[Federal Register: March 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 41)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9477-9520]
[DOCID:fr04mr09-16]

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

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Rearview Mirrors; Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0041]
RIN 2127-AK43

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Rearview Mirrors

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document initiates rulemaking to amend Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors,\1\ to
improve a driver's ability to see areas to the rear of a motor vehicle
in order to mitigate fatalities and injuries associated with backover
incidents. The agency and Congress are concerned that vehicles have
``blind zones,'' \2\ areas behind the vehicle in which drivers may have
difficulty seeing and avoiding a person or other obstacle. Through this
notice, NHTSA presents its initial research efforts and solicits
additional information that will enable the agency to develop an
effective proposal to mitigate backover incidents related to vehicle
rear blind zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 571.111, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.
    \2\ We note that this is different than what many people
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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2009.

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: For technical issues: Ms. Elizabeth Mazzae,
Vehicle Research and Test Center, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:
(202) 366-3171. For legal issues: Ari Scott, 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:

I. Executive Summary
II. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007
III. Existing Regulatory Requirements for Rear Visibility
    A. U.S.
    B. Other Countries
IV. Backover Safety Problem
    A. Injuries and Fatalities in Backing Incidents
    B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Incidents
    C. Age Involvement in Backing Incidents
    D. SCI Backover Case Summary
    E. Assessment of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location
V. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility
    A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors
    B. Rearview Video Systems
    C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems
    D. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video Camera) Systems
    E. Future Technologies
    F. Summary and Questions Regarding Technologies for Improving
Rear Visibility
VI. Drivers' Use and Associated Effectiveness of Available
Technologies to Mitigate Backovers
    A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors
    B. Rearview Video Systems
    C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems
    D. Multi-technology (Sensor + Camera) Systems
    E. Summary
    F. Questions
VII. Rear Visibility of Current Vehicles
VIII. Relationship Between Rear Visibility and Backing/Backover
Crashes
IX. Options for Mitigating Backover Incidents
    A. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility
    B. Cost Benefit Scenarios
    C. Questions
X. Options for Measuring a Vehicle's Rear Visibility
    A. Rear Visibility Measurement Procedures
    B. Rear Visibility Measurement Method Variability
    C. Comparison of Human-Based Versus Laser-Based Rear Visibility
Measurement Protocols
    D. Input From Industry Regarding Rear Visibility Measurement
    E. Questions
XI. Options for Assessing the Performance of Rear Visibility
Countermeasures
    A. Countermeasure Performance Test Object
    B. Countermeasure Performance Test Area
    C. Countermeasure Performance Test Procedure
    D. Questions
XII. Options for Characterizing Rear Visibility Countermeasures
    A. Options for Display Characteristics
    B. Options for Rearview Video System Camera Characteristics
    C. Questions
XIII. Conclusion
XIV. Public Participation
XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A--Methodology for Assessing Backover Crash Risk by
Pedestrian Location
Appendix B--Method for On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview
Video Systems
Appendix C--Details Regarding Development of a Possible
Countermeasure Application Threshold Based on Rear Blind Zone Area
Appendix D--Results for Analysis of Correlation Between Rear Blind
Zone Area Measurement Field Size and Backing Crashes

I. Executive Summary

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) initiates
rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
111, Rearview Mirrors, to improve a driver's ability to see areas to
the rear of a motor vehicle to reduce backover incidents. The agency is
issuing an ANPRM for two reasons. First, the agency is obligated,
pursuant to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of
2007 (the ``K.T. Safety Act'') Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008,
122 Stat. 639, to 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 and initiate the rulemaking in a specified time period.
Second, as there are a wide variety of means to address the problem of
backover incidents, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is interested in soliciting public comment on the current state
of research and the efficacy of available countermeasures.
    The problem of backovers claims the lives of approximately 292
people, many of them children every year. A backover 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. Unlike
most other types of crashes, many backovers occur off public roadways,
in areas such as driveways and parking lots. Furthermore, a
disproportionate number of victims of backovers are children under 5
years old and adults 70 or older. While there are several potential
reasons for this, children are particularly likely to be missed by
drivers of rear-moving vehicles because they cannot be seen due to a
``blind zone'' \3\ in the area directly to the rear of vehicle. In
addition, children are more likely to move unknowingly into a blind
zone when the driver does not suspect anyone to be there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that the problem of backovers warrants an
appropriate agency action. In response to a Congressional requirement
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) \4\, NHTSA has been gathering data
on backover incidents from a wide variety of sources. Based on this
research, the agency estimates that on average there are 292 fatalities
and 18,000 injuries (3,000 of which are judged to be incapacitating)
resulting from backovers every year. Of those, 228 fatalities and
17,000 injuries were attributed to backover incidents involving
passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds. While all passenger vehicle
types (cars, sport utility vehicles, pickups, and vans) are involved in
backover fatalities and injuries, the data indicate that backover
fatality numbers show pickup trucks (72 of 288) and utility vehicles
(68 of 228) to be overrepresented when compared to all non-backing
traffic injury crashes and to their proportion to the passenger vehicle
fleet. Regardless of the type of vehicle involved, backover incidents
have garnered significant attention, due to the fact that many have
involved parents accidentally backing over their own children or
similar situations. In this notice, NHTSA describes some of the
research and information-gathering activities it has performed. This
research centers on four major topic areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law No. 109-59, section
1109, 119 Stat. 1114, 1168 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first area involves the nature of backover incidents and
backing crashes generally. NHTSA has reviewed the details of documented
backover incidents, including the locations of backover victims, the
paths the victims took to enter the path of the vehicle, and the
visibility characteristics of the vehicles involved. This notice
outlines the information we have about these crashes, whether the lack
of visibility is playing a significant role, and whether or not the
characteristics of a class or type of vehicle are a contributing
factor.
    A second area of focus involves the evaluation of various
strategies for improving rear visibility. For example, one strategy
could be to ensure that the vehicles which are over represented in
terms of fatalities and injuries are improved. Such a strategy would
focus on pickup trucks or utility vehicles.\5\ Another strategy, could
seek to establish a minimum blind zone area for vehicles under 10,000
pounds. Our research indicates that a vehicle's rear blind zone area is
statistically correlated with its rate of backing crashes.\6\ Using
this correlation, it may be possible to determine which vehicles most
warrant rear visibility improvement based on the size of their rear
blind zones and the setting of a ``threshold''. Possible strategies
such as these are discussed in this notice and comments are requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes,
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008).
    \6\ Partyka, S., Direct-View Rear Visibility and Backing Risk
for Light Passenger Vehicles (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third topic involves the evaluation of various countermeasures.
NHTSA has consulted past agency research, industry and other outside
sources, and conducted new research to help determine the costs,
effectiveness, and limitations of a wide variety of countermeasures.
Four types of countermeasures are described in this notice, including
direct vision (i.e., what can be seen by a driver glancing directly out
a vehicle's windows), rear-mounted convex mirrors, rear object
detection sensors (such as ultrasonic or radar-based devices), and
rearview video (RV) systems. While research is ongoing, this notice
describes how these systems work, how well they perform in identifying
pedestrians, and how effectively drivers may use them. Where possible,
we have also included preliminary cost and benefit information. While
we examine several application scenarios (all passenger cars and all
light trucks, only light trucks, and some combinations) and discount
rates of 3 and 7 percent, the net cost per equivalent life saved for
camera systems ranged from $13.8 to $72.2 million.\7\ For sensors, it
ranged from $11.3 to $62.5 million. According to our present model,
none of the systems are cost effective compared to our comprehensive
cost estimate for a statistical life of $6.1 million.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PRIA, Executive Summary.
    \8\ $6.1 million is the comprehensive value that NHTSA used for
a statistical life. Further information about this value is
available in the PRIA published with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fourth topic involves consideration of technical specifications
and test procedures that could be used to describe and evaluate the
performance aspects of direct view, and rear-mounted convex mirrors,
rear object detection sensors, and rearview video (RV) systems. The
agency presents preliminary information on potential technical
specifications and test procedures that we have identified and we want
to solicit information on how these specifications and procedures
should be refined for the purposes of developing repeatable compliance
tests.
    Finally, NHTSA presents a series of questions in this notice. We
are requesting public input on a variety of areas, including the areas
described above, studies on the effectiveness of various indirect rear
visibility systems (i.e., devices that aid a driver in seeing areas
around a vehicle, such as mirrors or video systems) that have been
implemented in the U.S. and abroad, or technological possibilities that
can enhance the reliability of existing technologies. The agency is
also seeking information on the costs of implementation of all
available technologies to develop more robust cost and benefit
estimates.

II. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007

    Subsection (b) of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety
Act, directs the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking 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.
    The relevant provisions in subsection (b) are as follows:

    (b) Rearward Visibility--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. The Secretary shall prescribe final
standards pursuant to this subsection not later than 36 months after
the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Phase-In Period--
    (1) PHASE-IN PERIOD REQUIRED--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.
    (2) PHASE-IN PRIORITIES--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--
    (A) which type or types of motor vehicles shall be phased-in
first; and
    (B) 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 necessarily require that all of
these technologies eventually be integrated into the final requirement,
we are examining the merits of each of them.

