[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15154-15159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7568]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 02-11875]
RIN 2127-AI04


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guard Labels; 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Grant in Part, Denial in Part of 
Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; grant in part, denial in part of 
petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for rulemaking from the 
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, American Trucking 
Associations, and Compass Transportation, Inc. Petitioners asked the 
agency to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on rear 
impact guards by eliminating the labeling requirement. Under that 
requirement, rear impact guards must be permanently labeled with the 
guard manufacturer's name and address, the month and year in which the 
guard was manufactured, and the letters ``DOT.'' The petitioners asked 
that if NHTSA declined to eliminate the labeling requirement, the 
agency instead amend the labeling requirement by eliminating the 
requirement that the label be permanent, and allowing manufacturers to 
place the label where it may be the least exposed to damage.
    This document denies petitioners' requests to eliminate the 
labeling requirement and the requirement that rear impact guards be 
permanently labeled, but grants petitioners' request to allow 
manufacturers to place the label on the rear impact guard where it may 
be least exposed to damage.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be

[[Page 15155]]

submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. 
Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging 
onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 
Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view instructions 
for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit 
your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues: Dr. 
William J.J. Liu, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590; (Telephone: 202-366-2264) (Fax: 202-493-2739).
    For legal issues: Mr. Dion Casey, Office of Chief Counsel, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590; (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 24, 1996, NHTSA published a final rule (61 FR 2003) 
establishing two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) to 
address the problem of rear underride crashes. These are crashes in 
which a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose vehicle with a Gross 
Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4,563 kilograms (10,000 lbs) or less 
(referred to collectively as ``passenger vehicles'') collides with the 
rear end of a trailer or semitrailer (referred to collectively as 
``trailers''), and the front end of the passenger vehicle slides under 
(i.e., underrides) the rear end of the trailer.
    The final rule established two standards that operate together to 
reduce the number of injuries and fatalities resulting from underride 
crashes. The first standard (Standard No. 223, Rear Impact Guards) 
specifies performance requirements that rear impact guards (guards) 
must meet before they can be installed on new trailers. It specifies 
strength requirements, as well as test procedures, that NHTSA uses to 
determine compliance with the standard. Standard No. 223 requires the 
guard manufacturer to provide instructions on the proper installation 
of the guard. It also requires guards to be permanently labeled with 
the guard manufacturer's name and address, the month and year in which 
the guard was manufactured, and the letters ``DOT.'' The letters 
constitute a certification by the guard manufacturer that the guard 
meets all the performance requirements of Standard No. 223. The 
standard requires manufacturers to place the label on the forward-
facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard, 305 millimeters 
(mm) (12 inches) inboard of the right end of the guard, so that the 
label is readily visible by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA) inspectors.
    The second standard (Standard No. 224, Rear Impact Protection) 
requires most new trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds) or more to be equipped with a rear impact guard meeting the 
requirements of Standard No. 223. Standard No. 224 specifies 
requirements regarding the location of the guard relative to the rear 
of the trailer. It also requires that the guard be mounted on the 
trailer in accordance with the instructions of the guard manufacturer.
    In response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA published minor 
amendments to the standards in the Federal Register on January 26, 1998 
(63 FR 3654). The standards became effective on that date.

II. Petitions

    On December 10, 1998, NHTSA received a petition from the Truck 
Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) requesting that the agency 
amend Standard No. 223 by eliminating the guard labeling requirement. 
TTMA argued that requiring a label on the guard is redundant because 
vehicle manufacturers are already required to certify compliance with 
all safety standards. 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) requires manufacturers to 
affix to trailers a label containing the statement: ``This vehicle 
conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in 
effect on the date of manufacture shown above.''
    On December 30, 1998, NHTSA received a similar petition from the 
American Trucking Associations (ATA), and on January 18, 1999, another 
petition from Compass Transportation, Inc. Both petitioners argued that 
the guard labeling requirement is redundant and requested that the 
agency eliminate the labeling requirement from Standard No. 223.
    TTMA requested that if NHTSA declined to eliminate the guard 
labeling requirement, the agency instead eliminate the requirement that 
the guard be labeled permanently. TTMA argued that it is unlikely that 
any label will remain on the guard for the life of the trailer. TTMA 
also requested that NHTSA allow manufacturers the flexibility to place 
the label where it may be the least exposed to damage from operational 
and environmental factors.

III. Discussion and Analysis

A. Guard Labeling Requirement

    NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on January 
8, 1981, proposing a single vehicle standard specifying requirements 
for testing guards on completed trailers. (46 FR 2136). Commenters on 
the NPRM expressed concern that the proposed requirements would be a 
substantial financial burden on some trailer manufacturers. These 
commenters stated that the trailer manufacturing industry consisted 
primarily of small firms that lacked the engineering capabilities to 
meet the requirements proposed in the NPRM.
    In response to these comments, NHTSA issued a Supplemental Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on January 3, 1992, that proposed 
separate equipment and vehicle standards. (57 FR 252). Standard No. 223 
provided for the testing of guards on a test fixture, and Standard No. 
224 required guards complying with Standard No. 223 to be installed on 
trailers. The agency concluded that these separate standards would 
allow trailer manufacturers to purchase guards complying with Standard 
No. 223 from guard manufacturers, thus relieving trailer manufacturers, 
especially small manufacturers, of the burden associated with 
compliance testing.
    In its comments on the SNPRM, TTMA stated,

    We appreciate your concern for the small trailer manufacturer in 
providing for the manufacturer of the guard being a different 
company than the manufacturer of the trailer. However, due to the 
variety of trailer configurations, often custom designs, it is 
likely that a substantial number of trailer manufacturers will 
manufacture their own guards.

