated Effectiveness of Available
Technologies To Mitigate Backover Crashes
iii. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility
iv. Options for Measuring a Vehicle's Rear Visibility
v. Options for Assessing the Performance of Rear Visibility
Countermeasures
vi. Options for Characterizing Rear Visibility Countermeasures
IV. Analysis of ANPRM Comments and NHTSA's Tentative Conclusions

[[Page 76187]]

A. Application of Rear Visibility Systems Across the Light
Vehicle Fleet
B. Limitation of Countermeasure Application to Certain Vehicle
Types
C. Using Blind Zone Area as a Basis for Countermeasure
Requirement
D. Use of Convex Driver's-Side Mirrors
E. Advanced Systems and Combination Sensor/Rearview Video
Systems
F. Rear Field of View
G. Rear Visibility System Characteristics
i. Rearview Image Response Time
ii. Rearview Image Linger Time
iii. Rear Visibility System Visual Display Brightness
iv. Rear Visibility System Malfunction Indicator
H. Rear Visibility System Compliance Test
i. Compliance Test Ambient Light Level
ii. Compliance Test Object
V. NHTSA Research Subsequent to the ANPRM
A. Rearview Video Systems With In-Mirror Visual Displays
B. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors
C. Rear Sensor Systems
D. Ability of Rear Sensor Systems To Detect Small Child
Pedestrians
VI. Countermeasure Effectiveness Estimation Based on NHTSA Research
Data
A. Situation Avoidability
B. System Performance
C. Driver Performance
D. Determining Overall Effectiveness
VII. Proposal To Mandate Improved Rear Visibility
A. Proposed Specifications
i. Improved Rear Field of View
ii. Visual Display Requirements
a. Rearview Image Size
b. Image Response Time
c. Image Linger Time
d. Visual Display Luminance
e. Other Aspects of Visual Display
iii. Requirements for External System Components
B. Proposed Compliance Tests
i. Ambient Lighting Conditions
ii. Rear Visibility Test Object
iii. Rear Visibility Compliance Test Procedures
a. Rear Field of View Test Procedure
b. Rearview Image Size Test Procedure
C. Proposed Effective Date and Phase-In Schedule
D. Potential Alternatives
E. Summary of Estimated Effectiveness, Costs and Benefits of
Available Technologies
F. Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives
i. System Effectiveness
ii. Costs
iii. Benefits
iv. Net Benefits
v. Cost Effectiveness
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
H. National Environmental Policy Act
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. Plain Language
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
X. Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Executive Summary

In this notice, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is proposing to expand the current rear visibility requirements
of all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses,
and low-speed vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
10,000 pounds (lb) or less by specifying an area behind the vehicle
that a driver must be able to see when the vehicle is in reverse gear.
This rulemaking action is being undertaken in response to the Cameron
Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 \1\ (the ``K.T.
Safety Act,'' or the ``Act''), which required that NHTSA undertake
rulemaking to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of
a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the vehicle to reduce death and
injury resulting from backing incidents known as backover crashes. A
backover crash is a specifically-defined type of incident in which a
non-occupant of a vehicle (most commonly, a pedestrian, but it could
also be a cyclist) is struck by a vehicle moving in reverse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007,
(Pub. L. 110-189, 122 Stat. 639-642), Sec. 4 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our assessment of available safety data indicates that on average
there are 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries (3,000 of which we judge
to be incapacitating \2\) resulting from backover crashes every year.
Of those, 228 fatalities and 17,000 injuries were attributed to
backover incidents involving light vehicles (passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles)
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Accidents (ANSI D16.1) defines ``incapacitating injury'' as ``any
injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person
from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities the
person was capable of performing before the injury occurred''
(Section 2.3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In analyzing the data, we made several tentative findings. First,
many of these incidents occur off public roadways, in areas such as
driveways and parking lots and involve parents (or caregivers)
accidentally backing over children. Second, children under five years
of age represent approximately 44 percent of the fatalities, which we
believe to be a uniquely high percentage for a particular crash mode.
Third and finally, when pickups and multipurpose passenger vehicles
strike a pedestrian in a backover crash, the incident is four times
more likely to result in a fatality than if the striking vehicle were a
passenger car.
NHTSA believes that there are several potential reasons for these
tentative findings, including, but not limited to, the attributes of
the vehicle, vehicle exposure to pedestrians, and the driver's
situational awareness while driving backward. However, due to
difficulties in isolating each of those effects individually, we cannot
at this time determine their relative contribution to the occurrence of
these backover crashes.
In consideration of the areas that a driver cannot see either
directly or using existing mirrors, the agency has tentatively
concluded that providing the driver with additional visual information
about what is directly behind the driver's vehicle is the only
effective near-term solution at this time to reduce the number of
fatalities and injuries associated with backover crashes.
Before reaching this tentative conclusion, NHTSA published an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and considered the public
comments received in response to that notice.\3\ The ANPRM reiterated
some previous tentative findings on backover crash statistics; outlined
current technologies that may have the ability to improve rear
visibility including: improved direct vision (i.e., looking directly
out the vehicle's rear window), indirect vision via rear-mounted convex
mirrors or rearview video systems, and rear object detection sensors;
\4\ and presented research findings on the effectiveness of those
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 74 FR 9478, March 4, 2009.
\4\ While object detection sensors do not technically improve
visibility in terms of providing a visual image comparable to what a
driver could see with his or her own eyes, the Act indicated that
sensors should be examined as a candidate technology for improving
rear visibility. Such sensors could be used in combination of some
type of visual display to show the location of detected objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ANPRM set forth three approaches to defining the potential
scope of applicability of the proposed requirements for improving
rearward visibility.\5\ The approaches included requiring improvements
on a) all light vehicles, b) those light vehicles that are trucks,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, or vans, or c) those light vehicles
whose rear blind zone area (i.e., the area behind a vehicle in which
obstacles are not visible to a driver)

[[Page 76188]]

exceeds a specified size. We also presented ideas on how and on what
basis to define the areas behind a vehicle that should be visible to a
driver and general performance characteristics for mirrors, sensors,
and rearview video systems. Finally, the ANPRM sought responses to 43
specific questions covering all of the above mentioned areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 74 FR 9504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thirty-seven entities commented in response to the ANPRM, including
industry associations, automotive and equipment manufacturers, safety
advocacy organizations, and 14 individuals. Generally, the comments can
be grouped into four main areas according to the organization of ANPRM
sections. The areas are: approaches for improving vehicles' rear
visibility, effectiveness of the technologies, cost of the
technologies, and performance requirements suitable for each type
technology.
With regard to the issue of which vehicles most warrant improved
rear visibility, vehicle manufacturers generally wanted to focus any
expansion of rear visibility on the particular types of vehicles (i.e.,
trucks, vans, and multipurpose passenger vehicles within the specified
weight limits) that they believed posed the highest risk of backover
crash fatalities and injuries. Vehicle safety organizations and
equipment manufacturers generally suggested that all vehicles need to
have expanded rear fields of view.
With regard to the issue of what technology would be effective at
expanding the rear field of view for a driver, commenters discussed
additional mirrors, sensors, and rearview video combined with sensors.
Some commenters provided input regarding test procedure development and
rear visibility countermeasure characteristics, such as visual display
size and brightness, and graphic overlays superimposed on a video
image. Some also discussed whether it is appropriate to allow a small
gap in coverage immediately behind the rear bumper.
Finally, with regard to the issue of costs, commenters generally
agreed with the cost estimates provided by the agency. However, some
did suggest that our estimates of the cost of individual technologies
seemed high and that there would be larger cost reductions over time
than the agency had indicated.
To assess the feasibility and benefits of covering different areas
behind the vehicle, NHTSA considered the comments received, the
available safety data, our review of special investigations of backover
crashes, and computer simulation. For example, we examined the typical
distances that backover-crash-involved vehicles traveled from the
location at which they began moving rearward to the location at which
they struck a pedestrian. We tentatively concluded that an area with a
width of 10 feet (5 feet to either side of a rearward extension of the
vehicle's centerline) and a length of 20 feet extending backward from a
transverse vertical plane tangent to the rearmost point on the rear
bumper encompasses the highest risk area for children and other
pedestrians to be struck. Therefore, we are proposing that test objects
of a particular size within that area must be visible to drivers when
they are driving backward.
To develop estimates of the benefits from adopting such a
requirement, NHTSA used a methodology that reviewed backover crash case
reports to infer whether the crash could be avoided with the aid of
some technology, evaluated the performance of various countermeasures
in detecting an object behind the vehicle, and tested whether the
driver used the countermeasure and avoided the crash. Our evaluation of
currently available technologies (mirrors, sensors, and rearview video
systems) that may allow a driver to determine if there was a pedestrian
in a 10 feet by 20 feet zone behind a vehicle indicates that rearview
video systems are the most effective technology available today.
However, we note that technology is rapidly evolving, and thus, we
are not proposing to require that a specific technology be used to
provide a driver with an image of the area behind the vehicle.
Consistent with statutory requirements and Executive Order 12866, we
are not prescribing requirements that would expressly require the use
of a specific technology and are attempting to promote compliance
flexibility through proposing more performance oriented requirements.
We have tentatively concluded that, in order to maintain the level of
effectiveness that we have seen in our testing of existing rearview
video systems, we should propose a minimum set of such requirements.
Accordingly, this proposal sets forth requirements for the performance
of the visual display, the rearview image, and durability requirements
for any exterior components. Under this proposal, manufacturers would
have flexibility to meet the requirements as they see fit (perhaps
through the development of new or less expensive technology). Since we
believe that manufacturers, in the near term, would likely use current
production rearview video systems to achieve the required level of
improved rear visibility and that most, if not all, systems in
production today already meet this minimum set of requirements, we do
not believe that the adoption of these requirements would increase the
cost of this technology. However, we seek comment later in this
preamble on including in the final rule requirements relating to
additional matters such as image quality and display location.
Section 2(c) of the K.T. Safety Act requires that the requirement
for improved rear visibility be phased in and that the phase-in process
be completed within ``48 months'' of the publication of the final rule.
Because we anticipate publishing a final rule by the statutory deadline
of February 28, 2011, the rule must require full compliance not later
than February 28, 2015. We note, however, that model years begin on
September 1 and end on August 31 for safety standard compliance
purposes and that February 28 falls in the middle of the model year
that begins September 1, 2014. The agency believes that vehicle
manufacturers would need, as a practical matter, to begin full
compliance at the beginning of that model year, i.e., on September 1,
2014. They could not wait until the middle of the model year to reach
100% compliance. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing the following phase-in
schedule:
0% of the vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2012;
10% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2012, and before September 1, 2013;
40% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2013, and before September 1, 2014; and
100% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,
2014.
The agency recognizes that taking the dates on which model years
begin and end for safety purposes effectively reduces the overall
phase-in duration by 6 months (from 48 months to 42 months).
We invite comment on how to provide as much leadtime as possible
within the limits of the statute. Specifically, should the agency
change the structure of the phase-in schedule to allow for more
flexibility and ease of implementation? We note that the statute
explicitly requires an expanded field of view for all light vehicles
and that there are substantial differences in the effectiveness of
available technologies. Accordingly, the agency is proposing
performance requirements that would trigger the installation of
expensive technologies such as video camera systems for these vehicles.
In view of the need to expand the field of

[[Page 76189]]

view for all vehicles and the statutory requirements set forth by
Congress regarding timing and manner of implementation of the proposed
requirements, however, the agency is limited in its ability to reduce
the cost of this rulemaking through adjusting the application of the
proposed rule or the specific deadline for implementation.
In evaluating the benefits and costs of this rulemaking proposal,
the agency has spent considerable effort trying to determine the scope
of the safety problem and the overall effectiveness of these systems in
reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities associated with backing
crashes. We have also estimated the net property damage effects to
consumers from using any technology to avoid backing into fixed
objects, along with the additional cost incurred when a vehicle is
struck in the rear and the technology is damaged or destroyed.
The most effective technology option that the agency has evaluated
is the rearview video system. Using the effectiveness estimates that we
have generated and assuming that all vehicles would be equipped with
this technology, we believe the annual fatalities that are occurring in
backing crashes can be reduced by 95 to 112. Similarly, injuries would
be reduced by 7,072 to 8,374.
However, rearview video is also the most expensive single
technology. When installed in a vehicle without any existing visual
display screen, rearview video systems are currently estimated to cost
consumers between $159 and $203 per vehicle, depending on the location
of the display and the angular width of the lens. For a vehicle that
already has a suitable visual display, such as one found in route
navigation systems, the incremental cost of such a system is estimated
to be $58-$88, depending on the angular width of the lens. (We note
that the cost may well decrease over time, as discussed below.)
Based on the composition and size of the expected vehicle fleet,
the total incremental cost, compared to the MY 2010 fleet, to equip a
16.6 million new vehicle fleet with rearview video systems is estimated
to be $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion annually. These costs are admittedly
substantial. Nonetheless, the following considerations (discussed
briefly here and at great length below in section VII.D. of this
preamble) lead us to conclude tentatively that our proposal to
implement the statutory mandate is reasonable and necessary, and that
the benefits justify the costs. We request comment on this conclusion
and on the various considerations that support it.
Those considerations include the following--
[dec221] 100 of the 228 annual victims of backover crashes are very
young children with nearly their entire lives ahead of them. There are
strong reasons, grounded in this consideration and in considerations of
equity, to prevent these deaths.
[dec221] While this rulemaking would have great cost, it would also
have substantial benefits, reducing annual fatalities in backover
crashes by 95 to 112 fatalities, and annual injuries by 7,072 to 8,374
injuries. (We attempt to quantify these benefits below.)
[dec221] Some of the benefits of the proposed rule are hard to
quantify, but are nonetheless real and significant. One such benefit is
that of not being the direct cause of the death or injury of a person
and particularly a small child at one's place of residence. In some of
these cases, parents are responsible for the deaths of their own
children; avoiding that horrible outcome is a significant benefit.
Another hard-to-quantify benefit is the increased ease and convenience
of driving, and especially parking, that extend beyond the prevention
of crashes. While these benefits cannot be monetized at this time, they
could be considerable.
[dec221] There is evidence that many people value the lives of
children more than the lives of adults.\6\ In any event, there is
special social solicitude for protection of children. This solicitude
is based in part on a recognized general need to protect children given
their greater vulnerability to injury and inability to protect
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ J.K. Hammitt and K. Haninger, ``Valuing Fatal Risks to
Children and Adults: Effects of Disease, Latency, and Risk
Aversion,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 40(1): 57-83, 2010. This
stated preference study finds that the willingness to pay to prevent
fatality risks to one's child is uniformly larger than that to
reduce risk to another adult or to oneself. Estimated values per
statistical life are $6-10 million for adults and $12-15 million for
children. We emphasize that the literature is in a state of
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dec221] Given the very young age of most of the children fatally-
injured in backover crashes, attempting to provide them with training
or with an audible warning would not enable them to protect themselves.
[dec221] Given the impossibility of reducing backover crashes
through changing the behavior of very young children and given
Congress' mandate, it is reasonable and necessary to rely on technology
to address backover crashes.
[dec221] Based on its extensive testing, the agency tentatively
concluded that a camera-based system is the only effective type of
technology currently available.
[dec221] Requiring additional rearview mirrors or changes to
existing review mirrors cannot significantly increase the view to the
rear of a vehicle except by means that reduce and distort the reflected
image of people or objects behind a vehicle.
[dec221] The agency's testing indicated that currently available
sensors often failed to detect a human being, particularly a small
moving child, in tests in which the vehicle was not actually moving. In
tests in which the vehicle was moving, and when the sensors did detect
a manikin representing a child, the resulting warning did not induce
drivers to pause more than briefly in backing.
[dec221] In contrast, in the agency's tests of video camera-based
systems, drivers not only saw a child-sized obstacle, but also stopped
and remained stopped.
[dec221] Consequently, the agency has tentatively concluded that
the requirements must have the effect of ensuring that some type of
image is provided to the driver.
[dec221] The agency's estimates of current costs for video camera-
based systems may be too high.
[dec221] The agency has a contract in place for conducting tear
down studies that could produce somewhat lower cost estimates.
[dec221] In time, types of technology other than a video camera-
based system may be able to provide a sufficiently clear visual image
of the area behind the vehicle at lower cost. We believe that it is
reasonable to project that the costs of the requirements proposed here
may well decline significantly over time. While extrapolations are
uncertain, technology has been advancing rapidly in this domain, and
future costs may well be lower than currently expected.
[dec221] In light of statutory requirements, the agency is limited
in its ability to reduce the cost of this rulemaking through adjusting
either the requirements or application of the proposed rule or the
schedule for its implementation.
[dec221] Congress has mandated the issuance of a final rule instead
of allowing the agency to retain discretion to decide whether to issue
a final rule based on its consideration of all the relevant factors and
information.
[dec221] Less expensive countermeasures, i.e., mirrors and sensors,
have thus far shown very limited effectiveness and thus would not
satisfy Congress's mandate for improving safety.
[squf] As the most cost-effective alternative, a requirement for a
system that provides an image of the area behind the vehicle would be
consistent with the policy preference underlying the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.

[[Page 76190]]

[dec221] Were the agency able to provide more than the amount of
lead time permitted by the statutory mandate, the additional leadtime
might be sufficient to allow the development of cheaper cameras.
As noted, the agency requests comments on all of the foregoing
points. And in view of the cost of our proposed option, the agency is
seeking comment and suggestions on any alternative options that would
lower costs, maintain all or most of the benefits of the proposal, and
lower net costs or the cost per equivalent life saved. We carefully
explored our ability under the Act to vary the population of vehicles
subject to the proposal, vary the performance requirements, and extend
the leadtime to implement the proposal and thereby develop alternative
options that offer benefits similar to those of our proposal, but at
reduced cost. Although our ability to make any of those types of
adjustments appears constrained as a legal or practical matter, and
although none of the alternative options that the agency has been able
to identify would accomplish all three of those goals, we are seeking
comment on them and on any others that commenters may suggest.
We seek comment especially on the alternative option under which
passenger cars would be required to be equipped with either a rearview
visibility (e.g., camera) system or with a system that includes sensors
that monitor a specified area behind the vehicle and an audible warning
that sounds when the presence of an object is sensed. Under this
option, other vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or less, gross vehicle
weight, would be required to be equipped with a visibility system.
This alternative would have substantially lower, but still
significant, safety benefits, substantially lower installation costs,
lower net costs, and higher cost per equivalent life saved. Cars not
equipped under this option with a rearview visibility system would be
required to provide an audible warning inside the vehicle of not less
than 85 dBa between 500-3000 Hz when a test object is placed in one of
the locations specified for test objects in the requirements for
rearview image performance and the vehicle transmission is shifted into
reverse gear. Given that current sensors have a shorter range than
rearview visibility systems, the test objects might need to be placed
somewhat closer to the vehicle than they are when used to test the
performance of rearview visibility systems. Alternatively, the test
objects could be placed in the same locations as for rearward
visibility systems, thus requiring sensors to have stronger signals. A
disadvantage of doing that would be the risk of increased ``false''
activations. This requirement to sense the presence of a test object
would be required to be met for each of the test object locations. The
other requirements would be similar to those for the proposed rearview
systems.

II. Background

A. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007

Subsection (2)(b) of the K.T. Safety Act directed the Secretary of
Transportation to initiate rulemaking by February 28, 2009 to amend
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview
Mirrors, to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a
motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death
and injury resulting from backing incidents.\7\ The Secretary is
required to publish a final rule within 36 months of the passage of the
K.T. Safety Act (i.e., by February 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ As noted above, the agency first public step toward meeting
this requirement was the issuance of an ANPRM. It was posted on the
NHTSA Web site on February 27, 2009, and published in the Federal
Register on March 3, 2009. 74 FR 9478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that subsection (2)(b) requires the amendment of a Federal
motor vehicle safety standard, this rulemaking is subject to both the
requirements of subsection (b) and the requirements for such standards
in the Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30111.
Subsection (2)(b) contains the following requirements. Not later
than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to revise Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard 111 (FMVSS 111) to expand the required field of view to
enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor
vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents,
particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons.
The Secretary may prescribe different requirements for different types
of motor vehicles to expand the required field of view to enable the
driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to
reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly
incidents involving small children and disabled persons. Such standard
may be met by the provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or
other technology to expand the driver's field of view.
Subsection (2)(e) of the K.T. Safety Act broadly defines the term
``motor vehicle,'' as used in subsection (2)(b), as follows: As used in
this Act and for purposes of the motor vehicle safety standards
described in subsections (a) and (b), the term `motor vehicle' has the
meaning given such term in section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United
States Code, except that such term shall not include--a motorcycle or
trailer; or any motor vehicle that is rated at more than 10,000 pounds
gross vehicular weight.
Section 30102(a)(6) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act defines ``motor vehicle'' even more broadly as a vehicle
driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use
on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle
operated only on a rail line.
The K.T. Safety Act also specifies the rule must be phased-in and
that it must be fully implemented within four years after the
publication date of the final rule. The statutory language, contained
in subsection (c) of the K.T. Safety Act, sets out these requirements
for the phase-in period: The safety standards prescribed pursuant to
subsections (a) and (b) shall establish a phase-in period for
compliance, as determined by the Secretary, and require full compliance
with the safety standards not later than 48 months after the date on
which the final rule is issued.
In establishing the phase-in period of the rearward visibility
safety standards required under subsection (b), the Secretary shall
consider whether to require the phase-in according to different types
of motor vehicles based on data demonstrating the frequency by which
various types of motor vehicles have been involved in backing incidents
resulting in injury or death. If the Secretary determines that any type
of motor vehicle should be given priority, the Secretary shall issue
regulations that specify which type or types of motor vehicles shall be
phased-in first; and the percentages by which such motor vehicles shall
be phased-in.
Congress emphasized the protection of small children and disabled
persons, and added that the revised standard may be met by the
``provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other
technology to expand the driver's field of view.'' While NHTSA does not
interpret the Congressional language to require that all of these
technologies eventually be integrated into the final requirement, we
have closely examined the merits of each of them, and present our
analysis of their ability to address the backover safety problem.
We note that the inclusion of sensors as a ``technology to expand
the driver's field of view'' suggests that the passage ``expand the
required field of view''

[[Page 76191]]

should not be read in the literal way as meaning the driver must be
able to see more of the area behind the vehicle. A literal reading
would make the reference to sensors superfluous, violating a basic
canon of statutory interpretation. Instead, it seems that language
should be read as meaning the driver must be able to monitor, visually
or otherwise, an expanded area.
Finally, section 4 of the K.T. Safety Act provides that if the
Secretary determines that the deadlines applicable under the Act cannot
be met, the Secretary shall establish new deadlines, and notify the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of
the new deadlines describing the reasons the deadlines specified under
the K.T. Safety Act could not be met.
The relevant provisions in the Vehicle Safety Act are those in
section 30111 of title 49 of the United States Code. Section 3011
states that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe motor
vehicle safety standards. Each standard shall be practicable, meet the
need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When
prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter, the
Secretary shall consider relevant available motor vehicle safety
information; consult with the agency established under the Act of
August 20, 1958 (Pub. L. 85-684, 72 Stat. 635), and other appropriate
State or interstate authorities (including legislative committees);
consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment for which it is prescribed; and consider the extent to which
the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.

B. Applicability

With regard to the scope of vehicles covered by the mandate, the
statute refers to all motor vehicles rated at not more than 10,000
pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) (except motorcycles and trailers).
Specifically, it states that the Secretary shall ``revise [FMVSS No.
111] to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a
motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle * * *,'' and
defines a ``motor vehicle'' for purposes of the Act as any motor
vehicle whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less, except trailers and
motorcycles. This language means that the revised regulation could be
applied to passenger cars, low-speed vehicles (LSVs), multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs),\8\ buses (including small school buses and
school vans), and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. In this
document, we are proposing that each of these types of vehicles would
be subject to improved rear visibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Per 49 CFR 571.3, multipurpose passenger vehicle means a
motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or
trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed
either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional
off-road operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We note, however, that in our review of real-world crashes, NHTSA
could not determine whether there were any backover incidents involving
LSVs, small school buses, and school vans. Accordingly, we seek comment
and data related to the issue of whether, if the agency remains unable
to find such incidents, it could reasonably conclude that those
vehicles pose no unreasonable risk of backover crashes and whether it
would be permissible therefore it to exclude these vehicles from the
application of the final rule. The agency invites comment on whether
the absence of incidents might reflect operational conditions (school
vehicles-operation in environments in which the vulnerable age groups
are unlikely to be present or perhaps avoidance of backing maneuvers)
or a possible absence of any blind spot behind the vehicle (some LSVs).

C. Backover Crash Safety Problem

i. Definitions and Summary
A backover crash is a specifically-defined type of incident, in
which a non-occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a pedestrian or cyclist) is
struck by a vehicle moving in reverse. As stated in the ANPRM, using a
variety of available data sources, NHTSA has identified a total
population of 228 fatalities and 17,000 injuries due to light vehicle
backover crashes.\9\ Unlike other crashes, the overwhelming majority of
backover crashes occur off of public roadways, in areas such as
driveways and parking lots. Children and people over 70 are also far
more likely than other groups to be victims of backover crashes. In the
case of children, their short stature can make them extremely difficult
for a driver to see using direct vision or existing mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 49 FR 9482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because many backover crashes occur off public roadways, NHTSA's
traditional methodologies for collecting data as to the specific
numbers and circumstances of backover incidents have not always given
the agency a complete picture of the scope and circumstances of these
types of incidents. The following sections detail NHTSA's attempts to
both quantify the number of backover incidents and determine their
nature.
In response to section 2012 of the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-
LU),\10\ NHTSA developed the ``Not-in-Traffic Surveillance'' (NiTS)
system to collect information about all nontraffic crashes, including
nontraffic backing crashes. NiTS provided information on these backing
crashes that occurred off the traffic way and which were not included
in NHTSA's FARS database or NASS-GES. The subset of backing crashes
that involve a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other person not in a vehicle,
is referred to as ``backover crashes.'' This is distinguished from the
larger category of ``backing crashes,'' which would include such non-
backover events such as a vehicle going in reverse and colliding with
another vehicle, or a vehicle backing off an embankment or into a
stationary object. While the primary purpose of this rulemaking is to
prevent backover crashes, any improvements to rear visibility should
also have a positive effect on all types of backing crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national estimates for fatalities and injuries presented in the
ANPRM were developed using data from FARS, NASS-GES, and the NiTS.
While there are newer estimates available for FARS and NASS-GES, there
are not for the NiTS and therefore the estimates we provided in the
ANPRM and in this document represent the most current data available.
As such, based on the currently available data, NHTSA estimates that
463 fatalities and 48,000 injuries a year occur in traffic and
nontraffic backing crashes.\11\ Most of these injuries are minor, but
an estimated 6,000 per year are incapacitating injuries. Overall, an
estimated 65 percent (302) of the fatalities and 62 percent (29,000) of
the injuries in backing crashes occurred in nontraffic situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes,
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008), DOT HS 811 144. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811144.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on existing data, NHTSA estimates the following number of
injuries and fatalities. Overall, backing crashes result in
approximately 463 fatalities and 48,000 injuries. Of those, the subset
of backover crashes comprises 292 fatalities (63 percent) and 18,000
injuries (38 percent). These figures are reflected in Table 1 below.

[[Page 76192]]

Table 1--Annual Estimated Fatalities and Injuries in All Backing Crashes for All Vehicles \12\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Backover crashes Other backing
-------------------------------------- crashes
Injury severity ------------------
Estimated total Estimated total Estimated total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities............................................. 463 292 171
Incapacitating Injury.................................. 6,000 3,000 3,000
Non-incapacitating Injury.............................. 12,000 7,000 5,000
Possible Injury........................................ 27,000 7,000 20,000
Injured Severity Unknown............................... 2,000 1,000 2,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Injuries..................................... 48,000 18,000 30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. [Note to agency, unknowns will be updated
prior OST approval to reflect optics that 2,000 + 1,000 does not equal 2.]

ii. Backover Crash Risk by Crash and Vehicle Type
Backovers account for an estimated 63 percent of all fatal backing
crashes involving all vehicle types. As indicated in Table 2, an
estimated 15 percent (68) of the backing crash fatalities occur in
multivehicle crashes, and an estimated 13 percent (62) occur in single-
vehicle non-collisions, such as occupants who fall out of and are
struck by their own backing vehicles. About half of the backing crash
injuries (20,000 per year) occur in multi-vehicle crashes involving
backing vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Ibid.

Table 2--Fatalities and Injuries by Backing Crash Type \13\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All vehicles Passenger vehicles
Backing crash scenarios ---------------------------------------------------
Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backovers: Striking Non-occupant............................ 292 18,000 228 17,000
Backing: Striking Fixed Object.............................. 33 2,000 33 2,000
Backing: Single-vehicle Non-collision....................... 62 1,000 53 1,000
Backing: Striking/Struck by Other Vehicle (multi-vehicle)... 68 24,000 39 20,000
Backing: Other.............................................. 8 3,000 8 3,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total Backing........................................... 463 48,000 361 43,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.

Most backover fatalities and injuries involve passenger vehicles.
Tables 2 and 3 indicate that all major passenger vehicle types (cars,
trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and vans) with GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less are involved in backover fatalities and injuries.
However, the data indicate that some vehicles show a greater
involvement in backing crashes than other vehicles. Table 3 illustrates
that pickup trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles are
statistically overrepresented in backover fatalities when compared to
all non-backing traffic injury crashes and to their proportion to the
passenger vehicle fleet. The agency's analysis revealed that while LTVs
were statistically overrepresented in backover-related fatalities, they
were not significantly overrepresented in backover crashes generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Ibid.

Table 3--Passenger Vehicle Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Vehicle Type \14\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Backing vehicle type (GVWR 10,000 lb or less) Fatalities Percent of Estimated percent of Percent of
fatalities injuries injuries fleet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car............................................ 59 26 9,000 54 58
Utility Vehicle................................ 68 30 3,000 20 16
Van............................................ 29 13 1,000 6 8
Truck.......................................... 72 31 3,000 18 17
Other Vehicles................................. 0 0 * 2 <1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Vehicles......................... 228 100 17,000 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: * Indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.

[[Page 76193]]

iii. Backover Crash Risk by Victim Age
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's data indicate that children and adults over 70 years old
are disproportionately represented in passenger vehicle backover
crashes. Table 4 details the ages for fatalities and injuries for
backover crashes involving all vehicles as well as those involving
passenger vehicles only. It also details the proportion of the U.S.
population in each age category from the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau's
Population Estimates Program for comparison. Similar to previous
findings, backover fatalities disproportionately affect children under
5 years old and adults 70 or older. When restricted to backover
fatalities involving passenger vehicles, children under 5 years old
account for 44 percent of the fatalities, and adults 70 years of age
and older account for 33 percent. The difference in the results between
all backover crashes and passenger vehicle backover crashes occur
because large truck backover crashes, which are excluded from the
passenger vehicle calculations, tend to affect adults younger than 70
years of age.

Table 4--All Backover Crash Fatalities and Injuries by Victim Age \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Age of victim Fatalities Percent of Estimated percent of Percent of
fatalities injuries injuries population **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 5..................................... 103 35 2,000 8 7
5-10........................................ 13 4 * 3 7
10-19....................................... 4 1 2,000 12 14
20-59....................................... 69 24 9,000 48 55
60-69....................................... 28 9 2,000 8 8
70+......................................... 76 26 3,000 18 9
Unknown..................................... ........... ........... * 2 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 292 100 18,000 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 5..................................... 100 44 2,000 9 7
5-10........................................ 10 4 1,000 3 7
10-19....................................... 1 1 2,000 12 14
20-59....................................... 29 13 8,000 46 55
60-69....................................... 15 6 1,000 8 8
70+......................................... 74 33 3,000 19 9
Unknown..................................... ........... ........... * 2 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 228 100 17,000 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * Indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.
Note: ** Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2002-2006,
NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.

The proportion of backover injuries by age group is more similar to
the proportion of the population than for backover fatalities. However,
while children under 5 years old appear to be slightly statistically
overrepresented in backover injuries compared to the population, adults
70 years of age and older appear to be greatly overrepresented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5 presents passenger vehicle backover fatalities by year of
age for victims less than 5 years old. Out of all backover fatalities
involving passenger vehicles, 26 percent (60 out of 228) of victims are
1 year of age and younger.

Table 5--Breakdown of Backover Crash Fatalities Involving Passenger
Vehicles for Victims Under Age 5 Years \16\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Age of victim (years) fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................... < 1
1.......................................................... 59
2.......................................................... 23
3.......................................................... 14
4.......................................................... 3
------------
Total.................................................. 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population
Estimates; FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.

iv. Special Crash Investigation of Backover Crashes
As reported in the ANPRM, NHTSA's efforts to collect data on
police-reported backover crashes have included a Special Crash
Investigation (SCI) program. The SCI program was created to examine the
safety impact of rapidly changing technologies and to provide NHTSA
with early detection of alleged or potential vehicle defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 74 FR 9478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCI began investigating cases related to backover crashes in
October 2006.\17\ SCI receives notification of potential backover cases
from several different sources including media reports, police and
rescue personnel, contacts within NHTSA, reports from the general
public, as well as notifications from the NASS. As of August 2009,
roughly 80 percent of 849 total ``Not-in-Traffic Surveillance'' system
incident notifications that SCI had received regarded backover

[[Page 76194]]

crashes.\18\ For the purpose of the SCI cases, an eligible backover is
defined as a crash in which a light passenger vehicle's back plane
strikes or passes over a person who is either positioned to the rear of
the vehicle or is approaching from the side. SCI primarily focuses on
cases involving children; however, it investigates some cases involving
adults. The majority of notifications received do not meet the criteria
for case assignment. Typically, the reasons for not pursuing further
include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes,
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008).
\18\ Since SCI investigates as many relevant cases that they are
notified about as possible and not on a statistical sampling of
incidents, results are not representative of the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reported crash configuration is outside of the scope
of the program,
Minor incidents with no fatally or seriously injured
persons, or
Incidents where cooperation cannot be established with the
involved parties.
As an example, many reported incidents are determined to be side or
frontal impacts, which exclude them from the program. Cases involving
adult victims were generally excluded from the study unless they were
seriously injured or killed or if the backing vehicles were equipped
with backing or parking aids.
The SCI effort to examine backover crashes includes an on-site
inspection of the scene and vehicle, as well as interviews of the
involved parties when possible. When an on-site investigation is not
possible, backover cases are investigated remotely through an
examination of police-provided reports and photos as well as interviews
with the involved parties. For each backover case investigated, a case
vehicle visibility study is also conducted to determine the size of the
vehicle's blind zones and also to determine at what distance behind the
vehicle the occupant may have become visible to the driver.
Thus far, NHTSA has completed special crash investigations of 58
backover cases. The 58 backing vehicles were comprised of 18 passenger
cars, 22 multipurpose passenger vehicles, 5 vans (including minivans)
and 13 pickup trucks. For cases in which an estimated speed for the
backing vehicle was available, the average speed of the backing vehicle
was approximately 3 mph. Of the 58 SCI backover cases, 95 percent (55)
of the cases occurred in daylight conditions. Half (29) involved a non-
occupant fatality.
Four of the 58 cases involved vehicles equipped with a parking aid
system. All four systems were sensor-based parking aids. In two
vehicles, the systems had been manually turned off for unknown reasons.
In one backover case, the system did not detect an elderly female who
had fallen behind a sensor-equipped vehicle, and presumably positioned
at a height below the detection zone of the sensors. In the fourth case
the system did detect the adult pedestrian victim and provided a
warning that prompted the driver to stop the vehicle, but the driver
looked rearward and did not see an obstacle so he began backing again
and struck the victim.
One issue that was evident from the SCI cases is that very few
instances involved victims that were easily visible from the driver's
position. Instead, most of the victims were either children (who were
too short to be seen behind the vehicle), or adults who had fallen or
bent over and were also thus not in the driver's field of view. Eighty-
eight percent of the backover crashes (51 of the 58) involved children,
ranging in age from less than 8 months old up to 13 years old, who were
struck by vehicles. The other 12 percent of the 58 cases involved adult
victims aged 30 years or older. Of the 8 adult victims, 4 were in an
upright posture either standing or walking and one of those 4, as noted
in the prior paragraph, had been detected by a rear parking sensor
system, but the driver only stopped briefly before continuing to back
and then struck the person. Of the remaining four adult victims
documented in the SCI cases, one was bending over behind a backing
vehicle to pick up something from the ground, one was an elderly female
who had fallen down in the path of the vehicle prior to being run over,
and the postural orientation of the remaining two was unknown.
Based on NHTSA's analysis of the quantitative data and narrative
descriptions of how the 58 SCI-documented backover incidents
transpired, the breakdown of the victim's path of travel prior to being
struck is as follows: 41 (71 percent) were approaching from the right
or left of the vehicle, 12 were in the path of the backing vehicle, 4
were unknown, and one was ``other''.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Note that one or more cases examined involved multiple
victims, causing the total of the path breakdown scenarios to be 53
rather than 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent to the ANPRM, NHTSA further analyzed these SCI backover
cases to assess how far the vehicle traveled before striking the
victim. Distances traveled for these cases ranged from 1 to 75 feet.
Overall, as shown in Table 6 below, this analysis showed that in 77
percent of real-world, SCI backover cases, the vehicle traveled up to
20 feet. While the subset may or may not nationally representative of
all backing crashes, we believe this information from the SCI cases
could be used in the development of a required visible area and the
associated development of a compliance test.

