[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2273-2274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-4966]


TarasPort Trailers, Inc.; Application for Temporary Exemption 
From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224

    TarasPort Trailers, Inc., of Sweetwater, Tennessee, has applied for 
a two-year temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
224 Rear Impact Protection, as provided by 49 CFR part 555. The basis 
of the application is 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).
    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 the agency about the merits of the 
application. We base the discussion that follows on information 
contained in TarasPort's application, submitted by its Vice President, 
Ms. Jeanne Isbill.

Why TarasPort Needs a Temporary Exemption

    Located in the Sweetwater Industrial Park in Monroe County, 
Tennessee, TarasPort has been manufacturing 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 exceed 305 mm from 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 layoff 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 NHTSA would consider the extenders to be 
load overhang or exempt as a special purpose vehicle, but NHTSA denied 
this request on May 22, 1998.

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. The motor vehicle safety 
standards ``were created with the general public's well being in mind. 
Assisting our company to comply to those standards

[[Page 2274]]

only insures public safety. Compliance rather than enforcement is 
consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act.''

How To Comment on TarasPort's Application

    We invite you to comment on TarasPort's application. Send 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. It would be helpful if you provide us with 10 copies of 
your comments.
    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 comments in the docket in room PL-401 both before 
and after that date, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. When we 
have reached a decision, we shall publish it in the Federal Register.
    Comment closing date: February 12, 1999.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 501.4.

    Issued: January 7, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-686 Filed 1-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P