[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16070]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 6, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Highway Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Parts 392 and 393




Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Warning Devices for 
Stopped Vehicles and Protection Against Shifting or Falling Cargo; 
Final Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Parts 392 and 393

[FHWA Docket No. MC-93-19]
RIN 2125-AD17

 
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Warning 
Devices for Stopped Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending the requirements for warning devices for 
stopped commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to allow the use of fusees and 
liquid-burning flares in lieu of bidirectional reflective triangles, 
unless the CMV is transporting certain hazardous materials or is 
powered by compressed gas. It is the intent of this final rule to give 
equal priority to fusees and liquid-burning flares with regard to use 
as emergency warning devices. This action is required by the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

DATES: Effective August 5, 1994. The incorporation by reference of the 
publication listed in Sec. 393.95 of this final rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of August 5, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor 
Carrier Standards, (202) 366-2981, or Mr. Charles E. Medalen, Office of 
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration, 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except legal Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 1041(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993), signed by 
the President on December 18, 1991, requires that ``Section 393.95 of 
title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall be applied so that 
fusees and flares are given equal priority with regard to use as 
reflecting signs.''
    On July 14, 1993, the FHWA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Sec. 393.95 to allow commercial motor 
vehicles to be equipped with fusees and liquid-burning flares in lieu 
of bidirectional reflective triangles, except CMVs transporting 
explosives (Division 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 hazardous materials), cargo tank 
motor vehicles used for flammable and combustible liquids (Class 3 
hazardous materials) or flammable gas (Division 2.1 hazardous 
materials) (whether loaded or empty), or motor vehicles using 
compressed gas as a motor fuel. The FHWA also proposed amending 
Sec. 392.22(b), which sets forth requirements for the placement and use 
of warning devices for stopped vehicles, because paragraph (b) did not 
allow the use of fusees and liquid-burning flares in lieu of 
bidirectional reflective triangles.
    The FHWA proposed that vehicles be equipped with either (1) three 
bidirectional reflective triangles or (2) six fusees or liquid-burning 
flares. With regard to performance standards for fusees and liquid-
burning flares, the FHWA proposed to amend Sec. 393.95(j) to require 
that these devices be capable of burning for at least 30 minutes, and 
meet the standards of the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Highway 
Emergency Signals (UL 912).

Discussion of Comments

    The FHWA received 12 comments to the NPRM. The commenters were: 3M; 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); the American 
Trucking Associations (ATA); Chemical Waste Transportation Institute 
(CWTI); Cortina Tool and Molding Company; James King and Company, Inc.; 
Federal Mogul; National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.; Ohio University, 
College of Engineering and Technology, Department of Industrial and 
Systems Engineering; Pyrotechnic Signal Manufacturers Association 
(PSMA); Sate-Lite Manufacturing Company (Sate-Lite); and the 
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI). The commenters were 
generally opposed to allowing the use of fusees and liquid-burning 
flares in lieu of bidirectional reflective triangles. The CWTI did not 
support or oppose the proposal but indicated that the FHWA should 
retain its restrictions on flame producing devices on certain vehicles 
and recommended that the FHWA use this rulemaking to amend 
Sec. 393.95(g) to incorporate the use of the current hazardous 
materials classifications (i.e., Divisions 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3, 2.1 and 
Class 3). The PSMA provided the only comments in support of the 
proposed amendments.

