[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64495-64500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24737]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA--2004-19523]
RIN 2127-AH75


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In 1996, the agency established standards for underride guards 
for trailers and semitrailers in order to reduce the risk to passenger 
vehicle occupants in crashes in which a passenger vehicle impacts the 
rear end of a trailer or semitrailer. In establishing these standards, 
the agency recognized that compliance with the requirements was not 
practicable for a small number of vehicles due to the presence of work-
performing equipment mounted on the rear of a trailer or semitrailer. 
These vehicles are designated as ``special purpose vehicles'' and are 
excluded from the standard. Today's final rule amends the definition of 
``special purpose vehicle'' by adding a precise description of the 
cubic area in which work-performing equipment must reside in or move 
through while a trailer is moving. We have also determined that the 
addition of those specifications eliminates the need to exclude 
expressly vehicles equipped with specific liftgate designs. Finally, we 
are amending the requirements regarding the location of the rearmost 
surface of an impact guard as proposed.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective November 5, 2004. 
Today's final rule clarifies the agency's original intent in excluding 
special purpose vehicles from the requirements of FMVSS No. 224. 
Today's document does not impact vehicles currently excluded from the 
underride guard requirements under FMVSS No. 224. This final rule 
provides additional objectivity to the application of the requirements, 
and we therefore, have determined it to be in the public interest for 
this final rule to be effective immediately.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by 
December 20, 2004 and should refer to this docket and the notice number 
of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
    Note that all petitions received will be posted without change to 
http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Please 
see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analysis and Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays

FOR FURTHER INFORMTION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Mike Huntley, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-0029, 
and fax him at (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may contact Christopher Calamita, Office of 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, and fax him at (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Rear Impact Guard Standards
    B. Petition for Rulemaking
    C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Comments
III. Final Rule
    A. Special Purpose Vehicles
    B. ``Tuckunder Liftgates''
    C. ``Guard Rear Surface'' and Trailer ``Rear Extremity''
    D. Impacted Vehicle Population
IV. Effective Date

I. Background

A. Rear Impact Guard Standards

    To address the problem of rear underride crashes, the agency 
established two Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), FMVSS 
No. 223, Rear impact guards, and FMVSS No. 224, Rear impact protection 
(61 FR 2004; January 24, 1996; Docket No. 1-11). A rear underride crash 
is a crash in which the front end of a passenger car, light truck, or 
multipurpose vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 lb) or less (referred to collectively as ``passenger 
vehicles'') collides with and slides under (i.e., underrides) the rear 
end of a trailer or semitrailer (referred to collectively as 
``trailers''). Underride can potentially occur when a trailer chassis 
is higher than the hood of a passenger vehicle. In the worst cases, 
referred to as passenger compartment intrusion (PCI) crashes, the 
passenger vehicle underrides so far that the rear end of the trailer 
breaks the vehicle's windshield and enters its passenger compartment. 
PCI crashes generally result in injuries and fatalities to the 
passenger vehicle occupants due to their contact with the rear of the 
trailer. In 1996, when the underride guard standards were established, 
we estimated that about 11,551 rear-end crashes with trailers occurred 
annually, resulting in approximately 423 passenger vehicle occupant 
fatalities and about 5,030 non-fatal injuries.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In early 2005, the agency plans to begin a two-year data 
collection of crashes involving a passenger car, light truck and 
sport utility vehicle or van rear-ending a medium/heavy duty truck 
or heavy trailer. This information will be used to determine the 
effectiveness of the underride guard standards since they went into 
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reduce the number of injuries and fatalities resulting from rear 
underride crashes, the two Federal underride guard standards operate 
together. The first standard, FMVSS No. 223 (the ``equipment 
standard''), specifies performance requirements that rear impact guards 
(guards) must meet before they can be installed on new trailers. The 
standard specifies strength requirements and test procedures that are 
used to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The standard 
also requires equipment manufacturers to provide instructions on the 
proper installation of the guard and to permanently label the guard 
certifying that it meets all the performance requirements of the 
equipment standard.
    The second standard, FMVSS No. 224 (the ``vehicle standard'') 
requires that most new trailers with a GVWR of 4,536

[[Page 64496]]

