[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54879-54885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23960]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-03-14396]
RIN 2127-AI56


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 224; Rear Impact 
Protection

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to amend the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 224, ``Rear impact protection,'' to 
exclude road construction controlled horizontal discharge semitrailers 
(RCC horizontal discharge trailers) from the standard. The agency has 
tentatively concluded that the installation of rear impact guards 
(underride guards), as required by FMVSS No. 224, on RCC horizontal 
discharge trailers is impracticable due to the unique design and 
purpose of such vehicles.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket 
Management receives them not later than October 20, 2003.

[[Page 54880]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-03-
14396 by any of the following methods:
    [sbull] Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov. including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Dr. William J.J. 
Liu, Office of Rulemaking, NVS-113, telephone (202) 366-4923. For legal 
issues: Mr. George Feygin, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, telephone 
(202) 366-2992. Both can be reached at the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. FMVSS No. 224
III. Petition
IV. Proposed Amendments
V. Estimated Costs and Benefits
VI. Request for and Submission of Comments
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    RCC horizontal discharge trailers are a unique piece of equipment 
used in the road construction industry to deliver asphalt and other 
building materials to construction sites. The trailers are equipped 
with a mechanical drive and a conveyor to feed asphalt into a lay down 
or paving machine for road construction and paving operations. With 
their hydraulically controlled horizontal discharge systems, the 
trailers discharge mixed asphalt at a controlled rate into pavers, 
which overlay the road surface with asphalt material.
    From the standpoint of FMVSS No. 224, the RCC horizontal discharge 
trailer's most unique and technologically problematic feature stems 
from the fact that the rear of the trailer is designed to connect with 
and latch onto various paving machines. Typically, the paving machine 
attaches itself to the rear axle of an RCC horizontal discharge trailer 
via hydraulic arms, and the edge of the trailer's conveyor belt extends 
over the paving machine opening. This configuration is critical to the 
road construction process as it allows the RCC horizontal discharge 
trailer to deposit asphalt mix directly into the paving machine hopper. 
This feature also allows for a more controlled off-loading, as compared 
to a steel end dump trailer, which is the only other vehicle capable of 
delivering asphalt mix to road construction sites.\1\ A more controlled 
offloading not only prevents spillage of asphalt and other debris on 
the road surfaces, but also ensures a more leveled road surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because the horizontal discharge trailers do not rise to 
unload their contents like steel end dump trailers, they can be used 
on uneven terrain, or where overhead obstructions such as bridges 
and power lines completely prevent the use of dump trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of their unique configuration and the method by which 
they interact with paving machines, RCC horizontal discharge trailers 
may not be able to comply with FMVSS No. 224.
    This rulemaking proposal is in response to a joint petition for 
rulemaking submitted to the agency on March 23, 2001, by Dan Hill & 
Associates, Inc. (Dan Hill) and Red River Manufacturing, Inc., a 
Division of Trail King Industries, Inc. (Red River) (Docket No. NHTSA-
2001-8876). Dan Hill and Red River are manufacturers of RCC horizontal 
discharge trailers. The petition requested that the agency amend FMVSS 
No. 224 to ``exclude construction controlled horizontal discharge 
semitrailers from the scope of the standard.'' Since the effective date 
of the standard, January 26, 1998 (61 FR 2004, January 24, 1996), Dan 
Hill and Red River have each been twice granted temporary exemptions 
from FMVSS No. 224 for their RCC horizontal discharge trailers due, in 
part, to the impracticability of installing underride guards on RCC 
horizontal discharge trailers.\2\ Red River's current temporary 
exemptions would have expired on April 1, 2003. NHTSA's regulations 
allow for the continued effectiveness of the exemption, pending the 
agency's final determination of a renewal petition, if such renewal 
petition is submitted 60 days before the expiration of the existing 
petition (49 CFR 555.8(e)). Since Red River once again filed for a 
temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 224 more than 60 days before the 
expiration of the most recent temporary exemptions, their current 
exemption will be valid until NHTSA makes a final decision on their 
petition. The agency has granted Dan Hill a three-year temporary 
exemption, which expires May 1, 2006 (68 FR 28880, May 27, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 63 FR 15909, 15910 (Apr. 1, 1998); 64 FR 49049, 49050 
(Sept. 9, 1999); 66 FR 20028, 20030 (Apr. 18, 2001). Exemptions were 
based on the ``substantial economic hardship'' grounds under 49 CFR 
Sec.  555.6(a). Nevertheless, the economic hardship was rooted in 
impracticability of installing underride guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. FMVSS No. 224

