76186 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0162] 

RIN 2127–AK43 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 

Rearview Mirrors; Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed 

Vehicles Phase-In Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Cameron Gulbransen 

Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 

directs NHTSA to issue a final rule 

amending the agency’s Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard on rearview 

mirrors to improve the ability of a driver 

to detect pedestrians in the area 

immediately behind his or her vehicle 

and thereby minimize the likelihood of 

a vehicle’s striking a pedestrian while 

its driver is backing the vehicle. 

Pursuant to this mandate, NHTSA is 

proposing to expand the required field 

of view for all passenger cars, trucks, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, 

and low-speed vehicles rated at 10,000 

pounds or less, gross vehicle weight. 

Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to 

specify an area immediately behind 

each vehicle that the driver must be able 

to see when the vehicle’s transmission 

is in reverse. It appears that, in the near 

term, the only technology available with 

the ability to comply with this proposal 

would be a rear visibility system that 

includes a rear-mounted video camera 

and an in-vehicle visual display. 

Adoption of this proposal would 

significantly reduce fatalities and 

injuries caused by backover crashes 

involving children, persons with 

disabilities, the elderly, and other 

pedestrians. 

In light of the difficulty of effectively 

addressing of the backover safety 

problem through technologies other 

than camera systems and given the 

differences in the effectiveness and cost 

of the available technologies, we 

developed several alternatives that, 

compared to the proposal, offer less, but 

at least in one case still substantial, 

benefits and do so at reduced cost. We 

seek comment on those alternatives and 

on other possible ways to achieve the 

statutory objective and meet the 

statutory requirements at lower cost. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

the docket receives them not later than 

February 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may contact Mr. 

Markus Price, Office of Vehicle 

Rulemaking, Telephone: (202) 666– 

0098. Facsimile: (202) 666–7002. For 

legal issues, you may contact Mr. Steve 

Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Telephone (202) 366–2992. Facsimile: 

(202) 366–3820. You may send mail to 

these officials at: The National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 

Attention: NVS–010, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Cameron Gulbransen Kids 

Transportation Safety Act of 2007 

B. Applicability 

C. Backover Crash Safety Problem 

i. Definitions and Summary 

ii. Backover Crash Risk by Crash and 

Vehicle Type 

iii. Backover Crash Risk by Victim Age 

iv. Special Crash Investigation of Backover 

Crashes 

v. Analysis of Backover Crash Risk by 

Pedestrian Location Using Monte Carlo 

Simulation 

D. Comparative Regulatory Requirements 

i. Current FMVSS No. 111 

ii. Relevant European Regulations (Also 

United Kingdom and Australia) 

iii. Relevant Regulations in Japan and 

Korea 

iv. State Regulations 

III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Technologies To Mitigate Backover 

Crashes 

i. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors 

ii. Rearview Video Systems 

iii. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection 

Systems 

iv. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video 

Camera) Systems 

v. Other Technologies 

B. Approaches for Improving Vehicles’ 

Rear Visibility 

C. Rear Visibility Measurement 

D. Possible Countermeasure Performance 

Specifications 

E. Summary of Comments Received 

i. Measurement of Rear Blind Zone Area 

and Its Use as a Basis for Determination 

of Countermeasure Need 

ii. Application of Countermeasures Among 

Vehicle Types 

iii. Use and Efficacy of Rear-Mounted 

Mirror Systems, and Convex Driver’sSide Mirrors 

iv. Use of Monte Carlo Simulation of 

Backover Crash Risk for Development of 

a Required Countermeasure Coverage 

Area 

v. Use and Efficacy of Sensor-Based 

Systems 

vi. Use and Efficacy of Rearview Video 

Systems 

vii. Characteristics of Rearview Video 

Systems 

viii. Development of a Performance-Based 

or Technology-Neutral Standard 

ix. Other Issues 

x. Suggested Alternative Proposals 

xi. Costs and Benefits 

F. Questions Posed and Summary 

Response 

i. Technologies for Improving Rear 

Visibility 

ii. Drivers’ Use and Associated 

Effectiveness of Available Technologies 

To Mitigate Backover Crashes 

iii. Approaches for Improving Vehicles’ 

Rear Visibility 

iv. Options for Measuring a Vehicle’s Rear 

Visibility 

v. Options for Assessing the Performance 

of Rear Visibility Countermeasures 

vi. Options for Characterizing Rear 

Visibility Countermeasures 

IV. Analysis of ANPRM Comments and 

NHTSA’s Tentative Conclusions 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76187 

1Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety 

Act of 2007, (Pub. L. 110–189, 122 Stat. 639–642), 

§ 4 (2007). 

2The Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle 

Traffic Accidents (ANSI D16.1) defines 

‘‘incapacitating injury’’ as ‘‘any injury, other than a 

fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred’’ (Section 2.3.4). 

3 74 FR 9478, March 4, 2009. 

4While object detection sensors do not 

technically improve visibility in terms of providing 

a visual image comparable to what a driver could 

see with his or her own eyes, the Act indicated that 

sensors should be examined as a candidate 

technology for improving rear visibility. Such 

sensors could be used in combination of some type 

of visual display to show the location of detected 

objects. 

5 74 FR 9504. 

A. Application of Rear Visibility Systems 

Across the Light Vehicle Fleet 

B. Limitation of Countermeasure 

Application to Certain Vehicle Types 

C. Using Blind Zone Area as a Basis for 

Countermeasure Requirement 

D. Use of Convex Driver’s-Side Mirrors 

E. Advanced Systems and Combination 

Sensor/Rearview Video Systems 

F. Rear Field of View 

G. Rear Visibility System Characteristics 

i. Rearview Image Response Time 

ii. Rearview Image Linger Time 

iii. Rear Visibility System Visual Display 

Brightness 

iv. Rear Visibility System Malfunction 

Indicator 

H. Rear Visibility System Compliance Test 

i. Compliance Test Ambient Light Level 

ii. Compliance Test Object 

V. NHTSA Research Subsequent to the 

ANPRM 

A. Rearview Video Systems With In-Mirror 

Visual Displays 

B. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors 

C. Rear Sensor Systems 

D. Ability of Rear Sensor Systems To 

Detect Small Child Pedestrians 

VI. Countermeasure Effectiveness Estimation 

Based on NHTSA Research Data 

A. Situation Avoidability 

B. System Performance 

C. Driver Performance 

D. Determining Overall Effectiveness 

VII. Proposal To Mandate Improved Rear 

Visibility 

A. Proposed Specifications 

i. Improved Rear Field of View 

ii. Visual Display Requirements 

a. Rearview Image Size 

b. Image Response Time 

c. Image Linger Time 

d. Visual Display Luminance 

e. Other Aspects of Visual Display 

iii. Requirements for External System 

Components 

B. Proposed Compliance Tests 

i. Ambient Lighting Conditions 

ii. Rear Visibility Test Object 

iii. Rear Visibility Compliance Test 

Procedures 

a. Rear Field of View Test Procedure 

b. Rearview Image Size Test Procedure 

C. Proposed Effective Date and Phase-In 

Schedule 

D. Potential Alternatives 

E. Summary of Estimated Effectiveness, 

Costs and Benefits of Available 

Technologies 

F. Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives 

i. System Effectiveness 

ii. Costs 

iii. Benefits 

iv. Net Benefits 

v. Cost Effectiveness 

VIII. Public Participation 

IX. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

F. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

H. National Environmental Policy Act 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

J. Plain Language 

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

X. Proposed Regulatory Text 

I. Executive Summary 

In this notice, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

is proposing to expand the current rear 

visibility requirements of all passenger 

cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles 

with a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (lb) or less by 

specifying an area behind the vehicle 

that a driver must be able to see when 

the vehicle is in reverse gear. This 

rulemaking action is being undertaken 

in response to the Cameron Gulbransen 

Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 1

(the ‘‘K.T. Safety Act,’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), 

which required that NHTSA undertake 

rulemaking to expand the required field 

of view to enable the driver of a motor 

vehicle to detect areas behind the 

vehicle to reduce death and injury 

resulting from backing incidents known 

as backover crashes. A backover crash is 

a specifically-defined type of incident in 

which a non-occupant of a vehicle (most 

commonly, a pedestrian, but it could 

also be a cyclist) is struck by a vehicle 

moving in reverse. 

Our assessment of available safety 

data indicates that on average there are 

292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries (3,000 

of which we judge to be incapacitating 2) 

resulting from backover crashes every 

year. Of those, 228 fatalities and 17,000 

injuries were attributed to backover 

incidents involving light vehicles 

(passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed 

vehicles) with a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. 

In analyzing the data, we made 

several tentative findings. First, many of 

these incidents occur off public 

roadways, in areas such as driveways 

and parking lots and involve parents (or 

caregivers) accidentally backing over 

children. Second, children under five 

years of age represent approximately 44 

percent of the fatalities, which we 

believe to be a uniquely high percentage 

for a particular crash mode. Third and 

finally, when pickups and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles strike a pedestrian in 

a backover crash, the incident is four 

times more likely to result in a fatality 

than if the striking vehicle were a 

passenger car. 

NHTSA believes that there are several 

potential reasons for these tentative 

findings, including, but not limited to, 

the attributes of the vehicle, vehicle 

exposure to pedestrians, and the driver’s 

situational awareness while driving 

backward. However, due to difficulties 

in isolating each of those effects 

individually, we cannot at this time 

determine their relative contribution to 

the occurrence of these backover 

crashes. 

In consideration of the areas that a 

driver cannot see either directly or using 

existing mirrors, the agency has 

tentatively concluded that providing the 

driver with additional visual 

information about what is directly 

behind the driver’s vehicle is the only 

effective near-term solution at this time 

to reduce the number of fatalities and 

injuries associated with backover 

crashes. 

Before reaching this tentative 

conclusion, NHTSA published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) and considered 

the public comments received in 

response to that notice.3 The ANPRM 

reiterated some previous tentative 

findings on backover crash statistics; 

outlined current technologies that may 

have the ability to improve rear 

visibility including: improved direct 

vision (i.e., looking directly out the 

vehicle’s rear window), indirect vision 

via rear-mounted convex mirrors or 

rearview video systems, and rear object 

detection sensors; 4 and presented 

research findings on the effectiveness of 

those technologies. 

The ANPRM set forth three 

approaches to defining the potential 

scope of applicability of the proposed 

requirements for improving rearward 

visibility.5 The approaches included 

requiring improvements on a) all light 

vehicles, b) those light vehicles that are 

trucks, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, or vans, or c) those light 

vehicles whose rear blind zone area (i.e., 

the area behind a vehicle in which 

obstacles are not visible to a driver) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76188 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

exceeds a specified size. We also 

presented ideas on how and on what 

basis to define the areas behind a 

vehicle that should be visible to a driver 

and general performance characteristics 

for mirrors, sensors, and rearview video 

systems. Finally, the ANPRM sought 

responses to 43 specific questions 

covering all of the above mentioned 

areas. 

Thirty-seven entities commented in 

response to the ANPRM, including 

industry associations, automotive and 

equipment manufacturers, safety 

advocacy organizations, and 14 

individuals. Generally, the comments 

can be grouped into four main areas 

according to the organization of ANPRM 

sections. The areas are: approaches for 

improving vehicles’ rear visibility, 

effectiveness of the technologies, cost of 

the technologies, and performance 

requirements suitable for each type 

technology. 

With regard to the issue of which 

vehicles most warrant improved rear 

visibility, vehicle manufacturers 

generally wanted to focus any 

expansion of rear visibility on the 

particular types of vehicles (i.e., trucks, 

vans, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles within the specified weight 

limits) that they believed posed the 

highest risk of backover crash fatalities 

and injuries. Vehicle safety 

organizations and equipment 

manufacturers generally suggested that 

all vehicles need to have expanded rear 

fields of view. 

With regard to the issue of what 

technology would be effective at 

expanding the rear field of view for a 

driver, commenters discussed 

additional mirrors, sensors, and 

rearview video combined with sensors. 

Some commenters provided input 

regarding test procedure development 

and rear visibility countermeasure 

characteristics, such as visual display 

size and brightness, and graphic 

overlays superimposed on a video 

image. Some also discussed whether it 

is appropriate to allow a small gap in 

coverage immediately behind the rear 

bumper. 

Finally, with regard to the issue of 

costs, commenters generally agreed with 

the cost estimates provided by the 

agency. However, some did suggest that 

our estimates of the cost of individual 

technologies seemed high and that there 

would be larger cost reductions over 

time than the agency had indicated. 

To assess the feasibility and benefits 

of covering different areas behind the 

vehicle, NHTSA considered the 

comments received, the available safety 

data, our review of special 

investigations of backover crashes, and 

computer simulation. For example, we 

examined the typical distances that 

backover-crash-involved vehicles 

traveled from the location at which they 

began moving rearward to the location 

at which they struck a pedestrian. We 

tentatively concluded that an area with 

a width of 10 feet (5 feet to either side 

of a rearward extension of the vehicle’s 

centerline) and a length of 20 feet 

extending backward from a transverse 

vertical plane tangent to the rearmost 

point on the rear bumper encompasses 

the highest risk area for children and 

other pedestrians to be struck. 

Therefore, we are proposing that test 

objects of a particular size within that 

area must be visible to drivers when 

they are driving backward. 

To develop estimates of the benefits 

from adopting such a requirement, 

NHTSA used a methodology that 

reviewed backover crash case reports to 

infer whether the crash could be 

avoided with the aid of some 

technology, evaluated the performance 

of various countermeasures in detecting 

an object behind the vehicle, and tested 

whether the driver used the 

countermeasure and avoided the crash. 

Our evaluation of currently available 

technologies (mirrors, sensors, and 

rearview video systems) that may allow 

a driver to determine if there was a 

pedestrian in a 10 feet by 20 feet zone 

behind a vehicle indicates that rearview 

video systems are the most effective 

technology available today. 

However, we note that technology is 

rapidly evolving, and thus, we are not 

proposing to require that a specific 

technology be used to provide a driver 

with an image of the area behind the 

vehicle. Consistent with statutory 

requirements and Executive Order 

12866, we are not prescribing 

requirements that would expressly 

require the use of a specific technology 

and are attempting to promote 

compliance flexibility through 

proposing more performance oriented 

requirements. We have tentatively 

concluded that, in order to maintain the 

level of effectiveness that we have seen 

in our testing of existing rearview video 

systems, we should propose a minimum 

set of such requirements. Accordingly, 

this proposal sets forth requirements for 

the performance of the visual display, 

the rearview image, and durability 

requirements for any exterior 

components. Under this proposal, 

manufacturers would have flexibility to 

meet the requirements as they see fit 

(perhaps through the development of 

new or less expensive technology). 

Since we believe that manufacturers, in 

the near term, would likely use current 

production rearview video systems to 

achieve the required level of improved 

rear visibility and that most, if not all, 

systems in production today already 

meet this minimum set of requirements, 

we do not believe that the adoption of 

these requirements would increase the 

cost of this technology. However, we 

seek comment later in this preamble on 

including in the final rule requirements 

relating to additional matters such as 

image quality and display location. 

Section 2(c) of the K.T. Safety Act 

requires that the requirement for 

improved rear visibility be phased in 

and that the phase-in process be 

completed within ‘‘48 months’’ of the 

publication of the final rule. Because we 

anticipate publishing a final rule by the 

statutory deadline of February 28, 2011, 

the rule must require full compliance 

not later than February 28, 2015. We 

note, however, that model years begin 

on September 1 and end on August 31 

for safety standard compliance purposes 

and that February 28 falls in the middle 

of the model year that begins September 

1, 2014. The agency believes that 

vehicle manufacturers would need, as a 

practical matter, to begin full 

compliance at the beginning of that 

model year, i.e., on September 1, 2014. 

They could not wait until the middle of 

the model year to reach 100% 

compliance. Accordingly, NHTSA is 

proposing the following phase-in 

schedule: 

• 0% of the vehicles manufactured 

before September 1, 2012; 

• 10% of the vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2012, and 

before September 1, 2013; 

• 40% of the vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2013, and 

before September 1, 2014; and 

• 100% of the vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2014. 

The agency recognizes that taking the 

dates on which model years begin and 

end for safety purposes effectively 

reduces the overall phase-in duration by 

6 months (from 48 months to 42 

months). 

We invite comment on how to 

provide as much leadtime as possible 

within the limits of the statute. 

Specifically, should the agency change 

the structure of the phase-in schedule to 

allow for more flexibility and ease of 

implementation? We note that the 

statute explicitly requires an expanded 

field of view for all light vehicles and 

that there are substantial differences in 

the effectiveness of available 

technologies. Accordingly, the agency is 

proposing performance requirements 

that would trigger the installation of 

expensive technologies such as video 

camera systems for these vehicles. In 

view of the need to expand the field of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76189 

6 J.K. Hammitt and K. Haninger, ‘‘Valuing Fatal 

Risks to Children and Adults: Effects of Disease, 

Latency, and Risk Aversion,’’ Journal of Risk and 

Uncertainty 40(1): 57–83, 2010. This stated 

preference study finds that the willingness to pay 

to prevent fatality risks to one’s child is uniformly 

larger than that to reduce risk to another adult or 

to oneself. Estimated values per statistical life are 

$6–10 million for adults and $12–15 million for 

children. We emphasize that the literature is in a 

state of development. 

view for all vehicles and the statutory 

requirements set forth by Congress 

regarding timing and manner of 

implementation of the proposed 

requirements, however, the agency is 

limited in its ability to reduce the cost 

of this rulemaking through adjusting the 

application of the proposed rule or the 

specific deadline for implementation. 

In evaluating the benefits and costs of 

this rulemaking proposal, the agency 

has spent considerable effort trying to 

determine the scope of the safety 

problem and the overall effectiveness of 

these systems in reducing crashes, 

injuries and fatalities associated with 

backing crashes. We have also estimated 

the net property damage effects to 

consumers from using any technology to 

avoid backing into fixed objects, along 

with the additional cost incurred when 

a vehicle is struck in the rear and the 

technology is damaged or destroyed. 

The most effective technology option 

that the agency has evaluated is the 

rearview video system. Using the 

effectiveness estimates that we have 

generated and assuming that all vehicles 

would be equipped with this 

technology, we believe the annual 

fatalities that are occurring in backing 

crashes can be reduced by 95 to 112. 

Similarly, injuries would be reduced by 

7,072 to 8,374. 

However, rearview video is also the 

most expensive single technology. 

When installed in a vehicle without any 

existing visual display screen, rearview 

video systems are currently estimated to 

cost consumers between $159 and $203 

per vehicle, depending on the location 

of the display and the angular width of 

the lens. For a vehicle that already has 

a suitable visual display, such as one 

found in route navigation systems, the 

incremental cost of such a system is 

estimated to be $58–$88, depending on 

the angular width of the lens. (We note 

that the cost may well decrease over 

time, as discussed below.) 

Based on the composition and size of 

the expected vehicle fleet, the total 

incremental cost, compared to the MY 

2010 fleet, to equip a 16.6 million new 

vehicle fleet with rearview video 

systems is estimated to be $1.9 billion 

to $2.7 billion annually. These costs are 

admittedly substantial. Nonetheless, the 

following considerations (discussed 

briefly here and at great length below in 

section VII.D. of this preamble) lead us 

to conclude tentatively that our 

proposal to implement the statutory 

mandate is reasonable and necessary, 

and that the benefits justify the costs. 

We request comment on this conclusion 

and on the various considerations that 

support it. 

Those considerations include the 

following— 

› 100 of the 228 annual victims of 

backover crashes are very young 

children with nearly their entire lives 

ahead of them. There are strong reasons, 

grounded in this consideration and in 

considerations of equity, to prevent 

these deaths. 

› While this rulemaking would have 

great cost, it would also have substantial 

benefits, reducing annual fatalities in 

backover crashes by 95 to 112 fatalities, 

and annual injuries by 7,072 to 8,374 

injuries. (We attempt to quantify these 

benefits below.) 

› Some of the benefits of the 

proposed rule are hard to quantify, but 

are nonetheless real and significant. One 

such benefit is that of not being the 

direct cause of the death or injury of a 

person and particularly a small child at 

one’s place of residence. In some of 

these cases, parents are responsible for 

the deaths of their own children; 

avoiding that horrible outcome is a 

significant benefit. Another hard-toquantify benefit is the increased ease 

and convenience of driving, and 

especially parking, that extend beyond 

the prevention of crashes. While these 

benefits cannot be monetized at this 

time, they could be considerable. 

› There is evidence that many 

people value the lives of children more 

than the lives of adults.6 In any event, 

there is special social solicitude for 

protection of children. This solicitude is 

based in part on a recognized general 

need to protect children given their 

greater vulnerability to injury and 

inability to protect themselves. 

› Given the very young age of most 

of the children fatally-injured in 

backover crashes, attempting to provide 

them with training or with an audible 

warning would not enable them to 

protect themselves. 

› Given the impossibility of 

reducing backover crashes through 

changing the behavior of very young 

children and given Congress’ mandate, 

it is reasonable and necessary to rely on 

technology to address backover crashes. 

› Based on its extensive testing, the 

agency tentatively concluded that a 

camera-based system is the only 

effective type of technology currently 

available. 

› Requiring additional rearview 

mirrors or changes to existing review 

mirrors cannot significantly increase the 

view to the rear of a vehicle except by 

means that reduce and distort the 

reflected image of people or objects 

behind a vehicle. 

› The agency’s testing indicated that 

currently available sensors often failed 

to detect a human being, particularly a 

small moving child, in tests in which 

the vehicle was not actually moving. In 

tests in which the vehicle was moving, 

and when the sensors did detect a 

manikin representing a child, the 

resulting warning did not induce drivers 

to pause more than briefly in backing. 

› In contrast, in the agency’s tests of 

video camera-based systems, drivers not 

only saw a child-sized obstacle, but also 

stopped and remained stopped. 

› Consequently, the agency has 

tentatively concluded that the 

requirements must have the effect of 

ensuring that some type of image is 

provided to the driver. 

› The agency’s estimates of current 

costs for video camera-based systems 

may be too high. 

› The agency has a contract in place 

for conducting tear down studies that 

could produce somewhat lower cost 

estimates. 

› In time, types of technology other 

than a video camera-based system may 

be able to provide a sufficiently clear 

visual image of the area behind the 

vehicle at lower cost. We believe that it 

is reasonable to project that the costs of 

the requirements proposed here may 

well decline significantly over time. 

While extrapolations are uncertain, 

technology has been advancing rapidly 

in this domain, and future costs may 

well be lower than currently expected. 

› In light of statutory requirements, 

the agency is limited in its ability to 

reduce the cost of this rulemaking 

through adjusting either the 

requirements or application of the 

proposed rule or the schedule for its 

implementation. 

› Congress has mandated the 

issuance of a final rule instead of 

allowing the agency to retain discretion 

to decide whether to issue a final rule 

based on its consideration of all the 

relevant factors and information. 

› Less expensive countermeasures, 

i.e., mirrors and sensors, have thus far 

shown very limited effectiveness and 

thus would not satisfy Congress’s 

mandate for improving safety. 

■ As the most cost-effective 

alternative, a requirement for a system 

that provides an image of the area 

behind the vehicle would be consistent 

with the policy preference underlying 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

7As noted above, the agency first public step 

toward meeting this requirement was the issuance 

of an ANPRM. It was posted on the NHTSA Web 

site on February 27, 2009, and published in the 

Federal Register on March 3, 2009. 74 FR 9478. 

› Were the agency able to provide 

more than the amount of lead time 

permitted by the statutory mandate, the 

additional leadtime might be sufficient 

to allow the development of cheaper 

cameras. 

As noted, the agency requests 

comments on all of the foregoing points. 

And in view of the cost of our proposed 

option, the agency is seeking comment 

and suggestions on any alternative 

options that would lower costs, 

maintain all or most of the benefits of 

the proposal, and lower net costs or the 

cost per equivalent life saved. We 

carefully explored our ability under the 

Act to vary the population of vehicles 

subject to the proposal, vary the 

performance requirements, and extend 

the leadtime to implement the proposal 

and thereby develop alternative options 

that offer benefits similar to those of our 

proposal, but at reduced cost. Although 

our ability to make any of those types 

of adjustments appears constrained as a 

legal or practical matter, and although 

none of the alternative options that the 

agency has been able to identify would 

accomplish all three of those goals, we 

are seeking comment on them and on 

any others that commenters may 

suggest. 

We seek comment especially on the 

alternative option under which 

passenger cars would be required to be 

equipped with either a rearview 

visibility (e.g., camera) system or with a 

system that includes sensors that 

monitor a specified area behind the 

vehicle and an audible warning that 

sounds when the presence of an object 

is sensed. Under this option, other 

vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or less, 

gross vehicle weight, would be required 

to be equipped with a visibility system. 

This alternative would have 

substantially lower, but still significant, 

safety benefits, substantially lower 

installation costs, lower net costs, and 

higher cost per equivalent life saved. 

Cars not equipped under this option 

with a rearview visibility system would 

be required to provide an audible 

warning inside the vehicle of not less 

than 85 dBa between 500–3000 Hz 

when a test object is placed in one of the 

locations specified for test objects in the 

requirements for rearview image 

performance and the vehicle 

transmission is shifted into reverse gear. 

Given that current sensors have a 

shorter range than rearview visibility 

systems, the test objects might need to 

be placed somewhat closer to the 

vehicle than they are when used to test 

the performance of rearview visibility 

systems. Alternatively, the test objects 

could be placed in the same locations as 

for rearward visibility systems, thus 

requiring sensors to have stronger 

signals. A disadvantage of doing that 

would be the risk of increased ‘‘false’’ 

activations. This requirement to sense 

the presence of a test object would be 

required to be met for each of the test 

object locations. The other requirements 

would be similar to those for the 

proposed rearview systems. 

II. Background 

A. Cameron Gulbransen Kids 

Transportation Safety Act of 2007 

Subsection (2)(b) of the K.T. Safety 

Act directed the Secretary of 

Transportation to initiate rulemaking by 

February 28, 2009 to amend Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to expand 

the required field of view to enable the 

driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas 

behind the motor vehicle to reduce 

death and injury resulting from backing 

incidents.7 The Secretary is required to 

publish a final rule within 36 months of 

the passage of the K.T. Safety Act (i.e., 

by February 28, 2011). 

Given that subsection (2)(b) requires 

the amendment of a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard, this rulemaking 

is subject to both the requirements of 

subsection (b) and the requirements for 

such standards in the Vehicle Safety 

Act, 49 U.S.C. 30111. 

Subsection (2)(b) contains the 

following requirements. Not later than 

12 months after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall initiate a rulemaking to revise 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

111 (FMVSS 111) to expand the 

required field of view to enable the 

driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas 

behind the motor vehicle to reduce 

death and injury resulting from backing 

incidents, particularly incidents 

involving small children and disabled 

persons. The Secretary may prescribe 

different requirements for different 

types of motor vehicles to expand the 

required field of view to enable the 

driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas 

behind the motor vehicle to reduce 

death and injury resulting from backing 

incidents, particularly incidents 

involving small children and disabled 

persons. Such standard may be met by 

the provision of additional mirrors, 

sensors, cameras, or other technology to 

expand the driver’s field of view. 

Subsection (2)(e) of the K.T. Safety 

Act broadly defines the term ‘‘motor 

vehicle,’’ as used in subsection (2)(b), as 

follows: As used in this Act and for 

purposes of the motor vehicle safety 

standards described in subsections (a) 

and (b), the term ‘motor vehicle’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 

30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States 

Code, except that such term shall not 

include—a motorcycle or trailer; or any 

motor vehicle that is rated at more than 

10,000 pounds gross vehicular weight. 

Section 30102(a)(6) of the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

defines ‘‘motor vehicle’’ even more 

broadly as a vehicle driven or drawn by 

mechanical power and manufactured 

primarily for use on public streets, 

roads, and highways, but does not 

include a vehicle operated only on a rail 

line. 

The K.T. Safety Act also specifies the 

rule must be phased-in and that it must 

be fully implemented within four years 

after the publication date of the final 

rule. The statutory language, contained 

in subsection (c) of the K.T. Safety Act, 

sets out these requirements for the 

phase-in period: The safety standards 

prescribed pursuant to subsections (a) 

and (b) shall establish a phase-in period 

for compliance, as determined by the 

Secretary, and require full compliance 

with the safety standards not later than 

48 months after the date on which the 

final rule is issued. 

In establishing the phase-in period of 

the rearward visibility safety standards 

required under subsection (b), the 

Secretary shall consider whether to 

require the phase-in according to 

different types of motor vehicles based 

on data demonstrating the frequency by 

which various types of motor vehicles 

have been involved in backing incidents 

resulting in injury or death. If the 

Secretary determines that any type of 

motor vehicle should be given priority, 

the Secretary shall issue regulations that 

specify which type or types of motor 

vehicles shall be phased-in first; and the 

percentages by which such motor 

vehicles shall be phased-in. 

Congress emphasized the protection 

of small children and disabled persons, 

and added that the revised standard 

may be met by the ‘‘provision of 

additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or 

other technology to expand the driver’s 

field of view.’’ While NHTSA does not 

interpret the Congressional language to 

require that all of these technologies 

eventually be integrated into the final 

requirement, we have closely examined 

the merits of each of them, and present 

our analysis of their ability to address 

the backover safety problem. 

We note that the inclusion of sensors 

as a ‘‘technology to expand the driver’s 

field of view’’ suggests that the passage 

‘‘expand the required field of view’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76191 

8Per 49 CFR 571.3, multipurpose passenger 

vehicle means a motor vehicle with motive power, 

except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to 

carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either 

on a truck chassis or with special features for 

occasional off-road operation. 

9 49 FR 9482. 

10Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 

Public Law 109–59, August 10, 2005. 

11Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing 

Crashes, NHTSA Report to Congress (2008), DOT 

HS 811 144. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/

811144.PDF. 

should not be read in the literal way as 

meaning the driver must be able to see 

more of the area behind the vehicle. A 

literal reading would make the reference 

to sensors superfluous, violating a basic 

canon of statutory interpretation. 

Instead, it seems that language should 

be read as meaning the driver must be 

able to monitor, visually or otherwise, 

an expanded area. 

Finally, section 4 of the K.T. Safety 

Act provides that if the Secretary 

determines that the deadlines applicable 

under the Act cannot be met, the 

Secretary shall establish new deadlines, 

and notify the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate of the new deadlines 

describing the reasons the deadlines 

specified under the K.T. Safety Act 

could not be met. 

The relevant provisions in the Vehicle 

Safety Act are those in section 30111 of 

title 49 of the United States Code. 

Section 3011 states that the Secretary of 

Transportation shall prescribe motor 

vehicle safety standards. Each standard 

shall be practicable, meet the need for 

motor vehicle safety, and be stated in 

objective terms. When prescribing a 

motor vehicle safety standard under this 

chapter, the Secretary shall consider 

relevant available motor vehicle safety 

information; consult with the agency 

established under the Act of August 20, 

1958 (Pub. L. 85–684, 72 Stat. 635), and 

other appropriate State or interstate 

authorities (including legislative 

committees); consider whether a 

proposed standard is reasonable, 

practicable, and appropriate for the 

particular type of motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed; and consider the extent to 

which the standard will carry out 

section 30101 of this title. 

B. Applicability 

With regard to the scope of vehicles 

covered by the mandate, the statute 

refers to all motor vehicles rated at not 

more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle 

weight (GVW) (except motorcycles and 

trailers). Specifically, it states that the 

Secretary shall ‘‘revise [FMVSS No. 111] 

to expand the required field of view to 

enable the driver of a motor vehicle to 

detect areas behind the motor vehicle 

* * *,’’ and defines a ‘‘motor vehicle’’ 

for purposes of the Act as any motor 

vehicle whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds 

or less, except trailers and motorcycles. 

This language means that the revised 

regulation could be applied to passenger 

cars, low-speed vehicles (LSVs), 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(MPVs),8 buses (including small school 

buses and school vans), and trucks with 

a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. In 

this document, we are proposing that 

each of these types of vehicles would be 

subject to improved rear visibility 

requirements. 

We note, however, that in our review 

of real-world crashes, NHTSA could not 

determine whether there were any 

backover incidents involving LSVs, 

small school buses, and school vans. 

Accordingly, we seek comment and data 

related to the issue of whether, if the 

agency remains unable to find such 

incidents, it could reasonably conclude 

that those vehicles pose no 

unreasonable risk of backover crashes 

and whether it would be permissible 

therefore it to exclude these vehicles 

from the application of the final rule. 

The agency invites comment on whether 

the absence of incidents might reflect 

operational conditions (school vehiclesoperation in environments in which the 

vulnerable age groups are unlikely to be 

present or perhaps avoidance of backing 

maneuvers) or a possible absence of any 

blind spot behind the vehicle (some 

LSVs). 

C. Backover Crash Safety Problem 

i. Definitions and Summary 

A backover crash is a specificallydefined type of incident, in which a 

non-occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a 

pedestrian or cyclist) is struck by a 

vehicle moving in reverse. As stated in 

the ANPRM, using a variety of available 

data sources, NHTSA has identified a 

total population of 228 fatalities and 

17,000 injuries due to light vehicle 

backover crashes.9 Unlike other crashes, 

the overwhelming majority of backover 

crashes occur off of public roadways, in 

areas such as driveways and parking 

lots. Children and people over 70 are 

also far more likely than other groups to 

be victims of backover crashes. In the 

case of children, their short stature can 

make them extremely difficult for a 

driver to see using direct vision or 

existing mirrors. 

Because many backover crashes occur 

off public roadways, NHTSA’s 

traditional methodologies for collecting 

data as to the specific numbers and 

circumstances of backover incidents 

have not always given the agency a 

complete picture of the scope and 

circumstances of these types of 

incidents. The following sections detail 

NHTSA’s attempts to both quantify the 

number of backover incidents and 

determine their nature. 

In response to section 2012 of the 

‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users’’ (SAFETEA–LU),10 NHTSA 

developed the ‘‘Not-in-Traffic 

Surveillance’’ (NiTS) system to collect 

information about all nontraffic crashes, 

including nontraffic backing crashes. 

NiTS provided information on these 

backing crashes that occurred off the 

traffic way and which were not 

included in NHTSA’s FARS database or 

NASS–GES. The subset of backing 

crashes that involve a pedestrian, 

bicyclist, or other person not in a 

vehicle, is referred to as ‘‘backover 

crashes.’’ This is distinguished from the 

larger category of ‘‘backing crashes,’’ 

which would include such nonbackover events such as a vehicle going 

in reverse and colliding with another 

vehicle, or a vehicle backing off an 

embankment or into a stationary object. 

While the primary purpose of this 

rulemaking is to prevent backover 

crashes, any improvements to rear 

visibility should also have a positive 

effect on all types of backing crashes. 

The national estimates for fatalities 

and injuries presented in the ANPRM 

were developed using data from FARS, 

NASS–GES, and the NiTS. While there 

are newer estimates available for FARS 

and NASS–GES, there are not for the 

NiTS and therefore the estimates we 

provided in the ANPRM and in this 

document represent the most current 

data available. As such, based on the 

currently available data, NHTSA 

estimates that 463 fatalities and 48,000 

injuries a year occur in traffic and 

nontraffic backing crashes.11 Most of 

these injuries are minor, but an 

estimated 6,000 per year are 

incapacitating injuries. Overall, an 

estimated 65 percent (302) of the 

fatalities and 62 percent (29,000) of the 

injuries in backing crashes occurred in 

nontraffic situations. 

Based on existing data, NHTSA 

estimates the following number of 

injuries and fatalities. Overall, backing 

crashes result in approximately 463 

fatalities and 48,000 injuries. Of those, 

the subset of backover crashes 

comprises 292 fatalities (63 percent) and 

18,000 injuries (38 percent). These 

figures are reflected in Table 1 below. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL ESTIMATED FATALITIES AND INJURIES IN ALL BACKING CRASHES FOR ALL VEHICLES 12

Injury severity 

Total Backover crashes Other backing 

crashes 

Estimated total Estimated total Estimated total 

Fatalities ..................................................................................................................... 463 292 171 

Incapacitating Injury ................................................................................................... 6,000 3,000 3,000 

Non-incapacitating Injury ........................................................................................... 12,000 7,000 5,000 

Possible Injury ........................................................................................................... 27,000 7,000 20,000 

Injured Severity Unknown .......................................................................................... 2,000 1,000 2,000 

Total Injuries ....................................................................................................... 48,000 18,000 30,000 

Source: FARS 2002–2006, NASS–GES 2002–2006, NiTS 2007. 

Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. [Note to agency, unknowns will be updated prior OST approval to reflect optics that 2,000 + 1,000 does not equal 2.] 

ii. Backover Crash Risk by Crash and 

Vehicle Type 

Backovers account for an estimated 63 

percent of all fatal backing crashes 

involving all vehicle types. As indicated 

in Table 2, an estimated 15 percent (68) 

of the backing crash fatalities occur in 

multivehicle crashes, and an estimated 

13 percent (62) occur in single-vehicle 

non-collisions, such as occupants who 

fall out of and are struck by their own 

backing vehicles. About half of the 

backing crash injuries (20,000 per year) 

occur in multi-vehicle crashes involving 

backing vehicles. 

TABLE 2—FATALITIES AND INJURIES BY BACKING CRASH TYPE 13

Backing crash scenarios 

All vehicles Passenger vehicles 

Fatalities Injuries Fatalities Injuries 

Backovers: Striking Non-occupant .................................................................................. 292 18,000 228 17,000 

Backing: Striking Fixed Object ........................................................................................ 33 2,000 33 2,000 

Backing: Single-vehicle Non-collision .............................................................................. 62 1,000 53 1,000 

Backing: Striking/Struck by Other Vehicle (multi-vehicle) ............................................... 68 24,000 39 20,000 

Backing: Other ................................................................................................................. 8 3,000 8 3,000 

Total Backing ............................................................................................................ 463 48,000 361 43,000 

Source: FARS 2002–2006, NASS–GES 2002–2006, NiTS 2007. 

Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. 

Most backover fatalities and injuries 

involve passenger vehicles. Tables 2 and 

3 indicate that all major passenger 

vehicle types (cars, trucks, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, and vans) with 

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are 

involved in backover fatalities and 

injuries. However, the data indicate that 

some vehicles show a greater 

involvement in backing crashes than 

other vehicles. Table 3 illustrates that 

pickup trucks and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles are statistically 

overrepresented in backover fatalities 

when compared to all non-backing 

traffic injury crashes and to their 

proportion to the passenger vehicle 

fleet. The agency’s analysis revealed 

that while LTVs were statistically 

overrepresented in backover-related 

fatalities, they were not significantly 

overrepresented in backover crashes 

generally. 

TABLE 3—PASSENGER VEHICLE BACKOVER FATALITIES AND INJURIES BY VEHICLE TYPE 14

Backing vehicle type (GVWR 10,000 lb or less) Fatalities Percent of 

fatalities 

Estimated 

injuries 

Estimated 

percent of 

injuries 

Percent of 

fleet 

Car ........................................................................................................... 59 26 9,000 54 58

Utility Vehicle ........................................................................................... 68 30 3,000 20 16 

Van ........................................................................................................... 29 13 1,000 6 8 

Truck ........................................................................................................ 72 31 3,000 18 17 

Other Vehicles ......................................................................................... 0 0 * 2 <1 

Passenger Vehicles .......................................................................... 228 100 17,000 100 100 

Source: FARS 2002–2006, NASS–GES 2002–2006, NiTS 2007. 

Note: * Indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76193 

14 Ibid. 

15 Ibid. 

16 74 FR 9478. 17Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing 

Crashes, NHTSA Report to Congress (2008). 

iii. Backover Crash Risk by Victim Age 

NHTSA’s data indicate that children 

and adults over 70 years old are 

disproportionately represented in 

passenger vehicle backover crashes. 

Table 4 details the ages for fatalities and 

injuries for backover crashes involving 

all vehicles as well as those involving 

passenger vehicles only. It also details 

the proportion of the U.S. population in 

each age category from the 2007 U.S. 

Census Bureau’s Population Estimates 

Program for comparison. Similar to 

previous findings, backover fatalities 

disproportionately affect children under 

5 years old and adults 70 or older. When 

restricted to backover fatalities 

involving passenger vehicles, children 

under 5 years old account for 44 percent 

of the fatalities, and adults 70 years of 

age and older account for 33 percent. 

The difference in the results between all 

backover crashes and passenger vehicle 

backover crashes occur because large 

truck backover crashes, which are 

excluded from the passenger vehicle 

calculations, tend to affect adults 

younger than 70 years of age. 

TABLE 4—ALL BACKOVER CRASH FATALITIES AND INJURIES BY VICTIM AGE 15

Age of victim Fatalities Percent of 

fatalities 

Estimated 

injuries 

Estimated 

percent of 

injuries 

Percent of 

population ** 

All Vehicles 

Under 5 ................................................................................................ 103 35 2,000 8 7 

5–10 ..................................................................................................... 13 4 * 3 7 

10–19 ................................................................................................... 4 1 2,000 12 14 

20–59 ................................................................................................... 69 24 9,000 48 55 

60–69 ................................................................................................... 28 9 2,000 8 8 

70+ ....................................................................................................... 76 26 3,000 18 9 

Unknown .............................................................................................. .................... .................... * 2 ........................

Total .............................................................................................. 292 100 18,000 100 100 

Passenger Vehicles 

Under 5 ................................................................................................ 100 44 2,000 9 7 

5–10 ..................................................................................................... 10 4 1,000 3 7 

10–19 ................................................................................................... 1 1 2,000 12 14 

20–59 ................................................................................................... 29 13 8,000 46 55 

60–69 ................................................................................................... 15 6 1,000 8 8 

70+ ....................................................................................................... 74 33 3,000 19 9 

Unknown .............................................................................................. .................... .................... * 2 ........................

Total .............................................................................................. 228 100 17,000 100 100 

Note: * Indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. 

Note: ** Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2002–2006, NASS–GES 2002–2006, 

NiTS 2007. 

The proportion of backover injuries 

by age group is more similar to the 

proportion of the population than for 

backover fatalities. However, while 

children under 5 years old appear to be 

slightly statistically overrepresented in 

backover injuries compared to the 

population, adults 70 years of age and 

older appear to be greatly 

overrepresented. 

