Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64495

1 In early 2005, the agency plans to begin a twoyear 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.

drawbridge operating regulations are 

listed at 33 CFR 117.205(b). 

The owner of the bridge, Amtrak, 

requested a temporary deviation from 

the drawbridge operating regulations to 

facilitate electrical repairs at the bridge. 

This deviation to the operating 

regulations allows the Old SaybrookOld Lyme Bridge to remain closed from 

10 p.m. on November 15, 2004 through 

10 a.m. on November 16, 2004. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), 

this work will be performed with all due 

speed in order to return the bridge to 

normal operation as soon as possible. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35.

Dated: October 20, 2004. 

John L. Grenier, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–24689 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

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 workperforming 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 nonfatal injuries.1

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 

64496 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

2On 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.

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 workperforming 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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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 workperforming 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 

64498 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

3Maxon’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)

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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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 rearmounted, 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 FederalState 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 

64500 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 

follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

[AMENDED]

■ 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.

■ 2. Section 571.224 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Special 

purpose vehicle’’ in S4 to read as 

follows:

§ 571.224 Standard No. 224; Rear impact 

protection.

* * * * *

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Special purpose vehicle means a 

trailer or semitrailer having workperforming 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 574

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19557] 

RIN 2127–AH10

Tire Safety Information; Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1999, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) published in the Federal 

Register (64 FR 36807), a final rule 

amending the tire identification and 

recordkeeping regulation, which 

requires that each tire be labeled with a 

tire identification number (TIN). In 

amending the TIN requirements, we 

inadvertently removed a provision for 

tires of less than 13 inches bead 

diameter or those of less than 6 inches