Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles Phase-In Reporting Requirements, 76186-76250 [2010-30353]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76186-76250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30353]



[[Page 76185]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 571 and 585



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors; Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles Phase-In Reporting 
Requirements; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 76186]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162]
RIN 2127-AK43


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors; Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles Phase-In Reporting 
Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 
directs NHTSA to issue a final rule amending the agency's Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard on rearview mirrors to improve the ability of a 
driver to detect pedestrians in the area immediately behind his or her 
vehicle and thereby minimize the likelihood of a vehicle's striking a 
pedestrian while its driver is backing the vehicle. Pursuant to this 
mandate, NHTSA is proposing to expand the required field of view for 
all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and 
low-speed vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or less, gross vehicle 
weight. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to specify an area immediately 
behind each vehicle that the driver must be able to see when the 
vehicle's transmission is in reverse. It appears that, in the near 
term, the only technology available with the ability to comply with 
this proposal would be a rear visibility system that includes a rear-
mounted video camera and an in-vehicle visual display. Adoption of this 
proposal would significantly reduce fatalities and injuries caused by 
backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the 
elderly, and other pedestrians.
    In light of the difficulty of effectively addressing of the 
backover safety problem through technologies other than camera systems 
and given the differences in the effectiveness and cost of the 
available technologies, we developed several alternatives that, 
compared to the proposal, offer less, but at least in one case still 
substantial, benefits and do so at reduced cost. We seek comment on 
those alternatives and on other possible ways to achieve the statutory 
objective and meet the statutory requirements at lower cost.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the 
docket receives them not later than February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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 CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Mr. Markus Price, Office of Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: (202) 666-
0098. Facsimile: (202) 666-7002. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. 
Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-2992. 
Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: NVS-010, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007
    B. Applicability
    C. Backover Crash Safety Problem
    i. Definitions and Summary
    ii. Backover Crash Risk by Crash and Vehicle Type
    iii. Backover Crash Risk by Victim Age
    iv. Special Crash Investigation of Backover Crashes
    v. Analysis of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location Using 
Monte Carlo Simulation
    D. Comparative Regulatory Requirements
    i. Current FMVSS No. 111
    ii. Relevant European Regulations (Also United Kingdom and 
Australia)
    iii. Relevant Regulations in Japan and Korea
    iv. State Regulations
III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    A. Technologies To Mitigate Backover Crashes
    i. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors
    ii. Rearview Video Systems
    iii. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems
    iv. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video Camera) Systems
    v. Other Technologies
    B. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility
    C. Rear Visibility Measurement
    D. Possible Countermeasure Performance Specifications
    E. Summary of Comments Received
    i. Measurement of Rear Blind Zone Area and Its Use as a Basis 
for Determination of Countermeasure Need
    ii. Application of Countermeasures Among Vehicle Types
    iii. Use and Efficacy of Rear-Mounted Mirror Systems, and Convex 
Driver's-Side Mirrors
    iv. Use of Monte Carlo Simulation of Backover Crash Risk for 
Development of a Required Countermeasure Coverage Area
    v. Use and Efficacy of Sensor-Based Systems
    vi. Use and Efficacy of Rearview Video Systems
    vii. Characteristics of Rearview Video Systems
    viii. Development of a Performance-Based or Technology-Neutral 
Standard
    ix. Other Issues
    x. Suggested Alternative Proposals
    xi. Costs and Benefits
    F. Questions Posed and Summary Response
    i. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility
    ii. Drivers' Use and Associated Effectiveness of Available 
Technologies To Mitigate Backover Crashes
    iii. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility
    iv. Options for Measuring a Vehicle's Rear Visibility
    v. Options for Assessing the Performance of Rear Visibility 
Countermeasures
    vi. Options for Characterizing Rear Visibility Countermeasures
IV. Analysis of ANPRM Comments and NHTSA's Tentative Conclusions

[[Page 76187]]

    A. Application of Rear Visibility Systems Across the Light 
Vehicle Fleet
    B. Limitation of Countermeasure Application to Certain Vehicle 
Types
    C. Using Blind Zone Area as a Basis for Countermeasure 
Requirement
    D. Use of Convex Driver's-Side Mirrors
    E. Advanced Systems and Combination Sensor/Rearview Video 
Systems
    F. Rear Field of View
    G. Rear Visibility System Characteristics
    i. Rearview Image Response Time
    ii. Rearview Image Linger Time
    iii. Rear Visibility System Visual Display Brightness
    iv. Rear Visibility System Malfunction Indicator
    H. Rear Visibility System Compliance Test
    i. Compliance Test Ambient Light Level
    ii. Compliance Test Object
V. NHTSA Research Subsequent to the ANPRM
    A. Rearview Video Systems With In-Mirror Visual Displays
    B. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors
    C. Rear Sensor Systems
    D. Ability of Rear Sensor Systems To Detect Small Child 
Pedestrians
VI. Countermeasure Effectiveness Estimation Based on NHTSA Research 
Data
    A. Situation Avoidability
    B. System Performance
    C. Driver Performance
    D. Determining Overall Effectiveness
VII. Proposal To Mandate Improved Rear Visibility
    A. Proposed Specifications
    i. Improved Rear Field of View
    ii. Visual Display Requirements
    a. Rearview Image Size
    b. Image Response Time
    c. Image Linger Time
    d. Visual Display Luminance
    e. Other Aspects of Visual Display
    iii. Requirements for External System Components
    B. Proposed Compliance Tests
    i. Ambient Lighting Conditions
    ii. Rear Visibility Test Object
    iii. Rear Visibility Compliance Test Procedures
    a. Rear Field of View Test Procedure
    b. Rearview Image Size Test Procedure
    C. Proposed Effective Date and Phase-In Schedule
    D. Potential Alternatives
    E. Summary of Estimated Effectiveness, Costs and Benefits of 
Available Technologies
    F. Comparison of Regulatory Alternatives
    i. System Effectiveness
    ii. Costs
    iii. Benefits
    iv. Net Benefits
    v. Cost Effectiveness
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
    F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    H. National Environmental Policy Act
    I. Paperwork Reduction Act
    J. Plain Language
    K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
X. Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Executive Summary

