[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16709-16717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8521]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 80-9; Notice 13]
RIN 2127-AF59
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration; final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
final rule requiring 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.
DATES: The effective date for the final rule, as amended by this
document, is July 1, 1997. Petitions for reconsideration of the rule
must be received not later than 45 days after the rule is published in
the Federal Register. Petitions filed after that time will be
considered petitions for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR part 552.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the amendments to the final
rule 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 August 8, 1996, NHTSA published a final rule amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment to amend paragraph S5.7 Conspicuity Systems. (61
FR 41355). Effective July 1, 1997, the rule requires truck tractors to
be equipped with a conspicuity treatment (either retroreflective tape
or reflex reflectors) to enhance their detectability at night or under
other conditions of reduced visibility.
The Final Rule
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, NHTSA adopted a conspicuity treatment for the rear only. The
conspicuity treatment uses the same retroreflective sheeting or reflex
reflectors certified for use on trailers (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 are to be applied 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 is 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 is permitted to relocate
the other strips to achieve a symmetrical effect. The final rule also
permits the upper material to be obscured up to 25 percent when viewed
directly from behind (the rear orthogonal view).
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, must be mounted on the rear, as horizontal as
practicable and as far apart as practicable. This material may be
applied to the rear fenders, if the tractor is so equipped, or to the
mudflaps or mudflap support brackets. However, if the strips are
located on the mudflaps, they must 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 reflective
strips can be expected to be about 700 mm above the road surface.
Under the final rule, manufacturers of truck tractors have the
option of using
[[Page 16710]]
an array of reflex reflectors on the rear instead of retroreflective
sheeting, the same option that is available to trailer manufacturers.
However, reflex reflectors continue to be required by Table I of
Standard No. 108, in addition to the conspicuity material, whether
sheeting or reflectors. The agency did not amend 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.
Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule were received from
American Trucking Associations (ATA), and Truck Manufacturers
Association (TMA).
(1) Truck Tractors Without Mudflaps
TMA and ATA contend that many truck tractors used to haul auto
transporters, tank trailers, or trailers hauling construction
equipment, are used as ``married pairs'' and always operate with the
same trailer. In a married pair configuration, the mudflaps for the
truck tractor drive axle could be mounted on the trailer. The
petitioners state that these truck tractors would never be fitted with
mudflaps, and consequently, there would be no location for installing
the conspicuity material. They further state that the movement of the
trailer in turns would cause interference between trailer-mounted
mudflaps and any brackets mounted on the rear of the truck tractor to
hold conspicuity material. ATA also points out that many states do not
require mudflaps on truck tractors.
The 1996 edition of the Official Trucking Safety Guide, published
by J.J. Keller & Associates, identifies 15 states and the District of
Columbia as having no mudflap requirement for any truck and identifies
six other states that exempt truck tractors. The publication also
reports that Michigan exempts truck tractors from mudflap requirements
if they are operated at no more than 25 mph without a trailer. However,
it is incorrect to conclude from these statistics that a large
proportion of truck tractors do not use mudflaps. The need to travel
across the 29 states requiring mudflaps on tractors and the possible
liability from not protecting vehicles behind from stone damage and
spray are apparently sufficient reason for most truck tractor owners to
use mudflaps regardless of local state law.
Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, West
Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina form a large contiguous
region having no requirements for mudflaps on truck tractors.
Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of truck tractors observed by
this agency in Virginia were equipped with mudflaps. Of the 1109
tractors observed on Interstate 95 in Virginia, 1003 had mudflaps and
only 106 did not. Many of the tank trailers were equipped with
mudflaps, consistent with the ``married pair'' combination described by
the petitioners. However, of 49 tank trailers observed with forward
mounted mudflaps, 37 were being towed by tractors which also had
mudflaps, casting doubt on the generality of the petitioners' assertion
that there is insufficient room between the trailer mounted mudflaps
and the tractor tires for reflector brackets.
For regulatory purposes, it is not possible to distinguish a truck
tractor that will be used in a married pair from other truck tractors.