Table 6--Average Distance Traveled by Backing Vehicle for First 58 SCI Backover Cases and Percent of Backover
Crashes That Could Be Avoided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average distance
Number of traveled prior to 7ft (%) 15ft (%) 20ft (%) 35ft (%)
SCI cases Strike (ft)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car............................. 18 13.7 39 56 78 89
SUV............................. 22 13.4 27 68 82 100
Minivan......................... 4 31.0 25 50 50 75
Van............................. 1 54.5 0 0 0 0
Pickup.......................... 13 17.2 38 69 69 92
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Light Vehicles.......... 58 26.0 33 63 77 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 76195]]

v. Analysis of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location Using Monte
Carlo Simulation
As noted in the ANPRM, NHTSA also calculated backover crash risk as
a function of pedestrian location using a Monte Carlo simulation.\20\
Data from a recent NHTSA study of drivers' backing behavior,\21\ such
as average backing speed and average distance covered in a backing
maneuver, were used to develop a backing speed distribution and a
backing distance distribution that were used as inputs to the
simulation. Similarly, published data ^{22 23 24}
characterizing walking and running speeds of an average 1-year-old
child were also used as inputs. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed
that drew upon the noted vehicle and pedestrian motion data to
calculate a probability-based risk weighting for a test area centered
behind the vehicle. The probability-based risk weightings for each grid
square were based on the number of pedestrian-vehicle backing crashes
predicted by the simulation for trials for which the pedestrian was
initially (i.e., at the time that the vehicle began to back up) in the
center of one square of the grid of 1-foot squares spanning 70 feet
wide by 90 feet in range behind the vehicle. A total of 1,000,000
simulation trials were run with the pedestrian initially in the center
of each square.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 49 FR 9484.
\21\ Mazzae, E. N., Barickman, F. S., Baldwin, G. H. S., and
Ranney, T. A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview
Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, DOT HS 811 024.
\22\ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: FHWA, November 2003.
\23\ Milazzo, J.S., Rouphail, J.E., and Alien, D.P. (1999).
Quality of Service for Interrupted-Flow Pedestrian Facilities in
Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Transportation Research Record, No.
1678 (1999): 25-31.
\24\ Chou, P., Chou, Y., Su, F., Huang, W., Lin, T. (2003).
Normal Gait of Children. Biomedical Engineering--Applications, Basis
& Communications, Vol. 15 No. 4 August 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The output of this analysis calculated relative crash risk values
for each grid square representing a location behind the vehicle.
Analysis results showed that the probability of crash decreases rapidly
as the pedestrian's initial location is moved rearward, away from the
rear bumper of the vehicle. Areas located behind the vehicle and to the
side were also shown to have moderately high risk, giving pedestrians
some risk of being hit even though they were not initially directly
behind the vehicle. The results suggest that an area 12 feet wide by 36
feet long centered behind the vehicle would address pedestrian
locations having relative crash risks of 0.15 and higher (with a risk
value of 1.0 being located directly aft of the rear bumper). To address
crash risks of 0.20 and higher, an area 7 feet wide and 33 feet long
centered behind the vehicle would need to be covered. The analysis
showed that an area covering approximately the width of the vehicle out
to a range of 19 feet would encompass risk values of 0.4 and higher.

D. Comparative Regulatory Requirements

As of today, no country has established a requirement for the
minimum area directly behind a light vehicle that must be directly or
indirectly visible. All countries do, however, have standards for side
and interior rearview mirrors, although slight differences do exist in
terms of mirror requirements.
i. Current FMVSS No. 111
FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors, sets requirements for motor
vehicles to be equipped with mirrors that improve rearward
visibility.\25\ This standard sets different requirements for various
classes of vehicles, notably including passenger cars in paragraph S5,
and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses
(including school buses and school vans) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds
or less in paragraph S6. The purpose of this standard is to reduce 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ 49 CFR 571.111, Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to passenger cars, paragraph S5 of the standard sets
requirements for both the rearward area to the sides of the vehicle, as
well as the area directly behind the vehicle. With regard to the
requirements for viewing the area directly behind the vehicle,
paragraph S5 requires that the inside mirror must have a field of view
at least 20 degrees wide and a sufficient vertical angle to provide a
view of a level road surface extending to the horizon beginning not
more than 200 feet (61 m) behind the vehicle. If this requirement is
not met, the standard requires that a flat \26\ or convex exterior
mirror must be mounted on the passenger's side of the vehicle; although
no specific field of view is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Flat mirrors are referred to as ``planar'' or ``unit
magnification'' mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to the rearward area to the side of the vehicle,
paragraph S5 requires a driver's side rearview mirror to be mounted on
the outside of the vehicle. This mirror is required to be a plane
mirror that provides ``the driver a view of a level road surface
extending to the horizon from a line, perpendicular to a longitudinal
plane tangent to the driver's side of the vehicle at the widest point,
extending 2.4 m (7.9 ft) out from the tangent plane 10.7 m (35.1 ft)
behind the driver's eyes, with the seat in the rearmost position.''
Paragraph S6 sets mirror requirements for buses (including school
buses and school vans), trucks, and MPVs, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds
or less. Unlike the requirement for passenger cars, paragraph S6 does
not set a requirement for a rear field of view directly behind the
vehicle, but only sets a requirement for the rearward area to the sides
of the vehicle. Pursuant to paragraph S6, vehicles must have either
mirrors that conform to paragraph S5 or outside mirrors of unit
magnification with reflective surface area of not less than 126 square
centimeters (19.5 square inches) on each side of the vehicle. We note
that under S6, manufacturers are given the option to have mirrors that
conform to S5, instead of the requirements listed in S6. As paragraph
S6 does not establish minimum rear field of view requirements for the
area directly behind the vehicle, existing state laws or regulations
may regulate the vehicle's rear field of view for vehicles subject to
the requirements of paragraph S6.
FMVSS No. 111 also includes requirements for school buses in
paragraph S9. These requirements are substantially more robust than the
mirror requirements for other vehicles. The standard also contains test
procedures (paragraph S13) for determining the performance of school
bus mirrors.
ii. Relevant European Regulations (Also United Kingdom and Australia)
In 1981, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe enacted
Regulation 46 (ECE R46), which details uniform provisions concerning
the approval of devices for indirect vision.\27\ ECE R46 defines
devices for indirect vision as those that observe the area adjacent to
the vehicle which cannot be observed by direct vision, including
``conventional mirrors, camera-monitors or other devices able to
present information about the indirect field of vision to the driver.''
ECE R46 permits either exterior planar or convex mirrors

[[Page 76196]]

on both sides of the vehicle, provided a minimum field of view is
satisfied. Specifications are also provided to define the required
minimum surface area of the interior rearview mirror.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ ECE R46-02, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of:
Devices for Indirect Vision and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to the
Installation of these Devices, (August 7, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ECE R46 regulation previously outlined requirements for devices
for indirect vision other than mirrors for vehicles with more than
eight seating positions and those configured for refuse collection.
However, in an August 7, 2008 amendment all performance requirements
were removed and replaced with the statement, ``Vehicles may be
equipped with additional devices for indirect vision.'' \28\ This
change allows for indirect vision systems to be installed on European
vehicles without meeting any performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Section 15.3.5 of ECE R46-02, Uniform Provisions Concerning
the Approval of: Devices for Indirect Vision and of Motor Vehicles
with Regard to the Installation of these Devices, (August 7, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Relevant Regulations in Japan and Korea
The Japanese regulation, Article 44, provides a performance based
requirement for rearview mirrors.\29\ For light vehicles, rearview
mirrors must be present that enable drivers to check the traffic
situation around the left-hand lane edge and behind the vehicle from
the driver's seat.\30\ The regulation requires that the driver be able
to ``visually confirm the presence of a cylindrical object 1 m high and
0.3 m in diameter (equivalent to a 6-year-old child) adjacent to the
front or the left-hand side of the vehicle (or the right-hand side in
the case of a left-hand drive vehicle), either directly or indirectly
via mirrors, screens, or similar devices.'' Article 44 does not specify
requirements for rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video
systems. Rear-mounted convex mirrors are commonly found on multipurpose
passenger vehicles and vans in Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Japanese Safety Regulation Article 44 and attachments 79-
81.
\30\ Vehicles manufactured for the Japanese market are right-
hand drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Korean regulation on rearview mirrors, Article 50 outlines
rearview mirror requirements for a range of vehicles. Article 50
requires a flat or convex exterior mirror mounted on the driver's side
for passenger vehicles and buses with less than 10 passengers. For
buses, cargo vehicles, and special motor vehicles, flat or convex rear-
view mirrors are required on both sides of the vehicle. Article 50 does
not address rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video systems,
therefore these devices are allowed, but not required under the
standard. Again, rear-mounted convex mirrors can be found on SUVs and
vans in Korea.
iv. State Regulations
In the ANPRM, NHTSA requested comment on whether states or
municipalities have regulations pertaining to rear visibility
requirements.\31\ NHTSA has found that two states, New York and New
Jersey, have motor vehicle regulations that require some single-unit
trucks to have a cross-view mirror or electronic backup device.
Specifically, the regulations apply to vehicles with a ``cube-style''
or ``walk-in type'' cargo bay. We note that while the K.T. Safety Act
applies primarily to passenger vehicles, the state regulations apply
only to vehicles used for commercial purposes. However, we note that
some commercial vehicles may be encompassed by the proposed
regulations, and that issues of Federal preemption could apply. This is
discussed in more detail in Section IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ 74 FR 9480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The ANPRM set forth the agency's analysis of the crash data and
safety problem, our research progress, and ideas for possible
proposals.\32\ Specifically, the ANPRM reiterated some previous
findings on backover statistics, presented research findings on the
effectiveness of various countermeasures, and outlined options for
improving rear visibility including: Improved direct vision (i.e.,
looking directly out the vehicle's rear window) or indirect vision via
rear-mounted convex mirrors, rearview video systems, and rear object
detection sensors. The notice also set forth three approaches to
defining the scope of the applicability of the enhancements to FMVSS
No. 111 being contemplated by the agency. The approaches included
requiring a rear visibility countermeasure on all light vehicles, only
LTVs, or just a portion of the fleet as determined using a rear blind
zone area threshold. Such a threshold would indicate what size of area
behind the vehicle in which a driver cannot see obstacles is too large
based on an associated high rate of backing or backover crashes.
Several approaches for developing a threshold were provided, including
a vehicle type approach and multiple implementations of a rear blind
zone area threshold approach. Finally, the ANPRM sought responses to
approximately forty-three specific questions addressing the feasibility
and performance of various technologies, technology cost, and
requesting feedback on NHTSA's ideas about possible approaches for
countermeasure application throughout all or a portion of the fleet.
Sections A through D of this section summarize the information
presented and the subsequent sections summarize the comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ 74 FR 9478, [Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0041].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Technologies To Mitigate Backover Crashes

Systems to aid drivers in performing backing maneuvers have been
available for nearly two decades. To date, original equipment systems
have been marketed as a convenience feature or ``parking aid'' for
which the vehicle owner's manual often contains language denoting
sensor performance limitations with respect to detecting children or
small moving objects. Aftermarket systems, however, are often marketed
as safety devices for warning drivers of the presence of small children
behind the vehicle.
Since the early 1990s, NHTSA has actively researched approaches to
mitigate backing crashes with pedestrians for heavy and light vehicles
by assessing the effectiveness of various backing aid technologies. In
addition to sensor-based rear object detection systems, the agency has
evaluated rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video systems. To
date, our evaluation and testing results indicate that rearview video
systems not only offer drivers the most comprehensive view behind a
vehicle but drivers seem to use them more effectively in avoiding a
conflict situation with a pedestrian when compared to additional
mirrors and sensors. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the
information presented in the ANPRM describing each of the system types
assessed by NHTSA to date and our observations on how they could be
used to improve the rear visibility of current vehicles.
i. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors
Rear-mounted convex mirrors are mirrors with a curved reflective
surface that can be mounted internal or external to the vehicle. Their
design is such that they compress a reflected image to provide a wider
field of view than planar (i.e., flat) mirrors. When used on vehicles,
the mirrors may be mounted at the rear to allow a driver to see areas
behind the vehicle. A single rear-mounted mirror can be mounted at the
upper center of the rear window with the reflective surface pointing at
the ground (commonly referred to as backing mirrors, under mirrors, or
``look-down'' mirrors) or at the driver's side on the upper corner of
the vehicle

[[Page 76197]]

(commonly seen on delivery vans or mail delivery trucks and called
``corner mirrors'') to show the area behind the vehicle. Both look-down
and corner convex mirrors are typically positioned to show a portion of
the rear of the vehicle to give drivers a visual reference point.
Alternatively, rear convex ``cross-view'' mirrors pairs can be
integrated into the inside face of both rearmost pillars or attached to
the rear glass to show objects approaching on a perpendicular path
behind the vehicle to aid a driver when backing into a right-of-way.
While cross-view mirrors are available for passenger cars and LTVs,
rear convex look-down and corner mirrors can only be mounted on
vehicles with a vertical rear window, such as vans and SUVs. Rear-
mounted convex mirrors are primarily available as aftermarket products
in the U.S., but are also available as original equipment on at least
one multipurpose passenger vehicle.\33\ In Korea and Japan, rear-
mounted convex mirrors are used on small school buses, short delivery
trucks, and some multipurpose vehicles (e.g., SUVs) to allow drivers to
view areas behind a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Rear-mounted convex mirrors have been available on the
Toyota 4Runner base model vehicle since model year 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally, drivers use rear-mounted convex look-down mirrors to
view the area behind a vehicle by looking directly at the mirror or by
viewing them indirectly through their reflection in the interior
rearview mirror. Cross-view mirrors also may be viewed either directly
or indirectly through the interior rearview mirror. For a rear convex
corner mirror, which is not in the driver's direct line of sight, he or
she must look into the driver's side rearview mirror to view the
reflection of the rear convex corner mirror.
In the ANPRM, NHTSA outlined its observations about these mirrors
based on our testing conducted in 2006 and 2007.^{34 35} The
fields of view for look-down mirrors examined were found to extend from
the rear bumper out approximately 6 feet radially from the mirror
location, while the view provided by cross-view mirrors extended
further due to the mirrors' vertical orientation. Overall, our testing
generally indicated that convex mirrors compress and distort the image
of reflected objects in their field of view, which makes objects and
pedestrians appear very narrow and difficult for the driver to discern
and identify in most locations within the reflected image. These
aspects of image quality worsen as the length of the vehicle increases,
since for longer vehicles the mirror is further from the driver. Our
testing also has indicated that because rear cross-view mirrors are
positioned to show an area to the side and rear of the vehicle, they do
not provide a good view of the area directly behind the vehicle (the
area bounded by two imaginary planes tangent to the sides of the
vehicle). As such, it is possible that a pedestrian or object located
directly behind the vehicle would not be visible to the driver. Rear
cross-view mirrors can help drivers see objects approaching the rear of
the vehicle along a perpendicular path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ 74 FR 9486.
\35\ The research studies and the observations are documented in
''The Ability of Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors to Improve Rear
Visibility,'' Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference 2009, Paper
Number 09-0558. Since the ANPRM, NHTSA has conducted additional
testing on drivers' use of rear-mounted convex mirrors, the findings
of which will be discussed later in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Rearview Video Systems
Rearview video systems are available as both original and
aftermarket equipment and permit a driver to see the area directly
behind the vehicle via a visual display (i.e., video screen) showing
the image from a video camera mounted on the rear of the vehicle. NHTSA
has observed the placement of these visual displays in a number of
locations. Sometimes these displays serve the added purpose of
providing a visual display for a navigation system or satellite radio.
As stand-alone units, these displays have also been incorporated into
the dash or into the interior rearview mirror. The video cameras
installed with rearview video systems vary in field of view performance
from approximately 130 to 180 degrees behind the vehicle.
Drivers use rearview video systems as an additional source of
visual information complementing the views provide by the interior and
exterior rearview mirrors. In a 2008 report \36\ that documented
NHTSA's research on drivers' use of rearview video systems, the agency
asserted that proper use of a rearview video system by a driver would
entail drivers beginning to back only when the rearview video system
display image becomes visible and the driver has looked at the image,
and that drivers should look at the display as well as the vehicle's
mirrors periodically during backing rather than just taking one glance
at the display at the start of the maneuver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Mazzae, E. N., Barickman, F. S., Baldwin, G. H. S., and
Ranney, T. A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview
Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, DOT 811 024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the ANPRM, NHTSA summarized its 2006 research that examined
three rearview video systems: One in combination with original
equipment rear parking sensors, one aftermarket system combining both
rearview video and parking sensor technologies, and one original
equipment rearview video system.^{37 38} This examination of
rearview video systems included assessment of their fields of view and
their potential to provide drivers with information about obstacles
behind the vehicle. Through this study, the agency observed that the
rearview video systems examined provided a clear image of the area
behind the vehicle in daylight and indoor lighting conditions. Rearview
video systems displayed images of pedestrians or obstacles behind the
vehicle to a viewable range of 23 feet or more, except for an area
within 8-12 inches of the rear bumper at ground level. Systems
displayed an area as wide as the rear bumper at the immediate rear of
the vehicle and the view increasingly widened further out from the rear
of the vehicle as a function of the video camera's viewing angle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ 74 FR 9490.
\38\ Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of
the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA
Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems
Sensor-based object detection systems are also available as
aftermarket products and as original equipment. These systems use
electronic sensors that transmit a signal which, if an obstacle is
present in a sensor's detection field, reflects the signal back to the
sensor producing a positive ``detection'' of the obstacle. These
sensors detect objects in the vicinity of a vehicle at varying ranges
depending on the technology. To date, commercially-available object
detection systems have utilized short-range ultrasonic technology or
longer range radar technology, although advanced infrared sensors are
under development as well. Ultrasonic sensors inherently have detection
performance that varies as a function of the degree of sonic
reflectivity of the obstacle surface. For example, objects with a
smooth surface such as plastic or metal reflect well, whereas objects
with a textured surface, such as clothing, do not reflect very well.
Radar sensors, which among other things can detect the water in a
human's body, are better able to detect pedestrians overall, but
demonstrate inconsistent detection performance for small children.
In 2006, NHTSA evaluated the object detection performance of eight
sensor-

[[Page 76198]]

based original equipment and aftermarket rear parking systems.\39\
Measurements included static field of view (i.e., both the vehicle and
test objects were static), static field of view repeatability, and
dynamic detection range for different laterally moving test objects,
including adult and child pedestrians. Both ultrasonic and radar
sensor-based systems tested were generally inconsistent and unreliable
in detecting pedestrians, particularly children, located behind the
vehicle. Testing showed that, in most cases, pedestrian size affected
detection performance, as adults elicited better detection response
than 1- or 3-year-old children. Specifically, each system could
generally detect a moving adult pedestrian (or other objects) behind a
stationary vehicle; however, each system exhibited difficulty in
detecting moving children. The sensor-based systems tested exhibited
some degree of variability in their detection performance and patterns.
Five of eight systems tested were found to exhibit maximum system
response times that exceeded the 0.35 second limit set forth by the
performance requirements of the International Organization for
Standards (ISO) International Standard 17386 \40\. NHTSA is aware that
the performance of current sensor based systems can be influenced by
the algorithms that are used for detection and that these systems, to
date, have likely not been optimized for the detection of small
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of
the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA
Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006.
\40\ ISO 17386:2004 Transport information and control systems--
Manoeuvring Aids for Low Speed Operation (MALSO)--Performance
requirements and test procedures. This standard applies to object
detection devices that provide information to the driver regarding
the distance to an obstacle during low-speed operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video Camera) Systems
Multi-technology systems, as the term is used here, refer to the
situation of more than one backing aid technology being present on a
vehicle. Historically, multi-technology backing aid systems have
consisted of a rearview video and sensor-based technologies being both
present on the vehicle, but functioning independently of each other.
Recently, integrated systems have become commercially available that
use data from rear object detection sensors to provide added
convenience through presentation of obstacle warnings superimposed on
the rearview video system image.
It would seem reasonable to posit that such a combination system
should have improved effectiveness over either technology alone. With a
combined system, the sensor-based alerts could compensate for the
passive rearview video technology by stimulating the driver to apply
the brakes and glance at the rearview video system display to confirm
the presence of an obstacle behind the vehicle (and inform the driver
that the warning was not a false alarm). The intervention of the
sensor-based warning should draw the driver's attention to the presence
of a rear obstacle, rather than relying on the driver to look at the
rearview video system display at the right moment when the obstacle is
apparent.
However, this hypothesis has not proven correct. NHTSA's research
to date has shown that the combination of rearview video and sensor
technologies to be less effective in aiding drivers to avoid a backing
crash than rearview video alone.\41\ In laboratory testing of multi-
technology systems' ability to detect different types of objects
without interaction from a driver,\42\ NHTSA found the performance of
the combined technologies in detecting or displaying rear obstacles to
be no better than that observed in the testing of those technologies as
single-technology systems. As was the case with sensor-only systems,
the sensor function of multi-technology systems have been shown to
perform poorly and sporadically in detecting small children, while the
rearview video component accurately displays rear obstacles located
within the video camera's field of view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Mazzae, E. N., Barickman, F. S., Baldwin, G. H. S., and
Ranney, T. A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview
Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, DOT 811 024.
\42\ Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of
the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA
Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Other Technologies
NHTSA is aware of two additional sensor technologies currently
under development by manufacturers that may, one day, be used to
improve a vehicle's rear visibility. The technologies include infrared-
based object detection systems and video-based object recognition
systems. As with other sensor systems, infrared-based systems emit a
signal, which if an object is within its detection range, will bounce
back and be detected by a receiver. Rear object detection via video
camera uses real-time processing of the video image to identify
obstacles behind the vehicle and then alert the driver of their
presence. While these technology applications may eventually prove
viable, because of their early stages of development and current
unavailability as a production product, it is not possible at this time
to assess their ability to effectively expand the visible area behind a
vehicle. Also, it is anticipated that systems using such advanced
technologies will not be available on vehicles for some time and will
likely be more expensive than today's systems.
In addition, NHTSA has recently completed cooperative research with
the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and General Motors (GM) on
Advanced Collision Avoidance Technology relating to backing incidents.
The research focused on assessing the ability of more advanced
technologies to mitigate backing crashes and refining a tool to assess
the potential safety benefit of these prototype technologies. NHTSA
expects to publish the findings of this particular research effort by
the end of 2010.

B. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility

In the ANPRM, NHSTA outlined three approaches that could be used to
determine which vehicles would need a rear visibility countermeasure
application to meet the requirements of the K. T. Safety Act: \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ 74 FR 9504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Require improved rear visibility for all vehicles weighing
10,000 pounds or less.
Require improved rear visibility for LTVs weighing 10,000
pounds or less.
Require improved rear visibility for some vehicles
weighing 10,000 pounds or less that do not meet a minimum rear
visibility performance threshold.
The first approach would require that all vehicles have improved
rear visibility sufficient to allow the driver to see a pedestrian in a
specified zone behind the vehicle. The size of the zone would have a
direct impact on the likely means a manufacturer could use to meet the
rear visibility requirements.
The second approach would specify that all LTVs, as a vehicle
class, should be required to have improved rear visibility. Crash data
show that while multiple types of passenger vehicles (cars,
multipurpose utility vehicles, trucks, and vans, but not LSVs and small
buses) are involved in backover crashes, LTVs are statistically
overrepresented in backover crash fatalities. Therefore, this
alternative approach would target the class of vehicles which are
disproportionately

[[Page 76199]]

responsible for the largest portion of backover fatalities.
A third approach discussed in the ANPRM was to establish a maximum
direct-view rear blind zone area limit based on size of blind zone and/
or crash rate.\44\ With this approach, any vehicle not meeting the
minimum rear visibility threshold would be required to be equipped with
a rear visibility countermeasure. Because vehicle styling engineers
would have a target threshold giving them an idea of minimum
``acceptable'' direct rear visibility, such an approach would allow
manufacturers the flexibility to modify exterior structural physical
attributes of a vehicle that impact rear visibility to provide adequate
rear visibility without the need for a technological countermeasure to
enhance rear visibility. Based on direct-view blind zone area
measurements of the current fleet, we could determine a threshold and
require vehicles that do not meet the threshold to be equipped with a
countermeasure. Thus, the agency suggested that it could focus
application on improved rear visibility requirements for vehicles with
the largest rear blind zone areas and those vehicles that are most
involved in backing and backover crashes. The goal of either of these
partial-fleet approaches would be to remove the unreasonable risk
associated with vehicles that are highly involved in backover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ 74 FR 9504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Rear Visibility Measurement

The ANPRM also discussed a method for the measurement of a
vehicle's rear blind zone area.\45\ If a maximum direct-view rear blind
zone area threshold were to be used to establish the need for a vehicle
to have improved rear visibility, its rear visibility characteristics
would need to be measured and that vehicle's direct-view rear
visibility and rear blind zone areas would need to be calculated.
Therefore, a rear visibility measurement procedure would need to be
developed. In the ANPRM, the agency identified existing measurement
procedures, such as those by the Society of Automotive Engineers \46\
and Consumers Union \47\ and addressed advantages and disadvantages of
the different identified methods. The ANPRM summarized NHTSA's 2007
effort to measure rear visibility of a set of vehicles using drivers
and outlined the potential for variability inherent in tests involving
human subjects.\48\ Lastly, the ANPRM introduced a new measurement
procedure developed by NHTSA that replaced the human driver previously
used in rear visibility measurements with a laser-based fixture.\49\
The enhanced procedure approximated the direct rear visibility of a
vehicle for a 50th percentile male driver using a fixture that
incorporated two laser pointing devices to simulate a driver's line of
sight. One laser pointing device was positioned at the midpoint of a
50th percentile male's eyes when looking rearward over his left
shoulder and the other device was placed at the midpoint of a 50th
percentile male's eyes when looking rearward over his right shoulder
during backing. Data documenting the high degree of repeatability of
this test procedure were provided, as well as sample results.
Additional aspects of the measurement procedure were summarized
including size of the field over which measurements were made,
coarseness of the test grid, and test object height.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ 74 FR 9506.
\46\ Society of Automotive Engineers, Surface Vehicle
Recommended Practice: Describing and Measuring the Driver's Field of
View. SAE J1050, Jan. 2003.
\47\ Consumer Reports (August, 2006). Blind-zone measurements.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/car-safety/car-safety-reviews/mind-that-blind-spot-1005/overview/. Accessed 9/2/2009.
\48\ 74 FR 9496.
\49\ 74 FR 9507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Possible Countermeasure Performance Specifications

The ANPRM also discussed possible countermeasure performance
specifications.\50\ This included possible areas of required
countermeasure coverage behind the vehicle, as well as various
characteristics of a visual display, and system performance criteria.
Visual display characteristics noted as being important included
display size and location, response time, and various aspects of image
quality for a video image display. In addition, possible video camera
requirements were also noted, such as low light performance
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ 74 FR 9512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ANPRM discussed one basis for assertion of an appropriate
countermeasure coverage area that used the results of a Monte Carlo
simulation that examined backover crash risk as a function of a
pedestrian's location behind a vehicle, as discussed in Section
II.C.iv.\51\ The area of critical risk was then used to define an area
behind a vehicle that must be visible to the driver during a backing
maneuver. Based on the Monte Carlo simulation results, an area over
which the test object should be visible could be defined to include an
area 10 feet wide at the vehicle's rear bumper that widens
symmetrically to width of 20 feet at a distance of approximately 6 feet
aft of the rear bumper. The width of the area increased along diagonal
lines of 45 degrees with respect to the vertical plane of the vehicle's
rear bumper and extending outward from the vehicle's rear corners. The
maximum longitudinal range of a possible required visible area noted in
the ANPRM was 40 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ 74 FR 9484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Summary of Comments Received

NHTSA received comments from a total of 37 entities in response to
the ANPRM, as well as one comment specifically directed at the
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis. These comments came from
industry associations, automotive and equipment manufacturers, safety
advocacy organizations, and individuals. Industry associations
submitting comments included the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers
(AAM), the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(AIAM), the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and the
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA). Vehicle
manufacturers submitting comments included Ford, General Motors (GM),
Honda, Mercedes-Benz USA, and Nissan, as well as Blue Bird, a
manufacturer of buses. Several equipment manufacturers also submitted
comments, including Continental, Delphi, Gentex, Magna, Sony, and
Takata. Several companies focused on backing aid products specifically,
included Ackton, a manufacturer of automotive parking sensors;
Echomaster Obstacle Detection Technologies; Rosco Vision Systems, a
maker of vision enhancement systems; and Sense Technologies, a
manufacturer of aftermarket automotive mirror and radar-based sensor
systems. Organizations submitting comments included the Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, Consumers Union, Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS), and Kids and Cars. Finally, 14 individuals
commented on the ANPRM, and their points and suggestions are addressed
as well.
Because the ANPRM had an extremely broad scope, the comments
addressed an extremely wide variety of issues and provided a large
amount of information. Therefore, we have attempted to organize the
comments received along some of the main issues, such as a blind zone
area basis for determination of countermeasure need, countermeasure
application based on vehicle type, and the adoption of convex driver's-
side mirrors. Additionally, the ANPRM contained 43

[[Page 76200]]

distinct questions, to which some commenters added appendices
addressing individual questions specifically, in addition to their
general comments. Because of the breadth of those questions, they are
addressed separately in Section F below.
i. Measurement of Rear Blind Zone Area and Its Use as a Basis for
Determination of Countermeasure Need
Numerous commenters addressed the issue of direct visibility and
the significance of a vehicle's blind zone.\52\ As stated above,
identifying, measuring, and limiting blind zones was one of the issues
discussed in the ANPRM. The document solicited comments on several
issues relating to blind zones, including their significance relative
to backover crashes, areas of the blind zone that could be considered
more or less important for safety, and how they should be measured. The
following summarizes the comments received on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ We note that this is different than what many informally
call a ``blind spot,'' a term used to describe an area to the side
of the car where people may not be able to see a vehicle when
changing lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first issue related to the area to be measured to determine a
vehicle's blind zone. Delphi questioned the use of a 50-foot square
blind zone area, stating that it combined high- and low-risk areas
together. It also stated that mandating particular blind zones or
direct visibility requirements could impose severe limitations on
vehicle styling. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that a maximum
blind zone area approach to rear visibility may not be as effective in
reducing backover crashes as hoped under real-world conditions, as
passengers, head restraints, cargo, etc., would obstruct the driver's
direct view to the rear of the visibility in any event.
AORC stated that it was against a ``zero blind zone'' requirement,
arguing that it would create an extremely limiting requirement vehicle
styling. To this end, the AORC recommended that a rear visibility
countermeasure should be required to detect the presence of objects
that are similar to standing children beginning 0.25 meters (0.82 ft)
aft of the rear bumper and extending outward to a minimum of 3.0 meters
(9.84 ft). IIHS strongly urged the agency to consider a requirement
that would eliminate a vehicle's rear blind zone entirely. IIHS further
suggested that it could be a good idea to augment an improved rear
visibility requirement with a minimum requirement for direct
visibility, stating that it is desirable to preclude vehicle design
choices that result unnecessarily small directly viewable rear areas,
to account for situations when video cameras are inoperative.
In its comments, the AAM recommended that NHTSA define the area
directly behind the vehicle into two zones, called the ``reaction
subzone'' and the ``reverse obscuration subzone.'' The AAM defined the
reaction subzone as extending from the rear of the vehicle to a point
4.1 meters rearward. According to the AAM, this distance is ``the
product of the average backing speed of 1.66 meters per second (5.49
feet per second) and the mean perception response time between
detection by a driver of a pedestrian and brake application of 2.5
seconds.'' The reverse obscuration subzone, behind that, extends to the
point at which a test object (representative of an 18-month old child)
first becomes visible in the interior mirror, which would vary by
vehicle. The AAM did not specifically recommend what to require with
regard to these zones.
Several commenters provided suggestions as to how to measure the
blind zone, specifically, the height of the test target, and the
position of the driver's ``eyepoint'' from which the target must be
seen. In order to determine the size of the target, GM analyzed the age
and height of children involved in backover crashes, noting that of the
41 SCI cases available at that time that involving children under 5
years old, 33 involved children 18 months and older. Based on that
information, GM suggested that a height of 32 inches for any rear
visibility test target would be justified, which it stated was the 50th
percentile height of an 18-month-old child. GM stated that all the
victims in the first 56 SCI backover cases would have been visible if
the vehicle had permitted the driver to see the area at this height.
Blue Bird stated that field of view mapping is a time and effort-
consuming enterprise, and that the company does not believe that the
magnitude of the differences measured at multiple eyepoints would
justify that effort. Instead, it stated that a single eyepoint should
be used.
Kids and Cars stated that eyepoints should be based on smaller
statured persons or dummies, and that NHTSA should not use eyepoints
based on a 95th percentile male. With similar concern for smaller-
statured drivers, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety indicated their
concern that any attempt to expand rear visibility through improvements
to direct visibility may not sufficiently accommodate 5th percentile
females and other drivers of very small stature.
Sony stated that NHTSA cannot satisfy the requirements of the Act
solely by mandating limits on vehicle rear blind zones, since such an
approach would only mitigate a portion of the total area of blind
zones, and would do little to mitigate the ultimate danger of backover
crashes.
In addition, numerous commenters provided more detail in response
to specific NHTSA questions, which are discussed in Section F below.
ii. Application of Countermeasures Among Vehicle Types
One significant issue discussed in the ANPRM was the concept that
different types of vehicles could be subject to different
countermeasure requirements. For example, noting the higher proportion
of fatalities in backover crashes involving LTVs, the agency presented
the option of requiring only those vehicles to have a rear visibility
countermeasure. Many commenters offered their thoughts on which
vehicles should be equipped with countermeasures.
Sony commented that the Act permits NHTSA to ``prescribe different
requirements for different types of motor vehicles,'' but does not
permit a total or partial exemption of a particular class of vehicles,
or a percentage of a particular class of vehicles, from rear visibility
requirements. Sony further stated that limiting the rear blind zone
visibility requirements to LTVs ignores the fact that passenger cars
account for 26 percent of backover deaths and 54 percent of backover
injuries, and that these percentages will likely increase given the
relative decline of LTV sales across the market. They also pointed out
that the line between passenger cars and LTVs has blurred to the point
where the weight and/or height of a particular vehicle does not
necessarily correspond to rear visibility.
Safety organizations generally commented against limiting
countermeasures to certain vehicle types. Kids and Cars stated that all
vehicles must be addressed in order to prevent backover injuries and
fatalities, stating that even one car with a large blind zone should
indicate the need for the regulation to cover all vehicle types.
Similarly, IIHS and Consumers Union both supported uniform requirements
across light vehicle classes.
Some equipment manufacturers of rear visibility enhancement
products also submitted comments recommending that rear visibility
countermeasures not be limited to certain vehicle types, but be applied
to

