94-8626. Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
04/12/1994
Department:
Transportation Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Denial of petition for rulemaking.
Document Number:
94-8626
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: April 12, 1994
CFR: (1)
49 CFR 571