Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 85571 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 393 and 399 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2019–0211] 

RIN 2126–AC31 

Parts and Accessories Necessary for 

Safe Operation; Rear Impact Guards 

and Rear Impact Protection 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs) to include rear 

impact guards on the list of items that 

must be examined as part of the 

required annual inspection for each 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV). In 

addition, FMCSA proposes to amend 

the labeling requirements for rear 

impact guards, and to exclude road 

construction controlled (RCC) 

horizontal discharge trailers from the 

rear impact guard requirements, 

consistent with changes made by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) to the 

corresponding Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards (FMVSS). This notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

responds to rulemaking petitions, as 

well as a recommendation from the 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO). 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received on or before March 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket Number FMCSA2019-0211 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0211. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. To be sure someone is 

there to help you, please call (202) 366– 

9317 or (202) 366–9826 before visiting 

Dockets Operations. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

instructions on submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside 

Operations, Office of Carrier, Driver, 

and Vehicle Safety, MC–PSV, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 366– 

0676, luke.loy@dot.gov. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, contact Dockets 

Operations, (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

NPRM (FMCSA–2019-0211), indicate 

the specific section of this document to 

which comment applies, and provide a 

reason for each suggestion or 

recommendation. You may submit your 

comments and material online or by fax, 

mail, or hand delivery, but please use 

only one of these means. FMCSA 

recommends that you include your 

name and a mailing address, an email 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that FMCSA 

can contact you if there are questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0211, click on 

the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button, and type 

your comment into the text box on the 

following screen. Choose whether you 

are submitting your comment as an 

individual or on behalf of a third party 

and then submit. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, on paper no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit comments by mail and would 

like to know that they reached the 

facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period and may make changes 

based on your comments. FMCSA may 

issue a final rule at any time after the 

close of the comment period. 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from 

public disclosure. If your comments 

responsive to the interim rule contain 

commercial or financial information 

that is customarily treated as private, 

that you actually treat as private, and 

that is relevant or responsive to the 

interim rule, it is important that you 

clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission that constitutes 

CBI as ‘‘PROPIN’’ to indicate it contains 

proprietary information. FMCSA will 

treat such marked submissions as 

confidential under the Freedom of 

Information Act, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of the 

interim rule. Submissions containing 

CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, 

Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 

Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590– 

0001. Any comments FMCSA receives 

not specifically designated as CBI will 

be placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA2019-0211. If you do not have access to 

the internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting the Dockets 

Operations in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366– 

9826 before visiting Dockets Operations. 

C. Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, including any personal information 

the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

D. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Under the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94 

(FAST Act), FMCSA is required to 

publish an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a 

negotiated rulemaking ‘‘if a proposed 

rule is likely to lead to the promulgation 

of a major rule.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1). 

As this proposed rule is not likely to 

lead to the promulgation of a major rule, 

the Agency is not required to issue an 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85572 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1Copies of the petitions from CVSA and the 

Karths are available online at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0211 

and in Dockets Operations. 

2A copy of the GAO Report is available online 

at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA2019-0211 and in Dockets Operations. 

3A copy of the letter is available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0211 

and in Dockets Operations. 

4 You may view the NHTSA rule online at https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/11/19/04- 

25704/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rearimpact-guard-labels. 

5 You may view the NHTSA rule online at https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/11/19/04- 

25703/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rearimpact-guards-final-rule. 

ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated 

rulemaking. 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose and Summary of Major 

Provisions 

Section 393.86 of the FMCSRs, ‘‘Rear 

impact guards and rear end protection,’’ 

requires rear impact guards to be 

installed on most CMVs to reduce the 

incidence of passenger compartment 

intrusion during underride crashes in 

which a passenger vehicle strikes the 

rear of the CMV. Regulations requiring 

rear impact guards have been in the 

FMCSRs since 1952. The FMCSRs 

require that all CMVs be systematically 

inspected, repaired, and maintained to 

ensure that all required parts and 

accessories—including rear impact 

guards—are in safe and proper operating 

condition at all times (section 

396.3(a)(1)). Operation of a CMV with a 

missing or noncompliant rear impact 

guard would be a violation of the 

FMCSRs, precluding the issuance of a 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

(CVSA) inspection decal if the vehicle 

were to be inspected. 

Among other things, the regulations 

require every CMV to be inspected at 

least once every 12 months. A motor 

carrier may not use a CMV unless each 

component identified in Appendix G of 

Subchapter B of Chapter III of title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, ‘‘Minimum 

Periodic Inspection Standards,’’ has 

passed the required annual inspection. 

While the FMCSRs have required rear 

impact guards for more than 65 years, 

they are not included on the list of 

components in Appendix G that must be 

inspected during the annual CMV 

inspection. This means that a vehicle 

can pass an annual inspection with a 

missing or damaged rear impact guard. 

