Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Rear Impact Guards and Rear Impact Protection

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-97-3201]

RIN 2125-AE15

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Rear Impact

Guards and Rear Impact Protection

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is amending the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs) to require that certain trailers and semitrailers

with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg)

(10,000 pounds) or more, and manufactured on or after January 26, 1998,

be equipped with rear impact guards that meet the requirements of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223. The rear impact

guards must be installed to ensure that the trailer or semitrailer

meets the rear impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 224. This

rulemaking is intended to ensure that the rear impact protection

requirements of the FMCSRs are consistent with the FMVSSs and to

improve the safety of operation of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by

reducing the incidence of passenger compartment intrusion during

underride accidents in which the passenger vehicle strikes the rear of

the trailer. With regard to trailers and semitrailers manufactured

before January 26, 1998, motor carriers are not required to retrofit a

rear impact guard that conforms to FMVSS No. 223. However, motor

carriers operating these trailers and semitrailers are required to

continue complying with the FHWA's requirements for rear end protection

on CMVs that are not covered by FMVSSs Nos. 223 and 224.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on October 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Motor

Carrier Research and Standards, (202) 366-4009, or Mr. Charles Medalen,

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway

Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users can access all comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):

http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each

year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and

help.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem

and suitable communications software from the Government Printing

Office's (GPO) Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661.

Internet users may reach the GPO's web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara and the Office of the Federal Register's home

page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg.

Background

On January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2003), the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule creating FMVSSs

Nos. 223, Rear Impact Guards, and 224, Rear Impact Protection. The

requirements apply to trailers and semitrailers manufactured on or

after January 26, 1998.

The first standard, FMVSS No. 223 (49 CFR 571.223), specifies

performance requirements that rear impact guards must meet before they

can be installed on new trailers and semitrailers. It specifies

strength and energy absorption requirements for the impact guards as

well as test procedures that manufacturers and the NHTSA will use to

determine compliance with the standard. The standard also requires the

guard manufacturer to permanently label the impact guard to certify

that the device meets the requirements and to provide instructions on

the proper installation of the guard.

The second standard, FMVSS No. 224 (49 CFR 571.224), requires that

most new trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating

(GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or more be equipped with a rear

impact guard meeting FMVSS No. 223. Requirements for the location of

the guard relative to the rear end and sides of the trailer are also

specified in the vehicle standard. In addition, the vehicle standard

requires that the guard be mounted on the trailer or semitrailer in

accordance with the instructions of the guard manufacturer.

On January 26, 1998, the NHTSA issued a final rule responding to

petitions for reconsideration of the 1996 final rule, and making

technical amendments to the rear impact guard requirements (63 FR

3654). The 1998 final rule clarified the applicability of the energy-

absorption requirements with regard to cargo tank motor vehicles, as

defined in 49 CFR 171.8, excluded pulpwood trailers from the rear

impact protection requirements (a definition of pulpwood trailer was

added to Sec. 571.224), and revised the definition of special purpose

vehicle.

On May 14, 1998, the FHWA proposed amending Sec. 393.86 to ensure

that the rear impact protection requirements of the FMCSRs are

consistent with the FMVSSs and to improve the safety of operation of

CMVs by reducing the incidence of passenger compartment intrusion

during underride accidents in which the passenger vehicle strikes the

rear of the trailer (63 FR 26759). The agency indicated that this

action is necessary because the FMVSSs are applicable only to vehicle

and vehicle component manufacturers. In the absence of an amendment to

the FMCSRs, there would be no Federal requirement that motor carriers

maintain their trailers to conform to the rear impact protection

requirements of FMVSS No. 224, or repair damaged rear impact guards.

Motor carriers could also replace rear impact guards with devices that

failed to comply with the NHTSA requirements.

Discussion of Comments to the NPRM

The FHWA received 5 comments in response to the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM). The commenters were: the Advocates for Highway and

Auto Safety (Advocates); the American Trucking Associations (ATA); the

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS); the National Automobile

Dealers Association, American Truck Dealers Division (NADA); and,

Torcomian Industries, Inc.

All of the commenters supported the rulemaking. However, the ATA

requested changes to certain portions of the regulatory language.

