[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33611-33628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15622]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[FHWA Docket No. MC-94-1; FHWA-1997-2222]
RIN 2125-AD27
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Lighting
Devices, Reflectors, and Electrical Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is proposing to amend the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to require that motor carriers engaged in
interstate commerce install retroreflective tape or reflex reflectors
on the sides and rear of trailers that were manufactured prior to
[[Page 33612]]
December 1, 1993, have an overall width of 2,032 mm (80 inches) or
more, and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,001
pounds) or more. The FHWA is proposing that motor carriers be required
to install retroreflective tape or reflex reflectors within two years
of the effective date of the final rule. Motor carriers would be
allowed a certain amount of flexibility in terms of the colors or color
combinations during a 10-year period beginning on the effective date of
the final rule, but would be required to have all older trailers
equipped with conspicuity treatments identical to those mandated for
new trailers at the end of the 10-year period. The locations at which
the retroreflective material would have to be applied to trailers
during the phase-in period would be specified. This rulemaking is
intended to help motorists detect trailers at night and under other
conditions of reduced visibility, thereby reducing the incidence of
passenger vehicles colliding with the sides or rear of trailers.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to the docket identified at
the beginning of this notice, the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room
PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All
comments received will be available for examination at the above
address from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., et., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments
must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor
Carrier Research and Standards, HCS-10, (202) 366-4009; or Mr. Charles
E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-1354,
Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the Federal Register
Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may
reach the Federal Register's home page at http://www.nara.gov/nara/
fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs.
Background
On December 10, 1992, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), to require that trailers with an
overall width of 2,032 mm (80 inches) or more and a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), except trailers manufactured exclusively for
use as offices or dwellings, be equipped on the sides and rear with a
means for increasing their conspicuity (57 FR 58406). Trailer
manufacturers are given a choice of installing either red and white
retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors arranged in a red and
white pattern. Manufacturers of retroreflective sheeting or reflex
reflectors intended for use in satisfying these requirements must
certify compliance of their product with FMVSS No. 108, whether the
material is used as original or replacement equipment. The effective
date for the final rule was December 1, 1993.
Summary of the NHTSA Rulemaking
The NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
on May 27, 1980, requesting comments on methods to reduce the incidence
and severity of collisions between passenger cars and large trailers
during conditions of darkness or reduced visibility (45 FR 35405). The
use of retroreflective materials was considered a possible solution.
Between 1980 and 1985, the NHTSA conducted a fleet study in which
retroreflective material was placed on van-type trailers in a manner
designed to increase their conspicuity during conditions of darkness or
reduced visibility. The treatment of the trailers consisted of
outlining the rear perimeter, and delineating the lower sides with
retroreflective tape. The authors of the study concluded that truck-
trailer combinations equipped with retroreflective material were
involved in 15 percent fewer accidents (in which a trailer was struck
in the side or rear by a passenger car at nighttime) than combinations
that were not equipped with the material. This research is documented
in the following research reports: Improved Commercial Vehicle
Conspicuity and Signaling Systems, Task I--Accident Analysis and
Functional Requirements, March 1981 (DOT HS 806-100); Improved
Commercial Vehicle Conspicuity and Signaling Systems, Task II--
Analyses, Experiments and Design Recommendations, October 1981 (DOT HS
806-098); and, Improved Commercial Vehicle Conspicuity and Signaling
Systems, Task III--Field Test Evaluation of Vehicle Reflectorization
Effectiveness, September 1985 (DOT HS-806-923). A copy of each of the
reports is in the docket.
On September 18, 1987, the NHTSA published a notice discussing the
results from the fleet study and requesting comments on the research as
well as information from motor carriers about their experiences using
reflective material to enhance conspicuity (52 FR 35345).
In response to the NHTSA fleet study, Congress included in the
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-500, 104 Stat. 1218), a
provision directing the Secretary of Transportation to initiate a
rulemaking on the need to adopt methods for making commercial motor
vehicles more visible to motorists. The rulemaking was required to
begin no later than February 3, 1991, and to be completed no later than
November 3, 1992.
Between March 1990 and September 1991 the NHTSA conducted
additional research on trailer conspicuity. The purpose of the research
program was to define a range of minimally acceptable large truck
conspicuity enhancements that could be used as a basis for developing
Federal regulations. A number of laboratory and field studies were
carried out to assess the value of using a pattern of retroreflective
sheeting, the form the pattern should take, the placement of the
treatment on the trailer, the effect of retroreflective markings on the
detection and identification of stop and turn signals, and the trade-
off between the width and retroreflective intensity of the treatment
material. In addition, field surveys were conducted to assess the
effect of environmental dirt on the performance of the marking systems
and the durability of retroreflective materials when used on commercial
motor vehicles.
The final report for the research conducted between 1990 and 1991
(Performance Requirements for Large Truck Conspicuity Enhancements,
March 1992, (DOT HS 807 815)) includes recommendations that the
retroreflective tape be at least two inches in width, applied in a red
and white pattern (continuous or broken strip) along the bottom of the
trailer on the sides, with a continuous strip along the bottom of the
rear of the trailer. The
[[Page 33613]]
authors also recommend white corner markers at the top of trailers. In
addition, the report provides recommendations concerning minimum
retroreflectivity levels, taking into account the effects of
environmental dirt, aging, and orientation of the marked vehicle. A
copy of the final report is in the docket.
On December 4, 1991, the NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) based upon the research conducted between 1990 and
1991 (56 FR 63474). The NHTSA considered its NPRM, which was part of a
rulemaking initiated before the enactment of the Motor Carrier Safety
Act of 1990, to be responsive to the congressional mandate and its
December 10, 1992, final rule as the completion of the rulemaking
mandated by Congress.
Current FHWA Requirements for Trailer Conspicuity
The FHWA is responsible for establishing standards for commercial
motor vehicles operated in interstate commerce. Commercial motor
vehicles subject to the FMCSRs must meet the requirements of 49 CFR
parts 393 (Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation) and 396
(Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance). The requirements for lamps and
reflective devices are contained in Secs. 393.11 through 393.26.
Section 393.11 of the FMCSRs requires that all lighting devices on
commercial motor vehicles placed in operation after March 7, 1989, meet
the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 in effect at the time the vehicle was
manufactured. Therefore, trailers manufactured on or after December 1,
1993, the effective date of the NHTSA requirement for retroreflective
tape or reflex reflectors, must have retroreflective tape or reflex
reflectors of the type and in the locations specified in FMVSS No. 108
in order to comply with the FHWA's requirements.
On April 14, 1997, the FHWA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in which the agency proposed general amendments to part 393
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation (62 FR 18170). The proposed
amendments covered a wide range of topics, including conspicuity
treatments on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993. To
make certain that all motor carriers operating trailers subject to the
FMCSRs are aware of their responsibility to maintain the conspicuity
treatment, the FHWA proposed the addition of detailed language under
Sec. 393.11. The FHWA would cross-reference the specific paragraphs of
FMVSS No. 108 related to the applicability of NHTSA's trailer
conspicuity standards, the required locations for the conspicuity
material, and the certification and marking requirements.
FHWA Rulemaking Concerning Retrofitting
On January 19, 1994, the FHWA published an ANPRM requesting
comments on issues related to the application of conspicuity treatments
to trailers manufactured prior to the effective date of the NHTSA's
final rule on trailer conspicuity (59 FR 2811). The agency requested
that commenters respond, at a minimum, to several specific questions
listed in the notice:
1. Many motor carriers have been using retroreflective sheeting or
reflex reflectors which are not of the colors, retroreflective
intensity, width, or configuration of the conspicuity treatment in the
NHTSA's final rule. The FHWA seeks information on the type of
conspicuity treatments in use and quantitative data on the cost and
effectiveness of those treatments in preventing and/or mitigating
accidents.
2. What types of technical problems (e.g., tape not adhering to the
surface of the trailer) have motor carriers encountered when applying
conspicuity materials to in-service trailers? Are any problems unique
to certain types of trailers, or to certain types of paints, coatings,
or surfaces?
3. What is the approximate cost (parts and labor) to apply
conspicuity treatments to trailers? Is special training required for
employees performing this task? What cost differences may exist between
having this task performed by the motor carrier's own maintenance
department or by third parties?
4. How long must a trailer be taken out of service to have the
conspicuity material applied to its surfaces?
5. With regard to conspicuity treatments that differ from those in
the NHTSA final rule, a retrofitting requirement would result in many
motor carriers having to replace their current conspicuity treatments
with one that is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. The
FHWA believes that some form of conspicuity treatment (even certain
forms which may be less effective than that covered in the NHTSA's
final rule) is better than no conspicuity treatment. What different
types of conspicuity treatment are currently being used by motor
carriers? What results have been experienced by motor carriers using
conspicuity treatments?
6. If this rulemaking proceeds, should the FHWA propose requiring
the same red/white color combination, retroreflective intensity, width
and configuration as the NHTSA's final rule, or should alternative
requirements be considered? If alternatives are considered, do
commenters foresee problems in the enforcement of a retrofitting
requirement?
7. If this rulemaking proceeds, should the FHWA consider an
effective date which is several (2, 3, 4, or 5) years after the date of
publication of the final rule?
In addition to responding to the preceding questions, the FHWA
encouraged commenters to include a discussion of any other issues that
the commenters believed were relevant to the rulemaking.
On August 6, 1996, the FHWA published a notice announcing that the
agency had completed its review of the comments received in response to
the ANPRM and that it would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (61
FR 40781).
Discussion of Responses to the ANPRM
The FHWA received 955 comments in response to the ANPRM. The
strongest voice of support came from concerned private citizens--a
total of 828 responses. The FHWA received 321 responses on behalf of
Carl Hall, who was killed in a collision with a tractor-semi-trailer
that blocked the road as the truck driver backed the vehicle into a
driveway. Another 285 responses were on behalf of Guy Crawford, a 16-
year old boy who was killed in an underride accident with a coal truck.
In addition, the agency received 223 responses from other concerned
citizens, many of whom lost family members or friends in accidents
involving commercial motor vehicles.
The FHWA has the greatest sympathy for the losses suffered by these
respondents. The goal of this rulemaking is to reduce the number of
such accidents, but rules must be based on consideration of evidence
and data submitted. Since these commenters did not include answers to
the questions listed in the ANPRM or provide information concerning
technical or economic aspects of retrofitting trailers with conspicuity
treatments, the remainder of this preamble will focus on those issues.
The agency, however, has not ignored the advice of those whose tragic
personal experiences led them to support a conspicuity rule.
The specific concerns or issues raised by the commenters that
discussed technical or economic issues are discussed in the following
sections.
[[Page 33614]]
General Discussion of Comments Opposed to the Rulemaking
The FHWA received 40 comments from motor carriers and industry
groups that were either opposed to any type of retrofitting
requirements, or supportive of the concept of voluntary use of
conspicuity treatments but opposed to requiring the red-and-white color
scheme specified by the NHTSA. The commenters were: Allied Van Lines,
Inc.; the American Movers Conference (AMC); the American Trucking
Associations (ATA); Beaver Express Service, Inc.; Becker Hi-Way Frate;
Bestway Systems, Inc.; BTI; Churchill Truck Lines, Inc.; the Colorado/
Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association (CWPMA); Contract Freighters,
Inc.; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Dart Transit Company; Fleetline,
Inc.; Grote Industries, Inc.; the Institute of International Container
Lessors; the Interstate Truckload Carriers Conference; John W. Ritter
Trucking Inc.; Metalcore, Ltd.; the Missouri Motor Carriers
Association; Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil); the National Private Truck
Council (NPTC); the National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association--
International Foodservice Distributors Association (NAWGA/IFDA); the
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; the Petroleum Marketers
Association of America (PMAA); Reliance Trailer Manufacturing
(Reliance); the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association (RMOGA); San
Joaquin Sand and Gravel; Schneider National; the Steamship Operators
Intermodal Committee (SOIC); Talley Transportation; United Van Lines,
Inc.; United Parcel Service (UPS); USA Truck; Wal*Mart Stores, Inc.;
Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.; Werner Enterprises; Western Distributing
Transportation Corporation; the Wyoming Trucking Association, Inc.;
XTRA Corporation (XTRA); and Yellow Freight System Inc.