Likewise, the operators of fleets of trucks and trailers usually
configured as married pairs cannot assure that breakdowns and other
circumstances will not result in occasional travel of their truck
tractors without trailers. Finally, the sale of the truck tractor to
the second owner is unlikely to include the sale of the specialized
trailer to which it was paired. Therefore, the conspicuity requirements
should include provisions permitting alternative compliance of the
minority of truck tractors that lack the favorable mounting locations
of mudflap brackets and mudflaps.
The NPRM (60 FR 30820) originally proposing truck tractor
conspicuity included the additional alternative of attaching the red/
white retroreflective material to the back of the cab rather than to
the mudflap brackets. The alternative was not included in the final
rule because of opposition by ATA and TMA. ATA was opposed to material
not located at the extreme rear of the cab, and TMA was concerned about
interference with equipment. Clearly, the best attachment points for
conspicuity material are the mudflap brackets which are part of most
truck tractors. However, even material located forward of the usual
mudflap location can accurately indicate the width of the truck
tractor, mitigating difficulties in judging closing speed by drivers
approaching the narrowly spaced tail lamps of truck tractors, which
lack the clearance and identification lamps of other trucks.
Retroreflective material attached to the back of the cab, to brackets
supported by the cab, or to the frame ahead of the rear axle may be the
only possible locations for conspicuity material for a small portion of
truck tractors if the petitioners are correct about possible trailer
interference problems. However, it appears likely that most tractors in
married pairs, and certainly others that simply lack mudflaps, could
support conspicuity material with brackets behind the rear axle that
need not be as strong as those designed for mudflap loads.
A general solution for the approximately 10 percent of tractors
that may not be equipped with mudflaps is to replace the 2-inch wide
sheeting material mounted on an aluminum backing plate (assumed in the
regulatory cost estimate of the final rule) with reflex reflectors
mounted on a simple 1-inch wide bent steel bracket located behind the
rear axle. The reflex reflectors are equivalent in cost to the sheeting
material, but the steel brackets would cost more than the aluminum
backing plates. While the final rule estimated the cost to a consumer
of a pair of backing plates at $3.35, the estimated cost of a pair of
reflector brackets is $5.39. If 10 percent of tractors required the
more expensive brackets, the average consumer cost of the tractor
conspicuity treatment would rise from $17.17 to $17.37.
However, the original treatment cost estimate was conservative in
that it assumed that every tractor would need a pair of aluminum
backing plates to adapt the reflective material to the mudflap
brackets. NHTSA has observed that some common styles of mudflap
brackets have surfaces to which conspicuity material could be attached
directly without the need for extra backing plates. Assuming that only
6 percent of tractors were to use those types of brackets, the original
estimate would still be the same as the average cost of a tractor
conspicuity treatment. It is likely that the convenience of mounting
conspicuity material directly on the mudflap bracket will increase the
popularity of compatible styles of mudflap brackets and reduce the
average cost of the conspicuity treatment. However, as discussed later,
the cost effectiveness of the rule does not depend on minor factors
because the conspicuity costs have been weighed favorably against mere
property damage prevention without the need to assign economic benefit
to the principal goal of preventing injury and death.
NHTSA is therefore adopting the alternative it originally proposed
(for the red/white horizontal element of the conspicuity system) of
cab-mounted material and adding the additional alternatives of material
mounted ahead of or behind the rear axle on separate brackets. Since
the agency agreed with commenters to the NPRM that material ahead of
the rear axle is not as desirable as material behind the rear axle, the
alternative locations ahead of the axle
[[Page 16711]]
will be limited to truck tractors which lack mudflaps. As permitted for
upper material mounted on the back of the cab, the amendments permit
the obscuration of up to 25 percent of lower material mounted on the
back of the cab so that insignificant obstructions such as braces and
hoses may be accommodated.
(2) Obscuration of Upper Rear Cab Material
TMA commented that the aftermarket installation of additional
equipment such as header boards, add-on sleeper compartments, cranes
and winches could partially or completely obscure the conspicuity
treatment on the back of the cab provided by the truck tractor
manufacturer. The need to apply auxiliary conspicuity material to
equipment obscuring the original material would increase the cost of
such modifications by the cost of the additional conspicuity material.
