[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 154 (Thursday, August 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41355-41362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19353]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 80-9; Notice 12]
RIN 2127-AF59
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 requires that the rear of truck tractors be
equipped with retroreflective material similar to that required on the
rear of the trailers they tow to increase nighttime conspicuity.
Manufacturers may choose either retroreflective sheeting or reflex
reflectors. In the case of truck tractors delivered with a temporary
mudflap arrangement rather than permanent equipment, the requirement
for retroreflective material near the top of the mudflap may be
satisfied with material carried by the temporary mudflap brackets that
is transferable to the permanent mudflap system. Retroreflective
material is also required near the top of the cab in a pattern similar
to that used on trailers. NHTSA estimates that the incidence of crashes
involving truck tractors struck in the rear by other vehicles in
darkness could be reduced by 15 to 25 percent by enhancing conspicuity
as required by this rule.
DATES: The effective date for the final rule is July 1, 1997. Petitions
for reconsideration of the rule must be received not later than
September 23, 1996. Petitions filed after that time will be considered
petitions for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR part 552.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number and notice number, and be submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA,
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Technical Issues: Patrick Boyd,
Office of Safety Performance Standards, NPS-31, telephone (202) 366-
6346, FAX (202) 366-4329. For Legal Issues: Taylor Vinson, Office of
Chief Counsel, NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 10, 1992, NHTSA published a final rule amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment to add paragraph S5.7 Conspicuity Systems. (57 FR
58406) Effective December 1, 1993, the rule required large trailers,
particularly the type hauled by truck tractors, to be equipped with
reflective marking (either retroreflective tape or reflex reflectors)
to enhance their detectability at night or under other conditions of
reduced visibility. The preamble to the rule explained that the
conspicuity requirements applied only to large trailers because most
fatal accidents at night in which a truck is struck involve a truck
tractor-trailer combination vehicle. But the notice also mentioned that
the night accident involvement rate of truck tractors alone was much
greater than that of other single-unit trucks. The agency announced
that it was considering truck tractors for future conspicuity
rulemaking.
As part of its petition for reconsideration of the final rule, the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) asked that the
conspicuity requirement be extended to single unit trucks and to truck
tractors, citing accident statistics in support of its request.
Aided by its fleet study of heavy trailers using a similar rear
conspicuity treatment, NHTSA tentatively concluded that motor vehicle
safety would be enhanced if a conspicuity marking scheme were extended
to truck tractors. Under 49 CFR 571.3(b), a truck tractor ``means a
truck designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so
constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the
vehicle and the load so drawn.'' Far fewer crashes involve vehicles
colliding with the rear of truck tractors than with the rear of
trailers, presumably because of a much lower exposure of tractors
operating without trailers. However, NHTSA's data indicate that a
higher proportion of rear end crashes involving truck tractors,
including fatal crashes, occur at night than for either trailers or
trucks.
Truck tractors are less conspicuous at night from the rear than
other motor vehicles because they are subject to fewer rear lighting
requirements of Standard No. 108. Unlike other vehicles over 2032 mm
wide (80 inches), tractors are not required to have rear side marker
lamps, rear clearance lamps, or rear identification lamps. If double
sided turn signal lamps are used on the front fenders, truck tractors
are not required to have rear turn signal lamps either. The only rear
marking lamps required on all truck tractors are the taillamps, and the
taillamps of truck tractors do not mark the full width of the vehicle
as do the taillamps of other vehicles.
Since much of a truck tractor's operational life is spent in
hauling trailers, it does not appear cost beneficial to require it to
have the full panoply of rear lighting equipment required for other
motor vehicles. Further, the configuration of truck tractors presents
practicability problems for the mounting of the tail, stop, and turn
signal lamps at the locations specified for other vehicles. However,
the inexpensive and convenient use of retroreflective material would
improve the detectability of the rear of truck tractors when they are
being operated or parked without trailers. The familiarity of the
public with the Federal conspicuity treatment applied to large trailers
should improve the recognition of similarly treated truck tractors and
make such a treatment more effective for accident prevention than it
would have been in the past.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In view of the relatively short length of truck tractors and the
fact that they are equipped with a full complement of lamps at the
front, on June 12, 1995, NHTSA proposed (60 FR 30820) a conspicuity
treatment for the rear only. The conspicuity treatment would use the
same retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors certified for use on
trailers under the existing regulation (the term ``retroreflective
material'' is used in this document to include both sheeting and reflex
reflectors).
