3654 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1Although both trailers and semitrailers are

equally affected by the rule, they will sometimes be

referred to simply as ‘‘trailers’’ in the remainder of

this document.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket NHTSA–98–3342, Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AA43

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Rear Impact Guards; Rear

Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions

for reconsideration; technical

amendment; denial of petition to extend

the effective date.

SUMMARY: On January 24, 1996, NHTSA

published a final rule establishing an

equipment standard for underride

guards and a vehicle standard which

requires the installation of guards

meeting the equipment standard on the

rear end of heavy trailers and

semitrailers. In response to petitions for

reconsideration, NHTSA is amending

that final rule to: clarify the 100 mm (4

inch) height requirement for the

horizontal member of an underride

guard, explicitly exclude from having to

meet the energy absorption

requirements all cargo tank motor

vehicles manufactured with rear end

protection complying with the high

strength requirements of 49 CFR part

178 (to protect hazardous material) that

occupies the area specified for NHTSA’s

underride guard, and increase the

acceptable range of force application

rates during testing. The agency is also

excluding pulpwood trailers from the

application of the vehicle standard and

denying a petition from the Truck

Trailer Manufacturer’s Association

(TTMA) for an extension of the effective

date of the final rule.

DATES: The amendments made by this

rule will become effective on January

26, 1998. Petitions for reconsideration of

this rule must be received no later than

March 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket number and number of this

notice and be submitted in writing to:

Administrator, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Room

5220, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC, 20590:

For non-legal issues:

Dr. George Mouchahoir (Telephone:

202–366–4919) or Mr. Michael

Huntley (202–366–0029), Office of

Crashworthiness Standards

For legal issues:

Mr. Paul Atelsek, Office of the Chief

Counsel (202–366–2992), e-mail:

patelsek@nhtsa.dot.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On January 24, 1996, the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) published a final rule

promulgating two new Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to

require upgraded rear impact guards

(underride guards) on trailers and

semitrailers (61 FR 2004).1 The first

standard (No. 223, Rear impact guards)

specifies performance requirements for

strength and energy absorption for the

underride guards themselves. This

standard also contains a configuration

requirement that the horizontal cross

member of the guard be at least 100 mm

(4 inches) high at any point across the

guard width.

As issued in January 1996, the

standard requires testing the guards for

strength by pushing with a 203 mm by

203 mm (8 inch by 8 inch) force plate

at specified points along the horizontal

member of the guard. The test continues

displacing the force plate at a constant

rate of between 1.0 and 1.5 mm/sec

(0.04 and 0.06 inches/sec) in a forward

direction, as the guard is oriented on the

trailer, until the guard resists a specified

force, or until 125 mm (5 inches) of

displacement occurs. To pass, the guard

has to resist the specified force within

the first 125 mm (5 inches) of

displacement.

The standard’s test for energy

absorption is conducted by applying a

force in the same way as in the test for

strength, but only at one specified test

point. The force is recorded at least ten

times per 25 mm (1 inch) of

displacement until the 125 mm (5 inch)

displacement is reached and the force

plate is completely withdrawn from the

guard. The guard energy absorption is

calculated from a force vs. deflection

diagram plotted using the recorded

measurements. Only plastic deformation

(permanent deformation) is counted

toward meeting the required amount of

energy absorption—elastic rebound of

the guard does not count.

The second standard (No. 224, Rear

impact protection) requires most new

trailers and semitrailers with a Gross

Vehicle Weight Rating of at least 4,536

kg (10,000 pounds) to be equipped with

a rear impact guard meeting the

requirements of the equipment

standard. This standard also specifies

requirements for the location of the

horizontal member of the guard relative

to the rear end of the trailer or

semitrailer, including a requirement that

the rearmost surface of the member be

located no more than 305 mm (12

inches) forward of the trailer’s rear

extremity. Certain types of trailers,

including pole trailers and ‘‘wheelsback’’ vehicles, are excluded from the

application of this rule.

The January 1996 final rule on truck

underride protection specified an

effective date of January 26, 1998 and a

March 11, 1996 deadline for receiving

petitions for reconsideration on this

rule.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

NHTSA received five petitions for

reconsideration of the final rule from

companies in the trailer and semitrailer

equipment and manufacturing

industries. In addition, one letter was

received from an insurance group.

The Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety (IIHS) did not request any change

to the rule. IIHS’s letter sought to clarify

what IIHS considered a

misunderstanding (i.e., undercounting)

on NHTSA’s part regarding the potential

number of lives saved as a result of the

final rule. IIHS stated that this

clarification was needed if the agency is

to decide on future rulemaking actions

on rear underride for single-unit trucks

or side underride for large trucks.

NHTSA has met with IIHS staff to

discuss their views on how best to

estimate potential lives saved, and made

adjustments in its data collection efforts

to improve the quality of its data on

underride crashes. The letter was not

labeled as a petition and will not be

addressed further.

One of the petitioners was Rite-Hite

Corporation which manufactures ‘‘dock

locks,’’ safety restraint equipment that is

mounted on loading docks to secure

trailers to the docks during loading and

unloading. Rite-Hite requested that the

agency modify the configuration and

strength specifications of the guard to be

compatible with its dock locks. It stated

that the requirements of the final rule

directly affect the ability of its dock

locks to safely engage and hold trailers

to the loading docks. The Rite-Hite

loading dock device uses a hook that

wraps around and over the rear

protection guard to help prevent guards

from riding up and over the restraining

barriers, and to help prevent incidents
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 3655

2These rules are administered by the Department

of Transportation’s Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA).

that can result from trailer tip-over and

landing gear collapse. Rite-Hite

estimates that 100,000 of these dock

locks currently exist.

Rite-Hite asked NHTSA to comment

on the role of its final rule with regard

to limiting civil tort liability. Rite-Hite

states that some vehicle manufacturers

and others in the industry consider the

final rule to be the sole factor to be

considered in designing underride

guards. It requested that the agency

clarify that compliance with the final

rule does not by itself insulate any

manufacturer of rear impact guards from

all civil tort liability. It also urged

NHTSA to state that guard and trailer

manufacturers must also take into

account other safety issues, such as

loading dock uses of rear impact guards,

in making appropriate and reasonable

design choices that are consistent with

the final rule.

Rite-Hite also petitioned for several

changes to specific provisions of the

final rule. It requested NHTSA to

change the minimum cross sectional

vertical height requirement in S5.1 of

Standard No. 223, which currently

specifies that ‘‘[t]he horizontal member

of each guard shall have a cross

sectional vertical height of at least 100

mm [4 inches] at any point across the

guard width’’ (emphasis added). Some

manufacturers are manufacturing guards

with horizontal members that are 100

mm (4 inches) high on both the front

and back sides of the horizontal

member. Rite-Hite is concerned because

the vehicle restraint may not engage

properly in certain circumstances (e.g.,

abnormally high horizontal member,

guard located forward of the rear

extremity, poor alignment of the vehicle

with the dock, and bumpers affixed to

the horizontal member). It is also

concerned that the restraint’s warning

light may not indicate the failure to

engage without being modified.