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or more be equipped with a rear impact guard 
meeting the specifications of FMVSS No. 223. The vehicle standard 
specifies requirements for the location of the guard relative to the 
sides and rear end of the trailer. A rear impact guard must extend 
outboard to within 100 millimeters (4 inches) of the side extremities 
of the vehicle, but may not extend beyond the side extremities. The 
vertical distance from the ground to the bottom edge of the horizontal 
member of the guard may not exceed 560 mm (22 inches) at any point 
across the full width of the horizontal member. The guard's rear 
surface must be located as close as practical to the rear extremity of 
the vehicle, but not more than 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the rear 
extremity. Finally, the vehicle standard requires that the guard be 
mounted on the trailer in accordance with the instructions furnished by 
the guard manufacturer.
    In establishing the vehicle standard, the agency recognized that 
compliance with it was not practicable for a limited number of trailer 
designs. Accordingly, the agency provided that the vehicle standard 
does not apply to: pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, low chassis 
vehicles, special purpose vehicles, wheels back vehicles, and temporary 
living quarters. FMVSS No. 224 defines a special purpose vehicle as ``a 
trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the 
vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could 
be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard.''

B. Petition for Rulemaking

    On June 24, 1998, we received a petition from Thieman Tailgates, 
Inc. (Thieman), requesting that we amend Standard No. 224 to exclude 
vehicles with rear-mounted lift gates. Specifically, Thieman was 
concerned about two liftgate designs, tuckunder and rail-type. A 
tuckunder liftgate consists of a loading platform, which operates from 
its stowed position by swinging out to the rear of the trailer where it 
may be hydraulically raised and lowered to load heavy deliveries. 
Tuckunder liftgates are stowed under the body of the trailer while not 
in use, thus freeing the rear of the trailer for light deliveries and 
dock operations with elevated bays. Rail-type liftgates consist of a 
loading platform that typically moves vertically along two permanently 
mounted rails on the rear of the trailer. With rail-type liftgates, the 
platform swings up and stows along the rear of the trailer body while 
not in use.
    The petitioner stated that, although the definition of ``special 
purpose vehicle'' is based on the area that should be occupied by the 
horizontal member of the rear impact guard, FMVSS No. 224 does not 
contain a specific definition of that area. As a result, the petitioner 
claimed, truck equipment dealers are confused as to whether trailers 
with tuckunder and rail-type liftgates are required to be equipped with 
rear impact guards, or fall within the ``special purpose vehicle'' 
exclusion. Therefore, the petitioner requested that FMVSS No. 224 
explicitly exclude vehicles equipped with rear-mounted liftgates.
    In the alternative, the petitioner requested that the agency 
expressly exclude tuckunder and rail-type liftgates from the energy 
absorption requirements of FMVSS No. 223. The petitioner stated that 
the energy absorption requirements would be ``nearly impossible'' to 
meet because rear impact guards on trailers with liftgates must be 
mounted in a manner that allows the guard to swing out of the way when 
the liftgate is being operated. Thus, the guard must have numerous 
parts that move freely, causing the guard to ``give'' a few inches 
before deflection starts to occur.

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In a February 27, 2004 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the 
agency denied Thieman's petition, but proposed: (1) To define ``special 
purpose vehicle'' to include a more precise description of the cubic 
area at the rear of a trailer in which work-performing equipment must 
reside or travel through while the trailer is in transit, (2) to 
specifically exclude trailers equipped with ``tuckunder'' liftgates, as 
defined by the proposal, from FMVSS No. 224, and (3) to clarify the 
requirements related to the location of the rearmost surface of the 
rear impact guard (69 FR 9288; Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4369).
    In the February 2004 NPRM, the agency proposed a definition of 
``special purpose vehicle'' as follows:

    Special purpose vehicle means a trailer or semitrailer having 
work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, 
resides in or moves through any portion of the cubic area extending: 
(1) Vertically from the ground to a horizontal plane 660 mm above 
the ground; (2) laterally the full width of the trailer, determined 
by the trailer's side extremities as defined in S4 of this section; 
and (3) from the rear extremity of the trailer as defined in S4 of 
this section to a transverse vertical plane 305 mm forward of the 
rear extremity of the trailer.