As with large trailers, two strips of white material 300 mm in
length were proposed for application horizontally and vertically to the
right and left upper rear contours of the body (as shown in Figure 31),
as close to the top of the body and as far apart as practicable.
Relocation of the material would be
[[Page 41356]]
allowed to avoid obscuration by vehicle equipment when viewed from
directly behind. If relocation is required for one side of the rear but
not the other, the manufacturer would be permitted to relocate the
other strips to achieve a symmetrical effect.
To indicate the overall width of the truck tractor, two strips of
retroreflective material, 600 mm in length, of alternating colors of
red and white, were proposed for the rear, to be mounted as horizontal
as practicable and as far apart as practicable, not more than 1525 mm
above the road surface. In the proposal, this material could be applied
to the truck body, or, if the tractor is so equipped, to the mudflaps
or mudflap support brackets. However, if the strips were located on the
mudflaps, they would be placed not lower than 300 mm below the mudflap
support bracket to avoid excessive movement. Since the tire diameter,
and consequently the distance from the mudflap support to the road
surface, is nominally 1 meter, the lowest practicable location of the
strips would be about 700 mm above the road surface.
Twenty comments were received in response to the NPRM, representing
the views of truck manufacturers, commercial and private fleet
operators, insurance companies, public interest groups and private
citizens. Details of the issues raised by the comments and NHTSA's
responses are discussed below.
Effectiveness and Necessity of Truck Tractor Conspicuity
Comments from Parents Against Tired Truckers, the Transportation
Safety Equipment Institute, McKenzie Tank Lines, Merrill Allen, and
Marshall Reagle voiced agreement with the proposed regulation and the
reasons for its provisions. Dr. Allen also suggested that all mudflaps
used on tractors and trailers should be white to maximize visibility.
Trans Gulf, Daggett Truck Line, and the National Private Truck
Council expressed reservations about the value of truck tractor
conspicuity. Daggett stated that concern for the visibility of the rear
of truck tractors is a misplaced priority in comparison with the lack
of visibility of trains at road crossings. Trans Gulf stated that truck
tractors have the same rear lighting as automobiles and reflective
material is unnecessary. The National Private Truck Council believes
that the expectation of accident reduction as a result of conspicuity
is unproven.
The agency does not agree that the rear lighting of truck tractors
is comparable to the rear lighting of cars. Truck tractors lack the
center high mounted stop lamp and the mandatory rear mounted turn
signals of cars, and they have far fewer rear lamps than other trucks.
However, the greatest disadvantage of the rear lighting of truck
tractors is the narrow spacing of the taillamps which creates a
deceptive image for distance judgment not shared by cars. (For an
explanation of this phenomenon, see the beginning of the next section,
which is titled ``Location of Material Marking the Width of a Truck
Tractor.'')
The basis of the safety benefits estimated for truck tractor
conspicuity is the fleet study of trailers conducted by the agency in
the 1980's (Improved Commercial Vehicle Conspicuity and Signalling
Systems--Task III, HS 806 923). The rear crash experience is similar
for both trailers and truck tractors operating without trailers in that
the majority of fatal crashes in which they are struck occur at night.
Also, the proportion of less serious crashes occurring at night is even
greater for truck tractors without trailers than for trailers. The
present configuration of tractor rear lighting persuades the agency
that the information available on the effectiveness of retroreflective
conspicuity on trailers provides a reasonable basis upon which to
predict safety benefits for conspicuity material on truck tractors.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety, and the National Automobile Dealers Association
expressed support of the truck tractor proposal and also urged the
agency to expand the requirements for truck conspicuity in future
rulemakings. Specifically, they suggested a requirement for all single-
unit trucks, a treatment for the side of truck tractor bodies and
cooperation between NHTSA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
on a retrofit rule for truck tractors.
NHTSA has initiated a study of the effectiveness in service of the
conspicuity treatments that have been required on new trailers
manufactured since December 1, 1993. The results of this study may
improve the agency's ability to estimate or project the safety benefits
of conspicuity treatments on single-unit trucks which have a lower
proportion of nighttime crashes.
