Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment |
|---|
Topics: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Ricardo Martinez
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
February 18, 1998
[Federal Register: February 18, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 32)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8143-8145]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe98-34]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3452]
RIN 2127-AG47
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
on lighting to permit white reflex reflectors designed to be mounted
horizontally in trailer and truck tractor conspicuity treatments to be
mounted vertically in upper rear corner locations if they comply with
appropriate photometric requirements for off-axis light entrance
angles. This action simplifies compliance with the standard.
DATES: The amendments are effective February 18, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Safety
Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone 202-366-5265; fax 202-366-4329).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paragraph S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 108 specifies conspicuity system requirements for truck
tractors, and trailers of 80 or more inches overall width and a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. Part of the
conspicuity treatment consists of two pairs of items of white material
applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper
contours of the rear of the body. This material may be either white
retroreflective sheeting or white reflex reflectors.
NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking concerning white
reflectors. Paragraph S5.7.2.1(c) requires white reflex reflectors to
provide at an observation angle of 0.2 degree, not less than 1250
millicandelas/lux at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees
left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degree,
and not less than 300 millicandelas/lux at any light entrance angle
between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right.
James King & Co wrote to NHTSA saying that white reflectors designed to
give the required performance at 30 and 45 degrees right and left
entrance angles when mounted horizontally cannot do so in the right and
left directions when tested in the vertical position, i.e., when those
reflectors are rotated 90 degrees. Consequently, when white reflex
reflectors are molded in bars of multiple reflectors, the reflector
bars required for the two upper rear vertical position must be
different from the reflector bars that are used in horizontal positions
to fulfill conspicuity requirements. King petitioned for rulemaking to
allow use of horizontal bars meeting S5.7.2.1(c) in vertical
directions.
NHTSA tentatively agreed with the petitioner, granted the petition,
and published a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 14, 1997 (62 FR
26466) as Docket No. 97-30; Notice 1. As published, Standard No. 108
would be amended by adding a new paragraph ``S7.5.2.2(c)'' to read:
(c) If white reflex reflectors comply with paragraph S7.5.2.1(c)
when installed horizontally, they may be installed in all
orientations specified for rear upper locations in paragraph
S5.7.4.1(b) or paragraph SS5.7.1.4.3(b).
Some numerals were transposed in the proposed amendment. In
actuality, NHTSA meant to propose adding a new paragraph S5.7.2.2(c).
Further, the initial reference in this new paragraph should have been
to S5.7.2.1(c). However, these transpositions did not create any
conflict as there are no existing paragraphs S7.5.2.1(c) and
S7.5.2.2(c). The proposal was justified on the basis that the upper
rear conspicuity treatment, unlike the lower treatment, does not need
to reflect light at large horizontal entrance angles to achieve its
intended purpose, and that it is desirable for conspicuity reflectors
to be interchangeable and simple to use. For further information, the
reader is referred to the notice of May 14.
Ford Motor Company (``Ford''), Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (``Advocates''), 3M Traffic Control Materials Division (``3M''),
and Mr. G.J.M. Meekel commented on the proposed amendment. Ford
concurred with the proposal because its adoption would remove a design
restriction without compromising the need to improve the nighttime
conspicuity of large vehicles. However, Advocates and 3M opposed the
proposal because they believed it would reduce the effectiveness of the
conspicuity material. Advocates also opposed the use of any reflex
reflectors in conspicuity treatments, citing the
[[Page 8144]]
possibility of damage and the lack of interchangeability of vertical
and horizontal reflectors.
NHTSA believes that this concern is unfounded. The upper and lower
treatments have different relationships to conspicuity. The side of a
trailer turning or backing across a road is often angled to the lane it
blocks. Therefore, reflectors for trailer conspicuity are required to
have very high reflective performance for light entrance angles up to
30 degrees and a lower level of performance up to 45 degrees. The red/
white color scheme on the side identifies the single line of
retroreflective material as the nighttime reflective image of the side
of a trailer. Drivers approaching the long line of alternating red and
white reflectors visible on the side of a trailer can presume their
road speed to be their closing speed with the trailer.