    In this notice, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) is proposing to expand the current rear visibility requirements 
of all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, 
and low-speed vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
10,000 pounds (lb) or less by specifying an area behind the vehicle 
that a driver must be able to see when the vehicle is in reverse gear. 
This rulemaking action is being undertaken in response to the Cameron 
Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 \1\ (the ``K.T. 
Safety Act,'' or the ``Act''), which required that NHTSA undertake 
rulemaking to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of 
a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the vehicle to reduce death and 
injury resulting from backing incidents known as backover crashes. A 
backover crash is a specifically-defined type of incident in which a 
non-occupant of a vehicle (most commonly, a pedestrian, but it could 
also be a cyclist) is struck by a vehicle moving in reverse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, 
(Pub. L. 110-189, 122 Stat. 639-642), Sec.  4 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our assessment of available safety data indicates that on average 
there are 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries (3,000 of which we judge 
to be incapacitating \2\) resulting from backover crashes every year. 
Of those, 228 fatalities and 17,000 injuries were attributed to 
backover incidents involving light vehicles (passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles) 
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic 
Accidents (ANSI D16.1) defines ``incapacitating injury'' as ``any 
injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person 
from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities the 
person was capable of performing before the injury occurred'' 
(Section 2.3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In analyzing the data, we made several tentative findings. First, 
many of these incidents occur off public roadways, in areas such as 
driveways and parking lots and involve parents (or caregivers) 
accidentally backing over children. Second, children under five years 
of age represent approximately 44 percent of the fatalities, which we 
believe to be a uniquely high percentage for a particular crash mode. 
Third and finally, when pickups and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
strike a pedestrian in a backover crash, the incident is four times 
more likely to result in a fatality than if the striking vehicle were a 
passenger car.
    NHTSA believes that there are several potential reasons for these 
tentative findings, including, but not limited to, the attributes of 
the vehicle, vehicle exposure to pedestrians, and the driver's 
situational awareness while driving backward. However, due to 
difficulties in isolating each of those effects individually, we cannot 
at this time determine their relative contribution to the occurrence of 
these backover crashes.
    In consideration of the areas that a driver cannot see either 
directly or using existing mirrors, the agency has tentatively 
concluded that providing the driver with additional visual information 
about what is directly behind the driver's vehicle is the only 
effective near-term solution at this time to reduce the number of 
fatalities and injuries associated with backover crashes.
    Before reaching this tentative conclusion, NHTSA published an 
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and considered the public 
comments received in response to that notice.\3\ The ANPRM reiterated 
some previous tentative findings on backover crash statistics; outlined 
current technologies that may have the ability to improve rear 
visibility including: improved direct vision (i.e., looking directly 
out the vehicle's rear window), indirect vision via rear-mounted convex 
mirrors or rearview video systems, and rear object detection sensors; 
\4\ and presented research findings on the effectiveness of those 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 74 FR 9478, March 4, 2009.
    \4\ While object detection sensors do not technically improve 
visibility in terms of providing a visual image comparable to what a 
driver could see with his or her own eyes, the Act indicated that 
sensors should be examined as a candidate technology for improving 
rear visibility. Such sensors could be used in combination of some 
type of visual display to show the location of detected objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ANPRM set forth three approaches to defining the potential 
scope of applicability of the proposed requirements for improving 
rearward visibility.\5\ The approaches included requiring improvements 
on a) all light vehicles, b) those light vehicles that are trucks, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, or vans, or c) those light vehicles 
whose rear blind zone area (i.e., the area behind a vehicle in which 
obstacles are not visible to a driver)

