[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8143-8145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3452]
RIN 2127-AG47


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends 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 
appropriate photometric requirements for off-axis light entrance 
angles. This action simplifies compliance with the standard.

DATES: The amendments are effective February 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Boyd, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone 202-366-5265; 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 items of white material 
applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper 
contours of the rear of the body. This material may be either white 
retroreflective sheeting or white reflex reflectors.
    NHTSA 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.

James King & Co wrote to NHTSA saying that white reflectors designed to 
give the required performance at 30 and 45 degrees right and left 
entrance angles when mounted horizontally cannot do so in the right and 
left directions when tested in the vertical position, i.e., when those 
reflectors are rotated 90 degrees. Consequently, when white reflex 
reflectors are molded in bars of multiple reflectors, the reflector 
bars required for the two upper rear vertical position must be 
different from the reflector bars that are used in horizontal positions 
to fulfill conspicuity requirements. King petitioned for rulemaking to 
allow use of horizontal bars meeting S5.7.2.1(c) in vertical 
directions.
    NHTSA tentatively agreed with the petitioner, granted the petition, 
and published a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 14, 1997 (62 FR 
26466) as Docket No. 97-30; Notice 1. As published, Standard No. 108 
would be amended by adding a new paragraph ``S7.5.2.2(c)'' to read:

    (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 rear upper locations in paragraph 
S5.7.4.1(b) or paragraph SS5.7.1.4.3(b).

    Some numerals were transposed in the proposed amendment. In 
actuality, NHTSA meant to propose adding a new paragraph S5.7.2.2(c). 
Further, the initial reference in this new paragraph should have been 
to S5.7.2.1(c). However, these transpositions did not create any 
conflict as there are no existing paragraphs S7.5.2.1(c) and 
S7.5.2.2(c). The proposal was justified on the basis that the upper 
rear conspicuity treatment, unlike the lower treatment, does not need 
to reflect light at large horizontal entrance angles to achieve its 
intended purpose, and that it is desirable for conspicuity reflectors 
to be interchangeable and simple to use. For further information, the 
reader is referred to the notice of May 14.
    Ford Motor Company (``Ford''), Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (``Advocates''), 3M Traffic Control Materials Division (``3M''), 
and Mr. G.J.M. Meekel commented on the proposed amendment. Ford 
concurred with the proposal because its adoption would remove a design 
restriction without compromising the need to improve the nighttime 
conspicuity of large vehicles. However, Advocates and 3M opposed the 
proposal because they believed it would reduce the effectiveness of the 
conspicuity material. Advocates also opposed the use of any reflex 
reflectors in conspicuity treatments, citing the

[[Page 8144]]

possibility of damage and the lack of interchangeability of vertical 
and horizontal reflectors.
    NHTSA believes that this concern is unfounded. The upper and lower 
treatments have different relationships to conspicuity. The side of a 
trailer turning or backing across a road is often angled to the lane it 
blocks. Therefore, reflectors for trailer conspicuity are required to 
have very high reflective performance for light entrance angles up to 
30 degrees and a lower level of performance up to 45 degrees. The red/
white color scheme on the side identifies the single line of 
retroreflective material as the nighttime reflective image of the side 
of a trailer. Drivers approaching the long line of alternating red and 
white reflectors visible on the side of a trailer can presume their 
road speed to be their closing speed with the trailer.
    However, drivers overtaking a moving trailer from the rear cannot 
make the same presumption. The white material for the upper conspicuity 
treatment provides a two-dimensional reflective image to improve the 
perception of closing speed. As the preamble for the final rule on 
truck tractor conspicuity stated (60 FR 413255),

    * * * The purpose of the upper material is to improve the 
distance perception of a driver of a faster vehicle approaching in 
the same lane. In this circumstance, the usual view of the truck 
tractor [or trailer] is close to orthogonal.

