Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Visibility

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162]

RIN 2127-AK43

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Visibility

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

To reduce the risk of devastating backover crashes involving vulnerable populations (including very young children) and to satisfy the mandate of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, NHTSA is issuing this final rule to expand the required field of view for all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds. The agency anticipates that today's final rule will significantly reduce backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other pedestrians who currently have the highest risk associated with backover crashes. Specifically, today's final rule specifies an area behind the vehicle which must be visible to the driver when the vehicle is placed into reverse and other related performance requirements. The agency anticipates that, in the near term, vehicle manufacturers will use rearview video systems and in-vehicle visual displays to meet the requirements of this final rule.

DATES:

Effective Date:

This rule is effective June 6, 2014.

Compliance Date:

Compliance is required, in accordance with the phase-in schedule, beginning on May 1, 2016. Full compliance is required on May 1, 2018.

Petitions for reconsideration:

Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received not later than May 22, 2014.

Incorporation by Reference:

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the standard is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues: Mr. Markus Price, Office of Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: 202-366-0098, Facsimile: 202-366-7002, NVS-121.

For legal issues: Mr. Jesse Chang, Office of the Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992, Facsimile: 202-366-3820, NCC-112.

The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Background and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

a. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act and National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

b. Safety Problem

c. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

d. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

e. Summary of Comments on the NPRM

f. Public Hearing and Workshop

g. Additional 2012 Research

h. Additional SCI Case Analysis

i. Updates to NCAP

III. Final Rule and Response to Comments

a. Summary of the Final Rule

b. Applicability

c. Alternative Countermeasures

d. Field of View

e. Image Size

f. Test Procedure

g. Linger Time, Deactivation, and Backing Event

h. Image Response Time

i. Display Luminance

j. Durability Testing

k. Phase-In

l. Remaining Issues

m. Effective Date

IV. Estimated Costs and Benefits

a. System Effectiveness

b. Benefits

c. Costs

d. Market Adoption Rate

e. Net Impact

f. Cost Effectiveness and Regulatory Alternatives

V. Regulatory Analyses

VI. Regulatory Text

I. Executive Summary

The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (“K.T. Safety Act” or “the Act”) directs this agency to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111

1

“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.”

2

In other words, the K.T. Safety Act requires that this agency conduct a rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 111 in a manner so as to address a safety risk identified by Congress in the Act—namely, the risk of death and injury that can result from backover crashes. Further, the language chosen by Congress particularly directs the agency to consider crashes involving children and persons with disabilities.

1

FMVSS No. 111, currently titled “Rearview mirrors” is renamed by today's final rule as “Rear visibility.”

2

Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, (Public Law 110-189, 122 Stat. 639-642), § 4 (2007).

With some variations, the requirements in today's final rule generally adopt the requirements proposed in the NPRM that expand the required field of view in FMVSS No. 111 to include a 10-foot by 20-foot zone directly behind the vehicle.

3

Today's final rule applies these requirements to all passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles

4

, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Given the currently available information regarding the backover safety risk, the available backing aid technologies, etc., the agency believes that systems fulfilling the requirements adopted by today's final rule are the most effective and the most cost-effective systems available for meeting the safety need specified in the K.T. Safety Act. We believe that the systems meeting the requirements of today's rule also afford the best protection to children and persons with disabilities.

3

Prior to adoption of today's rule, the required field of view for passenger vehicles specified that these vehicles have an inside rearview mirror that provides a view from 61 meters behind the vehicle to the horizon. Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVRW of 4,536 kg or less may certify to the passenger car requirements or provide large planar outside mirrors on both the driver's side as well as the passenger's side that provide a view to the rear along the sides of the vehicle. Passenger cars are required to have a planar outside mirror on the driver's side that provides a view to the rear along the side of the vehicle. This rule does not change these field of view requirements from FMVSS No. 111, but adds additional requirements.

4

A low-speed vehicle is defined as a 4-wheeled vehicle, with a GVWR of less than 3000 lbs, and whose speed attainable in 1 mile on a paved level surface is greater than 20 mph and no greater than 25 mph.

See

49 CFR Part 571.3. Like all other vehicle types covered under today's final rule, LSVs are required to provide the driver with a rearview image meeting the requirements specified in the regulatory text at the end of this document regardless of whether the vehicle has any significant blind zone. However, like other manufacturers, low-speed vehicle manufacturers can petition NHTSA for an exemption or for rulemaking. The issue of how today's final rule applies to LSVs is discussed in further detail in Section III. b. Applicability, below.

Available Information Continues to Show that the NPRM Approach is the Best Approach

After the proposed rule, the agency received public comments through two separate comment periods and two public meetings. Further, the agency conducted additional research to ensure that the analysis supporting today's final rule is robust. While a significant amount of information has been obtained since the NPRM, none of the additional information supports the agency departing from the general approach proposed in the NPRM. The additional information is useful because it enables the agency to refine its understanding of the technical capabilities of the manufacturers to meet the requirements of today's rule and the relevant costs/benefits of today's rule. Nonetheless, among the various types of rear visibility systems available for study, agency testing and other currently available information support the following claims:

(1) Drivers using rear visibility systems meeting the field of view requirements of today's final rule avoid crashes with an unexpected test object at a statistically significant higher rate than drivers using the standard complement of vehicle equipment.

(2) Such systems (e.g., rearview video systems) consistently outperform other rear visibility systems (e.g., sensors-only or mirror systems) due to a variety of technical and driver-use limitations in those other systems.

(3) Rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today's rule are the only systems that can meet the need for safety specified by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act (the backover crash risk) because the other systems afford little or no measureable safety benefit.

(4) Systems meeting the requirements of today's final rule are not only the most effective system at addressing the backover crash risk but also the most cost-effective.

Thus, NHTSA's believes that the rear visibility system requirements in today's final rule (expanding the required field of view to include the 20-foot by 10-foot zone immediately behind the vehicle) are the only method for addressing the backover safety risk identified in the K.T. Safety Act that is rationally supported by the totality of the available data.

Recent Market Developments Have Substantially Reduced Costs

The agency's latest analysis has shown that 73% of vehicles covered under today's final rule will be sold with rearview video systems by 2018. This new development in the market means that today's rule will require less change to the market than we had previously anticipated. Assuming the 73% market adoption rate, it would cost $546 to $620 million to equip the remaining 27% of vehicles in 2018 without a rear visibility system. Those systems would also produce $265 to $396 million in monetized benefits.

While we have data to demonstrate what we predict will be the state of the market in 2018, we are unable to determine with any reasonable certainty the precise extent to which other potential events (e.g., the K.T. Safety Act and the rulemaking process) beyond “pure market forces” might also be a factor. However, in order to reflect this uncertainty in estimating the likely benefits and costs, NHTSA considered different methods for establishing a baseline market adoption rate of rear visibility systems. The purpose of this analysis was to capture, in addition to the effects of issuing this final rule, the potential effects of the K.T. Safety Act (and the rulemaking process mandated by the Act) upon the rearview video system market adoption. While assessing different alternative baselines is useful in estimating these different market scenarios, all of these analyses continue to show that the approach adopted in today's final rule is the best approach for addressing the backover safety problem.

Accordingly, we have developed an analysis that presents a range of both the benefits and costs of this rule based on a range of adoption rates. At the top-end of the range of adoption rates is the assumption that all current and projected installations are due purely to market forces, meaning that 73% of the new vehicle fleet will be equipped with rearview video systems by 2018. At the low-end of the range of adoption rates, we adopt the assumption that half of the increase in the market adoption trend as a result of the data from MY2014 is attributable to “pure market forces” and half is not.

5

Assuming these top and low end estimated adoption trends, the market adoption attributable to “pure market demand” in 2018 would be between 59% and 73%. Assuming this range of market adoption, $546 million to $924 million in costs and $265 million to $595 million in monetized benefits are attributable to the final rule, the rulemaking process, and the K.T. Safety Act.

5

Further information about these alternative baselines is available in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying this document in the docket referenced at the beginning of this document.

Table 1—Estimated Costs and Benefits Under 59% and 73% Market Adoption Scenarios

73% Adoption

59% Adoption

Annual Benefits (2010 $)

$265 M to $396 M

$398 M to $595 M

Annual Costs (2010 $)

$546 M to $620 M

$827 M to $924 M

As described in detail, below, and in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA), the agency believes that the top-end assumption is both more likely than the low end (given the strong market incentives in providing rearview video systems) and presents a better picture of the results of issuing today's final rule. Accordingly, for ease of presentation, the discussions of the costs and benefits presented both in this preamble and the FRIA present only those numbers associated with this assumption. However, the agency does present detailed information concerning the costs and benefits of the low-end assumption in Section IV. D. of this preamble and (in more detail) Chapter VIII. D. of the FRIA.

Benefits Are Expected To Be Substantial

This rule is expected to decrease the risks to children, persons with disabilities, and other pedestrians from being injured or killed in a backover crash. Backover crashes are specifically defined as crashes where non-occupants of vehicles (such as pedestrians or cyclists) are struck by vehicles moving in reverse. Our assessment of available safety data indicates that (on average) there are 267 fatalities and 15,000 injuries (6,000 of which are incapacitating

6

) resulting from backover

crashes every year. Of those, 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries

7

are attributable to backover crashes involving light vehicles (passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Further, the agency has found that children and elderly adults are disproportionately affected by backover crashes. Our data indicate that children under 5 years old account for 31 percent of the fatalities each year, and adults 70 years of age and older account for 26 percent.

6

The Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (ANSI D16.1) defines “incapacitating injury” as “any injury, other than

a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities the person was capable of performing before the injury occurred” (Section 2.3.4)

7

Due to rounding, injuries for light vehicles and all vehicles are estimated to be 15,000.

Rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today's final rule are predicted to have an effectiveness of between 28 and 33 percent—substantially higher than other systems (e.g., sensor-only systems) that are currently available. Applying that estimated effectiveness to the latest information on the target population, the aforementioned systems are expected to save 58 to 69 lives each year (not including injuries prevented) once the entire on road vehicle fleet is equipped with systems meeting today's rules requirements (anticipated by approximately 2054).

8

However, because our latest information indicates that as much as 73% of new vehicles sold will have rearview video systems by 2018, the lives saved and injuries prevented by equipping the remaining 27% of vehicles are approximately a quarter of this total. Thus, we believe that there will still be 13-15 fatalities and 1,125-1,332 injuries prevented annually that are a result of equipping the remaining 27% of vehicles that we do not anticipate will have rear visibility systems by 2018.

9

While our estimated annual benefits, beginning in model year 2018, will not be fully realized until 2054, they will increase over time from the phase-in date as vehicles with these systems continue to make up an increasing percentage of the overall vehicle fleet. Taking into account that a larger portion of miles traveled by a given model year is achieved early in the overall life of that model year, we estimate that roughly two thirds of the lifetime benefits for MY2018 will be realized by 2028.

8

Like all new safety standards, benefits realized from these systems will rise steadily in proportion to the increase of new vehicles meeting the requirements adopted today within the vehicle fleet operating on the public roads. In other words, as new vehicles meeting the new standard replace older vehicles, more vehicles operating on the road will have the new safety countermeasure and more benefits will be realized. As with all standards, it takes time to replace the whole vehicle fleet. While the full rate of annual anticipated benefits will likely not be realized until 2054, the rate of annual benefits will rise each year commensurate with new vehicle sales and the proportion of the miles traveled in those new vehicles.

9

This figure shows the incremental lives saved and injuries prevented by equipping the remaining 27% of vehicles that are not projected to have rear visibility systems in 2018. It compares what the data show will be the market position for adoption of rearview video systems by 2018 and the 100% compliance requirement in 2018 (established by today's final rule). Because this figure measures what we project the market would (in fact) be in 2018, it does not account for any potential market adoption that is attributable to manufacturers responding to events that are unrelated to “pure market forces” (e.g., the passage of the K.T. Safety Act or this rulemaking process). As further explained below, there are a number of reasons why it is especially difficult in the case of this rule to quantify the market adoption that is attributable to the K.T. Safety Act or this rulemaking process. However, we acknowledge that these events may have had an effect on the market adoption of rearview video systems and we have attempted to capture this potential effect below in section IV.

Estimated Costs and Benefits.

Table 2—Estimated Annual Quantifiable Benefits

Benefits

Fatalities Reduced

13 to 15.

Injuries Reduced

1,125 to 1,332.

In addition to the fatalities and injuries prevented, systems meeting today's final rule are expected to yield benefits over the lifetime of the vehicle as a result of avoiding property damage. While damage to rear visibility systems are a potential source of additional repair cost as a result of rear-end collisions, the agency calculates that these costs will be offset by the benefits realized by vehicle owners as a result of avoiding property-damage-only backing collisions and yield a net benefit

10

between $10 and $13 per vehicle (over the lifetime of the vehicle). In monetary terms, the benefits that are a result from issuing today's final rule (i.e., not counting the systems already being installed by the automakers) are expected to be between $265 and $396 million annually when considering both fatalities/injuries prevented and the property-damage-only collisions avoided.

10

This “net benefit” is a comparison between the cost of repairing/replacing damaged rear visibility systems and the benefit of avoiding property damage-only crashes. The costs of the rear visibility system and other benefits of these systems are not taken into account in this “net benefit.”