General Comments

The Advocates stated:

This initiative to parallel the current NHTSA standard with an

in-service [requirement] for motor carrier operations clearly will

enhance safety. We especially commend the agency for proposing the

additional benefits of public safety gained by requiring foreign

carriers to abide by the same safety standards as domestic carriers.

Given the prospective increases in trilateral freight movements

because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, this action

appropriately anticipates and counters a potentially serious threat

to highway safety from numerous new trailers/semi-trailers being

operated on U.S. highways by Canadian and Mexican carriers. This

proposal is a textbook example of an agency acting in the public

interest and it should be adopted.

[[Page 47704]]

The IIHS stated:

The operational requirements for commercial motor vehicles

should conform to the [F]ederal safety standards applicable to new

vehicles. Interagency cooperation and consistency are particularly

important for vehicle safety systems such as underride guards.

Properly functioning underride guards on trailers will reduce

occupant compartment intrusion in passenger vehicles striking

trailers from the rear and thus reduce deaths and injuries.

Comments About the Proposed Regulatory Language

The ATA believes the proposed language requiring rear impact guards

to be no more than 22 inches above the ground at any point across the

horizontal member is too strict a requirement for motor carriers. The

proposed requirement fails to take into account minor damage that may

occur to the impact guard in motor carrier operations.

The ATA stated:

An ATA survey conducted earlier this year of guards built to the

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) Recommended

Practice--which is dimensionally identical to FMVSS 224--found that

only 8.6 percent contained noticeable damage. Further, only 3.5

percent of the guards suffered harm that would raise their height.

It typically occurred at a point near their center and consisted of

an upward ``vee-shaped'' bend.

These narrow bends ranged up to three inches high. They

typically originate from complications caused by malfunctioning dock

locking mechanisms. Dock locks are devices found at shipper

facilities. They lock onto the underride guard and hold trailers

during loading or unloading to prevent an unexpected roll-away.

Upward, center bending of underride guards occurs when the dock lock

does not completely retract and a spotting tractor moves the

trailer. These tractors use a hydraulic fifth wheel to lift the

front of a trailer, freeing the driver from having to retract its

landing gear before moving it. Much like a teeter-totter, raising

the front of a trailer lowers the rear. This drives the underride

guard into the top of the dock lock, causing the bending.

ATA and one of its affiliated organizations--The Maintenance

Council (TMC), which consists of thousands of truck equipment

professionals--explored the consequences of such damage with trailer

manufacturers. We found that the degree of bending which typically

occurs does not impair the guard's capability to fulfill the

requirements of FMVSS 223.

The ATA also requested that the FHWA revise the proposed

definitions of ``low chassis vehicles,'' ``special purpose vehicles,''

and ``wheels back vehicles'' to cover any type of motor vehicle. The

ATA believes this is necessary to retain exemptions currently provided

for several types of straight trucks. The ATA recommends replacing

``trailer or semitrailer'' with ``a motor vehicle.''

Comments About Retrofitting

The ATA, Torcomian Industries, and the NADA responded to the FHWA's

request for comments on whether the agency should consider a

retrofitting requirement for trailers and semitrailers manufactured

before January 26, 1998. The ATA believes retrofitting trailers with

new rear impact guards would be impractical and cost prohibitive,

without contributing anything to safety. The ATA stated:

Retrofitting would be impractical because trailer manufacturers

design the guard and the rear of the trailer to act in combination

to meet the energy absorption requirements of FMVSS 223. Therefore,

attaching a new rear underride guard to an older trailer might be a

recipe for disaster. Older trailers may not have an attaching

understructure to accommodate the new equipment, and may not

function as expected.

In addition, truck operators would have no way of knowing if new

guards fitted to older trailers would meet the new standards.

The cost of fitting a new guard to a new trailer--with no

unexpected complications--is $300. Since there are approximately 3

million trailers in service, the direct cost of retrofit would

exceed $900 million. Adding in the indirect cost of revenue lost due

to down time and the complications of retrofitting old trailers not

designed to meet FMVSS 224, the total balloons to over $1 billion.

The NADA suggests that the FHWA ``continue to examine both the

costs and benefits associated with applying these new standards

retroactively, as well as any technical constraints that may be

involved.''

