Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26759

2 47 CFR 1.46.

discussed among NAB’s staff and other

parties, will be helpful to the

Commission’s inquiry. Furthermore,

NAB asserts, the issues raised by the

Notice, and the NAB’s position on them,

will be major subjects of its Joint Board

of Directors meeting scheduled June 27–

30, 1998.

3. We will grant the requested

extension. Although the Commission

has a policy of not routinely granting

extensions of time for filing comments

in rulemaking proceedings 2 this

proceeding raises a number of complex

issues concerning the nature,

dimension, and competitiveness of the

several markets in which the subject

rules operate. A well-documented

record will best conduce to an informed

decision as to which of the

Commission’s broadcast ownership

rules are no longer necessary in the

public interest as a result of

competition. Additionally: (1) The

National Association of Broadcasters

represents many of the parties that will

most directly be affected by any actions

we take in this proceeding; (2) it has

shown good cause why a sixty-day

extension will enable it to provide more

well-informed comments; and (3) no

party will be prejudiced by this

extension. Rather, all may make good

use of this added time to prepare and

present well-supported comments on

these important issues.

4. This action is taken pursuant to the

authority found in Sections 4(i) and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and

303(r), and sections 204(b), 0.283, and

1.45 of the Commission’s Rules.

Federal Communications Commission.

Roy J. Stewart,

Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 98–12668 Filed 5–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–97–3201]

RIN 2125–AE15

Parts and Accessories Necessary for

Safe Operation; Rear Impact Guards

and Rear Impact Protection

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); request for comments.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is proposing to

amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs) to require that

certain trailers and semitrailers with a

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of

4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or

more, and manufactured on or after

January 26, 1998, be equipped with rear

impact guards that meet the

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223. The

rear impact guards would be installed to

ensure that the trailer or semitrailer

meets the rear impact protection

requirements of FMVSS No. 224. This

rulemaking is intended to ensure that

the rear impact protection requirements

of the FMCSRs are consistent with the

FMVSSs and to improve the safety of

operation of commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs) by reducing the incidence of

passenger compartment intrusion

during underride accidents in which the

passenger vehicle strikes the rear of the

trailer. With regard to trailers

manufactured before January 26, 1998,

the FHWA is not proposing that motor

carriers be required to retrofit a rear

impact guard that conforms to FMVSS

No. 223. However, motor carriers

operating these trailers would be

required to continue complying with the

FHWA’s current requirements for rear

impact guards and rear impact

protection.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to the docket number that

appears in the heading of this document

to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets,

Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001. All

comments received will be available for

examination at the above address from

10 a.m. to 5 p.m., et., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those

desiring notification of receipt of

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or

postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor Carrier

Research and Standards, (202) 366–

4009, or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of

the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–1354,

Federal Highway Administration,

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.

to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users can access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Please

follow the instructions online for more

information and help.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the Federal Register Electronic Bulletin

Board Service at (202) 512–1661.

Internet users may reach the Federal

Register’s home page at: http://

www.nara.gov/nara/fedreg and the

Government Printing Office’s database

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs.

Background

On January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2003), the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) published a

final rule creating Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs)

Nos. 223, Rear Impact Guards, and 224,

Rear Impact Protection. The

requirements apply to trailers

manufactured on or after January 26,

1997.

The first standard, FMVSS No. 223

(49 CFR 571.223), specifies performance

requirements that rear impact guards

must meet before they can be installed

on new trailers and semitrailers. It

specifies strength requirements for the

impact guards as well as test procedures

that manufacturers and the 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 the

device meets the requirements and to

provide instructions on the proper

installation of the guard.

The second standard, FMVSS No. 224

(49 CFR 571.224), requires that most

new trailers and semitrailers with a

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of

4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or more be

equipped with a rear impact guard

meeting FMVSS No. 223. Requirements

for the location of the guard relative to

the rear end and sides of the trailer are

also specified in the vehicle standard. In

addition, the vehicle standard requires

that the guard be mounted on the trailer

or semitrailer in accordance with the

instructions of the guard manufacturer.

