67660 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 61 FR 2003.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR part 571 is amended as set forth 

below.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

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 571.116 is amended by:

■ a. Removing and reserving S5.1.8;

■ b. Revising S6.6.3(e);

■ c. Revising in S6.6.4(a), the first and 

third sentences;

■ d. Removing and reserving S6.8;

■ e. Removing S6.8.1;

■ f. Removing S6.8.2;

■ g. Removing S6.8.3; and

■ h. Removing S6.8.4.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 571.116 Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle 

brake fluids.

* * * * *

S6.6.3 * * * 

(e) Supplies for polishing strips.

Waterproof silicon carbide paper, grit 

No. 320A and grit 1200; lint-free 

polishing cloth.

* * * * *

S6.6.4 * * * 

(a) * * * Except for the tinned iron 

strips, abrade corrosion test strips on all 

surface areas with 320A silicon carbide 

paper wet with ethanol (isopropanol 

when testing DOT 5 SBBF fluids) until 

all surface scratches, cuts and pits 

visible to an observer having corrected 

visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at 

a distance of 300 mm (11.8 inches) are 

removed. * * * Except for the tinned 

iron strips, further abrade the test strips 

on all surface areas with 1200 silicon 

carbide paper wet with ethanol 

(isopropanol when testing DOT 5 SBBF 

fluids), again using a new piece of paper 

for each different type of metal. * * *

* * * * *

Issued on: November 9, 2004. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–25446 Filed 11–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2002–11875; Notice 2] 

RIN 2127–AI04 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Rear Impact Guard Labels

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

on rear impact guards (underride 

guards). Under the current requirement, 

rear impact guards must be permanently 

labeled with the guard manufacturer’s 

name and address, the month and year 

in which the guard was manufactured, 

and the letters ‘‘DOT.’’ In response to 

petitions for rulemaking, the agency 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) proposing to allow 

manufacturers to place the label on the 

rear impact guard where it may be less 

exposed to damage, provided that the 

label does not interfere with the 

required retroreflective sheeting and is 

readily accessible for visual inspection. 

No comments were received. Thus, in 

this document, the agency is adopting 

the proposal as set forth in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking.

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 18, 2005. 

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received by January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to DOT Docket No. 

NHTSA–2002–11875 and be submitted 

to: Administrator, Room 5220, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading under Regulatory Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Michael 

Huntley, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Standards, (Telephone: 202–366–0029) 

(Fax: 202–493–2739) (E-Mail: 

Michael.Huntley@nhtsa.dot.gov). 

For legal issues, you may call Mr. 

George Feygin, Office of Chief Counsel, 

(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–

366–3820) (E-Mail: 

George.Feygin@nhtsa.dot.gov). 

You may send mail to either of these 

officials at: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

On January 24, 1996, NHTSA 

published a final rule establishing two 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

(FMVSSs) to address the problem of rear 

underride crashes.1 Underride occurs 

when a light vehicle, such as a 

passenger car, crashes into the rear end 

of a heavy truck that has a chassis 

higher than the hood of the light 

vehicle. In certain instances, the light 

vehicle slides under or ‘‘underrides’’ the 

rear end of the heavy vehicle such that 

the rear end of the trailer strikes and 

enters the passenger compartment of the 

light vehicle, resulting in passenger 

compartment intrusion (PCI). PCI can 

result in severe injuries and fatalities to 

the light vehicle occupants due to 

occupant contact with the rear end of 

the heavy truck. The final rule 

established two standards that operate 

together to reduce the number of 

injuries and fatalities resulting from 

underride crashes.

The first standard, FMVSS No. 223, 

‘‘Rear impact guards,’’ specifies 

performance requirements that rear 

impact guards (underride guards) must 

meet before they can be installed on 

new trailers. It specifies strength 

requirements and test procedures that 

NHTSA uses to determine compliance 

with those requirements. FMVSS No. 