[[Page 76201]]

all vehicles. Delphi and Magna stated that it believes the backover
problem is widespread enough that countermeasures should not be limited
to any particular class of vehicles. Similarly, Ackton suggested that
countermeasures should not be limited to a certain vehicle class and
also raised the issue that trailers should be equipped with sensor
systems as well.
Several automakers commented in favor of limiting any rear
visibility improvement to LTVs. Mercedes suggested that if the agency
believes that advanced countermeasures are required for the portion of
the vehicle fleet that is statistically overrepresented in backover
crashes (i.e., LTVs), then NHTSA should require those countermeasures
only for those types of vehicles. Mercedes stated that those advanced
countermeasures are particularly well-suited for higher-belt-line
vehicles, and that the limitation would make the requirement more cost-
effective. Honda also commented that rear visibility performance
requirements should be instituted for only those vehicles with the
highest rates of backover incidents, although it also suggested that
NHTSA should actively monitor the data for all vehicle types so that it
can consider broader application of the requirements based on the
safety need.
Automakers Nissan and GM both recommended that a maximum blind zone
area approach be used to determine whether a vehicle warrants improved
rear visibility rather than applying the new requirements by vehicle
type.
NHTSA received one comment, from Blue Bird, asserting that buses
should not be subject to improved rear visibility requirements. First,
Blue Bird noted that the backover statistics presented by NHTSA did not
show any apparent backover crashes caused by buses. Second, it stated
that most drivers of buses are required to obtain commercial driver
licenses (CDLs), and that these drivers are subjected to additional
training, limiting the chances of backover crashes. The company also
stated that mirrors, in any of several configurations, would not be
able to provide an adequate field of view to the rear of a bus, and
would present exceptional mounting difficulties. Additionally, because
many buses (such as school buses) are not equipped with navigation
screens, the costs for installing rearview video systems in these
vehicles would be higher than the average for passenger vehicles.
iii. Use and Efficacy of Rear-Mounted Mirror Systems and Convex
Driver's-Side Mirrors
In the ANPRM, NHTSA presented data on the ability of mirrors to
display usable images of the area behind a vehicle.\53\ Several
commenters provided information and opinions regarding mirrors.
Furthermore, several manufacturers suggested that, due to the geometry
of a number of backover scenarios analyzed, convex driver's-side
mirrors could be an effective way to prevent backover crashes. We have
summarized these comments below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ 74 FR 9486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters, including Consumers Union, Kids and Cars, IIHS,
Blue Bird, Magna, and Nissan agreed with NHTSA's preliminary evaluation
of rear-mounted mirror systems in Section V of the ANPRM, stating that
they are generally not useful in aiding a driver of a backing vehicle
to visually detect pedestrians, particularly children, located behind
the vehicle. Based on the information presented in the ANPRM, the
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety concluded that the coverage
provided by rear-mounted convex mirrors is inadequate for the purpose
of providing drivers with a sufficient rearward field of view to
identify pedestrians and avoid backover crashes.
According to the AAM and other commenters, rear-mounted convex
mirrors are installed as backing/parking aids to help the driver locate
fixed objects behind and near the rear bumper.
One commenter, Sense Technologies, which manufactures rear cross-
view mirrors, suggested that NHTSA perform additional research into the
types of backover crashes and backing crashes that could be prevented
with rear-mounted cross-view mirrors, which would enable drivers of
vehicles to see objects approaching from the sides of a vehicle, which
are frequently obscured in parking lots. It also suggested that cross-
view mirrors could be mounted on the rear of passenger cars (unlike
``look down'' mirrors, which are usually only mounted on LTVs).
One issue mentioned by multiple commenters concerned the European
standard for mirror performance, ECE R46. Several commenters suggested
that replacing the side mirror requirement currently in FMVSS No. 111
with the convex driver's-side mirror specifications in ECE R46 would
help drivers be better able to detect pedestrians before they enter the
path of the vehicle, if they are approaching from the sides. We note
that ECE R46 allows either flat or convex driver's-side mirrors,
provided they meet the minimum field of view requirements. It was
unclear to the agency whether some commenters were suggesting mandating
convex mirrors (and disallowing current flat mirrors) or simply allow
convex mirrors as an option.
The AAM recommended adopting ECE R46 convex driver's-side mirror
requirements as a means to prevent a substantial number of backover
crashes. It pointed to a number of purported benefits, such as an
increase in viewing coverage, reduced glare, and driver preference for
non-planar mirrors. Like other commenters, the AAM also discussed
NHTSA's data that showed that a number of backover crashes resulted
from side incursions. They stated that convex side mirrors could help
the driver see these pedestrians earlier than flat mirrors. The AAM
also cited research indicating that these mirrors would provide a 22.9
percent reduction in lane change crashes.
Mercedes commented that, given that many SCI cases indicated the
children struck by backing vehicles moved into the path of the vehicle
from either the left or right, it supported AAM's recommendation to
adopt ECE R46 requirements for convex driver's-side exterior mirrors,
as they substantially increase the driver's field of view to the sides
and rear of a given vehicle, thus increasing the time that a moving
pedestrian will be visible in the mirror and providing greater
opportunity for the driver to detect them.
Regarding convex mirrors, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
agreed that they may provide a wider field of view than that available
with current rearview mirrors. However, they pointed out that convex
mirrors may require drivers, even those with experience using convex
mirrors, to interpret the altered view in order to understand precisely
what is being conveyed regarding pedestrians and other objects present
in the vehicle path.
iv. Use of Monte Carlo Simulation of Backover Crash Risk for
Development of a Required Countermeasure Coverage Area
GM raised some questions about the Monte Carlo simulation presented
in the ANPRM, which calculated the backover risk for pedestrians as a
function of their location relative to a backing vehicle. GM noted that
while the Monte Carlo simulation calculated the risk of a backing
vehicle striking a pedestrian at certain locations behind the vehicle,
it did not factor in the probability that the pedestrian would actually
be located in

[[Page 76202]]

that spot (e.g., even though a child six inches from the rear edge of
the vehicle is almost certain to be hit, the chance of the child being
actually located there is comparatively low). Considering that,
according to GM's analysis, the areas indicated as high-risk in the
Monte Carlo simulation may not correlate particularly well with the
overall backover crash risk.
On the other hand, Consumers Union praised the Monte Carlo
simulation, and suggested using it as the basis for determining what a
rearview video system should be able to detect, recommending that it
detect any area where the risk factor was 0.10 or higher in that
analysis.
v. Use and Efficacy of Sensor-Based Systems
The issue of the use and efficacy of sensor systems, that is, how
they are designed and how well they function to prevent backovers was
discussed by many commenters. These comments addressed three main
issues. The first was the purpose for which sensors are currently
designed, which are as parking aids, rather than backover prevention
aids. Commenters also discussed the capabilities of sensors to detect
various obstacles, as well as the cost of production and
implementation, and provided recommendations for test objects. We have
summarized the comments below.
One major issue addressed by numerous commenters was the assertion
that NHTSA's analysis relating to sensor system effectiveness was
flawed. Commenters felt that by testing currently available sensors, we
were testing systems that were designed to detect large, dense or
highly reflective, stationary objects (such as parked cars, walls,
etc.) rather than smaller, lighter, and mobile objects like
pedestrians. Because of this discrepancy, commenters suggested that
NHTSA's testing of sensors may have led to artificially low estimates
of system effectiveness.
Delphi questioned whether NHTSA's effectiveness numbers were
accurate. The company stated that NHTSA's analysis of sensor
effectiveness, which showed that sensor systems had a 39 percent
detection rate and that a combination sensor/video system had a 15
percent driver performance result, should be used carefully because the
sensors were not designed to detect children. Instead, Delphi stated
that current OEM sensor systems are designed to the ISO 17386
standard,\54\ which asserts performance requirements for object
detection devices that provide information to the driver regarding the
distance to an obstacle during low-speed operation. This ISO standard
specifies a PVC cylinder for use in measuring systems' detection
performance, and does not require the detection of objects low to the
ground so that systems are permitted to avoid detecting curbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ ISO 17386:2004 Transport information and control systems--
Manoeuvring Aids for Low Speed Operation (MALSO)--Performance
requirements and test procedures. This standard applies to object
detection devices that provide information to the driver regarding
the distance to an obstacle during low-speed operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delphi also provided extensive comments regarding sensor-based
systems in terms of their abilities and how they may best be used. It
suggested that sensors are an important addition to rearview video
systems, as drivers need prompting in order to glance at the screen
when an obstruction appears. The company also suggested that a sensor
system with varying warnings, dependent on the calculated time-to-
collision, could provide drivers with additional information that could
be used to prevent backover crashes. Delphi stated that radar sensors
are more efficient at detecting children than ultrasonic sensors, and
can detect targets at greater ranges. With regard to test targets for
sensor systems, it commented that any test target should be chosen to
provide a minimum reflectivity that is representative of the smallest
required detectable object (e.g., 1-year-old child).
Ackton was another company that noted that current sensors are
designed to the ISO 17386 standard, and are not designed to detect
children. It stated that until there is a pedestrian-detection
standard, many systems will not be designed to pass it, and will
therefore fail to detect pedestrians. Sony also stated that current
sensors are designed as parking aids and are optimized to detect hard
surface objects, but that technical advances may improve the ability of
such systems to detect non-occupant pedestrians.
Ackton also commented that its ``New-Gen'' ultrasonic technology
can detect a 36-inch child at a distance of 15 feet. Along similar
lines, Magna commented on two future technologies discussed in the
ANPRM, infrared and video-based object recognition systems. Magna
stated that these systems were in active development, and would be
ready for production by 2011.
Continental commented that in the future advanced systems may be
developed that respond automatically with automatic braking to avoid a
backing crash without any action from the driver. It stated that in the
future, systems will be able to recognize pedestrians that are in
danger of being struck and automatically intervene to prevent that from
happening. Continental gave no indication of the timeframe for
availability of such technology.
IIHS stated that the combination of sensors' unreliability and
drivers' slow and inconsistent reactions to audible warnings suggest
that requiring, or even allowing, sensors in lieu of a visual backover
countermeasure systems is not advisable at this time, although sensors
could augment other technologies. Kids and Cars and Magna also pointed
to the audible signals from sensors as a source of annoyance to many
drivers, especially given the prevalence of false positives, which
caused many drivers to ``tune out'' the warnings. However, Magna stated
that if the sensor warnings were provided visually (such as on a
graphical overlay), drivers would be less prone to be irritated by them
and therefore less likely to ignore them.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety suggested for sensor-based
systems that the agency consider an interlock requirement that
prohibits the vehicle from being able to be moved in reverse, even
after the transmission has been placed in reverse gear, until a short
period after the system becomes fully operational.
vi. Use and Efficacy of Rearview Video Systems
In the ANPRM, NHTSA presented its research on rearview video
systems. Commenters discussed these systems at length. In summarizing
these comments, we have divided them into two general groups. The first
section describes the comments relating to the general effectiveness of
rearview video systems in aiding drivers to avoid backing crashes. The
subsequent section summarizes the comments relating to the specific
possible requirements for rearview video systems, such as camera
performance, visual display characteristics, etc.
Many commenters, including manufacturers of video cameras, safety
organizations, and individual commenters, stated that rearview video
systems would be the best system to prevent backover crashes.
Commenters supporting this proposition included Consumers Union, Kids
and Cars, IIHS, Magna, Nissan, and Sony.
Consumers Union also supported the application of rearview video
systems, noting their potential to save lives, and also asserted that
their efficacy would improve as users grew more accustomed to using
them in their everyday driving.

[[Page 76203]]

It added that it believed a rearview video system coupled with a sensor
system would be the overall best system. While Consumers Union referred
to NHTSA's research study as involving drivers ``trained'' to use
rearview video systems and the other systems tested, the agency notes
that all drivers who participated in the study had owned and driven the
system-equipped vehicle and had driven it as their primary vehicle for
at least 6 months prior to study participation, but did not receive any
specific training in the use of a rearview video system.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety pointed out that a video
image of the area behind a vehicle immediately conveys information
about rear obstacles and pedestrians within the system's field of view
without any need for interpretation by the driver. This quality was
noted as an advantage of rearview video systems over rear-mounted
convex mirrors and sensor-based systems.
Magna stated that it believes camera technology has the potential
to significantly enhance safety and that a rearview video system ranks
highest by far, in regard to system performance and overall
effectiveness estimates. In its responses to specific questions, Magna
provided some additional research showing the overall effectiveness of
rearview video systems in preventing backover crashes, which is
discussed in Section F below.
Sony stated that it agrees with the majority of analysis provided
and the preliminary conclusions reached observations made in the ANPRM.
Specifically, Sony recommended that any amendment to FMVSS No. 111
should require backover prevention technologies to detect obstacles in
areas other than immediately behind the vehicle. Sony stated that
rearview video systems with 180-degree video cameras would be best able
to address real-world backover crash scenarios, in which a majority of
pedestrians enter the vehicle's path from the side.
Nissan provided some comments on its ``Around View Monitor'', which
provides a birds-eye (i.e., overhead) view of the area around the
vehicle on all four sides. The company stated that their system was
designed primarily as a parking aid, and that it will have significant
limitations if used to protect children. Nissan stated that rearview
video technology in general is a useful parking aid, but that its
utility in preventing backover crashes may be limited, because drivers
must be looking at the screen in order to see a pedestrian incur into
their path. Nissan drew attention to the glance behavior cited in
NHTSA's research, noting that on average drivers looked at the visual
display twice, or about 8-12 percent of the time. It stated that this
may not be enough to detect the pedestrian in time to react, even if
the driver is using the rearview video system correctly, and that
driver glance behavior has a significant effect on rearview video
system effectiveness. Nissan also cautioned against excessive reliance
on a video-based backing aid, cautioning that if a driver is relying
excessively upon rearview enhancement technology, the operator can miss
seeing a person or an object positioned just outside of that field of
view. Nissan also stated that it is imperative that the operator always
confirm clearance of the entire path of travel, and turn around and
look during a backup maneuver.
The AAM made several comments similar to those of Nissan, stating
that no safety countermeasure or safety technology is completely
effective. AAM stated that regardless of the technology adopted to
expand a driver's field of view, the driver is ultimately responsible
for the safe operation of the vehicle. AAM characterized rear
visibility enhancement systems as supplemental drivers with
responsibility resting on drivers to use them properly.
GM stated that its analysis showed some limited benefits may be
provided by rearview video technologies, but that potential solutions
will continue to be limited by driver behavior. GM stated that it
agrees with NHTSA that drivers' expectations influence behavior and
system effectiveness, and that further improvements in the
effectiveness of rearview video technologies may be achieved by
improving feedback to the driver and improving driver behavior through
education.
vii. Characteristics of Rearview Video Systems
NHTSA received numerous comments relating to the specific
characteristics of rearview video systems. These related to issues of
camera placement, durability, and performance, as well as visual
display characteristics, such as location (i.e., in the dashboard, or
in the rearview mirror), brightness, and the functionality of the
backing image. Commenters presented extensive comments on issues such
as visual display size, whether digital graphical overlays should be
used, and other characteristics related to these systems. IIHS noted
that there was a wide range of performance by various current rearview
video systems it examined and, based on this; expect that NHTSA will
need to specify performance requirements to ensure a minimum level of
performance for those systems.
Several commenters, including Consumers Union and Magna,
recommended that NHTSA consider inclusion of graphic overlays as part
of a video-based backover countermeasure, stating that this increases a
driver's ability to detect obstacles, and makes the driver more likely
to use the system.
NHTSA also requested comment regarding characteristics such as
video camera angle, durability, and low-light performance, as well as
contrast, image response and linger time, and display size and
location. Commenters provided a wide array of suggestions.
IIHS stated that some rearview video systems are much more immune
to weather and road dirt contamination than others, and recommended
that NHTSA specify performance requirements to ensure that systems can
withstand adverse conditions.
Sony offered an observation that while adverse weather conditions
can affect rearview video system performance, cameras utilized in such
applications are sealed in watertight housings and mounted at a
downward angle, and therefore generally protected from the elements.
Sony also commented on the number of backover incidents in which
victims were struck after approaching from the side of the vehicle,
stating that the incidence rate was 45 percent. It stated that this
indicated that wide-angle rearview video systems would best prevent
backover incidents.
Magna, on the other hand, commented that in order to assure overall
system affordability across the widest possible range of vehicle types
and models, NHTSA should not impose specific operational requirements
on rearview video systems. It noted that ``anti-wetting'' and ``anti-
soiling'' techniques are known and currently implemented despite the
lack of a legislative mandate.
In its comments, Gentex stated that the interior rearview mirror is
an ideal location for the rearview video system visual display. Gentex
stated that that location is intuitive, logical, and ergonomic, and
allows the driver to maintain a ``head-up'' position while viewing the
display and the rearview mirror simultaneously. Furthermore, it noted
that drivers are already trained to look in the interior rearview
mirror when reversing. Magna also commented that the interior mirror is
the best location for a rearview video system visual display, noting
that the display in that location is much closer to the driver's eyes.
However, Magna suggested that NHTSA not prescribe

[[Page 76204]]

specific requirements regarding display location, image size, or other
requirements, as doing so may result in unintended restrictions on
technology applications.
With regard to image size, commenters submitted a number of ideas
for what a minimum visual display size should be. Gentex stated that it
disagreed with NHTSA's suggestion that a minimum 3.25 inch screen size
might be specified. Instead, they suggested a minimum viewable display
height of 1.3 inches, based on its calculation of what the human visual
system can generally resolve and the mean distance between the driver's
eyes and the visual display. Ford also commented on NHTSA's minimum
visual display size suggestion, stating that the GM research cited by
NHTSA was not designed to assess system effectiveness as a function of
visual display size since it only used one in-mirror display size, and
in fact concluded that rear effectiveness was not affected by image
size in the scenario used. Instead, Ford suggested that GM used a 3.5
inch screen in its study because it was offered as a regular production
option, and that NHTSA's reliance on GM's research was inappropriate.
In lieu of the 3.5 inch minimum visual display size, Ford suggested
that an Australian regulation on screen sizes for rear visibility
systems (specifically, New South Wales' Technical Specification No.
149), could be used as a model. According to Ford's comment, this
regulation states that when a 600 mm test cylinder is located five
meters from the rear of the vehicle, the height on the screen should be
no less than 0.5 percent of the distance between the driver's eye and
the visual display. The company claimed that this technique has
resulted in several iterations of a 2.4 inch screen size and that they
have been readily accepted by consumers.
Magna, on the other hand, referred to studies by GM and the
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute indicating that a 3.5 inch
visual display, mounted in the interior rearview mirror, led to the
highest crash avoidance rates.
Certain commenters focused on some of the other specifications of
the visual display. Image response time, or the delay between when a
vehicle is shifted into reverse and the rearview image from the video
camera appears, was discussed extensively by Gentex. While NHTSA had
suggested a maximum of 1.25 seconds for this value, Gentex recommended
3 seconds, based on its calculations of the time needed for signal
transfer, powering the camera, and the complexity of the electronics.
GM supported Gentex's comments on this matter.
Gentex made two additional recommendations with regard to visual
displays in its comments. The company suggested a minimum brightness of
500 candelas per square meter (cd/m\2\) for the screen, as well as a
minimum contrast ratio of 10:1.
Consumers Union made a number of suggestions regarding displays for
rearview video systems, including that there needs to be a minimum
display size and that a maximum image response time of 1 second, and a
maximum linger time between 4 and 8 seconds should be required. GM
recommended a maximum linger time of 10 seconds or, as an alternative,
a speed-based limit in which the rearview video display would turn off
when the vehicle reach a speed of 5 mph (8 kph). Based on their
observations of drivers making parking maneuvers, the AAM also
recommended a maximum linger time of 10 seconds, but specified an
alternative speed-based value of 20 kph (12.4 mph).
Ms. Susan Auriemma, of Kids and Cars, offered a personal testimony,
stating that as a user of a rearview video system with an image
response time of 2-3 seconds, there is a tendency to want to proceed to
back the vehicle without waiting for the image to appear.
viii. Development of a Performance-Based or Technology-Neutral Standard
Numerous commenters suggested that any NHTSA standard be
performance-based and technology-neutral. These commenters generally
supported the idea that the blind zone must be limited to a certain
size, or that certain areas behind the vehicle should be visible, but
did not want NHTSA to prescribe how these areas should be detected.
Instead, these commenters stated that allowing the manufacturer to
determine the means by which the required area is detectable would
promote styling flexibility, technological innovation, and help to
contain costs.
MEMA stated that it supported a performance-based test, stating
that ``it is clear that there is no one solution to mitigating backover
events.'' It also suggested that various countermeasures can be
incorporated, whether complementary or separately, to promote increases
in the rear field of view.
Delphi stated that there would be no reason to not grant compliance
credits to vehicle manufacturers who choose any system, mirrors,
sensors, or video, which detects the required areas behind a vehicle.
AIAM, in its comments, pointed out specific problems with all three
countermeasure technologies, and then suggested that some of the issues
would present a greater challenge for certain classes of vehicles. In
light of that, it suggested that performance-based requirements would
allow vehicle manufacturers to achieve the best match of technical
approach for each of their vehicle models.
AORC stated that it believes that the regulation should allow for
the enhancement of rear visibility via the implementation of rearview
video systems or the use of sensor input. It stated that these systems
should be subject to a pure performance requirement, and must able to
detect children from a distance of 0.25-3.00 meters behind the vehicle.
Kids and Cars urged the agency to not only set the highest feasible
rear visibility standard, but to also allow new innovative product
designs that will evolve as technology matures.
ix. Other Issues Addressed in Comments
This section summarizes comments related to ancillary issues
regarding rear visibility. For example, several commenters suggested
that NHTSA design a performance rating system for rear visibility,
issuing it in addition to, or in lieu of, a countermeasure performance
requirement. Alternatively, suggestions for driver education proposals
were made. Some commenters also discussed the rate at which any rear
visibility standard be phased in.
Several commenters suggested that a performance rating system be
developed, to provide consumers information about the rearward
visibility characteristics of various vehicles. Delphi stated that a
performance rating system would have the effect of giving consumers the
necessary facts to purchase vehicles that offer the best choice of
safety and value, and would encourage continued innovation in backover
avoidance technology.
AORC suggested a performance rating system for rear visibility
enhancement systems, similar to ones used in NHTSA's New Car Assessment
Program, as it could give consumers information relating to vehicle
purchase. This idea was also supported by Magna, which recommended a
five-star Federal safety rating program.
The AAM recommended that NHTSA provide information to consumers
about proper backing procedures, as well as the capabilities and
limitations of rear visibility countermeasures.

[[Page 76205]]

Another remark by Kids and Cars member, Ms. Susan Auriemma, focused
on ``proper backing procedures.'' Specifically, the commenter stated
that research is needed to define what proper use of a rearview video
system is in terms of how often a driver should look at a rearview
image, and whether a driver should also look directly behind the
vehicle and at the mirrors. Ms. Auriemma also questioned whether the
sample size used by NHTSA, 37 drivers, was large enough to make
definitive conclusions regarding backing behavior and rearview video
system use.
Several commenters requested that the phase-in period for rear
visibility system requirements be extended beyond the four-year period
mandated in the K.T. Safety Act. Honda stated that in addition to the
cost of the systems, there could be considerable costs if major design
changes are required before vehicles are scheduled for normal redesign.
The company suggested that the costs could be substantially reduced if
only one or two additional years are allowed for the phase-in schedule
to coincide with existing redesign plans. AIAM also suggested a six-
year phase-in schedule so that changes could be implemented in
accordance with vehicle redesign schedules. It also stated that small
volume and limited line manufacturers should be excluded from the
visibility requirements until the end of the phase-in period is
reached, due to reduced access to technologies and generally longer
product life cycles compared to larger manufacturers.
One comment from Sony suggested that a mechanism to reduce costs
would be to eliminate the U.S. import tariff on rearview video camera
imports, which currently stand at 2.1 percent. Kids and Cars suggested
that NHTSA also consider proposing a ``forward visibility'' standard to
prevent ``frontovers,'' stating that fatalities from such accidents
have increased substantially in recent years.
Finally, NHTSA received several comments from individuals relating
personal experiences involving backover crashes. One anonymous
commenter, who had backed over their son, recommended that backup
sensors and/or rearview video systems be put in all vehicles. Ms.
Shannon Campbell described a personal backover experience with a
``sport utility vehicle'' (SUV), and stated that it is impossible for
the driver to see behind the vehicle without a rearview video system.
Similarly, Mr. Donald Hampton, whose granddaughter was involved in a
backover with an SUV, recommended that every new vehicle have a
rearview video system, stating that an add-on video camera kit costs
around $100. Ms. Sharron DiMario, who son was involved in a backover
with a minivan, recommended safety modifications to dramatically
improve vehicle blind spots. Ms. Karena Caputo, who son was involved in
a backover with a Hummer, stated that children cannot be seen behind
vehicles, and that every vehicle should have some type of backup safety
device. Ms. Andriann Raschdorf-Nelson, whose 16-month old son was
involved in a backover with an SUV, simply applauded NHTSA's decision
to make all vehicles safer for children. Ms. AnnMarie Bartlett-
Pszybylski commented that she had installed a rearview video system on
her vehicle after a backover incident involving her son. Mr. David
Sarota requested that NHTSA promulgate a Federal regulation after
witnessing a near-backover involving a small truck. Finally, Mr. Paul
Faragher Anthony whose 23-month-old son was the victim of a near-fatal
backover incident involving a van equipped with a rear-mounted convex
mirror, which he stated ``do nothing to improve the field of view
downward, where a toddler is likely to be.''
Kids and Cars discussed the specifics of backover crashes. It
stated that parents and relatives have a greater vulnerability to
backover crashes because they are involved in more backing situations
when young children are present. Kids and Cars stated that in all the
backover cases they documented, the parent or relative driving the
vehicle was unaware the child was behind the vehicle.
x. Suggested Alternative Proposals
In their comments, several commenters laid out suggested proposals
for addressing the problem of backover crashes. Suggestions were
received from GM, AORC, Mr. Louis Martinez, and the AAM. We have
summarized these alternative proposals below.
GM suggested a two-part alternative proposal. First, GM suggested
that NHTSA expand the required field of view to the sides and rear of
the vehicle, through establishing passenger side mirror requirements
and expanding the existing driver side requirements. Second, GM
suggested that all vehicles meet a maximum blind zone requirement,
using an alternative ``indirect'' measurement of rear visibility. GM
proposed an indirect threshold limit of 100 to 125 square feet, which
it indicated would correspond to a direct-view blind zone area of
approximately 400-500 square feet using the methods described by NHTSA
in the ANPRM. Vehicles that did not meet this threshold indirect
visibility requirement would need additional rear vision enhancements,
such as video cameras, to meet the requirements.
The AAM suggested a three-part alternative proposal in its
comments. First, it suggested that NHTSA adopt European mirror
requirements (ECE R46) for both driver and passenger side convex
mirrors, for reasons described above. Second, it suggested NHTSA
develop performance-based criteria to identify vehicles that may
require additional countermeasures. Third, it recommended that NHTSA
increase consumer information about capabilities and available
technology intended to enhance rear detection capability and enhance
driver education.
AORC suggested dividing the area behind the vehicle into a
``warning zone,'' extending three meters behind a vehicle, and an
``observation zone,'' extending an indefinite distance behind the
warning zone. Video cameras and sensors would be required to perform
different warning and obstacle-avoidance tasks for objects within the
two zones, and would be tested using a 0.75 meter (2.5 ft) tall object
with human form approximation.
Mr. Louis Martinez submitted a description of a ``three-piece
interior rear view mirror assembly for vehicles.'' According to the
commenter, this planar mirror assembly would enable driver to view more
areas to the sides and rear of the vehicle without having to turn his
or her head or adjust the mirrors.
xi. Costs and Benefits
Commenters also provided information which they stated could be
used to develop the costs and benefits of the agency's rear visibility
proposal.
Consumers Union stated that it believes the cost of rearview video
systems, cited in the ANPRM, were too high, as they related to stand
alone options. They suggested that the true cost to the OEM is less
than $100. Consumers Union did not cite a source for this figure.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated that the safety
benefits noted in the ANPRM are in accord with project benefits for
other NHTSA safety rules, such as the agency's recent upgrade of the
roof crush resistance standard. The Advocates also posited that the
benefits eventual savings in backover incidents may actually prove to
be more effective than the roof crush rule.
Magna stated that it believed the costs of rearview video systems,
as cited by NHTSA, were on the high end of the spectrum. It added that
as the number of automotive video cameras increases,

[[Page 76206]]

their price will decline. Magna did not provide any indication of how
low the price may get.
Ms. Susan Auriemma of Kids and Cars said that NHTSA should not be
limited by monetary considerations in determining standards that may
save children, stating that the value of the life of a child should not
be equal to that of a 70-year old adult.

F. Questions Posed and Summary Response

NHTSA asked a series of 43 questions in the ANPRM on a wide variety
of topics. In this section, we have reprinted the questions and grouped
the significant responses by topic. Because of some of the information
we received and further research we undertook subsequent to the ANPRM
publication, some of the questions we asked no longer have significant
bearing on the proposal (such as questions about methodologies for
measuring blind zone size), but we have summarized the responses for
the sake of completeness. Because several commenters separated their
general comments from their specific responses to NHTSA's inquiries, we
have summarized those responses separately. Note that this section
contains only responses from those commenters who elected to explicitly
respond to each or a subset of questions. Comments that related to
questions asked, but were included in the body of the text, are
addressed above.
i. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility
The first series of questions was related to issues regarding the
three main technological solutions--mirrors, sensors, and rearview
video systems. NHTSA was interested in collecting information on the
effectiveness, characteristics, and implementation of these
technologies.
Question 1: While the objective to ``expand the required field of
view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind''
the vehicle implies enhancement of what a driver can visually see
behind a vehicle, the language of the K.T. Safety Act also mentions
that the ``standard may be met by the provision of additional mirror,
sensors, cameras, or other technology.'' NHTSA seeks comment with
regard to the ability of object detection sensor technology to improve
visibility and thereby comply with the requirements of the Act.
Responses: The commenters generally did not address the question of
whether object detection sensor technology was literally capable of
expanding the driver's view of the area immediately behind his or her
vehicle, as opposed to increasing the driver's awareness of objects
within that area.\55\ They focused instead on the performance of that
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ As noted near the beginning of this document, the inclusion
of sensors in this sentence as a ``technology to expand the driver's
field of view'' suggests that ``expand the required field of view''
should not be read in the literal or natural way as meaning the
driver must be able to see more of the area behind the vehicle. A
literal or natural reading would make the reference to sensors
superfluous, violating a basic canon of statutory interpretation.
Instead, it seems that language could be read as meaning the driver
must be able to monitor, visually or otherwise, an expanded area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA received mixed views about its performance, with industry
groups, GM, and equipment manufacturers including Ackton, Continental,
Delphi, and Magna requesting that the agency make any requirements as
technology-neutral as possible, so as to allow innovation and
technological improvements, while others agreed with NHTSA's tentative
thinking in the ANPRM that sensor technology may not function
effectively in preventing backover crashes.
GM and Delphi said any technology is better than none, while Sony
and Consumers Union recommended that rearview video may provide a
better margin of safety with regard to backover crashes. GM and the AAM
responded by saying that any technology that can provide a view of the
rear of the vehicle should be permitted to comply with a rear
visibility requirement. AAM added that given drivers' tendency to rely
on mirrors once the backing maneuver starts, requirements should not
preclude any technology.
Specifically in regard to sensor-based systems, Ackton stated that
their product uses ``New-Gen'' ultrasonic technology that can detect
another vehicle at a range of up to 30 feet and can detect a 36-inch-
tall child at a range of up to 15 feet. On the other hand, Consumers
Union and Nissan stated that they agreed with NHTSA's findings that
sensor-based systems are inconsistent and unreliable in detection
pedestrians, particularly small children, behind a vehicle. Nissan also
commented that it generally agrees with NHTSA's evaluation of sensor-
based systems and believes that they are generally unreliable in
detecting pedestrians, particularly children. Nissan also stated that
sensor-based ``systems may not be able to detect children or detect
them in time for the driver to react.'' Magna stated that it concurred
with NHTSA's finding that sensor-based systems are inconsistent and
unreliable in detecting children.
Ms. Susan Auriemma stated that false alarms occur frequently with
sensors, and that they would be unhelpful in situations where the
vehicle was near known obstructions, such as in garages, therefore
recommending that sensors not be permitted to meet the requirement.
Furthermore, she added that a malfunctioning sensor system could impart
a false sense of security to a driver, who hearing no warning, might
assume the path is clear.
Question 2: What specific customer feedback have OEMs received
regarding vehicle equipped with rear parking sensor systems? Have any
component reliability or maintenance issues arisen? Is sensor
performance affected by any aspect of ambient weather conditions?
Responses: GM responded to this question by stating that the
parking sensor systems have been generally reliable. AAM stated that
weather, dirt, snow, harsh sunlight, intense cold, or high levels of
ambient noise can reduce sensor performance. Mercedes also responded to
this question, but with information it wished to keep confidential.
Kids and Cars stated that it believes that people tend to ``tune out''
the sound of a sensor as they back out of a garage, as it can register
a false positive from the garage walls, which would lessen its
efficiency in preventing backover crashes.
Question 3: What specific customer feedback have OEMs received
regarding vehicles equipped with rearview video systems? Have any
rearview video system component or reliability issues arisen?
Responses: NHTSA received several responses to this question,
indicating that most rearview video systems demonstrated good
reliability. Other commenters pointed out that the systems have not
been installed on vehicles for significant periods of time, so the data
regarding their reliability are limited. GM stated that they have
generally received favorable customer feedback regarding the
performance and operation of their rearview video systems, but have had
some negative comments regarding the camera lens needing to be
periodically cleaned to remove contaminants. Magna stated that
consumers gave positive feedback to the following features in rearview
video systems: A wide-angle field of view, electronic image distortion
reduction, graphical overlays, and interior mirror screen locations.
Furthermore, Magna commented that it was not aware of component
reliability problems in excess of what is normally seen in automotive
systems. Rosco added that audio-enhanced video systems were positively
received by customers. Sony