To address this potential problem,

Rite-Hite petitioned NHTSA to either:

(1) Specify 4 inches as the maximum

height, (2) change the regulatory

language to restrict the height

specification to the rear-facing side of

the horizontal member, or (3) insert an

interpretation that the existing language

applies only to the rear-facing side of

the horizontal member and an advisory

that some vehicle restraint

manufacturers recommend forwardfacing surfaces be about 1.25 inches

high.

Rite-Hite also requested NHTSA to

modify S5.2.1 of Standard No. 223 to

increase the minimum guard strength at

location P2 (in the center of the guard,

where Rite-Hite’s dock locks attach). It

stated that, because many vehicle

restraints will provide 2–3 times more

holding power than the guard strength

requirement of the rule (50,000 N, or

11,240 lb), guard strength is not

sufficient to withstand the forces

encountered during premature trailer

pull-out from loading docks. Therefore,

Rite-Hite petitioned the agency to

increase the minimum force at test point

P2 (where dock locks typically attach) to

approximately 150,000 N (33,370 lb).

Rite-Hite requested that the test

procedures of S6.6 of Standard No. 223

be amended so the guard would have to

meet similar strength requirements

when pushed in a rearward direction

(i.e., in the opposite direction from the

striking vehicle) as it has to meet when

it is pushed forward.

Rite-Hite requested that NHTSA

delete the exclusion from Standard No.

224 for ‘‘wheels-back vehicles.’’ These

are vehicles on which the rear tires are

fixed at a position within 305 mm (12

inches) of the rear extremity of the

trailer. Rite-Hite suggested that there

will be an increase of loading dock

incidents without an underride guard to

secure the rear of the trailer to the dock.

It also argued that wheels-back vehicles

with wide-spaced single tires and no

underride guard would increase the

chance of passenger compartment

intrusion, presumably by allowing the

striking vehicle to penetrate between the

tires.

Rite-Hite also requested that the

horizontal member of the guard, and of

hydraulic guards in particular, not be

permitted, as it currently is, to extend

rearward of the rear extremity of the

vehicle. The company is concerned

about damage to the dock locks, the

dock walls, the underride guard itself,

and with the dock lock not properly

engaging. It is also concerned that rearextending guards will prevent the trailer

from backing up flush with the dock,

creating a gap between the trailer bed

and the loading dock, even with a dock

lock engaged. Rite-Hite states that this

gap could cause loss of ‘‘lip purchase’’

of loading dock levelers on the bed of

the trailer, and personal injury to

loading dock employees. Rite-Hite also

asked that NHTSA clarify that hydraulic

guards must meet the dimensional and

guard strength requirements for nonhydraulic guards.

To ensure adequate engagement with

dock locks, Rite-Hite also requested that

the horizontal member be restricted to a

position no more than 2 inches forward

of the trailer rear extremity, rather than

the currently permitted 305 mm (12

inches).

Rite Hite wants the agency to specify

a minimum horizontal guard member

height of 457 (18 inches) above the

ground. It is concerned that lower

heights might not adequately engage the

dock locks and might increase the

chances of the guards being damaged by

road surfaces and falling off.

Finally, Rite Hite requested NHTSA to

prohibit a sloped surface on the forward

side of the rear impact guard and

require a vertical surface there instead.

Rite Hite states that the sloping surface

will depress all kinds of vehicle

restraints designed to hold on to the

underride guard, thus causing

disengagement.

TTMA petitioned the agency to define

‘‘cargo tank motor vehicle’’ and make it

clear that any vehicle so constructed

would not have to meet the energy

absorption requirements of the rule. It

stated that the ‘‘present definition of a

special purpose vehicle defines a cargo

tank motor vehicle excluded by

Standard No. 224 by its operational

characteristics, namely, hazardous

material held in transit, instead of by its

construction characteristics.’’ It noted

that cargo tank motor vehicles are

required by 49 CFR 178.345–8(d) 2 to

have very strong rear end protection to

protect the cargo tank and its piping in

the event that another vehicle impacts it

from the rear. TTMA argued that a

manufacturer cannot design a guard to

meet both the extreme rigidity

requirements of 49 CFR 178.345–8(d)

and the energy absorption (yielding)

requirements of S5.2.2 of Standard No.

223.

Great Dane Trailers, Inc. (Great Dane)

petitioned the agency to increase the

permissible range of force application

during the strength and energy

absorption tests. It stated that the

current requirement to maintain a

constant rate of between 1 mm and 1.5

mm per second (60 mm and 90 mm per

minute) ‘‘may require expensive and

sophisticated equipment’’ and that the

rate of displacement is not a significant

indicator of the performance of the

guard. Great Dane suggested changing

the requirement to specify a rate that

‘‘averages not less than 1 mm and not

more than 25 mm per second over each

25 mm of displacement.’’

Great Dane also requested that the

minimum energy absorption test be

amended to double the displacement of

the horizontal member of the guard.

Great Dane stated that its current guards

do not respond by plastic deformation

until 75 mm (3 inches) of displacement

has been achieved, and that stopping

the test at 125 mm (5 inches) of

displacement, as currently specified,
3656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

will require it to weaken the guards to

meet the requirements. Great Dane

petitioned to displace the guard to 250

mm (10 inches), thus ensuring more

plastic deformation of the guards and

increasing the energy absorption to 2–3

times the desired minimum. Great Dane

subsequently forwarded test data that it

believed supported its request.

STRICK Corporation (STRICK), a

trailer manufacturer, also expressed

concern over the need to purchase

expensive precision testing equipment

to replace their current devices. In its

testing, STRICK found it ‘‘impossible to

determine the exact displacement for

each and every second over the time of

the test.’’ STRICK petitioned to change

the requirement from maintaining a

constant rate of displacement between 1

mm and 1.5 mm per second band to a

requirement of ‘‘displacement rate of the

force is approximately constant over a

time of 1 to 5 minutes’’. STRICK is

basically requesting a slower force

application (i.e., more time, which

would be required with a slower pump)

to reach the 125 mm (5 inch) required

displacement. STRICK also argued that

the ‘‘displacement requirement’’ in the

final rule was inserted without adequate

notice and represents a major change

from the proposal.

Finally, James King & Co. (King)

petitioned the agency to amend the rule

to require that rear truck underride

guards protect from damage the

reflective conspicuity markings required

by Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective

devices, and associated equipment.