As the agency is conscious of the costs of today's rule and the costs of rear visibility systems in general, the agency has made every effort to ensure that the benefits of today's rule are as accurately estimated as possible. Thus, various new pieces of information have been incorporated into the analysis in today's final rule that lead to different benefits estimates from those in the NPRM. The major differences include a more refined target population estimate, updated voluntary installation rate information, and more refined system effectiveness estimates. As explained further in this document, additional data from our crash databases

11

enabled the agency to more accurately estimate the size of the target population by sampling a greater number of years of data. Further, new data regarding the rate of adoption of rear visibility systems has enabled the agency to project the rate of adoption through the first full compliance year in today's rule. Finally, the agency was able to conduct additional research since the NPRM to further examine driver use of rear visibility systems by examining a wider range of driver demographics and an additional vehicle type. The additional research adds to the robustness of the agency's analysis of rear visibility system effectiveness through a larger sampling of research participants. While none of the aforementioned new information creates a rational basis for the agency to alter its decision from the NPRM in any significant fashion, the agency believes that it was prudent to ensure that the benefits of today's rule are estimated as accurately as possible due to the costs of this rulemaking required under the K.T. Safety Act. The available information continues to show that rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of this rule are the most effective (and the most cost-effective) systems at addressing the backover safety problem.

11

The updates that we have incorporated into our analysis include updates to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES), and the Not-in-Traffic Surveillance (NiTS) system.

Further, the agency notes that there continue to be substantial benefits of this rule that are not easily quantifiable in monetary terms. The agency recognizes that victims of backover crashes are frequently the most vulnerable members of our society (such as young children, the elderly, or persons with disabilities). As these persons often have special mobility needs or are too young to adequately comprehend danger, it seems unlikely that solutions such as increased public awareness or audible backing warnings will be sufficient to prevent the safety risk of backover crashes. Further, the agency recognizes that most people place a high value on the lives of

children and that there is a general consensus regarding the need to protect children as they are unable to protect themselves. As backover crash victims are often struck by their immediate family members or caretakers, it is the Department's opinion that an exceptionally high emotional cost, not easily convertible to monetary equivalents, is often inflicted upon the families of backover crash victims.

Costs of Today's Final Rule

The agency acknowledges that the costs of today's rule are significant. We anticipate rear visibility systems will cost approximately $43 to $45 for vehicles already equipped with a suitable visual display and between $132 and $142 for all other vehicles. Accordingly, based on an annual new vehicle fleet of 16.0 million vehicles and considering the number of vehicles we anticipate will already have rear visibility systems by 2018, we believe the costs attributable to equipping the remaining 27% of vehicles (that are not projected to have rear visibility systems in 2018) will range from $546 to $620 million annually.

12

12

We note that the costs to low-speed vehicles are a small portion (less than 1%) of the vehicle fleet sales each year. We have assumed that the costs to low-speed vehicles to comply with the requirements of today's final rule are the same as other vehicles and taken those costs into account in this estimate.

Table 3—Estimated Installation Costs

Costs (2010 $)

Full system installation per vehicle

$132 to $142.

Camera-only installation per vehicle

$43 to $45.

Total Fleet

$546 M to $620 M.

In addition to taking steps to ensure that the benefits of today's rule are accurately estimated, the agency also took steps to ensure that the estimated costs of this rule are accurate. Most importantly, two pieces of additional information have enabled the agency to arrive at a more refined estimate of the costs of today's rule that differ from the NPRM. First, the agency has a more robust estimate of the per unit costs of rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today's rule because the agency performed a tear down study that analyzed the “bolt-by-bolt” costs of rear visibility systems and the agency incorporated an analysis of the production savings that occur over time due to efficiencies in the manufacturing process and increases in volume. Second, the aforementioned updated adoption rate of rear visibility systems has been incorporated not only in our analysis of the benefits but also of the costs of today's rule. Based on the aforementioned revised estimates for costs and benefits, the net cost per equivalent life saved for rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today's final rule ranges from $15.9 to $26.3 million.

Table 4—Estimated Cost Effectiveness

Cost per Equivalent Life Saved

Rearview Video Systems

$15.9 to $26.3 million *.

* The range presented is from a 3% to 7% discount rate.

Table 5—Summary of Benefits and Costs Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Millions 2010$) MY2018 and Thereafter

13

Benefits

Primary

estimate

Low

estimate

High

estimate

Discount rate

(%)

Lifetime Monetized

$265

$305

$305

7

Lifetime Monetized

$344

$396

$396

3

Costs:

Lifetime Monetized

$546

$620

$557

7

Lifetime Monetized

$546

$620

$557

3

Net Impact:

Lifetime Monetized

−$281

−$315

−$252

7

Lifetime Monetized

−$202

−$224

−$161

3

This

Rule is the Least Costly Rule that Meets the Requirements of the K.T. Safety Act

13

The different estimates in this chart show some of the different potential technology options. The Primary Estimate is the lowest installation cost option (which assumes manufacturers will use a 130° camera and will utilize any existing display units already offered in their vehicles). The Low Estimate and High Estimate provide the estimated

minimum and maximum net impacts

possible. The Low Estimate is the 180° camera and assumes that manufacturers will install a new display to meet the requirements of today's rule. It represents the minimum overall benefit estimate as it has the largest negative net impact. Conversely, the High Estimate is the 180° camera and assumes that manufacturers that currently offer vehicles with display units are able and choose to use those existing display units to meet the requirements of today's rule. This represents the maximum overall benefit estimate because it has the smallest negative net impact.

Throughout this rulemaking process, the agency has been sensitive to the costs of today's rule and has sought to ensure that the requirements adopted impose the least amount of regulatory burden on the economy while still achieving Congress' goal of reducing fatalities and injuries resulting from backover crashes. Thus, through the information received by the agency through the comment periods and public workshops, the agency has explored and adopted various methods in order to avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the industry and to afford as much flexibility as possible.

Phase-in Schedule

To that end, today's final rule establishes a flexible phase-in schedule that affords the manufacturers the maximum amount of time permitted by the K.T. Safety Act to achieve full compliance (48 months after the publication of this rule). The phase-in schedule established by today's rule, excluding small volume and multi-stage manufacturers, is as follows:

• 0% of the vehicles manufactured before May 1, 2016;

• 10% of the vehicles manufactured on or after May 1, 2016, and before May 1, 2017;

• 40% of the vehicles manufactured on or after May 1, 2017, and before May 1, 2018; and

• 100% of the vehicles manufactured on or after May 1, 2018.

14

14

As further discussed below, the latest data show that the adoption rate of rearview video systems has increased significantly in recent years. As a result, we anticipate that many manufacturers will be able to meet the phase-in schedule with little adjustment to their current manufacturing plans.

In addition to affording manufacturers the maximum amount of time permitted under the K.T. Safety Act to achieve full compliance, the agency adopts the back-loaded phase-in schedule proposed in the NPRM and does not separately evaluate light trucks and passenger cars for the purposes of the phase-in in order to further increase flexibility.

Further, the agency learned from the comments that, while the rearview video systems currently used by manufacturers are able to meet most of the requirements established in today's rule, they may not meet the entire set of requirements beyond the field of view requirements including the image size, linger time, response time, durability, and deactivation requirements. While the agency continues to believe that those requirements are essential in ensuring the quality of rear visibility systems in the long run, today's final rule does not require that manufacturers comply with the requirements beyond the field of view for purposes of the phase-in period. In making this decision, the agency notes that the estimated benefits from the NPRM would not be significantly affected by the delayed phase-in of certain requirements, as those estimates were based on research conducted using rear visibility systems that were not designed to conform to all of the aforementioned performance requirements. In addition, we have considered the significant additional costs in compelling manufacturers to conduct equipment redesigns outside of the normal product design cycle. In order to avoid significantly increasing the cost of this rule and to enable manufacturers to focus resources, instead, on deploying rear visibility systems in a greater number of vehicles in the near term, today's final rule delays the aforementioned requirements until the end of the 48 month phase-in period.

Response Time Test Procedure and the “Backing Event”

As with the phase-in schedule, the agency received various comments regarding the timing of the presentation of the rearview image to the driver that suggested approaches that would tend to decrease the costs and increase flexibility for manufacturers while still preserving ability of the required rear visibility systems to address the backover safety problem. While today's rule adopts the proposal from the NPRM requiring rear visibility systems to display an image of the required field of view to the driver within 2.0 seconds after the driver places the vehicle in the reverse direction, the agency learned through the comments received that this requirement can be more burdensome for manufacturers if the system response time is tested immediately after the vehicle is started. Thus, as described further in this document, the agency has adopted a test procedure in today's final rule to condition the vehicle prior to evaluating rear visibility system response time. As this test procedure is based on the available data on real world driving conditions, the procedure affords manufacturers additional flexibility to design the initialization process for their rear visibility systems while still ensuring that the required rearview image is available at a time that is useful to a driver conducting backing maneuvers.

Further, today's final rule adopts a “backing event” definition in order to afford manufacturers additional design flexibility while still addressing the safety concerns that the agency intended to address with the proposed linger time and deactivation requirements in the NPRM. As further described in this document, the agency proposed linger time and deactivation requirements in the NPRM in order to ensure that the required rearview image is available to the driver at the appropriate time without becoming a distraction at an inappropriate time. Through the comments, the agency learned that the relatively inflexible linger time and deactivation requirements proposed in the NPRM could inhibit other safety and convenience features from being implemented by manufacturers (e.g., views designed to assist trailer hitching, parking, etc.). Thus, today's final rule adopts a definition of “backing event” and uses this definition to establish the points in time that the rearview image is required to be presented to the driver while still affording manufacturers the flexibility to implement additional safety and convenience features for the drivers.

Durability Testing and Luminance Requirements

Finally, the agency also modified the durability requirements to apply on a component level and did not adopt the luminance requirements to avoid imposing unnecessary testing burdens on the manufacturers where such burdens were not likely to produce a corresponding safety benefit. Through the comments received, the agency learned that ensuring a minimum level of durability of rear visibility system components can be achieved through component level testing rather than testing at the vehicle level. Further, the agency learned that luminance requirements alone would not ensure the quality of the image provided to the driver and would instead unnecessarily restrict the technologies that manufacturers can use to present the required rearview image to the driver. Thus, as further discussed in this document, the agency adopts the durability requirements from the NPRM at a component level and does not adopt the luminance requirements in today's final rule.

Other Methods to Reduce Costs and Increase Flexibility Do Not Fulfill the K.T. Safety Act

While the agency has made the aforementioned changes to the requirements proposed in the NPRM that are aimed at reducing costs while still preserving the safety benefits of today's rule, other methods to reduce costs that were explored (or suggested in the comments received) are not adopted in today's final rule because they do not meet the need for safety (and do not meet the requirements of the K.T. Safety Act).

Requiring a Lower-Cost Countermeasure or Utilizing More Performance-Oriented Standards

Throughout this rulemaking process, the agency has explored various countermeasure technologies and evaluated their ability to address the backover safety problem as required by the K.T. Safety Act. The agency conducted research to evaluate the effectiveness of various currently available technologies including additional mirrors, reverse sensors, and rearview video systems. After extensive testing, the agency concluded that drivers require the ability to see the area directly behind the vehicle in order to successfully avoid striking a pedestrian or an unexpected obstacle. In other words, rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today's rule are the only currently available systems that can meet the need for safety specified by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act (backover crashes). The agency arrived at this conclusion after observing in our research that sensor-only systems have various technical limitations that lead to inconsistent object detection and that drivers with sensor-only systems generally either failed to respond to the sensor system's audio warning, or paused only momentarily before resuming the backing maneuver. Further, our research indicates that drivers were unable to avoid targets behind the vehicle when assisted with additional rear-mounted mirrors such as rear convex “look-down” or cross-view mirrors. We concluded that the limited field of view and significant distortion/

minification in such mirrors prevent drivers from successfully detecting and avoiding targets behind the vehicle. As these sensor-only and mirror-based rear visibility systems have demonstrated little to no success in inducing drivers to stop a backing maneuver to avoid a crash with a pedestrian behind the vehicle, their lower cost is outweighed by the substantially reduced benefits that are likely to be achieved by these systems. Thus, the agency believes that rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today's rule are not only the most effective systems at addressing the backover safety problem but also the most cost effective system. Further, to adjust the requirements in today's rule to accommodate these other systems would not fulfill the requirements of the K.T. Safety Act as these other systems cannot be reasonably expected to address the backover crash problem.

Consistent with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, today's final rule establishes “a minimum standard for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance.”

15

While we acknowledge some commenters' desire for a more performance-oriented approach to the backover safety problem, we conclude that today's final rule is as performance-oriented as possible while still achieving the Motor Vehicle Safety Act's requirement that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards “meet the need for safety.”

16

As Congress recognized when it enacted the Motor Vehicle Safety Act,

17

there is no clear distinction between standards that regulate performance versus those that regulate design. All safety standards necessarily will affect and preclude certain designs because the design of vehicles and equipment affects the quality of their performance. The extent to which a safety standard will restrict particular design is purely a matter of degree.

18

Thus, to fulfill all the applicable statutory requirements, the agency designs requirements to be as broad (i.e., performance-oriented) as possible without hindering the standard's ability to “meet the need for safety.” Our decisions in today's final rule follow this strategy. As we discuss in detail in Section III, below, the available data show that providing a driver with a view of the area behind the vehicle is currently the most effective way available to reduce backover crashes, as contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. Thus, while today's rule requires systems to show a rearview image to the driver (in order to meet the need for safety), the rule uses performance-oriented requirements to enable manufacturers flexibility in determining how to present that image to drivers.

15

See

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).

16

See

49 U.S.C. 30111(a).

17

For example, Senator Magnuson recognized that standards are not either performance standards or design standards (i.e., there is not a dichotomy between the two) when he said that some safety standards would necessarily determine the configuration of some vehicle components.

See

112 C.R. 20600 (Aug. 31, 1966).

18

Courts have also recognized the difficulty in applying the distinction between performance and design standards in concrete situations (because specifying performance often entails restrictions on design) and did not invalidate safety standards based on their indefinite place on the conceptual spectrum between performance and design.

See Washington

v.

Dept. of Transp.,

84 F.3d 1222, 1224-25 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing

Wood

v.

General Motors Corp.,

865 F.2d 395, 416-17 (1st Cir. 1988);

Chrysler Corp.

v.