TMA considers the potential burden unreasonable. The solution it
suggests is that truck manufacturers not install the conspicuity
material but rather furnish a small roll of reflective tape or some
loose reflex reflectors with a new tractor. Presumably, no tractors
would have factory-installed conspicuity material since TMA points out
that manufacturers would not know prior to sale and delivery which
tractors were to be modified.
Manufacturers certify compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety
standards on the basis of equipment they install on the vehicle at the
time of manufacture, not on the basis of equipment that a purchaser may
or may not install after buying the vehicle. Thus, NHTSA sees no way
that it can favorably consider TMA's comment. The potential burden is
the use of 4 feet of reflective tape or four reflector bars with a
retail value of about two or three dollars in the modification of a
minority of vehicles in a class with a unit cost on the order of one
hundred thousand dollars. The burden is much less than in the analogous
case discussed in the final rule notice of the installation of caps on
ordinary pick-up trucks. When the installation of a cap obscures the
center high mounted stop lamp of a pick-up truck, the installer must
provide an auxiliary stop lamp, which is much more burdensome than
reflective tape, on the cap.
TMA's suggestion would also deprive the owners of unmodified trucks
of their reasonable expectation that factory installed equipment is
present, in compliance with Federal safety standards, as the vehicle's
certification label states. Also, header boards and other equipment
related to special trailers and cargos are likely to be removed before
the sale of a tractor to a second owner who will benefit from factory-
installed conspicuity material. Finally, the manufacturer is permitted
to attach the material with screws or other means rather than adhesives
to permit its installation on added header boards or sleeper
compartments. The final rule already requires that approach when
material is furnished on temporary mudflap brackets because there is a
certainty of the purchaser's need to relocate the material.
ATA takes the obscuration objection further with its claim that
obscuration of conspicuity material ``will make it impossible for the
motor carrier industry to effectively utilize such equipment as tractor
mounted cranes and winches.'' It also was concerned that ``the many
differing mounting patterns, which manufacturers will have to use to
meet the rule, will make it impossible for an inspector of in-service
trucks to know whether a specific cab rear incorporates the same
reflective material motif it had when it left the factory.'' It
furnished photographs of a tractor with a header board and winch and of
a tractor with a large cargo handling crane to illustrate its point.
ATA's concerns are unfounded. There is no requirement that
auxiliary reflective material mounted on equipment which obscures OEM
material be placed in exactly the same locations. The requirement is
that the pairs of horizontal and vertical reflective strips be placed
``as horizontally and vertically as practicable'' and ``as close to the
top of the body and as far apart as practicable.'' Although this is
intended for marking the upper outer edges of the body, it gives the
installer the discretion to use common sense to place the material in
best available locations. It provides for the possibility that the
practicable locations and orientation of the upper conspicuity material
could be different depending on the equipment on or behind the cab. The
inspectors of trucks in service are familiar with the provision for
practicability in the placement of conspicuity material. Trailers have
been inspected for conspicuity material under the same practicability
provision for three years with little difficulty. Tankers, bulk
material trailers and trailers with onboard grain handling equipment
provide routine examples of practicability considerations.
ATA's photograph of a tractor with a large crane between the cab
and the fifth wheel shows an unusual vehicle designed for unloading
poles from its trailer. It is an extreme example of the influence of
equipment on practicable locations for conspicuity material. A
practicable location for the upper left material would be on the crane
structure with the crane arm situated in the traveling position. The
pieces of material could be at about cab height and angled less acutely
than 90 degrees to one another. The material on the right side could be
placed partly on the crane and partly on the cab or entirely on the cab
at a lower height. In the other example, the winch would not appear to
obscure locations where OEM material would be placed, but the header
board would. The obvious location for conspicuity material would be
corners of the header board. The utility even of unusual vehicles is
not threatened by the rule.
