[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24709-24711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11545]
[[Page 24709]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5101; Notice 1]
Comments on Truck Splash and Spray Reduction for a Report to
Congress
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice requesting comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Senate Appropriations Committee has directed NHTSA to
provide Congress with a report updating the agency's research on truck
splash and spray by conducting a comprehensive review and evaluation of
spray suppression measures that can be employed on heavy duty vehicles
to provide clearer highway visibility and safety during periods of
adverse weather conditions. The report is due to Congress by October
21, 1999. This notice invites any interested person to provide NHTSA
with any information or data in this area that the person believes
NHTSA should consider in preparing this report to Congress.
DATES: All comments received by NHTSA no later than June 21, 1999 will
be considered in preparing this report to Congress on progress in heavy
vehicle splash and spray suppression.
ADDRESSES: All comments should refer to Docket No. NHTSA-99-5101;
Notice 7 and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket hours are from 10:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
For public comments and other information related to previous
notices on this subject, please refer to Docket No. 83-005, NHTSA
Docket, Room 5111, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. NHTSA
Docket hours are from 9:30 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, NPS-20, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 366-5276, fax (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The terms ``splash and spray'' are commonly
used to describe the adverse effects on driver visibility caused by
other vehicles when traveling on wet roads. While spray clouds are
produced by all vehicles traveling on wet roads, those produced by
large trucks and buses are much larger than the clouds produced by
passenger cars and light trucks. This can result in reduced driver
visibility for adjacent motorists and for the driver of the large truck
or bus.
NHTSA and others have studied the subject of splash and spray for
more than 30 years. The most recent time the agency evaluated this
subject was in late 1993, in response to a request from the Senate
Appropriations Committee. In its report on NHTSA's FY94 appropriation,
the Committee asked that the agency report ``* * * on the status of
recent technological progress in the design and testing of splash and
spray suppression devices [for large commercial vehicles] and NHTSA's
view on the need for regulation in this safety area.'' In response,
NHTSA submitted a report to Congress in March 1994, ``Splash and Spray
Suppression, Technological Developments in the Design and Testing of
Spray Reduction Devices for Heavy Trucks'' (DOT HS 808 085), copies of
which are available from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161. The report provided a comprehensive
evaluation and summary of available data and studies conducted before
and after NHTSA terminated rulemaking on splash and spray in 1988. The
1994 report concluded the following about developments in splash and
spray reduction for heavy trucks:
1. There are no data available to support the position that
heavy truck splash and spray presents a major safety problem, in
terms of crashes caused and injuries in those crashes. The greatest
involvement ever found for splash and spray was that it was a factor
in 0.41% of crashes studied according to a 1959 British study. A
more recent study in Indiana found that splash and spray could not
be documented as a cause of any crash studied, and a North Carolina
study found that splash and spray was a factor in 0.0055% of 450,000
crashes evaluated. No information has become available since 1988
suggesting that splash and spray is a larger safety problem than was
previously known.
2. No study or other information has become available since 1988
that would cause the Agency to change its previous determination
that no technology or combination of technologies has been
demonstrated that will consistently and significantly reduce splash
and spray from tractors, semi-trailers, and trailers to the extent
that driver visibility will be significantly improved.
3. Several manufacturers of large trucks believe that
aerodynamic improvements, which were made to their vehicles in an
effort to improve fuel economy and reduce operating costs, will also
serve to reduce splash and spray. This belief is based on very
limited testing under controlled conditions. More extensive testing
conducted in connection with NHTSA's previous rulemaking indicated
that aerodynamic devices are not as effective at suppressing spray
in the presence of crosswinds. Previous engineering analysis
suggested that aerodynamic devices on truck tractors would not be
effective at reducing spray when the tractor was connected to a
trailer or semitrailer that was not a van. The testing done to date
by truck manufacturers of more aerodynamic tractors has not examined
these previously identified concerns to see if they are still valid.