Interpretation of Section 1041(b) of the ISTEA

    Several of the commenters questioned the FHWA's interpretation of 
section 1041(b) of the ISTEA. Sate-Lite believes that section 1041(b) 
is ambiguous and as such the FHWA has great latitude in the 
implementation of the requirement. Sate-Lite stated:
    By explicitly acknowledging the safety hazards associated with 
fusees and flares and by specifically addressing these hazards by 
prohibiting the use of fusees and flares in certain situations, the 
FHWA has recognized that ISTEA granted the FHWA broad discretion in 
implementing Section 1041(b).
    Clearly Congress did not anticipate or intend to require that the 
FHWA sacrifice motorist safety and the security of our federal highway 
system on the altar of ``equal priority.'' As the FHWA has recognized, 
on these issues of motorist safety, Congress must defer to the 
expertise and judgment of the FHWA.
    In light of the dangers and manifest deficiencies inherent in the 
use of fusees and flares as a substitute for warning triangles * * * 
Sate-Lite respectfully urges the FHWA to exercise its discretion by 
amending the proposed rule change. Sate-Lite strongly believes that the 
FHWA should continue to require motor carriers to carry three emergency 
warning triangles in accordance with the current rule.
    In its comments, the ATA stated:
    The language of Section 1041(b) of the [ISTEA] strongly suggests 
that its sponsor(s) believe[s] that a fusee and a liquid-burning flare 
are essentially similar * * *. It should be made clear that fusees are 
acceptable only as a short-term warning device for use while long-term 
warning devices are put in place. In addition, it should be made clear 
that the trucking industry abandoned the use of liquid-burning flares 
(pot torches) as soon as the use of a superior type of warning device 
(the ``dot-over-dot'' emergency reflectors) was authorized by federal 
and state regulators.
    For the reasons outline[d] above, liquid-burning flares have not 
been manufactured for 30 years, or more. In our view, the current 
effort to encourage a return to their use by the motor carrier industry 
is a step backward.
    Advocates did not believe that the ISTEA prohibits the FHWA from 
continuing to require that each CMV be equipped with three 
bidirectional reflective triangles.
    The FHWA believes that section 1041(b) of ISTEA requires that 
fusees and liquid-burning flares be allowed, but not mandated, in lieu 
of bidirectional reflective triangles. The FHWA already allows the use 
of fusees and other warning devices in addition to reflective 
triangles.
    With regard to the ATA's comments about liquid-burning flares, or 
``pot torches,'' the ISTEA refers to ``fusees and flares.'' The FHWA 
believes the term ``fusee'' refers to a solid material that is ignited 
by friction and the term ``flare'' refers to a liquid-burning warning 
device. These terms, as used in the ISTEA, are not interchangeable. As 
such, the ISTEA allows the use of fusees and liquid-burning flares as 
primary emergency warning devices. While the apparent lack of 
availability of liquid-burning flares, as indicated by the ATA, might 
preclude their use as an alternative to bidirectional reflective 
triangles, the requirement of the ISTEA is not contingent upon the 
availability of the warning device.
    In response to the Advocates' concerns, the FHWA does not believe 
it would be appropriate to require all CMVs to carry bidirectional 
reflective triangles. For those cases in which the CMV is equipped only 
with fusees or liquid-burning flares, the NPRM proposed, and this final 
rule includes, an amendment to Sec. 392.22 stating that there shall be 
at least one lighted fusee or liquid-burning flare at each of the 
locations specified in Sec. 392.22(b)(1) for the entire period that the 
vehicle is stopped. If a motor carrier chooses to rely solely upon 
fusees or liquid-burning flares as emergency warning devices, the motor 
carrier should not be penalized by being forced to carry an additional 
warning device that, under these circumstances, it would not be 
required to use.