[[Page 76207]]

stated that video camera design for vehicles focuses on reliability,
with particular attention to water resistance, vibration
susceptibility, EMI sensitivity, and scratch resistance, and stated
that the number of warranty returns for its video cameras were low.
Kids and Cars commented that 85 percent of individuals with these
systems felt the systems were effective or very effective, and Ms.
Auriemma noted a personal experience where a rearview video system had
functioned for several years without malfunctioning.
Question 4: What are the performance and usability characteristics
of rearview video systems and rear-mounted convex mirrors in low light
(e.g., nighttime) conditions?
Responses: In general, commenters including Nissan, GM, and Sony,
seemed confident that, combined with backup lamps (required by FMVSS
No. 108), rearview video systems and mirrors would provide a
sufficiently visible image in low light conditions. Ms. Auriemma
commented that her rearview video system works well under low light
conditions. One commenter did point out that sensors, unlike those
other systems, would not be affected by low ambient light conditions.
Magna stated that performance depends, in part, on the luminous
intensity of the tail lamps and backup lamps, but that low-light
performance of current systems does improve rear visibility. Rosco
stated that to improve nighttime performance, it incorporates infrared
and audio technology into its rearview video systems.
Regarding specific performance information, GM stated that its
rearview video system provide an image in 3 lux lighting conditions.
While Sony indicated that their current video cameras operate in
conditions as low as 1 lux, they recommended 5 lux with reverse gear
and lamps engaged as an appropriate minimum light level for rearview
video system compliance testing.
Question 5: Is there data available regarding consumers' and
vehicle manufacturers' research regarding backing speed limitation,
haptic feedback to the driver, or use of automatic braking?
Responses: Commenters, such as GM, indicated that these systems
have not been applied to backing conditions. However, Magna indicated
that some technologies have been applied in certain vehicles, and that
haptic feedback alerts can be effective in capturing the driver's
attention. The Alliance added that a review of the SCI cases indicates
that excessive backing speed was not a primary risk factor in backover
incidents, but Nissan stated that research is being conducted, and that
it expects that performance of backover countermeasures will improve
when used in combination with a reduction in backing speeds.
Question 6: What types of rear visibility countermeasures are
anticipated to be implemented in the vehicle fleet through the 2012
timeframe?
Responses: Without giving specific numbers, commenters did indicate
that they expect rearview video systems to be installed on an
increasing percentage of their fleets. The AAM stated that the same
technologies employed today will likely be used in 2012. Nissan stated
that it will continue to offer as parking systems a rearview video
system, as well as its Around View Monitor system. Honda commented that
rearview video systems are currently on Honda and Acura SUVs, as well
as the Ridgeline pickup, Odyssey minivan, and several sedans and
coupes. Magna stated that it forecast around 500,000-750,000 vehicles
produced in North America will be equipped with a rearview video
system, and Rosco added that the evolution of technology has been
moving towards rearview video systems.
Continental stated that in the future, systems will be able to
recognize pedestrians that are in danger of being struck and
automatically intervene to prevent that from happening. However, they
gave no indication of the timeframe for availability of such
technology.
Takata provided confidential comments on anticipated developments
in rear detection technology, including the estimated detection
capabilities of future products.
Question 7: Can rear-mounted convex mirrors be installed on light
vehicles other than SUVs and vans? What is the rationale for U.S.
manufacturers' choosing to install rear parking sensors and video
cameras, rather than rear-mounted convex mirrors as are commonly
installed on SUVs and minivans in Korea and Japan? NHTSA is
particularly interested in any information on the effectiveness of
rear-mounted convex mirrors in Korea and Japan.
Responses: NHTSA received a number of responses to this question.
AAM, GM, and other stated that rear-mounted convex mirrors cannot
feasibly be mounted on passenger cars with a sloping rear window
surface. The commenters stated that these sorts of mirrors are
generally considered unattractive and are not well-received by
consumers. Kids and Cars also speculated that consumers may find them
unappealing, or that they may strike people or objects in tight areas.
Honda provided information that these mirrors, widely used in Asia,
are being phased out in favor of rearview video systems. Furthermore,
it noted that these mirrors are used as parking aids, and would not be
effective for obstacle avoidance in non-parking backing maneuvers. GM
indicated that their research has shown that rear-mounted convex
mirrors do not demonstrate any effectiveness in reducing backover
crashes in the situations they examined. Rosco stated that it provides
these mirrors to customers such as the United States Postal Service and
other commercial package delivery services.
Question 8: NHTSA seeks any available research data documenting the
effectiveness of rear convex cross-view mirrors in specifically
addressing backover crashes.
Responses: GM and the Alliance stated that they were not aware of
research on this topic.
Question 9: NHTSA seeks comment and data on whether it is possible
to provide an expanded field of view behind the vehicle using only
rear-mounted convex mirrors.
Responses: Honda and GM both responded that the utility of rear-
mounted convex mirrors was limited in this regard. Honda stated that
this was due to ``minification'' (the small image size) and distortion
problems. The AAM pointed to its responses to questions I-7, II-5, and
III-10 as being relevant to this question.
Question 10: NHTSA is aware of research conducted by GM that
suggests that drivers respond more appropriately to visual image-based
confirmation of object presence than to non-visual image based visual
or auditory warnings. Is there additional research on this topic?
Responses: GM responded to this question, and reiterated the
results of its research, stating that while all people that saw the
rear obstacle applied the brakes, most people who simply heard a
warning looked for the object first, and did not stop if they did not
get visual confirmation. Magna stated drivers have a higher tolerance
for visual alerts than for auditory alerts, which drivers view to be
intrusive (and hence, can get tuned out). Magna said that visual
overlays are best tolerated by drivers, even when they discern that the
object being highlighted is benign. The Alliance pointed to its answer
to question I-1 as applying to this question.
Question 11: NHTSA requests input and data on whether the provision
of

[[Page 76208]]

graphical image-based displays (e.g., such as a simplified animation
depicting rear obstacles), rather than true-color, photographic visual
displays would elicit a similarly favorable crash avoidance response
from the driver.
Responses: In response to the questions regarding whether graphical
image-based visual displays may be as effective as photographic video
displays, GM reiterated its response to question VI-2 (below).
Sony commented that graphical image-based displays offer inferior
protection from backover crashes when compared to true-color,
photographic visual images from a rearview video system. They indicated
that rearview video images provide a wider and deeper viewable area.
Sony also stated that a graphical image-based display would require the
driver to exit the vehicle to confirm the presence of a rear obstacle,
and that if false alarm rates were high, the driver might choose to
ignore the warning and not check for an obstacle.
Magna responded by emphasizing the benefits of graphical overlays
superimposed on a rearview video image and urged NHTSA to consider
inclusion of graphic overlays as part of a video camera-based rear
backup aid. Magna indicated that they view graphical image-based
displays as a supplement to a true color photographic visual image
rather than a substitute for such an image.
However, the Alliance responded by stating that these technologies
are in their infancy, and requesting that regulations be crafted in
such a way as to not impede their development.
Question 12: To date, rearview video systems examined by NHTSA have
displayed to the driver a rear-looking perspective of the area behind
the vehicle. Recently introduced systems which provide the driver with
a near 360-degree view of the area around the entire vehicle do so
using a ``birds-eye'' perspective using images from four video cameras
around the vehicle. During backing, it appears that, by default, this
birds-eye view image is presented simultaneously along with the
traditional rear-facing video camera image. NHTSA requests data or
input on whether this presentation method is likely to elicit a
response from the driver that is at least as favorable as that attained
using traditional, rear-view image perspective, or whether this
presentation is more confusing for drivers.
Responses: Nissan, which uses this technology in some of its
vehicles, stated that it has not received negative customer feedback
about it. The AAM again stated that such systems have only recently
been introduced into the marketplace.
ii. Drivers' Use and Associated Effectiveness of Available Technologies
To Mitigate Backover Crashes
These questions were posed in order to help NHTSA gain a better
understanding of how technologies were being deployed and used by
drivers, and to fill in gaps in research. The agency was particularly
interested in any market or research studies indicating customer
satisfaction and adoption of specific technologies.
Question 1: NHTSA has not conducted research to estimate a drivers'
ability to avoid crashes with a backing crash countermeasure system
based only on sensor technology. We request any available data
documenting the effectiveness of backing crash countermeasure systems
based only on sensor technology in aiding drivers in mitigating backing
crashes.
Responses: AAM commented by stating that these devices have only
been recently introduced into the marketplace, and that more time would
be needed before results would be detectable. GM's comment referred to
the results of the McLaughlin and Llaneras studies, which provided some
evidence that although warnings influenced driver behavior, warnings
were unreliable in terms of their ability to induce drivers to
immediately brake to a complete stop. GM stated that their research has
shown no additional benefit of integrated (rearview video and sensor)
systems over simple rearview video alone. Kids and Cars stated that
there is a common reaction for drivers to ``tune out'' the sensor, such
as in situations where a driver is backing out of a garage.
Question 2: NHTSA has not conducted research to estimate drivers'
ability to avoid crashes with a backing crash countermeasure system
based on multiple, integrated technologies (e.g., rear parking sensors
and rearview video functions in one integrated system). We request any
available objective data documenting the effectiveness of multi-
technology backing crash countermeasure systems in mitigating backing
crashes. We also request comment on what types of technology
combinations industry may consider feasible for use in improving rear
visibility.
Responses: NHTSA received a variety of responses on this issue.
While AAM indicated that the technology is too new to have good
effectiveness data, both GM and Nissan stated that multi-technology
systems were less effective than video alone. Kids and Cars, on the
other hand, commented that graphic overlays based on sensor data could
improve the user experience with rearview video systems. It also stated
that a sensor can alert a driver to a problem, and that a rearview
video system can verify that there is an obstacle behind the vehicle.
Magna stated that graphic overlays, which include fusion of ranging
sensing (i.e., using infrared or radar technology), already exist, and
can enhance the driver's ability to judge distance/depth and to
assimilate what is being displayed on the video screen.
Question 3: NHTSA requests any available data documenting the image
quality of rear-mounted convex mirrors and their effectiveness in
aiding drivers in preventing backing crashes.
Responses: GM responded by stating that its research indicated
rear-mounted convex mirrors offered no improvement in the prevention of
backover crashes. The AAM stated that it does not have data documenting
their performance in preventing backover crashes.
Question 4: NHTSA requests any available additional objective
research data documenting the effectiveness of sensor-based, rearview
video, mirror, or combination systems that may aid in mitigating
backover incidents.
Responses: Magna pointed to a variety of research studies being
performed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and other
entities. Some conclusions it summarizes include: That good image
quality is important for customer acceptance; that a 3.5 inch in-mirror
display led to the highest backover avoidance rates; and that in-mirror
displays were preferred by a large majority of drivers. The AAM stated
that it does not have any data on these systems, and given the
uncertainty associated with them, recommends that NHTSA adopt a
technology-neutral regulation. GM reiterated that it had already shared
its relevant findings.
Question 5: NHTSA requests information regarding mounting
limitations for rear-mounted convex mirrors.
Responses: Commenters stated that they are aware of no reasonable
method for attaching effective rear-mounted mirrors to vehicles like
sedans, where such mirrors could not be mounted on or near the roof and
provide an image of the area directly behind the vehicle. The AAM
cautioned that long bracket arms would be impractical and have a
negative effect on component reliability. GM also reiterated that it
had not found the mirrors effective even when mountable. Honda added
that it believes it is impractical to apply a rear-mounted

[[Page 76209]]

convex mirror to vehicles with trunk lids.
iii. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility
In this section, NHTSA was presenting the regulatory concepts it
could use in developing a rear detection system that would best prevent
backover crashes. These ideas included the specific areas that would
need to be detected by a rear visibility system, the design and
possible placements of mirrors or video screens, and the ramifications
of requiring certain systems (e.g., the maintenance costs of video
cameras). This section also contained additional questions regarding
the pricing and feasibility of a variety of potential systems.
Question 1: NHTSA seeks comment on the areas behind a vehicle that
may be most important to consider when improving rear visibility.
Furthermore, while the distribution of visible area behind the vehicle
was not considered in the blind zone area metrics (e.g., rear blind
zone area) discussed in this document, it may be helpful to specify
some specific areas behind the vehicle that must be visible.
Responses: Commenters generally fell into two categories. Honda
stated simply that the area immediately behind the vehicle's rear
bumper is significant and should be addressed as a priority. Other
commenters, such as AAM and GM, stated that based on a review of the
SCI data, the area to the sides of the vehicle is of significant
importance, since most victims intruded into the path of the backing
vehicle from the sides, rather than starting from directly behind the
vehicle. Rosco responded, with respect to school buses, that the area
behind the bus closest to the curbside rear wheels may be the most
important in order to see a child running to catch the bus.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety encouraged the agency to make
the coverage area behind the vehicle as large as possible to provide as
much time as possible for the driver to determine that a pedestrian is
behind the vehicle and to take measures to prevent a crash. The
approach recommended by the Advocates was to eliminate vehicles' rear
blind zones entirely. They indicated that allowing the degree of rear
visibility improvement to be based on the size of the particular
vehicle's rear blind zone would permit countermeasures that are
tailored to produce the desired result for each vehicle model and type
individually.
Question 2: NHTSA invites comment as to how an actual threshold
based on vehicles' rear blind zone area could be defined.
Responses: This question was asked in relation to the considered
rear visibility threshold, or how big the maximum permissible blind
area could be before a countermeasure was needed. Commenters provided
various responses. GM offered a method of measuring a vehicle's
viewable area indirectly and noted an associated threshold value of
100-125 square feet measured using a 32-inch target plane, but stated
that either the direct or indirect field of view methodology could be
used to determine a threshold. AAM, on the other hand, offered a
suggestion relating to calculating pedestrian speed of 6 kph (3.7 mph),
vehicle speed of 6 kph or less, and estimated driver perception and
response time 2.5 seconds. However, no data were provided by the AAM to
support the specific values. Honda stated that any specified minimum
rear visibility value should be based on conclusive data to indicate a
direct safety benefit that has been found to be cost-effective in light
of all of the related design trade-offs. Consumers Union recommended
that a threshold be established based on NHTSA's Monte Carlo analysis
in which all areas with risk of 0.1 or higher are required to be
visible.
Question 3: NHTSA is considering specifying a minimum portion of a
vehicle's rear visibility that must be provided via direct vision
(i.e., without the use of mirrors or other indirect vision device).
NHTSA seeks comments on this approach, such as input regarding how a
minimum threshold should be specified, and how much of a vehicle's rear
area should be visible via direct vision?
Responses: Commenters were generally unsupportive of the idea of a
direct visibility requirement. Honda stated that it would unduly
restrict vehicle design and styling, and stated that it would be a
design-restrictive standard that would not enhance vehicle safety. GM
commented that while there are currently no field of view requirements,
most vehicles provide them, and that market demand for direct field of
view would continue for the foreseeable future. The Alliance stated
that direct field of view should be incorporated into FMVSS No. 111 as
well as indirect field of view. Rosco was concerned that it would be
impossible for some vehicles, particularly larger vehicles, to meet any
direct visibility requirements.
Question 4: NHTSA requests information regarding anticipated costs
for rear visibility enhancement countermeasures.
Responses: Many specific responses to this question were provided
on a confidential basis, which were taken into account in the agency's
cost and benefit analysis. However, Kids and Cars did comment that the
agency's estimated costs were too high, and that it did not take into
consideration the amount of money saved by the reduction in minor
parking accidents. Nissan urged NHTSA to consider the ``total cost'' of
implementation of any countermeasure in its cost-benefit analysis. It
stated that the total cost includes equipment, research and
development, software redesign, wiring, electrical architecture,
instrument panels, etc. It also stated that the costs can be especially
significant for vehicles that do not already have an integrated liquid
crystal display (LCD).
Question 5: Given the increasing popularity of LCD panel
televisions and likely resulting price decline, what decline in price
can be anticipated for LCD displays used with rearview video systems?
Will similar price reduction trends be seen for video cameras for
rearview video system application?
Responses: GM suggested that substantial changes in price were not
likely in the foreseeable future, although not impossible. The company
stated that while it is conceivable that cost reductions will be
realized, the more severe requirements for automotive LCD displays than
for home applications puts them in a different category, and that cost
reductions may not be realized for some time.
Question 6: NHTSA requests information on the estimated price of
rear visibility enhancement countermeasures at higher sales volumes, as
well as the basis for such estimates.
Responses: In response to this question, GM stated that it did not
estimate that there would be any significant cost reductions. It noted
that ultrasonic technology and mirrors have existed for some time, and
that cost reductions are unlikely.
Question 7: NHTSA requests any available data on rearview video
system maintenance frequency rates and replacement costs. How often are
rearview video cameras damaged in the field?
Responses: In general, commenters suggested that the number of
warranty claims on rearview video systems was low. However, it was
noted that the systems are still comparatively young. GM stated that
its current warranty rate for rear video systems is approximately 0.1-
2.3 incidents per thousand vehicles.

[[Page 76210]]

Nissan stated that it is unaware of any issues that have arisen with
regard to the damage rate of its systems. Mercedes provided
confidential comments on this subject, which were also considered by
NHTSA.
Question 8: NHTSA requests comments on which types of possible rear
visibility enhancement countermeasure technologies may be considered
for use on which types of vehicles. This information is important for
estimating the costs of countermeasure implementation in the fleet.
Responses: This question also generated a variety of responses. GM
stated that market forces are driving larger vehicles, such as SUVs and
vans, to adopt rearview video systems. Rosco also suggested that larger
vehicles would benefit most from having a rearview video system
installed. Honda, on the other hand, suggested that rearview video
systems would be better than mirrors on sedans and coupes, but with
pickups, durability and tailgate placement must be considered. Finally,
AAM stated that as a reasonably priced baseline, the ECE R46 mirror
standard would be a good addition, and that for certain vehicles,
countermeasures could supplement the mirror system. It is not clear to
NHTSA whether AAM was suggesting convex mirrors should be required (and
disallow current flat mirrors) or simply that convex mirrors should be
allowed as an option.
Question 9: NHTSA requests information regarding available studies
or data indicating the effectiveness of dashboard display-based
rearview video systems and rearview mirror based rearview video
systems. What are the key areas that will impact the real-world
effectiveness of these systems as they become more common in the fleet?
Responses: GM suggested that as drivers grow more familiar with in-
mirror and in-dash video systems as backing aids, the effectiveness of
these systems will increase, and pointed to a study presented at the
May 2008 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Government/Industry
meeting, suggesting that the rearview mirror-based displays showed more
benefits for inexperienced drivers, while more experienced drivers
experienced about equal benefits from each type of system. The Alliance
admitted it had no data, but said it believed the same thing. Rosco
made several arguments for the ``integration'' of dashboard and
rearview mirror-based systems, namely that integration will make the
display more theft resistant and help propagate other technologies.
Question 10: NHTSA requests objective data on the use,
effectiveness, and cost of rear-mounted convex mirrors.
Responses: Commenters provided little new data in response to this
question. GM pointed to its earlier response regarding convex mirrors,
where it stated that they did not show substantial safety benefits.
Additionally, AAM stated that rear-mounted convex mirrors were
essentially parking aids, and would not be effective in preventing
backover crashes.
iv. Options for Measuring a Vehicle's Rear Visibility
In this section, NHTSA asked a series of extremely specific
questions relating to methodologies for measuring the direct rear
visibility of vehicles. These questions focused on various aspects of
the test procedures outlined in the ANPRM, such as how to set up the
machines, what size dummies to use, and how to adjust rear head
restraints so as to balance concerns between rear passenger safety and
rear visibility.
Question 1: NHTSA requests comment on the use of the 50th
percentile male driver size as a midpoint in terms of driver height and
whether using multiple driver heights for these tests [to determine
direct visibility] would cause undue hardship relative to the safety
value of assessing different driver heights. Specific information
regarding additional cost, if any, that would be incurred by vehicle
manufacturers due to the use of different driver sizes for these
different portions of FMVSS No. 111 is requested.
Responses: Commenters suggested a range of testing alternatives
that could be used to measure a vehicle's direct visibility
characteristics. GM stated that the 95th percentile eye-ellipse is used
by manufacturers as the tool for evaluating visibility and is
recognized in FMVSS No. 111, and that it would be consistent to apply
that tool to determine rear visibility under the standard as well.
Similarly, Nissan also recommended NHTSA investigate use of an eye-
ellipse method (in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers
Recommended Practice J941), rather than using the 50th percentile male
driver's eye locations. Alternatively, Sony suggested that NHTSA
``should use a worst-case-scenario driver body size when conducting
rear visibility measurements, such as the 25th percentile female, or at
the least correlate size with the actual size of people involved'' in
real backover crashes. A third alternative was suggested by AAM, which
stated that the eyepoints and other incidentals of ECE R46 should be
used in developing the criteria for FMVSS No. 111 visibility
requirements. Honda, in its comment, did not offer a specific
suggestion, but rather noted that using a variety of driver heights and
eyepoints might encourage manufacturers to enlarge the mirror or change
the curvature, which would add cost to the development and
implementation of the system. Consumers Union stated that it did not
see the need for a 95th percentile male test, as taller drivers always
have a better view behind the vehicle. The organization stated that it
has tested using only the 50th percentile, although testing at the
eyepoint of the 5th percentile female would also be worthwhile.
Question 2: NHTSA has been using seating position settings
recommended by the vehicle manufacturers for agency crash tests. For
most vehicles, the vertical seat position setting recommended for seats
with vertical adjustability is the lowest position. NHTSA seeks comment
on whether this setting is the most suitable position for a 50th
percentile male, or if a midpoint setting would be more appropriate for
measuring rear visibility. NHTSA also seeks comment on whether the
specific crash test seating specifications used are the most
appropriate for this context.
Responses: Nissan, GM, and AAM commented in response to this
question. They indicated that their responses to the previous question
also applied to this issue. Honda pointed out the driver's eyepoint
used affects visibility performance with rear-mounted convex mirrors,
but does not affect the area behind a vehicle that is displayed by a
rearview video system. Honda suggested that if a rule were to require
accommodation of different driver sizes that manufacturers may modify
the mirror to enlarge its size of change the radius of curvature. While
Honda noted that such consideration would result in increased costs,
although it did not specifically discourage this if NHTSA could show
related enhanced safety benefits. Additionally, Honda stated that while
the driver eyepoint is extremely relevant for direct view measurements,
it would have no effect on rearview video systems.
Question 3: NHTSA seeks comment on the placements of head
restraints. For example, would our test procedure result in the
elimination of rear head restraints or a reduction in their size? If
so, please identify the affected vehicles and explain why the rear head
restraints particularly impair visibility in those vehicles. Similarly,
NHTSA seeks comment on the approach to setting the

[[Page 76211]]

longitudinal position of all adjustable head restraints for rear
visibility measurements. While longitudinally adjustable head
restraints positioned fully forward may minimize the chance of
whiplash, a more reasonable option for this test may be to position the
head restraint at the midpoint of the longitudinal adjustment range.
Responses: NHTSA received comments on this subject from GM, Honda,
Sony, and AAM. GM and Sony suggested that head restraints should be
accounted for, as they contribute substantially to vehicle safety.
Honda stated that head restraints should be adjusted to their lowest or
stored position for rear visibility measurement, and that a direct
visibility requirement should take into consideration the existence of
safety features such as the center high-mounted stop lamp and rear
window wiper and defogger. Honda added that if NHTSA believes the
required head restraints unduly affect rear visibility, the agency
should re-evaluate the recent upgrade of FMVSS No. 202a, Head
Restraints, for which applicability took effect on September 1, 2009,
and take into account rear visibility considerations. The AAM commented
that the recently-updated standard FMVSS No. 202a has the effect of
reducing rear visibility, and that NHTSA should adjust the head
restraints to their lowest position for direct visibility testing
purposes, similar to the procedures in ECE R46.
Question 4: In our testing, we found that the laser beam is
difficult to detect visually. Therefore, we used the laser detector.
NHTSA invites comment on the availability of other options for
detecting the laser beam as used in this test that does not involve the
use of an electronic laser detector.
Responses: GM and the AAM both responded to this question by noting
the difficulties in using laser-based methods. GM stated that while it
did not know of any better alternative methods for detecting lasers
than what NHTSA described, it would likely use a math-based alternative
to certify compliance. Similarly, the AAM stated that the European
experience with laser measurement has generally been found to be
cumbersome and that CAD-based measurement might be a more desirable
option.
Question 5: For locating the laser devices at the selected driver
eyepoints, is there another device besides the H-point device which can
be utilized for this purpose? For simplicity, should eyepoints be
indicated in a similar fashion as is currently in FMVSS No. 111 for
school bus testing in which a single eyepoint is located at a specified
distance from the seat cushion/seat back intersection and within a 6-
inch semi-circular area?
Responses: GM recommended an alternative in which the eye location
would be specified from a body fiducial point on the vehicle, similar
to methods used in evaluating mirrors under the current standard. AAM
questioned whether any single eye location could be representative, and
if the proposed measurement method was capturing what was important for
rear visibility. AAM also stated that the view in mirrors, which was
not contemplated as part of the direct visibility measurement, was an
important aspect to consider, especially for older drivers whose range
of movement may be limited. Honda stated that it did not consider the
school bus measurement method appropriate for passenger vehicles,
because that measurement method was designed by contemplating the
movement of a bus driver's head.
v. Options for Assessing the Performance of Rear Visibility
Countermeasures
In determining a rear visibility threshold, NHTSA would first need
to define a test area, from which the vehicle's viewable area could be
subtracted, thereby calculating the size of the blind zone. These
questions were asked in order to solicit comment on what that test area
should cover, as well as other issues related to testing countermeasure
performance.
Question 1: NHTSA invites comments on the need for and adequacy of
the described area which rear visibility countermeasure systems may be
required to detect obstacles. NHTSA is particularly interested in any
available data that may suggest an alternative area behind the vehicle
over which a rear visibility enhancement countermeasure should be
effective? Is the described area of coverage unrealistically large? Is
it adequate to mimic real world angles at which children may approach
vehicles?
Responses: Many commenters used this question to comment on the
number of instances in the SCI cases where the victim entered the
vehicle's path from the side of the vehicle. Sony and Kids and Cars
both stated that consideration should be given to areas to the sides of
the vehicle, with Kids and Cars stating that all of the areas not
visible directly or through side mirrors should be taken into
consideration. GM and the AAM both stated that driver's-side convex
mirrors, which have a wider field of view than that required by FMVSS
No. 111, would help to prevent many of these incidents. Nissan
commented that the area visible in side mirrors permitted in ECE R46
should be factored into the measured field of view of a vehicle. Sony
stated that limiting the test are to the edges of the vehicle would
fail to account for obstacles that move into the rear blind zone from
the outside of the immediate rear of the vehicle. Sony suggested that
the test area should account for, at a minimum, vehicle backing speed,
driver reaction time, and the speed of potential obstacles.
Question 2: Is it reasonable to define the limits of the test zone
such that it begins immediately behind the rear bumper for the test
object defined here or should a gap be permitted before the visibility
zone begins? What additional factors should the agency consider in
defining the zone?
Responses: Commenters generally split into two groups in responding
to this question. Some supported the idea that the test area should
begin at the edge of the bumper. Kids and Cars suggested that the test
area should begin at the rear bumper because when children approach a
vehicle from the side, they frequently intersect the path of the
vehicle close to the bumper. Rosco stated that coverage should begin at
a vertical plane tangent to the rearmost surface of the rear bumper.
Consumers Union also stated that they believe no gap should exist in
the test zone. Nissan stated that as long as the target area size is
realistic, it would be appropriate to define the limits of the test
zone such that it begins immediately behind the rear bumper. GM and
Honda, however, supported the idea of a gap. GM stated that as most
accidents either come from the sides or from the area 3-8 meters behind
the vehicle, a gap in the area would not be unreasonable. Honda also
supported a small gap of 0.3 meters (1 foot), noting that if no gap
were permitted, video cameras might be placed in locations that could
be subject to damage in low-speed collisions, thereby increasing the
cost of ownership.
Question 3: NHTSA requests comments on potentially requiring only
the perimeter of the specified area to be tested for rear visibility
enhancement systems. For video-based rear visibility countermeasure
systems, NHTSA assumes that confirming the visibility of the test
object over the perimeter of the required area is sufficient, since a
system able to display the object at the perimeter of the required area
should also be able to display the object at all points in between the
extremities. Is this a reasonable assumption?
Responses: We received two comments in response to this specific

[[Page 76212]]

question. GM stated that this was not an unreasonable suggestion for a
single rearview video camera, but that it did not take into
consideration a system made up of multiple sensors or cameras with
limited lateral scope. Rosco also questioned this assumption, stating
that this did not take into account the fact that an obstruction such
as a marker light could block out some portion of the rearward view.
The Alliance also referenced its earlier comments on threshold
detection (regarding the need for detection zones behind the vehicle),
as well as the zones of coverage provided by ECE R46-compliant side
mirrors.
Question 4: Would vehicles with rearview video cameras mounted away
from the vehicle centerline have the ability to detect the test object
over the area under consideration? Is there flexibility to relocate
such off-center cameras to meet the requirements under consideration,
if necessary?
Responses: This question elicited several responses. Honda and
Nissan suggested that it may be possible, but that moving the position
of a video camera could be expensive. They recommended allowing as much
design flexibility as possible. The AAM also stated that limiting video
placement to the centerline would be overly restrictive. Rosco and
Sony, two equipment manufacturers, stated that current technology did
allow a video camera to be mounted off-center and still be able to see
the entire test area, depending on the specifics of that area.
Question 5: NHTSA seeks comment as to the availability of any
mirrors that may have a field of view that encompasses a range of 50
feet, as well as the quality of image that might be provided over such
a range. How different is the image size and resolution, and how
significant are the differences to the mirrors' potential
effectiveness?
Responses: No commenters stated they believe that rear mirrors
could have an effective field of view that extends 50 feet. Nissan
stated that it is difficult to describe variation in image size and
resolution, as it varies by the mirror's fixed location on the vehicle
body. Rosco stated that image sizes for rear cross-view mirrors become
diminished beyond 30 feet. Honda questioned whether mirrors could
provide a field of view that extended 50 feet back, but also questioned
whether this was necessary for a typical backing maneuver.
Question 6: If a gap is permitted behind the vehicle before the
visibility zone begins, how will systems prevent children who may be
immediately behind a vehicle from being backed over?
Responses: In response to this question, Sony and Rosco stated that
it would not be possible to prevent these backover crashes if the area
in which the child was located was not visible to the driver, and
reiterated that no gap in the visible zone should be permissible. GM,
while acknowledging that not all backover crashes can be prevented,
stated in its comments that NHTSA should focus on mitigating specific
risks by focusing on the crashes that happen most often--incursions and
instances where the vehicle is turning; and by focusing on vehicles
that are statistically overrepresented in backover crash fatalities.
Question 7: NHTSA seeks input on what level of ambient lighting
would be appropriate to specify for conduct of this compliance test.
What other environmental and ambient conditions, if any, should the
agency include in the test procedure?
Responses: Several commenters agreed that rear detection systems
should be able to function in low light conditions. Kids and Cars and
Rosco both stated that the systems should be able to work in dark
conditions, while Honda and GM suggested that the low light conditions
be specified with respect to the photometric requirements of backup
lamps, which would be illuminated during a backing maneuver. Sony
suggested that rear detection devices should function in 5 lux
luminosity, which is slightly higher than the 3 lux suggested by GM.
Question 8: NHTSA invites input regarding the composition of the
countermeasure compliance test object and the types of technologies
that are likely to be able to provide coverage of the related test
area.
Responses: In response to this query, AAM stated that based on
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) growth data charts, it recommended a
test object that is cylindrical with a diameter of 15 cm and a height
of 82 cm. Kids and Cars, alternatively, suggested a test object with a
height of 28 inches, or approximately 71 cm. Honda did not provide a
specific suggestion, but noted that the test object should reflect the
age and height of the people at risk and not be made of materials that
cause excessive reflection or have other characteristics that could
interfere with the goals of a practical, reliable, and repeatable test.
Similarly, Sony stated that the test object should simulate the size of
a 1-year-old child. Finally, GM noted that it provided information on
this topic as part of its involvement in NHTSA-sponsored cooperative
research with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute focused on
advanced crash avoidance technologies relating to backover avoidance.
vi. Options for Characterizing Rear Visibility Countermeasures
In this section, NHTSA sought comments that would provide insight
into what specifications, if any, the agency should mandate for rear
visibility enhancements. In the ANPRM, NHTSA noted a general lack of
relevant existing industry consensus standards which could be
considered in establishing regulatory performance requirements. The
agency also noted it appeared there was no ongoing development to
establish such consensus standards in the United States. Of particular
interest were any standards that were being applied to specific types
of countermeasures (such as sensors or cameras) by manufacturers. The
agency also wanted to solicit comment on other considerations, such as
display characteristics, durability measurements, or test procedures
that could assist it in drafting a comprehensive proposed requirement.
Questions posed also sought assistance in the identification of any
additional parameters which the agency may need to consider specifying
in a regulatory amendment to FMVSS No. 111.
Question 1: Are there any existing industry consensus standards for
rear visibility enhancement systems which address the parameters
outlined in this section? Are there any ongoing efforts to develop such
industry consensus standards? If so, when will the standards be
published?
Responses: Commenters generally agreed with NHTSA that industry
consensus standards do not exist. Some commenters, such as Rosco, and
Ford, cited international standards for items such as sensor
performance and display requirements. Honda stated that ISO is
currently reviewing performance requirements and test procedures for
``Extended Range Backing Aids (ERBA)'' but that this document is not
directly addressing backover incidents as NHTSA did in the ANPRM and
that timing-wise, the document could be balloted by ISO and issued as
soon as the end of 2009 or early 2010. Nissan noted that while there is
a lack of existing industry consensus standards for rear visibility
enhancement systems, there does not appear to be wide variation between
systems offered by different automakers due to the small number of
rearview video camera suppliers.

[[Page 76213]]

Ford cited the initiation of updates to ECE R46 for rearview video
displays and stated that while it did not support the standard in its
entirety, it believes the Australian state of New South Wales'
Technical Standard No.149 \56\ is instructive with regard to display
image. Ford stated that this standard requires a cylinder test object
located 5 meters from the rear of the vehicle to have a corresponding
image height on the display of at least 0.5 percent of the distance
between the driver's eye and the display. For example, for a driver's
eye located 800 mm from the screen, the corresponding minimum height
for the image on the display would be 4mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ Australian Design Rule 14/02 Rear Vision Mirrors; 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most extensive comments received were in regard to ISO
17386:2004 Transport information and control systems, Manoeuvring Aids
for Low Speed Operation (MALSO). This standard contains test
specifications and requirements to establish the ability of a sensor-
based system to detect stationary objects, primarily in the utilization
as a parking aid. Delphi stated that tests used for system
certification under this standard utilize an idealized target, a PVC
pole, for uniform and repeatable performance. The tests were designed
to ignore the area from 0 to 25 cm above the ground to prevent
detection of parking curbs, presumably to limit the number of times the
system alerted the driver to their presence so that drivers would not
disable the system. As noted by the AAM, ISO 17386 pertains
specifically to systems designed to assist drivers in maneuvering in
tight spaces, such as in low-speed parking maneuvers. The AAM further
noted that the parameters addressed in the ISO standard are not
relevant for pedestrian impacts, nor are the systems designed for low-
speed maneuvering optimized for pedestrian detection. Delphi identified
the need for a more realistic target specification to be developed,
compared to the ISO standard, for sensor-based systems to be able to
detect small children. Ackton stated that up to this point, ISO's MALSO
standard with the PVC target pole has been the benchmark for all
equipment manufacturers. However, Ackton stated that many manufacturers
have created systems that ``go beyond'' the requirements of the ISO
standard and that its own ``New-Gen'' system utilizes technology that
allows it to detect moving objects.
The AAM stated that ISO and SAE have several standards that pertain
to human-machine interface (HMI) aspects including features employed by
rearview video systems and sensor-based backing aids. It noted that
these standards are recommendations, rather than specifications, due to
the contingent nature of most HMI parameters, which are highly
influenced by the specific context and implementation in question. The
AAM concluded by stating that such standards do not lend themselves for
incorporation into an FMVSS for rearward visibility.
Question 2: Are there additional parameters which should be
specified to define a rear visibility enhancement system? What should
the minimum specified performance be for each parameter?
Responses: Gentex suggested a minimum visual display brightness of
500 cd/m\2\ for in-mirror displays, as measured at room temperature and
in a dark room. Its rationale was that automaker research has confirmed
this to be the minimally accepted value, presumably to account for a
wide possible range of ambient conditions.
Magna suggested that instead of regulating operational areas of
video camera performance that NHTSA instead leave implementation to the
automakers and suppliers to address to ensure overall system
affordability.
Question 3: Are future rear visibility systems anticipated which
may have significantly different visual display types that may require
other display specification parameters?
Responses: NHTSA did not receive comments in response to this
question.

IV. Analysis of ANPRM Comments and NHTSA's Tentative Conclusions

Based upon the discussion in the ANPRM and the comments received,
we have grouped the various ideas for mitigating backover crashes into
five distinct threads. While there are numerous variations within each
concept, we believe that these five concepts contain substantially all
of the potential solutions discussed. The ideas are as follows: (1) The
improvement of rear visibility for all vehicles within the scope of the
K.T. Safety Act; (2) the improvement of rear visibility for certain
high-risk vehicle types, namely those judged to be involved in a
disproportionately high number of backover crashes; (3) the improvement
of rear visibility for vehicles with blind zones that exceed a
threshold or cannot view areas deemed to be critical; (4) the
installation of driver's-side convex mirrors; and (5) the installation
of advanced technology systems, such as combinations of sensors and
video cameras, automatic braking systems, or other technology. We note
that when referring to improved rear visibility via a
``countermeasure,'' the term refers to any rearview video system,
sensor, or mirror, although we discuss the specific differences between
those technology types in the earlier ANPRM summary and in section V
below. This section contains NHTSA's analysis of the various overall
approaches that could be applied to backover prevention, as well as
addresses comments germane to the discussion.
Following the discussion of comments relating to the possible means
for improving rear visibility and mitigating backover crashes and
comments received regarding these, a discussion of comments relating to
possible rear visibility system characteristics and compliance test
methods is presented.