[[Page 76188]]

exceeds a specified size. We also presented ideas on how and on what 
basis to define the areas behind a vehicle that should be visible to a 
driver and general performance characteristics for mirrors, sensors, 
and rearview video systems. Finally, the ANPRM sought responses to 43 
specific questions covering all of the above mentioned areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 74 FR 9504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thirty-seven entities commented in response to the ANPRM, including 
industry associations, automotive and equipment manufacturers, safety 
advocacy organizations, and 14 individuals. Generally, the comments can 
be grouped into four main areas according to the organization of ANPRM 
sections. The areas are: approaches for improving vehicles' rear 
visibility, effectiveness of the technologies, cost of the 
technologies, and performance requirements suitable for each type 
technology.
    With regard to the issue of which vehicles most warrant improved 
rear visibility, vehicle manufacturers generally wanted to focus any 
expansion of rear visibility on the particular types of vehicles (i.e., 
trucks, vans, and multipurpose passenger vehicles within the specified 
weight limits) that they believed posed the highest risk of backover 
crash fatalities and injuries. Vehicle safety organizations and 
equipment manufacturers generally suggested that all vehicles need to 
have expanded rear fields of view.
    With regard to the issue of what technology would be effective at 
expanding the rear field of view for a driver, commenters discussed 
additional mirrors, sensors, and rearview video combined with sensors. 
Some commenters provided input regarding test procedure development and 
rear visibility countermeasure characteristics, such as visual display 
size and brightness, and graphic overlays superimposed on a video 
image. Some also discussed whether it is appropriate to allow a small 
gap in coverage immediately behind the rear bumper.
    Finally, with regard to the issue of costs, commenters generally 
agreed with the cost estimates provided by the agency. However, some 
did suggest that our estimates of the cost of individual technologies 
seemed high and that there would be larger cost reductions over time 
than the agency had indicated.
    To assess the feasibility and benefits of covering different areas 
behind the vehicle, NHTSA considered the comments received, the 
available safety data, our review of special investigations of backover 
crashes, and computer simulation. For example, we examined the typical 
distances that backover-crash-involved vehicles traveled from the 
location at which they began moving rearward to the location at which 
they struck a pedestrian. We tentatively concluded that an area with a 
width of 10 feet (5 feet to either side of a rearward extension of the 
vehicle's centerline) and a length of 20 feet extending backward from a 
transverse vertical plane tangent to the rearmost point on the rear 
bumper encompasses the highest risk area for children and other 
pedestrians to be struck. Therefore, we are proposing that test objects 
of a particular size within that area must be visible to drivers when 
they are driving backward.
    To develop estimates of the benefits from adopting such a 
requirement, NHTSA used a methodology that reviewed backover crash case 
reports to infer whether the crash could be avoided with the aid of 
some technology, evaluated the performance of various countermeasures 
in detecting an object behind the vehicle, and tested whether the 
driver used the countermeasure and avoided the crash. Our evaluation of 
currently available technologies (mirrors, sensors, and rearview video 
systems) that may allow a driver to determine if there was a pedestrian 
in a 10 feet by 20 feet zone behind a vehicle indicates that rearview 
video systems are the most effective technology available today.
    However, we note that technology is rapidly evolving, and thus, we 
are not proposing to require that a specific technology be used to 
provide a driver with an image of the area behind the vehicle. 
Consistent with statutory requirements and Executive Order 12866, we 
are not prescribing requirements that would expressly require the use 
of a specific technology and are attempting to promote compliance 
flexibility through proposing more performance oriented requirements. 
We have tentatively concluded that, in order to maintain the level of 
effectiveness that we have seen in our testing of existing rearview 
video systems, we should propose a minimum set of such requirements. 
Accordingly, this proposal sets forth requirements for the performance 
of the visual display, the rearview image, and durability requirements 
for any exterior components. Under this proposal, manufacturers would 
have flexibility to meet the requirements as they see fit (perhaps 
through the development of new or less expensive technology). Since we 
believe that manufacturers, in the near term, would likely use current 
production rearview video systems to achieve the required level of 
improved rear visibility and that most, if not all, systems in 
production today already meet this minimum set of requirements, we do 
not believe that the adoption of these requirements would increase the 
cost of this technology. However, we seek comment later in this 
preamble on including in the final rule requirements relating to 
additional matters such as image quality and display location.
    Section 2(c) of the K.T. Safety Act requires that the requirement 
for improved rear visibility be phased in and that the phase-in process 
be completed within ``48 months'' of the publication of the final rule. 
Because we anticipate publishing a final rule by the statutory deadline 
of February 28, 2011, the rule must require full compliance not later 
than February 28, 2015. We note, however, that model years begin on 
September 1 and end on August 31 for safety standard compliance 
purposes and that February 28 falls in the middle of the model year 
that begins September 1, 2014. The agency believes that vehicle 
manufacturers would need, as a practical matter, to begin full 
compliance at the beginning of that model year, i.e., on September 1, 
2014. They could not wait until the middle of the model year to reach 
100% compliance. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing the following phase-in 
schedule:
     0% of the vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2012;
     10% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2012, and before September 1, 2013;
     40% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2013, and before September 1, 2014; and
     100% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2014.
    The agency recognizes that taking the dates on which model years 
begin and end for safety purposes effectively reduces the overall 
phase-in duration by 6 months (from 48 months to 42 months).
    We invite comment on how to provide as much leadtime as possible 
within the limits of the statute. Specifically, should the agency 
change the structure of the phase-in schedule to allow for more 
flexibility and ease of implementation? We note that the statute 
explicitly requires an expanded field of view for all light vehicles 
and that there are substantial differences in the effectiveness of 
available technologies. Accordingly, the agency is proposing 
performance requirements that would trigger the installation of 
expensive technologies such as video camera systems for these vehicles. 
In view of the need to expand the field of