Generally, the commenters opposed to the retrofitting rulemaking
believe that it is important to improve highway safety. However, many
of them do not believe that conspicuity treatments are a cost-effective
solution to the problem of passenger cars colliding with trailers. In
several cases, the commenters argued that there is not enough data to
assess the effectiveness of the NHTSA's requirements for trailers
manufactured on or after December 1, 1993. For motor carriers that
installed conspicuity treatments on their trailers manufactured before
December 1, 1993, the opposition to the retrofitting rulemaking is
based upon the belief that the FHWA would require them to remove
retroreflective materials that do not conform to the NHTSA standard.
On the subject of data to support the FHWA's rulemaking, the NAWGA/
IFDA stated:
Before [the FHWA] issues proposed rules in this docket, NAWGA/
IFDA suggests that accident experience data for [the trailers
covered by the NHTSA's conspicuity rule]--perhaps for calendar year
1994--be obtained by FHWA. Indeed, such data would be responsive to
FHWA's first issue raised in its [ANPRM]--the existence of data on
the effectiveness of various marking treatments in preventing and/or
mitigating accidents. With this data in hand, FHWA would then be in
a better position to proceed to an informed decision as to whether
to extend the NHTSA requirements to pre-December, 1993 trailers.
United Parcel Service (UPS) also expressed concern that there is
insufficient accident data to support a retrofitting requirement. The
UPS stated:
A proposed FHWA rulemaking mandating the retroactive
installation of reflective sheeting is at the very least premature,
and perhaps entirely unwarranted.
The first assumption is that the current DOT regulations for
vehicle visibility are inadequate and need to be improved. In fact,
FHWA has presented no data to support such a contention. The rule
also assumes knowledge of what constitutes adequate conspicuity.
Again, no supporting data is offered.
UPS unsuccessfully opposed NHTSA's conspicuity rule, arguing at
the time that the data was insufficient to warrant a rule. In our
view, FHWA risks compounding NHTSA's mistake, but in an even more
expensive and less sensible way. If FHWA is willing to delay its
rulemaking long enough, NHTSA's present regulation (FMVSS No. 108)
will provide enough reliable data to make a judgement on the safety
impact of the reflective sheeting. It should be noted that in
reviewing our own considerable highway safety data, UPS has found no
evidence to support the creation of a new mandate that would
immediately [affect] such a large number of vehicles.
In addition to the NAWGA/IFDA and UPS, the Interstate Truckload
Carriers Conference (ITCC) commented that the benefits of conspicuity
treatments have not been proven. The ITCC stated:
As a general observation, retroreflective sheeting or reflex
reflectors for trailers manufactured prior to December 1, 1993,
should be voluntary, not mandatory, although the Federal Highway
Administration (``FHWA'') may wish to develop and offer recommended
guidelines to assist those carriers wishing to apply retroreflective
treatments to their trailer equipment. In spite of the perceived
safety benefits of having retroreflective sheeting applied to older
trailers, not one of the carriers responding to the ITCC survey,
which own and operate more than 34,000 trailers, are able to
quantify any correlation between their use of retroreflective
materials and a decrease in trailer accidents where conspicuity was
a factor. Moreover, operational and cost considerations suggest that
any requirement to improve trailer conspicuity would be burdensome.
Should the FHWA proceed with this matter and institute a proposed
rulemaking, it should propose to accept the conspicuity treatments
applied to trailers prior to the effective date of any adopted rule,
even though such treatments may not conform to the NHTSA rules
prescribing conspicuity treatments for trailers manufactured after
December 1, 1993, in type, color, size, placement or configuration,
construction, brightness, or other aspect.
The ATA opposes a retrofitting requirement because it believes
there is no cost-effective and reasonable method to apply reflective
materials to all of the trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993.
The ATA also indicated that a large number of trailers are already
marked with materials of greater intensity, but different color schemes
than those mandated by the NHTSA and that retrofitting to the NHTSA
color scheme would cause an unjustified economic hardship on many
carriers. The ATA stated:
FHWA did not evaluate this regulatory action because of a lack
of necessary cost information. A federal mandate to retrofit
reflective materials on trailers built before December 1, 1993, will
have a significant cost impact. With 3.8 million trailers on
America's highways, the total cost of a federal mandate will exceed
$1 billion. This figure includes costs for conspicuity materials,
labor costs for preparing the trailers and applying the materials,
and loss of use of trailer productivity while [the trailer is] being
prepared/repaired and retrofitted.
In addition the ATA indicated that The Maintenance Council of the
ATA has published a recommended practice (Large Vehicle Conspicuity
Markings, RP 722, Issued March 1993, Revised June 1994) concerning the
application of reflective tape or materials to unmarked trailers, and
that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was preparing a Surface
Vehicle Information Report, Large Vehicle Conspicuity Markings, SAE
J2117. The ATA believes that there are already market forces (e.g.,
potential litigation) pressuring motor carriers to retrofit their
trailers with conspicuity materials and that a retrofitting rule is not
necessary.
Another commenter expressing concerns about the economic impact of
a retrofitting requirement was the American Movers Conference (AMC).
The AMC stated:
It would be a serious mistake for FHWA to mandate specific
conspicuity treatments for existing trailers. Such regulatory action
is
[[Page 33615]]
impractical and would cause unjustified economic burdens for the
moving industry. However, the trailers now in service in our
industry are already marked with conspicuity materials that,
although different in color and composition from that mandated for
new trailers by NHTSA, are highly visible and effectively
``conspicuous.''
The FHWA does not agree with the NAWGA/IFDA and UPS'' assertions
that there is insufficient data to support a retrofitting requirement.
The FHWA acknowledges that no studies or analyses of the impact of the
NHTSA's final rule have been completed to date. However, previous
research findings concerning trailer conspicuity strongly suggest that
significant improvements in safety could be achieved by requiring all
trailers to be equipped with retroreflective materials.
As indicated in the background section of this notice, between 1980
and 1985 the NHTSA conducted a fleet study in which retroreflective
material was placed on van-type trailer combinations in a manner
designed to increase their conspicuity during conditions of darkness or
reduced visibility. The study concluded that truck-trailer combinations
equipped with certain conspicuity materials were involved in 15 percent
fewer accidents (in which the trailer was struck in the side or rear)
than combinations lacking the material.
In addition to the research conducted in the 1980's, the NHTSA
conducted a study between March 1990 and September 1991 to define a
range of minimally acceptable trailer conspicuity enhancements that
could be used as a basis for Federal regulations. The report covering
the research performed between 1990 and 1991 is entitled Performance
Requirements for Large Truck Conspicuity Enhancements, March 1992, (DOT
HS 807 815). A copy of this report is included in the docket. The
NHTSA's 1992 report states:
Previous research sponsored by NHTSA [a reference to the
research documented in Improved Commercial Vehicle Conspicuity and
Signaling Systems] indicated that the use of retroreflective tape
markings systems enhanced the conspicuity of large trucks and,
therefore, had the potential to reduce the number and seriousness of
car-into-truck crashes. This earlier research specifically examined
the effectiveness of enhanced conspicuity on the crash experience of
approximately 2,000 van trailers over a period of 23 months and
found a significant reduction in conspicuity relevant crashes for
the treated vehicles as compared to control vehicles (untreated).
The research report also included a discussion of the methodology
for the study.
The authors summarized the research methodology as follows:
Both laboratory and field investigations were conducted to
address the issues of interest. For example, two laboratory studies
were carried out to establish reasonable upper limits for glare from
retroreflective surfaces. Field measurements of glare from
retroreflective panels positioned at various distances were then
taken from different vehicles to relate the laboratory measurements
to actual driving conditions.
Minimum reflectivity values were determined from field studies
that related material reflectivity values to detection distance.
Full scale presentations of various treatment configurations were
employed on an actual trailer. The distance at which subjects could
detect the trailer were measured on each trial. Final
recommendations were based on values corrected for subject
expectancy.
The recommendations for pattern and configuration of
retroreflective enhancements were based on several field and
laboratory studies. The first laboratory investigation involved a
paired comparison of various combinations of red and white
retroreflective materials viewed at two distances. Two field studies
were also carried out in which subjects, who were instructed to look
for ``potential hazards,'' detected and identified various
retroreflective treatments in a normal driving situation. Finally,
using computer presentations of stimuli, two additional laboratory
studies were conducted to evaluate the relative importance of
different configurations of retroreflective treatments in estimating
relative vehicle speed and changes in vehicle spacing.
The tradeoff between treatment width and reflectivity value was
assessed in a field study in which subjects drove toward different
retroreflective displays and indicated when they could detect them.
Measures were taken of detection distance.
Finally, surveys of trucks in use were conducted to assess the
effects of environmental dirt and grime as well as degradation due
to aging. To measure the effects of dirt, 17 trailers were fitted
with retroreflective patches on the sides and rears. The reflective
values of these were measured at regular intervals for a period of
one year. The effects of aging were assessed by measuring the
reflectivity value of retroreflective material that had been in
place on trailers for various periods of time. The oldest material
measured had been in place for more than 20 years.
The FHWA considers the NHTSA's research results to be reliable
indicators of the potential safety benefits of the use of
retroreflective materials in preventing passenger cars from crashing
into the sides or rear of trailers. None of the commenters identified
flaws in the research methodology for the work performed between 1980
and 1985, or the work performed between 1990 and 1991. Furthermore,
none of the commenters presented technical data that would call into
question the conclusions and recommendations presented in the NHTSA
research reports.
Although several motor carriers indicated that they have not
experienced any benefits (in terms of preventing passenger cars from
crashing into their trailers) from using retroreflective tape, the FHWA
believes that negative conclusions are not valid unless based upon
detailed information. The information that needs to be evaluated
includes: the total number of trailers operated by the fleets in
question; the types of trailers operated; the total number of trailers
that have conspicuity treatments; daytime and nighttime exposure data
(miles traveled with a distinction between urban and rural roads) for
the trailers that were treated with conspicuity materials and the
trailers that were not treated with conspicuity materials; reflectivity
levels for the conspicuity materials used; and, color combinations and
patterns for the conspicuity treatments. The before-and-after accident
experience of each of the fleets should also be examined carefully.
None of the commenters indicated that this type of information was
collected and analyzed, or that such information would be made
available for review by the FHWA. Therefore, the FHWA does not believe
that the commenters have provided enough technical information to
warrant terminating the rulemaking.
In response to the commenters who argue that the problem of
passenger cars crashing into trailers is not severe enough to warrant a
retrofitting requirement, the FHWA believes that the number of these
collisions indicates that motorists have a major problem recognizing
trailers at night and under other conditions of reduced visibility. The
FHWA has reviewed recent accident data and determined that the number
of accidents, fatalities and injuries are strong indicators of the need
for continuing this rulemaking. The NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) data for 1994 indicates that nighttime collisions in
which the passenger vehicle struck the side of a trailer at an angle
(as opposed to sideswiping the trailer) accounted for 119 incidents
resulting in a total of 140 fatalities. There were 173 nighttime
incidents involving a passenger vehicle rear-ending a trailer. The
result was 198 fatalities.
The FARS data for 1995 indicates that nighttime collisions in which
the passenger vehicle struck the side of a trailer at an angle
accounted for 115 incidents resulting in a total of 136 fatalities.
There were 200 nighttime incidents involving a passenger vehicle rear-
ending a trailer. The result was 224 fatalities. When consideration is
given to the NHTSA's estimate (based upon
[[Page 33616]]
the research cited earlier in this notice) of the effectiveness of
trailer conspicuity treatments at preventing certain types of
accidents, and the NHTSA data on the number of accidents, fatalities,
injuries, and property damage associated with these accidents, it is
reasonable to conclude that significant safety benefits could be
achieved if a retrofitting requirement was established.
