[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7406-7407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3588]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13955; Notice 2]


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

    We are granting 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 asserted that compliance would cause substantial economic 
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with 
the standard.
    We published a notice of receipt of the application on December 4, 
2002, asking for comments from the public (67 FR 72266).

Why Columbia Needs an Exemption

    Columbia manufactures and sells a dump body type of trailer (the 
``trailer'') requiring that the body's front end 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, the trailer needs 16 to 18 inches of unobstructed 
clearance behind its rear wheels to hook up with the paving machine and 
dump its load. Standard No. 224 specifies that 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 averred 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 application reflected that its 
cumulative net loss for the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 was 
$99,764. We asked Columbia to provide data on its fiscal year ending 
December 31, 2001, while the application was pending, and the company 
replied that its net loss for 2001 was $755,722.19.
    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 argued 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. According to Columbia, 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.

Public Comment on the Application

    We received one comment in response to our notice of December 4, 
2002. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) recommended 
granting the petition, commenting that ``the type of trailer for which 
Columbia Body is representing a temporary exemption is vital to the 
proper construction and maintenance of the

[[Page 7407]]

highways.'' Like the applicant, NTEA was ``unaware of any device that 
would meet the requirements of FMVSS 224 while allowing this particular 
type of trailer to perform its intended function.'' It reminded us that 
we have temporarily exempted similar types of trailers from compliance 
with Standard No. 224.

The Agency's Findings in Support of an Exemption

    Columbia's present average production of only 12 trailers a year 
has been insufficient to generate a net profit for the company, and its 
net loss of over $750,000 in 2001 reflects a severe downturn in the 
company's financial fortunes. It anticipates that it could realize 
$750,000 in sales of 14 trailers of the type for which it has requested 
exemption, and for which potential customers have requested a price 
quotation. The company has investigated, unsuccessfully, means of 
compliance with Standard No. 224. There seems to be agreement, as 
indicated by NTEA's comment, that there is no feasible way for these 
trailers to be brought into compliance without compromising the 
function for which they were designed.
    The public interest is served by allowing the production of these 
special-purpose road construction trailers, balanced against the 
limited number in which they are produced and the relatively limited 
time that they spend in transit on the public roads from one job site 
to another. Further, there is no substantial difference between 
Columbia Body's petition and other hardship applications that we have 
granted in the past (e.g., Red River Manufacturing, Inc. and Dan Hill & 
Associates, Inc., 66 FR 20028).
    Accordingly, for the reasons set above, we hereby find that 
compliance with Standard No. 224 would cause substantial economic 
hardship to Columbia Body, which has tried in good faith to comply with 
Standard No. 224, and we further find that an exemption would be in the 
public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. 
We accordingly grant NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 2003-1 to Columbia 
Body Manufacturing Co. for its dump body type trailer only, from 49 CFR 
571.224 Standard No. 224, Rear Impact Protection, expiring February 1, 
2006.

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

    Issued on February 10, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-3588 Filed 2-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P