The agency did not propose a body side treatment for truck
tractors. There does not appear to be a practicable way to mark the
whole length of the tractor, and a body-only treatment may mask the
true length of the vehicle because of the long untreated frame and
axles behind the body. The safety need is also less obvious for the
side of tractors than for the rear because ordinary traffic situations
place the rear at a much higher level of exposure.
Location of Material Marking the Width of a Truck Tractor
The primary elements of the proposed conspicuity treatment were the
low- mounted red/white strips intended to reveal the vehicle's width as
well as to increase its visibility. The proposal included the options
of placing the material either on the back of the cab (a permitted
location for the present rear reflex reflectors of truck tractors), on
the mudflap brackets or on the top portion of the mudflaps themselves.
This proposal addressed a problem created by the location of the
taillamps of truck tractors. The particularly narrow spacing of their
taillamps make it difficult for following drivers approaching truck
tractors to judge their size and distance correctly at night. The
taillamps are usually mounted much closer together on truck tractors
than on other motor vehicles. A study by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute, titled Effects of the Lateral
Position of Low-beam Headlamps on the Perceived Distance of Vehicles
(UMTRI-95-21), demonstrated that a driver's ability to perceive the
distance of an oncoming vehicle is affected by the transposition on
that vehicle of the lower-beam headlamps from the required outer
position to the inner position used for upper beams. Since the spacing
ratio of ordinary truck taillamps to truck tractor taillamps is at
least twice the spacing ratio of lower beam to upper beam headlamps, a
far greater effect on the ability of following drivers to judge
distance would be expected. In other words, truck tractor taillamps are
spaced even more narrowly (relative to other taillamps) than the
narrowest headlamp spacing in the study (relative to normal headlamp
spacing). Therefore, truck tractor taillamps would be expected to have
a greater affect on distance perception than that demonstrated for
headlamp placement.
MediQuik Express incorrectly concluded that the proposal would
require retroreflective material integral with the mudflaps and
expressed concern that it would ``give mudflap manufacturers an excuse
to double if not triple the cost of mudflaps.'' The NPRM did not assume
the existence of mudflaps with integral retroreflective material in its
cost estimate. The cost estimate of applying the material at the
mudflap included the cost of two mounting plates to which the
retroreflective material would be
[[Page 41357]]
attached. In this example, each mounting plate had the same bolt hole
pattern as the top of the mudflap. The mounting plate carrying the
retroreflective material was secured to the mudflap bracket,
sandwiching the mudflap between the bracket and the mounting plate.
This arrangement would affect neither the design nor the cost of
present mudflaps and mudflap brackets.
However, 3M commented that market pressures, presumably to provide
truck- tractor conspicuity at less than the cost estimated in the NPRM,
would drive the development of adhesives and mechanical mounting
systems to attach material directly to mudflaps. Specialty Adhesive
Film Co. commented that it had already developed an adhesive and a
bonding process to make direct attachment possible. The agency welcomes
the availability of complying alternatives in conspicuity equipment,
but the solution costed in the proposal was developed independently of
them.
McKenzie Tank Lines, which operates a large fleet of tractors,
reported that it had equipped tractors with reflective material on the
mudflap brackets out of concern that the narrowly spaced taillamps
would not create an accurate size image of tractors without trailers
(``bobtail'') to approaching motorists at night. However, it cautioned
that many types of mudflap brackets do not have enough room for
reflective material and that it would be a huge expense for a fleet to
retrofit suitable mudflap brackets. The agency agrees with McKenzie
that the mudflap bracket is the optimum location for conspicuity
material, but it wishes to clarify that the rule is not retroactive.
The agency also points out that the use of retroreflective material
attached to the mudflap bracket by means of the mounting plate
described above achieves the effect desired by McKenzie without relying
on a particular mudflap bracket design.
Mudflap brackets with integral conspicuity material, like mudflaps
themselves with integral conspicuity material, are product ideas with
potential economic and aesthetic benefits, but the practicability of
the final rule does not depend on their availability. It should be
noted that the recent commercial offering by at least two companies of
arrays of conspicuity grade (DOT-C) reflex reflectors in a bar form,
narrower than conspicuity tape, may make the mounting of material
directly to mudflap brackets more practical. The reflex reflector
arrays look like strips of sheeting about 8 or 12 inches long but need
only a width of about 1 inch to attain the required photometric
performance.