Torcomian Industries stated:

[Our] position is why not have all vehicles, regardless of year

of manufacture or design, come up to standards. The technology is

here, now * * * an ideal method of providing vehicles with underride

guards.

The transportation industry needs an underride bumper that will

bridge all of the various configurations in today's vehicles,

therefore removing any objections from the end users.

Torcomian Industries believes that establishing specific

standards of performance for underride bumpers by application is

important to help the [original equipment manufacturer] and fleet

service facilities customers better to determine how Torcomian

Industries Articulating Patented Underride Bumper Guard can help

reduce operating costs.

Torcomian Industries believes its articulating rear impact guard

can be ``easily retrofitted to all existing vehicles, whether semi-

trailer or straight truck.''

FHWA Response to Comments

The FHWA agrees with the ATA's comments about the need to revise

certain portions of the regulatory text. The agency believes it is

important to maintain the spirit and intent of Sec. 393.86(e) of the

FHWA's current requirements which states ``[m]otor vehicles constructed

and maintained so that the body, chassis, or other parts of the vehicle

afford the rear end protection contemplated shall be deemed to be in

compliance with this section.'' The FHWA has revised the proposed

definitions of ``low chassis vehicles,'' ``special purpose vehicles,''

and ``wheels back vehicles'' to make them applicable to single-unit

trucks. This action will help to make the FHWA's requirements for

single unit trucks, and trailers and semitrailers manufactured prior to

January 26, 1998, easier to understand, use and enforce.

The FHWA notes that there is a difference between the agency's

special purpose vehicle exception for single-unit trucks, and

semitrailers and trailers manufactured before January 26, 1998, and the

NHTSA's special purpose vehicle exclusion. The FHWA's exception

requires that the work-performing equipment provide some level of

protection against underride. Since the FHWA's rear impact guard

requirements for single unit trucks, and semitrailers and trailers

manufactured before January 26, 1998, do not include specific

performance criteria, the level of protection would have to be

comparable to a rear impact guard that is substantially constructed and

firmly attached.

By contrast, the NHTSA's special purpose vehicle exclusion is based

on the impracticability of installing a rear impact guard to satisfy

the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. The work-performing

equipment is not required to provide protection against underride.

Although the FHWA agrees with the NHTSA's special purpose vehicle

exclusion for new semitrailers and trailers, the FHWA does not believe

it is appropriate to provide such a broad exception for single-unit

trucks, and semitrailers and trailers built before January 26, 1998.

Since the strength and dimensional requirements for the FHWA's

requirements for single unit trucks, and semitrailers and trailers not

covered by the NHTSA rule, are less stringent than NHTSA's

requirements, motor carriers should not experience difficulty achieving

compliance. Motor carriers that have maintained their vehicles to

comply with the FHWA's requirements in effect prior to the publication

of this final rule will not

[[Page 47705]]

have to take any actions as a result of this rulemaking.

The FHWA does not agree with the ATA's comment about the need to

remove the words ``at any point across the full width of the member.''

The removal of these words would not preclude State officials from

citing motor carriers for violating Sec. 393.86 if there is minor

damage to the rear impact guard. Since Sec. 393.86 cross-references

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, State officials can cite the motor carrier for

failing to meet the referenced standards if the ground clearance

exceeds 22 inches at any point across the full width of the member,

irrespective of whether Sec. 393.86 explicitly states ``at any point

across the full width of the member.''

The FHWA intends that the rear impact guard requirements be

enforced by State officials during roadside inspections and must rely

on the enforcement discretion of these officials to determine if the

rear impact guard has minor damage, or damage that appears severe

enough to adversely affect the ability of the rear impact guard to

perform its function. The FHWA did not propose enforcement tolerances

and cannot as part of this final rule provide regulatory language to

make the distinction between minor damage and more severe damage that

would necessitate repairs or replacement of the rear impact guard. The

agency believes that penalizing motor carriers for minor damage that

would not adversely affect the performance of the rear impact guard

serves no practical purpose and discourages States from taking such

actions.