With regard to the ATA's reference to The Maintenance Council's
(TMC) recommended practice, Large Vehicle Conspicuity Markings, RP 722,
the FHWA does not believe the TMC publication has any relevance to this
rulemaking since motor carriers are not required to comply with the
recommended practice. This is especially the case given that many
trailers have not been retrofitted with any form of conspicuity
treatment. The FHWA's observations of trailers currently in use suggest
that a large number of motor carriers are either unaware of the ATA's
recommended practice, or have chosen to ignore the recommendation. The
large number of untreated trailers also suggests that the market forces
that the ATA alluded to have not been effective in prompting carriers
to voluntarily retrofit their vehicles. Therefore, the FHWA believes
that it is necessary to continue this rulemaking and to request public
comments on the specific regulatory language that is being proposed in
this notice.
The FHWA contacted the SAE to inquire about the status of its
efforts to publish a surface vehicle information report concerning
conspicuity markings. The SAE advised the FHWA that the project was
discontinued.
On the subject of the potential economic impact that this
rulemaking would have on the motor carrier industry, the FHWA has
prepared a preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) to accompany this
rulemaking notice. A copy of the PRE is included in the docket. The
FHWA estimates that the total cost of this rulemaking would be $339
million. This estimate is based upon the assumption that approximately
1,373,000 trailers would be covered by the rule (if a 2-year phase-in
period chosen). The FHWA estimates that the benefits of the rulemaking
would be approximately $741 million. A detailed discussion of how the
FHWA prepared its estimates is provided later in this notice for
commenters that are not able to review the PRE.
In response to commenters concerned about whether their fleets
would be required to replace conspicuity treatments that are of a
different pattern or color scheme than the NHTSA requirements, it is
not the intention of the FHWA that motor carriers remove conspicuity
treatments applied to trailers prior to the issuance of this proposal
solely because they employ different color schemes than that required
by the NHTSA. To accommodate this concern, the FHWA is proposing to
allow carriers flexibility in terms of the colors used to satisfy the
requirements for a period of 10 years from the effective date of the
final rule. This time period was chosen because trailers that were
voluntarily equipped with conspicuity treatments will have exceeded
their useful service lives and be retired from service. It is,
therefore, reasonable to require that at the end of the 10-year period,
all motor carriers to use conspicuity treatments that conform to the
NHTSA standard (i.e., the use of a red-and-white pattern, and
retroreflective sheeting that is certified as meeting the minimum
reflectivity levels specified in the NHTSA rule). Although the FHWA
would allow the use of alternative colors during a 10-year period, the
agency would adopt regulatory language that encourages motor carriers
to retrofit their trailers with a conspicuity system that meets all of
the requirements applicable to trailers manufactured on or after
December 1, 1993, including the use of retroreflective sheeting or
reflex reflectors in a red and white pattern. Motor carriers which do
not retrofit their trailers to the NHTSA standard (for example by using
an alternative color pattern) during the 10-year period, would be
required to comply with FHWA's rules concerning the locations and
colors. The FHWA would require that the locations at which the
conspicuity treatments are installed be consistent with the NHTSA
standards under FMVSS No. 108. This preliminary decision is supported
by information contained in Improved Commercial Vehicle Conspicuity and
Signaling Systems, Task II, Analyses, Experiments and Design
Recommendations.
The research included studies to determine the relative conspicuity
of certain patterns of retroreflective material in a field setting
under nighttime and daytime viewing conditions. The color combinations
included red and white, blue and white, green and white, and
fluorescent red-orange and white. Pairs of conspicuity patterns were
installed side-by-side on a truck and viewed at two distances. Subjects
were asked to judge which of each pair was the most attention
demanding, appeared closer, and showed the most detail. All possible
pairs of the 12 test patterns were presented to the subjects. The
research showed that the high-reflectivity red and white pattern (using
a 3 to 2 ratio of red to white) was the only configuration that
received high rankings during both daytime and nighttime conditions.
The next best patterns, in terms of the test subjects' reactions, were
high-reflectivity blue and white, and green and white (using 3 to 2
ratio of the darker color to the white).
It is very important to note that the researchers acknowledged that
an ``emphasis was placed on deriving an improved and practical pattern,
rather than some optimum pattern.'' While the findings indicate the red
and white pattern was the most effective in terms of hazard
recognition, it does not imply that other color schemes or patterns had
no value or effect. Therefore, allowing alternative colors for a 10-
year period will minimize the economic impact of this rule on motor
carriers that have voluntarily retrofitted their trailers with
alternate color schemes, while ensuring to the greatest extent
practicable, safety benefits during the transition period.
The FHWA fully supports the NHTSA's selection of a standardized red
and white pattern for use by trailer manufacturers. However, it is
obvious that similar treatments in other colors already applied by
safety conscious motor carriers also improve conspicuity and provide
potential safety benefits. The FHWA believes it would be inappropriate
to immediately prohibit the use of other colors of conspicuity material
on trailers manufactured prior to December 1, 1993, because it would
have the effect of requiring motor carriers to remove reasonable
conspicuity treatments of other colors from older trailers. Such a
regulation would penalize motor carriers who had taken steps to
retrofit their vehicles prior to the establishment of Federal
standards.
The principal reason for NHTSA's requirement of a red and white
pattern was to make the reflective image on the side of a trailer
recognizable to motorists. Since the side conspicuity treatment
consists of a single line of material, a distinct color pattern, less
ambiguous than solid white or yellow, was established so that motorists
would learn to associate it with trailers. A red and white pattern was
chosen for standardization because it was already commonly associated
with danger. This color combination is widely recognized and associated
with highway hazard warning signs such as stop signs and railroad grade
crossing gates. NHTSA also considered outlining the sides of trailers
with reflective material to make
[[Page 33617]]
them recognizable, but rejected that approach because it was more
costly and impractical for trailer configurations other than van-type
trailers.
The FHWA does not believe that this proposal will inhibit NHTSA's
goal of having the public learn to associate a long red and white line
of retroreflective sheeting (or reflex reflectors) with the side of a
trailer. On the contrary, the agency expects the majority of
conspicuity retrofits to be red and white despite an equitable policy
toward existing treatments of other colors during a 10-year transition
period. The NHTSA has received numerous inquiries from fleets about
voluntary retrofitting since 1993 and none of those fleets expressed an
interest in color combinations other than red and white. At the end of
the 10-year period, all trailers, irrespective of the date of
manufacture, would be required to be equipped with red-and-white
retroreflective material which meets the NHTSA's requirements,
including certification marking. During the transition period the
FHWA's regulations will continue to require red and white treatments be
maintained on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993.
Therefore there is no financial or aesthetic incentive for motor
carriers to retrofit their older trailers in ways that avoid a common
fleet appearance with their newest equipment and with future
acquisitions.
In addition to the reasons cited in the preceding paragraphs, the
FHWA has opted to allow flexibility for trailers that have not been
retrofitted with any type of conspicuity treatment because it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to enforce a requirement for the use of
red and white material. The agency would have to distinguish between
older trailers covered by the proposed ``grandfathering'' clause, and
older trailers that were retrofitted on or after the effective date of
the final rule. The FHWA is not aware of a practical and effective
means of obtaining proof of the date that the reflective material is
actually installed on the trailers.
The FHWA requests comments on its preliminary decision to allow,
during a 10-year transition period, motor carriers flexibility in the
colors or color combinations of retroreflective materials that would be
used to satisfy the proposed requirements.
General Discussion of Comments in Support of the Rulemaking
As mentioned previously in this notice, the FHWA received 828
comments from concerned citizens (including individual truck drivers)
in support of the rulemaking. In addition to the concerned private
citizens the FHWA received 87 comments from companies, organizations,
law firms (most of which represented individuals who were killed or
injured in accidents involving a commercial motor vehicle), State
governments, and municipal governments (including fire and police
departments). Commenters included: 3M; Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (the Advocates); Alterman Transport Lines, Inc.; the American
Society of CLU and ChFC; the Denton County Democratic Party; the Eye
Care Center; the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS); the
National Sheriffs' Association; Roberson Corporation; R.R. Crawford
Engineering; D.A.S. Roofing Company; Joseph E. Badger Accident
Reconstruction Services; the Wellness Center; the Seniors Civil
Liberties Association, Inc.; the Maryland State Highway Administration;
Merck and Co., Inc.; the Montana chapter of the American Automobile
Association; Miller and Bethman, Inc.; Minnesota State Representative
Sidney Pauly; Minnesota State Patrol; New Jersey State Senator John J.
Matheussen; New York City Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Traffic; City of Tampa, Department of Public of Works; Strategic Metro
Area Reduction Team, Inc.; Transamerica Leasing, Inc.; U.S.
Representative James C. Greenwood; U.S. Representative Paul McHale;
former U.S. Representative Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky; University of
South Florida, Department of Community and Family Health; Montana
Office of Public Instruction; Kay E. Konz, Nebraska Volunteer
Coordinator for Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways; Operation
Front Line; and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA).
The OOIDA indicated that it supported the NHTSA's rulemaking to
require conspicuity treatments on newly manufactured trailers because
it agreed with NHTSA's findings that better conspicuity would
significantly reduce the likelihood of side and rear collisions. The
OOIDA stated:
It has been the experience of the Association that owner-
operators equip their vehicles in such a way that better use is made
of reflective devices and additional lighting. OOIDA believes that
it would be in the best interests of motor carriers to do all that
is necessary to enhance the visual conspicuity of their vehicles,
regardless of the age of the tractor or trailer in question. Not
only will the safety of the driving public be increased, but
insurance costs would likely be reduced. For example, OOIDA works
closely with one insurance company that already requires reflective
devices on flatbed trailers. However, such requirements should not
be left to the uncertainties of voluntary compliance.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) indicated that
requiring retrofitting of the red and white retroreflective materials
is needed to achieve the full safety benefits of the NHTSA requirements
in terms of reductions in deaths, injuries, and property damage. The
IIHS believes that only a portion of the fleet of trailers will be
replaced during a given year and that the retrofitting should be
required for all trailers in operation.
The Advocates also supports a requirement to retrofit vehicles with
conspicuity treatments that conform to the NHTSA standard. The AHAS
stated:
Given the fact that the current regulation is in effect,
Advocates wants to stress early in these comments that,
notwithstanding our concern that the NHTSA did not choose an optimal
reflectorization design for truck trailers, we think it is crucial
that any retrofit of existing heavy truck trailers with reflective
materials should adhere strictly to the marking regime established
by NHTSA in its amended Final Rule. The importance of [an]
unambiguous conspicuity message for other drivers cannot be
overestimated and, therefore, any proposal for reflectorization of
the sides and rears of trucks by the FHWA should conform in all
particulars to the regulation for new trailers. Competition from
reflectorized logos and accessory reflectorization of trailers
already threatens to overwhelm the sparse conspicuity signature of
the NHTSA FMVSS. Any prospective Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulation (FMCSR) must assist in reducing the wide variety of
competing conspicuity cues already present in the existing truck
fleet. Without such uniformity, the FHWA may saddle the motor
carrier industry with an additional financial burden that does not
reap substantial benefits in reducing both crashes and crash
severity.
In addition, the AHAS argues that the FHWA should require
retrofitting of conspicuity materials on single-unit trucks and apply
the conspicuity requirements to vehicles operated in the United States
by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers.
Several law firms submitted comments in support of a retrofitting
requirement. One of the firms was Elliot, Reihner, Siedzikowski, North
and Egan which represents the estates of Marion Steward and Carl Hall,
both of whom were killed in accidents involving collisions into the
side of a trailer. David Narkiewicz, responding on behalf of the law
firm, stated:
There is no question in my mind but that both of the above
individuals would still be alive if appropriate retroreflective tape
and additional lighting had been installed on both of the tractor
trailers which were positioned at 45 degree angles across both lanes
of the highway in both accidents.
[[Page 33618]]
On the subject of the red and white pattern for conspicuity
treatments, Mr. Narkiewicz stated:
[M]any of the conspicuity experts which I have utilized have
told me that the broken pattern of red and white now mandated on new
trailers is not as good as solid white, so I would ask that
reflective tape be required but leave the colorant pattern up to the
owners of the vehicles. There should be minimum standards as to size
and location but do not overregulate so that improvements in the
future would not be possible because of rigid guidelines that need
to be continually amended.