In response to petitions from the 

CVSA and Jerry and Marianne Karth 

(‘‘the Karths’’ 1); a recommendation 

included in GAO Report GAO–19–264, 

‘‘Truck Underride Guards: Improved 

Data Collection, Inspections, and 

Research Needed;’’ 2 and Congressional 

correspondence,3 this rulemaking 

proposes to amend the FMCSRs to 

include rear impact guards on the list of 

items that must be examined as part of 

the required annual inspection for each 

CMV. 

In addition, NHTSA published two 

final rules on November 19, 2004, 

relating to rear impact guards. First, 

NHTSA amended the labeling 

requirement in FMVSS No. 223, ‘‘Rear 

impact guards,’’ to permit the rear 

impact guard certification label to be 

mounted on either the forward- or 

rearward-facing surface of the horizontal 

member of the guard, provided the label 

does not interfere with the 

retroreflective sheeting required by the 

FMVSS (69 FR 67660).4 Prior to the 

amendment, the certification label was 

required to be mounted on the forwardfacing surface of the horizontal member, 

12 inches inboard of the right end of the 

guard. Second, NHTSA amended the 

applicability section of FMVSS No. 224, 

‘‘Rear impact protection,’’ to exclude 

RCC horizontal discharge semitrailers 

from the requirements of the standard 

(69 FR 67663).5 NHTSA concluded that 

installation of rear impact guards on 

RCC horizontal discharge trailers would 

interfere with the intended function of 

the trailers and was therefore 

impracticable due to the unique design 

and purpose of those vehicles. However, 

neither of NHTSA’s November 2004 

amendments to the FMVSS has been 

incorporated into the corresponding rear 

impact requirements in section 393.86 

of the FMCSRs. FMCSA is proposing to 

amend the FMCSRs to adopt the 

changes above to maintain consistency 

with FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. 

B. Costs and Benefits of Proposal 

The Agency does not expect this 

rulemaking to result in incremental 

costs or benefits. Although rear impact 

guards are not currently among the 

items that must be examined during 

annual inspections, 49 CFR 393.86 

requires that certain CMVs operated in 

interstate commerce be equipped with 

the devices and that they remain 

installed and in safe and proper 

operating conditions at all times. 

Therefore, for the purposes of assessing 

the potential economic impact of this 

rulemaking on motor carriers, the 

Agency assumes compliance as part of 

the baseline established by the existing 

FMCSRs in section 393.86. Neither the 

labeling requirements that would result 

from this proposed rule nor the 

exclusion of RCC horizontal discharge 

semitrailers from these requirements 

would result in incremental costs or 

benefits. 

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

This rulemaking is based on the 

authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 

1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier 

Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act). 

The 1935 Act, as amended, provides 

that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation 

may prescribe requirements for—(1) 

qualifications and maximum hours of 

service of employees of, and safety of 

operation and equipment of, a motor 

carrier; and (2) qualifications and 

maximum hours of service of employees 

of, and standards of equipment of, a 

private motor carrier, when needed to 

promote safety of operation’’ (49 U.S.C. 

31502(b)). 

This NPRM would amend the 

FMCSRs to respond to petitions for 

rulemaking. The adoption and 

enforcement of such rules is specifically 

authorized by the 1935 Act. This 

proposed rulemaking rests squarely on 

that authority. 

The 1984 Act provides concurrent 

authority to regulate drivers, motor 

carriers, and vehicle equipment. It 

requires the Secretary to ‘‘prescribe 

regulations on commercial motor 

vehicle safety.’’ The regulations shall 

prescribe minimum safety standards for 

CMVs. At a minimum, the regulations 

shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are 

maintained, equipped, loaded, and 

operated safely; (2) the responsibilities 

imposed on operators of CMVs do not 

impair their ability to operate the 

vehicles safely; (3) the physical 

condition of operators of CMVs is 

adequate to enable them to operate 

vehicles safely; (4) the operation of 

CMVs does not have a deleterious effect 

on the physical condition of the 

operators; and (5) drivers are not 

coerced by motor carriers, shippers, 

receivers, or transportation 

intermediaries to operate a vehicle in 

violation of a regulation promulgated 

under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (which is the 

basis for much of the FMCSRs) or 49 

U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313 (49 U.S.C. 

31136(a)). 

This proposed rule concerns parts and 

accessories necessary for the safe 

operation of CMVs, and the inspection, 

repair, and maintenance of CMVs. It is 

based on section 31136(a)(1) because it 

deals with CMV maintenance of rear 

impact guards. The NPRM does not 

address the driver-centered 

requirements of sections 31136(a)(2)– 

(4). As the amendments proposed by 

this rule are primarily technical changes 

that clarify existing requirements and 

improve enforcement consistency, 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 85573 

FMCSA believes there will be 

stakeholder support for this initiative 

and that coercion to violate the 

proposed amendments, which is already 

prohibited by section 31136(a)(5), will 

not be an issue. 