With regard to the comments about retrofitting, the FHWA does not

intend to propose a retrofitting requirement for improved rear impact

protection on trailers and semitrailers manufactured before January 26,

1998. The agency continues to believe there is insufficient accident,

cost, and research data to support such a proposal, and that the

obstacles to obtaining such data are essentially insurmountable.

The rear impact guard requirements applicable to single-unit

trucks, and trailers manufactured prior to January 26, 1998, do not

specify minimum strength, or energy absorption capabilities, nor do

they prohibit the use of impact guards that have a ground clearance

less than 762 mm (30 inches), or are closer than 61 cm (24 inches) to

the rear and 45.7 cm (18 inches) to the sides of the vehicle. In

addition, the current regulation allows impact guards to be constructed

of more than one section provided the lateral distance between the

sections does not exceed 610 mm (24 inches). As a result, manufacturers

have used a number of rear impact guard designs to satisfy the FHWA's

requirements.

To develop a sound technical basis for a retrofitting proposal, the

FHWA would have to establish criteria for determining which of the

older impact guard designs should be considered acceptable and which

ones should be replaced. The FHWA would then have to estimate the total

number of guards that would have to be replaced or modified, the per-

unit and total cost for replacing or modifying those guards (including

lost revenues while the trailer was being retrofitted), and the

benefits in lives saved and injuries prevented if a certain number of

vehicles were retrofitted. This is particularly difficult because some

rear impact guards currently in use may meet or exceed the NHTSA's

strength requirements but fail to meet dimensional or energy absorption

requirements. Others may meet the dimensional requirements but fall

short of the minimum strength requirements.

The FHWA indicated in its NPRM that the agency does not have test

data or engineering analyses concerning the performance capabilities of

the rear impact guard designs currently in use. The Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) did not have authority to regulate vehicle and

component manufacturers when it issued the first rear underride

protection requirements in 1952 and, consequently, had no authority to

compel manufacturers to provide technical data on their products. Also,

the initial FMVSSs issued by the FHWA (before the NHTSA became a

separate agency) did not include rear impact protection requirements.

Therefore, the agency did not have access to this information during

the relatively short period of time (between 1966 and 1970, when the

NHTSA was established) in which vehicle and component manufacturers

were regulated by the FHWA. Because of the lack of technical data

concerning the performance capabilities of underride devices currently

in use, the agency cannot prepare an accurate estimate of the costs and

benefits associated with a retrofitting requirement.

The FHWA cannot determine whether the ATA's estimate of more than

$1 billion dollars is accurate. However, the agency believes the cost

per trailer for retrofitting impact guards is likely to be greater than

the cost per trailer for installing rear impact protection on new

trailers. Generally, the costs associated with retrofitting components

on motor vehicles exceeds the cost of installing those components while

the vehicle is being manufactured.

For the purpose of determining a lower bound of a cost range for

retrofitting trailers with rear impact guards, the cost estimates

provided by the NHTSA in its final rule on rear impact guards and rear

impact protection and some of those used by the FHWA in its conspicuity

retrofitting rulemaking may be used.

The NHTSA estimates rear impact guards meeting the requirements of

FMVSS No. 223 cost approximately $128 to $148 per trailer or

semitrailer (61 FR 2004, January 24, 1996). This cost includes an

incremental increase (above the cost of current rear impact guards) of

between $77 and $96 per guard to satisfy the rear impact guard and rear

impact protection requirements.

The FHWA indicated in its NPRM concerning trailer conspicuity that

the estimated costs for retrofitting approximately 1.4 million trailers

with retroreflective sheeting is $339 million if a two-year phase-in

period is allowed (63 FR 33611, June 19, 1998). These figures include

an estimate of $144 per trailer for the value of revenues that cannot

be generated while the trailer is being retrofitted. It is difficult to

estimate the loss in revenues because of the variety of trailer types,

the variety of motor carrier operations and the rates that are charged,

and the overall manner in which some trailers are used--being left idle

at the motor carrier's terminals for periods of time that may be as

short as a few hours to several days.