Table 5 presents passenger vehicle 

backover fatalities by year of age for 

victims less than 5 years old. Out of all 

backover fatalities involving passenger 

vehicles, 26 percent (60 out of 228) of 

victims are 1 year of age and younger. 

TABLE 5—BREAKDOWN OF BACKOVER

CRASH FATALITIES INVOLVING PASSENGER VEHICLES FOR VICTIMS

UNDER AGE 5 YEARS 16

Age of victim 

(years) 

Number of 

fatalities 

0 ................................................ < 1 

1 ................................................ 59 

2 ................................................ 23 

3 ................................................ 14 

4 ................................................ 3 

Total ................................... 100 

Note: Estimates may not add to totals due 

to independent rounding. 

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; 

FARS 2002–2006, NASS–GES 2002–2006, 

NiTS 2007. 

iv. Special Crash Investigation of 

Backover Crashes 

As reported in the ANPRM, NHTSA’s 

efforts to collect data on police-reported 

backover crashes have included a 

Special Crash Investigation (SCI) 

program. The SCI program was created 

to examine the safety impact of rapidly 

changing technologies and to provide 

NHTSA with early detection of alleged 

or potential vehicle defects. 

SCI began investigating cases related 

to backover crashes in October 2006.17

SCI receives notification of potential 

backover cases from several different 

sources including media reports, police 

and rescue personnel, contacts within 

NHTSA, reports from the general public, 

as well as notifications from the NASS. 

As of August 2009, roughly 80 percent 

of 849 total ‘‘Not-in-Traffic Surveillance’’ 

system incident notifications that SCI 

had received regarded backover 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

18Since 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. 

19Note that one or more cases examined involved 

multiple victims, causing the total of the path 

breakdown scenarios to be 53 rather than 52. 

crashes.18 For the purpose of the SCI 

cases, an eligible backover is defined as 

a crash in which a light passenger 

vehicle’s back plane strikes or passes 

over a person who is either positioned 

to the rear of the vehicle or is 

approaching from the side. SCI 

primarily focuses on cases involving 

children; however, it investigates some 

cases involving adults. The majority of 

notifications received do not meet the 

criteria for case assignment. Typically, 

the reasons for not pursuing further 

include: 

• The reported crash configuration is 

outside of the scope of the program, 

• Minor incidents with no fatally or 

seriously injured persons, or 

• Incidents where cooperation cannot 

be established with the involved parties. 

As an example, many reported 

incidents are determined to be side or 

frontal impacts, which exclude them 

from the program. Cases involving adult 

victims were generally excluded from 

the study unless they were seriously 

injured or killed or if the backing 

vehicles were equipped with backing or 

parking aids. 

The SCI effort to examine backover 

crashes includes an on-site inspection of 

the scene and vehicle, as well as 

interviews of the involved parties when 

possible. When an on-site investigation 

is not possible, backover cases are 

investigated remotely through an 

examination of police-provided reports 

and photos as well as interviews with 

the involved parties. For each backover 

case investigated, a case vehicle 

visibility study is also conducted to 

determine the size of the vehicle’s blind 

zones and also to determine at what 

distance behind the vehicle the 

occupant may have become visible to 

the driver. 

Thus far, NHTSA has completed 

special crash investigations of 58 

backover cases. The 58 backing vehicles 

were comprised of 18 passenger cars, 22 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 5 vans 

(including minivans) and 13 pickup 

trucks. For cases in which an estimated 

speed for the backing vehicle was 

available, the average speed of the 

backing vehicle was approximately 3 

mph. Of the 58 SCI backover cases, 95 

percent (55) of the cases occurred in 

daylight conditions. Half (29) involved 

a non-occupant fatality. 

Four of the 58 cases involved vehicles 

equipped with a parking aid system. All 

four systems were sensor-based parking 

aids. In two vehicles, the systems had 

been manually turned off for unknown 

reasons. In one backover case, the 

system did not detect an elderly female 

who had fallen behind a sensorequipped vehicle, and presumably 

positioned at a height below the 

detection zone of the sensors. In the 

fourth case the system did detect the 

adult pedestrian victim and provided a 

warning that prompted the driver to 

stop the vehicle, but the driver looked 

rearward and did not see an obstacle so 

he began backing again and struck the 

victim. 

One issue that was evident from the 

SCI cases is that very few instances 

involved victims that were easily visible 

from the driver’s position. Instead, most 

of the victims were either children (who 

were too short to be seen behind the 

vehicle), or adults who had fallen or 

bent over and were also thus not in the 

driver’s field of view. Eighty-eight 

percent of the backover crashes (51 of 

the 58) involved children, ranging in age 

from less than 8 months old up to 13 

years old, who were struck by vehicles. 

The other 12 percent of the 58 cases 

involved adult victims aged 30 years or 

older. Of the 8 adult victims, 4 were in 

an upright posture either standing or 

walking and one of those 4, as noted in 

the prior paragraph, had been detected 

by a rear parking sensor system, but the 

driver only stopped briefly before 

continuing to back and then struck the 

person. Of the remaining four adult 

victims documented in the SCI cases, 

one was bending over behind a backing 

vehicle to pick up something from the 

ground, one was an elderly female who 

had fallen down in the path of the 

vehicle prior to being run over, and the 

postural orientation of the remaining 

two was unknown. 

Based on NHTSA’s analysis of the 

quantitative data and narrative 

descriptions of how the 58 SCIdocumented backover incidents 

transpired, the breakdown of the 

victim’s path of travel prior to being 

struck is as follows: 41 (71 percent) 

were approaching from the right or left 

of the vehicle, 12 were in the path of the 

backing vehicle, 4 were unknown, and 

one was ‘‘other’’.19

Subsequent to the ANPRM, NHTSA 

further analyzed these SCI backover 

cases to assess how far the vehicle 

traveled before striking the victim. 

Distances traveled for these cases ranged 

from 1 to 75 feet. Overall, as shown in 

Table 6 below, this analysis showed that 

in 77 percent of real-world, SCI 

backover cases, the vehicle traveled up 

to 20 feet. While the subset may or may 

not nationally representative of all 

backing crashes, we believe this 

information from the SCI cases could be 

used in the development of a required 

visible area and the associated 

development of a compliance test. 

TABLE 6—AVERAGE DISTANCE TRAVELED BY BACKING VEHICLE FOR FIRST 58 SCI BACKOVER CASES AND PERCENT OF

BACKOVER CRASHES THAT COULD BE AVOIDED

Number of 

SCI cases 

Average distance 

traveled prior to 

Strike 

(ft) 

7ft 

(%) 

15ft 

(%) 

20ft 

(%) 

35ft 

(%) 

Car ................................................................................. 18 13.7 39 56 78 89 

SUV ................................................................................ 22 13.4 27 68 82 100 

Minivan ........................................................................... 4 31.0 25 50 50 75 

Van ................................................................................. 1 54.5 0 0 0 0 

Pickup ............................................................................ 13 17.2 38 69 69 92 

All Light Vehicles .................................................... 58 26.0 33 63 77 93 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76195 

20 49 FR 9484. 

21Mazzae, E. N., Barickman, F. S., Baldwin, G. H. 

S., and Ranney, T. A. (2008). On-Road Study of 

Drivers’ Use of Rearview Video Systems 

(ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, DOT HS 811 024. 

22Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 

Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. Washington, 

DC: FHWA, November 2003. 

23Milazzo, J.S., Rouphail, J.E., and Alien, D.P. 

(1999). Quality of Service for Interrupted-Flow 

Pedestrian Facilities in Highway Capacity Manual 

2000. Transportation Research Record, No. 1678 

(1999): 25–31. 

24Chou, P., Chou, Y., Su, F., Huang, W., Lin, T. 

(2003). Normal Gait of Children. Biomedical 

Engineering—Applications, Basis & 

Communications, Vol. 15 No. 4 August 2003. 

25 49 CFR 571.111, Standard No. 111, Rearview 

mirrors. 

26Flat mirrors are referred to as ‘‘planar’’ or ‘‘unit 

magnification’’ mirrors. 

27ECE R46–02, Uniform Provisions Concerning 

the Approval of: Devices for Indirect Vision and of 

Motor Vehicles with Regard to the Installation of 

these Devices, (August 7, 2008). 

v. Analysis of Backover Crash Risk by 

Pedestrian Location Using Monte Carlo 

Simulation 

As noted in the ANPRM, NHTSA also 

calculated backover crash risk as a 

function of pedestrian location using a 

Monte Carlo simulation.20 Data from a 

recent NHTSA study of drivers’ backing 

behavior,21 such as average backing 

speed and average distance covered in 

a backing maneuver, were used to 

develop a backing speed distribution 

and a backing distance distribution that 

were used as inputs to the simulation. 

Similarly, published data 22 23 24

characterizing walking and running 

speeds of an average 1-year-old child 

were also used as inputs. A Monte Carlo 

simulation was performed that drew 

upon the noted vehicle and pedestrian 

motion data to calculate a probabilitybased risk weighting for a test area 

centered behind the vehicle. The 

probability-based risk weightings for 

each grid square were based on the 

number of pedestrian-vehicle backing 

crashes predicted by the simulation for 

trials for which the pedestrian was 

initially (i.e., at the time that the vehicle 

began to back up) in the center of one 

square of the grid of 1-foot squares 

spanning 70 feet wide by 90 feet in 

range behind the vehicle. A total of 

1,000,000 simulation trials were run 

with the pedestrian initially in the 

center of each square. 

The output of this analysis calculated 

relative crash risk values for each grid 

square representing a location behind 

the vehicle. Analysis results showed 

that the probability of crash decreases 

rapidly as the pedestrian’s initial 

location is moved rearward, away from 

the rear bumper of the vehicle. Areas 

located behind the vehicle and to the 

side were also shown to have 

moderately high risk, giving pedestrians 

some risk of being hit even though they 

were not initially directly behind the 

vehicle. The results suggest that an area 

12 feet wide by 36 feet long centered 

behind the vehicle would address 

pedestrian locations having relative 

crash risks of 0.15 and higher (with a 

risk value of 1.0 being located directly 

aft of the rear bumper). To address crash 

risks of 0.20 and higher, an area 7 feet 

wide and 33 feet long centered behind 

the vehicle would need to be covered. 

The analysis showed that an area 

covering approximately the width of the 

vehicle out to a range of 19 feet would 

encompass risk values of 0.4 and higher. 

D. Comparative Regulatory 

Requirements 

As of today, no country has 

established a requirement for the 

minimum area directly behind a light 

vehicle that must be directly or 

indirectly visible. All countries do, 

however, have standards for side and 

interior rearview mirrors, although 

slight differences do exist in terms of 

mirror requirements. 

i. Current FMVSS No. 111 

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors, 

sets requirements for motor vehicles to 

be equipped with mirrors that improve 

rearward visibility.25 This standard sets 

different requirements for various 

classes of vehicles, notably including 

passenger cars in paragraph S5, and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(MPVs), trucks, and buses (including 

school buses and school vans) with a 

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less in 

paragraph S6. The purpose of this 

standard is to reduce the number of 

deaths and injuries that occur when the 

driver of a motor vehicle does not have 

a clear and reasonably unobstructed 

view to the rear. 

With respect to passenger cars, 

paragraph S5 of the standard sets 

requirements for both the rearward area 

to the sides of the vehicle, as well as the 

area directly behind the vehicle. With 

regard to the requirements for viewing 

the area directly behind the vehicle, 

paragraph S5 requires that the inside 

mirror must have a field of view at least 

20 degrees wide and a sufficient vertical 

angle to provide a view of a level road 

surface extending to the horizon 

beginning not more than 200 feet (61 m) 

behind the vehicle. If this requirement 

is not met, the standard requires that a 

flat 26 or convex exterior mirror must be 

mounted on the passenger’s side of the 

vehicle; although no specific field of 

view is required. 

With regard to the rearward area to 

the side of the vehicle, paragraph S5 

requires a driver’s side rearview mirror 

to be mounted on the outside of the 

vehicle. This mirror is required to be a 

plane mirror that provides ‘‘the driver a 

view of a level road surface extending 

to the horizon from a line, 

perpendicular to a longitudinal plane 

tangent to the driver’s side of the 

vehicle at the widest point, extending 

2.4 m (7.9 ft) out from the tangent plane 

10.7 m (35.1 ft) behind the driver’s eyes, 

with the seat in the rearmost position.’’ 

Paragraph S6 sets mirror requirements 

for buses (including school buses and 

school vans), trucks, and MPVs, with a 

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Unlike 

the requirement for passenger cars, 

paragraph S6 does not set a requirement 

for a rear field of view directly behind 

the vehicle, but only sets a requirement 

for the rearward area to the sides of the 

vehicle. Pursuant to paragraph S6, 

vehicles must have either mirrors that 

conform to paragraph S5 or outside 

mirrors of unit magnification with 

reflective surface area of not less than 

126 square centimeters (19.5 square 

inches) on each side of the vehicle. We 

note that under S6, manufacturers are 

given the option to have mirrors that 

conform to S5, instead of the 

requirements listed in S6. As paragraph 

S6 does not establish minimum rear 

field of view requirements for the area 

directly behind the vehicle, existing 

state laws or regulations may regulate 

the vehicle’s rear field of view for 

vehicles subject to the requirements of 

paragraph S6. 

FMVSS No. 111 also includes 

requirements for school buses in 

paragraph S9. These requirements are 

substantially more robust than the 

mirror requirements for other vehicles. 

The standard also contains test 

procedures (paragraph S13) for 

determining the performance of school 

bus mirrors. 

ii. Relevant European Regulations (Also 

United Kingdom and Australia) 

In 1981, the United Nations Economic 

Commission for Europe enacted 

Regulation 46 (ECE R46), which details 

uniform provisions concerning the 

approval of devices for indirect vision.27

ECE R46 defines devices for indirect 

vision as those that observe the area 

adjacent to the vehicle which cannot be 

observed by direct vision, including 

‘‘conventional mirrors, camera-monitors 

or other devices able to present 

information about the indirect field of 

vision to the driver.’’ ECE R46 permits 

either exterior planar or convex mirrors 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76196 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

28Section 15.3.5 of ECE R46–02, Uniform 

Provisions Concerning the Approval of: Devices for 

Indirect Vision and of Motor Vehicles with Regard 

to the Installation of these Devices, (August 7, 

2008). 

29 Japanese Safety Regulation Article 44 and 

attachments 79–81. 

30 Vehicles manufactured for the Japanese market 

are right-hand drive. 

31 74 FR 9480. 

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

on both sides of the vehicle, provided a 

minimum field of view is satisfied. 

Specifications are also provided to 

define the required minimum surface 

area of the interior rearview mirror. 

The ECE R46 regulation previously 

outlined requirements for devices for 

indirect vision other than mirrors for 

vehicles with more than eight seating 

positions and those configured for 

refuse collection. However, in an 

August 7, 2008 amendment all 

performance requirements were 

removed and replaced with the 

statement, ‘‘Vehicles may be equipped 

with additional devices for indirect 

vision.’’ 28 This change allows for 

indirect vision systems to be installed 

on European vehicles without meeting 

any performance requirements. 

iii. Relevant Regulations in Japan and 

Korea 

The Japanese regulation, Article 44, 

provides a performance based 

requirement for rearview mirrors.29 For 

light vehicles, rearview mirrors must be 

present that enable drivers to check the 

traffic situation around the left-hand 

lane edge and behind the vehicle from 

the driver’s seat.30 The regulation 

requires that the driver be able to 

‘‘visually confirm the presence of a 

cylindrical object 1 m high and 0.3 m 

in diameter (equivalent to a 6-year-old 

child) adjacent to the front or the lefthand side of the vehicle (or the righthand side in the case of a left-hand 

drive vehicle), either directly or 

indirectly via mirrors, screens, or 

similar devices.’’ Article 44 does not 

specify requirements for rear-mounted 

convex mirrors and rearview video 

systems. Rear-mounted convex mirrors 

are commonly found on multipurpose 

passenger vehicles and vans in Japan. 

The Korean regulation on rearview 

mirrors, Article 50 outlines rearview 

mirror requirements for a range of 

vehicles. Article 50 requires a flat or 

convex exterior mirror mounted on the 

driver’s side for passenger vehicles and 

buses with less than 10 passengers. For 

buses, cargo vehicles, and special motor 

vehicles, flat or convex rear-view 

mirrors are required on both sides of the 

vehicle. Article 50 does not address 

rear-mounted convex mirrors and 

rearview video systems, therefore these 

devices are allowed, but not required 

under the standard. Again, rearmounted convex mirrors can be found 

on SUVs and vans in Korea. 

iv. State Regulations 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA requested 

comment on whether states or 

municipalities have regulations 

pertaining to rear visibility 

requirements.31 NHTSA has found that 

two states, New York and New Jersey, 

have motor vehicle regulations that 

require some single-unit trucks to have 

a cross-view mirror or electronic backup 

device. Specifically, the regulations 

apply to vehicles with a ‘‘cube-style’’ or 

‘‘walk-in type’’ cargo bay. We note that 

while the K.T. Safety Act applies 

primarily to passenger vehicles, the 

state regulations apply only to vehicles 

used for commercial purposes. 

However, we note that some commercial 

vehicles may be encompassed by the 

proposed regulations, and that issues of 

Federal preemption could apply. This is 

discussed in more detail in Section IX. 

III. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

The ANPRM set forth the agency’s 

analysis of the crash data and safety 

problem, our research progress, and 

ideas for possible proposals.32

Specifically, the ANPRM reiterated 

some previous findings on backover 

statistics, presented research findings on 

the effectiveness of various 

countermeasures, and outlined options 

for improving rear visibility including: 

Improved direct vision (i.e., looking 

directly out the vehicle’s rear window) 

or indirect vision via rear-mounted 

convex mirrors, rearview video systems, 

and rear object detection sensors. The 

notice also set forth three approaches to 

defining the scope of the applicability of 

the enhancements to FMVSS No. 111 

being contemplated by the agency. The 

approaches included requiring a rear 

visibility countermeasure on all light 

vehicles, only LTVs, or just a portion of 

the fleet as determined using a rear 

blind zone area threshold. Such a 

threshold would indicate what size of 

area behind the vehicle in which a 

driver cannot see obstacles is too large 

based on an associated high rate of 

backing or backover crashes. Several 

approaches for developing a threshold 

were provided, including a vehicle type 

approach and multiple implementations 

of a rear blind zone area threshold 

approach. Finally, the ANPRM sought 

responses to approximately forty-three 

specific questions addressing the 

feasibility and performance of various 

technologies, technology cost, and 

requesting feedback on NHTSA’s ideas 

about possible approaches for 

countermeasure application throughout 

all or a portion of the fleet. Sections A 

through D of this section summarize the 

information presented and the 

subsequent sections summarize the 

comments received. 

A. Technologies To Mitigate Backover 

Crashes 

Systems to aid drivers in performing 

backing maneuvers have been available 

for nearly two decades. To date, original 

equipment systems have been marketed 

as a convenience feature or ‘‘parking 

aid’’ for which the vehicle owner’s 

manual often contains language 

denoting sensor performance limitations 

with respect to detecting children or 

small moving objects. Aftermarket 

systems, however, are often marketed as 

safety devices for warning drivers of the 

presence of small children behind the 

vehicle. 

Since the early 1990s, NHTSA has 

actively researched approaches to 

mitigate backing crashes with 

pedestrians for heavy and light vehicles 

by assessing the effectiveness of various 

backing aid technologies. In addition to 

sensor-based rear object detection 

systems, the agency has evaluated rearmounted convex mirrors and rearview 

video systems. To date, our evaluation 

and testing results indicate that 

rearview video systems not only offer 

drivers the most comprehensive view 

behind a vehicle but drivers seem to use 

them more effectively in avoiding a 

conflict situation with a pedestrian 

when compared to additional mirrors 

and sensors. The following paragraphs 

provide a summary of the information 

presented in the ANPRM describing 

each of the system types assessed by 

NHTSA to date and our observations on 

how they could be used to improve the 

rear visibility of current vehicles. 

i. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors 

Rear-mounted convex mirrors are 

mirrors with a curved reflective surface 

that can be mounted internal or external 

to the vehicle. Their design is such that 

they compress a reflected image to 

provide a wider field of view than 

planar (i.e., flat) mirrors. When used on 

vehicles, the mirrors may be mounted at 

the rear to allow a driver to see areas 

behind the vehicle. A single rearmounted mirror can be mounted at the 

upper center of the rear window with 

the reflective surface pointing at the 

ground (commonly referred to as 

backing mirrors, under mirrors, or ‘‘lookdown’’ mirrors) or at the driver’s side on 

the upper corner of the vehicle 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76197 

33Rear-mounted convex mirrors have been 

available on the Toyota 4Runner base model vehicle 

since model year 2003. 

34 74 FR 9486. 

35The research studies and the observations are 

documented in ’’The Ability of Rear-Mounted 

Convex Mirrors to Improve Rear Visibility,’’ 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference 2009, 

Paper Number 09–0558. Since the ANPRM, NHTSA 

has conducted additional testing on drivers’ use of 

rear-mounted convex mirrors, the findings of which 

will be discussed later in this document. 

36Mazzae, 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. 

37 74 FR 9490. 

38Mazzae, 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. 

(commonly seen on delivery vans or 

mail delivery trucks and called ‘‘corner 

mirrors’’) to show the area behind the 

vehicle. Both look-down and corner 

convex mirrors are typically positioned 

to show a portion of the rear of the 

vehicle to give drivers a visual reference 

point. Alternatively, rear convex ‘‘crossview’’ mirrors pairs can be integrated 

into the inside face of both rearmost 

pillars or attached to the rear glass to 

show objects approaching on a 

perpendicular path behind the vehicle 

to aid a driver when backing into a 

right-of-way. While cross-view mirrors 

are available for passenger cars and 

LTVs, rear convex look-down and 

corner mirrors can only be mounted on 

vehicles with a vertical rear window, 

such as vans and SUVs. Rear-mounted 

convex mirrors are primarily available 

as aftermarket products in the U.S., but 

are also available as original equipment 

on at least one multipurpose passenger 

vehicle.33 In Korea and Japan, rearmounted 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. 

Generally, drivers use rear-mounted 

convex look-down mirrors to view the 

area behind a vehicle by looking 

directly at the mirror or by viewing 

them indirectly through their reflection 

in the interior rearview mirror. Crossview mirrors also may be viewed either 

directly or indirectly through the 

interior rearview mirror. For a rear 

convex corner mirror, which is not in 

the driver’s direct line of sight, he or she 

must look into the driver’s side rearview 

mirror to view the reflection of the rear 

convex corner mirror. 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA outlined its 

observations about these mirrors based 

on our testing conducted in 2006 and 

2007.34 35 The fields of view for lookdown mirrors examined were found to 

extend from the rear bumper out 

approximately 6 feet radially from the 

mirror location, while the view 

provided by cross-view mirrors 

extended further due to the mirrors’ 

vertical orientation. Overall, our testing 

generally indicated that convex mirrors 

compress and distort the image of 

reflected objects in their field of view, 

which makes objects and pedestrians 

appear very narrow and difficult for the 

driver to discern and identify in most 

locations within the reflected image. 

These aspects of image quality worsen 

as the length of the vehicle increases, 

since for longer vehicles the mirror is 

further from the driver. Our testing also 

has indicated that because rear crossview mirrors are positioned to show an 

area to the side and rear of the vehicle, 

they do not provide a good view of the 

area directly behind the vehicle (the 

area bounded by two imaginary planes 

tangent to the sides of the vehicle). As 

such, it is possible that a pedestrian or 

object located directly behind the 

vehicle would not be visible to the 

driver. Rear cross-view mirrors can help 

drivers see objects approaching the rear 

of the vehicle along a perpendicular 

path. 

ii. Rearview Video Systems 

Rearview video systems are available 

as both original and aftermarket 

equipment and permit a driver to see 

the area directly behind the vehicle via 

a visual display (i.e., video screen) 

showing the image from a video camera 

mounted on the rear of the vehicle. 

NHTSA has observed the placement of 

these visual displays in a number of 

locations. Sometimes these displays 

serve the added purpose of providing a 

visual display for a navigation system or 

satellite radio. As stand-alone units, 

these displays have also been 

incorporated into the dash or into the 

interior rearview mirror. The video 

cameras installed with rearview video 

systems vary in field of view 

performance from approximately 130 to 

180 degrees behind the vehicle. 

Drivers use rearview video systems as 

an additional source of visual 

information complementing the views 

provide by the interior and exterior 

rearview mirrors. In a 2008 report 36 that 

documented NHTSA’s research on 

drivers’ use of rearview video systems, 

the agency asserted that proper use of a 

rearview video system by a driver 

would entail drivers beginning to back 

only when the rearview video system 

display image becomes visible and the 

driver has looked at the image, and that 

drivers should look at the display as 

well as the vehicle’s mirrors 

periodically during backing rather than 

just taking one glance at the display at 

the start of the maneuver. 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA summarized 

its 2006 research that examined three 

rearview video systems: One in 

combination with original equipment 

rear parking sensors, one aftermarket 

system combining both rearview video 

and parking sensor technologies, and 

one original equipment rearview video 

system.37 38 This examination of 

rearview video systems included 

assessment of their fields of view and 

their potential to provide drivers with 

information about obstacles behind the 

vehicle. Through this study, the agency 

observed that the rearview video 

systems examined provided a clear 

image of the area behind the vehicle in 

daylight and indoor lighting conditions. 

Rearview video systems displayed 

images of pedestrians or obstacles 

behind the vehicle to a viewable range 

of 23 feet or more, except for an area 

within 8–12 inches of the rear bumper 

at ground level. Systems displayed an 

area as wide as the rear bumper at the 

immediate rear of the vehicle and the 

view increasingly widened further out 

from the rear of the vehicle as a function 

of the video camera’s viewing angle. 

iii. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection 

Systems 

Sensor-based object detection systems 

are also available as aftermarket 

products and as original equipment. 

These systems use electronic sensors 

that transmit a signal which, if an 

obstacle is present in a sensor’s 

detection field, reflects the signal back 

to the sensor producing a positive 

‘‘detection’’ of the obstacle. These 

sensors detect objects in the vicinity of 

a vehicle at varying ranges depending 

on the technology. To date, 

commercially-available object detection 

systems have utilized short-range 

ultrasonic technology or longer range 

radar technology, although advanced 

infrared sensors are under development 

as well. Ultrasonic sensors inherently 

have detection performance that varies 

as a function of the degree of sonic 

reflectivity of the obstacle surface. For 

example, objects with a smooth surface 

such as plastic or metal reflect well, 

whereas objects with a textured surface, 

such as clothing, do not reflect very 

well. Radar sensors, which among other 

things can detect the water in a human’s 

body, are better able to detect 

pedestrians overall, but demonstrate 

inconsistent detection performance for 

small children. 

In 2006, NHTSA evaluated the object 

detection performance of eight sensorVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:26 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07DEP3.SGM 07DEP3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

39Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental 

Evaluation of the Performance of Available 

Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA 

Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 

2006. 

40 ISO 17386:2004 Transport information and 

control systems—Manoeuvring Aids for Low Speed 

Operation (MALSO)—Performance requirements 

and test procedures. This standard applies to object 

detection devices that provide information to the 

driver regarding the distance to an obstacle during 

low-speed operation. 

41Mazzae, 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. 42Mazzae, 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. 43 74 FR 9504. 

based original equipment and 

aftermarket rear parking systems.39

Measurements included static field of 

view (i.e., both the vehicle and test 

objects were static), static field of view 

repeatability, and dynamic detection 

range for different laterally moving test 

objects, including adult and child 

pedestrians. Both ultrasonic and radar 

sensor-based systems tested were 

generally inconsistent and unreliable in 

detecting pedestrians, particularly 

children, located behind the vehicle. 

Testing showed that, in most cases, 

pedestrian size affected detection 

performance, as adults elicited better 

detection response than 1- or 3-year-old 

children. Specifically, each system 

could generally detect a moving adult 

pedestrian (or other objects) behind a 

stationary vehicle; however, each 

system exhibited difficulty in detecting 

moving children. The sensor-based 

systems tested exhibited some degree of 

variability in their detection 

performance and patterns. Five of eight 

systems tested were found to exhibit 

maximum system response times that 

exceeded the 0.35 second limit set forth 

by the performance requirements of the 

International Organization for Standards 

(ISO) International Standard 17386 40. 

NHTSA is aware that the performance of 

current sensor based systems can be 

influenced by the algorithms that are 

used for detection and that these 

systems, to date, have likely not been 

optimized for the detection of small 

children. 

iv. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video 

Camera) Systems 

Multi-technology systems, as the term 

is used here, refer to the situation of 

more than one backing aid technology 

being present on a vehicle. Historically, 

multi-technology backing aid systems 

have consisted of a rearview video and 

sensor-based technologies being both 

present on the vehicle, but functioning 

independently of each other. Recently, 

integrated systems have become 

commercially available that use data 

from rear object detection sensors to 

provide added convenience through 

presentation of obstacle warnings 

superimposed on the rearview video 

system image. 

It would seem reasonable to posit that 

such a combination system should have 

improved effectiveness over either 

technology alone. With a combined 

system, the sensor-based alerts could 

compensate for the passive rearview 

video technology by stimulating the 

driver to apply the brakes and glance at 

the rearview video system display to 

confirm the presence of an obstacle 

behind the vehicle (and inform the 

driver that the warning was not a false 

alarm). The intervention of the sensorbased warning should draw the driver’s 

attention to the presence of a rear 

obstacle, rather than relying on the 

driver to look at the rearview video 

system display at the right moment 

when the obstacle is apparent. 

However, this hypothesis has not 

proven correct. NHTSA’s research to 

date has shown that the combination of 

rearview video and sensor technologies 

to be less effective in aiding drivers to 

avoid a backing crash than rearview 

video alone.41 In laboratory testing of 

multi-technology systems’ ability to 

detect different types of objects without 

interaction from a driver,42 NHTSA 

found the performance of the combined 

technologies in detecting or displaying 

rear obstacles to be no better than that 

observed in the testing of those 

technologies as single-technology 

systems. As was the case with sensoronly systems, the sensor function of 

multi-technology systems have been 

shown to perform poorly and 

sporadically in detecting small children, 

while the rearview video component 

accurately displays rear obstacles 

located within the video camera’s field 

of view. 

v. Other Technologies 

NHTSA is aware of two additional 

sensor technologies currently under 

development by manufacturers that 

may, one day, be used to improve a 

vehicle’s rear visibility. The 

technologies include infrared-based 

object detection systems and videobased object recognition systems. As 

with other sensor systems, infraredbased systems emit a signal, which if an 

object is within its detection range, will 

bounce back and be detected by a 

receiver. Rear object detection via video 

camera uses real-time processing of the 

video image to identify obstacles behind 

the vehicle and then alert the driver of 

their presence. While these technology 

applications may eventually prove 

viable, because of their early stages of 

development and current unavailability 

as a production product, it is not 

possible at this time to assess their 

ability to effectively expand the visible 

area behind a vehicle. Also, it is 

anticipated that systems using such 

advanced technologies will not be 

available on vehicles for some time and 

will likely be more expensive than 

today’s systems. 

In addition, NHTSA has recently 

completed cooperative research with the 

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

and General Motors (GM) on Advanced 

Collision Avoidance Technology 

relating to backing incidents. The 

research focused on assessing the ability 

of more advanced technologies to 

mitigate backing crashes and refining a 

tool to assess the potential safety benefit 

of these prototype technologies. NHTSA 

expects to publish the findings of this 

particular research effort by the end of 

2010. 

B. Approaches for Improving Vehicles’ 

Rear Visibility 

In the ANPRM, NHSTA outlined three 

approaches that could be used to 

determine which vehicles would need a 

rear visibility countermeasure 

application to meet the requirements of 

the K. T. Safety Act: 43

• Require improved rear visibility for 

all vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or 

less. 

• Require improved rear visibility for 

LTVs weighing 10,000 pounds or less. 

• Require improved rear visibility for 

some vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds 

or less that do not meet a minimum rear 

visibility performance threshold. 

The first approach would require that 

all vehicles have improved rear 

visibility sufficient to allow the driver to 

see a pedestrian in a specified zone 

behind the vehicle. The size of the zone 

would have a direct impact on the likely 

means a manufacturer could use to meet 

the rear visibility requirements. 

The second approach would specify 

that all LTVs, as a vehicle class, should 

be required to have improved rear 

visibility. Crash data show that while 

multiple types of passenger vehicles 

(cars, multipurpose utility vehicles, 

trucks, and vans, but not LSVs and 

small buses) are involved in backover 

crashes, LTVs are statistically 

overrepresented in backover crash 

fatalities. Therefore, this alternative 

approach would target the class of 

vehicles which are disproportionately 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76199 

44 74 FR 9504. 

45 74 FR 9506. 

46Society of Automotive Engineers, Surface 

Vehicle Recommended Practice: Describing and 

Measuring the Driver’s Field of View. SAE J1050, 

Jan. 2003. 

47Consumer Reports (August, 2006). Blind-zone 

measurements. http://www.consumerreports.org/ 

cro/cars/car-safety/car-safety-reviews/mind-thatblind-spot-1005/overview/. Accessed 9/2/2009. 

48 74 FR 9496. 

49 74 FR 9507. 

50 74 FR 9512. 

51 74 FR 9484. 

responsible for the largest portion of 

backover fatalities. 

A third approach discussed in the 

ANPRM was to establish a maximum 

direct-view rear blind zone area limit 

based on size of blind zone and/or crash 

rate.44 With this approach, any vehicle 

not meeting the minimum rear visibility 

threshold would be required to be 

equipped with a rear visibility 

countermeasure. Because vehicle styling 

engineers would have a target threshold 

giving them an idea of minimum 

‘‘acceptable’’ direct rear visibility, such 

an approach would allow manufacturers 

the flexibility to modify exterior 

structural physical attributes of a 

vehicle that impact rear visibility to 

provide adequate rear visibility without 

the need for a technological 

countermeasure to enhance rear 

visibility. Based on direct-view blind 

zone area measurements of the current 

fleet, we could determine a threshold 

and require vehicles that do not meet 

the threshold to be equipped with a 

countermeasure. Thus, the agency 

suggested that it could focus application 

on improved rear visibility requirements 

for vehicles with the largest rear blind 

zone areas and those vehicles that are 

most involved in backing and backover 

crashes. The goal of either of these 

partial-fleet approaches would be to 

remove the unreasonable risk associated 

with vehicles that are highly involved in 

backover crashes. 

C. Rear Visibility Measurement 

The ANPRM also discussed a method 

for the measurement of a vehicle’s rear 

blind zone area.45 If a maximum directview rear blind zone area threshold 

were to be used to establish the need for 

a vehicle to have improved rear 

visibility, its rear visibility 

characteristics would need to be 

measured and that vehicle’s direct-view 

rear visibility and rear blind zone areas 

would need to be calculated. Therefore, 

a rear visibility measurement procedure 

would need to be developed. In the 

ANPRM, the agency identified existing 

measurement procedures, such as those 

by the Society of Automotive 

Engineers 46 and Consumers Union 47

and addressed advantages and 

disadvantages of the different identified 

methods. The ANPRM summarized 

NHTSA’s 2007 effort to measure rear 

visibility of a set of vehicles using 

drivers and outlined the potential for 

variability inherent in tests involving 

human subjects.48 Lastly, the ANPRM 

introduced a new measurement 

procedure developed by NHTSA that 

replaced the human driver previously 

used in rear visibility measurements 

with a laser-based fixture.49 The 

enhanced procedure approximated the 

direct rear visibility of a vehicle for a 

50th percentile male driver using a 

fixture that incorporated two laser 

pointing devices to simulate a driver’s 

line of sight. One laser pointing device 

was positioned at the midpoint of a 50th 

percentile male’s eyes when looking 

rearward over his left shoulder and the 

other device was placed at the midpoint 

of a 50th percentile male’s eyes when 

looking rearward over his right shoulder 

during backing. Data documenting the 

high degree of repeatability of this test 

procedure were provided, as well as 

sample results. Additional aspects of the 

measurement procedure were 

summarized including size of the field 

over which measurements were made, 

coarseness of the test grid, and test 

object height. 

D. Possible Countermeasure 

Performance Specifications 

The ANPRM also discussed possible 

countermeasure performance 

specifications.50 This included possible 

areas of required countermeasure 

coverage behind the vehicle, as well as 

various characteristics of a visual 

display, and system performance 

criteria. Visual display characteristics 

noted as being important included 

display size and location, response time, 

and various aspects of image quality for 

a video image display. In addition, 

possible video camera requirements 

were also noted, such as low light 

performance specifications. 

The ANPRM discussed one basis for 

assertion of an appropriate 

countermeasure coverage area that used 

the results of a Monte Carlo simulation 

that examined backover crash risk as a 

function of a pedestrian’s location 

behind a vehicle, as discussed in 

Section II.C.iv.51 The area of critical risk 

was then used to define an area behind 

a vehicle that must be visible to the 

driver during a backing maneuver. 

Based on the Monte Carlo simulation 

results, an area over which the test 

object should be visible could be 

defined to include an area 10 feet wide 

at the vehicle’s rear bumper that widens 

symmetrically to width of 20 feet at a 

distance of approximately 6 feet aft of 

the rear bumper. The width of the area 

increased along diagonal lines of 

45 degrees with respect to the vertical 

plane of the vehicle’s rear bumper and 

extending outward from the vehicle’s 

rear corners. The maximum longitudinal 

range of a possible required visible area 

noted in the ANPRM was 40 feet. 

E. Summary of Comments Received 

NHTSA received comments from a 

total of 37 entities in response to the 

ANPRM, as well as one comment 

specifically directed at the Preliminary 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. These 

comments came from industry 

associations, automotive and equipment 

manufacturers, safety advocacy 

organizations, and individuals. Industry 

associations submitting comments 

included the Alliance of Automotive 

Manufacturers (AAM), the Association 

of International Automobile 

Manufacturers (AIAM), the Automotive 

Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), 

and the Motor & Equipment 

Manufacturers Association (MEMA). 

Vehicle manufacturers submitting 

comments included Ford, General 

Motors (GM), Honda, Mercedes-Benz 

USA, and Nissan, as well as Blue Bird, 

a manufacturer of buses. Several 

equipment manufacturers also 

submitted comments, including 

Continental, Delphi, Gentex, Magna, 

Sony, and Takata. Several companies 

focused on backing aid products 

specifically, included Ackton, a 

manufacturer of automotive parking 

sensors; Echomaster Obstacle Detection 

Technologies; Rosco Vision Systems, a 

maker of vision enhancement systems; 

and Sense Technologies, a manufacturer 

of aftermarket automotive mirror and 

radar-based sensor systems. 

Organizations submitting comments 

included the Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety, Consumers Union, 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

(IIHS), and Kids and Cars. Finally, 14 

individuals commented on the ANPRM, 

and their points and suggestions are 

addressed as well. 

Because the ANPRM had an 

extremely broad scope, the comments 

addressed an extremely wide variety of 

issues and provided a large amount of 

information. Therefore, we have 

attempted to organize the comments 

received along some of the main issues, 

such as a blind zone area basis for 

determination of countermeasure need, 

countermeasure application based on 

vehicle type, and the adoption of 

convex driver’s-side mirrors. 

Additionally, the ANPRM contained 43 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

52We 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. 

distinct questions, to which some 

commenters added appendices 

addressing individual questions 

specifically, in addition to their general 

comments. Because of the breadth of 

those questions, they are addressed 

separately in Section F below. 

i. Measurement of Rear Blind Zone Area 

and Its Use as a Basis for Determination 

of Countermeasure Need 

Numerous commenters addressed the 

issue of direct visibility and the 

significance of a vehicle’s blind zone.52

As stated above, identifying, measuring, 

and limiting blind zones was one of the 

issues discussed in the ANPRM. The 

document solicited comments on 

several issues relating to blind zones, 

including their significance relative to 

backover crashes, areas of the blind 

zone that could be considered more or 

less important for safety, and how they 

should be measured. The following 

summarizes the comments received on 

these issues. 

The first issue related to the area to 

be measured to determine a vehicle’s 

blind zone. Delphi questioned the use of 

a 50-foot square blind zone area, stating 

that it combined high- and low-risk 

areas together. It also stated that 

mandating particular blind zones or 

direct visibility requirements could 

impose severe limitations on vehicle 

styling. Furthermore, the commenter 

suggested that a maximum blind zone 

area approach to rear visibility may not 

be as effective in reducing backover 

crashes as hoped under real-world 

conditions, as passengers, head 

restraints, cargo, etc., would obstruct the 

driver’s direct view to the rear of the 

visibility in any event. 

AORC stated that it was against a 

‘‘zero blind zone’’ requirement, arguing 

that it would create an extremely 

limiting requirement vehicle styling. To 

this end, the AORC recommended that 

a rear visibility countermeasure should 

be required to detect the presence of 

objects that are similar to standing 

children beginning 0.25 meters (0.82 ft) 

aft of the rear bumper and extending 

outward to a minimum of 3.0 meters 

(9.84 ft). IIHS strongly urged the agency 

to consider a requirement that would 

eliminate a vehicle’s rear blind zone 

entirely. IIHS further suggested that it 

could be a good idea to augment an 

improved rear visibility requirement 

with a minimum requirement for direct 

visibility, stating that it is desirable to 

preclude vehicle design choices that 

result unnecessarily small directly 

viewable rear areas, to account for 

situations when video cameras are 

inoperative. 

In its comments, the AAM 

recommended that NHTSA define the 

area directly behind the vehicle into two 

zones, called the ‘‘reaction subzone’’ and 

the ‘‘reverse obscuration subzone.’’ The 

AAM defined the reaction subzone as 

extending from the rear of the vehicle to 

a point 4.1 meters rearward. According 

to the AAM, this distance is ‘‘the 

product of the average backing speed of 

1.66 meters per second 

(5.49 feet per second) and the mean 

perception response time between 

detection by a driver of a pedestrian and 

brake application of 2.5 seconds.’’ The 

reverse obscuration subzone, behind 

that, extends to the point at which a test 

object (representative of an 18-month 

old child) first becomes visible in the 

interior mirror, which would vary by 

vehicle. The AAM did not specifically 

recommend what to require with regard 

to these zones. 