[[Page 76189]]

view for all vehicles and the statutory requirements set forth by 
Congress regarding timing and manner of implementation of the proposed 
requirements, however, the agency is limited in its ability to reduce 
the cost of this rulemaking through adjusting the application of the 
proposed rule or the specific deadline for implementation.
    In evaluating the benefits and costs of this rulemaking proposal, 
the agency has spent considerable effort trying to determine the scope 
of the safety problem and the overall effectiveness of these systems in 
reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities associated with backing 
crashes. We have also estimated the net property damage effects to 
consumers from using any technology to avoid backing into fixed 
objects, along with the additional cost incurred when a vehicle is 
struck in the rear and the technology is damaged or destroyed.
    The most effective technology option that the agency has evaluated 
is the rearview video system. Using the effectiveness estimates that we 
have generated and assuming that all vehicles would be equipped with 
this technology, we believe the annual fatalities that are occurring in 
backing crashes can be reduced by 95 to 112. Similarly, injuries would 
be reduced by 7,072 to 8,374.
    However, rearview video is also the most expensive single 
technology. When installed in a vehicle without any existing visual 
display screen, rearview video systems are currently estimated to cost 
consumers between $159 and $203 per vehicle, depending on the location 
of the display and the angular width of the lens. For a vehicle that 
already has a suitable visual display, such as one found in route 
navigation systems, the incremental cost of such a system is estimated 
to be $58-$88, depending on the angular width of the lens. (We note 
that the cost may well decrease over time, as discussed below.)
    Based on the composition and size of the expected vehicle fleet, 
the total incremental cost, compared to the MY 2010 fleet, to equip a 
16.6 million new vehicle fleet with rearview video systems is estimated 
to be $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion annually. These costs are admittedly 
substantial. Nonetheless, the following considerations (discussed 
briefly here and at great length below in section VII.D. of this 
preamble) lead us to conclude tentatively that our proposal to 
implement the statutory mandate is reasonable and necessary, and that 
the benefits justify the costs. We request comment on this conclusion 
and on the various considerations that support it.
    Those considerations include the following--
    [dec221] 100 of the 228 annual victims of backover crashes are very 
young children with nearly their entire lives ahead of them. There are 
strong reasons, grounded in this consideration and in considerations of 
equity, to prevent these deaths.
    [dec221] While this rulemaking would have great cost, it would also 
have substantial benefits, reducing annual fatalities in backover 
crashes by 95 to 112 fatalities, and annual injuries by 7,072 to 8,374 
injuries. (We attempt to quantify these benefits below.)
    [dec221] Some of the benefits of the proposed rule are hard to 
quantify, but are nonetheless real and significant. One such benefit is 
that of not being the direct cause of the death or injury of a person 
and particularly a small child at one's place of residence. In some of 
these cases, parents are responsible for the deaths of their own 
children; avoiding that horrible outcome is a significant benefit. 
Another hard-to-quantify benefit is the increased ease and convenience 
of driving, and especially parking, that extend beyond the prevention 
of crashes. While these benefits cannot be monetized at this time, they 
could be considerable.
    [dec221] There is evidence that many people value the lives of 
children more than the lives of adults.\6\ In any event, there is 
special social solicitude for protection of children. This solicitude 
is based in part on a recognized general need to protect children given 
their greater vulnerability to injury and inability to protect 
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ J.K. Hammitt and K. Haninger, ``Valuing Fatal Risks to 
Children and Adults: Effects of Disease, Latency, and Risk 
Aversion,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 40(1): 57-83, 2010. This 
stated preference study finds that the willingness to pay to prevent 
fatality risks to one's child is uniformly larger than that to 
reduce risk to another adult or to oneself. Estimated values per 
statistical life are $6-10 million for adults and $12-15 million for 
children. We emphasize that the literature is in a state of 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [dec221] Given the very young age of most of the children fatally-
injured in backover crashes, attempting to provide them with training 
or with an audible warning would not enable them to protect themselves.
    [dec221] Given the impossibility of reducing backover crashes 
through changing the behavior of very young children and given 
Congress' mandate, it is reasonable and necessary to rely on technology 
to address backover crashes.
    [dec221] Based on its extensive testing, the agency tentatively 
concluded that a camera-based system is the only effective type of 
technology currently available.
    [dec221] Requiring additional rearview mirrors or changes to 
existing review mirrors cannot significantly increase the view to the 
rear of a vehicle except by means that reduce and distort the reflected 
image of people or objects behind a vehicle.
    [dec221] The agency's testing indicated that currently available 
sensors often failed to detect a human being, particularly a small 
moving child, in tests in which the vehicle was not actually moving. In 
tests in which the vehicle was moving, and when the sensors did detect 
a manikin representing a child, the resulting warning did not induce 
drivers to pause more than briefly in backing.
    [dec221] In contrast, in the agency's tests of video camera-based 
systems, drivers not only saw a child-sized obstacle, but also stopped 
and remained stopped.
    [dec221] Consequently, the agency has tentatively concluded that 
the requirements must have the effect of ensuring that some type of 
image is provided to the driver.
    [dec221] The agency's estimates of current costs for video camera-
based systems may be too high.
    [dec221] The agency has a contract in place for conducting tear 
down studies that could produce somewhat lower cost estimates.
    [dec221] In time, types of technology other than a video camera-
based system may be able to provide a sufficiently clear visual image 
of the area behind the vehicle at lower cost. We believe that it is 
reasonable to project that the costs of the requirements proposed here 
may well decline significantly over time. While extrapolations are 
uncertain, technology has been advancing rapidly in this domain, and 
future costs may well be lower than currently expected.
    [dec221] In light of statutory requirements, the agency is limited 
in its ability to reduce the cost of this rulemaking through adjusting 
either the requirements or application of the proposed rule or the 
schedule for its implementation.
    [dec221] Congress has mandated the issuance of a final rule instead 
of allowing the agency to retain discretion to decide whether to issue 
a final rule based on its consideration of all the relevant factors and 
information.
    [dec221] Less expensive countermeasures, i.e., mirrors and sensors, 
have thus far shown very limited effectiveness and thus would not 
satisfy Congress's mandate for improving safety.
     [squf] As the most cost-effective alternative, a requirement for a 
system that provides an image of the area behind the vehicle would be 
consistent with the policy preference underlying the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.

