[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13844-13845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6846]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-4966; Notice 2]
TarasPort Trailers, Inc.; Grant of Application for Temporary
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224
We are granting the application by TarasPort Trailers, Inc., of
Sweetwater, Tennessee, for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 224 Rear Impact Protection, as provided by 49 CFR
part 555, finding 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).
On January 13, 1999, we published a notice inviting comment on
TarasPort's application (64 FR 2273). The salient points of the
application are set out below.
Why TarasPort Needs a Temporary Exemption
Located in the Sweetwater Industrial Park in Monroe County,
Tennessee, TarasPort has manufactured 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 be more than 305 mm
forward of 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 lay off 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 we would consider the extenders to be
load overhang or exempt as a special purpose vehicle, but we denied
this request on May 22, 1998.
[[Page 13845]]
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. TarasPort argued that the motor
vehicle safety standards
were created with the general public's well being in mind.
Assisting our company to comply to those standards only insures
public safety. Compliance rather than enforcement is consistent with
the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Comments Filed in Response to the Application Notice
No comments were filed in response to the notice published on
January 13, 1999.
Discussion of TarasPort's Application
When TarasPort learned in May 1998 that its two trailer models
would have to comply with Standard No. 224, it filed its application
for exemption with us the following month. Because we needed to resolve
TarasPort's requests for confidentiality, we were unable to move
forward with its exemption request until January 1999. Accordingly, we
must assume that the company has been experiencing the hardships
foreseen in its application.
These hardships are loss of income from reduced production, and the
possible layoff of some of its 16 employees as a result. The company's
application indicated that it would find it more economical to engineer
a solution in-house over an 18 to 24 month time period than to commit
it to an engineering firm for a costly solution in something less than
that time. The company's net income has been decreasing in each of its
three past fiscal years, and presumptively did so in 1998 when it
suspended production of its two models of drop deck trailers equipped
with rear deck extenders. We believe that TarasPort has demonstrated
that requiring immediate compliance would cause it substantial economic
hardship.
We note that TarasPort, in spite of limited resources, was able to
bring all its other trailers into conformity with Standard No. 224 by
its effective date. We believe that the company has therefore made a
good faith effort to comply with the standard.
TarasPort contributes to its local economy, even though it is a
small business. It is in the public interest to encourage small
businesses which add diversity to the marketplace. The temporary
exemption of a small number of trailers from the underride standard
will not have a significant negative effect upon safety.
As of the end of June 1998, the company estimated that it would
need 18 to 24 months to comply with the standard. This indicates that
the company believes it can achieve compliance between January 1 and
July 1, 2000. We are therefore giving it an exemption until July 1,
2000.
The Administrator's Findings
On the basis of the arguments and discussions above, I find that
providing TarasPort an exemption from Standard No. 224 is consistent
with the public interest and the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--
Motor Vehicle Safety, and that compliance with Standard No. 224 would
cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to
comply with the standard in good faith.
NHTSA Temporary Exemption
No. 99-2
TarasPort Trailers, Inc., is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary
Exemption No. 99-2, from 49 CFR 571.224 Standard No. 224 Rear Impact
Protection, expiring July 1, 2000. This exemption is restricted to drop
deck trailers equipped with rear deck extenders.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Issued on: March 16, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-6846 Filed 3-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