History of Current FHWA 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)

(presently the Office of Motor Carriers of

the Federal Highway Administration).

The regulation, which is still in effect

(49 CFR 393.86), requires heavy trucks,

trailers, and semitrailers to be equipped

with a rear-end protection device
26760 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

designed to help prevent underride. The

rule requires that the ground clearance

of the underride guard be no more than

760 mm (30 inches) when the vehicle is

empty. The rule also requires that the

underride guard be located no more

than 610 mm (24 inches) forward of the

rear of the vehicle and that it extend

laterally to within 460 mm (18 inches)

of each side. The underride device is

required to be ‘‘substantially

constructed and firmly attached.’’

The language that the ICC adopted

was based upon the recommendations

of the Bumper Heights Committee of the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

On January 2, 1947, the Director of the

Bureau of Motor Carriers sent a letter to

the SAE requesting that the Bumper

Heights Committee consider expanding

its work on passenger car bumpers to

include recommendations for rear

bumpers on heavy vehicles. The SAE

provided a report entitled

‘‘Recommendations Covering Rear

Bumpers on Trucks and Trailers,’’ in

September 1947. A copy of the report is

included in the docket file.

NHTSA and FHWA Efforts To Develop

Improved Underride Regulations

Efforts to improve the Federal

requirements for rear underride

protection started in the late 1960’s. On

October 14, 1967, the FHWA’s National

Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB, the

predecessor of the NHTSA) issued an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM) requesting comments on

possible amendments to the Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (32 FR

14278).

On March 19, 1969, the NHSB issued

a notice of proposed rulemaking on rear

underride protection devices (34 FR

5383). The proposal would have applied

to all new trucks and trailers (except

pole trailers) with a GVWR greater than

4,536 kgs (10,000 pounds). The

maximum ground clearance for the

underride protection would have been

457 mm (18 inches). The proposal also

included a static strength test that

would have required that the device

deflect no more than 381 mm (15

inches) forward of the rearmost part of

the vehicle when a force of 333,600

Newtons (75,000 pounds) was applied.

In 1970, the NHSB (acting as a

regulatory agency within the

Department of Transportation but

independent of the FHWA) issued a

supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (SNPRM) in response to

comments to the 1969 NPRM (35 FR

12956, August 14, 1970). The

commenters had expressed concern

about operational problems that would

be created if the ground clearance for

the rear underride guard could not

exceed 457 mm (18 inches).

Commenters also expressed concerns

about the test procedures. Although the

NHSB did not increase the ground

clearance for the underride guard, the

agency proposed reducing the test force

requirements from 333,600 Newtons

(75,000 pounds) to 222,400 Newtons

(50,000 pounds).

The NHTSA (successor to the NHSB

pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of

1970) terminated the rulemaking on rear

underride on June 18, 1971 (36 FR

11750). The NHTSA stated that ‘‘[b]ased

upon the information received in

response to the notices and evaluations

of cost and accident data, the

Administration has concluded that, at

the present time, the safety benefits

achievable in terms of lives and injuries

saved would not be commensurate with

the cost of implementing the proposed

requirements.’’

In response to a petition for

rulemaking from the Insurance Institute

for Highway Safety (IIHS) and a March

16, 1977, hearing before the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation on auto-truck crash

safety, the NHTSA and the FHWA

jointly issued an ANPRM requesting

information on possible revisions to 49

CFR 571 and 49 CFR 393.86 (42 FR

43414, August 29, 1977). The notice

stated:

[I]t is the conclusion of the Department of

Transportation that the present requirements

should be reexamined because the problem

of rear underride accidents remains, and it is

likely to become more severe as automobiles

become smaller and are used in greater

numbers. Improved rear end protection

devices on heavy motor vehicles that may

contribute substantially to saving lives and

preventing injuries may be possible without

incurring either unacceptable costs or

unacceptable restrictions on operations.

