[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3784-3785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1784]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3122; Notice 2]
Dan Hill & Associates, Inc.; Grant of Application for Temporary
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224
This document grants the application by Dan Hill & Associates,
Inc., of Norman, Oklahoma, for a one-year temporary exemption from
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 Rear Impact Protection. The basis
of the application was that compliance would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard.
Notice of receipt of the application was published on November 21,
1997, and an opportunity afforded for comment (62 FR 62398).
The applicant manufactures and sells a horizontal discharge trailer
(``Flow Boy'') that is used in the road construction industry to
deliver asphalt and other road building materials to the construction
site. The Flow Boy is designed to connect with and latch onto various
paving machines (``pavers''). The Flow Boy, with its hydraulically
controlled horizontal discharge system, discharges hot mix asphalt at a
controlled rate into a paver which overlays the road surface with
asphalt material.
Standard No. 224 requires, effective January 26, 1998, that all
trailers with a GVWR of 4536 Kg or more, including Flow Boy trailers,
be fitted with a rear impact guard that conforms to Standard No. 223
Rear impact guards. Installation of the rear impact guard will prevent
the Flow Boy from connecting to the paver. Thus, Flow Boy trailers will
no longer be functional and contractors will be forced to use standard
dump body trucks or trailers with their inherent limitations.
The applicant, which manufactured 81 Flow Boy trailers in 1996
(plus 21 other trailers), asked for a one-year exemption in order to
explore the feasibility of a rear impact guard that will allow the Flow
Boy trailer to connect to a conventional paver. In the absence of an
exemption, it believes that approximately 60 percent of its work force
would have to be laid off. Its gross revenues would decrease by
$6,000,000 (these have averaged $13,885,000 over its 1994, 1995, and
1996 fiscal years). Present studies show that the placement of the
retractable rear impact guard would likely catch excess asphalt as it
was discharged into the pavement hopper. Further, the increased cost of
the Flow Body would likely cause contractors to choose the cheaper
alternative of dump trucks. Finally, the applicant asserted that the
increased weight of the retractable rear impact guard would
significantly decrease the payload of the Flow Boy.
Applicant sent its Product Specialist to Germany in 1994 to view
underride protection guards installed by a German customer on Flow Boy
trailers but the technology proved inapplicable because of differences
between German and American pavers. Manufacturers of paving machines
are not interested in redesigning their equipment to accommodate a Flow
Boy with a rear impact guard. The applicant has contacted a British
manufacturer of a retractable rear impact guard but the information
received to date does not look encouraging. If an exemption is granted,
the applicant will continue to explore the feasibility of a retractable
rear guard that allows connection with a paver.
The applicant believes that an exemption would be in the public
interest and consistent with traffic safety objectives because the Flow
Boy aids in the construction of the national road system. It spends
very little of its operating life on the highway and the likelihood of
its being involved in a rear-end collision is minimal. In addition, the
design of the Flow Boy is such that the rear tires act as a buffer and
reduce the likelihood of impact with the trailer.
No comments were received in response to the Federal Register
notice.
[[Page 3785]]
The applicant differs from the usual hardship petitioner in that it
is a corporation whose net revenues are positive and healthy. The
hardship to be borne in this instance is the effect of a denial upon
the company. The applicant's production is limited in number; it
produced 102 trailers in 1996, of which 86 are of the type for which
exemption is sought. This is approximately 85 percent of its
production. Although the remaining trailer types appear to contribute a
proportionally greater part of the company's gross revenues, these
revenues would decline by a significant percentage. There is also the
economic cost, not discussed by the company, of maintaining unused
manufacturing facilities and settling accounts with suppliers for goods
ordered and canceled.
The company's efforts to comply appear to have been stymied by the
unacceptability of a redesign of the Flow Boy to its consumers. Its
application indicates that, for the past three years, it has looked at
home and abroad in search of a solution that meets both safety and
market needs. It will continue to do so if granted an exemption.
The applicant has argued that an exemption is in the public
interest because the Flow Boy aids in construction of the national
highway system. While the company did not quantify its work force, it
estimated that approximately 60 percent of it would have to be laid off
in the wake of a denial. Thus, the company could have argued that
continued full employment of its work force is also in the public
interest.
Finally, the company believes that an exemption is consistent with
objectives of motor vehicle safety because the Flow Boy spends very
little of its operating life on the highway and the likelihood of it
being involved in a rear-end collision is minimal. NHTSA understands
this to mean that proportion of time spent in transit on the roads from
one job site to another will be small in comparison with the time spent
at rest at construction sites amidst other road equipment. This
indicates that the exposure of a Flow Boy without a rear underride
guard to a potential crash situation will be reduced. The small number
of trailers that may be produced under the exemption, less than 100,
further reduces the crash potential.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that
requiring compliance with Standard No. 224 as of its effective date
would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard. It is also found that
an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the company of Dan
Hill & Associates is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 98-1
from 49 CFR 571.224 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 Rear
Underride Protection, expiring February 1, 1999.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113, 49 CFR part 555; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on January 20, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-1784 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
