Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking |
---|
|
Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
April 12, 1994
[Federal Register: April 12, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. 80-9; Notice 9] RIN 2127-AE86 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petitions for reconsideration and rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition for reconsideration of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and a petition for rulemaking to amend these requirements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA (202-366-6346). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 10, 1992, NHTSA published a final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to establish a visibility enhancement scheme for large trailers (57 FR 58406). On October 6, 1993, the agency published a response to petitions for reconsideration of that scheme (58 FR 52021). A. Petitions Relating to Mounting Height of Side Conspicuity Treatment In the time between the two Federal Register notices, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) wrote NHTSA on August 25, 1993, asking that the mounting height specification for side conspicuity treatment be changed to allow a range of heights from 0.4m to 2.1m. It observed that the agency had proposed a lower mounting height of 0.4m though it had adopted a height of 1.25m. TTMA observed that Standard No. 108 permits reflex reflectors to be mounted within 0.4m of the ground, which is 34 inches below 1.25m, and ``it seems reasonable that the upper location be 34 inches above'' 1.25m, i.e., 2.1m. It also observed that the only vertical surface of some trailers may be at a height even greater than 2.1m. This observation was reiterated in a petition for reconsideration of the 1.525m maximum adopted on October 6, 1993, and submitted by Terminal Service Company (``Terminal''). It asked for a mounting height maximum of 2.28m for cargo tanks, expressing its concern ``that enforcement personnel will not consider a 508mm (20 inches) to 762mm (30 inches) height above the 1525mm (60 inches) requirement practicable.'' At the time that NHTSA received TTMA's letter, it was evaluating petitions for reconsideration of the final rule mounting height of ``as close to 1.25m as practicable''. Ultimately, it granted those petitions and, on October 6, 1993, adopted a revised mounting height of ``as close as practicable to not less than 375mm and not more than 1525mm'' above the road surface. This amendment effectively granted TTMA's petition to allow a lower mounting height than the one originally adopted. It also responded in part to TTMA's request for a higher mounting height, by allowing a maximum height of ``as close as practicable to * * * not more than'' 1.525m, although not as high as the 2.1m requested. However, TTMA presented no rationale other than symmetry to justify an increase in mounting height from 1.52m to 2.1m. The agency finds this an inadequate basis upon which to grant TTMA's petition for rulemaking. Terminal's rationale is based upon a fear that the mounting height chosen by a manufacturer for application of conspicuity treatment on cargo tanks will be so much higher than 1525mm that the agency will not deem it ``practicable'' and that Federal Highway Administration inspectors will not understand the practicability exception to the height requirement. NHTSA understands this view and wishes to assure Terminal that it regards this concern as unfounded. As the agency has advised many times in the past in its interpretations of the practicability requirements of Standard No. 108, the determination of what is ``practicable'' is initially to be made by the manufacturer, whose certification of compliance covers its determinations of practicability. NHTSA will not question a manufacturer's determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, NHTSA interprets the conspicuity mounting height specification as allowing mounting heights higher than 1525mm if the trailer manufacturer does not find it practicable to place the conspicuity treatment at or below 1525mm. Terminal's trailer case provides a good example. Since the conspicuity material cannot provide the required brightness when the trailer is at an angle to traffic unless it is mounted in a nearly vertical plane, practicability dictates that the material be moved to the height where the trailer provides a suitable, vertical mounting surface. Because the agency has determined that no regulatory action is required to give the relief which the petitioner seeks, the petition by Terminal Service Company for reconsideration of the maximum mounting height requirement is denied. B. Petition Relating to Adoption of Geometric Visibility Specification Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies that, at the location chosen for conspicuity treatment, ``the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo.'' TTMA asked that the words ``trailer cargo'' be deleted and that obscuration of the strip be determined ``when viewed within +/-30 degrees horizontally or perpendicular to the sheeting 15m (50 feet) away and at a height of 1.25m.'' In justification of its petition, it argued that trailer manufacturers should not be responsible for the possible obscuring of sheeting by cargo, and that ``[t]here is not a similar prohibition of obscuring lamps by cargo in FMVSS 108.'' TTMA supplemented its August 1993 letter on September 24 with the example of a container chassis whose gooseneck connector to a tractor trailer is obscured when an intermodal container is secured to it. Although paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lamps and reflectors be mounted on a vehicle so that they are visible at the test points specified in the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices, this section does not apply to conspicuity sheeting because no SAE standards regarding conspicuity sheeting materials are incorporated in Standard No. 108. Furthermore, it would be undesirable to impose geometric visibility requirements on conspicuity sheeting or reflectors because the practicability constraints on long strips of conspicuity material and reflectors used in lieu thereof are different than those on lamps and reflectors. While it is possible to move lamps and reflectors to locations that achieve geometric visibility, the locations available for conspicuity materials on some trailers, such as the container chassis, may be too limited to permit optimization. With respect to obscuration of conspicuity materials, NHTSA considers that strips or reflectors are obscured by cargo or equipment only if they are not visible when viewed perpendicular to the conspicuity material. The potential for obscuration by cargo should not be difficult to foresee. NHTSA considers that trailer manufacturers are in a reasonable position to anticipate where cargo will be placed in or on their trailers because they have designed the trailers to accommodate specific cargo types and loading techniques. For example, with respect to the container chassis cited in TTMA's supplementary letter of September 24, the manufacturer of a container chassis knows that the gooseneck connector will be obscured when the load is in place, and may apply conspicuity treatment that allows for the load. Assuming an overall chassis length of 53 feet, the manufacturer is required to mark at least half of that (26.5 feet) with conspicuity marking. Assuming a gooseneck length of 9 feet, Standard No. 108 thus requires that the minimum of 26.5 feet of conspicuity material be applied in the 44 feet of trailer length that is behind the gooseneck. The manufacturer is not prohibited from affixing the material to the gooseneck as well if it chooses, but in such a location this material is considered surplus and, because it will be obscured when the load is in place, cannot be included in the manufacturer's 50 percent determination. C. Denial of TTMA Petition The agency has completed its technical review of the TTMA petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR part 552, and has determined that there is not a reasonable possibility that the amendments requested in the petition will be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the petition by TTMA is denied in its entirety. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1410a; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: April 6, 1994. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 94-8625 Filed 4-11-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P