Document ID: NHTSA-2007-28927-0005
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Sidump'r Trailer Company, Inc.
Posted Date: 2013-04-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22941-22942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08958]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28927; Notice 2]

Sidump'r Trailer Company, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Sidump'r Trailer Company, Inc. (Sidump'r) has determined that 
the rear impact guards on certain trailers that it manufactured between 
January 10, 2006 and April 13, 2007 do not comply with paragraph S5.1 
of 49 CFR 571.224, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
224, Rear Impact Protection. Sidump'r has filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports, dated April 20, 2007.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 (d) and 30120 (h) and the rule 
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Sidump'r has 
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of 
receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day public comment 
period, on August 16, 2007, in the Federal Register (72 FR 46127). The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received no 
comments. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto 
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to 
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2007-28927.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Luis 
Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 
366-5298, facsimile (202) 366-1002.
    Trailers Involved: Affected are approximately 416 model 223, 325 
and 425 side dump bulk material hauling trailers manufactured by 
Sidump'r between January 10, 2006 and April 13, 2007.
    Summary of Sidump'r's Analysis and Arguments: Sidump'r first became 
aware of the noncompliance of these trailers when Sidump'r received a 
customer inquiry on or about February 27, 2007 regarding the rear 
impact guards installed on the subject trailers. As a result of this 
inquiry, Sidump'r stated that it commenced a thorough engineering 
evaluation of the rear end of the subject trailers to determine whether 
they meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 224. Following this engineering 
evaluation and after consultation with its counsel, Sidump'r determined 
that the trailers do not comply with FMVSS No. 224.
    Specifically, Sidump'r has determined that the location of those 
guards does not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 
224 because there is a ``push block'' located at the rear of the 
trailer chassis extending 23.62 inches (600 mm) to the rear of the rear 
impact guard. Sidump'r stated that it considered the ``push blocks'' to 
be the ``rear extremities'' of the subject trailers. Therefore, it 
concluded that the rearmost surface of the horizontal members of the 
rear impact guards are located 11.62 inches (295 mm) too far forward of 
the ``rear extremity'' of the trailers to conform with the requirements 
of paragraph S5.1.3.
    Sidump'r also examined the possibility of the ``push block'' itself 
serving as the rear impact guard. It determined that the ``push block'' 
itself does not constitute a compliant rear impact guard as originally 
installed because it exceeds the maximum ground clearance of 22 inches 
(560 mm) allowed by paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 224 by 1.5 inches (38 
mm).
    Sidump'r stated that it has corrected the problem that caused the 
noncompliance in the trailers they produced after April 20, 2007 by 
modifying the design of the trailers to incorporate an additional 
horizontal member mounted to the underside of the ``push block'' 
assembly.
    Sidump'r also stated that it believes this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no further corrective 
action is warranted due to the geometric characteristics of the 
trailers and the nature of their field usage. Specifically, Sidump'r 
makes the arguments that the overall level of safety of the subject 
trailers is equivalent to a compliant trailer because their ``push 
block'' is equipped with a guard-like structure that is comparable to a 
compliant rear impact guard based on dimensional considerations, and on 
a simulation of the guard performance \1\ when subjected to the loads 
required under FMVSS No. 223. Sidump'r additionally supported its 
position that the overall level of safety of the noncompliant trailers 
is equivalent to comparable trailers by comparing them to road 
construction controlled horizontal discharge trailers and by citing 
several previous decisions where NHTSA granted temporary exemptions 
from compliance with FMVSS No. 224 as the result of petitions filed 
under 49 CFR Part 555 Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety and 
Bumper Standards for noncompliances that it considers similar in 
consequence to those covered in this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fred P. Smith, P.E., CSP, Under Ride Report (Alpine 
Engineering and Design, Inc., 2007). Supplemental petition data as 
submitted on May 14, 2008 to docket number NHTSA-2007-28927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

Requirement Background

    Paragraph S5.1.3 Guard Rear Surface of FMVSS No. 224 requires:

At any height 560 mm or more above the ground, the rearmost surface 
of the horizontal member of the guard shall be located as close as 
practical to a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear 
extremity of the vehicle, but no more than 305 mm forward of that

[[Page 22942]]

plane. Notwithstanding this requirement, the horizontal member may 
extend rearward of the plane, and guards with rounded corners may 
curve forward within 255 mm of the longitudinal vertical planes that 
are tangent to side extremities of the vehicle.