Effectiveness of Fusees and Liquid-Burning Flares Versus Triangles

    Many of the commenters opposed the use of fusees in lieu of 
bidirectional reflective triangles because of concerns about the 
effectiveness of fusees as emergency warning devices. The Advocates 
stated:
    Unfortunately, the elevation of fusees and liquid-burning flares to 
the status of primary warning devices alongside triangles is a 
regressive step that can have serious consequences in the potential for 
additional truck and bus accidents. Although there are major 
shortcomings with the design and performance of reflective triangles, 
and with the criteria for deploying them set forth in the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), the selection of a single device 
having priority in all circumstances appropriately fulfills the well-
known principle of traffic engineering that motorists should always be 
reinforced in their traffic control expectations when negotiating roads 
and streets. That is, it is important to educate motorists to the 
unambiguous intent of traffic control devices by ensuring the use of 
designs with unvarying shapes, sizes, colors, and messages. Despite the 
fact that Advocates has serious misgivings over the retroreflective 
performance and conspicuity of emergency triangles, there is little 
question that their consistent use over the past two decades has 
provided instant recognition by motorists that there is a disabled 
commercial vehicle on or near the travelway. This important recognition 
by motorists can now be threatened by the substitution of flares or 
fusees to demarcate the area around a disabled truck or bus.
    Several commenters cited an article published in the April 1992 
issue of Consumer Reports magazine. For example, Sate-Lite stated:
    A widely publicized recent study on the effectiveness of vehicle 
warning devices, in Consumer Reports Magazine [sic] [Consumer Reports, 
``Emergency! Handling Trouble on the Road,'' April 1992], concluded 
without reservation that triangle reflectors are the best choice of 
warning device for all vehicles.'' The Consumer Reports Study cites the 
fact that triangles can be placed as far away from the vehicle as 
needed and the fact that they do not require electric power. Moreover, 
flares and fusees: (1) Flares do not command attention because ``their 
light comes from one small source and isn't very conspicuous at a 
distance''; (2) a flare's light may not last until help arrives; (3) 
there is the obvious need for periodic replacement of flares; and (4) 
flares will frequently roll or blow away from their initial site. These 
problems and deficiencies should be obvious even to the casual observer 
of highway conditions. The Consumer Reports study concluded that 
``Triangles provided the clearest warning from 100 feet at night.''
    Some commenters also referred to a National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration report entitled ``Study of Safety-Related Devices--
Emergency Warning Devices for Disabled Vehicles'' (August 19, 1986) 
(NHTSA Report) to support their claims that bidirectional reflective 
triangles are more effective than fusees as emergency warning devices.
    While the FHWA understands the concerns of the commenters, it notes 
that this rulemaking is in response to section 1041(b) of the ISTEA. 
Section 1041(b) requires that Sec. 393.95 be applied so that fusees and 
liquid-burning flares are given ``equal priority'' with bidirectional 
reflective triangles as emergency warning devices. The congressional 
mandate is not contingent upon an evaluation of the effectiveness of 
fusees and liquid-burning flares relative to that of bidirectional 
reflective triangles.
    In addition, this rulemaking is not intended to require the use of 
fusees and liquid-burning flares, but rather to allow their use as a 
primary emergency warning device on certain CMVs. This final rule does 
not require motor carriers to discontinue the use of bidirectional 
reflective triangles in favor of warning devices they believe to be 
less effective.

Mixtures of Warning Devices

    The NPRM requested comments on whether or not motor carriers should 
be allowed to use a mixture of fusees, liquid-burning flares, and 
bidirectional reflective triangles (e.g., a bidirectional triangle at 
one of the three locations warning devices are required to be deployed, 
and fusees at the other locations). Sate-Lite and the TSEI believed 
that allowing a mixture of warning devices would contribute to motorist 
confusion and uncertainty in associating the warning devices with the 
stopped CMV.
    The FHWA agrees with the commenters concerns about motorist ability 
to understand the warning devices. The FHWA believes that the 
effectiveness of the three warning devices placed around the stopped 
vehicle would be diminished by allowing a different type of device to 
be used at each location. Therefore, Sec. 392.22 is being amended to 
require that the same type(s) of warning devices be used at each of the 
locations specified in Sec. 392.22.

Minimum Number of Fusees and Flares Required

    The FHWA proposed that CMVs equipped with only fusees or liquid-
burning flares have a minimum of six of these warning devices at all 
times. The ATA believed the proposed minimum was unrealistic. The ATA 
believed that the one hour of protection provided by six 30-minute 
fusees would not be sufficient based on what they considered the ``best 
available information'' on the duration of CMV breakdown time under 
``optimum'' conditions. The ATA also pointed out that UL 912 specifies 
that each liquid-burning flare be capable of burning for 12 hours and 
that three of these devices should be sufficient.
    The FHWA believes that a requirement for six fusees is appropriate. 
As stated in the NHTSA Report:
    Roughly one-half of all emergency stops and disabled vehicle 
situations last for more than 30 minutes * * *. Moreover, since the 
distribution of emergency stop durations is highly positively skewed, 
the total disabled vehicle exposure time for the time period of more 
than 30 minutes is considerably greater than for the time period of 
less than 30 minutes. No statistics are available to compare the 
``total risk'' incurred after 30 minutes to that incurred before 30 
minutes, but presumably the risk per minute is greatest soon after the 
emergency stop * * *. However, the total exposure time of disabled 
vehicles is greater after 30 minutes due to those vehicles left for 
several hours or more.
    The FHWA recognizes that a number of factors affect the amount of 
time a vehicle remains disabled, including its location (e.g., urban 
area versus a rural area) and the availability of maintenance personnel 
and equipment. The FHWA believes that the performance-based requirement 
that warning devices be in place for the entire period the vehicle is 
stopped adequately addresses this issue. Motor carriers are responsible 
for ensuring that a sufficient number of warning devices are provided 
on their CMVs.
    With regard to the ATA's comments about liquid-burning flares, the 
FHWA agrees that the proposed requirement for six liquid-burning flares 
was inconsistent with the UL 912 performance criteria which was 
proposed for incorporation by reference. Because UL 912 requires that 
liquid-burning flares be capable of burning for 12 hours, requiring 
three liquid-burning flares for vehicles which are not equipped with 
fusees or bidirectional reflective triangles is sufficient.

