New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) |
|---|
|
David L. Strickland
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
September 30, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59866-59878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23700]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0076]
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces the agency's decision to implement
(with minor modifications) the planned update to the U.S. New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) that the agency announced in its June 26,
2013 request for comments (78 FR 38266). As we discussed in that
request for comments, this update will enhance the program's ability to
recommend to consumers vehicle models that have rearview video systems
that the agency believes (based on currently available data) will
decrease the risk of backover crashes. Further, the program will no
longer list electronic stability control (ESC) as a Recommended
Advanced Technology Feature because ESC is now required for all light
vehicles. For many years, NCAP has provided comparative information on
the safety of new vehicles to assist consumers with vehicle purchasing
decisions. NCAP was most recently upgraded for model year 2011 to
include recommended crash avoidance technologies. Those updates, along
with today's updates to NCAP, allow consumers to better distinguish not
only which vehicle models have advanced crash avoidance safety features
but also which of these advanced features are best able to help them
avoid crashes.
DATES: These changes to the New Car Assessment Program are effective
September 30, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Markus
Price, Office of Vehicle Rulemaking, Telephone: 202-366-1810,
Facsimile: 202-366-5930, NVS-121. For NCAP logistics: Mr. Clarke
Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: 202-366-1810,
Facsimile: 202-366-5930, NVS-120.
The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. NCAP and the Recommended Advanced Technology Features
B. Summary of the June 26, 2013 Request for Comments
C. Summary of the Comments Received
III. Final Decision and Response to Comments
A. Clarification of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Implementation Schedule
B. Field of View Criterion
C. Image Size Criterion
D. Response Time Criterion
E. Minor Test Procedure Comments
F. Removing Electronic Stability Control from NCAP
G. Other Issues
IV. Conclusion
I. Executive Summary
This document announces the agency's decision to update the U.S.
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include recommendations to motor
vehicle consumers on vehicle models that have rearview video systems
that can substantially enhance the driver's ability to avoid a backover
crash. This update would substitute rearview video systems for
electronic stability control (ESC) as a Recommended Advanced Technology
Feature on our Web site, www.safercar.gov. NCAP provides comparative
information on the safety performance and features of new vehicles to
assist consumers with their vehicle purchasing decisions.
With some variations, we will implement the plan that was the
subject of our June 26, 2013 request for comments.\1\ While the agency
will remove ESC as a Recommended
[[Page 59867]]
Advanced Technology Feature from NCAP starting in Model Year 2014, the
agency will be moving swiftly to incorporate rearview video systems in
its place. In order to provide as much information to consumers as
quickly as possible, we will be implementing our plan to update NCAP in
two phases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 78 FR 38266 (June 26, 2013) (Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0076).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1: The agency will immediately begin to list
rearview video systems in the Safety Features section of
www.safercar.gov for each vehicle model that has this safety feature
available.
Phase 2: As soon as the agency is able to verify that the
vehicle model has a rearview video system meeting certain basic
criteria (as further discussed below), the agency will recognize those
vehicle models as having a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature on
the www.safercar.gov Web site.
While we have made some modifications to our initial plan for Phase
2 in response to the comments, we believe that the original timing and
the three criteria (field of view, image size, and response time)
remain appropriate for the purposes of ensuring that rearview video
systems that become listed as Recommended Advanced Technology Features
on www.safercar.gov are designed to assist drivers in avoiding backover
crashes. After considering the comments we received, we have clarified
our plans for both Phase 1 and 2 in this document and the docketed test
procedures that the agency will be using to evaluate rearview video
systems for the purposes of Phase 2.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the agency generally received supportive comments to its plan
to update NCAP, various commenters expressed concern over certain
details in implementing this plan. Namely, commenters requested
clarification on the phased approach that the agency plans to use to
implement the change and expressed various concerns over how the agency
plans to test rearview video systems to evaluate whether they are
systems that can address the safety risk. As discussed further, below,
we believe that the issues raised by the commenters can be resolved
with some clarification, minor adjustments to the agency's original
plan, and the test procedures that the agency is docketing along with
this document.\3\ Thus, the agency believes that it is appropriate at
this time to begin implementing its planned update to NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately, it is important to reiterate the agency's statement in
the June 26, 2013 request for comments that the agency's planned update
to NCAP is separate from the agency's ongoing efforts to amend FMVSS
No. 111 pursuant to the requirements of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids
Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (``K.T. Safety Act''). Today's final
decision announces the agency's decision with regard to updating NCAP
to provide information to consumers about rearview video systems.
However, this document is not a resolution to the agency's rulemaking
action to amend FMVSS No. 111, it does not replace the agency's efforts
in that area, nor is this document an alternative to completing that
rulemaking process.
The agency believes that there will be significant advantages in
incorporating rearview video systems into NCAP before completing a
final rule amending FMVSS No. 111. Also, we believe that NCAP is an
important consumer information program that not only educates consumers
about the potential benefits of advanced safety technologies, but also
supports the provision of these potentially life-saving technologies to
the American public. By updating NCAP now, the agency believes that
consumers will receive important information relating to the backover
risk and manufacturers will receive advance recognition for designing
and installing rearview video systems on their vehicles to mitigate
that risk. Even after the agency promulgates a final rule to amend
FMVSS No. 111, consumers and manufacturers will continue to benefit
from this consumer information program during the final rule's phase-in
period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The current proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111 included a
phase-in period covering three model years. See 75 FR 76185, 76188
(December 7, 2010) (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. NCAP and the Recommended Advanced Technology Features
As stated above, NCAP is a consumer information program that
provides comparative information on the safety of new vehicles to
assist consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions and to encourage
motor vehicle manufacturers to make safety improvements. In the area of
crashworthiness safety (how well the vehicle protects occupants in the
event of a crash), NCAP uses the 5-Star Safety Rating system to
communicate the relative performance of vehicles to consumers. The
program was most recently upgraded for model year 2011 to include
(among other changes) recommended crash avoidance technologies
(technologies that help driver avoid crashes). These changes indicate
to consumers which vehicles have Recommended Advanced Technology
Features and which do not.
The purpose of recommending to consumers advanced crash avoidance
technologies is to provide consumers an easy way for identifying those
technologies that data show will address a major safety risk. To this
end, the agency uses three prerequisites to determine which
technologies it should include as Recommended Advanced Technology
Features: (1) It is a technology that addresses a major crash problem;
(2) data exists to estimate its potential effectiveness; and (3) tests
are available to ensure a level of performance so that the technology
will address the safety problem.
As we described in the request for comments, rearview video systems
meet these prerequisites that the agency established for determining
whether a technology should be considered a Recommended Advanced
Technology Feature on www.safercar.gov and no commenter provided any
information to the contrary. Rearview video systems can address
backover crashes, which constitute a major safety problem. Backover
crashes cause a significant number of fatalities and injuries each year
because drivers cannot see the area behind the vehicle where
pedestrians can be located. The currently available information
indicates that vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
10,000 pounds or less alone are involved in approximately 210
fatalities and 15,000 injuries per year.\5\ Further, the currently
available experimental data from the research summarized in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend FMVSS No. 111 lead the agency to
believe that rearview video systems will decrease the risk of backover
crashes.\6\ Finally, since the agency has developed test procedures to
assess rearview video systems to ensure that they are designed so as to
address the backover safety risk, we believe that rearview video
systems are suitable for incorporation into NCAP as a Recommended
Advanced Technology Feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This data include the latest information on the target
population from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and
the General Estimates System (GES). These two sources, in
conjunction with the Not in Traffic Surveillance (NiTS) data, form
the basis for our estimates of the annual fatalities and injuries
that are caused by backover crashes.