Department of Transp.,

515 F.2d 1053515 F.2d at 1058-59 (6th Cir. 1975)).

We further note, as we did in the NPRM, that technology is rapidly evolving. Thus, while today's final rule concludes that the most effective and currently available systems present the driver with a rearview image, the final rule does not require that a specific technology be used to provide a driver with an image of the area behind the vehicle, nor does today's rule preclude manufacturers from providing additional countermeasure technologies to supplement the required rear visibility system.

Applying Requirements by Vehicle Type

Further, the comments suggested, and the agency considered, the possibility of applying the rear visibility system requirements of today's rule by vehicle type. However, today's rule does not prescribe different requirements by vehicle type and applies the rear visibility requirements to all motor vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds (except motorcycles and trailers) as directed by the K.T. Safety Act. As described above, the available data does not show that other currently available rear visibility systems (not meeting the requirements in today's rule) are able to effectively address the backover safety risk that the agency is required to address under the K.T. Safety Act. Thus, to apply different requirements by vehicle type in this rulemaking would mean applying the requirements of today's rule to only certain vehicle types and excluding others.

The agency does not believe that it can exclude any vehicle types covered by the K.T. Safety Act from this rule. While the K.T. Safety Act affords the agency discretion to apply different requirements to different vehicle types, the Act does not allow the agency to exclude (and apply no requirements to) any vehicle type covered by the K.T. Safety Act. Further, as discussed further in this preamble, the available data indicate that all vehicle types suffer from significant rear blind zones and contribute to backover crashes at a rate that is similar to their proportion of the vehicle fleet.

19

Thus, to exclude vehicles covered under the K.T. Safety Act from the requirements in today's rule would not only fail to meet the requirements of the K.T. Safety Act, but would also fail to address the backover safety need. As the vehicles covered by the K.T. Safety Act contribute proportionally to backover crashes resulting in an injury or a fatality, the agency believes that it is reasonable to apply the requirements of today's rule to all vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds (except motorcycles and trailers).

19

As discussed further in this document, all vehicles contribute to backover crashes at a rate that's similar to their proportion of the fleet. For example, passenger cars comprise 57% of the vehicle fleet and are responsible for 52% of backover injuries. Utility vehicles are 17% of the fleet and are responsible for 16% of the backover injuries. Vans are 10% of the fleet and responsible for 11% of the backover injuries. Pickup trucks are 16% of the fleet and responsible for 14% of the injuries. However, some vehicle types contribute to more fatalities than other vehicle types.

Conclusion

Given the requirements of the K.T. Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Vehicle Safety Act”), the totality of the available data continue to show that rear visibility systems meeting the requirements in today's final rule are the most effective and the most cost-effective countermeasure available to address the backover safety problem identified by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act. Data from agency testing and other currently available information continue to show that drivers using rearview video systems experience a statistically significant beneficial effect in avoiding a collision with an unexpected rear obstacle. As the agency seeks to achieve the goals of the K.T. Safety Act in the least burdensome fashion, the agency has made various modifications to the requirements in today's final rule. However, this final rule adopts the requirement from the NPRM that the driver must be afforded a view of the 20-foot by 10-foot zone directly behind the vehicle. The data continue to show that rear visibility systems with this characteristic are the most effective solution available to address the backover safety problem that the agency is required to address under the K.T. Safety Act. To adopt requirements allowing countermeasures without this

characteristic or applying the requirements in this rule to only a subset of the vehicle types specified in the K.T. Safety Act would not fulfill the requirements of that Act.

Throughout this rulemaking process the agency has been sensitive to the potential costs of today's rule and has explored multiple potential methods for reducing the potential burden of today's rule. Although the additional information received by the agency since the NPRM affords the agency a more refined understanding of the potential costs and benefits of today's rule, no comments or research data received provide the agency with a rational basis to adopt requirements that would permit rear visibility systems other than those permitted in today's rule. While the costs of the rule exceed its quantifiable benefits, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 call upon us to assess the costs and benefits of a rulemaking, including those costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify and, unless prohibited by statute, choose the regulatory alternative that maximizes net benefits. Further, to the extent permitted by law, regulations must be designed in the most cost-effective manner to achieve the regulatory objective. As summarized later in this document and explained in detail in the accompanying Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, the agency has carefully considered all impacts of this rule and has chosen the most cost-effective option in meeting the statutory mandate. All available information and agency analysis continues to demonstrate that rear visibility systems meeting the requirements of today's rule are the most effective, least burdensome, and most cost-effective systems that can address the backover safety risk and fulfill the requirements of the K.T. Safety Act. Thus, the agency has chosen the most cost-effective means of achieving Congress's purpose in enacting the K.T. Safety Act. Moreover, as detailed in the NPRM and again discussed here in this final rule, the Department maintains that there are significant unquantifiable considerations associated with this rule, in particular the young age of many victims and the fact that many drivers involved in backover crashes are relatives or caretakers of the victims, that support this action.

II. Background and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

a. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act and National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

General Requirements

Subsection 2(b) of the K.T. Safety Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking to revise FMVSS No. 111 to expand the required field of view so as to enable drivers of motor vehicles to detect areas behind the motor vehicle. In the same section, Congress explained that the purpose of this requirement is to reduce death and injury resulting from backover crashes—especially crashes involving young children and disabled persons. The Act permitted the Secretary to prescribe different requirements for different vehicle types. It further allowed the Secretary to achieve the goals of the Act through the provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other technology that could expand the driver's field of view.

The K.T. Safety Act did not intend to cover all motor vehicles that are regulated under the Vehicle Safety Act.

20

While subsection 2(e) of the K.T. Safety Act defines the term “motor vehicle,” for its purposes, as all vehicles covered under the Vehicle Safety Act, it specifically excludes all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds, motorcycles, and trailers.

20

The Vehicle Safety Act defines a “motor vehicle” 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.” 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)

Given that subsection 2(b) prescribes amendments to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, this rulemaking is governed not only by the K.T. Safety Act, but also by the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. The relevant provisions in the Vehicle Safety Act are those in section 30111 of title 49 of the United States Code. Section 30111 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 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 the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Deadlines

Congress enacted the K.T. Safety Act on February 28, 2008. The Act directed the Secretary to initiate rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 111 within 12 months of enactment (February 28, 2009). The Act further directed the Secretary to publish a final rule amending FMVSS No. 111 within 36 months of enactment (February 28, 2011). In the event that any of the aforementioned deadlines could not be met, subsection 4 required the Secretary to establish a new deadline 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 and the reasons the deadlines specified in the Act could not be met.

On February 25, 2011, the agency determined that the deadline for publication of today's final rule could not be met and the Secretary sent notice to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate as required by the K.T. Safety Act.

21

While the NPRM was published on December 7, 2010 and provided for a 60-day comment period, the agency determined that an additional 45-day comment period would be necessary. The agency informed Congress of its intent to hold a public hearing and technical workshop in order to facilitate the exchange of ideas over the backover safety problem. The agency also stated that additional time was required in order to analyze the information acquired in these two public meetings. Thus, as required by the K.T. Safety Act, the Secretary sent the aforementioned notification and established December 31, 2011 as the new deadline.

21

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0148.

However, due to the large volume of comments and the complexity of the issues discussed in this rulemaking, the Secretary determined that more time was necessary to complete the final review process. Thus, the Secretary sent additional notifications to the required committees establishing the new deadline of February 29, 2012.

22

A subsequent deadline of December 31, 2012 was established on February 28, 2012 when the Secretary sent additional notifications to the required committees

explaining that further research and analysis would be necessary in order to ensure that the final requirements are as efficient and protective as possible.

23

Specifically, the letter noted that additional analysis and/or research of a wider range of driver and vehicle types would help to ensure that the final rule is appropriate and that the underlying analysis is robust. As further described below, the agency conducted additional research and analysis to expand the vehicle, driver, and obstacle presentation methods.

22

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0230.

23

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0231.

While the agency completed this additional research in 2012, the Secretary determined that additional time would be necessary to finalize this rule and sent the notifications to the required committees under the K.T. Safety Act establishing a deadline of January 2, 2015.

24

Given that vehicles with rearview video systems are increasingly prevalent in the light vehicle fleet, we believed that additional analysis of crashes investigated by the Special Crash Investigations program would contribute significantly to our understanding of the backover crash problem. More specifically, the agency attempted to identify and analyze crashes involving vehicles with rearview video systems in order to refine further its understanding of how the proposed requirements address the real world safety risk.

24

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0251.

As further discussed below, the agency could not identify as many cases for analysis as it hoped (potentially because rearview video systems are already having an impact on reducing backover crashes). Only two cases involving vehicles with rearview video systems could be identified and these cases are analyzed in the sections that follow. However, due to the lack of available cases, the agency believes that further delay of the rule is unlikely to yield much additional information for analysis. Thus, after considering these new facts along with the safety implications of further delay, the Department has decided that it is appropriate to issue today's final rule at this time—before the January 2, 2015 deadline.

Phase-in

In addition to these requirements, the K.T. Safety Act required that the safety standards prescribed pursuant to the Act establish a phase-in period for compliance. The Act further required that the phase-in period prescribe full compliance with the aforementioned safety standards no later than 48 months after issuance of the final rule. The K.T. Safety Act instructed the Secretary to consider whether to require a phase-in schedule based on vehicle type according to data regarding the frequency of backover incidents for each vehicle type.

b. Safety Problem

Definition of the Backover Problem and Summary of the Available Data

In the ANPRM and NPRM, we specifically described a backover as a type of incident, in which a non-occupant of a vehicle (e.g., a pedestrian or cyclist) is struck by a vehicle moving in reverse. As a majority of backover crashes occur off of public roadways, NHTSA's traditional methodologies for collecting data as to the specific numbers and circumstances of backover incidents could not give the agency a complete picture of the scope and circumstances of these types of incidents. Thus, in addition to statistics from traditional sources such as FARS

25

and NASS-GES

26

, our research has utilized information from the “Not-in-Traffic Surveillance” (NiTS) system which collects information about all non-traffic crashes, including non-traffic backing crashes. Based on the aforementioned sources, NHTSA estimated that backing crashes of all types result in approximately 410 fatalities and 42,000 injuries each year. Of those, the subset of backover crashes (crashes involving non-occupants of vehicles such as pedestrians and cyclists) comprises 267 fatalities and 15,000 injuries.

25

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a nationwide census that provides yearly data regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor vehicle traffic crashes.

See

NHTSA, NCSA Reports and Publications,

http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.

26

The National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES) is a nationally representative sample of police reported motor vehicle crashes.

See

NHTSA, NASS General Estimates System,

http://www.nhtsa.gov/NASS.

Of these backover crashes, not all involve the vehicle types contemplated by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act (cars, trucks, MPVs, and vans with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). When only these vehicles are taken into account, the data indicate that a total population of 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries

27

are due to light vehicle backover crashes.

28

However, the data are less clear when examining the distribution of backover crashes by vehicle type. Table 6 illustrates that pickup trucks and MPVs are statistically overrepresented in backover fatalities when compared to all non-backing traffic injury crashes and to their proportion of the vehicle fleet with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds. Our analysis revealed that while these vehicle types were statistically overrepresented in backover-related fatalities, they were not significantly overrepresented in backover crashes generally. In other words, these data indicate that while these types of vehicles are proportionately involved in backover crashes, those involving light trucks and sport utility vehicles are more likely to be fatal.

27

Due to rounding, injuries for both light vehicles and all vehicles are estimated to be 15,000.

28

See

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, available in the docket number referenced at the beginning of this document.

Table 6—Passenger Vehicle Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Vehicle Type

29

Backing

vehicle type

Fatalities

% of Fatalities

Estimated

injuries

Estimated % of injuries

% of Non-Backing

crashes

% of Fleet

Car

59

28

8,000

52

58

57

Utility Vehicle

56

27

2,000

16

18

17

Van

23

11

2,000

11

7

10

Pickup

68

33

2,000

14

15

16

Other Light Vehicle

3

2

1,000

7

2

0

Passenger Vehicles

210

100

15,000

100

100

100

Source:

FARS 2007-2011, NASS-GES 2007-2011, NiTS 2007-2011.

Note:

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

29

Id.

Our data further indicated that young children under the age of 5 and adults over the age of 70 are disproportionately represented in passenger vehicle backover crashes. Table 7 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.

When restricted to backover fatalities involving passenger vehicles, children under 5 years old account for 39 percent of the fatalities and adults 70 years of age and older account for 29 percent.

30

Id.

Table 7—All Backover Crash Fatalities and Injuries by Victim Age

30

Age of victim

Fatalities

Percent of

fatalities

Estimated

injuries

Estimated %

of injuries

Percent of

population

All Vehicles

Under 5

84

31

1,000

6

7

5-10

8

3

1,000

4

7

10-19

4

1

1,000

9

14

20-59

73

27

7,000

49

55

60-69

27

10

2,000

11

8

70+

70

26

3,000

20

9

Unknown

2

1

*0

1

Total

267

100

15,000

100

100

Passenger Cars

Under 5

82

39

1,000

6

7

5-10

8

4

1,000

4

7

10-19

1

1

1,000

9

14

20-59

38

18

7,000

48

55

60-69

19

9

2,000

11

8

70+

61

29

3,000

21

9

Unknown

1

0

*0

1

Total

210

100

15,000

100

100

Note:

* indicates estimate less than 500, Estimates do not add up to totals due to independent rounding.

Note:

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2007-2011, NASS-GES 2007-2011, NiTS 2007-2011.

In addition, we examined the data specifically in regards to children under the age of 5. Table 8 (below) presents passenger vehicle backover fatalities by year of age for victims less than 5 years old.

Out of all backover fatalities involving passenger vehicles, 24 percent (49 out of 210) of victims are 1 year of age and younger.