It is acknowledged by most interested parties that the costs for

retrofitting a trailer to meet the requirements of FMVSSs Nos. 223 and

224 generally would be greater than the costs of retrofitting a trailer

to meet the conspicuity requirements of FMVSS No. 108. At a minimum,

the time required to retrofit new underride devices would be greater

than that associated with applying retroreflective tape. The result

would be significantly higher labor and lost-revenue costs. The lower

bound for the cost range of retrofitting would therefore exceed $339

million. This would certainly be the case if more than 1.4 million

trailers were required to be retrofitted within a short timeframe.

If, as Torcomian Industries argues, the agency attempted to require

retrofitting all CMVs, the lower bound for the cost range would almost

certainly exceed $1 billion. The significant increase in the lower

bound for the cost range would be due to the large number of single-

unit trucks that would be subject to a retrofitting requirement. The

number of registered trucks in 1996 (excluding Federal, State, County,

and municipal trucks; truck tractors; farm trucks;

[[Page 47706]]

pickups; vans; sport utilities; and other light trucks) was 73,983,774,

while the number of registered private and commercial trailers and

semitrailers was only 4,339, 079.1 Even if only a fraction

of the registered trucks were subject to the FMCSRs--a fraction that

cannot be determined accurately--the number of trucks that would have

to be retrofitted would greatly exceed the number of trailers.

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

\1\ ``Highway Statistics 1996,'' Federal Highway Administration,

November 1997 (FHWA-PL-003).

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

The FHWA believes it is inappropriate to initiate a retrofitting

rulemaking when the data to develop more detailed cost estimates does

not exist and cannot be generated without a massive program of economic

research.

Discussion of Final Rule

Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 393.86 provides a general statement of the

applicability of the new rear impact guard requirements and cross

references FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. Paragraph (a)(1) also identifies the

types of trailers (which are defined in Sec. 390.5 and Sec. 393.5) that

are exempted from the new rear impact guard requirements. Paragraphs

(a)(2) through (a)(5) specify the following requirements, respectively:

The minimum width for the impact guard; the maximum ground clearance;

the maximum distance from the rear of the vehicle to the rear surface

of the impact guard; and the cross-sectional vertical height of the

horizontal member of the guard. Paragraph (a)(6) specifies the

certification and labeling requirements. The agency has included

detailed requirements in Sec. 393.86 (a)(2) through (a)(6) to help

motor carriers quickly determine if the underride device on a newly

manufactured trailer meets the NHTSA's requirements, and to assist

State agencies responsible for enforcing motor carrier safety

regulations.

The existing requirements (for all CMVs manufactured after December

31, 1952, except trailers or semitrailers manufactured on or after

January 26, 1998) are covered under paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3).

Paragraph (b)(1) specifies the minimum dimensions for the rear impact

guard as installed on the motor vehicle. Paragraph (b)(2) requires that

the impact guard must be substantially constructed and attached by

bolts, welding, or other comparable means. Paragraph (b)(2) differs

from the current attachment requirements in that the phrase ``firmly

attached'' has been replaced with ``attached by means of bolts,

welding, or other comparable means'' to make the regulations easier to

understand and enforce.

The current language contained in paragraph (e) has been revised

and included in a new paragraph (b)(3). The final rule indicates that

low chassis vehicles, special purpose vehicles, and wheels back

vehicles which are constructed and maintained so that the body,

chassis, or other parts of the vehicle provide rear end protection

comparable to an impact guard(s) conforming to the requirements of

paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 393.86 shall be considered in compliance with

the requirements.

Applicability to Canadian and Mexican Vehicles

The final rule is applicable to vehicles operated in the United

States by Canada- and Mexico-based motor carriers. Although the Federal

governments of Canada and Mexico have not indicated whether they intend

to require rear impact guards (which meet the NHTSA standard) on newly

manufactured trailers operating in their countries, the FHWA believes

that it is appropriate to require such guards on foreign-based trailers

manufactured on or after the effective date of the NHTSA requirements

if those vehicles are operated within the United States.

Commercial motor vehicles operated in the United States by Canada-

and Mexico-based motor carriers are currently required to comply with

the rear underride device requirements for single-unit trucks, and

trailers manufactured before January 26, 1998. The revision of

Sec. 393.86 requires that trailers and semitrailers manufactured on or

after January 26, 1998, and operated by foreign-based motor carriers

meet the NHTSA standards.