    Underride occurs when a light vehicle crashes into the rear end of 
a heavy truck that has a chassis higher than the hood of the light 
vehicle. In certain instances, the light vehicle ``slides'' or 
underrides the rear end of the heavy vehicle to such an extent that the 
rear end of the trailer strikes and enters the passenger compartment of 
the light vehicle, resulting in passenger compartment intrusion (PCI). 
PCI crashes can result in severe injuries and fatalities to the light 
vehicle occupants due to occupant contact with the rear end of the 
heavy truck.
    In an attempt to reduce the frequency and severity of underride 
collisions, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 224 (61 FR 2004, January 24, 1996). 
The standard went into effect on January 26, 1998. The standard 
requires that all new trailers and semitrailers with a GVWR of 10,000 
lbs or more be equipped with an underride guard. The underride guard is 
attached to the rear of the platform (within 305 mm [12 in] of the rear 
extremity of the vehicle) and acts to prevent the light vehicle from 
sliding under the truck chassis.

[[Page 54881]]

    The standard currently excludes pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, 
wheels back trailers, and ``special purpose vehicles'' because 
attachment of an underride guard to these specific vehicles is either 
impracticable or unnecessary.\3\ For example, in the case of a wheels 
back trailer, the rear axle is located within 305 mm of the rear 
extremity of the vehicle. Because the rear wheels are located so close 
to the rear extremity of the vehicle, they act as an underride guard, 
making underride virtually impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Special Purpose Vehicle means a trailer or a semitrailer 
having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in 
transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied 
by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard. See 49 CFR 
Sec.  571.224. Examples of special purpose vehicles are dump 
trailers, auto transporters, and trailers equipped with lift gates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RCC horizontal discharge trailers subject to this notice do not 
fit the current definition of special purpose vehicles, notwithstanding 
their unique nature and their work-performing equipment, because 
technically, their work-performing equipment does not move through or 
reside in the area in which the underride guard would be attached.\4\ 
Accordingly, there is currently no exclusion in FMVSS No. 224 for this 
type of trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ However, in discussing a ``rear-unload semitrailer'' 
described by The National Potato Council as having a rear conveyor 
whose operation would be substantially impaired by an underride 
guard, NHTSA stated that assuming the Council was correct in 
alleging substantial impairment, such vehicle would qualify as a 
special purpose vehicle, despite a lack of any indication in our 
preamble that the conveyor actually resided or operated where the 
underride guard would be have been attached. See 61 FR 2004, at 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the unique design necessitated by their interactions 
with the paving machines, a practicable RCC horizontal discharge 
trailer appears to be ill-suited for a wheels back design. As 
previously mentioned, an RCC horizontal discharge trailer is designed 
to extend over a paving machine in order to drop the hot asphalt mix 
into the hopper. A rear axle located within 12 inches of the rearmost 
extremity could prevent the trailer from properly extending over the 
paving machine.
    Petitioners concede that they can design an RCC horizontal 
discharge trailer that would fall under the wheels back exception. 
Indeed, E.D. Etnyre & Co. (Etnyre), the only other manufacturer of RCC 
horizontal discharge trailers, has designed an RCC horizontal discharge 
trailer that falls under that exception. However, according to a 
temporary exemption petition previously filed by the petitioners, their 
customers have indicated that a wheels back design is unacceptable, and 
therefore, the customers had no interest in purchasing their 
competitor's equipment (NHTSA Docket No. 2001-8827-25).\5\ We hope to 
obtain more direct comments on this issue in response to this notice. 
In sum, it appears that an RCC horizontal discharge trailer that does 
not extend far enough over a paving machine cannot be used for its 
intended purpose. Accordingly, a wheels back design may not provide for 
a practicable solution for compliance with FMVSS No. 224.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See also comments submitted by Keeler Construction Co., 
Inc., stating that a horizontal discharge trailer has to be able to 
interact with the paving machine in order to be effective (NHTSA 
Docket No. 2001-8827-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Petition

