Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16709

49 CFR Part 390

Highways and roads, Motor carriers,

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 395

Global positioning systems, Highways

and roads, Intelligent transportation

systems, Motor carriers—driver hours of

service, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued on: March 28, 1997.

Jane F. Garvey,

Acting Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FHWA amends title 49, Code of Federal

Regulations, chapter III, as follows:

PART 387—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 387

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13906,

14701, 31138, and 31139; and 49 CFR 1.48.

2. Section 387.5 is amended by

adding the definition State, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 387.5 Definitions.

* * * * *

State means a State of the United

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, American

Samoa, Guam, and the Northern

Mariana Islands.

PART 390—[AMENDED]

3. The authority citation for part 390

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13301, 13902, 31132,

31133, 31136, 31502, 31504, and sec. 204,

Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 941; 49 U.S.C.

201 note, and 49 CFR 1.48.

§ 390.5 [Amended]

4. Section 390.5 is amended by

removing the definition for farm-tomarket agricultural transportation.

PART 395—[AMENDED]

5. The authority citation for part 395

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, and

31502; sec. 345, Pub. L. 104–59, 109 Stat.

568, 613; and 49 CFR 1.48.

6. Section 395.8 is amended by

revising paragraph (f)(5) to read as

follows:

§ 395.8 Driver’s record of duty status.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(5) Commercial motor vehicle

identification. The driver shall show the

number assigned by the motor carrier, or

the license number and licensing State

of each commercial motor vehicle

operated during each 24-hour period on

his/her record of duty status. The driver

of an articulated (combination)

commercial motor vehicle shall show

the number assigned by the motor

carrier, or the license number and

licensing State of each motor vehicle

used in each commercial motor vehicle

combination operated during that 24-

hour period on his/her record of duty

status.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–8924 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

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
16710 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 trailermounted 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 bobtail 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
16712 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 addon 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 autohauling 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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,
16714 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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.

§ 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:

§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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
16716 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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