Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Rearview Mirrors, 9478-9520 [E9-4500]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 4, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9478-9520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4500]



[[Page 9477]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 571



 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Rearview Mirrors; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 4, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 9478]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

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


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Rearview Mirrors

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

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

    \1\ 49 CFR 571.111, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.
    \2\ We note that this is different than what many people 
informally call a ``blind spot,'' a term used to describe an area to 
the side of the car where people may not be able to see a vehicle 
when changing lanes.

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For technical issues: Ms. Elizabeth Mazzae, 
Vehicle Research and Test Center, Telephone: (937) 666-4511. Facsimile: 
(202) 366-3171. For legal issues: Ari Scott, Office of Chief Counsel, 
Telephone (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail 
to these officials at: The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Attention: NVS-010, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Executive Summary

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) initiates 
rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
111, Rearview Mirrors, to improve a driver's ability to see areas to 
the rear of a motor vehicle to reduce backover incidents. The agency is 
issuing an ANPRM for two reasons. First, the agency is obligated, 
pursuant to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 
2007 (the ``K.T. Safety Act'') Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008, 
122 Stat. 639, to undertake rulemaking to expand the required field of 
view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas

[[Page 9479]]

behind the vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing 
incidents and initiate the rulemaking in a specified time period. 
Second, as there are a wide variety of means to address the problem of 
backover incidents, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) is interested in soliciting public comment on the current state 
of research and the efficacy of available countermeasures.
    The problem of backovers claims the lives of approximately 292 
people, many of them children every year. A backover is a specifically-
defined type of incident, in which a non-occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a 
pedestrian or cyclist) is struck by a vehicle moving in reverse. Unlike 
most other types of crashes, many backovers occur off public roadways, 
in areas such as driveways and parking lots. Furthermore, a 
disproportionate number of victims of backovers are children under 5 
years old and adults 70 or older. While there are several potential 
reasons for this, children are particularly likely to be missed by 
drivers of rear-moving vehicles because they cannot be seen due to a 
``blind zone'' \3\ in the area directly to the rear of vehicle. In 
addition, children are more likely to move unknowingly into a blind 
zone when the driver does not suspect anyone to be there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that this is different than what many informally 
call a ``blind spot,'' a term used to describe an area to the side 
of the car where people may not be able to see a vehicle when 
changing lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007

    Subsection (b) of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety 
Act, directs the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking to 
amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview 
Mirrors, to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a 
motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor

[[Page 9480]]

vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents.
    The relevant provisions in subsection (b) are as follows:

    (b) Rearward Visibility--Not later than 12 months after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a 
rulemaking to revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 
(FMVSS 111) to expand the required field of view to enable the 
driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle 
to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, 
particularly incidents involving small children and disabled 
persons. The Secretary may prescribe different requirements for 
different types of motor vehicles to expand the required field of 
view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind 
the motor vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing 
incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and 
disabled persons. Such standard may be met by the provision of 
additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other technology to expand 
the driver's field of view. The Secretary shall prescribe final 
standards pursuant to this subsection not later than 36 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Phase-In Period--
    (1) PHASE-IN PERIOD REQUIRED--The safety standards prescribed 
pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) shall establish a phase-in 
period for compliance, as determined by the Secretary, and require 
full compliance with the safety standards not later than 48 months 
after the date on which the final rule is issued.
    (2) PHASE-IN PRIORITIES--In establishing the phase-in period of 
the rearward visibility safety standards required under subsection 
(b), the Secretary shall consider whether to require the phase-in 
according to different types of motor vehicles based on data 
demonstrating the frequency by which various types of motor vehicles 
have been involved in backing incidents resulting in injury or 
death. If the Secretary determines that any type of motor vehicle 
should be given priority, the Secretary shall issue regulations that 
specify--
    (A) which type or types of motor vehicles shall be phased-in 
first; and
    (B) the percentages by which such motor vehicles shall be 
phased-in.