223 also requires the underride guard 

manufacturer to provide instructions on 

the proper installation of the guard. 

Finally, the underride guards must be 

permanently labeled with the guard 

manufacturer’s name and address, the 

month and year in which the underride 

guard was manufactured, and the letters 

‘‘DOT’’. The letters constitute 

certification by the manufacturer that 

the underride guard meets all the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 223. The standard requires 

manufacturers to place the label on the 

forward-facing surface of the horizontal 

member of the guard, 305 mm (12 

inches) inboard of the right end of the 

guard, so that, as the guard is mounted 

on the vehicle, the label will be readily 

visible to Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) inspectors. 

The second standard, FMVSS No. 

224, ‘‘Rear impact protection, requires 

most new trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or more to be 

equipped with an underride guard 

meeting FMVSS No. 223. FMVSS No. 

224 specifies requirements regarding the 

location of the underride guard relative 

to the rear of the trailer. It also requires 

that the underride guard be mounted on 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67661

2See Docket No. NHTSA–1998–4367–24 at

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm.

3 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) requires manufacturers to 

affix to trailers a label containing the statement: 

‘‘This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date 

of manufacture shown above.’’

4See Docket No. NHTSA–1998–4376–2.

5See Docket No. NHTSA–1998–3342–3.

6See 67 FR 15154 or Docket No. NHTSA–2002–

11875.

7Under 49 U.S.C. 30118–30120, the manufacturer 

of a noncompliant item of motor vehicle equipment 

must recall that product to bring it into compliance 

at no charge to the customer. In addition, this 

manufacturer may become subject to civil penalties. 

Accordingly, it is in the best interest of trailer 

manufacturers to affix the label that would identify 

the party responsible for manufacturing a 

noncomplying product.

8See 64 FR 47703 (September 1, 1999).

9This aspect of the former FHWA jurisdiction is 

now under FMCSA.

10See 63 FR 26759, (May 14, 1998).

the trailer in accordance with the 

instructions of the guard manufacturer. 

Both standards became effective on 

January 26, 1998.

II. Petitions 

On December 10, 1998, NHTSA 

received a petition for rulemaking from 

the Truck Trailer Manufacturers 

Association (TTMA) requesting that the 

agency amend FMVSS No. 223 by 

eliminating the underride guard labeling 

requirement.2 TTMA argued that 

requiring a label on the underride guard 

is redundant for trailer manufacturers 

that manufacture their own guards 

because trailer manufacturers are 

already required to place a label on their 

trailers to certify their compliance with 

all FMVSSs.3

On December 30, 1998, NHTSA 

received a similar petition from the 

American Trucking Associations 

(ATA),4 and on January 18, 1999, 

another petition from Compass 

Transportation, Inc.5 Both petitioners 

argued that the underride guard labeling 

requirement is redundant and requested 

that the agency eliminate the labeling 

requirement from FMVSS No. 223.

TTMA requested that if NHTSA 

declined to eliminate the guard labeling 

requirement, the agency should instead 

eliminate the requirement that the guard 

be labeled permanently. TTMA argued 

that it is unlikely that any label will 

remain on the guard for the life of the 

trailer. As a final alternative, TTMA 

requested that NHTSA allow 

manufacturers the flexibility to place 

the label where it may be the least 

exposed to damage from operational and 

environmental factors. 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NHTSA published an NPRM 

responding to the three petitions for 

rulemaking on March 29, 2002.6

A. Guard Labeling Requirement 

In the NPRM, the agency denied the 

petitioners’ request to eliminate the 

labeling requirement. The agency 

reasoned that the separate equipment 

(FMVSS No. 223) and vehicle (FMVSS 

No. 224) standards allow a trailer 

manufacturer to install an underride 

guard produced by a guard 

manufacturer rather than by the trailer 

manufacturer itself. This regulatory 

scheme allows the trailer manufacturers 

to avoid the cost of developing 

compliant underride guards by 

purchasing pre-certified underride 

guards from underride guard 

manufacturers. 

