Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Mirrors)

P.C. 2002-2077 5 December, 2002

Whereas, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( S.C. 1993, c. 16), a copy of the proposed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Mirrors), substantially in the form set out in the annexed Regulations, was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 23, 2002, and a reasonable opportunity was thereby afforded to interested persons to make representations to the Minister of Transport with respect to the proposed Regulations;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 5 ( S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 351) and subsection 11(1) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ( S.C. 1993, c. 16) hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Mirrors).

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (MIRRORS)

AMENDMENT

1. (1) The portion of subsection 111(14) ( SOR/97-463) of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations ( C.R.C., c. 1038) before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(14) For the purposes of subsections (16) to (25), a driver's eye position shall be represented by the left and right eye points as defined in SAE Recommended Practice J1050, Describing and Measuring the Driver's Field of View (August 1994), and shall be at any place within the area defined by a 95th percentile eyellipse in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J941, Motor Vehicle Drivers' Eye Locations (June 1997), with the following adaptations:

(2) Paragraph 111(19)(b) ( SOR/97-463) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(b) have an average radius of curvature of not less than 482 mm (19 inches); and

(3) Paragraphs 111(25)(b) to (d) ( SOR/97-463) 1> of Schedule IV to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(b) every mirror shall be adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to the driver's eye position and is not to be moved or readjusted during testing for that eye position but may be readjusted for subsequent tests for different eye positions;

(c) a still or video camera shall be positioned so that its image plane is located at the driver's eye point in such a manner that the reflective surface is visible to the camera through the windows of the bus;

(d) for a specific driver's eye position, the requirements of subsections (16) to (25) shall be satisfied with the still or video camera positioned at either the left or right eye point;

(e) the still or video camera shall be supported so as to allow pivoting

(i) in the vertical and horizontal planes of its image plane to no greater than the maximum allowable limits of eye rotation specified in SAE Recommended Practice J1050, Describing and Measuring the Driver's Field of View (August 1994), and

(ii) in the horizontal plane of its image plane to no greater than the maximum allowable limit of neck rotation specified in SAE Recommended Practice J1050, at a point corresponding to the neck pivot point as specified in that Recommended Practice, only after the maximum limits of eye rotation have been reached;

(f) all of the still or video camera observations shall be done with the service door of the bus closed and the stop signal arm fully retracted; and

(g) for the purposes of subsection (21), the front bumper shall be the forwardmost structural contour of the bumper excluding the fasteners, protruding discrete bumper stops, and any attached accessories such as crossing control arms, which shall be removed prior to testing.

COMING INTO FORCE

2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Description

Section 111 of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (MVSR), entitled "Mirrors", specifies the requirements governing the mirrors of passenger cars, motorcycles, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. ( Section 111 of the MVSR can be found at http://www.tc.gc.ca/actsregs/mvsa/ jan98/english/mvsr111.html. For the French version, see http://www.tc.gc.ca/ actsregs/mvsa/jan98/french/rsva111.html) This amendment makes changes to the regulations governing mirrors fitted to school buses. Most of the changes are designed to clarify the testing procedures under which performance requirements are to be evaluated. The locations of the driver's eye points are more clearly defined, and the rotation of the camera position to represent driver eye and neck movement is prescribed by incorporating by reference recommended practices of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Mirror adjustment procedures are also clarified, and the front bumper is defined for instances when it is fitted with accessories such as crossing-control arms. Finally, this amendment allows a smaller minimum average radius of curvature for the System A convex mirrors. There are no changes to the existing field-of-view requirements for school buses. Requirements for the mirrors of all vehicles other than school buses remain unchanged.

Background

Driver Eye Location

The MVSR require the performance of mirror systems to be evaluated using a 95th percentile eyellipse, which is an elliptically shaped template developed by the SAE. The eyellipse template represents the possible locations of the driver's eyes in a driver workspace and is utilized to determine what drivers can see (i.e., the driver's field of view). The template features two ellipses, representing the left and right eye locations, so that every eye location has a corresponding point on the template. These respective left and right eye points are located 65 mm apart.