King has observed that few

manufacturers have provided the

protective measures that NHTSA had

suggested that manufacturers could take

(e.g., mounting the reflective material in

a steel channel or placing small metal

beads above and below the reflective

stripe). As a result, King believes that,

contrary to the agency’s assumptions,

the majority of markings are damaged

after a short time in use. King did not

suggest a particular solution.

III. Response to Petitions

NHTSA agrees with Rite Hite that

mere compliance with NHTSA’s vehicle

safety standards does not insulate any

guard or trailer manufacturer from civil

liability. 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) explicitly

states ‘‘[c]ompliance with a motor

vehicle safety standard * * * does not

exempt a person from liability at

common law.’’ NHTSA’s standards are

minimum standards that specify a floor,

not a ceiling, for performance. They are

intended to allow manufacturers

flexibility in the selection of means of

compliance. Designers of underride

guards and trailer manufacturers that

install them are free to consider the nonhighway safety implications of their

designs, including the functioning of the

guards with existing dock locks.

The agency also agrees with Rite Hite

that the standard currently does not

specify where, within its longitudinal

cross section, the horizontal member of

the guard must have a vertical height of

100 mm (4 inches). Some guard

manufacturers are apparently

misinterpreting that provision as

requiring a 100 mm (4 inch) height

across the entire longitudinal cross

section, from front to back.

However, this reading is more design

restrictive than the agency intended,

and is not necessary for safety purposes.

The 100 mm (4 inch) minimum height

is intended to assure adequate

engagement with and crushing of the

frontal vehicle structure by preventing

‘‘knife-edging’’ by a guard that is too

thin. In the final rule, the agency

concluded that this objective would be

achieved by any guard with a 100 mm

(4 inch) cross sectional height that is

forward of the rear extremity by not

more than 305 mm (12 inches). The

requirement in S5.1 of Standard No. 223

for a cross sectional vertical height of

100 mm (4 inches) does not need to be

met in any specific transverse vertical

plane. The important relationship is the

distance between the trailer rear

extremity and the forwardmost point at

which at least 100 mm (4 inches) of

guard height would be engaged by a

colliding vehicle.

Given the preceding statement, Rite

Hite’s proposed changes to the

regulation would unnecessarily restrict

guard configuration. For example, it

would be too design restrictive to

require that the 100 mm (4 inch) cross

section be measured at the rearmost

point on the horizontal member, as Rite

Hite suggests. This would be equivalent

to saying that the guard must have a 100

mm (4 inch) vertical face at the rear.

Although this design is common and

probably the best at assuring immediate

engagement, some manufacturers might

prefer to use tubular designs for the

horizontal member. Tubular designs

would not comply with Rite Hite’s

suggested amendment, because the

rearmost surface would be a line rather

than a 100 mm (4 inch) high plane.

Nevertheless, a tubular horizontal

member would assure adequate

engagement. It would also be too design

restrictive to require that the cross

section be vertical. Some shapes

without vertical transverse cross

sections of the required height might

provide superior engagement or crash

dynamics. For example, some guards

might be shaped with sloped rear

surfaces to account for the guard

pivoting during a crash. As long as the

horizontal projection of the horizontal

member on a vertical plane presents a

4-inch high profile, then the desired

objective will generally be achieved.

The agency is concerned about the

development of certain untested guard

shapes, however. As previously stated,

most current guard designs have a

vertical face with a 100 mm (4 inch)

minimum height at the first point of

contact for an underriding vehicle. This

configuration provided good protection

for passenger vehicle occupants in the

NHTSA’s tests. The non-designrestrictive requirements should not

imply encouragement of the

development of horizontal members

with convex cross sections at the rear.

For example, some manufacturers might

want to design guards with angular, or

lens-shaped, cross sections to achieve

better aerodynamic properties. The

quality of engagement of such guard

shapes with the underriding vehicle has

not been evaluated.

The agency is also concerned that

portions of the horizontal member

necessary for adequate engagement

might be located more than 305 mm (12

inches) forward of the vehicle’s rear

extremity. For example, on a guard with

a 100 mm (4 inch) high tubular

horizontal cross member whose

rearmost surface is located the full 305

mm (12 inches) forward of the trailer

rear extremity, a full engagement of the

guard’s horizontal member will not

occur until it has advanced 305 mm (12

inches), plus the 25 mm (2-inch) radius

of the tube. In some cases, engagement

might come too late to prevent

passenger compartment intrusion. The

purpose of the requirement in S5.1.3 of

Standard No. 224 regarding the location

of the guard’s rearmost surface is to

assure that full engagement is achieved

as early in the crash event as possible,

but in any case before the passenger

vehicle has penetrated more than 305

mm (12 inches) under the trailer.

Therefore, NHTSA is amending S5.1 to

require that the vertical height

requirement be met by the horizontally

projected height of the horizontal

member of the guard on a transverse

vertical plane, and that the guard

manufacturer’s installation instructions

or procedures specify that the

forwardmost part of the horizontal

member necessary to meet this

requirement must be located no more

than 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the

rear extremity of the vehicle.

The agency denies Rite-Hite’s request

to eliminate the wheels back vehicle

exclusion in S3 of Standard No. 224, as

it applies to the single-tire wheels back
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 3657

trailers, because the agency does not

have enough information on these

vehicles at this time. However, NHTSA

is concerned with the possibility that

some smaller passenger vehicles could

fit between the tires of these trailers. In

this case, the passenger vehicle might

advance past the rear extremity of the

trailer by 305 mm (12 inches) before

reaching the rearmost point on the rear

tires, and then advance an additional

distance approximately equivalent to

the radius of these large tires, before

contacting the axle. This distance,

combined with the subsequent crush of

the front end of the passenger vehicle,

might allow passenger compartment

intrusion. The agency appreciates RiteHite’s concern about the lack of guards

leading to an inability to engage dock

locks. NHTSA notes that the rule does

not prohibit ‘‘partial’’ guards in between

the wheels of wheels back trailers.

Manufacturers of excluded vehicles may

install partial or full underride guards if

they consider it essential to engage

loading dock restraint devices.

NHTSA requested data from TTMA

on trailers and semitrailers with single

rear tires. TTMA was able to confirm

that these vehicles exist and provided a

picture of one, but had no further

information on hand. The agency also

has little information on these vehicles,

their tire-to-tire spacing, or their uses.

Therefore, NHTSA currently has

insufficient information to determine

whether the wheels back exclusion

should continue to apply to these

vehicles or whether partial guards might

be appropriate. The agency is planning

to begin collecting data within the

National Automotive Sampling System

starting in the summer of 1998 to define

the scope of this potential problem.

When NHTSA has gathered the

appropriate information, it will consider

whether a rulemaking is warranted to

address the issue of single-tire wheels

back vehicles.

NHTSA denies the remainder of RiteHite’s requests. These requests appear to

be intended to ensure that guards are

required to be compatible withRiteHite’s particular dock lock design.