The notice also indicated that the

FHWA was starting a research program

to ‘‘establish the level of rear underride

protection needed to reduce injuries and

fatalities in a variety of realistic accident

situations.’’ The goals of the research

program were described:

This will be an attempt to develop a

number of rear underride designs to

determine the desired level of performance,

giving due consideration to cost, weight, and

operational problems. Results of this contract

effort will be used in determining what form

any amendments to FMCSR Section 393.86

and FMVSS Part 571 should take.

The FHWA and the NHTSA worked

together in developing a rear underride

research program and initiated two

separate studies. The FHWA contracted

with the Texas Transportation Institute

(TTI) of Texas A&M University to

develop low-cost underride guards that

would be practical and effective in

preventing underride. The NHTSA

contracted with Dynamic Sciences, Inc.

(DSI) to develop compliance test

procedures for the guards. These joint

contract efforts were intended to

generate sufficient data to support a rule

applicable to vehicles with a GVWR

greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds).

The research contracts focused on

preventing excessive underride

primarily through the use of a rigid

guard having a low ground clearance.

This approach was similar to that

followed by IIHS in a test program

conducted in 1976. The tests performed

by TTI and DSI demonstrated what the

IIHS program had shown earlier:

Excessive underride could be prevented

with rigid guards. However, the tests

also indicated that rigid guards increase

the deceleration forces experienced by

passenger car occupants during a crash

and therefore increase the risk of injury

due to hazards other than underride.

Restrained anthropomorphic test

devices (commonly referred to as test

dummies) placed in passenger cars that

were crashed into the rigid guards at

speeds of 56.3 km/hr (35 mph) or more

experienced injury responses (forces

detected by sensors in the test dummies)

that were outside of the ranges allowed

under FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash

Protection. This was significant because

the accident statistics available at that

time indicated that most accidents in

which a passenger car collided with a

heavy vehicle rear end were survivable.

The data further indicated that a

majority of the fatalities that occurred

took place in accidents that did not

involve excessive underride.

Dynamic Sciences, Inc. also tested

production underride devices that were

typical of the guards in use at the time.

The guards were not able to prevent

small cars from excessively underriding

test trailers at collision speeds above

48.3 km/hr (30 mph). In these tests, the

dummies experienced injury responses

that were above the limits of FMVSS

No. 208. When small cars were crashed

into the guards, the guards did not fail

(i.e., did not permanently deform). In

tests of large cars at collision speeds of

48.3 km/hr (30 mph), underride was

excessive in offset collisions but not

when the collision was centric.

Occupant injury responses were within

the allowable limits of FMVSS No. 208

and none of the guards failed. Occupant

injury responses were also within the

permissible limits of FMVSS No. 208

when the large cars were crashed into

the guard at 64.4 km/hr (40 mph).

However, the underride was excessive
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26761

and the guards were permanently

deformed.

In addition, the TTI program tested a

hydraulic energy-absorbing guard

manufactured by Quinton-Hazell

Automotive Ltd. (Quinton-Hazell). The

Quinton-Hazell device was very

effective at preventing excessive

underride, reducing occupant injury

responses, and reducing damage to the

colliding vehicle.

The TTI also conducted two tests in

which passenger vehicles were crashed

into a van-type trailer that had no guard

but whose adjustable rear wheels were

set in the rearmost position. The

purpose of these tests was to determine

the effectiveness of rear tandems as a

means for preventing underride. The

tests demonstrated that the rear wheels,

when placed at the extreme rear of the

truck or trailer, prevent excessive

underride at approximately 56.3 km/hr

(35 mph). Further, the restrained

dummies used in these tests

experienced injury responses that were

within the allowable limits of FMVSS

No. 208.

The NHTSA issued an NPRM on

January 8, 1981 (46 FR 2136). The

proposed standard would have required

large trucks and trailers to be equipped

with an underride guard that met

specified strength requirements and

prescribed requirements concerning the

configuration of the impact guard. The

proposed standard differed from the

FHWA’s regulation in three ways. First,

the NHTSA’s proposal included

objective strength requirements for the

guard. Second, the proposed

configuration requirements would have

resulted in the guard having a lower

ground clearance and being closer to the

rear of the vehicle. Third, the NHTSA’s

proposed impact guard would have

been wider (i.e., closer to the sides of

the vehicle).