Many commenters criticized the proposed alternative of attaching
the red/white material to the rear of the cab. McKenzie believed that
having the material on the cab rather than on the mudflap brackets
could give following traffic a misconception of the location of the
rear of the truck. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) cited an
unsatisfactory experience of the U.S. Military in Germany with
reflectorized placards on truck tractors. In a docketed telephone
conversation, ATA explained to NHTSA that placards were placed on the
back of the cab of a test vehicle, and a panel of observers suggested
that the placards could cause a misconception of the location of the
rear of the tractor in adverse weather at night. As a result, the
military tractors were equipped with placards on the mudflaps. Another
commenter, Mr. Wes Trindal, described a contrary experience of the U.S.
Military in Vietnam. Truck tractors were equipped with lamp packages on
the back of the body at the full width of the vehicle. He cited
satisfaction of the troops using these vehicles and recommended similar
auxiliary lights for truck tractors to use while being operated without
trailers.
The Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), Navistar, Mack, Ford and
ATA commented that the option of placing the red/white width-marking
part of the treatment on the cab was impractical. They cited a lack of
space around the engine opening at the rear of many cabs and the amount
of equipment obscuring the area necessary for a full width conspicuity
treatment.
The agency has heeded the comments opposing the proposed
alternative, and the final rule requires that the red/white element of
the truck tractor conspicuity treatment be placed on either the mudflap
bracket or the mudflap, or on a fender if the tractor is so equipped.
The same commenters observed that a significant proportion of new
truck tractors are not delivered with permanent mudflaps and mudflap
brackets as original equipment. The manufacturer equips such vehicles
with temporary mudflaps and brackets to satisfy state laws, but
dealers, aftermarket suppliers, or fleet service facilities install the
permanent mudflap or fender equipment. The truck manufacturers, either
individually or as part of TMA, recommended that the installers of
permanent mudflaps be considered as second stage vehicle manufacturers
with responsibility of certifying the compliance of the ``completed''
truck if truck tractor conspicuity is to be a NHTSA requirement for new
vehicles. Navistar also recommended that truck tractor conspicuity
requirements be established as a Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulation (administered by FHWA) rather than a requirement of Standard
No. 108 for new motor vehicles regulated by NHTSA.
The agency does not agree that regulatory solutions of greater
complexity are necessary. Manufacturers may certify compliance of
vehicles with temporary mudflap brackets if backing plates with
retroreflective material are installed with the mudflap attaching bolts
as assumed in the cost estimate. The language of the final rule
clarifies that retroreflective treatment of the temporary mudflap
equipment is sufficient for certification if the retroreflective
material is transferable to a permanent mudflap system. Locating
retroreflective material on a heavy aluminum backing plate is the most
obvious universal solution, and the one used in NHTSA's cost estimate,
but the likely development of mudflaps with integral retroreflective
material and reflex reflectors designed for attachment with the mudflap
bolts may offer manufacturers lower cost alternatives for transferable
conspicuity material. The permanent application of retroreflective
material to a temporary mudflap bracket (usually a piece of lumber) is
not an acceptable alternative because there is no assurance that the
permanent bracket will have conspicuity material.
In response to the suggestion that installers of permanent mudflaps
be considered as second stage vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA notes that
those installers would not satisfy the definition of either an
``intermediate manufacturer'' or a ``final stage vehicle manufacturer''
in 49 CFR part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.
Further, the truck tractors to which the installers add permanent
mudflaps are not ``incomplete vehicles.'' Therefore, the agency could
not, consistent with part 568, place overall certification
responsibility on those installers.
The agency also believes that conspicuity treatment should be a
new-vehicle requirement and not solely for tractors in use subject to
the regulations of FHWA. FHWA's Motor Carrier Safety regulation for
lighting already incorporates by reference the lighting and reflector
requirements of Standard No. 108 (at 49 CFR 393.11), and applies them
to vehicles under FHWA's jurisdiction. The FHWA will work with the
States through its Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program to ensure
that inspection personnel are aware that a significant percentage of
truck tractors
[[Page 41358]]
will be shipped with temporary mudflap systems and transferable
material. The FHWA and the States will help to make certain that the
motor carriers operating these vehicles maintain the conspicuity
treatments on the truck tractors. The presence of new truck tractors
with conspicuity material and the availability of convenient new
products are likely to stimulate interest in voluntary retrofit of
existing vehicles. The agency believes that large numbers of trailers
built before December 1, 1993, the effective date of the trailer
conspicuity regulation, have been retrofitted voluntarily with
conspicuity treatments similar to new trailer equipment.