    TTMA claimed that affixing a certification label to the guard is 
redundant in those instances in which the guard is manufactured by the 
trailer manufacturer because the trailer manufacturer already has to 
certify compliance with all applicable FMVSSs under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5). 
Thus, TTMA requested that trailer manufacturers who also manufacture 
their own guards be excluded from the guard labeling requirement.
    The agency responded that allowing some guard manufacturers to omit 
the label would be impractical from an enforcement standpoint because 
trailer

[[Page 15156]]

inspectors would not be able to tell whether the guard was certified by 
the guard/trailer manufacturer as part of the trailer, or whether the 
trailer manufacturer installed a guard purchased from a guard 
manufacturer who did not make the required certification. The agency 
also did not believe that affixing the label would be a significant 
burden. Thus, the final rule retained the guard certification label 
requirement for all guards.
    In their discussion of the labeling requirement, the TTMA, ATA, and 
Compass Transportation, Inc., petitions are nearly identical to the 
comments that TTMA submitted in response to the SNPRM. However, the 
petitioners requested that NHTSA eliminate the guard labeling 
requirement for all guards, regardless of who manufactures the guard.
    The petitioners correctly stated that 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) already 
requires trailer manufacturers to label each trailer as complying with 
all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the separate 
equipment and vehicle standards allow a trailer manufacturer to install 
a complying guard produced by a guard manufacturer rather than by the 
trailer manufacturer itself. NHTSA developed the separate equipment and 
vehicle standards in an effort to relieve trailer manufacturers of the 
financial burden of compliance testing. Indeed, the separate equipment 
and vehicle standards were implemented largely in response to industry 
concerns about the cost of compliance testing.
    While NHTSA has found that the majority of trailer manufacturers do 
manufacture and install their own guards, the agency has not received 
information from the petitioners or other parties showing a need to 
revise the separate equipment and vehicle standards. Without such 
information, the agency is not persuaded to change its position. 
Accordingly, NHTSA is denying the petitioners' request to eliminate the 
guard labeling requirements in Standard No. 223.

B. Permanent Requirement

    TTMA requested that, if NHTSA maintained the guard labeling 
requirements in Standard No. 223, the agency instead change the wording 
of the labeling requirement to (1) delete the requirement that the 
label be permanent, and (2) allow manufacturers some flexibility 
regarding the location of the label on the guard so that the label may 
be placed where it is least exposed to damage from operational and 
environmental factors.
    S5.3 of Standard No. 223 currently reads:

    Each guard shall be permanently labeled with the information 
specified in S5.3 (a) through (c) of this section. The information 
shall be in English and in letters that are at least 2.5 mm high. 
The label shall be placed on the forward-facing surface of the 
horizontal member of the guard, 305 mm inboard of the right end of 
the guard.

    TTMA first suggested eliminating the requirement that the label be 
permanent. In its petition, TTMA argued:

    It is unlikely that any label will remain on the guard for the 
life of the trailer. A label on the forward facing portion of the 
horizontal member will be abraded by road dust, gravel, ice, snow, 
and other grime and debris. If the label were allowed on the 
rearward facing portion of the horizontal member it would be abraded 
on some types of trailers by contact between the horizontal member 
and loading docks and other structures.

    However, TTMA provided no information documenting any problems 
trailer or guard manufacturers have experienced in meeting the 
requirement for a permanent label.
    NHTSA acknowledges that the permanency of the label is not 
significant for the purpose of testing new guards for compliance with 
Standard No. 223. When the guard is new, the environmental and 
operational conditions that may damage guard labels are not an issue.
    However, on September 1, 1999, the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) published a Final Rule amending the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations regarding rear impact protection to make them consistent 
with Standard Nos. 223 and 224. (64 FR 47703). FHWA stated that its 
proposed labeling requirement (now codified at 49 CFR 393.86(f)) was 
included, in part, ``to help motor carriers quickly determine if the 
underride device on a newly manufactured trailer meets NHTSA's 
requirements, and to assist State agencies responsible for enforcing 
motor carrier safety regulations.'' (63 FR 26759, May 14, 1998).
    NHTSA generally does not specify a particular means (i.e., 
labeling, etching, branding, stamping, or embossing) by which the 
manufacturer must achieve permanency. Thus, for NHTSA compliance 
purposes, the guard label is considered permanent if it satisfies the 
certification requirements specified in 49 CFR part 567. Section 
567.4(b) specifies, ``The label shall, unless riveted, be permanently 
affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying 
or defacing it.''
    In consideration of the above, the agency continues to believe that 
the label must be permanently affixed. Thus, NHTSA is denying the 
petitioners' request to amend S5.3 of Standard No. 223 by eliminating 
the requirement that the guard label be permanent.

