[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8626]
[[Page Unknown]]
[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