    The proposed cubic area in which work-performing equipment would 
have to reside in or move through for a trailer to qualify as a special 
purpose vehicle differs from the area in which the horizontal member of 
a rear impact guard must reside, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3 of 
FMVSS No. 224. The proposed 660 mm (26 inches) vertical specification 
incorporates the 560 mm (22 inches) minimum height from the ground as 
required in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 224 and the 100 mm (4 inches) minimum 
guard vertical height requirement in S5.1 of Standard No. 223. 
Horizontally, the proposed cubic area extends laterally the full width 
of the trailer. Conversely, S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 224 permits the 
outermost surfaces of the horizontal member of a guard to be inside the 
side extremities of the vehicle by up to 100 mm. Thus, the proposed 
cubic area is larger both vertically and horizontally than the area 
defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3.
    The proposed cubic area for the special purpose vehicle definition 
also differs from the ``guard zone'' defined in an interpretation 
letter sent to the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA).\2\ The 
difference between the ``guard zone'' and the proposed zones is with 
the height of the area. The proposal defined the vertical area as 
extending from the ground to a horizontal plane 660 mm (26 inches) 
above the ground, while our interpretation letter defined the vertical 
area as extending from the ground to a horizontal plane tangent to the 
bottom of the trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On September 9, 1998, we issued a letter stating that the 
area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear 
impact guard (the ``guard zone'') is a three-dimensional space 
defined as follows:
    1. Width. The horizontal member may extend laterally as far as 
the side extremities of the trailer as defined in S4 of Standard No. 
224.
    2. Height. The bottom edge of the horizontal member must be no 
more than 560 mm above the ground. The horizontal member must have a 
vertical height of at least 100 mm. This combination results in a 
vertical area that extends from the ground upward to a horizontal 
plane tangent to the bottom of the trailer.
    3. Depth. The rearward boundary of the guard zone is the 
transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the 
trailer as defined in S4 of Standard No. 224. The forward boundary 
of the guard zone is the transverse vertical plane 305 mm forward of 
that plane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to clarifying what constitutes a special purpose 
vehicle, the proposal also sought to exclude vehicles equipped with 
``tuckunder liftgates'' from the standard. In the February 2004 NPRM, 
the agency proposed the following definition of ``tuckunder liftgate:''

    [A]n item of work-performing equipment consisting of a loading 
platform that operates

[[Page 64497]]

from its stowed position by swinging out to the rear of the vehicle 
where it may be hydraulically raised and lowered and, while the 
vehicle is in transit, resides completely between the unaltered 
vehicle's rear-most axle and rear extremity, as defined in S4 of 
this section, and beneath a horizontal plane 1,500 mm from the 
ground.

    Finally, the agency proposed to amend S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 224 in 
order to clarify the required distance of the rear most surface of a 
guard from a trailer's rear extremity. While S5.1.3 has consistently 
been interpreted in the proper manner, the current language could be 
read as not being applicable to a guard surface that is completely 
below a height of 560 mm (22 inches) from the ground.

II. Comments

    In response to the NPRM, the agency received divergent comments on 
the proposal from two truck equipment manufacturers, an industry 
association, and two consumer safety organizations. One truck equipment 
manufacturer, Waltco Truck Equipment Co. (Waltco), supported the 
exclusion for tuckunder liftgate equipped vehicles but requested that 
the agency clarify the term ``tuckunder liftgate'' to avoid potential 
confusion with brand name lifts. The industry association, the NTEA, 
stated that all but one of its members concurred with Waltco. 
Additionally, the NTEA requested that the agency maintain the 
specifications as described in the September 1998 interpretation 
letter. The NTEA stated that the specifications in the letter had 
already created a fair amount of confusion for manufacturers and 
expressed concern that any changes would result in further confusion.
    One truck equipment manufacturer and both consumer safety 
organizations objected to the proposed rulemaking. Maxon Lift Corp. 
(Maxon), a truck equipment manufacturer, objected to an exclusion for 
vehicles equipped with tuckunder liftgates. Maxon stated that it has 
designed a tuckunder liftgate that is compatible with the current 
standards and that a new exclusion is not necessary. The two consumer 
safety organizations, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) 
and Public Citizen, objected to the proposed rulemaking generally. Both 
organizations stated that there was inadequate evidence of any need to 
expand the exclusion under FMVSS No. 224. Further, both organizations 
stated that the agency failed to demonstrate that the proposal would 
not reduce the safety benefits of the current standards.

III. Final Rule

    Today's final rule amends FMVSS No. 224 in order to reflect more 
clearly the intent of the standard as originally established. Today's 
document specifies the cubic area in which work-performing equipment 
must reside in or move through, while the vehicle is in transit, in 
order for a vehicle to be excluded from the standards as a ``special 
purpose vehicle'' as proposed in the February 2004 NPRM. As explained 
below, we have determined that the specifications established here 
sufficiently address concerns with rear mounted liftgates in general. 
Therefore, a specific exclusion for vehicles equipped with ``tuckunder 
liftgates'' is not required. Finally, we are amending the guard rear 
surface provision to remove ambiguous wording.