Prior to this amendment, the MVSR did not specify or differentiate between the left and right eye points. This resulted in misinterpretations of what constituted valid test locations of the driver's eyes. One misinterpretation resulted in the use of a midpoint between the left and right eye points. This is not a valid test location, as it excludes the extreme portions of the eyellipse template from being tested. This amendment will clarify that testing must be conducted using left and right eye points that are positioned anywhere within the respective 95th percentile eyellipse template.

Prior to this amendment, the MVSR further stated that the field-of-view requirements had to be met at every driver eye location, and thus the field-of-view requirements were evaluated separately for the left and right eye points. A school bus manufacturer stated that this requirement was inconsistent both with how human eyes work and with SAE Recommended Practice J1050, Describing and Measuring the Driver's Field of View (August 1994). In SAE Recommended Practice J1050, the direct field of view is determined using ambinocular vision, whereby any point is deemed visible if at least one of the eyes can see it. The Department of Transport ("the department") agrees that ambinocular vision is acceptable and is amending the MVSR to reflect this. Therefore, the field-of-view requirements for a particular eye position may be satisfied by placing the camera at either the left or right eye point.

Driver Eye and Neck Rotation

The 95th percentile eyellipse represents the possible locations of the driver's eyes when looking straight ahead, without moving the eyes or turning the head. Prior to this amendment, the MVSR did not take account of real-world driver eye and neck movement. SAE Recommended Practice J1050 contains detailed instructions on how to rotate the eye and neck points to view the vehicle's mirrors. The procedure establishes limits for horizontal and vertical eye rotation. It also provides a method for locating the appropriate neck pivot point for specific eye locations and for determining the maximum allowable horizontal neck rotation. The procedure also requires that the horizontal neck rotation be done only after the maximum allowable eye rotation has been reached.

The department is of the opinion that SAE Recommended Practice J1050 provides clear and comprehensive instructions on how to rotate the eye and neck points and thereby determine the driver's field of view. This amendment requires that SAE Recommended Practice J1050 be followed during the testing procedure.

Mirror Adjustment

Prior to this amendment, the MVSR stated that the mirrors were to be adjusted for each eye position and were not to be further adjusted during the test. This wording resulted in confusion, as it implied that the field-of-view requirements for all eye positions within the eyellipse had to be satisfied by a single mirror position. This was not the intended meaning of the MVSR; rather, the intention was to permit readjustment of the mirrors during testing whenever the eye position was changed. In fact, it was necessary with each different eye position to reposition cylinder A in front of the vehicle, which in turn necessitated repositioning of the mirrors. The new wording in this amendment clarifies the requirement that mirrors are not to be readjusted during the testing of a particular eye position but that mirrors may be readjusted for subsequent tests for different eye positions.

Attachment of Accessories to the Front Bumper

A school bus manufacturer requested a clarification with regard to the definition of the front bumper when an accessory such as a crossing-control arm is attached. Prior to this amendment, the MVSR required the entire area from the front bumper surface to cylinder A to be viewed via the System B mirrors. According to the manufacturer, when a crossing-control arm is attached to the front bumper, longer arms are needed for the System B mirrors in order for the driver to view the area underneath the attachment. The manufacturer argued that it is not essential for the area beneath the crossing-control arm to be viewed via the System B mirrors, as a child could not be completely hidden by this attachment, and that the extra length of the System B arms created structural problems. The department agrees with this view and is amending the MVSR accordingly.

Smaller Minimum Radius of Curvature for System A Convex Mirrors

Prior to this amendment, the MVSR specified an average radius of curvature of no less than 890 mm (35 inches) for System A convex mirrors. A school bus manufacturer argued that this requirement was unduly restrictive and necessitated the use of unnecessarily large mirrors, creating large direct-view blind spots for the driver. The manufacturer believes that mirrors with a smaller radius of curvature have been proven acceptable and have the benefit of offering a wider field of view. Using smaller System A convex mirrors will also make the mirrors easier to mount below the driver's eye level, resulting in a better direct field of view.

The manufacturer proposed a radius of curvature of no less than 482 mm (19 inches) for the System A mirrors. The department agrees that reducing the minimum radius of curvature for System A mirrors will improve the direct field of view, while continuing to provide the operator of the bus with a sufficient overall field of view. This amendment allows for a reduced minimum radius of curvature for System A convex mirrors.

