[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76186-76250]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30353]

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

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

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may contact Mr.
Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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

    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)

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

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.

    [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''

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.

         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.

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

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

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

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

(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-

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

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

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

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

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.