Vol. 151, No. 23 — November 15, 2017

Registration

SOR/2017-231 November 2, 2017

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Standards 101 and 111)

P.C. 2017-1334 November 2, 2017

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to subsections 5(1) (see footnote a) and 11(1) (see footnote b) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote c), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Standards 101 and 111).

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Standards 101 and 111)

Amendments

1 Item 111 of Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:

Column I

Column II

Column III

Classes of Vehicles

Item (CMVSS)

Description

Bus

Motorcycle

Restricted-use Motorcycle

Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle

Passenger Car

Snowmobile

Trailer

Trailer Converter Dolly

Truck

Vehicle Imported Temporarily for Special Purposes

Low-speed Vehicle

Three-wheeled Vehicle

Enclosed Motorcycle

Open Motorcycle

Limited-speed Motorcycle

Motor Tricycle

111

Mirrors and Rear Visibility Systems

X

X

X

X

X

  

X

X

      

X

  

X

X

2 (1) Paragraph 101(3)(k) of Part II of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 101(5) of Part II of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) A speedometer shall be illuminated whenever the vehicle’s propulsion system and headlamps are activated, unless the headlamps are being flashed for signalling purposes or are being operated as daytime running lamps.

3 The headings before section 111 of Part II of Schedule IV to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Mirrors and Rear Visibility Systems

Mirrors
General

4 (1) The headings before subsections 111(7), (13), (14), (16), (25), (26) and (28) of Part II of Schedule IV to the Regulations are converted to the appropriate levels to conform to the addition of the headings before section 111 of Part II of Schedule IV, as enacted by section 3.

(2) Section 111 of Part II of Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (28):

Rear Visibility Systems

(29) Subject to subsection (32), every passenger car and three-wheeled vehicle with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less that is manufactured on or after the day specified in S5.5(b) of section 571.111, chapter V, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States, as amended from time to time, shall be equipped with a rear visibility system that conforms to the requirements for rear visibility set out in S5.5, other than S5.5(a), of that section, as amended from time to time, and that is tested in accordance with the rear visibility test procedure set out in S14 of that section, as amended from time to time.

(30) Subject to subsection (33), every multi-purpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck and bus with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less that is manufactured on or after the day specified in S6.2(b) of section 571.111, chapter V, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States, as amended from time to time, shall be equipped with a rear visibility system that conforms to the requirements for rear visibility set out in S6.2, other than S6.2(a), of that section, as amended from time to time, and that is tested in accordance with the rear visibility test procedure set out in S14 of that section, as amended from time to time.

(31) For the purposes of subsections (29) and (30),

(32) Subsection (29) does not apply to a vehicle to which an information label has been applied under subsection 6.4(1), to which a compliance label has been applied under paragraph 6.6(1)(b) or to which an additional label has been applied under paragraph 9(1)(c) if the vehicle is manufactured before the first anniversary of the day specified in S5.5(b) of section 571.111, chapter V, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States, as amended from time to time.

(33) Subsection (30) does not apply to a vehicle to which an information label has been applied under subsection 6.4(1), to which a compliance label has been applied under paragraph 6.6(1)(b) or to which an additional label has been applied under paragraph 9(1)(c) if the vehicle is manufactured before the first anniversary of the day specified in S6.2(b) of section 571.111, chapter V, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States, as amended from time to time.

Coming into Force

5 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

On April 7, 2014, the United States amended their safety regulation for mirrors by adding the requirement for vehicle manufacturers and importers to improve rear-view visibility for all new light-duty vehicles made on or after May 1, 2018. As this was not part of the corresponding Section 111 (Mirrors) of Schedule IV of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Canadian safety regulation), the Canadian and United States requirements regarding rear-view visibility were not aligned.

On an unrelated subject, an inadvertent requirement was introduced to the recently published amendment to section 101 (Controls, Tell-tales, Indicators and Sources of Illumination) of Schedule IV of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. This introduced an unnecessary requirement, unique to Canada, which may cause a technical hardship for motor vehicle manufacturers, with no added safety benefit.