Based upon comments received in

response to the 1981 NPRM and the

results of the TTI and DSI studies, the

NHTSA published a supplemental

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)

(57 FR 252, January 3, 1992). Instead of

a vehicle-based safety standard as

proposed in 1981, the NHTSA proposed

separate standards for the impact guard

as an item of motor vehicle equipment

and for the vehicle. The equipment

standard would specify the strength

requirements that the guard would have

to meet when attached to a rigid test

fixture rather than the vehicle. The

vehicle standard would require vehicle

manufacturers to install a guard meeting

the equipment standard, and to certify

that the trailer has an impact guard

installed at the required location.

The NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and

Test Center (VRTC) initiated a program

to develop and evaluate the

effectiveness of a rear impact guard

design that would meet the proposed

requirements. The VRTC developed a

static test fixture and fabricated an

impact guard design that met, but did

not exceed, the minimum requirements.

A number of additional guards were

fabricated and tested to evaluate the

repeatability of the design.

In addition, a rigid simulated trailer

was developed to mount the guard for

dynamic testing. Two sub-compact and

two compact vehicle models were

selected for crash testing to evaluate the

effectiveness of the guard design in

preventing rear underride injuries. Tests

were conducted using the simulated

trailer and an actual tractor trailer. A

crash test was also performed with a

rigid guard configuration for

comparison with the results of the

design. The researchers concluded that:

1. The currently proposed maximum guard

height of 22 inches appeared to adequately

engage the structures of all 4 vehicles tested

[Honda Civic, Ford Tempo, General Motors

Saturn, and Chevrolet Corsica]. The test

vehicles were all high sales volume subcompact and compact models with a low

frontal profile.

a. The guards contacted each vehicle just

above the bumper, engaging hood and

fenders, engine, and upper suspension

support structures.

b. The air bag restraints of all 4 vehicles

deployed early enough to provide protection

for the unbelted driver dummy.

2. For the test conducted, the 22 inch guard

height prevented occupant compartment

intrusion as long as the attachment at the

guard/trailer interface was sufficiently strong.

In one test (the first Saturn test), the guard

attachment hardware failed. In the first test

with the production trailer, the trailer subframe rails to which the guard was attached

also failed. In each case, the mounting

hardware was changed and all subsequent

tests produced no interface failure or

occupant compartment intrusion by the rear

end of the trailer.

3. There is a trade-off between energy

absorption, which reduces occupant

accelerations by allowing the guard to give,

and limiting underride, which reduces the

possibility of passenger compartment

intrusion. It is possible to significantly

increase the strength of the guard, without

exceeding the NHTSA’s Occupant Crash

Protection criteria [FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR

571.208) Occupant Crash Protection].

The Corsica test with the ‘‘minimally

compliant’’ guard design resulted in a

clearance of 0.2 inches between the rear

of the trailer and the forward-most part

of the windshield after the collision,

and low test dummy injury responses. A

rigid guard test for the same vehicle

resulted in 32.2 inches of clearance to

the windshield. Dummy injury

responses increased with one chest

response just over 60 g’s [60 times

gravitational acceleration, 9.825 m/sec2

(32.2 feet/sec2)], but in general response

levels were similar to that seen in

[FMVSS No. 208 compliance] tests.

A copy of the NHTSA’s report,

‘‘Heavy Truck Rear Underride

Protection,’’ DOT HS 808–081, June

1993, has been placed in the docket file.

On January 24, 1996, the NHTSA

issued a final rule establishing new

safety standards for rear impact guards

and rear impact protection (61 FR 2004).

The rule applies to certain trailers

manufactured on or after January 26,

1998. One of the major differences

between the final rule and the SNPRM

is the addition of a requirement for

energy absorption. The SNPRM would

have permitted fairly rigid guards

because it did not require the guard to

yield in response to force. The preamble

to the final rule indicated that rigid

guards may stop the passenger vehicles

too quickly, causing occupant deaths

and injuries.

