[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