A particular style of mudflap used on many truck tractors is not
rectangular. It has the upper outer corner removed for clearance with
trailer equipment and is supported by a bracket with a 45-degree
downward bend about 8 inches from the outboard end. Manufacturers may
satisfy the final rule by applying conspicuity material to the bracket
despite the bend because such a placement is ``as horizontal as
practicable'' on the bracket. Alternatively, the rule may be met by
securing conspicuity material across the mudflap horizontally below the
corner notch because the rule allows it to be applied as low as 300 mm
below the top of the mudflap. However, the use of transferable
conspicuity material on a temporary rectangular mudflap presents a
problem to an owner installing permanent mudflaps which are not
rectangular. The horizontal top edge of this type of mudflap is only
about 16 inches long, and thus the 600 mm long segments of transferable
conspicuity material must be trimmed to 400 mm to fit. NHTSA will work
with FHWA's Office of Motor Carrier Safety and Technology to develop
inspection procedures to permit the practical use of original-equipment
transferable conspicuity material on subsequently-installed permanent
mudflap equipment.
Upper Cab Contour Markings
The second part of the proposed conspicuity treatment was
illustrated in the NPRM as a pair of inverted ``L'' 's of white
conspicuity material to mark the upper contour of the cab. This element
is identical in shape and purpose to the upper conspicuity marking of
trailers. The purpose of the upper material is to create a two-
dimensional image to improve the judgement of distance and closing
speed on the part of drivers approaching from a distance. On truck
tractors, which are not required to have rear clearance and
identification lamps, cab-mounted conspicuity material may also provide
the only source of visibility when the taillamps and lower conspicuity
material are temporarily obscured by hilly terrain.
The previously discussed comments of ATA, TMA and the vehicle
manufacturers regarding the possibility of a false indication of the
rear of the vehicle as a result of reflective material on the lower cab
and the lack of space on the rear of the cab to mount material were
also directed toward the upper material. Mack and ATA provided pictures
of vehicles to illustrate application difficulties. Navistar and TMA
commented that the addition of non-OEM headboards, sleeper compartments
and tool boxes would obscure the material, and they noted that even if
the material were visible viewed from directly behind, as specified in
the NPRM, it could be obscured viewed from a small angle. TMA asked for
clarification regarding the avoidance of discontinuous surfaces,
whether the vertical and horizontal reflector strips must intersect,
and whether aerodynamic roof fairings are included in the cab contour.
NHTSA does not agree that truck tractor cabs lack the space for the
upper treatment. The exact location of the upper treatment is less
crucial than that of the lower treatment. It is not necessary for it to
mark the extreme width or the extreme height of the cab for it to add a
height dimension to the night image of a truck tractor. Therefore, the
upper marking may be located in spots dictated by practicability and
still fulfill its intended function.
The most common obstructions at the upper cab corners are exhaust
stacks. The NPRM illustrated the right upper marking moved inboard to
clear an exhaust stack, and the proposed regulation permitted
manufacturers to move the marking on the opposite side to achieve a
symmetrical appearance, if desired. The commenters supplied photographs
of various truck tractor configurations illustrating possible
obstructions. The most problematic cases for upper treatment were those
featuring large rear windows with limited space between the rear window
frame and large dual exhaust stacks on each side of the window.
However, even these designs appeared to have enough space between the
window and the stack obstruction for a one-inch wide reflex reflector
bar if not a 2-inch strip of sheeting material. Also, the material may
be attached to the edge of the window itself if the window is so large
as to occupy all the practicable space for an upper treatment. However,
limited obstructions such as fairing support rods and hoses are not
important enough to dictate the placement of the upper treatment.
Accordingly, the final rule permits the upper material to be obscured
up to 25 percent when viewed directly from behind (the rear orthogonal
view).
TMA and Navistar commented that even material on the cab visible in
a rear orthogonal view would not be useful because it could be obscured
by exhaust stacks or other equipment when viewed at a small angle.
However, 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 to the
approaching driver is close to orthogonal. The only instance in which a
truck tractor in the same lane would have a difference in heading angle
great enough to cause total obscuration would be in a curve so sharp
that the tractor would not be illuminated by the approaching headlamps.