Background

Back-over crashes

Driver awareness of the immediate vehicle environment while the vehicle is in motion is a very important safety issue. To provide a safe driving environment for all road users, drivers of vehicles that are backing up must be able to see the road, other road users, and road hazards that would be directly behind the vehicle. Young children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and other pedestrians or cyclists are vulnerable to injury or death as a result of back-over crashes (i.e. when a vehicle that is backing up strikes a person).

In 2002, while backing out of his driveway, Dr. Greg Gulbransen (an American pediatrician from Long Island) accidentally struck his two-year-old son Cameron. In reaction to this fatality, the United States Congress passed the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. Among other provisions, this Act directed the United States Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to amend the United States safety regulation on rear-view mirrors to improve the ability of a driver to detect pedestrians in the area immediately behind the vehicle and thereby minimize the likelihood of striking a pedestrian while the vehicle is backing up.

In April 2014, the United States safety regulation regarding rear-view mirrors was amended to improve the safety of vulnerable road users, including small children, by specifying the area behind the vehicle that must be visible to the driver during backing-up manoeuvres. It is anticipated that, to meet the requirement of this amendment, vehicle manufacturers will use the technology of rear-view video systems and in-vehicle visual displays, as they are an effective means of addressing the back-over crash safety concern. This new requirement applies to new light-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4 536 kg (10 000 lb) or less (passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, three-wheeled vehicles, trucks, buses, and low-speed vehicles), manufactured on or after May 1, 2018.

Regulatory alignment with the United States

Transport Canada recognizes the integrated nature of the North American market, and it aims to align the Canadian safety regulations with the United States safety regulations where the United States safety regulation provides the same or greater safety level to road users. The Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was established in 2011 to facilitate the elimination of regulatory differences between Canadian and United States regulations, and for the two parties to work jointly on new safety regulations so that regulatory misalignment is proactively avoided. Motor vehicle manufacturers support the RCC’s goal of aligning the Canadian and United States vehicle safety regulations. Rear back-up cameras are listed as an initiative of the RCC Work Plan for the Motor Vehicles Working Group. The Work Plan states that Canada will complete the Canada Gazette, Part I and Part II publication of Motor Vehicle Safety Regulation 111, Mirrors, for rear visibility.

Objectives

This amendment aligns the Canadian and United States safety regulations, to provide Canadians with the same level of protection under the law related to back-over crashes offered to residents of the United States and to satisfy vehicle manufacturers’ call to eliminate regulatory differences between Canada and the United States.

This amendment modifies section 101 to further align the Canadian safety regulation with the United States and United Nations safety regulations.

Description

This amendment to the Canadian safety regulation incorporates by reference the provisions in the United States safety regulation that prescribe the enhanced rear visibility area (i.e. the driver must be afforded a view of the 20-foot by 10-foot zone directly behind the vehicle when the vehicle’s transmission is placed into reverse). Further, this amendment gives the basic performance requirements for devices (e.g. back-up cameras) that provide vehicle drivers with this improved visibility. Specifically, if a camera is used, there will be requirements for the size of the display, camera response time (switch on and off) and durability (impact of corrosion, humidity and temperature) of the rear visibility system (lens, camera, and wiring).

This amendment, as in the United States, takes effect on May 1, 2018, and applies to new light-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 4 536 kg (10 000 lb) or less, including passenger cars, trucks, three-wheeled vehicles, multi-purpose passenger vehicles (e.g. Honda CRV, Toyota RAV4), small buses (e.g. Mercedes Sprinter passenger van), and low-speed vehicles. Manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles will be given one additional year to comply with these requirements.

Consequential amendments have been made to the title of section 111 in Schedule III and IV, which now read “Mirrors and Rear Visibility Systems” to properly reflect the content of this Canadian safety regulation. Also, the Technical Standards Document (TSD) 500 — Low-speed Vehicles has been amended, as the enhanced rear visibility requirement also applies to low-speed vehicles and the corresponding United States safety regulation for these vehicles was also amended. Consequently, Schedule III of the Canadian safety regulation has also been amended, as the requirement for improved rear-view visibility applies to low-speed vehicles.