A. Application of Rear Visibility Systems Across the Light Vehicle
Fleet

One approach considered by NHTSA in the ANPRM was to require that
all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less be subjected to
improved rear visibility requirements. Going forward with a requirement
for improved rear visibility for all light vehicles was an idea
supported by a variety of commenters. First and foremost, safety
organizations and individuals whose families had been involved in
backover incidents strongly favored this alternative. In general, these
commenters supported the most comprehensive possible proposal in order
to achieve the maximum possible benefits, pointing out the particular
tragedy that many of these incidents involved a parent or other family
member injuring or killing their own children. Kids and Cars stated
that all vehicles must be addressed in order to prevent backover
injuries and fatalities, stating that even one car with a large blind
zone should indicate the need for the regulation to cover all vehicle
types. Similarly, IIHS and Consumers Union both supported uniform
requirements across light vehicle classes.
Several equipment manufacturers also were in support of requiring
improved rear visibility on all light vehicles. Sony commented that the
Act permits NHTSA to ``prescribe different requirements for different
types of motor vehicles,'' but does not permit a total or partial
exemption of a particular class of vehicles, or a percentage of a
particular class of vehicles, from rear visibility requirements. Sony
further stated that limiting the rear blind zone visibility
requirements to LTVs ignores the fact that passenger cars account for
26 percent of backover deaths and 54 percent of backover injuries, and
that

[[Page 76214]]

these percentages will likely increase given the relative decline of
LTV sales across the market. Delphi and Magna stated their belief that
the backover problem is widespread enough that improved rear visibility
requirements should not be limited to any particular class of vehicles.
Similarly, Ackton suggested that rear visibility countermeasures should
not be limited to a certain vehicle class and also raised the issue
that trailers could be equipped with sensor-based object detection
systems.
In contrast to this broad approach, some automakers commented in
favor of limiting any rear visibility improvement to just a portion of
the fleet, such as LTVs, saying that, in terms of fatalities, they are
statistically overrepresented in backover crashes. Nissan and GM both
recommended that a maximum blind zone area approach be used to
determine whether a particular model of vehicle warrants improved rear
visibility, and recommended against the application of any new
requirements by vehicle type. Mercedes suggested that if the agency
believes that improved rear visibility should be required for the
portion of the vehicle fleet that is statistically overrepresented in
backover crashes (i.e., LTVs), then NHTSA should apply the requirements
to only those types of vehicles. Honda also commented that rear
visibility performance requirements should be instituted for only those
vehicles with the highest rates of backover incidents, although it also
suggested that NHTSA should actively monitor the data for all vehicle
types so that it can consider broader application of the requirements
based on the safety need.
Lastly, some vehicle manufacturers generally supported alternative
methods for preventing backovers. One manufacturer, Nissan, requested
that the agency conduct more research before proposing to require any
additional performance requirements for rear visibility. The AAM
limited its support to the requirement for ECE R46-compliant convex
side mirrors, instead of more advanced countermeasures. Mercedes echoed
this approach, but allowed that if more advanced countermeasures were
seen as essential, they be limited to LTVs, and not applied to
passenger cars. The application of improved rear visibility
requirements to LTVs only was also supported by Honda. GM was the lone
manufacturer that recommended that NHTSA limit the requirement for
improved rear visibility to vehicles with large blind zones only. We
have addressed comments relating to those alternative proposals in the
sections below.
While NHTSA agrees that requiring enhanced rear visibility for all
light vehicles would be the most comprehensive approach to mitigate
backover crashes, it would also entail the highest costs of any
possible proposal. Commenters also suggested that NHTSA's projected
costs were too high and that costs would likely decline once systems
such as these were put into wider production. In response to these
comments, NHTSA has more fully analyzed the costs and benefits of the
proposal in the preliminary regulatory impact analysis (PRIA), which is
presented in tandem with this document.
As described in Section II.B, NHTSA has tentatively decided to
require improved rear visibility for all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less. Having taken into account the intent of Congress in
passing the K.T. Safety Act, the smaller, yet still-significant number
of fatalities involving passenger cars, and the fact that the injury
rate for all classes of vehicles is approximately proportional to their
representation in the fleet, we do not at this time believe it is in
the best interest of safety or otherwise appropriate or permissible
under the K.T. Safety Act to exclude passenger cars from rigorous rear
visibility performance requirements. Passenger cars account for
slightly more than half of the injuries from backover incidents.
The rationale for proposing to require all light vehicles to have
improved rear visibility is twofold. First, NHTSA, and Congress, are
extremely concerned about the incidence of children being backed over
by light vehicles. This is a phenomenon that is not limited to any
particular vehicle type, and while the ANPRM did discuss blind zone
area measurement, no driver of any type of vehicle could see the entire
area behind the vehicle in which a pedestrian, especially a young
child, might be located without the aid of an effective rear visibility
countermeasure. Therefore, the obvious and most complete solution is to
require an enhancement that enables drivers of all light vehicles to
see children and other obstacles directly behind a vehicle.
Second, and as noted by some commenters, applying improved rear
visibility requirements to just a portion of the fleet would cause an
awkward safety disparity between vehicles equipped with a
countermeasure, and those without. As NHTSA has noted in the ANPRM and
this notice, driver education about and acceptance of rear visibility
countermeasures is crucial in realizing their effectiveness. To require
visibility improvements in only some vehicles may send a mixed message
to drivers that would not achieve the intent of the law.

B. Limitation of Countermeasure Application to Certain Vehicle Types

A second concept explored in the ANPRM was the idea of limiting the
requirement for improved rear visibility to certain vehicle types. The
idea of having different rear visibility requirements for certain
vehicle types was explicitly contemplated by Congress and articulated
in the text of the K.T. Safety Act, which stated that ``The Secretary
may prescribe different requirements for different types of motor
vehicles to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a
motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death
and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly incidents
involving small children and disabled persons.'' Furthermore, we
believe that in particular, vehicles like multipurpose passenger
vehicles and pickup trucks were contemplated by Congress as potentially
warranting more of an improvement in rear visibility than do passenger
cars. In noting the need for rear visibility performance requirements,
the legislative history stated that, ``As larger vehicles, including
SUVs, pickup trucks, and minivans, have become more popular, more
drivers are confronted with larger blind spots.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ S. Rep. 110-275, S. Rep. No. 275, 110TH Cong., 2nd Sess.
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the ANPRM, NHTSA considered whether it would be appropriate to
take this idea further and limit the requirements for improved rear
visibility to the vehicles known as ``LTVs,'' which include
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and minivans with a GVWR of
10,000 pounds or less. The agency reasoned that if a strong
relationship between vehicle class and backover incidents existed, a
targeted requirement for advanced rear visibility countermeasures could
achieve a large percentage of the overall benefits of the technology at
a fraction of the overall cost to the industry. Therefore, the agency
conducted a statistical analysis and requested comment on the option.
The agency's analysis revealed that while LTVs were statistically
overrepresented in backover-related fatalities, they were not
significantly overrepresented in backover-related injuries or in
backover crashes

[[Page 76215]]

generally. Table 7 below lays out a summary of the results.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ This table is presented in more detail in section III of
the PRIA.

Table 7--Backover Crash Fatalities and Injuries and Percent of Fleet by
Vehicle Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type (GVWR of 10,000 lb Percent of Percent of Percent of
or less) fleet injuries fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car.................... 58 54 26
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle... 16 20 30
Truck............................ 17 18 31
Van (including minivans)......... 8 6 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As shown by Table 7, LTVs represent a disproportionate share of the
overall backover-related fatalities, being involved in almost twice as
many fatalities as their portion of the fleet. Conversely, passenger
cars are represented in only one half as many fatalities as their fleet
percentage would indicate. We note that this discrepancy is spread
relatively evenly across multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and
vans.
However, unlike fatalities, the relationship between backover
crashes generally and vehicle type for injuries is proportional to a
vehicle type's proportion of the fleet. The data show that passenger
cars are just as likely to be involved in a backover incident as are
other types of vehicles. The substantially similar numbers of total
backovers (including injuries and fatalities) between vehicle types
cast doubt on whether it would be in the best interest of safety to
limit rear visibility improvement to just LTVs even if it were
permissible to do so.
As indicated in the comment summary section above, commenters were
split on the idea of imposing countermeasure requirements by vehicle
class. Vehicle manufacturers in favor of a requirement that would
affect only LTVs included Honda and Mercedes, while Nissan was against
such a proposal. Mercedes suggested that if the agency believes that
advanced countermeasures are required for the portion of the vehicle
fleet that is statistically overrepresented in backover crashed (i.e.,
LTVs), then NHTSA should require those countermeasures only for those
types of vehicles. Nissan stated that it supported using a blind zone
threshold, rather than vehicle class, to determine which vehicles
require improved rear visibility. Honda also commented that rear
visibility performance requirements should be instituted for only those
vehicles with the highest rates of backover incidents, although it also
suggested that NHTSA should actively monitor the data for all vehicle
types so that it can consider broader application of the requirements
based on the safety need. Consumers Union made statements that they did
not support improving rear visibility for only a portion of the light
vehicle fleet, but they did not provide any data or rationale to
support the statements.
GM commented that the data provided in the ANPRM indicate that LTVs
have a larger blind zone than most passenger cars, and that it can be
extrapolated that the increased rate of LTVs in backing crashes could
be the result of larger blind zones. Based on this idea, GM stated that
this suggests the focus of the rulemaking should be on vehicle blind
zone, not vehicle class. However, while NHTSA had considered this
correlation, as described above, the agency has found that the
relationship between rear visibility and backover crashes appears to
involve too many factors to permit isolation of only the impact of rear
visibility. This preliminary information suggests that the statistical
overrepresentation of LTVs in backover crash incidence is not solely an
effect of a vehicle's rear visibility characteristics.
Blue Bird submitted a comment requesting that smaller buses not be
subject to any new rear visibility requirements. As it noted, the
language of the K.T. Safety Act would include small buses as part of
the class of vehicles potentially affected by the regulation. However,
Blue Bird offered several reasons why it believes that it would be a
better policy decision to exclude buses from the rear visibility
requirement. First, it pointed to the fatality and injury data
presented in NHTSA's ANPRM, which indicated that buses, which were
included in the ``Other Light Vehicle'' category, were involved in no
fatalities and few injuries. Second, Blue Bird stated that many small
buses (including small school buses), are not equipped with navigation
or multifunction screens. The commenter added that the increased costs
could deter some school districts from purchasing new school buses,
which could lead to safety disbenefits. Third, Blue Bird noted that
most drivers of buses must have commercial driver's licenses, and many
are subject to far more training than drivers of passenger vehicles.
We note that another commenter, Rosco, stated conversely that small
buses should be subject to improved rear visibility requirements. It
argued that small buses, frequently used for special needs children,
are frequently used in situations around children. Rosco stated that
because these vehicles have limited rearward visibility, they should be
equipped with rearview video systems. However, Rosco also notes that
operational guidelines (buses, in particular school buses, are driven
by professional drivers) advise against traveling in reverse in normal
operations. Furthermore, the statistics indicate that despite their
proximity to children, the guidelines are effective, as our data
indicates relatively few backover incidents involving school buses.
We received no comments regarding LSVs.
While sensitive to the issues cited by Blue Bird regarding school
buses, we are proposing that school buses and low-speed vehicles also
be included. We believe that it is apparent from the legislative
history that Congress intended for this statute to address the problem
of backover crashes involving all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds
or less. Therefore, we are proposing to include all passenger vehicles
among the vehicles subject to the enhanced rear visibility requirements
without exception.

C. Using Blind Zone Area as a Basis for Countermeasure Requirement

One option presented in the ANPRM was to limit the requirement for
improved rear visibility using a vehicle's blind zone area (the area

[[Page 76216]]

behind a vehicle that cannot be seen directly through the vehicle's
rear windows) threshold. This option was based on the preliminary
indication that certain vehicles with larger rear blind zones may be
more prone to backover incidents.
In their comments, some vehicle manufacturers commented in favor of
using a rear blind zone area threshold to determine which vehicles
would need improved rear visibility. GM recommended that a maximum
blind zone area approach should be used to determine whether a vehicle
should be equipped with a countermeasure, and recommended against the
application of countermeasures by vehicle type. GM offered a method of
measuring a vehicle's viewable area indirectly and noted an associated
threshold value of 100-125 square feet measured using a 32-inch target
plane, but stated that either the direct or indirect field of view
methodology could be used to determine a threshold. While GM commented
extensively on how its indirect field of view measurement method
correlated with and had some advantages over NHTSA's direct visibility
method, it did not provide any additional information to aid in
correlating measured direct rear visibility with backover incidents.
AAM, on the other hand, offered a suggestion relating to
calculating minimum required field of view using a pedestrian speed of
6 kph (3.7 mph), vehicle speed of 6 kph or less, and estimated driver
perception and response time 2.5 seconds. However, no data were
provided by the AAM to support the specific values offered.
Nissan also supported a maximum blind zone area approach to
identifying which vehicles most warranted improved rear visibility.
However, it did not provide any data or specific recommended value and
associated justification for its use as a blind zone area threshold.
Consumers Union recommended that a threshold be established based
on NHTSA's Monte Carlo analysis in which all areas with risk of 0.1 or
higher are required to be visible. However, no justification was
provided for choosing 0.1 as a risk threshold as opposed to some other
value.
While several commenters stated that they supported use of a blind
zone area threshold approach to determine which vehicles should have a
countermeasure, those comments did not provide any data in addition to
what NHTSA presented that might support such a proposal.
As described in the ANPRM, to determine a suitable blind zone area
threshold value at which vehicles with larger blind zones would be
required to have a improved rear visibility, NHTSA plotted the average
ratios of backing crashes to non-backing crashes and backover crashes
to non-backing crashes versus the direct-view rear blind zone areas for
28 vehicles, as shown in Figure 1. These 28 vehicles were selected
because they were the ones for which NHTSA had measured direct rear
visibility and for which sufficient state crash data were available.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.007

[[Page 76217]]

Upon further examination, NHTSA has determined that using rear
blind zone area to develop a threshold is not feasible at this time. We
believe that the 28 vehicles we used to develop Figure 1 do not depict
an obvious cutoff point where the risk of a backing crash dramatically
increased with increasing blind zone area and that some vehicles with
small blind zone areas (e.g., less than 300 square feet) have fairly
high backing and backover crash rates. Also, while we found that direct
rear blind zone area measured in a 50-foot square centered behind the
vehicle was correlated with backing crashes to a mildly statistically
significant degree, the relationship between size of the rear blind
zone area directly behind vehicles and backover crash risk, was not
correlated to a statistically significant degree.^{59 60} 60
Finally, during our SCI review, we determined that a majority of the
victims in backover crashes were directly behind the vehicle and within
a range of 20 feet from the rear bumper, an area that is not visible to
the driver in many vehicles of all types.\61\ Therefore, any
requirement for a maximum rear blind zone area that permitted the area
within 20-foot aft of the rear bumper to not be visible to the driver
would fail to address a large portion of backover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ The correlation between direct rear blind zone area and
backing crashes was correlated to a statistically significant
degree. However, this correlation was not sufficiently strong to use
as a basis for determining a specific threshold.
\60\ Partyka, S., Direct-View Rear Visibility and Backing Risk
for Light Passenger Vehicles (2008).
\61\ See analysis of SCI data, section V.B.i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Use of Convex Driver's-Side Mirrors

Several commenters recommended that NHTSA make modifications to the
existing mirror requirements of FMVSS No. 111 in order to realize the
goal of the K.T. Safety Act. Among other requirements, FMVSS No. 111
currently requires a flat mirror on the driver's side, and permits,
although does not require, a convex mirror on the passenger side
(nearly all vehicles are equipped with such a mirror, however). NHTSA
notes that FMVSS No. 111 does allow exterior rearview mirrors which
incorporate an outer curved portion, as long as the required flat
portion is also present. In the ANPRM, NHTSA did not consider
modification of the existing side mirror provisions of FMVSS No. 111
since we believed it to be an ancillary issue with regard to the rear
visibility activity currently being pursued.
In their comments on the ANPRM, the AAM, along with several vehicle
manufacturers, recommended that NHTSA adopt European (ECE R46) mirror
specifications to require non-planar side mirrors on both the driver
and passenger sides of light vehicles. They stated that this would
enable drivers to detect a majority of pedestrians involved in reported
backover incidents, as most victims do not begin directly behind the
vehicle, but rather enter the area directly behind the vehicle from one
side or the other. Specifically, the AAM stated that its analysis of
the agency's SCI cases indicated this expanded field of view (from non-
planar mirrors) would cover approximately 80 percent of the cases
investigated for which the pre-crash movement of the pedestrian was
recorded. Furthermore, the commenters stated that the increased field
of view of convex driver's-side mirrors would give drivers a greater
window of time in which they could see an incurring pedestrian in the
side mirror. The AAM stated that using the ECE specification would
result in an increase in the lateral angular field of view up to 286
percent in expanded field of view over that required by FMVSS No. 111
for vehicles meeting passenger car requirements. In addition, the AAM
cited findings from a study which concluded that non-planar mirrors can
increase angular viewing coverage by over 300 percent when compared to
flat mirrors and that spherical and aspheric mirrors with spherical
portions can provide a substantial reduction in glare for drivers under
normal conditions and improvements in lane change situations.
GM said it agrees with the AAM that 80 percent of the SCI cases are
incursions from the side and could be addressed by modifying existing
mirror requirements to the side and rear of the vehicle, and agreed
with AAM on adopting ECE R46 requirements.
Mercedes said it supports the AAM's recommendation to adopt ECE R46
requirements for convex exterior mirrors, which it said would
substantially expand the required field of view for all light vehicles
and thereby improve the ability of drivers to detect pedestrians and
pedal cyclists moving into the rearward pathway of the vehicle.
Conversely, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated that
simple changes in the current requirements for side and interior
rearview mirrors will not fully address the problem of blind zones,
enable drivers to see the entire area immediately behind the vehicle,
or comply with the statutory mandate to ``expand the required field of
view * * *''
After careful consideration of the comments received, NHTSA
believes that modifications to the side mirror requirements in FMVSS
No. 111 are best handled in a separate rulemaking. We have come to this
conclusion for two reasons. First, given that only marginal gains could
be made in field of view to the sides of the vehicle, we do not believe
that those gains would result in a reduction of backovers. NHTSA's rear
visibility measurements show that rearview mirrors in current vehicles
typically show a much wider area that exceeds the minimum requirements
set forth in FMVSS No. 111, as illustrated in Figure 2 below. As a
result, a fairly wide field of view provided by side rearview mirrors
has already been present in the backover incidents that have occurred
to date. At the extreme lateral distances from the vehicle, in the area
in which an ECE-compliant convex mirror would display but a standard
side-view mirror would not, pedestrians are sufficiently far from a
vehicle that a driver (if the driver was using the mirror) would likely
not perceive a risk that the individual would intersect the vehicle's
path as the vehicle moved rearward.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 76218]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.008

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Second, ECE R46 compliant mirrors would not provide a field of view
that includes what the agency has determined, through Monte Carlo
simulation, to be the highest risk areas for backover crashes, which
are the areas directly behind the vehicle. Any areas of crash risk for
a pedestrian behind the vehicle that would fall within the field of
view of a convex side mirror are already well within the field of view
of an existing FMVSS No. 111-compliant side mirror. Thus, we anticipate
that little or no net

[[Page 76219]]

improvement in backover rates would occur if there were a switch to ECE
R46-compliant mirrors.
Notwithstanding these observations, NHTSA plans to reexamine the
side mirror requirements in FMVSS No. 111 in upcoming rulemaking
actions. The suggestions of AAM and other commenters that these mirrors
may provide safety benefits such as glare reduction and lane-change
assistance will be considered in the context of those actions.

E. Advanced Systems and Combination Sensor/Rearview Video Systems

NHTSA's analyses are based on currently available technology.
However, it is known that additional technologies are under
development, but the quality of their performance is not known at this
time. Two additional sensor technologies are being developed by
manufacturers that could be used to improve a vehicle's rear
visibility: an infrared-based object detection and video-based real-
time image processing for object detection. Infrared-based systems
operate by sensing the infrared radiation emitted by objects located in
their detection range and can produce non-photographic images that
portray the shapes and locations of objects detected. Rear object
detection via video camera uses real-time image processing capability
to identify obstacles behind the vehicle and then alert the driver of
their presence. While these technology applications may eventually
prove viable, because of their early stages of development, it is not
possible at this time to assess their ability to effectively expand the
visible area behind a vehicle.
NHTSA is currently engaged in cooperative research with the
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and GM on Advanced Collision
Avoidance Technology relating to backing incidents. The research is
focused on assessing the ability of more advanced technologies to
reduce the occurrence of backing crashes, and refining a tool to assess
the potential safety benefit of technologies, such as an advanced
object detection system with integrated automatic braking capability.
The completion of NHTSA's advanced technology research effort is not
expected until calendar year 2011.
Commenters including Continental, Magna, and Takata indicated that
they are either developing or anticipate development of advanced
systems with pedestrian detection capability in the future. Nissan
indicated that they are studying some potential future applications
which could limit backing speed, apply automatic braking, or provide
the driver with a haptic (i.e., tactile, e.g., vibration) response \62\
to indicate the presence of a rear obstacle. While future advanced
safety systems may be developed to reduce backover crashes, no systems
are currently ready for market. Therefore, the proposed improved rear
visibility requirements specified in this notice, while not precluding
use of promising advanced technology, cannot be based on the possible
benefits that may be attainable with such future systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Providing a driver with a haptic response means providing
tactile feedback such as by causing the steering wheel to vibrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Rear Field of View

In the ANPRM, NHTSA invited comment on what area behind the vehicle
would need to be made visible to the driver in order to best improve
safety. A wide area of up to 50 feet wide by 50 feet long was suggested
as a possible coverage area option. NHTSA inquired about the
feasibility of coverage such a large area and sought comments on which
areas behind the vehicle may be most critical for backover mitigation.
Multiple commenters discussed the average area that any
countermeasure would be expected to ``see'' and, in particular, noted
the number of SCI cases in which the victim entered the vehicle's path
from the side of the vehicle. Sony and Kids and Cars both stated that
consideration should be given to areas to the sides of the vehicle,
with Kids and Cars stating that all of the areas not visible directly
or through side mirrors should be taken into consideration. Sony stated
that limiting the rear test area to the area within the edges of the
vehicle would fail to account for obstacles that move into the rear
blind zone from outside of the immediate rear of the vehicle. Sony
suggested that the test area should account for, at a minimum, vehicle
backing speed, driver reaction time, and the speed of potential
obstacles. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety indicated that they
believe that if the area immediately behind a motor vehicle is visible
to a driver, substantial safety benefits will result for pedestrians,
especially very young children.
Many commenters expressed a desire to minimize or eliminate any
``gap'' between the area that is required to be visible and the rear
bumper. However, the rationale for allowing a gap seemed based to the
difficulty of rear visibility systems might have in detecting areas
directly behind the bumper. Kids and Cars suggested that the area of
required coverage should begin at the rear bumper because when children
approach a vehicle from the side, they frequently intersect the path of
the vehicle close to the bumper. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
stated that the countermeasure needs to provide the driver with a field
of view that eliminates the entire blind zone immediately behind the
rear of the vehicle, suggesting that no gap should be allowed.
Consumers Union also stated that they believe no gap should exist in
the test zone. Nissan stated that as long as the target area size is
realistic, it would be appropriate to define the limits of the test
zone such that it begins immediately behind the rear bumper. Rosco
stated that coverage should begin at a vertical plane tangent to the
rearmost surface of the rear bumper. Sony indicated that NHTSA need not
and should not permit any significant gap behind a vehicle before the
visibility zone begins.
On the other hand, some commenters supported the idea of a gap. The
AORC stated that young children should be visible using a rearview
video system beginning at a distance of 0.25 meters (0.82 ft) from the
rear bumper and extending outward to a minimum distance of 3 meters
(9.84 ft). GM stated that, as most of the documented SCI backover cases
involved pedestrians entering the vehicle's path from the sides of the
vehicle, a gap in the area immediately aft of the rear bumper would not
be unreasonable. Honda also supported a small gap of 0.3 meters (1
foot), noting that if no gap were permitted, video cameras might be
placed in locations that could be subject to damage in low-speed
collisions, thereby increasing the cost of ownership.
In regard to the size of the visible area behind a vehicle may be
needed to adequately mitigate backover crashes, Advocates for Highway
and Auto safety stated that ``there is no reason why a rearview video
system could not provide an optimal coverage area that is unlimited
when the vehicle is on a flat surface or extends at least 20 feet
behind the vehicle.'' Multiple commenters noted that rear-mounted
convex mirrors could not be modified to attain such a range as was
indicated in the ANPRM. NHTSA's test results for rear-mounted convex
look-down and cross-view mirrors agree with this comment.
Manufacturers' descriptions of current sensor-based systems included in
their comments also did not indicate that sensors could meet this range
requirement. While no comments were received regarding the ability of
rearview video systems to cover this

[[Page 76220]]

range, NHTSA's testing has shown that while the systems may display
such a range, image quality decreases as areas further out from the
vehicle are displayed.
In response to the ANPRM description of NHTSA's Monte Carlo
analysis of backover risk as a function of pedestrian initial location,
GM commented that NHTSA's analysis did not factor in the probability
that a pedestrian would have actually been located at any specific
point on the test grid. While NHTSA agrees with GM's comment, we note
that the only available data for use in asserting such a probability of
pedestrian location would be SCI case data, which is not nationally
representative.
As will be explained later in this document, based on the above
comments and some new analysis, NHTSA has determined that a coverage
area of 20 feet in length and 10 feet in width (5 feet to either side
of the vehicles centerline) is the most feasible and effective range
for mitigating backover crashes.

G. Rear Visibility System Characteristics

In the ANPRM, NHTSA noted several possible system characteristics
that may be important to require in order to ensure that the maximum
possible effectiveness of a rear visibility system may be achieved. Our
general approach in establishing performance requirements was to
identify key areas that we believe are pertinent to overall system
effectiveness. In the absence of existing consensus industry standards,
we reviewed existing systems and made determinations regarding
performance areas to specify. These areas include visual display
characteristics and aspects of rearview image presentation. The
following paragraphs summarize comments relating to system
characteristics and describe NHTSA's analysis regarding those possible
specifications.
i. Rearview Image Response Time
Image response time is the time delay between the moment the
vehicle is put into reverse gear, and the moment which an image to the
rear of the vehicle is displayed by a rear visibility system. The
importance of response time to safety is illustrated by a comment from
Ms. Susan Auriemma, in which she describes having to wait several
seconds for the image to appear and notes that drivers may proceed to
back without waiting for the image to appear. NHTSA agrees with her
concern that if the display takes too long to appear, drivers may be
likely to begin a backing maneuver before the image behind the vehicle
is displayed, rendering the system less effective. In the ANPRM, we
suggested a maximum value of 1.25 seconds for the maximum allowable
time for a rearview video image to be displayed to the driver, or image
response time.
Commenters generally concurred with NHTSA's concerns regarding
image response time; however, manufacturers identified several
technical issues which merit consideration. While GM and Gentex agreed
that rearview video systems are able to display an image within 1.25
seconds, they noted that based on the complexity of the system and the
need for tolerances, systems can typically take longer to produce
images in some situations due in part to electronic image quality
control checks that are a precursor to the full display of an image.
Therefore, NHTA's suggested maximum value of 1.25 seconds could
unnecessarily restrict the operation of some systems and in theory
impact the electronic quality control approach of manufacturers. GM and
Gentex noted that a maximum image response time value of 2.0 seconds
would allow for timely activation of the system based on a reverse
signal and provide a reasonable tolerance for system variation while
ensuring the availability of an image at the beginning of backing
maneuvers. Specifically, Gentex stated ``In total, a typical
application requires a nominal 1.20 seconds to display a rearview video
image. With tolerance, as much as 2.00 seconds may be required--not
including the time between the gear change * * *'' Gentex went on to
recommend that a maximum image response time of 3.0 seconds allows the
rearview video system enough time to ensure the driver is presented
with a quality video image. However, no data justifying the need for
the additional 1 second was provided by Gentex. While NHTSA understands
that allowing time for system checks may result in a higher quality
image, we also believe that providing an image soon after the vehicle
is shifted into reverse may substantially increase the likelihood that
a driver could detect a rear obstacle, if present.
AAM recommended that maximum image response time be specified with
reference to the time ``when the vehicle driveline is engaged in
reverse''. NHTSA agrees that the point in time in which the vehicle's
transmission is engaged in reverse gear is the most logical point in
time from which to orient the image response time criterion.
Also in regard to image response time, NHTSA acknowledges that
liquid crystal displays require some warm-up time before an image can
be displayed clearly. In-dash LCD displays that are used for multiple
functions are typically already active before the driver shifts into
reverse gear and therefore are already warm and able to display a
rearview video image immediately upon shifting into reverse. However,
in-mirror LCD displays remain off until reverse gear is selected and,
therefore, require some warm-up time before a clear rearview video
image can be displayed. Therefore, some requirement for additional
image response time is inherent in the use of in-mirror LCD displays,
but is avoided with in-dash displays. Conversely, given that the
buildup of heat can also be an issue with in-mirror LCD displays due to
the limited area within the mirror in which heat may dissipate,
providing power to these displays at all times as a means of avoiding
longer image response times is not feasible. Therefore, providing some
allowance of time for an in-mirror LCD display to warm-up may be
reasonable.
Somewhat related to system the issue of system response time was a
comment from the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety that suggested
vehicles be equipped with an interlock feature that prohibits it from
being able to move in reverse, even after the transmission has been
placed in reverse gear, until a short period after the countermeasure
system becomes fully operational. This sort of measure would ensure
that drivers had all available information about the presence of any
rear obstacles at the moment that backing began. While this idea
appears to have merit, NHTSA is concerned that drivers that are parking
or hitching a trailer may be annoyed by such a feature. NHTSA seeks
comment on whether this feature might be acceptable to consumers and
whether any substantial advantage of this feature over the use of a
maximum response time specification exists. Based on the comments, the
agency will consider whether to include this feature in the final rule.
ii. Rearview Image Linger Time
Image linger time is another issue that was raised in the ANPRM.
Linger time refers to the period in which a rearview image continues to
be displayed after the vehicle's transmission has been shifted out of
reverse gear. As noted by some commenters, a period of linger time may
be desirable for situations where frequent transitions from reverse to
forward gear are needed to adjust a vehicle's position (e.g., parallel
parking and hitching). In the ANPRM, NHTSA indicated that a minimum of
4 seconds but not more than 8 seconds of linger time may be appropriate
after the vehicle is shifted from the reverse

[[Page 76221]]

position. NHTSA is concerned that excessive linger time may provide a
source of distraction to the driver by a video image that is displayed
longer than is needed. Consumers Union concurred with NHTSA's
recommendation of 4-8 seconds for linger time. Nissan stated that its
systems currently exhibit a linger time of approximately 200
milliseconds and that it does not see value in allowing a longer linger
time. GM recommended a maximum linger time of 10 seconds or, as an
alternative, a speed-based limit in which the rearview video display
would turn off when the vehicle reaches a speed of 5 mph (8 kph). GM
noted that a time-based linger time would be less costly to implement
than a speed-based linger time would. Based on their observations of
drivers making parking maneuvers, the AAM also recommended a maximum
linger time of 10 seconds, but specified an alternative speed-based
value of 20 kph (12.4 mph).
Because an excessive image linger time could result in adverse
safety consequences associated with potential driver distraction when
the vehicle is moving forward, NHTSA believes that linger time should
be limited. On the other hand, NHTSA agrees with commenters who noted
that allowing a reasonable linger time would provide a benefit to
drivers who are parallel parking or hitching a trailer. Therefore, we
believe there is a need to specify a maximum, but not a minimum, image
linger time value for presentation of a rearview image.
iii. Rear Visibility System Visual Display Brightness
In the ANPRM, NHTSA suggested that it is appropriate to adopt a
minimum visual display luminance to ensure that a rearview image is
displayed with sufficient brightness to be adequately visible in
varying conditions, such as bright sunlight or low levels of ambient
light. Adequately visible, in this case, would mean that a driver can
discern the presence of obstacles in the rearview video image. We note
that in the SCI sample, 95 percent of backovers took place in daylight
hours. Therefore a rearview image should be bright enough to be visible
in daylight conditions. Commenters noted that a minimum of 500 cd/m\2\
is appropriate based upon research performed by vehicle manufacturers
and that internal specifications routinely require a luminance of at
least this value. During the agency's review of existing rearview video
systems, we found the display brightness of the existing systems to be
adequate such that visual information was discernible under varying
ambient conditions, such as background light level. While we do not
currently have reason to believe that vehicle manufacturers are
installing rearview video systems with displays having brightness
values less than 500 cd/m\2\, we believe it is necessary to propose an
appropriate minimum brightness so that drivers can see the image under
varying ambient lighting conditions.
iv. Rear Visibility System Malfunction Indicator
In the ANPRM, NHTSA indicated our belief that no malfunction
indicator would be necessary for a system that presents a visual image
of the area behind the vehicle since the absence of an image would
clearly indicate a malfunction condition. Multiple commenters agreed
with NHTSA's suggestion that such a malfunction indicator is not
necessary for a system presenting a rearview image. We agree with these
comments.

H. Rear Visibility System Compliance Test

A majority of comments regarding a rear visibility system
compliance test related to ambient lighting conditions during test and
the specific test object used. Comments regarding these issues and
NHTSA's analysis of them follow.
i. Compliance Test Ambient Light Level
Given that ambient lighting conditions can affect how well a driver
is able to see an in-vehicle visual display, the ANPRM solicited input
regarding what ambient lighting conditions may be most appropriate for
rear visibility system compliance testing. GM recommended that testing
be conducted in 3 lux conditions, or the level provided in dark ambient
conditions with the reverse lights operating. Sony suggested that the
external ambient light level for testing should be 5 lux with reverse
gear and lamps engaged. The AORC stated that tests should be conducted
in a ``min/max illumination condition which best simulates daytime
conditions since the field data indicates this is the accident
condition present and will allow the best value solution to be used.''
Given that 55 of the 58 SCI backover cases occurred in daylight
conditions, NHTSA tends to concur with the AORC's comment on this
matter. We believe that for the purpose of preventing backover crashes
a worst case, ``nighttime'' ambient lighting condition for system
compliance testing may be an unnecessarily challenging requirement.
ii. Compliance Test Object
NHTSA received many comments regarding specifications for a
compliance test object. Certain features of the test object, most
significantly the height, could have substantial ramifications on the
burdens of compliance. Similarly, the shape and material composition of
the test object would have had significant ramifications for
manufacturers using sensors as a means of compliance. However, given
that NHTSA is proposing a performance requirement that would most
likely be met through the use of rearview video systems, the specific
characteristics of the test object may not have as great of an impact
on countermeasure performance (with the possible exception of the
height and width of the test object). Nonetheless, we have summarized
and addressed the comments on this subject below.
The ANPRM indicated NHTSA's belief, based on real world data, that
the test object should simulate the physical characteristics of a
toddler. Specifically in the ANPRM and again in this document, we have
stated that 26 percent of victims in passenger vehicle backover crashes
are 1 year old or younger. To date, NHTSA has generally used the
average height of a 12-month-old child to represent a ``1-year-old
child'' size to evaluate technologies that could be used to mitigate
backover crashes. However, looking at the first 58 SCI cases shows that
the average age of the 21 victims aged 1 year or younger was 15
months.\63\ In their comments in response to the ANPRM, the AAM and GM
recommended that the target dimensions be based on an 18-month-old
child to best represent the victims involved in the first 56 documented
SCI backover crash cases. Anthropometric data published by the CDC
shows that the height difference between an average 15-month-old child
and an average 18-month-old child is approximately 1 inch.\64\ The
difference in shoulder breadth for these two ages is approximately 0.2
inches. Upon further consideration of the SCI data regarding the age of
victims, the fact that the small difference in size between a 15-month-
old and 18-month-old child,

[[Page 76222]]

and the rationale provided by commenters, NHTSA agrees with the idea of
basing the test object dimensions representing an average 12- to 23-
month-old child using a midpoint age value of 18 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ This apparent disparity is explained by the fact that the
category ``1-year-old child'' encompassed all children under age 2.
Therefore, the average age of those children, some of whom were
almost 2, and some younger than 12 months comes out to 15 months.
\64\ CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Boys;
Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles. Published May 30,
2000 (modified 4/20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36
months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles.
Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/20/2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the ANPRM, NHTSA suggested specific test object dimensions that
correspond to a 12-month-old child. In regard to the height of the test
object, NHTSA suggested in the ANPRM some specific test object
dimensions that correspond to a 12-month-old child, including a height
of 30 inches (0.762 meters). As stated earlier, the average height of a
``1-year-old'' child was used in NHTSA testing since SCI data have
indicated that 26 percent of victims are 1 year of age or younger. In
response to the height value suggested in the ANPRM, the AAM and GM
recommended alternative heights. Specifically, GM recommended a test
object height of 32 inches (81 cm). The AAM recommended specific test
object dimensions of 82 cm (32.28 in) height based on 2000 CDC data for
an 18-month-old child.\65\ NHTSA believes that the difference between
30, 32, and 32.28 to be minimal for this purpose and in the proposal
offers a compromise amongst these values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Boys;
Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles. Published May 30,
2000 (modified 4/20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36
months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles.
Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/20/2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regard to test object width, NHTSA suggested a value of 5 inches
to represent the breadth of an average child's head. In response to the
suggested value, the AAM recommended an alternative test object width
of 15 cm (5.9 in.) based on 2000 CDC data for an 18-month-old
child.\66\ NHTSA agrees and has reconsidered the size of test object
needed to adequately assess system performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Boys;
Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles. Published May 30,
2000 (modified 4/20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36
months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles.
Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/20/2001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's test data to date demonstrate that, except at the edges of
the image and immediately aft of the rear bumper (i.e., within 1 foot),
a rearview video system generally displays the entire body of the child
when present within the video camera's field of view. Since the entire
body of a child standing behind the vehicle is visible with a rearview
video system, the agency now believes that the test object's width
should represent the width of the child's entire body, rather than just
the child's head. While the average shoulder breadth of a standing 18-
month-old child with their arms at their sides is approximately 8.5
inches, the absolute, overall width of an 18-month-old child standing
with arms relaxed approaches 12 inches. A 12-inch test object width is
currently used to represent a small child in the school bus mirror test
defined under paragraph S13 of FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, in order to
perform compliance testing in regard to visual display image quality,
the test object must be large enough that when displayed at substantial
longitudinal range behind the vehicle the object is still large enough
to be measured across its smallest dimension with some accuracy and
minimal obscuration due to image graininess (for an electronic
display).