Before prescribing any such 

regulations, FMCSA must consider the 

‘‘costs and benefits’’ of any proposal (49 

U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). As 

discussed in greater detail in the 

‘‘Regulatory Analyses’’ section, FMCSA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not a significant regulatory action. 

IV. Background 

A. History of Rear Impact Guard 

Requirements 

The first Federal requirements 

concerning heavy vehicle rear underride 

protection were issued in 1952 by the 

Bureau of Motor Carriers of the 

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). 

The regulation required all heavy 

trucks, trailers, and semitrailers 

manufactured after December 31, 1952, 

to be equipped with a rear-end 

protection device designed to help 

prevent underride. The rule required 

that the ground clearance of the 

underride guard be no more than 30 

inches when the vehicle is empty. The 

rule also required that the underride 

guard be located no more than 24 inches 

forward of the rear of the vehicle, and 

that it extend laterally to within 18 

inches of each side. The underride 

device was required to be ‘‘substantially 

constructed and firmly attached’’ (17 FR 

4445, May 15, 1952). The ICC’s 

authority over motor carrier safety was 

transferred to DOT by Section 6(e)(6)(C) 

of the Department of Transportation Act 

(Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931, 939–940, 

Oct. 15, 1966). The authority was 

delegated by the Secretary to the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA). 

On January 24, 1996, NHTSA 

published a final rule creating FMVSS 

Nos. 223 and 224 (61 FR 2004). The 

requirements apply to most trailers and 

semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 10,000 pounds or more, 

manufactured on or after January 26, 

1998. 

FMVSS No. 223 specifies performance 

requirements that rear impact guards 

must meet before they can be installed 

on new trailers or semitrailers. It 

specifies strength and energy absorption 

requirements, as well as test procedures 

that manufacturers and NHTSA will use 

to determine compliance with the 

standard. The standard also requires the 

guard manufacturer to permanently 

label the impact guard to certify that it 

meets the requirements and to provide 

instructions on the proper installation of 

the guard. 

FMVSS No. 224 requires that most 

new trailers and semitrailers with a 

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more be 

equipped with a rear impact guard 

meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 

223. The guards must extend laterally to 

within 4 inches of the sides of the 

trailer, have a ground clearance of no 

more than 22 inches, and be placed as 

close as possible to, but not more than 

12 inches from, the rear of the vehicle. 

To ensure that the guard will perform 

properly, the standard also requires it to 

be mounted on the trailer or semitrailer 

in accordance with the installation 

instructions provided by the guard 

manufacturer. 

On September 1, 1999, FHWA 

published a final rule amending the 

FMCSRs to require trailers and 

semitrailers manufactured on or after 

January 26, 1998, with a GVWR of 

10,000 pounds or more, be equipped 

with rear impact guards that meet the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 223. The 

rear impact guards must be installed to 

ensure that the trailer or semitrailer 

meets the rear end protection 

requirements of FMVSS No. 224. This 

rule was intended to ensure that the rear 

impact protection requirements of the 

FMCSRs are consistent with the FMVSS 

(64 FR 47703). 

As stated previously, NHTSA 

published two final rules on November 

19, 2004, relating to rear impact guards. 

NHTSA amended the labeling 

requirement in FMVSS No. 223 to 

permit the rear impact guard 

certification label to be mounted on 

either the forward- or rearward-facing 

surface of the horizontal member of the 

guard (69 FR 67660), and amended the 

applicability section of FMVSS No. 224 

to exclude RCC horizontal discharge 

semitrailers from the requirements of 

the standard (69 FR 67663). However, 

neither of NHTSA’s November 2004 

amendments to the FMVSS has been 

incorporated into the corresponding rear 

impact requirements in section 393.86 

of the FMCSRs. 

B. History of Appendix G Requirements 

Section 210 of the 1984 Act required 

the Secretary of Transportation to 

establish standards for the annual or 

more frequent (i.e., periodic) inspection 

of all CMVs engaged in interstate or 

foreign commerce (49 U.S.C. 31142(b)). 

In response, FHWA adopted new 

section 396.17 on December 7, 1988, 

which requires all CMVs to be inspected 

at least once every 12 months (53 FR 

49380, as amended on Dec. 8, 1989 (54 

FR 50722)). The rule was based largely 

on (1) the CVSA vehicle out-of-service 

criteria, and (2) the vehicle portion of 

the FHWA National Uniform DriverVehicle Inspection Procedure (NUD– 

VIP). The latter was used as the 

standard for successful completion of 

the annual inspection, and the details of 

the required inspection were spelled out 

in Appendix G to the FMCSRs, also 

promulgated by the final rule. FHWA 

noted that utilization of the FHWA 

NUD–VIP would (1) provide the 

necessary inspection-related pass/fail 

criteria for the periodic inspection at a 

more stringent level than the vehicle 

out-of-service criteria, and (2) provide 

the proper level of Federal oversight in 

establishing and revising the criteria. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Rear Impact Guards in Appendix G 

Rear impact guards are not included 

on the list of items in Appendix G that 

must be examined during the annual 

inspection required by section 396.17. 