    In their March 23, 2001 joint petition, Dan Hill and Red River 
requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 224 to exclude construction 
controlled horizontal discharge trailers from FMVSS No. 224. According 
to the petitioners, the two parties together account for virtually all 
of RCC horizontal discharge trailer manufacturing. Approximately 0.12% 
of all trailers produced in the U.S. are RCC horizontal discharge 
trailers. Both manufacturers claim to have been unsuccessful in their 
independent efforts to develop an underride guard that is compliant, 
functional, and capable of interfacing with road-building equipment 
with which these vehicles are designed to work. Based on their attempts 
to manufacture a compliant trailer that remains functional and safe 
under real world operating conditions, petitioners believe that 
bringing RCC horizontal discharge trailers into compliance with FMVSS 
No. 224 is not practically feasible. Both manufacturers stated that the 
denial of their petition would effectively terminate production of RCC 
horizontal discharge trailers.
    Petitioners maintain that a fixed underride guard cannot be 
installed in order to comply with FMVSS No. 224 because it would 
prevent paving machines from interfacing with (locking onto) the 
trailers during the paving operations. Petitioners have also been 
unable to design a practicable retractable underride guard \6\ that 
would be engaged when an RCC horizontal discharge trailer travels to 
and from the actual construction sites, and retracted when the RCC 
horizontal discharge trailer is attached to the paving machine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Petitioners stress that their efforts to comply with FMVSS 
No. 224 have otherwise been successful. They were able to design 
functional underride guard systems for other types of discharge 
trailers. The petition asserts functional impracticability specific 
to trailers designed to interact with paving machines (NHTSA Docket 
No. 1997-3122-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the March 23, 2001 petition, designing a retractable 
underride guard suitable for this application has proven impractical 
for several reasons, chiefly among them the lack of adequate clearance. 
The edge of the RCC horizontal discharge trailer must extend over the 
paving machine in order to drop the hot asphalt mix into the hopper. 
Because paving machines differ in size and configuration, the trailer 
must allow for paving machines of different heights to slide under the 
conveyor structure. Typically, the paving machine openings are 31 to 35 
inches off the ground. Conveyor structures of the RCC horizontal 
discharge trailers are normally 36 to 37 inches off the ground. As a 
result, the underride guard may have to retract completely against the 
conveyor structure, in order not to interfere with the paving machine. 
It appears that achieving such ``flush'' retraction has not proven 
feasible. Additionally, raising the overall ground clearance of the RCC 
horizontal discharge trailer in order to provide adequate clearance for 
a retractable underride guard would raise the center of gravity of the 
trailer, possibly making the vehicle more prone to rollovers.
    Petitioners note that another difficulty in installing a 
retractable underride guard involves the location of a planetary 
gearbox that drives the conveyor system. The gearbox is located where a 
retractable underride guard system would otherwise be located. Further, 
asphalt accumulations on the underride guard cause certain maintenance 
problems, which have not yet been solved. Specifically, a retractable 
underride guard has mating surfaces that slide over each other. These 
surfaces would be under constant exposure to hot asphalt, which would 
result in mating surfaces sticking to each other. The hot mix asphalt 
materials that adhere to the guard surface may render it ineffective 
and may pose a risk of injury to the truck or machine operator.
    Additional efforts by the petitioners to bring their product into 
compliance with FMVSS No. 224 have similarly failed. Specifically, 
petitioners considered adding removable underride guards. They rejected 
this approach because of concerns that workers would fail to replace 
the underride guard before transit.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Removable underride guards would allow manufacturers to meet 
FMVSS No. 224, even if removed by the owners of the trailers, since 
the standard applies only to new vehicles. However, such a solution 
is inconsistent with the overall intent of the standard, which is to 
reduce the likelihood of underride collisions on U.S. highways.

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

[[Page 54882]]

    As previously stated, petitioners contend that they could design a 
vehicle that would fall under wheels back exception. However, 
petitioners say that such a vehicle would not be able to perform its 
intended function because the rear axle would not allow the RCC 
horizontal discharge trailer to extend over the paving machine.
    In sum, petitioners contend that due to the impracticability of 
installing underride guards on RCC horizontal discharge trailers, not 
amending the FMVSS No. 224 would effectively eliminate production of 
RCC horizontal discharge trailers. We note that, in applying for 
temporary exemptions and subsequent renewals for exemptions from FMVSS 
No. 224, petitioners put forth the same arguments for grant of 
temporary exemptions as they did in this petition for rulemaking.