Incorporation by Reference of UL 912

    The NPRM included a proposal that fusees and liquid-burning flares 
meet UL 912. In the case of fusees, UL 912 would be used to replace the 
Sec. 393.95(j) reference to the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR), ``Specifications for Red Railway or Red Highway Fuses.'' The ATA 
and the PSMA were the only commenters that addressed this issue. The 
ATA believed the FHWA should allow the use of fusees meeting either UL 
912 or the AAR standards. The PSMA believed the performance standards 
of UL 912 are appropriate.
    The FHWA has reviewed the UL and AAR standards. The two documents 
have comparable performance criteria for fusees. However, the UL 
document provides performance criteria for both fusees and liquid-
burning flares while the AAR document only covers fusees. The FHWA has 
concluded the UL document is appropriate for incorporation by reference 
because the ISTEA requires that both fusees and liquid-burning flares 
be allowed for use as emergency warning devices.
    In addition to the requirements contained in UL 912, the PSMA 
suggested that all fusees be of the ``lay-down type'' with a ``no-roll 
device.'' The PSMA did not provide any discussion of this suggestion.
    A requirement that all fusees be of the ``lay-down type'' is 
unnecessarily design restrictive in that it would prohibit, without 
technical justification, the use of fusees that are provided with a 
means to remain in an upright position.
    With regard to a ``no-roll device,'' motor carriers must ensure 
that warning devices are in place at the required locations. If certain 
devices are necessary to keep fusees in place, the motor carrier is 
responsible for providing them. Furthermore, a general requirement for 
a ``no-roll device'' would not provide objective criteria as to what 
constitutes an acceptable device. The FHWA has not adopted the PSMA's 
suggestions.

Economic Impact of the Rulemaking

    Both Sate-Lite and the TSEI submitted comments to the docket 
expressing concern over possible adverse effects of the proposed 
regulation on small entities. These comments are discussed below under 
the heading ``Regulatory Flexibility Act.''

