[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 36032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-10044; Notice 1]


Reliance Trailer Co., LLC; Application for Temporary Exemption 
From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224

    We are asking for comments on the application by Reliance Trailer 
Co., LLC, of Spokane, Washington (``Reliance''), for an exemption of 
two years from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 Rear Impact 
Protection. Reliance asserts that compliance would cause substantial 
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to 
comply with the standard.
    We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in 
accordance with our regulations on the subject. This action does not 
mean that we have made a judgment yet about the merits of the 
application.

Why Reliance Says That It Needs an Exemption.

    In February 2001, Reliance acquired the assets of SturdyWeld, 
another Washington company, in order to commence manufacture of 
``trailers built to mate with asphalt paving equipment.'' This appears 
to be a horizontal discharge trailer that is used in the road 
construction industry to deliver asphalt and other road building 
materials to the construction site.
    Standard No. 224 requires, effective January 26, 1998, that all 
trailers with a GVWR of 4536 Kg or more, including Reliance's trailers, 
be fitted with a rear impact guard that conforms to Standard No. 223 
Rear impact guards. Reliance argued that installation of the rear 
impact guard will prevent its trailers from connecting to the paver and 
performing their mission. Thus, its trailers will no longer be 
functional.

Reliance's Reasons Why It Believes That Compliance Would Cause It 
Substantial Economic Hardship and That It Has Tried in Good Faith 
to Comply with Standard No. 224

    Reliance is a small volume manufacturer whose total production in 
the 12-month period preceding its petition was 268 trailers. In the 
absence of an exemption, Reliance says that ``considering the over $2 
million paid for the [SturdyWeld] Division and if we are able to sell 
the over $1 million inventory, but have to shut this operation down, we 
would probably lose over $1 million.'' Its cumulative net income after 
taxes for the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 was $150,793.
    Reliance apparently learned of its compliance problem after 
producing 26 of the trailers in question. It has determined that these 
trailers fail to comply with Standard No. 224, and has notified NHTSA 
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573. It has also filed a petition for a 
determination that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. 
Reliance has also discovered that ``this is a nationwide, yet unsolved, 
problem,'' citing three manufacturers of similar trailers who have 
received temporary exemptions from Standard No. 224, Beall Trailers, 
Red River Manufacturing, and Dan Hill Associates.
    The petition discusses ``possible alternative means of compliance'' 
which ``will include the analysis of moveable, replaceable or 
retractable under-rides. To date these concepts are very difficult to 
maintain due to the nature of the paving material.'' After discussion 
with its customers, Reliance ``will proceed to design, build and test 
prototype designs to meet the regulations and allow dumping asphalt 
into paving equipment.'' It believes that it will comply by the end of 
a two-year exemption period.

Reliance's Reasons Why It Believes That a Temporary Exemption Would 
Be in the Public Interest and Consistent with Objectives of Motor 
Vehicle Safety

    Reliance argues that an exemption would be in the public interest 
and consistent with traffic safety objectives because the trailers 
``represent about 80% of the output of the 38 employees'' of the 
SturdyWeld division, and, ``if this petition is denied, the operation 
will be closed and those people will be out of jobs.'' An exemption 
would allow it ``to continue to provide equipment needed by road 
building industries to expand and develop'' the national transportation 
system.
    The trailers will be built in small quantities. ``Typical hauls are 
short'' with a minimal amount of time traveling on highways compared 
with most freight trailers,'' which ``diminishes the exposure for these 
vehicles.'' Reliance knows of no rear end collisions and consequent 
injuries with its type of trailer.

How You May Comment on Reliance's Application

    If you would like to comment on Reliance's application, please do 
so in writing, in duplicate, referring to the docket and notice number, 
and mail to: Docket Management, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
    We shall consider all comments received before the close of 
business on the date indicated below. Comments are available for 
examination in the docket in room PL-401 both before and after that 
date, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. To the extent possible, 
we also consider comments filed after the closing date. We will publish 
our decision on the application, pursuant to the authority indicated 
below.
    Comment closing date: August 9, 2001.

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

    Issued on July 5, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-17229 Filed 7-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P