Although the FHWA specifically requested comments from Canada- and

Mexico-based motor carriers and original equipment manufacturers that

sell trailers and semitrailers for the Canadian and Mexican markets,

the agency did not receive comments from such parties. The FHWA has

received numerous telephone inquiries from Canada-based motor carriers

and trailer manufacturers that sell trailers and semitrailers for the

Canadian market. The agency advised each caller that foreign motor

carriers are currently required to comply with all the requirements of

part 393 and that the proposed revision of Sec. 393.86 did not include

an exception for foreign-based motor carriers. The agency also advised

these companies of the process for submitting comments to the

rulemaking docket and, on several occasions, sent via facsimile a copy

of the NPRM to Canada-based motor carriers that were unable to access

the Federal Register via the Internet. The agency believes that ample

opportunity has been provided to foreign-based motor carriers to raise

any issues which would necessitate consideration of an exception to the

requirements of Sec. 393.86 and that it is appropriate to require all

motor carriers operating in the United States to comply with this rule.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this action is a significant

regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and is

significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation

regulatory policies and procedures because of the substantial public

interest in the prevention of rear-underride accidents involving CMVs.

This rule requires that certain trailers and semitrailers manufactured

on or after January 26, 1998, be equipped with rear impact protection

devices meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 223 and installed on

trailers in accordance with FMVSS 224. Motor carriers are responsible

for maintaining the underride protection devices on these trailers. It

is anticipated that the economic impact of this requirement will be

minimal because the NHTSA requires trailer manufacturers to equip new

trailers and semitrailers with rear impact guards and the FHWA's

rulemaking only requires motor carriers to maintain the improved

underride protection devices. It is expected that the costs of

repairing damaged underride devices will be the only economic burden

placed upon motor carriers and that this burden generally will not

exceed the costs of properly repairing underride devices on trailers

manufactured prior to the effective date of the NHTSA's requirements.

Accordingly, further regulatory evaluation is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-

612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small

entities. This rule modifies the rear impact protection standards for

trailers in the FMCSRs to make them consistent with the manufacturing

standards in the FMVSS No. 224, which requires the installation of rear

impact protection devices conforming to FMVSS No. 223 on certain newly-

manufactured semitrailers and trailers. The FHWA believes that

maintenance costs of the rear impact

[[Page 47707]]

protection devices required under the new FMVSSs will be minimal. The

maintenance costs only apply to small entities that have trailers that

were manufactured on or after January 26, 1998, and are required to be

equipped with rear impact guard protection meeting the requirements of

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224.

As of September 1996, the FHWA estimates that there were

approximately 382,128 interstate motor carriers. Of these carriers,

136,360 own, term-lease or trip-lease 6 or fewer trailers (68,405 have

1 trailer, 45,770 have 2-3 trailers, and 22,185 have 4-6 trailers). The

number of motor carriers that own, term-lease or trip-lease more than 6

trailers, but fewer than 21 is 21,793 (6,658 carriers have 7-8

trailers, 6,197 have 9-11 trailers, 3,887 carriers have 12-14 trailers,

2,779 carriers have 15-17 trailers, and 2,272 carriers have 18-20

trailers). If only those motor carriers that own, term-lease, or trip-

lease 20 or fewer trailers are considered small entities, this

rulemaking could have an economic impact on up to 158,153 small

entities.

The economic impact on each of the motor carriers will vary

depending on the number of trailers that the carrier would be

responsible for maintaining and the severity of the damage to the rear

impact guard. For the most severe level of damage (e.g., damage from a

passenger car crashing into the rear of the trailer), the motor carrier

would be required to replace the rear impact guard.

The Small Business Administration (SBA), which oversees agencies'

compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has published

guidelines to classify small business. The SBA has indicated that for

entities engaged in motor freight transportation and warehousing, small

businesses are those with $18.5 million or fewer dollars in annual

receipts. For a private motor carrier with a principal business other

than transportation that operates 20 trailers and has annual receipts

of $18.5 million, the total economic impact would most likely be less

than one tenth of one percent of the carrier's annual receipts. For

example, if all 20 trailers had to have the rear impact guards replaced

and the total costs for parts and labor for each trailer reached

$1,000, the economic impact would be one tenth of one percent ($20,000/

$18.5 million). Although the FHWA does not have documentation

concerning the replacement costs for a rear impact guard meeting the

requirements of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, the agency believes the costs

would be less than $1,000.