Only one motor carrier submitted a comment in support of a
requirement to retrofit vehicles in a red and white pattern. Alterman
Transport Lines, Inc. (Alterman), with a fleet of 1,400 trailers,
indicated that it had already started retrofitting its older trailers.
Alterman stated:
We think it provides perfect visibility. We have checked
conditions a number of times especially during the night in rainy
and foggy conditions, indeed it does support that which the program
was designed [to accomplish].
The FHWA agrees that older trailers should be retrofitted with red-
and-white conspicuity treatments. However, the FHWA believes that motor
carriers should not be penalized for voluntarily retrofitting their
trailers with conspicuity treatments of alternate colors. The FHWA is
proposing to allow these carriers 10 years to continue to use the non-
conforming colors. The end of the 10-year period would coincide with
the expected end of the useful service life of the vehicles in
question.
The NHTSA in its final regulatory evaluation estimated that the
average trailer has a useful service life of approximately 14 years.
Commenters to both the NHTSA's NPRM and the FHWA's ANPRM generally
agreed with this estimate. Tank trailers are both more expensive and
more durable than other types of trailers and are believed to have a
useful life of approximately 20 years. The NHTSA requirements cover
trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, which means that
the 14-year useful service life on most trailers manufactured shortly
before this date would be reached around the year 2007. The useful
service life of most tank trailers would be reached around the year
2013. Therefore, the 10-year period will help to ensure that motor
carriers operating trailers equipped with non-conforming conspicuity
treatments will not be penalized by the retrofitting rulemaking.
However, if these carriers choose to continue operating these trailers
at the end of the 10-year period, the vehicles would have to be
retrofitted with a conspicuity treatment that conforms to the NHTSA
standard. For carriers operating tank trailers equipped with non-
conforming conspicuity treatments, the old treatments would have to be
replaced with a conforming conspicuity treatment within 10 years of the
effective date of the final rule.
As discussed in the preceding section of this notice, the NHTSA's
research suggests that there are potential safety benefits from the use
of other color combinations. While the FHWA fully supports the NHTSA's
decision to require the red and white pattern on newly manufactured
trailers, attempting to immediately extend that requirement to trailers
that are already equipped with a different conspicuity scheme would not
result in a cost effective improvement in safety. The FHWA is not aware
of data that would enable the agency to conclude that the level of
effectiveness of the alternative color schemes on older trailers is
unacceptable for use during the proposed 10-year transition period.
The FHWA does not intend to propose, at this time, conspicuity
treatments on single-unit trucks. This rulemaking is not intended to
serve as a forum for resolving complaints about the NHTSA's conspicuity
rulemaking. The NHTSA provided all interested parties with the
opportunity to comment on the amendments to FMVSS No. 108 during its
rulemaking on trailer conspicuity.
The Advocates have not provided data to prove that a retrofitting
requirement for single-unit trucks would be a cost-effective solution
to the problem of passenger vehicles colliding with single-unit trucks.
The NHTSA's accident data (Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
and General Estimates System (GES)) indicate that combination vehicles
are over represented in collisions involving passenger vehicles
striking the sides or rear of commercial motor vehicles. This means
that the number of accidents in which a passenger vehicle strikes a
combination vehicle (a single-unit truck pulling a trailer(s), or a
truck-tractor pulling a trailer(s)) exceeds the amount that one would
expect if one looked at the percentage of the registered commercial
vehicle fleet that is listed in the combination-vehicle category.
In 1995 there were an estimated 16,674 nighttime accidents in which
one commercial motor vehicle and one passenger vehicle were involved.
All of these accidents resulted in a fatality, injury, or one of the
vehicles incurring damage severe enough to require that the vehicle be
towed from the accident scene. In 4,734 of these accidents, a passenger
vehicle rear-ended a trailer (2,313 cases) or struck the side of the
trailer (2,421 cases). By comparison, in 2,027 of the 16,674 nighttime
accidents a passenger vehicle rear-ended a single-unit truck or truck-
tractor (1,112 cases) or struck the side of the single-unit vehicle
(915 cases).
Looking at the 1995 FARS data, there were 914 fatal nighttime
accidents involving one commercial motor vehicle and one passenger
vehicle. In 315 of these accidents, a passenger vehicle rear-ended a
trailer (200 cases) or struck the side of the trailer (115 cases). By
comparison, in 67 of these nighttime accidents a passenger vehicle
rear-ended a single-unit truck or truck tractor (50 cases), or struck
the side of the single-unit vehicle (17 cases).
The 1995 nighttime accident statistics indicate that the frequency
with which passenger vehicles strike the rear of trailers is double the
frequency with which passenger vehicles strike the rear of single-unit
vehicles. The frequency with which passenger vehicles strike the side
of a combination vehicle is approximately 2.6 times the frequency with
which passenger vehicles strike the side of a single-unit vehicle. The
FARS data for 1995 show that frequency of fatal nighttime accidents
involving a passenger vehicle striking the side of a combination
vehicle is almost seven times the rate at which passenger vehicles
strike the side of a single-unit commercial motor vehicle. The
frequency of fatal nighttime accidents involving a passenger vehicle
rear-ending a combination vehicle is four times the rate at which
passenger vehicles strike the rear of a single-unit commercial motor
vehicle.
The difference between the nighttime accident involvement for
combination vehicles and single-unit vehicles is especially important
because the number of registered single-unit trucks (4,219,920) is 2.63
times the number of combination trucks (1,607,183).1
Therefore, combination vehicles represent approximately 27 percent of
the fleet, but 70 percent (4,734 out of 6,761 cases) of nighttime
accidents in which a passenger car struck the side or rear of a
commercial motor vehicle. Looking at the fatal nighttime accidents,
combination vehicles were involved in 82 percent (315 out of 382 cases)
of the incidents in which a passenger vehicle struck the side or rear
of a commercial motor vehicle. Based upon this data, the FHWA has
decided to limit this rulemaking to semi-trailers and trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Summary of Medium and Heavy Truck Crashes in 1990, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 1993 (DOT HS 807
953).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33619]]
The FHWA agrees with the Advocates' recommendation that the
retrofitting requirements apply to Canada- and Mexico-based vehicles.
The agency's proposal applies to trailers operated by foreign-based
motor carriers. This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this
notice.
With regard to commenters who believe that specific accidents would
not have occurred, or the severity of the accidents would have been
decreased, if the trailers involved had been equipped with conspicuity
treatments, the FHWA notes that the commenters offered more conclusions
than evidence. While it is possible to estimate, based upon an analysis
of accident data and a structured research program, the percentage of
certain types of accidents that could be prevented if conspicuity
requirements are established for all trailers, it is generally
difficult to identify a specific accident and state with certainty that
the use of retroreflective tape would have prevented the accident.
Motor Carrier Experiences Applying and Maintaining Conspicuity
Treatments
The FHWA received comments from motor carriers, industry groups,
and manufacturers of retroreflective sheeting in response to the
question concerning motor carrier experiences retrofitting their
trailers with conspicuity materials. Both supporters and opponents of
the retrofitting rulemaking provided detailed information.
Contract Freighters, Inc. (Contract Freighters) indicated that when
attempting to retrofit its trailers in 1986 and 1987, several hours of
labor were required to prepare the surface of the trailers for proper
adhesion of the conspicuity treatment. Contract Freighters also
indicated that most trailers have a line of rivets that sometimes
hamper the application of reflective tape. The company stated:
The other problems with large fleets is the ability to move all
the equipment to one location where the treatment can be applied in
a cost effective manner. During 1986 and 1987 we were unable to get
all 1,500 trailers retrofitted simply due to the logistics problems
of getting them to our shop.
The application is very time consuming and while a trailer may
pass through our facility for inspecting and routine maintenance,
there were consistently occasions that time simply did not permit
putting the trailer out of service for conspicuity treatment.
The Interstate Truckload Carriers Conference (ITCC) indicated that
the primary difficulty that its members experienced in retrofitting
trailers was the preparation of the surface. The ITCC stated:
Some carriers report an inordinate amount of time consumed with
surface preparation so that adhesive-backed conspicuity treatments
will properly adhere to the trailer surface. Some older trailers
have gouges, scratches, and surface metal deterioration that result
in poor application. Other older trailers have poor paint finishes
that similarly prevent proper adhesion. On these older trailers,
carriers report the need to sand, prepare, and repaint trailers
before adhesive-backed conspicuity treatments can be applied.
Ironically, some newer trailers manufactured before December 1,
1993, are treated with a paint finish, designed to reject moisture
and dirt, that makes it difficult for adhesive tape to adhere to the
trailer surface.
On the subject of maintaining the conspicuity treatments that had
been retrofitted on the older trailers, the ITCC stated:
Maintenance of adhesive tape poses a problem for carriers. Many
carriers simply do not apply adhesive tape--or any other reflective
markers--on the trailer underride bar because of the abuse that area
of the trailer experiences, at loading docks and when used as a step
for trailer entry, and because of the almost immediate corresponding
reduction in retroreflective benefit. Carriers operating flatbed
trailers report a harsh environment for retroreflective applications
generally, as a result of chains and bindings that are often used
with such equipment and which scrape against reflective treatments.
On some applications, dirt was found to be obscuring the edge of the
reflective material, so the material is now being edge-coated to
prevent this problem.
The NAWGA/IFDA indicated that its members generally have not
experienced problems applying reflective materials to their trailers.
However, members of NAWG/IFDA did encounter adhesion problems on some
of the older trailers because of rust and the condition of the trailer
surfaces. The NAWGA/IFDA stated:
For those members that have experienced problems, the biggest is
not so much a ``technical'' problem as a matter of preparing the
surface of the trailer before installation of the material. Cleaning
the surface before application of the material can be a labor-
intensive and costly process. In addition, certain types of
conspicuity materials cannot be properly installed over or around
rivets and welds.
Grote Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of lighting devices,
mirrors, wiring systems, emergency warning equipment, and switches
stated:
As a manufacturer of painted, plated, and decorated parts, many
of which require adhesive labels, the importance of good surface
preparation is well [known] to us. There is a wide range of surfaces
found on both new and in-service trailers (e.g., steel, aluminum,
wood, fiberboard, various types and grades of paint, etc.) and they
will or have been exposed to a wide range of contaminants and
environmental effects (e.g., salt, water, oil, gas, dirt, dust, wind
abrasion, diesel fuel, etc.). The net effect is a huge variety of
possible barriers to good adherence of conspicuity tape. It is clear
that many if [not] all in-service trailers will have surfaces that
are chipped, oxidized, rusted, dirty, oily, dented, scratched, and
contaminated in numerous ways and combinations of ways. The only way
to provide even a chance for adherence of conspicuity tape would be
to restore the trailer's finish to its original condition; a process
that will be both costly and time consuming.
XTRA also expressed concerns about getting conspicuity materials to
adhere to the surface of older trailers. XTRA stated:
Any retrofitting requires the application of materials to
trailers in varying conditions and produces less than optimal
results. Trailer surfaces must be cleaned to achieve satisfactory
adhesion. Conspicuity treatments cannot be applied satisfactorily in
cold and adverse weather conditions. Because of the lack of indoor
facilities, this limits the time of year in which conspicuity
treatments could be applied in many areas of the country.
Retrofitting of trailers may have to be repeated to maintain the
conspicuity to the standard because of durability problems in
applying materials to existing trailers.
The SOIC indicated that it is not aware of any intermodal chassis
fleets which utilize conspicuity treatments other than required lights
and reflectors. The SOIC stated:
Many, if not most, intermodal chassis in service today have been
coated with wax-based coatings. Tape materials will not adhere to
these coatings and it would be necessary to apply the
retroreflective tape to metal plates which must then be riveted or
welded to the chassis structure.
In addition, because intermodal chassis have very narrow
profiles at the front and rear, it will be necessary for most
chassis fleet operators to purchase new identification markings and
reapply them in new locations in order to comply with the rules
being contemplated hereunder. A third technical problem, not
encountered in the manufacture of new equipment, is that adhesive
films cannot generally be applied under very low temperature or high
humidity conditions, thus affecting the ease of application of many
field locations.