(3) Need For More Research
ATA's petition asks that the effective date of July 1, 1997, be
suspended for three years and that the agency perform research during
that time to justify the need for the rule and to modify its
requirements. It noted that ``most bob-tail tractor accidents take
place during the day'' in support of its assertion that more research
is needed, and it faulted the agency for lack of research on options
for installing conspicuity material. ATA favors a requirement of
reflective area alone, leaving the placement of this material entirely
up to the manufacturer and consumer.
ATA is correct that only one third of the crashes in which a truck
tractor is struck in the rear occur at night, but these crashes involve
60 percent of the fatalities and 41 percent of the injuries. This
demonstrates that the night accidents are generally more serious. The
agency considers the research on reflective conspicuity for trailers,
which have a similar proportion of fatal collisions at night, as a
sufficient basis for the tractor conspicuity rule. In fact, estimates
of the safety effect of adding conspicuity material to tractors based
on trailer research would be expected to be conservative because the
required rear lighting of tractors is much inferior to that of trailers
before the addition of the conspicuity material.
The agency disagrees with ATA's view that the position of the
material is unimportant. The placement of conspicuity material
according to the final rule addresses the particular deficiencies of
the rear lighting of truck tractors and also replicates the reflective
pattern of rear of trailers, now familiar to motorists. The rear
lighting of truck tractors does not indicate either the width or the
height of the vehicle as required for other trucks. Material at the
[[Page 16712]]
top of the mudflaps marks the tractor width at the rearmost position.
The location was specifically recommended by most commenters, and no
commenter suggested that any other position would be superior from the
standpoint of safety. The amended final rule also permits all
equivalent locations for material to mark the width of tractors in the
small minority without mudflaps. The purpose of the other material is
to mark the upper outer corners of the rear cab to complete a
reasonable two dimensional image, but the placement on a particular
vehicle is dictated by practicability rather than by rigid
specification. There is no reasonable likelihood that the arrangement
of reflective material in other patterns would be superior in improving
safety or practicability, and a conspicuity requirement based only on
the amount of material fails to address the distinctive aspects of
truck tractor rear lighting. The agency finds no need for further
research or a delay in the effective date of the rule. Therefore, ATA's
petition for reconsideration is denied.
(4) Objections Regarding Costs and Benefits
ATA claims that the additional upper conspicuity material required
when tractors are modified with added equipment such as header boards,
material handling cranes, auto-hauling equipment and non-OEM sleeper
compartments make the annual cost of the rule ``far higher'' than the
estimated $3 million OEM customer cost. It also faulted the agency for
having no evaluation of the practicability of installing conspicuity
material on add-on equipment.
Standard No. 108 requires that the material in question be
installed as close as practicable to the upper outer corners of the
cab. Header boards and sleeper compartments tend to offer obvious
favorable surfaces, and even the material handling crane, which seems
to be a worst-case example, has usable surfaces. While it is doubtful
that auto-hauling equipment offers serious impediments to the
application of reflective material, it may be a moot point. Structures
attached to the truck to support autos as cargo would disqualify it
from classification as a tractor (defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as a truck
constructed to carry only loads imposed by trailers), and it would be
required to have the full complement of truck lighting rather than
conspicuity material.
The cost of maintaining safety equipment during the modification of
a vehicle is not routinely considered in cost effectiveness estimates
of Federal standards requiring safety features as original equipment.
However, the agency does not believe that the cost of adding $2 to $3
worth of reflective tape or adhesive backed reflectors to aftermarket
header boards or sleeper compartments will result in a ``far higher''
cost. Neither petitioner informed the agency of the likely numbers of
vehicles with add-on equipment blocking the original upper conspicuity
material. The agency's observations suggest that possibly ten percent
of tractors would be equipped with header boards or add-on sleepers and
that the number of tractors with equipment like cranes is negligible.
Based on an annual production of 170,000 tractors, the total additional
conspicuity cost incurred in the modification of 10 percent of them
would be about $50,000. The amount is insignificant compared with the
estimated $2,919,000 consumer cost for original equipment conspicuity
installation.