This means that a vehicle could pass the 

annual inspection with a missing or 

damaged rear impact guard. However, 

the operation of the vehicle with a 

missing or damaged rear impact guard 

would be a violation of the FMCSRs, 

and according to CVSA policy, a CVSA 

inspection decal would not be issued if 

the vehicle were inspected. 

In its petition, CVSA requested that 

the Agency amend Appendix G to 

include specific language regarding the 

inspection of rear impact guards during 

annual inspections. The petition stated: 

A vehicle’s rear impact guard/rear end 

protection is inspected roadside as part of the 

North American Standard Inspection 

Program. However, the majority of 

commercial motor vehicles do not come into 

contact with an inspector on an annual basis 

. . . 

According to data available through 

FMCSA’s Analysis and Information Online 

web page, in fiscal year 2017 inspectors 

document[ed] more than 2,300 violations 

related to rear impact guards and rear end 

protection, more than half of which are for 

components that are missing, damaged or 

improperly constructed. Including rear 

impact guards and rear end protection in the 

periodic inspection requirements in 

Appendix G will call additional attention to 

this critical safety component and help 

ensure that each vehicle is checked at least 

once a year, improving compliance and 

helping to prevent fatalities and injuries 

when rear-end collisions occur. Furthermore, 

including rear impact guards and rear end 

protection in the periodic annual inspection 

standards will harmonize U.S. regulations 

with those in Canada and Mexico, which 

include rear impact guards and rear end 

protection as part of their annual inspection 

programs. 

The Karths’ petition requested that 

FMCSA ‘‘Add underride guards to 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85574 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

6The Karths’ petition also requested that FMCSA 

change the definition of Out of Service Criteria to 

read as follows: ‘‘A vehicle(s) is placed out-ofservice only when by reason of its mechanical 

condition or loading it is determined to be so 

imminently hazardous as to likely cause an 

accident or breakdown, or when such condition(s) 

would likely contribute to loss of control of the 

vehicle(s) by the driver, or to allow death and/or 

injuries from truck underride (passenger 

compartment intrusion) upon collision.’’ [Emphasis 

in original.] FMCSA notes that the North American 

Standard Out-of-Service Criteria are developed and 

maintained by CVSA, and are not part of the 

FMCSR. As such, any amendments to the Out-ofService criteria are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Appendix G and 396.17 (Periodic 

Inspection),’’ but did not provide any 

supporting information.6

In addition, several Senators asked 

GAO to review data on truck underride 

crashes and information on underride 

guards. Between January 2018 and 

March 2019, GAO conducted a 

performance audit that included a 

literature review and interviews with 

stakeholders familiar with underride 

crashes and guards. 

GAO Report GAO–19–264, published 

in March 2019, examines (1) the data 

that DOT reports on underride crashes, 

and (2) the development and use of 

underride guard technologies in the 

United States. GAO analyzed DOT’s 

underride crash data for 2008 through 

2017; reviewed NHTSA’s proposed 

regulations and research on new guard 

technologies (80 FR 78418, Dec. 16, 

2015); and interviewed stakeholders 

including DOT officials, industry and 

safety groups, and State officials. 

With respect to FMCSA, the GAO 

concluded that the lack of an annual 

inspection requirement for rear impact 

guards potentially affects the safety of 

the traveling public and FMCSA’s 

ability to achieve its safety mission. 

GAO stated that ‘‘without explicitly 

including the inspection of the rear 

guard in Appendix G, there is no 

assurance that rear guards in operation 

will be inspected at least annually to 

ensure they perform as designed to 

prevent or mitigate an underride crash.’’ 

In its ‘‘Recommendations for Executive 

Action,’’ GAO stated: 

The Administrator of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration should revise 

Appendix G of the agency’s regulations to 

require that rear guards are inspected during 

commercial vehicle annual inspections. 

(Recommendation 3) 

While the GAO review was being 

conducted, FMCSA received 

Congressional correspondence urging 

the Agency to ‘‘add ‘underride guards’ 

to the list of annual inspection items 

required [for] trucks and trailers under 

current periodic inspection 

regulations.’’ The Senators stated: 

Requiring an annual inspection of rear 

underride guards, in addition to the current 

list of items already checked during annual 

inspections, would ensure trucks and trailers 

are complying with regulations already on 

the books. Therefore, we ask that FMCSA 

consider initiating a rulemaking to amend 

federal Minimum Periodic Inspection 

Standards to include a subsection on 

‘‘underride guards.’’ Should you decide to 

move forward with this rulemaking, we 

respectfully request that an inserted 

subsection be identical to the already 

mandated minimum standards of rear impact 

guards and rear end protection. 