Schneider explained that in the case of polyurethane paints and
other high gloss enamel surfaces, all road grime must be removed from
the surface prior to applying the conspicuity treatment. Schneider
indicated that normally an ordinary solvent is sufficient to properly
clean the surface. It was emphasized that surface temperature is
critical. The surface of the trailer must be greater than 4.4 deg.C
(40 deg.F) for proper adhesion of the conspicuity treatment.
Schneider also indicated that it had experienced difficulty
applying retroreflective sheeting to rear underride devices. Schneider
stated:
[[Page 33620]]
The application of reflective sheeting to the rear underride
protection of semi-trailers is best done when the underride
protection is brand new. When applying to an old surface that has
the normal wear and tear type abrasions and nicks in the painted
surface that has resulted in a certain amount of surface rust, the
surface must be buffed clean, painted, allowed to dry and then have
the reflective sheeting applied in a retrofit operation. This is one
of the more costly aspects of applying reflective sheeting to the
rear of the trailer during retrofit and it is also an area of high
maintenance because of the abrasion and scuffing of the reflective
sheeting caused by locking devices which attach to the bumper at the
dock areas during loading and unloading of the semi-trailer.
By contrast, the OOIDA indicated that none of its members had
submitted complaints concerning technical problems applying conspicuity
treatments to trailers.
The 3M Corporation stated that ``Proper surface preparation
protocols, tests for surface evaluation and application techniques have
been developed which, when followed and used with properly manufactured
adhesive systems, ensure optimal conditions for the formation of
adhesive bonds.'' The 3M Corporation also stated:
There are some surface coatings, such as ``non-hardening''
paint, which are formulated to have very low surface energy. An
alternate (non-adhesive) system is required to affix conspicuity
treatments to these substrates.
The FHWA recognizes the difficulties that motor carriers have had
retrofitting conspicuity treatments to older trailers. The agency has
considered the technical problems associated with installing
conspicuity treatments as part of the process for preparing the
preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) to accompany this notice. The
agency has also considered the scheduling problems cited by the
commenters and used this information as one of the factors for deciding
to propose a two-year phase-in period for installing retroreflective
materials on trailers that are not equipped with any form of
conspicuity treatment, and a 10-year transition period to replace non-
conforming treatments with retroreflective material that conforms to
the NHTSA requirement.
The agency believes that, in most cases, retrofitting an older
trailer would not require major repairs of the trailer. Generally,
thorough cleaning and proper preparation of the surfaces on which the
retroreflective materials would be applied should be adequate to ensure
that the tape sticks to the trailer for the remainder of the trailer's
service life. The FHWA encourages commenters to this NPRM to provide
additional information, including color photographs, concerning surface
conditions of in-service trailers that require extensive repairs prior
to applying conspicuity materials.
In response to comments concerning the difficulty of retrofitting
conspicuity treatments to the rear underride guard, the FHWA is not
proposing that carriers be required to apply retroreflective material
at that location. The FHWA believes that requiring conspicuity
treatments on the rear underride guard would, in many cases, also
require the complete refurbishment of the underride device and
significantly increase the economic burden of a retrofitting rule.
Extensive work on the underride device would increase the amount of
time the trailer would be out of revenue service, and the labor,
supplies and materials needed to complete the retrofitting process.
While there are potential safety benefits to having conspicuity
treatments on the rear underride, the agency does not have enough
information to ensure that safety benefits that would be gained by
requiring the retrofitting of conspicuity treatments on the underride
guard exceed the costs for installing and maintaining the reflective
material in that location. The FHWA requests comments from all
interested parties on this issue.
Color Combinations Currently Used by Motor Carriers
The FHWA received numerous comments from industry groups, motor
carriers, and manufacturers of retroreflective sheeting in response to
the request for information about current conspicuity schemes. Both
supporters and opponents of the retrofitting rulemaking provided
detailed descriptions of the types of reflective tape/material in use
on trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993.
Gra-Gar, Inc. (Gra-Gar), which operates approximately 8,000
trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993, indicated that all of
its older trailers are marked with a ``light blue diamond grade
reflective tape'' which is compatible with the color scheme on its
trailers. Gra-Gar believes that this color scheme is adequate and
provides high visibility during nighttime hours.
Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil), with a domestic fleet of more than
200 trailers (primarily MC-306 specification cargo tanks), is concerned
that the FHWA's rulemaking does not acknowledge additional trailer
visibility enhancement associated with the use of retroreflective
corporate logos. Mobil stated:
Mobil's conspicuity enhancements to trailer sides include
application of two 2-inch-wide strips of white retroreflective tape:
one delineating the trailer overturn rail and one delineating the
trailer lower-side rails; two retroreflective corporate logos: one
27-inch diameter ``Pegasus'' medallion and one 23-inch high by 77-
inch ``Mobil'' trademark on each side of cargo tank equipment.
Mobil's conspicuity enhancements to the trailer rear include
application of one 19-inch high by 66-inch length retroreflective
``Mobil'' trademark and an eight-inch high by 108-inch length
retroreflective bumper strip. Retroreflective DOT placards have also
been applied to both sides and the front and rear heads of cargo
tank equipment.
The 3M Corporation stated:
In addition to the NHTSA standard Red & White sheeting, we have
supplied prismatic material for conspicuity in Blue & White, Red,
Orange, White and other colors. These colors were chosen for their
compatibility with existing graphics or corporate identity systems,
as well as for their conspicuity.
The 3M Corporation indicated that its own vehicles have been marked
with conspicuity materials since 1979. Red and white markings are used
on the rear of the trailer and white markings are used on the sides.
The American Movers Conference stated:
The use of reflective treatment for trailers is not new in the
moving industry. Movers have been installing reflective markings on
trailers for a number of years. As an example, North American Van
Lines began installing reflective logos and ``barricades'' on the
rear doors of their trailers in 1969, and since 1988 have been using
``jumbo'' reflective logos and sheeting on the sides of trailers. In
addition, some of their more recently acquired trailers are also
equipped with [1\1/2\ inch] reflective silver striping along the
side rails. Mayflower, Allied and United have likewise been using
reflective enhancements to highlight their corporate logos on the
sides and rear of trailers.
Schneider National (Schneider) indicated that it has approximately
21,000 trailers that have reflective sheeting applied in a pattern
established by the company to meet its internal requirements
established in 1987. Schneider uses orange reflective sheeting (2-inch
by 12-inch segments) in an alternating pattern to outline the perimeter
of the rear of its van-type trailers. Both of the vertical supports of
the rear underride device as well as the horizontal member have white
reflective sheeting applied (one 12-inch segment for the vertical
components, and one 36-inch segment for the horizontal component). The
sides of the trailers are outlined in a pattern of 36-inch long, 2-inch
wide orange reflective sheeting.
The ATA indicated that a number of motor carrier fleets are already
using reflective materials that meet or exceed the NHTSA requirements
for reflectance and that the prevailing
[[Page 33621]]
opinion among these fleets is that the color red should be used only on
the rear of all trailers. The ATA stated:
Current fleet applications of reflective materials follow the
NHTSA rule in the scheme of application, with a few basic
deviations. Most fleets use a broken line on the side of trailers.
The rears of the trailers have, for the most part, a broken outline
and/or a barricade pattern. The deviations from the NHTSA rule are
the use of other colors than red, e.g., blue, orange or green and
leaving tape off underride devices and the top of headerboards.
In response to the comments, the FHWA is proposing to allow, during
a 10-year transition period, motor carriers to use color combinations
other than red and white to satisfy the proposed retrofitting
requirements. At the end of this transition period, however, motor
carriers would be required to use conspicuity treatments that conform
to the NHTSA requirements for trailers manufactured on or after
December 1, 1993. As indicated earlier in this notice, the FHWA
believes that there are safety benefits associated with the use of
other color combinations. There is insufficient data to require motor
carriers to immediately remove conspicuity treatments that have been
applied to trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993. The
effectiveness of these alternate approaches, in terms of getting the
attention of motorists, may be close enough to the NHTSA standard that
a requirement to replace existing treatments prior to the end of the
useful service life of the trailers would not be cost effective.
Therefore, the agency is proposing to allow, during a 10-year
transition period, alternate colors or color combinations, with the
stipulation that red retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors
cannot be used along the sides of the trailer unless it is part of a
red and white pattern.
With regard to commenters requesting that the FHWA consider
allowing the use of reflective logos as a substitute for the more
conventional forms of conspicuity treatments, the FHWA is not aware of
any research data or other information that would support such a
decision. Therefore, the FHWA is not proposing to allow the use of
logos in lieu of retroreflective material in the locations specified in
FMVSS No. 108. However, logos may be used in addition to the
retroreflective material.
Costs To Install Conspicuity Treatments
The FHWA received numerous comments from private citizens, motor
carriers, industry groups and manufacturers concerning the costs of
installing conspicuity treatments.
Generally, the private citizens estimated that retrofitting a
trailer costs less than $200. Most of the commenters stated that
Landstar System retrofitted its trailers at a cost of $125 to $135 per
trailer for a total cost of approximately $1 million. However, none of
the commenters provided documentation of these estimates, and Landstar
System did not submit comments.
As far as comments from the industry, Ryder Commercial Leasing &
Services (Ryder) indicated that when a trailer is ``almost new'' it
typically costs $250 (material, labor and adequate attention/skill in
cleaning) for a 48-foot trailer, if the NHTSA requirement for
reflective material on the rear underride is excluded.
Contract Freighters, Inc. stated that ``A recent quote from a
current vendor to supply reflective material came to approximately
$50.00 per trailer. This estimate included material for the sides and
rear of the trailer.'' The labor involved would include approximately
``one-hour per trailer at an average labor rate of $30.00 per hour.''
Bestway Systems, Inc. estimates that the cost of conspicuity
markings would be approximately $90 per trailer for the tape plus a
minimum of 2 hours labor at $35 per hour for a total of $160.
The Interstate Truckload Carriers Conference (ITCC) commented that
its members reported costs ranging from $65 for 1,248 square inches of
reflective material to $150 for 2,424 square inches of material. The
ITCC also stated:
There is a variance of up to 30 percent in the cost of materials
for those carriers using a similar number of square-inch treatments.
Thus, one carrier with 2,500 square inches of conspicuity treatments
reports a cost of $100.00 per trailer for materials, which generally
consist of the retroreflective treatment, tape, screws, and other
required materials. Other carriers experience a much greater
materials cost, such as $580.00 for 3,456 square inches of
treatment.
Labor costs vary as well, and reflect the amount of time needed
to adequately prepare the trailer surface for adhesive application,
to trim the material, and the like. Some carriers have not directly
figured the labor cost of applying conspicuity treatments, as it is
performed within the general duties of shop personnel. Other
carriers report labor costs per trailer of as much as $300.00, again
depending upon the amount of treatments per trailer. Only a few
carriers reported seeking bids from outside vendors for conspicuity
application, and reported quotes of about $185.00 per trailer for
labor costs only.
The ATA believes that the labor costs for retrofitting tape cannot
be accurately determined due to extreme variations in serviceable
trailer conditions. However, the ATA estimates that the total cost per
trailer could reach $1,400. The ATA derived its estimate as follows:
ATA Estimate for Retrofitting a Trailer With Conspicuity Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATERIALS:
Tape.................................... $75-100
Chemicals................................ 25-150
Repair parts (rubrails).................. 200
LABOR:
Cleaning/grease.......................... 175-200
Cleaning/oxide........................... 300
Vehicle repairs (replace rubrails)....... 500
----------------------------
Total Cost............................. 1,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Private Truck Council stated that some of its members
reported an approximate cost of $250 for parts and labor with a high-
end of $740 per trailer.
The Steamship Operators Intermodal Committee (SOIC) stated:
The costs to apply conspicuity treatment to existing intermodal
chassis vary widely, depending on the fleet operator's labor
arrangements and the location at which the work is accomplished.
