[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31863-31864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-01-10411; Notice 2]


Reliance Trailer Company, LLC; Grant of Application for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Reliance Trailer Company, LLC, of Spokane, Washington 
(``Reliance''), has determined that 26 of its dump body trailers, 
manufactured between February and June 2001, fail to comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, ``Rear Impact 
Protection,'' and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 
part 573, ``Defects and Noncompliance Reports.''
    On May 29, 2001, Reliance submitted a petition to the agency and 
requested that it be exempted from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the 
basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    We published a notice of receipt of the application on August 24, 
2001, affording an opportunity to comment (66 FR 44663). We did not 
receive any comments on the notice. This notice grants the application.
    The dump body trailers Reliance manufactured between February and 
June 2001 do not comply with FMVSS No. 224, ``because their wheels were 
located farther ahead of the 12" wheels back dimension,'' and hence do 
not qualify for exclusion from FMVSS No. 224. Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 
224 defines a wheels back vehicle as a trailer or semitrailer whose 
rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the 
rearmost surface of tires of the size recommended by the vehicle 
manufacturer for the vehicle on that axle is not more than 305 mm [12 
inches] forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear 
extremity of the vehicle.'' Reliance's Part 573 report acknowledged 
that the 26 affected dump body trailers are not in compliance with 
FMVSS No. 224, since the rearmost surface of their tires must be 16"-
18" forward of the rear extremity of the trailers to accommodate 
asphalt lay down equipment used in road construction.
    Reliance supported its petition for a determination of 
inconsequential noncompliance with the following reasons:
    1. The noncompliance has no safety concerns--Reliance knows ``of no 
rear end collisions, involving injuries, with this type of trailer.'' 
Typical hauls of these trailers are short and have minimal amount of 
time traveling on highways compared with most freight trailers.
    2. There is no practical way to remedy the noncompliance--
``Currently, no one has been able to get paver manufacturers to revise, 
or users to retrofit all their equipment so that under-ride could be 
accommodated.'' Reliance stated that ``any device behind the tires will 
interfere with [the trailer's] operation unless it can be moved out of 
the way when [the] dumping takes place.''
    3. NHTSA granted temporary exemptions to competitors and similarly 
designed trailers--Reliance noted that NHTSA granted a renewal of a 
temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 224 to Beall Trailers of Washington, 
Inc., another manufacturer of dump body trailers; the agency also 
granted a temporary exemption to Dan Hill & Associates, and Red River 
Manufacturing, Inc., manufacturers of trailers having similar 
interference problems with paving equipment.
    4. Reliance will aggressively proceed to conduct remedial 
activities--Reliance will conduct ``a review of paving equipment that 
these trailers mate with to determine if they can be retrofitted or 
modified to accommodate trailers with tires located within 12" of the 
rear.'' Further, Reliance ``will aggressively proceed to design, build, 
test and provide prototypes to determine the feasibility and usefulness 
of these devices.''
    Based on the above stated reasons, Reliance requested that the 
agency grant the inconsequential petition. Our analysis of the Reliance 
request follows.

[[Page 31864]]

    Reliance implied that the noncompliance should cause no safety 
concerns since Reliance knows ``of no rear end collisions, involving 
injuries, with this type of trailer.'' This lack of knowledge by 
Reliance of injury-producing crashes is not convincing evidence that 
such designs present no safety risk. In promulgating FMVSS No. 224, 
NHTSA concluded that the limit for a ``wheels back vehicle'' should be 
set at 12 inches, and that vehicles with their rearmost tires 
positioned farther forward than that would present undue safety risk. 
While NHTSA also does not have evidence of any passenger car underride 
rear impact crashes with rear discharge asphalt dump body trailers, 
there is no reason to conclude that such trailers would be any less 
vulnerable to real-end crashes than other types of trailers in similar 
use. Nevertheless, due to the fact that only 26 trailers are involved, 
the safety risk is not conclusive.
    Reliance stated that there is no practical way to remedy the 
noncompliance at a reasonable cost without interfering with the 
trailer's operation. In order to bring the 26 trailers in question into 
compliance, their rear axles would have to be repositioned farther 
rearward. For vehicles that have already been built, NHTSA agrees that 
this would be a costly modification. NHTSA also agrees that such an 
alteration may render the trailers unusable for their intended purpose, 
because with the axles farther rearward they may not be able to be 
properly positioned for unloading asphalt into the paving equipment 
with which they have to interact.
    Reliance also noted the fact that the agency has granted temporary 
exemptions to competitors of similarly designed trailers, based 
partially on the same reasons. Reliance submitted a petition for a 
temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 224, for its future production of 
the same design as the 26 dump body trailers that are the subject of 
this notice. On October 22, 2001, we granted a temporary exemption to 
Reliance (66 FR 53471).
    Finally, Reliance stated that it ``will aggressively proceed to 
design, build, test and provide prototypes to determine the feasibility 
and usefulness of these devices.'' Since the above exemption was 
granted as temporary, NHTSA anticipates that Reliance will make 
progress in developing a design that is fully compliant.
    Accordingly, the agency has decided that Reliance has met its 
burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described herein is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and its application is granted. 
Therefore, Reliance Trailer Company, LLC is not required to provide 
notification and remedy of the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 
30118 and 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 49 CFR 501.8)

    Issued on: May 6, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-11715 Filed 5-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P