With regard to section 101, this amendment clarifies that the illumination of the speedometer is required only when both the vehicle propulsion system is activated and the headlamps are switched on. Also, the time of mandatory use of a symbol for the passenger airbag off tell-tale has been coordinated with the termination date of the transitional provisions in section 101.

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply to this amendment, as there is no change in administrative costs to business.

Small business lens

The small business lens does not apply to this amendment, as there are no costs to small business.

Consultation

The proposal for this amendment was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on October 29, 2016, followed by a 75-day comment period. Following the Part I publication, 16 letters with comments were received from stakeholders.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (CVMA), representing Ford, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and General Motors, expressed support for the amendment. They raised concerns that, as a result of the incorporation by reference of the United States regulation, the Canadian regulation is automatically modified as the United States modifies their regulation. The CVMA was concerned that a change in the United States regulation may cause future misalignment, and suggested to link the United States references to a particular date of publication of the United States regulation. Transport Canada disagrees with this comment, as minor amendments that occur in the United States would require Transport Canada to amend the regulation following the prescribed regulatory process, which would create unnecessary delays. Transport Canada works closely with the United States and monitors proposed rules. If any changes occurred in the United States, Transport Canada would take the necessary action to ensure there are no issues with the regulatory incorporation. The CVMA was also concerned that the Canadian section 111 was not aligned fully with the United States. Complete alignment of section 111 with the United States is not possible, as the Canadian requirements contain additional detailed requirements for the mirrors installed on school buses.

The Global Automakers of Canada (GAC), representing 15 manufacturers, including the major European and Asian manufacturers, requested that the date of implementation be two years after the publication of the amendment in the Canada Gazette, Part II, because vehicle product timelines for the same vehicle may be different in Canada and in the United States. The United States published the Final Rule for rear-view cameras in 2014 and, therefore, manufacturers have been preparing for these changes since that time. Much of the groundwork has been completed since the issuance of the United States Final Rule; however, there have been instances in the United States when the Final Rule implementation date is changed due to a petition. For this reason, this amendment has modified the mandatory compliance date from the calendar date of May 1, 2018, to align with the date of introduction of the United States regulation (which currently stands at May 1, 2018). This will maintain a common implementation between the two countries should the United States make a date modification.

The GAC further commented that the government should work with the provinces and territories to improve the collection of information for tracking injuries and fatalities in vehicle collisions. This is a priority at Transport Canada and work has already begun. Both the GAC and a member of the general public made comments suggesting that better driver training should be implemented. Driver training does not fall under federal jurisdiction; therefore, this concern will be passed on to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.

The Canadian Transportation Equipment Association (CTEA) raised concerns regarding the implementation date of this amendment for multi-stage vehicles. Multi-stage vehicle manufacturers often purchase vehicles from original equipment manufacturers (OEM), and subsequently install unique components for their customers. The CTEA suggested that often these partially completed vehicles from the OEM may not have been manufactured to meet the latest regulatory requirements or, in some cases, may have been in storage waiting for the multi-stage manufacturer to have time to complete their manufacturing process. In such cases, the OEM vehicles may not have been built with a rear camera system or the multi-stage manufacturers would not have sufficient time to make the necessary design modifications to the back-up camera system. To ensure this condition does not occur, multi-stage manufacturers will be provided one additional year to comply with the requirements.

A number of letters were received from the public, some supporting the amendment, while others raised some concerns. Some commenters suggested that the cost of part replacement on rear-view camera systems could be significant. While Transport Canada does not have jurisdiction over aftermarket parts, and therefore cannot control the costs of replacement parts, it does have jurisdiction over the Notice of Defect process and can force a manufacturer to issue a Notice of Defect should a defect be found. Some commenters felt that small vehicles should be exempt, as they already have good visibility; however, all vehicles have blind spots behind the vehicles where young children can be hidden from view. Others raised concerns that the sound system should be turned off to hear any people behind a vehicle. It is important to note that while it may be good practice to turn off the sound system before reversing, a child or person that is behind the vehicle may not be aware of an approaching vehicle, and, therefore, may not make any noise for the driver to hear.