Discussion of Final Rule

    The FHWA is amending Sec. 393.95 to allow CMVs to be equipped with 
fusees and liquid-burning flares in lieu of bidirectional reflective 
triangles, except CMVs transporting Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 hazardous 
materials (explosives), cargo tank motor vehicles used for Class 3 
(flammable and combustible liquid) or Division 2.1 (flammable gas) 
hazardous materials (whether loaded or empty), or motor vehicles using 
compressed gas as a motor fuel. This prohibition is necessary to 
minimize the risk of explosion or catastrophic fire involving cargoes 
and fuels of these types. The FHWA believes the retention of this 
provision is consistent with congressional intent.
    The final rule amends Sec. 393.95(f)(2) to require that CMVs be 
equipped with either (1) three bidirectional reflective triangles, (2) 
six fusees (each capable of burning for 30 minutes), or (3) three 
liquid-burning flares (filled with a sufficient amount of fuel to burn 
continuously for at least one hour). Although the FHWA has specified a 
minimum number of fusees and liquid burning flares, motor carriers 
relying solely upon these devices are responsible for ensuring that 
fusees or liquid-burning flares are in use for the entire time the 
vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion of a highway or the 
shoulder of a highway.
    The FHWA is amending Sec. 392.22(b)(1) to require that the same 
type(s) of warning devices be used at each of the locations where 
warning devices are placed around the CMV. Section 392.22(b)(2)(i) 
Fusees and liquid-burning flares, is being amended to require that 
motor carriers relying solely upon fusees or liquid-burning flares 
ensure that those devices are in use for the entire time the vehicle is 
stopped upon the traveled portion of a highway or the shoulder of a 
highway. The driver of the vehicle is required to extinguish and remove 
each fusee or liquid-burning flare before the stopped vehicle is moved.
    In addition, the FHWA is amending Sec. 392.22(b)(2)(ii) Daylight 
hours, to allow motor carriers to use fusees or liquid-burning flares 
in lieu of bidirectional reflective triangles when their CMVs are 
stopped during daylight hours in business or residential districts. 
Section 392.22(b)(2)(ii) requires that if fusees or liquid-burning 
flares are used, there must be at least one lighted fusee or flare at 
each of the prescribed locations as long as the vehicle is stopped.
    The FHWA is removing Sec. 392.22(b)(2)(vii) Exemption for 
lightweight vehicles, and certain United States Code and CFR citations 
at the end of Sec. 392.22. Although the NPRM did not address these 
issues, the amendments are considered administrative in nature.
    On May 19, 1988 (53 FR 18042), the FHWA published a final rule 
implementing the requirements of the Motor Carrier Act of 1984. The May 
19, 1988, final rule included a definition of commercial motor vehicle 
which with certain exceptions, excluded lightweight vehicles (vehicles 
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less) from the 
applicability of the FMCSRs. Therefore, the vehicles for which 
paragraph (b)(2)(vii) was intended are generally not subject to the 
FMCSRs and paragraph (b)(2)(vii) is obsolete.
    With regard to performance standards for fusees and liquid-burning 
flares, the FHWA is amending Sec. 393.95(j) to require that both fusees 
and liquid-burning flares meet the standards of the Underwriters 
Laboratories, Inc., Highway Emergency Signals (UL 912). The final rule 
incorporates by reference UL 912 in Sec. 393.95.
    The FHWA has created a new section, Sec. 393.7, Matter incorporated 
by reference, to provide the language of incorporation required by 1 
CFR 51 and to provide information on the availability of the 
incorporated document. After a review of the comments to the July 14, 
1993, NPRM and a determination that the incorporation by reference was 
necessary for the final rule, the FHWA submitted UL 912 to the Director 
of the Federal Register for approval in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a) 
and 1 CFR 51.
    The FHWA recognizes that some motor carriers may wish to supplement 
the required warning devices (reflective triangles or fusees and 
flares) with other warning devices such as electric lanterns. The final 
rule allows the use of other warning devices in addition to, but not in 
lieu of, the required devices provided they do not decrease the 
effectiveness of the required devices. The FHWA has added 
Sec. 393.95(f)(3) to clearly indicate this intent.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule amends the requirements for warning devices for 
stopped vehicles. The FHWA has determined that this is not a 
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
12866 or significant within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the 
economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. This final rule 
allows motor carriers the option to use fusees and liquid-burning 
flares in lieu of bidirectional reflective triangles. The rule does not 
increase the cost of complying with the requirements for emergency 
warning devices on commercial motor vehicles. Therefore, a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In their comments to the docket, both Sate-Lite and the TSEI 
expressed concern that the proposed regulation would have adverse 
impacts on small manufacturers of bidirectional reflective triangles 
and small motor carriers electing to deploy fusees or liquid-burning 
flares in accordance with this final rule.
    In light of these concerns, and in compliance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects 
of this rulemaking on small entities. As for small manufacturers of 
bidirectional reflective triangles, the final rule does not prohibit or 
restrict the manufacture, sale, or use of such devices. Furthermore, 
this final rule does not require motor carriers to increase the number 
and types of warning devices carried on their CMVs. Nor does the rule 
mandate that CMVs be equipped with only one type of warning device. 
Rather the rule fulfills the requirements of section 1041(b) of the 
ISTEA by simply allowing, with few exceptions, the use of fusees and 
liquid-burning flares as an alternative to bidirectional reflective 
triangles.
    Based on its evaluation of this rulemaking, the FHWA certifies that 
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor 
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal in this document does not contain information 
collection requirements [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.].

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of 
the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda 
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 392 and 393

    Highway safety, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, 
Motor carriers, and Motor vehicle safety.

    Issued on: June 23, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA hereby amends title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, by amending 
parts 392 and 393 as set forth below:

PART 392--DRIVING OF MOTOR VEHICLES

    1. The authority citation at the end of Sec. 392.22 is removed and 
the authority citation for part 392 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 
1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C. 3102; 49 U.S.C. app. 2505; 49 CFR 1.48.
    2. Section 392.22 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(2)(vii), 
revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(2)(i), and (b)(2)(ii), 
and adding paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec. 392.22  Emergency signals, stopped vehicles.