Material expenses range from a low of $40.00 per chassis to a high
of $75.00. Labor costs range from $25.00 per hour at some non-union
locations to $48.00 at some unionized facilities. Two to four man-
hours would be required to apply the material.
Thus, the direct costs for applying retroreflective materials to
a container chassis can vary from a low of $90.00 to a high of
$267.00. It is SOIC's view that the mean is probably in the $210.00
range. This does not include transportation to and from repair shops
nor out-of-service time.
The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association estimates that the cost
for a conspicuity retrofit would be approximately $470 per chassis.
This includes the cost of a new ``stepguard,'' labor, plates and tape.
The estimate does not include the cost of down time for the chassis or
for drayage to and from the retrofit site.
The AMC indicated that its members reported costs from $250 to $500
for reflective tape with labor costs between $150 on a relatively new
trailer and $300 for a trailer that required surface preparation.
The PMAA surveyed its members and determined that the cost of
installing reflective material is estimated to be approximately $500
per vehicle. The association believes that when vehicle down time and
administrative expenses are considered, the total cost per trailer
would rise to more than $1,000.
Schneider National indicated that the cost of retrofitting an
individual trailer is approximately $180 for materials and labor.
Schneider National also indicated that there is a cost associated with
[[Page 33622]]
pulling a trailer out of the fleet for the retrofitting process. The
cost for pulling the trailer out of revenue service is $75 per day. The
company believes a trailer can be retrofitted with only one day of lost
productivity.
Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. (Yellow) estimates the cost of
retrofitting the trailers in its fleet to be between $168.11 and
$183.94 depending on the type of trailer.
In addition to motor carriers and leasing companies, the FHWA
received one comment from a trailer manufacturer, Reliance Trailer
Manufacturing (Reliance). Reliance reported that its costs to install
conspicuity treatments on new trailers is between $125 and $175.
Reliance also stated:
On a used trailer, the cost to install the reflective tape would
be significantly higher. This additional cost is due to the
preparation required [for the] contact surface of the trailer prior
to application of retroreflective sheeting. The additional time
required to sand, prime, and paint throughout the installation
process could range from $200-$1,000 per trailer. (In addition to
the regular conspicuity cost.)
The FHWA estimates that the total costs of retrofitting a 45-53
foot van-type trailer would be approximately $316. This estimate
includes the cost for the retroreflective tape ($97), labor ($75), and
the loss in revenues while the trailer is being retrofitted ($144).
Details about how the agency developed its estimates for the costs of
retrofitting are presented later in this notice as well as in the
FHWA's preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE). The FHWA notes that it
is reasonable to expect that some motor carriers may be able to
retrofit their trailers for less than the FHWA's estimates while others
may end up spending more. However, the FHWA believes it is very
unlikely that motor carriers would have to spend $1,400, as the ATA
estimates.
Based upon the information presented by the commenters, the FHWA
does not believe that the amount of cleaning and repairs required to
comply with the proposed requirements would reach the levels estimated
by the ATA (i.e., approximately $700 for rubrail repair/replacement,
and approximately $400 for cleaning grease and oxidation off the
surfaces of the trailer). The ATA's estimate, when compared to the
estimates of other commenters, appears to be a worst case scenario for
a vehicle that has not been cleaned on a regular basis, or the physical
appearance of which has not been maintained. The agency believes this
worst case scenario would only be applicable to a small fraction of the
flatbed and heavy hauler trailers that would be subject to this
rulemaking. The FHWA believes that most motor carriers have adequately
maintained their vehicles and that $1,100 in repairs would not be
necessary to comply with the proposed requirements.
The FHWA requests additional comments from motor carriers that
believe their costs for retrofitting a trailer would greatly exceed the
agency's estimates. Commenters are encouraged to provide detailed
information on how their estimates were prepared, especially if the
estimates are based upon first-hand experience retrofitting vehicles in
their fleet.
Summary of the FHWA's Rationale for Issuing the NPRM
The FHWA recognizes the technical and economic concerns of
commenters opposed to a retrofitting requirement. However, based upon
the information currently available, the agency believes that
retrofitting of trailers with conspicuity treatments will provide
significant safety benefits. Retrofitting appears to be cost-effective
and technically feasible.
The FHWA has completed a preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE)
for this rulemaking. A copy of the PRE is included in the docket. Three
key issues were considered in determining whether to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking.
The first issue is the cost of installing retroreflective material
on older vehicles. The surfaces of many of the older trailers will
require preparation (e.g., removal of oxidation, pre-treating, etc.) to
ensure that the retroreflective tape adheres. In many cases the trailer
will have to be removed from revenue service to complete the retrofit.
Therefore, the FHWA is proposing a two-year phase-in period to allow
motor carriers to complete the retrofitting at routine maintenance
intervals. The FHWA estimates that the total cost (conspicuity
material, labor, and the loss in revenues) for retrofitting a 45-53
foot trailer would be approximately $316, with the cost for shorter
trailers being less.
The second issue is the voluntary use of retroreflective material
on older trailers by certain fleets. A large number of fleets have been
using conspicuity treatments on their trailers since the mid-1980's.
However, many of the color schemes as well as the levels of
reflectivity of the tape used on the older trailers differ from the
NHTSA requirements for trailers manufactured on or after December 1,
1993. If these motor carriers are required to replace the
retroreflective materials that they voluntarily installed to improve
safety, it would have the effect of penalizing motor carriers that
demonstrated an extra level of safety consciousness. This would have
the unintended effect of discouraging motor carriers from exploring
innovative approaches to improving safety. With this in mind, the FHWA
is proposing to allow these motor carriers 10 years to remove
alternative conspicuity treatments applied to trailers manufactured
before December 1, 1993.
The third issue concerns the projected safety benefits of trailer
conspicuity material that meets the NHTSA requirement. The NHTSA
estimates that retroreflective tape could lead to a 25 percent
reduction in rear end collisions and a 15 percent reduction in side
impact collisions. From data available at the time of the NHTSA's final
rule implementing conspicuity enhancements, tractor-trailer
combinations were involved annually in about 11,000 accidents in which
they were struck in the side or rear at night. Within this group of
accidents, about 8,700 injuries and about 540 fatalities occurred. The
NHTSA indicated that the conspicuity requirements, when fully
implemented, are expected to prevent, annually, 2,113 of these
accidents. The NHTSA estimated 1,315 fewer injuries and about 80 fewer
fatalities would occur.
In 1995 there were an estimated 16,674 nighttime accidents in which
one commercial motor vehicle and one passenger vehicle were involved.
All of these accidents resulted in a fatality, injury, or one of the
vehicles incurring damage severe enough to require that the vehicle be
towed from the accident scene. In 4,734 of these accidents, a passenger
vehicle rear-ended or struck the side of a combination vehicle--a truck
or truck-tractor, towing one or more trailers. It is estimated that
more than 4,200 injuries occurred in these nighttime accidents.
Looking specifically at fatal accidents, the NHTSA's Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data for 1995 indicate there were
2,587 fatal accidents involving one commercial motor vehicle and one
passenger vehicle. In 1,819 of these fatal accidents, the commercial
motor vehicle was a combination vehicle. Of the 1,819 fatal accidents
between a passenger vehicle and a combination vehicle, 200 cases were
nighttime accidents in which the passenger vehicle rear-ended the
trailer. The result was 224 fatalities (compared to 54 fatalities for
50 nighttime accidents in which a passenger vehicle rear-ended a
single-unit commercial motor vehicle). Nighttime accidents in
[[Page 33623]]
which the passenger vehicle struck the side of a trailer at an angle
accounted for 115 incidents resulting in a total of 136 fatalities.
FHWA Estimates of the Costs and Benefits
The FHWA has completed a preliminary regulatory evaluation
comparing the projected safety benefits of a retrofitting requirement
to the potential economic impact on the motor carrier industry. The
following discussion summarizes the FHWA's analysis. A copy of the
complete PRE is available for review in the docket.
Based upon an analysis and comparison of the estimated costs and
benefits of two-, three-, and five-year phase-in period options for a
retrofitting requirement, the FHWA is proposing a two-year phase-in
period for trailers that are not currently equipped with
retroreflective sheeting. The FHWA estimates that the total costs for
motor carriers to comply with the proposed requirements within a two-
year period would be $339 million, with the safety benefits (fatalities
and injuries prevented) and economic benefits (property damage
prevented) totaling $741 million. The FHWA estimates that this
rulemaking would apply to approximately 1.4 million trailers if a 2-
year phase-in period were allowed (fewer trailers would be subject to
the rulemaking if the 3-or 5-year phase-in periods were chosen). It is
estimated that the rulemaking would, over a ten year period, prevent
258 fatalities and 4,224 injuries associated with passenger cars
colliding with trailers. In addition, this rule would prevent
approximately 5,300 property damage only (PDO) accidents. The FHWA
believes the projected safety benefits (in terms of accidents prevented
and lives saved) outweigh the economic burden on the motor carrier
industry. The following section provides a detailed discussion of how
the FHWA prepared its estimates of the costs and benefits.
The costs are considered one-time costs in that the conspicuity
treatments will not need to be replaced during the remaining years of
the useful service lives of the trailers that would be subject to the
retrofitting requirement. The estimates for the benefits are the total
expected benefits over the remaining years of the useful service lives
of the trailers that would be retrofitted.
Generally, there are three types of costs associated with
retrofitting: the tape or reflex reflectors; the labor required to
apply it; and, the opportunity cost of withdrawing the trailer from
revenue-producing service. The following describes how the FHWA arrived
at its estimates for the different types of costs and benefits.
Costs for Retroreflective Sheeting
The NHTSA's preliminary regulatory evaluation used a tape cost of
$.675 per linear foot for 50 mm (2-inch) wide tape. Based upon comments
to the NHTSA rulemaking and further analysis, the NHTSA adjusted this
figure to $1.29 in its final regulatory evaluation.
The amount of tape required to retrofit a trailer varies with its
size. For example, a 28-foot trailer would need 47 feet of tape: 14
feet of material per side (because the rule would require that at least
50 percent of the length of the trailer must be covered); an 8-foot
strip along the bottom of the rear; 2 pairs of one foot strips for the
outline of the upper rear, and approximately seven feet of material for
the underride guard. (The FHWA notes that the estimated cost for
retrofitting a rear underride guard that does not require complete
refurbishment was included in the PRE although the FHWA is not
proposing that carriers be required to install conspicuity materials on
the underride guard.) By contrast a 48-foot trailer would require the
use of an additional 10 feet of material for each side of the trailer
or a total of 67 feet of tape.
The NHTSA estimated that the total cost for the tape would be
$60.84 for 28-foot trailers, $77.67 for 40-42 foot trailers, and $86.73
for 45-53 foot trailers. The FHWA adjusted these figures to account for
inflation between 1992, when the NHTSA's final regulatory evaluation
was completed, and 1995. This adjustment, based upon the producer price
index for industrial commodities (See Table b63 from the Economic
Report of the President, 1996, ISBN 0-16-048501-0), increased the costs
to $65.04 for 28-foot trailers, $83.03 for 40-42 foot trailers, and
$92.71 for 45-53 foot trailers.
The FHWA made an additional adjustment to take into consideration
the comments to the ANPRM. The additional adjustment increased the cost
by approximately $4.50 per trailer. The total estimated tape cost is
$69.54 for 28-foot trailers, $87.53 for 40-42 foot trailers, and $97.21
for 45-53 foot trailers.
Cost for Labor To Apply the Retroreflective Sheeting to the Trailers
The FHWA used an average wage of $25 per hour, including fringe
benefits, for calculating labor costs. The NHTSA estimated that it
takes 30 minutes to install tape on a trailer. While this is a
reasonable estimate for factory installed tape, the FHWA recognizes
that it would take longer to retrofit a trailer. This assumption is
supported by the docket comments. Trailers will generally have to be
prepared and cleaned for the conspicuity treatment. Trailers which have
holes and other damage may require more extensive repairs.
