[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 6, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40781-40784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19917]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR PART 393
[FHWA Docket No. MC-94-1]
RIN 2125-AD27
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Lighting
Devices, Reflectors, and Electrical Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces the FHWA's intent to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking to establish requirements for the use of
retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors for certain trailers
manufactured prior to December 1, 1993, the effective date of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's final rule on
conspicuity for newly manufactured trailers.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor or Mr. Richard H.
Singer, Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, HCS-10, (202)
366-4009; or Mr. Charles E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-
20, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 19, 1994 (59 FR 2811), the FHWA published an advance
notice of
[[Page 40782]]
proposed rulemaking to solicit comments concerning measures for
reducing the incidence and severity of collisions during periods of
darkness or reduced visibility. The FHWA requested that commenters
address the specific questions listed below.
1. Many motor carriers have been using retroreflective sheeting or
reflex reflectors which are not of the colors, retroreflective
intensity, width, or configuration of the conspicuity treatment in the
NHTSA's final rule. The FHWA seeks information on the type of
conspicuity treatments in use and quantitative data on the cost and
effectiveness of those treatments in preventing and/or mitigating
accidents.
2. What types of technical problems (e.g., tape not adhering to the
surface of the trailer) have motor carriers encountered when applying
conspicuity materials to in-service trailers? Are any problems unique
to certain types of trailers, or to certain types of paints, coatings,
or surfaces?
3. What is the approximate cost (parts and labor) to apply
conspicuity treatments to trailers? Is special training required for
employees performing this task? What cost differences may exist between
having this task performed by the motor carrier's own maintenance
department or by third parties?
4. How long must a trailer be taken out of service to have the
conspicuity material applied to its surfaces?
5. With regard to conspicuity treatments that differ from those in
the NHTSA final rule, a retrofitting requirement would result in many
motor carriers having to replace their current conspicuity treatments
with one that is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. The
FHWA believes that some form of conspicuity treatment (even certain
forms which may be less effective than that covered in the NHTSA's
final rule) is better than no conspicuity treatment. What different
types of conspicuity treatment are currently being used by motor
carriers? What results have been experienced by motor carriers using
conspicuity treatments?
6. If this rulemaking proceeds, should the FHWA propose requiring
the same red/white color combination, retroreflective intensity, width
and configuration as the NHTSA's final rule, or should alternative
requirements be considered? If alternatives are considered, do
commenters foresee problems in the enforcement of a retrofitting
requirement?
7. If this rulemaking proceeds, should the FHWA consider an
effective date which is several (2, 3, 4, or 5) years after the date of
publication of the final rule?
Commenters were also encouraged to include a discussion of any
other issues that the commenters believe are relevant to the
rulemaking.
Analysis of Docket Comments
The FHWA received more than 900 comments in response to the ANPRM.
The FHWA is not providing a detailed discussion of the docket comments
at this time. However, an in-depth discussion of the comments will be
presented in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Therefore, the
following is only a summary of the comments intended to provide
interested parties with an indication of the type of responses the FHWA
received.
Support for a Retrofitting Requirement
The rulemaking has its strongest support from concerned citizens on
behalf of friends and relatives who suffered fatal injuries as a result
of passenger car side or rear impacts with semitrailers. The FHWA
received 321 responses on behalf of Mr. Carl Hall, who was killed in a
collision with a tractor-semitrailer that blocked the road as the truck
driver backed the vehicle into a driveway. Another 285 responses were
on behalf of Mr. Guy Crawford, a 16-year old boy who was killed in an
underride accident with a coal truck. In addition, the agency received
223 responses from other concerned citizens, many of whom lost family
members or friends in accidents involving commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs).
The rulemaking was also supported by the Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, and the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.
Two members of the House of Representatives submitted letters in
support of the rulemaking: James Greenwood (Eighth district of
Pennsylvania) and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (then representing the
Thirteenth Congressional district of Pennsylvania). The FHWA has also
received correspondence from Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ) expressing
support for a retrofitting requirement.
As for industry support, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association stated that better conspicuity would significantly reduce
the likelihood of side and rear collisions. Schneider National
(Schneider), one of the larger motor carriers in the United States,
Contract Freighters, Inc., a motor carrier with 3,500 trailers, and
Ryder Commercial Leasing and Services also support a retrofitting
requirement. Schneider indicated that it has been using conspicuity
treatments on all of its trailers since 1988 while Contract Freighters
has been using conspicuity treatments since 1986.
Opposition to a Retrofitting Requirement
The American Trucking Associations (ATA), National Private Truck
Council (NPTC) and numerous fleets indicated that retrofitting
reflective material is not feasible for older trailers because the
surfaces on those vehicles may require preparation (removal of
oxidation, rust, etc.) to ensure that the conspicuity material adheres
to the trailer. Further, the ATA and numerous fleets expressed concern
about the loss in revenues that will be incurred while the trailer is
being retrofitted. The ATA believes it could cost as much as $1,400 to
retrofit some trailers. Other commenters provided estimates that were
significant on a cost-per-trailer basis but generally lower than the
ATA estimate.
The NPTC stated that a retrofitting requirement would pose a
significant cost burden with very little evidence of benefit in terms
of reduced accidents. The NPTC also indicated that many private fleets
have a considerable financial investment in specially developed
graphics packages and that it would be inappropriate for the FHWA to
propose a retrofitting standard that would require fleets to replace
their existing reflective designs or logos with a mandated conspicuity
treatment.