Likewise, there is little potential for the upper material to create a
misleading impression of the location of rear of the vehicle because it
is only visible at a distance. As the approaching vehicle nears the
truck tractor, the upper treatment becomes very much dimmer than the
lower material at the mudflaps. This occurs because the headlamps of
vehicles close to the truck tractor do not project much light as high
as the upper treatment. The light entrance angle also becomes
unfavorable for retroreflection as the low headlamps approach the high-
mounted material.
TMA was concerned that the existence of stiffening beads, drip
rails and body seams may preclude the mounting of conspicuity material
depending on the agency's definition of ``discontinuous surfaces''. The
current regulatory language for trailers provides that conspicuity
material ``need not be applied to discontinuous surfaces such as
outside ribs, stake post pockets * * * or to items of equipment such as
door hinges and lamp bodies.'' It does not prohibit the placement of
material at difficult locations that may be labor intensive; it simply
allows manufacturers greater discretion in designing a practicable
treatment. The manufacturer may choose to make breaks in the strips to
clear rivets, body seams and shallow stiffening corrugations for ease
of application, but it is not required to do so. Likewise, the
horizontal and vertical strips are not required to intersect, and
Figure 30-1 in the current trailer conspicuity standard illustrates a
trailer treatment in which the position of a hinge would make
intersecting strips impractical. Also, the
[[Page 41359]]
agency does not consider aerodynamic body fairings as part of the cab
contour. In general, fairings would not be an acceptable location for
conspicuity material except as discussed below.
If the addition of OEM equipment obscures the material (equipment
such as headboards, sleeper compartments, tool boxes and aerodynamic
fairings), Standard No. 108, as well as the statute under which it was
issued, requires that auxiliary conspicuity material be applied to
those components prior to the truck tractor's initial sale in order to
restore the truck tractor to conformity. Further, statutory law
prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair
business from adding, after initial sale of a vehicle, equipment having
an obscuring effect unless the modifier adds compensating auxiliary
conspicuity material. Thus, the consequences of obscuring the
conspicuity material will be the same as the consequences currently of
obscuring auxiliary high mounted stop lamps by the installation of
pickup truck caps. FHWA's Motor Carrier Safety Regulations would
require auxiliary material on obscuring components on all regulated
vehicles in interstate commerce built after the effective date of this
final rule, regardless of who installed the components.
Continued Requirement for Present Truck Reflex Reflectors
Under the final rule, manufacturers of truck tractors have the
option of using an array of reflex reflectors on the rear instead of
retroreflective sheeting, the same option that is available to trailer
manufacturers. However, reflex reflectors will continue to be required
by Table I of Standard No. 108, in addition to the conspicuity
material, whether sheeting or reflectors, as the agency has not amended
paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108 which excuse truck
tractors from the full complement of rear lighting equipment required
of trucks.
Presently, mounting of required reflectors or lamps on mudflaps is
prohibited by paragraph S5.3.1. This requires lighting equipment to be
``securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing
that is not designed to be removed except for repair''. In the past,
NHTSA has deemed mudflaps not to be a ``rigid part of the vehicle.''
However, the prohibition has been subject to the exceptions ``in
succeeding paragraphs of S5.3.1 and S7'', and NHTSA has now included as
exceptions retroreflective sheeting material or reflex reflectors on
mudflaps added in compliance with the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.
Estimate of Benefits
The benefits estimated for the trailer conspicuity regulation offer
a reasonable basis for estimating the benefits of a similar regulation
for truck tractors. The agency concluded that the likely result of
adding conspicuity treatment to trailers was the prevention of 25
percent of rear collisions, and a significant reduction in the severity
of many of the remaining collisions. Although the required rear
lighting for a truck tractor is less than is required for a trailer,
NHTSA believes that the added degree of conspicuity of a tractor that
would be provided by conspicuity treatment is not less than the
relative improvement in conspicuity of a trailer provided by its
treatment. Thus, it is reasonable to assume a similar rate of crash
prevention.
To account for degradation in performance of the conspicuity
material after years of in-use exposure, in estimating benefits, the
agency assumed that the conspicuity material would be effective only
for the first fifteen years of a given model year tractor fleet's life.
This is consistent with the agency's prior conclusion that the material
would remain effective during the nominal fourteen years of life of a
trailer.