* * * * *

    (b) Placement of warning devices--(1) General rule. Except as 
provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, whenever a vehicle is 
stopped on the traveled portion of a highway or the shoulder of a 
highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops, the driver 
shall as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 minutes, place 
the warning devices with which the vehicle is equipped in conformance 
with the requirements of Sec. 393.95 of this subchapter, in the 
following manner:
* * * * *
    (iv) The same type of required emergency warning device [see 
Sec. 393.95(f) (1) and (2)] shall be placed at each of the three 
locations specified in paragraph (b)(1) (i) through (iii) of this 
section. If supplemental warning devices are also used [see 
Sec. 393.95(f)(3)], a device of the same type shall be placed at each 
of those locations.
    (2) Special Rules--(i) Fusees and liquid-burning flares. The driver 
of a commercial motor vehicle equipped with only fusees or liquid-
burning flares shall place a lighted fusee or liquid-burning flare at 
each of the locations specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 
There shall be at least one lighted fusee or liquid-burning flare at 
each of the prescribed locations, as long as the vehicle is stopped. 
Before the stopped vehicle is moved, the driver shall extinguish and 
remove each fusee or liquid-burning flare.
    (ii) Daylight hours. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of 
this section, during the period lighted lamps are not required, three 
bidirectional reflective triangles, or three lighted fusees or liquid-
burning flares shall be placed as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section within a time of 10 minutes. In the event the driver elects to 
use only fusees or liquid-burning flares in lieu of bidirectional 
reflective triangles or red flags, the driver must ensure that at least 
one fusee or liquid-burning flare remains lighted at each of the 
prescribed locations as long as the vehicle is stopped or parked.
* * * * *

PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATIONS

    3. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 
1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C. 3102; 49 U.S.C. app. 2505; 49 CFR 1.48.

    4. A new section 393.7 is added to subpart A of part 393 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 393.7  Matter incorporated by reference.

    (a) Incorporation by reference. Part 393 includes references to 
certain matter or materials. The text of the materials is not included 
in the regulations contained in part 393. The materials are hereby made 
a part of the regulations in part 393. The Director of the Federal 
Register has approved the materials incorporated by reference in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. For materials 
subject to change, only the specific version approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register and specified in the regulation are 
incorporated. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the 
approval and a notice of any change in these materials will be 
published in the Federal Register.
    (b) Availability. The materials incorporated by reference are 
available as follows:
    (1) Standards of the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Information 
and copies may be obtained by writing to: Underwriters Laboratories, 
Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062.
    (2)-(9) [Reserved]
    (10) All of the materials incorporated by reference are available 
for inspection at:
    (i) The Department of Transportation Library, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590 in Room 2200. These documents are also 
available for inspection and copying as provided in 49 CFR part 7, 
appendix D; and
    (ii) The Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    5. Section 393.95 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2), (g), 
and (j) and adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 393.95  Emergency equipment on all power units.

* * * * *

    (f) * * *
    (2) Vehicles equipped with warning devices on and after January 1, 
1974.
    (i) Three bidirectional emergency reflective triangles that conform 
to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, 
Sec. 571.125 of this title; or
    (ii) At least 6 fusees or 3 liquid-burning flares. The vehicle must 
have as many additional fusees or liquid-burning flares as are 
necessary to satisfy the requirements of Sec. 392.22.
    (3) Supplemental warning devices. Other warning devices may be used 
in addition to, but not in lieu of, the required warning devices, 
provided those warning devices do not decrease the effectiveness of the 
required warning devices.
    (g) Restrictions on the use of flame-producing devices. Liquid-
burning flares, fusees, oil lanterns, or any signal produced by a flame 
shall not be carried on any commercial motor vehicle transporting 
Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (explosives) hazardous materials; any cargo tank 
motor vehicle used for the transportation of Division 2.1 (flammable 
gas) or Class 3 (flammable liquid) hazardous materials whether loaded 
or empty; or any commercial motor vehicle using compressed gas as a 
motor fuel.

* * * * *

    (j) Requirements for fusees and liquid-burning flares. Each fusee 
shall be capable of burning for 30 minutes, and each liquid-burning 
flare shall contain enough fuel to burn continuously for at least 60 
minutes. Fusees and liquid-burning flares shall conform to the 
requirements of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., UL No. 912, Highway 
Emergency Signals, Fourth Edition, July 30, 1979, (with an amendment 
dated November 9, 1981). (See Sec. 393.7(b) for information on the 
incorporation by reference and availability of this document.) Each 
fusee and liquid-burning flare shall be marked with the UL symbol in 
accordance with the requirements of UL 912.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-16070 Filed 7-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P