Effective Date

This amendment comes into force on the day of its registration by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Alternatives

This amendment to section 111 of the MVSR is necessary in order for the department to clarify the test procedures and technical requirements applicable to school bus mirrors.

The alternative of maintaining the status quo would mean that the wording of the MVSR could continue to be misinterpreted. This could result in confusion and discrepancy between the way the regulation is written and the way it is applied. Furthermore, not reducing the minimum permissible radius of curvature for the System A mirrors would continue to compromise the driver's direct field of view. The lack of visibility in the vicinity of school buses was identified as a significant safety issue during a National Public Consultation on Bus Safety. ( Transport Canada Safety and Security, "Transport Canada Bus Safety Consultations Final Report", TP 13713 E, February 2001) Because safety and security are the department's top priorities, it believes that maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable alternative.

Benefits and Costs

The modifications do not alter the existing mirror field-of-view requirements and thus do not compromise current performance requirements. Changes to the testing procedures implemented in this amendment will result in a clarified testing method that is consistent with the latest SAE recommended practices. These changes are needed to avoid misinterpretations of the MVSR.

It is believed that the changes will not result in significant costs to the industry. Upgrading testing equipment to accommodate the neck pivot point will likely produce a minor, one-time cost.

The amendment to the required minimum radius of curvature of the System A convex mirrors will not impose a mandatory cost to the industry. On the contrary, this amendment will potentially reduce costs to manufacturers, as they will be able to equip Canadian buses with the same System A mirrors as used on buses destined for the United States. Until now, manufacturers had to equip Canadian bus fleets with specially designed mirrors. As the U.S. regulations Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard "Mirrors" (FMVSS 111) do not specify a minimum radius of curvature and as the MVSR required a minimum radius of curvature of 890 mm (35 inches), System A convex mirrors fitted to buses in the U.S. tended to have a smaller radius of curvature than the Canadian System A mirrors. Manufacturers will now be able to fit the same mirrors on Canadian and U.S. school buses.

While maintaining the field-of-view requirements, this amendment will allow for smaller System A mirrors and have the positive effect of reducing the blind spots in the driver's direct field of view. As well, smaller System A mirrors could be located below the driver's eye level to further increase the driver's direct field of view.

This amendment will not have any impact on the environment.

Consultation

Road Safety Consultation Mechanisms

The department has instituted a systematic and extensive consultation process that is intended to keep the automotive industry, public safety organizations and the general public informed of planned and recently made changes to the regulatory requirements governing motor vehicle safety in Canada and that provides a mechanism to comment on these initiatives. Three times a year, departmental representatives meet with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, whose membership consists of DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc.; Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited; and General Motors of Canada Limited. The department also meets three times a year with the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC), which represents international manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles. ( The AIAMC represents the following automotive manufacturers and importers: BMW Canada Inc., Daewoo Auto Canada, Inc., Honda Canada Inc., Hyundai Auto Canada, Jaguar Canada, K1A Canada Inc., Mazda Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc., Nissan Canada Inc., Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., Subaru Canada Inc., Suzuki Canada Inc., Toyota Canada Inc., and Volkswagen Canada Inc.) In addition, once a year, members of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) join the AIAMC meeting. The AAM is a trade association of 13 car and light-truck manufacturers whose members account for more than 90 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. ( The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers represent BMW Group; DaimlerChrysler; Fiat Auto R&D USA; Ford Motor Company; General Motors; Isuzu Motors America, Inc.; Mazda North American Operations; Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.; Nissan; Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Toyota; Volkswagen of America, Inc.; and Volvo Car Corporation) Semi-annual meetings are also held with the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council, the Rubber Association of Canada, and the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association. ( The Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association represents the manufacturers and importers of infant and child restraint systems)

These automotive industry meetings allow manufacturers and importers to respond to proposed changes to the regulations for which the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate is responsible, to raise problems with the existing requirements and to discuss any matters of concern. On a quarterly basis, these associations receive a copy of the Directorate's Regulatory Plan, which outlines all contemplated changes to safety requirements and tracks initiatives as they are developed and published in the Canada Gazette and as they come into force.

