Red River Manufacturing, Inc.; Application for Renewal of Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224

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