FMCSA agrees that the failure of a 

motor carrier to properly maintain an 

important safety feature such as a rear 

impact guard should result in the 

vehicle failing the required annual 

inspection. Given that rear impact 

guards have been included in part 393 

for more than 65 years, and that part 396 

requires all parts and accessories 

specified in part 393—to include rear 

impact guards—to be in safe and proper 

operating condition at all times, FMCSA 

assumes that the majority of motor 

carriers currently inspect rear impact 

guards annually despite the absence of 

an explicit requirement to do so in 

Appendix G. According to FMCSA’s 

Motor Carrier Management Information 

System (MCMIS), out of approximately 

5.8 million regulatory violations 

identified during inspections in 2017, 

only approximately 2,400—or about 

0.041 percent—were rear impact guard 

violations. 

For these reasons, and as discussed in 

the Regulatory Analyses section, the 

Agency believes that amending 

Appendix G to include a review of rear 

impact guards and maintain consistency 

with part 393, would result in only a de 

minimis economic impact. FMCSA 

proposes to amend Appendix G to 

require rear impact guards to be 

inspected as part of the annual 

inspection required under § 396.17. 

B. Rear Impact Guard Labeling 

NHTSA amended the labeling 

requirement in FMVSS No. 223 on 

November 19, 2004, to permit the rear 

impact guard certification label to be 

mounted on either the forward- or 

rearward-facing surface of the horizontal 

member of the guard, if the label does 

not interfere with the retroreflective 

sheeting required by the FMVSS. Prior 

to the amendment, the certification label 

was required to be mounted on the 

forward-facing surface of the horizontal 

member, 12 inches inboard of the right 

end of the guard. NHTSA decided to 

allow rear impact guard manufacturers 

flexibility in determining where to place 

the label on the horizontal member of 

the guard so that they can minimize 

exposure to operational and 

environmental damage, while at the 

same time ensuring that it is readily 

accessible for visual inspection. FMCSA 

proposes to amend the labeling 

requirements in section 393.86(a)(6) to 

be consistent with the changes made by 

NHTSA in 2004. 

C. Applicability—RCC Horizontal 

Discharge Trailers 

Also on November 19, 2004, NHTSA 

amended the applicability section of 

FMVSS No. 224 to exclude RCC 

horizontal discharge trailers from its 

requirements. RCC horizontal discharge 

trailers are used to deliver asphalt to 

road construction sites and gradually to 

discharge asphalt mix into 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. A rear impact 

guard required by the FMVSS would 

prevent the RCC horizontal discharge 

trailer from effectively connecting with 

a paving machine. NHTSA concluded 

that installation of rear impact guards 

on RCC horizontal discharge trailers 

would interfere with the intended 

function of the trailers and therefore 

exempted them from the standard. 

FMCSA proposes to amend (1) § 393.5 

to add a definition of road construction 

controlled horizontal discharge trailer 

consistent with the NHTSA definition 

in FMVSS No. 224, and (2) 

§ 393.86(a)(1) and § 393.86(b)(1) to make 

it clear that RCC horizontal discharge 

trailers are not required to have a rear 

impact guard installed, consistent with 

the amendments made by NHTSA in 

2004. 

Although neither of NHTSA’s 

November 2004 amendments was 

incorporated into the rear impact 

requirements in § 393.86, FMCSA is not 

aware of any enforcement or compliance 

issues that have arisen with respect to 

these items in the ensuing 15 years. As 

such, FMCSA does not expect the 

proposed amendments to have any 

impact on motor carriers. 

VI. International Impacts 

The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to 

the FMCSRs, apply only within the 

United States (and, in some cases, U.S. 

territories). Motor carriers and drivers 

are subject to the laws and regulations 

of the countries in which they operate, 

unless an international agreement states 

otherwise. Drivers and carriers should 

be aware of the regulatory differences 

among nations. 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 85575 

7Executive Office of the President, Executive 

Order 13771 of January 30, 2017, Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, 82 FR 

9339–9341, February 3, 2017. 

8Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

see National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/laws/regulaotry-flexibility/601.html. 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. Part 393—Parts and Accessories 

Necessary for Safe Operation 

Section 393.86(a)(1) (General 

requirements for trailers and 

semitrailers manufactured on or after 

January 26, 1998). 

FMCSA proposes to amend this 

section by adding RCC horizontal 

discharge trailers to the list of vehicles 

that are not required to have a rear 

impact guard. 