To prevent distraction, one citizen requested that the display be turned off when the vehicle was not in reverse. This function was already part of the prepublication proposed requirements, and remains as part of this amendment.

Several commenters requested that reverse sensors that make an auditory sound the closer a vehicle comes to an object be an additional requirement, in conjunction with the reverse cameras, or simply as an alternative to the reverse cameras. In the United States Final Rule, the research found that the reverse sensors were not as reliable as camera systems, and that they cost as much as a camera system. Transport Canada has also investigated the reliability of back up sensors, and concluded that the systems were only good for their intended use as parking aids to prevent vehicles from hitting objects such as a pole.

Some manufacturers already include both back-up camera systems and auditory sound alerts in some of their models. This regulatory amendment does not preclude manufacturers from installing both systems.

Some concerns included image quality in instances such as bright sunlight that can wash out an image, and the angle requirements of the cameras would not allow for a driver to detect an approaching person. Technology continues to progress; however, it is important to note that a back-up camera is simply an aid to the driver. Drivers are still expected to take the necessary precautions to ensure safety when using their vehicle.

With the progress in camera and display technology, the United Nations Working Party on General Standards recently developed performance-oriented regulatory provisions regarding indirect visibility. United Nations Regulation 46 allows the use of cameras and in-vehicle displays instead of conventional rear-view mirrors. As well, the United States National Highway Transportation Safety Administration issued a limited scope interpretation allowing the use of the inside rear-view mirror as a display for the camera view of the area behind the vehicle. While vehicle manufacturers support the principle of regulatory alignment with the United States, many have noted concerns that rigid alignment reduces consumer choice in the area of new technology. Therefore, as part of the prepublication, Transport Canada solicited comments from stakeholders regarding amending the Canadian safety standard to allow rear-view cameras and in-vehicle displays to replace conventional rear-view mirrors. The prepublication noted that if there was support for this change, this would be included as part of this Canada Gazette, Part II publication.

While the CVMA did support the amendment, they did not support the proposed allowance to replace conventional rear-view mirrors with rear-view cameras and in-vehicle displays. They also commented that it would be inappropriate to publish this type of allowance without providing information on the potential system performance requirements for stakeholders to review. They raised a concern that many issues need to be addressed for the introduction of camera monitoring systems, including consistent location of rear-view image displays, driver acceptance, driver distraction, and camera cleaning systems to account for snow and salt-laden road spray. The GAC was supportive of the intended optional rear-view camera monitoring systems with reference to the United Nations Regulation 46. As there was only limited support, and many questions remain regarding the use and requirements of camera systems to replace mandated mirrors, the Department is not including an alternate allowance in the regulations at this time.

Rationale

In their Final Rule, regarding better rear-view visibility during backing-up manoeuvres, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the United States Department of Transportation stated that to equip each new vehicle with a rear visibility system compliant with the new requirements will cost significantly more than any expected benefits. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency believes that the Final Rule affords significant unquantifiable benefits in the form of reducing a safety risk that disproportionately affects particularly vulnerable population groups (such as young children), and exacts a significant emotional cost on caregivers who back over children in their care. In addition, the United States published rule noted “the rear visibility systems required under today’s rule are the only effective means of addressing the back-over crash safety concern” [Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 66, Monday, April 7, 2014, Rules and Regulations].

Several back-over warning systems were considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; however, testing reportedly showed that the performance of sensor-based (ultrasonic and radar) parking aids was typically poor, sporadic and limited in range in detecting child pedestrians behind the vehicle. Based on calculations of the distance required to stop from a typical backing speed, detection ranges exhibited by the systems tested were not sufficient to prevent collisions with pedestrians or other objects. Camera-based systems offered the greatest potential to provide drivers with reliable assistance in identifying people in the path of the vehicle when backing. Moreover, the cost of other back-over warning systems based on radar, infrared or ultrasound is comparable to the rear-view camera system.