Applicability

    With regard to the scope of vehicles covered by the mandate, the
statute refers to all motor vehicles less than 10,000 pounds (except
motorcycles and trailers). This language means that the revised
regulation would apply to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, buses, and trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)
less than 10,000 lbs.

Statutory Deadline

    The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007
specified a rapid timeline for development and implementation of this
rulemaking. Specifically, the Secretary is required to publish a final
rule within 36 months of the passage of the Act (February 28, 2011).
Moreover, the agency must initiate rulemaking within 12 months of the
Act (February 28, 2009). However, it should be noted that under Section
4 of the Act,\9\ if the Secretary determines that the deadlines
applicable under this 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 Act could not be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007,
S.694, 110th Cong. section 4 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Existing Regulatory Requirements for Rear Visibility

    As of today, no country has minimum rear field of view requirements
for vehicles weighing less than 10,000 lbs. All countries do, however,
have standards for side and interior rearview mirrors, although
differences do exist in terms of mirror requirements. No country
requires rearview video systems or any other type of indirect vision
device for viewing areas directly behind the vehicle; however, Europe
does have performance requirements for systems for indirect vision, if
installed.

A. U.S.

    FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors establishes requirements for the
use, field of view, and mounting of motor vehicle rearview mirrors for
rear visibility.\10\ This standard was enacted in 1976 and applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school
buses and motorcycles. 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. With respect to passenger cars, the standard requires that
manufacturers mount flat (also referred to as ``plane'' or ``unit
magnification'') mirrors both inside the vehicle and outside the
vehicle on the driver's side. The inside mirror must, except as
specified below, 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. In cases where the interior mirror does not meet the
specified field of view requirements, a plane or convex exterior mirror
must be mounted on the passenger's side of the car. While a specific
field of view is not indicated for the passenger-side rearview mirror,
the driver's side rearview 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 CFR 571.111, Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a manufacturer uses an interior rearview mirror which meets the
field of view requirements, and wishes to install an exterior
passenger-side mirror voluntarily, it may use any type of mirror for
that purpose. In the case of light trucks, manufacturers may either
comply with the passenger car requirement or have plane or convex
outside mirrors with reflective surface area of not less than 126
square centimeters (19.5 square inches) on each side of the vehicle.
Reflectance (image brightness) criteria are also established in this
standard.
    FMVSS No. 111 does not currently establish minimum rear field of
view requirements for vehicles, nor does it contain minimum
requirements for indirect vision systems, such as rearview video
systems. Because of the current absence of a federal regulation of this
aspect of performance, there is the possibility that there may be
existing State laws or regulations that regulate the vehicle's rear
field of view of passenger vehicles.\11\ However, as of this time,
NHTSA is not aware of any such State laws or regulations. However, we
request comment on existing or pending State laws or regulations in
this area, as well as the basis and effect of such regulation, if any
exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Federalism discussion below in section XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Other Countries

ECE
    In 1981, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
enacted

Regulation 46 which details uniform provisions concerning the approval
of devices for indirect vision.\12\ ECE 46 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.'' While ECE 46 contains
specifications for exterior rearview mirrors, it does not, directly
regulate the rear field of view. Specifications are provided to define
the required minimum size of the interior rearview mirror's surface
area, but not its field of view. This regulation applies to all power-
driven vehicles with at least four wheels that are used for the
carriage of people or goods, and vehicles with less than four wheels
that are fitted with bodywork which partly or wholly encloses the
driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ECE 46-02, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ECE 46 requires driver and passenger ``flat'' side rearview mirrors
as found in FMVSS No. 111. ECE 46 differs from FMVSS No. 111 in that it
also permits wide-angle convex mirrors on the driver's side of the
vehicle for all classes of vehicles except for certain vehicles over
7.5 tons, for which they are required.
    The ECE 46 regulation also outlines requirements for devices for
indirect vision other than mirrors for vehicles with more than eight
seating positions and those configured for refuse collection.
Specifically, it contains a general requirement that camera-monitor
devices, if present, shall perceive a visible spectrum and shall always
render this image without the need for interpretation into the visual
spectrum. The device's visual display is required to be located
approximately in the same direction as the interior rearview mirror.
The monitor is required to render a minimum contrast under various
light conditions as specified by International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 15008:2003 \13\ and have an adjustable luminance
level. The regulation also defines detection distance, the distance
measured at ground level from the eye point to the extreme point at
which a critical object can be perceived, as an aspect of camera-
monitor device performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ISO 15008:2003 Road vehicles--Ergonomic aspects of
transport information and control systems--Specifications and
compliance procedures for in-vehicle visual presentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A January 2008 amendment to ECE Regulation 46 required that a
camera-monitor system must display to the driver a flat horizontal
portion of the road directly behind the vehicle from the rear bumper
outward to a distance of 2000 mm (6.6 ft). It further specified that if
an indirect vision device other than a camera-monitor is used, a test
object 50 cm (19.7 in) in height and 30 cm (11.8 in) in diameter must
be visible in the specified area. However, in a later amendment of
UNECE 46 (dated August 7, 2008) this requirement was removed and
replaced with the statement, ``Vehicles may be equipped with additional
devices for indirect vision.'' \14\ This change allows for indirect
vision systems to be installed on European vehicles without meeting any
performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 15.3.5 of ECE 46-02, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada
    Canada has rearview mirror requirements that are essentially
identical to those in the U.S. All passenger cars are required to have
a driver's-side outside rearview mirror. Passenger cars are also
required to be equipped with an interior rearview mirror providing
``the driver with a field of view to the rear that is not less than 20
degrees measured horizontally rearward from the projected eye point and
extends to the horizon and includes a point on the road surface not
more than 60 m (200 feet) directly behind the vehicle.'' If the
interior rearview mirror does not meet these requirements, a side
rearview mirror must be mounted on the passenger side of the vehicle
opposite the driver's side.
Japan
    Japanese regulation, Article 44, provides a performance based
requirement for rearview mirrors.\15\ 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.\16\ 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, therefore these devices are allowed, but not required under
the standard. Rear-mounted convex mirrors are commonly used as backing
aids on sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and vans in Japan; however, NHTSA
is not aware of research documenting the effectiveness of these mirrors
in mitigating backover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Japanese Safety Regulation Article 44 and attachments 79-
81.
    \16\ Vehicles manufactured for the Japanese market are right-
hand drive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Korea
    The Korean regulation on rearview mirrors, Article 50,\17\ 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 are commonly used as
backing aids on SUVs and vans in Korea; however, NHTSA is not aware of
research documenting the effectiveness of these mirrors in mitigating
backover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Korean Safety Regulation Article 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Backover Safety Problem

    Based on our information to date, NHTSA has found that the problem
of backovers claims the lives of hundreds of people every year. NHTSA
defines backover as 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. However, because many backovers occur off
public roadways, in areas such as driveways and parking lots, NHTSA's
ordinary 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.

A. Injuries and Fatalities in Backing Incidents

    In response to SAFETEA-LU Sections 2012 and 10305, 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 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) or the National
Automotive Sampling System--General Estimates System (NASS-GES). The
subset of backing crashes that involve a pedestrian, bicyclist, or
other person not in a vehicle, is referred to as ``backovers.'' 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 backovers, any technology that improves
rear visibility should have a positive effect on backing crashes in
general.
    Based on 2002-2006 data from FARS and NASS-GES, and 2007 data from
NiTS, NHTSA estimates that 463 fatalities and 48,000 injuries a year
occur in traffic and nontraffic backing crashes.\18\ Most of these
injuries are minor injuries, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes,
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to injuries and fatalities related specifically to
backovers, these account for an estimated 63 percent (292) of the
fatalities and 38 percent (18,000) of the injuries in backing crashes
for all vehicles (cars, light trucks or vans, heavy trucks, and other/
multiple vehicles). Other backing crash scenarios account for an
estimated 171 fatalities (37 percent) and 30,000 injuries (62 percent)
per year. Table 1 shows the fatalities and injuries in all backing
crashes. Table 1 also demonstrates that backover victims tend to be
more seriously injured than individuals in other backing crashes (i.e.,
non-backover crash incidents). In fact, more than half (10,000 of
18,000) of the injuries in backovers are more severe than possible
(minor) injuries.

         Table 1--Annual Estimated Fatalities and Injuries in All Backing Crashes for All Vehicles \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Injury severity                     Total                   Backovers           Other backing crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Estimated      Sample     Estimated      Sample     Estimated      Sample
                                       total        count        total        count        total        count
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities........................          463        1,610          292          716          171          894
Incapacitating Injury.............        6,000          304        3,000          131        3,000          173
Non-incapacitating Injury.........       12,000          813        7,000          372        5,000          441
Possible Injury...................       27,000          929        7,000          179       20,000          750
Injured Severity Unknown..........        2,000           48        1,000           23        2,000           25
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Injuries................       48,000        2,094       18,000          705       30,000       1,389
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.