Section 393.86(a)(6) (Certification and 

labeling requirements for rear impact 

protection guards). 

FMCSA proposes to amend this 

section to clarify that the label may be 

on the forward- or rear-facing surface of 

the horizontal member of the guard, 

provided it does not interfere with the 

retroreflective sheeting required by the 

FMVSS. 

Section 393.86(b)(1) (Requirements 

for motor vehicles manufactured after 

December 31, 1952 (except trailers or 

semitrailers manufactured on or after 

January 26, 1998)). 

FMCSA proposes to amend this 

section by adding RCC horizontal 

discharge trailers to the list of vehicles 

that are not required to have a rear 

impact guard. 

B. Appendix G to Subchapter B of 

Chapter III (Minimum Periodic 

Inspection Standards) 

FMCSA proposes to amend Appendix 

G by adding rear impact guards to the 

list of items required to be inspected 

pursuant to section 396.17. 

VIII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review as Supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563 and DOT 

Regulations) 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs determined that this 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, as 

supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 

3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. This rule 

is also not significant within the 

meaning of DOT regulations (49 CFR 

5.13(a)). Accordingly, the Office of 

Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under these Orders. 

In response to rulemaking petitions 

and a recommendation from the GAO, 

FMCSA proposes to amend Appendix G 

to Subchapter B of Chapter III in title 49 

CFR. This amendment would add rear 

impact guards to the list of items that 

must be examined as part of the 

required annual inspection for each 

CMV. 

Section 393.86(a) currently requires 

most trailers and semitrailers 

manufactured on or after January 26, 

1998, to be equipped with rear impact 

guards. This proposed rule would not 

require installation or maintenance of 

rear impact guards beyond the current 

requirements in § 393.86. 

The Agency does not expect this 

proposed rule to result in incremental 

costs or benefits beyond the baseline 

established in the FMCSRs. As required 

by 49 CFR 396.17, motor carriers 

currently complete annual inspections 

of all items identified in Appendix G. 

FMCSA assumes that motor carriers 

review rear impact guards in their 

annual inspection programs to remain 

in compliance with the current 

requirements in 49 CFR 396.3(a)(1), 

which states that rear impact guards 

must be installed and in safe and proper 

operating conditions at all times. 

Additionally, CMVs are subject to 

inspections conducted in accordance 

with the CVSA’s North American 

Standard Inspection Program that may 

occur throughout the year, which 

include the examination of rear impact 

guards. According to MCMIS, most 

motor carriers comply with 49 CFR 

396.3(a)(1). Specifically, out of 

approximately 5.8 million regulatory 

violations identified during inspections 

in 2017, only approximately 2,400—or 

about 0.041 percent—were rear impact 

guard violations. 

FMCSA also proposes two minor 

changes to maintain consistency 

between the FMCSRs and NHTSA’s 

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. As described 

above, these changes would provide 

consistent labeling requirements and 

would exclude RCC horizontal 

discharge semitrailers from the 

requirements of this standard. FMCSA 

does not expect these administrative 

changes to result in incremental 

impacts. 

B. Executive Order 13771 Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This proposed rule is expected to be 

neither an Executive Order 13771 

regulatory action nor an Executive 

Order 13771 deregulatory action 

because there would be no cost impacts 

resulting from the rule.7

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small 

Entities) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of their regulatory actions on small 

businesses and other small entities and 

to minimize any significant economic 

impact. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

encompasses small businesses and notfor-profit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000.8

Accordingly, DOT policy requires an 

analysis of the impact of all regulations 

on small entities and mandates that 

agencies strive to lessen any adverse 

effects on these businesses. Section 605 

of the RFA allows an agency to certify 

a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, 

if the rulemaking is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 

601(3) as having the same meaning as 

‘‘small business concern’’ under Section 

3 of the Small Business Act (SBA). This 

includes any small business concern 

that is independently owned and 

operated, and is not dominant in its 

field of operation. Section 601(4), 

likewise, includes within the definition 

of ‘‘small entities’’ not-for-profit 

enterprises that are independently 

owned and operated, and are not 

dominant in their fields of operation. In 

addition, Section 601(5) defines ‘‘small 

entities’’ as governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, 

school districts, or special districts with 

populations less than 50,000. The Small 

Business Administration develops the 

size standards used to classify entities 

as small, and establishes separate 

standards for each industry, as defined 

by the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). The 

motor carriers that would be affected by 

this rule fall into many different 

industry codes with differing size 

standards. Because this rule would 

impact all motor carriers, including 

those considered to be small entities, 

FMCSA anticipates that this rule would 

impact a substantial number of small 

entities. 

