[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47703-47709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22699]



[[Page 47703]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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