Although NHTSA is also interested in

ensuring the safety of loading dock

workers, the requested changes all tend

to restrict underride guard design and

reduce manufacturer flexibility that

NHTSA considers essential to the

practicability of the rule. Not all trailers

and semitrailers use loading docks.

Further, NHTSA understands that there

are dock lock designs that do not require

underride guard design restrictions. If

trucking companies want maximum

compatibility with all types of dock

locks, including Rite-Hite’s, there is

nothing in NHTSA’s rule to prevent

them from ordering, or to prevent

manufacturers from designing,

underride guards exactly as Rite-Hite

suggests.

For the same reason that NHTSA is

granting Rite-Hite’s request to clarify

that the cross-sectional vertical height

requirement need not be met at the

forward-facing surface of the horizontal

member of the guard, the agency denies

Rite-Hite’s request to prohibit sloping

surfaces or to require a maximum height

of 1.25 inches on that surface. Because

there are no vehicle safety benefits

related to the shape and size of the

forward-facing surface, it would be

unnecessarily design restrictive to

impose certain geometries or height

requirements on that surface. Regardless

of the geometry, Rite-Hite’s petition

indicates that manufacturers can adapt

the forward-facing surface to be

compatible with dock locks by attaching

a 3⁄4 inch metal bar to the bottom of the

forward-facing surface. Standard No.

223 does not prohibit this approach.

The agency also denies Rite-Hite’s

request to modify S5.2.1 of Standard No.

223 to require the guard’s strength at

location P2 be increased to

approximately 150,000 N (33,370 lb). A

guard strong enough to withstand the

forces encountered when drivers

attempt to pull out while still locked to

the dock is not necessary for

crashworthiness. This request pertains

to the strength of the guard in the

opposite direction (i.e., rearward) from

the one specified in the final rule. The

rule specifies a minimum strength to

withstand forces in the forward

direction, such as would result from an

underriding vehicle. The rule does not

regulate the requested aspect of

performance, and regulating it would

not serve the purpose of the rule. For

the same reasons, the agency denies

Rite-Hite’s request that S6.6 of Standard

No. 223 be amended so there is a

rearward direction force application test

in addition to the specified forward

direction test. NHTSA again notes that

there is nothing in the rule to prevent

guard manufacturers from designing

guards as Rite-Hite suggests, with

150,000 N (33,370 lb) strength in the

rearward direction.

The agency denies Rite-Hite’s request

to amend the language of S5.1.3 of

Standard No. 224 to prohibit the

horizontal member of the guard from

extending rearward of the transverse

vertical plane tangent to the rear

extremity of the vehicle. NHTSA

expects that manufacturers will not

design, and trucking companies will not

order, underride guards for uses that

will damage loading docks, dock locks,

loading dock levelers, and the guards

themselves. NHTSA is aware of some

trailer and semitrailer applications for

which a guard extending rearward of the

trailer rear extremity is useful. These

applications do not use loading docks.

In addition, rearward mounting is useful

in preventing underride and passenger

compartment intrusion by the rear of the

passenger vehicle. The agency does not

want to prohibit these benefits for the

sake of regulating the unlikely

occurrence of excessively rearward

guard location. For the same reasons,

Rite-Hite’s request that ‘‘hydraulic

guards not hinge rearward of the

transverse vertical plane tangent to the

rear extremity of the vehicle’’ is denied.

NHTSA notes that hydraulic guards are

already required to meet the same

dimensional and strength requirements

as non-hydraulic guards.

NHTSA denies Rite-Hite’s request to

prohibit positioning the guard more

than 2 inches forward of the trailer rear

extremity. This would eliminate nearly

all of the fore-aft flexibility that the

agency believes that manufacturers need

in positioning their guards, merely

because a distance more than 50 mm (2

inches) will not be compatible with

Rite-Hite’s restraint. NHTSA

emphasizes that the final rule specified

mounting the guard within a range of

305 mm (12 inches) or less, and as close

to the rear extremity as practical. This

requirement is probably sufficient to

ensure that the vast majority of trailers

and semitrailers are compatible with

Rite-Hite’s needs. Nearly all guards are

currently being mounted flush with the

trailer rear extremity. NHTSA does not

believe that the final rule will change

that practice. If a certain kind of guard

is needed for safely docking with dock

locks, trucking companies will

presumably specify such guards in their

orders for new vehicles. This would be

an additional factor making change

unlikely.

NHTSA denies Rite-Hite’s request that

S5.1.2 of Standard No. 224 be amended

to prohibit mounting guards with the

horizontal member lower than 457 mm

(18 inches) from the ground. The

possibility of guard damage, along with

the extensive comments received from

the public on ground clearance, were

discussed at length in the preamble of

the January 1996 final rule. The

comments indicated that it would be

impractical to mount the guards much

lower than the maximum clearance of

560 mm (22 inches) anyway. The agency

does not expect vehicle manufacturers

to mount guards at heights at which the

guards or the vehicles would be

damaged due to operational restrictions

(e.g., railroad crossings). In addition,
3658 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

3Both terms are used to refer to underride guardtype devices in RSPA’s regulation. ‘‘Rear-end

protection device’’ is used in 49 CFR 178.345, while

‘‘rear bumper’’ is used in 49 CFR 178.337 and

178.338. These terms are used below when

discussing cargo tank motor vehicles, both to avoid

confusion and to emphasize the different primary

purpose they serve—protecting hazardous material

in the tank, rather than protecting colliding vehicle

occupants with crash protection.

higher costs of lower guards and the

difficulty of meeting the strength

requirements at lower heights are

additional factors that will keep most

manufacturers from producing guards

that are lower than the maximum

height. Therefore, setting a minimum

clearance requirement is unnecessary.

Assuming manufacturers did want to

produce them for uses with fewer

operational restrictions, lower guards

would be safer in a crash. NHTSA has

no evidence that loose guards are falling

off and creating a highway hazard.

Regulation is not necessary in this area.

The agency agrees with TTMA that

the current language of Standard No.

224’s definition of ‘‘special purpose

vehicle’’ might be interpreted to exclude

cargo tank motor vehicles due to their

operational use, rather than their

construction characteristics. The rule

defines special purpose vehicles as

having ‘‘work-performing equipment

(including any pipe equipment that

would hold hazardous materials in

transit * * *) 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 * * *’’ The phrase ‘‘that would

hold hazardous materials’’ might, in the

case of a cargo tank motor vehicle,

imply that the exclusion depends on the

intentions or subsequent actions of the

purchaser of the cargo tank motor

vehicle. Although manufacturers

generally know that trailer owners

willing to pay for a trailer certified to

RSPA’s standards are planning to

transport hazardous materials, the

manufacturer of a cargo tank motor

vehicle should not be charged with the

responsibility for determining what its

use will be after it is out of the

manufacturer’s control.

