Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking |
---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
|
Barry Felrice
Federal Register
April 12, 1994
[Federal Register: April 12, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Part 571 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition for rulemaking by Metalcore, Ltd., to amend the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to the rear of van trailers. The reason for the denial is the importance of maintaining a common image of rear conspicuity while ensuring the availability of appropriate cues to drivers following large trailers. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA (202-366-6346). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Metalcore Ltd. is a Canadian company that manufactures aftermarket door seals for van trailers. It sells a model which includes \1/2\-inch wide conspicuity tape on the rigid channel which supports the seal. The installed seals create a conspicuity tape pattern equivalent to outlining each rear van door with \1/2\-inch wide conspicuity tape. In response to the final rule of December 10, 1992, adopting trailer conspicuity requirements (57 FR 58406), Metalcore submitted a ``petition for reconsideration'' on November 5, 1993, in which it asked for the adoption of an alternative rear conspicuity treatment in which outlining the doors of a van in \1/2\-inch wide white material would replace the 2-inch wide red/white stripe across the rear of the body and the 2-inch wide white upper corner markings. However, because the petition was not filed within 30 days of the final rule, it has been considered as a petition for rulemaking in accordance with NHTSA regulations (49 CFR 553.35). Metalcore serves the trailer repair industry, and its products are used mainly on older trailers which are not subject to Federal requirements for conspicuity systems, and, to a lesser extent, on trailers which were equipped upon manufacture with conspicuity tape. Metalcore anticipates that fleets wishing to add conspicuity material voluntarily to older trailers will prefer to do so in a way that they can claim meets the standards for new vehicles. The requested amendment would allow Metalcore to make the sales claim that the use of its door seals would permit trailer owners to retrofit a conforming conspicuity system using about 12 feet less tape than the minimum 63 feet necessary for compliance on a typical 45-foot van trailer. The conspicuity rule does not prohibit the use of Metalcore's product as an auxiliary reflector on any trailer, and the ultimate value to customers of the Metalcore door seal resides in its qualities as a door seal rather than in the reflective tape attached to it. NHTSA considered that two issues to be important in the consideration of this petition for an alternative conspicuity system. The first issue was whether it is desirable to have any alternatives to the required conspicuity configuration, and the second issue was the merit of the proposed alternative. Desirability of Alternative Conspicuity Systems The notice proposing the conspicuity rule (56 FR 63474) presented alternative treatments but made clear the agency's desire to achieve a common conspicuity configuration. NHTSA said: ``While the agency is proposing two specific configurations of conspicuity treatment, it * * * anticipates that the final rule would specify only one pattern, and not allow alternative treatments.'' The NPRM specifically asked for comments ``on the desirability of standardizing to the maximum extent possible the treatment for all trailers,'' and it introduced for comment the possibility of exempting certain types of trailers if a standard treatment proved impractical for them. Most comments to the docket urged a conspicuity system with sufficient flexibility for universal application without the need for exceptions. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) study (see 57 FR 58409 et seq.), completed during the comment period, concluded that a conspicuity system using the most universally applicable elements of alternative 2 of the proposed rule would meet the minimum needs for safety in terms of an unambiguous reflective image with adequate sight distance and closing speed cues. In the final rule preamble, NHTSA noted that one of the attributes of alternative 2 was that it ``promoted uniformity of appearance,'' and the agency adopted the modifications recommended by UMTRI to establish a universal treatment without the need for exceptions for difficult to treat trailers. Van trailers have more surface available for conspicuity treatment than other trailers, but NHTSA did not adopt requirements that appeared unsuitable for other types of trailers. Part of the value of the uniform conspicuity treatment is that it is expected to maximize the conspicuity of the least conspicuous trailers, such as platform trailers, by giving them a familiar night image. While the agency does not discourage the use of auxiliary material on trailers with large amounts of surface area, it believes that maximizing the number of common elements between trailer treatments aids in their recognition. NHTSA, therefore, is disinclined to allow alternative conspicuity treatments in general because the final rule was designed to make them unnecessary. Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum amount of reflective material to achieve the safety purpose, and at minimum cost. Attributes of the Metalcore Alternative Metalcore has suggested the alternative of substituting \1/2\-inch wide white reflective tape stripes outlining the doors of a van trailer for the required 2-inch wide white upper corner stripes and 2-inch wide red/white stripe across the full width of the trailer near the bottom of the doors. It claims that the alternative projects approximately the same reflective area as the requirement of Standard No. 108 and that the total light return of the alternative is greater because only white material would be used. It further claims that its alternative of outlining in white has been shown to be superior to the requirements of Standard No. 108 by Carlton University's report (Tansley and Petrusic) to Transport Canada. Tansley and Petrusic discounted the value of the U.S. red/white pattern in connoting a hazard and suggested that detection distance should be the principal measure of safety in evaluating conspicuity schemes. According to the petitioner, Tansley and Petrusic predicted a detection distance of 819 m for the white outline treatment recommended by Carlton University as compared with a predicted detection distance of 450 m for Standard No. 108. In the notice responding to petitions for reconsideration on October 6, 1993 (58 FR 52021, at 52023), the agency discussed its disagreement with the decision sight distance criterion recommended by Carlton University and the reasons for NHTSA's use of the stopping sight distance criterion recommended by UMTRI. The agency believes that Standard No. 108 is more cost effective than the Carlton University recommendations while providing a detection distance adequate for safety and superior recognition and hazard awareness cues. Standard No. 108 also addresses the practicability problems of trailers other than vans that were not considered in the Carlton University recommendations. NHTSA also notes that in a demonstration test reported by Transport Canada in its Technical Memorandum TME 9301, the detection distances found for the Carlton and U.S. rear van treatments were 993 m and 902 m, respectively, with even less difference in recognition distance. It is true that compliance with Standard No. 108 and the Metalcore alternative can be achieved with equivalent amounts of reflective material and that an all white treatment returns more light than a red/ white treatment of equal area (although the petitioner has underestimated the relative brightness of the red material). However, the petitioner's claims of greater sight distance based on Tansley and Petrusic are in error. The white outlining scheme of Tansley and Petrusic uses 2-inch wide reflective material as does Standard No. 108. The stripes are perceived at a distance as a line of point sources of light, and the sight distance of a point source depends on its total light return rather than its luminance per unit area. The sight distance of a \1/2\-inch wide stripe will be less than that of a 2-inch stripe of the same material because it will be perceived as a line of point sources each having only one fourth the light return. Therefore, the sight distance of the Metalcore alternative will be inferior to the Tansley and Petrusic scheme cited by the petitioner and to at least the white components of Standard No. 108. The UMTRI report discusses the data of previous researchers concerning the width of conspicuity stripes, and remarked that ``the luminance of a one-inch treatment must be about double that of a two- inch treatment to achieve equal conspicuity.'' The point source model for visibility distance discussed in the previous paragraph is consistent with data for conspicuity stripes narrower than 4 inches. Decision The agency has conducted a technical review of the petition and determined that there is not a reasonable possibility that the amendment requested in the petition will be issued at the end of a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the petition is denied. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: April 6, 1994. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 94-8626 Filed 4-11-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P