\6\ 75 FR 76185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59868]]
B. Summary of the June 26, 2013 Request for Comments
Our request for comments outlined our plan to update NCAP to
include rearview video systems. We stated that, in order to accomplish
the goal of providing information to consumers as quickly as possible,
we would leverage different sections of www.safercar.gov and update
NCAP in two phases. Currently, the agency provides information on
www.safercar.gov for each vehicle model concerning the vehicle's 5-Star
Safety Ratings, stating whether the vehicle model has a Recommended
Advanced Technology Feature, and listing the major safety features
available on the vehicle model. Thus, we designed the two-phase
implementation approach for rearview video systems as follows:
Phase 1: The agency would immediately begin to list
rearview video systems in the Safety Features section for each vehicle
model on www.safercar.gov that has this safety feature available.
Phase 2: As soon as the agency is able to verify that the
vehicle model has a rearview video system meeting certain basic
criteria (as further discussed below) the agency would recognize those
vehicle models as having a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature on
the www.safercar.gov Web site.
As stated in our request for comments, this two-phase approach
enables the agency to minimize the amount of time needed for the agency
to begin providing information to consumers (Phase 1). Further, this
approach maximizes the usefulness of the consumer information in the
long run by ensuring that the rearview video systems listed as a
Recommended Advanced Technology Feature are systems that are designed
to address the backover safety problem (Phase 2).
Towards achieving this goal in Phase 2, we outlined three criteria
that the agency would use to evaluate rearview video systems for the
purposes of listing them as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature.
We stated that to address the backover safety problem, rearview video
systems need to (at a minimum):
(1) Show a visual image of a minimum area behind the vehicle that
is associated with the greatest crash risk,
(2) show this area at a sufficient size so as to enable the driver
to make judgments about the objects behind the vehicle, and
(3) show this area quickly enough to provide the driver with the
relevant information before he/she begins the backing maneuver.
To ensure that rearview video systems recommended in Phase 2 can
accomplish those three goals, we stated in the request for comments our
plan to incorporate (with one modification) the field of view, image
size, and response time requirements and test procedures that we
proposed in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111. These requirements would
become the criteria for determining which rearview video systems would
qualify as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature.
We planned to incorporate the field of view and image size
requirements because those criteria apply to the most basic functions
that the rearview video system needs to perform. As discussed in the
NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111, the field of view criterion for a 20-foot
by 10-foot zone directly behind the vehicle covers the areas behind the
vehicle that are associated with the greatest backover crash risk.\7\
Further, the available research indicates that the image size criterion
(that the test objects contained in the rearview image subtend to a
visual angle of at least 5 minutes of arc \8\) will help ensure that
drivers are able to make judgments about the objects contained in the
rearview image.\9\ We also stated that we planned to utilize the test
procedures proposed in the NPRM to evaluate conformity with these
criteria for the purposes of NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 75 FR 76185, 76227.
\8\ The NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 proposed two requirements
relating to image size. See id. First, the horizontal width of the 3
test objects in the last row along the 20-foot by 10-foot zone
subtend to an average visual angle of 5 minutes of arc. Second, for
each of those test objects, the subtended angle must not subtend to
any angle less than 3 minutes of arc. We plan to continue to use
this approach in evaluating conformity with the NCAP rearview video
system criteria.
\9\ The available research cited in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No.
111 states that a driver can make judgments about an object if the
object is shown at a subtended angle of 5 minutes of arc. See 75 FR
76185, 76229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we planned to adopt the 2.0 second response time
requirement from the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 as a criterion for
listing a rearview video system as a Recommended Advanced Technology
Feature. The agency believes that this requirement is especially
important because, regardless of the quality of the image shown to the
driver, if the image is not shown before a driver begins a backing
maneuver, then it is unlikely that the rearview video system will be
able to assist the driver in avoiding a backover crash. As the agency
explained in the FMVSS No. 111 NPRM, we believe the 2.0-second limit is
appropriate given the amount of time necessary for rearview video
systems to conduct the necessary system checks and the activation times
that are achievable by liquid crystal displays.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 75 FR 76185, 76230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to evaluate conformity with the 2.0 second response time
criterion for the purposes of NCAP, we recognized in the request for
comments that it is important to establish the state of the vehicle
prior to testing for response time. Thus, we planned to include the
following vehicle conditioning procedure when assessing conformity with
the NCAP response time criterion.
Image response time test procedure. The temperature inside the
vehicle during this test is any temperature between 15 [deg]C and 25
[deg]C. Immediately prior to commencing the actions listed in
subparagraphs (a)-(c) of this paragraph, all components of the
rearview video system are in a powered off state. Then:
(a) open the driver's door,
(b) activate the starting system using the key,\11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The terms ``starting system'' and ``key'' have the same
meanings that these terms have in FMVSS No. 114, Theft protection
and rollaway prevention. See 49 CFR Part 571.114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) place the vehicle in reverse at any time not less than 4
seconds after the driver's door is opened.
Immediately after the vehicle is conditioned in accordance with the
above procedure, the agency would select the reverse gear in the
vehicle and measure the 2.0-second response time. As mentioned
previously, we believe that this conditioning procedure appropriately
balanced the need for vehicle conditioning prior to testing conformity
with this NCAP criterion and the need to ensure that the rearview image
is available to the driver at a time that is appropriate for a driver
relying on it to avoid a backover crash. Our naturalistic driving data
\12\ indicate that approximately 90 percent of the time drivers do not
select the reverse gear to begin the backing maneuver less than 4.25
seconds after opening the vehicle's door. In other words, only
approximately 10 percent of the time drivers enter their vehicle and
select the reverse gear in less than 4.25 seconds. Thus, the vehicle
conditioning procedure shown above reasonably approximates the real-
world conditions under which drivers would use these
[[Page 59869]]
systems and a vehicle conforming to the 2.0 second criteria under those
test conditions would have the rearview image available for the driver
in a timely fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ These data are information NHTSA prepared in support of the
research report titled ``On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview
Video Systems.'' See Mazzae, E. N., et al. (2008). On-Road Study of
Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 811 024. A summary of these
naturalistic driving data prepared for that study (as it pertains to
the length of time drivers take to select the reverse gear) is
available in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of the Comments Received
In response, the agency received comments from a variety of
organizations including manufacturers, trade associations, and advocacy
groups. The trade associations included the Alliance of Automotive
Manufacturers (Alliance), the Association of Global Automakers, Inc.
(Global Automakers), the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association
(MEMA) and the Automotive Safety Council (ASC). The vehicle and
equipment manufacturers included General Motors, LLC (GM), Honda Motor
Co., Ltd. (Honda), BMW AG, BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), Ford Motor
Company (Ford), Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla), and Delphi. The advocacy
groups submitting comments included the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS), the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), and the
Advocates for Highway Safety (the Advocates). In general, the comments
supported the agency's plan to update NCAP to include rearview video
systems as opposed to ESC.
The most significant concerns raised by vehicle manufacturers
focused on the criteria that the agency would use to evaluate systems
during Phase 2 (i.e., the field of view, image size, and response
time). While many of these concerns requested clarifications of the
agency's test methods, others requested changes to those methods. For
example, the manufacturers expressed concern with the field of view
criteria and how their use of overlays in the rearview image may affect
their conformity with that criterion. In another example, several
manufacturers suggested different test procedures for assessing
conformity with the response time criterion based on their system
design.