Therefore, as the TTMA requested,

the agency is deleting the phrase in the

definition of special purpose vehicle

that explicitly recognized pipe

equipment that would carry hazardous

material as work performing equipment.

Piping that carries hazardous materials

would still be considered workperforming equipment, as would any

other piping that needs to occupy the

area of the guard while the vehicle is in

transit. However, piping carrying

hazardous materials would probably not

be located in such an exposed location,

because RSPA’s regulations (e.g.,

178.345–8, 178.338–10) generally

require that such piping be protected by

RSPA’s vehicle rear end protection

device or rear bumper.3

The standard still needs to be revised

to prevent conflict with RSPA’s rule.

The high strength requirements for

cargo tank motor vehicle rear end

protection devices or rear bumpers in

RSPA’s regulations are incompatible

with NHTSA’s energy absorption

requirement. NHTSA intended to apply

only the configuration and strength

requirements, but not the energy

absorption requirements, to vehicles

meeting RSPA’s requirements with rearend protection device or rear bumpers

in the area specified by NHTSA for the

underride guard. NHTSA’s strength

requirements are far lower than RSPA’s,

so meeting NHTSA’s strength

requirements will not be a problem for

hazardous materials cargo tank motor

vehicles. The agency stated in the final

rule (at 61 FR 2023) that:

RSPA’s rule for underride guards on

hazardous materials tankers (49 CFR Part

178.345–8) is generally compatible with this

rule, and this rule applies to hazardous

materials tankers. However, to prevent any

confusion as to the relationship between

RSPA’s rule and NHTSA’s rule, this rule

explicitly recognizes that piping that carries

hazardous materials while in transit needs

the special protection that is provided by

RSPA’s rule.

Explicitly recognizing vehicles with

the pipe equipment in the area of the

guard as special purpose vehicles did

not capture within the exclusion all the

vehicles that must be excluded. Any

tanker built to conform to RSPA’s

regulations with a rear-end protection

device or rear bumper in the area

specified for NHTSA’s underride guard

cannot practically comply with

NHTSA’s energy absorption

requirement, regardless of whether it

has pipe equipment in the area of the

guard or whether the pipe equipment

passes through the area where the guard

could be located.

Therefore, NHTSA is adding a

paragraph to the Application section of

Standard No. 224 explicitly excluding

all cargo tank motor vehicles built to

RSPA’s standards, including insulated

cargo tanks and tanks that carry

compressed gases, from the requirement

to meet the energy absorption

requirements of S5.2.2 of Standard No.

223, if the rear-end protection device or

rear bumper is in the area specified for

NHTSA’s underride guard.

The agency is stating the exclusion

more broadly than the TTMA suggested.

The TTMA petitioned to add a

definition for a cargo tank motor

vehicle, which referenced some (but not

all) of RSPA’s tanker specifications. In

NHTSA’s view, the benefits of energy

absorption for the striking vehicle are

outweighed by the additional danger to

that and other vehicles from spillage of

hazardous cargo, so that all tankers that

might be carrying hazardous materials

should be excluded from the energy

absorption requirement. RSPA

occasionally adds cargo tank motor

vehicle specifications and may also add

vehicle rear end protection device or

rear bumper specifications to its

regulations. If the rule referenced

RSPA’s regulations for every specific

tanker and guard type, every change to

the RSPA regulations would necessitate

a corresponding change to Standard No.

224’s application section. Due to the

difficulty of coordinating interagency

rulemakings and effective dates, the rule

simply references the part of RSPA’s

regulations that specifies cargo tank

motor vehicles and rear end protection

devices or rear bumper requirements,

and excludes from the energy

absorption requirements of this rule all

cargo tank motor vehicles that comply

with that part and have a rear end

protection device or rear bumper in the

area specified for the underride guard.

Any future changes by RSPA to its

tanker guard requirements will likely be

made to this part, and would be

automatically incorporated by reference

in Standard No 224.

The agency notes that this exclusion

from the energy absorption

requirements for RSPA guards on cargo

tank motor vehicles applies only when

the RSPA rear end protection device or

rear bumper occupies the space

specified for the horizontal member of

the NHTSA guard and meets the

configuration and strength requirements

specified for the NHTSA guard. For

example, many cargo tank motor

vehicles have a rear end protection

device or rear bumper located several

feet off the ground. The guards on these

trailers are not excluded from NHTSA’s

energy absorption requirement of

Standard No. 223.

The requests of Great Dane Trailers

and STRICK Corporation regarding the

rate of force application in the tests for

strength and energy absorption can be

treated together. NHTSA agrees that

changing the displacement rate

requirements in S6.6(a) of Standard No.

223 to accommodate concerns about the

practicability of the test procedure

would not affect the intent of the rule

or the determination of the guard’s

strength. The objective of the

requirement is to assure that the guard
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 3659

is being tested quasi-statically because

the specified test procedure is not a

dynamic test.

The specified rate of displacement

during force application (1.0 to 1.5

mm/s) may be narrow and too restrictive

to accommodate slow-pumping force

application equipment. NHTSA accepts

Great Dane’s and STRICK’s assertions

that new and expensive equipment

would be required for those companies

to achieve this rate. More powerful

hydraulic pumps are required to achieve

higher rates of displacement during the

test, especially with stronger guards.

The agency has no information on how

powerful STRICK’s pumps are, but

NHTSA chose the quasi-static test

procedure at least in part to

accommodate small trailer

manufacturers that presumably have

less sophisticated equipment. For steel,

the most common guard material, the

rate of force application, within

reasonable bounds, should not make a

significant difference in the test results.

For reasons that seem inconsistent

with the basis for their requests, both

companies asked for an increase in the

permitted displacement rate. The

agency denies these requests. Great

Dane requested an increase in the upper

limit of the specified range from 1.5

mm/sec to 25 mm/sec, and STRICK

requested an increase to 2.08 mm/sec.

At a displacement rate of 25 mm/sec, a

125 mm (5-inch) test displacement

would be completed in a very short

duration of about 5 seconds. This is a

very fast force application and conflicts

with the intent of the rule to specify a

quasi-static, not a dynamic, test

procedure. Moreover, Great Dane’s

proposed rate of 25 mm/s would require

high precision and sophisticated

computer-controlled test equipment as

well as powerful and efficient pumps—

potentially representing upgraded

equipment that both companies state

they want to avoid. The agency notes

that NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and

Test Center (VRTC) successfully

performed its testing program for the

subject final rule using manuallycontrolled test equipment with no

special instrumentation. Less

sophisticated equipment with lower

pump capacity requires more, not less,

test duration. The current upper limit

on the rate of displacement during force

application of 1.5 mm/sec is being

retained. This should not present a

problem for Great Dane or STRICK,

because lower displacement rates can

also be selected on more capable

equipment.

