Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Lighting Devices, Reflectors, and Electrical Equipment

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