Further, both vehicle and equipment manufacturers requested the
agency provide more clarification as to the details of Phase 1 and
Phase 2 implementation. Questions included the timing of each phase,
and the systems that would qualify under each phase. The equipment
manufacturers further commented that additional consideration should be
given to autonomous vehicle controls that may prevent backover crashes
and that rearview video systems should be added to the Monroney label
(the label that is affixed on new vehicles offered for sale on the
dealership lot).
While the advocacy groups generally supported the agency's plan to
update NCAP, one advocacy group opposed including rearview video
systems into NCAP unless the final rule amending FMVSS No. 111 pursuant
to the K.T. Safety Act is released concurrently with the update.
III. Final Decision and Response to Comments
While the agency received and reviewed the aforementioned comments,
these comments do not support any significant deviation from the
agency's original plan to update NCAP that it announced in the June 26,
2013 request for comments. The available information continues to
support the decision to provide information to consumers about rearview
video systems as soon as possible. Thus, in this final decision, we
announce our intention to implement the plan to update NCAP from that
request for comments.
Pursuant to that plan, we will remove ESC from the list of
Recommended Advanced Technology Features beginning in Model Year 2014
and add rearview video systems using a two-phase process. First, we
will immediately begin listing rearview video systems (for vehicle
models that have these systems) in the Safety Features section of
www.safercar.gov. Second, as soon as we are able to verify that vehicle
models with rearview video systems meet the field of view, image size,
and response time criteria, we will begin listing those vehicles as
having a rearview video system that is a Recommended Advanced
Technology Feature.
However, in response to the comments received, we believe it is
appropriate to clarify and institute various minor adjustments to this
plan. As will be discussed in greater detail below, this document
clarifies that agency's intention with regard to each phase of the two-
phase implementation strategy. It further describes the various
adjustments to the test procedure for evaluating conformity with the
NCAP field of view, image size, and response time criteria. These
adjustments have been incorporated into the test procedures that
accompany this document in the docket. The more significant changes in
these procedures from the request for comments were: (1) Clarified how
the test procedures and performance criteria apply to rearview video
systems with alternate views and overlays; (2) added a maximum time to
the response time vehicle conditioning test procedure; and (3) adjusted
the test reference point as suggested by the commenters. The following
is our analysis and response to the comments.
A. Clarification of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Implementation Schedule
As mentioned above, the agency announced its plan to use a two-
phase approach to incorporate rearview video systems as a Recommended
Advanced Technology Feature in NCAP. We stated in the June 26, 2013
request for comments that we would leverage different portions of the
Web site in order to minimize the amount of time needed before the
agency can begin providing consumers information while also maximizing
the usefulness of the consumer information in the long run. In response
to the comments received, we are clarifying various aspects of this
implementation schedule.
Clarifying the Systems That Qualify for Phase 1 and the Timing of Phase
1
In our June 26, 2013 request for comments we explained that the
agency's plan during Phase 1 would be to immediately begin indicating
on www.safercar.gov which vehicle models have rearview video systems as
an available safety feature. We received comments from MEMA and Global
Automakers requesting clarification regarding what systems would
qualify under this phase and what the timing is for this phase.
The systems that the agency would list in the Safety Features
section of www.safercar.gov for each vehicle model would be those that
the manufacturers advertise (or represent through other means such as
informing the agency) as a system that provides a view of the area
behind the vehicle. These systems are sometimes listed as ``backup
cameras'' or under other similar labels. In other words, they are
rearview video systems (not additional mirrors or lenses) that may be
listed as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature but have not yet
been evaluated to one or more of the Phase 2 criteria. For instance, a
rearview video system that does not meet the response time criterion in
Phase 2, cannot not be listed among the Recommended Advanced Technology
Features, but will be listed in the Safety Features section.
The intent of the Safety Features section of each vehicle model's
page on www.safercar.gov is to provide a central location (easily
accessible by consumers) with uniform lists of potential additional
safety information that consumers can use to compare different vehicle
models. Under Phase 1, the agency would be providing this additional
information about models with rearview video systems but not
[[Page 59870]]
evaluating the systems to determine whether they meet criteria designed
to ensure that they address the backover safety problem. Since
information about whether vehicle models have rearview video systems is
currently available, the agency will immediately begin adding this
information to the Safety Features section of www.safercar.gov upon the
publication of this document.
Timing for Implementing Phase 2
In our request for comments, we did not provide a specific
timetable for Phase 2. Instead, we stated our plan to begin listing
rearview video systems as Recommended Advanced Technology Features as
soon as the agency is able to verify that those systems meet certain
basic criteria (as further discussed below) that are designed to ensure
that these systems will help drivers avoid backover crashes. We
received a number of comments from manufacturers and their trade
associations requesting that the agency clarify the timing of Phase 2
and incorporate ``lead time'' into the implementation schedule for
Phase 2. For example, the Alliance requested that the Phase 2 change to
NCAP be incorporated at least six months after the publication of the
test procedures accompanying this document. In another example, GM
commented that Phase 2 should begin on the first September 1 date that
is at least six months after the publication of the test procedures.
While we acknowledge the commenters' concerns, our decision for the
purposes of implementing Phase 2 of incorporating rearview video
systems into NCAP as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature remains
the same. We are not convinced, as the commenters seem to suggest, that
implementing Phase 2 requires a specific timetable affording
manufacturers ``lead time.'' First, unlike when the agency promulgates
a new FMVSS, participation in NCAP is voluntary. Second, in the case of
this particular technology, the test procedure and performance criteria
for the purposes of NCAP are similar to existing procedures that have
been publically available since 2010. Given the previous public
availability of similar testing procedures and the voluntary nature of
this program, the agency does not believe that a specific timetable is
necessary for the implementation of this particular technology into
NCAP. The agency will work closely with manufacturers to quickly
determine whether their systems meet the Phase 2 criteria. We believe
that, by working expeditiously with manufacturers, we can begin to
provide information to consumers as soon as possible and encourage
manufacturers to participate in this aspect of NCAP.
Thus, the agency sees no reason to delay implementing Phase 2. As
we will discuss further in a later section, we will no longer be
listing ESC as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature for Model Year
2014. Thus, as soon as the agency can determine (whether through
information supplied by a manufacturer or through the agency's own
testing) that a certain vehicle model has rearview video systems that
meet the Phase 2 criteria, the agency will implement Phase 2 for that
particular model (i.e., list the vehicle model as having the
Recommended Advanced Technology Feature).
Clarifying the Safety Feature and the Recommended Advanced Technology
Feature
In the comments from MEMA and Global Automakers, both organizations
requested that the agency clarify to consumers what the difference is
between a rearview video system listed in the Safety Features section
of the Web site versus a rearview video system listed as a Recommended
Advanced Technology Feature. There is concern from both organizations
that it will not be apparent to consumers what the difference is when
one system is listed as a safety feature whereas another may be listed
as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature.
We agree with the commenters that the agency should clarify the
differences between rearview video systems that are listed as a safety
feature versus those that are listed as a Recommended Advanced
Technology Feature. We believe that consumers should be able to
recognize that rearview video systems listed as Recommended Advanced
Technology Feature are systems that have been evaluated against certain
performance criteria designed to ensure that these systems can help
drivers avoid backover crashes. Thus, in our implementation of Phase 1,
we will note on www.safercar.gov that rearview video systems that are
listed only as safety features are systems that have not yet been
evaluated to determine whether they conform to the criteria discussed
in this document.
Listing Features as Optional or Standard
In addition to the above comments, Global Automakers expressed
concern that the agency intended to limit listing rearview video
systems as safety feature or a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature
only to situations where this equipment is standard. It was not our
intent to list rearview video systems only in situations where they are
offered as standard equipment. Thus, for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, we
will note whenever the system is offered as standard or as optional
equipment.
