[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11186-11189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-20028]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by 
Mr. Richard T. Ince of C & J Technology Inc., to amend provisions of 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) for rearview mirrors 
pertaining to the test procedure for school bus driving mirrors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Charles R. 
Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-113, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone (202) 366-0247. Fax: (202) 366-7002.
    For legal issues: Eric Stas, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992 and fax: (202) 
366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 2, 2004, the agency received a petition from Mr. Richard T. 
Ince, C & J Technology Inc., requesting that the agency review and 
amend paragraph S13.3(g) of FMVSS No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors,'' which 
provides procedures for the placement of ``cones'' ``P'' and ``L'' in 
the school bus mirror test procedure for the driving mirrors. The 
petitioner stated that the change is needed ``because the rule as 
stated provides unnecessary and dangerous blind spots in the operator's 
field of indirect vision along the sides of the school bus.''
    The petitioner stated that S9.1 of the standard requires that 
exterior driving mirrors be tested using cones placed in accordance 
with the requirements specified in S13. S13 requires the placement of 
18 cylinders \1\ of a specified height and size at various locations 
around the school bus. He said cylinder P on the passenger side of the 
vehicle is placed at 3.6 meters (12 feet) to the right of the 
longitudinal vertical plane tangent at the center of the rear axle. He 
said that cylinder L on the driver side, is placed at 1.8 meters (6 
feet) to the left of the longitudinal vertical plane tangent at the 
center of the rear axle. The petitioner asserted that meeting such 
requirements ``builds into the vehicle blind spots along the sides of 
the vehicle that are unnecessary and dangerous,'' and he illustrated 
this with an Exhibit B (Figure 1). C & J Technology claims that these 
blind spots put the operator and any children along the sides of the 
vehicle in a dangerous position as the bus leaves a stop, because the 
driver cannot see the blind spot areas in the rearview mirror system. 
The petitioner claims that in such situations the driver would be 
forced to physically look at these areas before moving the bus forward; 
however, if the driver does not, it could be especially dangerous to 
children in these blind spots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It is noted that the petitioner incorrectly implies that the 
regulation uses ``cones'' to measure compliance with the standard. 
The standard uses cylinders that are 0.3048 meters (1 foot) high and 
0.0348 meters (1 foot) in diameter. The standard uses cylinders (not 
cones) because, as stated in the December 2, 1992 final rule, the 
agency believes 0.3048 meter (1 foot) cylinders more accurately 
represent a child that is bending over or has fallen down. (57 FR 
57000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C & J Technology's recommended solution is to amend the standard so 
that cylinders L and P are moved out from the center of the rear axle 
to a point that would reduce or eliminate the alleged blind spot 
problem. The petitioner stated that with the use of the ``BDS Dead 
Angle Spot Mirror,'' the field of vision could increase to a level up 
to 65 percent greater than that provided by the standard's current 
requirements. The petitioner further stated that the ``BDS Dead Angle 
Spot Mirror'' is a wide angle glass, and it is cut in such a manner as 
to make it possible to move the cylinders out to approximately 21.4 
meters (70 feet) from the center of the rear axle, thereby making ``the 
entire side of the bus visible with just a glance in the mirror by the 
operator.''

Analysis of the Petitioner's Argument

    The statement provided by C & J Technology, which asserts that the 
test procedure requirements in the standard builds into the vehicle 
dangerous blind spots, is inaccurate. Currently, all school buses are 
required to have two mirror systems, System A mirrors that are 
typically called ``driving mirrors,'' and System B mirrors which are 
pedestrian detection mirrors. The System A mirrors are used by the 
operator to maneuver the school bus safely in traffic. The System B 
mirrors are pedestrian detection mirrors that are

[[Page 11187]]

used by the operator while loading and unloading passengers. The 
requirements for two mirror systems were established to ensure that the 
school bus driver has the requisite field of vision for both pedestrian 
detection and navigation of the roadway. The standard requires that the 
driver have a direct or indirect field-of-view immediately in front of 
the bus and along both sides of the school bus in order to ensure that 
there are no blind spots. Figure 2 presents a graphic with the minimum 
viewing areas required by the standard. The petition asserts that the 
System A driving mirrors may not serve as adequate pedestrian detection 
mirrors. Even accepting this as true, the driving mirrors are not 
intended to serve as pedestrian detection mirrors.

Decision To Deny the Petition

    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's 
review of the petition for rulemaking. For the reasons stated above, 
the petition for rulemaking is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 3011, 30115, 30117, and, 30162; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR05.011


[[Page 11188]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR05.012



[[Page 11189]]


    Issued on: March 2, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-4434 Filed 3-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C