The NHTSA also changed some of the

impact guard configuration

requirements to allow rounded guard

ends. To account for high rear overhang

on trailers such as automobile

transporters, the NHTSA changed the

definition of the vertical zone to be

considered when determining the

trailer’s rear extremity. The location of

the guard is based upon the location of

the rear extremity.

On January 26, 1998, the NHTSA

issued a final rule responding to

petitions for reconsideration of the 1996

final rule, and making technical

amendments to the rear impact guard

requirements (63 FR 3654). The 1998

final rule clarified the applicability of

the energy-absorption requirements

with regard to cargo tank motor

vehicles, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8,

excluded pulpwood trailers from the

rear impact protection requirements (a

definition of pulpwood trailer was

added to § 571.224), and revised the

definition of special purpose vehicle.

Discussion of the FHWA Proposal

To ensure that the safety benefits

intended by the NHTSA rulemaking are

achieved, the FHWA is proposing to

amend § 393.86 to establish a

requirement that certain trailers

manufactured on or after January 26,

1998, and operated in interstate

commerce, be equipped to comply with

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. This action

is necessary because the FMVSSs are

applicable only to vehicle and vehicle

component manufacturers. In the

absence of an amendment to the

FMCSRs, there would be no Federal
26762 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

requirement that motor carriers

maintain their trailers to conform to the

rear impact protection requirements of

FMVSS No. 224, or repair damaged rear

impact guards. Motor carriers could also

replace rear impact guards with devices

that failed to comply with the NHTSA

requirements.

Paragraph (a) of § 393.86 would

provide a general statement of the

applicability of the new rear impact

guard requirements and cross reference

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. Paragraph (a)

would also identify the types of trailers

(which would be defined in § 393.5) that

are exempted from the new rear impact

guard requirements. Paragraphs (b)

through (e) would specify the following

requirements, respectively: The

minimum width for the impact guard;

the maximum ground clearance; the

maximum distance from the rear of the

vehicle to the rear surface of the impact

guard; and the cross-sectional vertical

height of the horizontal member of the

guard. Paragraph (f) would specify the

certification and labeling requirements.

The agency is proposing to include

detailed requirements in § 393.86(b)

through (f) to help motor carriers

quickly determine if the underride

device on a newly manufactured trailer

meets the NHTSA’s requirements, and

to assist State agencies responsible for

enforcing motor carrier safety

regulations.

The existing requirements (for all

commercial motor vehicles

manufactured after December 31, 1952,

except trailers or semitrailers

manufactured on or after January 26,

1998) would be covered under

paragraphs (g) through (i). Paragraph (g)

would specify the minimum dimensions

for the rear impact guard as installed on

the motor vehicle. Paragraph (h) would

specify that the impact guard must be

substantially constructed and attached

by bolts, welding, or other comparable

means. Paragraph (h) differs from the

current attachment requirements in that

the phrase ‘‘firmly attached’’ would be

replaced with ‘‘attached by means of

bolts, welding, or other comparable

means’’ to make the regulations easier to

understand and enforce.

The current language contained in

paragraph (e) would be revised and

included in a new paragraph (i). The

FHWA would specify that low chassis

vehicles, special purpose vehicles, and

wheels-back vehicles which are

constructed and maintained so that the

body, chassis, or other parts of the

vehicle provide rear end protection

comparable to an impact guard(s)

conforming to the requirements of

paragraph (g) of § 393.86 shall be

considered in compliance with the

requirements.

Retrofitting

The FHWA is not proposing a

retrofitting requirement for improved

rear impact protection on trailers and

semitrailers manufactured before

January 26, 1998. There is insufficient

accident, cost, and research data to

support such a proposal at this time.

The types of data required to justify a

retrofitting requirement would be much

more detailed than the information

analyzed by the NHTSA.