Several commenters provided 

suggestions as to how to measure the 

blind zone, specifically, the height of 

the test target, and the position of the 

driver’s ‘‘eyepoint’’ from which the 

target must be seen. In order to 

determine the size of the target, GM 

analyzed the age and height of children 

involved in backover crashes, noting 

that of the 41 SCI cases available at that 

time that involving children under 

5 years old, 33 involved children 18 

months and older. Based on that 

information, GM suggested that a height 

of 32 inches for any rear visibility test 

target would be justified, which it stated 

was the 50th percentile height of an 18- 

month-old child. GM stated that all the 

victims in the first 56 SCI backover 

cases would have been visible if the 

vehicle had permitted the driver to see 

the area at this height. 

Blue Bird stated that field of view 

mapping is a time and effort-consuming 

enterprise, and that the company does 

not believe that the magnitude of the 

differences measured at multiple 

eyepoints would justify that effort. 

Instead, it stated that a single eyepoint 

should be used. 

Kids and Cars stated that eyepoints 

should be based on smaller statured 

persons or dummies, and that NHTSA 

should not use eyepoints based on a 

95th percentile male. With similar 

concern for smaller-statured drivers, 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

indicated their concern that any attempt 

to expand rear visibility through 

improvements to direct visibility may 

not sufficiently accommodate 5th 

percentile females and other drivers of 

very small stature. 

Sony stated that NHTSA cannot 

satisfy the requirements of the Act 

solely by mandating limits on vehicle 

rear blind zones, since such an 

approach would only mitigate a portion 

of the total area of blind zones, and 

would do little to mitigate the ultimate 

danger of backover crashes. 

In addition, numerous commenters 

provided more detail in response to 

specific NHTSA questions, which are 

discussed in Section F below. 

ii. Application of Countermeasures 

Among Vehicle Types 

One significant issue discussed in the 

ANPRM was the concept that different 

types of vehicles could be subject to 

different countermeasure requirements. 

For example, noting the higher 

proportion of fatalities in backover 

crashes involving LTVs, the agency 

presented the option of requiring only 

those vehicles to have a rear visibility 

countermeasure. Many commenters 

offered their thoughts on which vehicles 

should be equipped with 

countermeasures. 

Sony commented that the Act permits 

NHTSA to ‘‘prescribe different 

requirements for different types of 

motor vehicles,’’ but does not permit a 

total or partial exemption of a particular 

class of vehicles, or a percentage of a 

particular class of vehicles, from rear 

visibility requirements. Sony further 

stated that limiting the rear blind zone 

visibility requirements to LTVs ignores 

the fact that passenger cars account for 

26 percent of backover deaths and 54 

percent of backover injuries, and that 

these percentages will likely increase 

given the relative decline of LTV sales 

across the market. They also pointed out 

that the line between passenger cars and 

LTVs has blurred to the point where the 

weight and/or height of a particular 

vehicle does not necessarily correspond 

to rear visibility. 

Safety organizations generally 

commented against limiting 

countermeasures to certain vehicle 

types. Kids and Cars stated that all 

vehicles must be addressed in order to 

prevent backover injuries and fatalities, 

stating that even one car with a large 

blind zone should indicate the need for 

the regulation to cover all vehicle types. 

Similarly, IIHS and Consumers Union 

both supported uniform requirements 

across light vehicle classes. 

Some equipment manufacturers of 

rear visibility enhancement products 

also submitted comments 

recommending that rear visibility 

countermeasures not be limited to 

certain vehicle types, but be applied to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76201 

53 74 FR 9486. 

all vehicles. Delphi and Magna stated 

that it believes the backover problem is 

widespread enough that 

countermeasures should not be limited 

to any particular class of vehicles. 

Similarly, Ackton suggested that 

countermeasures should not be limited 

to a certain vehicle class and also raised 

the issue that trailers should be 

equipped with sensor systems as well. 

Several automakers commented in 

favor of limiting any rear visibility 

improvement to LTVs. Mercedes 

suggested that if the agency believes that 

advanced countermeasures are required 

for the portion of the vehicle fleet that 

is statistically overrepresented in 

backover crashes (i.e., LTVs), then 

NHTSA should require those 

countermeasures only for those types of 

vehicles. Mercedes stated that those 

advanced countermeasures are 

particularly well-suited for higher-beltline vehicles, and that the limitation 

would make the requirement more costeffective. Honda also commented that 

rear visibility performance requirements 

should be instituted for only those 

vehicles with the highest rates of 

backover incidents, although it also 

suggested that NHTSA should actively 

monitor the data for all vehicle types so 

that it can consider broader application 

of the requirements based on the safety 

need. 

Automakers Nissan and GM both 

recommended that a maximum blind 

zone area approach be used to 

determine whether a vehicle warrants 

improved rear visibility rather than 

applying the new requirements by 

vehicle type. 

NHTSA received one comment, from 

Blue Bird, asserting that buses should 

not be subject to improved rear visibility 

requirements. First, Blue Bird noted that 

the backover statistics presented by 

NHTSA did not show any apparent 

backover crashes caused by buses. 

Second, it stated that most drivers of 

buses are required to obtain commercial 

driver licenses (CDLs), and that these 

drivers are subjected to additional 

training, limiting the chances of 

backover crashes. The company also 

stated that mirrors, in any of several 

configurations, would not be able to 

provide an adequate field of view to the 

rear of a bus, and would present 

exceptional mounting difficulties. 

Additionally, because many buses (such 

as school buses) are not equipped with 

navigation screens, the costs for 

installing rearview video systems in 

these vehicles would be higher than the 

average for passenger vehicles. 

iii. Use and Efficacy of Rear-Mounted 

Mirror Systems and Convex Driver’sSide Mirrors 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA presented 

data on the ability of mirrors to display 

usable images of the area behind a 

vehicle.53 Several commenters provided 

information and opinions regarding 

mirrors. Furthermore, several 

manufacturers suggested that, due to the 

geometry of a number of backover 

scenarios analyzed, convex driver’s-side 

mirrors could be an effective way to 

prevent backover crashes. We have 

summarized these comments below. 

Several commenters, including 

Consumers Union, Kids and Cars, IIHS, 

Blue Bird, Magna, and Nissan agreed 

with NHTSA’s preliminary evaluation 

of rear-mounted mirror systems in 

Section V of the ANPRM, stating that 

they are generally not useful in aiding 

a driver of a backing vehicle to visually 

detect pedestrians, particularly 

children, located behind the vehicle. 

Based on the information presented in 

the ANPRM, the Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety concluded that the 

coverage provided by rear-mounted 

convex mirrors is inadequate for the 

purpose of providing drivers with a 

sufficient rearward field of view to 

identify pedestrians and avoid backover 

crashes. 

According to the AAM and other 

commenters, rear-mounted convex 

mirrors are installed as backing/parking 

aids to help the driver locate fixed 

objects behind and near the rear 

bumper. 

One commenter, Sense Technologies, 

which manufactures rear cross-view 

mirrors, suggested that NHTSA perform 

additional research into the types of 

backover crashes and backing crashes 

that could be prevented with rearmounted cross-view mirrors, which 

would enable drivers of vehicles to see 

objects approaching from the sides of a 

vehicle, which are frequently obscured 

in parking lots. It also suggested that 

cross-view mirrors could be mounted on 

the rear of passenger cars (unlike ‘‘look 

down’’ mirrors, which are usually only 

mounted on LTVs). 

One issue mentioned by multiple 

commenters concerned the European 

standard for mirror performance, ECE 

R46. Several commenters suggested that 

replacing the side mirror requirement 

currently in FMVSS No. 111 with the 

convex driver’s-side mirror 

specifications in ECE R46 would help 

drivers be better able to detect 

pedestrians before they enter the path of 

the vehicle, if they are approaching from 

the sides. We note that ECE R46 allows 

either flat or convex driver’s-side 

mirrors, provided they meet the 

minimum field of view requirements. It 

was unclear to the agency whether some 

commenters were suggesting mandating 

convex mirrors (and disallowing current 

flat mirrors) or simply allow convex 

mirrors as an option. 

The AAM recommended adopting 

ECE R46 convex driver’s-side mirror 

requirements as a means to prevent a 

substantial number of backover crashes. 

It pointed to a number of purported 

benefits, such as an increase in viewing 

coverage, reduced glare, and driver 

preference for non-planar mirrors. Like 

other commenters, the AAM also 

discussed NHTSA’s data that showed 

that a number of backover crashes 

resulted from side incursions. They 

stated that convex side mirrors could 

help the driver see these pedestrians 

earlier than flat mirrors. The AAM also 

cited research indicating that these 

mirrors would provide a 22.9 percent 

reduction in lane change crashes. 

Mercedes commented that, given that 

many SCI cases indicated the children 

struck by backing vehicles moved into 

the path of the vehicle from either the 

left or right, it supported AAM’s 

recommendation to adopt ECE R46 

requirements for convex driver’s-side 

exterior mirrors, as they substantially 

increase the driver’s field of view to the 

sides and rear of a given vehicle, thus 

increasing the time that a moving 

pedestrian will be visible in the mirror 

and providing greater opportunity for 

the driver to detect them. 

Regarding convex mirrors, Advocates 

for Highway and Auto Safety agreed that 

they may provide a wider field of view 

than that available with current 

rearview mirrors. However, they 

pointed out that convex mirrors may 

require drivers, even those with 

experience using convex mirrors, to 

interpret the altered view in order to 

understand precisely what is being 

conveyed regarding pedestrians and 

other objects present in the vehicle path. 

iv. Use of Monte Carlo Simulation of 

Backover Crash Risk for Development of 

a Required Countermeasure Coverage 

Area 

GM raised some questions about the 

Monte Carlo simulation presented in the 

ANPRM, which calculated the backover 

risk for pedestrians as a function of their 

location relative to a backing vehicle. 

GM noted that while the Monte Carlo 

simulation calculated the risk of a 

backing vehicle striking a pedestrian at 

certain locations behind the vehicle, it 

did not factor in the probability that the 

pedestrian would actually be located in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

54 ISO 17386:2004 Transport information and 

control systems—Manoeuvring Aids for Low Speed 

Operation (MALSO)—Performance requirements 

and test procedures. This standard applies to object 

detection devices that provide information to the 

driver regarding the distance to an obstacle during 

low-speed operation. 

that spot (e.g., even though a child six 

inches from the rear edge of the vehicle 

is almost certain to be hit, the chance of 

the child being actually located there is 

comparatively low). Considering that, 

according to GM’s analysis, the areas 

indicated as high-risk in the Monte 

Carlo simulation may not correlate 

particularly well with the overall 

backover crash risk. 

On the other hand, Consumers Union 

praised the Monte Carlo simulation, and 

suggested using it as the basis for 

determining what a rearview video 

system should be able to detect, 

recommending that it detect any area 

where the risk factor was 0.10 or higher 

in that analysis. 

v. Use and Efficacy of Sensor-Based 

Systems 

The issue of the use and efficacy of 

sensor systems, that is, how they are 

designed and how well they function to 

prevent backovers was discussed by 

many commenters. These comments 

addressed three main issues. The first 

was the purpose for which sensors are 

currently designed, which are as 

parking aids, rather than backover 

prevention aids. Commenters also 

discussed the capabilities of sensors to 

detect various obstacles, as well as the 

cost of production and implementation, 

and provided recommendations for test 

objects. We have summarized the 

comments below. 

One major issue addressed by 

numerous commenters was the assertion 

that NHTSA’s analysis relating to sensor 

system effectiveness was flawed. 

Commenters felt that by testing 

currently available sensors, we were 

testing systems that were designed to 

detect large, dense or highly reflective, 

stationary objects (such as parked cars, 

walls, etc.) rather than smaller, lighter, 

and mobile objects like pedestrians. 

Because of this discrepancy, 

commenters suggested that NHTSA’s 

testing of sensors may have led to 

artificially low estimates of system 

effectiveness. 

Delphi questioned whether NHTSA’s 

effectiveness numbers were accurate. 

The company stated that NHTSA’s 

analysis of sensor effectiveness, which 

showed that sensor systems had a 

39 percent detection rate and that a 

combination sensor/video system had a 

15 percent driver performance result, 

should be used carefully because the 

sensors were not designed to detect 

children. Instead, Delphi stated that 

current OEM sensor systems are 

designed to the ISO 17386 standard,54

which asserts performance requirements 

for object detection devices that provide 

information to the driver regarding the 

distance to an obstacle during lowspeed operation. This ISO standard 

specifies a PVC cylinder for use in 

measuring systems’ detection 

performance, and does not require the 

detection of objects low to the ground so 

that systems are permitted to avoid 

detecting curbs. 

Delphi also provided extensive 

comments regarding sensor-based 

systems in terms of their abilities and 

how they may best be used. It suggested 

that sensors are an important addition to 

rearview video systems, as drivers need 

prompting in order to glance at the 

screen when an obstruction appears. 

The company also suggested that a 

sensor system with varying warnings, 

dependent on the calculated time-tocollision, could provide drivers with 

additional information that could be 

used to prevent backover crashes. 

Delphi stated that radar sensors are 

more efficient at detecting children than 

ultrasonic sensors, and can detect 

targets at greater ranges. With regard to 

test targets for sensor systems, it 

commented that any test target should 

be chosen to provide a minimum 

reflectivity that is representative of the 

smallest required detectable object (e.g., 

1-year-old child). 

Ackton was another company that 

noted that current sensors are designed 

to the ISO 17386 standard, and are not 

designed to detect children. It stated 

that until there is a pedestrian-detection 

standard, many systems will not be 

designed to pass it, and will therefore 

fail to detect pedestrians. Sony also 

stated that current sensors are designed 

as parking aids and are optimized to 

detect hard surface objects, but that 

technical advances may improve the 

ability of such systems to detect nonoccupant pedestrians. 

Ackton also commented that its ‘‘NewGen’’ ultrasonic technology can detect a 

36-inch child at a distance of 15 feet. 

Along similar lines, Magna commented 

on two future technologies discussed in 

the ANPRM, infrared and video-based 

object recognition systems. Magna 

stated that these systems were in active 

development, and would be ready for 

production by 2011. 

Continental commented that in the 

future advanced systems may be 

developed that respond automatically 

with automatic braking to avoid a 

backing crash without any action from 

the driver. It stated that in the future, 

systems will be able to recognize 

pedestrians that are in danger of being 

struck and automatically intervene to 

prevent that from happening. 

Continental gave no indication of the 

timeframe for availability of such 

technology. 

IIHS stated that the combination of 

sensors’ unreliability and drivers’ slow 

and inconsistent reactions to audible 

warnings suggest that requiring, or even 

allowing, sensors in lieu of a visual 

backover countermeasure systems is not 

advisable at this time, although sensors 

could augment other technologies. Kids 

and Cars and Magna also pointed to the 

audible signals from sensors as a source 

of annoyance to many drivers, 

especially given the prevalence of false 

positives, which caused many drivers to 

‘‘tune out’’ the warnings. However, 

Magna stated that if the sensor warnings 

were provided visually (such as on a 

graphical overlay), drivers would be less 

prone to be irritated by them and 

therefore less likely to ignore them. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety suggested for sensor-based 

systems that the agency consider an 

interlock requirement that prohibits the 

vehicle from being able to be moved in 

reverse, even after the transmission has 

been placed in reverse gear, until a short 

period after the system becomes fully 

operational. 

vi. Use and Efficacy of Rearview Video 

Systems 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA presented its 

research on rearview video systems. 

Commenters discussed these systems at 

length. In summarizing these comments, 

we have divided them into two general 

groups. The first section describes the 

comments relating to the general 

effectiveness of rearview video systems 

in aiding drivers to avoid backing 

crashes. The subsequent section 

summarizes the comments relating to 

the specific possible requirements for 

rearview video systems, such as camera 

performance, visual display 

characteristics, etc. 

Many commenters, including 

manufacturers of video cameras, safety 

organizations, and individual 

commenters, stated that rearview video 

systems would be the best system to 

prevent backover crashes. Commenters 

supporting this proposition included 

Consumers Union, Kids and Cars, IIHS, 

Magna, Nissan, and Sony. 

Consumers Union also supported the 

application of rearview video systems, 

noting their potential to save lives, and 

also asserted that their efficacy would 

improve as users grew more accustomed 

to using them in their everyday driving. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76203 

It added that it believed a rearview 

video system coupled with a sensor 

system would be the overall best 

system. While Consumers Union 

referred to NHTSA’s research study as 

involving drivers ‘‘trained’’ to use 

rearview video systems and the other 

systems tested, the agency notes that all 

drivers who participated in the study 

had owned and driven the systemequipped vehicle and had driven it as 

their primary vehicle for at least 6 

months prior to study participation, but 

did not receive any specific training in 

the use of a rearview video system. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety pointed out that a video image of 

the area behind a vehicle immediately 

conveys information about rear 

obstacles and pedestrians within the 

system’s field of view without any need 

for interpretation by the driver. This 

quality was noted as an advantage of 

rearview video systems over rearmounted convex mirrors and sensorbased systems. 

Magna stated that it believes camera 

technology has the potential to 

significantly enhance safety and that a 

rearview video system ranks highest by 

far, in regard to system performance and 

overall effectiveness estimates. In its 

responses to specific questions, Magna 

provided some additional research 

showing the overall effectiveness of 

rearview video systems in preventing 

backover crashes, which is discussed in 

Section F below. 

Sony stated that it agrees with the 

majority of analysis provided and the 

preliminary conclusions reached 

observations made in the ANPRM. 

Specifically, Sony recommended that 

any amendment to FMVSS No. 111 

should require backover prevention 

technologies to detect obstacles in areas 

other than immediately behind the 

vehicle. Sony stated that rearview video 

systems with 180-degree video cameras 

would be best able to address real-world 

backover crash scenarios, in which a 

majority of pedestrians enter the 

vehicle’s path from the side. 

Nissan provided some comments on 

its ‘‘Around View Monitor’’, which 

provides a birds-eye (i.e., overhead) 

view of the area around the vehicle on 

all four sides. The company stated that 

their system was designed primarily as 

a parking aid, and that it will have 

significant limitations if used to protect 

children. Nissan stated that rearview 

video technology in general is a useful 

parking aid, but that its utility in 

preventing backover crashes may be 

limited, because drivers must be looking 

at the screen in order to see a pedestrian 

incur into their path. Nissan drew 

attention to the glance behavior cited in 

NHTSA’s research, noting that on 

average drivers looked at the visual 

display twice, or about 8–12 percent of 

the time. It stated that this may not be 

enough to detect the pedestrian in time 

to react, even if the driver is using the 

rearview video system correctly, and 

that driver glance behavior has a 

significant effect on rearview video 

system effectiveness. Nissan also 

cautioned against excessive reliance on 

a video-based backing aid, cautioning 

that if a driver is relying excessively 

upon rearview enhancement 

technology, the operator can miss seeing 

a person or an object positioned just 

outside of that field of view. Nissan also 

stated that it is imperative that the 

operator always confirm clearance of the 

entire path of travel, and turn around 

and look during a backup maneuver. 

The AAM made several comments 

similar to those of Nissan, stating that 

no safety countermeasure or safety 

technology is completely effective. 

AAM stated that regardless of the 

technology adopted to expand a driver’s 

field of view, the driver is ultimately 

responsible for the safe operation of the 

vehicle. AAM characterized rear 

visibility enhancement systems as 

supplemental drivers with 

responsibility resting on drivers to use 

them properly. 

GM stated that its analysis showed 

some limited benefits may be provided 

by rearview video technologies, but that 

potential solutions will continue to be 

limited by driver behavior. GM stated 

that it agrees with NHTSA that drivers’ 

expectations influence behavior and 

system effectiveness, and that further 

improvements in the effectiveness of 

rearview video technologies may be 

achieved by improving feedback to the 

driver and improving driver behavior 

through education. 

vii. Characteristics of Rearview Video 

Systems 

NHTSA received numerous comments 

relating to the specific characteristics of 

rearview video systems. These related to 

issues of camera placement, durability, 

and performance, as well as visual 

display characteristics, such as location 

(i.e., in the dashboard, or in the rearview 

mirror), brightness, and the 

functionality of the backing image. 

Commenters presented extensive 

comments on issues such as visual 

display size, whether digital graphical 

overlays should be used, and other 

characteristics related to these systems. 

IIHS noted that there was a wide range 

of performance by various current 

rearview video systems it examined 

and, based on this; expect that NHTSA 

will need to specify performance 

requirements to ensure a minimum level 

of performance for those systems. 

Several commenters, including 

Consumers Union and Magna, 

recommended that NHTSA consider 

inclusion of graphic overlays as part of 

a video-based backover countermeasure, 

stating that this increases a driver’s 

ability to detect obstacles, and makes 

the driver more likely to use the system. 

NHTSA also requested comment 

regarding characteristics such as video 

camera angle, durability, and low-light 

performance, as well as contrast, image 

response and linger time, and display 

size and location. Commenters provided 

a wide array of suggestions. 

IIHS stated that some rearview video 

systems are much more immune to 

weather and road dirt contamination 

than others, and recommended that 

NHTSA specify performance 

requirements to ensure that systems can 

withstand adverse conditions. 

Sony offered an observation that 

while adverse weather conditions can 

affect rearview video system 

performance, cameras utilized in such 

applications are sealed in watertight 

housings and mounted at a downward 

angle, and therefore generally protected 

from the elements. Sony also 

commented on the number of backover 

incidents in which victims were struck 

after approaching from the side of the 

vehicle, stating that the incidence rate 

was 45 percent. It stated that this 

indicated that wide-angle rearview 

video systems would best prevent 

backover incidents. 

Magna, on the other hand, 

commented that in order to assure 

overall system affordability across the 

widest possible range of vehicle types 

and models, NHTSA should not impose 

specific operational requirements on 

rearview video systems. It noted that 

‘‘anti-wetting’’ and ‘‘anti-soiling’’ 

techniques are known and currently 

implemented despite the lack of a 

legislative mandate. 

In its comments, Gentex stated that 

the interior rearview mirror is an ideal 

location for the rearview video system 

visual display. Gentex stated that that 

location is intuitive, logical, and 

ergonomic, and allows the driver to 

maintain a ‘‘head-up’’ position while 

viewing the display and the rearview 

mirror simultaneously. Furthermore, it 

noted that drivers are already trained to 

look in the interior rearview mirror 

when reversing. Magna also commented 

that the interior mirror is the best 

location for a rearview video system 

visual display, noting that the display in 

that location is much closer to the 

driver’s eyes. However, Magna 

suggested that NHTSA not prescribe 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

specific requirements regarding display 

location, image size, or other 

requirements, as doing so may result in 

unintended restrictions on technology 

applications. 

With regard to image size, 

commenters submitted a number of 

ideas for what a minimum visual 

display size should be. Gentex stated 

that it disagreed with NHTSA’s 

suggestion that a minimum 3.25 inch 

screen size might be specified. Instead, 

they suggested a minimum viewable 

display height of 1.3 inches, based on its 

calculation of what the human visual 

system can generally resolve and the 

mean distance between the driver’s eyes 

and the visual display. Ford also 

commented on NHTSA’s minimum 

visual display size suggestion, stating 

that the GM research cited by NHTSA 

was not designed to assess system 

effectiveness as a function of visual 

display size since it only used one inmirror display size, and in fact 

concluded that rear effectiveness was 

not affected by image size in the 

scenario used. Instead, Ford suggested 

that GM used a 3.5 inch screen in its 

study because it was offered as a regular 

production option, and that NHTSA’s 

reliance on GM’s research was 

inappropriate. 

In lieu of the 3.5 inch minimum 

visual display size, Ford suggested that 

an Australian regulation on screen sizes 

for rear visibility systems (specifically, 

New South Wales’ Technical 

Specification No. 149), could be used as 

a model. According to Ford’s comment, 

this regulation states that when a 600 

mm test cylinder is located five meters 

from the rear of the vehicle, the height 

on the screen should be no less than 0.5 

percent of the distance between the 

driver’s eye and the visual display. The 

company claimed that this technique 

has resulted in several iterations of a 2.4 

inch screen size and that they have been 

readily accepted by consumers. 

Magna, on the other hand, referred to 

studies by GM and the Virginia Tech 

Transportation Institute indicating that 

a 3.5 inch visual display, mounted in 

the interior rearview mirror, led to the 

highest crash avoidance rates. 

Certain commenters focused on some 

of the other specifications of the visual 

display. Image response time, or the 

delay between when a vehicle is shifted 

into reverse and the rearview image 

from the video camera appears, was 

discussed extensively by Gentex. While 

NHTSA had suggested a maximum of 

1.25 seconds for this value, Gentex 

recommended 3 seconds, based on its 

calculations of the time needed for 

signal transfer, powering the camera, 

and the complexity of the electronics. 

GM supported Gentex’s comments on 

this matter. 

Gentex made two additional 

recommendations with regard to visual 

displays in its comments. The company 

suggested a minimum brightness of 500 

candelas per square meter (cd/m2) for 

the screen, as well as a minimum 

contrast ratio of 10:1. 

Consumers Union made a number of 

suggestions regarding displays for 

rearview video systems, including that 

there needs to be a minimum display 

size and that a maximum image 

response time of 1 second, and a 

maximum linger time between 4 and 8 

seconds should be required. GM 

recommended a maximum linger time 

of 10 seconds or, as an alternative, a 

speed-based limit in which the rearview 

video display would turn off when the 

vehicle reach a speed of 5 mph (8 kph). 

Based on their observations of drivers 

making parking maneuvers, the AAM 

also recommended a maximum linger 

time of 10 seconds, but specified an 

alternative speed-based value of 20 kph 

(12.4 mph). 

Ms. Susan Auriemma, of Kids and 

Cars, offered a personal testimony, 

stating that as a user of a rearview video 

system with an image response time of 

2–3 seconds, there is a tendency to want 

to proceed to back the vehicle without 

waiting for the image to appear. 

viii. Development of a PerformanceBased or Technology-Neutral Standard 

Numerous commenters suggested that 

any NHTSA standard be performancebased and technology-neutral. These 

commenters generally supported the 

idea that the blind zone must be limited 

to a certain size, or that certain areas 

behind the vehicle should be visible, 

but did not want NHTSA to prescribe 

how these areas should be detected. 

Instead, these commenters stated that 

allowing the manufacturer to determine 

the means by which the required area is 

detectable would promote styling 

flexibility, technological innovation, 

and help to contain costs. 

MEMA stated that it supported a 

performance-based test, stating that ‘‘it is 

clear that there is no one solution to 

mitigating backover events.’’ It also 

suggested that various countermeasures 

can be incorporated, whether 

complementary or separately, to 

promote increases in the rear field of 

view. 

Delphi stated that there would be no 

reason to not grant compliance credits 

to vehicle manufacturers who choose 

any system, mirrors, sensors, or video, 

which detects the required areas behind 

a vehicle. 

AIAM, in its comments, pointed out 

specific problems with all three 

countermeasure technologies, and then 

suggested that some of the issues would 

present a greater challenge for certain 

classes of vehicles. In light of that, it 

suggested that performance-based 

requirements would allow vehicle 

manufacturers to achieve the best match 

of technical approach for each of their 

vehicle models. 

AORC stated that it believes that the 

regulation should allow for the 

enhancement of rear visibility via the 

implementation of rearview video 

systems or the use of sensor input. It 

stated that these systems should be 

subject to a pure performance 

requirement, and must able to detect 

children from a distance of 0.25–3.00 

meters behind the vehicle. 

Kids and Cars urged the agency to not 

only set the highest feasible rear 

visibility standard, but to also allow 

new innovative product designs that 

will evolve as technology matures. 

ix. Other Issues Addressed in Comments 

This section summarizes comments 

related to ancillary issues regarding rear 

visibility. For example, several 

commenters suggested that NHTSA 

design a performance rating system for 

rear visibility, issuing it in addition to, 

or in lieu of, a countermeasure 

performance requirement. Alternatively, 

suggestions for driver education 

proposals were made. Some 

commenters also discussed the rate at 

which any rear visibility standard be 

phased in. 

Several commenters suggested that a 

performance rating system be 

developed, to provide consumers 

information about the rearward 

visibility characteristics of various 

vehicles. Delphi stated that a 

performance rating system would have 

the effect of giving consumers the 

necessary facts to purchase vehicles that 

offer the best choice of safety and value, 

and would encourage continued 

innovation in backover avoidance 

technology. 

AORC suggested a performance rating 

system for rear visibility enhancement 

systems, similar to ones used in 

NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program, 

as it could give consumers information 

relating to vehicle purchase. This idea 

was also supported by Magna, which 

recommended a five-star Federal safety 

rating program. 

The AAM recommended that NHTSA 

provide information to consumers about 

proper backing procedures, as well as 

the capabilities and limitations of rear 

visibility countermeasures. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76205 

Another remark by Kids and Cars 

member, Ms. Susan Auriemma, focused 

on ‘‘proper backing procedures.’’ 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

research is needed to define what 

proper use of a rearview video system 

is in terms of how often a driver should 

look at a rearview image, and whether 

a driver should also look directly 

behind the vehicle and at the mirrors. 

Ms. Auriemma also questioned whether 

the sample size used by NHTSA, 37 

drivers, was large enough to make 

definitive conclusions regarding backing 

behavior and rearview video system use. 

Several commenters requested that 

the phase-in period for rear visibility 

system requirements be extended 

beyond the four-year period mandated 

in the K.T. Safety Act. Honda stated that 

in addition to the cost of the systems, 

there could be considerable costs if 

major design changes are required 

before vehicles are scheduled for normal 

redesign. The company suggested that 

the costs could be substantially reduced 

if only one or two additional years are 

allowed for the phase-in schedule to 

coincide with existing redesign plans. 

AIAM also suggested a six-year phasein schedule so that changes could be 

implemented in accordance with 

vehicle redesign schedules. It also stated 

that small volume and limited line 

manufacturers should be excluded from 

the visibility requirements until the end 

of the phase-in period is reached, due to 

reduced access to technologies and 

generally longer product life cycles 

compared to larger manufacturers. 

One comment from Sony suggested 

that a mechanism to reduce costs would 

be to eliminate the U.S. import tariff on 

rearview video camera imports, which 

currently stand at 2.1 percent. Kids and 

Cars suggested that NHTSA also 

consider proposing a ‘‘forward 

visibility’’ standard to prevent 

‘‘frontovers,’’ stating that fatalities from 

such accidents have increased 

substantially in recent years. 

Finally, NHTSA received several 

comments from individuals relating 

personal experiences involving 

backover crashes. One anonymous 

commenter, who had backed over their 

son, recommended that backup sensors 

and/or rearview video systems be put in 

all vehicles. Ms. Shannon Campbell 

described a personal backover 

experience with a ‘‘sport utility vehicle’’ 

(SUV), and stated that it is impossible 

for the driver to see behind the vehicle 

without a rearview video system. 

Similarly, Mr. Donald Hampton, whose 

granddaughter was involved in a 

backover with an SUV, recommended 

that every new vehicle have a rearview 

video system, stating that an add-on 

video camera kit costs around $100. Ms. 

Sharron DiMario, who son was involved 

in a backover with a minivan, 

recommended safety modifications to 

dramatically improve vehicle blind 

spots. Ms. Karena Caputo, who son was 

involved in a backover with a Hummer, 

stated that children cannot be seen 

behind vehicles, and that every vehicle 

should have some type of backup safety 

device. Ms. Andriann Raschdorf-Nelson, 

whose 16-month old son was involved 

in a backover with an SUV, simply 

applauded NHTSA’s decision to make 

all vehicles safer for children. Ms. 

AnnMarie Bartlett-Pszybylski 

commented that she had installed a 

rearview video system on her vehicle 

after a backover incident involving her 

son. Mr. David Sarota requested that 

NHTSA promulgate a Federal regulation 

after witnessing a near-backover 

involving a small truck. Finally, Mr. 

Paul Faragher Anthony whose 23- 

month-old son was the victim of a nearfatal backover incident involving a van 

equipped with a rear-mounted convex 

mirror, which he stated ‘‘do nothing to 

improve the field of view downward, 

where a toddler is likely to be.’’ 

Kids and Cars discussed the specifics 

of backover crashes. It stated that 

parents and relatives have a greater 

vulnerability to backover crashes 

because they are involved in more 

backing situations when young children 

are present. Kids and Cars stated that in 

all the backover cases they documented, 

the parent or relative driving the vehicle 

was unaware the child was behind the 

vehicle. 

x. Suggested Alternative Proposals 

In their comments, several 

commenters laid out suggested 

proposals for addressing the problem of 

backover crashes. Suggestions were 

received from GM, AORC, Mr. Louis 

Martinez, and the AAM. We have 

summarized these alternative proposals 

below. 

GM suggested a two-part alternative 

proposal. First, GM suggested that 

NHTSA expand the required field of 

view to the sides and rear of the vehicle, 

through establishing passenger side 

mirror requirements and expanding the 

existing driver side requirements. 

Second, GM suggested that all vehicles 

meet a maximum blind zone 

requirement, using an alternative 

‘‘indirect’’ measurement of rear 

visibility. GM proposed an indirect 

threshold limit of 100 to 125 square feet, 

which it indicated would correspond to 

a direct-view blind zone area of 

approximately 400–500 square feet 

using the methods described by NHTSA 

in the ANPRM. Vehicles that did not 

meet this threshold indirect visibility 

requirement would need additional rear 

vision enhancements, such as video 

cameras, to meet the requirements. 

The AAM suggested a three-part 

alternative proposal in its comments. 

First, it suggested that NHTSA adopt 

European mirror requirements (ECE 

R46) for both driver and passenger side 

convex mirrors, for reasons described 

above. Second, it suggested NHTSA 

develop performance-based criteria to 

identify vehicles that may require 

additional countermeasures. Third, it 

recommended that NHTSA increase 

consumer information about capabilities 

and available technology intended to 

enhance rear detection capability and 

enhance driver education. 

AORC suggested dividing the area 

behind the vehicle into a ‘‘warning 

zone,’’ extending three meters behind a 

vehicle, and an ‘‘observation zone,’’ 

extending an indefinite distance behind 

the warning zone. Video cameras and 

sensors would be required to perform 

different warning and obstacleavoidance tasks for objects within the 

two zones, and would be tested using a 

0.75 meter (2.5 ft) tall object with 

human form approximation. 

Mr. Louis Martinez submitted a 

description of a ‘‘three-piece interior 

rear view mirror assembly for vehicles.’’ 

According to the commenter, this planar 

mirror assembly would enable driver to 

view more areas to the sides and rear of 

the vehicle without having to turn his 

or her head or adjust the mirrors. 

xi. Costs and Benefits 

Commenters also provided 

information which they stated could be 

used to develop the costs and benefits 

of the agency’s rear visibility proposal. 

Consumers Union stated that it 

believes the cost of rearview video 

systems, cited in the ANPRM, were too 

high, as they related to stand alone 

options. They suggested that the true 

cost to the OEM is less than $100. 

Consumers Union did not cite a source 

for this figure. 

The Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety stated that the safety benefits 

noted in the ANPRM are in accord with 

project benefits for other NHTSA safety 

rules, such as the agency’s recent 

upgrade of the roof crush resistance 

standard. The Advocates also posited 

that the benefits eventual savings in 

backover incidents may actually prove 

to be more effective than the roof crush 

rule. 

Magna stated that it believed the costs 

of rearview video systems, as cited by 

NHTSA, were on the high end of the 

spectrum. It added that as the number 

of automotive video cameras increases, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

55As noted near the beginning of this document, 

the inclusion of sensors in this sentence as a 

‘‘technology to expand the driver’s field of view’’ 

suggests that ‘‘expand the required field of view’’ 

should not be read in the literal or natural way as 

meaning the driver must be able to see more of the 

area behind the vehicle. A literal or natural reading 

would make the reference to sensors superfluous, 

violating a basic canon of statutory interpretation. 

Instead, it seems that language could be read as 

meaning the driver must be able to monitor, 

visually or otherwise, an expanded area. 

their price will decline. Magna did not 

provide any indication of how low the 

price may get. 

Ms. Susan Auriemma of Kids and 

Cars said that NHTSA should not be 

limited by monetary considerations in 

determining standards that may save 

children, stating that the value of the 

life of a child should not be equal to that 

of a 70-year old adult. 

F. Questions Posed and Summary 

Response 

NHTSA asked a series of 43 questions 

in the ANPRM on a wide variety of 

topics. In this section, we have 

reprinted the questions and grouped the 

significant responses by topic. Because 

of some of the information we received 

and further research we undertook 

subsequent to the ANPRM publication, 

some of the questions we asked no 

longer have significant bearing on the 

proposal (such as questions about 

methodologies for measuring blind zone 

size), but we have summarized the 

responses for the sake of completeness. 

Because several commenters separated 

their general comments from their 

specific responses to NHTSA’s 

inquiries, we have summarized those 

responses separately. Note that this 

section contains only responses from 

those commenters who elected to 

explicitly respond to each or a subset of 

questions. Comments that related to 

questions asked, but were included in 

the body of the text, are addressed 

above. 

i. Technologies for Improving Rear 

Visibility 

The first series of questions was 

related to issues regarding the three 

main technological solutions—mirrors, 

sensors, and rearview video systems. 

NHTSA was interested in collecting 

information on the effectiveness, 

characteristics, and implementation of 

these technologies. 

Question 1: While the objective to 

‘‘expand the required field of view to 

enable the driver of a motor vehicle to 

detect areas behind’’ the vehicle implies 

enhancement of what a driver can 

visually see behind a vehicle, the 

language of the K.T. Safety Act also 

mentions that the ‘‘standard may be met 

by the provision of additional mirror, 

sensors, cameras, or other technology.’’ 

NHTSA seeks comment with regard to 

the ability of object detection sensor 

technology to improve visibility and 

thereby comply with the requirements 

of the Act. 

Responses: The commenters generally 

did not address the question of whether 

object detection sensor technology was 

literally capable of expanding the 

driver’s view of the area immediately 

behind his or her vehicle, as opposed to 

increasing the driver’s awareness of 

objects within that area.55 They focused 

instead on the performance of that 

technology. 

NHTSA received mixed views about 

its performance, with industry groups, 

GM, and equipment manufacturers 

including Ackton, Continental, Delphi, 

and Magna requesting that the agency 

make any requirements as technologyneutral as possible, so as to allow 

innovation and technological 

improvements, while others agreed with 

NHTSA’s tentative thinking in the 

ANPRM that sensor technology may not 

function effectively in preventing 

backover crashes. 

GM and Delphi said any technology is 

better than none, while Sony and 

Consumers Union recommended that 

rearview video may provide a better 

margin of safety with regard to backover 

crashes. GM and the AAM responded by 

saying that any technology that can 

provide a view of the rear of the vehicle 

should be permitted to comply with a 

rear visibility requirement. AAM added 

that given drivers’ tendency to rely on 

mirrors once the backing maneuver 

starts, requirements should not preclude 

any technology. 

Specifically in regard to sensor-based 

systems, Ackton stated that their 

product uses ‘‘New-Gen’’ ultrasonic 

technology that can detect another 

vehicle at a range of up to 30 feet and 

can detect a 36-inch-tall child at a range 

of up to 15 feet. On the other hand, 

Consumers Union and Nissan stated 

that they agreed with NHTSA’s findings 

that sensor-based systems are 

inconsistent and unreliable in detection 

pedestrians, particularly small children, 

behind a vehicle. Nissan also 

commented that it generally agrees with 

NHTSA’s evaluation of sensor-based 

systems and believes that they are 

generally unreliable in detecting 

pedestrians, particularly children. 

Nissan also stated that sensor-based 

‘‘systems may not be able to detect 

children or detect them in time for the 

driver to react.’’ Magna stated that it 

concurred with NHTSA’s finding that 

sensor-based systems are inconsistent 

and unreliable in detecting children. 

Ms. Susan Auriemma stated that false 

alarms occur frequently with sensors, 

and that they would be unhelpful in 

situations where the vehicle was near 

known obstructions, such as in garages, 

therefore recommending that sensors 

not be permitted to meet the 

requirement. Furthermore, she added 

that a malfunctioning sensor system 

could impart a false sense of security to 

a driver, who hearing no warning, might 

assume the path is clear. 

Question 2: What specific customer 

feedback have OEMs received regarding 

vehicle equipped with rear parking 

sensor systems? Have any component 

reliability or maintenance issues arisen? 

Is sensor performance affected by any 

aspect of ambient weather conditions? 

Responses: GM responded to this 

question by stating that the parking 

sensor systems have been generally 

reliable. AAM stated that weather, dirt, 

snow, harsh sunlight, intense cold, or 

high levels of ambient noise can reduce 

sensor performance. Mercedes also 

responded to this question, but with 

information it wished to keep 

confidential. Kids and Cars stated that it 

believes that people tend to ‘‘tune out’’ 

the sound of a sensor as they back out 

of a garage, as it can register a false 

positive from the garage walls, which 

would lessen its efficiency in preventing 

backover crashes. 

Question 3: What specific customer 

feedback have OEMs received regarding 

vehicles equipped with rearview video 

systems? Have any rearview video 

system component or reliability issues 

arisen? 

Responses: NHTSA received several 

responses to this question, indicating 

that most rearview video systems 

demonstrated good reliability. Other 

commenters pointed out that the 

systems have not been installed on 

vehicles for significant periods of time, 

so the data regarding their reliability are 

limited. GM stated that they have 

generally received favorable customer 

feedback regarding the performance and 

operation of their rearview video 

systems, but have had some negative 

comments regarding the camera lens 

needing to be periodically cleaned to 

remove contaminants. Magna stated that 

consumers gave positive feedback to the 

following features in rearview video 

systems: A wide-angle field of view, 

electronic image distortion reduction, 

graphical overlays, and interior mirror 

screen locations. Furthermore, Magna 

commented that it was not aware of 

component reliability problems in 

excess of what is normally seen in 

automotive systems. Rosco added that 

audio-enhanced video systems were 

positively received by customers. Sony 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76207 

stated that video camera design for 

vehicles focuses on reliability, with 

particular attention to water resistance, 

vibration susceptibility, EMI sensitivity, 

and scratch resistance, and stated that 

the number of warranty returns for its 

video cameras were low. 

