[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 154 (Friday, August 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45088-45089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15613]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007-27437; Notice 2]


Grote Industries, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Grote Industries, LLC (Grote) has determined that the amber reflex 
reflectors on certain trucks manufactured between 2004 through 2007 do 
not comply with S5.1.5 of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated 
equipment.'' Grote has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 
Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.'' 
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Grote also has petitioned 
for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 
30-day public comment period, on April 9, 2007 in the Federal Register 
(72 FR 17608). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) received no comments. To view the petition and all supporting 
documents, go to: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm and 
enter Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27437.
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Michael Cole, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-2334 or 
facsimile (202) 366-7002.
    Affected are approximately 137,050 reflex reflectors that have been 
sold for installation as original equipment on trucks and were 
manufactured between December 28, 2004 and January 22, 2007. S5.1.5 of 
FMVSS No. 108 requires:

    The color in all lamps, reflective devices, and associated 
equipment to which this standard applies shall comply with SAE 
Standard J578c, Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting 
Devices, February 1977.

    The reflex reflectors do not contain the correct reflective 
material required to meet the requirements of S5.1.5. Grote claims that 
it has corrected the problem that caused this error so that it will not 
be repeated in future production. Grote believes that the noncompliance 
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective 
action is warranted.
    Grote stated that this noncompliance pertains solely to the failure 
of these reflex reflectors to meet the applicable color requirements. 
The subject reflex reflectors were manufactured for Grote by a third-
party supplier. The third-party supplier incorporated reflective tape 
that it purchased from a reflective material supplier. Based on the 
results of tests conducted for Grote, Grote believes the intermediate 
supplier had been using retroreflective tape that was manufactured to 
the specification for ``selective yellow,'' instead of the correct 
specification for ``amber,'' as set forth in the SAE J578c requirement. 
The intermediate supplier was operating under a certification letter 
from the reflective material supplier, which erroneously listed the 
material as compliant.
    Grote believes the failure of these reflex reflectors to meet the 
color specification does not reduce their effectiveness in providing 
proper visibility to allow identification of the front and (where 
applicable) intermediate side points of a vehicle. Grote believes the 
difference between compliant amber reflex reflectors and the subject 
noncompliant selective yellow colored reflex reflectors is barely 
discernible to the naked eye when reflected with ``Illuminant A'' light 
under conditions of ambient darkness. Grote further stated that such 
conditions are intended to imitate nighttime driving conditions when 
reflex reflectors serve their primary purpose.

NHTSA Decision

    The following explains our rationale.
    NHTSA has found that reflex reflectors make the side of a vehicle 
visible to drivers of other vehicles at night and at other times when 
there is reduced ambient light including dawn and dusk. The advance 
warning provided by the reflex reflectors has the potential to enable 
drivers to avoid a collision when approaching one another at an angle. 
The purpose of making the front reflex reflector amber and the rear 
reflex reflector red is to reveal a vehicle's direction of travel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An Evaluation of Side Marker Lamps for Cars, Trucks and 
Buses, July 1983, DOT HS-606-430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its reasoning, Grote stated that while the reflex 
reflectors do not meet the applicable color provision, incorporated in 
FMVSS No. 108 by reference to SAE J578c, 1977, they do satisfy the 
color requirements of a later version of this SAE standard. While 
compliance with any version other than SAE J578c cannot be substituted 
as proof of conformity, NHTSA believes the subject reflex reflectors 
would be perceived to emit a yellow color light and would not cause 
confusion to motorists regarding the intended safety purposes for which 
amber reflex reflectors are required. In addition,

[[Page 45089]]

Grote provided test data to demonstrate that the reflex reflectors 
satisfy the reflectivity requirements specified in SAE J594f, which are 
also incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. Based on these 
factors, we believe the subject noncompliance would not cause a 
significant safety risk to motorists.
    NHTSA agrees with Grote that the noncompliance is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety because the nonconforming yellow reflex 
reflectors are easily distinguished from conforming red reflex 
reflectors thereby allowing recognition of the vehicle direction of 
travel.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Grote has 
met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Grote's petition 
is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of 
providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: August 6, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-15613 Filed 8-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P