The department also consults with the federal authorities of other countries and with Canada's provinces and territories. Since the harmonization of regulatory requirements between Canada and the U.S. is pivotal to trade between the two countries and to the competitiveness of Canada's automotive industry, semi-annual meetings are held with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These meetings provide an opportunity to discuss future regulatory initiatives and problems of mutual interest.

The department is also committed to the development of global regulations, which is being carried out under the auspices of the United Nations World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Along with members of other world regulatory bodies and public interest groups, departmental representatives participate in 11 or more meetings a year as part of the initiative to develop global technical regulations. This initiative is aimed at simplifying the regulatory process for automotive manufacturers that market their products internationally.

Consultation with the provinces and territories takes place mainly through the department's membership in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). Its Board of Directors meets at least twice a year, as do the three standing committees of the CCMTA, which deal with a broad range of short- and long-term issues and comprise officials from each member jurisdiction.

In addition to the foregoing consultation mechanisms, which involve the automotive industry and other government agencies, the department holds meetings twice a year with national public safety organizations to consult with them on future regulatory changes and to discuss emerging safety problems. Thirty or more such organizations are invited to each of these meetings, organizations that include drivers' and automobile associations, bus operators, the insurance industry, consumer associations, health and police organizations, the Canada Safety Council, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, the Canadian Automobile Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These organizations also receive copies of the Directorate's Regulatory Plan on a quarterly basis.

In order to monitor public opinion and concerns, as well as to keep the public informed on issues related to road safety, the department offers Canadians a toll-free telephone information service and publishes specific safety-related information on its Web site. The public may also forward inquiries to the department through its Web site and by regular mail. In addition, a dedicated toll-free telephone line allows the public to notify the department of safety-related defects, which are subsequently investigated by the Public Complaints, Recalls and Investigations Division.

As part of its research program, the department has established several teams of collision investigators that are affiliated with major universities, part of whose work is to monitor road safety issues. A system for training instructors on the proper installation of infant and child restraint systems has also been implemented, and the instructors advise the department of the safety issues that arise.

This consultation process enables the department to identify and respond to safety-related problems in a timely fashion. More important, it keeps the public, the automotive industry and public safety organizations abreast of the department's many regulatory initiatives and provides opportunities for all concerned to participate in the development of new motor vehicle safety measures.

Consultation Specific to this Amendment

Notice of the department's intention to make this amendment was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 23, 2002, and a 75-day consultation period was allotted. Motor vehicle manufacturers, importers and public safety organizations were also informed of this amendment through their regular governmentindustry meetings.

Only one comment was received in regard to the proposed amendment. This comment came from Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird), a school bus manufacturer. Blue Bird had previously notified the department about its concerns in a letter dated April 26, 2001. In its comments on the Part I proposal, Blue Bird noted that it was pleased that the department had addressed many of the detailed recommendations from its April 2001 letter. Specifically, Blue Bird noted its appreciation for the reduction of the permissible minimum radius of curvature for the System A convex mirrors, the clarification of the testing procedure for the field-of-view requirement, and the amendment to the front bumper visibility requirement. Listed below are additional requests made by Blue Bird in response to the proposed amendment:

(a) with respect to the driver eye and neck rotation:

(i) allow repositioning of the eyeball after the initial eye and neck rotations,

(ii) allow unlimited horizontal and vertical neck rotation;

(b) with respect to the System B mirror field of view:

(i) remove the requirement that the driver be able to view cylinder A with each mirror,

(ii) introduce a self-determination method for the forward field-of-view area.

Driver Eye and Neck Rotation

Blue Bird agreed with the department's proposal to allow for horizontal and vertical eyeball rotation to the maximum allowable limits specified in SAE Recommended Practice J1050. However, it expressed a concern with the fact that the SAE procedure is limited to eyeball rotation, followed by neck rotation, without any additional rotation of the eye and neck. Blue Bird claimed this would provide the driver with a field of view reaching a maximum of 90 degrees in the temporal direction (peripheral view). The company did not consider that the allowable rotations as described in SAE Recommended Practice J1050 were natural or useful for identifying an image in the mirror. Blue Bird therefore proposed that the department allow the eyeball to be repositioned after the initial eyeball and neck rotations have been performed.