    Congress emphasized the protection of small children and disabled 
persons, and added that the revised standard may be met by the 
``provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other 
technology to expand the driver's field of view.'' While NHTSA does not 
interpret the Congressional language to necessarily require that all of 
these technologies eventually be integrated into the final requirement, 
we are examining the merits of each of them.

Applicability

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

Statutory Deadline

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

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

III. Existing Regulatory Requirements for Rear Visibility

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

A. U.S.

    FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors establishes requirements for the 
use, field of view, and mounting of motor vehicle rearview mirrors for 
rear visibility.\10\ This standard was enacted in 1976 and applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school 
buses and motorcycles. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the 
number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor 
vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the 
rear. With respect to passenger cars, the standard requires that 
manufacturers mount flat (also referred to as ``plane'' or ``unit 
magnification'') mirrors both inside the vehicle and outside the 
vehicle on the driver's side. The inside mirror must, except as 
specified below, have a field of view at least 20 degrees wide and a 
sufficient vertical angle to provide a view of a level road surface 
extending to the horizon beginning not more than 200 feet (61 m) behind 
the vehicle. In cases where the interior mirror does not meet the 
specified field of view requirements, a plane or convex exterior mirror 
must be mounted on the passenger's side of the car. While a specific 
field of view is not indicated for the passenger-side rearview mirror, 
the driver's side rearview mirror is required to be a plane mirror that 
provides ``the driver a view of a level road surface extending to the 
horizon from a line, perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to 
the driver's side of the vehicle at the widest point, extending 2.4 m 
(7.9 ft) out from the tangent plane 10.7 m (35.1 ft) behind the 
driver's eyes, with the seat in the rearmost position.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

B. Other Countries

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

[[Page 9481]]

Regulation 46 which details uniform provisions concerning the approval 
of devices for indirect vision.\12\ ECE 46 defines devices for indirect 
vision as those that observe the area adjacent to the vehicle which 
cannot be observed by direct vision, including ``conventional mirrors, 
camera-monitors or other devices able to present information about the 
indirect field of vision to the driver.'' While ECE 46 contains 
specifications for exterior rearview mirrors, it does not, directly 
regulate the rear field of view. Specifications are provided to define 
the required minimum size of the interior rearview mirror's surface 
area, but not its field of view. This regulation applies to all power-
driven vehicles with at least four wheels that are used for the 
carriage of people or goods, and vehicles with less than four wheels 
that are fitted with bodywork which partly or wholly encloses the 
driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ECE 46-02, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of: 
Devices for Indirect Vision and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to the 
Installation of these Devices, (August 7, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \14\ Section 15.3.5 of ECE 46-02, Uniform Provisions Concerning 
the Approval of: Devices for Indirect Vision and of Motor Vehicles 
with Regard to the Installation of these Devices, (August 7, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada
    Canada has rearview mirror requirements that are essentially 
identical to those in the U.S. All passenger cars are required to have 
a driver's-side outside rearview mirror. Passenger cars are also 
required to be equipped with an interior rearview mirror providing 
``the driver with a field of view to the rear that is not less than 20 
degrees measured horizontally rearward from the projected eye point and 
extends to the horizon and includes a point on the road surface not 
more than 60 m (200 feet) directly behind the vehicle.'' If the 
interior rearview mirror does not meet these requirements, a side 
rearview mirror must be mounted on the passenger side of the vehicle 
opposite the driver's side.
Japan
    Japanese regulation, Article 44, provides a performance based 
requirement for rearview mirrors.\15\ For light vehicles, rearview 
mirrors must be present that enable drivers to check the traffic 
situation around the left-hand lane edge and behind the vehicle from 
the driver's seat.\16\ The regulation requires that the driver be able 
to ``visually confirm the presence of a cylindrical object 1 m high and 
0.3 m in diameter (equivalent to a 6-year-old child) adjacent to the 
front or the left-hand side of the vehicle (or the right-hand side in 
the case of a left-hand drive vehicle), either directly or indirectly 
via mirrors, screens, or similar devices.'' Article 44 does not specify 
requirements for rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video 
systems, therefore these devices are allowed, but not required under 
the standard. Rear-mounted convex mirrors are commonly used as backing 
aids on sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and vans in Japan; however, NHTSA 
is not aware of research documenting the effectiveness of these mirrors 
in mitigating backover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Korea
    The Korean regulation on rearview mirrors, Article 50,\17\ outlines 
rearview mirror requirements for a range of vehicles. Article 50 
requires a flat or convex exterior mirror mounted on the driver's side 
for passenger vehicles and buses with less than 10 passengers. For 
buses, cargo vehicles, and special motor vehicles, flat or convex rear-
view mirrors are required on both sides of the vehicle. Article 50 does 
not address rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video systems, 
therefore these devices are allowed, but not required under the 
standard. Again, rear-mounted convex mirrors are commonly used as 
backing aids on SUVs and vans in Korea; however, NHTSA is not aware of 
research documenting the effectiveness of these mirrors in mitigating 
backover crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Backover Safety Problem