The comments to the docket, as well as observations by FHWA staff
during a 1994 site visit to a Roadway terminal (documentation of the
visit is included in the docket file), indicate that the amount of time
required to retrofit a trailer will vary significantly with trailer
type and condition. For example, trailers with outer posts may require
more extensive work than trailers with smooth exterior surfaces.
Taking into account these considerations, the FHWA estimates that
the retrofitting process for the average 28-foot trailer would take 2
hours to complete. The agency estimates that the time required to
retrofit 40-42 foot and 45-53 foot trailers would be 2.5 and 3 hours,
respectively. The FHWA's preliminary estimates of labor costs are $50,
$62.50, and $75 for the 28-, 40-42, and 45-53 foot trailers,
respectively.
Opportunity Costs
Estimating the value of revenue that cannot be generated while the
trailer is being retrofitted is difficult because of the variety of
trailer types, the variety of motor carrier operations and the rates
that are charged, and the overall manner in which some trailers are
used--being left idle at the motor carrier's terminals for periods of
time that may be as short as a few hours to several days.
The FHWA believes that it is more likely than not that a large
percentage of trailers would have to undergo routine repair and/or
maintenance at some point during the two-year phase-in period.
Retrofitting trailers at the same time that repairs or maintenance are
performed would result in negligible opportunity cost since the
trailers would not be generating revenue in any case. Even the trailers
that do not require routine repairs may be idle at some point during
the phase-in period and could be retrofitted at minimal opportunity
cost. However, the less time motor carriers have to comply with the
retrofitting requirement, the less likely it is that they could take
advantage of the routine repair or maintenance cycles or periods when
the vehicle would be idle. This means that the opportunity cost
increases as the phase-in period decreases.
The FHWA does not have the detailed information required to develop
a comprehensive model of opportunity costs. Therefore, the agency
constructed a simple model which relates the costs
[[Page 33624]]
to the logarithm of the phase-in period. With a five-year period, the
estimated opportunity cost per trailer would be $62, while the cost for
a three-year phase-in period would be $91. The opportunity costs for
two-year phase-in period would be $144.
Number of Trailers
The FHWA estimates that there are 2.1 million trailers and semi-
trailers in operation as of January 1994. This estimate is based
largely upon the U.S. Bureau of the Census trailer production data.
The NHTSA in its final regulatory evaluation estimated that the
average trailer has a usable service life of approximately 14 years.
Commenters to both the NHTSA's NPRM and the FHWA's ANPRM generally
agreed with this estimate. Tank trailers are both more expensive and
more durable than other types of trailers and are believed to have a
useful life of approximately 20 years.
The FHWA used data from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
(TTMA) and the U.S. Bureau of the Census concerning the number of
trailers sold in the United States. This data was compiled by trailer
type and year for the previous 25 years. The TTMA data was available
through 1993. The NHTSA estimated that 170,000 new trailers would be
sold annually. The FHWA used the NHTSA estimate for 1994 and 1995.
Given the trailer sales data and the average trailer useful service
life estimates, the FHWA determined that the number of trailers in use
at the end of 1995 was approximately 2.12 million. However, not all of
these trailers would be affected by this regulation since some of the
vehicles would reach the end of their service life before the end of
the two-year phase-in period for compliance with the final rule. In
addition, some of these trailers already have conspicuity markings
(although the markings may not be in conformance with the NHTSA
specifications) which would enable motor carriers to continue operating
these vehicles during the proposed 10-year transition period for
replacing non-conforming conspicuity treatments. The 10-year transition
period coincides with the end of the useful service life of most of the
older trailers currently in use, with the exception of tank trailers.
The FHWA believes that the number of trailers that will have to be
retrofitted under the two-year option would be 1,373,000. The number of
trailers that would be retrofitted if the three-year option was chosen
would be 1,202,000 while the number that would be covered under the
five-year option would be 834,000.
With regard to the number of trailers that would have to have non-
conforming conspicuity treatments replaced at the end of the 10-year
transition period, the FHWA estimates most of these vehicles will be
tank trailers since the useful service life of this type of trailer is
approximately 20 years. Tank/dry bulk trailers are approximately 2
percent of the fleet population and tank/liquids or gas trailers
represent 7.4 percent of the population of trailers (1992 Truck
Inventory and Use Survey, U.S. Census Bureau). Applying these estimates
to the 1995 data, there are approximately 199,280 tank trailers (all
types). It is believed that only a fraction of these trailers have been
voluntarily retrofitted with non-conforming conspicuity treatments. If
20 percent of these trailers would be covered by a requirement to
replace non-conforming treatments, the agency estimates less than
40,000 tank trailers would have to have non-conforming conspicuity
treatments replaced before they reach the end of their useful service
life.
Total Costs for Retrofitting Trailers
Based upon the information currently available concerning the costs
for retroreflective sheeting, labor, and opportunity costs, and the
estimates of the number of trailers for which motor carriers would be
required to take some type of actions to comply with the proposed
requirements, the FHWA believes the total costs for retrofitting under
the 2-year option would be $339 million. The costs for the 3-year
option would be $238 million while the costs for the 5-year option
would be $138 million. It should be noted that opportunity cost makes
up 45 percent of the total cost for the 2-year option, and decreases to
only 27 percent of the costs for the 5-year phase in period. These
estimates are for a 10-year period discounted at a 7-percent rate.
Benefits of a Retrofitting Requirement
The estimated benefits of this rulemaking are a reduction in the
number of fatalities, injuries, and property damage only (PDO)
accidents caused by nighttime accidents in which a passenger car
collides with the rear or side of a trailer. The FHWA estimates that
over a 10-year period, a total of 258 fatalities and 4,224 injuries
would be prevented because of this rule. The following table shows the
number of accidents and injuries prevented. The net present value of
this level of accident reduction is $741 million.
The reduction in fatalities comprises the largest component of
benefits, at over 65 percent of the total. The second largest component
is maximum adjusted injury scale (MAIS) 3 accidents, which constitute
10.5 percent of the total benefits.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was developed by the
American Medical Association and the American Association for
Automotive Medicine to measure the threat to life of an accident.
The MAIS refers to the maximum (most severe) injury sustained in a
crash. The scale ranges from 0 for no injury to 6 for a fatality. A
more detailed discussion of MAIS, including examples of the types of
injuries that are included in each of the levels, is included in the
FHWA's preliminary regulatory evaluation (PRE) for this rulemaking.
A copy of the PRE is contained in FHWA Docket No. MC-94-1.
Distribution of Dollar Amounts of Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Severity Number total
benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDO........................................... 5,379 5.2
MAIS 1........................................ 3,282 3
MAIS 2........................................ 615 6.6
MAIS 3........................................ 265 10.5
MAIS 4........................................ 40 4.1
MAIS 5........................................ 22 4.6
Fatality...................................... 258 66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits are spread unevenly over the 10-year analysis period.
Benefits are expected to peak two years after the effective date of the
final rule, after which there is a slow decline. Two years after the
effective date of the final rule, all trailers covered by the
retrofitting requirement would have conspicuity treatments. As the
population of pre-1993 trailers decreases, the benefits of the
retrofitting rule would decline. This pattern holds for both discounted
and non-discounted dollars as well as for accidents. By the year 2000,
all trailers would be required to be equipped with conspicuity
treatments, and nighttime accidents would fall by 15 percent (for
retrofitted trailers still in use).
[[Page 33625]]
Summary of Costs and Benefits of Conspicuity Retrofit Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Options for retrofitting phase-in period 2 years 3 years 5 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number of trailers that would have to be retrofitted.. 1,373,000 1,202,000 834,000
Estimated benefits ($millions).................................. 741 634 425
Estimated costs ($millions)..................................... 339 238 138
Estimated Net Benefit ($millions)............................... 402 396 288
Benefit-to-cost ratio........................................... 2.2 2.7 3.1
Fatalities prevented (during a 10-year period).................. 258 226 160
Injuries prevented (during a 10-year period).................... 4,224 3,701 2,615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefit of this regulation results from an expected 15 percent
reduction in nighttime side and rear crashes into trailers, and an
expected 19 percent reduction in the severity of certain property
damage only accidents. These estimates come from the NHTSA, which
performed extensive fleet evaluations in the 1980's. According to the
NHTSA, these kinds of accidents result in an average of 536 fatalities
annually, and almost 8,800 injuries, most of which are minor. This
proposal would prevent between 258 fatalities over a 10-year period.
The monetary value of these benefits range from over $741 million
for the 2-year phase in to $425 for the 5 year phase in. Under all of
the phase-in options the ratio of the benefits to costs exceeds two,
with the ratio increasing as the phase-in period is extended. More
importantly, all three scenarios yield net benefits (benefits minus
costs) in excess of $280 million, with net benefits increasing as the
phase-in period is shortened.
Two issues which could affect these results are the number of
trailers already equipped with conspicuity marking, and the safety
impact of existing markings which are not in compliance with the NHTSA
specifications. The FHWA estimates, based on non-random observation and
anecdotal information, that approximately 20 percent of trailers
manufactured prior to December 1, 1993, have some form of conspicuity
treatment. Although the FHWA does not have data concerning the
effectiveness of the alternate conspicuity treatments that are
currently in use on trailers manufactured prior to December 1, 1993,
the agency believes, based upon the NHTSA's research, that many of the
alternate retroreflective sheeting treatments improve conspicuity and
provide potential safety benefits. Some form of conspicuity treatment
is better than no conspicuity treatment, with the most effective form
of conspicuity treatment being a system that conforms to the NHTSA
standard. The FHWA requests comments from motor carriers using
conspicuity treatments that differ from that required by the NHTSA.
Specifically, the FHWA requests information concerning a reduction in
the number of accidents in which passenger cars collide with the sides
of rear of trailers.
Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory Language
The FHWA proposes to amend the FMCSRs by adding a new Sec. 393.13,
Retroreflective sheeting and reflex reflectors, requirements for semi-
trailers and trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993. This
section would be added to subpart B of part 393, Lighting Devices,
Reflectors, and Electrical Equipment. Paragraph (a) would provide the
applicability for Sec. 393.13. The proposed requirements would not
apply to trailers that are manufactured exclusively for use as offices
or dwellings because these types of trailers are rarely transported at
night. In addition, the NHTSA conspicuity requirements do not apply to
this type of trailer. The FHWA is proposing to exclude pole trailers
(as defined in Sec. 390.5) from the conspicuity requirements because
these trailers generally do not have side and rear surfaces to which
conspicuity treatments could be applied in a cost-effective manner. The
agency notes that Sec. 393.11 does require lamps and reflectors on pole
trailers and requests comments on whether retrofitting of conspicuity
materials should be required on all pole trailers, including those that
are currently manufactured without any type of conspicuity treatment.
In addition, the FHWA is proposing to exclude trailers that are
being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation (as defined in
Sec. 390.5). This would not be a blanket exception for certain types of
trailers, but an exception that would cover certain movements of
trailers. Examples of the types of transportation that would be covered
include movements between a dealership or other entity selling or
leasing the trailer and a purchaser or lessee, to a maintenance/repair
facility for the repair of disabling damage (as defined in Sec. 390.5).
Paragraph (b) would encourage motor carriers to retrofit their
trailers with a conspicuity system that meets all of the requirements
applicable to trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, but
allow the use of alternate color or color combination of
retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors during a 10-year
transition period. At the end of the 10-year period, all trailers would
be required to have conspicuity treatments identical to the NHTSA
requirements. Although the FHWA is proposing to allow motor carriers a
certain amount of flexibility with regard to the colors of
retroreflective tape or reflex reflectors, the locations for the
conspicuity treatments would be required to conform to those specified
in the NHTSA regulations.
Paragraph (c) would cover the locations for retroreflective
sheeting, excluding the use of the reflective material on the rear
underride device. Paragraph (d) would specify the locations for the
arrays of reflex reflectors, excluding the use of reflectors on the
rear underride device. The FHWA recognizes the concerns that motor
carriers have about conspicuity treatments on the rear impact guards or
rear underride devices. Consequently, the agency has tentatively
determined that motor carriers should not be required to apply
conspicuity material to the rear underride device. However, the FHWA
specifically requests comments from motor carriers as to whether the
underride device should be excluded as a required location for
reflective material.