FHWA Intent
The FHWA has determined that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
should be issued to propose requiring that each trailer with an overall
width of 2,032 millimeters (80 inches) or more and with a gross vehicle
weight rating greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds),
manufactured prior to December 1, 1993, be equipped with
retroreflective material. The FHWA recognizes the technical and
economic concerns of commenters opposed to a retrofitting requirement.
However, the Agency believes that based upon the information currently
available, retrofitting of trailers with conspicuity treatments will
provide significant safety benefits. Further, this action appears to be
cost-effective and technically feasible.
The FHWA has completed a preliminary benefit/cost analysis to
compare the projected safety benefits of a retrofitting requirement to
the potential economic impact on the motor carrier industry. Three key
issues were considered in determining whether to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking.
[[Page 40783]]
The first issue is the time and labor required to install
retroreflective material to older vehicles. The surfaces of many of the
older trailers will require preparation (e.g., removal of oxidation,
pre-treating surfaces, etc.) to ensure that the retroreflective tape
adheres to the surface of the trailer. In many cases the trailer will
have to be removed from revenue service to complete the retrofit. A
retrofitting requirement should allow carriers sufficient time--a
phase-in period--to complete the retrofit at routine maintenance
intervals. The FHWA believes the total cost (conspicuity material,
labor, and loss in revenues while the trailer is being retrofitted) for
retrofitting a 45-53 foot trailer is only a fraction of the ATA's
estimate.
The second issue is the voluntary use of retroreflective material
on older trailers by certain fleets. A large number of fleets have been
using conspicuity treatments on their trailers since the mid-1980's.
Unfortunately many of the color schemes, as well as the levels of
reflectivity of the tape used on the older trailers are not consistent
with the NHTSA requirements for trailers manufactured on or after
December 1, 1993. If these motor carriers are required to replace the
retroreflective materials that they voluntarily installed to improve
safety, it could be perceived as penalizing motor carriers that
demonstrated an extra level of safety consciousness. This could have
the unintended effect of discouraging motor carriers from exploring
innovative approaches to improving safety.
The third issue concerns the projected safety benefits of trailer
conspicuity material that meets the NHTSA requirement. The NHTSA
estimates that retroreflective tape could lead to a 25 percent
reduction in rear end collisions and a 15 percent reduction in side
impact collisions. From data available at the time of the NHTSA's final
rule implementing conspicuity enhancements, tractor-trailer
combinations were involved annually in about 11,000 accidents in which
they were struck at the side or rear at night. Within this group of
accidents, about 8,700 injuries and about 540 fatalities occurred. The
NHTSA indicated that the conspicuity treatments, when fully
implemented, is expected to prevent, annually, 2,113 of these
accidents. The NHTSA estimated 1,315 fewer injuries and about 80 fewer
fatalities would occur.
In 1994 there were an estimated 96,938 accidents in which one
commercial motor vehicle and one passenger car were involved. All of
these accidents resulted in a fatality, injury, or one of the vehicles
incurring damage severe enough to require that the vehicle be towed
from the accident scene. In 51,319 (52.9 percent) of these accidents
the CMV was a combination vehicle--a truck or truck-tractor, towing one
or more trailers.
Of the 51,319 collisions between a passenger car and a combination
vehicle, 11,176 cases involved the passenger car rear-ending the
trailer (daytime and nighttime accidents). It is estimated that there
were more than 4,100 injuries. Collisions between passenger cars and
the side of the trailer accounted for 27,764 accidents (daytime and
nighttime).
With regard to fatalities, the NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting
System data for 1994 indicate there were 2,785 fatal accidents
involving one commercial motor vehicle and one passenger car. In 1,885
of these fatal accidents, the commercial motor vehicle was a
combination vehicle. Of the 1,885 fatal accidents between a passenger
car and a combination vehicle, 314 cases involved the passenger car
rear-ending the trailer. The result was 369 fatalities (compared to 171
fatalities for 161 cases in which a passenger car rear-ended a single-
unit commercial motor vehicle). Collisions in which the passenger car
struck the side of a trailer at an angle accounted for 816 incidents
resulting in a total of 982 fatalities. Fatal accidents in which the
passenger car struck the side of a single-unit commercial motor vehicle
occurred 382 times resulting in a total of 474 fatalities. All of these
are a combination of day and night occurrences.
Considering the magnitude of the problem of passenger cars
colliding with tractor-trailer combination vehicles, the FHWA believes
that a retrofitting requirement will result in a major improvement in
safety by reducing both the incidence and severity of a significant
percentage of these accidents.
The FHWA has carefully examined a variety of issues, such as those
mentioned, and determined that the projected safety benefits in terms
of accidents prevented and lives saved, outweigh the economic burden on
the motor carrier industry.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. The FHWA has prepared a preliminary
evaluation of the economic impact of the regulatory changes being
considered in this rulemaking and will present that information in the
NPRM to be published at a later date. Based upon the information
received in response to the NPRM, the FHWA will carefully consider the
costs and benefits associated with establishing a conspicuity
retrofitting requirement. Comments, information, and data will be
solicited on the economic impact of establishing retrofitting
requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The FHWA will evaluate the effects of the regulatory changes on
small entities. Based upon the information received in response to the
NPRM, the FHWA will, in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), consider the economic impacts of
these potential changes on small entities. The FHWA will solicit
comments, information, and data on these impacts.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined that this action would not have any effect on the
quality of the environment.
[[Page 40784]]
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31502; 49 CFR 1.48
Issued on: July 26, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-19917 Filed 8-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P