31

Id.

Table 8—Breakdown of Backover Crash Fatalities Involving Passenger Vehicles for Victims Under Age 5 Years

31

Age of victim (years)

Percent of

fatalities

0

2

1

59

2

21

3

11

4

7

Total

100

Source:

US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2007-2011, NASS-GES 2007-2011, NiTS 2007-2011

Separately, the agency also examined the FARS and NASS-GES data from 2007-2010 in order to determine whether or not any persons with disabilities were involved in backover crashes. During the four-year period between 2007 and 2010, the agency identified one case in the FARS database involving a vision-impaired pedestrian where the backover crash resulted in a fatality. When examining the same timeframe, the agency identified two backover cases in the NASS-GES database that involved persons in wheelchairs that resulted in injuries. Under both databases, the agency found other cases where the individual was specified as “impaired” (1 in FARS, and 11 in NASS-GES). While the agency cannot identify the specific type of “impairment” that the individual had at the time of the backover crash, these individuals may have had a disability (permanent or temporary) at the time of the backover crash.

32

32

The FARS and NASS-GES coding system has a separate category for individuals that were alcohol-impaired. However, the FARS and NASS-GES coding system does not differentiate between persons that have physical disabilities (e.g., individuals using crutches) and persons impaired by substances that are not alcohol (e.g., wrong dosage of medication). Thus, while persons with temporary or permanent disabilities could be included in this category, the database information is not specific enough for the agency to determine what portion of these persons had a physical disability at the time of the backover crash.

Special Crash Investigation of Backover Crashes

As reported in the ANPRM and the NPRM, NHTSA conducted an analysis of police-reported backover crashes through a Special Crash Investigation (SCI) program during the earlier stages of this rulemaking. The SCI program operates by receiving notifications 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. For purposes of that analysis of SCI cases, an eligible backover case was 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. These cases investigated were more likely to be cases involving children—however, some cases did involve adults. The majority of notifications received did not meet the criteria for case assignment. Typically, the reasons for not pursuing further include: (1) The reported crash configuration is outside of the scope of the program; (2) minor incidents with no fatally or seriously injured persons; or (3) 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 were not investigated for the purposes of this rulemaking. The agency was less likely to investigate a case involving an adult unless the adult was seriously injured or killed or if the backing vehicles were equipped with backing or parking aids.

33

33

The SCI cases reviewed by NHTSA are available in the SCI Electronic Case Viewer at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/SCI.

The agency conducted these investigations because the special crash investigations enhance the agency's understanding of the different circumstances that can lead to a backover crash. As the SCI cases revealed, there are a number of variables that can lead to a backover crash. NHTSA completed special crash investigations of 58 backover cases.

34

The 58 backing vehicles in these cases comprised 18 passenger cars, 22 MPVs, 5 vans (including minivans) and 13 pickup trucks. For cases in which an estimated speed for the backing vehicle was available, the speed of the backing vehicle ranged between approximately 0.62 and 10 mph. Of the 58 SCI backover cases, the vast majority (55) occurred in daylight conditions. Further, half of the cases investigated by NHTSA involved a non-occupant fatality.

34

While NHTSA analyzed a total of 58 SCI cases during the course of its research, some analyses were completed before all 58 cases were available. For example, when NHTSA analyzed crash avoidability using data from the SCI cases only 50 cases were available.

See

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, available in the docket number referenced at the beginning of this document.

In the cases investigated by NHTSA, most of the victims were either children (who were too short to be seen behind the vehicle), or adults who had fallen or were bent over and were also thus not in the driver's field of view. Specifically, 51 of the cases involved children (ranging in age from less than 8 months old up to 13 years old) who were struck by vehicles.

35

Of the 8 adult victim cases investigated by NHTSA, 4 were in an upright posture either standing or walking. 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 person 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.

35

As the selection of SCI cases, media reports, and other sources of information available to NHTSA on backover crashes may tend to report more heavily on accidents involving vulnerable populations such as children or the elderly, the information contained in the SCI cases analyzed in this rulemaking may be over representative of the incidence of backovers involving these populations.

Based on NHTSA's analysis of the quantitative data and narrative descriptions of how the 58 SCI-documented backover crashes transpired, NHTSA estimated the general path that the victim took prior to each backover crash. We note that this analysis is unable to identify the victim's location, speed, and trajectory at a time that is relevant to the backover crash (i.e., after the vehicle has begun the backing maneuver). However, this analysis does enhance the agency's understanding of the varied circumstances that can lead to a backover crash. The breakdown of the victim's path of travel prior to being struck is as follows: 41 were approaching from the right or left of the vehicle at some point in time prior to being struck by the vehicle, 12 were in the path of the backing vehicle, 4 were unknown, and one was “other.”

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 the cases investigated by NHTSA ranged from 1 to 75 feet. Overall, as shown in Table 9 below, this analysis showed that in 77 percent of the real-world, SCI backover cases investigated by NHTSA, the vehicle traveled less than 20 feet. While the subset may or may not be nationally representative of all backing crashes, we believe this information from the SCI cases is useful in the development of a required visible area and the associated development of a compliance test.

Table 9—Average Distance Traveled by Backing Vehicle for First 58 SCI Backover Cases and Percent of Backover Crashes That Could Be Avoided Through Various Coverage Ranges

36

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

Analysis of Backover Crash Risk by Monte Carlo Simulation

NHTSA also calculated backover crash risk as a function of pedestrian location using a Monte Carlo simulation.

37

Data from a recent NHTSA study of drivers' backing behavior,

38

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

39 40 41

characterizing walking and running speeds of an average 1-year-old child were also used as inputs. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed that drew upon the noted vehicle and pedestrian motion data to calculate a probability-based risk weighting for a test area centered behind the vehicle. The probability-based risk weightings for each grid square were based on the number of pedestrian-vehicle backing crashes predicted by the simulation for trials for which the pedestrian was initially (i.e., at the time that the vehicle began to back up) in the center of one square of the grid of 1-foot squares spanning 70 feet wide by 90 feet in range behind the vehicle. A total of 1,000,000 simulation trials were run with the pedestrian initially in the center of each square.

36

These distances do not indicate the distance between the victim and the vehicle at the start of the backing maneuver because it shows the distance that the vehicle traveled before striking the pedestrian. The SCI cases do not have sufficient detail to enable the agency to determine the location of the pedestrian at the beginning of the backing maneuver.

37

74 FR 9484.

38

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

39

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: FHWA, November 2003.

40

Milazzo, J.S., Rouphail, J.E., and Alien, D.P. (1999). Quality of Service for Interrupted-Flow Pedestrian Facilities in Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Transportation Research Record, No. 1678 (1999): 25-31.

41

Chou, P., Chou, Y., Su, F., Huang, W., Lin, T. (2003). Normal Gait of Children. Biomedical Engineering—Applications, Basis & Communications, Vol. 15 No. 4 August 2003.

The output of this analysis calculated relative crash risk values for each grid square representing a location behind the vehicle. The results suggested that, if pedestrians were randomly distributed in areas behind the vehicle, 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.

c. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In response to the K.T. Safety Act, NHTSA initiated rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 111 to improve a driver's ability to see areas to the rear of a motor vehicle to reduce backover incidents by publishing an ANPRM in the

Federal Register

on March 4, 2009. In addition to complying with the statutory deadline for initiating rulemaking, we published the ANPRM in order to solicit public comment on the current state of research and the efficacy of available countermeasures. In this notice, we acknowledged the backover safety problem and its disproportionate effect on small children and the elderly. We further described our ongoing research efforts and presented a series of specific questions for public comment.

The research presented in the ANPRM focused on four major topic areas. The first area involved the nature of backover incidents and backing crashes generally. We presented the details of documented backover incidents, including the locations of backover victims, the paths the victims took to enter the path of the vehicle, and the visibility characteristics of the vehicles involved. In the ANPRM, we outlined the information we had regarding these crashes, whether the lack of visibility played a significant role, and whether or not the characteristics of a class or type of vehicle could be considered a contributing factor.

The second area of focus involved the evaluation of various strategies regarding the vehicles types and the appropriate rear visibility countermeasure. We presented three possible strategies in the ANPRM and requested public comment. The first strategy raised by the ANPRM was to ensure that the vehicles which are over-represented in terms of fatalities and injuries would have their rear field of view improved. Such a strategy would have focused on vehicles such as pickup trucks or MPVs, which were presumed to be overrepresented. The second strategy explored sought to establish a minimum blind zone area for vehicles under 10,000 pounds. Our research at the time suggested that a vehicle's rear blind zone area may be statistically correlated with its rate of backing crashes. Using this correlation, we conjectured that it may have been possible to determine which vehicles warranted certain rear visibility improvements based on the size of their rear blind zones and the setting of a “threshold.” Finally we also explored the possibility that the rear visibility countermeasures should be applied uniformly to all vehicles contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act.

The third topic focused on the evaluation of various countermeasures. After consulting past agency research, industry and other outside sources, as well as conducting new research, four types of countermeasures were presented and described in the ANPRM. These countermeasures included direct vision (i.e., what can be seen by a driver glancing directly out a vehicle's windows), rear-mounted convex mirrors, rear object detection sensors

(such as ultrasonic or radar-based devices), and rearview video (RV) systems. While we noted that research was still ongoing, the ANPRM described how these systems work, how well they perform in identifying pedestrians, and how effectively drivers may use them.

Finally, the fourth topic involved consideration of technical specifications and test procedures that could be used to describe and evaluate the performance aspects of direct view, rear-mounted convex mirrors, rear object detection sensors, and rearview video (RV) systems. The agency presented preliminary information on potential technical specifications and test procedures and solicited information on how these specifications and procedures should be refined for the purposes of developing repeatable compliance tests.

In addition to presenting these four areas of research, NHTSA also requested comment on more than forty specific questions in the ANPRM. We requested public input on a variety of topics including studies on the effectiveness of various indirect rear visibility systems (i.e., devices that aid a driver in seeing areas around a vehicle, such as mirrors or video systems) that have been implemented in the U.S. and/or abroad, and technological possibilities that could enhance the reliability of existing technologies. Further, the agency sought information on the costs of implementation of all available technologies to develop more robust cost and benefit estimates.

In response to the ANPRM, the agency received comments from 37 entities, including industry associations, automotive and equipment manufacturers, safety advocacy organizations, and 14 individuals. Generally, the comments covered the main research areas detailed in the ANPRM. With regard to the issue of which vehicles most warrant improved rear visibility, vehicle manufacturers generally desired to focus any expansion of rear visibility on the particular types of vehicles (i.e., trucks, vans, and MPVs within the specified weight limits) that they believed posed the highest risk of backover crash fatalities and injuries. However, 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, commenters generally agreed with the cost estimates provided by the agency. However, the Consumers Union and Magna comments 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.

Because the ANPRM had an extremely broad scope, the comments addressed a wide variety of issues and provided a large amount of information. A more extensive discussion of the ANPRM, the comments that the agency received in response, and our analysis and response to these comments is available in the NPRM. However, specific comments on the ANPRM which are relevant to our discussion of today's final rule are also referenced by issue in section III,

Final Rule and Response to Comments.

d. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

After evaluating the comments on the ANPRM and conducting additional research, we published an NPRM on December 7, 2010.

42

In that notice, we proposed to apply the rear visibility requirements to all passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less by specifying an area behind the vehicle that a driver must be able to see when the vehicle is in reverse gear. The proposal tentatively concluded that drivers need to be able to see a visual image of a 32-inch tall cylinder with a 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 surface. We further proposed various performance criteria for the visual display including luminance, rearview image response time, and image linger and driver deactivation restrictions, as well as durability requirements. Pursuant to the K.T. Safety Act, the NPRM also proposed a phase-in schedule for compliance.

42

75 FR 76186.

The NPRM proposed to apply rear visibility improvements to all passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less because the available data showed no clear basis for excluding certain vehicles. As noted above, the ANPRM and the commenters on the ANPRM explored various possibilities for establishing rear visibility countermeasures which would be applied based on vehicle type (such as MPVs, trucks, and buses) or based on a blind zone threshold. However, as the available data indicated that substantial numbers of fatalities and injuries are caused by all types of light vehicles, we did not propose in the NPRM to limit the application of rear visibility countermeasures by vehicle type. Further, our data showed that applying the rear visibility countermeasure by a blind zone area threshold lacked a sufficient statistical basis. The available data demonstrated that vehicles with comparatively small blind zones still had similar backover crash rates as other vehicles. In addition, the agency concluded that applying rear visibility countermeasures to all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less would most closely follow the intent of Congress in the K.T. Safety Act. Thus, the NPRM proposed to apply the rear visibility improvements to all vehicles contemplated by Congress under the K.T. Safety Act.

We also expressed in the NPRM our view that rearview video systems represent the most effective technology available to address the problem of backover crashes. Our data showed that rear-mounted convex mirrors and sensor-based object detection systems offered few benefits compared to rearview video systems due to system performance and driver use issues. Studies conducted by NHTSA showed that sensors and mirrors, while able to detect pedestrians to some degree, simply did not induce the driver response needed to prevent backover crashes. The NPRM noted that a sensor-activated warning of the presence of an obstacle often does 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. Thus, the NPRM proposed to afford the driver a visual display which offered a view of the area immediately behind the vehicle.

In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the area covered by the proposed rearview countermeasure should be 20 feet by 10 feet. In making this determination, we used various sources of information including the comments received from the ANPRM, the available safety data, our review of special investigations of backover crashes, and a 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. Thus, we proposed in the NPRM that test objects, of a particular size, within that area must be visible to drivers when they are conducting backing maneuvers.