NHTSA estimated that the property damage savings of preventing a
crash into the rear end of a trailer, in 1992 dollars, as $10,869, and,
for damage mitigation, as $2,075 (in 1995 dollars, $11,847 and $2,262
respectively). The agency believes that, when the entire truck tractor
population is equipped with conspicuity treatment, on an annual basis
260 collisions can be prevented, resulting in a savings of $3,080,000,
and that the severity of a large number of the remaining 782 collisions
can be mitigated, resulting in a savings of $1,769,000, or total
property damage benefits of $4,849,000. The present value of these
future benefits of a model year fleet would range from $4,399,000 to
$3,176,000 under discount rate assumptions of 2 percent to 10 percent.
However, the primary purposes of a tractor conspicuity regulation
is to save lives and reduce the severity of injuries. If fatalities
involving rear collisions of truck tractors can be reduced by 15 to 25
percent annually, there will be 4 to 7 fewer deaths attributable to
this type of accident. The agency also believes that there will be 94
to 157 fewer injuries annually when full coverage of the tractor
population is achieved.
Estimate of Costs
In estimating costs, NHTSA has used a price for retroreflective
material of $0.675 a linear foot, although market pressures may have
reduced the cost to $0.60 for high volume users. Approximately 8 linear
feet of material (7.8 feet actually) would be required to comply. NHTSA
is also estimating a labor rate of $22.50 an hour, and an installation
time of 10 minutes for the material.
On this basis, NHTSA estimates a manufacturer's cost of $9.15 when
the lower conspicuity treatment is applied directly to the mudflap
brackets, and a consumer cost of $13.82, applying a consumer cost
factor of $1.51. If the manufacturer chooses to apply the treatment to
temporary mudflap brackets, using two reusable mounting plates at an
additional cost to the manufacturer of $1.11 each, the total additional
cost to the consumer would be $3.35. Thus, the cost to the manufacturer
would range between $9.15 and $11.37, and to the consumer, between
$13.82 and $17.17. Using the latter figure, and estimating an annual
production of 170,000 for truck tractors, the agency estimates that the
total annual cost impact of this regulation will not exceed $2,919,500.
The present value of future property damage reduction benefits from
this regulation in property damage alone are expected to be at least
$3,176,000 with a discount rate of 10 percent and more if a lower
discount rate prevails. The prevention of deaths and injuries would be
achieved with no additional cost.
Effective Date
The NPRM proposed a lead time of 120 days. TMA, Navistar and Ford
commented that a one-year lead time, as was established for the trailer
conspicuity requirement, was necessary. They suggested that
manufacturers would change the design of OEM mudflap brackets to
incorporate conspicuity material. Additional time would be required to
design and procure the new types of mudflap brackets as well as the
mounting plates needed for vehicles leaving the factory with temporary
mudflap equipment.
NHTSA also expects that custom-molded reflex reflectors may be an
effective solution to some of the practicability concerns expressed
about the upper conspicuity material and that manufacturers may choose
to change the location of some rear equipment to ease the installation
of conspicuity material. A sufficient lead time to develop products and
designs to simplify the installation of a conspicuity treatment for
truck tractors is justified. Therefore, NHTSA is adopting the one-year
lead time recommended by truck tractor
[[Page 41360]]
manufacturers. The effective date of the final rule is July 1, 1997.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This 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.
Implementation of the rule would not have a yearly cost impact that
exceeds $2,920,000 in the aggregate. Although the cost impacts are so
minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation may not be
warranted, the agency has prepared a regulatory evaluation which has
been placed in the docket.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that the final
rule will have a significant effect upon the environment. Compliance
would require the application of not more than 8 feet of
retroreflective tape to the rear of a truck tractor (1,360,000 feet for
an estimated year's production of 170,000 truck tractors).
Retroreflective material is currently in use with no known negative
environmental effects.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that
this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact upon
a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis has been prepared. Manufacturers of truck
tractors, those affected by the rulemaking action, are generally not
small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions will not be
significantly affected because the price of new truck tractors will be
only minimally increased. An increase in cost of less than $18 per
vehicle is expected to be more than offset by savings in repair over
the life of the model year fleet.
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. Section 30163 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.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30162; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.108 is amended by:
(a) Revising paragraphs S5.3.1, S5.7, S5.7.1, S5.7.1.3(a), S5.7.1.4
(a) and (b), and the headings of S5.7.1.4.1 and S5.7.1.4.2,
(b) Adding new paragraph S5.7.1.4.3,
(c) Revising paragraphs S5.7.2 and S5.7.3, and
(d) Adding Figure 31, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment.
