[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2273-2274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-686]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-4966]
TarasPort Trailers, Inc.; Application for Temporary Exemption
From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224
TarasPort Trailers, Inc., of Sweetwater, Tennessee, has applied for
a two-year temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
224 Rear Impact Protection, as provided by 49 CFR part 555. The basis
of the application is that ``compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard.'' Sec. 555.6(a).
We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in
accordance with our regulations on temporary exemptions. This action
does not represent any judgment by the agency about the merits of the
application. We base the discussion that follows on information
contained in TarasPort's application, submitted by its Vice President,
Ms. Jeanne Isbill.
Why TarasPort Needs a Temporary Exemption
Located in the Sweetwater Industrial Park in Monroe County,
Tennessee, TarasPort has been manufacturing trailers since April 1988.
Standard No. 224 requires, effective January 26, 1998, that all
trailers with a GVWR of 4536 Kg or more be fitted with a rear impact
guard that conforms to Standard No. 223 Rear impact guards. TarasPort
manufactured a total of 237 trailers in 1997, including ``two models of
drop decks equipped with rear deck extenders.'' The extenders deploy in
1-foot increments, up to 3 feet, from the rear of the trailer. S5.1.3
of Standard No. 224 requires that the horizontal member of the rear
impact guard must be as close as practicable to the rear extremity of
the vehicle, but in no case farther than 305 mm. from it. TarasPort had
asked NHTSA to exclude its two trailer models as ``special purpose
vehicles,'' but we denied its request. We also determined that the
trailers' rear extremity, with the extenders deployed ``would be the
rearmost surface on the extenders themselves.'' In order to meet
S5.1.3, TarasPort must redesign these models so that the rear face of
the horizontal member of the guard will never exceed 305 mm from the
rearmost surface on the extenders, when the extenders are in any
position in which they can be placed when in transit. It has asked for
a 2-year exemption in order to do so.
Why Compliance Would Cause TarasPort Substantial Economic Hardship
TarasPort employs 16 people, including its two working owners. An
increasing amount of its sales is comprised of the two extended-deck
trailers, from 55% in 1997 to 63% in the first two quarters of 1998.
Using its existing staff, the company estimates that it needs 18 to 24
months of design and testing to bring the trailers into compliance with
S5.1.3, and that the modifications required will cost $1800 to $2000
per trailer.
If the application is denied, TarasPort would have to discontinue
production for 18 to 24 months, or hire an engineering consulting firm
to possibly reduce that time, at a fee of $80 to $120 an hour. It would
be forced to layoff a majority of its employees, and it would lose the
market and established customer base that it has achieved as a niche
producer over the 10 years of its existence.
According to its financial statements, TarasPort has had a small
net income in each of its past three fiscal years, though the income
each year has been substantially less than the year before. The net
income for 1997 was $87,030.
How TarasPort Has Tried To Comply With the Standard in Good Faith
Most of TarasPort's trailers have low deck heights and rear ramp
compartments ``which only compound rear impact compliance problems.''
Nevertheless, the company was able to bring its designs into compliance
by Standard No. 224's effective date, with the exception of the two
extender designs. These trailers comply when the extenders are not in
use. The company tested mounting the guard directly on the extenders
``so it would move out and thus comply,'' but found that this method of
mounting ``would not absorb the level of energy'' required by Standard
No. 223. TarasPort hoped that NHTSA would consider the extenders to be
load overhang or exempt as a special purpose vehicle, but NHTSA denied
this request on May 22, 1998.
Why Exempting TarasPort Would Be Consistent With the Public
Interest and Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety
A denial would adversely affect the company's employees, customers,
and the local economy in Monroe County. The motor vehicle safety
standards ``were created with the general public's well being in mind.
Assisting our company to comply to those standards
[[Page 2274]]
only insures public safety. Compliance rather than enforcement is
consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act.''
How To Comment on TarasPort's Application
We invite you to comment on TarasPort's application. Send your
comments, in writing, to: Docket Management, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20590, in care of the docket and notice number shown at the top of
this document. It would be helpful if you provide us with 10 copies of
your comments.
We shall consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date stated below. To the extent
possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date.
You may examine the comments in the docket in room PL-401 both before
and after that date, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. When we
have reached a decision, we shall publish it in the Federal Register.
Comment closing date: February 12, 1999.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.4.
Issued: January 7, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-686 Filed 1-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
