[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30591]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 13, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 94-38; Notice 2]
Chrysler Corporation; Decision on Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) of Auburn Hills, Michigan,
determined that some of its vehicles failed to comply with the outside
mirror requirements of 49 CFR 571.111, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors,'' and filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and
Noncompliance Reports.'' Chrysler also petitioned to be exempted from
the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (now 49 U.S.C. 30118,
30120) on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published on May 17, 1994,
and an opportunity afforded for comment (59 FR 25699). This notice
grants Chrysler's petition with respect to some of the noncomplying
motor vehicles and denies it with respect to the remainder.
Paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 111 requires that trucks with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds have outside
mirrors of unit magnification.
During the 1989 through early-1994 model years, Chrysler
manufactured an estimated total of 26,700 Dodge Ram 350 and 3500 pickup
trucks and cab/chassis with convex, passenger-side, outside, rearview
mirrors.
Chrysler supported its petition for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following (Chrysler also submitted two figures which compared
the fields of view of the noncompliant mirrors to two types of
compliant mirrors. This material is available in the NHTSA docket):
(1) The affected vehicles are also equipped with a driver side
outside rear view mirror of unit magnification and, except for the
less than 100 cab/chassis models, an inside rear view mirror of unit
magnification.
(2) The installed 6'' x 9'' convex passenger side mirror meets
all requirements of S5 of FMVSS 111 [passenger car requirements],
and provides increased field of view capability when compared to the
same size mirror of unit magnification or the optional 10'' x 7''
unit magnification mirror.
(3) Other than the passenger side mirror being convex rather
than unit magnification, the rear view mirror system on the affected
vehicles meets or exceeds all performance and location requirements
of FMVSS 111. The system capability is adequate in all regards,
specifically including provision for both overall system and
passenger side field of view.
(4) Chrysler is not aware of any owner complaints, field reports
or allegations of hazardous circumstances relating to performance of
the passenger side mirror on the affected vehicles.
(5) The subject condition occurred as the result of the
upgrading of a model for the 1989 model year to more than 10,000
pounds GVWR. That model for prior model years had been equipped with
a convex passenger side mirror and unit magnification driver side
and inside rear view mirrors. The same mirror system was carried
over on the vehicles for which the GVWR was upgraded. Rear view
adequacy of the convex mirror was not affected by the GVWR increase,
and the need to instead release a unit magnification mirror for
compliance to the FMVSS 111 requirement at the upgraded GVWR was
inadvertently overlooked at the time and thereafter.
(6) From a practical vehicle operation and motor vehicle safety
standpoint, the mirror system which fully complied to all FMVSS 111
requirements on earlier model year vehicles was equivalently
effective and capable on the upgraded GVWR vehicles.
(7) Existence of the variance was detected during an engineering
analysis resulting from a question of mirror size adequacy on
certain 1994 subject models. Size was determined to not be a
concern, but the analysis uncovered the convex mirror issue.
Chrysler then took immediate, expedited action to correct the
condition by specifying and installing the optional 10'' x 7''
unit magnification mirrors on affected vehicles.
Chrysler summarized its rationale for granting its petition with
the following.
Existence of the subject condition was totally inadvertent and
not a deliberate attempt to evade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard requirements. Therefore, in spite of good faith and due
care efforts by Chrysler, some vehicles with a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds were manufactured and shipped with a convex passenger
side outside rear view mirror. Upon discovery of the condition,
Chrysler took immediate action to correct it in production and
minimize the number of vehicles produced with the convex mirror.
No comments were received on the petition.
NHTSA has reviewed FMVSS No. 111 and Chrysler's arguments. The
reason that convex magnification mirrors are permitted for passenger
side mirrors on vehicles whose GVWR is less than 10,000 pounds and not
for heavier vehicles is that when a vehicle is very large it is
important for its operator to be able to look in the mirrors to see the
vehicle and its immediate surroundings when in motion. For example, if
an operator is attempting to back a longer vehicle into a confined
space, a mirror of unit magnification will give a view which is
undistorted, thus reducing the chances that the vehicle will collide
with anything in its path due to an error in perception by the
operator. A convex mirror yields a slightly distorted perspective of
the surroundings in order to obtain a larger field of view. This
distortion could produce adverse effects if the vehicle is very long.
Chrysler stated that the rearview adequacy of the convex mirrors
was not affected by the upgrade in GVWR. This change consisted of
adding an extra wheel to the rear axle on each side of the vehicle in
order to give it a greater load capacity. While this does increase the
width of the vehicle to 93 inches, the modification adds nothing to the
length of the truck, and should not affect the ability of the operator
to judge the driving environment to the rear and side of the truck.
NHTSA has concluded, therefore, that safety does not require that the
vehicles be refitted with a convex mirror on the passenger side.
However, this conclusion applies to the completed vehicles only. With
respect to the 90 cab/chassis that have been produced with the
noncompliant mirror, NHTSA notes that these incomplete vehicles could
have a number of types of bodies added by a final stage manufacturer,
such as ambulance, cargo compartment, and cherry picker. Because of the
variance in possible equipment which could be added to the chassis,
there is no way to assess the effect on safety of the noncompliance on
the completed vehicle. Because these vehicles could be completed in a
way which could significantly obstruct a vehicle operator's view, it is
impossible to decide that the noncompliance is inconsequential with
respect to them, and NHTSA believes that they should be equipped with a
unit magnification mirror as the standard requires.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Administrator has decided
that Chrysler has met its burden of persuasion with respect to the
26,610 completed pickup trucks described in its petition, and that the
noncompliance of these vehicles with FMVSS No. 111 is inconsequential
as it relates to safety. Accordingly, with respect to the completed
pickup trucks, the Administrator exempts Chrysler from the notification
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and the remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. 30120. The Administrator has further decided that Chrysler has
not met its burden of persuasion with respect to the 90 cab/chassis
incomplete vehicles described in the petition, and denies Chrysler's
petition with respect to these motor vehicles.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
49 CFR 501.8)
Issued on: December 8, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-30591 Filed 12-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P