V. NHTSA Research Subsequent to the ANPRM

As detailed in the ANPRM, NHTSA had conducted research to assess
drivers' ability to avoid backing crashes in a controlled test
involving presentation of an unexpected obstacle behind the vehicle
while the driver backed out of a garage. Possible countermeasure
technologies assessed in this research included a rearview video system
with a 7.8-inch (measured diagonally) visual display in the center
console, rearview video with a 7.8-inch in-dash visual display
augmented by a separate rear parking system, and a baseline (or control
group) condition in which no system was present.
The results of this research, which were presented in detail in the
ANPRM, showed that drivers avoided 42 percent of crashes when a
rearview video system was present and only 15 percent of crashes when
both rearview video and rear object detection sensors were present on
the vehicle. Without a system, all participants crashed.
While the results provided useful information regarding the
potential of available technologies to aid drivers in avoiding backing
crashes with unexpected obstacles, the study did not address the
additional technologies being considered as a means of improving rear
visibility per the Act. As a result, additional research was undertaken
after publication of the ANPRM to assess drivers' ability to use a rear
parking sensor system (alone), a rear-mounted convex ``look-down''
mirror, and rear-mounted cross-view mirrors. In addition, to assess
whether display location for a rearview video system may affect
drivers' performance in avoiding backing crashes using the system,
drivers were also tested using rearview video systems with two sizes of
in-mirror visual displays (2.4 inch and 3.5 inch). Finally, research
aimed at investigating the effect of test location on results was also
completed. All the research results that NHTSA has collected to date
are available on the NHTSA Web site and in Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0041.
A complete summary of NHTSA's research on rear visibility
countermeasure technologies is presented in Section VI.

A. Rearview Video Systems With In-Mirror Visual Displays

Two rearview video system conditions were assessed: one having a
2.4-inch visual display and another with a 3.5-inch visual display.
These tests used the same 2007 Honda Odyssey that was used in the
previous rearview video system test, and the drivers in the tests were
all drivers who personally owned a 2008 Honda Odyssey with a rearview
video system with visual display (original equipment, 2.4 inch)
integrated in the interior rearview mirror, to make sure that
unfamiliarity with such a system was not a factor. The numbers of test
participants run were 12 for the 2.4-inch display and 10 for the 3.5-
inch display. The test results showed very different results between
the two visual display sizes. Thirty-three percent of subjects driving
vehicles equipped with a rearview video system with 2.4-inch visual
display avoided crashing into the obstacle. However, 70 percent of
subjects driving vehicles equipped with a rearview video system with
3.5-inch visual display avoided a crash. However, despite the observed
37 percent more crashes avoided with the larger in-mirror display, the
result was not found to be statistically significant due to the
relatively small sample size of subjects tested.\67\ Across all system
conditions tested, the rearview video system with 3.5-inch visual
display proved to be the one with which drivers avoided the most
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ In2010, NHTSA intends to conduct additional trials of this
experiment to obtain more data in an effort to attain statistical
significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors

A similar test was conducted with rear-mounted convex ``look down''
mirrors and rear cross-view mirrors. These tests also used the 2007
Honda Odyssey and were conducted using owners of this type of vehicle.
Since no vehicle sold in the U.S. is known to offer rear convex look-
down mirrors as original equipment, an aftermarket mirror was used. To
provide the test participants in this system condition with some
experience using the mirror (before they were presented with the

[[Page 76223]]

unexpected obstacle event), the mirrors were installed on their
vehicles for 4 weeks prior to the test event.\68\ During the test
procedure, none of the thirteen participants that participated in the
study successfully avoided the unexpected obstacle, giving a driver
performance factor of zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ In order to conceal the fact that this was an experiment in
rear obstacle detection, participants were told that recording
devices were installed in the rear mirror.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A similar test was conducted with rear cross-view mirrors. This
test condition involved use of a 2003 Toyota 4Runner, which is the only
vehicle sold in the U.S. known to offer rear convex cross-view mirrors
as original equipment. Test subjects were owners of a 2003-2007 Toyota
4Runner who had owned and driven the vehicle for at least 6 months.
During the test procedure, none of the seven participants that
participated in the study successfully avoided the unexpected obstacle,
giving the rear cross-view mirror system a driver performance factor of
zero.

C. Rear Sensor Systems

Using the same unexpected obstacle event scenario, NHTSA tested
fourteen drivers of vehicles equipped with a rear parking sensor
system. This system involved use of a 2009 Ford Flex with an original
equipment rear parking aid system using ultrasonic sensors. As with the
testing of the other system types, drivers of the Ford Flex with
sensor-based rear parking aid system were persons who owned the vehicle
and had driven it as their primary vehicle for at least 6 months, so
that they would be familiar with the system. During the test, the
parking aid system on this vehicle detected the plastic obstacle and
produced an auditory warning in 100 percent of trials. This detection
rate was significantly better than the 39 percent detection rate
observed in the NHTSA's prior testing that used an identical scenario
but a different test vehicle.\69\ Despite the consistent rate of object
detection demonstrated by the Ford Flex rear parking sensors, only one
test subject in this system condition successfully avoided crashing
into the obstacle, resulting in only 7 percent of crashes avoided.
However, we note that all of the participants braked slightly, and four
came to a momentary, complete stop before resuming rearward motion and
crashing into the obstacle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G. H.S., and
Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video
Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
DOT 811 024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Ability of Currently Available Sensor Technology To Detect Small
Child Pedestrians

NHTSA's 2009 continuation of research to examine drivers' ability
to avoid backing crashes used a 2009 Ford Flex equipped with a rear
parking system. As noted in Section C above, this vehicle exhibited a
100-percent detection rate for the plastic obstacle used in the final
conflict scenario. Given the improved detection performance seen with
this ultrasonic-based sensor system over prior testing results using
other ultrasonic systems, NHTSA thought it appropriate to assess this
system's ability to detect small children.
Using a protocol developed previously and documented,\70\ NHTSA
conducted static and dynamic tests using young children and recorded
the sensor system's ability to detect the children. Testing was
conducted with two 1-year-old children and four children aged
approximately 3 years. Tests with 1-year-old children included
standing, walking laterally, and riding a wheeled toy that was towed
(by test staff) laterally behind the vehicle. Tests with the 3-year-old
children included standing, walking laterally, running laterally, and
riding a wheeled ride-on toy behind the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of
the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA
Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006, and Vehicle
Backover Avoidance Technology Study, Report to Congress, November
2006.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testing showed that the 1-year-old children were detected in 100
percent of trials at a range of 1, 2, or 3 feet behind the vehicle when
walking or riding on the wheeled toy. At a range of 4 feet, the 1-year-
old children were detected in 4 of 6 trials (67 percent) when walking,
but were not detecting at 4-foot range when riding the wheeled toy.
The 3-year-old children were found to be detected out to a range of
6 feet. Table 8 below summarizes the results for these tests and shows
strong detection performance out to a range of 3 feet, as was seen for
the younger children. However, detection performance appears to decline
significantly at the 4-foot range.

Table 8--2009 Ford Flex Rear Sensor System Detection Performance With 3-
Year-Old Children
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walking Running Ride-on
Longitudinal range from rear bumper face (%) (%) toy (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ft...................................... 100 100 100
2 ft...................................... 100 100 100
3 ft...................................... 100 67 87
4 ft...................................... 40 13 47
5 ft...................................... 20 0 0
6 ft...................................... 20 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These tests demonstrated improved consistency of detection over
results from past NHTSA testing of ultrasonic-based sensor systems.
However, the short detection range for young children is insufficient
for the purposes of backover mitigation. NHTSA notes, however, that as
with research results described in the ANPRM, all systems tested were
designed as parking aids and were not intended to be used for the
purpose of detecting children.

VI. Countermeasure Effectiveness Estimation Based on NHTSA Research
Data

Three conditions must be met for a rear visibility technology to
provide a benefit to the driver. First, the crash must be one that is
``avoidable'' through use of the device; i.e., the pedestrian must be
within the target range for the sensor, or the viewable area of the
camera or mirror. Second, once the pedestrian is within the system's
range, the device must ``sense'' that fact, i.e., provide the driver
with information about the presence and location of the pedestrian.
Third, there must be sufficient ``driver response,'' i.e., before
impact with the pedestrian, the driver must receive this information
and respond appropriately by confirming whether someone is or is not
behind the vehicle before proceeding. These factors are denoted as
fA, fS, and fDR, respectively, in this
analysis. Their product is the final system effectiveness.
This three-phase concept is depicted in Figure 3 below for both
sensor-based systems and visual systems (i.e., rearview video systems,
mirrors).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 76224]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.009

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Based on this general description of the process of avoiding a
backing crash, NHTSA has developed overall effectiveness of various
backover countermeasure technologies using three individual factors.
First, SCI backover incident reports were examined to characterize the
geometry of the specific situations in which a backing vehicle struck a
pedestrian or cyclist to determine if the backover

[[Page 76225]]

crash was conceivably avoidable using a given technology and standard
vehicle equipment (i.e., required rearview mirrors). We call this the
``avoidability'' of the backing conflict situation, or factor
``FA'' depicted in the figure above. Second, we estimated
the probability that a countermeasure could sense and warn the driver
of the rear obstacle, which we call ``system performance,'' or factor
``FS'' in the figure above. Finally, we determined the
likelihood of a driver responding appropriately to information provided
by the system to successfully avoid a backing crash. We call this
``driver reaction,'' depicted above as factor ``FDR.'' If an
obstruction in the path of a backing vehicle is avoidable, detectable,
and a driver reacts appropriately, a backover crash will be avoided.
Therefore, the ``overall effectiveness'' of the system is calculated by
multiplying FA, FS, and FDR together.
The derivation of these three factors is described below.

A. Situation Avoidability

Factor ``FA'' was derived by determining the
``avoidability'' of a backover crash. In order to better understand how
avoidable these situations are, NHTSA closely reviewed the SCI backover
case reports. By qualitatively analyzing the case reports, NHTSA
assessed a variety of factors concerning the case and how they
contributed to ``avoidability'', including:
Original and final position of the vehicle.
Vehicle speed.
If the victim was conceivably visible through direct
vision or indirectly using the vehicle's mirrors given the visual
aspects of the environment surrounding the vehicle during the backing
maneuver (i.e., was the area clear of visual obstructions?).
Position of the victim with respect to the vehicle.
Size, orientation (i.e., standing, sitting), and movement
of the victim.
If the victim was detectable given the detection
characteristics of a given technology.
If the vehicle could have stopped in time given typical
system performance for that technology (based on results of NHTSA
testing of system capabilities).
NHTSA used a general process to determine if a crash was avoidable.
We examined the system detection zone, vehicle blind zone area, and
visible areas surrounding the vehicle. If the pedestrian or cyclist was
detectable either visually or by a sensor-based system, then what
followed was a cataloguing of all the impediments to a typical,
reasonable driver reacting in time after receiving a warning or
recognizing a pedestrian or cyclist seen on a rearview video system
display.
While many backover crashes are theoretically avoidable, certain
characteristics render some incidents impossible to prevent using rear
object detection technology, even if the technology and the person
using it act appropriately. Consider, for example, a situation where a
vehicle is backing along a wall. If a child walks through a gap in the
wall and enters the vehicle's path less than 2 feet from the vehicle,
the backover would be judged ``unavoidable.'' This is because no known
technology could have detected the child through the wall, and no car
could brake fast enough to stop in time to avoid the child, once he
became visible.
Some backover crashes are avoidable for certain technologies, but
not for others, a function that generally corresponds to the detection
range of the rear visibility countermeasure. For example, an ultrasonic
sensor might have an effective range of only 6 feet, while a rearview
video system might be able to effectively display a child positioned 20
feet behind a vehicle. If a vehicle were backing at a relatively high
speed toward a child, it might take 10 feet once the brakes were
applied to stop the vehicle. In that case, the backover crash would be
unavoidable for the vehicle equipped with the sensor system, because it
could have only detected the child at 6 feet. On the other hand, the
same backover situation would be considered an ``avoidable'' incident
for a vehicle equipped with the rearview video system. This is why the
``FA'' factor differs for different technologies.
We note, of course, that merely because a backover crash is
avoidable does not mean it will be avoided. Furthermore, drivers differ
in their tendencies to check rearview mirrors and rearview video system
displays, and may not always react perfectly and with sufficiently fast
reaction time. However, those factors are addressed in the two sections
below. The avoidability of a situation merely describes whether
backover avoidance technology could have had any effect at all on the
outcome of the conflict situation.
Based on our analysis of the SCI data, we have derived the
following values for the percent of backover crashes that are avoidable
using various technologies. Rear-mounted mirrors could prevent up to 49
percent of backover crashes. Sensor technology, on average, could have
prevented up to 52 percent of backover crashes. For a rearview video
system, NHTSA's analysis concluded that up to 76 percent of backover
crashes were avoidance with a 130-degree camera lens and 90 percent of
backover crashes were avoidable with a 180-degree camera lens, through
which more pedestrians could be seen approaching from the sides of the
vehicle.

B. System Performance

Factor ``FS'' was derived by determining the ability of
the system to detect or display a rear obstacle based on the results of
comprehensive NHTSA testing of systems' ability to detect various
objects in a laboratory setting. Since mirrors and rearview video
systems have the ability to display anything within their field of
view, we used a figure of 100 percent effectiveness.\71\ Sensors,
however, may not always detect an obstacle behind the vehicle, even
when the object is within their specified detection zone. This may be
the result of the reflectivity of the obstacle, such as if a child's
clothing is textured and therefore absorbs the ultrasonic signal. Our
specific value for sensor system performance is based on research
described at length in the ANPRM. In NHTSA's 2007 study of drivers'
ability to avoid a backing crash with an unexpected obstacle while
driving a vehicle equipped with a rearview video system either alone or
in conjunction with a rear parking system, the sensor-based system
detected the rear obstacle in 39 percent of test trials.\72\ This value
represents the system performance of sensor-based systems in the
calculation of overall effectiveness presented in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ While we realize a component of a rearview video system
could malfunction or break or a mirror could break or be misaligned,
for purposes of our analysis, we assume they, and sensors, are
functioning properly.
\72\ Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H. S., and
Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video
Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
DOT 811 024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Driver Performance

Factor FDR represents the degree to which drivers may
use the various possible backover avoidance countermeasures to
successfully avoid a crash. Unlike many other safety technologies,
these countermeasures are only effective at preventing vehicle crashes
if they are understood, trusted, and used by drivers. This is a
particularly important issue considered in this rulemaking. Currently,
drivers are most familiar with the interior and side rearview mirrors
required or permitted by FMVSS No. 111. Signals from sensor-based rear
object detection systems and images from new mirrors and rearview video
system visual

[[Page 76226]]

displays must be noticed, understood, and reacted to by the driver in
order to avoid a crash. A system merely detecting or displaying the
obstacle in the path of the vehicle is not enough to avoid a crash.
NHTSA has differing concerns related to all three types of
technologies currently available for informing a driver of the presence
of an obstacle behind a vehicle. With regard to rear-mounted convex
mirrors, the primary concern is that the images they provide are too
distorted to permit the driver to discern an obstacle within the image.
In addition, the range that mirrors display behind the vehicle may be
insufficient to allow a driver time to brake to a stop once the driver
sees the rear obstacle. With all sensors, drivers may tend to not trust
the warnings provided because they may not be able to visually confirm
that an obstacle is present in the vehicle's rear blind zone. In
addition, if a system is prone to frequent false positive signals, this
may cause drivers to ignore, or even turn off, the system, a concern
echoed by several commenters. Finally, we are concerned that drivers
may have difficulty integrating glances at a rearview video system
visual display into their normal glance patterns while backing,
focusing more on direct view (glancing rearward over their shoulder) or
existing mirrors. In this section, we present the driver performance
research that NHTSA has conducted and continues to conduct on currently
available system types that are relevant to backover avoidance.
As described in the ANPRM and in Section V of this notice, NHTSA
conducted research \73\ to assess drivers' ability to avoid backing
crashes in a controlled test involving presentation of an unexpected
obstacle behind the vehicle while the driver backed out of a garage.
The tests were designed so that the crash was always preventable (i.e.,
an ``FA'' factor of 100%) for drivers of vehicles equipped
with a countermeasure system. Drivers in the baseline condition whose
vehicles were only equipped with standard rearview mirrors could not
see the rear obstacle and therefore it was nearly impossible for them
to avoid a crash (and none did). The tests were also designed such that
the obstruction was detectable by the countermeasure \74\ in every
trial (i.e., a ``FS'' factor of 100%). Therefore, any
failure of the driver to avoid crashing into the obstacle should be
attributable solely to the driver performance factor.\75\ Therefore,
NHTSA believes that these experiments isolated, to the extent possible,
the effects of driver performance in avoiding a backing crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney,
T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems
(ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811
024.
\74\ This means that the obstacle's image either appeared on the
mirror surface, was visible on a rearview video system visual
display. For sensors, the obstacle as positioned at the centerline
of the vehicle was assumed to be detectable by the system.
\75\ However, the ultrasonic sensor-based system used in this
testing was found to only detect the centered obstacle in 39 percent
of trials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 9 summarizes the comparative driver effectiveness results for
each of the seven systems assessed. This is how the various
``FDR'' factor figures were derived, which are used in the
overall effectiveness calculations, described below.

Table 9--Summary of Crash Results in Unexpected Obstacle Event by System Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver
Number of performance
Technology N crashes (``FDR''
factor) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No system....................................................... 12 12 0
Rear-mounted convex mirrors..................................... 13 13 0
Rear cross-view mirrors......................................... 7 7 0
Sensors (ultrasonic and radar) \76\............................. 14 13 7
Rearview video, in-dash, combined with ultrasonic sensors....... 13 11 15
Rearview video, in-mirror, 2.4-inch display..................... 12 8 33
Rearview video, in-mirror, 3.5-inch display..................... 10 3 70
Rearview video, in-dash......................................... 12 7 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA\76\ has recently completed the third in a series of three
studies that examined drivers' use of backing aid systems to avoid
crashes while backing. Backing aid systems examined in the studies
included rearview video (RV) systems with different display sizes and
locations, rear sensor-based systems (RPS), and a combination system
having both rearview video and rear sensors. For the five ``system''
conditions examined in both laboratory (studies 1 and 2) and non-
laboratory (study 3, daycare parking lot) settings, the relative crash
rates were consistent. Given this observation, once our reduction of
the data is complete, we will place these results in the docket and
incorporate them for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ A radar-based sensor system was not assessed in this test,
however, for the purposes of assessing driver performance, sensor
technology was deemed not critical in this research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Determining Overall Effectiveness

Based on the above strategy of defining the components of
effectiveness, we can estimate the overall effectiveness of each of the
possible backover avoidance countermeasures examined. Overall, NHTSA's
research showed that out of all technologies tested, rearview video
systems were the most effective in aiding drivers to avoid backing
crashes. With rear-mounted convex mirrors, the research showed that
drivers were not inclined to use them in backing situations, presumably
due to image distortion and limited range. While sensors may have the
potential to show benefits, the research demonstrated that without
visual confirmation, drivers tended not to believe the warnings
provided by the sensor system, and continued the backing maneuver in
spite of the warning. The agency requests comments on what steps could
be taken and at what cost and with what consequences to improve the
range and sampling rate of sensors, to address problems with detecting
pedestrians wearing low reflectivity clothing and to improve driver
response to sensor provided warnings. What sort of performance
requirement would be needed to ensure that sampling frequency would be
increased sufficiently? However, rearview video systems examined were
able to consistently display the rear obstacles to the drivers, as well
as enable and induce

[[Page 76227]]

drivers to avoid them. Table 10 below summarizes these results.

Table 10--Summary of Overall Effectiveness Values by System Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final effectiveness
System FA(%) FS(%) FDR(%) (%) FA x FS x FDR =
FE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
180[deg] Camera........................................... 90 100 55 49
130[deg] Camera........................................... 76 100 55 42
Ultrasonic................................................ 49 70 7 2.5
Radar..................................................... 54 70 7 2.7
Mirrors................................................... * 33 100 ** 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FA for mirrors is taken from separate source due to lack of inclusion in the SCI case review that generated FA
for cameras and sensors.
** FDR for mirrors is taken from a small sample size of 20 tests. It is 0% because throughout testing, drivers
did not take advantage of either cross-view or lookdown mirrors to avoid the obstacle in the test.

VII. Proposal To Mandate Improved Rear Visibility

Based on the comments on the ANPRM and NHTSA's research on the
various means available to mitigate backover crashes, NHTSA has
developed the following proposal to improve light vehicle rear
visibility. The proposal is based in part on our tentative conclusion
that drivers need to be able to see a visual image of a 32-inch tall
cylinder with 12-inch diameter behind the vehicle over an area 5 feet
to either side of the vehicle centerline by 20 feet in longitudinal
range from the vehicle's rear bumper face. We are also proposing to
specify certain performance criteria for visual display performance,
such as luminance and rearview image response time, which are detailed
below, as well as durability requirements. We believe that these
specifications are necessary to ensure robust and effective
performance.
These proposed improvements would apply to all passenger cars,
MPVs, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less. Based on the substantial numbers of fatalities and
injuries involving light vehicles other than LTVs, we are not proposing
to limit these more stringent rear visibility performance requirements
to LTVs only. Further, despite NHTSA's decision to propose a
requirement for improved rear visibility for nearly all light vehicles,
we have included in the preliminary regulatory impact analysis an
economic analysis of an alternative in which only LTVs are subjected to
these requirements. We invite comments on this additional analysis.
In the near term, we believe that existing rearview video systems
can be used to meet the requirements with minimal or no modifications.
While we recognize that there are significant costs involved in
addressing the safety problem at issue using rearview video systems, we
believe that our research shows that rearview video systems currently
represent the most effective technology to address the problem of
backover crashes. This is because rear-mounted convex mirrors and
sensor-based object detection systems offer few benefits compared to
rearview video systems due to system performance and driver use issues.
As we have previously said, use of a blind zone area threshold to focus
the improve visibility requirements on vehicles with large rear blind
zone areas, and presumably high backover crash rates, from these
enhanced rear visibility requirements lacks a sufficient statistical
basis while adding problematic issues. Some vehicles with comparatively
small blind zones had high rates of backover incidents. Similarly,
limiting countermeasures to LTVs, such as vans, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, would leave
large gaps in safety protection as well as a disparity in quality of
rear visibility between these vehicles and passenger cars.
In response to the suggestion of many commenters that, regardless
of how broadly or narrowly the performance requirements are applied
within the population of light vehicles, the requirements be
technology-neutral, we believe we need to consider the practical
consequences that adopting a technology neutral approach would have not
only for the first phase of a backover crash, but also for each of the
later phases. Adequate performance at the initial phase does not
necessarily assure adequate performance at a later phase. The ultimate
safety test of a technology in the context of this rulemaking is
whether the technology enables the driver to detect the presence of a
pedestrian in or near the path of the driver's backing vehicle and
whether drivers use the technology and succeed in avoiding backover
crashes.
Under our proposal, current rear object detection sensors and rear-
mounted convex mirrors would not be sufficient as stand-alone
technologies to meet the proposed rear visibility requirement. This is
because sensors and mirrors, while able to detect pedestrians to some
degree, simply do not induce the driver response needed to prevent
backover crashes. NHTSA research indicates that the presence of a
system consisting of rear-mounted convex mirrors was statistically
equivalent to the absence of any system at all for seeing pedestrians
behind a driver's vehicle. Therefore, we do not believe that any
benefits would accrue from installation of rear-mounted convex mirrors.
With regard to sensors, our research shows \77\ that, in the vast
majority of cases, a sensor-activated warning of the presence of an
obstacle will not lead to a successful (i.e., timely and sufficient)
crash avoidance response from the driver unless the driver is also
provided with visual confirmation of obstacle presence. Because of this
apparent need for visual confirmation and that the fact that sensors
induced a successful driver reaction only 7 percent of the time in
NHTSA testing, we do not believe it is in the best interest of safety
to propose allowing systems that rely on sensors alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ Research by GM also showed this apparent tendency of
drivers to want visual confirmation of obstacle presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, we note that we are not proposing to disallow sensor
systems as a supplement to rearview video systems. While NHTSA
research\78\ showed 27 percent worse driver crash avoidance performance
in a vehicle equipped with both a rearview video system and rear
sensors than in a vehicle with only rearview video, deficiencies in the
performance of the sensor system may have confounded the isolation of
driver performance. It is thus unclear to what extent the presence of
sensors may

[[Page 76228]]

induce some drivers to rely on the sensors to some extent instead of
relying exclusively on close and uninterrupted monitoring of the video
display. To the extent that drivers rely on sensors and to the extent
that the sensors fail to detect objects, driver crash avoidance
performance will worsen. We seek comment on this issue. Furthermore,
the cost of a combined rearview video and sensor system would be higher
than that of a rearview video system alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney,
T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems
(ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811
024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, while NHTSA is not at this time proposing to mandate
advanced multi-technology countermeasure systems, we note that research
continues. These systems may include video-based systems with real-time
image processing for object detection and combinations of sensors and
video cameras, some of which (detailed by commenters) include sensor-
based graphic overlays superimposed over visual images from rearview
video systems. Advances like infrared detection, automated braking, and
backing speed limitation were all concepts raised either by commenters
or NHTSA analysis.

A. Proposed Specifications

Our general approach in developing performance requirements was to
consider the various phases of backover crashes and identify key areas
of performance pertinent to overall system effectiveness. In the
absence of existing consensus industry standards, we reviewed existing
systems and determined which aspects of performance should be addressed
in the regulatory text of this proposal. Based on the systems we have
tested and comments on the ANPRM, we believe that existing systems
generally meet our proposed specifications and in cases in which they
do not, changes could be made with minimal cost impact. For example, it
is likely that existing systems would meet our durability requirements
because they are typically subjected to vehicle level tests involving
harsher conditions than we are proposing. Both vehicle and equipment
manufacturers cited low warranty claim rates for rearview video systems
in their comments. This indicates to us that today's systems are
proving durable in typical driving conditions. Similarly, while some
current systems would not satisfy our maximum image response time
requirement, a change to the vehicle to prioritize display of the
rearview video image over navigation software would significantly
improve image response time with minimal cost.
i. Improved Rear Field of View
To determine the appropriate minimum width of the required visible
area, NHTSA reviewed both available SCI backover case data and our
Monte Carlo analysis of backover crash risk as a function of pedestrian
initial location. While some small risk exists as far as 9 feet
laterally to the left and right of a rearward extension of a vehicle's
longitudinal centerline, the vast majority of the risk is concentrated
within a 10-foot wide area that extends symmetrically only 5 feet
laterally to either side from the extended centerline. Accordingly,
NHTSA proposes that the required area of improved visibility be this
10-foot wide area that is centered on the vehicle's centerline.
To determine the appropriate minimum longitudinal range (i.e.,
length) of the area that should be specified to maximize the
feasibility and effectiveness of the proposal in reducing backover
crashes, NHTSA considered comments on the ANPRM, SCI backover case
data, and the results of our Monte Carlo analysis. Using the 58 SCI
backover cases, NHTSA examined the distance the vehicle traveled prior
to striking the pedestrian. Figure 4 shows the percent of cases
encompassed by various ranges of longitudinal distance. These data show
that in 77 percent of SCI backover cases the vehicle traveled 20 feet
or less before striking the victim. The Monte Carlo analysis of
backover crash risk as a function of the pedestrian's initial location
used a distribution of actual backing maneuver travel distances based
on those observed in naturalistic backing maneuvers made by test
participants in NHTSA's research study that examined drivers' use of
rearview video systems.\79\ The Monte Carlo analysis, which was
outlined in Section II.C.v, indicated based on computer simulation that
the highest risk for pedestrians being struck is within a range of 33
feet aft of the rear bumper. Given that actual backover SCI case data
are available, NHTSA proposes a longitudinal range for rear visibility
coverage of 20 feet extending backward from the rearmost point of the
rear bumper based on those rear-world data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney,
T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems
(ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811
024.

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

[[Page 76229]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.010

To ensure adequate visibility of this area, the agency is
specifying the placement of seven test objects (cylinders) within the
area. Given the size of the area and the locations of the cylinders
within the area, we believe that a view of the entire area can be
captured through the installation of a single video camera that has a
minimum 130-degree horizontal angle and is located at or near the
centerline of the vehicle. For that reason, NHTSA's analysis has used
the estimated costs and benefits of a rearview video system with a 130-
degree video camera.
ii. Visual Display Requirements
The following sections describe the proposed requirements for
visual displays used to present images of the area behind a vehicle.
NHTSA believes these requirements are important to achieving reasonable
system effectiveness. Further, we note that one potential concern
expressed to NHTSA is that specifying requirements could increase costs
for display manufacturers by requiring them to conduct expensive
certification tests of equipment. We note that the requirements
proposed today are vehicle requirements, not equipment requirements,
and so we do not believe that equipment manufacturers will be unduly
burdened.
a. Rearview Image Size
NHTSA is proposing a performance requirement of at least 5 minutes
of arc \80\ for the displayed size (i.e., how large the cylinders
appear) in the rearview image of three test cylinders (cylinders A, B,
and C) that are located 20 feet aft of the rearmost point on the
vehicle's rear bumper. Specifically, we are proposing to require that
when the images of these three test cylinders are measured, the average
size of the three displayed test cylinders must not be less than 5
minutes of arc. Additionally, the displayed size of each of the three
displayed test cylinders individually must not be less than 3 minutes
of arc. NHTSA does not believe that there is a need to propose
displayed size requirements for any of the other test cylinders,
because the three furthest test objects will always appear the
smallest, thus representing the worst case visually observable
condition for the 7 cylinders, and any additional measurements would be
an unnecessary burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ A minute of arc is a unit of angular measurement that is
equal to one-sixtieth of a degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason for proposing 5 minutes of arc for the average displayed
size of the test cylinders is that NHTSA believes this is the minimum
size needed for non-professional drivers to distinguish and react to
images. The 3 and 5 minutes of arc figures are based on research
originally published by Satoh, Yamanaka, Kondoh, Yamashita, Matsuzaki,
and Akisuzuki in 1983.\81\ Satoh et al examined the relationship
between an object's subtended visual angle \82\ at a person's eyes and
a person's subjective ability to see the object and to make judgments
about what he or she is seeing. Satoh asserted that an object must
subtend at least 5 minutes of arc for a person to be able to make
judgments about the object.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ Satoh, H., Yamanaka, A., Kondoh, T., Yamashita, M.,
Matsuzaki, M., and Akisuzuki, K., ``Development of a Periscope
Mirror System,'' JSAE Review, November 1983.
\82\ The angle which an object or detail subtends at the point
of observation; usually measured in minutes of arc. If the point of
observation is the pupil of a person's eye, the angle is formed by
two rays, one passing through the center of the pupil and touching
the upper edge of the observed object and the other passing though
the center of the pupil and touching the lower edge of the object.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To date, NHTSA has based its requirements for minimum image size
(the minimum subtended visual angle at the driver's eyes) on the Satoh
et al. research. The school bus cross view mirror requirements in FMVSS
No. 111 are based in part on the Satoh

[[Page 76230]]

research.\83\ For example, paragraph S9.4 of FMVSS No. 111 requires a
school bus cross-view mirror to show the driver a specified child
surrogate test object located at a specified location with a subtended
visual angle of at least 3 minutes of arc for the worse case test
object, cylinder ``P''. The rationale for using a visual angle value
less than 5 minutes of arc for the school bus mirror requirements is
threefold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ Garrott, W.R., Rockwell, T.H., and Kiger, S.W. (1990).
Ergonomic Research on School Bus Cross View Mirror Systems. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 807 676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, school bus drivers must be specially licensed before they
can drive a school bus carrying children. They are required to obtain a
Commercial Drivers License with a School Bus Endorsement. The training
required to obtain this special license and the necessity of being
vigilant in all types of crashes in order to retain their license and
employment is expected to increase school bus drivers' awareness of the
possibility of pedestrians suddenly entering danger areas around their
bus. The combined effect of this training and the necessity for
attentiveness is expected to encourage drivers to pay more attention to
small images that are visible in a bus's mirrors.
Second, school bus drivers are specifically trained in the use of
their bus's cross view mirrors. In the late 1980's, when the school bus
cross-view mirror requirements of FMVSS No. 111 were being developed,
49 states plus Washington, DC \84\ required annual training for all
school bus drivers in the use of their bus's cross view mirrors. This
training is expected to allow drivers to make better use of very small
images that they see.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ California had no such requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, school bus cross-view mirrors are intended to be used before
the bus begins to move, while the bus is stationary. As a result,
drivers can take as much time as they need to determine what they see
in their bus's cross-view mirrors. In contrast, in the passenger
vehicle environment, drivers may use the display while the vehicle is
stationary and while the vehicle is in motion backing up (albeit at
fairly low speeds). As a result, drivers may have limits on the amount
of time that they may use to determine what they are seeing in a
rearview video display. Again, this argues for a larger minimum image
size requirement.
NHTSA considered whether the image size criterion used for school
bus cross-view mirror requirements currently in FMVSS No. 111 should
also be applied to rearview images required for passenger vehicles.
After careful consideration, NHTSA has concluded it is appropriate to
propose a stronger requirement for passenger vehicles since passenger
vehicle drivers do not have the same vehicle and system (e.g., mirror
use) training as school bus drivers do, nor do passenger vehicles
typically use the systems in a stationary scenario. Based on this, the
Satoh-recommended 5 minutes of arc subtended visual angle requirement
is warranted and therefore recommended as a minimum performance
requirement.
Based upon NHTSA test data from an examination of a 2007 Honda
Odyssey minivan fitted both with an original equipment (from a 2008
Honda Odyssey) 2.4-inch diagonal rearview video display and an original
equipment 3.5-inch diagonal rearview video display (from a GM vehicle),
NHTSA estimates that a 2.8-inch or larger diagonal rearview video
display in the interior rearview mirror would be necessary to meet the
proposed 5 minutes of arc requirement for this vehicle.
b. Image Response Time
Image response time is the time delay between the moment the
vehicle's transmission is shifted into reverse gear, and the moment
which an image to the rear of the vehicle is displayed. For vehicles in
which an existing navigation system visual display is used to display a
rearview video image, we believe that adopting a maximum image response
time value will prevent manufacturers from giving priority, at
ignition, to the loading of navigation system applications instead of
the rearview video applications. We believe that giving display
priority to a rearview video system image should increase the
effectiveness of such systems in preventing backing crashes. As stated
previously, NHTSA is concerned that if the display takes too long to
appear, drivers will be more likely to begin a backing maneuver before
the image of the area behind the vehicle is displayed. Given the
importance of the ``initial check'' behind the vehicle, a long image
response time could have a strong negative effect on the overall
effectiveness of a rearview video system. As an appropriate balance
between the importance of a quickly provided image and the need for
sufficient opportunity to conduct system checks as noted in the ANPRM
comments (see section IV.G), NHTSA proposes a 2.0-second maximum image
response time after the vehicle's transmission is shifted into reverse
based on the minimum time in which such system checks can be conducted.
c. Image Linger Time
Image linger time refers to the period in which the rearview video
image continues to be displayed after the vehicle's transmission has
been shifted out of reverse gear. In the ANPRM, NHTSA indicated that a
maximum of 8 seconds of linger time may be appropriate after the
vehicle is shifted from the reverse position. Based on their
observations of drivers making parking maneuvers, the AAM recommended a
maximum linger time of 10 seconds or an alternative speed-based value
in which the rearview video display would turn off when the vehicle
reach a speed of 20 kph (12.4 mph).Similarly, GM recommended a maximum
linger time of 10 seconds or a speed-based limit of 5 mph (8 kph).
Based on commenters' findings regarding actual, observed maneuver
durations, NHTSA is proposing a time-based maximum linger time of 10.0
seconds to better aid to the driver.
d. Visual Display Luminance
We believe it is appropriate to adopt a minimum visual display
luminance value to ensure that the rearview video system visual display
image is adequately visible in varying conditions, such as bright
sunlight or low levels of ambient light. Adequately visible, in this
case, would mean that a driver can discern the presence of and identify
obstacles displayed within the rearview video image. Gentex recommended
that a brightness level of 500 cd/m\2\ for in-mirror displays as
measured at room temperature and in a dark room, and said that it has
been confirmed by vehicle manufacturer research to be the minimally
accepted value, presumably to account for a wide possible range of
ambient conditions. Therefore, we are proposing a minimum visual
display luminance requirement of 500 cd/m\2\ for rearview image
displays.
e. Other Aspects of Visual Display
NHTSA also requires comments regarding other aspects of visual
display and image quality performance such as image resolution,
minification, distortion, contrast ratio and low-light performance as
well as regarding display location. While existing systems may perform
well with regard to these aspects of performance, there is no certainty
that future systems will be designed to perform as well. Depending on
the public comments and other available information, we may include
requirements on some or all of these aspects of performance in the
final rule.