B. Field of View Criterion
In our request for comments, we stated our plan to use the proposed
field of view requirements and test procedures in the NPRM to amend
FMVSS No. 111 as a criterion for the purposes of Phase 2 of this update
to NCAP. We stated that a field of view criterion for a 20-foot by 10-
foot zone directly behind the vehicle (as measured by the test
procedures in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111) would cover the areas
behind the vehicle that are associated with the greatest backover crash
risk. While the commenters raised various concerns with this planned
criterion, we believe that the following clarifications of the agency's
test procedures will address their concerns. We continue to believe
that the field of view criterion is important and appropriate for
determining which rearview video systems the program should list as a
Recommended Advanced Technology Feature. The following were the
concerns raised by the commenters and our responses to those concerns.
Placement of Test Objects F and G and Low Rear Height Vehicles
As proposed in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111, the test procedure
to evaluate the field of view (which covers 5 feet from either side of
the vehicle center line to 20 feet longitudinally from the vehicle's
rear bumper) would use seven test objects placed along the perimeter of
the 10-foot by 20-foot zone behind the vehicle. See Figure 1, below. To
meet the field of view criterion for the purposes of NCAP, a rearview
video system would need to show the entirety of test objects A through
E (the test objects greater than 10 feet behind the vehicle bumper) and
show at minimum a width of 5.9 inches (150 mm) along any point of test
objects F and G (the test objects only 1 foot behind the vehicle
bumper). While manufacturers raised concerns with this criterion, we
believe that it is appropriate to incorporate it (unaltered) into NCAP
for the purposes of assessing rearview video systems in Phase 2.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 59871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE13.001
Certain manufacturers expressed two concerns with this test
procedure to evaluate the field of view criterion. First, both the
Alliance and Global Automakers assert that test objects F and G should
be placed in a location that is proportional to the vehicle width (as
opposed to 5 feet to the left and right of the vehicle centerline).
They contend that vehicles using a 130 degree camera would not cover
the required portions of test objects F and G (in their current
locations). Second, the Alliance stated that certain vehicles with a
low rear height (i.e., a vehicle that is not high off the ground) has
less height flexibility for mounting a camera. Thus, the Alliance
suggests that vehicles with an upper protected surface of the rearmost
body structure of 750 mm or less be required to show only a minimum
height of 0.4 meters (half the height) of test objects A through E
(objects greater than 10 feet from the vehicle bumper).
[[Page 59872]]
We disagree with the manufacturers that this procedure for
evaluating the field of view criterion does not accommodate vehicles
with rearview video systems using a 130 degree camera or vehicles with
a low rear height. When we originally developed this test procedure for
the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111, we specifically designed this test
procedure to be able to accommodate these types of vehicle designs. In
response to the manufacturers' first concern, it seems clear that if we
take into account three-dimensional nature of a camera's field of view,
a 130 degree camera will cover the specified areas of all the test
objects even if the vehicle has a low rear height. In tests conducted
by the agency, the vast majority of vehicles equipped with rearview
video systems were capable of meeting the field of view requirements as
proposed in the NPRM.\13\ Thus, we are unaware of any camera that has a
vertical angle limitation which would prevent it from easily being
mounted at a pitch which covers the full height of test objects A
through E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162-0133, Vehicle Rearview Image
Field of View and Image Quality Measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the manufacturers' second concern, we note that the
portions of the F and G test objects that must be shown are measured by
width only in order to accommodate vehicles of varying height and
width. Thus, we disagree with the manufacturers that a 130-degree
camera is unable to cover the width parameters for test objects F and
G. We believe that the diagrams presented by the commenters regarding
the inability of the 130-degree camera to cover test objects F and G
fail to consider the three-dimensional properties of a camera's viewing
angles. As Magna, a rearview video system manufacturer, stated in their
comments to the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111, a 130-degree camera can
readily cover the 5.9-inch (150-mm) width parameters of test objects F
and G when mounting height and camera pitch is considered.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Comments from Magna Mirrors, April 5, 2011. Docket No.
NHTSA-2010-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the available information indicates that existing systems
either already conform to (or can be easily adjusted to conform to) the
field of view criterion from the June 26, 2013 request for comments, we
believe there is no reason to adjust this criterion to reduce the field
of view below the 10-foot by 20-foot zone where there is the highest
risk of a backover crash.
Default View
The second concern from manufacturers was a question regarding
alternative views of the area behind the vehicle that manufacturers
provide with their systems. In their comments, Honda described an
alternate view called ``top-view'' where the rearview video system
displays a focused view of the area immediately behind the vehicle for
the purposes of assisting in trailer hitching. Honda notes that this
view would not conform to the field of view criterion we described in
the request for comment. Honda stated that this mode is only active
when a driver intentionally switches to that mode and that the rearview
video reverts to a default view that conforms to the field of view
criterion upon each new ignition cycle. Similar to Honda's comment, BMW
also stated its belief that drivers should have the ability to switch
to alternative views that may not meet the field of view criterion and
that rearview video systems can default to the NCAP field of view.
While the agency is concerned that drivers may permanently or
accidentally deactivate the rearview safety feature, the agency does
not intend to preclude this design flexibility for the purposes of NCAP
because those features also have the potential to afford drivers
benefits in other contexts. However, we believe that the field of view
criterion and the test procedure accompanying this document address
these concerns from Honda and BMW by balancing our safety concerns with
the commenters' request for design flexibility. The test procedure that
the agency would use to verify conformity with the field of view
criterion does not include any procedure that selects an alternate
view. The test uses the initial (or default after each ignition cycle)
view that appears after the vehicle's starting systems is activated and
the vehicle is placed into reverse.
By defining these conditions in the test procedure, the agency
would evaluate the initial/default view of a rearview video system for
the purposes of assessing conformity to the NCAP field of view
criterion. Thus, vehicles with rearview video systems that are
Recommended Advanced Technology Features will provide drivers with a
view that covers the greatest areas of backover risks during a backing
maneuver. However, manufacturers would not be precluded from offering
drivers additional convenience features when designing vehicles to
conform to the NCAP field of view criterion.
Overlays
The third concern raised by the manufacturers was the effect of
overlays on a rearview video system's ability to conform with the field
of view criteria. For example, GM commented that they currently provide
two types of overlays in their vehicles' rearview video displays. The
first type is a wire frame that indicates the path of the vehicle. GM
asserted that these provide distance and predicted path information
that can assist a driver when reversing the vehicle. The second type is
target warnings. GM stated that these are a crash avoidance feature
that can identify objects that are potentially in the path of the
vehicle and warn the driver about the presence of these objects.
Similar to GM's comment on overlays, the Alliance stated that elements
such as guidelines, arrows, icons, and warning messages (e.g., ``Check
Surroundings for Safety'') may not meet the NCAP field of view
criterion. Both commenters requested that the NCAP field of view
criterion include provisions that allow the use of overlays.
The agency agrees with the commenters that video image overlays may
have the potential to add safety-related features to rearview video
systems by drawing drivers' attention to potential hazards behind the
vehicle. This is especially true if rearview video systems are designed
to warn drivers of the presence of pedestrians behind the vehicle.
However, the agency is conscious that overlays (whether they are object
detection warnings, path prediction guidelines, warning statements such
as ``Check Surroundings for Safety,'' etc.) can be potentially applied
to the rearview image in both safe and unsafe manners. Depending on
their size, location, and orientation, overlays have the potential to
create unsafe blind zones in the rearview image and to mask small
obstacles, such as children. Without further research, the agency is
not currently aware of a practicable and objective method of
discriminating between safe and unsafe applications of overlays.