Section 393.86(g) does not specify

minimum strength requirements, or

energy absorption capabilities, nor does

it prohibit the use of impact guards that

have a ground clearance less than 762

mm (30 inches), and impact guards that

are closer than 61 cm (24 inches) to the

rear and 45.7 cm (18 inches) to the sides

of the vehicle. In addition, the existing

standard allows impact guards to be

constructed of more than one section

provided the distance between the

sections does not exceed 610 mm (24

inches). As a result, manufacturers have

used a number of rear impact guard

designs to satisfy the FHWA’s

requirements.

To develop a sound technical basis for

a retrofitting proposal, the FHWA would

have to establish criteria for determining

which of the older impact guard designs

should be considered acceptable, and

which ones should be replaced. The

FHWA would then have to estimate the

total number of guards that would have

to be replaced or modified, the total cost

for replacing or modifying those guards

(including lost revenues while the

trailer was being retrofitted), and the

benefits in lives saved and injuries

prevented if a certain number of

vehicles were retrofitted. This is

particularly difficult because some rear

impact guards currently in use may

meet or exceed the NHTSA’s strength

requirements but fail to meet

dimensional or energy absorption

requirements. Others may meet the

dimensional requirements but fall short

of the minimum strength requirements.

The FHWA does not have test data or

engineering analyses concerning the

performance capabilities of any of the

rear impact guard designs currently in

use. The ICC did not have authority to

regulate vehicle and component

manufacturers when it issued the first

rear underride protection requirements

in 1952 and, consequently, had no

authority to compel manufacturers to

provide technical data on their

products. Also, the initial FMVSSs

issued by the FHWA did not include

rear impact protection requirements.

Therefore, the agency did not have

access to this information during the

relatively short period of time (between

1966 and 1970, when the NHTSA was

established) in which vehicle and

component manufacturers were

regulated by the FHWA. Because of the

lack of technical data concerning the

performance capabilities of underride

devices currently in use, the agency

cannot prepare an accurate estimate of

the costs and benefits associated with a

retrofitting requirement.

The FHWA specifically requests

comments from any interested party

with data relevant to the costs and

benefits of retrofitting.

Applicability to Canadian and Mexican

Vehicles

The FHWA is not proposing an

exemption for CMVs operated in the

United States by Canada- and Mexicobased motor carriers. Although the

Federal governments of Canada and

Mexico have not indicated whether they

intend to require rear impact guards

(which meet the NHTSA standard) on

newly manufactured trailers operating

in their countries, the FHWA believes

that it is appropriate to require such

guards on foreign-based trailers

manufactured on or after the effective

date of the NHTSA requirements if

those vehicles are operated within the

United States.

Vehicles operated in the United States

by Canada- and Mexico-based motor

carriers are required to comply with the

existing rear underride device

requirements. The proposed revision of

§ 393.86 would require that trailers and

semitrailers manufactured on or after

January 26, 1998, and operated by

foreign-based motor carriers meet the

NHTSA standards. The FHWA

specifically requests comments from

Canada- and Mexico-based motor

carriers and original equipment

manufacturers that sell trailers and

semitrailers for the Canadian and

Mexican markets.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be

considered and will be available for

examination in the docket at the above

address. Comments received after the

comment closing date will be filed in

the public docket and will be

considered to the extent practicable, but

the FHWA may adopt a final rule at any

time after the close of the comment

period. In addition to late comments,

the FHWA will also continue to file, in

the public docket, relevant information

that becomes available after the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26763

comment closing date. Interested

persons should continue to examine the

public docket for new material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this

action is not a significant regulatory

action within the meaning of Executive

Order 12866. This rule would, if

adopted, require that certain trailers and

semitrailers manufactured on or after

January 26, 1998, be equipped with rear

impact protection devices meeting the

requirements of FMVSS No. 223 and

installed on trailers in accordance with

FMVSS 224. Motor carriers would be

responsible for maintaining the

underride protection devices on these

trailers. It is anticipated that the

economic impact of this proposed

requirement would be minimal because

the NHTSA requires trailer

manufacturers to equip new trailers and

semitrailers with rear impact guards and

the FHWA’s rulemaking would only

require motor carriers to maintain the

improved underride protection devices.