* * * * *
S5.3.1 Except as provided in succeeding paragraphs of S5.3.1, and
paragraphs S5.7 and S7, each lamp, reflective device, and item of
associated equipment shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the
vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except
for repair, in accordance with the requirements of Table I and Table
III, as applicable, and in the location specified in Table II
(multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses 80 or
more inches in overall width) or Table IV (all passenger cars, and
motorcycles, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles, truck, trailers and
buses less than 80 inches in overall width), as applicable.
* * * * *
S5.7 Conspicuity Systems. Each trailer of 80 or more inches
overall width, and with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs., manufactured on or
after December 1, 1993, except a trailer designed exclusively for
living or office use, and each truck tractor manufactured on or after
July 1, 1997, shall be equipped with either retroreflective sheeting
that meets the requirements of S5.7.1, reflex reflectors that meet the
requirements of S5.7.2, or a combination of retroreflective sheeting
and reflex reflectors that meet the requirement of S5.7.3.
S5.7.1 Retroreflective sheeting. Each trailer or truck tractor to
which S5.7 applies that does not conform to S5.7.2 or S5.7.3 shall be
equipped with retroreflective sheeting that conforms to the
requirements specified in S5.7.1.1 through S5.7.1.5.
* * * * *
S5.7.1.3 Sheeting pattern, dimensions, and relative coefficients
of retroreflection.
(a) Retroreflective sheeting shall be applied in a pattern of
alternating white and red color segments to the sides and rear of each
trailer, and to the rear of each truck tractor, and in white to the
upper rear corners of each trailer and truck tractor, in the locations
specified in S5.7.1.4, and Figures 30-1 through 30-4, or Figure 31, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
S5.7.1.4 Location. (a) Retroreflective sheeting shall be applied
to each trailer and truck tractor as specified below, but need not be
applied to discontinuous surfaces such as outside ribs, stake post
pickets on platform trailers, and external protruding beams, or to
items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies.
(b) The edge of white sheeting shall not be located closer than 75
mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of any red or amber lamp that
is required by this standard.
* * * * *
S5.7.1.4.1 Rear of trailers. * * *
S5.7.1.4.2 Side of trailers. * * *
S5.7.1.4.3 Rear of truck tractors. Retroreflective sheeting shall
be applied to the rear of each truck tractor as follows:
(a) Element 1: Two strips of sheeting in alternating colors, each
not less than 600 mm long, located as close as practicable to the edges
of the rear fenders, mudflaps or the mudflap support brackets, to mark
the width of the truck tractor. The strips shall be mounted as
horizontal as practicable, in a vertical plane facing the rear, on the
rear fenders, mudflap support brackets, on plates attached to the
mudflap support brackets, or on the mudflaps. Strips on mudflaps shall
be mounted not lower than 300 mm below the lower edge of the mudflap
support bracket. If
[[Page 41361]]
the vehicle is certified with temporary mudflap support brackets, the
strips shall be mounted on the mudflaps or on plates transferable to
permanent mudflap support brackets.
(b) Element 2: Two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair
consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied as horizontally and
vertically as practicable, to the right and left upper contours of the
body, as close to the top of the body and as far apart as practicable.
No more than 25 percent of their cumulative area may be obscured by
vehicle equipment as determined in a rear orthogonal view. If one pair
must be relocated to avoid obscuration by vehicle equipment, the other
pair may be relocated in order to be mounted symmetrically.
S5.7.2 Reflex Reflectors. Each trailer or truck tractor to which
S5.7 applies that does not conform to S5.7.1 or S5.7.3 shall be
equipped with reflex reflectors in accordance with this section.
* * * * *
S5.7.3 Combination of sheeting and reflectors. Each trailer or
truck tractor to which S5.7 applies that does not conform to S5.7.1 or
S5.7.2, shall be equipped with retroreflective materials that meet the
requirements of S5.7.1 except that reflex reflectors that meet the
requirements of S5.7.2.1, and that are installed in accordance with
S5.7.2.2, may be used instead of any corresponding element of
retroreflective sheeting located as required by S5.7.1.4.
* * * * *
3. Figure 31 is added as follows:
BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P
[[Page 41362]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AU96.000
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Issued on July 24, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-19353 Filed 8-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P