IV. Proposed Amendments

    After careful review of the information submitted by the 
petitioners, NHTSA tentatively agrees with the petitioners and proposes 
to amend FMVSS No. 224 to exclude RCC horizontal discharge trailers 
from the standard.
    We recognize the unique issues associated with installing underride 
guards on RCC horizontal discharge trailers. The current petition for 
rulemaking, as well as earlier petitions for temporary exemptions, 
outlined petitioner's efforts to bring RCC horizontal discharge 
trailers in compliance with FMVSS No. 224 for the past 5 years. The 
agency believes that petitioner's contention that no practicable 
solution exists may have merit.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ E.D. Etnyre & Co. (Etnyre), the only other manufacturer of 
horizontal discharge trailers, has built a horizontal discharge 
trailer with a ``combination of retractable chutes, and wheels back 
configuration'' to meet FMVSS No. 224 (see NHTSA Docket No. 2001-
8827-19). According to the petitioners, however, field experience 
demonstrated insurmountable real world practicability issues that 
compromised any potential safety benefits. As a result, Etnyre is no 
longer offering trailers with retractable underride guards. Instead, 
they redesigned their product to fall under wheels back exception 
(NHTSA Docket No. 2001-8827-25). Furthermore, in a letter dated 
August 8, 2002 (Docket No. NHTSA-2003-14396-1), Etnyre, along with 
Dan Hill and Red River, noted that the complex retraction mechanism 
requires operator interaction to reposition the guard after each 
offload cycle, thereby compromising the potential safety benefits of 
the retractable underride guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that when prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard, 
NHTSA is required by 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3) to ensure that the standard 
is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of 
motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed. As discussed above, 
petitioners have raised several arguments that the application of FMVSS 
No. 224 to RCC horizontal discharge trailers is impracticable. Given 
the difficulties experienced in manufacturing a compliant discharge 
trailer, we are proposing to exclude such vehicles from the standard.
    The agency examined possible safety consequences of excluding RCC 
horizontal discharge trailers from FMVSS No. 224. We note that the 
geometry of an RCC horizontal discharge trailer is very similar to that 
of a wheels back trailer. The risk of a severe underride collision is 
reduced by the fact that the rear-most axle of the RCC horizontal 
discharge trailer is located between 24 and 33 inches from the rear 
extremity of the vehicle. Although this falls short of the 305 mm (12 
inches) exemption for wheels back trailers, the likelihood of PCI 
intrusion is nevertheless reduced by the proximity of rear axle to the 
rear extremity of the trailer. It appears that the distance between the 
rear axle and the rear extremity of the trailer cannot be shortened any 
further, if the floor conveyor that delivers the asphalt is to fit over 
the paving machine.
    Additionally, we note that RCC horizontal discharge trailers travel 
on U.S. highways only infrequently, to deliver the hot asphalt mix to 
the construction sites. These vehicles spend most of their time in a 
controlled environment of a construction site, surrounded by other 
paving equipment and construction traffic control equipment (e.g., 
traffic cones, safety signs), where a risk of underride collision is 
virtually nonexistent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Neither Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the National 
Automotive Sampling System (NASS), nor the General Estimates System 
(GES) data files that we have examined include crash information 
pertaining specifically to horizontal discharge trailers. We have 
examined underride and horizontal discharge trailer information from 
hard copies of police accident reports (PARs) for 74 selected 1999-
2001 FARS cases and 75 cases from the 1999-2001 NASS on-line summary 
files. A careful examination of photographs (where available) and 
other related information yielded no indication of rear end 
collisions involving horizontal discharge trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of our findings, this NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 224 
by adding RCC horizontal discharge trailers to the list of excluded 
vehicles in S3 of the Standard. We are proposing to include a precise 
definition of a road construction controlled horizontal discharge 
semitrailers to the standard, in order to ensure that the standard 
excludes only the type of the vehicle discussed in this notice. The 
proposed definition of a road construction controlled horizontal 
discharge trailer is ``a trailer or semitrailer that is equipped with a 
mechanical drive and a conveyor to deliver asphalt and other road 
building materials, in a controlled horizontal manner, into a lay down 
machine or paving equipment for road construction and paving 
operations.''

V. Estimated Costs and Benefits

    If RCC horizontal discharge trailers are excluded from FMVSS No. 
224, petitioners would realize financial gains associated with ability 
to continually manufacture and market their product. Currently, their 
ability to offer RCC horizontal discharge trailers depends on temporary 
exemptions. Further, those manufacturers who may have suffered sale 
volume losses as a result of offering a wheels back design unpopular 
with typical RCC horizontal discharge trailer purchasers, may once 
again gain market share by offering a product that is more suitable to 
the industry needs. The actual costs savings are difficult to estimate 
because petitioners have not been able to produce a viable underride 
guard for the equipment in question.
    There would be no safety benefits associated with this proposed 
rulemaking. As discussed previously, we anticipate that due to very 
limited production figures and limited highway use exposure, there is 
minimal safety disbenefits associated with the proposed rulemaking.

VI. Request for and Submission of Comments

    The agency requests comments on today's proposal. Specifically, 
NHTSA is interested in comments on the following questions.
    1. Is a wheels back design a practical vehicle design alternative 
for RCC horizontal discharge trailers? Please provide data and 
information to support your response.
    2. What is the maintenance and performance history of RCC 
horizontal discharge trailers with wheels back design?
    3. Is a retractable underride guard design a practical solution for 
RCC horizontal discharge trailers? Does such a design create a risk of 
injury to workers operating or working near the trailer? Please provide 
data and information to support your response.
    4. What is the maintenance and performance history of RCC 
horizontal discharge trailers with retractable underride guards?