B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Incidents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most backover fatalities and injuries involve passenger vehicles.
As indicated in Table 2, 78 percent of the backover fatalities and 95
percent of the backover injuries involved passenger vehicles. An
estimated fifteen percent (68) of the backing crash fatalities occur in
multivehicle crashes, and an estimated thirteen 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 multivehicle crashes involving
backing vehicles. Table 3 indicates that all major passenger vehicle
types (cars, utility vehicles, pickups, and vans) are involved in
backover fatalities and injuries. However, the data indicate that some
vehicles may have a greater risk of involvement in backing crashes than
other vehicles. Table 3 illustrates that pickup trucks and utility
vehicles are overrepresented in backover fatalities when compared to
all non-backing traffic injury crashes and to their proportion to the
passenger vehicle fleet.

              Table 2--Injuries and Fatalities and Injuries by Backing Crash Type for All Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    All vehicles           Passenger vehicles
                   Backing crash scenarios                   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fatalities    Injuries    Fatalities    Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backovers: Striking Nonoccupant.............................          292       18,000          228       17,000
Backing: Striking Fixed Object..............................           33        2,000           33        2,000
Backing: Noncollision.......................................           62        1,000           53        1,000
Backing: Striking/Struck by Other Vehicle...................           68       24,000           39       20,000
Backing: Other..............................................            8        3,000            8        3,000
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Backing...........................................          463       48,000          361       43,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table 3--Passenger Vehicle Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Vehicle Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percent
                                                                                of
                                                                                Estimated   vehicles
                                                        Percent of   Estimated    percent    in non-    Percent
           Backing vehicle type             Fatalities                injuries       of      backing    of fleet
                                                        fatalities                injuries   traffic
                                                                                injury
                                                                                crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car.......................................          59          26        9,000         54         62         58
Utility Vehicle...........................          68          30        3,000         20         14         16
Van.......................................          29          13        1,000          6          8          8
Pickup....................................          72          31        3,000         18         15         17
Other Light Vehicle.......................           0           0            *          2          1         <1
Passenger Vehicles........................         228         100       17,000        100        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.

C. Age Involvement in Backing Incidents

    Table 4 contains the age of the backover victim for fatalities and
injuries for all backovers as well as backovers involving passenger
vehicles. Table 4 also details the proportion of the United States
(U.S.) population in each age category from the 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 account for
44 percent of the fatalities, and adults 70 and older account for 33
percent. The difference in the results between all backovers and
passenger vehicle backovers occurs because large truck backovers, which
are excluded from the passenger vehicle calculations, tend to affect
adults of working age.

                         Table 4--All Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Age of Victim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Estimated
                                                      Percent of   Estimated    percent     Sample    Percent of
              Age of victim               Fatalities                injuries       of      count of   population
                                                      fatalities                injuries   injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Vehicles:
    Under 5.............................         103          35        2,000          8         37            7
    5-10................................          13           4            *          3         33            7
    10-19...............................           4           1        2,000         12         75           14
    20-59...............................          69          24        9,000         48        383           55
    60-69...............................          28           9        2,000          8         54            8
    70+.................................          76          26        3,000         18        107            9
    Unknown.............................  ..........  ..........            *          2         16  ...........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................         292         100       18,000        100        705          100
Passenger Vehicles:
    Under 5.............................         100          44        2,000          9         35            7
    5-10................................          10           4        1,000          3         30            7
    10-19...............................           1           1        2,000         12         71           14
    20-59...............................          29          13        8,000         46        319           55
    60-69...............................          15           6        1,000          8         46            8
    70+.................................          74          33        3,000         19         95            9
    Unknown.............................  ..........  ..........            *          2         12  ...........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................         228         100       17,000        100        608         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 overrepresented
in backover injuries compared to the population, adults 70 and older
appear to be greatly overrepresented. One reason for the relatively
large proportion of injuries in backover crashes among older adults may
be that backovers involving younger nonoccupants may not result in an
injury while the same backover involving an older nonoccupant may
result in a fall and a broken bone.
    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 Fatalities and Injuries Involving
            Passenger Vehicles for Victims Under Age 5 Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              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: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007
  Population Estimates; FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.

D. Special Crash Investigation Backover Case Summary

    In addition to collecting police-reported backovers through NHTSA's
data collection infrastructure, NHTSA's efforts to understand backover
incidents 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.
    SCI began investigating cases related to backovers in October
2006.\20\ 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 July 1, 2008, SCI had
received a total of 52 notifications from a combination of all sources
regarding backovers.\21\ For the purpose of the SCI cases, an eligible
backover was defined as a light passenger vehicle where the 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes,
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008).
    \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] The reported crash configuration is outside of the scope of
the program,
    [cir] Minor incidents with no fatally or seriously injured persons,
or
    [cir] Incidents where cooperation can not 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. NHTSA requests
that commenters submit any other existing backover incident data that
could aid in providing a clearer picture of the range of backover
accidents.
    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 vehicle's
blind zones and also to determine at what distance behind the vehicle
the occupant may have become visible to the driver.
    Through July 2008, NHTSA had completed special crash investigations
of 52 backover cases.\22\ The 52 backing vehicles were comprised of 17
passenger cars, 21 sport utility vehicles, and 14 pickup trucks. Only 4
of the cases (8 percent) contained vehicles equipped with a backup or
parking aid. Eighty-eight percent of the backover crashes (46 of the
52) involved children, ranging in age from less than 1 year old up to
13 years old, who were struck by vehicles. Adults 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. A
total of 6 cases were investigated involving struck adults. Of the 52
backover cases, exactly half (26) involved fatally injured
nonoccupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The data obtained for the SCI cases cited in this report
are based on preliminary case information. Data are subject to
change based on final investigative findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A breakdown of the victim's path of travel prior to being struck is
as follows: 24 were approaching from the right or left of the vehicle,
19 were stationary behind the vehicle, 10 were unknown, and one was
``other.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Note that one or more cases examined involved multiple
victims, causing the total of the path breakdown scenarios to be 53
rather than 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Assessment of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location

    NHTSA believes it would be helpful to know whether and to what
degree the pedestrian's location at the start of a vehicle's backing
plays a part in the likelihood of the pedestrian being struck. As such,
NHTSA used data from a recent NHTSA study of drivers' backing behavior
\24\ to estimate the relative risk of a pedestrian colliding with a
vehicle during a backing maneuver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Monte Carlo simulation was used 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. A total of 1,000,000 simulation trials
were run with the pedestrian initially in the center of each square.
Additional details about assumptions relating to the vehicle and
pedestrian, as well as the simulation, are presented in Appendix A.
    Figure 1 summarizes the calculated relative crash risk for each
grid square. Note that the white shaded area does not have a zero
backover risk; it merely has a low (less than 15 percent of the
maximum) risk. This analysis shows that the probability of crash
decreases rapidly as the pedestrian's initial location is moved back,
further away, from the rear bumper of the vehicle. There are
substantial side lobes, giving pedestrians some risk of being hit even
though they were not initially directly behind the vehicle. The results
suggest that coverage of 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. 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. NHTSA seeks comment on the coverage
area that is needed to establish a reasonable safety zone behind the
vehicle.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.000

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

V. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility

    Since the early 1990s, NHTSA has actively researched approaches to
mitigate backing crashes for heavy and light vehicles by assessing the
effectiveness of various backing aid technologies. In recent years,
manufacturers have added object detection sensors and video cameras to
vehicles to aid drivers in performing backing maneuvers. According to
Ward's 2008 Automotive Yearbook, backing aids utilizing sensors and/or
video cameras were installed in approximately 14 percent of model year
2007 light vehicles.\25\ While these systems are becoming increasingly
available, they have typically been marketed as parking aids to help
drivers detect and avoid obstacles in low-speed backing scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 2008 Ward's Automotive Yearbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess whether or not these systems could also be used to detect
pedestrians, the agency has, and continues to, evaluate them. The
agency has also evaluated rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview
video systems. In the following sections, we outline the technologies
we have evaluated, research conducted by the agency and others, and
offer our preliminary observations on how they would meet the
Congressional directive to improve the rear visibility of current
vehicles.