Regarding the lower bound for

displacement rate, the agency believes

that 6.3 minutes is adequate time to

achieve the required displacement

without the need for sophisticated

control equipment and powerful pumps.

No petitioner has requested a longer

period and, unless the agency is

presented with evidence of a problem

with this rate, it will consider longer

periods as unnecessarily prolonging

certification and compliance testing. As

explained earlier, reasonably slower

displacement rates will probably not

make a significant difference in test

results anyway. Therefore, NHTSA is

granting part of STRICK’s request and

widening the specified displacement

rate range to allow displacement rates as

low as 0.33 mm/sec. Testing at this rate

will allow a 125 mm (5 inch) test

displacement to be achieved in a period

of about six minutes.

The range of force displacement rate

will now be specified in centimeters

and minutes rather than in millimeters

and seconds, i.e., as 2.0 cm/minute to

9.0 cm/minute. This range replaces the

currently specified range of 1.0 to 1.5

mm/sec (6.0 to 9.0 cm/minute). The

larger distance per time period is easier

for most people to visualize. It is

NHTSA’s understanding that the

displacement rate on most modern test

equipment (and on all the equipment

NHTSA would use for compliance

testing) is controlled by a computer with

a feedback system capable of quickly

and automatically adjusting the

displacement rate. However, for

purposes of certification testing on noncomputer controlled equipment, precise

adjustment is impractical. Specifying

the distance on a per-minute time scale

will allow for practical adjustments of

the rate of displacement within each

minute. This change would result in a

more practical test procedure and

should not compromise the performance

requirements of the rule. The language

of section 6.6(a) of Standard No. 223 is

changed accordingly.

The word ‘‘constant’’ has been

eliminated from the test procedure as a

modifier of the displacement rate. As

Great Dane pointed out, the term

‘‘constant’’ is confusing because it is so

absolute. The concept of tolerance, for

purposes of compliance testing, has

been introduced as explained below.

Normally, when NHTSA specifies a

range in the test conditions of its

standards, the equipment being tested is

expected to meet the specified

performance requirements when testing

at any point within the range. In this

case, the agency is allowing a broader

range of displacement rates (with a

significantly slower rate of displacement

at the lower end of the range) than was

allowed originally, to accommodate the

manufacturers’ desire to conduct

certification testing with their existing

equipment. Applying the usual

procedure, NHTSA could test and

expect compliance at any rate within

the wider displacement rate range.

However, this would have the effect of

making it more, not less, difficult for

manufacturers to certify compliance,

because the same requirements would

have to be met under a wider range of

conditions. The agency notes again that

tests within the new range of

displacement rates should yield similar

results to tests within the old range

because the performance of most current

guard materials is not rate sensitive

even over this broader range of load

application rates.

Because merely granting the

petitioner’s request would not achieve

the petitioner’s objective of making

certification testing easier, NHTSA will

allow the guard manufacturer to

designate the displacement rate, within

the range of 2.0 to 9.0 cm/minute, on

which it based its certification. If

compliance tests are conducted by the

agency, the manufacturer’s designated

rate, plus or minus 10 percent, will be

used. The practical effect of this is that

the guard must comply at the designated

rate as well as any rate within 10

percent above or below that rate. As

noted above, having to maintain a

‘‘constant’’ designated displacement rate

would make it practically impossible for

the agency to conduct compliance

testing. For the same reason, NHTSA

will not attempt to duplicate during

compliance testing the deflection/time

curve that the manufacturer experienced

during certification testing. As long as

the agency stays within the 10 percent

tolerance during the entire test, the

compliance test will be valid. If the

manufacturer, for whatever reason, does

not designate a displacement rate,

NHTSA may pick any rate within the

specified range.

NHTSA denies Great Dane’s request

to amend the energy requirement to

require twice as much displacement for

the purpose of the energy absorption

test. The petitioner stated that the

‘‘current limit of 125 mm will require

guards which are weaker (less stiffness)

be installed merely to meet the energy

absorption level of 5650 J.’’ This

amendment would have the effect of

allowing stiffer guards by displacing the

guard 250 mm (10 inches) instead of 125

mm (5 inches) before measuring to

determine whether the guard absorbed

the minimum 5,650 joules (4,170 ft-lbs)

of energy. The greater displacement

would make it easier for the required

plastic deformation of the guard to

occur. However, the point of the energy

absorption requirement is to prevent
3660 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

4 ‘‘The [FHWA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]

does not, however, include an exemption to the

requirement that motor carriers maintain the

conspicuity material on the rear underride device.

The agency requests comments from motor carriers

on the durability of the conspicuity material located

on the horizontal member of the rear underride

protection devices. Commenters are asked to

identify the specific types of trailers and operating

conditions that they believe are associated with the

durability problems cited in addition to providing

color photographs of the damaged conspicuity

materials.’’ 62 FR 18172–73.

overly stiff guards. It would enhance

crash safety if manufacturers weaken

guards that are too stiff, because this

will allow a softer ‘‘crash pulse’’ for the

colliding passenger vehicle by ‘‘riding

down’’ the speed over a short distance

during the crash.

Moreover, NHTSA notes that the data

that Great Dane submitted in support of

this request does not indicate that any

change is needed in the standard. The

test data provided by Great Dane show

that the guards they tested displayed

more than twice the required energy

absorption when tested according to the

current requirement of 125 mm (5

inches) of displacement.

Finally, the agency denies King’s

request to amend the final rule to

include requirements that rear

underride guards protect conspicuity

markings from damage. The Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) has

jurisdiction over trailers after the first

sale for purposes other than resale and

regulates the maintenance of required

safety equipment. Section 393.11 of the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs) requires that

commercial motor vehicles meet the

requirements of Standard No. 108 in

effect at the time the vehicle was

manufactured (49 CFR 393.11). Since

December 1, 1993, Standard No. 108 has

required new trailers to meet

conspicuity requirements. Accordingly,

motor carriers are currently required

under FHWA regulations to maintain

the conspicuity treatments on these

trailers. This includes maintaining the

conspicuity treatment on the horizontal

member of the underride guard.

On April 14, 1997, FHWA issued an

NPRM (62 FR 18170) that would amend

the FMCSRs at 49 CFR 393.11, Lighting

Devices and Reflectors, to make certain

that all motor carriers operating trailers

subject to the FMCSRs are aware of their

responsibility to maintain the

conspicuity treatments in all locations

required by Standard No. 108. However,

FHWA requested comment on whether

an exemption from the maintenance

requirement for the tape on the

underride guard should be provided due

to practicability problems.4 NHTSA has

forwarded King’s comment to FHWA for

consideration. Irrespective of whether

FHWA continues to require motor

carriers to maintain the conspicuity

treatment on the guards, NHTSA

encourages manufacturers to design the

treatment to be as durable as practicable

to ensure that the safety benefits of

applying the treatment to that location

are realized.