Kids and Cars commented that 85 

percent of individuals with these 

systems felt the systems were effective 

or very effective, and Ms. Auriemma 

noted a personal experience where a 

rearview video system had functioned 

for several years without 

malfunctioning. 

Question 4: What are the performance 

and usability characteristics of rearview 

video systems and rear-mounted convex 

mirrors in low light (e.g., nighttime) 

conditions? 

Responses: In general, commenters 

including Nissan, GM, and Sony, 

seemed confident that, combined with 

backup lamps (required by FMVSS No. 

108), rearview video systems and 

mirrors would provide a sufficiently 

visible image in low light conditions. 

Ms. Auriemma commented that her 

rearview video system works well under 

low light conditions. One commenter 

did point out that sensors, unlike those 

other systems, would not be affected by 

low ambient light conditions. Magna 

stated that performance depends, in 

part, on the luminous intensity of the 

tail lamps and backup lamps, but that 

low-light performance of current 

systems does improve rear visibility. 

Rosco stated that to improve nighttime 

performance, it incorporates infrared 

and audio technology into its rearview 

video systems. 

Regarding specific performance 

information, GM stated that its rearview 

video system provide an image in 3 lux 

lighting conditions. While Sony 

indicated that their current video 

cameras operate in conditions as low as 

1 lux, they recommended 5 lux with 

reverse gear and lamps engaged as an 

appropriate minimum light level for 

rearview video system compliance 

testing. 

Question 5: Is there data available 

regarding consumers’ and vehicle 

manufacturers’ research regarding 

backing speed limitation, haptic 

feedback to the driver, or use of 

automatic braking? 

Responses: Commenters, such as GM, 

indicated that these systems have not 

been applied to backing conditions. 

However, Magna indicated that some 

technologies have been applied in 

certain vehicles, and that haptic 

feedback alerts can be effective in 

capturing the driver’s attention. The 

Alliance added that a review of the SCI 

cases indicates that excessive backing 

speed was not a primary risk factor in 

backover incidents, but Nissan stated 

that research is being conducted, and 

that it expects that performance of 

backover countermeasures will improve 

when used in combination with a 

reduction in backing speeds. 

Question 6: What types of rear 

visibility countermeasures are 

anticipated to be implemented in the 

vehicle fleet through the 2012 

timeframe? 

Responses: Without giving specific 

numbers, commenters did indicate that 

they expect rearview video systems to 

be installed on an increasing percentage 

of their fleets. The AAM stated that the 

same technologies employed today will 

likely be used in 2012. Nissan stated 

that it will continue to offer as parking 

systems a rearview video system, as 

well as its Around View Monitor 

system. Honda commented that 

rearview video systems are currently on 

Honda and Acura SUVs, as well as the 

Ridgeline pickup, Odyssey minivan, 

and several sedans and coupes. Magna 

stated that it forecast around 500,000– 

750,000 vehicles produced in North 

America will be equipped with a 

rearview video system, and Rosco added 

that the evolution of technology has 

been moving towards rearview video 

systems. 

Continental stated that in the future, 

systems will be able to recognize 

pedestrians that are in danger of being 

struck and automatically intervene to 

prevent that from happening. However, 

they gave no indication of the timeframe 

for availability of such technology. 

Takata provided confidential 

comments on anticipated developments 

in rear detection technology, including 

the estimated detection capabilities of 

future products. 

Question 7: Can rear-mounted convex 

mirrors be installed on light vehicles 

other than SUVs and vans? What is the 

rationale for U.S. manufacturers’ 

choosing to install rear parking sensors 

and video cameras, rather than rearmounted 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 rearmounted convex mirrors in Korea and 

Japan. 

Responses: NHTSA received a 

number of responses to this question. 

AAM, GM, and other stated that rearmounted convex mirrors cannot feasibly 

be mounted on passenger cars with a 

sloping rear window surface. The 

commenters stated that these sorts of 

mirrors are generally considered 

unattractive and are not well-received 

by consumers. Kids and Cars also 

speculated that consumers may find 

them unappealing, or that they may 

strike people or objects in tight areas. 

Honda provided information that 

these mirrors, widely used in Asia, are 

being phased out in favor of rearview 

video systems. Furthermore, it noted 

that these mirrors are used as parking 

aids, and would not be effective for 

obstacle avoidance in non-parking 

backing maneuvers. GM indicated that 

their research has shown that rearmounted convex mirrors do not 

demonstrate any effectiveness in 

reducing backover crashes in the 

situations they examined. Rosco stated 

that it provides these mirrors to 

customers such as the United States 

Postal Service and other commercial 

package delivery services. 

Question 8: NHTSA seeks any 

available research data documenting the 

effectiveness of rear convex cross-view 

mirrors in specifically addressing 

backover crashes. 

Responses: GM and the Alliance 

stated that they were not aware of 

research on this topic. 

Question 9: NHTSA seeks comment 

and data on whether it is possible to 

provide an expanded field of view 

behind the vehicle using only rearmounted convex mirrors. 

Responses: Honda and GM both 

responded that the utility of rearmounted convex mirrors was limited in 

this regard. Honda stated that this was 

due to ‘‘minification’’ (the small image 

size) and distortion problems. The AAM 

pointed to its responses to questions I– 

7, II–5, and III–10 as being relevant to 

this question. 

Question 10: NHTSA is aware of 

research conducted by GM that suggests 

that drivers respond more appropriately 

to visual image-based confirmation of 

object presence than to non-visual 

image based visual or auditory 

warnings. Is there additional research 

on this topic? 

Responses: GM responded to this 

question, and reiterated the results of its 

research, stating that while all people 

that saw the rear obstacle applied the 

brakes, most people who simply heard 

a warning looked for the object first, and 

did not stop if they did not get visual 

confirmation. Magna stated drivers have 

a higher tolerance for visual alerts than 

for auditory alerts, which drivers view 

to be intrusive (and hence, can get tuned 

out). Magna said that visual overlays are 

best tolerated by drivers, even when 

they discern that the object being 

highlighted is benign. The Alliance 

pointed to its answer to question I–1 as 

applying to this question. 

Question 11: NHTSA requests input 

and data on whether the provision of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

graphical image-based displays (e.g., 

such as a simplified animation 

depicting rear obstacles), rather than 

true-color, photographic visual displays 

would elicit a similarly favorable crash 

avoidance response from the driver. 

Responses: In response to the 

questions regarding whether graphical 

image-based visual displays may be as 

effective as photographic video 

displays, GM reiterated its response to 

question VI–2 (below). 

Sony commented that graphical 

image-based displays offer inferior 

protection from backover crashes when 

compared to true-color, photographic 

visual images from a rearview video 

system. They indicated that rearview 

video images provide a wider and 

deeper viewable area. Sony also stated 

that a graphical image-based display 

would require the driver to exit the 

vehicle to confirm the presence of a rear 

obstacle, and that if false alarm rates 

were high, the driver might choose to 

ignore the warning and not check for an 

obstacle. 

Magna responded by emphasizing the 

benefits of graphical overlays 

superimposed on a rearview video 

image and urged NHTSA to consider 

inclusion of graphic overlays as part of 

a video camera-based rear backup aid. 

Magna indicated that they view 

graphical image-based displays as a 

supplement to a true color photographic 

visual image rather than a substitute for 

such an image. 

However, the Alliance responded by 

stating that these technologies are in 

their infancy, and requesting that 

regulations be crafted in such a way as 

to not impede their development. 

Question 12: To date, rearview video 

systems examined by NHTSA have 

displayed to the driver a rear-looking 

perspective of the area behind the 

vehicle. Recently introduced systems 

which provide the driver with a near 

360-degree view of the area around the 

entire vehicle do so using a ‘‘birds-eye’’ 

perspective using images from four 

video cameras around the vehicle. 

During backing, it appears that, by 

default, this birds-eye view image is 

presented simultaneously along with 

the traditional rear-facing video camera 

image. NHTSA requests data or input on 

whether this presentation method is 

likely to elicit a response from the 

driver that is at least as favorable as that 

attained using traditional, rear-view 

image perspective, or whether this 

presentation is more confusing for 

drivers. 

Responses: Nissan, which uses this 

technology in some of its vehicles, 

stated that it has not received negative 

customer feedback about it. The AAM 

again stated that such systems have only 

recently been introduced into the 

marketplace. 

ii. Drivers’ Use and Associated 

Effectiveness of Available Technologies 

To Mitigate Backover Crashes 

These questions were posed in order 

to help NHTSA gain a better 

understanding of how technologies were 

being deployed and used by drivers, and 

to fill in gaps in research. The agency 

was particularly interested in any 

market or research studies indicating 

customer satisfaction and adoption of 

specific technologies. 

Question 1: NHTSA has not 

conducted research to estimate a 

drivers’ ability to avoid crashes with a 

backing crash countermeasure system 

based only on sensor technology. We 

request any available data documenting 

the effectiveness of backing crash 

countermeasure systems based only on 

sensor technology in aiding drivers in 

mitigating backing crashes. 

Responses: AAM commented by 

stating that these devices have only 

been recently introduced into the 

marketplace, and that more time would 

be needed before results would be 

detectable. GM’s comment referred to 

the results of the McLaughlin and 

Llaneras studies, which provided some 

evidence that although warnings 

influenced driver behavior, warnings 

were unreliable in terms of their ability 

to induce drivers to immediately brake 

to a complete stop. GM stated that their 

research has shown no additional 

benefit of integrated (rearview video and 

sensor) systems over simple rearview 

video alone. Kids and Cars stated that 

there is a common reaction for drivers 

to ‘‘tune out’’ the sensor, such as in 

situations where a driver is backing out 

of a garage. 

Question 2: NHTSA has not 

conducted research to estimate drivers’ 

ability to avoid crashes with a backing 

crash countermeasure system based on 

multiple, integrated technologies (e.g., 

rear parking sensors and rearview video 

functions in one integrated system). We 

request any available objective data 

documenting the effectiveness of multitechnology backing crash 

countermeasure systems in mitigating 

backing crashes. We also request 

comment on what types of technology 

combinations industry may consider 

feasible for use in improving rear 

visibility. 

Responses: NHTSA received a variety 

of responses on this issue. While AAM 

indicated that the technology is too new 

to have good effectiveness data, both 

GM and Nissan stated that multitechnology systems were less effective 

than video alone. Kids and Cars, on the 

other hand, commented that graphic 

overlays based on sensor data could 

improve the user experience with 

rearview video systems. It also stated 

that a sensor can alert a driver to a 

problem, and that a rearview video 

system can verify that there is an 

obstacle behind the vehicle. Magna 

stated that graphic overlays, which 

include fusion of ranging sensing (i.e., 

using infrared or radar technology), 

already exist, and can enhance the 

driver’s ability to judge distance/depth 

and to assimilate what is being 

displayed on the video screen. 

Question 3: NHTSA requests any 

available data documenting the image 

quality of rear-mounted convex mirrors 

and their effectiveness in aiding drivers 

in preventing backing crashes. 

Responses: GM responded by stating 

that its research indicated rear-mounted 

convex mirrors offered no improvement 

in the prevention of backover crashes. 

The AAM stated that it does not have 

data documenting their performance in 

preventing backover crashes. 

Question 4: NHTSA requests any 

available additional objective research 

data documenting the effectiveness of 

sensor-based, rearview video, mirror, or 

combination systems that may aid in 

mitigating backover incidents. 

Responses: Magna pointed to a variety 

of research studies being performed by 

the Virginia Tech Transportation 

Institute and other entities. Some 

conclusions it summarizes include: That 

good image quality is important for 

customer acceptance; that a 3.5 inch inmirror display led to the highest 

backover avoidance rates; and that inmirror displays were preferred by a 

large majority of drivers. The AAM 

stated that it does not have any data on 

these systems, and given the uncertainty 

associated with them, recommends that 

NHTSA adopt a technology-neutral 

regulation. GM reiterated that it had 

already shared its relevant findings. 

Question 5: NHTSA requests 

information regarding mounting 

limitations for rear-mounted convex 

mirrors. 

Responses: Commenters stated that 

they are aware of no reasonable method 

for attaching effective rear-mounted 

mirrors to vehicles like sedans, where 

such mirrors could not be mounted on 

or near the roof and provide an image 

of the area directly behind the vehicle. 

The AAM cautioned that long bracket 

arms would be impractical and have a 

negative effect on component reliability. 

GM also reiterated that it had not found 

the mirrors effective even when 

mountable. Honda added that it believes 

it is impractical to apply a rear-mounted 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76209 

convex mirror to vehicles with trunk 

lids. 

iii. Approaches for Improving Vehicles’ 

Rear Visibility 

In this section, NHTSA was 

presenting the regulatory concepts it 

could use in developing a rear detection 

system that would best prevent 

backover crashes. These ideas included 

the specific areas that would need to be 

detected by a rear visibility system, the 

design and possible placements of 

mirrors or video screens, and the 

ramifications of requiring certain 

systems (e.g., the maintenance costs of 

video cameras). This section also 

contained additional questions 

regarding the pricing and feasibility of 

a variety of potential systems. 

Question 1: NHTSA seeks comment 

on the areas behind a vehicle that may 

be most important to consider when 

improving rear visibility. Furthermore, 

while the distribution of visible area 

behind the vehicle was not considered 

in the blind zone area metrics (e.g., rear 

blind zone area) discussed in this 

document, it may be helpful to specify 

some specific areas behind the vehicle 

that must be visible. 

Responses: Commenters generally fell 

into two categories. Honda stated 

simply that the area immediately behind 

the vehicle’s rear bumper is significant 

and should be addressed as a priority. 

Other commenters, such as AAM and 

GM, stated that based on a review of the 

SCI data, the area to the sides of the 

vehicle is of significant importance, 

since most victims intruded into the 

path of the backing vehicle from the 

sides, rather than starting from directly 

behind the vehicle. Rosco responded, 

with respect to school buses, that the 

area behind the bus closest to the 

curbside rear wheels may be the most 

important in order to see a child 

running to catch the bus. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety encouraged the agency to make 

the coverage area behind the vehicle as 

large as possible to provide as much 

time as possible for the driver to 

determine that a pedestrian is behind 

the vehicle and to take measures to 

prevent a crash. The approach 

recommended by the Advocates was to 

eliminate vehicles’ rear blind zones 

entirely. They indicated that allowing 

the degree of rear visibility 

improvement to be based on the size of 

the particular vehicle’s rear blind zone 

would permit countermeasures that are 

tailored to produce the desired result for 

each vehicle model and type 

individually. 

Question 2: NHTSA invites comment 

as to how an actual threshold based on 

vehicles’ rear blind zone area could be 

defined. 

Responses: This question was asked 

in relation to the considered rear 

visibility threshold, or how big the 

maximum permissible blind area could 

be before a countermeasure was needed. 

Commenters provided various 

responses. GM offered a method of 

measuring a vehicle’s viewable area 

indirectly and noted an associated 

threshold value of 100–125 square feet 

measured using a 32-inch target plane, 

but stated that either the direct or 

indirect field of view methodology 

could be used to determine a threshold. 

AAM, on the other hand, offered a 

suggestion relating to calculating 

pedestrian speed of 6 kph (3.7 mph), 

vehicle speed of 6 kph or less, and 

estimated driver perception and 

response time 2.5 seconds. However, no 

data were provided by the AAM to 

support the specific values. Honda 

stated that any specified minimum rear 

visibility value should be based on 

conclusive data to indicate a direct 

safety benefit that has been found to be 

cost-effective in light of all of the related 

design trade-offs. Consumers Union 

recommended that a threshold be 

established based on NHTSA’s Monte 

Carlo analysis in which all areas with 

risk of 0.1 or higher are required to be 

visible. 

Question 3: NHTSA is considering 

specifying a minimum portion of a 

vehicle’s rear visibility that must be 

provided via direct vision (i.e., without 

the use of mirrors or other indirect 

vision device). NHTSA seeks comments 

on this approach, such as input 

regarding how a minimum threshold 

should be specified, and how much of 

a vehicle’s rear area should be visible 

via direct vision? 

Responses: Commenters were 

generally unsupportive of the idea of a 

direct visibility requirement. Honda 

stated that it would unduly restrict 

vehicle design and styling, and stated 

that it would be a design-restrictive 

standard that would not enhance 

vehicle safety. GM commented that 

while there are currently no field of 

view requirements, most vehicles 

provide them, and that market demand 

for direct field of view would continue 

for the foreseeable future. The Alliance 

stated that direct field of view should be 

incorporated into FMVSS No. 111 as 

well as indirect field of view. Rosco was 

concerned that it would be impossible 

for some vehicles, particularly larger 

vehicles, to meet any direct visibility 

requirements. 

Question 4: NHTSA requests 

information regarding anticipated costs 

for rear visibility enhancement 

countermeasures. 

Responses: Many specific responses 

to this question were provided on a 

confidential basis, which were taken 

into account in the agency’s cost and 

benefit analysis. However, Kids and 

Cars did comment that the agency’s 

estimated costs were too high, and that 

it did not take into consideration the 

amount of money saved by the 

reduction in minor parking accidents. 

Nissan urged NHTSA to consider the 

‘‘total cost’’ of implementation of any 

countermeasure in its cost-benefit 

analysis. It stated that the total cost 

includes equipment, research and 

development, software redesign, wiring, 

electrical architecture, instrument 

panels, etc. It also stated that the costs 

can be especially significant for vehicles 

that do not already have an integrated 

liquid crystal display (LCD). 

Question 5: Given the increasing 

popularity of LCD panel televisions and 

likely resulting price decline, what 

decline in price can be anticipated for 

LCD displays used with rearview video 

systems? Will similar price reduction 

trends be seen for video cameras for 

rearview video system application? 

Responses: GM suggested that 

substantial changes in price were not 

likely in the foreseeable future, although 

not impossible. The company stated that 

while it is conceivable that cost 

reductions will be realized, the more 

severe requirements for automotive LCD 

displays than for home applications 

puts them in a different category, and 

that cost reductions may not be realized 

for some time. 

Question 6: NHTSA requests 

information on the estimated price of 

rear visibility enhancement 

countermeasures at higher sales 

volumes, as well as the basis for such 

estimates. 

Responses: In response to this 

question, GM stated that it did not 

estimate that there would be any 

significant cost reductions. It noted that 

ultrasonic technology and mirrors have 

existed for some time, and that cost 

reductions are unlikely. 

Question 7: NHTSA requests any 

available data on rearview video system 

maintenance frequency rates and 

replacement costs. How often are 

rearview video cameras damaged in the 

field? 

Responses: In general, commenters 

suggested that the number of warranty 

claims on rearview video systems was 

low. However, it was noted that the 

systems are still comparatively young. 

GM stated that its current warranty rate 

for rear video systems is approximately 

0.1–2.3 incidents per thousand vehicles. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Nissan stated that it is unaware of any 

issues that have arisen with regard to 

the damage rate of its systems. Mercedes 

provided confidential comments on this 

subject, which were also considered by 

NHTSA. 

Question 8: NHTSA requests 

comments on which types of possible 

rear visibility enhancement 

countermeasure technologies may be 

considered for use on which types of 

vehicles. This information is important 

for estimating the costs of 

countermeasure implementation in the 

fleet. 

Responses: This question also 

generated a variety of responses. GM 

stated that market forces are driving 

larger vehicles, such as SUVs and vans, 

to adopt rearview video systems. Rosco 

also suggested that larger vehicles 

would benefit most from having a 

rearview video system installed. Honda, 

on the other hand, suggested that 

rearview video systems would be better 

than mirrors on sedans and coupes, but 

with pickups, durability and tailgate 

placement must be considered. Finally, 

AAM stated that as a reasonably priced 

baseline, the ECE R46 mirror standard 

would be a good addition, and that for 

certain vehicles, countermeasures could 

supplement the mirror system. It is not 

clear to NHTSA whether AAM was 

suggesting convex mirrors should be 

required (and disallow current flat 

mirrors) or simply that convex mirrors 

should be allowed as an option. 

Question 9: NHTSA requests 

information regarding available studies 

or data indicating the effectiveness of 

dashboard display-based rearview video 

systems and rearview mirror based 

rearview video systems. What are the 

key areas that will impact the real-world 

effectiveness of these systems as they 

become more common in the fleet? 

Responses: GM suggested that as 

drivers grow more familiar with inmirror and in-dash video systems as 

backing aids, the effectiveness of these 

systems will increase, and pointed to a 

study presented at the May 2008 Society 

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Government/Industry meeting, 

suggesting that the rearview mirrorbased displays showed more benefits for 

inexperienced drivers, while more 

experienced drivers experienced about 

equal benefits from each type of system. 

The Alliance admitted it had no data, 

but said it believed the same thing. 

Rosco made several arguments for the 

‘‘integration’’ of dashboard and rearview 

mirror-based systems, namely that 

integration will make the display more 

theft resistant and help propagate other 

technologies. 

Question 10: NHTSA requests 

objective data on the use, effectiveness, 

and cost of rear-mounted convex 

mirrors. 

Responses: Commenters provided 

little new data in response to this 

question. GM pointed to its earlier 

response regarding convex mirrors, 

where it stated that they did not show 

substantial safety benefits. Additionally, 

AAM stated that rear-mounted convex 

mirrors were essentially parking aids, 

and would not be effective in preventing 

backover crashes. 

iv. Options for Measuring a Vehicle’s 

Rear Visibility 

In this section, NHTSA asked a series 

of extremely specific questions relating 

to methodologies for measuring the 

direct rear visibility of vehicles. These 

questions focused on various aspects of 

the test procedures outlined in the 

ANPRM, such as how to set up the 

machines, what size dummies to use, 

and how to adjust rear head restraints so 

as to balance concerns between rear 

passenger safety and rear visibility. 

Question 1: NHTSA requests 

comment on the use of the 50th 

percentile male driver size as a 

midpoint in terms of driver height and 

whether using multiple driver heights 

for these tests [to determine direct 

visibility] would cause undue hardship 

relative to the safety value of assessing 

different driver heights. Specific 

information regarding additional cost, if 

any, that would be incurred by vehicle 

manufacturers due to the use of 

different driver sizes for these different 

portions of FMVSS No. 111 is requested. 

Responses: Commenters suggested a 

range of testing alternatives that could 

be used to measure a vehicle’s direct 

visibility characteristics. GM stated that 

the 95th percentile eye-ellipse is used 

by manufacturers as the tool for 

evaluating visibility and is recognized 

in FMVSS No. 111, and that it would be 

consistent to apply that tool to 

determine rear visibility under the 

standard as well. Similarly, Nissan also 

recommended NHTSA investigate use of 

an eye-ellipse method (in accordance 

with the Society of Automotive 

Engineers Recommended Practice J941), 

rather than using the 50th percentile 

male driver’s eye locations. 

Alternatively, Sony suggested that 

NHTSA ‘‘should use a worst-casescenario driver body size when 

conducting rear visibility 

measurements, such as the 25th 

percentile female, or at the least 

correlate size with the actual size of 

people involved’’ in real backover 

crashes. A third alternative was 

suggested by AAM, which stated that 

the eyepoints and other incidentals of 

ECE R46 should be used in developing 

the criteria for FMVSS No. 111 visibility 

requirements. Honda, in its comment, 

did not offer a specific suggestion, but 

rather noted that using a variety of 

driver heights and eyepoints might 

encourage manufacturers to enlarge the 

mirror or change the curvature, which 

would add cost to the development and 

implementation of the system. 

Consumers Union stated that it did not 

see the need for a 95th percentile male 

test, as taller drivers always have a 

better view behind the vehicle. The 

organization stated that it has tested 

using only the 50th percentile, although 

testing at the eyepoint of the 5th 

percentile female would also be 

worthwhile. 

Question 2: NHTSA has been using 

seating position settings recommended 

by the vehicle manufacturers for agency 

crash tests. For most vehicles, the 

vertical seat position setting 

recommended for seats with vertical 

adjustability is the lowest position. 

NHTSA seeks comment on whether this 

setting is the most suitable position for 

a 50th percentile male, or if a midpoint 

setting would be more appropriate for 

measuring rear visibility. NHTSA also 

seeks comment on whether the specific 

crash test seating specifications used are 

the most appropriate for this context. 

Responses: Nissan, GM, and AAM 

commented in response to this question. 

They indicated that their responses to 

the previous question also applied to 

this issue. Honda pointed out the 

driver’s eyepoint used affects visibility 

performance with rear-mounted convex 

mirrors, but does not affect the area 

behind a vehicle that is displayed by a 

rearview video system. Honda suggested 

that if a rule were to require 

accommodation of different driver sizes 

that manufacturers may modify the 

mirror to enlarge its size of change the 

radius of curvature. While Honda noted 

that such consideration would result in 

increased costs, although it did not 

specifically discourage this if NHTSA 

could show related enhanced safety 

benefits. Additionally, Honda stated 

that while the driver eyepoint is 

extremely relevant for direct view 

measurements, it would have no effect 

on rearview video systems. 

Question 3: NHTSA seeks comment 

on the placements of head restraints. 

For example, would our test procedure 

result in the elimination of rear head 

restraints or a reduction in their size? If 

so, please identify the affected vehicles 

and explain why the rear head restraints 

particularly impair visibility in those 

vehicles. Similarly, NHTSA seeks 

comment on the approach to setting the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76211 

longitudinal position of all adjustable 

head restraints for rear visibility 

measurements. While longitudinally 

adjustable head restraints positioned 

fully forward may minimize the chance 

of whiplash, a more reasonable option 

for this test may be to position the head 

restraint at the midpoint of the 

longitudinal adjustment range. 

Responses: NHTSA received 

comments on this subject from GM, 

Honda, Sony, and AAM. GM and Sony 

suggested that head restraints should be 

accounted for, as they contribute 

substantially to vehicle safety. Honda 

stated that head restraints should be 

adjusted to their lowest or stored 

position for rear visibility measurement, 

and that a direct visibility requirement 

should take into consideration the 

existence of safety features such as the 

center high-mounted stop lamp and rear 

window wiper and defogger. Honda 

added that if NHTSA believes the 

required head restraints unduly affect 

rear visibility, the agency should reevaluate the recent upgrade of FMVSS 

No. 202a, Head Restraints, for which 

applicability took effect on September 1, 

2009, and take into account rear 

visibility considerations. The AAM 

commented that the recently-updated 

standard FMVSS No. 202a has the effect 

of reducing rear visibility, and that 

NHTSA should adjust the head 

restraints to their lowest position for 

direct visibility testing purposes, similar 

to the procedures in ECE R46. 

Question 4: In our testing, we found 

that the laser beam is difficult to detect 

visually. Therefore, we used the laser 

detector. NHTSA invites comment on 

the availability of other options for 

detecting the laser beam as used in this 

test that does not involve the use of an 

electronic laser detector. 

Responses: GM and the AAM both 

responded to this question by noting the 

difficulties in using laser-based 

methods. GM stated that while it did not 

know of any better alternative methods 

for detecting lasers than what NHTSA 

described, it would likely use a mathbased alternative to certify compliance. 

Similarly, the AAM stated that the 

European experience with laser 

measurement has generally been found 

to be cumbersome and that CAD-based 

measurement might be a more desirable 

option. 

Question 5: For locating the laser 

devices at the selected driver eyepoints, 

is there another device besides the Hpoint device which can be utilized for 

this purpose? For simplicity, should 

eyepoints be indicated in a similar 

fashion as is currently in FMVSS No. 

111 for school bus testing in which a 

single eyepoint is located at a specified 

distance from the seat cushion/seat back 

intersection and within a 6-inch semicircular area? 

Responses: GM recommended an 

alternative in which the eye location 

would be specified from a body fiducial 

point on the vehicle, similar to methods 

used in evaluating mirrors under the 

current standard. AAM questioned 

whether any single eye location could 

be representative, and if the proposed 

measurement method was capturing 

what was important for rear visibility. 

AAM also stated that the view in 

mirrors, which was not contemplated as 

part of the direct visibility 

measurement, was an important aspect 

to consider, especially for older drivers 

whose range of movement may be 

limited. Honda stated that it did not 

consider the school bus measurement 

method appropriate for passenger 

vehicles, because that measurement 

method was designed by contemplating 

the movement of a bus driver’s head. 

v. Options for Assessing the 

Performance of Rear Visibility 

Countermeasures 

In determining a rear visibility 

threshold, NHTSA would first need to 

define a test area, from which the 

vehicle’s viewable area could be 

subtracted, thereby calculating the size 

of the blind zone. These questions were 

asked in order to solicit comment on 

what that test area should cover, as well 

as other issues related to testing 

countermeasure performance. 

Question 1: NHTSA invites comments 

on the need for and adequacy of the 

described area which rear visibility 

countermeasure systems may be 

required to detect obstacles. NHTSA is 

particularly interested in any available 

data that may suggest an alternative area 

behind the vehicle over which a rear 

visibility enhancement countermeasure 

should be effective? Is the described 

area of coverage unrealistically large? Is 

it adequate to mimic real world angles 

at which children may approach 

vehicles? 

Responses: Many commenters used 

this question to comment on the number 

of instances in the SCI cases where the 

victim entered the vehicle’s path from 

the side of the vehicle. Sony and Kids 

and Cars both stated that consideration 

should be given to areas to the sides of 

the vehicle, with Kids and Cars stating 

that all of the areas not visible directly 

or through side mirrors should be taken 

into consideration. GM and the AAM 

both stated that driver’s-side convex 

mirrors, which have a wider field of 

view than that required by FMVSS No. 

111, would help to prevent many of 

these incidents. Nissan commented that 

the area visible in side mirrors 

permitted in ECE R46 should be 

factored into the measured field of view 

of a vehicle. Sony stated that limiting 

the test are to the edges of the vehicle 

would fail to account for obstacles that 

move into the rear blind zone from the 

outside of the immediate rear of the 

vehicle. Sony suggested that the test 

area should account for, at a minimum, 

vehicle backing speed, driver reaction 

time, and the speed of potential 

obstacles. 

Question 2: Is it reasonable to define 

the limits of the test zone such that it 

begins immediately behind the rear 

bumper for the test object defined here 

or should a gap be permitted before the 

visibility zone begins? What additional 

factors should the agency consider in 

defining the zone? 

Responses: Commenters generally 

split into two groups in responding to 

this question. Some supported the idea 

that the test area should begin at the 

edge of the bumper. Kids and Cars 

suggested that the test area should begin 

at the rear bumper because when 

children approach a vehicle from the 

side, they frequently intersect the path 

of the vehicle close to the bumper. 

Rosco stated that coverage should begin 

at a vertical plane tangent to the 

rearmost surface of the rear bumper. 

Consumers Union also stated that they 

believe no gap should exist in the test 

zone. Nissan stated that as long as the 

target area size is realistic, it would be 

appropriate to define the limits of the 

test zone such that it begins 

immediately behind the rear bumper. 

GM and Honda, however, supported the 

idea of a gap. GM stated that as most 

accidents either come from the sides or 

from the area 3–8 meters behind the 

vehicle, a gap in the area would not be 

unreasonable. Honda also supported a 

small gap of 0.3 meters (1 foot), noting 

that if no gap were permitted, video 

cameras might be placed in locations 

that could be subject to damage in lowspeed collisions, thereby increasing the 

cost of ownership. 

Question 3: NHTSA requests 

comments on potentially requiring only 

the perimeter of the specified area to be 

tested for rear visibility enhancement 

systems. For video-based rear visibility 

countermeasure systems, NHTSA 

assumes that confirming the visibility of 

the test object over the perimeter of the 

required area is sufficient, since a 

system able to display the object at the 

perimeter of the required area should 

also be able to display the object at all 

points in between the extremities. Is this 

a reasonable assumption? 

Responses: We received two 

comments in response to this specific 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

question. GM stated that this was not an 

unreasonable suggestion for a single 

rearview video camera, but that it did 

not take into consideration a system 

made up of multiple sensors or cameras 

with limited lateral scope. Rosco also 

questioned this assumption, stating that 

this did not take into account the fact 

that an obstruction such as a marker 

light could block out some portion of 

the rearward view. The Alliance also 

referenced its earlier comments on 

threshold detection (regarding the need 

for detection zones behind the vehicle), 

as well as the zones of coverage 

provided by ECE R46-compliant side 

mirrors. 

Question 4: Would vehicles with 

rearview video cameras mounted away 

from the vehicle centerline have the 

ability to detect the test object over the 

area under consideration? Is there 

flexibility to relocate such off-center 

cameras to meet the requirements under 

consideration, if necessary? 

Responses: This question elicited 

several responses. Honda and Nissan 

suggested that it may be possible, but 

that moving the position of a video 

camera could be expensive. They 

recommended allowing as much design 

flexibility as possible. The AAM also 

stated that limiting video placement to 

the centerline would be overly 

restrictive. Rosco and Sony, two 

equipment manufacturers, stated that 

current technology did allow a video 

camera to be mounted off-center and 

still be able to see the entire test area, 

depending on the specifics of that area. 

Question 5: NHTSA seeks comment as 

to the availability of any mirrors that 

may have a field of view that 

encompasses a range of 50 feet, as well 

as the quality of image that might be 

provided over such a range. How 

different is the image size and 

resolution, and how significant are the 

differences to the mirrors’ potential 

effectiveness? 

Responses: No commenters stated 

they believe that rear mirrors could have 

an effective field of view that extends 50 

feet. Nissan stated that it is difficult to 

describe variation in image size and 

resolution, as it varies by the mirror’s 

fixed location on the vehicle body. 

Rosco stated that image sizes for rear 

cross-view mirrors become diminished 

beyond 30 feet. Honda questioned 

whether mirrors could provide a field of 

view that extended 50 feet back, but also 

questioned whether this was necessary 

for a typical backing maneuver. 

Question 6: If a gap is permitted 

behind the vehicle before the visibility 

zone begins, how will systems prevent 

children who may be immediately 

behind a vehicle from being backed 

over? 

Responses: In response to this 

question, Sony and Rosco stated that it 

would not be possible to prevent these 

backover crashes if the area in which 

the child was located was not visible to 

the driver, and reiterated that no gap in 

the visible zone should be permissible. 

GM, while acknowledging that not all 

backover crashes can be prevented, 

stated in its comments that NHTSA 

should focus on mitigating specific risks 

by focusing on the crashes that happen 

most often—incursions and instances 

where the vehicle is turning; and by 

focusing on vehicles that are statistically 

overrepresented in backover crash 

fatalities. 

Question 7: NHTSA seeks input on 

what level of ambient lighting would be 

appropriate to specify for conduct of 

this compliance test. What other 

environmental and ambient conditions, 

if any, should the agency include in the 

test procedure? 

Responses: Several commenters 

agreed that rear detection systems 

should be able to function in low light 

conditions. Kids and Cars and Rosco 

both stated that the systems should be 

able to work in dark conditions, while 

Honda and GM suggested that the low 

light conditions be specified with 

respect to the photometric requirements 

of backup lamps, which would be 

illuminated during a backing maneuver. 

Sony suggested that rear detection 

devices should function in 5 lux 

luminosity, which is slightly higher 

than the 3 lux suggested by GM. 

Question 8: NHTSA invites input 

regarding the composition of the 

countermeasure compliance test object 

and the types of technologies that are 

likely to be able to provide coverage of 

the related test area. 

Responses: In response to this query, 

AAM stated that based on Centers for 

Disease Control (CDC) growth data 

charts, it recommended a test object that 

is cylindrical with a diameter of 15 cm 

and a height of 82 cm. Kids and Cars, 

alternatively, suggested a test object 

with a height of 28 inches, or 

approximately 71 cm. Honda did not 

provide a specific suggestion, but noted 

that the test object should reflect the age 

and height of the people at risk and not 

be made of materials that cause 

excessive reflection or have other 

characteristics that could interfere with 

the goals of a practical, reliable, and 

repeatable test. Similarly, Sony stated 

that the test object should simulate the 

size of a 1-year-old child. Finally, GM 

noted that it provided information on 

this topic as part of its involvement in 

NHTSA-sponsored cooperative research 

with the Virginia Tech Transportation 

Institute focused on advanced crash 

avoidance technologies relating to 

backover avoidance. 

vi. Options for Characterizing Rear 

Visibility Countermeasures 

In this section, NHTSA sought 

comments that would provide insight 

into what specifications, if any, the 

agency should mandate for rear 

visibility enhancements. In the ANPRM, 

NHTSA noted a general lack of relevant 

existing industry consensus standards 

which could be considered in 

establishing regulatory performance 

requirements. The agency also noted it 

appeared there was no ongoing 

development to establish such 

consensus standards in the United 

States. Of particular interest were any 

standards that were being applied to 

specific types of countermeasures (such 

as sensors or cameras) by 

manufacturers. The agency also wanted 

to solicit comment on other 

considerations, such as display 

characteristics, durability 

measurements, or test procedures that 

could assist it in drafting a 

comprehensive proposed requirement. 

Questions posed also sought assistance 

in the identification of any additional 

parameters which the agency may need 

to consider specifying in a regulatory 

amendment to FMVSS No. 111. 

Question 1: Are there any existing 

industry consensus standards for rear 

visibility enhancement systems which 

address the parameters outlined in this 

section? Are there any ongoing efforts to 

develop such industry consensus 

standards? If so, when will the 

standards be published? 

Responses: Commenters generally 

agreed with NHTSA that industry 

consensus standards do not exist. Some 

commenters, such as Rosco, and Ford, 

cited international standards for items 

such as sensor performance and display 

requirements. Honda stated that ISO is 

currently reviewing performance 

requirements and test procedures for 

‘‘Extended Range Backing Aids (ERBA)’’ 

but that this document is not directly 

addressing backover incidents as 

NHTSA did in the ANPRM and that 

timing-wise, the document could be 

balloted by ISO and issued as soon as 

the end of 2009 or early 2010. Nissan 

noted that while there is a lack of 

existing industry consensus standards 

for rear visibility enhancement systems, 

there does not appear to be wide 

variation between systems offered by 

different automakers due to the small 

number of rearview video camera 

suppliers. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76213 

56Australian Design Rule 14/02 Rear Vision 

Mirrors; 2006. 

Ford cited the initiation of updates to 

ECE R46 for rearview video displays 

and stated that while it did not support 

the standard in its entirety, it believes 

the Australian state of New South 

Wales’ Technical Standard No.149 56 is 

instructive with regard to display image. 

Ford stated that this standard requires a 

cylinder test object located 5 meters 

from the rear of the vehicle to have a 

corresponding image height on the 

display of at least 0.5 percent of the 

distance between the driver’s eye and 

the display. For example, for a driver’s 

eye located 800 mm from the screen, the 

corresponding minimum height for the 

image on the display would be 4mm. 

The most extensive comments 

received were in regard to ISO 

17386:2004 Transport information and 

control systems, Manoeuvring Aids for 

Low Speed Operation (MALSO). This 

standard contains test specifications and 

requirements to establish the ability of 

a sensor-based system to detect 

stationary objects, primarily in the 

utilization as a parking aid. Delphi 

stated that tests used for system 

certification under this standard utilize 

an idealized target, a PVC pole, for 

uniform and repeatable performance. 

The tests were designed to ignore the 

area from 0 to 25 cm above the ground 

to prevent detection of parking curbs, 

presumably to limit the number of times 

the system alerted the driver to their 

presence so that drivers would not 

disable the system. As noted by the 

AAM, ISO 17386 pertains specifically to 

systems designed to assist drivers in 

maneuvering in tight spaces, such as in 

low-speed parking maneuvers. The 

AAM further noted that the parameters 

addressed in the ISO standard are not 

relevant for pedestrian impacts, nor are 

the systems designed for low-speed 

maneuvering optimized for pedestrian 

detection. Delphi identified the need for 

a more realistic target specification to be 

developed, compared to the ISO 

standard, for sensor-based systems to be 

able to detect small children. Ackton 

stated that up to this point, ISO’s 

MALSO standard with the PVC target 

pole has been the benchmark for all 

equipment manufacturers. However, 

Ackton stated that many manufacturers 

have created systems that ‘‘go beyond’’ 

the requirements of the ISO standard 

and that its own ‘‘New-Gen’’ system 

utilizes technology that allows it to 

detect moving objects. 

The AAM stated that ISO and SAE 

have several standards that pertain to 

human-machine interface (HMI) aspects 

including features employed by 

rearview video systems and sensorbased backing aids. It noted that these 

standards are recommendations, rather 

than specifications, due to the 

contingent nature of most HMI 

parameters, which are highly influenced 

by the specific context and 

implementation in question. The AAM 

concluded by stating that such 

standards do not lend themselves for 

incorporation into an FMVSS for 

rearward visibility. 

Question 2: Are there additional 

parameters which should be specified to 

define a rear visibility enhancement 

system? What should the minimum 

specified performance be for each 

parameter? 

Responses: Gentex suggested a 

minimum visual display brightness of 

500 cd/m2 for in-mirror displays, as 

measured at room temperature and in a 

dark room. Its rationale was that 

automaker research has confirmed this 

to be the minimally accepted value, 

presumably to account for a wide 

possible range of ambient conditions. 

Magna suggested that instead of 

regulating operational areas of video 

camera performance that NHTSA 

instead leave implementation to the 

automakers and suppliers to address to 

ensure overall system affordability. 

Question 3: Are future rear visibility 

systems anticipated which may have 

significantly different visual display 

types that may require other display 

specification parameters? 

Responses: NHTSA did not receive 

comments in response to this question. 