[[Page 54883]]

    5. Has any manufacturer of RCC horizontal discharge trailers 
subject to this notice been able to alternatively design a compliant 
vehicle equipped with an underride guard, that is able to slide over 
the paving machine in order to discharge asphalt mix?
    The comment period for this proposal is 30 days. As noted above, 2 
of the 3 manufacturers of RCC horizontal discharge trailers have filed 
petitions asking to renew their existing temporary exemptions from the 
Standard. If a final rule excluding RCC horizontal discharge trailers 
is issued, NHTSA believes the rulemaking process should be completed 
before there is any need to file the fourth petition for a temporary 
exemption. Additionally, NHTSA believes that a speedy resolution of 
this issue will be in the best interest of Etnyre as it would no longer 
be limited to vehicle designs that fit within an existing exclusion, 
but may cause practical impediments to the safe operation of the 
trailers in their intended environment. Accordingly, we have determined 
that a 30-day comment period best serves the public interest.
    The following information is provided in a question and answer 
format to assist interested parties in providing comments on this 
document.

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written 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). 
We 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. Comments may also be submitted 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.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We 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, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we 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. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of the proposed rulemaking action 
under E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This NPRM was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been determined to 
be ``nonsignificant'' under the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. The agency concludes that the 
impact of the proposed rule is so minimal that preparation of a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required. The proposed rule would not 
impose any new requirements or costs on manufacturers, but instead will 
result in cost savings to manufacturers of road construction controlled 
horizontal discharge trailers.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of the proposed rulemaking under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposal 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The proposal would not impose any new requirements or 
costs on manufacturers, but instead will exclude manufacturers of road 
construction controlled horizontal discharge trailers from FMVSS No. 
224. Accordingly, there would be no significant impact on small 
businesses, small organizations, or small governmental units by these 
amendments. The manufacturers of RCC

[[Page 54884]]

horizontal discharge trailers, among them Dan Hill and Red River, may 
realize certain cost savings because the standard would no longer 
require them to install underride guards on their RCC horizontal 
discharge trailers. However, because of the relatively small number of 
RCC horizontal discharge trailers produced yearly, any potential 
positive economic impact will not be significant. For these reasons, 
the agency has not prepared a preliminary regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

c. 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 OMB control number. This proposal does 
not contain any collection of information requirements requiring review 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

d. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal under the National Environmental 
Policy Act and determined that it would not have a significant impact 
on the quality of human environment.

e. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, Federalism 
and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient Federal 
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 impact on the States, or on the current 
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

f. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposal would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 21403, 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. 21461 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.

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 us to use voluntary consensus standards in 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 us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    The agency searched for, but did not find any voluntary consensus 
standards relevant to this proposal.

h. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 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 annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This rulemaking would 
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million 
annually.

i. 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.

j. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not 
involve decisions based on environmental, health, or safety risks that 
disproportionately affect children.

k. 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:
    [sbull] Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    [sbull] Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    [sbull] Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
    [sbull] Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    [sbull] Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    [sbull] Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
    [sbull] What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this proposal.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety standards.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571.224 as set forth below.
    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 571.224 would be amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph S3; and
    b. By revising the definition for ``Road construction controlled 
horizontal discharge trailer'' in paragraph S4.
    The revised text is set forth as follows:


Sec.  571.224  Standard No. 224; Rear Impact Protection

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to trailers and semitrailers 
with a GVWR of 4,356 kg or more. The standard does not apply to pole 
trailers,

[[Page 54885]]

pulpwood trailers, road construction controlled horizontal discharge 
trailers, special purpose vehicles, wheels back vehicles, or temporary 
living quarters as defined in 49 CFR 529.2. If a cargo tank motor 
vehicle, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, is certified to carry hazardous 
materials and has a rear bumper or rear end protection device 
conforming with 49 CFR part 178 located in the area of the horizontal 
member of the rear underride guard required by this standard, the guard 
need not comply with the energy absorption requirement (S5.2.2) of 49 
CFR 571.223.
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Road construction controlled horizontal discharge trailer means a 
trailer or semitrailer that is equipped with a mechanical drive and a 
conveyor to deliver asphalt and other road building materials, in a 
controlled horizontal manner, into a lay down machine or paving 
equipment for road construction and paving operations.
* * * * *

    Issued: September 15, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-23960 Filed 9-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P