Based on its analysis of impacts on small entities summarized

above, the FHWA believes that this rule will affect a substantial

number of small entities, but will not have a significant economic

impact on these entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined

that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier

Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do

not apply to this program.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined

by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.),

that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100

million or more in any one year.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This document does not contain information collection requirements

for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.].

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and

has determined that this action would not have any effect on the

quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each

regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.

The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda

in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of

this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the

Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor

vehicle safety.

Issued on: August 26, 1999.

Gloria J. Jeff,

Federal Highway Deputy Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending title 49,

Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Section 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914,

1993 (1991); 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; 49 CFR 1.48.

2. Section 393.5 is amended by adding the definitions of ``low

chassis vehicle,'' ``special purpose vehicle,'' and ``wheels back

vehicle,'' and by revising the definitions of ``pulpwood trailer,''

``rear extremity,'' and ``side extremities'' (now ``side extremity''),

placing them in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 393.5 Definitions.

* * * * *

Low chassis vehicle. (1) A trailer or semitrailer manufactured on

or after January 26, 1998, having a chassis which extends behind the

rearmost point of the rearmost tires and which has a lower rear surface

that meets the guard width, height, and rear surface requirements of

Sec. 571.224 in effect on the date of manufacture, or a subsequent

edition.

(2) A motor vehicle, not described by paragraph (1) of this

definition, having a chassis which extends behind the rearmost point of

the rearmost tires and which has a lower rear surface that meets the

guard configuration requirements of Sec. 393.86(b)(1).

* * * * *

Pulpwood trailer. A trailer or semitrailer that is designed

exclusively for harvesting logs or pulpwood and constructed with a

skeletal frame with no means for attachment of a solid bed, body, or

container.

Rear extremity. The rearmost point on a motor vehicle that falls

above a horizontal plane located 560 mm (22 inches) above the ground

and below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm (75 inches) above the

ground when the motor vehicle is stopped on level ground; unloaded; its

fuel tanks are full; the tires (and air suspension, if so equipped) are

inflated in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations; and the

motor vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, or other permanent structures

are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion.

Nonstructural protrusions such as taillamps, rubber bumpers, hinges

[[Page 47708]]

and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point.

* * * * *

Side extremity. The outermost point on a side of the motor vehicle

that is above a horizontal plane located 560 mm (22 inches) above the

ground, below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm (75 inches) above the

ground, and between a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear

extremity of the vehicle and a transverse vertical plane located 305 mm

(12 inches) forward of that plane when the vehicle is unloaded; its

fuel tanks are full; and the tires (and air suspension, if so equipped)

are inflated in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.

Non-structural protrusions such as taillights, hinges and latches are

excluded from the determination of the outermost point.

* * * * *

Special purpose vehicle. (1) A trailer or semitrailer manufactured

on or after January 26, 1998, having work-performing equipment that,

while the motor vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the

area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear impact

guard, as defined by the guard width, height and rear surface

requirements of Sec. 571.224 (paragraphs S5.1.1 through S5.1.3), in

effect on the date of manufacture, or a subsequent edition.

(2) A motor vehicle, not described by paragraph (1) of this

definition, having work-performing equipment that, while the motor

vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could

be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear impact guard, as

defined by the guard width, height and rear surface requirements of

Sec. 393.86(b)(1).

* * * * *

Wheels back vehicle. (1) A trailer or semitrailer manufactured on

or after January 26, 1998, whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and

is located such that the rearmost surface of the tires (of the size

recommended by the vehicle manufacturer for the rear axle) is not more

than 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the transverse vertical plane

tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle.

(2) A motor vehicle, not described by paragraph (1) of this

definition, whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located

such that the rearmost surface of the tires (of the size recommended by

the vehicle manufacturer for the rear axle) is not more than 610 mm (24

inches) forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear

extremity of the vehicle.

* * * * *

3. Section 393.86 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 393.86 Rear impact guards and rear end protection.

