[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72266-72267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30734]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13955; Notice 1]


Columbia Body Manufacturing Co.; Application for Temporary 
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224

    We are asking for comments on the application by Columbia Body 
Manufacturing Co. (``Columbia'') of Clackamas, Oregon, for an exemption 
of three years from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear Impact 
Protection. Columbia 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.

Columbia's Need for an Exemption

    Columbia manufactures and sells a dump body type of trailer (the 
``trailer'') which means that the body's front end must be lifted in 
order to discharge the load out of the back. The load is asphalt, used 
in road construction. This design of trailer generally has an overhang 
at the rear for funneling asphalt material into a paving machine; 
consequently, it needs 16 to 18 inches of unobstructed clearance behind 
its rear wheels to hook

[[Page 72267]]

up with the paving machine and dump its load. Standard No. 224 requires 
the rearmost surface of an underride guard to be located not more than 
305mm (12 inches) from the ``rear extremity'' of the trailer.
    Standard No. 224 requires, effective January 26, 1998, that all 
trailers with a GVWR of 4536 kg or more, including Columbia's, be 
fitted with a rear impact guard that conforms to Standard No. 223 Rear 
impact guards. Columbia argued that installation of the rear impact 
guard would prevent its trailer from operating with the paving machine, 
and ``would interfere with the hook-up of the asphalt machine and dump 
operation of the trailer.'' Columbia avers that it ``has investigated 
the retrofit and modifications needed to bring our products into 
compliance with FMVSS 224 without success.'' We discuss below its 
efforts to conform in greater detail.

Columbia'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

    Columbia is a small volume manufacturer. Its average production 
over the past three years has been 12 trailers a year, ``none of which 
were asphalt paving trailers.'' Normally, it would produce 10 to 40 
trailers annually. The company employs 30 people full time and has 
annual sales of $4-5,000,000. Columbia ``has had requests to quote on 
14'' trailers and ``14 truck mounted dump boxes, bringing the total 
sales figure to around $750,000.00.'' Absent an exemption, Columbia 
``will be unable to quote these units substantially decreasing our 
projected sales figures.'' Its cumulative net loss for the fiscal years 
1998, 1999, and 2000 was $99,764. We have asked Columbia to provide 
data on its fiscal year ending December 31, 2001.
    Columbia asserted that it has sought manufacturers of underride 
guards since 1998. As a result of its search,

We only found one English company, Quinton-Hazell that is no longer 
making either type, telescoping or hydraulic. Their research found 
that because of the expense of these two types of guards they would 
not be marketable. We have also investigated the work done by SRAC, 
located in Los Angeles, CA in the hopes that we might be able to use 
or modify the guards they designed for the trailers we wish to 
build. Neither was suitable because retracting the bumper and 
finding a way to keep the build up of asphalt off of any moving 
parts was not possible.

    The company stated that it intended to continue to try and resolve 
the problems through continued research.

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

    Columbia believes that an exemption would be in the public interest 
and consistent with traffic safety objectives because, ``our type of 
trailer helps state and municipal governments to produce the safe 
highways that are needed.'' It contemplates building less than 50 units 
a year while an exemption is in effect. Further, the amount of time 
actually spent on the road is limited because of the need to move the 
asphalt to the job site before it hardens.

How You May Comment on Columbia's Application

    If you would like to comment on Columbia'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: January 3, 2003.

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

    Issued on: November 27, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 02-30734 Filed 12-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P