[[Page 76190]]

    [dec221] Were the agency able to provide more than the amount of 
lead time permitted by the statutory mandate, the additional leadtime 
might be sufficient to allow the development of cheaper cameras.
    As noted, the agency requests comments on all of the foregoing 
points. And in view of the cost of our proposed option, the agency is 
seeking comment and suggestions on any alternative options that would 
lower costs, maintain all or most of the benefits of the proposal, and 
lower net costs or the cost per equivalent life saved. We carefully 
explored our ability under the Act to vary the population of vehicles 
subject to the proposal, vary the performance requirements, and extend 
the leadtime to implement the proposal and thereby develop alternative 
options that offer benefits similar to those of our proposal, but at 
reduced cost. Although our ability to make any of those types of 
adjustments appears constrained as a legal or practical matter, and 
although none of the alternative options that the agency has been able 
to identify would accomplish all three of those goals, we are seeking 
comment on them and on any others that commenters may suggest.
    We seek comment especially on the alternative option under which 
passenger cars would be required to be equipped with either a rearview 
visibility (e.g., camera) system or with a system that includes sensors 
that monitor a specified area behind the vehicle and an audible warning 
that sounds when the presence of an object is sensed. Under this 
option, other vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or less, gross vehicle 
weight, would be required to be equipped with a visibility system.
    This alternative would have substantially lower, but still 
significant, safety benefits, substantially lower installation costs, 
lower net costs, and higher cost per equivalent life saved. Cars not 
equipped under this option with a rearview visibility system would be 
required to provide an audible warning inside the vehicle of not less 
than 85 dBa between 500-3000 Hz when a test object is placed in one of 
the locations specified for test objects in the requirements for 
rearview image performance and the vehicle transmission is shifted into 
reverse gear. Given that current sensors have a shorter range than 
rearview visibility systems, the test objects might need to be placed 
somewhat closer to the vehicle than they are when used to test the 
performance of rearview visibility systems. Alternatively, the test 
objects could be placed in the same locations as for rearward 
visibility systems, thus requiring sensors to have stronger signals. A 
disadvantage of doing that would be the risk of increased ``false'' 
activations. This requirement to sense the presence of a test object 
would be required to be met for each of the test object locations. The 
other requirements would be similar to those for the proposed rearview 
systems.