IV. Analysis of ANPRM Comments and 

NHTSA’s Tentative Conclusions 

Based upon the discussion in the 

ANPRM and the comments received, we 

have grouped the various ideas for 

mitigating backover crashes into five 

distinct threads. While there are 

numerous variations within each 

concept, we believe that these five 

concepts contain substantially all of the 

potential solutions discussed. The ideas 

are as follows: (1) The improvement of 

rear visibility for all vehicles within the 

scope of the K.T. Safety Act; (2) the 

improvement of rear visibility for 

certain high-risk vehicle types, namely 

those judged to be involved in a 

disproportionately high number of 

backover crashes; (3) the improvement 

of rear visibility for vehicles with blind 

zones that exceed a threshold or cannot 

view areas deemed to be critical; (4) the 

installation of driver’s-side convex 

mirrors; and (5) the installation of 

advanced technology systems, such as 

combinations of sensors and video 

cameras, automatic braking systems, or 

other technology. We note that when 

referring to improved rear visibility via 

a ‘‘countermeasure,’’ the term refers to 

any rearview video system, sensor, or 

mirror, although we discuss the specific 

differences between those technology 

types in the earlier ANPRM summary 

and in section V below. This section 

contains NHTSA’s analysis of the 

various overall approaches that could be 

applied to backover prevention, as well 

as addresses comments germane to the 

discussion. 

Following the discussion of 

comments relating to the possible means 

for improving rear visibility and 

mitigating backover crashes and 

comments received regarding these, a 

discussion of comments relating to 

possible rear visibility system 

characteristics and compliance test 

methods is presented. 

A. Application of Rear Visibility 

Systems Across the Light Vehicle Fleet 

One approach considered by NHTSA 

in the ANPRM was to require that all 

vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds 

or less be subjected to improved rear 

visibility requirements. Going forward 

with a requirement for improved rear 

visibility for all light vehicles was an 

idea supported by a variety of 

commenters. First and foremost, safety 

organizations and individuals whose 

families had been involved in backover 

incidents strongly favored this 

alternative. In general, these 

commenters supported the most 

comprehensive possible proposal in 

order to achieve the maximum possible 

benefits, pointing out the particular 

tragedy that many of these incidents 

involved a parent or other family 

member injuring or killing their own 

children. Kids and Cars stated that all 

vehicles must be addressed in order to 

prevent backover injuries and fatalities, 

stating that even one car with a large 

blind zone should indicate the need for 

the regulation to cover all vehicle types. 

Similarly, IIHS and Consumers Union 

both supported uniform requirements 

across light vehicle classes. 

Several equipment manufacturers also 

were in support of requiring improved 

rear visibility on all light vehicles. Sony 

commented that the Act permits 

NHTSA to ‘‘prescribe different 

requirements for different types of 

motor vehicles,’’ but does not permit a 

total or partial exemption of a particular 

class of vehicles, or a percentage of a 

particular class of vehicles, from rear 

visibility requirements. Sony further 

stated that limiting the rear blind zone 

visibility requirements to LTVs ignores 

the fact that passenger cars account for 

26 percent of backover deaths and 54 

percent of backover injuries, and that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

57S. Rep. 110–275, S. Rep. No. 275, 110TH Cong., 

2nd Sess. 2008. 

these percentages will likely increase 

given the relative decline of LTV sales 

across the market. Delphi and Magna 

stated their belief that the backover 

problem is widespread enough that 

improved rear visibility requirements 

should not be limited to any particular 

class of vehicles. Similarly, Ackton 

suggested that rear visibility 

countermeasures should not be limited 

to a certain vehicle class and also raised 

the issue that trailers could be equipped 

with sensor-based object detection 

systems. 

In contrast to this broad approach, 

some automakers commented in favor of 

limiting any rear visibility improvement 

to just a portion of the fleet, such as 

LTVs, saying that, in terms of fatalities, 

they are statistically overrepresented in 

backover crashes. Nissan and GM both 

recommended that a maximum blind 

zone area approach be used to 

determine whether a particular model of 

vehicle warrants improved rear 

visibility, and recommended against the 

application of any new requirements by 

vehicle type. Mercedes suggested that if 

the agency believes that improved rear 

visibility should be required for the 

portion of the vehicle fleet that is 

statistically overrepresented in backover 

crashes (i.e., LTVs), then NHTSA should 

apply the requirements to only those 

types of vehicles. Honda also 

commented that rear visibility 

performance requirements should be 

instituted for only those vehicles with 

the highest rates of backover incidents, 

although it also suggested that NHTSA 

should actively monitor the data for all 

vehicle types so that it can consider 

broader application of the requirements 

based on the safety need. 

Lastly, some vehicle manufacturers 

generally supported alternative methods 

for preventing backovers. One 

manufacturer, Nissan, requested that the 

agency conduct more research before 

proposing to require any additional 

performance requirements for rear 

visibility. The AAM limited its support 

to the requirement for ECE R46- 

compliant convex side mirrors, instead 

of more advanced countermeasures. 

Mercedes echoed this approach, but 

allowed that if more advanced 

countermeasures were seen as essential, 

they be limited to LTVs, and not applied 

to passenger cars. The application of 

improved rear visibility requirements to 

LTVs only was also supported by 

Honda. GM was the lone manufacturer 

that recommended that NHTSA limit 

the requirement for improved rear 

visibility to vehicles with large blind 

zones only. We have addressed 

comments relating to those alternative 

proposals in the sections below. 

While NHTSA agrees that requiring 

enhanced rear visibility for all light 

vehicles would be the most 

comprehensive approach to mitigate 

backover crashes, it would also entail 

the highest costs of any possible 

proposal. Commenters also suggested 

that NHTSA’s projected costs were too 

high and that costs would likely decline 

once systems such as these were put 

into wider production. In response to 

these comments, NHTSA has more fully 

analyzed the costs and benefits of the 

proposal in the preliminary regulatory 

impact analysis (PRIA), which is 

presented in tandem with this 

document. 

As described in Section II.B, NHTSA 

has tentatively decided to require 

improved rear visibility for all vehicles 

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

Having taken into account the intent of 

Congress in passing the K.T. Safety Act, 

the smaller, yet still-significant number 

of fatalities involving passenger cars, 

and the fact that the injury rate for all 

classes of vehicles is approximately 

proportional to their representation in 

the fleet, we do not at this time believe 

it is in the best interest of safety or 

otherwise appropriate or permissible 

under the K.T. Safety Act to exclude 

passenger cars from rigorous rear 

visibility performance requirements. 

Passenger cars account for slightly more 

than half of the injuries from backover 

incidents. 

The rationale for proposing to require 

all light vehicles to have improved rear 

visibility is twofold. First, NHTSA, and 

Congress, are extremely concerned 

about the incidence of children being 

backed over by light vehicles. This is a 

phenomenon that is not limited to any 

particular vehicle type, and while the 

ANPRM did discuss blind zone area 

measurement, no driver of any type of 

vehicle could see the entire area behind 

the vehicle in which a pedestrian, 

especially a young child, might be 

located without the aid of an effective 

rear visibility countermeasure. 

Therefore, the obvious and most 

complete solution is to require an 

enhancement that enables drivers of all 

light vehicles to see children and other 

obstacles directly behind a vehicle. 

Second, and as noted by some 

commenters, applying improved rear 

visibility requirements to just a portion 

of the fleet would cause an awkward 

safety disparity between vehicles 

equipped with a countermeasure, and 

those without. As NHTSA has noted in 

the ANPRM and this notice, driver 

education about and acceptance of rear 

visibility countermeasures is crucial in 

realizing their effectiveness. To require 

visibility improvements in only some 

vehicles may send a mixed message to 

drivers that would not achieve the 

intent of the law. 

B. Limitation of Countermeasure 

Application to Certain Vehicle Types 

A second concept explored in the 

ANPRM was the idea of limiting the 

requirement for improved rear visibility 

to certain vehicle types. The idea of 

having different rear visibility 

requirements for certain vehicle types 

was explicitly contemplated by 

Congress and articulated in the text of 

the K.T. Safety Act, which stated that 

‘‘The Secretary may prescribe different 

requirements for different types of 

motor vehicles to expand the required 

field of view to enable the driver of a 

motor vehicle to detect areas behind the 

motor vehicle to reduce death and 

injury resulting from backing incidents, 

particularly incidents involving small 

children and disabled persons.’’ 

Furthermore, we believe that in 

particular, vehicles like multipurpose 

passenger vehicles and pickup trucks 

were contemplated by Congress as 

potentially warranting more of an 

improvement in rear visibility than do 

passenger cars. In noting the need for 

rear visibility performance 

requirements, the legislative history 

stated that, ‘‘As larger vehicles, 

including SUVs, pickup trucks, and 

minivans, have become more popular, 

more drivers are confronted with larger 

blind spots.’’ 57

In the ANPRM, NHTSA considered 

whether it would be appropriate to take 

this idea further and limit the 

requirements for improved rear 

visibility to the vehicles known as 

‘‘LTVs,’’ which include multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, and 

minivans with a GVWR of 10,000 

pounds or less. The agency reasoned 

that if a strong relationship between 

vehicle class and backover incidents 

existed, a targeted requirement for 

advanced rear visibility 

countermeasures could achieve a large 

percentage of the overall benefits of the 

technology at a fraction of the overall 

cost to the industry. Therefore, the 

agency conducted a statistical analysis 

and requested comment on the option. 

The agency’s analysis revealed that 

while LTVs were statistically 

overrepresented in backover-related 

fatalities, they were not significantly 

overrepresented in backover-related 

injuries or in backover crashes 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76215 

58This table is presented in more detail in section 

III of the PRIA. 

generally. Table 7 below lays out a 

summary of the results.58

TABLE 7—BACKOVER CRASH FATALITIES AND INJURIES AND PERCENT OF FLEET BY VEHICLE TYPE

Vehicle type (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less) Percent of 

fleet 

Percent of 

injuries 

Percent of 

fatalities 

Passenger Car ......................................................................................................................................... 58 54 26 

Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle ............................................................................................................. 16 20 30 

Truck ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 18 31 

Van (including minivans) ......................................................................................................................... 8 6 13 

As shown by Table 7, LTVs represent 

a disproportionate share of the overall 

backover-related fatalities, being 

involved in almost twice as many 

fatalities as their portion of the fleet. 

Conversely, passenger cars are 

represented in only one half as many 

fatalities as their fleet percentage would 

indicate. We note that this discrepancy 

is spread relatively evenly across 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and vans. 

However, unlike fatalities, the 

relationship between backover crashes 

generally and vehicle type for injuries is 

proportional to a vehicle type’s 

proportion of the fleet. The data show 

that passenger cars are just as likely to 

be involved in a backover incident as 

are other types of vehicles. The 

substantially similar numbers of total 

backovers (including injuries and 

fatalities) between vehicle types cast 

doubt on whether it would be in the 

best interest of safety to limit rear 

visibility improvement to just LTVs 

even if it were permissible to do so. 

As indicated in the comment 

summary section above, commenters 

were split on the idea of imposing 

countermeasure requirements by vehicle 

class. Vehicle manufacturers in favor of 

a requirement that would affect only 

LTVs included Honda and Mercedes, 

while Nissan was against such a 

proposal. Mercedes suggested that if the 

agency believes that advanced 

countermeasures are required for the 

portion of the vehicle fleet that is 

statistically overrepresented in backover 

crashed (i.e., LTVs), then NHTSA 

should require those countermeasures 

only for those types of vehicles. Nissan 

stated that it supported using a blind 

zone threshold, rather than vehicle 

class, to determine which vehicles 

require improved rear visibility. Honda 

also commented that rear visibility 

performance requirements should be 

instituted for only those vehicles with 

the highest rates of backover incidents, 

although it also suggested that NHTSA 

should actively monitor the data for all 

vehicle types so that it can consider 

broader application of the requirements 

based on the safety need. Consumers 

Union made statements that they did 

not support improving rear visibility for 

only a portion of the light vehicle fleet, 

but they did not provide any data or 

rationale to support the statements. 

GM commented that the data 

provided in the ANPRM indicate that 

LTVs have a larger blind zone than most 

passenger cars, and that it can be 

extrapolated that the increased rate of 

LTVs in backing crashes could be the 

result of larger blind zones. Based on 

this idea, GM stated that this suggests 

the focus of the rulemaking should be 

on vehicle blind zone, not vehicle class. 

However, while NHTSA had considered 

this correlation, as described above, the 

agency has found that the relationship 

between rear visibility and backover 

crashes appears to involve too many 

factors to permit isolation of only the 

impact of rear visibility. This 

preliminary information suggests that 

the statistical overrepresentation of 

LTVs in backover crash incidence is not 

solely an effect of a vehicle’s rear 

visibility characteristics. 

Blue Bird submitted a comment 

requesting that smaller buses not be 

subject to any new rear visibility 

requirements. As it noted, the language 

of the K.T. Safety Act would include 

small buses as part of the class of 

vehicles potentially affected by the 

regulation. However, Blue Bird offered 

several reasons why it believes that it 

would be a better policy decision to 

exclude buses from the rear visibility 

requirement. First, it pointed to the 

fatality and injury data presented in 

NHTSA’s ANPRM, which indicated that 

buses, which were included in the 

‘‘Other Light Vehicle’’ category, were 

involved in no fatalities and few 

injuries. Second, Blue Bird stated that 

many small buses (including small 

school buses), are not equipped with 

navigation or multifunction screens. 

The commenter added that the 

increased costs could deter some school 

districts from purchasing new school 

buses, which could lead to safety 

disbenefits. Third, Blue Bird noted that 

most drivers of buses must have 

commercial driver’s licenses, and many 

are subject to far more training than 

drivers of passenger vehicles. 

We note that another commenter, 

Rosco, stated conversely that small 

buses should be subject to improved 

rear visibility requirements. It argued 

that small buses, frequently used for 

special needs children, are frequently 

used in situations around children. 

Rosco stated that because these vehicles 

have limited rearward visibility, they 

should be equipped with rearview video 

systems. However, Rosco also notes that 

operational guidelines (buses, in 

particular school buses, are driven by 

professional drivers) advise against 

traveling in reverse in normal 

operations. Furthermore, the statistics 

indicate that despite their proximity to 

children, the guidelines are effective, as 

our data indicates relatively few 

backover incidents involving school 

buses. 

We received no comments regarding 

LSVs. 

While sensitive to the issues cited by 

Blue Bird regarding school buses, we are 

proposing that school buses and lowspeed vehicles also be included. We 

believe that it is apparent from the 

legislative history that Congress 

intended for this statute to address the 

problem of backover crashes involving 

all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 

pounds or less. Therefore, we are 

proposing to include all passenger 

vehicles among the vehicles subject to 

the enhanced rear visibility 

requirements without exception. 

C. Using Blind Zone Area as a Basis for 

Countermeasure Requirement 

One option presented in the ANPRM 

was to limit the requirement for 

improved rear visibility using a 

vehicle’s blind zone area (the area 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

behind a vehicle that cannot be seen 

directly through the vehicle’s rear 

windows) threshold. This option was 

based on the preliminary indication that 

certain vehicles with larger rear blind 

zones may be more prone to backover 

incidents. 

In their comments, some vehicle 

manufacturers commented in favor of 

using a rear blind zone area threshold to 

determine which vehicles would need 

improved rear visibility. GM 

recommended that a maximum blind 

zone area approach should be used to 

determine whether a vehicle should be 

equipped with a countermeasure, and 

recommended against the application of 

countermeasures by vehicle type. GM 

offered a method of measuring a 

vehicle’s viewable area indirectly and 

noted an associated threshold value of 

100–125 square feet measured using a 

32-inch target plane, but stated that 

either the direct or indirect field of view 

methodology could be used to 

determine a threshold. While GM 

commented extensively on how its 

indirect field of view measurement 

method correlated with and had some 

advantages over NHTSA’s direct 

visibility method, it did not provide any 

additional information to aid in 

correlating measured direct rear 

visibility with backover incidents. 

AAM, on the other hand, offered a 

suggestion relating to calculating 

minimum required field of view using a 

pedestrian speed of 6 kph (3.7 mph), 

vehicle speed of 6 kph or less, and 

estimated driver perception and 

response time 2.5 seconds. However, no 

data were provided by the AAM to 

support the specific values offered. 

Nissan also supported a maximum 

blind zone area approach to identifying 

which vehicles most warranted 

improved rear visibility. However, it did 

not provide any data or specific 

recommended value and associated 

justification for its use as a blind zone 

area threshold. 

Consumers Union recommended that 

a threshold be established based on 

NHTSA’s Monte Carlo analysis in which 

all areas with risk of 0.1 or higher are 

required to be visible. However, no 

justification was provided for choosing 

0.1 as a risk threshold as opposed to 

some other value. 

While several commenters stated that 

they supported use of a blind zone area 

threshold approach to determine which 

vehicles should have a countermeasure, 

those comments did not provide any 

data in addition to what NHTSA 

presented that might support such a 

proposal. 

As described in the ANPRM, to 

determine a suitable blind zone area 

threshold value at which vehicles with 

larger blind zones would be required to 

have a improved rear visibility, NHTSA 

plotted the average ratios of backing 

crashes to non-backing crashes and 

backover crashes to non-backing crashes 

versus the direct-view rear blind zone 

areas for 28 vehicles, as shown in Figure 

1. These 28 vehicles were selected 

because they were the ones for which 

NHTSA had measured direct rear 

visibility and for which sufficient state 

crash data were available. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76217 

59The correlation between direct rear blind zone 

area and backing crashes was correlated to a 

statistically significant degree. However, this 

correlation was not sufficiently strong to use as a 

basis for determining a specific threshold. 60Partyka, S., Direct-View Rear Visibility and 

Backing Risk for Light Passenger Vehicles (2008). 61See analysis of SCI data, section V.B.i. 

Upon further examination, NHTSA 

has determined that using rear blind 

zone area to develop a threshold is not 

feasible at this time. We believe that the 

28 vehicles we used to develop Figure 

1 do not depict an obvious cutoff point 

where the risk of a backing crash 

dramatically increased with increasing 

blind zone area and that some vehicles 

with small blind zone areas (e.g., less 

than 300 square feet) have fairly high 

backing and backover crash rates. Also, 

while we found that direct rear blind 

zone area measured in a 50-foot square 

centered behind the vehicle was 

correlated with backing crashes to a 

mildly statistically significant degree, 

the relationship between size of the rear 

blind zone area directly behind vehicles 

and backover crash risk, was not 

correlated to a statistically significant 

degree.59 60 60 Finally, during our SCI 

review, we determined that a majority of 

the victims in backover crashes were 

directly behind the vehicle and within 

a range of 20 feet from the rear bumper, 

an area that is not visible to the driver 

in many vehicles of all types.61

Therefore, any requirement for a 

maximum rear blind zone area that 

permitted the area within 20-foot aft of 

the rear bumper to not be visible to the 

driver would fail to address a large 

portion of backover crashes. 

D. Use of Convex Driver’s-Side Mirrors 

Several commenters recommended 

that NHTSA make modifications to the 

existing mirror requirements of FMVSS 

No. 111 in order to realize the goal of 

the K.T. Safety Act. Among other 

requirements, FMVSS No. 111 currently 

requires a flat mirror on the driver’s 

side, and permits, although does not 

require, a convex mirror on the 

passenger side (nearly all vehicles are 

equipped with such a mirror, however). 

NHTSA notes that FMVSS No. 111 does 

allow exterior rearview mirrors which 

incorporate an outer curved portion, as 

long as the required flat portion is also 

present. In the ANPRM, NHTSA did not 

consider modification of the existing 

side mirror provisions of FMVSS No. 

111 since we believed it to be an 

ancillary issue with regard to the rear 

visibility activity currently being 

pursued. 

In their comments on the ANPRM, the 

AAM, along with several vehicle 

manufacturers, recommended that 

NHTSA adopt European (ECE R46) 

mirror specifications to require nonplanar side mirrors on both the driver 

and passenger sides of light vehicles. 

They stated that this would enable 

drivers to detect a majority of 

pedestrians involved in reported 

backover incidents, as most victims do 

not begin directly behind the vehicle, 

but rather enter the area directly behind 

the vehicle from one side or the other. 

Specifically, the AAM stated that its 

analysis of the agency’s SCI cases 

indicated this expanded field of view 

(from non-planar mirrors) would cover 

approximately 80 percent of the cases 

investigated for which the pre-crash 

movement of the pedestrian was 

recorded. Furthermore, the commenters 

stated that the increased field of view of 

convex driver’s-side mirrors would give 

drivers a greater window of time in 

which they could see an incurring 

pedestrian in the side mirror. The AAM 

stated that using the ECE specification 

would result in an increase in the lateral 

angular field of view up to 286 percent 

in expanded field of view over that 

required by FMVSS No. 111 for vehicles 

meeting passenger car requirements. In 

addition, the AAM cited findings from 

a study which concluded that nonplanar mirrors can increase angular 

viewing coverage by over 300 percent 

when compared to flat mirrors and that 

spherical and aspheric mirrors with 

spherical portions can provide a 

substantial reduction in glare for drivers 

under normal conditions and 

improvements in lane change situations. 

GM said it agrees with the AAM that 

80 percent of the SCI cases are 

incursions from the side and could be 

addressed by modifying existing mirror 

requirements to the side and rear of the 

vehicle, and agreed with AAM on 

adopting ECE R46 requirements. 

Mercedes said it supports the AAM’s 

recommendation to adopt ECE R46 

requirements for convex exterior 

mirrors, which it said would 

substantially expand the required field 

of view for all light vehicles and thereby 

improve the ability of drivers to detect 

pedestrians and pedal cyclists moving 

into the rearward pathway of the 

vehicle. 

Conversely, Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety stated that simple 

changes in the current requirements for 

side and interior rearview mirrors will 

not fully address the problem of blind 

zones, enable drivers to see the entire 

area immediately behind the vehicle, or 

comply with the statutory mandate to 

‘‘expand the required field of view 

***’’ 

After careful consideration of the 

comments received, NHTSA believes 

that modifications to the side mirror 

requirements in FMVSS No. 111 are best 

handled in a separate rulemaking. We 

have come to this conclusion for two 

reasons. First, given that only marginal 

gains could be made in field of view to 

the sides of the vehicle, we do not 

believe that those gains would result in 

a reduction of backovers. NHTSA’s rear 

visibility measurements show that 

rearview mirrors in current vehicles 

typically show a much wider area that 

exceeds the minimum requirements set 

forth in FMVSS No. 111, as illustrated 

in Figure 2 below. As a result, a fairly 

wide field of view provided by side 

rearview mirrors has already been 

present in the backover incidents that 

have occurred to date. At the extreme 

lateral distances from the vehicle, in the 

area in which an ECE-compliant convex 

mirror would display but a standard 

side-view mirror would not, pedestrians 

are sufficiently far from a vehicle that a 

driver (if the driver was using the 

mirror) would likely not perceive a risk 

that the individual would intersect the 

vehicle’s path as the vehicle moved 

rearward. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

Second, ECE R46 compliant mirrors 

would not provide a field of view that 

includes what the agency has 

determined, through Monte Carlo 

simulation, to be the highest risk areas 

for backover crashes, which are the 

areas directly behind the vehicle. Any 

areas of crash risk for a pedestrian 

behind the vehicle that would fall 

within the field of view of a convex side 

mirror are already well within the field 

of view of an existing FMVSS No. 111- 

compliant side mirror. Thus, we 

anticipate that little or no net 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76219 

62Providing a driver with a haptic response 

means providing tactile feedback such as by causing 

the steering wheel to vibrate. 

improvement in backover rates would 

occur if there were a switch to ECE R46- 

compliant mirrors. 

Notwithstanding these observations, 

NHTSA plans to reexamine the side 

mirror requirements in FMVSS No. 111 

in upcoming rulemaking actions. The 

suggestions of AAM and other 

commenters that these mirrors may 

provide safety benefits such as glare 

reduction and lane-change assistance 

will be considered in the context of 

those actions. 

E. Advanced Systems and Combination 

Sensor/Rearview Video Systems 

NHTSA’s analyses are based on 

currently available technology. 

However, it is known that additional 

technologies are under development, 

but the quality of their performance is 

not known at this time. Two additional 

sensor technologies are being developed 

by manufacturers that could be used to 

improve a vehicle’s rear visibility: an 

infrared-based object detection and 

video-based real-time image processing 

for object detection. Infrared-based 

systems operate by sensing the infrared 

radiation emitted by objects located in 

their detection range and can produce 

non-photographic images that portray 

the shapes and locations of objects 

detected. Rear object detection via video 

camera uses real-time image processing 

capability to identify obstacles behind 

the vehicle and then alert the driver of 

their presence. While these technology 

applications may eventually prove 

viable, because of their early stages of 

development, it is not possible at this 

time to assess their ability to effectively 

expand the visible area behind a 

vehicle. 

NHTSA is currently engaged in 

cooperative research with the Virginia 

Tech Transportation Institute and GM 

on Advanced Collision Avoidance 

Technology relating to backing 

incidents. The research is focused on 

assessing the ability of more advanced 

technologies to reduce the occurrence of 

backing crashes, and refining a tool to 

assess the potential safety benefit of 

technologies, such as an advanced 

object detection system with integrated 

automatic braking capability. The 

completion of NHTSA’s advanced 

technology research effort is not 

expected until calendar year 2011. 

Commenters including Continental, 

Magna, and Takata indicated that they 

are either developing or anticipate 

development of advanced systems with 

pedestrian detection capability in the 

future. Nissan indicated that they are 

studying some potential future 

applications which could limit backing 

speed, apply automatic braking, or 

provide the driver with a haptic (i.e., 

tactile, e.g., vibration) response 62 to 

indicate the presence of a rear obstacle. 

While future advanced safety systems 

may be developed to reduce backover 

crashes, no systems are currently ready 

for market. Therefore, the proposed 

improved rear visibility requirements 

specified in this notice, while not 

precluding use of promising advanced 

technology, cannot be based on the 

possible benefits that may be attainable 

with such future systems. 

F. Rear Field of View 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA invited 

comment on what area behind the 

vehicle would need to be made visible 

to the driver in order to best improve 

safety. A wide area of up to 50 feet wide 

by 50 feet long was suggested as a 

possible coverage area option. NHTSA 

inquired about the feasibility of 

coverage such a large area and sought 

comments on which areas behind the 

vehicle may be most critical for 

backover mitigation. 

Multiple commenters discussed the 

average area that any countermeasure 

would be expected to ‘‘see’’ and, in 

particular, noted the number of SCI 

cases in which the victim entered the 

vehicle’s path from the side of the 

vehicle. Sony and Kids and Cars both 

stated that consideration should be 

given to areas to the sides of the vehicle, 

with Kids and Cars stating that all of the 

areas not visible directly or through side 

mirrors should be taken into 

consideration. Sony stated that limiting 

the rear test area to the area within the 

edges of the vehicle would fail to 

account for obstacles that move into the 

rear blind zone from outside of the 

immediate rear of the vehicle. Sony 

suggested that the test area should 

account for, at a minimum, vehicle 

backing speed, driver reaction time, and 

the speed of potential obstacles. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

indicated that they believe that if the 

area immediately behind a motor 

vehicle is visible to a driver, substantial 

safety benefits will result for 

pedestrians, especially very young 

children. 

Many commenters expressed a desire 

to minimize or eliminate any ‘‘gap’’ 

between the area that is required to be 

visible and the rear bumper. However, 

the rationale for allowing a gap seemed 

based to the difficulty of rear visibility 

systems might have in detecting areas 

directly behind the bumper. Kids and 

Cars suggested that the area of required 

coverage should begin at the rear 

bumper because when children 

approach a vehicle from the side, they 

frequently intersect the path of the 

vehicle close to the bumper. Advocates 

for Highway and Auto Safety stated that 

the countermeasure needs to provide 

the driver with a field of view that 

eliminates the entire blind zone 

immediately behind the rear of the 

vehicle, suggesting that no gap should 

be allowed. Consumers Union also 

stated that they believe no gap should 

exist in the test zone. Nissan stated that 

as long as the target area size is realistic, 

it would be appropriate to define the 

limits of the test zone such that it begins 

immediately behind the rear bumper. 

Rosco stated that coverage should begin 

at a vertical plane tangent to the 

rearmost surface of the rear bumper. 

Sony indicated that NHTSA need not 

and should not permit any significant 

gap behind a vehicle before the 

visibility zone begins. 

On the other hand, some commenters 

supported the idea of a gap. The AORC 

stated that young children should be 

visible using a rearview video system 

beginning at a distance of 0.25 meters 

(0.82 ft) from the rear bumper and 

extending outward to a minimum 

distance of 3 meters (9.84 ft). GM stated 

that, as most of the documented SCI 

backover cases involved pedestrians 

entering the vehicle’s path from the 

sides of the vehicle, a gap in the area 

immediately aft of the rear bumper 

would not be unreasonable. Honda also 

supported a small gap of 0.3 meters (1 

foot), noting that if no gap were 

permitted, video cameras might be 

placed in locations that could be subject 

to damage in low-speed collisions, 

thereby increasing the cost of 

ownership. 

In regard to the size of the visible area 

behind a vehicle may be needed to 

adequately mitigate backover crashes, 

Advocates for Highway and Auto safety 

stated that ‘‘there is no reason why a 

rearview video system could not 

provide an optimal coverage area that is 

unlimited when the vehicle is on a flat 

surface or extends at least 20 feet behind 

the vehicle.’’ Multiple commenters 

noted that rear-mounted convex mirrors 

could not be modified to attain such a 

range as was indicated in the ANPRM. 

NHTSA’s test results for rear-mounted 

convex look-down and cross-view 

mirrors agree with this comment. 

Manufacturers’ descriptions of current 

sensor-based systems included in their 

comments also did not indicate that 

sensors could meet this range 

requirement. While no comments were 

received regarding the ability of 

rearview video systems to cover this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

range, NHTSA’s testing has shown that 

while the systems may display such a 

range, image quality decreases as areas 

further out from the vehicle are 

displayed. 

In response to the ANPRM 

description of NHTSA’s Monte Carlo 

analysis of backover risk as a function 

of pedestrian initial location, GM 

commented that NHTSA’s analysis did 

not factor in the probability that a 

pedestrian would have actually been 

located at any specific point on the test 

grid. While NHTSA agrees with GM’s 

comment, we note that the only 

available data for use in asserting such 

a probability of pedestrian location 

would be SCI case data, which is not 

nationally representative. 

As will be explained later in this 

document, based on the above 

comments and some new analysis, 

NHTSA has determined that a coverage 

area of 20 feet in length and 10 feet in 

width (5 feet to either side of the 

vehicles centerline) is the most feasible 

and effective range for mitigating 

backover crashes. 

G. Rear Visibility System Characteristics 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA noted several 

possible system characteristics that may 

be important to require in order to 

ensure that the maximum possible 

effectiveness of a rear visibility system 

may be achieved. Our general approach 

in establishing performance 

requirements was to identify key areas 

that we believe are pertinent to overall 

system effectiveness. In the absence of 

existing consensus industry standards, 

we reviewed existing systems and made 

determinations regarding performance 

areas to specify. These areas include 

visual display characteristics and 

aspects of rearview image presentation. 

The following paragraphs summarize 

comments relating to system 

characteristics and describe NHTSA’s 

analysis regarding those possible 

specifications. 

i. Rearview Image Response Time 

Image response time is the time delay 

between the moment the vehicle is put 

into reverse gear, and the moment 

which an image to the rear of the 

vehicle is displayed by a rear visibility 

system. The importance of response 

time to safety is illustrated by a 

comment from Ms. Susan Auriemma, in 

which she describes having to wait 

several seconds for the image to appear 

and notes that drivers may proceed to 

back without waiting for the image to 

appear. NHTSA agrees with her concern 

that if the display takes too long to 

appear, drivers may be likely to begin a 

backing maneuver before the image 

behind the vehicle is displayed, 

rendering the system less effective. In 

the ANPRM, we suggested a maximum 

value of 1.25 seconds for the maximum 

allowable time for a rearview video 

image to be displayed to the driver, or 

image response time. 

Commenters generally concurred with 

NHTSA’s concerns regarding image 

response time; however, manufacturers 

identified several technical issues 

which merit consideration. While GM 

and Gentex agreed that rearview video 

systems are able to display an image 

within 1.25 seconds, they noted that 

based on the complexity of the system 

and the need for tolerances, systems can 

typically take longer to produce images 

in some situations due in part to 

electronic image quality control checks 

that are a precursor to the full display 

of an image. Therefore, NHTA’s 

suggested maximum value of 1.25 

seconds could unnecessarily restrict the 

operation of some systems and in theory 

impact the electronic quality control 

approach of manufacturers. GM and 

Gentex noted that a maximum image 

response time value of 2.0 seconds 

would allow for timely activation of the 

system based on a reverse signal and 

provide a reasonable tolerance for 

system variation while ensuring the 

availability of an image at the beginning 

of backing maneuvers. Specifically, 

Gentex stated ‘‘In total, a typical 

application requires a nominal 1.20 

seconds to display a rearview video 

image. With tolerance, as much as 2.00 

seconds may be required—not including 

the time between the gear change * * *’’ 

Gentex went on to recommend that a 

maximum image response time of 3.0 

seconds allows the rearview video 

system enough time to ensure the driver 

is presented with a quality video image. 

However, no data justifying the need for 

the additional 1 second was provided by 

Gentex. While NHTSA understands that 

allowing time for system checks may 

result in a higher quality image, we also 

believe that providing an image soon 

after the vehicle is shifted into reverse 

may substantially increase the 

likelihood that a driver could detect a 

rear obstacle, if present. 

AAM recommended that maximum 

image response time be specified with 

reference to the time ‘‘when the vehicle 

driveline is engaged in reverse’’. NHTSA 

agrees that the point in time in which 

the vehicle’s transmission is engaged in 

reverse gear is the most logical point in 

time from which to orient the image 

response time criterion. 

Also in regard to image response time, 

NHTSA acknowledges that liquid 

crystal displays require some warm-up 

time before an image can be displayed 

clearly. In-dash LCD displays that are 

used for multiple functions are typically 

already active before the driver shifts 

into reverse gear and therefore are 

already warm and able to display a 

rearview video image immediately upon 

shifting into reverse. However, in-mirror 

LCD displays remain off until reverse 

gear is selected and, therefore, require 

some warm-up time before a clear 

rearview video image can be displayed. 

Therefore, some requirement for 

additional image response time is 

inherent in the use of in-mirror LCD 

displays, but is avoided with in-dash 

displays. Conversely, given that the 

buildup of heat can also be an issue 

with in-mirror LCD displays due to the 

limited area within the mirror in which 

heat may dissipate, providing power to 

these displays at all times as a means of 

avoiding longer image response times is 

not feasible. Therefore, providing some 

allowance of time for an in-mirror LCD 

display to warm-up may be reasonable. 

Somewhat related to system the issue 

of system response time was a comment 

from the Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety that suggested vehicles be 

equipped with an interlock feature that 

prohibits it from being able to move in 

reverse, even after the transmission has 

been placed in reverse gear, until a short 

period after the countermeasure system 

becomes fully operational. This sort of 

measure would ensure that drivers had 

all available information about the 

presence of any rear obstacles at the 

moment that backing began. While this 

idea appears to have merit, NHTSA is 

concerned that drivers that are parking 

or hitching a trailer may be annoyed by 

such a feature. NHTSA seeks comment 

on whether this feature might be 

acceptable to consumers and whether 

any substantial advantage of this feature 

over the use of a maximum response 

time specification exists. Based on the 

comments, the agency will consider 

whether to include this feature in the 

final rule. 

ii. Rearview Image Linger Time 

Image linger time is another issue that 

was raised in the ANPRM. Linger time 

refers to the period in which a rearview 

image continues to be displayed after 

the vehicle’s transmission has been 

shifted out of reverse gear. As noted by 

some commenters, a period of linger 

time may be desirable for situations 

where frequent transitions from reverse 

to forward gear are needed to adjust a 

vehicle’s position (e.g., parallel parking 

and hitching). In the ANPRM, NHTSA 

indicated that a minimum of 4 seconds 

but not more than 8 seconds of linger 

time may be appropriate after the 

vehicle is shifted from the reverse 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76221 

63This apparent disparity is explained by the fact 

that the category ‘‘1-year-old child’’ encompassed all 

children under age 2. Therefore, the average age of 

those children, some of whom were almost 2, and 

some younger than 12 months comes out to 15 

months. 

64CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Boys; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 

4/20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/ 

20/2001). 

position. NHTSA is concerned that 

excessive linger time may provide a 

source of distraction to the driver by a 

video image that is displayed longer 

than is needed. Consumers Union 

concurred with NHTSA’s 

recommendation of 4–8 seconds for 

linger time. Nissan stated that its 

systems currently exhibit a linger time 

of approximately 200 milliseconds and 

that it does not see value in allowing a 

longer linger time. GM recommended a 

maximum linger time of 10 seconds or, 

as an alternative, a speed-based limit in 

which the rearview video display would 

turn off when the vehicle reaches a 

speed of 5 mph (8 kph). GM noted that 

a time-based linger time would be less 

costly to implement than a speed-based 

linger time would. Based on their 

observations of drivers making parking 

maneuvers, the AAM also 

recommended a maximum linger time 

of 10 seconds, but specified an 

alternative speed-based value of 20 kph 

(12.4 mph). 

Because an excessive image linger 

time could result in adverse safety 

consequences associated with potential 

driver distraction when the vehicle is 

moving forward, NHTSA believes that 

linger time should be limited. On the 

other hand, NHTSA agrees with 

commenters who noted that allowing a 

reasonable linger time would provide a 

benefit to drivers who are parallel 

parking or hitching a trailer. Therefore, 

we believe there is a need to specify a 

maximum, but not a minimum, image 

linger time value for presentation of a 

rearview image. 

iii. Rear Visibility System Visual 

Display Brightness 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA suggested that 

it is appropriate to adopt a minimum 

visual display luminance to ensure that 

a rearview image is displayed with 

sufficient brightness to be adequately 

visible in varying conditions, such as 

bright sunlight or low levels of ambient 

light. Adequately visible, in this case, 

would mean that a driver can discern 

the presence of obstacles in the rearview 

video image. We note that in the SCI 

sample, 95 percent of backovers took 

place in daylight hours. Therefore a 

rearview image should be bright enough 

to be visible in daylight conditions. 

Commenters noted that a minimum of 

500 cd/m2 is appropriate based upon 

research performed by vehicle 

manufacturers and that internal 

specifications routinely require a 

luminance of at least this value. During 

the agency’s review of existing rearview 

video systems, we found the display 

brightness of the existing systems to be 

adequate such that visual information 

was discernible under varying ambient 

conditions, such as background light 

level. While we do not currently have 

reason to believe that vehicle 

manufacturers are installing rearview 

video systems with displays having 

brightness values less than 500 cd/m2, 

we believe it is necessary to propose an 

appropriate minimum brightness so that 

drivers can see the image under varying 

ambient lighting conditions. 

iv. Rear Visibility System Malfunction 

Indicator 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA indicated our 

belief that no malfunction indicator 

would be necessary for a system that 

presents a visual image of the area 

behind the vehicle since the absence of 

an image would clearly indicate a 

malfunction condition. Multiple 

commenters agreed with NHTSA’s 

suggestion that such a malfunction 

indicator is not necessary for a system 

presenting a rearview image. We agree 

with these comments. 

H. Rear Visibility System Compliance 

Test 

A majority of comments regarding a 

rear visibility system compliance test 

related to ambient lighting conditions 

during test and the specific test object 

used. Comments regarding these issues 

and NHTSA’s analysis of them follow. 

i. Compliance Test Ambient Light Level 

Given that ambient lighting 

conditions can affect how well a driver 

is able to see an in-vehicle visual 

display, the ANPRM solicited input 

regarding what ambient lighting 

conditions may be most appropriate for 

rear visibility system compliance 

testing. GM recommended that testing 

be conducted in 3 lux conditions, or the 

level provided in dark ambient 

conditions with the reverse lights 

operating. Sony suggested that the 

external ambient light level for testing 

should be 5 lux with reverse gear and 

lamps engaged. The AORC stated that 

tests should be conducted in a ‘‘min/ 

max illumination condition which best 

simulates daytime conditions since the 

field data indicates this is the accident 

condition present and will allow the 

best value solution to be used.’’ Given 

that 55 of the 58 SCI backover cases 

occurred in daylight conditions, NHTSA 

tends to concur with the AORC’s 

comment on this matter. We believe that 

for the purpose of preventing backover 

crashes a worst case, ‘‘nighttime’’ 

ambient lighting condition for system 

compliance testing may be an 

unnecessarily challenging requirement. 

ii. Compliance Test Object 

NHTSA received many comments 

regarding specifications for a 

compliance test object. Certain features 

of the test object, most significantly the 

height, could have substantial 

ramifications on the burdens of 

compliance. Similarly, the shape and 

material composition of the test object 

would have had significant 

ramifications for manufacturers using 

sensors as a means of compliance. 

However, given that NHTSA is 

proposing a performance requirement 

that would most likely be met through 

the use of rearview video systems, the 

specific characteristics of the test object 

may not have as great of an impact on 

countermeasure performance (with the 

possible exception of the height and 

width of the test object). Nonetheless, 

we have summarized and addressed the 

comments on this subject below. 

The ANPRM indicated NHTSA’s 

belief, based on real world data, that the 

test object should simulate the physical 

characteristics of a toddler. Specifically 

in the ANPRM and again in this 

document, we have stated that 26 

percent of victims in passenger vehicle 

backover crashes are 1 year old or 

younger. To date, NHTSA has generally 

used the average height of a 12-monthold child to represent a ‘‘1-year-old 

child’’ size to evaluate technologies that 

could be used to mitigate backover 

crashes. However, looking at the first 58 

SCI cases shows that the average age of 

the 21 victims aged 1 year or younger 

was 15 months.63 In their comments in 

response to the ANPRM, the AAM and 

GM recommended that the target 

dimensions be based on an 18-monthold child to best represent the victims 

involved in the first 56 documented SCI 

backover crash cases. Anthropometric 

data published by the CDC shows that 

the height difference between an 

average 15-month-old child and an 

average 18-month-old child is 

approximately 1 inch.64 The difference 

in shoulder breadth for these two ages 

is approximately 0.2 inches. Upon 

further consideration of the SCI data 

regarding the age of victims, the fact that 

the small difference in size between a 

15-month-old and 18-month-old child, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

65CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Boys; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 

4/20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 

4/20/2001). 

66CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Boys; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/ 

20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/ 

20/2001) 

67 In2010, NHTSA intends to conduct additional 

trials of this experiment to obtain more data in an 

effort to attain statistical significance. 

and the rationale provided by 

commenters, NHTSA agrees with the 

idea of basing the test object dimensions 

representing an average 12- to 23- 

month-old child using a midpoint age 

value of 18 months. 

In the ANPRM, NHTSA suggested 

specific test object dimensions that 

correspond to a 12-month-old child. In 

regard to the height of the test object, 

NHTSA suggested in the ANPRM some 

specific test object dimensions that 

correspond to a 12-month-old child, 

including a height of 30 inches (0.762 

meters). As stated earlier, the average 

height of a ‘‘1-year-old’’ child was used 

in NHTSA testing since SCI data have 

indicated that 26 percent of victims are 

1 year of age or younger. In response to 

the height value suggested in the 

ANPRM, the AAM and GM 

recommended alternative heights. 

Specifically, GM recommended a test 

object height of 32 inches (81 cm). The 

AAM recommended specific test object 

dimensions of 82 cm (32.28 in) height 

based on 2000 CDC data for an 18- 

month-old child.65 NHTSA believes that 

the difference between 30, 32, and 32.28 

to be minimal for this purpose and in 

the proposal offers a compromise 

amongst these values. 

In regard to test object width, NHTSA 

suggested a value of 5 inches to 

represent the breadth of an average 

child’s head. In response to the 

suggested value, the AAM 

recommended an alternative test object 

width of 15 cm (5.9 in.) based on 2000 

CDC data for an 18-month-old child.66

NHTSA agrees and has reconsidered the 

size of test object needed to adequately 

assess system performance. 

NHTSA’s test data to date 

demonstrate that, except at the edges of 

the image and immediately aft of the 

rear bumper (i.e., within 1 foot), a 

rearview video system generally 

displays the entire body of the child 

when present within the video camera’s 

field of view. Since the entire body of 

a child standing behind the vehicle is 

visible with a rearview video system, 

the agency now believes that the test 

object’s width should represent the 

width of the child’s entire body, rather 

than just the child’s head. While the 

average shoulder breadth of a standing 

18-month-old child with their arms at 

their sides is approximately 8.5 inches, 

the absolute, overall width of an 18- 

month-old child standing with arms 

relaxed approaches 12 inches. A 12-inch 

test object width is currently used to 

represent a small child in the school bus 

mirror test defined under paragraph S13 

of FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, in 

order to perform compliance testing in 

regard to visual display image quality, 

the test object must be large enough that 

when displayed at substantial 

longitudinal range behind the vehicle 

the object is still large enough to be 

measured across its smallest dimension 

with some accuracy and minimal 

obscuration due to image graininess 

(for an electronic display). 

V. NHTSA Research Subsequent to the 

ANPRM 

As detailed in the ANPRM, NHTSA 

had conducted research to assess 

drivers’ ability to avoid backing crashes 

in a controlled test involving 

presentation of an unexpected obstacle 

behind the vehicle while the driver 

backed out of a garage. Possible 

countermeasure technologies assessed 

in this research included a rearview 

video system with a 7.8-inch (measured 

diagonally) visual display in the center 

console, rearview video with a 7.8-inch 

in-dash visual display augmented by a 

separate rear parking system, and a 

baseline (or control group) condition in 

which no system was present. 

The results of this research, which 

were presented in detail in the ANPRM, 

showed that drivers avoided 42 percent 

of crashes when a rearview video 

system was present and only 15 percent 

of crashes when both rearview video 

and rear object detection sensors were 

present on the vehicle. Without a 

system, all participants crashed. 

While the results provided useful 

information regarding the potential of 

available technologies to aid drivers in 

avoiding backing crashes with 

unexpected obstacles, the study did not 

address the additional technologies 

being considered as a means of 

improving rear visibility per the Act. As 

a result, additional research was 

undertaken after publication of the 

ANPRM to assess drivers’ ability to use 

a rear parking sensor system (alone), a 

rear-mounted convex ‘‘look-down’’ 

mirror, and rear-mounted cross-view 

mirrors. In addition, to assess whether 

display location for a rearview video 

system may affect drivers’ performance 

in avoiding backing crashes using the 

system, drivers were also tested using 

rearview video systems with two sizes 

of in-mirror visual displays (2.4 inch 

and 3.5 inch). Finally, research aimed at 

investigating the effect of test location 

on results was also completed. All the 

research results that NHTSA has 

collected to date are available on the 

NHTSA Web site and in Docket No. 

NHTSA–2009–0041. A complete 

summary of NHTSA’s research on rear 

visibility countermeasure technologies 

is presented in Section VI. 

A. Rearview Video Systems With InMirror Visual Displays 

Two rearview video system 

conditions were assessed: one having a 

2.4-inch visual display and another with 

a 3.5-inch visual display. These tests 

used the same 2007 Honda Odyssey that 

was used in the previous rearview video 

system test, and the drivers in the tests 

were all drivers who personally owned 

a 2008 Honda Odyssey with a rearview 

video system with visual display 

(original equipment, 2.4 inch) integrated 

in the interior rearview mirror, to make 

sure that unfamiliarity with such a 

system was not a factor. The numbers of 

test participants run were 12 for the 2.4- 

inch display and 10 for the 3.5-inch 

display. The test results showed very 

different results between the two visual 

display sizes. Thirty-three percent of 

subjects driving vehicles equipped with 

a rearview video system with 2.4-inch 

visual display avoided crashing into the 

obstacle. However, 70 percent of 

subjects driving vehicles equipped with 

a rearview video system with 3.5-inch 

visual display avoided a crash. 

However, despite the observed 37 

percent more crashes avoided with the 

larger in-mirror display, the result was 

not found to be statistically significant 

due to the relatively small sample size 

of subjects tested.67 Across all system 

conditions tested, the rearview video 

system with 3.5-inch visual display 

proved to be the one with which drivers 

avoided the most crashes. 

B. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors 

A similar test was conducted with 

rear-mounted convex ‘‘look down’’ 

mirrors and rear cross-view mirrors. 

These tests also used the 2007 Honda 

Odyssey and were conducted using 

owners of this type of vehicle. Since no 

vehicle sold in the U.S. is known to 

offer rear convex look-down mirrors as 

original equipment, an aftermarket 

mirror was used. To provide the test 

participants in this system condition 

with some experience using the mirror 

(before they were presented with the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76223 

68 In order to conceal the fact that this was an 

experiment in rear obstacle detection, participants 

were told that recording devices were installed in 

the rear mirror. 

69Mazzae, 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. 

70Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental 

Evaluation of the Performance of Available 

Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA 

Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 

2006, and Vehicle Backover Avoidance Technology 

Study, Report to Congress, November 2006. 

. 

unexpected obstacle event), the mirrors 

were installed on their vehicles for 4 

weeks prior to the test event.68 During 

the test procedure, none of the thirteen 

participants that participated in the 

study successfully avoided the 

unexpected obstacle, giving a driver 

performance factor of zero. 

A similar test was conducted with 

rear cross-view mirrors. This test 

condition involved use of a 2003 Toyota 

4Runner, which is the only vehicle sold 

in the U.S. known to offer rear convex 

cross-view mirrors as original 

equipment. Test subjects were owners of 

a 2003–2007 Toyota 4Runner who had 

owned and driven the vehicle for at 

least 6 months. During the test 

procedure, none of the seven 

participants that participated in the 

study successfully avoided the 

unexpected obstacle, giving the rear 

cross-view mirror system a driver 

performance factor of zero. 

C. Rear Sensor Systems 

Using the same unexpected obstacle 

event scenario, NHTSA tested fourteen 

drivers of vehicles equipped with a rear 

parking sensor system. This system 

involved use of a 2009 Ford Flex with 

an original equipment rear parking aid 

system using ultrasonic sensors. As with 

the testing of the other system types, 

drivers of the Ford Flex with sensorbased rear parking aid system were 

persons who owned the vehicle and had 

driven it as their primary vehicle for at 

least 6 months, so that they would be 

familiar with the system. During the 

test, the parking aid system on this 

vehicle detected the plastic obstacle and 

produced an auditory warning in 100 

percent of trials. This detection rate was 

significantly better than the 39 percent 

detection rate observed in the NHTSA’s 

prior testing that used an identical 

scenario but a different test vehicle.69

Despite the consistent rate of object 

detection demonstrated by the Ford Flex 

rear parking sensors, only one test 

subject in this system condition 

successfully avoided crashing into the 

obstacle, resulting in only 7 percent of 

crashes avoided. However, we note that 

all of the participants braked slightly, 

and four came to a momentary, 

complete stop before resuming rearward 

motion and crashing into the obstacle. 

D. Ability of Currently Available Sensor 

Technology To Detect Small Child 

Pedestrians 

NHTSA’s 2009 continuation of 

research to examine drivers’ ability to 

avoid backing crashes used a 2009 Ford 

Flex equipped with a rear parking 

system. As noted in Section C above, 

this vehicle exhibited a 100-percent 

detection rate for the plastic obstacle 

used in the final conflict scenario. Given 

the improved detection performance 

seen with this ultrasonic-based sensor 

system over prior testing results using 

other ultrasonic systems, NHTSA 

thought it appropriate to assess this 

system’s ability to detect small children. 

Using a protocol developed 

previously and documented,70 NHTSA 

conducted static and dynamic tests 

using young children and recorded the 

sensor system’s ability to detect the 

children. Testing was conducted with 

two 1-year-old children and four 

children aged approximately 3 years. 

Tests with 1-year-old children included 

standing, walking laterally, and riding a 

wheeled toy that was towed (by test 

staff) laterally behind the vehicle. Tests 

with the 3-year-old children included 

standing, walking laterally, running 

laterally, and riding a wheeled ride-on 

toy behind the vehicle. 

Testing showed that the 1-year-old 

children were detected in 100 percent of 

trials at a range of 1, 2, or 3 feet behind 

the vehicle when walking or riding on 

the wheeled toy. At a range of 4 feet, the 

1-year-old children were detected in 4 

of 6 trials (67 percent) when walking, 

but were not detecting at 4-foot range 

when riding the wheeled toy. 

The 3-year-old children were found to 

be detected out to a range of 6 feet. 

Table 8 below summarizes the results 

for these tests and shows strong 

detection performance out to a range of 

3 feet, as was seen for the younger 

children. However, detection 

performance appears to decline 

significantly at the 4-foot range. 

TABLE 8—2009 FORD FLEX REAR

SENSOR SYSTEM DETECTION PERFORMANCE WITH 3-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN

Longitudinal 

range from 

rear bumper 

face 

Walking 

(%) 

Running 

(%) 

Ride-on 

toy 

(%) 

1 ft ............... 100 100 100 

2 ft ............... 100 100 100 

3 ft ............... 100 67 87 

4 ft ............... 40 13 47 

5 ft ............... 20 0 0 

6 ft ............... 20 0 0 

These tests demonstrated improved 

consistency of detection over results 

from past NHTSA testing of ultrasonicbased sensor systems. However, the 

short detection range for young children 

is insufficient for the purposes of 

backover mitigation. NHTSA notes, 

however, that as with research results 

described in the ANPRM, all systems 

tested were designed as parking aids 

and were not intended to be used for the 

purpose of detecting children. 

VI. Countermeasure Effectiveness 

Estimation Based on NHTSA Research 

Data 

Three conditions must be met for a 

rear visibility technology to provide a 

benefit to the driver. First, the crash 

must be one that is ‘‘avoidable’’ through 

use of the device; i.e., the pedestrian 

must be within the target range for the 

sensor, or the viewable area of the 

camera or mirror. Second, once the 

pedestrian is within the system’s range, 

the device must ‘‘sense’’ that fact, i.e., 

provide the driver with information 

about the presence and location of the 

pedestrian. Third, there must be 

sufficient ‘‘driver response,’’ i.e., before 

impact with the pedestrian, the driver 

must receive this information and 

respond appropriately by confirming 

whether someone is or is not behind the 

vehicle before proceeding. These factors 

are denoted as fA, fS, and fDR,

respectively, in this analysis. Their 

product is the final system effectiveness. 

This three-phase concept is depicted 

in Figure 3 below for both sensor-based 

systems and visual systems (i.e., 

rearview video systems, mirrors). 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

Based on this general description of 

the process of avoiding a backing crash, 

NHTSA has developed overall 

effectiveness of various backover 

countermeasure technologies using 

three individual factors. First, SCI 

backover incident reports were 

examined to characterize the geometry 

of the specific situations in which a 

backing vehicle struck a pedestrian or 

cyclist to determine if the backover 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76225 

71While we realize a component of a rearview 

video system could malfunction or break or a mirror 

could break or be misaligned, for purposes of our 

analysis, we assume they, and sensors, are 

functioning properly. 

72Mazzae, 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. 

crash was conceivably avoidable using a 

given technology and standard vehicle 

equipment (i.e., required rearview 

mirrors). We call this the ‘‘avoidability’’ 

of the backing conflict situation, or 

factor ‘‘FA’’ depicted in the figure above. 

Second, we estimated the probability 

that a countermeasure could sense and 

warn the driver of the rear obstacle, 

which we call ‘‘system performance,’’ or 

factor ‘‘FS’’ in the figure above. Finally, 

we determined the likelihood of a driver 

responding appropriately to information 

provided by the system to successfully 

avoid a backing crash. We call this 

‘‘driver reaction,’’ depicted above as 

factor ‘‘FDR.’’ If an obstruction in the 

path of a backing vehicle is avoidable, 

detectable, and a driver reacts 

appropriately, a backover crash will be 

avoided. Therefore, the ‘‘overall 

effectiveness’’ of the system is calculated 

by multiplying FA, FS, and FDR together. 

The derivation of these three factors is 

described below. 

A. Situation Avoidability 

Factor ‘‘FA’’ was derived by 

determining the ‘‘avoidability’’ of a 

backover crash. In order to better 

understand how avoidable these 

situations are, NHTSA closely reviewed 

the SCI backover case reports. By 

qualitatively analyzing the case reports, 

NHTSA assessed a variety of factors 

concerning the case and how they 

contributed to ‘‘avoidability’’, including: 

• Original and final position of the 

vehicle. 

• Vehicle speed. 

• If the victim was conceivably 

visible through direct vision or 

indirectly using the vehicle’s mirrors 

given the visual aspects of the 

environment surrounding the vehicle 

during the backing maneuver (i.e., was 

the area clear of visual obstructions?). 

• Position of the victim with respect 

to the vehicle. 

• Size, orientation (i.e., standing, 

sitting), and movement of the victim. 

• If the victim was detectable given 

the detection characteristics of a given 

technology. 

• If the vehicle could have stopped in 

time given typical system performance 

for that technology (based on results of 

NHTSA testing of system capabilities). 

NHTSA used a general process to 

determine if a crash was avoidable. We 

examined the system detection zone, 

vehicle blind zone area, and visible 

areas surrounding the vehicle. If the 

pedestrian or cyclist was detectable 

either visually or by a sensor-based 

system, then what followed was a 

cataloguing of all the impediments to a 

typical, reasonable driver reacting in 

time after receiving a warning or 

recognizing a pedestrian or cyclist seen 

on a rearview video system display. 

While many backover crashes are 

theoretically avoidable, certain 

characteristics render some incidents 

impossible to prevent using rear object 

detection technology, even if the 

technology and the person using it act 

appropriately. Consider, for example, a 

situation where a vehicle is backing 

along a wall. If a child walks through a 

gap in the wall and enters the vehicle’s 

path less than 2 feet from the vehicle, 

the backover would be judged 

‘‘unavoidable.’’ This is because no 

known technology could have detected 

the child through the wall, and no car 

could brake fast enough to stop in time 

to avoid the child, once he became 

visible. 

Some backover crashes are avoidable 

for certain technologies, but not for 

others, a function that generally 

corresponds to the detection range of 

the rear visibility countermeasure. For 

example, an ultrasonic sensor might 

have an effective range of only 6 feet, 

while a rearview video system might be 

able to effectively display a child 

positioned 20 feet behind a vehicle. If a 

vehicle were backing at a relatively high 

speed toward a child, it might take 10 

feet once the brakes were applied to 

stop the vehicle. In that case, the 

backover crash would be unavoidable 

for the vehicle equipped with the sensor 

system, because it could have only 

detected the child at 6 feet. On the other 

hand, the same backover situation 

would be considered an ‘‘avoidable’’ 

incident for a vehicle equipped with the 

rearview video system. This is why the 

‘‘FA’’ factor differs for different 

technologies. 

We note, of course, that merely 

because a backover crash is avoidable 

does not mean it will be avoided. 

Furthermore, drivers differ in their 

tendencies to check rearview mirrors 

and rearview video system displays, and 

may not always react perfectly and with 

sufficiently fast reaction time. However, 

those factors are addressed in the two 

sections below. The avoidability of a 

situation merely describes whether 

backover avoidance technology could 

have had any effect at all on the 

outcome of the conflict situation. 

Based on our analysis of the SCI data, 

we have derived the following values 

for the percent of backover crashes that 

are avoidable using various 

technologies. Rear-mounted mirrors 

could prevent up to 49 percent of 

backover crashes. Sensor technology, on 

average, could have prevented up to 52 

percent of backover crashes. For a 

rearview video system, NHTSA’s 

analysis concluded that up to 76 percent 

of backover crashes were avoidance 

with a 130-degree camera lens and 90 

percent of backover crashes were 

avoidable with a 180-degree camera 

lens, through which more pedestrians 

could be seen approaching from the 

sides of the vehicle. 

B. System Performance 

Factor ‘‘FS’’ was derived by 

determining the ability of the system to 

detect or display a rear obstacle based 

on the results of comprehensive NHTSA 

testing of systems’ ability to detect 

various objects in a laboratory setting. 

Since mirrors and rearview video 

systems have the ability to display 

anything within their field of view, we 

used a figure of 100 percent 

effectiveness.71 Sensors, however, may 

not always detect an obstacle behind the 

vehicle, even when the object is within 

their specified detection zone. This may 

be the result of the reflectivity of the 

obstacle, such as if a child’s clothing is 

textured and therefore absorbs the 

ultrasonic signal. Our specific value for 

sensor system performance is based on 

research described at length in the 

ANPRM. In NHTSA’s 2007 study of 

drivers’ ability to avoid a backing crash 

with an unexpected obstacle while 

driving a vehicle equipped with a 

rearview video system either alone or in 

conjunction with a rear parking system, 

the sensor-based system detected the 

rear obstacle in 39 percent of test 

trials.72 This value represents the 

system performance of sensor-based 

systems in the calculation of overall 

effectiveness presented in this notice. 

C. Driver Performance 

Factor FDR represents the degree to 

which drivers may use the various 

possible backover avoidance 

countermeasures to successfully avoid a 

crash. Unlike many other safety 

technologies, these countermeasures are 

only effective at preventing vehicle 

crashes if they are understood, trusted, 

and used by drivers. This is a 

particularly important issue considered 

in this rulemaking. Currently, drivers 

are most familiar with the interior and 

side rearview mirrors required or 

permitted by FMVSS No. 111. Signals 

from sensor-based rear object detection 

systems and images from new mirrors 

and rearview video system visual 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

73Mazzae, 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. 

74This means that the obstacle’s image either 

appeared on the mirror surface, was visible on a 

rearview video system visual display. For sensors, 

the obstacle as positioned at the centerline of the 

vehicle was assumed to be detectable by the system. 

75However, the ultrasonic sensor-based system 

used in this testing was found to only detect the 

centered obstacle in 39 percent of trials. 

76A radar-based sensor system was not assessed 

in this test, however, for the purposes of assessing 

driver performance, sensor technology was deemed 

not critical in this research. 

displays must be noticed, understood, 

and reacted to by the driver in order to 

avoid a crash. A system merely 

detecting or displaying the obstacle in 

the path of the vehicle is not enough to 

avoid a crash. 

NHTSA has differing concerns related 

to all three types of technologies 

currently available for informing a 

driver of the presence of an obstacle 

behind a vehicle. With regard to rearmounted convex mirrors, the primary 

concern is that the images they provide 

are too distorted to permit the driver to 

discern an obstacle within the image. In 

addition, the range that mirrors display 

behind the vehicle may be insufficient 

to allow a driver time to brake to a stop 

once the driver sees the rear obstacle. 

With all sensors, drivers may tend to not 

trust the warnings provided because 

they may not be able to visually confirm 

that an obstacle is present in the 

vehicle’s rear blind zone. In addition, if 

a system is prone to frequent false 

positive signals, this may cause drivers 

to ignore, or even turn off, the system, 

a concern echoed by several 

commenters. Finally, we are concerned 

that drivers may have difficulty 

integrating glances at a rearview video 

system visual display into their normal 

glance patterns while backing, focusing 

more on direct view (glancing rearward 

over their shoulder) or existing mirrors. 

In this section, we present the driver 

performance research that NHTSA has 

conducted and continues to conduct on 

currently available system types that are 

relevant to backover avoidance. 

As described in the ANPRM and in 

Section V of this notice, NHTSA 

conducted research 73 to assess drivers’ 

ability to avoid backing crashes in a 

controlled test involving presentation of 

an unexpected obstacle behind the 

vehicle while the driver backed out of 

a garage. The tests were designed so that 

the crash was always preventable (i.e., 

an ‘‘FA’’ factor of 100%) for drivers of 

vehicles equipped with a 

countermeasure system. Drivers in the 

baseline condition whose vehicles were 

only equipped with standard rearview 

mirrors could not see the rear obstacle 

and therefore it was nearly impossible 

for them to avoid a crash (and none 

did). The tests were also designed such 

that the obstruction was detectable by 

the countermeasure 74 in every trial (i.e., 

a ‘‘FS’’ factor of 100%). Therefore, any 

failure of the driver to avoid crashing 

into the obstacle should be attributable 

solely to the driver performance 

factor.75 Therefore, NHTSA believes 

that these experiments isolated, to the 

extent possible, the effects of driver 

performance in avoiding a backing 

crash. 

Table 9 summarizes the comparative 

driver effectiveness results for each of 

the seven systems assessed. This is how 

the various ‘‘FDR’’ factor figures were 

derived, which are used in the overall 

effectiveness calculations, described 

below. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF CRASH RESULTS IN UNEXPECTED OBSTACLE EVENT BY SYSTEM TYPE

Technology N Number of 

crashes 

Driver 

performance 

(‘‘FDR’’ factor) 

(%) 

No system .................................................................................................................................... 12 12 0 

Rear-mounted convex mirrors ..................................................................................................... 13 13 0 

Rear cross-view mirrors ............................................................................................................... 7 7 0 

Sensors (ultrasonic and radar) 76 ................................................................................................ 14 13 7 

Rearview video, in-dash, combined with ultrasonic sensors ...................................................... 13 11 15 

Rearview video, in-mirror, 2.4-inch display ................................................................................. 12 8 33 

Rearview video, in-mirror, 3.5-inch display ................................................................................. 10 3 70 

Rearview video, in-dash .............................................................................................................. 12 7 42 

NHTSA76 has recently completed the 

third in a series of three studies that 

examined drivers’ use of backing aid 

systems to avoid crashes while backing. 

Backing aid systems examined in the 

studies included rearview video (RV) 

systems with different display sizes and 

locations, rear sensor-based systems 

(RPS), and a combination system having 

both rearview video and rear sensors. 

For the five ‘‘system’’ conditions 

examined in both laboratory (studies 1 

and 2) and non-laboratory (study 3, 

daycare parking lot) settings, the relative 

crash rates were consistent. Given this 

observation, once our reduction of the 

data is complete, we will place these 

results in the docket and incorporate 

them for the final rule. 

D. Determining Overall Effectiveness 

Based on the above strategy of 

defining the components of 

effectiveness, we can estimate the 

overall effectiveness of each of the 

possible backover avoidance 

countermeasures examined. Overall, 

NHTSA’s research showed that out of 

all technologies tested, rearview video 

systems were the most effective in 

aiding drivers to avoid backing crashes. 

With rear-mounted convex mirrors, the 

research showed that drivers were not 

inclined to use them in backing 

situations, presumably due to image 

distortion and limited range. While 

sensors may have the potential to show 

benefits, the research demonstrated that 

without visual confirmation, drivers 

tended not to believe the warnings 

provided by the sensor system, and 

continued the backing maneuver in 

spite of the warning. The agency 

requests comments on what steps could 

be taken and at what cost and with what 

consequences to improve the range and 

sampling rate of sensors, to address 

problems with detecting pedestrians 

wearing low reflectivity clothing and to 

improve driver response to sensor 

provided warnings. What sort of 

performance requirement would be 

needed to ensure that sampling 

frequency would be increased 

sufficiently? However, rearview video 

systems examined were able to 

consistently display the rear obstacles to 

the drivers, as well as enable and induce 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76227 

77Research by GM also showed this apparent 

tendency of drivers to want visual confirmation of 

obstacle presence. 

78Mazzae, 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. 

drivers to avoid them. Table 10 below 

summarizes these results. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS VALUES BY SYSTEM TYPE

System FA(%) FS(%) FDR(%) Final effectiveness (%) 

FA × FS × FDR = FE 

180° Camera .................................................................................................................. 90 100 55 49 

130° Camera .................................................................................................................. 76 100 55 42 

Ultrasonic ....................................................................................................................... 49 70 7 2 .5 

Radar ............................................................................................................................. 54 70 7 2 .7 

Mirrors ............................................................................................................................ * 33 100 ** 0 0 

* FA for mirrors is taken from separate source due to lack of inclusion in the SCI case review that generated FA for cameras and sensors. 

** FDR for mirrors is taken from a small sample size of 20 tests. It is 0% because throughout testing, drivers did not take advantage of either 

cross-view or lookdown mirrors to avoid the obstacle in the test. 

VII. Proposal To Mandate Improved 

Rear Visibility 

Based on the comments on the 

ANPRM and NHTSA’s research on the 

various means available to mitigate 

backover crashes, NHTSA has 

developed the following proposal to 

improve light vehicle rear visibility. The 

proposal is based in part on our 

tentative conclusion that drivers need to 

be able to see a visual image of a 32-inch 

tall cylinder with 12-inch diameter 

behind the vehicle over an area 5 feet to 

either side of the vehicle centerline by 

20 feet in longitudinal range from the 

vehicle’s rear bumper face. We are also 

proposing to specify certain 

performance criteria for visual display 

performance, such as luminance and 

rearview image response time, which 

are detailed below, as well as durability 

requirements. We believe that these 

specifications are necessary to ensure 

robust and effective performance. 

These proposed improvements would 

apply to all passenger cars, MPVs, 

trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles 

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

Based on the substantial numbers of 

fatalities and injuries involving light 

vehicles other than LTVs, we are not 

proposing to limit these more stringent 

rear visibility performance requirements 

to LTVs only. Further, despite NHTSA’s 

decision to propose a requirement for 

improved rear visibility for nearly all 

light vehicles, we have included in the 

preliminary regulatory impact analysis 

an economic analysis of an alternative 

in which only LTVs are subjected to 

these requirements. We invite 

comments on this additional analysis. 

In the near term, we believe that 

existing rearview video systems can be 

used to meet the requirements with 

minimal or no modifications. While we 

recognize that there are significant costs 

involved in addressing the safety 

problem at issue using rearview video 

systems, we believe that our research 

shows that rearview video systems 

currently represent the most effective 

technology to address the problem of 

backover crashes. This is because rearmounted convex mirrors and sensorbased object detection systems offer few 

benefits compared to rearview video 

systems due to system performance and 

driver use issues. As we have previously 

said, use of a blind zone area threshold 

to focus the improve visibility 

requirements on vehicles with large rear 

blind zone areas, and presumably high 

backover crash rates, from these 

enhanced rear visibility requirements 

lacks a sufficient statistical basis while 

adding problematic issues. Some 

vehicles with comparatively small blind 

zones had high rates of backover 

incidents. Similarly, limiting 

countermeasures to LTVs, such as vans, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, and 

trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds 

or less, would leave large gaps in safety 

protection as well as a disparity in 

quality of rear visibility between these 

vehicles and passenger cars. 

In response to the suggestion of many 

commenters that, regardless of how 

broadly or narrowly the performance 

requirements are applied within the 

population of light vehicles, the 

requirements be technology-neutral, we 

believe we need to consider the 

practical consequences that adopting a 

technology neutral approach would 

have not only for the first phase of a 

backover crash, but also for each of the 

later phases. Adequate performance at 

the initial phase does not necessarily 

assure adequate performance at a later 

phase. The ultimate safety test of a 

technology in the context of this 

rulemaking is whether the technology 

enables the driver to detect the presence 

of a pedestrian in or near the path of the 

driver’s backing vehicle and whether 

drivers use the technology and succeed 

in avoiding backover crashes. 

Under our proposal, current rear 

object detection sensors and rearmounted convex mirrors would not be 

sufficient as stand-alone technologies to 

meet the proposed rear visibility 

requirement. This is because sensors 

and mirrors, while able to detect 

pedestrians to some degree, simply do 

not induce the driver response needed 

to prevent backover crashes. NHTSA 

research indicates that the presence of a 

system consisting of rear-mounted 

convex mirrors was statistically 

equivalent to the absence of any system 

at all for seeing pedestrians behind a 

driver’s vehicle. Therefore, we do not 

believe that any benefits would accrue 

from installation of rear-mounted 

convex mirrors. 

With regard to sensors, our research 

shows 77 that, in the vast majority of 

cases, a sensor-activated warning of the 

presence of an obstacle will not lead to 

a successful (i.e., timely and sufficient) 

crash avoidance response from the 

driver unless the driver is also provided 

with visual confirmation of obstacle 

presence. Because of this apparent need 

for visual confirmation and that the fact 

that sensors induced a successful driver 

reaction only 7 percent of the time in 

NHTSA testing, we do not believe it is 

in the best interest of safety to propose 

allowing systems that rely on sensors 

alone. 

However, we note that we are not 

proposing to disallow sensor systems as 

a supplement to rearview video systems. 

While NHTSA research78 showed 27 

percent worse driver crash avoidance 

performance in a vehicle equipped with 

both a rearview video system and rear 

sensors than in a vehicle with only 

rearview video, deficiencies in the 

performance of the sensor system may 

have confounded the isolation of driver 

performance. It is thus unclear to what 

extent the presence of sensors may 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

79Mazzae, 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. 

induce some drivers to rely on the 

sensors to some extent instead of relying 

exclusively on close and uninterrupted 

monitoring of the video display. To the 

extent that drivers rely on sensors and 

to the extent that the sensors fail to 

detect objects, driver crash avoidance 

performance will worsen. We seek 

comment on this issue. Furthermore, the 

cost of a combined rearview video and 

sensor system would be higher than that 

of a rearview video system alone. 

Finally, while NHTSA is not at this 

time proposing to mandate advanced 

multi-technology countermeasure 

systems, we note that research 

continues. These systems may include 

video-based systems with real-time 

image processing for object detection 

and combinations of sensors and video 

cameras, some of which (detailed by 

commenters) include sensor-based 

graphic overlays superimposed over 

visual images from rearview video 

systems. Advances like infrared 

detection, automated braking, and 

backing speed limitation were all 

concepts raised either by commenters or 

NHTSA analysis. 

A. Proposed Specifications 

Our general approach in developing 

performance requirements was to 

consider the various phases of backover 

crashes and identify key areas of 

performance pertinent to overall system 

effectiveness. In the absence of existing 

consensus industry standards, we 

reviewed existing systems and 

determined which aspects of 

performance should be addressed in the 

regulatory text of this proposal. Based 

on the systems we have tested and 

comments on the ANPRM, we believe 

that existing systems generally meet our 

proposed specifications and in cases in 

which they do not, changes could be 

made with minimal cost impact. For 

example, it is likely that existing 

systems would meet our durability 

requirements because they are typically 

subjected to vehicle level tests involving 

harsher conditions than we are 

proposing. Both vehicle and equipment 

manufacturers cited low warranty claim 

rates for rearview video systems in their 

comments. This indicates to us that 

today’s systems are proving durable in 

typical driving conditions. Similarly, 

while some current systems would not 

satisfy our maximum image response 

time requirement, a change to the 

vehicle to prioritize display of the 

rearview video image over navigation 

software would significantly improve 

image response time with minimal cost. 

i. Improved Rear Field of View 

To determine the appropriate 

minimum width of the required visible 

area, NHTSA reviewed both available 

SCI backover case data and our Monte 

Carlo analysis of backover crash risk as 

a function of pedestrian initial location. 

While some small risk exists as far as 

9 feet laterally to the left and right of a 

rearward extension of a vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline, the vast 

majority of the risk is concentrated 

within a 10-foot wide area that extends 

symmetrically only 5 feet laterally to 

either side from the extended centerline. 

Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that the 

required area of improved visibility be 

this 10-foot wide area that is centered 

on the vehicle’s centerline. 

To determine the appropriate 

minimum longitudinal range (i.e., 

length) of the area that should be 

specified to maximize the feasibility and 

effectiveness of the proposal in reducing 

backover crashes, NHTSA considered 

comments on the ANPRM, SCI backover 

case data, and the results of our Monte 

Carlo analysis. Using the 58 SCI 

backover cases, NHTSA examined the 

distance the vehicle traveled prior to 

striking the pedestrian. Figure 4 shows 

the percent of cases encompassed by 

various ranges of longitudinal distance. 

These data show that in 77 percent of 

SCI backover cases the vehicle traveled 

20 feet or less before striking the victim. 

The Monte Carlo analysis of backover 

crash risk as a function of the 

pedestrian’s initial location used a 

distribution of actual backing maneuver 

travel distances based on those observed 

in naturalistic backing maneuvers made 

by test participants in NHTSA’s 

research study that examined drivers’ 

use of rearview video systems.79 The 

Monte Carlo analysis, which was 

outlined in Section II.C.v, indicated 

based on computer simulation that the 

highest risk for pedestrians being struck 

is within a range of 33 feet aft of the rear 

bumper. Given that actual backover SCI 

case data are available, NHTSA 

proposes a longitudinal range for rear 

visibility coverage of 20 feet extending 

backward from the rearmost point of the 

rear bumper based on those rear-world 

data. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76229 

80A minute of arc is a unit of angular 

measurement that is equal to one-sixtieth of a 

degree. 

81Satoh, H., Yamanaka, A., Kondoh, T., 

Yamashita, M., Matsuzaki, M., and Akisuzuki, K., 

‘‘Development of a Periscope Mirror System,’’ JSAE 

Review, November 1983. 

82The angle which an object or detail subtends 

at the point of observation; usually measured in 

minutes of arc. If the point of observation is the 

pupil of a person’s eye, the angle is formed by two 

rays, one passing through the center of the pupil 

and touching the upper edge of the observed object 

and the other passing though the center of the pupil 

and touching the lower edge of the object. 

To ensure adequate visibility of this 

area, the agency is specifying the 

placement of seven test objects 

(cylinders) within the area. Given the 

size of the area and the locations of the 

cylinders within the area, we believe 

that a view of the entire area can be 

captured through the installation of a 

single video camera that has a minimum 

130-degree horizontal angle and is 

located at or near the centerline of the 

vehicle. For that reason, NHTSA’s 

analysis has used the estimated costs 

and benefits of a rearview video system 

with a 130-degree video camera. 

ii. Visual Display Requirements 

The following sections describe the 

proposed requirements for visual 

displays used to present images of the 

area behind a vehicle. NHTSA believes 

these requirements are important to 

achieving reasonable system 

effectiveness. Further, we note that one 

potential concern expressed to NHTSA 

is that specifying requirements could 

increase costs for display manufacturers 

by requiring them to conduct expensive 

certification tests of equipment. We note 

that the requirements proposed today 

are vehicle requirements, not equipment 

requirements, and so we do not believe 

that equipment manufacturers will be 

unduly burdened. 

a. Rearview Image Size 

NHTSA is proposing a performance 

requirement of at least 5 minutes of 

arc 80 for the displayed size (i.e., how 

large the cylinders appear) in the 

rearview image of three test cylinders 

(cylinders A, B, and C) that are located 

20 feet aft of the rearmost point on the 

vehicle’s rear bumper. Specifically, we 

are proposing to require that when the 

images of these three test cylinders are 

measured, the average size of the three 

displayed test cylinders must not be less 

than 5 minutes of arc. Additionally, the 

displayed size of each of the three 

displayed test cylinders individually 

must not be less than 3 minutes of arc. 

NHTSA does not believe that there is a 

need to propose displayed size 

requirements for any of the other test 

cylinders, because the three furthest test 

objects will always appear the smallest, 

thus representing the worst case 

visually observable condition for the 7 

cylinders, and any additional 

measurements would be an unnecessary 

burden. 

The reason for proposing 5 minutes of 

arc for the average displayed size of the 

test cylinders is that NHTSA believes 

this is the minimum size needed for 

non-professional drivers to distinguish 

and react to images. The 3 and 5 

minutes of arc figures are based on 

research originally published by Satoh, 

Yamanaka, Kondoh, Yamashita, 

Matsuzaki, and Akisuzuki in 1983.81

Satoh et al examined the relationship 

between an object’s subtended visual 

angle 82 at a person’s eyes and a person’s 

subjective ability to see the object and 

to make judgments about what he or she 

is seeing. Satoh asserted that an object 

must subtend at least 5 minutes of arc 

for a person to be able to make 

judgments about the object. 

To date, NHTSA has based its 

requirements for minimum image size 

(the minimum subtended visual angle at 

the driver’s eyes) on the Satoh et al. 

research. The school bus cross view 

mirror requirements in FMVSS No. 111 

are based in part on the Satoh 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.010</MATH>
76230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

83 Garrott, W.R., Rockwell, T.H., and Kiger, S.W. 

(1990). Ergonomic Research on School Bus Cross 

View Mirror Systems. National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT 807 676. 

84California had no such requirement. 

research.83 For example, paragraph S9.4 

of FMVSS No. 111 requires a school bus 

cross-view mirror to show the driver a 

specified child surrogate test object 

located at a specified location with a 

subtended visual angle of at least 3 

minutes of arc for the worse case test 

object, cylinder ‘‘P’’. The rationale for 

using a visual angle value less than 5 

minutes of arc for the school bus mirror 

requirements is threefold. 

First, school bus drivers must be 

specially licensed before they can drive 

a school bus carrying children. They are 

required to obtain a Commercial Drivers 

License with a School Bus 

Endorsement. The training required to 

obtain this special license and the 

necessity of being vigilant in all types of 

crashes in order to retain their license 

and employment is expected to increase 

school bus drivers’ awareness of the 

possibility of pedestrians suddenly 

entering danger areas around their bus. 

The combined effect of this training and 

the necessity for attentiveness is 

expected to encourage drivers to pay 

more attention to small images that are 

visible in a bus’s mirrors. 

Second, school bus drivers are 

specifically trained in the use of their 

bus’s cross view mirrors. In the late 

1980’s, when the school bus cross-view 

mirror requirements of FMVSS No. 111 

were being developed, 49 states plus 

Washington, DC84 required annual 

training for all school bus drivers in the 

use of their bus’s cross view mirrors. 

This training is expected to allow 

drivers to make better use of very small 

images that they see. 

Third, school bus cross-view mirrors 

are intended to be used before the bus 

begins to move, while the bus is 

stationary. As a result, drivers can take 

as much time as they need to determine 

what they see in their bus’s cross-view 

mirrors. In contrast, in the passenger 

vehicle environment, drivers may use 

the display while the vehicle is 

stationary and while the vehicle is in 

motion backing up (albeit at fairly low 

speeds). As a result, drivers may have 

limits on the amount of time that they 

may use to determine what they are 

seeing in a rearview video display. 

Again, this argues for a larger minimum 

image size requirement. 

NHTSA considered whether the 

image size criterion used for school bus 

cross-view mirror requirements 

currently in FMVSS No. 111 should also 

be applied to rearview images required 

for passenger vehicles. After careful 

consideration, NHTSA has concluded it 

is appropriate to propose a stronger 

requirement for passenger vehicles since 

passenger vehicle drivers do not have 

the same vehicle and system (e.g., 

mirror use) training as school bus 

drivers do, nor do passenger vehicles 

typically use the systems in a stationary 

scenario. Based on this, the Satohrecommended 5 minutes of arc 

subtended visual angle requirement is 

warranted and therefore recommended 

as a minimum performance 

requirement. 

Based upon NHTSA test data from an 

examination of a 2007 Honda Odyssey 

minivan fitted both with an original 

equipment (from a 2008 Honda 

Odyssey) 2.4-inch diagonal rearview 

video display and an original equipment 

3.5-inch diagonal rearview video 

display (from a GM vehicle), NHTSA 

estimates that a 2.8-inch or larger 

diagonal rearview video display in the 

interior rearview mirror would be 

necessary to meet the proposed 5 

minutes of arc requirement for this 

vehicle. 

b. Image Response Time 

Image response time is the time delay 

between the moment the vehicle’s 

transmission is shifted into reverse gear, 

and the moment which an image to the 

rear of the vehicle is displayed. For 

vehicles in which an existing navigation 

system visual display is used to display 

a rearview video image, we believe that 

adopting a maximum image response 

time value will prevent manufacturers 

from giving priority, at ignition, to the 

loading of navigation system 

applications instead of the rearview 

video applications. We believe that 

giving display priority to a rearview 

video system image should increase the 

effectiveness of such systems in 

preventing backing crashes. As stated 

previously, NHTSA is concerned that if 

the display takes too long to appear, 

drivers will be more likely to begin a 

backing maneuver before the image of 

the area behind the vehicle is displayed. 

Given the importance of the ‘‘initial 

check’’ behind the vehicle, a long image 

response time could have a strong 

negative effect on the overall 

effectiveness of a rearview video system. 