A. Special Purpose Vehicles

    Today's final rule establishes the cubic area in which work-
performing equipment must reside or move through while a trailer is in 
transit in order for that vehicle to be classified as a special purpose 
vehicle as proposed in the February 2004 notice. The cubic area defined 
in this final rule clarifies the agency's longstanding intent to 
exclude from FMVSS No. 224 trailers equipped with work performing 
equipment that is located in the area occupied by a guard.
    While the cubic area defined by today's final rule is different 
than that described in the agency's September 1998 letter, the 
difference in area ensures that vehicles equipped with lift designs 
that are compatible with the rear impact guard requirements remain 
subject to the standard. As explained above, the difference between the 
area described in the September 1998 letter and the area established in 
the final rule is the height. The interpretation letter described the 
vertical area as extending from the ground to a horizontal plane 
tangent to the bottom of the trailer. The vertical area specified in 
today's final rule extends from the ground to a horizontal plane 660 mm 
above the ground. If the cubic area extended to the bottom of a 
trailer, as specified in the interpretation letter, a trailer with any 
portion of work-performing equipment located just underneath the 
trailer would not be required to have a guard. For example, a trailer 
with a rail-type liftgate would be excluded from the requirements of 
the standard if only a small portion of it were mounted at a minimal 
distance below the trailer bed. As stated in the final rule 
establishing FMVSS No. 224, the agency never intended to exclude rail-
type liftgates (see 61 FR 2022).
    Additionally, we do not agree with NTEA that specifying the cubic 
area as proposed will cause confusion as to which vehicles are 
``special purpose vehicles.'' The specifications established today are 
incorporated directly into the standard, as opposed to an 
interpretation letter. This provides manufacturers with the necessary 
information on the face of FMVSS No. 224 so that they no longer need to 
look beyond the standard. Further, as explained above, the difference 
between the previous specifications and those established today help 
ensure that the special purpose vehicle exclusion is not broader than 
originally intended.

B. ``Tuckunder Liftgates''

    The agency is not establishing an exclusion expressly mentioning 
vehicles equipped with tuckunder lifts. While the agency has always 
intended for vehicles with tuckunder lifts to be excluded, we have 
determined that carving out an express exclusion would be redundant, 
given the cubic area established above. Tuckunder liftgates, by design, 
should continue to qualify a vehicle for the special purpose vehicle 
exclusion.
    In objecting to the NPRM by stating that a new exclusion is not 
required, Maxim apparently misinterpreted FMVSS No. 224. The term 
``special purpose vehicles'' has always been defined to exclude 
vehicles equipped with tuckunder lifts from the requirements of the 
standards. The preamble to the January 1996 final rule stated that, 
``vehicles equipped with rail type lifts * * * are not excluded, while 
vehicles equipped with tuckunder and other types of incompatible 
liftgates are excluded (61 FR 2022, emphasis added).'' Consequently, 
the tuckunder liftgate exclusion proposed in the NPRM would not have 
created a new exclusion.
    Further, the agency does not believe that the tuckunder liftgate 
exclusion was too narrow or would have been confusing, as stated by 
Waltco and the NTEA. Both Waltco and the NTEA stated that ``tuckunder 
liftgate'' is often used as a product name and that several other types 
of lifts (e.g., ``flipaway,'' ``stowaway,'' ``slider'' and 
``cantilever'' liftgates) also interfere with rear impact guards.
    In the proposed rulemaking, the agency defined ``tuckunder 
liftgate'' as a type of design and not a brand name. The proposed 
definition of this design would have included the liftgate designs 
raised by commenters as also requiring consideration for exclusion. 
However, we understand how the phrase might have resulted in confusion, 
given the

[[Page 64498]]

industry's current use of the phrase as a brand name.
    While the agency believes the ``tuckunder liftgate'' exclusion 
would have clarified the agency's intended application of the standard, 
we have determined the cubic area specifications established above 
already address the issue. The special purpose vehicle definition 
excludes vehicles equipped with tuckunder liftgates as well as similar 
liftgates that result in compatibility problems with the standard. 
Although Maxon stated that it has designed tuckunder liftgates that do 
not conflict with the requirements of FMVSS No. 224, not all tuckunder 
liftgates are compatible with the standard.\3\ The cubic area specified 
by this final rule provides an objective method for determining which 
vehicles are excluded from FMVSS No. 224. Again, the cubic area 
established today clarifies the agency's longstanding intent to exclude 
a small number of vehicles for which compliance with FMVSS No. 224 is 
impracticable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Maxon's website offers tuckunder liftgate designs that have 
a ``built-in underride guard,'' as well as liftgate designs that 
offer underride guards as optional equipment and liftgate designs 
without any notation regarding underride guards. (See, inset Maxon's 
Web site)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ``Guard Rear Surface'' and Trailer ``Rear Extremity''