(a)(1) General requirements for trailers and semitrailers

manufactured on or after January 26, 1998. Each trailer and semitrailer

with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or more,

and manufactured on or after January 26, 1998, must be equipped with a

rear impact guard that meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 223 (49 CFR 571.223) in effect at the time the

vehicle was manufactured. When the rear impact guard is installed on

the trailer or semitrailer, the vehicle must, at a minimum, meet the

requirements of FMVSS No. 224 (49 CFR 571.224) in effect at the time

the vehicle was manufactured. The requirements of paragraph (a) of this

section do not apply to pole trailers (as defined in Sec. 390.5 of this

chapter); pulpwood trailers, low chassis vehicles, special purpose

vehicles, wheels back vehicles (as defined in Sec. 393.5); and trailers

towed in driveaway-towaway operations (as defined in Sec. 390.5).

(2) Impact guard width. The outermost surfaces of the horizontal

member of the guard must extend to within 100 mm (4 inches) of the side

extremities of the vehicle. The outermost surface of the horizontal

member shall not extend beyond the side extremity of the vehicle.

(3) Guard height. The vertical distance between the bottom edge of

the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560

mm (22 inches) at any point across the full width of the member. Guards

with rounded corners may curve upward within 255 mm (10 inches) of the

longitudinal vertical planes that are tangent to the side extremities

of the vehicle.

(4) Guard rear surface. At any height 560 mm (22 inches) or more

above the ground, the rearmost surface of the horizontal member of the

guard must be within 305 mm (12 inches) of the rear extremity of the

vehicle. This paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit the rear

surface of the guard from extending beyond the rear extremity of the

vehicle. Guards with rounded corners may curve forward within 255 mm

(10 inches) of the side extremity.

(5) Cross-sectional vertical height. The horizontal member of each

guard must have a cross sectional vertical height of at least 100 mm

(3.94 inches) at any point across the guard width.

(6) Certification and labeling requirements for rear impact

protection guards. Each rear impact guard used to satisfy the

requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be permanently

marked or labeled as required by FMVSS No. 223 (49 CFR 571.223, S5.3).

The label must be on the forward-facing surface of the horizontal

member of the guard, 305 mm (12 inches) inboard of the right end of the

guard. The certification label must contain the following information:

(i) The impact guard manufacturer's name and address;

(ii) The statement ``Manufactured in ____'' (inserting the month

and year that the guard was manufactured); and,

(iii) The letters ``DOT'', constituting a certification by the

guard manufacturer that the guard conforms to all requirements of FMVSS

No. 223.

(b)(1) Requirements for motor vehicles manufactured after December

31, 1952 (except trailers or semitrailers manufactured on or after

January 26, 1998). Each motor vehicle manufactured after December 31,

1952, (except truck tractors, pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, or

vehicles in driveaway-towaway operations) in which the vertical

distance between the rear bottom edge of the body (or the chassis

assembly if the chassis is the rearmost part of the vehicle) and the

ground is greater than 76.2 cm (30 inches) when the motor vehicle is

empty, shall be equipped with a rear impact guard(s). The rear impact

guard(s) must be installed and maintained in such a manner that:

(i) The vertical distance between the bottom of the guard(s) and

the ground does not exceed 76.2 cm (30 inches) when the motor vehicle

is empty;

(ii) The maximum lateral distance between the closest points

between guards, if more than one is used, does not exceed 61 cm (24

inches);

(iii) The outermost surfaces of the horizontal member of the guard

are no more than 45.7 cm (18 inches) from each side extremity of the

motor vehicle;

(iv) The impact guard(s) are no more than 61 cm (24 inches) forward

of the rear extremity of the motor vehicle.

(2) Construction and attachment. The rear impact guard(s) must be

substantially constructed and attached by means of bolts, welding, or

other comparable means.

(3) Vehicle components and structures that may be used to satisfy

the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. Low chassis

vehicles, special purpose vehicles, or wheels back vehicles constructed

and maintained so that the body, chassis, or other parts of the vehicle

provide the rear end protection comparable to impact guard(s)

conforming to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section

shall

[[Page 47709]]

be considered to be in compliance with those requirements.

[FR Doc. 99-22699 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P