    NHTSA emphasizes that, even when mounted vertically, a horizontal 
conspicuity reflex reflector retains excellent performance over the 20 
degrees right to 20 degrees left range of horizontal light entrance 
angles, as required for the conventional reflex reflectors meeting SAE 
J594f that are used on trucks and cars. Advocates commented that NHTSA 
has no measurement of actual millicandela readings for upper rear 
corner treatments executed with horizontal bars for the vertical 
portions of the reflectorized right angle. In fact, NHTSA had reviewed 
a manufacturer's test data of a horizontal DOT-C reflex reflector bar 
used in a vertical position which showed that it greatly exceeded the 
performance specified by SAE J594f (at an observation angle of 0.2 
degree) for conventional truck reflex reflectors which is limited to 
horizontal light entrance angles of 20 degrees. Performance at greater 
light entrance angles is necessary to highlight the side of a trailer 
blocking the road at an angle to the observer but not for the rear of a 
tractor or trailer being overtaken by an observer directly behind it. 
Thus, to assure that all horizontal conspicuity reflectors that could 
be mounted vertically achieve the necessary performance, the agency 
will require that the devices comply with SAE J594f when tested in the 
vertical position.
    3M also commented that an amendment is unnecessary because there is 
no technological barrier to the design of reflex reflectors capable of 
meeting the DOT-C specification in both orientations.
    NHTSA concurs that large reflex reflectors could be made 
incorporating facets for both orientations. However, this would negate 
the advantage of using existing reflectors and the new reflectors would 
be less cost competitive with retroreflective tape. NHTSA does not wish 
to place unnecessary burdens on either of the competing conspicuity 
material industries inasmuch as the product of each offers distinct 
advantages to users. Retroreflective tape is less likely to be 
compromised by harsh docking impacts, while the compactness of reflex 
reflector bars may be important to the practicability of the upper 
treatment on some truck tractors.
    Mr. G.J.M. Meekel is the chairman of ECE-WP29-GRE (Economic 
Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 on the construction of 
vehicles, Groupe de Rapporteurs sur Eclairage), a United Nations 
committee that has facilitated a large degree of lighting device 
harmonization between European countries regarding safety standards for 
new vehicles. The Committee has discussed amending ECE-Regulation 48 in 
order to create a sufficiently broad ``window of harmonization'' so 
that vehicles manufactured in compliance with it can be sold worldwide. 
Mr. Meekel commented that the use of white reflex reflectors as 
conspicuity treatment is ``not in line with the harmonization 
activities in GRE.'' NHTSA believes that the explanation for his remark 
lies in an artificial distinction that European regulations make 
between reflex reflectors, which are considered ``lighting devices'', 
and retroreflective sheeting, which is not. The only white ``lighting 
devices'' allowed on the rear of vehicles in Europe are backup and 
license plate lamps, thereby excluding white reflex reflectors. But 
white elements of retroreflective sheeting are allowed on the rear of 
vehicles because they are not considered to be ``lighting devices.'' 
Standard No. 108, the U.S. conspicuity regulation, makes no distinction 
between types of retroreflective material because it requires the 
minimum retroreflective performance of both sheeting material and 
reflex reflectors to be identical. Both U.S. and European manufacturers 
are free to choose sheeting material rather than reflex reflectors. Mr. 
Meekel's general opposition to the use of reflex reflectors in 
conspicuity treatments is not relevant to the rulemaking action at hand 
because the NPRM dealt only with the interchangeability of horizontal 
and vertical reflectors.
    In sum, the agency does not consider the arguments against the 
proposal to be compelling. However, the rule as amended will specify 
that the reflectors satisfy the test points of SAE J594f for other 
truck reflectors at an observation angle in the vertical position to 
guarantee continued satisfactory performance of future reflectors in 
the rotated position.
    Thus, adopted paragraph S5.7.2.1(d) reads:

    A white reflex reflector complying with S5.7.2.1(a) and (c) when 
tested in a horizontal orientation may be installed in all 
orientations specified for rear upper locations in S5.7.1.4.1(b) or 
S5.7.1.4.3(b) if, when tested in a vertical orientation, it provides 
an observation angle of 0.2 degree not less than 1680 millicandelas/
lux at a light entrance angle of 0 degree, not less than 1120 
millicandelas/lux at any light entrance angle from 10 degrees down 
to 10 degrees up, and not less than 560 millicandelas/lux at any 
light entrance angle from 20 degrees right to 20 degrees left.

Effective Date

    Because the amendment relieves a cost and testing burden and 
affords an optional means of complying with conspicuity requirements of 
49 CFR 571.108, it is hereby found that an effective date earlier than 
180 days after issuance of the final rule is in the public interest. 
Accordingly, the amendment effected by this notice is effective upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking action was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. Further, it has been determined that the rulemaking action is 
not significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies 
and procedures. The final rule does not impose any additional burden 
upon any person. It will slightly reduce costs to both manufacturers 
and consumers. NHTSA believes that all horizontal reflex reflectors 
currently installed on trailers pursuant to S5.7 conform to SAE J594f. 
The effect of the final rule is to allow the same white reflex 
reflector bars to be used for vertical and horizontal locations on the 
rear of truck tractors

[[Page 8145]]

and trailers, rather than two different types of bars. Accordingly, 
NHTSA anticipates that the costs of the final rule will be so minimal 
as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking 
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant 
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for 
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule does not have a 
mandatory effect upon any person. It provides manufacturers of truck 
tractors and large trailers an optional means of compliance with an 
optional requirement already in effect. If such manufacturers are 
installing white reflex reflectors in horizontal and vertical segments 
on the upper corners of these vehicles instead of retroreflective 
sheeting as a means of complying with paragraph S5.7, the final rule 
allows these manufacturers to use in vertical positions reflex 
reflectors designed to be mounted horizontally that meet horizontal 
photometric requirements. Before the final rule, manufacturers of 
vehicles covered by the requirements could not use horizontal reflex 
reflectors in vertical positions unless they also met the photometric 
requirements for reflex reflectors mounted vertically. The effect of 
the final rule, therefore, is to simplify compliance. The cost of white 
reflex reflectors and the costs of truck tractors and trailers on which 
they are installed should not be affected. Since there is no economic 
impact, let alone one that is significant, it is not necessary to 
determine formally whether the entities affected by the rules are 
``small businesses'' within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. In NHTSA's experience, manufacturers of truck tractors, trailers, 
and reflex reflectors are generally not ``small businesses.'' 
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

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

Civil Justice

    The final rule will 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. 49 U.S.C.30161 sets forth a procedure 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, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation continues 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 is amended by adding new paragraph S5.7.2.1(d) 
to read as set forth below:
    S5.7.2.1 * * *
    (d) A white reflex reflector complying with S5.7.2.1(a) and (c) 
when tested in a horizontal orientation may be installed in all 
orientations specified for rear upper locations in S5.7.1.4.1(b) or 
S5.7.1.4.3(b) if, when tested in a vertical orientation, it provides an 
observation angle of 0.2 degree not less than 1680 millicandelas/lux at 
a light entrance angle of 0 degree, not less than 1120 millicandelas/
lux at any light entrance angle from 10 degrees down to 10 degrees up, 
and not less than 560 millicandelas/lux at any light entrance angle 
from 20 degrees right to 20 degrees left.

    Issued on: February 10, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-3904 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P