II. Background

A. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007

    Subsection (2)(b) of the K.T. Safety Act directed the Secretary of 
Transportation to initiate rulemaking by February 28, 2009 to amend 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview 
Mirrors, to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a 
motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death 
and injury resulting from backing incidents.\7\ The Secretary is 
required to publish a final rule within 36 months of the passage of the 
K.T. Safety Act (i.e., by February 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted above, the agency first public step toward meeting 
this requirement was the issuance of an ANPRM. It was posted on the 
NHTSA Web site on February 27, 2009, and published in the Federal 
Register on March 3, 2009. 74 FR 9478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that subsection (2)(b) requires the amendment of a Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard, this rulemaking is subject to both the 
requirements of subsection (b) and the requirements for such standards 
in the Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30111.
    Subsection (2)(b) contains the following requirements. Not later 
than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to revise Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard 111 (FMVSS 111) to expand the required field of view to 
enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor 
vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, 
particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons. 
The Secretary may prescribe different requirements for different types 
of motor vehicles to expand the required field of view to enable the 
driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to 
reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly 
incidents involving small children and disabled persons. Such standard 
may be met by the provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or 
other technology to expand the driver's field of view.
    Subsection (2)(e) of the K.T. Safety Act broadly defines the term 
``motor vehicle,'' as used in subsection (2)(b), as follows: As used in 
this Act and for purposes of the motor vehicle safety standards 
described in subsections (a) and (b), the term `motor vehicle' has the 
meaning given such term in section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United 
States Code, except that such term shall not include--a motorcycle or 
trailer; or any motor vehicle that is rated at more than 10,000 pounds 
gross vehicular weight.
    Section 30102(a)(6) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act defines ``motor vehicle'' even more broadly as a vehicle 
driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use 
on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle 
operated only on a rail line.
    The K.T. Safety Act also specifies the rule must be phased-in and 
that it must be fully implemented within four years after the 
publication date of the final rule. The statutory language, contained 
in subsection (c) of the K.T. Safety Act, sets out these requirements 
for the phase-in period: The safety standards prescribed pursuant to 
subsections (a) and (b) shall establish a phase-in period for 
compliance, as determined by the Secretary, and require full compliance 
with the safety standards not later than 48 months after the date on 
which the final rule is issued.
    In establishing the phase-in period of the rearward visibility 
safety standards required under subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
consider whether to require the phase-in according to different types 
of motor vehicles based on data demonstrating the frequency by which 
various types of motor vehicles have been involved in backing incidents 
resulting in injury or death. If the Secretary determines that any type 
of motor vehicle should be given priority, the Secretary shall issue 
regulations that specify which type or types of motor vehicles shall be 
phased-in first; and the percentages by which such motor vehicles shall 
be phased-in.
    Congress emphasized the protection of small children and disabled 
persons, and added that the revised standard may be met by the 
``provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other 
technology to expand the driver's field of view.'' While NHTSA does not 
interpret the Congressional language to require that all of these 
technologies eventually be integrated into the final requirement, we 
have closely examined the merits of each of them, and present our 
analysis of their ability to address the backover safety problem.
    We note that the inclusion of sensors as a ``technology to expand 
the driver's field of view'' suggests that the passage ``expand the 
required field of view''

[[Page 76191]]

should not be read in the literal way as meaning the driver must be 
able to see more of the area behind the vehicle. A literal reading 
would make the reference to sensors superfluous, violating a basic 
canon of statutory interpretation. Instead, it seems that language 
should be read as meaning the driver must be able to monitor, visually 
or otherwise, an expanded area.
    Finally, section 4 of the K.T. Safety Act provides that if the 
Secretary determines that the deadlines applicable under the Act cannot 
be met, the Secretary shall establish new deadlines, and notify the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of 
the new deadlines describing the reasons the deadlines specified under 
the K.T. Safety Act could not be met.
    The relevant provisions in the Vehicle Safety Act are those in 
section 30111 of title 49 of the United States Code. Section 3011 
states that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe motor 
vehicle safety standards. Each standard shall be practicable, meet the 
need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When 
prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter, the 
Secretary shall consider relevant available motor vehicle safety 
information; consult with the agency established under the Act of 
August 20, 1958 (Pub. L. 85-684, 72 Stat. 635), and other appropriate 
State or interstate authorities (including legislative committees); 
consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and 
appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment for which it is prescribed; and consider the extent to which 
the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.

B. Applicability

    With regard to the scope of vehicles covered by the mandate, the 
statute refers to all motor vehicles rated at not more than 10,000 
pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) (except motorcycles and trailers). 
Specifically, it states that the Secretary shall ``revise [FMVSS No. 
111] to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a 
motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle * * *,'' and 
defines a ``motor vehicle'' for purposes of the Act as any motor 
vehicle whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less, except trailers and 
motorcycles. This language means that the revised regulation could be 
applied to passenger cars, low-speed vehicles (LSVs), multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPVs),\8\ buses (including small school buses and 
school vans), and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. In this 
document, we are proposing that each of these types of vehicles would 
be subject to improved rear visibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Per 49 CFR 571.3, multipurpose passenger vehicle means a 
motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or 
trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed 
either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional 
off-road operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note, however, that in our review of real-world crashes, NHTSA 
could not determine whether there were any backover incidents involving 
LSVs, small school buses, and school vans. Accordingly, we seek comment 
and data related to the issue of whether, if the agency remains unable 
to find such incidents, it could reasonably conclude that those 
vehicles pose no unreasonable risk of backover crashes and whether it 
would be permissible therefore it to exclude these vehicles from the 
application of the final rule. The agency invites comment on whether 
the absence of incidents might reflect operational conditions (school 
vehicles-operation in environments in which the vulnerable age groups 
are unlikely to be present or perhaps avoidance of backing maneuvers) 
or a possible absence of any blind spot behind the vehicle (some LSVs).