In the NPRM we also expressed our view that, in order to maintain the level of effectiveness that we have seen in our testing of existing rearview video systems, we needed to propose a minimum set of performance requirements. Specifically, the NPRM set forth requirements for the performance of the visual display luminance, a minimum rearview image size, a rearview image response time requirement, durability requirements for exterior components, and provisions against driver deactivation and excessive rearview image linger. In drafting these proposed requirements, the agency strove to afford manufacturers flexibility to meet these requirements as they see fit (such as through the development of new technologies). Since we stated in the NPRM that most, if not all, rearview video systems that would likely be used by manufacturers to meet the proposed minimum set of requirements already met these requirements, we did not believe that the adoption of these additional requirements would increase the cost of this existing technology.

Further, pursuant to section 2(c) of the K.T. Safety Act, we proposed a phase-in schedule that would be completed within 48 months of the publication of the final rule. Because we anticipated publishing a final rule by the statutory deadline of February 28, 2011, we noted that the rule must require full compliance not later than February 28, 2015. However, we were conscious of the fact that, for safety standard compliance purposes, model years begin on September 1 and end on August 31 and that February 28 falls in the middle of a model year. Thus, the agency tentatively concluded 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. Accordingly, NHTSA proposed 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.

Finally, the NPRM also proposed a compliance test with which to evaluate the field of view and image size requirements. The proposed test would utilize a photography camera with an imaging sensor located at the eye point of a 50th percentile male. The test procedure would then take a photograph of the test objects designed to simulate the height and width of an 18-month-old toddler as they are presented in the rear visibility system display. This photograph would then be used to assess the compliance of the rear visibility system by determining if the required portions of the seven test objects, located along the perimeter of the required field of view, are visible and displayed at a sufficient size.

e. Summary of Comments on the NPRM

In response to the NPRM, the agency received comments from a wide variety of commenters including trade associations, manufacturers, advocacy groups, parts suppliers, and individuals. The advocacy groups submitting comments included KidsAndCars.org, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Consumers Union, and the Advocates for Highway Safety (the Advocates). In addition to the trade associations representing manufacturers including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), the School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council, and Global Automakers, we also received comments from individual vehicle manufacturers such as Toyota Motor North America (Toyota), Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen), Porsche Cars North America (Porsche), Ford Motor Company (Ford), American Honda Motor Co. (Honda), Mercedes-Benz USA (Mercedes), General Motors Company (General Motors), and BMW Group (BMW). Additionally, the equipment manufacturers commenting on the NPRM included Brigade Electronics (Brigade), Gentex Corporation (Gentex), Magna Mirrors and Magna Electronics (Magna), Sony Electronics (Sony), Panasonic Corporation of North America (Panasonic), Sense Technologies, Rosco Vision Systems (Rosco), Rearscope North America (Rearscope), Continental, Valeo, IFM Electronic (IFM), and Delphi. Finally, the agency also received approximately 150 comments from individual commenters. In general, the commenters expressed support for the goals of this rulemaking pursuant to the K.T. Safety Act. However, many offered various recommendations on the most appropriate manner through which to achieve those goals.

The primary issue raised by the advocacy groups concerned our proposed test procedure for evaluating compliance with the field of view requirement. The advocacy groups were concerned that, as the proposed test procedure did not require that the field of view begin at the bumper, nor did it require that a large portion of the first row of test objects (placed 1 foot behind the bumper) be visible, significant blind spots can exist in a theoretically compliant rear visibility system. Citing the SCI cases and the Monte Carlo simulation used by the agency to determine the proposed coverage area of the field of view requirement, the advocacy groups requested that the final rule address these potential blind zones. Another issue raised by the advocacy groups involved their recommendation that image response time be reduced to 1.0 second or less. The advocacy groups asserted that there is a significant safety risk that drivers may begin backing their vehicles without the benefit of the rear visibility system if they are not promptly presented with the required field of view.

On the other hand, while vehicle manufacturers generally support the rule, the most significant concern raised by the manufacturer comments focused on the cost and feasibility of specific performance requirements within the proposed phase-in schedule. First, the manufacturers asserted that the agency was wrong to assume, as it did in the NPRM, that most rearview video systems that are currently in use by the manufacturers would meet all of the proposed requirements in the NPRM. For example, many manufacturers commented that their current rearview video systems would not be able to meet the response time requirement under certain situations. The NPRM proposed a response time requirement which prescribed that the compliant rearview image must be displayed within 2.0 seconds of selecting the reverse gear. The manufacturers commented that many of their rear visibility systems require initialization time and would not be able to meet the response time if the reverse gear was selected soon after the vehicle is activated. Thus, many

manufacturer comments requested various vehicle preconditions that would accommodate their rear visibility system initialization process. Similarly, the manufacturers were concerned their existing systems would not fully meet all of the image size, display luminance, deactivation, and linger time requirements.

As a result, the manufacturers were concerned that the proposed phase-in schedule would require that the manufacturers conduct redesigns to their existing rear visibility systems outside of the normal product development cycle. They contended in their comments that such a scenario would significantly increase the costs and burdens of compliance. Thus, the manufacturers requested that the agency delay some of the aforementioned requirements until the end of the statutory phase-in deadline in order afford manufacturers time to redesign their rear visibility systems in conjunction with the normal vehicle redesign schedule.

The equipment manufacturer comments, to varying degrees, contended that their products were able to meet the proposed requirements in the NPRM. Generally, commenters such as Sony, Magna, and Gentex expressed confidence that their products can be used to bring a vehicle into compliance with the proposed requirements. However, other suppliers, such as Sense Technologies, IFM Electronic, and Valeo, stated that the NPRM should not have concluded that technologies such as mirrors and sensors were not suitable countermeasures. In addition, suppliers offered comments as to the potential new rear visibility systems technologies that were being developed (such as automatic brake intervention, combination sensor/video systems, infrared or Doppler radar systems, etc.). Thus, many supplier comments requested that the agency avoid setting requirements that restrict the development of new technologies and rearview functions.

Finally, individual commenters expressed either general support or general opposition to the goals of this rule. The individual commenters expressing support for this rule generally cite the vulnerability of the population that is most likely to be victimized by this safety risk. A significant portion of these commenters either suffered a significant personal loss due to a backing crash or had an acquaintance who suffered a significant personal loss due to a backing crash. On the other hand, commenters opposed to this rule cited its high costs and questioned its potential effectiveness. Of these commenters, many opined that the more prudent manner in which to address the safety risks related with backover incidents is through driver training and education.

f. Public Hearing and Workshop

After publishing the NPRM, the agency decided to further solicit comments from the public by holding a public hearing and a technical workshop. On March 2, 2011, the agency published a notice in the

Federal Register

announcing these events.

43

The technical workshop was held on March 11, 2011 at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center in East Liberty, Ohio. The goal of this workshop was to provide a forum in which interested commenters could demonstrate their specific concerns with the agency's proposed test procedure. The public hearing was held on March 23, 2011, at the NHTSA headquarters in the U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington DC. This hearing provided an opportunity for the agency to hear from advocacy groups, organizations that provide rearview countermeasures, and the families of backover crash victims.

43

76 FR 11417.

The participants in the technical workshop included representatives from Volkswagen, Sense Technologies, the Alliance, Global Automakers, Honda, Ford, Mitsubishi, and KidsAndCars.org. The participants generally presented areas they believed could be clarified regarding the proposed test procedure. The majority of the areas discussed were also presented in the various comments submitted in response to the NPRM such as durability testing, deactivation issues, and luminance testing. However, certain unique comments (such as concerns regarding vehicle loading procedure, rearview mirror positioning, etc.) were discussed during the technical workshop. These issues will be identified and responded to in conjunction with the written comments in the sections that follow.

The participants in the public hearing included KidsAndCars.org, the National Consumers League, the Consumers Union, Sense Technologies, Annabelle's Angels, the Advocates, the Consumer Federation of America, and family members of victims of backover crashes including the Auriemma, Ivison, Dahlen, Gridley, Gulbransen, Nelson, and Anthony families. The participants in the public hearing expressed general support for the proposed rule. In addition to reiterating some of the technical comments that the advocacy groups submitted on the NPRM, participants in the public hearing generally underscored the high non-economic and human cost that is associated with backover incidents. KidsAndCars.org noted that in 70 percent of the cases that they have compiled, the child victim was a direct relative of the driver. Mr. Patrick Ivison, a 16 year old who was a victim of a backover crash as a toddler, also testified to the many challenges that he faces by living with the lifelong injuries that he suffered. Participants also noted other unquantifiable costs such as parents who commit suicide when they are unable to forgive themselves for their involvement in a backover crash.

The families of victims cited the inability of drivers to see behind vehicles as an important danger. Many of their cases involved drivers who had walked around the rear of the vehicle or had been present at the rear of the vehicle shortly before entering the vehicle and beginning the reverse maneuver. The Consumers Union also noted observational evidence that children often walk along the rear bumpers of vehicles as they travel to the other side of the vehicle. In general, the participants in the public hearing refuted the idea that victims of backover incidents are limited to irresponsible parents or caretakers.

g. Additional 2012 Research

As described above, the agency conducted additional research and analysis covering a wider range of driver and an additional vehicle type. Specifically, the additional testing parameters examined whether variations in driver and vehicle type would have any impacts on NHTSA's estimates regarding drivers' use of backing aid technologies to avoid backover crashes.

Research Design—Wider Range of Vehicle Types and Drivers

In order to examine whether variations in driver and vehicle type would have any unanticipated impacts on NHTSA's estimates, the agency conducted additional testing utilizing a sedan. Further, the agency sought to more closely balance the ratio of male and female participants in this latest study and include a broader age range among the study participants.

In terms of vehicle type, NHTSA's previous studies had focused on minivans and crossover utility vehicles to examine drivers' use of backing aid technologies. While we acknowledge that vehicles have different blind zones (and that this would intuitively have an impact on the backover crash risk), the agency believes that our previous

research evaluating human behavior using a single vehicle can be applied across the vehicle fleet. We believe this is appropriate because the data show that virtually all vehicles have a blind zone that covers at least the area directly behind the vehicle where our Monte Carlo simulation suggested that backover crash risk is the highest. Thus, the agency's previous studies, for example utilizing the Honda Odyssey to examine effectiveness in avoiding backover crashes, should approximate the vast majority of vehicles on the road.

However, the agency decided to conduct an additional study using a midsized sedan (the Nissan Altima). We note that the choices of vehicle type for testing were constrained to vehicles that had significant numbers of drivers both with and without cameras. Thus, we were unable to test vehicles at the extremes for large or small blind zone sizes. However, we reasoned that while drivers of a smaller vehicle may not have an actual improved view of the what the Monte Carlo simulation indicates would be relevant area behind the vehicle, as compared to a minivan or SUV, it may be possible that their behavior can be different due to drivers' own

perception

of the size of the vehicle blind zone. Thus, additional testing was designed to ensure that this factor would not have any unanticipated effects on NHTSA's estimates on the ability of drivers to use backing aid technologies to avoid backover crashes.

In terms of driver demographics, the agency more closely balanced the ratio of male and female participants in the 2012 study. Further, the agency sought to include a broader age range among the study participants (earlier studies had participants between the ages of 25 and 55). The agency believes that the participants in NHTSA's earlier studies can approximate the performance of drivers involved in backover crashes because (when faced with a potential backover crash situation) all drivers are unable to see the relevant areas behind the vehicle with the greatest crash risk. Further, we assumed that different characteristics between various driver demographics (such as age or gender) would not affect drivers' use of backing aid systems. However, the agency decided to examine further this assumption as well. While all drivers would have the same opportunity to view a pedestrian using a rearview video system, NHTSA decided to include participants with a broader set of driver demographic characteristics to see whether or not the inclusion of these drivers would lead to a statistically different result due to potential unforeseen factors (e.g., comfort level with the system). Thus, NHTSA's 2012 research included drivers of broader age and gender characteristics.

Research Design—New Test Object Presentation (Laterally Moving Test Object)

In addition to examining a different type of vehicle and a wider range of drivers, the agency also had the opportunity to examine how drivers would react to a different obstacle presentation method. Through this test, the agency sought to determine if a different test object presentation could have any unanticipated effects on the agency's estimates of the driver's ability to use backing aid technologies to avoid backover crashes. Thus, separately, the new research also included a different backover test where the test object laterally moved into the vehicle's backing path from the passenger side of the vehicle (in addition to utilizing the original test object presentation method where the test object would pop-up behind the vehicle).

As the intent of these studies was to isolate the ability of the driver to use the backing aid technology to avoid a backover crash with a test object that is otherwise unseen and unanticipated, the agency designed its previous tests to utilize a pop-up test object presentation.

44

Because the agency is aware that many cases involve drivers who walked around their vehicles before getting into the vehicle and starting a backing maneuver, we designed this pop-up test method to represent the surprise presence of the pedestrian—including the pedestrian's movement into the vehicle's backing path. The pop-up presentation method is a reasonable representation of a person that is either not visible to the driver using the standard vehicle equipment (for the duration of the backing maneuver), or visible to the driver using the same equipment (but was not observed by the driver). We believe that the pop-up presentation method is a reasonable estimate of these two conditions because the test object is presented to the test participant after he/she has begun the backing maneuver. In other words, the presentation of the test object is limited to the time after the test participant has checked his/her surroundings and decided that they could conduct a backing maneuver. As there is no evidence to suggest that any significant portion of the victims of backover crashes were a result of a driver intentionally backing over a pedestrian, the aforementioned two situations likely represent the vast majority of situations in which persons are injured or killed in backover crashes. We assume that a driver who has observed a person moving behind the vehicle using rearview mirrors would attempt to stop immediately.

44

The test presented the pop-up test object only after the driver had backed the vehicle a specified distance. In other words, the driver began his backing maneuver before the test object appeared.