[[Page 76231]]

If we were to include requirements for some aspects, how should those
aspects be regulated, at what level of stringency, and why? For
example, what test procedures should be used for measuring these
aspects of performance? Do any existing voluntary consensus standards
have test procedures that would be appropriate for assessing
performance?
iii. Requirements for External System Components
We believe that for rear visibility systems to be effective in
preventing real-world crashes, it is imperative that they perform
across a wide range of environments typically encountered by drivers.
For example, such systems should operate in various temperature ranges
and should not be rendered inoperable by conditions such as rain or
normal corrosion.
As part of our technical review, we considered the possibility of
adopting requirements from industry consensus standards. Unfortunately,
such standards do not currently exist as manufacturers have indicated
they consider their internal technical specifications for such systems
to be proprietary. It is the agency's understanding that no such
industry consensus standards will be developed and available for
consideration within the timeframe of the current rulemaking process.
Therefore, we reviewed existing requirements in our safety
standards for other vehicle equipment in these areas. We believe there
is merit in reviewing existing requirements for exterior motor vehicle
equipment, such as lighting, particularly because components such as
video cameras utilized in rearview video systems are typically mounted
near rear lamps and subject to the same environmental conditions. While
we considered that some vehicle manufacturers may conduct indirect
vehicle level environmental tests that could potentially address some
of these areas of interest, we noted that such testing is not required
and that there is no basis to believe all vehicle manufacturers would
adopt similar criteria. Therefore, based on the requirements outlined
in FMVSS No. 108 for lighting, we are proposing requirements for the
following areas to address rear visibility system external component
durability: Salt spray (fog), temperature cycle, and humidity.
We believe a salt spray evaluation will address both the necessary
corrosion performance, as well as general moisture resistance required
so that rear visibility systems can deliver the expected effectiveness
to motorists in the real world. We are proposing that exterior
components used in rear visibility systems application meet the
required minimum performance of exterior lamps, which are required to
be tested in accordance with ASTM B117-73, Method of Salt Spray (Fog)
Testing for a total period of 50 hours. The 50 hour total period is
comprised of 2 identical periods of 24 hours of exposure followed by 1
hour of drying time. We believe that this standardized test procedure
is a reasonable proxy for normal environmental conditions. At the end
of the test, the system would still be required to meet the visibility
and field of view requirements.
We believe a specification combining temperature cycles and
humidity levels is appropriate to establish the ability of rearview
video systems to provide the anticipated level of effectiveness across
a range of real world driving conditions. We are proposing to require
that systems operated across both a high and low temperature range,
with varying humidity level. Again, at the conclusion of the proposed
test cycles, the system would be required to function within acceptable
limits.

B. Proposed Compliance Tests

i. Ambient Lighting Conditions
NHTSA believes that the ambient lighting conditions present for
testing should mimic the lighting conditions in which the visual
displays will be used. To ensure test repeatability, NHTSA believes
that ambient lighting of a particular brightness level should be
specified for testing. Daytime outdoor lighting (sunlight and varying
degrees of cloud cover) ranges from 10,000 lux to 100,000 lux in full
sunlight.\85\ NHTSA believes that the lower end of this brightness
range should be used for testing to mimic the most typical manner of
incidence of the sun's rays upon a console-mounted rearview image,
which would involve at least some degree of obstruction by the
vehicle's roof. Therefore, we propose that testing be conducted with
evenly distributed lighting of 10,000 lux intensity as measured at the
center of the exterior surface of vehicle's roof. While actual natural
sunlight may strike an in-vehicle display at various angles through the
day, for the purpose of test repeatability we believe that ambient
lighting during testing should be provided by overhead light sources
with the light presented in an evenly distributed manner. Because the
overwhelming majority of backover crashes occur during the day, we are
not proposing testing under nighttime ambient lighting conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ Ander, Gregg D. (1995). Daylighting performance and design.
Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Rear Visibility Test Object
For the purpose of determining compliance with the performance
requirements specified in the preceding sections, NHTSA is proposing
that a cylindrical test object be used for testing. Specifically, the
agency is proposing the test cylinder be a 32-inch tall cylinder with a
diameter of 12 inches to represent the approximate height and width of
an average, standing 18-month-old child. The age of 18 months was
selected based upon the agency's review of SCI backover cases and
consideration of comments on the ANPRM. We believe that a test object
with these dimensions is necessary to ensure robust performance not
only of a countermeasure system's ability to meet specified coverage
area requirements behind a vehicle, but also the system's ability to
display an image of a rear obstacle to a driver.
In developing the characteristics of the test object, NHTSA
reviewed its own research, real world crash data, industry research,
existing test procedures, and comments on the ANPRM. NHTSA considered
and evaluated a number of different options ranging from crash dummies,
clothing mannequins, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe to traffic cones
for use as possible compliance test objects. NHTSA also considered
using a child-shaped, clothing mannequin identified by the agency's
Advanced Collision Avoidance Technology (ACAT) Backing Crash
Countermeasure Program as having a radar cross-section equivalent to
that of a small child. However, this shape is not proposed since the
sensitivity of the test object to radar detection is not relevant to
the evaluation of a visual rearview image and the asymmetrical shape of
the mannequin would cause rearview image quality measurement
difficulties. Given that the test object is intended to be used both to
confirm countermeasure coverage area and test cylinder displayed size,
a shape that is conducive to accurate completion of both tests is
needed. While the shape of the test object is not critical for
assessment of countermeasure coverage area as long as the object's
dimensions are appropriate, use of a sided shape could cause
measurement difficulties when assessing visual display image quality. A
cylindrical test object with a vertical axis would appear to have the
same relative width regardless of the angle at which it is viewed and
would not appear skewed, as a square column might. A cylindrical test
object is also

[[Page 76232]]

suggested by the requirements of ISO 17386 that specify use of a
cylinder to test the detection performance of ultrasonic parking aids.
Therefore, the proposed test object shape consists of a cylinder with a
vertical axis that can adequately represent the proportions of the
children most commonly at risk in backover scenarios while at the same
time ensuring robust system performance.
To best represent the manner in which a child is displayed to the
driver in a rearview image, NHTSA proposes that the cylindrical test
object shall have a diameter of 12 inches to represent the width of an
average 18-month-old child. Based on 2000 CDC data for the head breadth
an 18-month-old child, NHTSA proposes 5.9 inches (15 cm) as the minimum
width that must be visible in the rearview image for the three test
objects located nearest the rear bumper of the vehicle.\86\ To aid in
the assessment of whether the minimum width is visible, a contrasting
colored vertical stripe of width 5.9 inches is proposed for the two
cylinders closest to the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Boys;
Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles. Published May 30,
2000 (modified 4/20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36
months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles.
Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/20/2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, given that the visual appearance of the test object is
the dominant factor in the compliance test, we do not believe that we
need to specify material properties at this time. While ultrasonic and
radar sensors are better at detecting some materials and surface
textures than others, rearview video systems display images of objects
of all opaque material types. For these reasons, NHTSA is proposing
that the test object merely consist of a cylindrical object of the
dimensions specified above. However, we note that if in the future
sensor-based systems are developed that may fulfill the requirements of
providing to the driver a visual image of the area behind the vehicle,
alternative test object material characteristics and dimensions may
need to be specified in order to ensure that the object accurately
simulates the physical presence of an 18-month-old child to the
particular sensor technology being used.
To provide a consistent and repeatable location in which to measure
apparent test object width as part of rearview image quality
assessment, NHTSA proposes that the three rearmost test objects be
constructed with a 5.9-inch high colored band surrounding the perimeter
of the upper portion of the cylinder that is of a different color than
the rest of the cylinder. The 5.9-inch dimension is based on the
breadth of the average 18-month-old child's head.\87\ The band can be
of any color that contrasts with that of the rest of the test object.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Boys;
Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles. Published May 30,
2000 (modified 4/20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36
months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles.
Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/20/2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Rear Visibility Compliance Test Procedures
NHTSA is proposing a test to ensure that a rearview image provided
to the driver (1) covers the required area behind the vehicle and (2)
displays the images of obstacles with sufficient size to permit a
driver to visually perceive their presence. The test procedure used to
determine countermeasure performance in terms of rearview video system
viewable area is similar to that currently used for school bus mirrors
(Section 13, ``School bus mirror test procedures'' of FMVSS No. 111,
``Rearview mirrors''). Like the school bus mirror test, the proposed
test uses a large format camera placed with the imaging sensor located
at a specific eyepoint location, referred to here as the ``test
reference point''. A matte finish ruler affixed beneath the visual
display and aligned laterally along the bottom edge of the visual
display provides a reference for scaling purposes in the image quality
portion of the test procedure.
The proposed test reference point is intended to simulate the
location of a 50th percentile male driver's eyes (rather than the 95th
percentile male used in existing FMVSS No. 111 rearview mirror
requirements) when glancing at the rearview image. Based on
observations of drivers using rearview video systems in NHTSA
testing,\88\ we assume that for visual displays located in the vicinity
of the center console or interior rearview mirror, the driver will turn
his or her head to look at the display with little or no lateral eye
rotation. Therefore, to estimate the location of the driver's eyes when
looking at a rearview image, the forward-looking eyepoint of the driver
can be simulated to rotate toward the center of the vehicle as though
the driver is turning his head. Anthropometric data from a NHTSA-
sponsored study of the dimensions of 50th percentile male drivers
seated with a 25-degree seat-back angle (``Anthropometry of Motor
Vehicle Occupants'' \89\) give the longitudinal and vertical location,
with respect to the H point, of the left and right infraorbitale (a
point just below each eye) and the head/neck joint center at which the
head rotates about the spine. Given an average vertical eye diameter of
approximately 0.96 inch (24 mm), we can assume that the center of the
eye is located 0.48 inches (12 mm) above the infraorbitale. Taking the
midpoint of the lateral locations of the driver's eyes gives a point in
the mid-sagittal plane (the vertical/longitudinal plane of symmetry of
the human body) of the driver's body indicated by Mf in
Figure 5. Using the point at which the head rotates, Mf can
be rotated toward the rearview image to obtain a new eyepoint, the test
reference point, representing an eye midpoint for a driver when the
head is turned to look at a rearview image. The proposed regulatory
requirement sets forth clear instructions as to how to position the
camera to conduct the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney,
T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems
(ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811
024.
\89\ Schneider, L.W., Robbins, D.H., Pfl[uuml]g, M.A. and
Snyder, R.G. (1985). Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle Occupants;
Volume 1--Procedures, Summary Findings and Appendices. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 806 715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 76233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.011

a. Rear Field of View Test Procedure
To demonstrate a system's compliance with the field of view
requirements, we are proposing that the perimeter of the minimum
detection area that must be visible is marked using seven test objects.
The locations of the seven test objects, represented by black circles,
are illustrated in Figure 6.

[[Page 76234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.012

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
For school bus cross-view mirrors, FMVSS No. 111 requires that the
entire top surface of each cylinder must be visible. However, due to
the potential for rearview video cameras to be mounted at heights of
less than 32 inches on some compact cars and sporty vehicles, NHTSA is
proposing an alternative detection criterion for this test. For test
objects located 10 or more feet aft of the vehicle's rear bumper, NHTSA
proposes that the entire height and width of each test object must be
visible. This criterion equates to the driver being able to see the
entire body

[[Page 76235]]

of an 18-month-old child and serves to ensure that detection of a
child, if present, between 10 and 15 feet behind the vehicle is
possible.
Due to camera angle, only a portion of a child or child-sized
object in close proximity to the rear bumper may be visible,
particularly at the edges of the camera's viewing angle. To ensure that
at least a portion of test objects `F' and `G' (in Figure 6) are
visible, the proposed compliance test positions them 1 foot aft of the
rear bumper face. To give the driver enough information to be able to
discern an ``object'' as a child, if present, and to provide a
quantitative basis for assessing field of view compliance, NHTSA
believes it is important to indicate how much of the test objects must
be visible. Seeing a child's face or another body area of similar size
would likely result in successful visual recognition of the child by
the driver. Therefore, NHTSA proposes that a minimum of a 5.9-inch
width of test objects `F' and `G' must be visible.\90\ This criterion
would result in a 5.9-inch square or larger portion of an object or
child being visible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ The 5.9-inch dimension is the average breadth of an 18-
month-old child's head per CDC's ``Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to
36 months: Boys; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles'' and
``Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Girls; Length-for-age
and Weight-for-age percentiles.'' Published May 30, 2000 (modified
4/20/2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For NHTSA compliance testing, the displayed rearview image would be
photographed to document the test results of this field of view test,
as well as to provide data for use in completing the image quality
test, which is described in the next section.
b. Rearview Image Size Test Procedure
As stated previously, industry standards applicable to an image-
based rear visibility system do not exist. Therefore, to develop a
method for assessing image quality, NHTSA looked to its prior work
relating to school bus cross-view mirrors. The test procedure described
below follows the same basic concept as the existing school bus mirror
test procedure in FMVSS No. 111. This test serves to ensure that a
minimum image quality is maintained throughout the required coverage
area of the rearview image. Essentially, we are proposing that the
apparent image of the individual test objects be large enough for an
average driver to quickly determine their presence and nature.
The test procedure proposed for use in assessing countermeasure
visual display image quality compliance requires one additional step
beyond the rearview video system viewable area test described above.
Using the printed photograph of the rearview image taken to document
the viewable area covered by the system, the size of each of the three
test objects positioned 20 feet aft of the rear bumper (indicated in
Figure 5 labeled `A', `B', and `C') is measured. The horizontal width
of each of the three test objects is measured within the colored band
surrounding the upper portion of the cylindrical test object by
selecting a point at both the left and right edges of the object's
displayed image. Similarly, two points on the ruler shown in the
photograph are selected to acquire a measurement for use as a lateral
scaling factor. Using the two measure widths and the distance between
the driver's eyepoint (i.e., midpoint between an average 50th
percentile male's eyes) and the center of the rearview image, the
visual angle subtended by each test object may be calculated. To reduce
the effects of measurement errors, the measured visual angle subtended
from each of the three test objects (A, B, and C) are averaged
together. Acceptable image quality is defined as the average measured
visual angle subtended by the test object's width from these three
locations exceeding 5 minutes of arc. The average value is used to
assess compliance to minimize the effect of individual measurement
error. The subtended visual angle for each of the three locations must
exceed 3 minutes of arc.

C. Proposed Effective Date and Phase-In Schedule

In accordance with the schedule set forth by Congress in the K.T.
Safety Act, we are proposing that the requirement for rearview video
systems be phased in within four years of publication of the final
rule. Because we anticipate that a final rule will be published in
early 2011, the statutory requirement would require that full
compliance be achieved in late 2014 or early 2015. Furthermore, because
we anticipate that this rule will require substantial design work to
implement, we are proposing that, like other substantial rules, the
compliance dates for the various stages of the phase-in be September 1
of the relevant year, in order to correspond with model years.
Therefore, given the likely schedule of this rulemaking, we are
proposing that full compliance be achieved by September 1, 2014.
NHTSA is concerned about the potential costs imposed on automotive
manufacturers by this proposal, and is therefore taking into account
both the current and projected future implementation of rearview video
systems in our proposed phase-in schedule. Another factor that is being
taken into consideration is the vehicle redesign cycle. Specifically,
we are aware that it could cost substantially more to implement the
best available technology (i.e., rearview video systems) into vehicles
if it is not done during the normal vehicle design cycle. We are aware,
for example, in comments received from Honda that the statutory
deadline may not provide enough time for most vehicles to undergo a
redesign before full compliance is required. In its comment, AIAM
suggested that a 6-year phase-in schedule, rather than a 4-year one,
might be needed in order to assure that the substantial majority of
affected vehicles can integrate rearview video systems as part of their
normal redesign cycle. The agency appreciates the challenges posed by
the proposed rule, but notes that a phase-in period longer than four
years would be inconsistent with the limitation specified by Congress.
With the above considerations, we are proposing a rear-loaded
phase-in schedule. For the year following the first September 1 after
publication of the final rule (likely to be September 1, 2011), we are
proposing a compliance target that is less than the total number of
vehicles already anticipated to be equipped with rearview video
systems. The proposed phase-in schedule then requires steady increases
in the total percentage of the compliant vehicles in the two following
years, based on these considerations and the percentage of vehicles
that are anticipated to undergo a scheduled redesign. Finally, we are
proposing to apply the requirements to all vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1 of the following year (likely 2014). The specific
percentages of the phase-in schedule are shown in Table 11 below.

Table 11--Proposed Phase-In Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2011................. 0
Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011, and before 0
September 1, 2012.............................................
Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012, and before 10
September 1, 2013.............................................
Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013, and before 40
September 1, 2014.............................................
Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014............ 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, we are proposing that small volume manufacturers need
only comply with the requirement for

[[Page 76236]]

rearview video systems when the requirement has been fully phased in,
that is, on September 1, 2014. This is based in part on the comment
from AIAM, which requested this provision for small volume
manufacturers due to their longer product life cycles and their reduced
access to technology.
The reasons for allowing small volume manufacturers a delay in the
compliance schedule are twofold. First, because these manufacturers
generally produce a single or low number of lines of vehicles, they
would need to install these systems on a large portion or all of their
fleet in order to meet the fleet percentage requirement. Considering
that the installation of rearview video systems is most efficiently
accomplished during a vehicle redesign, this would mean that small
volume manufacturers are disproportionately negatively impacted by the
requirement because they would likely have to install these systems in
the middle of the design cycle, increasing their costs. Second, because
small volume manufacturers frequently have longer product cycles than
larger manufacturers, the need for a delay until the end of the
compliance increases the likelihood that they will have the opportunity
to integrate the rearview video system with their normal redesign
cycle. While we believe that rearview video systems and displays are
readily available so that small volume manufacturers will have access,
we believe that the other two reasons are adequate to delay mandatory
compliance until the end of the phase-in period.
We are also proposing to include provisions under which
manufacturers can earn credits towards meeting the applicable phase-in
percentages if they meet the new rear visibility requirements ahead of
schedule. In addition, as we have done with other standards, we are
proposing a separate alternative schedule to address the special
problems faced by limited line and multistage manufacturers and
alterers in complying with phase-ins. A phase-in generally permits
vehicle manufacturers flexibility with respect to which vehicles they
choose to initially redesign to comply with new requirements. However,
if a manufacturer produces a very limited number of lines, a phase-in
would not provide such flexibility. NHTSA is accordingly proposing to
permit ``limited line'' manufacturers that produce three or fewer
carlines the option of achieving full compliance when the phase-in is
completed. Flexibility would be allowed for vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages and altered vehicles from the phase-in requirements.
These vehicles would not be required to meet the phase-in schedule and
would not have to achieve full compliance until the phase-in is
completed. Also, as with previous phase-ins, NHTSA is proposing
reporting requirements to accompany the phase-in.

D. Summary of Estimated Effectiveness, Costs and Benefits of Available
Technologies

i. System Effectiveness
Some systems, like airbags, have binary states; that is to say that
either they are activated or they are not. Analysis includes a
probability of whether or not it was being used, followed by a
calculation of benefits in cases where it was in use.
For rear visibility technologies, three conditions must be met for
such a technology to provide a benefit to the driver. First, the crash
must be one that is ``avoidable'' through use of the device; i.e., the
pedestrian must be within the target range for the sensor, or the
viewable area of the camera or mirror. Second, once the pedestrian is
within the system's range, the device must ``sense'' that fact, i.e.,
provide the driver with information about the presence and location of
the pedestrian. Third, there must be sufficient ``driver response,''
i.e., before impact with the pedestrian, the driver must receive this
information and respond appropriately by confirming whether someone is
or is not behind the vehicle before proceeding. As noted above, these
factors are denoted as fA, fS, and
fDR, respectively, in this analysis. Table 12 below shows
these factors and their product, the final system effectiveness.

Table 12--Final System Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final effectiveness
System FA (%) FS (%) FDR (%) (%) FA x FS x FDR = FE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
180[deg] Camera........................................... 90 100 55 49
130[deg] Camera........................................... 76 100 5 42
Ultrasonic................................................ 49 70 7 2.5
Radar..................................................... 54 70 7 2.7
Mirrors................................................... * 33 100 ** 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FA for mirrors is taken from separate source due to lack of inclusion in the SCI case review that generated FA
for cameras and sensors.
** FDR for mirrors is taken from a small sample size of 20 tests. It is 0% because throughout testing, drivers
did not take advantage of either cross-view or lookdown mirrors to avoid the obstacle in the test.

ii. Costs
The most expensive technology option that the agency has evaluated
is the rearview camera. When installed in a vehicle without any
existing adequate display screen, rearview camera systems are estimated
to cost consumers between $159 and $203 per vehicle. For a vehicle that
already has an adequate display, such as one found in navigation units,
their incremental cost is estimated at $58. The total incremental cost
to equip a 16.6 million vehicle fleet with camera systems is estimated
to be $1.9 to $2.7 billion.
Rear object sensor systems are estimated to cost between $52 and
$92 per vehicle. The total incremental cost to equip a 16.6 million
vehicle fleet with sensor systems is estimated to be $0.3 to $1.2
billion.
Several different types of mirrors were investigated. Interior
look-down mirrors could be mounted on vans and SUVs, but not cars, and
are estimated to cost $40 per vehicle. The total incremental cost to
equip a 16.6 million vehicle fleet with lookdown mirrors is estimated
to be $0.6 billion.
We also estimated the net property damage effects to consumers from
using a camera or sensor system to avoid backing into fixed objects,
along with the additional cost when a vehicle is struck in the rear and
the camera or sensor is destroyed.

Table 13--Costs (2007 Economics)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Per Vehicle.................... $51.49 to $202.94.
Total Fleet.......................... $723M to $2.4B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 76237]]

iii. Benefits
As noted above, the agency has spent considerable effort trying to
determine the final effectiveness of these systems in reducing crashes,
injuries and fatalities. We have researched the capabilities of the
systems, the crash circumstances, and the percent of drivers that would
observe and react in time to avoid a collision with a pedestrian or
pedalcyclist. The estimated injury and fatality benefits of the various
systems, based on NHTSA research to date, are shown below.

Table 14--Quantifiable Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
180[deg] 130[deg] Look-down
Camera view Camera view Ultrasonic Radar mirror
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities Reduced........................ 112 95 3 3 0
Injuries Reduced.......................... 8,374 7,072 233 257 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Net Benefits
In addition to the one-time installation costs, and the benefits
that occur over the life of the vehicle, there would also be
maintenance costs as well as repair costs due to rear-end collisions
and ``property damage only crashes'' (which, like the benefits, occur
over time). Below Table 15 contains lifetime monetized benefits and
lifetime costs, and their difference, the net benefit. In this case,
the quantifiable costs outweigh the quantifiable benefits and therefore
the final number is a cost. (Note that this analysis does not include
nonquantifiable benefits, a point to which we will shortly return.) The
primary estimate is based on a 130 degree camera system with an in-
mirror display. The low estimate is based on an ultrasonic system. The
high estimate is based on a 180 degree camera system with an in-mirror
display.

Table 15--Summary of Benefits and Costs Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Millions 2007$) MY 2016 and Thereafter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary High Discount
estimate Low estimate estimate rate (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Lifetime Monetized.................................. $618.6 $37.1 $732.6 7
Lifetime Monetized.................................. 777.6 46.7 920.8 3
Costs:
Lifetime Monetized.................................. 1,933.3 22.6 2,362.4 7
Lifetime Monetized.................................. 1,861.3 730.4 2,296.9 3
Net Benefits:
Lifetime Monetized.................................. -1,314.7 -685.5 -1,629.8 7
Lifetime Monetized.................................. -1,083.7 -683.7 -1,376.1 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Cost Effectiveness
While we examine several application scenarios (all passenger cars
and all light trucks, only light trucks, and some combinations) and
discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, the net cost per equivalent life
saved for camera systems ranged from $11.8 to $19.7 million. For
sensors, it ranged from $95.5 to $192.3 million per life saved.
According to our present model, none of the systems are cost effective
based on our comprehensive cost estimate of the value of a statistical
life of $6.1 million.

Table 16--Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per equivalent life saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensors (Ultrasonic and Radar)......... $95.5 to $192.3 mill.
Camera Systems......................... $11.8 to $19.7 mill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The range presented is from a 3% to 7% discount rate.

The agency is proposing requirements that would likely be currently
met by using cameras for both passenger cars and light trucks. We also
seek comment on an alternative aimed at reducing net costs that could
be met by requiring having cameras for light trucks and either cameras
or ultrasonic sensors for passenger cars. We also request comment on
the extent to which the effectiveness of sensors and the response of
drivers to sensor warnings could be improved.

E. Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives

In order to explore fully other possible rulemaking options, the
agency examined a variety of combinations of technology, specifically,
ones in which light trucks were equipped with a rearview video system
and passenger cars were either given no extra equipment, a rearview
video system (using a camera) or another technology such as a sensor
system. The results of examining such combinations are available below.
Note the camera/radar and camera/ultrasonic options have decreased
costs compared to mandating cameras for both vehicle types, but have a
higher cost per life saved. It would not fulfill the requirements of
the statute to require cameras for light trucks and nothing for
passenger cars; those numbers are provided only as a point of
comparison. Also, the camera/radar option has a higher net costs
associated with it than simply mandating cameras for both, and will
most likely not be viable on those grounds. Comments on these
alternatives and suggestions of others are welcome.

[[Page 76238]]

Table 17--Rear Visibility Proposal and Alternatives Discounted at 3%
[Millions of 2007 $]
[In decreasing order of installation costs and monetized safety benefits]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per vehicle costs and benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal and alternatives Monetized Property Net cost per
Installation safety damage Net costs equivalent life saved
costs \91\ Benefits costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LT Camera, PC Camera......... $1,919 to $2,275 $778 $-414 $727 to $1,084.. $11.8 to $14.6.
LT Camera, PC Radar.......... $1,512 to $1,710 439 -149 $924 to $1,122 $18.9 to $21.7.\93\
\92\.
LT Camera, PC Ultrasonic \94\ $1,215 to $1,413 437 -165 $613 to $811.... $14.7 to $17.4.
LT Camera, PC Nothing \95\... $841 to $1,039.. 415 -189 $237 to $435.... $9.6 to $12.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most effective technology option that the agency has evaluated
is the rearview video system which, as already noted, consists of a
video camera and a visual display. It is also the most expensive
technology. When installed in a vehicle that does not already have any
visual display screen, rearview video systems are estimated to cost
consumers between $159 and $203 per vehicle. The upper end of the cost
range is based on systems that have in-mirror (as opposed to in-dash or
console) displays and a 180 degree (as opposed to 130 degree) lens. For
a vehicle that already has a suitable visual display, such as one found
in navigation units, the incremental cost of a rearview video system is
estimated at $58-$88, depending on the angular width of the lens. The
total incremental cost to equip a 16.6 million vehicle fleet with
rearview video systems is estimated to be $1.9 to $2.7 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ The range of camera costs assumes 130 degree camera with
the display in the dash (lower cost) to the display in the mirror
(higher cost).
\92\ The net costs are substantially more than those for any of
the other options.
\93\ The cost per equivalent life saved is substantially more
for this option than that for any of the other options.
\94\ Under this alternative, passenger cars could be equipped
with either sensor systems or camera systems. For a fuller
description of this alternative, see the discussion above at the
very end of section I, Executive Summary.
\95\ The agency tentatively concludes that not requiring any
improved performance by passenger cars would be inconsistent with
the mandate in the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act
of 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters on the ANPRM noted that rearview video systems are a
relatively new technology and stated that considerable reductions in
costs will occur as these technologies proliferate in the fleet. NHTSA
agrees that technological innovation will occur over the next couple of
years and that the costs are likely to be substantially less when
actually installed in future model years. However, we have not
identified a way to estimate this lower cost.
Given the effectiveness estimates that we have generated and
assuming that all vehicles will be equipped with the most likely
countermeasure technology, namely a rearview video system and
associated display, we believe the fatalities that are occurring in
backing crashes could be reduced by 95 to 112 per year. Similarly,
injuries would be reduced by 7,072 to 8,374 per year. We estimate that
the cost per equivalent lives for rearview video systems would range
from $11.8 million based on a 3% discount rate and on the low end of
the per vehicle cost range to $19.7 million based on a 7% discount rate
and the high end of the per vehicle cost range.
We note that while this cost per equivalent lives saved, even at
the low end, is nearly double the Departmental value of a statistical
life of $6.1 million,\96\ the proposed solution is the most
comprehensive and effective, currently available solution to mitigate
backover crashes, fatalities, and injuries. As we discussed above, the
quantitative analysis does not offer a complete accounting. We have
noted that well over 40 percent of the victims of backover crashes are
very young children (under the age of five), with nearly their entire
life ahead of them. Executive Order 12866 also refers explicitly to
considerations of equity. (``(I)n choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including * * * equity), and there are strong reasons,
grounded in those considerations, to prevent the deaths at issue here.
In addition, this regulation will, in many cases, reduce a
qualitatively distinct risk, which is that of directly causing the
death or injury of one's own child.\97\ Drivers will also benefit from
increased rear visibility in a variety of ways, including increased
ease and convenience with respect to parking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ The $6.1 million represents the 2007 Departmental value of
$5.8 million for a statistical life (VSL) adjusted for economic cost
factors that are not inherently a part of the $5.8 million. These
include, medical care, emergency services, legal costs, insurance
administrative costs, workplace costs, property damage and the taxed
portion of lost market productivity (the untaxed portion is assumed
to be inherently included in the VSL).
\97\ On the relevance of this fact, see J.K. Hammitt and K.
Haninger, ``Valuing Fatal Risks to Children and Adults: Effects of
Disease, Latency, and Risk Aversion,'' Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty 40(1): 57-83, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While these benefits cannot be monetized, they could be
significant. A breakeven analysis suggests that if the nonquantified
benefits amount $65 to $79 per vehicle, the benefits would justify the
costs. Taking all of the foregoing points alongside the quantifiable
figures and the safety issue at hand, the agency tentatively concludes
that the benefits do justify the costs. More specifically, we emphasize
the following data and considerations:
100 of the 228 (44%) annual victims of backover crashes
are under 5 years of age with nearly their entire lives ahead of them;
80 of the 100 children are under 3 years of age.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks * * * Section 1. Policy.
1-101. A growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrates that
children may suffer disproportionately from * * * safety risks.
These risks arise because: children's neurological, immunological,
digestive, and other bodily systems are still developing; * * * and
children's behavior patterns may make them more susceptible to
accidents because they are less able to protect themselves. * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While this rulemaking would result in great cost if made
final as proposed, it would also have substantial benefits, reducing
the annual fatalities in backover crashes by 95 to 112 fatalities, and
annual injuries by 7,072 to 8,374 injuries.
In addition to those benefits, there are other benefits
that are hard to quantify, but are nonetheless real and significant.
One such benefit is that of not being the direct cause of the death or
injury of a person and particularly a small child at one's place of
residence. In some of these cases, parents are responsible for the
deaths of their own children; avoiding that horrible outcome is a
significant benefit. Another hard-to-