In order to facilitate enforcement, 

NHTSA uses the guard certification 

label to determine whether an underride 

guard was manufactured and certified 

by the trailer manufacturer or purchased 

from an underride guard manufacturer 

who certified the guard prior to selling 

that item of equipment to the trailer 

manufacturer. If NHTSA did not require 

the underride guards to be labeled, our 

enforcement personnel would not be 

able to conclude readily which party 

certified an underride guard to the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 223.7

Finally, the agency said that it did not 

believe that affixing the required label is 

a significant burden.

B. Permanency Requirement 

In the NPRM, the agency also denied 

petitioners’ request to eliminate the 

requirement that the guard label be 

permanent. The agency acknowledged 

that the permanency of the label is not 

significant for the purpose of NHTSA’s 

compliance testing, since the agency 

only tests new guards for compliance 

with FMVSS No. 223. However, the 

agency noted that the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) recently 

amended its rear impact regulations to 

make them consistent with Standard 

Nos. 223 and 224.8 9 The FHWA 

included a requirement for a permanent 

label, in part, ‘‘to help motor carriers 

quickly determine if the underride 

device on a newly manufactured trailer 

meets NHTSA’s requirements, and to 

assist State agencies responsible for 

enforcing motor carrier safety 

regulations.’’ 10

NHTSA also reasoned that Standard 

No. 223 does not specify a particular 

means (i.e., labeling, etching, branding, 

stamping, or embossing) by which the 

manufacturer must achieve 

permanency. Finally, the agency noted 

that none of the petitioners had 

provided any information documenting 

any problems trailer or guard 

manufacturers have experienced in 

meeting the requirement for a 

permanent label. 

C. Label Location Requirement 

In the NPRM, the agency granted the 

petitioners’ request to commence 

rulemaking to allow manufacturers to 

place the label where it may be least 

exposed to damage. The agency stated 

that the precise location of the guard 

label is of little significance to NHTSA 

personnel conducting compliance 

testing on new guards. Further, the 

agency stated that FMCSA 

representatives had indicated to NHTSA 

that the specific location of the guard 

label is not critical to trailer inspectors, 

so long as it is located somewhere on 

the horizontal member of the guard. 

However, to ensure that the label 

would not be hidden or obscured, the 

agency proposed to require that the 

label remain readily accessible for 

visual inspection, so that trailer 

inspectors would not have difficulty 

locating it. 

Finally, the agency proposed to 

require that the label not interfere with 

retroreflective sheeting placed across 

the full width of the rearward facing 

surface of the horizontal member of the 

underride guard, as required by 

S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108. 

Accordingly, the agency proposed to 

revise the third sentence of S5.3 of 

Standard No. 223 to read as follows:

‘‘The label shall be placed on the 

forward or rearward facing surface of 

the horizontal member of the guard, 

provided that the label does not 

interfere with the retroreflective 

sheeting required by S5.7.1.4.1(c) of 

FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and 

is readily accessible for visual 

inspection.’’

IV. Final Rule 

In the NPRM, NHTSA specified a 60-

day comment period. The agency did 

not receive any comments on the 

proposal. Accordingly, the agency is 

adopting the proposal as set forth in the 

NPRM. 

V. Costs and Benefits 

This final rule will not result in any 

additional cost burdens on any 

regulated parties and will not produce 

additional safety benefits.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

67662 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

final rule was not reviewed under E.O. 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ This action has been 

determined to be ‘‘nonsignificant’’

under the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. The agency concludes that 

the expected impact of the final rule is 

so minimal that the final rule does not 

warrant preparation of a full regulatory 

evaluation. This rulemaking will not 

impose any new requirements or costs 

on manufacturers. Instead, this 

rulemaking allows more flexibility in 

the location of the certification label 

already required by FMVSS No. 223. 