If FHWA requires the conspicuity

treatment on the horizontal member of

the guard to be maintained, and

sufficiently durable conspicuity

treatments are not available, NHTSA

assumes that manufacturers would

design guards with channels or other

protective features for the conspicuity

treatment. There is nothing in Standard

No. 223 that would prevent such

designs. NHTSA will consult with

FHWA on whether NHTSA rulemaking

to mandate physical protection for

conspicuity treatment is needed after

FHWA completes its rulemaking.

IV. Response to TTMA Petition on

Extension of Effective Date

In an April 18, 1997 letter, TTMA

petitioned NHTSA to commence

rulemaking to extend the effective date

from January 26, 1998 to a date at least

nine months after this response to the

petitions for reconsideration is issued. It

stated only that trailer manufacturers

were reluctant to complete the designs

of their guards and test these guards

until the petitions were answered.

TTMA’s petition for an extension of

the effective date is denied. NHTSA

does not see any reason why

manufacturers can not complete and test

their guard designs in the allotted time.

Except for a few of Rite Hite’s requests,

all the petitions dealt with relatively

minor issues of testing and clarification.

Manufacturers should have been

planning to comply with the rule as it

was published in January of 1996.

The guards that will be required on

January 26, 1998 are very similar to

guards currently being produced.

NHTSA made no amendments requiring

configuration changes in its responses to

the petitions. The change to the

regulatory text relating to vertical crosssectional height is basically a

clarification of the current requirements.

There were only two minor changes to

the test procedures (allowing a more

flexible force application rate and

allowing the manufacturer to designate

the force application rate on which it

based its certification). These changes

will make it easier for manufacturers to

test the guards and to comply with the

requirements. The guards that

manufacturers will be required to

produce after this rule is issued will be

essentially the same guards that NHTSA

required in the January 1996 final rule.

NHTSA notes that the TTMA’s

Recommended Practice, ‘‘Rear Impact

Guard and Protection’’ is virtually

identical to the NPRM, except for the

energy absorption requirement of

Standard No. 223. This Recommended

Practice is designated RP No. 92–94,

and was originally issued in April of

1994 and revised in November of 1994.

Apparently it has been adopted as an

industry standard, so little

reengineering should be necessary to

meet Standard No. 223. Therefore,

NHTSA believes that the manufacturers

have had sufficient time to complete

their designs prior to the January 26,

1998 effective date. A general extension

is not warranted.

However, the agency will consider

petitions for temporary exemption from

Standard No. 224. The agency has

received a number of these petitions

from small-volume trailer manufacturers

within the past few months. Under 49

CFR 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose

yearly production is not more than

10,000 units may ask for a temporary

exemption from a Federal motor vehicle

safety standard for up to three years on

the basis that compliance would cause

it substantial economic hardship and

that it has attempted in good faith to

comply with the standard from which it

has asked to be excused. Part 555

requires the agency to publish a notice

in the Federal Register seeking public

comment on each exemption petition

before a decision can be made on such

a request, and then publish a second

notice either granting or denying the

petition. NHTSA expects to issue final

decisions on these petitions

approximately three to four months after

the date of submission of the petition.

V. Technical Amendment on Logging

Trailers

The Application section (S3) of

Standard No. 224 currently excludes

‘‘pole trailers’’ from the application of

the rule. Pole trailers are trailers with a

single, longitudinal telescoping pole,

rather than a normal trailer chassis,

connecting the front wheels to the back

wheels. Pole trailers are predominantly

used by the logging industry to transport

logs. They spend a great deal of their

time off-road at logging sites and on

rough logging roads. NHTSA proposed

to exclude these vehicles in the January

8, 1981 NPRM (46 FR 2139), stating:

the proposed rule does not apply to pole

trailers. The agency believes that requiring

underride guards on such vehicles would

provide little benefit to car occupants. Since

the poles carried by these trailers normally

overhang the back end of the vehicles for a

considerable distance, the danger of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 3661

underride is due not to the structure of the

trailer but to the structure of the cargo.

This was not a controversial exclusion

and it was retained in the 1992

Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (SNPRM) and the 1996 final

rule without comment.

Changes in the trailer design and in

the logging industry since 1981 have led

to a decline in the popularity of pole

trailers and the emergence of

‘‘pulpwood trailers’’ to take their place.

Pulpwood trailers are similar in use and

structure to pole trailers, but they have

more structure (often two poles or

beams) connecting the front wheels to

the back wheels. NHTSA has recently

become aware, through an April 25,

1997 letter from Mr. Buck Ford, that

some manufacturers of pulpwood

trailers are deciding how to install

underride guards to comply with the

January 1996 final rule, but that other

manufacturers are completely unaware

of the rule. Pulpwood trailers are not

currently excluded because they are not

technically pole trailers. According to

Mr. Ford, there may be a shortage of

pulpwood trailers in 1998 due to few

manufacturers being able to meet the

requirements.

NHTSA intended to exclude all

trailers that, like pole trailers, lack

structure for attaching guards and that

would carry loads likely to overhang the

rear of the trailer substantially when it

published the January 1996 final rule.

Pulpwood trailers do not differ

significantly from pole trailers in their

construction or use. They also carry

overhanging logs that would negate the

value of the underride guard and

operate on rough logging roads on

which an underride guard would be a

serious impediment. Due to the lack of

controversy regarding the exclusion of

pole trailers, and due to the lack of

comment from pulpwood trailer

manufacturers, the agency assumed that

the language of the exclusion covered

all trailers of this type.

Because this appears to have been an

incorrect assumption, NHTSA is adding

pulpwood trailers to the list of excluded

vehicle types. This is being done by

technical amendment because the

agency’s intent to exclude vehicles that

carry this kind of load was clear from

the 1981 NPRM’s rationale for the

exclusion. This technical amendment

will also avoid a shortage of pulpwood

trailers needed by the logging industry

in 1998. NHTSA is adopting the

pertinent part of the language contained

in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems,

which defines ‘‘pulpwood trailer’’ as ‘‘a

trailer 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 * * *’’.

VI. Effective Date

The agency finds that there is good

cause to make this rule effective

immediately. These amendments do not

impose any new requirements. Instead,

they relieve some of the testing burden

imposed on the manufacturers by the

January 24, 1996 final rule. It will be

slightly easier for manufacturers to test

using the new load application rates

specified in these amendments. These

amendments also make it clear that

pulpwood trailers are an excluded

category of vehicle, and that cargo tank

motor vehicles built to RSPA’s

standards with a rear-end protection

device or rear bumper in the area

specified for NHTSA’s underride guard

do not have to meet the energy

absorption requirements of Standard

No. 223. A delayed effective date would

impose a needless compliance burden

on the trailer industry, including many

small businesses that manufacture

trailers.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal

Regulation) and Regulatory Policies and

Procedures

This rulemaking action was reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The

action has been determined to be ‘‘not

significant’’ under Executive Order

12866 and under the Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures. The Final Regulatory

Evaluation (FRE) for the January 1996

final rule describes the economic and

other effects of that rule in detail.