With regard to the effective date for the retrofitting
requirements, the FHWA is proposing that motor carriers be allowed 2
years from the effective date of the final rule, to retrofit trailers
operated in interstate commerce. Motor carriers would be allowed 10
years from the effective date of the final rule to replace non-
conforming conspicuity treatments with ones that meet the NHTSA
requirements for newly manufactured trailers.
[[Page 33626]]
Applicability to Canadian and Mexican Vehicles
The FHWA is not proposing an exemption for trailers operated in the
United States by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers. Although the
Federal governments of Canada and Mexico have not indicated whether
they intend to require retrofitting of the trailers operating in their
countries, the FHWA believes that it is appropriate to require
retrofitting of conspicuity treatments on foreign-based trailers
manufactured prior to the December 1, 1993, if those vehicles are
operated within the United States. This preliminary decision is
consistent with the applicability of the requirements of parts 393 and
396 of the FMCSRs and ensures that all commercial motor vehicles
operating in interstate or foreign commerce within the United States
are required to meet the same safety standards. The FHWA specifically
requests comments from Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket room at the above address. Comments
received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and
will be considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may adopt a
final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In
addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the
docket relevant information that becomes available after the comment
closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the
docket for new material.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. The FHWA has prepared a preliminary
evaluation of the economic impact the proposed regulatory changes would
have on the motor carrier industry. A copy of the preliminary
regulatory evaluation is included in the docket file.
The FHWA estimates that the total costs for motor carriers to
comply with the proposed requirements within a 2-year period would be
$339 million, with the safety and economic benefits totaling $741
million. The FHWA estimates that this rulemaking would apply to
approximately 1.4 million trailers. It is estimated that the rulemaking
would, over a ten year period, prevent 258 fatalities and 4,224
injuries associated with passenger cars colliding with trailers. In
addition, this rule would prevent approximately 5,300 property damage
only (PDO) accidents.
The costs are considered one-time costs in that the conspicuity
treatments will not need to be replaced during the remaining years of
the useful service lives of the trailers that would be subject to the
retrofitting requirement. The estimates for the benefits are the total
expected benefits over the remaining years of useful service lives of
the trailers that would be retrofitted. A copy of the FHWA's
preliminary regulatory evaluation has been placed in the docket.
Based upon the information received in response to this NPRM, the
FHWA will carefully consider the costs and benefits associated with
establishing a conspicuity retrofitting requirement. The FHWA requests
comments, information, and data concerning the economic impact of
establishing retrofitting requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The FHWA has evaluated the effects of the proposed regulatory
changes on small entities. A copy of the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is provided in the docket file. Generally, the costs per
trailer for retrofitting should be comparable, but not necessarily
identical, for both large motor carriers and small motor carriers. For
example, large carriers will be able to obtain discounts when ordering
conspicuity materials in bulk. The costs for the retroreflective tape
needed to comply with the proposed requirement is $69.54 for 28 foot
trailers, $87.53 for 40-42 foot trailers, and $97.21 for 45-53 foot
trailers. The FHWA's preliminary estimates of labor costs are $50,
$62.50, and $75 for the 28-, 40-42, and 45-53 foot trailers,
respectively. The FHWA believes the opportunity cost would be
approximately $144 per trailer. Therefore, the costs per trailer for
small entities would be $263 for 28-foot trailers, $293 for 40-42 foot
trailers, $316 for 45-53 foot trailers. The costs would only apply to
small entities that have trailers that were manufactured before
December 1, 1993, and have not already been retrofitted with a
conspicuity system that would satisfy the proposed requirements.
Furthermore, the costs would only be applicable if the small entities
intend to continue to operate these older trailers after the proposed
2-year phase-in period.
As of September 1996, the FHWA estimates that there were
approximately 382,128 interstate motor carriers. Of these carriers,
136,360 own, term-lease or trip-lease 6 or fewer trailers (68,405 have
1 trailer, 45,770 have 2-3 trailers, and 22,185 have 4-6 trailers). The
number of motor carriers that own, term-lease or trip-lease more than 6
trailers but fewer than 21 is 21,793 (6,658 carriers have 7-8 trailers,
6,197 have 9-11 trailers, 3,887 carriers have 12-14 trailers, 2,779
carriers have 15-17 trailers, and 2,272 carriers have 18-20 trailers).
If only those motor carriers that own, term-lease, or trip-lease 20 or
fewer trailers are considered small entities, this rulemaking could
have an economic impact on up to 158,153 small entities.
The economic impact on each of the motor carriers would vary
depending on the number of trailers that the carrier would be
responsible for retrofitting by the end of the 2-year phase-in period,
and the size of those trailers. If, for example, the carrier only
operates one 45-53 foot trailer, the total economic impact would be
$316. If the carrier operates 20 such trailers that have to be
retrofitted, the total economic impact would be $ 6,320.
The Small Business Administration (SBA), which oversees agencies'
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has published
guidelines to classify small business. The SBA has indicated that for
entities engaged in motor freight transportation and warehousing, small
businesses are those with $18.5 million or fewer dollars in annual
receipts. Therefore, if the motor carrier described in the preceding
example is a private motor carrier with its principal business being
something other than transportation, and operates 20, 45-53 foot
trailers and has annual receipts of $18.5 million, the total economic
impact would be less than one-tenth of one percent of the private motor
carrier's annual receipts ($6,320/$18.5 million). If this carrier
operated 100 trailers and had annual receipts of $18.5 million, the
economic impact would be approximately two-tenths of one percent of the
carrier's annual receipts ($31,600/$18.5 million).
Based on its preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis summarized
above, the FHWA believes that this proposed rule, if adopted, would
affect a substantial number of small entities, but would not have a
significant impact on these entities. Based upon the information
received in response to the NPRM, the FHWA, in compliance with
[[Page 33627]]
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), will
further consider the economic impacts of these potential changes on
small entities. The FHWA requests comments, information, and data on
these impacts.
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 this rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation.
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 do not apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking 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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates on State, local, or
tribal governments as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532-1538). However, this rule would likely result in a
Federal mandate requiring expenditure by the private sector of $100
million or more in any one year. Therefore, the FHWA has prepared a
separate written statement incorporating various assessments,
estimates, and descriptions that are delineated in the Act. A copy of
the FHWA's Regulatory Accountability and Reform Analyses is included in
the docket.
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 Part 393
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
Issued on: June 8, 1998.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:
PART 393--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914,
1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; 49 CFR 1.48.
2. Section 393.13 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 393.13. Retroreflective sheeting and reflex reflectors,
requirements for semi-trailers and trailers manufactured before
December 1, 1993.
(a) Applicability. All trailers and semi-trailers manufactured
prior to December 1, 1993, which have an overall width of 2,032 mm (80
inches) or more and a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,001
pounds) or more, except trailers that are manufactured exclusively for
use as offices or dwellings and pole trailers (as defined in
Sec. 390.5) and trailers transported in a driveaway-towaway operation,
must be equipped with retroreflective sheeting or an array of reflex
reflectors that meet the requirements of this section. Motor carriers
have until [two years from the effective date of the final rule] to
comply with the requirements of this section.
(b) Retroreflective sheeting and reflex reflectors. Motor carriers
are encouraged to retrofit their trailers with a conspicuity system
that meets all of the requirements applicable to trailers manufactured
on or after December 1, 1993, including the use of retroreflective
sheeting or reflex reflectors in a red and white pattern (see Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), S5.7,
Conspicuity systems). Motor carriers which do not retrofit their
trailers to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, for example by
using an alternative color pattern, must comply with the remainder of
this paragraph and with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
Retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors in colors or color
combinations other than red and white may be used on the sides or lower
rear area of the semi-trailer or trailer until [ten years from the
effective date of the final rule]. The alternate color or color
combination must be uniform along the sides and lower rear area of the
trailer. The retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors on the upper
rear area of the trailer must be white and conform to the requirements
of FMVSS No. 108 (S5.7). Red retroreflective sheeting or reflex
reflectors shall not be used along the sides of the trailer unless it
is used as part of a red and white pattern. Retroreflective sheeting
shall have a width of at least 50 mm (2 inches).
(c) Locations for retroreflective sheeting.--(1) Sides.
Retroreflective sheeting shall be applied to each side of the trailer
or semi-trailer. Each strip of retroreflective sheeting shall be
positioned as horizontally as practicable, beginning and ending as
close to the front and rear as practicable. The strip need not be
continuous but the sum of the length of all of the segments shall be at
least half of the length of the trailer and the spaces between the
segments of the strip shall be distributed as evenly as practicable.
The centerline for each array of reflex reflectors shall be between 375
mm (15 inches) and 1,525 mm (60 inches) above the road surface when
measured with the trailer empty or unladen, or as close as practicable
to this area. If necessary to clear rivet heads or other similar
obstructions, 50 mm (2 inches) wide retroreflective sheeting may be
separated into two 25 mm (1 inch) wide strips of the same length and
color, separated by a space of not more than 25 mm (1 inch).
(2) Lower rear area. The rear of each trailer and semi-trailer must
be equipped with retroreflective sheeting. Each strip of
retroreflective sheeting shall be positioned as horizontally as
practicable, extending across the full width of the trailer, beginning
and ending as close to the extreme edges as practicable. The centerline
for each of the strips of retroreflective sheeting shall be between 375
mm (15 inches) and 1,525 mm (60 inches) above the road surface when
measured with the trailer empty or unladen, or as close as practicable
to this area.
(3) Upper rear area. Two pairs of white strips of retroreflective
sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm (12 inches) long, must
be positioned horizontally and vertically on the right and left upper
corners of the rear of the body of each trailer and semi-trailer, as
close as practicable to the top of the
[[Page 33628]]
trailer and as far apart as practicable. If the perimeter of the body,
as viewed from the rear, is not square or rectangular, the strips may
be applied along the perimeter, as close as practicable to the
uppermost and outermost areas of the rear of the body on the left and
right sides.
(d) Locations for reflex reflectors.--(1) Sides. Reflex reflectors
shall be applied to each side of the trailer or semi-trailer. Each
array of reflex reflectors shall be positioned as horizontally as
practicable, beginning and ending as close to the front and rear as
practicable. The array need not be continuous but the sum of the length
of all of the array segments shall be at least half of the length of
the trailer and the spaces between the segments of the strip shall be
distributed as evenly as practicable. The centerline for each array of
reflex reflectors shall be between 375 mm (15 inches) and 1,525 mm (60
inches) above the road surface when measured with the trailer empty or
unladen, or as close as practicable to this area. The center of each
reflector shall not be more than 100 mm (4 inches) from the center of
each adjacent reflector in the segment of the array. If reflex
reflectors are arranged in an alternating color pattern, the length of
reflectors of the first color shall be as close as practicable to the
length of the reflectors of the second color.
(2) Lower rear area. The rear of each trailer and semi-trailer must
be equipped with reflex reflectors. Each array of reflex reflectors
shall be positioned as horizontally as practicable, extending across
the full width of the trailer, beginning and ending as close to the
extreme edges as practicable. The centerline for each array of reflex
reflectors shall be between 375 mm (15 inches) and 1,525 mm (60 inches)
above the road surface when measured with the trailer empty or unladen,
or as close as practicable to this area. The center of each reflector
shall not be more than 100 mm (4 inches) from the center of each
adjacent reflector in the segment of the array.
(3) Upper rear area. Two pairs of white reflex reflector arrays,
each pair at least 300 mm (12 inches) long, must be positioned
horizontally and vertically on the right and left upper corners of the
rear of the body of each trailer and semi-trailer, as close as
practicable to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable.
If the perimeter of the body, as viewed from the rear, is not square or
rectangular, the arrays may be applied along the perimeter, as close as
practicable to the uppermost and outermost areas of the rear of the
body on the left and right sides. The center of each reflector shall
not be more than 100 mm (4 inches) from the center of each adjacent
reflector in the segment of the array.
[FR Doc. 98-15622 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P