    We are amending the S5.1.3, Guard rear surface, of FMVSS No. 224 as 
proposed in the NPRM to remove potentially ambiguous language. However, 
we are not revising the definition of the rear extremity of a vehicle 
as requested by the NTEA. Although S5.1.3 has been properly interpreted 
to apply to all guards across their entire rear surface, the language 
in S5.1.3 indicates that it applies only to the portion of the guard 
rear surface that is at a height greater than 560 mm (22 inches) from 
the ground. To correct this, we are removing the introductory clause 
from the first sentence so that the sentence reads as follows:

    S5.1.3 Guard rear surface. The rearmost surface of the 
horizontal member of the guard shall be located as close as 
practical to a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear 
extremity of the vehicle, but no more than 305 mm forward of that 
plane.

    We are not revising the definition of ``rear extremity'' to 
accommodate trailers equipped with rail liftgates that are more than 12 
inches deep as requested by NTEA. As stated in the NPRM, we note that 
rail-type liftgates may cause confusion as to whether the rear 
extremity of the trailer is located at the rear of the trailer itself 
or the rear of the rail-type liftgate. This is significant because 
Standard No. 224 requires the guard to be located not more than 12 
inches forward of the rear extremity of the trailer.
    ``Rear extremity'' is defined at S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as:

    The rearmost point on a vehicle that is above a horizontal plane 
located 560 mm above the ground and below a horizontal plane located 
1,900 mm above the ground when the vehicle is configured as 
specified in S5.1 of this section and when the vehicle's cargo 
doors, tailgate, or other permanent structures are positioned as 
they normally are when the vehicle is in motion. Nonstructural 
protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches 
are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point.

    The agency has previously explained that the common attributes 
among the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in the 
definition are that they are relatively small and localized and would 
not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle (see, 69 FR 
9293). Rail-type liftgates, in contrast, are neither small nor 
localized, and they would be expected to have a major impact on a 
colliding passenger vehicle. Thus, we consider rail-type liftgates to 
be part of the trailer structure. As such, the rear of the rail-type 
liftgate is the rear extremity of the trailer, and the guard on such 
trailers must be no more than 12 inches forward of the rear of the 
rail-type liftgate.
    As noted in the NPRM, some rail-type liftgates may be more than 12 
inches deep. On trailers equipped with such liftgates, a guard would 
have to be installed either on the liftgate or on the trailer so that 
it extends rearward to within 12 inches of the rear of the liftgate.

D. Impacted Vehicle Population

    Contrary to statements made by Advocates and Public Citizen, 
today's final rule does not change the number or type of vehicles 
excluded from FMVSS No. 224. The cubic area established in this 
document merely provides a more precise description of the area at the 
rear of the trailer in which work-performing equipment must reside in 
or move through while the trailer is in transit to qualify for the 
special purpose vehicle exclusion.
    The percentage of vehicles excluded from the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 224 as a result of being equipped with a rear mounted liftgate 
remains comparable to the percent excluded when the agency first 
proposed FMVSS No. 224 (46 FR 2136; January 8, 1981). In 1981, the NTEA 
estimated that 2,500 of the 150,000 trailers built each year were 
equipped with rear-mounted liftgates, comprising 1.7 percent of the 
market. For the year 2002, the NTEA estimated that 2,899 of the 139,000 
trailers manufactured that year were equipped with rear-mounted 
liftgates, or 2.1 percent of the market. We expect the number of 
vehicles actually excluded from FMVSS No. 224 to be a lower percentage 
because the 2002 estimate includes all liftgates, even those that may 
not qualify a vehicle as a special purpose vehicle (e.g., rail-type 
liftgates).
    Further, we do not believe that today's final rule will encourage 
customers to purchase one type of liftgate over another as a means to 
avoid the underride guard requirements. Vehicles are equipped with a 
particular liftgate design based on its performance capabilities. We do 
not expect that vehicles will be equipped with one liftgate design over 
another simply to be excluded from the underride guard requirements. 
Again, as stated above, we are not excluding vehicles equipped with a 
liftgate design that have not previously been excluded. The agency is 
merely clarifying our longstanding intent to exclude tuckunder and 
similarly functioning liftgates. Therefore, today's final rule does not 
diminish the safety benefits of FMVSS No. 224.