C. Backover Crash Safety Problem

i. Definitions and Summary
    A backover crash is a specifically-defined type of incident, in 
which a non-occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a pedestrian or cyclist) is 
struck by a vehicle moving in reverse. As stated in the ANPRM, using a 
variety of available data sources, NHTSA has identified a total 
population of 228 fatalities and 17,000 injuries due to light vehicle 
backover crashes.\9\ Unlike other crashes, the overwhelming majority of 
backover crashes occur off of public roadways, in areas such as 
driveways and parking lots. Children and people over 70 are also far 
more likely than other groups to be victims of backover crashes. In the 
case of children, their short stature can make them extremely difficult 
for a driver to see using direct vision or existing mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 FR 9482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because many backover crashes occur off public roadways, NHTSA's 
traditional methodologies for collecting data as to the specific 
numbers and circumstances of backover incidents have not always given 
the agency a complete picture of the scope and circumstances of these 
types of incidents. The following sections detail NHTSA's attempts to 
both quantify the number of backover incidents and determine their 
nature.
    In response to section 2012 of the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-
LU),\10\ NHTSA developed the ``Not-in-Traffic Surveillance'' (NiTS) 
system to collect information about all nontraffic crashes, including 
nontraffic backing crashes. NiTS provided information on these backing 
crashes that occurred off the traffic way and which were not included 
in NHTSA's FARS database or NASS-GES. The subset of backing crashes 
that involve a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other person not in a vehicle, 
is referred to as ``backover crashes.'' This is distinguished from the 
larger category of ``backing crashes,'' which would include such non-
backover events such as a vehicle going in reverse and colliding with 
another vehicle, or a vehicle backing off an embankment or into a 
stationary object. While the primary purpose of this rulemaking is to 
prevent backover crashes, any improvements to rear visibility should 
also have a positive effect on all types of backing crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national estimates for fatalities and injuries presented in the 
ANPRM were developed using data from FARS, NASS-GES, and the NiTS. 
While there are newer estimates available for FARS and NASS-GES, there 
are not for the NiTS and therefore the estimates we provided in the 
ANPRM and in this document represent the most current data available. 
As such, based on the currently available data, NHTSA estimates that 
463 fatalities and 48,000 injuries a year occur in traffic and 
nontraffic backing crashes.\11\ Most of these injuries are minor, but 
an estimated 6,000 per year are incapacitating injuries. Overall, an 
estimated 65 percent (302) of the fatalities and 62 percent (29,000) of 
the injuries in backing crashes occurred in nontraffic situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes, 
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008), DOT HS 811 144. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811144.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on existing data, NHTSA estimates the following number of 
injuries and fatalities. Overall, backing crashes result in 
approximately 463 fatalities and 48,000 injuries. Of those, the subset 
of backover crashes comprises 292 fatalities (63 percent) and 18,000 
injuries (38 percent). These figures are reflected in Table 1 below.

[[Page 76192]]



         Table 1--Annual Estimated Fatalities and Injuries in All Backing Crashes for All Vehicles \12\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total         Backover crashes    Other backing
                                                        --------------------------------------      crashes
                    Injury severity                                                           ------------------
                                                          Estimated total    Estimated total    Estimated total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities.............................................                463                292                171
Incapacitating Injury..................................              6,000              3,000              3,000
Non-incapacitating Injury..............................             12,000              7,000              5,000
Possible Injury........................................             27,000              7,000             20,000
Injured Severity Unknown...............................              2,000              1,000              2,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Injuries.....................................             48,000             18,000             30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. [Note to agency, unknowns will be updated
  prior OST approval to reflect optics that 2,000 + 1,000 does not equal 2.]

ii. Backover Crash Risk by Crash and Vehicle Type
    Backovers account for an estimated 63 percent of all fatal backing 
crashes involving all vehicle types. As indicated in Table 2, an 
estimated 15 percent (68) of the backing crash fatalities occur in 
multivehicle crashes, and an estimated 13 percent (62) occur in single-
vehicle non-collisions, such as occupants who fall out of and are 
struck by their own backing vehicles. About half of the backing crash 
injuries (20,000 per year) occur in multi-vehicle crashes involving 
backing vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Ibid.

                           Table 2--Fatalities and Injuries by Backing Crash Type \13\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    All vehicles           Passenger vehicles
                   Backing crash scenarios                   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fatalities    Injuries    Fatalities    Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backovers: Striking Non-occupant............................          292       18,000          228       17,000
Backing: Striking Fixed Object..............................           33        2,000           33        2,000
Backing: Single-vehicle Non-collision.......................           62        1,000           53        1,000
Backing: Striking/Struck by Other Vehicle (multi-vehicle)...           68       24,000           39       20,000
Backing: Other..............................................            8        3,000            8        3,000
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Backing...........................................          463       48,000          361       43,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.

    Most backover fatalities and injuries involve passenger vehicles. 
Tables 2 and 3 indicate that all major passenger vehicle types (cars, 
trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and vans) with GVWR of 10,000 
pounds or less are involved in backover fatalities and injuries. 
However, the data indicate that some vehicles show a greater 
involvement in backing crashes than other vehicles. Table 3 illustrates 
that pickup trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles are 
statistically overrepresented in backover fatalities when compared to 
all non-backing traffic injury crashes and to their proportion to the 
passenger vehicle fleet. The agency's analysis revealed that while LTVs 
were statistically overrepresented in backover-related fatalities, they 
were not significantly overrepresented in backover crashes generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ibid.

                Table 3--Passenger Vehicle Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Vehicle Type \14\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimated
 Backing vehicle type (GVWR 10,000 lb or less)    Fatalities   Percent of   Estimated    percent of   Percent of
                                                               fatalities    injuries     injuries      fleet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car............................................           59           26        9,000           54           58
Utility Vehicle................................           68           30        3,000           20           16
Van............................................           29           13        1,000            6            8
Truck..........................................           72           31        3,000           18           17
Other Vehicles.................................            0            0            *            2           <1
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Passenger Vehicles.........................          228          100       17,000          100          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.
Note: * Indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.