Thus, the test procedure and the field of view performance criteria
for the purposes of Phase 2 of incorporating rearview video systems
into NCAP will not limit the use of overlays so long as the overlays do
not cover the portions of the test objects specified in the field of
view performance criterion and test procedures. In other words, systems
with overlays will still be required to meet the field of view
criterion so long as those overlays do not obscure any portion of the
test object. However, as discussed earlier, the test procedures
published with this document assess conformity with the Phase 2
criteria based on the default (or initial) view after each ignition
cycle that the vehicle shows in the rearview image. Therefore, overlays
would conform to the field of
[[Page 59873]]
view criterion (even when they obscure portions of the test objects) if
they are manually activated by the driver.
However, we note that on-screen overlays (such as guidelines) may
react to driver use of the steering wheel and that the steering wheel
position can affect a vehicle's conformity to the field of view
criterion. Thus, in order to ensure test repeatability, the test
procedures that accompany this document will clarify the steering wheel
test condition by stating that the steering wheel is in a position
where the longitudinal centerline of all vehicle tires are parallel to
the vehicle longitudinal centerline. This steering wheel position
simulates the straight ahead steering wheel position, which most likely
simulates the conditions drivers experience when conducting a backing
maneuver along a straight driveway.
At the moment, we believe this is the most appropriate balance for
ensuring that rearview video systems that are listed as Recommended
Advanced Technology Features can address the backover safety risk and
still have the flexibility to incorporate advanced object detection
functions. The agency encourages manufacturers to develop systems that
detect and highlight pedestrians and we note that such overlays would
not affect a rearview video system's conformity to the NCAP field of
view criterion because such a system would not activate an overlay
during our field of view test. However, the agency remains cautious
that overlays may have the potential to operate unsafely depending on
their size, orientation, and placement in the rearview image. Although
the agency is currently unaware of a practicable and objective method
of distinguishing safe overlays from unsafe overlays at this time, we
expect that manufacturers will design overlays conscious of the fact
that the rearview video systems that are part of NCAP are systems that
address an important safety purpose.
C. Image Size Criterion
As mentioned above, the June 26, 2013 request for comments
indicated that the agency planned to incorporate the proposed image
size requirement set forth in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 as a
criterion for the purposes of NCAP. We cited the available research
that indicates that showing the test objects in the rearview image at a
subtended visual angle of at least 5 minutes of arc will help ensure
that drivers are able to make judgments about the objects contained in
the rearview image. The agency continues to believe that it is
appropriate to include image size as a criterion for listing a rearview
video system as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature as it
received no comments in opposition to this criterion.
However, we acknowledge the concern from Global Automakers that
certain rearview displays may have a curved or transparent outer lens
that may affect the ability to affix a ruler to the rearview display as
described the test procedure proposed in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No.
111. Depending on the specific situation, we note that it may be
necessary to remove the transparent cover or use an alternative method
to obtain the measurement of the subtended angle. The agency believes
that, as long as the measurement of the subtended angle is valid,
accommodating rearview video systems with transparent covers over the
rearview display in the performance of the test will not alter the test
results. Thus, the test procedure (accompanying this document) that we
will use to evaluate conformity with the image size criterion for the
purposes of NCAP is the proposed test procedure set forth in the NPRM
to amend FMVSS No. 111.
D. Response Time Criterion
As mentioned above, the agency indicated in its June 26, 2013
request for comments that it plans to evaluate the response time of
rearview video systems before listing them as a Recommended Advanced
Technology Feature. We stated that the 2.0-second limit is appropriate
given the amount of time necessary for rearview video systems to
conduct the necessary system checks and the activation times that are
achievable by liquid crystal displays. Because the availability of the
rearview image at the beginning of the backing maneuver is critical to
realizing the safety benefits of this technology, we believe that it is
appropriate for these systems to activate as soon as possible.
However, we acknowledged the concerns of manufacturers that the 2.0
second response time requirement that was proposed as a part of the
NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 did not specify the vehicle condition prior
to testing. Based on the comments received from the NPRM to amend FMVSS
No. 111, we believe that the vehicle's state can affect the results of
the test. Thus, we indicated in our June 26, 2013 request for comments
that our plan for NCAP would be to use a test procedure to condition
the vehicle prior to testing the response time criterion. To that end,
we indicated that we would use the following procedure:
Image response time test procedure. The temperature inside the
vehicle during this test is any temperature between 15 [deg]C and 25
[deg]C. Immediately prior to commencing the actions listed in
subparagraphs (a)-(c) of this paragraph, all components of the
rearview video system are in a powered off state. Then:
(a) open the driver's door,
(b) activate the starting system using the key,\15\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The terms ``starting system'' and ``key'' have the same
meanings that these terms have in FMVSS No. 114. See 49 CFR 571.114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) place the vehicle in reverse at any time not less than 4
seconds after the driver's door is opened.
The manufacturers and their trade associations had additional
concerns in response to the new test procedure that we announced in the
request for comments. We address those concerns in the sections that
follow and have made the appropriate adjustments in the test procedures
accompanying this document in the docket.
Two-Second Response Time Criterion
Various commenters stated that the response time criterion should
be greater than 2.0 seconds. Without additional reasoning, the Alliance
stated that it supported a 3.0 second response time criterion so long
as the vehicle is preconditioned according to the test procedure
specified in the request for comments. Similarly, GM stated a 2.5
second maximum response time is more appropriate in order to
accommodate the various types of displays that rearview video systems
may use because integrated console displays require additional time to
activate when compared to in-mirror displays. Separately, Global
Automakers stated that some systems are designed to begin system
activation when the ignition is on and the engine is running. Thus,
they suggest that the vehicle conditioning begin when the vehicle's
ignition is turned to the on position (as opposed to when the door is
opened).
While we have considered the concerns expressed by the commenters,
they do not compel us to change the response time criterion of 2.0
seconds for the purposes of NCAP. The agency believes very strongly
that this criterion is as important as the field of view and image size
criteria. As we stated before, a rearview image that shows the
appropriate areas behind the vehicle at the appropriate size will still
be unable to help the driver avoid a crash if it does not appear in a
timely fashion (i.e., before the driver begins the backing maneuver).
When we began the rulemaking process to amend FMVSS No. 111 by issuing
an ANPRM in March of 2009, we recognized this important
[[Page 59874]]
safety concern and proposed a 1.25 second response time.
However, in the NPRM, we proposed a 2.0 second requirement for the
purposes of amending FMVSS No. 111. We cited two technological
limitations that necessitated a longer maximum response time. First, a
need for additional tolerances for certain systems to produce the
required image in part because those systems conduct image quality
control checks before displaying the image. Both GM and Gentex stated
in their comments that a required image response time of 1.25 may
adversely affect the image quality displayed in those systems.
Second, the agency noted that liquid crystal displays (LCDs)
require time to warm-up before they can display an image and that this
time may vary depending on the location of the visual display. The
agency acknowledged that in-mirror displays (which are only activated
when the reverse gear is selected) may require additional warm-up time
when compared to in-dash displays (which may be already in use for
other purposes such as route navigation). For these reasons, the
proposed rule in the NPRM extended the image response time requirement
to 2.0 seconds. The agency was not aware of any rationale that
justified extending the response time requirement beyond 2.0 seconds.