However, drivers overtaking a moving trailer from the rear cannot
make the same presumption. The white material for the upper conspicuity
treatment provides a two-dimensional reflective image to improve the
perception of closing speed. As the preamble for the final rule on
truck tractor conspicuity stated (60 FR 413255),
* * * The purpose of the upper material is to improve the
distance perception of a driver of a faster vehicle approaching in
the same lane. In this circumstance, the usual view of the truck
tractor [or trailer] is close to orthogonal.
NHTSA emphasizes that, even when mounted vertically, a horizontal
conspicuity reflex reflector retains excellent performance over the 20
degrees right to 20 degrees left range of horizontal light entrance
angles, as required for the conventional reflex reflectors meeting SAE
J594f that are used on trucks and cars. Advocates commented that NHTSA
has no measurement of actual millicandela readings for upper rear
corner treatments executed with horizontal bars for the vertical
portions of the reflectorized right angle. In fact, NHTSA had reviewed
a manufacturer's test data of a horizontal DOT-C reflex reflector bar
used in a vertical position which showed that it greatly exceeded the
performance specified by SAE J594f (at an observation angle of 0.2
degree) for conventional truck reflex reflectors which is limited to
horizontal light entrance angles of 20 degrees. Performance at greater
light entrance angles is necessary to highlight the side of a trailer
blocking the road at an angle to the observer but not for the rear of a
tractor or trailer being overtaken by an observer directly behind it.
Thus, to assure that all horizontal conspicuity reflectors that could
be mounted vertically achieve the necessary performance, the agency
will require that the devices comply with SAE J594f when tested in the
vertical position.
3M also commented that an amendment is unnecessary because there is
no technological barrier to the design of reflex reflectors capable of
meeting the DOT-C specification in both orientations.
NHTSA concurs that large reflex reflectors could be made
incorporating facets for both orientations. However, this would negate
the advantage of using existing reflectors and the new reflectors would
be less cost competitive with retroreflective tape. NHTSA does not wish
to place unnecessary burdens on either of the competing conspicuity
material industries inasmuch as the product of each offers distinct
advantages to users. Retroreflective tape is less likely to be
compromised by harsh docking impacts, while the compactness of reflex
reflector bars may be important to the practicability of the upper
treatment on some truck tractors.
Mr. G.J.M. Meekel is the chairman of ECE-WP29-GRE (Economic
Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 on the construction of
vehicles, Groupe de Rapporteurs sur Eclairage), a United Nations
committee that has facilitated a large degree of lighting device
harmonization between European countries regarding safety standards for
new vehicles. The Committee has discussed amending ECE-Regulation 48 in
order to create a sufficiently broad ``window of harmonization'' so
that vehicles manufactured in compliance with it can be sold worldwide.
Mr. Meekel commented that the use of white reflex reflectors as
conspicuity treatment is ``not in line with the harmonization
activities in GRE.'' NHTSA believes that the explanation for his remark
lies in an artificial distinction that European regulations make
between reflex reflectors, which are considered ``lighting devices'',
and retroreflective sheeting, which is not. The only white ``lighting
devices'' allowed on the rear of vehicles in Europe are backup and
license plate lamps, thereby excluding white reflex reflectors. But
white elements of retroreflective sheeting are allowed on the rear of
vehicles because they are not considered to be ``lighting devices.''
Standard No. 108, the U.S. conspicuity regulation, makes no distinction
between types of retroreflective material because it requires the
minimum retroreflective performance of both sheeting material and
reflex reflectors to be identical. Both U.S. and European manufacturers
are free to choose sheeting material rather than reflex reflectors. Mr.
Meekel's general opposition to the use of reflex reflectors in
conspicuity treatments is not relevant to the rulemaking action at hand
because the NPRM dealt only with the interchangeability of horizontal
and vertical reflectors.