However, the agency is aware that backover crashes involve a wide variety of factors (e.g., the movement of the pedestrian, the time at which the vehicle's backing maneuver begins, the trajectory/speed of the vehicle, etc.). Thus, the agency's new research included a different obstacle presentation method to help determine whether the new obstacle presentation could have any unanticipated effects on the driver's ability to use the rearview video system. By maintaining consistency with the pop-up test object presentation method (e.g., in vehicle model, obstacle presentation time in the rearview video system, etc.), the agency designed a similarly reasonable test to approximate the surprise presence of a pedestrian (that measures the same crash situations as the pop-up presentation method).

45

In doing so, the agency sought to determine whether driver use of the rearview video system would be statistically different if the test object was presented in a fashion where it approached the vehicle laterally from the passenger side. Thus, the agency's 2012 research included the new presentation method where the test object enters the vehicle's backing path from the passenger side in addition to the original pop-up test object presentation method.

45

Further information on the test parameters are available in the research report (Rearview Video System Use by Drivers of a Sedan in an Unexpected Obstacle Event). This report is available in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0253.

Summary of Research Test Conditions

For those aforementioned reasons, the agency tested three different conditions as outlined in Table 10, below. In all test conditions for the 2012 research, the agency used the Nissan Altima (a midsized sedan) as the test vehicle. Further, the agency closely balanced the ratio of male and female participants and included drivers above age 18.

ER07AP14.004

Research Results

The test conditions described above can be used to answer two questions. The first is whether or not (using the same pop-up test object presentation method) the new drivers and vehicle type (more balanced gender distribution, the different vehicle type, and the broader age range) would contribute to a result that was statistically different. The second is whether or not (using similar driver demographic characteristics and the same vehicle) the different test object presentation method (moving test object versus pop-up test object) would produce a statistically different result.

46

The baseline (no system) test condition with a pop-up test object was not tested in NHTSA's 2012 research. As in NHTSA's previous studies, the pop-up test object is presented in the vehicle's blind zone and the driver does not have an opportunity to view the test object through the vehicle mirrors or direct vision. In NHTSA's previous studies, no driver was able to avoid a collision with the pop-up test object without the use of a rear visibility system. As the Nissan Altima blind zone also prevents the driver from seeing the area where the pop-up test object would deploy, drivers would likewise be unable to avoid a collision with the pop-up test object in the baseline test condition.

After completing 143 tests using the three aforementioned test conditions, the agency obtained the following results:

ER07AP14.005

Among all of NHTSA's test conditions in the 2012 research (including both test object presentation methods), the rearview video system increased drivers' ability to avoid crashes with the test objects. In each of the cases, the difference between the baseline (no rear visibility system) condition and the rearview video system condition was statistically significant. In other words, all of the test data continue to show that rearview video systems have a statistically significant effect of improving the driver's ability to avoid a backover crash.

However, in spite of the aforementioned new test parameters (vehicle/driver types and obstacle presentation method) that were introduced into NHTSA's 2012 research, the results do not show that the new test parameters created statistically different results from NHTSA's previous studies.

47

When comparing the results of the Nissan Altima pop-up obstacle tests (with the additional driver demographic characteristics) to NHTSA's previous studies using the Honda Odyssey and the same test object presentation method, the results do not show that the inclusion of the different vehicle type and additional driver demographic characteristics led to a statistically different result.

48

Finally,

when comparing the results of the moving test object presentation method and the pop-up test object presentation method (utilizing the same vehicle and driver demographic characteristics), the results also did not show a statistical difference.

49

47

While the agency's research included as many participants as time and resources permitted, the agency's new research parameters yielded lower, but not statistically different effectiveness estimates compared to its previous research. We acknowledge that testing additional participants may have enabled the agency to detect a statistical difference between these factors. However, the agency is not currently aware of any research that can indicate what this difference would be.

48

See

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0253, Rearview Video System Use by Drivers of a Sedan in an Unexpected Obstacle Scenario. While this comparison shows that the data does not indicate a statistically different result due to the combination of the new driver demographics and vehicle type, the data also does not indicate whether or not the individual driver or vehicle type factors could have yielded a statistically different result. We note that in a separate analysis of the data from NHTSA's previous studies using the

Honda Odyssey (where obstacle presentation, participant age, and vehicle type are all consistent) the male and female drivers did not crash with the test objects at statistically different rates.

49

An analysis of the statistical significance of the difference between the pop-up and moving test object presentation methods is available in the research report titled “Rearview Video System Use by Drivers of a Sedan in an Unexpected Obstacle Scenario.”

See

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0253.

h. Additional SCI Case Analysis

As described above, the agency began a new effort to identify and analyze SCI cases that involved vehicles with rearview video systems. The agency's intention was to examine any such cases available in order to better understand how the performance requirements proposed in the NPRM address the real world backover safety risk.

50

50

The agency's SCI program conducts detailed investigations for specific crashes that fall under a variety of crash types that NHTSA has decided to research (e.g., backover crashes). As a part of this program, NASS reports to NHTSA any cases that fall under the crash types that NHTSA has identified when sampling police jurisdictions. In addition, SCI teams search the internet and other sources to help identify these cases. For this particular research effort, NHTSA specifically instructed the SCI program to identify cases from their respective sources of information that are backover crashes involving vehicles with rearview video systems. We also instructed the SCI program to conduct a search of any existing reported cases to identify whether any were backover crashes involving vehicles with rearview video systems.

Given the volume of comments received and the issues raised on those comments, the agency believed that SCI case analysis may indicate whether some of those concerns raised in the comments warrant further analysis. For example, in the NPRM, the agency proposed to test the 20-foot by 10-foot zone behind the vehicle using various test objects and the agency subsequently received various comments on whether testing using those test objects would ensure that the rearview video system would cover the areas behind the vehicle associated with the greatest backover crash risk. The agency reasoned, that an SCI case where a rearview video system was installed on the vehicle could offer additional insight into whether a crash happened under circumstances where a rearview video system covering the required portions of the test objects did not show the pedestrian behind the vehicle. After reviewing all the available cases prior to today's final rule, the agency identified two cases involving vehicles with rearview video systems.

•

Case No. DS11008:

In the first case, an elderly man driving a 2006 Prius (equipped with an OEM

51

rearview video system) struck an elderly woman in his driveway.

52

The technical report states that the elderly man was reversing the Prius along the driveway at a private residence when he struck an elderly woman standing in the driveway directly behind the vehicle. The driver stated that he did not remember whether he used any of the vehicle's mirrors or the vehicle's rearview video system but recalls looking straight ahead prior to the impact with the non-motorist. The driver stopped the vehicle after hearing yelling. The non-motorist sustained a contusion to the left knee and possible left rib fractures. She was transported to a local hospital several hours after the incident.

51

OEM refers to equipment that was originally installed on the vehicle as produced by the manufacturer.

52

Case No. DS11008. The technical report is available at the SCI XML Case Viewer Web site (

http://www-nass.nhtsa.dot.gov/nass/sci/SearchForm.aspx

).

•

Case No. CR13011:

In the second case, a 30-year-old male driver of a 2010 BMW X5 (equipped with an OEM rearview video system) struck a non-motorist while reversing his vehicle in a parking lot.

53

The narrative in the report states that the non-motorist had stopped directly behind the vehicle because the non-motorist was distracted by flying birds. The driver selected the reverse gear (automatically activating the vehicle's rearview video system) and released his foot from the brake. The driver reapplied the brake as soon as he identified the non-motorist in the rearview image. However, the vehicle did not come to a complete stop before striking the non-motorist. The driver stated that when the vehicle is first started, the display (that is used to show the rearview image) has a boot sequence. The driver stated that he allowed the vehicle to begin reversing prior to the rearview image appearing in the vehicle display. The non-motorist sustained no significant injury and stood up unassisted after the incident. The non-motorist declined further medical treatment after being evaluated by paramedics.

53

Case No. CR13011. The technical report is available at the SCI Electronic Case Viewer Web site (

http://www-nass.nhtsa.dot.gov/BIN/logon.exe/airmislogon

).

While neither of these two cases provides conclusive data, the second (Case No. CR13011) seems to suggest that an important characteristic for rearview video systems intending to address the backover safety problem is the ability of the system to quickly show the rearview image. As shown by the facts leading up to the accident in Case No. CR13011, a rearview video system that is still initializing after the vehicle has begun reversing may not afford the driver enough time to identify a pedestrian behind the vehicle and avoid a backover crash.

Although the information in these two cases are useful, the agency does not believe that conducting further analysis between now and January 2, 2015 will substantially add to our understanding.

54

After examining all of the cases that the agency has investigated up to this point (only two of which involve vehicles with rearview video systems), it seems unlikely that many additional cases involving rearview video systems will be available for analysis by January 2, 2015. Given this expectation and the safety impact of further delay of today's final rule, the Department decided to complete the analysis of the available cases and report the results of the analysis at this time so that the Department could move forward with issuing today's final rule.

54

In addition to analyzing SCI cases with rearview video systems, the agency also considered analyzing rearview video systems currently installed in the vehicle fleet to see whether there was sufficient data to measure the real world impact of rearview video systems. The agency reasoned that it might be possible to measure this impact because: (1) The adoption of rearview video systems in new vehicle sales has been increasing substantially in recent years, and (2) the available testing data (coupled with the agency's difficulty in identifying SCI cases with rearview video systems) suggest that these systems would have a beneficial effect in reducing backover crashes. However, after analyzing the cumulative installation of rearview video systems in the vehicle fleet (i.e., identifying the number of vehicles currently on the roads that have these systems), the agency determined that too little data exist at this point in time to enable the agency to measure the current impact of rearview video systems on reducing backover injuries and fatalities. Our data on cumulative sales show that, in MY 2011, nearly 20% of passenger cars and light trucks were sold with a rearview video system. However, the total fleet (all vehicles currently operating on U.S. roads) with rearview video systems in 2011 was only 2.8%. Given the target population of this rule (210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries), we concluded that too little data exist at this time to make any conclusions about the impact of rearview video systems in reducing injuries and fatalities at this time. Further details about this analysis is available in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying this rule in the docket referenced at the beginning of this document.

i. Updates to NCAP

As stated in the Department's letter to Congress establishing the January 2, 2015 deadline for issuing today's final rule, NHTSA would consider updating its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include information about rearview video systems and recommend to consumers vehicle models with this important safety feature. While this

update to NCAP would be a separate agency consideration from today's final rule, we reasoned that it would be appropriate to consider updates to NCAP on this subject given the large amount of available information on backover crashes and their countermeasures that can be useful for consumers. Since then, NHTSA issued a request for comments to consider a plan for updating NCAP

55

and has issued a final decision notice to implement this change to the program

56

after considering the public comments.

55

78 FR 38266.

56

78 FR 59866.

In our final decision notice, the agency adopted a plan to update NCAP based on the request for comments and the public comments received. In essence, the agency decided to include rearview video systems as a “Recommended Advanced Technology Feature”

57

on the NCAP Web site (

www.safercar.gov

). As long as a vehicle model has a rearview video system meeting three performance criteria,

www.safercar.gov

will recognize the vehicle model a having a “Recommended Advanced Technology Feature.” The three performance criteria are based on the proposed field of view, image size, and response time requirements in the NPRM for this rulemaking. After considering the available information on the backover safety problem and the public comments, we determined that systems meeting these three criteria would be appropriate for ensuring that rearview video systems recommended by NCAP are systems that are suitable for assisting drivers in avoiding backover crashes.

57

On

www.safercar.gov,

NCAP gives recommendations to consumers about various advanced technologies that the data show are able to address major crash problems. The Web site offers comparative information on the vehicle models offered for sale in the United States and shows which of those models have “Recommended Advanced Technology Features.” However, beyond simply communicating to consumers that these vehicles have these technologies, identifying a system as a “Recommended Advanced Technology Feature” also communicates to consumers that the system meets certain minimum performance criteria (criteria that ensure that the system was designed as a safety system as opposed to, for example, a convenience feature).

While the agency took this action to update NCAP, we acknowledged (in both the request for comments and the final decision notice) that updating NCAP to incorporate recommendations for vehicle models with rearview video systems is not a substitute for the action taken by the agency in today's final rule. However, we believe that this update to NCAP (to include rearview video systems) is appropriate and complementary to the agency's actions in today's final rule for a few reasons. First, we believe that all the available research on rearview video systems shows that these systems are able to help drivers avoid backover crashes. Second, there is no reason for the agency to delay informing consumers about the backover safety risk and encouraging manufacturers to install these systems on their vehicle models to help consumers avoid these crashes. Third, we believe that consumers should have an easy way to identify vehicle models with rearview video systems and compare vehicle models based on their installation of “Recommended Advanced Technology Features.” Fourth, NCAP criteria also help to encourage manufacturers to develop rearview video systems in a way that addresses the backover safety problem (as opposed to developing these systems as merely parking convenience features). Fifth, even after the promulgation of today's final rule, we believe that the latest update to NCAP will continue to encourage manufacturers to install rearview video systems on their vehicles ahead of the full compliance date (i.e., during the phase-in period).

III. Final Rule and Response to Comments

a. Summary of the Final Rule

With a few notable exceptions, today's final rule adopts the performance requirements from the proposed rule in the NPRM. While also responding to concerns raised by commenters, today's rule adopts the following four requirements largely without change. First, this rule adopts the NPRM proposal that required manufacturers to install rear visibility systems that enable a driver to view an area encompassing 5 feet laterally (to each side) from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle and extending 20 feet rearward of the vehicle's rear bumper. Second, it also defines the required field of view through the placement of seven test objects along the perimeter of the field of view. Third, the required portions of these test objects that must be seen remain unchanged from the NPRM. Fourth, today's final rule also adopts the image size requirements proposed in the NPRM and thus requires that the three furthest test objects be displayed at an average subtended angle of no less than 5 minutes of arc.