C. Location of Label

    Finally, in its petition, TTMA requested:

that the guard manufacturer have the flexibility to locate the label 
where it may experience the least exposure to damage. This location 
may vary according to the type of trailer and its use. Some trailers 
do not back up to loading docks while other trailers may have 
exposure to chemical products and environments.

    As noted above, S5.3 of Standard No. 223 currently requires the 
label to be placed 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 location of the guard label is of little significance to NHTSA 
personnel conducting compliance testing on new guards. The agency does 
not believe that allowing manufacturers flexibility in selecting the 
location of the label on the guard will be detrimental to its safety 
purposes.
    The location of the guard label is of greater significance to FMCSA 
\1\ and state inspectors charged with verifying that trailers on the 
road meet the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and 
NHTSA standards. However, FMCSA representatives have indicated to NHTSA 
that during a typical Level 1 inspection, inspectors usually have ready 
access to the underside of the trailer. This enables the inspector to 
view the entire length of the horizontal member of the guard from both 
the front and rear. FMCSA representatives indicated that the specific 
location of the guard label is not critical, so long as it is located 
somewhere on the horizontal member of the guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which 
regulates commercial vehicles, was a part of the FHWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S5.7.1.4.1(c) of Standard No. 108 requires retroreflective sheeting 
to be placed across the full width of the horizontal member of the 
guard. The minimum width of the retroreflective sheeting is one and 
one-half inches. Since S5.1 of Standard No. 223 requires that the 
projected cross-sectional height of the horizontal member of each guard 
must be at least four inches, there should be ample space to affix the 
guard label on the rearward-facing surface of

[[Page 15157]]

the horizontal member of the guard without interfering with the 
retroreflective sheeting, if the manufacturer determines that this 
location will be the least susceptible to operational or environmental 
damage.
    Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to amend S5.3 of Standard 223 to 
allow manufacturers flexibility in deciding where to place the label on 
the horizontal member of the guard so that they can minimize exposure 
to operational and environmental damage. The agency is proposing to 
revise the third sentence of S5.3 of Standard No. 223 to read as 
follows:

    The label shall be placed on the forward or rearward facing 
surface of the horizontal member of the guard, provided that the 
label does not interfere with the retroreflective sheeting required 
by S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and is readily 
accessible for visual inspection.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993) provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations or recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This notice was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. In this 
document, NHTSA is simply proposing to give guard manufacturers greater 
choice regarding the location in which they place the guard 
certification label. They would be able to place it in a specified 
region on the forward or rearward-facing horizontal member of the 
guard, provided that the label does not interfere with the 
retroreflective sheeting required by Standard No. 108 and is readily 
accessible for visual inspection. Since Standard No. 223 already 
requires guard manufacturers to place the certification label on 
compliant guards, the agency believes that this proposal would not have 
any economic effects.
    The DOT's regulatory policies and procedures require the 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation, unless the agency finds 
that the impacts of a rulemaking are so minimal as not to warrant the 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. Since NHTSA is simply 
proposing to give guard manufacturers the flexibility to place the 
guard certification label on the guard where it will be the least 
exposed to damage, the agency believes that the impact of this 
rulemaking would be minimal. Thus, a full regulatory evaluation has not 
been prepared.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR part 
121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which 
operates primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Most trailer and guard manufacturers 
qualify as small businesses under the SBA's regulations. However, as 
explained above in the section on Executive Order 12866 and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, the agency believes that the 
impacts of this rulemaking would be minimal. The agency is simply 
proposing to allow guard manufacturers the flexibility to place the 
guard certification label on the guard where it will be the least 
exposed to damage. Therefore, I hereby certify that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' The Executive Order defines ``policies that 
have federalism implications'' to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation with Federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides 
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local 
governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. NHTSA also 
may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that 
preempts State law unless the agency consults with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. The agency 
has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local 
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. 
The proposal would not have any substantial effects on the States, or 
on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local 
officials.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed amendment would not have any retroactive effect. 
Under 49

[[Page 15158]]

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. This proposed rule would not require any collections of 
information as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, 
through the OMB, explanations when it decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    There are no applicable voluntary consensus standards available at 
this time. However, NHTSA will consider any such standards if they 
become available.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector of more than $100 million annually. Thus, the agency has not 
prepared an Unfunded Mandates assessment.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to 
understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) 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. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

[[Page 15159]]

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also 
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If 
Docket Management receives a comment too late for NHTSA to consider it 
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), the agency 
will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future 
rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new 
material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as follows:

PART 571.223--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.223 would be amended by revising the third sentence 
of S5.3 as follows:


Sec. 571.223  Standard No. 223; Rear impact guards.

* * * * *
    S5.3  Labeling. * * * The label shall be placed on the forward or 
rearward facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard, provided 
that the label does not interfere with the retroreflective sheeting 
required by S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and is 
readily accessible for visual inspection.
* * * * *

    Issued: March 22, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-7568 Filed 3-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P