    Based on our information to date, NHTSA has found that the problem 
of backovers claims the lives of hundreds of people every year. NHTSA 
defines backover as a specifically-defined type of incident, in which a 
non-occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a pedestrian or cyclist) is struck by 
a vehicle moving in reverse. However, because many backovers occur off 
public roadways, in areas such as driveways and parking lots, NHTSA's 
ordinary methodologies for collecting data as to the specific numbers 
and circumstances of backover incidents have not always given the 
agency a complete picture of the scope and circumstances of these types 
of incidents. The following sections detail NHTSA's attempts to both 
quantify the number of backover incidents and determine their nature.

A. Injuries and Fatalities in Backing Incidents

    In response to SAFETEA-LU Sections 2012 and 10305, NHTSA developed 
the Not in Traffic Surveillance (NiTS) system to collect information 
about all nontraffic crashes, including nontraffic backing crashes. 
NiTS provided information on these backing crashes

[[Page 9482]]

that occurred off the traffic way and which were not included in 
NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) or the National 
Automotive Sampling System--General Estimates System (NASS-GES). The 
subset of backing crashes that involve a pedestrian, bicyclist, or 
other person not in a vehicle, is referred to as ``backovers.'' This is 
distinguished from the larger category of ``backing crashes,'' which 
would include such non-backover events such as a vehicle going in 
reverse and colliding with another vehicle, or a vehicle backing off an 
embankment or into a stationary object. While the primary purpose of 
this rulemaking is to prevent backovers, any technology that improves 
rear visibility should have a positive effect on backing crashes in 
general.
    Based on 2002-2006 data from FARS and NASS-GES, and 2007 data from 
NiTS, NHTSA estimates that 463 fatalities and 48,000 injuries a year 
occur in traffic and nontraffic backing crashes.\18\ Most of these 
injuries are minor injuries, but an estimated 6,000 per year are 
incapacitating injuries. Overall, an estimated 65 percent (302) of the 
fatalities and 62 percent (29,000) of the injuries in backing crashes 
occurred in nontraffic situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Most backover fatalities and injuries involve passenger vehicles. 
As indicated in Table 2, 78 percent of the backover fatalities and 95 
percent of the backover injuries involved passenger vehicles. An 
estimated fifteen percent (68) of the backing crash fatalities occur in 
multivehicle crashes, and an estimated thirteen percent (62) occur in 
single-vehicle non-collisions such as occupants who fall out of and are 
struck by their own backing vehicles. About half of the backing crash 
injuries (20,000 per year) occur in multivehicle crashes involving 
backing vehicles. Table 3 indicates that all major passenger vehicle 
types (cars, utility vehicles, pickups, and vans) are involved in 
backover fatalities and injuries. However, the data indicate that some 
vehicles may have a greater risk of involvement in backing crashes than 
other vehicles. Table 3 illustrates that pickup trucks and utility 
vehicles are overrepresented in backover fatalities when compared to 
all non-backing traffic injury crashes and to their proportion to the 
passenger vehicle fleet.