However, today's final rule has not adopted the same linger time and deactivation requirements as the NPRM. In response to the manufacturers' concerns that the linger time and deactivation restrictions in the proposed rule may preclude certain design features, today's final rule defines a backing event, which begins at the selection of reverse and ends when the vehicle's forward motion achieves either 10 mph, 10 meters, or 10 seconds in duration. Today's final rule linger time restriction allows rear visibility systems to remain activated until the end of the backing event. Further, today's rule does not preclude driver deactivation of the rearview image so long as the system defaults to the compliant field of view at the beginning of the backing event. By amending the linger time and deactivation restrictions in accordance with the backing event, today's final rule addresses both the agency's safety concerns and affords the manufacturers greater design flexibility.

While the response time requirement remains unchanged from the NPRM, today's final rule adopts a test procedure to establish the vehicle condition prior to testing. In their comments, manufacturers were concerned that the vehicle software initialization process could prevent a rear visibility system from achieving compliance when tested immediately after a vehicle is started. They contended in their comments that such a test condition would not be reflective of real world use of a rear visibility system. To alleviate these concerns and to more accurately simulate real world conditions, today's final rule establishes a test condition in which the vehicle would be placed into reverse not less than 4 seconds and no more than 6 seconds after the opening of the driver's door.

Today's final rule also adopts the durability performance requirements from the NPRM except today's rule applies those requirements on a component level instead of a vehicle level. While the commenters generally supported the agency's proposal of minimum performance requirements for humidity, corrosion, and temperature exposure, the commenters contended that these tests should be conducted on a component level as opposed to a vehicle level because the durability tests would present significant practical challenges if conducted on a vehicle level. As the agency believes that a component level test would be as effective in addressing our safety concerns as a vehicle level test, today's rule adopts the durability requirements from the NPRM on a component level.

Further, today's final rule makes a few important changes to the phase-in requirements. First, unlike the NPRM, today's rule requires that manufacturers comply with only the field of view

requirement during the phase-in period, and requires that manufacturers comply with all provisions of today's final rule at the end of the 48-month phase-in period. In the NPRM, the agency conducted its cost/benefit analysis assuming that most currently available rear visibility systems were compliant or could be easily made compliant with all of the proposed requirements. Through the comment period, the agency learned that most current rear visibility systems do not meet all of the requirements set forth in today's final rule and could not be easily made compliant with all of the requirements established in today's final rule. While the agency believes that the requirements beyond the field of view are crucial in ensuring the quality of rear visibility systems in the long run, we have limited the phase-in schedule to be applicable only to the field of view requirement in order to avoid significantly increasing the costs of this rule by requiring that manufacturers conduct expensive equipment redesigns outside of the normal product cycle. In spite of this change, the agency does not expect the estimated benefits of this rule to be diminished during the phase-in period because the estimated benefits were based on research conducted using rear visibility systems which did not meet all the requirements established in today's final rule. However, the agency expects that this increased flexibility during the phase-in period will allow vehicle manufacturers to avoid incurring the significant costs associated with redesigning rear visibility systems outside of the normal product cycle and instead focus those resources on installing more rear visibility systems on a greater number of vehicles in the near term.

Second, today's final rule does not utilize separate phase-in schedules for passenger cars and other vehicles such as MPVs and trucks. As discussed later in this notice, we find that requiring separate phase-ins for different types of vehicles could increase compliance costs without leading to an increase in application of the rear visibility countermeasure. Third, in light of the additional flexibilities granted above, today's final rule does not adopt the carry-forward credit system proposed in the NPRM. Finally, although the percentage targets of the fleet to be equipped with the required rear visibility system remain unchanged for each year, today's final rule adjusts the phase-in schedule so that the schedule does not begin until May 1, 2014 (with the first year requiring compliance being May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017).

Separately, today's final rule does not adopt the luminance requirements from the NPRM. The luminance requirements proposed in the NPRM have significant practical challenges at this time. It is not clear that the proposed requirements would provide the intended safety benefits as a luminance requirement alone may not afford a driver a clear image of the area directly behind the vehicle. As the agency is unaware of any other practicable method of ensuring a quality display of the area behind the vehicle without restricting reasonable technological options, today's final rule does not contain luminance requirements.

b. Applicability

The provisions of the K.T. Safety Act require a broad application of improved rear visibility countermeasures by defining the term “motor vehicle” as vehicles less than 10,000 pounds excluding only motorcycles and trailers. However, the K.T. Safety Act allows the flexibility to prescribe different requirements for different types of vehicles. Thus, in the ANPRM, the agency considered various characteristics of the vehicles covered under the K.T. Safety Act and requested public comment. Specifically, the agency examined the relative backover crash risks associated with trucks, MPVs, and vans. Further, it examined the possible association between blind zone size and relative crash risk.

The advocacy group and equipment manufacturer commenters on the ANPRM generally expressed support for universal applicability of rear visibility countermeasures to vehicles contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. These commenters stated that widespread application affords the greatest level of protection and that the available data show that the backover crash problem is widely dispersed such that it should be applied to all vehicle types. On the other hand, vehicle manufacturers generally commented that the applicability of this rule should be limited to vehicles with the highest risk of backover crashes. Nissan and General Motors both recommended a maximum blind zone regulation to determine which vehicles require the rear visibility countermeasure. Mercedes specifically recommended that the agency limit the countermeasures to trucks, MPVs, and vans, should NHTSA find that those vehicles are overrepresented in the crash data.

Separately, Blue Bird suggested in its comments that smaller buses not be included in any potential rule. Blue Bird stated that these buses have not been involved in fatalities, that drivers of such buses are better trained because they have commercial licenses, and that this regulation would impose a disproportionate amount of costs on these vehicles since small buses do not generally have navigation systems. Conversely, Rosco commented that small buses are often used to transport children and should be covered in any potential rules.

After consideration of the comments on the ANPRM, NHTSA proposed in the NPRM to apply the rear visibility requirements to all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (excluding motorcycles and trailers). The agency reasoned that, to apply rear visibility requirements consistently to all the aforementioned vehicles would best address the backover safety risk and fulfill the intent of Congress in the K.T. Safety Act. In regards to the safety risk, the agency noted that backover incidents are not limited to any particular type of vehicle and that no vehicle type provides the driver with a sufficient rear view to avoid the types of backover crashes contemplated by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act. Speaking specifically of MPVs, trucks, and vans, the NPRM noted that these vehicle types are overrepresented in fatal crashes. However, passenger cars still contribute to backover crashes (resulting in either an injury or a fatality) at a rate that is similar to their proportion of the vehicle fleet. Thus, the agency did not believe it would be in the best interests of safety to limit the rearview countermeasure to certain vehicle types. Further, the NPRM did not include a minimum blind zone threshold to determine the applicability of rearview countermeasures. The data available to the agency showed a correlation between the size of the blind zone and backing incidents when a wide area behind the vehicle is considered. However, the data showed a weak relationship between blind zone size and backing incidents when considering the areas immediately behind the vehicle where the agency believes backover crashes are most likely to occur.

58

58

We also did not see a correlation between blind zone size and

backover

accidents. In 2008 we conducted an analysis based on blind zones and crash data for 28 vehicles. We did not find a statistically significant correlation between blind zone and backover risk, but we have not studied this issue further since that time.

While acknowledging the difficulties cited by Blue Bird, we proposed to include small buses under the proposed rule for similar reasons as described above. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that to exclude small buses

would be contrary to the intent of Congress in the K.T. Safety Act as the intent of Congress was to apply improved field of view requirements to all the vehicles covered by the K.T. Safety Act. The agency further noted that small buses are often involved in transporting children and do not afford a rear field of view which enables a driver to avoid the backing incidents contemplated by Congress.

While noting that commenters on the ANPRM did not comment on the issue of the applicability of this rule to low-speed vehicles, the agency proposed to include low-speed vehicles under the proposed rule. NHTSA stated in the NPRM that it could not determine, from the available data, whether or not low-speed vehicles have been involved in real world backover incidents. Thus, the NPRM sought data relating to the involvement of low-speed vehicles in rear world backover incidents.

Comments

In general, the comments that the agency received in response to the NPRM have reiterated the concerns put forward by the commenters on the ANPRM. Both the Advocates and Brigade commented that there should be no exclusion of any vehicles that are covered under the K.T. Safety Act. IIHS supported these sentiments specifically stating that sport utility vehicles should be subject to the improved rear visibility requirements of this rulemaking. The Advocates went on to assert that the lack of recorded case incidents should not preclude the agency from concluding that a vehicle type (such as school buses) presents a safety risk. The organization also contended that while the operational conditions of certain vehicles may have additional safeguards, it is possible that those conditions will change during the life of the vehicle. In the example of school buses, the Advocates noted that while school buses generally have operating procedures and experienced drivers to safeguard children; such buses can be re-purposed for different activities.

Conversely, different commenters expressed support for excluding certain types of vehicles from the requirements of this rulemaking. The School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council commented that school buses should be excluded from the rear visibility requirements. The organization asserted that current regulations already afford additional and adequate rear visibility requirements for school buses. Further, the organization reasoned that (1) school buses typically do not transport the most vulnerable population (0-5 year olds), (2) school children around school buses are normally supervised by adults, and (3) school bus drivers have more stringent commercial driver's license training. Without offering additional information, the Alliance commented that police vehicles should not be subject to the improved rear visibility requirements. Additionally, an individual commenter, Mr. Ben Montgomery conveyed in his comments that rearview video systems will add no improvement to rear visibility for low-speed vehicles and opined that to require additional rear visibility for low-speed vehicles would be excessive. Finally, Porsche asserted that passenger cars should be addressed in a separate rulemaking, as passenger cars (especially smaller vehicles) have different visibility needs. It contended that NHTSA should not take a “one-size fits all” approach to improving rear visibility.

Further, while the NPRM did not include a provision for determining applicability of this rule based on a vehicle blind zone threshold, IIHS continued to express concern regarding the large blind zones that can exist on some vehicle models. The organization stated that NHTSA should regulate the size of vehicle blind spots because manufacturers should be precluded from making design choices which create unusually large blind zones.

Finally, the agency received comments from individuals requesting that today's final rule apply to vehicles not contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. Specifically, various individual commenters suggested that trailers, garbage trucks, and other vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds often have even larger blind zones than the vehicles included in this rulemaking and should be covered by today's final rule.

Agency Response

For the reasons that we noted in the NPRM, today's final rule applies to all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except for motorcycles and trailers, as was contemplated in the K.T. Safety Act. It continues to be the position of this agency that the K.T. Safety Act requires that today's final rule expand rear visibility requirements for all vehicles covered by the Act. In addition, the agency believes that there are compelling safety reasons for applying the rear visibility requirements of today's final rule to all the aforementioned vehicles. While many commenters contended that the requirements of today's final rule should apply differently to different vehicle types, the available data do not support such a contention. As discussed above, backover crashes are not limited to any particular type of vehicle and the agency is not aware of any vehicle type that categorically provides the driver with a sufficient rear field of view so as to avoid the types of backover incidents contemplated by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act.

59

Thus, in addition to the constraints placed on the agency by the K.T. Safety Act, the agency does not believe it is appropriate to apply the requirements of today's final rule based on vehicle type.

59

The rule requires rearview video systems in all covered vehicles, regardless of whether a driver of a particular vehicle has full view of the zone behind the vehicle by looking directly out of the rear of the vehicle or by looking in rearview or side mirrors. As discussed below, the agency is aware of one LSV where this may be the case. Manufacturers of other types of vehicles who believe the blind zone of their particular vehicle is designed so as to enable drivers to avoid backover crashes without a rear visibility system are also able to petition the agency as described in that section.

While we agree with the aforementioned commenters that school buses and police vehicles may have unique operating conditions, such as more stringent driver training, we do not believe that such operating conditions sufficiently compensate for the fact that drivers of these vehicles simply do not have access to a field of view that would enable them to avoid backover crashes. We note that school buses and police vehicles often operate in residential areas and can have significant exposure to young children and the elderly.

Further, we note that the latest agency research indicate that low-speed vehicle blind zones vary greatly within this vehicle class. Some also contain significant blind zones similar to other passenger cars and light trucks. However, some others may have very small blind zones.

60

As low-speed vehicles may have a GVWR of up to 3,000 lbs., these vehicles are also fully capable of causing injury and death to vulnerable pedestrians.

61

As backover crashes do not typically occur at speeds above 25 mph (the top speed of low-speed vehicles), we believe it is appropriate to include low-speed vehicles in today's final rule. Further, the agency requested comment on low-speed vehicles in the NPRM and sought information as to whether the agency could reasonably conclude that low-speed vehicles present no unreasonable risk of backover crashes, but no

commenter provided any substantive information on this point. Therefore, the agency cannot reasonably exclude, as a category, low-speed vehicles from the requirements of today's rule because the available information suggests that the visibility needs of these vehicles vary widely within the vehicle class.

62

60

See

Mazzae, E. N. (2013), Direct Rear Visibility Measurement Data: 2010-11 Passenger Cars and 2008-2010 Low-Speed Vehicles, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

available at

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0252.

61

However, as we mentioned in the NPRM, the agency is not aware of any backover crash involving a low-speed vehicle. Our information, at this point in time, continues to be the same.

62

The agency also considered offering an alternative compliance option for certain low-speed vehicles, based on their direct view visibility. However, to adopt an alternative compliance option during the final rule stage would raise questions regarding the scope of notice. We note that various options are available to low-speed vehicle manufacturers who believe that their vehicles are designed so as to enable drivers to avoid backover crashes without a rear visibility system. Such manufacturers may petition for a temporary exemption under 49 CFR Part 555 if they can demonstrate that their vehicle design is as safe as vehicles complying with the standard. They may also petition the agency for rulemaking to afford such vehicles (offering an equivalent level of safety) an additional compliance option in FMVSS No. 111. (

See

Section III. c. Alternative Countermeasures, below, for further information on petitioning the agency for further rulemaking). Finally, we note that the phase-in schedule adopted by today's final rule is unlikely to require any low-speed vehicles to comply with today's final rule until the final 100% compliance date in 2018.