4. The truck manufacturers appear to be working to reduce the
splash and spray generated by their vehicles in the absence of any
government requirement for them to do so. In addition to the efforts
of Freightliner and Paccar in testing more aerodynamic truck
tractors, the SAE has worked for years to develop a consensus test
procedure that can be used to evaluate the performance of spray
suppression devices.
Given these circumstances and the information available to it,
the Agency has no plans to initiate a new rulemaking action on heavy
truck splash and spray reduction.
More recently, in its report on NHTSA's appropriation for fiscal
year 1999, the Senate Committee on Appropriations has again asked the
agency to review this matter as follows:
Spray suppression research.--The Committee acknowledges the work
previously undertaken by NHTSA in the area of spray suppression
research and evaluation of abatement technologies and continues to
support further research by NHTSA in this area to make travel on the
Nation's highways safer and less stressful. The Committee is aware
of the progress made in the European Union in designing beneficial
performance standards and implementing roadway spray suppression
regulations to improve highway visibility. The Committee directs
NHTSA to update its research by conducting a comprehensive review
and evaluation of spray suppression measures that can be employed on
heavy duty vehicles (over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating)
to provide clearer highway visibility and safety during periods of
adverse weather conditions. NHTSA shall publish and report its
findings to Congress within 12 months of enactment.
The agency has begun gathering the information it will need to
respond to this request. NHTSA will conduct a comprehensive review and
evaluation of spray suppression measures that can be employed on heavy
duty vehicles to update its research since 1993. However, to ensure
that the agency is aware of and considers all relevant information on
this subject when preparing the Report to Congress, NHTSA is publishing
this notice to invite public comment. All interested persons are
invited to provide data and other relevant information which has become
available since 1993, particularly developments that were not included
in NHTSA's 1994 Report to Congress, concerning spray suppression
measures that can be employed on heavy duty vehicles.
[[Page 24710]]
The agency will consider all public comments it has received by
June 21, 1999, when preparing the report to Congress. While NHTSA is
interested in any splash and spray information the public may have to
offer, the agency is especially interested in responses to the
following questions.
Questions
1. Please provide information and data on any technological
improvements made since 1993 in the design and/or testing of splash and
spray devices for use on heavy duty vehicles. NHTSA is especially
interested in supporting data that are the basis for the commenter's
conclusion that the device represents a technological improvement that
will consistently and significantly reduce splash and spray to the
extent that driver visibility will be significantly improved.
2. Please provide information on any data bases that NHTSA should
examine or consider to estimate the extent to which splash and spray
from heavy duty vehicles contributes to crashes on the public roads.
3. In the agency's rulemaking on this subject that was terminated
in 1988, NHTSA indicated that aerodynamic improvements, made by large
truck manufacturers to their vehicles to improve fuel economy and
reduce operating costs, had shown promise for reducing splash and spray
in some situations. That is, if such aerodynamic devices were attached
to a truck tractor pulling a van-type semitrailer and if there were
little or no crosswind present, the devices could improve visibility to
a level that would be helpful to other motorists. In its March 1994
report to Congress, the agency indicated that several large truck
manufacturers believed that aerodynamic improvements made since 1988
would reduce splash and spray. However, this was based on very limited
testing under controlled conditions. The testing done by truck
manufacturers did not examine whether the previously identified
concerns were still valid.
Please provide information on any aerodynamic improvements to truck
tractors since 1993, and data showing to what extent, if any, such
improvements have lessened the amount of splash and spray generated by
tractor/van-semitrailer combinations with crosswinds present. NHTSA had
found in its testing that a crosswind of 8 miles per hour or more
significantly diminished the benefits of the splash and spray
countermeasures that were tested. In a 1987 rulemaking notice on this
subject, NHTSA cited National Weather Service data indicating the mean
wind velocity for the vast majority of the United States is 8 mph or
greater. Similarly, please provide information and supporting data on
other solutions that have been developed since 1993, which lessen the
amount of splash and spray generated by other tractor/trailer
combinations, such as tanks or flatbeds, or other types of heavy duty
vehicles with crosswinds present.