The department has not accepted Blue Bird's proposal. The SAE Recommended Practice J1050 represents the industry's best practice, as written by industry experts in the area of field-of-view requirements. This Recommended Practice is incorporated into section 111 of Schedule IV to the MVSR to help the manufacturer describe and measure the field of view while the driver's body is in a stationary position. It prescribes the maximum rotation of the eyeball about the horizontal plane by 30 degrees to the left and right and about the vertical plane by 45 degrees upward and 60 degrees downward. It also prescribes the maximum rotation of the neck about the horizontal plane by 60 degrees to the left and 60 degrees to the right. These procedures have been prescribed to ensure that the minimum sight lines are available for all vehicle operators.

Blue Bird further proposed that the department allow for unlimited neck rotation in the horizontal and vertical planes to mimic torso rotation. The department believes that allowing for unlimited neck rotation would create the possibility of locating a mirror behind the driver, diverting the driver's attention from the forward movement of the vehicle. Thus, the department believes that the permissible rotation of the neck about the horizontal and vertical planes should be limited as prescribed in SAE Recommended Practice J1050.

System B Mirror Field of View

Blue Bird requested that the department eliminate the requirement for the driver to view cylinder A with each System B mirror. Understanding that the overlap of the field of view of the System B mirrors is important, it proposed that the department allow manufacturers to self-determine the overlap points in front of the bus. To determine the overlap points, Blue Bird proposed the addition of two flat plates positioned on each side of cylinder A, which would create a rectangular area in front of the bus. The manufacturer would position these plates in line with each side of the bus and at the same distance in front of the bus as cylinder A. The manufacturer would use this area to demonstrate the field of view of the System B mirrors. There would not be a requirement for each mirror to provide a view of both plates or of cylinder A. However, the combined field of view provided by both System B mirrors would be required to include the two plates, as well as cylinder A. This proposal would allow a manufacturer to use shorter mirror arms, thus reducing vibration of the mirrors.

The department has not accepted Blue Bird's proposal. Section 111 of Schedule IV to the MVSR requires each System B mirror to provide a view of cylinder A, optimizing the field of view. According to the MVSR, cylinder A shall be placed in front of the bus so that its centre is aligned with the bus's longitudinal centreline and its top is directly visible through the portion of the windshield wiped by the windshield wipers at the driver's eye position. Thus, cylinder A represents the closest position in front of the bus at which the driver is able to see a child.

Accepting Blue Bird's proposal would, in the department's opinion, compromise the field of view to the front and sides of the bus. The department believes that requiring the field of view of each System B mirror to overlap at the cylinder A position currently not only assures, but also optimizes, visibility in front of the bus and along its sides. In addition to assisting the bus driver in verifying that the area in front of the bus is clear before moving forward, the existing requirement reassures the driver when children are crossing in front of the bus.

Blue Bird also suggested that the department not prescribe an image size requirement when the driver is viewing the proposed plates through the mirrors. The department has not accepted Blue Bird's proposal. It believes that it is important to continue using cylinder A and to maintain image size requirements. The image size requirement ensures that the smallest passengers can be detected in the mirrors.

These changes to the MVSR result from the National Public Bus Safety Consultation that took place in several cities across Canada in 1999-2000. The consultation identified that the school bus mirror regulation was an area that needed improvement. The department appreciates Blue Bird's assistance in outlining concerns with the past MVSR, as well as its additional comments on the proposed amendment to section 111 of the MVSR. Thus, the MVSR are amended as proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I, of February 23, 2002.

Compliance and Enforcement

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the MVSR. The Department of Transport monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport. If a vehicle does not comply with a safety regulation, the manufacturer or importer may be subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Contact

Jay Rieger
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate
Department of Transport
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: (613) 998-1962
FAX: (613) 990-2913
E-mail: riegerj@tc.gc.ca
Registration
SOR/2002-449 5 December, 2002