For the purposes of evaluating conformity of the response time
criterion in NCAP, we see no reason to deviate from what we proposed as
appropriate for FMVSS No. 111. Further, we are still concerned that a
slow-responding rearview video system will fail to present the rearview
image to the driver in time to assist the driver in avoiding a backover
crash. The agency recognizes that, in order to reduce the risk of a
backover crash, the countermeasure needs to be available when the risk
is present. It seems clear from the available information that the
backover risk exists as soon as the vehicle begins moving in reverse.
While we acknowledge GM's comment that our response time criterion
is based (in part) on the timing that is technically feasible for
rearview video systems that use in-mirror displays, we disagree that
integrated console displays will necessarily have longer response
times. In deciding to propose the 2.0 second response time for the
purposes of FMVSS No. 111, we reasoned that in-mirror systems would
take longer to initialize than integrated console systems due to their
generally powered-off state during normal vehicle operation. Without
additional data (or some technical reason) demonstrating a rationale
that explains why integrated console systems now require more time than
we believed was necessary for in-mirror displays, we are not convinced
that it is not technically possible for rearview video systems to
achieve a 2.0 response time criterion for the purposes of NCAP. We note
that manufacturers using integrated console screens with their rearview
video systems may always initialize their screens at an earlier time
before the vehicle is shifted into reverse in order to further minimize
their response time.
We have also considered Global Automakers' comment that some
vehicles initialize their rearview video system when the ignition is
activated and the engine is running. We note that this is permissible
and nothing in the test procedure precludes such a system for the
purposes of being considered a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature
in NCAP. However, for the reasons mentioned above, we decline to adjust
the NCAP rearview video system test conditioning procedure to include
additional time from when the driver opens the vehicle door (as
suggested by Global Automakers) or extend the response time to 3.0
seconds (as suggested by the Alliance). Given the severity of the
potential safety risk of not presenting the rearview image to the
driver in a timely fashion, neither commenter presented a rationale
that supports extending the response time criterion or its conditioning
procedure.
As noted above, we believe that there are simple strategies
available that would enable manufacturers to significantly reduce their
response time (e.g., initializing a console screen earlier). Thus, in
order to recommend to consumers rearview video systems as Recommended
Advanced Technology Features that adequately address the backover
safety risk, we do not believe it is appropriate to adjust the test
procedure in the manner suggested by the commenters for the purposes of
NCAP.
Maximum Test Procedure Time
In addition, various commenters stated that, in order save power,
electronic systems in vehicles will initiate sleep mode if the vehicle
is inactive for a given period of time. Thus, these commenters
expressed concern with the fact that the vehicle conditioning test
procedure that we specified in the request for comments has a minimum
procedure time but not a maximum procedure time. In other words, while
the agency would not place the vehicle into reverse less than 4.0
seconds after the door is opened, the commenters are concerned that the
agency would wait much longer than 4.0 seconds before placing the
vehicle into reverse and testing for the response time criterion. Thus,
for example, GM recommended that the procedure specify that the vehicle
is shifted into reverse a maximum 60 seconds after the vehicle is
started. Using similar reasoning, Ford suggested a 5 second maximum
time for activating the starting system (as measured from a new item in
the vehicle conditioning procedure where the vehicle door is closed
after it is opened).
We agree with the commenters that this part of the vehicle
conditioning procedure is unspecified and that it should be specified
for the purposes of evaluating conformity with the NCAP response time
criterion. Thus, we have included a maximum vehicle conditioning
procedure time in addition to the original minimum time of 4.0 seconds
in the test procedures that accompany this document in the docket. For
the purposes of the NCAP conformity test, we have chosen to include a
maximum procedure time of 6.0 seconds because our intent is to test the
rearview video system response time at a point in time that is close to
4.0 seconds after the vehicle door is opened. As we mentioned in our
request for comments, we believe that a response time of 2.0 seconds
(as measured in accordance with a condition procedure that lasts 4.0
seconds) will cover the vast majority of potential driving behavior and
ensure that the rearview image is available to the driver at the
appropriate time.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ We note that the test procedure accompanying this document
in the docket specifies that the vehicle is placed in reverse at any
time that is between 4.0 seconds and 6.0 seconds from when the
vehicle door was opened. In other words, the rearview video system
must be able to achieve the response time of 2.0 seconds when the
vehicle is conditioned using a procedure that lasts any amount of
time between 4.0 and 6.0 seconds to qualify as a Recommended
Advanced Technology Feature in NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Response Time Test Procedure Issues
GM and the Alliance commented that the NCAP criterion does not
indicate how to determine that the shift to reverse has been
accomplished. They suggested that an easy and reliable method for
determining that reverse has been selected is to observe the backup
lamps.
We have considered these comments regarding using the backup
lamp(s) as a reference point for the start of the response time
criteria (reverse has been selected). While it is possible that on many
vehicles measuring the activation of the backup lamps is a reasonable
[[Page 59875]]
proxy for determining when the reverse has been selected, it is not the
only means for determining that this item in the test procedure is
complete. Although it is important that the agency conduct the test and
determine the point in time that the driver (or test engineer) selects
reverse, any valid means for achieving this goal will produce a valid
test under the test procedures accompany this document in the docket.
Thus, the test procedure accompanying this document in the docket does
not specify a specific method of determining when reverse is selected.
However, we believe it is helpful to clarify the point in time at
which we begin measuring the 2.0 second response time. As mentioned
above, the vehicle conditioning procedure specified in the June 26,
2013 request for comments specified that the vehicle is placed in
reverse within a specified range of time. We intended this aspect of
the vehicle conditioning procedure to refer to the selection of the
reverse direction by the driver (or test engineer). Thus, the test
procedures accompanying this document in the docket clarifies this
aspect of the vehicle conditioning procedure by specifying that reverse
is selected within a specified range of time (as opposed to specifying
that the vehicle is placed in reverse within a specified range of
time).
E. Minor Test Procedure Comments
In addition to the above comments, certain manufacturers also
raised a few points regarding the test procedures for assessing
conformity with the Phase 2 criteria that require clarification. We
agree with the commenters that these points should be clarified and
respond to them as follows:
Orientation of Test Objects F and G
We acknowledge the Alliance's concern regarding whether test
objects F and G can be rotated in order to aim the 150-mm-vertical
stripe towards the camera. We note that the test procedure and the
field of view criteria adopted for the purposes of NCAP in this
document merely requires that a 150-mm width (along the circumference)
of test objects F and G be visible and does not restrict the
orientation of the vertical stripe on those test objects. The criterion
is that the 150-mm wide circumference is visible. Thus, it is
permissible to rotate test objects F and G in order to facilitate
measuring that part of the field of view criterion.
Test Loading Conditions
The Alliance also commented that the vehicle loading test
conditions in the proposal to amend FMVSS No. 111 differed from the
loading conditions for the other requirements in FMVSS No. 111. The
Alliance recommended that the loading requirements be harmonized for
both the rearview mirror and rearview video system tests at the average
occupant weight of 68 kg. Unlike in the other requirements in FMVSS No.
111, the loading conditions in the test procedure proposed for rearview
video systems in the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111 separate the occupant
weight load (68 kg) into two portions (45 kg on the seat pan and 23 kg
on the floorboard) for a driver and four passengers in their designated
seating positions.
We disagree with the Alliance that the same loading conditions
should be applied to the rearview video system test (for the purposes
of NCAP) and the other requirements of FMVSS No. 111. We are concerned
that in some cases that a different weight distribution may impact the
vehicle's pitch in a way that modifies the outcome of the rearview
video system test. Unlike the mirror requirements of FMVSS No. 111,
rearview video systems that are Recommended Advanced Technology
Features under NCAP would not necessarily be adjustable in the
horizontal and vertical direction. Therefore, the potential impacts of
vehicle pitch (because of weight) are more critical than in the mirror
provisions of FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, the agency believes that
splitting the weight about the seat and floor pan more accurately
simulates an actual vehicle occupant. Accordingly, we continue to
believe that the test procedure loading conditions from the NPRM to
amend FMVSS No. 111 is more appropriate for evaluating rearview video
systems in the context of the Phase 2 criteria for NCAP.
However, we believe that the test procedure could be improved by
more clearly stating how the vehicle would be loaded if it has more
than 5 designated seating positions. Thus, we have clarified the test
procedures accompanying this document in the docket by specifying that
when a vehicle has more than 5 designated seating positions, the
weights that add up to 68 kg simulating each of the five occupants
shall be placed in the driver's designated seating position and any
other available designated seating position in the vehicle.
Test Reference Point
By incorporating the test procedures proposed in the NPRM to amend
FMVSS No. 111, we planned to use a test reference point simulating the
eye point of a 50th percentile male driver for the purposes of
evaluating conformity with the Phase 2 criteria. The procedure
establishes a test reference point where an image is taken to evaluate
conformity with the field of view and image size criteria in NCAP. The
procedure identifies an initial forward-looking eye midpoint of the
driver (Mf) that is 632 mm above the H point (a defined
location on the driver seat) and 96 mm aft of the H point. The
procedure also establishes a head/neck joint center (J) 100 mm rearward
of the forward-looking eye midpoint and 588 mm vertically above the H
point. A point of rotation (J2) is then determined by
drawing an imaginary horizontal line between the forward-looking eye
midpoint (Mf) and a point vertically above the head/neck
joint center (J). Finally, the procedure locates the test reference
point (Mr) by rotating the forward-looking eye midpoint
about the aforementioned point of rotation until the straight-line
distance between the test reference point and the center of the visual
display reaches the shortest possible value. The locations of these
points are visually represented in the NPRM proposing to amend FMVSS
No. 111.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 75 FR 76185, 76233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance commented to one specific aspect of this procedure.
They stated that while the forward looking eye midpoint of the driver
(Mf) is located 632 mm vertically above the H point in the
proposed rule, FMVSS No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems,
references a horizontal plane 635 mm vertically above the H point. In
order to increase consistency across the various standards, the
Alliance requested that we use a forward looking eye midpoint of the
driver (Mf) that is 635 mm above the H point.
We agree that the requirements of FMVSS No. 104 and today's
decision for the purposes of NCAP should be harmonized. We believe that
a 3 mm testing height modification from the requirements proposed in
the NPRM would not have any significant impact on the test results. We
analyzed what the potential difference in test results could be for
different eye points and found that (between a 5th percentile female
and a 95th percentile male) the difference in apparent image size was
only 0.03 minutes of arc (a small amount compared to the 5 minutes arc
image size criterion). Thus, we agree with the Alliance that it is
appropriate to use the eye point that is 635 mm above the H point for
the purposes of evaluating rearview video systems in NCAP.
[[Page 59876]]
Driver Seating Position
By incorporating the driver seating position test conditions from
the NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 111, our plan in the request for comments
was to use a driver seating position that is adjusted to: (1) The
midpoint of the longitudinal adjustment range, (2) the lowest point
along the vertical adjustment range, and (3) have a seat back angle at
the vertical portion of the H-point machine's torso weight hanger at 25
degrees. In its comments, the Alliance suggested that the driver
seating position condition in the proposed test procedure be harmonized
with the test procedure in FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. In
other words, the Alliance recommends that the longitudinal adjustment
for the driver seating condition can be the closest adjustment point to
the rear of the midpoint if no adjustment point exists at the midpoint.
They also recommend that the condition specify that seat backs are
adjusted to the ``manufacturer's nominal design riding position''
recommended by the manufacturer.
The agency has considered these comments regarding the driver
seating position. We agree with the Alliance that this test procedure
(for the purposes of NCAP) should clarify the longitudinal adjustment
setting of the driver seat should no adjustment position exist at the
exact longitudinal midpoint. We agree with the Alliance's
recommendation that in this situation, the closest adjustment position
to the rear of the longitudinal midpoint should be used. Thus, the test
procedures accompanying this document in the docket will address this
change.
However, we decline to adopt the manufacturer's recommended nominal
seat back position test condition as proposed by the Alliance. Unlike
in FMVSS No. 208, we believe it is necessary to specify the seating
position when testing rearview video systems for the purposes of NCAP
because these tests address different safety concerns. While FMVSS No.
208 regulates crash protection, FMVSS No. 111 regulates rear
visibility. Unlike in FMVSS No. 208, variations in the seat back
position can significantly affect the eye point used to evaluate
conformity with the NCAP criteria (particularly with respect to the
possibility that certain interior features of the vehicle's cabin can
become obstacles between the specified eye point in the test procedure
and the rearview image). Thus, the test procedures accompanying this
document in the docket do not adopt a nominal seat back position test
condition as requested by the commenter. Instead, it will continue to
use a seat back angle at the vertical portion of the H-point machine's
torso weight hanger at 25 degrees.
F. Removing Electronic Stability Control From NCAP
In the June 26, 2013 request for comments, we stated that we will
remove ESC as a Recommended Advanced Technology Feature from NCAP. We
received no comments opposed to our plan. We continue to believe that
listing ESC as a recommended technology is no longer useful information
to consumers seeking comparative information about different vehicle
models because ESC is now a required safety feature on vehicles with
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Thus, in implementing this update to
NCAP, we will be substituting rearview video systems for ESC on
www.safercar.gov. Therefore, we will not continue to list ESC as a
Recommended Advance Technology Feature beginning with the current Model
Year 2014.
G. Other Issues
Monroney Label
A number of commenters (Delphi, ASC, and MEMA) suggested that the
agency incorporate all of the safety technology information onto the
Monroney Label (the label that is affixed on new vehicles offered for
sale on the dealership lot). The commenters suggested that placing this
information on the Monroney Label would more quickly and effectively
achieve the goal of informing consumers about the potential safety
benefits of rearview video systems. We agree with these commenters that
exploring additional ways to promote NCAP safety information on the
Monroney Label would be useful. We reiterate our statements from the
request for comment that we are currently considering whether to
incorporate additional advanced crash avoidance technologies (beyond
rearview video systems) into NCAP.\18\ When we have determined which
additional technologies will be incorporated, we will also consider
whether we should initiate a rulemaking to determine whether and how
the incorporated advanced technologies should be included on the
Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 78 FR 20597, Request for Comments, April 5, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Technologies Beyond Rearview Video Systems
Other commenters (Delphi, AMA, ASC, and Tesla) also recommended
that the agency consider other advanced crash avoidance technologies
for NCAP and not preclude the potential for these other technologies to
be added to NCAP. We agree with the commenters that additional
technologies should be considered for incorporation into NCAP. As
mentioned above, we are considering what additional technologies to
incorporate into NCAP. We published a request for comments on April 5,
2013 suggesting various new technologies for incorporation into NCAP.
We will continue to explore additional improvements to NCAP in addition
to the update announced by this document.