ATA states that peripheral costs such as extra conspicuity tape on
added equipment will make the rule not cost effective, because the most
highly discounted estimate of property damage savings in the regulatory
analysis was $3,176,000 which is only slightly in excess of the
consumer cost of $2,919,000. It disputes the value of potential life
saving with the observation that the final rule preamble's statement
that ``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'' has no more meaning than a
declaration that if fatalities could be reduced by 100 percent, there
would be 28 fewer fatalities.
The tractor conspicuity rule is very cost effective because its
cost is met or exceeded by property damage saving alone. The prevention
of deaths and injuries is obtained at no additional cost. It is much
more favorable than most safety regulations which require a societal
expenditure per life saved. The gross property damage savings over the
life of vehicles produced in a single year was estimated at $4,849,000,
and it was discounted to a present value of $4,399,000 to $3,176,000
for a range of discount rates from two percent to 10 percent. ATA cited
the present value of the property damage benefits computed at a 10
percent discount rate ($3,176,000), but the present value of those
benefits would be greater computed at a discount rate more consistent
with current interest rates. For example, at a four percent discount
rate, the present value of the property damage benefits would exceed
$4,000,000.
However, the purpose of the rule is the prevention of deaths and
injuries. The effect of conspicuity, as predicted by a fleet study of
trailers, was a reduction of certain types of collisions by 15 to 25
percent and a substantial mitigation of many others. The truck fleets
cooperating in the study insisted on the confidentiality of all records
pertaining to deaths and injuries. Therefore, the effectiveness could
be determined only in terms of collision prevention and property damage
mitigation. The statement which elicited ATA's comment expressed an
expectation of death and injury prevention consistent with collision
prevention without the additional consideration of further benefit
occurring in collisions of mitigated severity. This is a conservative
expectation, particularly in view of reports by trucking companies of
substantial reductions in fatal crashes following the use of
conspicuity treatments of trailers (Traffic Safety, Vol. 95, No. 5,
Sept/Oct 1995).
(5) Clarifications of Regulatory Language and Illustrations
The agency grants TMA's petition for reconsideration regarding
certain clarifications to the final rule. These are discussed below.
(a) Conspicuity Material on Glazing
TMA points out that the preamble to the final rule, in discussing
the upper cab contour marking, states that, ``* * * 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.'' The final
rule amending S5.3.1 established the potential for mounting conspicuity
treatment on glazing and non-rigid surfaces. It states that ``Except as
provided in * * * S5.7 * * * 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, * * *''
The final rule, however, never included the glazing exemption noted in
the preamble. To rectify this oversight, TMA recommends that the
following be added to the end of S5.7.1.4.3(b): ``If the rear window is
so large as to occupy all the practicable space, the material may be
attached to the edge of the window itself.''
ATA opposed the use of conspicuity material on the edge of the rear
window citing the existence of state laws limiting the location and
size of objects affixed to windows and suggesting that
[[Page 16713]]
the material would contribute to crashes.
This notice amends paragraph S5.7.1.4.3(b) in response to the TMA
comment. The agency is not aware of any State regulations which would
prohibit the application of conspicuity material to the rear windows of
truck tractors. Because Standard No. 108 expressly permits conspicuity
material to be applied to the rear windows of truck tractors if the
rear window is so large as to occupy all the practicable space where it
may otherwise be placed on the rear of the cab, any State regulation
prohibiting would be preempted. Since tractors do not have inside rear
view mirrors, the rear windows are of little use in driving. The agency
anticipates that material would be placed only on very large windows
that consume all other potential locations and continue to provide
adequate direct visibility for docking with material (which may be as
narrow as 1 inch with reflex reflectors) on the edge. It is likely that
manufacturers will consider windows as a placement of last resort
because of aesthetic considerations. However, they would be expected to
use the windows before concluding that there were no practicable
locations except those below the window and very far from the top of
the cab. It should be noted, though, that a manufacturer using the edge
of the window would be correct in determining that the practicable
placements can depart from strict horizontal and vertical orientations
if necessary to follow the window edge with the least intrusion on the
viewing area.