It is expected that the costs of repairing

damaged underride devices would be

the only economic burden placed upon

motor carriers and that this burden

generally would not exceed the costs of

properly repairing underride devices on

trailers manufactured prior to the

effective date of the NHTSA’s

requirements. Accordingly, a full

regulatory evaluation is not required.

For the purposes of the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures, however, the proposed rule

would be significant because of the

substantial public interest in the

prevention of rear-underride accidents

involving commercial motor vehicles.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the

FHWA has evaluated the effects of this

proposed rule on small entities. This

rule would modify the rear impact

protection standards for trailers in the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs) to make them

consistent with the manufacturing

standards in the FMVSS No. 224, which

requires the installation of rear impact

protection devices conforming to

FMVSS No. 223 on certain newlymanufactured semitrailers and trailers.

The FHWA believes that maintenance

costs of the rear impact protection

devices required under the new

FMVSSs will be minimal. Therefore, the

FHWA hereby certifies that this action

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier

Safety. The regulations implementing

Executive Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities do not

apply to this program.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposal would not impose an

unfunded Federal mandate, as defined

by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), that will

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, or $100 million

or more in any one year.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This document does not contain

information collection requirements for

the purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq).

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this

rulemaking for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has

determined that this action would not

have any effect on the quality of the

environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross-reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

Highways and roads, Motor carriers,

Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle

safety.

Issued on: April 28, 1998.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FHWA proposes to amend title 49, Code

of Federal Regulations, subchapter B,

chapter III, as follows:

PART 393—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 393

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102–

240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C.

31136 and 31502; 49 CFR 1.48.

2. Section 393.5 is amended by

adding the definitions of ‘‘low chassis

vehicle,’’ ‘‘special purpose vehicle,’’ and

‘‘wheels back vehicle,’’ and by revising

the definitions of ‘‘pulpwood trailer,’’

‘‘rear extremity,’’ and ‘‘side extremities’’

(now ‘‘side extremity’’) to read as

follows:

§ 393.5 Definitions.

* * * * *

Low chassis vehicle. A trailer or

semitrailer having a chassis which

extends behind the rearmost point of the

rearmost tires and a lower rear surface

that meets the guard width, height, and

rear surface requirements of § 571.224.

For vehicles not subject to the

requirements of § 571.224 on the date of

manufacture, the configuration

requirements of § 393.86(g) may be

used.

* * * * *

Pulpwood trailer. A trailer or

semitrailer that is designed exclusively

for harvesting logs or pulpwood and

constructed with a skeletal frame with

no means for attachment of a solid bed,

body, or container.

Rear extremity. The rearmost point on

a vehicle that falls above a horizontal

plane located 560 mm (22 inches) above

the ground and below a horizontal plane

located 1,900 mm (75 inches) above the

ground when the vehicle is stopped on

level ground; unloaded; its fuel tanks

are full; the tires (and air suspension, if

so equipped) are inflated in accordance

with the manufacturer’s

recommendations; and 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 taillamps, rubber bumpers, hinges

and latches are excluded from the

determination of the rearmost point.

* * * * *

Side extremity. The outermost point

on a side of the vehicle that is above a

horizontal plane located 560 mm (22

inches) above the ground, below a
26764 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

horizontal plane located 1,900 mm (75

inches) above the ground, and between

a transverse vertical plane tangent to the

rear extremity of the vehicle and a

transverse vertical plane located 305

mm (12 inches) forward of that plane

when the vehicle is unloaded; its fuel

tanks are full; and the tires (and air

suspension, if so equipped) are inflated

in accordance with the manufacturer’s

recommendations. Non-structural

protrusions such as taillights, hinges

and latches are excluded from the

determination of the outermost point.

* * * * *

Special purpose vehicle. 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 impact

guard, as defined by the guard width,

height and rear surface requirements of

§ 571.224 (paragraphs S5.1.1 through

S5.1.3).