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


[[Page 9483]]


                   Table 3--Passenger Vehicle Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Vehicle Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Percent
                                                                                                of
                                                                                 Estimated   vehicles
                                                        Percent of   Estimated    percent    in non-    Percent
           Backing vehicle type             Fatalities                injuries       of      backing    of fleet
                                                        fatalities                injuries   traffic
                                                                                              injury
                                                                                             crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car.......................................          59          26        9,000         54         62         58
Utility Vehicle...........................          68          30        3,000         20         14         16
Van.......................................          29          13        1,000          6          8          8
Pickup....................................          72          31        3,000         18         15         17
Other Light Vehicle.......................           0           0            *          2          1         <1
Passenger Vehicles........................         228         100       17,000        100        100       100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: * indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.

C. Age Involvement in Backing Incidents

    Table 4 contains the age of the backover victim for fatalities and 
injuries for all backovers as well as backovers involving passenger 
vehicles. Table 4 also details the proportion of the United States 
(U.S.) population in each age category from the U.S. Census Bureau's 
Population Estimates Program for comparison. Similar to previous 
findings, backover fatalities disproportionately affect children under 
5 years old and adults 70 or older. When restricted to backover 
fatalities involving passenger vehicles, children under 5 account for 
44 percent of the fatalities, and adults 70 and older account for 33 
percent. The difference in the results between all backovers and 
passenger vehicle backovers occurs because large truck backovers, which 
are excluded from the passenger vehicle calculations, tend to affect 
adults of working age.

                         Table 4--All Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Age of Victim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Estimated
                                                      Percent of   Estimated    percent     Sample    Percent of
              Age of victim               Fatalities                injuries       of      count of   population
                                                      fatalities                injuries   injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Vehicles:
    Under 5.............................         103          35        2,000          8         37            7
    5-10................................          13           4            *          3         33            7
    10-19...............................           4           1        2,000         12         75           14
    20-59...............................          69          24        9,000         48        383           55
    60-69...............................          28           9        2,000          8         54            8
    70+.................................          76          26        3,000         18        107            9
    Unknown.............................  ..........  ..........            *          2         16  ...........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................         292         100       18,000        100        705          100
Passenger Vehicles:
    Under 5.............................         100          44        2,000          9         35            7
    5-10................................          10           4        1,000          3         30            7
    10-19...............................           1           1        2,000         12         71           14
    20-59...............................          29          13        8,000         46        319           55
    60-69...............................          15           6        1,000          8         46            8
    70+.................................          74          33        3,000         19         95            9
    Unknown.............................  ..........  ..........            *          2         12  ...........
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................         228         100       17,000        100        608         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES
  2002-2006, NiTS 2007.

    The proportion of backover injuries by age group is more similar to 
the proportion of the population than for backover fatalities. However, 
while children under 5 years old appear to be slightly overrepresented 
in backover injuries compared to the population, adults 70 and older 
appear to be greatly overrepresented. One reason for the relatively 
large proportion of injuries in backover crashes among older adults may 
be that backovers involving younger nonoccupants may not result in an 
injury while the same backover involving an older nonoccupant may 
result in a fall and a broken bone.
    Table 5 presents passenger vehicle backover fatalities by year of 
age for victims less than 5 years old. Out of all backover fatalities 
involving passenger vehicles, 26 percent (60 out of 228) of victims are 
1 year of age and younger.

[[Page 9484]]