[[Page 76193]]

iii. Backover Crash Risk by Victim Age
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's data indicate that children and adults over 70 years old 
are disproportionately represented in passenger vehicle backover 
crashes. Table 4 details the ages for fatalities and injuries for 
backover crashes involving all vehicles as well as those involving 
passenger vehicles only. It also details the proportion of the U.S. 
population in each age category from the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau's 
Population Estimates Program for comparison. Similar to previous 
findings, backover fatalities disproportionately affect children under 
5 years old and adults 70 or older. When restricted to backover 
fatalities involving passenger vehicles, children under 5 years old 
account for 44 percent of the fatalities, and adults 70 years of age 
and older account for 33 percent. The difference in the results between 
all backover crashes and passenger vehicle backover crashes occur 
because large truck backover crashes, which are excluded from the 
passenger vehicle calculations, tend to affect adults younger than 70 
years of age.

                     Table 4--All Backover Crash Fatalities and Injuries by Victim Age \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Estimated
                Age of victim                  Fatalities   Percent of   Estimated    percent of    Percent of
                                                            fatalities    injuries     injuries    population **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  All Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 5.....................................          103           35        2,000            8               7
5-10........................................           13            4            *            3               7
10-19.......................................            4            1        2,000           12              14
20-59.......................................           69           24        9,000           48              55
60-69.......................................           28            9        2,000            8               8
70+.........................................           76           26        3,000           18               9
Unknown.....................................  ...........  ...........            *            2  ..............
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................          292          100       18,000          100             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Passenger Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 5.....................................          100           44        2,000            9               7
5-10........................................           10            4        1,000            3               7
10-19.......................................            1            1        2,000           12              14
20-59.......................................           29           13        8,000           46              55
60-69.......................................           15            6        1,000            8               8
70+.........................................           74           33        3,000           19               9
Unknown.....................................  ...........  ...........            *            2  ..............
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................          228          100       17,000          100             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * Indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding.
Note: ** Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2002-2006,
  NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.

    The proportion of backover injuries by age group is more similar to 
the proportion of the population than for backover fatalities. However, 
while children under 5 years old appear to be slightly statistically 
overrepresented in backover injuries compared to the population, adults 
70 years of age and older appear to be greatly overrepresented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 presents passenger vehicle backover fatalities by year of 
age for victims less than 5 years old. Out of all backover fatalities 
involving passenger vehicles, 26 percent (60 out of 228) of victims are 
1 year of age and younger.

   Table 5--Breakdown of Backover Crash Fatalities Involving Passenger
               Vehicles for Victims Under Age 5 Years \16\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                   Age of victim (years)                      fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..........................................................          < 1
1..........................................................           59
2..........................................................           23
3..........................................................           14
4..........................................................            3
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population
  Estimates; FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007.

iv. Special Crash Investigation of Backover Crashes
    As reported in the ANPRM, NHTSA's efforts to collect data on 
police-reported backover crashes have included a Special Crash 
Investigation (SCI) program. The SCI program was created to examine the 
safety impact of rapidly changing technologies and to provide NHTSA 
with early detection of alleged or potential vehicle defects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 74 FR 9478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCI began investigating cases related to backover crashes in 
October 2006.\17\ SCI receives notification of potential backover cases 
from several different sources including media reports, police and 
rescue personnel, contacts within NHTSA, reports from the general 
public, as well as notifications from the NASS. As of August 2009, 
roughly 80 percent of 849 total ``Not-in-Traffic Surveillance'' system 
incident notifications that SCI had received regarded backover

[[Page 76194]]

crashes.\18\ For the purpose of the SCI cases, an eligible backover is 
defined as a crash in which a light passenger vehicle's back plane 
strikes or passes over a person who is either positioned to the rear of 
the vehicle or is approaching from the side. SCI primarily focuses on 
cases involving children; however, it investigates some cases involving 
adults. The majority of notifications received do not meet the criteria 
for case assignment. Typically, the reasons for not pursuing further 
include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes, 
NHTSA Report to Congress (2008).
    \18\ Since SCI investigates as many relevant cases that they are 
notified about as possible and not on a statistical sampling of 
incidents, results are not representative of the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The reported crash configuration is outside of the scope 
of the program,
     Minor incidents with no fatally or seriously injured 
persons, or
     Incidents where cooperation cannot be established with the 
involved parties.
    As an example, many reported incidents are determined to be side or 
frontal impacts, which exclude them from the program. Cases involving 
adult victims were generally excluded from the study unless they were 
seriously injured or killed or if the backing vehicles were equipped 
with backing or parking aids.
    The SCI effort to examine backover crashes includes an on-site 
inspection of the scene and vehicle, as well as interviews of the 
involved parties when possible. When an on-site investigation is not 
possible, backover cases are investigated remotely through an 
examination of police-provided reports and photos as well as interviews 
with the involved parties. For each backover case investigated, a case 
vehicle visibility study is also conducted to determine the size of the 
vehicle's blind zones and also to determine at what distance behind the 
vehicle the occupant may have become visible to the driver.
    Thus far, NHTSA has completed special crash investigations of 58 
backov