In sum, the agency does not consider the arguments against the
proposal to be compelling. However, the rule as amended will specify
that the reflectors satisfy the test points of SAE J594f for other
truck reflectors at an observation angle in the vertical position to
guarantee continued satisfactory performance of future reflectors in
the rotated position.
Thus, adopted paragraph S5.7.2.1(d) reads:
A white reflex reflector complying with S5.7.2.1(a) and (c) when
tested in a horizontal orientation may be installed in all
orientations specified for rear upper locations in S5.7.1.4.1(b) or
S5.7.1.4.3(b) if, when tested in a vertical orientation, it provides
an observation angle of 0.2 degree not less than 1680 millicandelas/
lux at a light entrance angle of 0 degree, not less than 1120
millicandelas/lux at any light entrance angle from 10 degrees down
to 10 degrees up, and not less than 560 millicandelas/lux at any
light entrance angle from 20 degrees right to 20 degrees left.
Effective Date
Because the amendment relieves a cost and testing burden and
affords an optional means of complying with conspicuity requirements of
49 CFR 571.108, it is hereby found that an effective date earlier than
180 days after issuance of the final rule is in the public interest.
Accordingly, the amendment effected by this notice is effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking action was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866. Further, it has been determined that the rulemaking action is
not significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures. The final rule does not impose any additional burden
upon any person. It will slightly reduce costs to both manufacturers
and consumers. NHTSA believes that all horizontal reflex reflectors
currently installed on trailers pursuant to S5.7 conform to SAE J594f.
The effect of the final rule is to allow the same white reflex
reflector bars to be used for vertical and horizontal locations on the
rear of truck tractors
[[Page 8145]]
and trailers, rather than two different types of bars. Accordingly,
NHTSA anticipates that the costs of the final rule will be so minimal
as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule does not have a
mandatory effect upon any person. It provides manufacturers of truck
tractors and large trailers an optional means of compliance with an
optional requirement already in effect. If such manufacturers are
installing white reflex reflectors in horizontal and vertical segments
on the upper corners of these vehicles instead of retroreflective
sheeting as a means of complying with paragraph S5.7, the final rule
allows these manufacturers to use in vertical positions reflex
reflectors designed to be mounted horizontally that meet horizontal
photometric requirements. Before the final rule, manufacturers of
vehicles covered by the requirements could not use horizontal reflex
reflectors in vertical positions unless they also met the photometric
requirements for reflex reflectors mounted vertically. The effect of
the final rule, therefore, is to simplify compliance. The cost of white
reflex reflectors and the costs of truck tractors and trailers on which
they are installed should not be affected. Since there is no economic
impact, let alone one that is significant, it is not necessary to
determine formally whether the entities affected by the rules are
``small businesses'' within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. In NHTSA's experience, manufacturers of truck tractors, trailers,
and reflex reflectors are generally not ``small businesses.''
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The final rule will not have a
significant effect upon the environment as it does not affect the
present method of manufacturing reflex reflectors.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice
The final rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, 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. 49 U.S.C.30161 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.108 [Amended]
2. Section 571.108 is amended by adding new paragraph S5.7.2.1(d)
to read as set forth below:
S5.7.2.1 * * *
(d) A white reflex reflector complying with S5.7.2.1(a) and (c)
when tested in a horizontal orientation may be installed in all
orientations specified for rear upper locations in S5.7.1.4.1(b) or
S5.7.1.4.3(b) if, when tested in a vertical orientation, it provides an
observation angle of 0.2 degree not less than 1680 millicandelas/lux at
a light entrance angle of 0 degree, not less than 1120 millicandelas/
lux at any light entrance angle from 10 degrees down to 10 degrees up,
and not less than 560 millicandelas/lux at any light entrance angle
from 20 degrees right to 20 degrees left.
Issued on: February 10, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-3904 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P