[[Page 76239]]

quantify benefit is the increased ease and convenience of driving, and
especially parking, that extend beyond the prevention of crashes. While
these benefits cannot be monetized at this time, they could be
considerable.
There is evidence that many people value the lives of
children more than the lives of adults.\99\ \100\ In any event, there
is special social solicitude for protection of children. In the area of
motor vehicle safety, this special solicitude for the welfare of
children has been evident in the area of motor vehicle safety in the
mandates \101\ by Congress over the years for issuing standards
primarily benefiting children. This solicitude regarding children is
based, to a significant extent, on their greater vulnerability to
injury and their inability to protect themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ J.K. Hammitt and K. Haninger, ``Valuing Fatal Risks to
Children and Adults: Effects of Disease, Latency, and Risk
Aversion,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 40(1): 57-83, 2010. This
stated preference study finds that the willingness to pay to prevent
fatality risks to one's child is uniformly larger than that to
reduce risk to another adult or to oneself. Estimated values per
statistical life are $6-10 million for adults and $12-15 million for
children. We emphasize that the literature is in a state of
development.
\100\ Other people argue for valuing all lives equally,
regardless of age, and note there is also a special solicitude for
another vulnerable population, the elderly. Some of the elderly have
difficulty quickly moving out of dangerous situations. Special
solicitude for the elderly is very germane to this rulemaking given
that persons 70 years of age or older account for another large
segment of fatalities, i.e., 74 (33 percent) of the 228 annual
fatalities.
\101\ Recent examples include Anton's Law, Public Law 107-318,
Dec. 4, 2002, and the K.T. Safety Act. That solicitude is also
evident in the requirement in Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 105-277 (5
U.S.C. 601 note) for assessment of impacts of Federal regulations
and policies on families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the very young age of most of the children fatally-
injured in backover crashes, attempting to provide them with training
relevant to the particular circumstances of those crashes or with an
audible warning would not enable them to identify or take steps to
protect themselves, given their impulsiveness, their lack of
understanding of the abstract concept of risk/danger/safety, and their
lack of situational awareness, judgment and physical ability (e.g.,
dexterity) to take timely and effective self-protective action.
Given the impossibility of reducing backover crashes
through changing the behavior of very young children and given
Congress' mandate, it is reasonable and necessary to rely on vehicle
technology to address backover crashes and to that end the agency
examined a variety of technologies to assess their value in improving
driver awareness and performance: mirrors, sensors, cameras, and other
technologies.
Based on its extensive testing to determine how much area
behind a vehicle a driver must be able to see in order to avoid
backover crashes and on the relative effectiveness of the various
technologies in improving driver awareness and performance, the agency
has tentatively concluded that a camera-based system is the only
effective type of technology currently available.
Requiring additional rearview mirrors or changes to
existing review mirrors cannot provide an effective solution to the
problem of backover crashes. Changes to outside rearview mirrors
mounted near the driver offer only very limited opportunities for any
improvement in the existing rearward view to the sides of vehicles and
no opportunity for providing any view of the area directly behind
vehicles. While rearview mirrors mounted at or near the rear of
vehicles could provide a view to the rear of vehicles, the coverage
area would be relatively small. Further, the image, as viewed by the
driver indirectly via outside rearview mirrors mounted near the driver,
would be fairly small and distorted, making the viewed objects
difficult to discern. Finally, rear-mounted rearview mirrors might not
be reasonable, practicable and appropriate for many types of light
vehicles.
The agency's testing indicated that currently available
sensors, which are designed primarily to avoid collisions with objects
(like posts and other vehicles) that can cause property damage, had two
shortcomings. First, they often failed to detect a human, particularly
a small moving child, in tests in which the vehicle was not actually
moving. Second, in tests in which the vehicle was moving, and in which
the sensors did detect a manikin representing a child, the resulting
warning did not induce drivers to pause more than briefly in backing.
Being unable to confirm visually whether there was something or someone
behind them, the drivers in these tests resumed their backing.
In contrast, in the agency's tests of vehicles equipped
with video camera-based systems, drivers not only saw a child-sized
obstacle, but also stopped and remained stopped, thereby avoiding
striking the obstacle in a substantial percentage of the tests.
Consequently, the agency has tentatively concluded that
requirements must have the effect of ensuring that the driver is
provided with some type of image of the area directly behind his or her
vehicle. However, the agency is not proposing to require that video
camera-based systems be installed to provide that image.
Instead, the agency is proposing a performance-based
requirement for any system that can provide the driver with the
requisite image. The proposal does not specify a single location within
the vehicle as the location in which the image must be provided. Thus,
the image can be provided on a display in the dash or interior rearview
mirror.
In time, types of technology other than a video camera-
based system may be able to provide a sufficiently clear visual image
of the area behind the vehicle at lower cost than a video camera-based
system can.
In proposing a requirement that drivers must be provided
with a visual image of the area behind their vehicles, the agency
recognizes that among currently available candidate technologies, video
cameras are the most expensive and mirrors are the least. Sensors fall
in between.
The agency's estimates of current costs for video camera-
based systems may be too high as the estimates are based on data that
are a few years old.
The agency has a contract in place for the conducting of
up-to-date tear down cost studies of both camera and sensor
technologies. These studies could produce somewhat lower cost
estimates.
To the extent that the agency may have underestimated the
extent to which technological innovation and other factors will lead to
future reductions in the costs of video camera-based systems, the
future costs may be even lower than currently expected.
In view of statutory requirements, the agency is limited
in its ability to reduce the cost of this rulemaking through adjusting
either the requirements or application of the proposed rule or the
schedule for its implementation.
Congress has mandated the issuance of a final rule instead
of allowing the agency to retain discretion to decide whether to issue
a final rule based on its consideration of all the relevant factors and
information.
While Congress has not mandated a system that provides the
driver with an image of the area behind his or her vehicle, less
expensive countermeasures, i.e., mirrors and sensors, have thus far
shown very limited effectiveness and thus would not satisfy Congress'
mandate for improving safety.
Video camera-based systems are by far the most
comprehensive and cost-effective currently available solution for
reducing backover crashes, fatalities and

[[Page 76240]]

injuries. As the most cost-effective alternative, a requirement for a
system that provides an image of the area behind the vehicle would be
consistent with the policy preference underlying the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
The agency is limited by law as to the amount of leadtime
it can provide for this final rule. Were the agency able to provide
even more leadtime than permitted, that additional time might be
sufficient to enable suppliers to develop cheaper cameras. Given the
limits within which the agency must operate, which require the agency
to provide not more than four years of leadtime, the agency has
proposed a back-loaded phase-in schedule, i.e., one focused on the
latter part of the phase-in period, to maximize leadtime.
As stated above, NHTSA is also considering whether there are any
circumstances under which it would be appropriate and permissible under
the K.T. Safety Act to limit the application of the proposed
requirements to LTVs only, i.e., to exclude passenger cars. The
agency's tentative conclusion is that there are not. If the improved
rear visibility requirements \102\ were applied only to LTVs, we
estimate that the fatalities occurring in backover crashes would still
be reduced by 70 to 83 per year. Similarly, injuries would still be
reduced by 3,284 to 3,888 per year. We estimate that the cost per
equivalent lives for rearview video systems would range from $9.6
million based on a 3% discount rate to $17.0 million based on a 7%
discount rate. Table 18 contrasts the proposal and the alternative
below using a 3% discount rate and 7% discount rate. The table includes
ranges of costs and benefits based on a video camera having a 130- to
180-degree horizontal viewing angle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ For illustration purposes, figures indicated represent
rear visibility improvement provided using a rearview video system
with 130-degree video camera.

Table 18--Summary of Estimated Costs and Benefits--3% and 7% Discount Rate Scenarios \103\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities Injuries Net cost per equivalent
Applicability Total cost prevented prevented life saved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars, MPVs, Trucks, $1.9-2.7 billion.......... 95-112 7,072-8,374 $11.8-19.7 million.
Buses with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less.
MPVs, Trucks, Buses with a 0.8-1.2 billion........... 70-83 3,284-3,888 9.6-17.0 million.
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 19 summarizes the impacts based on a primary estimate which
assumes a 130 degree camera with the display in the rearview mirror, a
low estimate that assumes ultrasonic sensors and auditory warnings, and
a high estimate that assumes a 180 degree camera with the display in
the rearview mirror. Property damage estimates are included in the
costs, and net property damage costs are significantly different (even
in sign) between ultrasonic/radar and any camera system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ For illustration purposes, figures indicated represent
rear visibility improvement provided using a rearview video system
with 130-degree video camera.

Table 19--Summary of Benefits and Costs Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Millions 2007$) MY 2015 and Thereafter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary High Discount rate
estimate Low estimate estimate (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Lifetime Monetized................................ $618.6 $37.1 $732.6 7
Lifetime Monetized................................ 777.6 46.7 920.8 3
Costs:
Lifetime Monetized................................ 1,933.3 722.6 2,362.4 7
Lifetime Monetized................................ 1,861.3 730.4 2,296.9 3
Net Benefits:
Lifetime Monetized................................ -1,314.7 -685.5 -1,629.8 7
Lifetime Monetized................................ -1,083.7 -683.7 -1,376.1 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging
onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dms.dot.gov.

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,

[[Page 76241]]

stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

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 setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (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 in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the 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 see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

IX. Rulemaking Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) 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. 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.
We have considered the potential impact of this proposal under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is economically significant
because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under E.O. 12866. The rulemaking action has also been determined to be
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
The preliminary regulatory impact analysis (PRIA) fully discusses the
estimated costs and benefits of this rulemaking action. The costs and
benefits are also summarized in section VII of this preamble, supra.

B. 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 proposed rulemaking 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).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the proposal 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 proposal will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small organizations and small governmental units would not be
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with
this action would not significantly affect the price of new motor
vehicles. We believe that the rulemaking would not have a significant
economic impact on the small vehicle manufacturers because the systems
are not technically hard to develop or install and the cost of the
systems ($160 to $200) is a small proportion (less than half of one
percent) of the overall vehicle cost for most of these specialty cars.
The proposal would directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers and
final-stage manufacturers. The majority of motor vehicle manufacturers
would not qualify as a small business. There are six manufacturers of
passenger cars that are small businesses.\104\ These manufacturers,
along with manufacturers that do not qualify as a small business, are
already required to comply with the current mirror requirements of
FMVSS No. 111. Similarly, there are several manufacturers of low-speed
vehicles that are small businesses. Currently, FMVSS No. 111 does not
apply to low-speed vehicles, although they are required to have basic
mirrors pursuant to FMVSS No. 500, Low-speed vehicles (including the
option of having either an exterior driver-side mirror or an interior
rearview mirror). The addition of a rearview video system can be
accomplished via the purchase of an exterior video camera, integration
of a console video screen or the addition of an interior rearview
mirror-mounted screen, and wiring to connect the two as well as to
connect them to the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ Fisker, Mosler, Panoz, Saleen, Standard Taxi, Tesla.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the K.T. Safety Act encompasses all motor vehicles with a
GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less (except motorcycles and trailers) in its
mandate

[[Page 76242]]

to reduce backovers, all of these small manufacturers could be affected
by the proposed requirements. However, the economic impact upon these
entities would not be significant for the following reasons.
(1) Potential cost increases are small compared to the price of the
vehicles being manufactured and can be passed on to the consumer as
nearly all vehicles are subject to the proposed requirements.
(2) The proposal provides four years lead-time, the limit permitted
by the K.T. Safety Act, and would allow small volume manufacturers the
option of waiting until the end of the phase-in (until September 1,
2014) to meet the rear visibility requirements.
In this NPRM, the agency has also considered several alternatives
that could help to reduce the burden on small businesses. The agency
considered an alternative under which passenger cars would be required
to be equipped with either a visibility system or with a system that
includes an ultrasonic sensor that monitors the specified area behind
the vehicle and an audible warning, and other vehicles rated at 10,000
pounds or less, gross vehicle weight, would be required to be equipped
with a visibility system. This alternative would have substantially
lower, but still significant, safety benefits, substantially lower
installation costs and higher cost per equivalent life saved. The
agency also considered reducing the types of vehicles subject to rear
visibility performance by excluding low-speed vehicles explicitly or,
in the alternative, limiting the applicability of the rule to MPVs and
trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

NHTSA has examined today's proposal pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a Federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would not
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.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
``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.'' 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision set forth above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved.
However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some
instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes
of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there
being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that
would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposal could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding
the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposal and finds that this proposal, like many NHTSA rules,
prescribes only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposal preempt state tort law that would effectively
impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that
established by today's proposal. Establishment of a higher standard by
means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard
proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
We solicit the comments of the States and other interested parties
on this assessment of issues relevant to E.O. 13132.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposal is discussed above in connection with E.O.
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

E. 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 19885; April 23, 1997) applies to any
proposed or final rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant,'' as defined in Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If a rule meets both
criteria, the agency must evaluate the

[[Page 76243]]

environmental health or safety effects of the rule on children, and
explain why the rule is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
This proposed rule is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is economically significant and available data demonstrate that the
safety risk addressed by this proposal disproportionately involves
children, especially very young ones. The issues that must be analyzed
under this Executive Order are discussed extensively in the preamble
above and in the PRIA.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' 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,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. The agency is not aware of any
applicable voluntary consensus standards that apply to rearview video
systems.
While the agency examined two voluntary industry standards,
International Standards Organization (ISO) 17386 and ISO 15008, as
potentially relevant, the agency does not believe that either is
relevant and thus has tentatively decided not to utilize them. While
both standards have aspects that relate to the issue of rear visibility
performance, neither addresses the specific type of rearview video
system being proposed in this notice. ISO 17386, Maneuvering Aids for
Low Speed Operations (MALSO), relates to the performance aspects of
sensor-based rear object detection systems. While such systems were
considered, NHTSA has not proposed them in this document, due to issues
related to driver performance. ISO 15008 relates to the ergonomic
aspects of in-vehicle screens.\105\ However, it specifically does not
apply to the types of screens at issue in this proposal, which would be
required to show closed-circuit video images. Furthermore, in response
to comments, NHTSA endeavored to propose a requirement that is as
performance based and technologically-neutral as possible, to allow
maximum design freedom while still meeting the performance requirements
needed for safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\105\ ISO 15008-2009 specifies minimum requirements for the
image quality and legibility of displays containing dynamic
(changeable) visual information presented to the driver of a road
vehicle by on-board transport information and control systems (TICS)
used while the vehicle is in motion. These requirements are intended
to be independent of display technologies, while reference to test
methods and measurements for assessing compliance with them have
been included where necessary.
ISO 15008-2009 is applicable to mainly perceptual, and some
basic cognitive, components of the visual information including
character legibility and color recognition. It is not applicable to
other factors affecting performance and comfort such as coding,
format and dialogue characteristics, or to display using:
Characters presented as part of a symbol or pictorial
information;
Superimposed information on the external field (e.g., high-up
displays);
Pictorial images (e.g., rear view camera);
Maps and topographic representations (e.g., those for setting
navigation systems); or
Quasi-static information.
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=50805
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. 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 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). NHTSA must comply with
that requirement in connection with this rulemaking as the proposed
rule would result in expenditures by the private sector of over $100
million annually.
As noted previously, the agency has prepared a detailed economic
assessment in the PRIA. In that assessment, the agency analyzes the
benefit and costs of a rear visibility countermeasure performance
requirement for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less. NHTSA's preliminary analysis indicates that the proposal could
result in private expenditures of up to $2.7 billion annually.
The PRIA also analyzes the expected benefits and costs of a wide
variety of alternative countermeasure options, including mirrors,
cameras, and sensors, as specified in the K.T. Safety Act. The agency
subjected several types of each class of countermeasure to thorough
effectiveness testing and cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, the
agency previously published a detailed ANPRM and separate PRIA, in
order to explain its thoughts on the technological solutions available
and solicit information on costs, benefits, and applications on all
possible solutions to the safety concern. NHTSA received a large
variety of comments on the ANPRM and PRIA and used that information in
formulating the instant proposal.
Although the application of the rear visibility requirement to
MPVs, trucks, and passenger cars is the highest cost option, the agency
tentatively concludes that the costs are justified. As explained in
detail in the PRIA for this NPRM, after carefully exploring all
possible alternatives, NHTSA tentatively concludes that rearview video
systems offer not only the highest overall benefits, but also the most
efficient cost per life saved ratio.
Above, NHTSA solicits comment on other alternatives, including one
alternative limiting the application of rearview video systems to only
MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and another
alternative requiring those systems for MPVs and trucks and either
sensors or those systems for cars. The PRIA summarizes the costs,
benefits, and cost per life saved for the proposal and these
alternatives. We note that, at this time, while one of the alternatives
has overall lower costs and a slightly more efficient cost per life
saved ratio than NHTSA's proposal, the agency tentatively concludes
that the increased benefits of the proposal, especially in terms of
fatalities and injuries to children, are worth the additional costs
above those in the more limited alternative scenario.
Since the agency has estimated that the proposed rule could result
in expenditures of over $1 billion annually, NHTSA has performed a
probabilistic uncertainty analysis to examine the degree of uncertainty
in its cost and benefit estimates and included that analysis in the
PRIA.

H. National Environmental Policy Act

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

[[Page 76244]]

I. 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. This
proposal would include a collection of information, i.e., the proposed
phase-in reporting requirements. If approved, the requirements would
require manufacturers of passenger cars and of trucks, buses, MPVs and
low-speed vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to
annually submit a report for each of two years concerning the number of
such vehicles that meet the rear visibility system requirements.
Accordingly, the Department of Transportation will be submitting
the following information collection request to OMB for review and
clearance under the PRA.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: Phase-In Production Reporting Requirements for Rear
Visibility Systems.
Type of Request: New request.
OMB Clearance Number: None assigned.
Form Number: This collection of information will not use any
standard forms.
Affected Public: The respondents are manufacturers of passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed
vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) or less. The agency estimates that there are about 21 such
manufacturers.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that the
total annual burden is 42 hours (2 hours per manufacturer per year).
Two reports per manufacturer would be collected.
Estimated Costs: NHTSA estimates that the total annual cost burden,
in U.S. dollars, will be $2,100. No additional resources would be
expended by vehicle manufacturers to gather annual production
information because they already compile this data for their own uses.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection would
require manufacturers of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles having a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less to provide motor
vehicle production data for the following two years: September 1, 2012
through August 31, 2013; and September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014.
Description of the Need for the Information and the Proposed Use of
the Information: The purpose of the reporting requirements will be to
aid NHTSA in determining whether a manufacturer has complied with the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview
Mirrors, during the phase-in of new requirements for rear visibility
systems.
NHTSA requests comments on the agency's estimates of the total
annual hour and cost burdens resulting from this collection of
information. Organizations and individuals that wish to submit comments
on the information collection requirements should direct them to
NHTSA's docket for this NPRM. These comments must be received on or
before February 7, 2011.

J. Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

K. Regulation 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.

IX. Proposed Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
parts 571 and 585 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues 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 is amended by revising the heading, S1 and S3,
adding in alphabetical order the following definitions to S4, and
adding S5.5 through S5.5.3.7, S6.2 through S6.2.3.7, S14 through
S14.3.3, and Figures 5 and 6 to read as follows:

Sec. 571.111 Standard No. 111; Rear visibility.

S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for rearview
devices and systems.
* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses,
motorcycles and low-speed vehicles.
S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three or
fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the United
States during a production year.
Rearview image means a visual image of the area directly behind a
vehicle that is provided in a single location to the vehicle operator
and by means of indirect vision.
Small manufacturer means an original vehicle manufacturer that
produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in
the United States.
* * * * *
S5.5 Rear visibility.
(a) For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2012,
but not later than August 31, 2014, a percentage of each manufacturer's
production, as specified in S5.5.3, shall display a rearview image
meeting the requirements of S5.5.1 through S5.5.2.
(b) Each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 2014,
shall display a rearview image meeting the requirements of S5.5.1
through S5.5.2.
S5.5.1 Rearview image performance.
S5.5.1.1 Field of view. When tested in accordance with the
procedures in S14.1 through S14.2.3, the rearview image shall display,
in a location visible to a driver properly restrained by seat belts:
(a) A minimum of a 150-mm wide portion of each test object located
at positions F and G in Figure 5; and
(b) The full width and height of each test object located at
positions A through E in Figure 5.

[[Page 76245]]

S5.5.1.2 Size. When the rearview image is measured in accordance
with the procedures in S14.1 through S14.2.3, the calculated visual
angle subtended by the horizontal width of:
(a) The three test objects located at positions A, B, and C in
Figure 5 shall average not less than 5 minutes of arc; and
(b) The angular size of each individual test object (A, B, and C)
shall not be less than 3 minutes of arc.
S5.5.1.3 Response time. The rearview image meeting the requirements
of S5.5.1 through 5.5.1.6 shall be displayed within 2.0 seconds of the
time at which the vehicle transmission is shifted into reverse gear;
and
S5.5.1.4 Linger time. The rearview image shall not be displayed for
more than 10.0 seconds after the vehicle transmission has been shifted
out of reverse gear.
S5.5.1.5 Deactivation. The rearview image shall not be
extinguishable by any driver-controlled means.
S5.5.1.6 Display luminance. When tested in accordance with S14.2,
the luminance of an interior visual display used to present the
rearview image shall not be less than 500 cd/m\2\.
S5.5.2 Durability performance. After the vehicle is subjected to
the test procedures in S14.2.1 through S14.2.3, the vehicle shall meet
the requirements of S5.5.1.1 and S5.5.1.2.
S5.5.3 Phase-in schedule.
S5.5.3.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 and
before September 1, 2014. At any time during the production years
ending August 31, 2012 and August 31, 2013, each manufacturer shall,
upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide
information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been certified as complying with this
standard. The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified
vehicle is irrevocable.
S5.5.3.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 and
before September 1, 2013. Except as provided in S5.5.3.4, for passenger
cars manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2012, and
before September 1, 2013, the number of passenger cars complying with
S5.5 through S5.5.2 shall be not less than 10 percent of the
manufacturer's--
(a) Production of passenger cars during that period; or
(b) Average annual production of passenger cars manufactured in the
three previous production years.
S5.5.3.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and
before September 1, 2014. Except as provided in S5.5.3.4, for passenger
cars manufactured by a manufacturer on or after September 1, 2013, and
before September 1, 2014, the number of passenger cars complying with
S5.5 through S5.5.2 shall be not less than 40 percent of the
manufacturer's--
(a) Production of passenger cars during that period; or
(b) Average annual production of passenger cars manufactured in the
three previous production years.
S5.5.3.4 Exclusions from phase-in. The requirements in S5.5.3.2 and
S5.5.3.3 do not apply to--
(a) Vehicles that are manufactured by small manufacturers or by
limited line manufacturers.
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7)
before September 1, 2014, after having been previously certified in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages before September 1, 2014.
S5.5.3.5 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. For the
purpose of calculating average annual production of vehicles for each
manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured by each
manufacturer under S5.5.3.1 through S5.5.3.3, a vehicle produced by
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer
as follows, subject to S5.5.3.6--
(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
S5.5.3.6 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S5.5.3.5.
S5.5.3.7 Calculation of complying vehicles.
(a) For the purposes of calculating the vehicles complying with
S5.5.3.2, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on
or after [date that is 30 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register] but before September 1, 2013.
(b) For purposes of complying with S5.5.3.3, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it--
(1) Is manufactured on or after [date that is 30 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] but before
September 1, 2014 and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance with S5.5.3.2.
(c) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer, each vehicle that is excluded from having to meet
the applicable requirement is not counted.
* * * * *
S6.2 Rear visibility.
(a) For multipurpose passenger vehicles, low-speed vehicles,
trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or less manufactured on or
after September 1, 2012, but not later than August 31, 2014, a
percentage of each manufacturer's production, as specified in S6.2.3,
shall display a rearview image meeting the requirements of S6.2.1
through S6.2.2.
(b) Each multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck,
and bus with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or less manufactured on or after
September 1, 2014, shall display a rearview image meeting the
requirements of S6.2.1 through S6.2.2.
S6.2.1 Rearview image performance.
S6.2.1.1 Field of view. When tested in accordance with the
procedures in S14.1 through S14.2.3, the rearview image shall display,
in a location visible to a driver properly restrained by seat belts:
(a) A minimum of a 150-mm wide portion of each test object located
at positions F and G in Figure 5; and
(b) The full width and height of each test object located at
positions A through E in Figure 5.
S6.2.1.2 Size. When the rearview image is measured in accordance
with the procedures in S14.1 through S14.2.3, the calculated visual
angle--subtended by the horizontal width of
(a) The three test objects located at positions A, B, and C in
Figure 5 shall average not less than 5 minutes of arc; and
(b) The angular size of each individual test object (A, B, and C)
shall not be less than 3 minutes of arc.
S6.2.1.3 Response time. The rearview image meeting the requirements
of S6.2.1 through 6.2.1.6 shall be displayed within 2.0 seconds of the
time at which the vehicle transmission is shifted into reverse gear;
and
S6.2.1.4 Linger time. The rearview image shall not be displayed for
more than 10.0 seconds after the vehicle transmission has been shifted
out of reverse gear.

[[Page 76246]]

S6.2.1.5 Deactivation. The rearview image shall not be
extinguishable by any driver-controlled means.
S6.2.1.6 Display luminance. When tested in accordance with S14.2,
the luminance of an interior visual display used to present the
rearview image shall not be less than 500 cd/m\2\.
S6.2.2 Durability performance. After the vehicle is subjected to
the test procedures in S14.2.1 through S14.2.3, the vehicle shall meet
the requirements of S6.2.1.1 and S6.2.1.2.
S6.2.3 Phase-in schedule.
S6.2.3.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 and
before September 1, 2014. At any time during the production years
ending August 31, 2012 and August 31, 2013, each manufacturer shall,
upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide
information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been certified as complying with this
standard. The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified
vehicle is irrevocable.
S6.2.3.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 and
before September 1, 2013. Except as provided in S6.2.3.4, for
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles
with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or less, manufactured by a manufacturer on or
after September 1, 2012, and before September 1, 2013, the number of
such vehicles complying with S6.2 through S6.2.2 shall be not less than
33 percent of the manufacturer's--
(a) Production of such vehicles during that period; or
(b) Average annual production of such vehicles manufactured in the
three previous production years.
S6.2.3.3 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013 and
before September 1, 2014. Except as provided in S6.2.3.4, for
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles
with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or less, manufactured by a manufacturer on or
after September 1, 2013, and before September 1, 2014, the number of
such vehicles complying with S6.2 through S6.2.2 shall be not less than
67 percent of the manufacturer's--
(a) production of such vehicles during that period; or
(b) average annual production of such vehicles manufactured in the
three previous production years.
S6.2.3.4 Exclusions from phase-in. The requirements in S6.2.3.2 and
S6.2.3.3 do not apply to--
(a) Vehicles that are manufactured by small manufacturers or by
limited line manufacturers.
(b) Vehicles that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7)
before September 1, 2014, after having been previously certified in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles manufactured in
two or more stages before September 1, 2014.
S6.2.3.5 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. For the
purpose of calculating average annual production of vehicles for each
manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured by each
manufacturer under S6.2.3.1 through S6.2.3.3, a vehicle produced by
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer
as follows, subject to S6.2.3.6--
(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
S6.2.3.6 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S6.2.3.5.
S6.2.3.7 Calculation of complying vehicles.
(a) For the purposes of calculating the vehicles complying with
S6.2.3.2, a manufacturer may count a vehicle if it is manufactured on
or after [date that is 30 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register] but before September 1, 2013.
(b) For purposes of complying with S6.2.3.3, a manufacturer may
count a vehicle if it--
(1) Is manufactured on or after [date that is 30 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] but before
September 1, 2014 and,
(2) Is not counted toward compliance with S6.2.3.2.
(c) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer, each vehicle that is excluded from having to meet
the applicable requirement is not counted.
* * * * *
S14 Rear visibility test procedure.
S14.1 Test setup.
S14.1.1 Lighting. The ambient illumination conditions in which
testing is conducted consists of light that is evenly distributed from
above and is at an intensity of 10,000 lux, as measured at the center
of the exterior surface of vehicle's roof.
S14.1.2 Vehicle conditions.
S14.1.2.1 Tires. The vehicle's tires are set to the vehicle
manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure.
S14.1.2.2 Fuel tank loading. The fuel tank is full.
S14.1.2.3 Vehicle load. The vehicle is loaded to simulate the
weight of the driver and four passengers or the designated occupant
capacity, if less, based on an average occupant weight of 68 kg. The
weight of each occupant is represented by 45 kg resting on the seat pan
and 23 kg resting on the vehicle floorboard.
S14.1.2.4 Driver's seat positioning.
S14.1.2.4.1 Adjust the driver's seat to the midpoint of the
longitudinal adjustment range.
S14.1.2.4.2 Adjust the driver's seat to the lowest point of all
vertical adjustment ranges present.
S14.1.2.4.3 Using the three dimensional SAE J826 (rev. Jul 95)
manikin, adjust the driver's seat back angle at the vertical portion of
the H-point machine's torso weight hanger to 25 degrees. If this
adjustment setting is not available, adjust the seat-back angle to the
positional detent setting closest to 25 degrees in the direction of the
manufacturer's nominal design riding position.
S14.1.3 Test object. Each test object is a right circular cylinder
that is 0.8 m high and 0.3 m in external diameter. There are seven test
objects, A-G. Test objects A, B, C, D, and E are marked with a
horizontal band encompassing the uppermost 150 mm of the side of the
cylinder. Test objects F and G are marked on the side with a solid
vertical stripe of 150 mm width extending from the top to the bottom of
each cylinder. Both the horizontal band and vertical stripe shall be of
a color that contrasts with both the rest of the cylinder and the test
surface.
S14.1.4 Test object locations and orientation. Place cylinders at
locations specified in S14.1.5(a) through(d) and illustrated in Figure
5. Measure the distances shown in Figure 5 from a cylinder to another
cylinder or another object from the center (axis) of the cylinder as
viewed from above. Each test object is oriented so that its axis is
vertical.
(a) Place cylinders G and F so that their centers are in a
transverse vertical plane that is 0.3 m to the rear of a transverse
vertical plane tangent to the rearmost surface of the rear bumper.
Place cylinders E and D so that their centers are in a transverse
vertical plane

[[Page 76247]]

that is 0.9 m to the rear of a transverse vertical plane tangent to the
rearmost surface of the rear bumper. Place cylinders A, B and C so that
their centers are in a transverse vertical plane that is 6.1 m to the
rear of a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rearmost surface of
the rear bumper.
(b) Place cylinder B so that its center is in a longitudinal
vertical plane passing through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
(c) Place cylinders C, E, and G so that their centers are in a
longitudinal vertical plane located 1.5 m, measured laterally and
horizontally, to the left of the vehicle longitudinal center line.
(d) Place cylinders A, D, and F so that their centers are in a
longitudinal vertical plane located 1.5 m, measured laterally and
horizontally, to the right of the vehicle longitudinal center line.
S14.1.5 Test reference point. To obtain the test reference point,
locate the center of the forward-looking eye midpoint (Mf)
of a 50th percentile male driver in the sagittal plane of the driver's
body, 632 mm vertically above the H point and 96 mm aft of the H point
(H), as illustrated in Figure 6. Next, locate the head/neck joint
center (J) illustrated in Figure 6 so that it is located 100 mm
rearward of Mf and 588 mm vertically above the H point. Draw
an imaginary horizontal line between Mf and a point
vertically above J, defined as J2. Rotate the imaginary line
about J2 in the direction of the rearview image until the
straight-line distance between Mf and the center of the
visual display reaches the shortest possible value. Define this new,
rotated location of Mf to be Mr (eye midpoint
rotated).
S14.1.6 Measurement procedure. Locate a 35 mm or larger format
still camera, video camera, or digital equivalent such that the center
of the camera's image plane is located at Mr and the camera
lens is directed at the center of the visual display's rearview image.
Affix a ruler at the base of the rearview image in an orientation
parallel with a transverse cylinder centerline. Photograph the image of
the visual display with the ruler included in the frame.
S14.1.6.1 Extract photographic data. Using the photograph, measure
the horizontal width of a 50 mm delineated section of the in-photo
ruler along the edge closest to the rearview image and at a point that
would fall along the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. Using the
photograph, measure the horizontal width of the colored band at the
upper portion of each of the three test objects located at positions A,
B, and C in Figure 5. Define the measured horizontal widths of the
colored bands of the three test objects as da,
db, and dc.
S14.1.6.2 Obtain scaling factor. Using the measured length of the
50 mm portion of the ruler as it appears in the photograph, divide this
value by 50 mm to obtain a scaling factor. Define this scaling factor
as sscale.
S14.1.6.3 Determine viewing distance. Determine the actual distance
from the rotated eye midpoint location (Mr) to the center of
the rearview image. Define this viewing distance as aeye.
S14.1.6.4 Calculate visual angle subtended by test objects. Use the
following equation to calculate the subtended visual angles:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.015

where i can take on the value of either test object A, B, or C, and
arcsine is calculated in units of degrees.

S14.2 Visual display luminance testing. The visual display
luminance is measured at room temperature in a dark room using a
spectroradiometer. The minimum specified value of 500 cd/m\2\ must be
met at any measured point within the display.
S14.3 Durability testing.
S14.3.1 Corrosion test procedure. The vehicle is subjected to two
24-hour corrosion test cycles. In each corrosion test cycle, a portion
of the vehicle, which must include all exterior components of the rear
visibility system, is subjected to a salt spray (fog) test in
accordance with ASTM B117-73, Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5) for a period of 24 hours.
Allow 1 hour to elapse without spray between the two test cycles.
S14.3.2 Humidity exposure procedure. The vehicle is subjected to 24
consecutive 3-hour humidity test cycles. In each humidity test cycle,
the exterior of the vehicle is subjected to a temperature of 100[deg] +
7[deg] - 0 [deg]F (38[deg] + 4 [deg]C) with a relative humidity of not
less than 90% for a period of 2 hours. After a period not to exceed 5
minutes, the exterior of the vehicle is subjected to a temperature of
32[deg] + 5[deg] - 0 [deg]F (0[deg] + 3[deg] -0 [deg]C) and a humidity
of not more than 30% [deg] 10% for 1 hour. Allow no more
than 5 minutes to elapse between each test cycle.
S14.3.3 Temperature exposure procedure. The vehicle is subjected to
4 consecutive 2-hour temperature test cycles. In each temperature test
cycle, the exterior of the vehicle is first subjected to a temperature
of 176[deg] 5 [deg]F (60[deg] 3 [deg]C) for a
period of one hour. After a period not to exceed 5 minutes, the
exterior of the vehicle is subjected to a temperature of 32[deg] +
5[deg] - 0 [deg]F (0[deg] + 3[deg] - 0 [deg]C) for 1 hour. Allow no
more than 5 minutes to elapse between each test cycle.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 76248]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.013

[[Page 76249]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE10.014

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
3. Section 571.500 is amended by adding paragraph (11) at the end
of paragraph S5(b) to read as follows:

Sec. 571.500 Standard No. 500; Low-speed vehicles.

* * * * *
S5.* * *
(b)* * *
(11) Low-speed vehicles shall comply with the rear visibility
requirements specified in S5.5 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 111.
* * * * *

[[Page 76250]]

PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

4. The authority citation for part 585 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.

5. Part 585 is amended by adding subpart M to read as follows:
Subpart M--Rear Visibility Improvements Reporting Requirements
Sec.
585.121 Scope.
585.122 Purpose.
585.123 Applicability.
585.124 Definitions.
585.125 Response to inquiries.
585.126 Reporting requirements.
585.127 Records.

Subpart M--Rear Visibility Improvements Reporting Requirements

Sec. 585.121 Scope.

This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger
cars, of trucks, buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles and low-speed
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms
(kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or less, to submit a report, and maintain
records related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles
that meet the rear visibility requirements (S5.5 and S6.2) of Standard
No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111).

Sec. 585.122 Purpose.

The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer has complied with the rear visibility requirements (S5.5
and S6.2) of Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111).

Sec. 585.123 Applicability.

This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, of trucks,
buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles and low-speed vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000
pounds (lb)) or less.

Sec. 585.124 Definitions.

(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their
statutory meaning.
(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, low-speed vehicle,
multipurpose passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as
defined in Sec. 571.3 of this chapter.
(c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.

Sec. 585.125 Response to inquiries.

At anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2013, and
August 31, 2014, each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office
of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the
vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification number) that have
been certified as complying with the rear visibility requirements of
Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). The manufacturer's
designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.

Sec. 585.126 Reporting requirements.

(a) Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days
after the end of the production year ending August 31, 2012, each
manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during that
production year as complying with the rear visibility requirements of
Standard No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111) shall submit a report to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration providing the information
specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in Sec. 585.2 of this
part.
(b) Phase-in reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of each of the production years ending August 31, 2013 and August 31,
2014, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration concerning its compliance with the rear
visibility requirements of Standard No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111) for its
vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall provide the
information specified in paragraph (d) of this section and in section
585.2 of this part.
(c) Advanced credit phase-in report content; production of
complying vehicles. With respect to the reports identified in Sec.
585.126(a), each manufacturer shall report for the production year for
which the report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model
year, that are certified as meeting the rear visibility requirements of
Standard No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111).
(d) Phase-in report content--
(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each manufacturer shall
provide the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production
year, or, at the manufacturer's option, in each of the three previous
production years. A new manufacturer that is, for the first time,
manufacturing vehicles for sale in the United States must report the
number of vehicles manufactured during the current production year.
(2) Production of complying vehicles. Each manufacturer shall
report for the production year being reported on, and each preceding
production year, to the extent that vehicles produced during the
preceding years are treated under Standard No. 111 as having been
produced during the production year being reported on, information on
the number of vehicles that meet the rear visibility requirements of
Standard No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111).

Sec. 585.127 Records.

Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 585.126 until December 31, 2020.

Issued on: November 29, 2010.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-30353 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P