IV. Effective Date

    The amendments adopted in today's document are effective 
immediately upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
Today's final rule merely clarifies the existing underride guard 
requirements. This document does not alter the vehicle population 
previously excluded from the requirements of FMVSS No. 224. The 
definition of ``special purpose vehicle'' adopted today clarifies the 
agency's original intent and provides additional objectivity to 
existing requirements. Today's amendments will not result in previously 
compliant vehicles becoming non-compliant.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Vehicle Safety Act

    Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for 
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet 
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 
49 U.S.C. 30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must 
consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49 
U.S.C. 30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed 
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type

[[Page 64499]]

of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed 
and the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose 
of reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths. Id. Responsibility 
for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards was 
subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    The agency carefully considered these statutory requirements in 
amending FMVSS No. 224.
    We believe that the amendments to FMVSS No. 224 do not affect its 
practicability. The specifications added to the definition of ``special 
purpose vehicle'' clarify an existing exclusion from the standard that 
is based on the impracticability of applying the standard to a small 
number of vehicles equipped with work-performing equipment.
    The dimensional specifications adopted in this final rule provide 
additional objectivity for determining which vehicles are special 
purpose vehicles.
    Finally, this final rule ensures that FMVSS No. 224 is applied to 
vehicles for which the standard is appropriate by clarifying which 
vehicles are excluded. Today's final rule maintains the safety benefits 
of the standard as originally established.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to 
be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    We have concluded that this rulemaking action does not create an 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
requires rear impact guards on trailers and semitrailers with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or more 
manufactured on or after January 26, 1998 (49 CFR 393.86). However, 
that standard incorporates FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 by reference, and 
also excludes ``special purpose vehicles'' as defined in FMVSS No. 224. 
Thus, this rulemaking action will not create an inconsistency with the 
FMCSA rear impact guard standard. Moreover, FMCSA has advised NHTSA 
that it will consider amendments to 49 CFR 393.86 and any relevant 
definitions under 49 CFR 393.5, in order to ensure consistency between 
49 CFR 393.86 and Standard No. 224.
    Further, this rulemaking action will not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material 
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities. This document clarifies the 
definition of ``special purpose vehicle'' so that trailers with rear-
mounted, work-performing equipment that is not compatible with a guard 
would be excluded from FMVSS No. 224.
    By adding a quantified definition of the cubic area which work-
performing equipment must move through or reside in for a trailer to 
meet the definition of ``special purpose vehicle,'' the agency is 
providing a more objective basis for determining which vehicles are 
excluded. This final rule does not have a substantive effect on the 
determination of whether a trailer qualifies as a special purpose 
vehicle and does not impose any additional cost burden on manufacturers 
of trailers equipped with work-performing equipment.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Many of the businesses that manufacture 
trailers equipped with work-performing equipment are considered small 
businesses. However, as explained above in the discussion under E.O. 
12866, this final rule does not substantively impact the determination 
of which vehicles are excluded from the requirements in FMVSS No. 224. 
Therefore, I hereby certify that this final rule does not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed these amendments for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that they will not 
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no 
substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a

[[Page 64500]]

written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector, of more than $109 million annually (adjusted for 
inflation with base year of 1995). Because this final rule does not 
have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been 
prepared.

G. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 
49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not 
establish any new information collection requirements.

I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) 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. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) 
concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason 
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by us.
    This final rule is not economically significant and does not 
concern an environmental health or safety risk that disproportionately 
affects children.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    There are no relevant voluntary consensus standards available at 
this time. However, we will consider any such standards when they 
become available.

L. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition, 
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Section 571.224 is amended by revising the definition of ``Special 
purpose vehicle'' in S4 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.224  Standard No. 224; Rear impact protection.

* * * * *
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Special purpose vehicle means a trailer or semitrailer having work-
performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in 
or moves through any portion of the cubic area extending:
    (1) Vertically from the ground to a horizontal plane 660 mm above 
the ground;
    (2) Laterally the full width of the trailer, determined by the 
trailer's side extremities as defined in S4 of this section; and
    (3) From the rear extremity of the trailer as defined in S4 of this 
section to a transverse vertical plane 305 mm forward of the rear 
extremity of the trailer.
* * * * *

    Issued on: November 2, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-24737 Filed 11-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P