The responses to these petitions for

reconsideration and this technical

amendment do not alter the costs or

benefits of that rule significantly. They

merely clarify the intended application

of the rule and provide more flexibility

in the test procedures. They do not

change the requirements enough to

significantly alter the performance or

the price of rear underride guards.

Therefore, a regulatory analysis is not

warranted.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA analyzed the potential

impacts of the January 1996 final rule

on small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act and certified that it

would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. NHTSA has described those

possible impacts in the FRE to the

January 1996 final rule, which was, in

part, a regulatory flexibility analysis.

The responses to these petitions for

reconsideration and this technical

amendment slightly increase

manufacturer flexibility in testing, but

NHTSA certifies that the changes made

by today’s rule do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Most of the

changes are interpretations and

clarifications of the existing language,

not changes in requirements that impose

new burdens. The changes in

requirements are designed to make the

guards easier for manufacturers,

especially small businesses, to test their

guards, not to change the guard

performance. As a result, some

businesses that otherwise would have

had to buy sophisticated testing

equipment or change their guard

designs unnecessarily will not need to

do so. Therefore, there will be no new

significant impact on small businesses.

C. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this rule will not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

This rule makes only minor changes

to the January 1996 final rule which had

only minimal federalism implications.

Nearly all States require underride

protection guards for heavy trailers and

semitrailers. Further, most states require

that the guards meet certain

configuration requirements, or that they

be positioned in a certain location

relative to the rear and sides of the

vehicle. The January 1996 final rule will

preempt State requirements for rear

impact protection. However, the agency

believes that federalism implications

will be minor because the guards

required by that final rule are not

fundamentally different from those

required by State law. Several States,

including Michigan, North Carolina,

New York, and New Jersey, already

require trailers longer than 15 m (50 ft)

to have guards with the configuration

required by that rule. For practical

purposes, the only effect that that rule

will have in these States is to require the

guards to be tested and certified for

strength and energy absorption.

NHTSA believes that effective rear

impact protection measures can be

implemented only at the national level.

Only vehicle manufacturers can

produce trailers and semitrailers with

improved rear impact protection. The

improvements required by the January

1996 final rule will cause vehicle

manufacturers and operators to incur

costs that could affect their competitive
3662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

position if compliance were voluntary

and attempted by some, but not all

manufacturers. That rule applies

uniformly to all manufacturers and will

ensure that the competitive position of

the manufacturers will not be

significantly affected by the required

safety improvements.

D. Preemptive Effect and Judicial

Review

Under 49 U.S.C. § 30103(b), whenever

a Federal motor vehicle safety standard

is in effect, a State may not adopt or

maintain a safety standard applicable to

the same aspect of performance which

is not identical to the Federal standard.

49 U.S.C. § 30161 sets forth a procedure

for judicial review of final rulemaking

establishing, amending, or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceeding before parties may file suit

in court. This final rule does not have

any retroactive effect.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no new requirements for

information collection associated with

this response to petitions for

reconsideration and technical

amendment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Incorporation by reference,

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles,

Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 571

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50

2. Sections S5.1 and S6.6(a) of 49 CFR

571.223 are revised to read as follows:

§ 571.223 Standard No. 223; rear impact

guards

* * * * *

S5.1 Projected Vertical Height. The

horizontal member of each guard, when

viewed from the rear as it would be

installed on a trailer pursuant to the

installation instructions or procedures

required by S5.5 of this standard, shall

have a vertical height of at least 100 mm

at each point across the guard width,

when projected horizontally on a

transverse vertical plane. Those

installation instructions or procedures

shall specify that the guard is to be

mounted so that all portions of the

horizontal member necessary to achieve

a 100 mm high projected vertical height

are located not more than 305 mm

forward of the vehicle’s rear extremity,

as defined in S4 of 49 CFR 571.224, Rear

Impact Protection. See Figure 1 of this

section.

* * * * *

S6.6 Force Application.

* * * * *

(a) Using the force application device,

apply force to the guard in a forward

direction such that the displacement

rate of the force application device is

the rate, plus or minus 10 percent,

designated by the guard manufacturer

within the range of 2.0 cm per minute

to 9.0 cm per minute. If the guard

manufacturer does not designate a rate,

any rate within that range may be

chosen.

* * * * *

3. In § 571.224 section S3 is revised

and section S4 is amended by adding a

definition of pulpwood trailer and

revising the definition of Special

purpose vehicle to read as follows:

§ 571.224 Standard No. 224; rear impact

protection

* * * * *

S3. Application. This standard

applies to trailers and semitrailers with

a GVWR of 4,536 kg or more. The

standard does not apply to pole trailers,

pulpwood trailers, special purpose

vehicles, wheels back vehicles, or

temporary living quarters as defined in

49 CFR 529.2.

If a cargo tank motor vehicle, as

defined in 49 CFR 171.8, is certified to

carry hazardous materials and has a rear

bumper or rear end protection device

conforming with 49 CFR part 178

located in the area of the horizontal

member of the rear underride guard

required by this standard, the guard

need not comply with the energy

absorption requirement (S5.2.2) of 49

CFR 571.223.

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Pulpwood trailer means a trailer 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.

* * * * *

Special purpose vehicle means a

trailer or semitrailer having workperforming equipment that, while the

vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves

through the area that could be occupied

by the horizontal member of the rear

underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1

through S5.1.3.

* * * * *

Issued on: January 20, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–1783 Filed 1–21–98; 2:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3191; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF66

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

requirements for seat belts at forwardfacing rear outboard seating positions of

police cars and other law enforcement

vehicles to facilitate the transporting of

prisoners. It does so by permitting those

belts to be equipped with manual

adjustment devices instead of

emergency locking retractors, and

excluding them from requirements for

the accessibility of belt latch plates, the

simultaneous release of the lap and

shoulder belt portions of a lap and

shoulder belt, and the release of the

latch mechanism at a single point. This

action was initiated in response to a

petition for rulemaking submitted by

Laguna Manufacturing, Inc.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective February

25, 1998.

Any petitions for reconsideration

must be received by NHTSA no later

than March 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information: Mr. John Lee,

Light Duty Vehicle Division, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, NPS–11,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202) 366–4924. FAX number (202) 366–

4329, Mr. Lee’s e-mail address is:

jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov, For legal

information: Mr. Otto Matheke, Office of