However, FMCSA has determined 

that this rule would not have a 

significant impact on the affected 

entities. This rule would require motor 

carriers to include rear impact guards on 

the list of items that must be examined 

as part of the required annual CMV 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85576 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

inspection completed. FMCSA believes 

that motor carriers have been inspecting 

the rear impact guards on their CMVs to 

remain in compliance with 

requirements that have been in the 

FMCSRs since 1952. As such, FMCSA 

does not expect this proposed rule to 

have incremental impacts on the 

affected entities. The Agency also does 

not expect the two minor changes 

proposed to maintain consistency 

between the FMCSRs and NHTSA’s 

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 to result in 

incremental impacts. The Agency 

expects the impacts of this proposed 

rule would be de minimis, and 

therefore, does not expect the proposed 

rule to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Consequently, I certify that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

FMCSA invites comment from members 

of the public who believe there will be 

a significant impact either on small 

businesses or on governmental 

jurisdictions with a population of less 

than 50,000. 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

In accordance with section 213(a) of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

FMCSA wants to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

themselves and participate in the 

rulemaking initiative. If the proposed 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce or otherwise determine 

compliance with Federal regulations to 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of FMCSA, call 1–888–REG– 

FAIR (1–888–734–3247). DOT has a 

policy regarding the rights of small 

entities to regulatory enforcement 

fairness and an explicit policy against 

retaliation for exercising these rights. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$165 million (which is the value 

equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, 

adjusted for inflation to 2018 levels) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, the Agency does 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Section 1(a) of Executive Order 

13132 if it has ‘‘substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ FMCSA 

determined that this proposal would not 

have substantial direct costs on or for 

States, nor would it limit the 

policymaking discretion of States. 

Nothing in this document preempts any 

State law or regulation. Therefore, this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Impact Statement. 

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), requires agencies 

issuing ‘‘economically significant’’ 

rules, if the regulation also concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

an agency has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, to 

include an evaluation of the regulation’s 

environmental health and safety effects 

on children. The Agency determined 

this proposed rule is not economically 

significant. Therefore, no analysis of the 

impacts on children is required. In any 

event, the Agency does not anticipate 

that this regulatory action could in any 

respect present an environmental or 

safety risk that could disproportionately 

affect children. 

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule 

in accordance with Executive Order 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights, and has 

determined it will not result in the 

effect a taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications. 

K. Privacy 

Section 522 of title I of division H of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 

552a note), requires the Agency to 

conduct a privacy impact assessment 

(PIA) of a regulation that will affect the 

privacy of individuals. The Agency 

completed a Privacy Threshold 

Assessment (PTA) to assist in analyzing 

the new rulemaking to determine if it 

creates privacy risk for individuals that 

could require other entities to collect, 

use, store or share personally 

identifiable information (PII), or deploy 

technologies as a result of this 

rulemaking implementation. The PTA is 

also used to identify programs and 

systems that are privacy sensitive and 

help determine whether additional 

privacy compliance, such a PIA or 

System of Records Notice (SORN), is 

required for a particular rulemaking or 

system. Based on the preliminary 

adjudication of the PTA by the FMCSA 

Privacy Officer, this rule does not 

require the collection of PII and the 

Agency is not required to conduct a PIA. 

The PTA has been submitted to 

FMCSA’s Privacy Officer for review and 

preliminary adjudication and to DOT’s 

Privacy Officer for review and final 

adjudication. The DOT Privacy Office 

has determined that this rulemaking 

does not create privacy risk. 

L. Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations implementing 

Executive Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this program. 

M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use) 

FMCSA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 85577 

Distribution, or Use. The Agency has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Therefore, it does not require a 

Statement of Energy Effects under 

Executive Order 13211. The 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

not designated it as a significant energy 

action. Therefore, it does not require a 

Statement of Energy Effects under 

Executive Order 13211. 

N. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This rule does not have Tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

Tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

O. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (Technical 

Standards) 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through OMB, with 

an explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., 

specifications of materials, performance, 

design, or operation; test methods; 

sampling procedures; and related 

management systems practices) are 

standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

P. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the 

purpose of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and determined this action is 

categorically excluded from further 

analysis and documentation in an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, 

March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph 

(aa). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in 

paragraph (aa) covers regulations 

requiring motor carriers, their officers, 

drivers, agents, representatives, and 

employees directly in control of CMVs 

to inspect, repair, and provide 

maintenance for every CMV used on a 

public road. The proposed requirements 

in this rule are covered by this CE and 

the NPRM does not have any effect on 

the quality of the environment. The CE 

determination is available for inspection 

or copying in the regulations.gov 

website listed under ADDRESSES. 

Q. Executive Order 13783 (Promoting 

Energy Independence and Economic 

Growth) 

Executive Order 13783 directs 

executive departments and agencies to 

review existing regulations that 

potentially burden the development or 

use of domestically produced energy 

resources, and to appropriately suspend, 

revise, or rescind those that unduly 

burden the development of domestic 

energy resources. In accordance with 

Executive Order 13783, DOT prepared 

and submitted a report to the Director of 

OMB that provides specific 

recommendations that, to the extent 

permitted by law, could alleviate or 

eliminate aspects of agency action that 

burden domestic energy production. 