Forthcoming Publication of UMTRI Research
The Alliance and General Motors both commented that a forthcoming
study from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI) may indicate that rearview video systems are already having a
significant impact on reducing crashes. They asserted that, if this is
the case, then Phase 2 may not be necessary. While the agency is
encouraged that organizations continue to devote resources to
researching backover crashes (and how to avoid these crashes), the
information is currently unavailable. Thus, the agency is unable to
utilize this information to further refine the performance criteria
established by this document for the purposes of NCAP. However,
regardless of the results of the UMTRI research, minimum performance
criteria are still necessary in order to ensure that the systems
recommended to consumers by NCAP are systems designed to assist drivers
in avoiding backover crashes. Even if the currently available equipped
systems are suitable for helping drivers avoid backover crashes, NCAP
would not be able to ensure that future systems that it recommends
would be similarly suitable for avoiding backover crashes without some
minimum performance criteria.
Concerns About the K.T. Safety Act and the Final Rule To Amend FMVSS
No. 111
Two commenters expressed concerns about the K.T. Safety Act and our
ongoing efforts to amend FMVSS No. 111 pursuant to requirements of the
K.T. Safety Act. First, the Advocates commented that NHTSA should not
update NCAP to include rearview video systems without concurrently
issuing a final rule amending FMVSS No. 111 because the update to NCAP
does not fulfill the requirements of the K.T. Safety Act. Second,
Global Automakers commented that the agency should
[[Page 59877]]
ensure that the requirements in the final rule do not deviate from the
criteria that are established in today's document updating NCAP.
In response to the Advocates, we agree that this document does not
fulfill the requirements of the K.T. Safety Act. We agree that this
document announcing the agency's decision to update NCAP is not a
substitute for the agency's obligation under the K.T. Safety Act to
expand the required field of view to enable drivers of motor vehicles
to avoid backover crashes. As we discussed previously, this document is
not a resolution to the rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 111.
However, we cannot agree with the Advocates that it is unreasonable to
pursue this update to NCAP prior to the promulgation of a final rule
amending FMVSS No. 111 pursuant to the K.T. Safety Act. As we mentioned
above, we believe that this update to NCAP will immediately help inform
consumers about the risks of backover crashes, the potential safety
benefit of rearview video systems by helping drivers avoid such
crashes, and the vehicle models that are equipped with these systems.
These goals can be achieved independent prior to the promulgation of a
final rule to amend FMVSS No. 111 and during the phase-in period after
its promulgation. Thus, we see no reason to delay this decision to
update NCAP.
In response to Global Automakers, we cannot rule out the
possibility that the administrative record for the rulemaking to amend
FMVSS No. 111 may require the agency to conclude in a manner that is
inconsistent with today's final decision on updating NCAP. While we
agree in principle with Global Automakers that the criteria for
evaluating rearview video systems in NCAP should not be different from
the requirements eventually established in a final rule amending FMVSS
No. 111, that rulemaking action is still pending and the agency's
decisions in that rulemaking will need to be based on that rulemaking's
administrative record. As we explained in our response to the
Advocates' comment, this document is not a resolution to the issues
presented in the ongoing rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 111. The
requirements that are appropriate for a final rule amending FMVSS No.
111 must be considered in the context of establishing a Federal
regulation. Thus, while the agency understands the concern expressed by
Global Automakers, the outcome of this final decision to update NCAP is
separate from our rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 111 and cannot
be determinative of the outcome of that action.
Request for Additional Public Consultation
Additionally, Global Automakers suggested that the agency hold a
technical workshop to help increase public dialogue on the NCAP
rearview video system criteria. Separately, MEMA contended in their
comments that NHTSA should provide additional public consultation and
dialogue (e.g., a public workshop or an additional request for comments
in the Federal Register) because adopting the criteria from the NPRM to
amend FMVSS No. 111 creates a ``de facto final rule and compliance
standard.''
In response to MEMA, we disagree that this document creates a de
facto final rule and compliance standard. NCAP is a voluntary program
where the agency provides comparative safety information about vehicle
models to motor vehicle consumers. It is not a rule that applies to any
particular person or entity. Instead, the essence of the program is the
agency publishing the available comparative safety information on
various vehicle models that are available for sale to help consumers
make informed purchasing decisions. The agency has published a notice
to the public and solicited comments regarding its plans to update NCAP
in the interests of designing a program that serves the interests of
consumers making vehicle purchase decisions. Through our June 26, 2013
request for comments and today's final decision responding to those
comments, we believe that we have provided ample opportunity for public
consultation and dialogue on the matter and believe that any further
consultation is likely to further delay providing this useful
information to motor vehicle consumers without any significant
improvements to the program.
IIHS Research
IIHS commented that they support NHTSA's efforts to promote
countermeasures that assist drivers in avoiding backover crashes. They
also agreed that promoting rearview video systems through NCAP is a
useful step toward addressing the backover safety problem. IIHS noted
that all the available data show that rearview video systems greatly
increase visibility behind the vehicle and should create a measureable
effect on reducing backing crashes.
However, they stated that their preliminary data has yet to suggest
these systems are preventing crashes and reducing loss. They cite their
Highway Loss Data Institute compared insurance claim frequencies for
physical damage to the at-fault vehicle (collision coverage) and
physical damage to a struck vehicle or property (property damage
liability coverage) in select Mazda and Mercedes-Benz vehicle models
with and without rearview video systems. They stated that, for these
models, the claim frequencies were directionally inconsistent across
coverage types and they did not observe statistically significant
reductions in claim frequencies. The authors of the study of Mercedes-
Benz vehicles further noted that the transmission status was unknown
meaning that all crashes were considered--including those for which
backup cameras have no ability to prevent. Finally, the authors of the
study of Mazda vehicles noted that there was a reduction in bodily
injury claims, which was statistically significant for paid claims of
high severity and that this suggests that the cameras may be reducing
some non-occupant crashes.
As always, the agency appreciates the data that the IIHS provided.
Our recent experimental research on the effectiveness of rearview video
systems has focused primarily on the crash problems directly addressed
in the K.T. Safety Act, which are backover crashes involving vulnerable
populations such as those involving young children. While the IIHS data
is not focused specifically on these types of crashes, the agency
expects data on crashes resulting in a severe injury or death may
resemble the direction and magnitude of effectiveness found in our
experimental research. In other words, even though the IIHS data
examines all crashes (not just backover crashes) considering only data
on crashes that resulted in severe injuries or deaths may reveal a
correlation between rearview video systems and these types of injuries.
The agency understands that these types of crashes occur much less
frequently than property damage crashes, which makes it more difficult
to find statistical significance using the Highway Loss Data Institute
methodology. In the IIHS analysis of crash data for Mercedes-Benz
vehicles with and without rearview video systems, the organization did
not find a statistically significant difference (which may be partially
attributable to the data's wide confidence interval). However, in their
analysis of Mazda data the organization found a statistically
significant reduction (22.2 percent) in high severity bodily injury
crashes. As IIHS stated in their comments, this data is still
preliminary data. Further, this data is not designed to isolate the
effect of rearview video systems on the specific type of crashes that
we are addressing in this
[[Page 59878]]
document--backover crashes. However, when considering these studies as
well as the other available studies completed by NHTSA and other
organizations, including all the limitations within the methodologies,
the agency continues to believe that the installation of rearview video
systems will decrease the risk of pedestrian backover crashes.
IV. Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above, we believe that it is appropriate
to update NCAP to substitute rearview video systems for ESC at this
time. We believe that this two-phased approach is the most suitable
approach for maximizing not only how quickly the agency can begin
providing information to consumers, but also the quality of information
that will be provided. As we stated previously, this final decision
covers only the agency's planned update to NCAP to incorporate rearview
video systems. This document does not serve as a resolution to the
agency's ongoing rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 111 and does not
substitute the agency's efforts in that area. We remain committed to
completing the rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 111 pursuant to the
requirements of the K.T. Safety Act.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30117, 30166, 30181, and 30182;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-23700 Filed 9-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P