As an appropriate balance between the 

importance of a quickly provided image 

and the need for sufficient opportunity 

to conduct system checks as noted in 

the ANPRM comments (see section 

IV.G), NHTSA proposes a 2.0-second 

maximum image response time after the 

vehicle’s transmission is shifted into 

reverse based on the minimum time in 

which such system checks can be 

conducted. 

c. Image Linger Time 

Image linger time refers to the period 

in which the rearview video image 

continues to be displayed after the 

vehicle’s transmission has been shifted 

out of reverse gear. In the ANPRM, 

NHTSA indicated that a maximum of 8 

seconds of linger time may be 

appropriate after the vehicle is shifted 

from the reverse position. Based on their 

observations of drivers making parking 

maneuvers, the AAM recommended a 

maximum linger time of 10 seconds or 

an alternative speed-based value in 

which the rearview video display would 

turn off when the vehicle reach a speed 

of 20 kph (12.4 mph).Similarly, GM 

recommended a maximum linger time 

of 10 seconds or a speed-based limit of 

5 mph (8 kph). Based on commenters’ 

findings regarding actual, observed 

maneuver durations, NHTSA is 

proposing a time-based maximum linger 

time of 10.0 seconds to better aid to the 

driver. 

d. Visual Display Luminance 

We believe it is appropriate to adopt 

a minimum visual display luminance 

value to ensure that the rearview video 

system visual display image is 

adequately visible in varying 

conditions, such as bright sunlight or 

low levels of ambient light. Adequately 

visible, in this case, would mean that a 

driver can discern the presence of and 

identify obstacles displayed within the 

rearview video image. Gentex 

recommended that a brightness level of 

500 cd/m2 for in-mirror displays as 

measured at room temperature and in a 

dark room, and said that it has been 

confirmed by vehicle manufacturer 

research to be the minimally accepted 

value, presumably to account for a wide 

possible range of ambient conditions. 

Therefore, we are proposing a minimum 

visual display luminance requirement of 

500 cd/m2 for rearview image displays. 

e. Other Aspects of Visual Display 

NHTSA also requires comments 

regarding other aspects of visual display 

and image quality performance such as 

image resolution, minification, 

distortion, contrast ratio and low-light 

performance as well as regarding 

display location. While existing systems 

may perform well with regard to these 

aspects of performance, there is no 

certainty that future systems will be 

designed to perform as well. Depending 

on the public comments and other 

available information, we may include 

requirements on some or all of these 

aspects of performance in the final rule. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76231 

85Ander, Gregg D. (1995). Daylighting 

performance and design. Wiley, John & Sons, 

Incorporated. 

If we were to include requirements for 

some aspects, how should those aspects 

be regulated, at what level of stringency, 

and why? For example, what test 

procedures should be used for 

measuring these aspects of 

performance? Do any existing voluntary 

consensus standards have test 

procedures that would be appropriate 

for assessing performance? 

iii. Requirements for External System 

Components 

We believe that for rear visibility 

systems to be effective in preventing 

real-world crashes, it is imperative that 

they perform across a wide range of 

environments typically encountered by 

drivers. For example, such systems 

should operate in various temperature 

ranges and should not be rendered 

inoperable by conditions such as rain or 

normal corrosion. 

As part of our technical review, we 

considered the possibility of adopting 

requirements from industry consensus 

standards. Unfortunately, such 

standards do not currently exist as 

manufacturers have indicated they 

consider their internal technical 

specifications for such systems to be 

proprietary. It is the agency’s 

understanding that no such industry 

consensus standards will be developed 

and available for consideration within 

the timeframe of the current rulemaking 

process. 

Therefore, we reviewed existing 

requirements in our safety standards for 

other vehicle equipment in these areas. 

We believe there is merit in reviewing 

existing requirements for exterior motor 

vehicle equipment, such as lighting, 

particularly because components such 

as video cameras utilized in rearview 

video systems are typically mounted 

near rear lamps and subject to the same 

environmental conditions. While we 

considered that some vehicle 

manufacturers may conduct indirect 

vehicle level environmental tests that 

could potentially address some of these 

areas of interest, we noted that such 

testing is not required and that there is 

no basis to believe all vehicle 

manufacturers would adopt similar 

criteria. Therefore, based on the 

requirements outlined in FMVSS No. 

108 for lighting, we are proposing 

requirements for the following areas to 

address rear visibility system external 

component durability: Salt spray (fog), 

temperature cycle, and humidity. 

We believe a salt spray evaluation 

will address both the necessary 

corrosion performance, as well as 

general moisture resistance required so 

that rear visibility systems can deliver 

the expected effectiveness to motorists 

in the real world. We are proposing that 

exterior components used in rear 

visibility systems application meet the 

required minimum performance of 

exterior lamps, which are required to be 

tested in accordance with ASTM B117– 

73, Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing 

for a total period of 50 hours. The 50 

hour total period is comprised of 2 

identical periods of 24 hours of 

exposure followed by 1 hour of drying 

time. We believe that this standardized 

test procedure is a reasonable proxy for 

normal environmental conditions. At 

the end of the test, the system would 

still be required to meet the visibility 

and field of view requirements. 

We believe a specification combining 

temperature cycles and humidity levels 

is appropriate to establish the ability of 

rearview video systems to provide the 

anticipated level of effectiveness across 

a range of real world driving conditions. 

We are proposing to require that 

systems operated across both a high and 

low temperature range, with varying 

humidity level. Again, at the conclusion 

of the proposed test cycles, the system 

would be required to function within 

acceptable limits. 

B. Proposed Compliance Tests 

i. Ambient Lighting Conditions 

NHTSA believes that the ambient 

lighting conditions present for testing 

should mimic the lighting conditions in 

which the visual displays will be used. 

To ensure test repeatability, NHTSA 

believes that ambient lighting of a 

particular brightness level should be 

specified for testing. Daytime outdoor 

lighting (sunlight and varying degrees of 

cloud cover) ranges from 10,000 lux to 

100,000 lux in full sunlight.85 NHTSA 

believes that the lower end of this 

brightness range should be used for 

testing to mimic the most typical 

manner of incidence of the sun’s rays 

upon a console-mounted rearview 

image, which would involve at least 

some degree of obstruction by the 

vehicle’s roof. Therefore, we propose 

that testing be conducted with evenly 

distributed lighting of 10,000 lux 

intensity as measured at the center of 

the exterior surface of vehicle’s roof. 

While actual natural sunlight may strike 

an in-vehicle display at various angles 

through the day, for the purpose of test 

repeatability we believe that ambient 

lighting during testing should be 

provided by overhead light sources with 

the light presented in an evenly 

distributed manner. Because the 

overwhelming majority of backover 

crashes occur during the day, we are not 

proposing testing under nighttime 

ambient lighting conditions. 

ii. Rear Visibility Test Object 

For the purpose of determining 

compliance with the performance 

requirements specified in the preceding 

sections, NHTSA is proposing that a 

cylindrical test object be used for 

testing. Specifically, the agency is 

proposing the test cylinder be a 32-inch 

tall cylinder with a diameter of 12 

inches to represent the approximate 

height and width of an average, standing 

18-month-old child. The age of 18 

months was selected based upon the 

agency’s review of SCI backover cases 

and consideration of comments on the 

ANPRM. We believe that a test object 

with these dimensions is necessary to 

ensure robust performance not only of a 

countermeasure system’s ability to meet 

specified coverage area requirements 

behind a vehicle, but also the system’s 

ability to display an image of a rear 

obstacle to a driver. 

In developing the characteristics of 

the test object, NHTSA reviewed its own 

research, real world crash data, industry 

research, existing test procedures, and 

comments on the ANPRM. NHTSA 

considered and evaluated a number of 

different options ranging from crash 

dummies, clothing mannequins, and 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe to traffic 

cones for use as possible compliance 

test objects. NHTSA also considered 

using a child-shaped, clothing 

mannequin identified by the agency’s 

Advanced Collision Avoidance 

Technology (ACAT) Backing Crash 

Countermeasure Program as having a 

radar cross-section equivalent to that of 

a small child. However, this shape is not 

proposed since the sensitivity of the test 

object to radar detection is not relevant 

to the evaluation of a visual rearview 

image and the asymmetrical shape of 

the mannequin would cause rearview 

image quality measurement difficulties. 

Given that the test object is intended to 

be used both to confirm countermeasure 

coverage area and test cylinder 

displayed size, a shape that is 

conducive to accurate completion of 

both tests is needed. While the shape of 

the test object is not critical for 

assessment of countermeasure coverage 

area as long as the object’s dimensions 

are appropriate, use of a sided shape 

could cause measurement difficulties 

when assessing visual display image 

quality. A cylindrical test object with a 

vertical axis would appear to have the 

same relative width regardless of the 

angle at which it is viewed and would 

not appear skewed, as a square column 

might. A cylindrical test object is also 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

86CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Boys; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/ 

20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/ 

20/2001). 

87CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Boys; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/ 

20/2001) CDC, Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 

months: Girls; Length-for-age and Weight-for-age 

percentiles. Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/ 

20/2001). 

88Mazzae, 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. 

89Schneider, L.W., Robbins, D.H., Pflu ̈ g, M.A. 

and Snyder, R.G. (1985). Anthropometry of Motor 

Vehicle Occupants; Volume 1—Procedures, 

Summary Findings and Appendices. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 806 

715. 

suggested by the requirements of ISO 

17386 that specify use of a cylinder to 

test the detection performance of 

ultrasonic parking aids. Therefore, the 

proposed test object shape consists of a 

cylinder with a vertical axis that can 

adequately represent the proportions of 

the children most commonly at risk in 

backover scenarios while at the same 

time ensuring robust system 

performance. 

To best represent the manner in 

which a child is displayed to the driver 

in a rearview image, NHTSA proposes 

that the cylindrical test object shall have 

a diameter of 12 inches to represent the 

width of an average 18-month-old child. 

Based on 2000 CDC data for the head 

breadth an 18-month-old child, NHTSA 

proposes 5.9 inches (15 cm) as the 

minimum width that must be visible in 

the rearview image for the three test 

objects located nearest the rear bumper 

of the vehicle.86 To aid in the 

assessment of whether the minimum 

width is visible, a contrasting colored 

vertical stripe of width 5.9 inches is 

proposed for the two cylinders closest to 

the vehicle. 

Furthermore, given that the visual 

appearance of the test object is the 

dominant factor in the compliance test, 

we do not believe that we need to 

specify material properties at this time. 

While ultrasonic and radar sensors are 

better at detecting some materials and 

surface textures than others, rearview 

video systems display images of objects 

of all opaque material types. For these 

reasons, NHTSA is proposing that the 

test object merely consist of a 

cylindrical object of the dimensions 

specified above. However, we note that 

if in the future sensor-based systems are 

developed that may fulfill the 

requirements of providing to the driver 

a visual image of the area behind the 

vehicle, alternative test object material 

characteristics and dimensions may 

need to be specified in order to ensure 

that the object accurately simulates the 

physical presence of an 18-month-old 

child to the particular sensor technology 

being used. 

To provide a consistent and 

repeatable location in which to measure 

apparent test object width as part of 

rearview image quality assessment, 

NHTSA proposes that the three rearmost 

test objects be constructed with a 5.9- 

inch high colored band surrounding the 

perimeter of the upper portion of the 

cylinder that is of a different color than 

the rest of the cylinder. The 5.9-inch 

dimension is based on the breadth of the 

average 18-month-old child’s head.87

The band can be of any color that 

contrasts with that of the rest of the test 

object. 

iii. Rear Visibility Compliance Test 

Procedures 

NHTSA is proposing a test to ensure 

that a rearview image provided to the 

driver (1) covers the required area 

behind the vehicle and (2) displays the 

images of obstacles with sufficient size 

to permit a driver to visually perceive 

their presence. The test procedure used 

to determine countermeasure 

performance in terms of rearview video 

system viewable area is similar to that 

currently used for school bus mirrors 

(Section 13, ‘‘School bus mirror test 

procedures’’ of FMVSS No. 111, 

‘‘Rearview mirrors’’). Like the school bus 

mirror test, the proposed test uses a 

large format camera placed with the 

imaging sensor located at a specific 

eyepoint location, referred to here as the 

‘‘test reference point’’. A matte finish 

ruler affixed beneath the visual display 

and aligned laterally along the bottom 

edge of the visual display provides a 

reference for scaling purposes in the 

image quality portion of the test 

procedure. 

The proposed test reference point is 

intended to simulate the location of a 

50th percentile male driver’s eyes 

(rather than the 95th percentile male 

used in existing FMVSS No. 111 

rearview mirror requirements) when 

glancing at the rearview image. Based 

on observations of drivers using 

rearview video systems in NHTSA 

testing,88 we assume that for visual 

displays located in the vicinity of the 

center console or interior rearview 

mirror, the driver will turn his or her 

head to look at the display with little or 

no lateral eye rotation. Therefore, to 

estimate the location of the driver’s eyes 

when looking at a rearview image, the 

forward-looking eyepoint of the driver 

can be simulated to rotate toward the 

center of the vehicle as though the 

driver is turning his head. 

Anthropometric data from a NHTSAsponsored study of the dimensions of 

50th percentile male drivers seated with 

a 25-degree seat-back angle 

(‘‘Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle 

Occupants’’ 89) give the longitudinal and 

vertical location, with respect to the H 

point, of the left and right infraorbitale 

(a point just below each eye) and the 

head/neck joint center at which the 

head rotates about the spine. Given an 

average vertical eye diameter of 

approximately 0.96 inch (24 mm), we 

can assume that the center of the eye is 

located 0.48 inches (12 mm) above the 

infraorbitale. Taking the midpoint of the 

lateral locations of the driver’s eyes 

gives a point in the mid-sagittal plane 

(the vertical/longitudinal plane of 

symmetry of the human body) of the 

driver’s body indicated by Mf in Figure 

5. Using the point at which the head 

rotates, Mf can be rotated toward the 

rearview image to obtain a new 

eyepoint, the test reference point, 

representing an eye midpoint for a 

driver when the head is turned to look 

at a rearview image. The proposed 

regulatory requirement sets forth clear 

instructions as to how to position the 

camera to conduct the test. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76233 

a. Rear Field of View Test Procedure 

To demonstrate a system’s 

compliance with the field of view 

requirements, we are proposing that the 

perimeter of the minimum detection 

area that must be visible is marked 

using seven test objects. The locations of 

the seven test objects, represented by 

black circles, are illustrated in Figure 6. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.011</GPH>
76234 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

For school bus cross-view mirrors, 

FMVSS No. 111 requires that the entire 

top surface of each cylinder must be 

visible. However, due to the potential 

for rearview video cameras to be 

mounted at heights of less than 32 

inches on some compact cars and sporty 

vehicles, NHTSA is proposing an 

alternative detection criterion for this 

test. For test objects located 10 or more 

feet aft of the vehicle’s rear bumper, 

NHTSA proposes that the entire height 

and width of each test object must be 

visible. This criterion equates to the 

driver being able to see the entire body 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.012</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76235 

90The 5.9-inch dimension is the average breadth 

of an 18-month-old child’s head per CDC’s ‘‘Clinical 

Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Boys; Lengthfor-age and Weight-for-age percentiles’’ and 

‘‘Clinical Growth Charts. Birth to 36 months: Girls; 

Length-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles.’’ 

Published May 30, 2000 (modified 4/20/2001). 

of an 18-month-old child and serves to 

ensure that detection of a child, if 

present, between 10 and 15 feet behind 

the vehicle is possible. 

Due to camera angle, only a portion of 

a child or child-sized object in close 

proximity to the rear bumper may be 

visible, particularly at the edges of the 

camera’s viewing angle. To ensure that 

at least a portion of test objects ‘F’ and 

‘G’ (in Figure 6) are visible, the 

proposed compliance test positions 

them 1 foot aft of the rear bumper face. 

To give the driver enough information 

to be able to discern an ‘‘object’’ as a 

child, if present, and to provide a 

quantitative basis for assessing field of 

view compliance, NHTSA believes it is 

important to indicate how much of the 

test objects must be visible. Seeing a 

child’s face or another body area of 

similar size would likely result in 

successful visual recognition of the 

child by the driver. Therefore, NHTSA 

proposes that a minimum of a 5.9-inch 

width of test objects ‘F’ and ‘G’ must be 

visible.90 This criterion would result in 

a 5.9-inch square or larger portion of an 

object or child being visible. 

For NHTSA compliance testing, the 

displayed rearview image would be 

photographed to document the test 

results of this field of view test, as well 

as to provide data for use in completing 

the image quality test, which is 

described in the next section. 

b. Rearview Image Size Test Procedure 

As stated previously, industry 

standards applicable to an image-based 

rear visibility system do not exist. 

Therefore, to develop a method for 

assessing image quality, NHTSA looked 

to its prior work relating to school bus 

cross-view mirrors. The test procedure 

described below follows the same basic 

concept as the existing school bus 

mirror test procedure in FMVSS No. 

111. This test serves to ensure that a 

minimum image quality is maintained 

throughout the required coverage area of 

the rearview image. Essentially, we are 

proposing that the apparent image of the 

individual test objects be large enough 

for an average driver to quickly 

determine their presence and nature. 

The test procedure proposed for use 

in assessing countermeasure visual 

display image quality compliance 

requires one additional step beyond the 

rearview video system viewable area 

test described above. Using the printed 

photograph of the rearview image taken 

to document the viewable area covered 

by the system, the size of each of the 

three test objects positioned 20 feet aft 

of the rear bumper (indicated in Figure 

5 labeled ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’) is measured. 

The horizontal width of each of the 

three test objects is measured within the 

colored band surrounding the upper 

portion of the cylindrical test object by 

selecting a point at both the left and 

right edges of the object’s displayed 

image. Similarly, two points on the ruler 

shown in the photograph are selected to 

acquire a measurement for use as a 

lateral scaling factor. Using the two 

measure widths and the distance 

between the driver’s eyepoint (i.e., 

midpoint between an average 50th 

percentile male’s eyes) and the center of 

the rearview image, the visual angle 

subtended by each test object may be 

calculated. To reduce the effects of 

measurement errors, the measured 

visual angle subtended from each of the 

three test objects (A, B, and C) are 

averaged together. Acceptable image 

quality is defined as the average 

measured visual angle subtended by the 

test object’s width from these three 

locations exceeding 5 minutes of arc. 

The average value is used to assess 

compliance to minimize the effect of 

individual measurement error. The 

subtended visual angle for each of the 

three locations must exceed 3 minutes 

of arc. 

C. Proposed Effective Date and Phase-In 

Schedule 

In accordance with the schedule set 

forth by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act, 

we are proposing that the requirement 

for rearview video systems be phased in 

within four years of publication of the 

final rule. Because we anticipate that a 

final rule will be published in early 

2011, the statutory requirement would 

require that full compliance be achieved 

in late 2014 or early 2015. Furthermore, 

because we anticipate that this rule will 

require substantial design work to 

implement, we are proposing that, like 

other substantial rules, the compliance 

dates for the various stages of the phasein be September 1 of the relevant year, 

in order to correspond with model 

years. Therefore, given the likely 

schedule of this rulemaking, we are 

proposing that full compliance be 

achieved by September 1, 2014. 

NHTSA is concerned about the 

potential costs imposed on automotive 

manufacturers by this proposal, and is 

therefore taking into account both the 

current and projected future 

implementation of rearview video 

systems in our proposed phase-in 

schedule. Another factor that is being 

taken into consideration is the vehicle 

redesign cycle. Specifically, we are 

aware that it could cost substantially 

more to implement the best available 

technology (i.e., rearview video systems) 

into vehicles if it is not done during the 

normal vehicle design cycle. We are 

aware, for example, in comments 

received from Honda that the statutory 

deadline may not provide enough time 

for most vehicles to undergo a redesign 

before full compliance is required. In its 

comment, AIAM suggested that a 6-year 

phase-in schedule, rather than a 4-year 

one, might be needed in order to assure 

that the substantial majority of affected 

vehicles can integrate rearview video 

systems as part of their normal redesign 

cycle. The agency appreciates the 

challenges posed by the proposed rule, 

but notes that a phase-in period longer 

than four years would be inconsistent 

with the limitation specified by 

Congress. 

With the above considerations, we are 

proposing a rear-loaded phase-in 

schedule. For the year following the first 

September 1 after publication of the 

final rule (likely to be September 1, 

2011), we are proposing a compliance 

target that is less than the total number 

of vehicles already anticipated to be 

equipped with rearview video systems. 

The proposed phase-in schedule then 

requires steady increases in the total 

percentage of the compliant vehicles in 

the two following years, based on these 

considerations and the percentage of 

vehicles that are anticipated to undergo 

a scheduled redesign. Finally, we are 

proposing to apply the requirements to 

all vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1 of the following year 

(likely 2014). The specific percentages 

of the phase-in schedule are shown in 

Table 11 below. 

TABLE 11—PROPOSED PHASE-IN

SCHEDULE

Percent 

Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2011 .............................. 0 

Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2011, and before 

September 1, 2012 ....................... 0 

Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2012, and before 

September 1, 2013 ....................... 10 

Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2013, and before 

September 1, 2014 ....................... 40 

Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2014 ....................... 100 

Furthermore, we are proposing that 

small volume manufacturers need only 

comply with the requirement for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

rearview video systems when the 

requirement has been fully phased in, 

that is, on September 1, 2014. This is 

based in part on the comment from 

AIAM, which requested this provision 

for small volume manufacturers due to 

their longer product life cycles and their 

reduced access to technology. 

The reasons for allowing small 

volume manufacturers a delay in the 

compliance schedule are twofold. First, 

because these manufacturers generally 

produce a single or low number of lines 

of vehicles, they would need to install 

these systems on a large portion or all 

of their fleet in order to meet the fleet 

percentage requirement. Considering 

that the installation of rearview video 

systems is most efficiently 

accomplished during a vehicle redesign, 

this would mean that small volume 

manufacturers are disproportionately 

negatively impacted by the requirement 

because they would likely have to 

install these systems in the middle of 

the design cycle, increasing their costs. 

Second, because small volume 

manufacturers frequently have longer 

product cycles than larger 

manufacturers, the need for a delay 

until the end of the compliance 

increases the likelihood that they will 

have the opportunity to integrate the 

rearview video system with their normal 

redesign cycle. While we believe that 

rearview video systems and displays are 

readily available so that small volume 

manufacturers will have access, we 

believe that the other two reasons are 

adequate to delay mandatory 

compliance until the end of the phasein period. 

We are also proposing to include 

provisions under which manufacturers 

can earn credits towards meeting the 

applicable phase-in percentages if they 

meet the new rear visibility 

requirements ahead of schedule. In 

addition, as we have done with other 

standards, we are proposing a separate 

alternative schedule to address the 

special problems faced by limited line 

and multistage manufacturers and 

alterers in complying with phase-ins. A 

phase-in generally permits vehicle 

manufacturers flexibility with respect to 

which vehicles they choose to initially 

redesign to comply with new 

requirements. However, if a 

manufacturer produces a very limited 

number of lines, a phase-in would not 

provide such flexibility. NHTSA is 

accordingly proposing to permit 

‘‘limited line’’ manufacturers that 

produce three or fewer carlines the 

option of achieving full compliance 

when the phase-in is completed. 

Flexibility would be allowed for 

vehicles manufactured in two or more 

stages and altered vehicles from the 

phase-in requirements. These vehicles 

would not be required to meet the 

phase-in schedule and would not have 

to achieve full compliance until the 

phase-in is completed. Also, as with 

previous phase-ins, NHTSA is 

proposing reporting requirements to 

accompany the phase-in. 

D. Summary of Estimated Effectiveness, 

Costs and Benefits of Available 

Technologies 

i. System Effectiveness 

Some systems, like airbags, have 

binary states; that is to say that either 

they are activated or they are not. 

Analysis includes a probability of 

whether or not it was being used, 

followed by a calculation of benefits in 

cases where it was in use. 

For rear visibility technologies, three 

conditions must be met for such a 

technology to provide a benefit to the 

driver. First, the crash must be one that 

is ‘‘avoidable’’ through use of the device; 

i.e., the pedestrian must be within the 

target range for the sensor, or the 

viewable area of the camera or mirror. 

Second, once the pedestrian is within 

the system’s range, the device must 

‘‘sense’’ that fact, i.e., provide the driver 

with information about the presence 

and location of the pedestrian. Third, 

there must be sufficient ‘‘driver 

response,’’ i.e., before impact with the 

pedestrian, the driver must receive this 

information and respond appropriately 

by confirming whether someone is or is 

not behind the vehicle before 

proceeding. As noted above, these 

factors are denoted as fA, fS, and fDR, 

respectively, in this analysis. Table 12 

below shows these factors and their 

product, the final system effectiveness. 

TABLE 12—FINAL SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS

System FA (%) FS (%) FDR (%) 

Final 

effectiveness (%) 

FA × FS × FDR = FE 

180° Camera .................................................................................................................. 90 100 55 49 

130° Camera .................................................................................................................. 76 100 5 42 

Ultrasonic ....................................................................................................................... 49 70 7 2 .5 

Radar ............................................................................................................................. 54 70 7 2 .7 

Mirrors ............................................................................................................................ * 33 100 ** 0 0 

* FA for mirrors is taken from separate source due to lack of inclusion in the SCI case review that generated FA for cameras and sensors. 

** FDR for mirrors is taken from a small sample size of 20 tests. It is 0% because throughout testing, drivers did not take advantage of either 

cross-view or lookdown mirrors to avoid the obstacle in the test. 

ii. Costs 

The most expensive technology 

option that the agency has evaluated is 

the rearview camera. When installed in 

a vehicle without any existing adequate 

display screen, rearview camera systems 

are estimated to cost consumers 

between $159 and $203 per vehicle. For 

a vehicle that already has an adequate 

display, such as one found in navigation 

units, their incremental cost is 

estimated at $58. The total incremental 

cost to equip a 16.6 million vehicle fleet 

with camera systems is estimated to be 

$1.9 to $2.7 billion. 

Rear object sensor systems are 

estimated to cost between $52 and $92 

per vehicle. The total incremental cost 

to equip a 16.6 million vehicle fleet 

with sensor systems is estimated to be 

$0.3 to $1.2 billion. 

Several different types of mirrors were 

investigated. Interior look-down mirrors 

could be mounted on vans and SUVs, 

but not cars, and are estimated to cost 

$40 per vehicle. The total incremental 

cost to equip a 16.6 million vehicle fleet 

with lookdown mirrors is estimated to 

be $0.6 billion. 

We also estimated the net property 

damage effects to consumers from using 

a camera or sensor system to avoid 

backing into fixed objects, along with 

the additional cost when a vehicle is 

struck in the rear and the camera or 

sensor is destroyed. 

TABLE 13—COSTS (2007 ECONOMICS) 

Costs Per Vehicle ....... $51.49 to $202.94. 

Total Fleet .................. $723M to $2.4B. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76237 

iii. Benefits 

As noted above, the agency has spent 

considerable effort trying to determine 

the final effectiveness of these systems 

in reducing crashes, injuries and 

fatalities. We have researched the 

capabilities of the systems, the crash 

circumstances, and the percent of 

drivers that would observe and react in 

time to avoid a collision with a 

pedestrian or pedalcyclist. The 

estimated injury and fatality benefits of 

the various systems, based on NHTSA 

research to date, are shown below. 

TABLE 14—QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS

180° Camera 

view 

130° Camera 

view Ultrasonic Radar Look-down mirror 

Fatalities Reduced ......................................................................... 112 95 3 3 0 

Injuries Reduced ............................................................................ 8,374 7,072 233 257 0 

iv. Net Benefits 

In addition to the one-time 

installation costs, and the benefits that 

occur over the life of the vehicle, there 

would also be maintenance costs as well 

as repair costs due to rear-end collisions 

and ‘‘property damage only crashes’’ 

(which, like the benefits, occur over 

time). Below Table 15 contains lifetime 

monetized benefits and lifetime costs, 

and their difference, the net benefit. In 

this case, the quantifiable costs 

outweigh the quantifiable benefits and 

therefore the final number is a cost. 

(Note that this analysis does not include 

nonquantifiable benefits, a point to 

which we will shortly return.) The 

primary estimate is based on a 130 

degree camera system with an in-mirror 

display. The low estimate is based on an 

ultrasonic system. The high estimate is 

based on a 180 degree camera system 

with an in-mirror display. 

TABLE 15—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS (MILLIONS 2007$) MY 2016 AND

THEREAFTER

Primary 

estimate Low estimate High estimate Discount rate (%) 

Benefits: 

Lifetime Monetized ........................................................................................... $618.6 $37.1 $732.6 7 

Lifetime Monetized ........................................................................................... 777.6 46.7 920.8 3

Costs: 

Lifetime Monetized ........................................................................................... 1,933.3 22.6 2,362.4 7 

Lifetime Monetized ........................................................................................... 1,861.3 730.4 2,296.9 3 

Net Benefits: 

Lifetime Monetized ........................................................................................... ¥1,314.7 ¥685.5 ¥1,629.8 7 

Lifetime Monetized ........................................................................................... ¥1,083.7 ¥683.7 ¥1,376.1 3 

v. Cost Effectiveness 

While we examine several application 

scenarios (all passenger cars and all 

light trucks, only light trucks, and some 

combinations) and discount rates of 3 

and 7 percent, the net cost per 

equivalent life saved for camera systems 

ranged from $11.8 to $19.7 million. For 

sensors, it ranged from $95.5 to $192.3 

million per life saved. According to our 

present model, none of the systems are 

cost effective based on our 

comprehensive cost estimate of the 

value of a statistical life of $6.1 million. 

TABLE 16—COST PER EQUIVALENT

LIFE SAVED

Cost per equivalent life saved 

Sensors (Ultrasonic and 

Radar).

$95.5 to $192.3 

mill. 

TABLE 16—COST PER EQUIVALENT

LIFE SAVED—Continued 

Camera Systems ............... $11.8 to $19.7 

mill. 

The range presented is from a 3% to 7% 

discount rate. 

The agency is proposing requirements 

that would likely be currently met by 

using cameras for both passenger cars 

and light trucks. We also seek comment 

on an alternative aimed at reducing net 

costs that could be met by requiring 

having cameras for light trucks and 

either cameras or ultrasonic sensors for 

passenger cars. We also request 

comment on the extent to which the 

effectiveness of sensors and the 

response of drivers to sensor warnings 

could be improved. 

E. Comparison of Regulatory 

Alternatives 

In order to explore fully other 

possible rulemaking options, the agency 

examined a variety of combinations of 

technology, specifically, ones in which 

light trucks were equipped with a 

rearview video system and passenger 

cars were either given no extra 

equipment, a rearview video system 

(using a camera) or another technology 

such as a sensor system. The results of 

examining such combinations are 

available below. Note the camera/radar 

and camera/ultrasonic options have 

decreased costs compared to mandating 

cameras for both vehicle types, but have 

a higher cost per life saved. It would not 

fulfill the requirements of the statute to 

require cameras for light trucks and 

nothing for passenger cars; those 

numbers are provided only as a point of 

comparison. Also, the camera/radar 

option has a higher net costs associated 

with it than simply mandating cameras 

for both, and will most likely not be 

viable on those grounds. Comments on 

these alternatives and suggestions of 

others are welcome. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76238 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

91The range of camera costs assumes 130 degree 

camera with the display in the dash (lower cost) to 

the display in the mirror (higher cost). 

92The net costs are substantially more than those 

for any of the other options. 

93The cost per equivalent life saved is 

substantially more for this option than that for any 

of the other options. 

94Under this alternative, passenger cars could be 

equipped with either sensor systems or camera 

systems. For a fuller description of this alternative, 

see the discussion above at the very end of section 

I, Executive Summary. 

95The agency tentatively concludes that not 

requiring any improved performance by passenger 

cars would be inconsistent with the mandate in the 

Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety 

Act of 2007. 

96The $6.1 million represents the 2007 

Departmental value of $5.8 million for a statistical 

life (VSL) adjusted for economic cost factors that are 

not inherently a part of the $5.8 million. These 

include, medical care, emergency services, legal 

costs, insurance administrative costs, workplace 

costs, property damage and the taxed portion of lost 

market productivity (the untaxed portion is 

assumed to be inherently included in the VSL). 

97On the relevance of this fact, see J.K. Hammitt 

and K. Haninger, ‘‘Valuing Fatal Risks to Children 

and Adults: Effects of Disease, Latency, and Risk 

Aversion,’’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 40(1): 

57–83, 2010. 98Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

* * * Section 1. Policy. 1–101. A growing body of 

scientific knowledge demonstrates that children 

may suffer disproportionately from * * * safety 

risks. These risks arise because: children’s 

neurological, immunological, digestive, and other 

bodily systems are still developing; * * * and 

children’s behavior patterns may make them more 

susceptible to accidents because they are less able 

to protect themselves. * * * 

TABLE 17—REAR VISIBILITY PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES DISCOUNTED AT 3% 

[Millions of 2007 $] 

[In decreasing order of installation costs and monetized safety benefits] 

Proposal and alternatives 

Per vehicle costs and benefits 

Net cost per 

equivalent 

life saved Installation 

costs 91

Monetized 

safety 

Benefits 

Property 

damage 

costs 

Net costs 

LT Camera, PC Camera .......... $1,919 to $2,275 ..................... $778 $¥414 $727 to $1,084 ........................ $11.8 to $14.6. 

LT Camera, PC Radar ............. $1,512 to $1,710 ..................... 439 ¥149 $924 to $1,122 92 .................... $18.9 to $21.7.93

LT Camera, PC Ultrasonic 94 ... $1,215 to $1,413 ..................... 437 ¥165 $613 to $811 ........................... $14.7 to $17.4. 

LT Camera, PC Nothing 95 ...... $841 to $1,039 ........................ 415 ¥189 $237 to $435 ........................... $9.6 to $12.5. 

The most effective technology option 

that the agency has evaluated is the 

rearview video system which, as already 

noted, consists of a video camera and a 

visual display. It is also the most 

expensive technology. When installed 

in a vehicle that does not already have 

any visual display screen, rearview 

video systems are estimated to cost 

consumers between $159 and $203 per 

vehicle. The upper end of the cost range 

is based on systems that have in-mirror 

(as opposed to in-dash or console) 

displays and a 180 degree (as opposed 

to 130 degree) lens. For a vehicle that 

already has a suitable visual display, 

such as one found in navigation units, 

the incremental cost of a rearview video 

system is estimated at $58–$88, 

depending on the angular width of the 

lens. The total incremental cost to equip 

a 16.6 million vehicle fleet with 

rearview video systems is estimated to 

be $1.9 to $2.7 billion. 

Commenters on the ANPRM noted 

that rearview video systems are a 

relatively new technology and stated 

that considerable reductions in costs 

will occur as these technologies 

proliferate in the fleet. NHTSA agrees 

that technological innovation will occur 

over the next couple of years and that 

the costs are likely to be substantially 

less when actually installed in future 

model years. However, we have not 

identified a way to estimate this lower 

cost. 

Given the effectiveness estimates that 

we have generated and assuming that all 

vehicles will be equipped with the most 

likely countermeasure technology, 

namely a rearview video system and 

associated display, we believe the 

fatalities that are occurring in backing 

crashes could be reduced by 95 to 112 

per year. Similarly, injuries would be 

reduced by 7,072 to 8,374 per year. We 

estimate that the cost per equivalent 

lives for rearview video systems would 

range from $11.8 million based on a 3% 

discount rate and on the low end of the 

per vehicle cost range to $19.7 million 

based on a 7% discount rate and the 

high end of the per vehicle cost range. 

We note that while this cost per 

equivalent lives saved, even at the low 

end, is nearly double the Departmental 

value of a statistical life of $6.1 

million,96 the proposed solution is the 

most comprehensive and effective, 

currently available solution to mitigate 

backover crashes, fatalities, and injuries. 

As we discussed above, the quantitative 

analysis does not offer a complete 

accounting. We have noted that well 

over 40 percent of the victims of 

backover crashes are very young 

children (under the age of five), with 

nearly their entire life ahead of them. 

Executive Order 12866 also refers 

explicitly to considerations of equity. 

(‘‘(I)n choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, agencies should 

select those approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including * * * equity), 

and there are strong reasons, grounded 

in those considerations, to prevent the 

deaths at issue here. In addition, this 

regulation will, in many cases, reduce a 

qualitatively distinct risk, which is that 

of directly causing the death or injury of 

one’s own child.97 Drivers will also 

benefit from increased rear visibility in 

a variety of ways, including increased 

ease and convenience with respect to 

parking. 

While these benefits cannot be 

monetized, they could be significant. A 

breakeven analysis suggests that if the 

nonquantified benefits amount $65 to 

$79 per vehicle, the benefits would 

justify the costs. Taking all of the 

foregoing points alongside the 

quantifiable figures and the safety issue 

at hand, the agency tentatively 

concludes that the benefits do justify the 

costs. More specifically, we emphasize 

the following data and considerations: 

• 100 of the 228 (44%) annual victims 

of backover crashes are under 5 years of 

age with nearly their entire lives ahead 

of them; 80 of the 100 children are 

under 3 years of age.98

• While this rulemaking would result 

in great cost if made final as proposed, 

it would also have substantial benefits, 

reducing the annual fatalities in 

backover crashes by 95 to 112 fatalities, 

and annual injuries by 7,072 to 8,374 

injuries. 

• In addition to those benefits, there 

are other benefits that are hard to 

quantify, but are nonetheless real and 

significant. One such benefit is that of 

not being the direct cause of the death 

or injury of a person and particularly a 

small child at one’s place of residence. 

In some of these cases, parents are 

responsible for the deaths of their own 

children; avoiding that horrible outcome 

is a significant benefit. Another hard-toVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:26 Dec 06, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07DEP3.SGM 07DEP3

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76239 

99 J.K. Hammitt and K. Haninger, ‘‘Valuing Fatal 

Risks to Children and Adults: Effects of Disease, 

Latency, and Risk Aversion,’’ Journal of Risk and 

Uncertainty 40(1): 57–83, 2010. This stated 

preference study finds that the willingness to pay 

to prevent fatality risks to one’s child is uniformly 

larger than that to reduce risk to another adult or 

to oneself. Estimated values per statistical life are 

$6–10 million for adults and $12–15 million for 

children. We emphasize that the literature is in a 

state of development. 

100Other people argue for valuing all lives 

equally, regardless of age, and note there is also a 

special solicitude for another vulnerable 

population, the elderly. Some of the elderly have 

difficulty quickly moving out of dangerous 

situations. Special solicitude for the elderly is very 

germane to this rulemaking given that persons 70 

years of age or older account for another large 

segment of fatalities, i.e., 74 (33 percent) of the 228 

annual fatalities. 

101Recent examples include Anton’s Law, Public 

Law 107–318, Dec. 4, 2002, and the K.T. Safety Act. 

That solicitude is also evident in the requirement 

in Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Public 

Law 105–277 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) for assessment of 

impacts of Federal regulations and policies on 

families. 

quantify benefit is the increased ease 

and convenience of driving, and 

especially parking, that extend beyond 

the prevention of crashes. While these 

benefits cannot be monetized at this 

time, they could be considerable. 

• There is evidence that many people 

value the lives of children more than the 

lives of adults.99 100 In any event, there 

is special social solicitude for protection 

of children. In the area of motor vehicle 

safety, this special solicitude for the 

welfare of children has been evident in 

the area of motor vehicle safety in the 

mandates 101 by Congress over the years 

for issuing standards primarily 

benefiting children. This solicitude 

regarding children is based, to a 

significant extent, on their greater 

vulnerability to injury and their 

inability to protect themselves. 

• Given the very young age of most of 

the children fatally-injured in backover 

crashes, attempting to provide them 

with training relevant to the particular 

circumstances of those crashes or with 

an audible warning would not enable 

them to identify or take steps to protect 

themselves, given their impulsiveness, 

their lack of understanding of the 

abstract concept of risk/danger/safety, 

and their lack of situational awareness, 

judgment and physical ability (e.g., 

dexterity) to take timely and effective 

self-protective action. 

• Given the impossibility of reducing 

backover crashes through changing the 

behavior of very young children and 

given Congress’ mandate, it is 

reasonable and necessary to rely on 

vehicle technology to address backover 

crashes and to that end the agency 

examined a variety of technologies to 

assess their value in improving driver 

awareness and performance: mirrors, 

sensors, cameras, and other 

technologies. 

• Based on its extensive testing to 

determine how much area behind a 

vehicle a driver must be able to see in 

order to avoid backover crashes and on 

the relative effectiveness of the various 

technologies in improving driver 

awareness and performance, the agency 

has tentatively concluded that a camerabased system is the only effective type 

of technology currently available. 

• Requiring additional rearview 

mirrors or changes to existing review 

mirrors cannot provide an effective 

solution to the problem of backover 

crashes. Changes to outside rearview 

mirrors mounted near the driver offer 

only very limited opportunities for any 

improvement in the existing rearward 

view to the sides of vehicles and no 

opportunity for providing any view of 

the area directly behind vehicles. While 

rearview mirrors mounted at or near the 

rear of vehicles could provide a view to 

the rear of vehicles, the coverage area 

would be relatively small. Further, the 

image, as viewed by the driver 

indirectly via outside rearview mirrors 

mounted near the driver, would be 

fairly small and distorted, making the 

viewed objects difficult to discern. 

Finally, rear-mounted rearview mirrors 

might not be reasonable, practicable and 

appropriate for many types of light 

vehicles. 

• The agency’s testing indicated that 

currently available sensors, which are 

designed primarily to avoid collisions 

with objects (like posts and other 

vehicles) that can cause property 

damage, had two shortcomings. First, 

they often failed to detect a human, 

particularly a small moving child, in 

tests in which the vehicle was not 

actually moving. Second, in tests in 

which the vehicle was moving, and in 

which the sensors did detect a manikin 

representing a child, the resulting 

warning did not induce drivers to pause 

more than briefly in backing. Being 

unable to confirm visually whether 

there was something or someone behind 

them, the drivers in these tests resumed 

their backing. 

• In contrast, in the agency’s tests of 

vehicles equipped with video camerabased systems, drivers not only saw a 

child-sized obstacle, but also stopped 

and remained stopped, thereby avoiding 

striking the obstacle in a substantial 

percentage of the tests. 

• Consequently, the agency has 

tentatively concluded that requirements 

must have the effect of ensuring that the 

driver is provided with some type of 

image of the area directly behind his or 

her vehicle. However, the agency is not 

proposing to require that video camerabased systems be installed to provide 

that image. 

• Instead, the agency is proposing a 

performance-based requirement for any 

system that can provide the driver with 

the requisite image. The proposal does 

not specify a single location within the 

vehicle as the location in which the 

image must be provided. Thus, the 

image can be provided on a display in 

the dash or interior rearview mirror. 