(b) Discontinuous Surfaces
TMA points out that in S7.1.4 the agency has described
discontinuous surfaces typical of trailers, but has not done so for
truck tractors. This could be confused by inspectors in the field as
meaning the exception does not apply to truck tractors. TMA therefore
recommended that NHTSA add truck tractor specific examples to those
already cited for trailers. Specifically, it asked that paragraph
S5.7.1.4 be revised to allow the following:
``S5.7.1.4 Location. (a) Retroreflective sheeting * * * to
discontinuous surfaces such as * * * lamp bodies on trailers and body
joints, stiffening beads, drip rails, and rolled surfaces on truck
tractors''.
The obvious good installation practices of cutting material to
avoid obstructions and steps in the body and of the avoidance of curved
surfaces which would inhibit the reflective properties of the material
apply equally to trailers and truck tractors, and NHTSA is pleased to
make the clarification requested.
(c) Location of Conspicuity Material on Mudflaps
Paragraph S5.7.1.4.3(a), Rear of Truck Tractors, states ``* * *
Strips on mudflaps shall be mounted not lower than 300 mm below the
lower edge of the mudflap support bracket.'' (emphasis supplied).
According to TMA, the agency never defined what constitutes the ``lower
edge.'' Further, the preamble states that ``* * * The rule allows it to
be applied as low as 300 mm below the top of the mudflap,'' which
appears to be in conflict with what is stated in the final rule. TMA
recommends that the agency clear up this potential area of confusion by
specifying in S5.7.1.4.3 (a) that ``Strips on mudflaps should be
located within 300 mm of the lower horizontal edge of the mudflap
bracket.'' Because of the variations in mudflap support brackets, a
separate figure is recommended to fully define the lower horizontal
edge.
The apparent conflict pointed out by TMA is not the only reason to
revise the language regarding reflective material on mudflaps. It was
not wise to use the mudflap bracket as a reference position. The fact
that some brackets are bent down at the outer edge makes the ``lower
edge of the bracket'' an ambiguous term. Also, manufacturers of
mudflaps who may want to apply conspicuity material do not necessarily
know the exact shape of the brackets their customers may use. Simply
referencing the position of the conspicuity material to the horizontal
upper edge of the mudflap itself removes the ambiguity to all parties
without the need for more figures added to Standard No. 108. The
relevant sentence in S5.7.1.4.3 (a) is revised to ``* * * Strips on
mudflaps shall be mounted not lower than 300 mm below the upper
horizontal edge of the mudflap.''
(d) Additional Figures
TMA is concerned about the ``overwhelming challenge'' that federal
and state inspectors will face in determining compliance because of the
extremely wide range of possible treatments/locations that will fully
meet the requirements of the rule. To minimize the potential problems,
it recommended that the agency add several additional figures to
Standard No. 108 as NHTSA did in the case of trailers. The current line
drawing shows a relatively uncluttered example of the back of a truck
tractor. It argued that additional examples are needed: ``For example,
Figure 30-1 Trailer Conspicuity example, illustrates the `broken
inverted L' treatment for a door hinge. Since NHTSA states in the
preamble that the same would apply to truck tractors, it would be
appropriate to have an illustration of the rear of a truck tractor,
perhaps with and without an aerodynamic roof fairing, to show that the
`broken inverted L' applies also to truck tractors.'' It also
recommended that a figure be added ``to show the 300 mm white/300 mm
red as well as a 150 mm white/300 mm red/150 mm white treatment on
mudflap brackets/mudflaps.''
