Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Convex Cross View Mirrors on School Buses |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register
July 11, 1994
[Federal Register: July 11, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 89-26; Notice 5]
RIN 2127-AF31
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Convex Cross View Mirrors
on School Buses
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Blue
Bird Body Company (Blue Bird), NHTSA has decided to propose amending
Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, with respect to the field-of-view
around school buses. Specifically, the agency is proposing to rescind a
provision in the Standard so that certain driving mirrors would no
longer be required to provide a field-of-view of the ground forward of
cylinders by the bus's rear wheels to areas directly beneath the mirror
surface. The agency is concerned that the current requirement may
compromise safety either by making it more difficult for the driver to
use the driving mirror when the bus is in motion as the result of
having a more distorted image from a more convex mirror or by reducing
the driver's direct line of sight as the result of creating a larger
blind spot near the bus.
DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by August 10, 1994.
Effective Date: If adopted, the proposed amendments would become
effective 30 days following publication of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-0247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Previous Agency Rulemakings
On December 2, 1992, NHTSA published a final rule amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear-View Mirrors, to ensure
that a school bus provides an adequate field-of-view around a stopped
school bus, thus reducing the risk of school buses striking students as
the students are approaching the buses in order to board them or as
they are leaving the buses. (57 FR 57015) The final rule requires each
school bus to be equipped with two mirror systems on each side of the
bus: (1) ``System A,'' which consists of a flat driving mirror of unit
magnification and typically a convex driving mirror; and (2) ``System
B,'' which consists of convex cross view mirrors for spotting students
during the loading and unloading of students. The System A mirror
system must provide, among other things, a view of the area of the
ground extending rearward from the area below the mirror surface. The
System B convex cross view mirrors must provide, among other things, a
view of the ground that overlaps with the view of the ground provided
by System A. System A and System B mirrors in combination are required
to provide the driver with a view of the ground in front of and along
both sides of the bus and extending at least 200 feet rearward from the
driving mirror. This final rule took effect on December 2, 1993.
NHTSA again evaluated the field-of-view requirements for System A
mirrors in response to a petition for reconsideration of the final rule
submitted by Ford Motor Company (Ford). (58 FR 60399, November 16,
1993) Ford stated that requiring System A mirrors to provide a view of
the ground immediately beneath them fails to meet the need for safety
and may make impracticable the use of currently designed flat unit
magnification mirrors. Ford requested that NHTSA amend the requirement
in Standard No. 111 that System A mirrors provide an extended rearward
view of the ground starting from the area beneath the mirror
(S9.2(b)(1), (2)).
NHTSA decided not to adopt Ford's requested revision, because the
agency was concerned that Ford's suggested System A mirrors might have
had blind spots in the area of the ground directly below the driver's
mirrors and forward of the rear edge of the side windows. The agency
explained that it is permissible to use a combination of convex and
flat mirrors to meet the System A requirements, and that the convex
portion of the mirror system can be used for the view beneath the
System A mirror. 57 FR at 57005.
II. Blue Bird Petition
Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird) petitioned the agency to amend
Standard No. 111 with respect to the field-of-view requirements for
System A mirrors. Blue Bird stated that to comply with the final rule's
requirements, either a small radius of curvature convex mirror or a
second convex mirror would have to be attached to the System A mirror.
Blue Bird argued that either approach would be impracticable and
inconsistent with motor vehicle safety. According to the petitioner, a
small radius of curvature mirror would provide unreasonably small and
distorted images that would be unsafe for driving, while a second
convex mirror would create a larger blind spot for the driver. Blue
Bird also stated that any convex mirror added to a system A mirror
should have a radius of curvature of at least 35 inches, since convex
mirrors with low radii of curvature would provide unreasonably small
and distorted images thus causing problems for the school bus driver,
while the vehicle is in motion.
Blue Bird stated that the requirement, as adopted, is inconsistent
with previous agency statements about problems associated with using
highly convex mirrors for driving. Blue Bird further stated that none
of the discussions in the NPRM explaining the requirements for System A
mirrors implies the need for driving mirrors to see the area directly
below them. Blue Bird requested the agency immediately amend the
wording of S9.2(b)(1) and S9.2(b)(2) to require that System A mirrors
provide views of the area of the ground that extend rearward from the
test cylinders near the rear axles to not less than 200 feet measured
from the rear surface of the mirrors. As the result of such an
amendment, the System A mirrors would no longer be required to provide
a view of the ground between those cylinders and the ground beneath the
mirror.
On January 13, 1994, agency personnel met with representatives of
Blue Bird and Mirror Lite Company, a mirror manufacturer, to evaluate
the field-of-view provided by various mirror configurations on school
buses. At that meeting, Blue Bird stated that the installation and use
of a driving mirror with a small radius of curvature may result in
unsafe driving practices since it distorts images, thus making it
difficult for a driver to judge the distance between his or her bus and
following vehicles when the driver is attempting to change lanes.
Similarly, Blue Bird alleged that, with a small radius of curvature
mirror, other vehicles appear to approach suddenly (i.e., images of
oncoming vehicles at the rear of the bus that are very small and
difficult to recognize suddenly appear greatly distorted as the
vehicles get closer to the mirror).
Thomas Built Bus, another manufacturer of school buses, has
contacted the agency to express its opposition to Blue Bird's petition.
