[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10737-10738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5511]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-3355; Notice 3]
Red River Manufacturing, Inc.; Application for Renewal of
Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224
We are asking for comments on the application by Red River
Manufacturing, Inc., of West Fargo, North Dakota, for a three-year
renewal of NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 98-3 from Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 224 Rear Impact Protection. Red River has applied again on
the basis that ``compliance would cause substantial economic hardship
to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the
standard.'' 49 CFR 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 us about the merits of the
application. The discussion that follows is based on information
contained in Red River's application.
Why Red River Needs To Renew Its Temporary Exemption
On April 1, 1998, we granted Red River a temporary exemption of one
year from Standard No. 224. See 63 FR 15909 for our decision.
Among other kinds of trailers, Red River manufactures and sells two
types of horizontal discharge trailers which discharge their contents
into hoppers, rather than on the ground. This makes it impractical to
comply with Standard No. 224 by using a fixed rear impact guard. One
type of horizontal discharge trailer is used in the road construction
industry to deliver asphalt and other road building materials to the
construction site. The other type is used to haul feed, seed, and
agricultural products such as sugar beets and potatoes, from the fields
to hoppers for storage or processing. Both types are known by the name
``Live Bottom.''
Standard No. 224 requires, effective January 26, 1998, that all
trailers with a GVWR of 4536 Kg or more, including Live Bottom
trailers, be fitted with a rear impact guard that conforms to Standard
No. 223 Rear impact guards. Red River, which manufactured 225 Live
Bottom trailers of all kinds in the 12 months preceding the filing of
its application on December 22, 1998, has asked for a renewal of its
exemption until April 1, 2002, in order to continue its efforts to
develop a rear impact guard that conforms to Standard No. 223 and can
be installed in compliance with Standard No. 224, while retaining the
functionality and price-competitiveness of its trailers.
Why Compliance Would Cause Red River Substantial Economic Hardship
Live Bottoms accounted for almost half of Red River's production in
1997. In the absence of an exemption, Red River believes that
approximately 60 percent of its work force would have to be laid off.
Its projected loss of sales is $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 per year (net
sales have averaged $14,441,822 over its 1995, 1996, and 1997 fiscal
years).
We require hardship applicants to estimate the cost required to
comply with a standard, as soon as possible, and at the end of a one-,
two-, or three-year exemption period. Red River estimates that even a
three-year exemption will require a retail price increase that will
result in a loss of 35 percent of Live Bottom sales. Further, ``more
than 50 percent of available engineering time would be required for
compliance and related modifications in this time frame, resulting in a
significant reduction in support for non-Live Bottom products, and a 5%
decline in non-Live Bottom sales.''
How Red River Has Tried to Comply With the Standard in Good Faith
In its initial application for a temporary exemption, Red River
explained that, in mid 1996, its design staff began exploring options
for compliance with Standard No. 224. Through a business partner in
Denmark, the company reviewed the European rear impact protection
systems. Because these designs must be manually operated by ground
personnel, Red River decided that they would not be acceptable to its
American customers. Later in 1996, Red River decided to investigate
powered retractable rear impact guards. The initial design could not
meet the energy absorption requirements of Standard No. 223. The
company then investigated the use of pneumatic-over-mechanical
retractable rear impact guards, and developed a prototype design which
it began testing in the field in May 1998. This testing is disclosing a
number of problems as yet unresolved. In the meantime, Red River
[[Page 10738]]
consulted three commercial suppliers of underride devices but none
produces a guard that could be used on the Live Bottoms.
Red River intends to continue its compliance efforts while an
exemption is in effect, and believes that three years will enable it to
conclude definitively whether it is feasible to design and manufacture
a compliant rear guard that meets the requirements of its customers,
and, if it is not feasible, to petition the agency for rulemaking to
exclude Live Bottoms from Standard No. 224.
Red River was able to conform its other trailers with Standard No.
224
Why Exempting Red River Would Be Consistent With the Public
Interest and Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety
In its initial application, Red River argued that an exemption
would be in the public interest and consistent with traffic safety
objectives because the Live Bottom ``can be used safely where it would
be hazardous or impractical to use end dump trailers, such as on uneven
terrain or in places with low overhead clearances.'' These trailers are
``valuable to the agricultural sector'' because of the advantages they
offer in the handling of relatively fragile cargo. An exemption ``would
have no adverse effect on the safety of the general public'' because
the Live Bottom 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 Live Bottom is such that the
rear tires act as a buffer and reduce the likelihood of impact with the
trailer.
Red River reiterates these arguments in its application for renewal
of its temporary exemption. It adds that it knows of no rear end
collisions involving horizontal discharge trailers that have resulted
in injuries, nor any instances in which there has been an intrusion by
a horizontal discharge trailer into the passenger compartment of a
vehicle impacting the rear of such a trailer.
How To Comment on Red River's Application
If you would like to comment on Red River's application, send two
copies of 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.
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 docket in Room PL-401, both before and after that
date, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.
When we have reached a decision, we shall publish it in the Federal
Register.
Comment closing date: April 5, 1999.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.4.
Issued: February 26, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-5511 Filed 3-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