Accordingly, the final rule will not 

result in any additional costs burdens 

on the manufacturer of underride guards 

or trailers equipped with underride 

guards. 

This rulemaking is not the subject of 

significant Congressional or public 

interest. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

NHTSA has considered the impacts of 

this rulemaking action under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). I hereby certify that the final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This 

rulemaking does not impose any new 

requirements or costs on manufacturers. 

Instead, this rulemaking allows more 

flexibility in the location of the 

certification label already required by 

FMVSS No. 223. Accordingly, the final 

rule will not result in any additional 

costs burdens on the manufacturer of 

underride guards or trailers equipped 

with underride guards. 

C. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that the implementation 

of this action will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in the Executive 

Order 13132, and has determined that 

this rulemaking does not have sufficient 

Federal implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

Federalism summary impact statement. 

This final rule does not have any 

substantial impact on the States, or on 

the current Federal-State relationship, 

or on the current distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various 

local officials. The final rule is not 

intended to preempt state tort civil 

actions. 

E. Civil Justice Reform 

This amendment will not have any 

retroactive effect. Under 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.

F. 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 final rule does not have 

any new requirements that are 

considered to be information collection 

requirements as defined by the OMB in 

5 CFR part 1320. 

G. 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 NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its 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 NHTSA to provide 

Congress, through the OMB, 

explanations when it decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

There are no applicable voluntary 

consensus standards available at this 

time. However, NHTSA will consider 

any such standards if they become 

available. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

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 $100 million annually 

($120,700,000 as adjusted for inflation 

with base year of 1995). 

This final rule will not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $120,700,000 

annually. 

I. Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulatory 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. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, 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://www.dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

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 571.223 is amended by 

revising the third sentence of S5.3 

introductory text as follows:

§ 571.223 Standard No. 223; Rear impact 

guards.

* * * * *

S5.3 Labeling. * * * The label shall 

be placed on the forward or rearward 

facing surface of the horizontal member 

of the guard, provided that the label 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67663

1See 61 FR 2004, January 24, 1996.

2Because the horizontal discharge trailers do not 

rise to unload their contents like steel end dump 

trailers, they can be used on uneven terrain or 

where overhead obstructions such as bridges and 

power lines completely prevent the use of dump 

trailers.

3See Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–4.

4FMVSS No. 224 became effective January 26, 

1998; see 61 FR 2004 (January 24, 1996).

5The temporary exemptions were based or the 

‘‘substantial economic hardship’’ grounds under 49 

CFR 555.6(a). Nevertheless, the economic hardship 

was rooted in impracticability of installing 

underride guards. Both exemptions have since been 

renewed. See 68 FR 28880 (May 27, 2003).

does not interfere with the 

retroreflective sheeting required by 

S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 

571.108), and is readily accessible for 

visual inspection.

* * * * *

Issued: November 12, 2004. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–25704 Filed 11–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19033] 

RIN 2127–AI56 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Final 

Rule

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

No. 224, ‘‘Rear impact protection’’

(FMVSS No. 224), to exclude road 

construction controlled horizontal 

discharge semitrailers (RCC horizontal 

discharge trailers) from the 

requirements of the standard. The RCC 

horizontal discharge trailers are used in 

the road construction industry to deliver 

asphalt to construction sites and 

gradually discharge asphalt mix into the 

paving machines overlaying the road 

surface. The agency has concluded that 

installation of the rear impact guards, as 

required by FMVSS No. 224, on RCC 

horizontal discharge trailers would 

interfere with their intended function 

and is therefore impracticable due to the 

unique design and purpose of these 

vehicles.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective December 20, 2004. 

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received by January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to DOT Docket No. 

NHTSA–2004–19033 and be submitted 

to: Administrator, Room 5220, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

Please see the Privacy Act heading 

under Regulatory Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Michael 

Huntley, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Standards, (Telephone: 202–366–0029) 

(Fax: 202–493–2739) (E-Mail: 

Michael.Huntley@nhtsa.dot.gov). 