After spending significant amounts of time and money reconfiguring and
retesting its buses and mirrors to comply with the final rule, Thomas
Built believes that it would be inappropriate for the agency now to
amend the standard to accommodate a specific school bus or mirror
design of another manufacturer. Memoranda memorializing these contacts
have been placed in the docket.
III. Agency Proposal
After reviewing the petition, NHTSA has decided to propose amending
Standard No. 111 so that System A mirrors would no longer be required
to provide a field-of-view of the ground forward of cylinders by the
bus's rear wheels to areas directly beneath the mirror surface. The
agency tentatively believes that the current requirement makes it
necessary for school bus manufacturers to install either a small radius
of curvature convex mirror or a second convex mirror. NHTSA is
concerned that the current requirement may compromise safety either by
making it more difficult for the driver to use the driving mirror when
the bus is in motion as the result of having a more distorted image
from a more convex mirror or by reducing the driver's direct line of
sight as the result of creating a larger blind spot near the bus, based
on Blue Bird's demonstration and other available information. The
agency has tentatively concluded that the driveability problems
resulting from requiring System A mirrors to have a view of the ground
directly beneath them outweigh the safety benefits obtained by having a
redundant view of this area. Specifically, the agency believes that the
proposed amendment would not adversely affect pedestrian safety because
System B mirrors would still be required to have a view of the ground
directly below the System A mirrors, as well as the areas alongside the
bus to the rear axles.
NHTSA did not anticipate that there would be a driveability problem
associated with the System A mirror requirements when it issued the
final rule. The requirement that the driving mirrors provide a view of
the ground from beneath the mirror surface to 200 feet rearward was
considered necessary because several pedestrian fatalities have
occurred near the front entrance doors and the rear tires. In issuing
the final rule, NHTSA was aware that the System B convex crossview
mirror already provides a view of these areas. The agency's intention
was to reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities by providing the
school bus driver with the largest field-of-view possible. Redundant
views of these areas seemed logical and the view of the test grid was
comprehensive. However, the school buses with complying System A
mirrors were not actually driven as part of the agency evaluation of
the new mirror system requirements in connection with the final rule.
NHTSA requests comments about the potential safety problems
discussed in this notice. To what extent does adding a second convex
mirror to a System A mirror increase the blind spot? How significant a
safety problem is caused by the increase in the blind spot? How
significant a safety problem is caused by the driver's inability to use
the entire mirror system, particularly with mirrors with a radius of
curvature less than 35 inches, while operating a moving bus? If a
manufacturer added a second convex mirror to a System A mirror system,
couldn't the driver use the preexisting high radius of curvature
driving mirror?
As to Blue Bird's request for the agency to ``immediately issue''
its requested change to the Standard, NHTSA has determined that it
cannot legally accommodate Blue Bird's request. The Administrative
Procedure Act generally requires an agency to issue a notice for public
comment before issuing a final rule such as a rescission of a
requirement. (5 U.S.C 553) There is one narrow exception to this
requirement which provides that an agency may forego notice-and-comment
procedures upon a finding that such procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' ( 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)) However, the courts have construed this exception very
narrowly, emphasizing that:
circumstances justifying reliance on this exception are ``indeed
rare'' and will be accepted only after the court has ``examine[d]''
closely proffered rationales justifying the elimination of public
procedures. Council of Southern Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan, 653 F.2d
573 (DC Cir. 1981) citing American Federation of Government
Employees v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153 (DC Cir 1981).
This case law and previous agency experience indicate that
foregoing notice-and-comment is a disfavored approach to be used only
in emergency situations involving great urgency. The agency has
determined that the circumstances surrounding Blue Bird's petition do
not rise to this level of urgency.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This notice was not reviewed under E.Q. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' NHTSA has considered the impact of this
rulemaking action under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. The agency believes that a full regulatory
evaluation is not required because the rule would have only minimal
economic impacts. The proposal, if adopted, would not result in any
cost savings or cost increases since to comply, the small radius of
curvature mirrors would be replaced by larger radius of curvature
mirrors.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. School bus manufacturers are generally not small
businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Small
governmental units and small organizations are generally affected by
amendments to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as purchasers
of new school buses. However, any impact on small entities from this
action would be minimal since it would make a minimal change that would
not impose additional costs. Accordingly, the agency has determined
that preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is unnecessary.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), NHTSA notes that there are no requirements for information
collection associated with this proposed rule.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
E. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), whenever a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a
safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is
not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the
state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies
only to vehicles procured for the State's use. Section 105 of the
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) sets forth a procedure for judicial review
of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicle.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be
amended, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. In Sec. 571.111, S9.2, S9.2(a), S9.2(b), S9.2(b)(1), and
S9.2(b)(2) would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 571.111 Standard No. 111; rearview mirrors.
* * * * *
S9.2 System A shall be located with stable supports so that the
portion of the system on the bus's left side, and the portion on its
right side, each:
(a) Includes at least one mirror of unit magnification with not
less than 322.60 square centimeters (50 square inches) of reflective
surface; and
(b) Includes one or more mirrors which together provide, at the
driver's eye location, a view of:
(1) For the mirror system on the right side of the bus, the entire
top surface of cylinder N in Figure 2, and that area of the ground
which extends rearward from cylinder N to a point not less than 60.93
meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.
(2) For the mirror system on the left side of the bus, the entire
top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and that area of the ground
which extends rearward from cylinder M to a point not less than 60.93
meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.
* * * * *
Issued on July 5, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-16614 Filed 7-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P