In 2010, when the enhanced rear visibility system was evaluated, the cost per vehicle was estimated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency to be between US$43 (on vehicles featuring screens capable of displaying camera images) and US$142 (on vehicles that would have to be fitted with screens). As the cost was expected to drop as a result of mass production and adoption of new and improved technologies, the price for increased rear-view visibility was considered negligible, and acceptable to a customer who would receive a valuable tool in providing better visibility behind the vehicle while backing up.

Putting it into Canadian context

Given the highly integrated nature of the North American market, Transport Canada anticipates that by the time all new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States are equipped with the enhanced rear-view visibility systems, virtually all vehicles destined for Canada, whether built in Canadian or in foreign assembly plants, will also have such system installed. Currently, the majority of light-duty vehicles are either already equipped with rear-view systems as standard equipment, or systems are available as an additional option. Subsequently, the costs associated with the alignment of the Canadian safety regulation with that of the United States would be minimal to industry, and the changes are not expected to have a negative effect on market efficiency and competition, regional balance, technological change, inflation, employment or the environment, and should not hinder trade with other countries.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was considering amending the United States safety regulation to require better rear-view visibility during backing-up manoeuvres, Transport Canada conducted data research to determine the number of back-over collisions in Canada. The research reviewed back-over events in Canada between 2004 and 2009. Due to the fact that a significant proportion of back-over collisions occur off-road (i.e. parking lots, driveways and private roads) and that off-road collisions are not part of the National Collision Database, it was difficult to get exact number of casualties that result from such collisions. All provinces and territories were contacted to provide off-road data — only three replied. Consequently, back-over casualties were estimated. The following table provides the findings of the research.

Average annual back-over pedestrian and pedal cyclist casualties in light-duty vehicle collisions in Canada, estimated annual average from 2004 to 2009

Casualty

Minimum estimates

Maximum estimates

Percent off-road

Fatality — all

24

27

34%

Fatality < 14 years old

3

3

61%

Injury — all

1 492

1 558

31%

Injury < 14 years old

121

145

25–27%

Sources: Transport Canada calculations, National Collision Database, communication with provinces and territories.

Note: "Minimum estimates" for children under 14 years of age are based on explicitly revealed ages less than 14 years old. "Maximum estimates" for children under 14 years of age include a proportion of victims of "unknown age" similar to the proportion of children versus adults of known ages.

The United States Final Rule estimated a back-up camera system effectiveness of 28–33%. With 27 estimated fatalities occurring in Canada every year in back-over collisions, improved rear-view visibility has the potential to improve safety and reduce this number of fatalities. This regulatory initiative is part of Canada’s Work Plan under the Regulatory Cooperation Council and it supports Canada’s commitment to align Canadian safety regulation with the United States safety regulation where the United States safety regulations provide the same or greater safety level to road users.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations. Transport Canada monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. In addition, when a manufacturer or importer identifies a defect in a vehicle or equipment, it must issue a Notice of Defect to the owners and to the Minister of Transport. Any person or company that contravenes a provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act or its regulations is guilty of an offence, and liable to the applicable penalty set out in the Act.

For the purposes of voluntary compliance by vehicle manufacturers, this amendment comes into effect upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. For the enhanced rear-view visibility system requirements, all vehicles, except vehicles built in multi stages, covered by this amendment and manufactured on or after May 1, 2018, are required to fully comply with the Regulations, unless the United States amends their mandatory introduction date. Vehicles built by multi-stage manufacturers will be permitted to have one additional year to bring their new vehicles into compliance. This time frame would provide adequate lead time for manufacturers to modify any unique Canadian market models not already complying with the United States safety regulation.

Contact

Marie Williams-Davignon
Regulatory Development Engineer
Motor Vehicle Safety Directorate
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5