• In time, types of technology other 

than a video camera-based system may 

be able to provide a sufficiently clear 

visual image of the area behind the 

vehicle at lower cost than a video 

camera-based system can. 

• In proposing a requirement that 

drivers must be provided with a visual 

image of the area behind their vehicles, 

the agency recognizes that among 

currently available candidate 

technologies, video cameras are the 

most expensive and mirrors are the 

least. Sensors fall in between. 

• The agency’s estimates of current 

costs for video camera-based systems 

may be too high as the estimates are 

based on data that are a few years old. 

• The agency has a contract in place 

for the conducting of up-to-date tear 

down cost studies of both camera and 

sensor technologies. These studies 

could produce somewhat lower cost 

estimates. 

• To the extent that the agency may 

have underestimated the extent to 

which technological innovation and 

other factors will lead to future 

reductions in the costs of video camerabased systems, the future costs may be 

even lower than currently expected. 

• In view of statutory requirements, 

the agency is limited in its ability to 

reduce the cost of this rulemaking 

through adjusting either the 

requirements or application of the 

proposed rule or the schedule for its 

implementation. 

• Congress has mandated the 

issuance of a final rule instead of 

allowing the agency to retain discretion 

to decide whether to issue a final rule 

based on its consideration of all the 

relevant factors and information. 

• While Congress has not mandated a 

system that provides the driver with an 

image of the area behind his or her 

vehicle, less expensive 

countermeasures, i.e., mirrors and 

sensors, have thus far shown very 

limited effectiveness and thus would 

not satisfy Congress’ mandate for 

improving safety. 

• Video camera-based systems are by 

far the most comprehensive and costeffective currently available solution for 

reducing backover crashes, fatalities and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

102For illustration purposes, figures indicated 

represent rear visibility improvement provided 

using a rearview video system with 130-degree 

video camera. 

103For illustration purposes, figures indicated 

represent rear visibility improvement provided 

using a rearview video system with 130-degree 

video camera. 

injuries. As the most cost-effective 

alternative, a requirement for a system 

that provides an image of the area 

behind the vehicle would be consistent 

with the policy preference underlying 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

• The agency is limited by law as to 

the amount of leadtime it can provide 

for this final rule. Were the agency able 

to provide even more leadtime than 

permitted, that additional time might be 

sufficient to enable suppliers to develop 

cheaper cameras. Given the limits 

within which the agency must operate, 

which require the agency to provide not 

more than four years of leadtime, the 

agency has proposed a back-loaded 

phase-in schedule, i.e., one focused on 

the latter part of the phase-in period, to 

maximize leadtime. 

As stated above, NHTSA is also 

considering whether there are any 

circumstances under which it would be 

appropriate and permissible under the 

K.T. Safety Act to limit the application 

of the proposed requirements to LTVs 

only, i.e., to exclude passenger cars. The 

agency’s tentative conclusion is that 

there are not. If the improved rear 

visibility requirements 102 were applied 

only to LTVs, we estimate that the 

fatalities occurring in backover crashes 

would still be reduced by 70 to 83 per 

year. Similarly, injuries would still be 

reduced by 3,284 to 3,888 per year. We 

estimate that the cost per equivalent 

lives for rearview video systems would 

range from $9.6 million based on a 3% 

discount rate to $17.0 million based on 

a 7% discount rate. Table 18 contrasts 

the proposal and the alternative below 

using a 3% discount rate and 7% 

discount rate. The table includes ranges 

of costs and benefits based on a video 

camera having a 130- to 180-degree 

horizontal viewing angle. 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS—3% AND 7% DISCOUNT RATE SCENARIOS 103

Applicability Total cost Fatalities 

prevented 

Injuries 

prevented 

Net cost per 

equivalent life saved 

Passenger Cars, MPVs, Trucks, Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 

pounds or less.

$1.9–2.7 billion ........ 95–112 7,072–8,374 $11.8–19.7 million. 

MPVs, Trucks, Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less ..... 0.8–1.2 billion .......... 70–83 3,284–3,888 9.6–17.0 million. 

Table 19 summarizes the impacts 

based on a primary estimate which 

assumes a 130 degree camera with the 

display in the rearview mirror, a low 

estimate that assumes ultrasonic sensors 

and auditory warnings, and a high 

estimate that assumes a 180 degree 

camera with the display in the rearview 

mirror. Property damage estimates are 

included in the costs, and net property 

damage costs are significantly different 

(even in sign) between ultrasonic/radar 

and any camera system. 

TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS (MILLIONS 2007$) MY 2015 AND

THEREAFTER

Primary 

estimate Low estimate High estimate Discount rate (%) 

Benefits: 

Lifetime Monetized ......................................................................................... $618.6 $37.1 $732.6 7 

Lifetime Monetized ......................................................................................... 777.6 46.7 920.8 3 

Costs: 

Lifetime Monetized ......................................................................................... 1,933.3 722.6 2,362.4 7 

Lifetime Monetized ......................................................................................... 1,861.3 730.4 2,296.9 3 

Net Benefits: 

Lifetime Monetized ......................................................................................... ¥1,314.7 ¥685.5 ¥1,629.8 7 

Lifetime Monetized ......................................................................................... ¥1,083.7 ¥683.7 ¥1,376.1 3 

VIII. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Comments may be submitted to the 

docket electronically by logging onto the 

Docket Management System Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

You may also submit two copies of 

your comments, including the 

attachments, to Docket Management at 

the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76241 

104Fisker, Mosler, Panoz, Saleen, Standard Taxi, 

Tesla. 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (49 CFR part 

512.) 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. If 

Docket Management receives a comment 

too late for us to consider in developing 

a final rule (assuming that one is 

issued), we will consider that comment 

as an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. You may also see 

the comments on the Internet. To read 

the comments on the Internet, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

IX. Rulemaking Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

We have considered the potential 

impact of this proposal under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking is 

economically significant because it is 

likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more and 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866. The rulemaking action has also 

been determined to be significant under 

the Department’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. The preliminary regulatory 

impact analysis (PRIA) fully discusses 

the estimated costs and benefits of this 

rulemaking action. The costs and 

benefits are also summarized in section 

VII of this preamble, supra. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). The Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

part 121 define a small business, in part, 

as a business entity ‘‘which operates 

primarily within the United States.’’ (13 

CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the proposal 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

proposal will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

I hereby certify that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small organizations and small 

governmental units would not be 

significantly affected since the potential 

cost impacts associated with this action 

would not significantly affect the price 

of new motor vehicles. We believe that 

the rulemaking would not have a 

significant economic impact on the 

small vehicle manufacturers because the 

systems are not technically hard to 

develop or install and the cost of the 

systems ($160 to $200) is a small 

proportion (less than half of one 

percent) of the overall vehicle cost for 

most of these specialty cars. 

The proposal would directly affect 

motor vehicle manufacturers and finalstage manufacturers. The majority of 

motor vehicle manufacturers would not 

qualify as a small business. There are 

six manufacturers of passenger cars that 

are small businesses.104 These 

manufacturers, along with 

manufacturers that do not qualify as a 

small business, are already required to 

comply with the current mirror 

requirements of FMVSS No. 111. 

Similarly, there are several 

manufacturers of low-speed vehicles 

that are small businesses. Currently, 

FMVSS No. 111 does not apply to lowspeed vehicles, although they are 

required to have basic mirrors pursuant 

to FMVSS No. 500, Low-speed vehicles 

(including the option of having either an 

exterior driver-side mirror or an interior 

rearview mirror). The addition of a 

rearview video system can be 

accomplished via the purchase of an 

exterior video camera, integration of a 

console video screen or the addition of 

an interior rearview mirror-mounted 

screen, and wiring to connect the two as 

well as to connect them to the vehicle. 

Because the K.T. Safety Act 

encompasses all motor vehicles with a 

GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less (except 

motorcycles and trailers) in its mandate 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76242 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to reduce backovers, all of these small 

manufacturers could be affected by the 

proposed requirements. However, the 

economic impact upon these entities 

would not be significant for the 

following reasons. 

(1) Potential cost increases are small 

compared to the price of the vehicles 

being manufactured and can be passed 

on to the consumer as nearly all 

vehicles are subject to the proposed 

requirements. 

(2) The proposal provides four years 

lead-time, the limit permitted by the 

K.T. Safety Act, and would allow small 

volume manufacturers the option of 

waiting until the end of the phase-in 

(until September 1, 2014) to meet the 

rear visibility requirements. 

In this NPRM, the agency has also 

considered several alternatives that 

could help to reduce the burden on 

small businesses. The agency 

considered an alternative under which 

passenger cars would be required to be 

equipped with either a visibility system 

or with a system that includes an 

ultrasonic sensor that monitors the 

specified area behind the vehicle and an 

audible warning, and other vehicles 

rated at 10,000 pounds or less, gross 

vehicle weight, would be required to be 

equipped with a visibility system. This 

alternative would have substantially 

lower, but still significant, safety 

benefits, substantially lower installation 

costs and higher cost per equivalent life 

saved. The agency also considered 

reducing the types of vehicles subject to 

rear visibility performance by excluding 

low-speed vehicles explicitly or, in the 

alternative, limiting the applicability of 

the rule to MPVs and trucks with a 

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s 

proposal pursuant to Executive Order 

13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) 

and concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

sufficient Federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

Federalism summary impact statement. 

The proposed rule would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: ‘‘When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision set 

forth above is subject to a savings clause 

under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with a 

motor vehicle safety standard prescribed 

under this chapter does not exempt a 

person from liability at common law.’’ 

49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this 

provision, State common law tort causes 

of action against motor vehicle 

manufacturers that might otherwise be 

preempted by the express preemption 

provision are generally preserved. 

However, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

such State common law tort causes of 

action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even 

if not expressly preempted. This second 

way that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA 

standards established by an FMVSS are 

minimum standards, a State common 

law tort cause of action that seeks to 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers will generally not 

be preempted. However, if and when 

such a conflict does exist—for example, 

when the standard at issue is both a 

minimum and a maximum standard— 

the State common law tort cause of 

action is impliedly preempted. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 

529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this proposal could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. The agency’s ability to announce 

its conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of today’s proposal and finds 

that this proposal, like many NHTSA 

rules, prescribes only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend that this proposal preempt state 

tort law that would effectively impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers than that established by 

today’s proposal. Establishment of a 

higher standard by means of State tort 

law would not conflict with the 

minimum standard proposed here. 

Without any conflict, there could not be 

any implied preemption of a State 

common law tort cause of action. 

We solicit the comments of the States 

and other interested parties on this 

assessment of issues relevant to E.O. 

13132. 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

When promulgating a regulation, 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that the agency must make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies 

in clear language the preemptive effect; 

(2) specifies in clear language the effect 

on existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

proposal is discussed above in 

connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA 

notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks,’’ (62 FR 19885; April 

23, 1997) applies to any proposed or 

final rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant,’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 

an environmental health or safety risk 

that NHTSA has reason to believe may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If a rule meets both criteria, 

the agency must evaluate the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76243 

105 ISO 15008–2009 specifies minimum 

requirements for the image quality and legibility of 

displays containing dynamic (changeable) visual 

information presented to the driver of a road 

vehicle by on-board transport information and 

control systems (TICS) used while the vehicle is in 

motion. These requirements are intended to be 

independent of display technologies, while 

reference to test methods and measurements for 

assessing compliance with them have been 

included where necessary. 

ISO 15008–2009 is applicable to mainly 

perceptual, and some basic cognitive, components 

of the visual information including character 

legibility and color recognition. It is not applicable 

to other factors affecting performance and comfort 

such as coding, format and dialogue characteristics, 

or to display using: 

Characters presented as part of a symbol or 

pictorial information; 

Superimposed information on the external field 

(e.g., high-up displays); 

Pictorial images (e.g., rear view camera); 

Maps and topographic representations (e.g., those 

for setting navigation systems); or 

Quasi-static information. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/ 

catalogue_ics/ 

catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=50805 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the rule on children, and explain why 

the rule is preferable to other potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the agency. 

This proposed rule is subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is 

economically significant and available 

data demonstrate that the safety risk 

addressed by this proposal 

disproportionately involves children, 

especially very young ones. The issues 

that must be analyzed under this 

Executive Order are discussed 

extensively in the preamble above and 

in the PRIA. 

F. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 

The NTTAA directs us to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when we decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. The agency is not aware of 

any applicable voluntary consensus 

standards that apply to rearview video 

systems. 

While the agency examined two 

voluntary industry standards, 

International Standards Organization 

(ISO) 17386 and ISO 15008, as 

potentially relevant, the agency does not 

believe that either is relevant and thus 

has tentatively decided not to utilize 

them. While both standards have 

aspects that relate to the issue of rear 

visibility performance, neither 

addresses the specific type of rearview 

video system being proposed in this 

notice. ISO 17386, Maneuvering Aids 

for Low Speed Operations (MALSO), 

relates to the performance aspects of 

sensor-based rear object detection 

systems. While such systems were 

considered, NHTSA has not proposed 

them in this document, due to issues 

related to driver performance. ISO 

15008 relates to the ergonomic aspects 

of in-vehicle screens.105 However, it 

specifically does not apply to the types 

of screens at issue in this proposal, 

which would be required to show 

closed-circuit video images. 

Furthermore, in response to comments, 

NHTSA endeavored to propose a 

requirement that is as performance 

based and technologically-neutral as 

possible, to allow maximum design 

freedom while still meeting the 

performance requirements needed for 

safety. 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). NHTSA must comply with that 

requirement in connection with this 

rulemaking as the proposed rule would 

result in expenditures by the private 

sector of over $100 million annually. 

As noted previously, the agency has 

prepared a detailed economic 

assessment in the PRIA. In that 

assessment, the agency analyzes the 

benefit and costs of a rear visibility 

countermeasure performance 

requirement for passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles 

with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. 

NHTSA’s preliminary analysis indicates 

that the proposal could result in private 

expenditures of up to $2.7 billion 

annually. 

The PRIA also analyzes the expected 

benefits and costs of a wide variety of 

alternative countermeasure options, 

including mirrors, cameras, and sensors, 

as specified in the K.T. Safety Act. The 

agency subjected several types of each 

class of countermeasure to thorough 

effectiveness testing and cost-benefit 

analysis. Additionally, the agency 

previously published a detailed ANPRM 

and separate PRIA, in order to explain 

its thoughts on the technological 

solutions available and solicit 

information on costs, benefits, and 

applications on all possible solutions to 

the safety concern. NHTSA received a 

large variety of comments on the 

ANPRM and PRIA and used that 

information in formulating the instant 

proposal. 

Although the application of the rear 

visibility requirement to MPVs, trucks, 

and passenger cars is the highest cost 

option, the agency tentatively concludes 

that the costs are justified. As explained 

in detail in the PRIA for this NPRM, 

after carefully exploring all possible 

alternatives, NHTSA tentatively 

concludes that rearview video systems 

offer not only the highest overall 

benefits, but also the most efficient cost 

per life saved ratio. 

Above, NHTSA solicits comment on 

other alternatives, including one 

alternative limiting the application of 

rearview video systems to only MPVs 

and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 

pounds or less and another alternative 

requiring those systems for MPVs and 

trucks and either sensors or those 

systems for cars. The PRIA summarizes 

the costs, benefits, and cost per life 

saved for the proposal and these 

alternatives. We note that, at this time, 

while one of the alternatives has overall 

lower costs and a slightly more efficient 

cost per life saved ratio than NHTSA’s 

proposal, the agency tentatively 

concludes that the increased benefits of 

the proposal, especially in terms of 

fatalities and injuries to children, are 

worth the additional costs above those 

in the more limited alternative scenario. 

Since the agency has estimated that 

the proposed rule could result in 

expenditures of over $1 billion 

annually, NHTSA has performed a 

probabilistic uncertainty analysis to 

examine the degree of uncertainty in its 

cost and benefit estimates and included 

that analysis in the PRIA. 

H. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. This proposal would include a 

collection of information, i.e., the 

proposed phase-in reporting 

requirements. If approved, the 

requirements would require 

manufacturers of passenger cars and of 

trucks, buses, MPVs and low-speed 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less, to annually submit a 

report for each of two years concerning 

the number of such vehicles that meet 

the rear visibility system requirements. 

Accordingly, the Department of 

Transportation will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to OMB for review and clearance under 

the PRA. 

Agency: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Title: Phase-In Production Reporting 

Requirements for Rear Visibility 

Systems. 

Type of Request: New request. 

OMB Clearance Number: None 

assigned. 

Form Number: This collection of 

information will not use any standard 

forms. 

Affected Public: The respondents are 

manufacturers of passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles 

having a gross vehicle weight rating of 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less. The 

agency estimates that there are about 21 

such manufacturers. 

Estimate of the Total Annual 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 

Resulting from the Collection of 

Information: NHTSA estimates that the 

total annual burden is 42 hours (2 hours 

per manufacturer per year). Two reports 

per manufacturer would be collected. 

Estimated Costs: NHTSA estimates 

that the total annual cost burden, in U.S. 

dollars, will be $2,100. No additional 

resources would be expended by vehicle 

manufacturers to gather annual 

production information because they 

already compile this data for their own 

uses. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: This collection would 

require manufacturers of passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles 

having a gross vehicle weight rating of 

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less to 

provide motor vehicle production data 

for the following two years: September 

1, 2012 through August 31, 2013; and 

September 1, 2013 through August 31, 

2014. 

Description of the Need for the 

Information and the Proposed Use of 

the Information: The purpose of the 

reporting requirements will be to aid 

NHTSA in determining whether a 

manufacturer has complied with the 

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview 

Mirrors, during the phase-in of new 

requirements for rear visibility systems. 

NHTSA requests comments on the 

agency’s estimates of the total annual 

hour and cost burdens resulting from 

this collection of information. 

Organizations and individuals that wish 

to submit comments on the information 

collection requirements should direct 

them to NHTSA’s docket for this NPRM. 

These comments must be received on or 

before February 7, 2011. 

J. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

IX. Proposed Regulatory Text 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 and 

585 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 

parts 571 and 585 as follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 

of title 49 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.111 is amended by 

revising the heading, S1 and S3, adding 

in alphabetical order the following 

definitions to S4, and adding S5.5 

through S5.5.3.7, S6.2 through S6.2.3.7, 

S14 through S14.3.3, and Figures 5 and 

6 to read as follows: 

§ 571.111 Standard No. 111; Rear visibility. 

S1. Scope. This standard specifies 

requirements for rearview devices and 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school 

buses, motorcycles and low-speed 

vehicles. 

S4. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Limited line manufacturer means a 

manufacturer that sells three or fewer 

carlines, as that term is defined in 49 

CFR 583.4, in the United States during 

a production year. 

Rearview image means a visual image 

of the area directly behind a vehicle that 

is provided in a single location to the 

vehicle operator and by means of 

indirect vision. 

Small manufacturer means an original 

vehicle manufacturer that produces or 

assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles 

annually for sale in the United States. 

* * * * * 

S5.5 Rear visibility. 

(a) For passenger cars manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2012, but not 

later than August 31, 2014, a percentage 

of each manufacturer’s production, as 

specified in S5.5.3, shall display a 

rearview image meeting the 

requirements of S5.5.1 through S5.5.2. 

(b) Each passenger car manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2014, shall 

display a rearview image meeting the 

requirements of S5.5.1 through S5.5.2. 

S5.5.1 Rearview image performance. 

S5.5.1.1 Field of view. When tested 

in accordance with the procedures in 

S14.1 through S14.2.3, the rearview 

image shall display, in a location visible 

to a driver properly restrained by seat 

belts: 

(a) A minimum of a 150-mm wide 

portion of each test object located at 

positions F and G in Figure 5; and 

(b) The full width and height of each 

test object located at positions A 

through E in Figure 5. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76245 

S5.5.1.2 Size. When the rearview 

image is measured in accordance with 

the procedures in S14.1 through 

S14.2.3, the calculated visual angle 

subtended by the horizontal width of: 

(a) The three test objects located at 

positions A, B, and C in Figure 5 shall 

average not less than 5 minutes of arc; 

and 

(b) The angular size of each 

individual test object (A, B, and C) shall 

not be less than 3 minutes of arc. 

S5.5.1.3 Response time. The 

rearview image meeting the 

requirements of S5.5.1 through 5.5.1.6 

shall be displayed within 2.0 seconds of 

the time at which the vehicle 

transmission is shifted into reverse gear; 

and 

S5.5.1.4 Linger time. The rearview 

image shall not be displayed for more 

than 10.0 seconds after the vehicle 

transmission has been shifted out of 

reverse gear. 

S5.5.1.5 Deactivation. The rearview 

image shall not be extinguishable by any 

driver-controlled means. 

S5.5.1.6 Display luminance. When 

tested in accordance with S14.2, the 

luminance of an interior visual display 

used to present the rearview image shall 

not be less than 500 cd/m2. 

S5.5.2 Durability performance. After 

the vehicle is subjected to the test 

procedures in S14.2.1 through S14.2.3, 

the vehicle shall meet the requirements 

of S5.5.1.1 and S5.5.1.2. 

S5.5.3 Phase-in schedule. 

S5.5.3.1 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2012 and before 

September 1, 2014. At any time during 

the production years ending August 31, 

2012 and August 31, 2013, each 

manufacturer shall, upon request from 

the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

provide information identifying the 

vehicles (by make, model and vehicle 

identification number) that have been 

certified as complying with this 

standard. The manufacturer’s 

designation of a vehicle as a certified 

vehicle is irrevocable. 

S5.5.3.2 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2012 and before 

September 1, 2013. Except as provided 

in S5.5.3.4, for passenger cars 

manufactured by a manufacturer on or 

after September 1, 2012, and before 

September 1, 2013, the number of 

passenger cars complying with S5.5 

through S5.5.2 shall be not less than 10 

percent of the manufacturer’s— 

(a) Production of passenger cars 

during that period; or 

(b) Average annual production of 

passenger cars manufactured in the 

three previous production years. 

S5.5.3.3 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2013 and before 

September 1, 2014. Except as provided 

in S5.5.3.4, for passenger cars 

manufactured by a manufacturer on or 

after September 1, 2013, and before 

September 1, 2014, the number of 

passenger cars complying with S5.5 

through S5.5.2 shall be not less than 40 

percent of the manufacturer’s— 

(a) Production of passenger cars 

during that period; or 

(b) Average annual production of 

passenger cars manufactured in the 

three previous production years. 

S5.5.3.4 Exclusions from phase-in. 

The requirements in S5.5.3.2 and 

S5.5.3.3 do not apply to— 

(a) Vehicles that are manufactured by 

small manufacturers or by limited line 

manufacturers. 

(b) Vehicles that are altered (within 

the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before 

September 1, 2014, after having been 

previously certified in accordance with 

part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages 

before September 1, 2014. 

S5.5.3.5 Vehicles produced by more 

than one manufacturer. For the purpose 

of calculating average annual 

production of vehicles for each 

manufacturer and the number of 

vehicles manufactured by each 

manufacturer under S5.5.3.1 through 

S5.5.3.3, a vehicle produced by more 

than one manufacturer shall be 

attributed to a single manufacturer as 

follows, subject to S5.5.3.6— 

(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be 

attributed to the importer. 

(b) A vehicle manufactured in the 

United States by more than one 

manufacturer, one of which also 

markets the vehicle, shall be attributed 

to the manufacturer that markets the 

vehicle. 

S5.5.3.6 A vehicle produced by 

more than one manufacturer shall be 

attributed to any one of the vehicle’s 

manufacturers specified by an express 

written contract, reported to the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under 49 CFR part 585, 

between the manufacturer so specified 

and the manufacturer to which the 

vehicle would otherwise be attributed 

under S5.5.3.5. 

S5.5.3.7 Calculation of complying 

vehicles. 

(a) For the purposes of calculating the 

vehicles complying with S5.5.3.2, a 

manufacturer may count a vehicle if it 

is manufactured on or after [date that is 

30 days after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register] but before 

September 1, 2013. 

(b) For purposes of complying with 

S5.5.3.3, a manufacturer may count a 

vehicle if it— 

(1) Is manufactured on or after [date 

that is 30 days after publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register] but 

before September 1, 2014 and, 

(2) Is not counted toward compliance 

with S5.5.3.2. 

(c) For the purposes of calculating 

average annual production of vehicles 

for each manufacturer and the number 

of vehicles manufactured by each 

manufacturer, each vehicle that is 

excluded from having to meet the 

applicable requirement is not counted. 

* * * * * 

S6.2 Rear visibility. 

(a) For multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, low-speed vehicles, trucks, 

and buses with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or 

less manufactured on or after September 

1, 2012, but not later than August 31, 

2014, a percentage of each 

manufacturer’s production, as specified 

in S6.2.3, shall display a rearview image 

meeting the requirements of S6.2.1 

through S6.2.2. 

(b) Each multipurpose passenger 

vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, and 

bus with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or less 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2014, shall display a rearview image 

meeting the requirements of S6.2.1 

through S6.2.2. 

S6.2.1 Rearview image performance. 

S6.2.1.1 Field of view. When tested 

in accordance with the procedures in 

S14.1 through S14.2.3, the rearview 

image shall display, in a location visible 

to a driver properly restrained by seat 

belts: 

(a) A minimum of a 150-mm wide 

portion of each test object located at 

positions F and G in Figure 5; and 

(b) The full width and height of each 

test object located at positions A 

through E in Figure 5. 

S6.2.1.2 Size. When the rearview 

image is measured in accordance with 

the procedures in S14.1 through 

S14.2.3, the calculated visual angle— 

subtended by the horizontal width of 

(a) The three test objects located at 

positions A, B, and C in Figure 5 shall 

average not less than 5 minutes of arc; 

and 

(b) The angular size of each 

individual test object (A, B, and C) shall 

not be less than 3 minutes of arc. 

S6.2.1.3 Response time. The 

rearview image meeting the 

requirements of S6.2.1 through 6.2.1.6 

shall be displayed within 2.0 seconds of 

the time at which the vehicle 

transmission is shifted into reverse gear; 

and 

S6.2.1.4 Linger time. The rearview 

image shall not be displayed for more 

than 10.0 seconds after the vehicle 

transmission has been shifted out of 

reverse gear. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
76246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

S6.2.1.5 Deactivation. The rearview 

image shall not be extinguishable by any 

driver-controlled means. 

S6.2.1.6 Display luminance. When 

tested in accordance with S14.2, the 

luminance of an interior visual display 

used to present the rearview image shall 

not be less than 500 cd/m2. 

S6.2.2 Durability performance. After 

the vehicle is subjected to the test 

procedures in S14.2.1 through S14.2.3, 

the vehicle shall meet the requirements 

of S6.2.1.1 and S6.2.1.2. 

S6.2.3 Phase-in schedule. 

S6.2.3.1 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2012 and before 

September 1, 2014. At any time during 

the production years ending August 31, 

2012 and August 31, 2013, each 

manufacturer shall, upon request from 

the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

provide information identifying the 

vehicles (by make, model and vehicle 

identification number) that have been 

certified as complying with this 

standard. The manufacturer’s 

designation of a vehicle as a certified 

vehicle is irrevocable. 

S6.2.3.2 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2012 and before 

September 1, 2013. Except as provided 

in S6.2.3.4, for multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or 

less, manufactured by a manufacturer 

on or after September 1, 2012, and 

before September 1, 2013, the number of 

such vehicles complying with S6.2 

through S6.2.2 shall be not less than 33 

percent of the manufacturer’s— 

(a) Production of such vehicles during 

that period; or 

(b) Average annual production of such 

vehicles manufactured in the three 

previous production years. 

S6.2.3.3 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2013 and before 

September 1, 2014. Except as provided 

in S6.2.3.4, for multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4.536 kg or 

less, manufactured by a manufacturer 

on or after September 1, 2013, and 

before September 1, 2014, the number of 

such vehicles complying with S6.2 

through S6.2.2 shall be not less than 67 

percent of the manufacturer’s— 

(a) production of such vehicles during 

that period; or 

(b) average annual production of such 

vehicles manufactured in the three 

previous production years. 

S6.2.3.4 Exclusions from phase-in. 

The requirements in S6.2.3.2 and 

S6.2.3.3 do not apply to— 

(a) Vehicles that are manufactured by 

small manufacturers or by limited line 

manufacturers. 

(b) Vehicles that are altered (within 

the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before 

September 1, 2014, after having been 

previously certified in accordance with 

part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages 

before September 1, 2014. 

S6.2.3.5 Vehicles produced by more 

than one manufacturer. For the purpose 

of calculating average annual 

production of vehicles for each 

manufacturer and the number of 

vehicles manufactured by each 

manufacturer under S6.2.3.1 through 

S6.2.3.3, a vehicle produced by more 

than one manufacturer shall be 

attributed to a single manufacturer as 

follows, subject to S6.2.3.6— 

(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be 

attributed to the importer. 

(b) A vehicle manufactured in the 

United States by more than one 

manufacturer, one of which also 

markets the vehicle, shall be attributed 

to the manufacturer that markets the 

vehicle. 

S6.2.3.6 A vehicle produced by 

more than one manufacturer shall be 

attributed to any one of the vehicle’s 

manufacturers specified by an express 

written contract, reported to the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under 49 CFR part 585, 

between the manufacturer so specified 

and the manufacturer to which the 

vehicle would otherwise be attributed 

under S6.2.3.5. 

S6.2.3.7 Calculation of complying 

vehicles. 

(a) For the purposes of calculating the 

vehicles complying with S6.2.3.2, a 

manufacturer may count a vehicle if it 

is manufactured on or after [date that is 

30 days after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register] but before 

September 1, 2013. 

(b) For purposes of complying with 

S6.2.3.3, a manufacturer may count a 

vehicle if it— 

(1) Is manufactured on or after [date 

that is 30 days after publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register] but 

before September 1, 2014 and, 

(2) Is not counted toward compliance 

with S6.2.3.2. 

(c) For the purposes of calculating 

average annual production of vehicles 

for each manufacturer and the number 

of vehicles manufactured by each 

manufacturer, each vehicle that is 

excluded from having to meet the 

applicable requirement is not counted. 

* * * * * 

S14 Rear visibility test procedure. 

S14.1 Test setup. 

S14.1.1 Lighting. The ambient 

illumination conditions in which testing 

is conducted consists of light that is 

evenly distributed from above and is at 

an intensity of 10,000 lux, as measured 

at the center of the exterior surface of 

vehicle’s roof. 

S14.1.2 Vehicle conditions. 

S14.1.2.1 Tires. The vehicle’s tires 

are set to the vehicle manufacturer’s 

recommended cold inflation pressure. 

S14.1.2.2 Fuel tank loading. The 

fuel tank is full. 

S14.1.2.3 Vehicle load. The vehicle 

is loaded to simulate the weight of the 

driver and four passengers or the 

designated occupant capacity, if less, 

based on an average occupant weight of 

68 kg. The weight of each occupant is 

represented by 45 kg resting on the seat 

pan and 23 kg resting on the vehicle 

floorboard. 

S14.1.2.4 Driver’s seat positioning. 

S14.1.2.4.1 Adjust the driver’s seat 

to the midpoint of the longitudinal 

adjustment range. 

S14.1.2.4.2 Adjust the driver’s seat 

to the lowest point of all vertical 

adjustment ranges present. 

S14.1.2.4.3 Using the three 

dimensional SAE J826 (rev. Jul 95) 

manikin, adjust the driver’s seat back 

angle at the vertical portion of the Hpoint machine’s torso weight hanger to 

25 degrees. If this adjustment setting is 

not available, adjust the seat-back angle 

to the positional detent setting closest to 

25 degrees in the direction of the 

manufacturer’s nominal design riding 

position. 

S14.1.3 Test object. Each test object 

is a right circular cylinder that is 0.8 m 

high and 0.3 m in external diameter. 

There are seven test objects, A–G. Test 

objects A, B, C, D, and E are marked 

with a horizontal band encompassing 

the uppermost 150 mm of the side of the 

cylinder. Test objects F and G are 

marked on the side with a solid vertical 

stripe of 150 mm width extending from 

the top to the bottom of each cylinder. 

Both the horizontal band and vertical 

stripe shall be of a color that contrasts 

with both the rest of the cylinder and 

the test surface. 

S14.1.4 Test object locations and 

orientation. Place cylinders at locations 

specified in S14.1.5(a) through(d) and 

illustrated in Figure 5. Measure the 

distances shown in Figure 5 from a 

cylinder to another cylinder or another 

object from the center (axis) of the 

cylinder as viewed from above. Each 

test object is oriented so that its axis is 

vertical. 

(a) Place cylinders G and F so that 

their centers are in a transverse vertical 

plane that is 0.3 m to the rear of a 

transverse vertical plane tangent to the 

rearmost surface of the rear bumper. 

Place cylinders E and D so that their 

centers are in a transverse vertical plane 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76247 

that is 0.9 m to the rear of a transverse 

vertical plane tangent to the rearmost 

surface of the rear bumper. Place 

cylinders A, B and C so that their 

centers are in a transverse vertical plane 

that is 6.1 m to the rear of a transverse 

vertical plane tangent to the rearmost 

surface of the rear bumper. 

(b) Place cylinder B so that its center 

is in a longitudinal vertical plane 

passing through the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline. 

(c) Place cylinders C, E, and G so that 

their centers are in a longitudinal 

vertical plane located 1.5 m, measured 

laterally and horizontally, to the left of 

the vehicle longitudinal center line. 

(d) Place cylinders A, D, and F so that 

their centers are in a longitudinal 

vertical plane located 1.5 m, measured 

laterally and horizontally, to the right of 

the vehicle longitudinal center line. 

S14.1.5 Test reference point. To 

obtain the test reference point, locate 

the center of the forward-looking eye 

midpoint (Mf) of a 50th percentile male 

driver in the sagittal plane of the 

driver’s body, 632 mm vertically above 

the H point and 96 mm aft of the H 

point (H), as illustrated in Figure 6. 

Next, locate the head/neck joint center 

(J) illustrated in Figure 6 so that it is 

located 100 mm rearward of Mf and 588 

mm vertically above the H point. Draw 

an imaginary horizontal line between Mf

and a point vertically above J, defined 

as J2. Rotate the imaginary line about J2

in the direction of the rearview image 

until the straight-line distance between 

Mf and the center of the visual display 

reaches the shortest possible value. 

Define this new, rotated location of Mf

to be Mr (eye midpoint rotated).

S14.1.6 Measurement procedure. 

Locate a 35 mm or larger format still 

camera, video camera, or digital 

equivalent such that the center of the 

camera’s image plane is located at Mr

and the camera lens is directed at the 

center of the visual display’s rearview 

image. Affix a ruler at the base of the 

rearview image in an orientation 

parallel with a transverse cylinder 

centerline. Photograph the image of the 

visual display with the ruler included in 

the frame. 

S14.1.6.1 Extract photographic data. 

Using the photograph, measure the 

horizontal width of a 50 mm delineated 

section of the in-photo ruler along the 

edge closest to the rearview image and 

at a point that would fall along the 

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. 

Using the photograph, measure the 

horizontal width of the colored band at 

the upper portion of each of the three 

test objects located at positions A, B, 

and C in Figure 5. Define the measured 

horizontal widths of the colored bands 

of the three test objects as da, db, and dc. 

S14.1.6.2 Obtain scaling factor. 

Using the measured length of the 50 mm 

portion of the ruler as it appears in the 

photograph, divide this value by 50 mm 

to obtain a scaling factor. Define this 

scaling factor as sscale. 

S14.1.6.3 Determine viewing 

distance. Determine the actual distance 

from the rotated eye midpoint location 

(Mr) to the center of the rearview image. 

Define this viewing distance as aeye. 

S14.1.6.4 Calculate visual angle 

subtended by test objects. Use the 

following equation to calculate the 

subtended visual angles: 

where i can take on the value of either test 

object A, B, or C, and arcsine is calculated 

in units of degrees. 

S14.2 Visual display luminance 

testing. The visual display luminance is 

measured at room temperature in a dark 

room using a spectroradiometer. The 

minimum specified value of 500 cd/m2

must be met at any measured point 

within the display. 

S14.3 Durability testing. 

S14.3.1 Corrosion test procedure. 

The vehicle is subjected to two 24-hour 

corrosion test cycles. In each corrosion 

test cycle, a portion of the vehicle, 

which must include all exterior 

components of the rear visibility system, 

is subjected to a salt spray (fog) test in 

accordance with ASTM B117–73, 

Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing 

(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5) 

for a period of 24 hours. Allow 1 hour 

to elapse without spray between the two 

test cycles. 

S14.3.2 Humidity exposure 

procedure. The vehicle is subjected to 

24 consecutive 3-hour humidity test 

cycles. In each humidity test cycle, the 

exterior of the vehicle is subjected to a 

temperature of 100° + 7° ¥ 0 °F (38° + 

4 °C) with a relative humidity of not less 

than 90% for a period of 2 hours. After 

a period not to exceed 5 minutes, the 

exterior of the vehicle is subjected to a 

temperature of 32° + 5° ¥ 0 °F (0° + 3° 

¥0 °C) and a humidity of not more than 

30% ±° 10% for 1 hour. Allow no more 

than 5 minutes to elapse between each 

test cycle. 

S14.3.3 Temperature exposure 

procedure. The vehicle is subjected to 4 

consecutive 2-hour temperature test 

cycles. In each temperature test cycle, 

the exterior of the vehicle is first 

subjected to a temperature of 176° ± 5 

°F (60° ± 3 °C) for a period of one hour. 

After a period not to exceed 5 minutes, 

the exterior of the vehicle is subjected 

to a temperature of 32° + 5° ¥ 0 °F (0° 

+ 3° ¥ 0 °C) for 1 hour. Allow no more 

than 5 minutes to elapse between each 

test cycle. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.015</MATH>
76248 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.013</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 76249 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

3. Section 571.500 is amended by 

adding paragraph (11) at the end of 

paragraph S5(b) to read as follows: 

§ 571.500 Standard No. 500; Low-speed 

vehicles. 

* * * * * 

S5.* * * 

(b)* * * 

(11) Low-speed vehicles shall comply 

with the rear visibility requirements 

specified in S5.5 and S6.2 of FMVSS 

No. 111. 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP07DE10.014</MATH>
76250 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

PART 585—PHASE–IN REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

4. The authority citation for part 585 

would continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

5. Part 585 is amended by adding 

subpart M to read as follows: 

Subpart M—Rear Visibility Improvements 

Reporting Requirements 

Sec. 

585.121 Scope. 

585.122 Purpose. 

585.123 Applicability. 

585.124 Definitions. 

585.125 Response to inquiries. 

585.126 Reporting requirements. 

585.127 Records. 

Subpart M—Rear Visibility 

Improvements Reporting 

Requirements 

§ 585.121 Scope. 

This part establishes requirements for 

manufacturers of passenger cars, of 

trucks, buses, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles and low-speed vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds 

(lb)) or less, to submit a report, and 

maintain records related to the report, 

concerning the number of such vehicles 

that meet the rear visibility 

requirements (S5.5 and S6.2) of 

Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 

CFR 571.111). 

§ 585.122 Purpose. 

The purpose of these reporting 

requirements is to assist the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

in determining whether a manufacturer 

has complied with the rear visibility 

requirements (S5.5 and S6.2) of 

Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 

CFR 571.111). 

§ 585.123 Applicability. 

This part applies to manufacturers of 

passenger cars, of trucks, buses, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles and 

low-speed vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 

kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or 

less. 

§ 585.124 Definitions. 

(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 

30102 are used in their statutory 

meaning. 

(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or 

GVWR, low-speed vehicle, multipurpose 

passenger vehicle, passenger car, and 

truck are used as defined in § 571.3 of 

this chapter. 

(c) Production year means the 12- 

month period between September 1 of 

one year and August 31 of the following 

year, inclusive. 

§ 585.125 Response to inquiries. 

At anytime during the production 

years ending August 31, 2013, and 

August 31, 2014, each manufacturer 

shall, upon request from the Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide 

information identifying the vehicles (by 

make, model and vehicle identification 

number) that have been certified as 

complying with the rear visibility 

requirements of Standard No. 111, 

Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). The 

manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle 

as a certified vehicle is irrevocable. 

§ 585.126 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Advanced credit phase-in 

reporting requirements. Within 60 days 

after the end of the production year 

ending August 31, 2012, each 

manufacturer choosing to certify 

vehicles manufactured during that 

production year as complying with the 

rear visibility requirements of Standard 

No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111) shall submit 

a report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration providing the 

information specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section and in § 585.2 of this part. 

(b) Phase-in reporting requirements. 

Within 60 days after the end of each of 

the production years ending August 31, 

2013 and August 31, 2014, each 

manufacturer shall submit a report to 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration concerning its 

compliance with the rear visibility 

requirements of Standard No. 111 (49 

CFR 571.111) for its vehicles produced 

in that year. Each report shall provide 

the information specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section and in section 585.2 

of this part. 

(c) Advanced credit phase-in report 

content; production of complying 

vehicles. With respect to the reports 

identified in § 585.126(a), each 

manufacturer shall report for the 

production year for which the report is 

filed the number of vehicles, by make 

and model year, that are certified as 

meeting the rear visibility requirements 

of Standard No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111). 

(d) Phase-in report content— 

(1) Basis for phase-in production 

goals. Each manufacturer shall provide 

the number of vehicles manufactured in 

the current production year, or, at the 

manufacturer’s option, in each of the 

three previous production years. A new 

manufacturer that is, for the first time, 

manufacturing vehicles for sale in the 

United States must report the number of 

vehicles manufactured during the 

current production year. 

(2) Production of complying vehicles. 

Each manufacturer shall report for the 

production year being reported on, and 

each preceding production year, to the 

extent that vehicles produced during the 

preceding years are treated under 

Standard No. 111 as having been 

produced during the production year 

being reported on, information on the 

number of vehicles that meet the rear 

visibility requirements of Standard No. 

111 (49 CFR 571.111). 

§ 585.127 Records. 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number for each vehicle for which 

information is reported under § 585.126 

until December 31, 2020. 

Issued on: November 29, 2010. 

Joseph S. Carra, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30353 Filed 12–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3