[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26466-26468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12585]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 97-030; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG47


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices 
and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend 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 photometric requirements when tested horizontally. 
This action implements the grant of a rulemaking petition from James 
King & Co, and will have the benefit of simplifying compliance with the 
standard.

DATES: Comments are due June 30, 1997. The amendments would become 
effective 45 days after publication of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice 
number, and must be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are from 9:30 
a.m. to 4 p.m.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5275; 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 white material applied 
horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the 
body. This material may be either white retroreflective sheeting, or 
white reflex reflectors.
    This agency has 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.'' A petition from James King & Co. 
states that white reflectors designed to give the required performance 
at 30 and 45 degree right and left entrance angles when mounted 
horizontally cannot do so in the right and left directions when tested 
in the vertical position. Consequently, when white reflex reflectors 
are molded in bars of multiple reflectors, the reflector bars required 
for the two upper rear vertical positions must be different from the 
reflector bars that are used in horizontal positions to fulfill 
conspicuity requirements. King has asked NHTSA for rulemaking to allow 
use of horizontal bars meeting S5.7.2.1(c) in vertical positions.
    The agency has granted this petition. The white upper material is 
part of the rear conspicuity treatment to improve the distance 
perception of a driver of a faster, overtaking vehicle in the same 
lane. In this circumstance, the usual view of the truck tractor or 
trailer by the driver is close to orthogonal. Since the upper rear 
corner material is meant to provide a two dimensional image to vehicles 
approaching in the same lane, it does not operate at the high light-
entrance angles typical of views of the sides of vehicles. A 
conspicuity-grade reflex reflector bar, regardless of its mounting 
orientation, will provide excellent retroreflective performance at the 
low light entrance angles typical of upper rear corner material. The 
fact that

[[Page 26467]]

a different reflex reflector bar has had to be used for the vertical 
portion of the upper rear treatment is an unintended consequence of the 
agency's rulemaking activities.
    NHTSA tentatively agrees with the petitioner that reflex reflector 
bars designed for horizontal mounting should be permitted to be mounted 
vertically in the rear upper corners. As the petitioner pointed out, a 
corner treatment composed of two identical reflector bars mounted at 
right angles maximizes the total range of light entrance angles at 
which at least part of the upper treatment can reflect at full 
brightness. The agency is therefore proposing that Standard No. 108 be 
amended to add new paragraph S5.7.2.2(c) allowing reflex reflectors 
meeting the requirements of paragraph S5.7.2.1(c) when installed 
horizontally to be installed in all orientations required at the rear 
upper locations on truck tractors and trailers subject to the 
conspicuity requirements. Such an action will simplify compliance and 
should encourage the retrofitting of vehicles in service not subject to 
the conspicuity requirements.

Request for Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket 
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Effective Date

    Since the final rule would not impose any additional burden and is 
intended to afford an alternative to existing requirements, it is 
hereby tentatively found that an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance of the final rule is in the public interest. The final 
rule would be effective 45 days after its publication in the Federal 
Register.

Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking action has not been reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. It has been determined that the rulemaking action is not 
significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies and 
procedures. The effect of the rulemaking action would be to allow the 
same white reflex reflector bars to be used for vertical and horizontal 
locations on the rear of truck tractors and trailers, rather than two 
different types of bars. The final rule would not impose any additional 
burden upon any person. A final rule based on such an action would 
reduce costs both to manufacturers and consumers. Impacts of the rule 
are so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory 
evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that 
this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic effect 
upon a substantial number of small entities. Motor vehicle 
manufacturers are generally not small businesses within the meaning of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further, small organizations and 
governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected since 
the price of new motor vehicles should not be impacted. As noted above, 
the cost impacts per vehicle are relatively minor. Accordingly, no 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 on ``Federalism.'' It has 
been determined that the rulemaking action does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The rulemaking action would not have 
a significant effect upon the environment as it does not affect the 
present method of manufacturing reflex reflectors.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rulemaking action would 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. Under 49 U.S.C. 30163, a procedure is set forth 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, it is proposed that 49 CFR part 
571 be amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation would continue 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 would be amended by adding new paragraph 
S7.5.2.2(c) to read as set forth below:
    S7.5.2.2  * * *
    (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

[[Page 26468]]

rear upper locations in paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) or paragraph 
S5.7.1.4.3(b).

    Issued on: April 29, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-12585 Filed 5-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P