A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors

Description
    Rear-mounted convex mirrors are mirrors with a curved reflective
surface thereby providing a wider field of view than plane (i.e., flat)
mirrors. These mirrors 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), the driver's side upper corner of the vehicle (commonly seen
on delivery vans or mail delivery trucks and called ``corner
mirrors''), or integrated into the inside face of both rearmost pillars
(called ``cross-view'' mirrors). While center or corner-mounted convex
rearview mirrors show the driver an area behind the vehicle, rear
cross-view mirror pairs are intended to aid a driver when backing into
a right-of-way by showing objects approaching on a perpendicular path
behind the vehicle.
    To view the area behind a vehicle, interior rear-mounted convex
mirrors can be viewed directly by the driver, if in his direct line of
sight, or they may be looked at indirectly by viewing their reflection
in the interior or exterior rearview mirror. In the case of a rear
``look-down mirror,'' the driver can either glance rearward directly at
this mirror, or view its reflection in the interior rearview mirror.
For a rear convex corner mirror, the driver must look into the driver's
side (i.e., exterior) rearview mirror to view the reflection of the
rear convex corner mirror. In the case of rear cross-view mirrors, they
can be viewed directly by the driver or indirectly by viewing their
reflection in the interior rearview mirror.
    In the U.S., rear-mounted convex mirrors are sometimes seen on
delivery trucks and vans. Rear-mounted convex mirrors are primarily
available as aftermarket products in the U.S., but are also available
as original equipment on one sport utility vehicle.\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Rear cross-view mirrors have been available on the Toyota
4Runner base model vehicles since MY 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While rear convex cross-view mirrors are available as aftermarket
products that mount to the inside of the rear window for all passenger
car body types, this is not the case for look down mirrors. Rear convex
look-down or corner convex mirrors need to have a rear window that is
vertically aligned with the rear of the vehicle (such as a station
wagon, SUV or van) in order to have a clear view of the area behind the
vehicle.
Research
    NHTSA has conducted research on rear-mounted convex mirrors for use
on medium straight trucks and to a limited extent, passenger vehicles
(i.e., cars, trucks, vans, SUVs). The research and how its results may
be related to the improvement of rear visibility are discussed below.
Passenger Vehicle Research
    In response to Section 10304 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU),\27\ NHTSA conducted a study to evaluate methods to reduce the
incidence of injury, death, and property damage caused by backing
collisions of passenger vehicles.\28\ The examination of two convex
mirror systems revealed that pedestrians and objects were not visible
in some areas directly behind the vehicle (this area could be described
as the area bounded by the vertical planes formed by the sides of the
vehicle, and extending rearward). The research also found that the
convexity of the mirrors caused significant image distortion, and
reflected objects were difficult to discern. It is unknown if this
issue can be addressed in future designs. For the tested designs,
concentrated glances were necessary to identify the nature of rear
obstacles; it is not known if a driver making quick glances prior to
initiating a backing maneuver would allocate sufficient time to allow
recognition of an obstacle or pedestrian shown in the mirror.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ SAFETEA-LU, Sec. 1109, 119 Stat. 1168.
    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Mirror Research
    NHTSA is currently evaluating the image quality (distortion and
minification) and field of view of rear-mounted convex mirrors. The
mirror types being examined include an aftermarket rear convex look-
down mirror, aftermarket rear corner convex mirror, aftermarket rear
convex cross-view mirrors designed for SUVs and passenger cars (e.g.,
sedans, coupes), and original equipment rear convex cross-view mirrors
on a 2003 Toyota 4Runner.
    Figure 2 below illustrates the types of measurements that NHTSA
plans to collect to evaluate the image quality and field of view for
rear convex mirrors. As illustrated in the Figure, using a test device
that simulates a 1-year-old child, the rear convex look-down mirror
shows an area directly behind a vehicle (a 2007 Honda Odyssey minivan)
but beyond 15 feet from the bumper, the image could not be discerned.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.001

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

    Using the same 1-year-old child-sized test device, Figure 3
illustrates the measured field of view for an exemplar rear convex
cross-view mirror system. The area behind the vehicle cannot be seen,
rather, only the area that extends outward from both rear corners of
the vehicle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.002

    NHTSA previously evaluated the quality of images displayed by a
rear corner convex mirror mounted on a 1996 Grumman-Olsen step van with
a 12-foot long box.\29\ Using those data, an analysis was performed in
which linear extrapolation and two-dimensional interpolation \30\ were
applied to estimate at which of four locations behind the vehicle a 1-
year-old child dummy (i.e., anthropomorphic test device, or ATD) could
be visible to a driver using a rear corner convex mirror. The four
locations assessed are labeled A through D in Figure 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Mazzae, E.N., and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of
the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies for
Medium Straight Trucks, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 865,
November 2007.
    \30\ Measured minutes of arc subtended by the test object were
first linearly extrapolated to estimate the effects of differences
in the distance from the driver eyepoint to the side rearview mirror
and the distance from the side rearview mirror to the rear corner
convex mirror. Two-dimensional linear interpolation was then used to
correct for reducing the vehicle width from the 7.0 feet for the
step van to the 6.0 feet more typical of light passenger vehicle and
for estimating minutes of arc subtended at the four locations, A
through D. Note that estimates based upon multiple multi-linear
extrapolation/interpolation were made because they could be done
quickly using data that NHTSA had previously collected.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.003

    The reflected image of the 1-year-old dummy becomes less minified
and is easier for the driver to discern as the location of the dummy
moves either forward towards the rear bumper of the vehicle or
laterally towards the driver's side of the vehicle. Therefore, for a
vehicle for which the dummy is visible at Point A, the dummy is
expected to be visible anywhere across the entire width of the vehicle
for distances up to at least 10 feet from the vehicle's rear bumper.
    Estimated visibility of the 1-year-old dummy for each of the four
locations (identified in Figure 4) for 9 vehicles is shown in Table 6.

                                  Table 6--Visibility of a 1-Year-Old Child Dummy Using a Corner Rear Cross-View Mirror
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                       Make                Model         Can see Point A?    Can see Point B?    Can see Point C?    Can see Point D?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................  Chevrolet.........  Express...........  No................  No................  No................  Yes.
2003............................  Volvo.............  XC90..............  No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
2005............................  Nissan............  Armada............  No................  No................  No................  Yes.
2007............................  Saturn............  Vue...............  No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
2007............................  Jeep..............  Commander.........  No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
2008............................  Toyota............  Highlander........  No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
2007............................  Ford..............  Edge..............  No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
2005............................  Chevrolet.........  Uplander..........  No................  No................  No................  Yes.
2003............................  Toyota............  4Runner...........  No................  No................  Yes...............  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the table indicates, it is not expected that a driver could see
the 1-year-old dummy when the dummy is located directly behind the
passenger's side of the vehicle at a distance of 6 or 10 feet back from
the vehicle's rear bumper. The quality of the reflected image is better
on the vehicle's centerline, with the dummy expected to be visible for
six out of nine vehicles when it is located 10 feet back from the rear
bumper and visually discernable to the driver for all nine vehicles
when it is only 6 feet aft of the rear bumper.
    This mirror research is scheduled to be completed in 2009 and will
be summarized in a published NHTSA report thereafter. Along with
comments received to this notice, NHTSA hopes to use this research
information in the development of a proposal.
Observations
    Some advantages of rear-mounted convex mirrors include that when
compared to video cameras and object detection sensors, they are
relatively inexpensive (e.g., less than $40 retail as an aftermarket
product) and have the potential to last the life of the vehicle. They
also provide a wider field of view than that provided by plane mirrors.
However, they also possess inherent disadvantages. In general, convex
mirrors compress (i.e., minify) and distort the image of reflected
objects in their field of view. This image distortion and image
minification make objects and pedestrians appear very narrow and
difficult for the driver to discern and identify. These aspects of
image quality worsen as the length of the vehicle increases.
    Rear cross-view mirrors are positioned to show an area to the side
and rear of the vehicle but 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, a pedestrian or object in
this area could be invisible to the driver. They can however, help
drivers see objects approaching the rear of the vehicle along a
perpendicular path. NHTSA is aware that single rear convex look-down
mirrors are commonly found on SUVs and vans in Korea and Japan.
However, we are unaware of any publicly available studies that have
been conducted to assess the effectiveness of these mirrors in
improving rear visibility. We seek comment on the availability of any
such studies.

B. Rearview Video Systems

Description
    A growing number of vehicles in the U.S. are equipped with rearview
video systems. These systems can permit a driver to see much of the
area behind the vehicle via a video display showing the image from a
video camera mounted on the rear of the vehicle. The images may be
presented to the driver using an existing screen in the vehicle, such
as a navigation system or multifunction display screen, or by adding a
display incorporated into the dashboard or interior rearview mirror.
    Costs for these rearview video systems are estimated at
approximately $58-$88 for vehicles equipped with a navigation system or
other type of multi-function visual display, to $158-$189 for vehicles
requiring a dashboard-mounted display screen, or $173-$203 for vehicles
with an RV display integrated into the interior rearview mirror.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ PRIA, section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research
    Recent research on rearview video systems conducted by NHTSA and
our observations about the research are presented below.
NHTSA Testing in Support of SAFETEA-LU
    In response to Section 10304 of SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA examined three
rearview video systems (RV): One in combination with original equipment
rear parking sensors, one aftermarket system combining both RV and
parking sensor technologies, and one original equipment RV system.\32\
This examination of RV systems included assessment of their field of
view and their potential to provide drivers with information about
obstacles behind the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this study, the agency made the following observations. The
rearview video systems examined provided a clear image of the area
behind the vehicle in daylight and indoor lighting conditions. RV
systems displayed images of pedestrians or obstacles behind the vehicle
to a substantial range of 23 feet or more, except for an area within 8-
12 inches of the rear bumper at ground level. Beyond the rear bumper,
the rearview video systems also displayed areas wider than 50 feet.
    The location and angle at which the rearview video camera is
mounted on the back of the vehicle affects the size of the field of
view provided by the system. The longitudinal range of the images
displayed by the two original equipment RV systems tested differed
significantly. One rearview video system's camera presented an image
having a limited vertical angle, resulting in a substantially shorter
longitudinal range along the centerline of the vehicle (ending at
approximately 23 feet from the rear bumper at ground level). For a 3-
year-old child dummy centered 2 feet behind the vehicle, the shorter
visible range exhibited by this particular RV system caused the top of
the dummy's head to be out of view.
Observations
    We found that RV systems can display areas on the ground almost
directly adjacent to the bumper of the vehicle. Furthermore, RV systems
offer the possibility of a wide field of view, with some systems able
to show 180 degrees behind the vehicle.
    However, during the short course of testing, NHTSA also noted some
operational issues with video camera performance in certain weather
conditions, such as rain and snow. For example, rain drops and the
buildup of ice on the video camera lens can significantly reduce the
quality of the view provided by the RV system. Also, in evaluating
these technologies we have not had the opportunity to assess the long-
term performance and reliability of RV systems, as well as the effects
of harsh weather conditions on their long-term operation.

C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems

Description
    Sensor-based object detection systems use electronic sensors that
transmit a signal which, if an obstacle is present in a sensor's
detection field, bounces 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 been based on short-range ultrasonic technology or longer range
radar technology, although advanced infrared sensors are under
development as well.
    Sensor-based object detection systems have been available for over
15 years as aftermarket products and for a lesser period as original
equipment. Original equipment systems have been marketed as a
convenience feature or ``parking aid'' for which the vehicle owner's
manual can contain language denoting

sensor performance limitations with respect to detecting children or
small moving objects. Aftermarket systems, however, are frequently
marketed as safety devices for warning drivers of the presence of small
children behind the vehicle.
    NHTSA has investigated the cost of sensor-based rear object
detection systems. Currently, we estimate the cost of a backing system
based on ultrasonic technology to be $51-$89 and the cost of a system
based on radar technology to be approximately $92.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ PRIA, section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research
NHTSA Research in Support of SAFETEA-LU
    NHTSA examined eight sensor-based original equipment and
aftermarket rear parking systems in response to Section 10304 of the
SAFETEA-LU mandate.\34\ NHTSA conducted testing to measure the object
detection performance of short range sensor-based systems. 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. The agency assessed
the system's ability to detect a 74-inch-tall adult male walking in
various directions to the rear of the vehicle. Detection performance
was also evaluated in a series of static and dynamic tests with 1-year-
old and 3-year-old children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 some difficulty in
detecting moving children. The sensor-based systems tested were found
to operate reliably (i.e., without malfunction), with the exception of
one aftermarket ultrasonic system that malfunctioned after only a few
weeks, rendering it unavailable for use in remaining tests.
    While examining the consistency of system detection performance,
the agency observed that each sensor-based system exhibited some degree
of variability in its detection performance and patterns. Specifically,
detection inconsistencies were generally noticed at the periphery of
the detection zones and typically for no more than 1 foot in magnitude.
On average, these sensor-based systems had detection zones which
generally covered an area directly behind the vehicle. The system with
the longest detection range could detect a 3-year-old child up to 11
feet from the rear bumper (along a 3-5 ft wide strip of area along the
vehicle's centerline). The majority of systems were unable to detect
test objects less than 28 inches in height.
    The response times of sensor-based systems were also evaluated in
this study. In order for sensor-based backover avoidance systems to
assist in preventing collisions, warnings must be generated by the
system in a timely manner and the driver must perceive the warning
within sufficient time to respond appropriately to avoid a crash. With
regards to system response times, ISO 17386:2004,\35\ ``Manoeuvring
Aids for Low Speed Operation (MALSO)--Performance requirements and test
procedures'', outlines performance requirements for sensor-based object
detection systems. This standard recommends a maximum system response
time of 0.35 seconds. NHTSA's tests showed that the response times for
the eight tested sensor systems varied from 0.18 to 1 second, and only
three of them met the ISO response time limit. For the systems that did
not meet the recommended 0.35-second limit, it is unlikely (assuming
typical backing speeds \36\ and driver reaction times) that warnings
would be provided to a driver in sufficient time to allow the driver to
bring the vehicle to a stop and avoid a possible collision with an
obstacle or moving child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ ISO 17386:2004 Transport information and control systems--
Manoeuvring Aids for Low Speed Operation (MALSO)--Performance
requirements and test procedures.
    \36\ Note that average backing speed was found to be 2.26 mph in
NHTSA's ``On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems
(ORSDURVS).'' Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and
Ranney, T.A. (2008). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
DOT 811 024, page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA Experimental Research: Performance of Sensor-Based Rear Object
Detection Systems
    NHTSA's 2008 study of drivers' use of rearview video systems \37\
involved an observation of drivers of vehicles equipped with an
ultrasonic-based rear parking sensor system in addition to an RV
system. In a staged experimental trial in which an unexpected obstacle
was presented to test participants while backing out of a garage, the
rear parking sensor system on the particular vehicle involved in this
study detected the obstacle and provided a warning indication of the
presence of the obstacle behind the vehicle in 38 percent (5 out of 13)
of the event trials for participants with vehicles equipped with the
combination system. These data describing the performance of a sensor-
based rear parking aid as used by average drivers reflect similar
detection performance deficiencies as have been observed in NHTSA's
laboratory testing of the detection performance of sensor-based object
detection systems.38 39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 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.
    \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.
    \39\ Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of
the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies for
Medium Straight Trucks, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 865,
November 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paine, Macbeth & Henderson Proximity Sensor Research
    Paine, Macbeth & Henderson tested the performance of proximity
sensor backing aids.\40\ They reported that proximity sensors tested
exhibited limited ability to detect objects for vehicles traveling at 5
km/h (3.1 mph) or more. According to their conclusions, proximity
sensors were prone to produce ``nuisance alarms'' in some driving
situations and were deemed an unviable option to reduce backing
incidents. While the authors suggested that a more effective system to
mitigate backing incidents may be to incorporate sensors and wide-angle
video camera technology, no data were provided to support this
statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Paine, M., Macbeth, A., and Henderson, M. (2003). The
Danger to Young Pedestrians from Reversing Motor Vehicles. 18th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles. Paper Number 466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GM Experimental Research on Sensor-Based Systems for the Reduction of
Backing Incidents
    GM outlined the functional capabilities of their ultrasonic rear
park assist system. The system was designed to detect larger poles and
parking barriers greater than 7.5 cm in diameter with a length of 1.0
meter or more. It was not designed to detect objects less than 25 cm in
height. In addition, the system was not designed to detect obstacles
directly below the bumper or under the vehicle. GM notes that smaller
or thinner objects or pedestrians

may not be detected by this system, and indicates this fact explicitly
in the system's instructional materials.41 42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Instructional materials include the following warning: ``If
children, someone on a bicycle, or pets are behind your vehicle,
(ultrasonic rear park assist) won't tell you they are there. You
could strike them and they could be injured or killed.''
    \42\ Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance
Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Observations
    The development of sensor-based systems for use as parking aids has
been in progress for at least 15 years. 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, may not reflect as well.
Radar sensors, which are able to detect the water in a human's body,
are better able to detect pedestrians, but demonstrate inconsistent
detection performance, especially with regard to small children.
    NHTSA is aware that the performance of current sensor-based systems
can be influenced by the algorithms that are used for detection. As
stated previously, these systems are implemented as parking aids rather
than safety systems and thus this may have attributed to the observed
performance. While it is possible to modify the detection algorithms of
sensor-based object detection systems to allow for better detection of
children, one result of such a modification could result in other less
favorable aspects of system performance, such as increased false
alarms. From a driver confidence standpoint, an increase in false
alarms could have the effect of decreasing the system's overall
effectiveness as a driver's desire to use the system decreases.

D. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video Camera) Systems

Description
    In the context of this document, multi-technology backing aid
systems are those systems that utilize both video and sensor-based
technologies. Prior to MY 2007, these technologies functioned
independently if both were present on a vehicle. Recently, truly
integrated systems that use data from rear object detection sensors to
present obstacle warnings that are superimposed on the RV display image
have become commercially available. Whether integrated or not, vehicles
equipped with both rearview video and sensor technologies have the
ability to detect obstacles (via a rear parking sensor system) and
alert a driver (by directing their attention to the rearview video
system display) to the presence of the obstacle.
Research
    As previously mentioned in Part C of this section, NHTSA's work in
response to Section 10304 of the SAFETEA-LU mandate included the
measurement of the object detection performance of short range sensor-
based systems. One of the systems examined was the integrated rearview
video and ultrasonic-based rear parking aid system of a 2007 Cadillac
Escalade. This system used object detection information from an
ultrasonic rear parking aid to present obstacle warnings to the driver
through warning symbology superimposed on the RV display image.
Specifically, a warning triangle symbol was shown on the RV display
image in the approximate location of the obstacle. While the
performance of the ultrasonic-based rear parking aid system showed the
same issues as other tested systems using that sensor technology, the
presentation of integrated warnings may be useful in directing a
driver's attention to the image of a rear obstacle presented on the
rearview video display. However, in order to assess the effectiveness
of this or any other integrated system in mitigating backover
incidents, research with drivers using the system is needed.
Observations
    Testing of the vehicle examined showed that the integrated rear
parking aid and rearview video aspects of the backing aid system
performed, from a sensor point of view, the same as would these two
technologies if tested separately. The performance of the backing aid
technologies present on this vehicle may not represent the performance
of all such systems commercially available today. With improved
technology integration that may utilize image processing to confirm the
presence of rear obstacles, performance enhancements may be possible.
The agency seeks comment on whether any recent studies have been
performed with other integrated multi-technology backing aid systems.

E. Future Technologies

Description
    NHTSA is aware of two additional sensor technologies being
developed that could be used to improve a vehicle's rear visibility;
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 image processing capability
to identify obstacles behind the vehicle and alert the driver of their
presence.
Research
Ongoing NHTSA Backing Crash Countermeasure Research
    In addition to the previously mentioned rear-mounted convex mirror
research, NHTSA is currently engaged in cooperative research with GM on
Advanced Collision Avoidance Technology relating to backing incidents.
The ACAT backing systems project is assessing the ability of more
advanced technologies to mitigate backing crashes, and refining a tool
to assess the potential safety benefit of these technologies. The focus
of the ACAT Backing Crash Countermeasure Program is to characterize
backing crashes in the U.S. and investigate a set of integrated
countermeasures to mitigate them at appropriate points along the crash
timeline (prior to entering the vehicle and continuing throughout the
backing sequence). The objective of this research is to estimate
potential safety benefits or harm reduction that these countermeasures
might provide. A Safety Impact Methodology (SIM), consisting of a
software-based simulation model together with a set of objective tests
for evaluating backing crash countermeasures, will be developed to
estimate the harm reduction potential of specific countermeasures.
Included in the SIM's methods for estimating potential safety benefits
will be a consideration of assessing and modeling unintentional
potential disbenefits that might arise from a countermeasure.
Observations
    While these technology applications may eventually prove viable,
because of their early stages of development it is not possible at this
time to assess their ability to effectively expand the visible area
behind a vehicle. Similarly, the completion of NHTSA's advanced
technology research effort is not expected until calendar year 2011 and
thus will not occur prior to the Congressional deadline. The agency
seeks comments on the timeframe for the commercial availability of
these technologies, and on any other

advanced technology developments not identified here.

F. Summary and Questions Regarding Technologies for Improving Rear
Visibility

    Given the mandate from Congress to improve the rear visibility of
vehicles, NHTSA's preliminary assessment of the known research to date
seems to indicate that RV systems have greater potential to improve
vehicles' rear visibility than sensor-based rear object detection
systems and rear-mounted convex mirrors. However, we believe it is
premature to limit manufacturers' design options at this time. To this
end, we put forth the following questions and solicit comments on our
assessments of these technologies, and any information on the
feasibility of alternative approaches or systems.
    (1) While the objective to ``expand the required field of view to
enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind'' the
vehicle implies enhancement of what a driver can visually see behind a
vehicle, the language of the K.T. Safety Act also mentions that the
``standard may be met by the provision of additional mirrors, sensors,
cameras, or other technology.'' NHTSA seeks comment regarding the
ability of object detection sensor technology to improve visibility and
comply with the requirements of the Act.
    (2) What specific customer feedback have OEMs received regarding
vehicles equipped with rear parking sensor systems? Have any component
reliability or maintenance issues arisen? Is sensor performance
affected by any aspect of ambient weather conditions?
    (3) What specific customer feedback have OEMs received regarding
vehicles equipped with rearview video systems? Have any rearview video
system component reliability or maintenance issues arisen?
    (4) What are the performance and usability characteristics of
rearview video systems and rear-mounted convex mirrors in low light
(e.g., nighttime) conditions?
    (5) Is there data available regarding consumers' and vehicle
manufacturers' research regarding backing speed limitation, haptic
feedback to the driver, or use of automatic braking?
    (6) What types of rear visibility countermeasures are anticipated
to be implemented in the vehicle fleet through the 2012 timeframe?
    (7) Can rear-mounted convex mirrors be installed on light vehicles
other than SUVs and vans? What is the rationale for U.S. manufacturers'
choosing to install rear parking sensors and video cameras, rather than
rear-mounted convex mirrors as are commonly installed on SUVs and
minivans in Korea and Japan? NHTSA is particularly interested in any
information on the effectiveness of rear-mounted convex mirrors in
Korea and Japan.
    (8) NHTSA seeks any available research data documenting the
effectiveness of rear convex cross-view mirrors in specifically
addressing backover crashes.
    (9) NHTSA seeks comment and data on whether it is possible to
provide an expanded field of view behind the vehicle using only rear-
mounted convex mirrors.
    (10) NHTSA is aware of research conducted by GM that suggests that
drivers respond more appropriately to visual image-based confirmation
of object presence than to non-visual image based visual or auditory
warnings. Is there additional research on this topic?
    (11) NHTSA requests input and data on whether the provision of
graphical image-based displays (e.g., such as a simplified animation
depicting rear obstacles), rather than true-color, photographic visual
displays would elicit a similarly favorable crash avoidance response
from the driver.
    (12) To date, rearview video systems examined by NHTSA have
displayed to the driver a rear-looking perspective of the area behind
the vehicle. Recently introduced systems which provide the driver with
a near 360-degree view of the area around the entire vehicle do so
using a ``birds-eye'' perspective using images from four cameras around
the vehicle. During backing, it appears that, by default, this birds-
eye view image is presented simultaneously along with the traditional
rear-facing camera image. NHTSA requests data or input on whether this
presentation method is likely to elicit a response from the driver that
is at least as favorable as that attained using traditional, rear-view
image perspective, or whether this presentation is more confusing for
drivers.

VI. Drivers' Use and the Associated Effectiveness of Available
Technologies To Mitigate Backovers

    In order to establish effectiveness estimates for different systems
which may be utilized to mitigate backover crashes, the agency has
conducted research on vehicles equipped with such systems, including
those utilizing ultrasonic and radar sensors and rearview video
cameras. As with any passive technology, NHTSA believes that it is
reasonable to assume that in order for the technology to assist in
preventing backing crashes, the driver must use the technology (e.g.,
look at the video display, if present), perceive the indication that a
pedestrian or object is present, and respond quickly, and with
sufficient force applied to the brake pedal, to bring the vehicle to a
stop. While we have previously discussed the performance of the
technologies, this section will outline what the agency knows about
driver use and the resulting effectiveness of technologies that could
be used to mitigate backover crashes.
    NHTSA has not conducted system effectiveness research with drivers
for all of the four system types discussed in this notice. However,
that relevant research NHTSA and industry have conducted is summarized
here.

A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors

    NHTSA has not conducted research focused on examining driver's use
of mirrors to aid in the performance of backing maneuvers. However,
NHTSA's study of drivers' use of rearview video systems during staged
and naturalistic backing maneuvers did produce data regarding drivers'
use of the side and interior rearview mirrors as well as direct glance
behavior.\43\ This behavior suggests that drivers would use the
mirrors. Table 7 shows that the mean percentage of total glance time
during a backing maneuver in which drivers glanced at the driver-side
mirror, passenger-side mirror, and interior rearview mirror.
Independent of the presence of a backing aid, drivers spent over 25
percent of the time during a backing maneuver glancing rearward over
their right shoulder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 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.

 Table 7--Mean Percentage of Total Glance Time to Mirror Locations for a
       Backing Maneuver With Staged Obstacle Avoidance Event \44\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Mean
                                                              percentage
                                                               of total
                      Glance location                        glance time
                                                               during a
                                                               backing
                                                               maneuver
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver-side Mirror/Driver-side Window \45\.................           15
Interior Rearview Mirror...................................            5
Passenger-side Mirror/Passenger-side Window \46\...........           15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is currently engaged in research to examine the performance
of these mirrors in displaying images of rear obstacles. While NHTSA
has not yet conducted driving research with these mirrors we are
planning to conduct research to examine drivers' behavior and ability
to avoid crashes with rear-mounted convex mirrors in 2009. Upon
completion, this mirror research will be summarized in a published
NHTSA report. Along with comments received to this notice, NHTSA hopes
to use this research information in the development of a proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Note that due to the close proximity of the mirror and
window on each side of the vehicle, the driver-side mirror and
driver-side window glance locations were impossible to distinguish
from each other.
    \46\ Note that due to the close proximity of the mirror and
window on each side of the vehicle, the passenger-side mirror and
passenger-side window glance locations were impossible to
distinguish from each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Rearview Video Systems