This proposed rule has not been 

identified by DOT under Executive 

Order 13783 as potentially alleviating 

unnecessary burdens on domestic 

energy production. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 393 

Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor 

vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 399 

Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, 

Occupational safety and health. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 

parts 393 and 399 as follows: 

PART 393—PARTS AND 

ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR 

SAFE OPERATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 393 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 

31502; sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102–240, 105 

Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5301 and 5524 

of Pub. L. 114–94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, 1560; 

and 49 CFR 1.87. 

■ 2. Amend § 393.5 by adding a 

definition for Road construction 

controlled horizontal discharge trailer 

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 393.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Road construction controlled 

horizontal discharge trailer means a 

trailer or semitrailer that is equipped 

with a mechanical drive and a conveyor 

to deliver asphalt and other road 

building materials, in a controlled 

horizontal manner, into a lay down 

machine or paving equipment for road 

construction and paving operations. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 393.86 revise paragraphs (a)(1), 

(6) and (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 393.86 Rear impact guards and rear end 

protection. 

(a)(1) General requirements for trailers 

and semitrailers manufactured on or 

after January 26, 1998. Each trailer and 

semitrailer with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or 

more, and manufactured on or after 

January 26, 1998, must be equipped 

with a rear impact guard that meets the 

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 223 (49 CFR 

571.223) in effect at the time the vehicle 

was manufactured. When the rear 

impact guard is installed on the trailer 

or semitrailer, the vehicle must, at a 

minimum, meet the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 224 (49 CFR 571.224) in 

effect at the time the vehicle was 

manufactured. The requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section do not 

apply to pole trailers (as defined in 

§ 390.5 of this chapter); pulpwood 

trailers, low chassis vehicles, special 

purpose vehicles, wheels back vehicles 

(as defined in § 393.5), road 

construction controlled horizontal 

discharge trailers; and trailers towed in 

driveaway-towaway operations (as 

defined in § 390.5). 

* * * * * 

(6) Certification and labeling 

requirements for rear impact protection 

guards. Each rear impact guard used to 

satisfy the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section must be 

permanently marked or labeled as 

required by FMVSS No. 223 (49 CFR 

571.223, S5.3). 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. The certification label must 

contain the following information: 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) Requirements for motor vehicles 

manufactured after December 31, 1952 

(except trailers or semitrailers 

manufactured on or after January 26, 

1998). Each motor vehicle manufactured 

after December 31, 1952, (except truck 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
85578 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

tractors, pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, 

road construction controlled horizontal 

discharge trailers, or vehicles in 

driveaway-towaway operations) in 

which the vertical distance between the 

rear bottom edge of the body (or the 

chassis assembly if the chassis is the 

rearmost part of the vehicle) and the 

ground is greater than 76.2 cm (30 

inches) when the motor vehicle is 

empty, shall be equipped with a rear 

impact guard(s). The rear impact 

guard(s) must be installed and 

maintained in such a manner that: 

* * * * * 

PART 399—EMPLOYEE SAFETY AND 

HEALTH STANDARDS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 399 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31502 and 49 CFR 

1.87. 

■ 5. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter 

B of Chapter III by adding Section 15 as 

follows: 

Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter 

III—Minimum Periodic Inspection 

Standards 

* * * * * 

15. Rear Impact Guard 

a. Trailers and semitrailers with a GVWR 

of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or more, 

manufactured on or after January 26, 1998 

(see exceptions in § 393.86(a)(1)). 

1. Missing guard. 

2. Guard is not securely attached to trailer. 

3. Guard does not extend to within 100 mm 

(4 inches) of each side extremity of the 

vehicle, and not beyond. 

4. Guard is more than 560 mm (22 inches) 

above the ground. 

5. Guard is more than 305 mm (12 inches) 

forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle. 

6. Guard does not have a cross sectional 

vertical height of at least 100 mm (4 inches) 

across its entire width. 

b. Commercial motor vehicles 

manufactured after December 31, 1952 

(except trailers and semitrailers 

manufactured on or after January 26, 1998) 

(see exceptions in § 393.86(b)(1) and 

§ 393.86(b)(3)). 

1. Missing guard. 

2. Guard is not securely attached to trailer 

by bolts, welding, or other comparable 

means. 

3. Guard is more than 762 mm (30 inches) 

above the ground. 

4. Guard does not extend to within 457 mm 

(18 inches) of each side extremity of the 

vehicle. 

5. Guard is more than 610 mm (24 inches) 

forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

James W. Deck, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27502 Filed 12–28–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS