[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