For legal issues, you may call Mr. 

George Feygin, Office of Chief Counsel, 

(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–

366–3820) (E-Mail: 

George.Feygin@nhtsa.dot.gov). 

You may send mail to either of these 

officials at: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

III. Summary of Comments 

IV. Agency Analysis and Decision 

A. Impracticability 

B. Alternative Methods of Compliance and 

Alternative Vehicles 

1. Special purpose vehicles and wheels 

back trailers

2. Use of dump trucks instead of RCC 

Horizontal discharge trailers 

C. Safety Consequences 

D. Statutory Mandate to Ensure 

Practicability of Safety Standards 

E. Request to Exempt Gravity Feed Dump 

Trailers 

V. Estimated Costs and Benefits 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background 

Underride occurs when a light 

vehicle, such as a passenger car, crashes 

into the rear end of a heavy truck that 

has a chassis higher than the hood of the 

light vehicle. In certain instances, the 

light vehicle slides under or 

‘‘underrides’’ the rear end of the heavy 

vehicle such that the rear end of the 

trailer strikes and enters the passenger 

compartment of the light vehicle, 

resulting in passenger compartment 

intrusion (PCI). PCI crashes can result in 

severe injuries and fatalities to the light 

vehicle occupants due to occupant 

contact with the rear end of the heavy 

truck. 

In an attempt to reduce the frequency 

and severity of underride collisions, 

NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 224.1 The 

standard requires that all new trailers 

and semitrailers with a Gross Vehicle 

Weight Rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lbs or 

more be equipped with a rear impact 

guard (underride guard). The underride 

guard is attached to the rear of the 

trailer (within 12 inches [305 mm] of the 

rear extremity of the vehicle) and acts to 

prevent the light vehicle from sliding 

under the trailer chassis.

The RCC horizontal discharge trailer 

is a unique piece of equipment used in 

the road construction industry to deliver 

asphalt and other building materials to 

a construction site. The trailer is 

equipped with a mechanical drive and 

a horizontal conveyor, which gradually 

discharges asphalt mix into a paving 

machine overlaying the road surface 

with asphalt material. 

With respect to FMVSS No. 224, the 

RCC horizontal discharge trailer’s most 

unique and technologically problematic 

feature stems from the fact that the rear 

of the trailer is designed to connect with 

and latch onto various paving machines. 

Typically, the paving machine attaches 

to the rear axle of the RCC horizontal 

discharge trailer via hydraulic arms, and 

the edge of the trailer’s conveyor belt 

extends over the paving machine 

opening. An underride guard required 

by FMVSS No. 224 would prevent the 

RCC horizontal discharge trailer from 

effectively connecting with a paving 

machine. 

Connection with paving equipment is 

critical to the road construction process 

as it allows the RCC horizontal 

discharge trailer to deposit asphalt mix 

directly into the paving machine 

hopper. This method also allows for a 

more controlled off-loading, as 

compared to a dump trailer, which is 

the other type of vehicle capable of 

delivering asphalt mix to road 

construction sites.2

This rulemaking was initiated by a 

joint petition on behalf of Dan Hill & 

Associates, Inc. (Dan Hill), and Red 

River Manufacturing, Inc., a Division of 

Trail King Industries, Inc. (Red River).3

Dan Hill and Red River are 

manufacturers of RCC horizontal 

discharge trailers. Their petition 

requested that the agency amend 

FMVSS No. 224 to ‘‘exclude 

construction controlled horizontal 

discharge semitrailers from the scope of 

the standard.’’ Since the effective date of 

the standard,4 Dan Hill and Red River 

have each received a temporary 

exemption from the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 224, in part because of the 

impracticability of installing underride 

guards on RCC horizontal discharge 

trailers.5

FMVSS No. 224 currently excludes 

pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, wheels