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

D. Special Crash Investigation Backover Case Summary

    In addition to collecting police-reported backovers through NHTSA's 
data collection infrastructure, NHTSA's efforts to understand backover 
incidents have included a Special Crash Investigation (SCI) program. 
The SCI program was created to examine the safety impact of rapidly 
changing technologies and to provide NHTSA with early detection of 
alleged or potential vehicle defects.
    SCI began investigating cases related to backovers in October 
2006.\20\ SCI receives notification of potential backover cases from 
several different sources including media reports, police and rescue 
personnel, contacts within NHTSA, reports from the general public, as 
well as notifications from the NASS. As of July 1, 2008, SCI had 
received a total of 52 notifications from a combination of all sources 
regarding backovers.\21\ For the purpose of the SCI cases, an eligible 
backover was defined as a light passenger vehicle where the back plane 
strikes or passes over a person who is either positioned to the rear of 
the vehicle or is approaching from the side. SCI primarily focuses on 
cases involving children; however, it investigates some cases involving 
adults. The majority of notifications received do not meet the criteria 
for case assignment. Typically the reasons for not pursuing further 
include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes, 
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008).
    \21\ Since SCI investigates as many relevant cases that they are 
notified about as possible and not on a statistical sampling of 
incidents, results are not representative of the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] The reported crash configuration is outside of the scope of 
the program,
    [cir] Minor incidents with no fatally or seriously injured persons, 
or
    [cir] Incidents where cooperation can not be established with the 
involved parties.
    As an example, many reported incidents are determined to be side or 
frontal impacts, which exclude them from the program. NHTSA requests 
that commenters submit any other existing backover incident data that 
could aid in providing a clearer picture of the range of backover 
accidents.
    The SCI effort to examine backover crashes includes an on-site 
inspection of the scene and vehicle, as well as interviews of the 
involved parties when possible. When an on-site investigation is not 
possible, backover cases are investigated remotely through an 
examination of police-provided reports and photos as well as interviews 
with the involved parties. For each backover case investigated, a case 
vehicle visibility study is also conducted to determine the vehicle's 
blind zones and also to determine at what distance behind the vehicle 
the occupant may have become visible to the driver.
    Through July 2008, NHTSA had completed special crash investigations 
of 52 backover cases.\22\ The 52 backing vehicles were comprised of 17 
passenger cars, 21 sport utility vehicles, and 14 pickup trucks. Only 4 
of the cases (8 percent) contained vehicles equipped with a backup or 
parking aid. Eighty-eight percent of the backover crashes (46 of the 
52) involved children, ranging in age from less than 1 year old up to 
13 years old, who were struck by vehicles. Adults were generally 
excluded from the study unless they were seriously injured or killed or 
if the backing vehicles were equipped with backing or parking aids. A 
total of 6 cases were investigated involving struck adults. Of the 52 
backover cases, exactly half (26) involved fatally injured 
nonoccupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

E. Assessment of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location

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

    \24\ Mazzae, E. N., Barickman, F. S., Baldwin, G. H. S., and 
Ranney, T. A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview 
Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, DOT 811 024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate a probability-based 
risk weighting for a test area centered behind the vehicle. The 
probability-based risk weightings for each grid square were based on 
the number of pedestrian-vehicle backing crashes predicted by the 
simulation for trials for which the pedestrian was initially (i.e., at 
the time that the vehicle began to back up) in the center of one square 
of the grid of 1-foot squares. A total of 1,000,000 simulation trials 
were run with the pedestrian initially in the center of each square. 
Additional details about assumptions relating to the vehicle and 
pedestrian, as well as the simulation, are presented in Appendix A.
    Figure 1 summarizes the calculated relative crash risk for each 
grid square. Note that the white shaded area does not have a zero 
backover risk; it merely has a low (less than 15 percent of the 
maximum) risk. This analysis shows that the probability of crash 
decreases rapidly as the pedestrian's initial location is moved back, 
further away, from the rear bumper of the vehicle. There are 
substantial side lobes, giving pedestrians some risk of being hit even 
though they were not initially directly behind the vehicle. The results 
suggest that coverage of an area 12 feet wide by 36 feet long centered 
behind the vehicle would address pedestrian locations having relative 
crash risks of 0.15 and higher. To address crash risks of 0.20 and 
higher, an area 7 feet wide and 33 feet long centered behind the 
vehicle would need to be covered. NHTSA seeks comment on the coverage 
area that is needed to establish a reasonable safety zone behind the 
vehicle.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 9485]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.000

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 9486]]

V. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility

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

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

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

A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors

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

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

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

    \27\ SAFETEA-LU, Sec. 1109, 119 Stat. 1168.
    \28\ Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of 
the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA 
Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 9487]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.001

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 9488]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 9489]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR09.003

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

                                  Table 6--Visibility of a 1-Year-Old Child Dummy Using a Corner Rear Cross-View Mirror
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                       Make