As mentioned in the NPRM, we also decline to separate passenger cars from this rulemaking. While we acknowledge that smaller passenger cars have different visibility needs from large MPVs and trucks, the data show that a large and significant portion of backover crashes are attributable to passenger cars. Further, the data indicate a positive, but not statistically robust, relationship between the size of the blind zone of a given passenger vehicle and the likelihood that it may be involved in a backing crash (i.e., all types of reverse crashes).

63

In addition, the areas immediately behind the vehicle, which are covered by the blind zone of virtually all vehicles, are the areas that the Monte Carlo simulation indicates are associated with the highest backover crash risk (risk of crashes in the reverse direction with pedestrians or cyclists). Thus, today's final rule applies equally to all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (regardless of the size of the vehicle's blindzone), except for motorcycles and trailers.

63

As the crash data is more scarce for

backover

crashes, most of our research has focused on the relationship between blind zones and backing crashes (rather than the relationship between blind zones and

backover

crashes). NHTSA performed two analyses of the relationship between rear blind zone size and backing crash incidence. The first used human-measured rear visibility data and is reported in detail in the docketed 2008 NHTSA report “Rear Visibility and Backing Risk in Crashes” (Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0041-0003). The second, subsequent analysis used vehicle rear visibility data acquired using a laser-based visibility measurement technique and is summarized in the 2009 NHTSA report “Rear Visibility Measured by Laser Light Beam Simulation of Driver Sight Line Compared to Backing Risk in Crashes” (Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0041-0053). These studies estimated backing crash risk from police-reported crashes in the State Data System and compared this risk to the rear-visibility measurements. Simple correlations and logistic regression analysis suggested an association between the risk of a backing crash and the blind zone measured over a extremely wide area (50-60 feet in width by 50 feet longitudinal distance). However, the results were significantly weaker for blind zones measured in areas that we believe a driver would be using for a typical backing maneuver and for the longitudinal sight distance. NHTSA's also examined the relationship between blind zone size and backover crashes in 2008 and did not find a relationship. That study compared the 28 vehicles with available crash data and the agency has not updated the study since.

However, we decline to regulate the size of vehicle blind zones (independently from determining the applicability of rearview countermeasures) in this rulemaking as suggested by the IIHS. While blind zone sizes were researched and explored in this rulemaking, this was done as a possible approach in which the agency could determine whether certain vehicle types should be required to have different rear visibility countermeasures. As regulating the size of the blind zone (independent of the purpose of detecting pedestrians immediately behind the vehicle) was never explored in this rulemaking process, we decline to include such a requirement in today's final rule.

Finally, we also decline to extend today's final rule to cover trailers, garbage trucks, and other vehicles not contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. While we acknowledge that many of these vehicles may also have significant blind zones, we have concentrated our research and rulemaking efforts on the vehicles mandated by Congress. We believe that, by focusing on the vehicles types covered in the K.T. Safety Act, this rulemaking is able to more appropriately address the types of crashes that Congress sought to avoid. To include and accommodate vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or more (many of which are used for commercial purposes), the agency may be required to utilize a significantly different approach with different requirements and test procedures that may not be as closely tailored to avoiding the types of crashes contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. Further, we note that backover crashes involving vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 lbs represent a significant majority of both fatalities and injuries. As this rulemaking has continuously focused exclusively on vehicles covered by the K.T. Safety Act, to introduce requirements regarding other vehicles in today's final rule would raise questions regarding the sufficiency of the scope of notice of this rulemaking. Thus, today's final rule declines to introduce such requirements at this time.

c. Alternative Countermeasures

The provisions of the K.T. Safety Act require this rulemaking to expand the required field of view in order to enable drivers to detect areas behind the motor vehicle in order to reduce death and injuries resulting from backing incidents. Congress emphasized that the objectives of the K.T. Safety Act may be met through the provision of technologies such as additional mirrors, sensors, and cameras. In the NPRM, the agency understood Congress' intent as not to require that a driver literally

see

a rearview image because such a reading would render the aforementioned reference to sensors in the text of the K.T. Safety Act superfluous—thereby violating a basic canon of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, NHTSA has conducted research into the effectiveness of each of the suggested countermeasure technologies, reported its findings in both the ANPRM and NPRM, and has received comments in response to both notices.

The agency has consistently noted that a successful rear visibility countermeasure must not only accurately detect objects behind the vehicle, but must also induce sufficient braking so as to avoid the crash. In the ANPRM, we examined the results noting the ongoing efforts of various studies intended to evaluate the effectiveness of mirror, sensor, and rearview video countermeasure systems. We outlined our observations which indicated that rear-mounted convex mirrors generally have a field of view of approximately 6 feet radially from the location of the mirror and significantly distort the image of the reflected objects.

64

Further, while cross-view mirrors offer a greater range of view, they do not enable a driver to detect areas directly behind the vehicle.

65

With regard to sensor systems, we noted that while commercially available systems have been designed as parking aids as opposed to safety devices, they have inconsistent performance for detecting small children.

66

Further, the ANPRM cited a General Motors-sponsored study

67

which indicated that sensor warnings generally failed to induce drivers to brake with sufficient force to avoid a backover crash. We also noted

in the ANPRM that our research indicated that drivers equipped with both rearview video systems and sensor systems seemed to avoid obstacles less successfully than drivers equipped with video-only systems.

68

We conjectured that drivers may have looked at the video system less when also equipped with a sensor system, but we requested public comment on possible reasons for this observed trend.

64

75 FR 76197.

65

Id.

66

75 FR 76198.

67

74 FR 9495; Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982.

68

74 FR 9496.

Several commenters on the ANPRM, including the Consumers Union, KidsAndCars.org, IIHS, Blue Bird, Magna, and Nissan stated that rear mounted mirror systems are generally not adequate for avoiding the backover crashes contemplated by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act. Several other commenters, including the Alliance and Mercedes, suggested that adopting the ECE R.46 regulation would help to prevent a substantial number of backover crashes. They reasoned that the ECE R.46 regulation, which allows for convex driver side view mirrors (as opposed to the current FMVSS No. 111 requirement of a planar driver side view mirror), would afford drivers additional time to avoid backover crashes which involve pedestrians moving into the vehicle's reversing path from the side.

Further, multiple commenters on the ANPRM, such as Delphi and Ackton, suggested that NHTSA's research may have underestimated the effectiveness of sensor systems as the available sensor systems were designed as parking aids and not for the purpose of detecting objects such as pedestrians. Other commenters such as Magna and Continental suggested that future applications of sensor technologies such as infrared systems and sensor-initiated automatic braking were in active development and would yield greater accuracy and effectiveness for sensor countermeasure technologies. Conversely, commenters such as IIHS noted that drivers' slow and inconsistent reactions to sensor warnings should preclude NHTSA from requiring or allowing sensors in lieu of rearview video systems.

After the ANPRM, the agency conducted additional research in order to better determine the effectiveness of each countermeasure. Our additional research after the ANPRM indicated that drivers utilizing either the rear-mounted convex mirrors or the cross-view mirror systems were unable to avoid the unexpected obstacles that were presented during the test.

69

Further, the same study found that even in tests with consistent (100%) object detection by the vehicle sensors, drivers reacted to the sensor warning in a way that avoided the backover crash in only 18 percent of the tests.

70

Similar to the results of the General Motors study noted in the ANPRM, our research, including a 2010 study, found that sensor warnings tended to induce drivers to apply some measure of braking or stop momentarily, but did not induce drivers to come to a complete stop so as to avoid the backover crash.

71

69

75 FR 76222-23. In its 2005 NPRM proposing to require straight trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of between 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a rear object detection system, the agency had tentatively estimated the effectiveness of mirrors using a 1984 pilot study by Federal Express that purported to show a 33% effectiveness estimate for its trained drivers using backing mirror systems.

See

70 FR 53753. While the agency cited these values in a previous notice, the pilot study results were never made available for public review and therefore could not be evaluated during the research for this rulemaking. Thus, we have utilized the data from the agency's research which show that drivers utilizing rear-mounted convex mirrors or the cross-view mirror systems were unable to avoid the unexpected obstacles that were presented during the test.

70

While the NPRM (at 75 FR 76223) stated that drivers avoided the staged backover crash test objects only 7 percent of the time (as opposed to 18 percent), the NPRM data did not include results from the study where NHTSA conducted a similar controlled backover experiment to see if drivers would react better to rear visibility countermeasures in a setting where they expected the presence of children (the study was conducted in a day care parking lot). The NPRM referenced this study (at 75 FR 76226) and indicated that this study would be placed into the docket. Further, the agency docketed the results from this study on December 3, 2010 (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0001)—shortly before the publication of the NPRM. However, as NHTSA was unable to include the results from the day care study at that time, we have included those results in our analysis for today's final rule. We have included these results in our analysis. For further information, please reference Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0001 and the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared in support of this rule (available in the docket number referenced at the beginning of this document).

71

See

Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0001, Drivers' Use of Rearview Video and Sensor-Based Backing Aid Systems in a Non-Laboratory Setting.

Given this additional research and the comments on the ANPRM, the agency stated in the NPRM that rearview video systems are the most effective, currently available technology in aiding drivers to avoid the backover crashes contemplated by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act. Thus, the NPRM tentatively concluded that drivers need to have access to a visual image of an area measuring 5 feet to either side of the vehicle centerline and extending 20 feet behind the vehicle's rear bumper in order to successfully avoid a backover crash. However, conscious of the potential for new technologies and differing approaches to providing the driver with the required field of view, the proposed rule did not preclude the additional use of mirrors and/or sensors to complement a system producing the required field of view.

Comments

Several equipment manufacturer comments disputed the agency's conclusion in the NPRM that a rearview image is necessary in order to enable a driver to effectively avoid a backover crash. Such commenters contended, for various reasons, that the rear visibility requirements should not preclude systems that do not provide a rearview image. For example, Sense Technologies noted that the research completed by NHTSA did not accurately evaluate the effectiveness of sensor and mirror systems. In terms of sensors, Sense Technologies noted that NHTSA's studies utilized ultrasonic sensors instead of Doppler sensors (which it asserted are more reliable). Sense Technologies asserted that Doppler radar-based systems should have been considered and that visual warnings should supplement—and not replace—auditory warnings. In regard to mirrors, Sense Technologies noted that cross-view mirrors are intended to be utilized in conjunction with a sensor or a rearview video system and their effectiveness should not have been evaluated based on testing as a stand-alone product. It further advocated that cross-view mirrors are more effective at detecting pedestrians that move laterally into the vehicle's blind zone.

Other equipment manufacturers expressed similar concerns by stating that the final rule should not preclude systems that do not provide a rearview image. Valeo supported this sentiment by arguing that manufacturers should be able to choose which system or combination of systems is best suited to achieve the goal of preventing backovers. Similarly, Rearscope commented that the requirements should permit the consumer to choose the technology or combinations of technologies that would be suitable. Rearscope also contended that these technologies must be further researched and that rulemaking should be delayed until this research can be completed. Finally, IFM Electronic also stated that the final rule should not preclude a system that does not provide a rearview image such as its 3D Photonic Mixer Device, which it claimed will be more effective than the “2D” rearview image required under the proposed rule.

On the other hand, some equipment manufacturers expressed support for the NPRM's conclusion that a rearview image is necessary to enable drivers to effectively avoid backover crashes.

Brigade agreed that sensors do not provide adequate protection because the commercially available systems do not detect small children reliably and that if a single system must be chosen, it should be a video system. Magna also agreed that sensors alone are ineffective by stating that ultrasonic waves do not travel through dry air with sufficient speed so as to react quickly enough to a moving object behind the vehicle. However, both of these commenters expressed support for combination sensor and video systems as a possibility for providing increased protection to pedestrians.

Other commenters on the NPRM also expressed support for combination sensor and video systems. For example, the Consumers Union commented that audible cues would be useful to prompt the driver to look at the rearview image when an obstacle is detected. Similarly, the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council asserted that a combination system can compensate for the fact that the driver cannot be looking at a rearview image and looking backwards at the same time. While noting support for combination systems, Rosco agreed with the proposed rule that the final rule should not require specific additional equipment beyond the rearview image. Rosco contended that this will afford manufacturers the flexibility to utilize additional driver aids as required by different market segments. In its comments, Gentex cautioned against concluding that combination systems would be inferior to video-only systems as studies have not been conducted on combination systems involving a rearview mirror-mounted display.

Separately, several commenters stated that the final rule should not preclude future technologies that may develop and instead should encourage the development of advanced rear visibility systems. Delphi and MEMA suggested that an NCAP-type system be established to encourage the development of new rear visibility technologies. In addition, Continental and BMW expressed concern that the proposal would inhibit technologies such as thermal imaging and automatic pedestrian detection with automatic braking.

Separately, some commenters expressed support for a system which would activate the vehicle brakes automatically upon detecting a pedestrian. The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council suggested in its comments that a rear visibility system would be more effective if the electronic stability control system would intervene to prevent the driver from a backover crash if the system detects that such a crash is imminent. IFM also suggested that a vehicle should automatically intervene to stop the vehicle when a backover crash is imminent regardless of whether the vehicle utilizes a sensor or a visual system.

Finally, Ford continued to express the opinion that NHTSA should consider alternatives for passenger cars such as adopting the ECE R.46 requirements for side view mirrors. Further, Brigade generally suggested in its comments that there would be a great advantage in harmonizing the requirements of this rulemaking with those of ECE R.46.

Agency Response

We acknowledge that some commenters disagreed with our tentative conclusion in the NPRM regarding the current need for providing a visual image of the area immediately behind the vehicle. However, we continue to believe, based

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.