4. Please provide information on any aftermarket devices introduced
since 1993 that are intended to reduce the amount of splash and spray
generated by heavy duty vehicles. Include a specific description of the
devices, a brief explanation of how they reduce splash and spray, and
all tests and other data that demonstrate the devices are effective in
reducing splash and spray across a range of heavy vehicles under
representative weather conditions.
5. If a person believes that some means would be effective at
reducing splash and spray from tractor-single trailer combinations,
please provide any information and data on whether that means would
also work to reduce spray from tractors combined with double or triple
trailers.
6. In its March 1994 report to Congress, NHTSA provided a
comprehensive summary of the data and studies that were conducted
before and after the agency terminated its rulemaking on splash and
spray in 1988. This included all relevant information of which the
agency was aware. NHTSA would like commenters to provide information on
any study or testing of splash and spray suppression measures that was
not considered in the 1994 report to Congress but should be considered
in preparing this report to Congress.
7. Please provide information on the costs associated with splash
and spray devices introduced since 1993, both original equipment and
aftermarket, along with data on how effective the devices are at
reducing splash and spray across a range of heavy duty vehicles and
representative weather conditions.
8. In its current request that NHTSA again review this matter, the
Senate Appropriations Committee stated that ``The Committee is aware of
the progress made in the European Union in designing beneficial
performance standards and implementing roadway spray suppression
regulations to improve highway visibility.'' NHTSA is aware of European
Economic Community (EEC) Directive 91-226, ``Spray Suppression
Systems,'' issued in April 1991. The Directive applies to heavy duty
vehicles and involves EEC member component type-approval addressing two
types of spray suppression devices: (1) energy absorption and (2) air/
water separator. The Directive includes laboratory performance tests of
the devices along with vehicle location and component marking
requirements.
Please provide any information along with supporting data on how
effective EEC Directive 91-226 has been at reducing splash and spray
across a range of heavy duty vehicles and representative weather
conditions, to what extent driver visibility is improved, and whether
U.S. trucks would need additional equipment, like fenders, to achieve
the same visibility benefits from the spray suppression equipment.
9. In 1994 the Society of Automotive Engineers published a
``Recommended Practice For Splash and Spray Evaluation,'' J2245. It
provides general guidelines for measuring splash and spray from
vehicles operating over wet pavements. The guidelines describe two
methods of analysis: (1) video-digitizing and (2) laser. The video-
digitizing method uses video images and contrast measurements between
black and white checkerboards when a spray cloud is superimposed on
them as a means of measuring the obscuring spray. The laser method uses
laser transmittance through the spray cloud as the means of
measurement. The test procedures involve actual test vehicles fitted
with splash and spray devices, and include measurements under various
wind conditions.
NHTSA is interested in any information along with supporting data
on the use of these two test procedures by manufacturers and others.
Specifically, the agency would like to know whether one method is
preferred over the other, and why, along with information on the extent
to which each method represents real world conditions. In addition,
please provide any information on how well reductions in splash and
spray through either method correlate to improvements in actual driver
visibility.
The agency invites written comments from all interested persons. It
is requested that two copies of each written comment be submitted. As
always, NHTSA will try to consider comments that it receives after the
comment closing date. However, in this case, the deadline imposed by
the Senate Appropriations Committee means that comments submitted after
the closing date of June 21, 1999 are less likely to be considered.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
[[Page 24711]]
regard to the 15 page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit specified information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and two
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation, 49 CFR Part 512.
Comments on this notice will be available for inspection in the
docket. NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes
available in the docket after the closing date. Those persons desiring
to be notified upon receipt of their written comments in the Docket
Section should enclose, in the envelope with their comments, a self-
addressed stamped postcard. Upon receipt, the docket supervisor will
return the postcard by mail.
Issued on: May 4, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-11545 Filed 5-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