    Paragraph S5.1.2 Guard Height of FMVSS No. 224 requires:

The vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal 
member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any 
point across the full width of the member. Notwithstanding this 
requirement, guards with rounded corners may curve upward within 255 
mm of the longitudinal vertical planes that are tangent to the side 
extremities of the vehicle.

    Sidump'r states that NHTSA has granted temporary exemptions based 
on: Infrequent highway use (69 FR 30989, 68 FR 7406 and 64 FR 49049), 
as well as small production quantities of vehicles (66 FR 22069, 63 FR 
16857, 66 FR 20028 and 68 FR 7406). Those temporary exemptions were 
granted based on petitions submitted by vehicle manufacturers under 49 
CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper 
Standards. The statutory provision (49 U.S.C. 30113) that permits 
manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of exemption allows 
NHTSA to temporarily exempt manufacturers from specific FMVSS or bumper 
standard requirements. This provision applies to vehicles that have not 
yet been passed from the manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or 
dealer, which is not the case for the subject trailers. Exemptions are 
available under this provision to permit vehicles to be built without 
complying with the standards based on certain specific criteria, 
including the petitioner's economic hardship. Under each of the 
criteria, the number of vehicles produced is a specific consideration. 
See, e.g., 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2)(v). The primary basis for NHTSA granting 
the temporary exemptions cited above was because the petitioners had 
met the burden of persuasion that compliance would have caused 
substantial economic hardship. Economic hardship is not a consideration 
in the evaluation process for inconsequentiality petitions. See 49 CFR 
Part 556. Accordingly, NHTSA does not find those decisions under Part 
555 relevant here.
    NHTSA agrees with Sidump'r's assessment that the rear impact guards 
on the subject trailers do not conform to the requirements of S5.1.3 of 
49 CFR 571.224 because they are mounted too far forward of the rear 
extremities of the trailers.
    Also, NHTSA agrees with Sidump'r's assessment that if a guard-like 
structure under the push block complies with the dimensional and 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224 that the 
guard-like structure can serve as a rear impact guard.\2\ Sidump'r used 
a finite element model analysis \3\ to make a determination that the 
guard like structure would meet the performance requirements. Finite 
element modeling is a mature science and appropriately accurate for 
modeling the rudimentary force deflection characteristics of the guard-
like structure under the push block. Based on that analysis, which 
Sidump'r submitted to the docket, the guard-like structure appears to 
meet the loads and energy absorption requirement under FMVSS No. 223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA's Chief Counsel interpretation letter to Jason Backs 
(CPS Trailers, May 28, 1998).
    \3\ Finite element analysis can be used as a basis for 
establishing certification to performance requirements of a 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, based on the drawings provided by Sidump'r, NHTSA 
agrees that the guard-like structure meets all of FMVSS No. 224 
configuration requirements except for guard height. While the maximum 
height requirement was exceeded by an inch and a half, NHTSA does not 
consider the difference significant in this particular instance. Using 
NCAP (2003-2009) test data OVSC selected compact and subcompact 
vehicles to determine the part of the frame structure that would most 
likely engage the bumper of a trailer and the height of that structure 
in the car. We determined that the area most likely to be engaged by 
the rear impact guard would be the area of the unibody where the front 
shock absorbers (struts) are attached. We also looked at the height of 
the engine block in those cars. The shock absorber height and the top 
of the engine block height are data points measured as part of the NCAP 
frontal impact evaluation of vehicles. The average shock absorber 
height was 838 mm (33 in) with a minimum of 566 mm (22 in) and a 
maximum of 972 mm (38 in). The average engine block height was 836 mm 
(33 in) with a minimum of 748 mm (29 in) and a maximum of 935 mm (37 
in). In addition, we asked laboratory personnel to measure the depth of 
the engine block cover of several vehicles to be crash tested. The 
average depth was between 2 and 4 in. This depth was used to assess 
shearing of the engine block cover during a crash and possible impact. 
Based on this NCAP data we believe the car's frontal structure will 
effectively engage the rear impact guard during a crash incident and 
that Sidump'r's guard placement of 1 in (38 mm) over the required FMVSS 
No. 224 guard height is inconsequential to vehicle safety based on the 
particular facts in this case.
    NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has 
decided that Sidump'r has met its burden of persuasion that the 
dimensional noncompliance described in Sidump'r's Noncompliance 
Information Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, Sidump'r's petition is granted, and the Sidump'r is 
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy 
for, the noncompliances under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 3120, respectively, to 
notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and 
to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only 
applies to the trailers that Sidump'r no longer controlled at the time 
that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the subject 
vehicles.

    Issued On: April 11, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-08958 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P