    NHTSA has conducted and we are aware of some work conducted by GM
that examined drivers' use of rearview video based backing aids and
their ability to use them to mitigate crashes. Below is a brief summary
of this research.
NHTSA Experimental Research: On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview
Video Systems
    NHTSA conducted experimental research aimed to determine whether
drivers look at the RV display during backing. While hardware
performance testing has shown the rearview video systems can provide to
the driver an image of any obstacles behind the vehicle in the RV
system's field of view, the driver must take the initiative to look at
the display throughout the backing maneuver in order for the RV system
to provide any benefit. The goal of this study was to further our
understanding of the degree to which drivers may actively use RV
systems while backing and whether the provision of such visual
information will translate into decreased backing and backover
incidents.
    This study also provided information useful in estimating the
effectiveness of RV and supplemental sensors, in aiding drivers to
avoid a backing crash. For example, the number of times per backing
maneuver that a driver looked at the RV screen was tabulated. A driver
that looks at the screen more often is more likely to notice when an
obstacle appears. A look at the beginning of a backing maneuver is less
likely to result in a driver's detection of an obstacle than would
frequent checking of the screen throughout the maneuver.
    Drivers' use of rearview video systems was observed during staged
and naturalistic backing maneuvers to determine whether drivers look at
the RV display during backing and whether use of the system affects
backing behavior.\47\ Thirty-seven test participants, aged 25 to 60
years, were comprised of twelve drivers of RV-equipped vehicles,
thirteen drivers of vehicles equipped with an RV system and a rear
parking sensor system, and twelve drivers of vehicles with no backing
aid system. All three system conditions were presented using original
equipment configurations of the 2007 Honda Odyssey minivan. All
participants had driven and owned a 2007 Honda Odyssey minivan as their
primary vehicle for at least six months. Participants were not aware
that the focus of the study was on their behavior and performance
during backing maneuvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participants drove their own vehicles for a period of four weeks in
their normal daily activities while backing maneuvers were recorded. At
the end of four weeks, participants returned to the research lab to
have the recording equipment removed. At the lab, the participants took
a test drive in which an unexpected 36-inch-tall obstacle consisting of
a two-dimensional photograph of a child appeared behind the vehicle
during a final backing maneuver. Additional details of the test method
are provided in Appendix B of this notice.
    The results of the naturalistic driving and unexpected obstacle
scenario are provided below.
Results for Naturalistic Driving
     A total of 6,145 naturalistic backing maneuvers were
recorded in the study, none of which resulted in a significant
collision; however, some collisions (i.e., with trash receptacles and
other parked vehicles) occurred during routine backing.
     In the real-world backing situations, drivers equipped
with RV systems spent 8 to 12 percent of the time looking at the RV
display during backing maneuvers.
     On average, drivers made 2.17 glances per backing maneuver
with the RV-only system, and 1.65 glances per maneuver with the RV and
sensor system.
     Overall, drivers looked at least once at the RV display on
approximately 65 percent of backing events, and looked more than once
at the RV display on approximately 40 percent of backing events.
Results for Unexpected Obstacle Maneuver
     Drivers with an RV system made 13 to 14 percent of glances
at the RV video display during the initial phase of backing in the
staged maneuvers, independent of system presence.
     Drivers spent over 25 percent of backing time looking over
their right shoulder in the staged backing maneuvers.
     Only participants who looked at the RV display more than
once during the maneuver avoided a crash during the staged crash-
imminent obstacle event.
     Results indicated that the RV system was associated with a
statistically significant (28 percent) reduction in crashes with the
unexpected obstacle as compared to participants without an RV system.
All participants in the ``no system'' condition crashed, since the
staged obstacle event scenario was designed such that drivers without
an RV system could not see the obstacle.
    Results of this study indicate that drivers looked at the RV
display in approximately 14 percent of glances in baseline and obstacle
events and 10 percent of glances in naturalistic backing maneuvers. The
agency recognized that the timing and frequency of drivers' glances at
the RV display has a noticeable impact on the likelihood of rear
obstacle detection. However, making single or multiple glances at the
RV display at the start of the maneuver does not ensure that the path
behind the vehicle will remain clear for the entire backing maneuver.
    Overall, this study estimates that video-based backing systems
would

mitigate approximately 28 to 42 percent of backover crashes \48\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GM Experimental Research on Driver Performance Using Video-Based
Backing Aid Systems
    GM conducted research to investigate ways to assist drivers in
recognizing people or objects behind their vehicle while performing
backing maneuvers.\49\ One study compared parking behaviors for rear
camera and ultrasonic rear parking assist systems together, separately,
and under traditional parking conditions (i.e., neither system). An
obstacle was placed unexpectedly behind a driver's vehicle prior to the
start of a backing maneuver to assess the driver's performance in
obstacle detection and avoidance.\50\ Twenty-four participants struck
the obstacle, while five participants avoided the obstacle. Of those
participants who avoided the obstacle, three saw the obstacle while
looking at the RV display (two in the RV system condition, one in the
ultrasonic rear park assist and RV system condition), one saw the
obstacle in their mirror (ultrasonic rear park assist and RV system
condition), and one participant noticed the obstacle out of the back
window (RV system condition). These results indicated that participants
with an RV system were less likely to be involved in a backing
incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance
Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982.
    \50\ McLaughlin, S.B., Hankey, J.M., Green, C.A., and Kiefer,
R.J. (2003). Driver Performance Evaluation of Two Rear Parking Aids.
Proceedings of the 2003 Enhanced Safety Vehicle Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM also sponsored a second research study to evaluate driver
performance with rear camera systems.\51\ In this study, each
participant parked their vehicle using a rear camera and ultrasonic
system more than 30 times, including practice trials. During one
scenario, participants, unaware that an experimenter placed an obstacle
behind the vehicle, were asked to perform a backing maneuver to engage
the ultrasonic rear park assist and the rear camera system. In some
cases, a flashing symbol was employed in the approximate location of
the rear obstacle as presented on the video display screen. While there
were no statistically significant effects of either the symbol or the
location of the obstacle, 65 percent of participants avoided the
obstacle. Greater experience with the camera system and an increased
number of trials presented that involved a ruse may have attributed to
a higher object avoidance rate in this study than compared to the first
study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance
Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, GM's research on rearview video systems suggested that RV
systems may provide limited benefit in some backing scenarios.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance
Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems

    NHTSA and GM have both conducted research on drivers' use of
sensor-based backing aids and their ability to use them to mitigate
crashes. Below is a brief summary of this research.
NHTSA Experimental Research: Driver Performance With Rearview Video and
Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems
    NHTSA's study of drivers' use of rearview video systems (discussed
in detail earlier in this document) also involved an observation of
drivers of vehicles equipped with both an RV system and an ultrasonic-
based rear parking sensor system. The rear parking sensor system tested
detected the obstacle and provided a warning indication of the presence
of a rear obstacle to the driver in 38 percent (5 out of 13) of the
event trials for participants with vehicles equipped with the
combination system. Four of these 5 participants crashed into the
obstacle.
    The test vehicle involved in the study had a control that allowed
the driver to disable the parking sensor system. During the course of
this study, half of the participants whose vehicles were equipped with
a rear parking sensor system either stated or were observed to have
turned the system off at least some of the time. Four participants made
unsolicited comments to members of the research staff about turning off
the rear parking sensor system on their vehicle.\53\ One of the four
participants reported that he just did not use it. The three other
participants stated that they frequently turned the rear parking sensor
system off when driving through a restaurant drive-through lane due to
nuisance alarms (i.e., audible notifications of the presence of
vehicles that the driver is already aware of). A sixth participant did
not comment on not using the system, but was observed having the rear
parking sensor system on their vehicle switched off during their
initial meeting visit. This tendency for some drivers to turn the rear
parking sensor system off causes NHTSA to be concerned about the
potential for this technology to be effective in mitigating backover
incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GM Experimental Research on Driver Performance Using Sensor-Based
Backing Aid Systems
    GM sponsored a study on the effectiveness of auditory backing
warnings provided by a rear object detection system.\54\ The study
found that only 13 percent of drivers avoided hitting an unexpected
obstacle, and over 87 percent of the drivers collided with the obstacle
following the warning. Sixty-eight percent of drivers provided with the
warning demonstrated precautionary behaviors in response to the
warning, such as covering the brake with their foot, tapping the brake,
or braking completely. While 44 percent of participants braked, these
braking levels were generally insufficient to avoid a collision.
Although data provides some evidence that warnings influenced driver
behavior, warnings were unreliable in terms of their ability to induce
drivers to immediately brake to a complete stop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance
Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This study further suggests that knowledge and experience with a
backing warning system may not significantly improve immediate driver
response to a backing warning. While specific training on the operation
of the system was provided to eight drivers, only one avoided the
obstacle. In each case, drivers reported that they did not expect to
encounter an obstacle in their backing path. Many drivers also reported
that they searched for an obstacle following the warning, but ``didn't
see anything'' and continued their backing maneuver. These perceptions
suggest that drivers' expectations are important when seeking to
influence driver behavior.
NHTSA Experimental Research: Driver Performance With Sensor-Based Rear
Object Detection Systems
    NHTSA is currently engaged in research to assess drivers' ability
to avoid backing crashes in a vehicle equipped with only a sensor-based
rear object detection system. This work is scheduled to be completed in
2009 and

will be summarized in a published NHTSA report thereafter. Along with
comments received to this notice, NHTSA hopes to use this research
information in the development of a proposal.

D. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Camera) Systems

    NHTSA has not conducted research examining drivers' use of any
integrated, multi-technology systems designed to aid drivers in
performing backing maneuvers. However, NHTSA's study of drivers' use of
rearview video systems (discussed in detail earlier in this document)
involved an observation of drivers of vehicles equipped with both an RV
system and an ultrasonic-based rear parking sensor system that
functioned independently. Data from this study indicated that equipping
a vehicle with a rear object detection system and an RV system that are
not integrated resulted in lesser backing crash avoidance effectiveness
than attainable with RV alone. Although statistically not significant
due to the relatively small number of test participants, more
participants with vehicles equipped with both an RV and a rear parking
sensor system (85 percent) crashed into an obstacle than did those (58
percent) driving vehicles equipped with only an RV system. However, the
fact that the rear parking sensor system only detected the obstacle in
38 percent of test trials may help explain the result if the drivers
relied on the sensor system first. NHTSA's research on the performance
of currently available sensor-based systems in detecting rear obstacles
has shown their performance to be inconsistent, particularly in the
detection of small children. It is possible that those performance
deficits for sensor-based rear object detection systems could have a
negative impact on the overall effectiveness of RV systems,
particularly if drivers rely on the sensor system's auditory alerts to
cue them to look at the RV display.
    During our study, drivers of the vehicles with RV and sensors
looked at the RV system visual display less frequently than did drivers
of the same vehicle equipped with only the RV system. NHTSA seeks
comment on whether there is research that would indicate why this would
occur or if others have found a similar trend.