* * * * *

Wheels back vehicle. A trailer or

semitrailer whose rearmost axle is

permanently fixed and is located such

that the rearmost surface of the tires (of

the size recommended by the vehicle

manufacturer for the rear axle) is not

more than 305 mm (12 inches) forward

of the transverse vertical plane tangent

to the rear extremity of the vehicle.

3. Section 393.86 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 393.86 Rear impact guards and rear end

protection.

(a) 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. Trailers and semitrailers

subject to this paragraph must meet the

requirements of paragraphs (b) through

(f) of this section. The requirements of

paragraphs (a) through (f) do not apply

to pole trailers (as defined in § 390.5);

pulpwood trailers, low chassis trailers,

special purpose trailers, wheels back

trailers (as defined in § 393.5); and

trailers towed in driveaway-towaway

operations (as defined in § 390.5).

(b) Impact guard width. The

outermost surfaces of the horizontal

member of the guard must extend to

within 100 mm (4 inches) of the side

extremities of the vehicle. The

outermost surface of the horizontal

member shall not extend beyond the

side extremity of the vehicle.

(c) Guard height. The vertical distance

between the bottom edge of the

horizontal member of the guard and the

ground shall not exceed 560 mm (22

inches) at any point across the full

width of the member. Guards with

rounded corners may curve upward

within 255 mm (10 inches) of the

longitudinal vertical planes that are

tangent to the side extremities of the

vehicle.

(d) Guard rear surface. At any height

560 mm (22 inches) or more above the

ground, the rearmost surface of the

horizontal member of the guard must be

within 305 mm (12 inches) of the rear

extremity of the vehicle. This paragraph

shall not be construed to prohibit the

rear surface of the guard from extending

beyond the rear extremity of the vehicle.

Guards with rounded corners may curve

forward within 255 mm (10 inches) of

the side extremity.

(e) Cross-sectional vertical height. The

horizontal member of each guard must

have a cross sectional vertical height of

at least 100 mm (3.94 inches) at any

point across the guard width.

(f) Certification and labeling

requirements for rear impact protection

guards. Each rear impact guard used to

satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)

of this section must be permanently

marked or labeled as required by

FMVSS No. 223 (49 CFR 571.223, S5.3).

The label must be on the forward-facing

surface of the horizontal member of the

guard, 305 mm (12 inches) inboard of

the right end of the guard. The

certification label must contain the

following information:

(1) The impact guard manufacturer’s

name and address;

(2) The statement ‘‘Manufactured in

llll’’ (inserting the month and year

that the guard was manufactured); and,

(3) The letters ‘‘DOT’’, constituting a

certification by the guard manufacturer

that the guard conforms to all

requirements of FMVSS No. 223.

(g) 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 of

truck tractors, pole 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:

(1) The vertical distance between the

bottom of the guard(s) and the ground

does not exceed 76.2 cm (30 inches)

when the motor vehicle is empty;

(2) The maximum distance between

the closest points between guards, if

more than one is used, does not exceed

61 cm (24 inches);

(3) The outermost surfaces of the

horizontal member of the guard are no

more than 45.7 cm (18 inches) from

each side extremity of the motor

vehicle;

(4) The impact guard(s) are no more

than 61 cm (24 inches) forward of the

rear extremity of the motor vehicle.

(h) Construction and attachment. The

rear impact guard(s) must be

substantially constructed and attached

by means of bolts, welding, or other

comparable means.

(i) Vehicle components and structures

that may be used to satisfy the

requirements of paragraph (g) of this

section. Low chassis vehicles, special

purpose vehicles, or wheels back

vehicles constructed and maintained so

that the body, chassis, or other parts of

the vehicle provide the rear end

protection comparable to impact

guard(s) conforming to the requirements

of paragraph (g) of this section shall be

considered to be in compliance with

those requirements.

[FR Doc. 98–12753 Filed 5–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE86

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Public Hearing

on Proposed Endangered Status for

Devils River Minnow (Dionda diaboli)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public

hearing.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) gives notice that a

public hearing will be held on the

proposed determination of endangered

status for the Devils River minnow

(Dionda diaboli). This fish is found in