Figure 31 is being revised based on line drawings of fully equipped
tractors supplied by TMA. The agency believes a single drawing with
insets is sufficient to illustrate the range of issues in the TMA
petition. A truck with a roof fairing was chosen to clarify that the
addition of a roof fairing does not change the cab contour contemplated
by the standard. However, the fairing attachment brackets on the
illustrated vehicle cause practicability problems for the simple white
``inverted L'' upper pattern and create the need for the ``broken
inverted L'' pattern that TMA requested in an example. The example also
shows that the material has been placed to avoid a drip rail and a
rolled surface above the horizontal strips, and a small permitted
obstruction is shown behind the left vertical strip. Red/white material
on a mounting plate attached to a mudflap bracket is shown in several
variations. Treatments with both two color segments and three color
segments are illustrated with straight mudflap brackets, and a typical
OEM installation of an angled mudflap bracket is illustrated.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
In asking that the final rule be delayed 36 months, ATA commented
that the final rule ``will have a significant impact on equipment and
trucking operations which are being safely used today'', and that it
``is likely to make it impossible to use such things as tractor mounted
winches and cranes.'' In view of this, ATA did not see how the
following articles in Executive Order 12866 can be considered to be
met:
(5) When an agency determines that a regulation is the best
available method of achieving the regulatory objective, it shall design
its regulations in the most cost-effective manner to achieve the
regulatory objective. In doing so, each agency shall consider
incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability,
[[Page 16714]]
the costs of enforcement and compliance (to the government, regulated
entities, and the public), flexibility, distributive impacts, and
equity.
Comment: As noted in the final rule, NHTSA has not reviewed this
rulemaking action under E.O. 12866, but it considers that the actions
it has taken are consistent with the Executive Order. Further, ATA's
comments lack specificity. The agency believes that it has adopted the
most cost effective manner (retroreflective tape rather than a system
of marker lamps) to address the safety problem.
(6) Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the
intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are
difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs.
Comment: The agency has done so.
(7) Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably
obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information
concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation.
Comment: The agency has done so.
(8) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of
regulation and shall, to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt.
Comment: The agency has specified performance objectives, to be met
through the use of retroreflective tape or reflectors, in a pattern
intended to provide immediate recognition to observers of a large truck
tractor.
(11) The agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least
burden on society, including individuals, businesses of differing
sizes, and other entities (including small communities and governmental
entities), consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking
into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the
costs of cumulative regulations.
Comment: The agency has done so by adopting a regulation whose cost
of compliance on a per vehicle basis is minimal, involving the
installation of retroreflective tape or reflectors.
ATA justifies its request for a delay ``while it completes the
research necessary to both define the problem and show proven solutions
which do not eliminate certain safe and reasonable equipment and
operations.'' ATA's request is denied. The agency has adequately
identified the problem and provided for its solution, without
eliminating ``certain safe and reasonable equipment and operations.''
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 $2,919,000 in the aggregate. The agency has prepared a final
regulatory evaluation dated July 1996, 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 about $17 per vehicle
is expected to be more than offset by savings in repair to it over its
life.
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. See discussion under paragraph 5a of this notice regarding
Federal preemption allowing use of conspicuity material applied to
truck tractor rear windows. Sec. 30103 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.
Sec. 571.108 [Amended]
2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising paragraphs S5.7.1.4(a),
and S5.7.1.4.3 (a) and (b) and Figure 31 added at 61 FR 41360, Aug. 8,
1996, effective 7-1-97, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment.
* * * * *
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 on trailers and
body joints, stiffening beads, drip rails and rolled surfaces on truck
tractors.
* * * * *
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, on the mudflap support brackets, on plates attached to
the mudflap support brackets, or on the
[[Page 16715]]
mudflaps. Strips on mudflaps shall be mounted not lower than 300 mm
below the upper horizontal edge of the mudflap. If 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. For a truck tractor without mudflaps, the strips may
be mounted outboard of the frame on brackets behind the rear axle or on
brackets ahead of the rear axle and above the top of the tires at
unladen vehicle height, or they may be mounted directly or indirectly
to the back of the cab as close to the outer edges as practicable,
above the top of the tires, and not more than 1525 mm above the road
surface at unladen vehicle height. If the strips are mounted on the
back of the cab, no more than 25 percent of their cumulative area may
be obscured by vehicle equipment as determined in a rear orthogonal
view.
(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
cab, as close to the top of the cab 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. If the rear
window is so large as to occupy all the practicable space, the material
may be attached to the edge of the window itself.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 16716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AP97.019
[[Page 16717]]
Issued on March 27, 1997.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-8521 Filed 4-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C