E. Summary

    Table 8 presents a summary of the estimated effectiveness
information for systems that may aid in the mitigation of backover
incidents that NHTSA has collected to date. Estimates for system
performance in detecting rear obstacles and overall effectiveness based
on driver use are listed separately. System performance for rearview
video systems was assumed to be 100 percent, since these systems have
the capability to show any object within their field of view. System
performance for sensor-based systems is based on object detection rates
seen in the obstacle avoidance event presented in the study of drivers'
use of rearview video systems.\55\ Overall effectiveness values for
rearview video systems alone and combined with a rear parking sensor
system are based on results of NHTSA's study of drivers' use of
rearview video systems. The value for rear parking sensor systems is
calculated based on a combination of the 39 percent object detection
rate from the study of drivers' use of rearview video systems and
additional data that NHTSA has collected. We note that GM's study of
drivers' use of backing warning systems found that only 13 percent of
drivers were able to avoid a crash with a rear obstacle in a staged
scenario using a rear parking sensor system.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 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.
    \56\ General Motors (2006). Driver Performance Research
Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982.

     Table 8--Estimated System Performance and Overall Effectiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  System performance    Percent overall
                                       in object         effectiveness
         Countermeasure               detection--        (technology +
                                  percent detections        driver)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors.....  (Research           (Research
                                   underway).          underway).
Rearview Video..................  100...............  42 \57\.
Rearview Video + Sensors........  100...............  15 \58\.
Sensors.........................  39 \59\...........  17.66 \60\
                                                       (estimate).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Questions

    (1) NHTSA has not conducted research to estimate a drivers' ability
to avoid crashes with a backing crash countermeasure system based only
on sensor technology. We request any available data documenting the
effectiveness of backing crash countermeasure systems based only on
sensor technology in aiding drivers in mitigating backing crashes.
    (2) NHTSA has not conducted research to estimate drivers' ability
to avoid crashes with a backing crash countermeasure system based on
multiple, integrated technologies (e.g., rear parking sensors and
rearview video functions in one integrated system). We request any
available objective data documenting the effectiveness of multi-
technology backing crash countermeasure systems in mitigating backing
crashes. We also request comment on what types of technology
combinations industry may consider feasible for use in improving rear
visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 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.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ PRIA, section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) NHTSA requests any available data documenting the image quality
of rear-mounted convex mirrors and their effectiveness in aiding
drivers in preventing backing crashes.
    (4) NHTSA requests any available additional objective research data
documenting the effectiveness of sensor-based, rearview video, mirror,
or combination systems that may aid in mitigating backover incidents.
    (5) NHTSA requests information regarding mounting limitations for
rear-mounted convex mirrors.

VII. Rear Visibility of Current Vehicles

    The degree of direct rear visibility (i.e., what a driver can
directly see with or without the aid of non-required mirrors or other
devices) in a particular vehicle depends on a number of factors,
including the driver's size and various aspects of the vehicle's
design, such as the width of a vehicle's structural pillars (i.e., B
and C pillars) and the size of its window openings. Rear seat head
restraints can also affect direct rear

visibility.\61\ Additionally, due to their geometries and the position
of a driver's eyes with respect to the bottom of the rear window (or
top edge of a pickup truck's tailgate), vehicles with greater overall
height and length are likely to have larger rear blind zone areas than
shorter vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Note that 49 CFR Sec. 571.111 Standard No. 111, Rearview
mirrors, Section 5.1.1 states that ``The line of sight may be
partially obscured by seated occupants or by head restraints.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess a vehicle's rear visibility and how it varies from
vehicle to vehicle, in 2007,\62\ NHTSA measured the rear visibility
characteristics of 44 recent-model light vehicles.\63\ NHTSA's
measurements involved assessment of the visibility of a visual target
over an area stretching 35 feet to either side of the vehicle's
centerline, 90 feet back from the vehicle's rear bumper, and 20 feet
forward of the rear bumper. Rear visibility metrics were calculated
using a subset of this area measuring 60 feet wide by 50 feet long
(3000 square feet). The agency selected a 29.4-inch-tall visual target
representing the approximate height of a 1-year-old child and the
youngest walking potential backover victims. Rear visibility was
measured for both a 50th percentile adult male driver (69.1 inches
tall) and a 5th percentile adult female driver (59.8 inches tall). The
areas over which the visual target was visually discernible using
direct glances (i.e., looking out vehicle windows) and indirect glances
(i.e., looking into side or interior rearview mirrors) were determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Mazzae, E.N., Garrott, W.R. (2008). Light Vehicle Rear
Visibility Assessment. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, DOT 810 909.
    \63\ Measured vehicles included the ten top-selling passenger
cars and light trucks for calendar year 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NHTSA measured the area indirectly visible to the driver in
the side and interior rearview mirrors, we focused our assessment on
direct rear visibility in order to assess the degree to which the
vehicle's structure affects what a driver can see out the vehicle's
windows. This permitted an assessment of how rear visibility is
affected by a vehicle's structure and allowed for better vehicle
comparison since this metric varied more than would rear visibility
measured using both direct vision and indirect vision devices together.
In other words, considering both direct and indirect rear visibility
together would allow less room for distinguishing between the qualities
of rear visibility amongst vehicles. Examples of the measured direct
fields of view for four common vehicles types are shown in Figures 5-8.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.007

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    Through this study, NHTSA estimated that rear blind zone areas \64\
for individual vehicles ranged from approximately 100 to 1,440 square
feet over the 3,000 square-foot measurement area. When summarized by
vehicle category and curb weight (as a surrogate indicator for vehicle
size), as illustrated in Figure 9, the data shows that average direct-
view rear blind zone areas varied within these groups. The greatest
range of direct-view rear blind zone area size was seen for the 4,000-
5,000 lb SUV group. Figure 10 illustrates that SUVs (as a whole) were
associated with the largest average direct-view rear blind zone area as
well as the largest range of values for the four body types examined.
Overall, LTVs (vans, pickups, and SUVs) as a vehicle class were
observed to have larger rear blind zone areas than passenger cars, as
indicated in Figure 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ ``Rear blind zone area'' is defined here to mean the area
in square feet within a 50-foot wide by 60-foot long area and at
ground level over which a 29.4-inch-tall object is visible using
direct vision.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.009

    For all 44 vehicles, NHTSA also measured the distance behind the
vehicle at which the visual target could first be seen, i.e., the
direct-view rear longitudinal sight distance. Average direct-view rear
longitudinal sight distances were determined by mathematically
averaging eight longitudinal sight distance measurements taken in 1-
foot increments across the rear of each vehicle. As illustrated in
Figure 11, LTVs generally had longer rear longitudinal sight distances
than passenger cars. Exceptions to this trend included a few small
pickup trucks for which average direct-view rear sight distance values
were in the vicinity of those measured for smaller passenger cars, as
shown in Figure 12. Average direct-view rear sight distance values

were longest for a full-size van, SUVs and pickup trucks with a curb
weight of 4,000 lbs or greater.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.011

    Overall, our direct-view rear visibility measurements indicated
that LTVs measured in this study exhibited worse rear visibility when
compared with passenger cars, but there was overlap amongst all vehicle
categories.

VIII. Relationship Between Rear Visibility and Backing/Backover Crashes

    Using the direct-view rear blind zone area and longitudinal sight
distance measurements \65\ discussed in the prior section, NHTSA
investigated whether a statistical relationship could be identified
between these metrics and all backing crashes, as well as backover
crashes (i.e., the subset of backing crashes involving a pedestrian or
bicyclist being struck by a backing vehicle).\66\ NHTSA assessed the
relationship between real world backing/backover crashes and rear
visibility based on three metrics: average rear longitudinal sight
distance, direct-view rear visibility measurements for a 50 feet long
by 60 feet wide \67\ test area, and direct-view rear visibility for a
50 feet long by 20 feet wide \68\ test area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Mazzae, E.N., Garrott, W.R. (2008). Light Vehicle Rear
Visibility Assessment. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, DOT 810 909.
    \66\ Partyka, S., Direct-View Rear Visibility and Backing Risk
for Light Passenger Vehicles (2008).
    \67\ This area was chosen because it was the largest available
measurement area for the facility in which these measurements were
conducted.
    \68\ The 50 feet long by 20 feet wide test area was examined to
assess how much of the area behind the vehicle was critical to
consider for rear visibility in relation to the prevention of
backover incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Backing risk was estimated from police-reported crashes in the
State Data System.\69\ To calculate risk, backing rates were derived
for 21 vehicle groups with vehicles that had at least 25 backing
crashes to account for statistical variability. Backing rate data were
provided by the following states for the specified calendar years:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------