[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 49 (Friday, March 12, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11997-12000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5635]



  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 49 / Friday, March 12, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 11997]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 658

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2003-16164]
RIN 2125-AE99


Commercial Vehicle Width Exclusive Devices

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA proposed in an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to amend its regulation of truck size and weight by increasing 
the distance that width exclusive devices could extend beyond the sides 
of commercial motor vehicles by one inch. However, due to issues raised 
by the comments, the FHWA decided to publish this supplemental notice 
of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to solicit comments on revised 
regulatory language proposing to increase by one inch the width 
exclusive devices and to seek public input on crash statistics, safety 
studies, or other information related to such an increase.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 11, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments for the docket number that 
appears in the heading of this document to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, submit electronically at http://dms.dot.gov/submit, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments 
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this 
document. All comments received will be available for examination and 
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of 
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or 
you may print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting 
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of all comments received into any of our dockets by 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Forjan, Office of Freight 
Management and Operations (202) 366-6817, or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, 
Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office 
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document 
Management System (DMS) at: http://dms.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable 
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information 
Interchange (ASCH)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and 
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and 
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a 
computer, modem and suitable communications software from the 
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 
512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's 
Home page at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing 
Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    In October 1999, the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee 
(LTSS), created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
Working Group 2, issued a discussion paper. The paper, ``Highway Safety 
Performance Criteria in Support of Vehicle Weight and Dimension 
Regulations'' (a copy of which is included in this docket), contained 
candidate vehicle performance criteria and recommended threshold 
values. The primary objective of Working Group 2 was to seek areas 
within the broad range of vehicle weights and dimensions that could be 
harmonized among the participating countries (Mexico, Canada, and the 
United States).
    The working group's discussion paper included the definition of 
``overall width'' and proposed a standard for use by the three 
countries. This definition described width exclusive devices or 
appurtenances at the sides of a truck, tractor, semitrailer, or trailer 
whose function is related to the safe operation of the vehicle. Such 
devices may extend no more than 10 centimeters beyond the side of the 
vehicle. (Using accepted conversion factors, 10 centimeters equates to 
3.937 inches).
    In a final rule published March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15102), the FHWA 
said it was preparing to issue an NPRM to consider an extension in the 
distance that non-property carrying devices could protrude from the 
sides of commercial motor vehicles operating on the National Network 
\1\ (NN) of highways in the United States from three to four inches. 
The FHWA published an NPRM that proposed extending the distance that 
non-property carrying devices could protrude from the side of 
commercial motor vehicles from 3 to 4 inches under FHWA Docket No. 
2001-10370 on July 29, 2002 (67 FR 48994). That NPRM also included two 
proposals concerning recreational vehicles (RVs). The first proposal 
concerned excluding RVs en route from a manufacturer to a sales 
location from the definition of commercial motor vehicle (as described 
in 23 CFR 658.5), leaving the regulation of width solely to the States. 
The second proposal would have authorized States to allow RVs with 
safety and/or non-cargo carrying appurtenances extending beyond 4 
inches (rather than 3 inches) from the side of the vehicle to operate 
without a special use over-width permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As defined in 23 CFR part 658. The National Network is the 
composite of the individual network of highways in each State on 
which vehicles authorized by the provisions of the STAA are allowed 
to operate. The network in each State includes the Interstate 
System, exclusive of those portions excepted under Section 658.11(f) 
or deleted under Section 658.11(d), and those portions of the 
Federal-aid Primary System in existence on June 1, 1991, set out by 
the FHWA in appendix A to this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of concerns raised by several respondents to the July 29, 
2002, NPRM concerning the proposed 1-inch increase in the allowed width 
of excluded devices, the FHWA determined that it is appropriate to 
issue this SNPRM (1) to solicit further public comment on our proposal 
to expand by 1-inch the allowance for non-cargo carrying width 
exclusive devices; (2) to seek additional public feedback about the 
possible effects on highway safety and traffic that may result from 
this 1-inch increase; and (3) to solicit public comment on proposed 
revised language. A new docket number (2003-16164) is assigned to this 
rulemaking.
    The final rule regarding RVs is published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register. For consistency with this SNPRM, the final rule 
authorizes States

[[Page 11998]]

to allow RVs with safety and/or non-cargo carrying appurtenances 
extending beyond 3 inches (rather than 4 inches as proposed in the 
NPRM) from the side of the vehicle to operate with a special over-width 
permit.

Comments to the NPRM

    Five of the eight comments received addressed the proposal to 
increase from three to four inches the distance that width exclusive 
devices could project from the side of commercial motor vehicles 
subject to Federal width limits. The Truck Trailer Manufacturers 
Association (TTMA) agreed with the proposal and favored it as a step 
toward harmonizing size and weight limits for the North American Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries (Mexico, Canada and the United 
States). The TTMA did not believe it would present any operational 
issues and would actually allow additional safety devices to be 
incorporated into trailer designs.
    The Iowa Department of Transportation supported increasing the 
distance that width exclusive devices could project from the side of a 
commercial motor vehicle from three to four inches. It said that over 
95 percent of the primary and secondary roads in the State are either 
11 or 12 feet wide. According to the State, this would allow sufficient 
clearance for width exclusive devices to extend up to 4 inches beyond 
the sides of commercial motor vehicles.
    The California Highway Patrol did not oppose a one-inch increase in 
the length of width exclusive devices, but was concerned that 
``continuing to increase the width of commercial vehicles will 
eventually cause safety concerns.''
    The Illinois Department of Transportation opposed the increase on 
narrow roadways and believed that the excluded devices could be 
designed to fit within the current 3-inch width exclusion limits.
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) provided the 
most extensive statement of concern about the proposed change. The 
Advocates stated that, ``there is no foundation in the rulemaking 
record established by the FHWA on the basis of safety considerations to 
extend the overall widths of commercial motor vehicles * * *,'' and 
added that ``the agency has an affirmative obligation to make an 
explicit safety finding about increases in the widths of commercial 
motor vehicles that exceed the figures established in prior regulatory 
policy for additional safety and energy conservation devices that 
extend beyond 102 inches * * *.'' It also said that, ``the FHWA has 
made no safety finding of any kind in this rulemaking about the 
consequences of further widening of commercial motor vehicles by 
permitting additional extension to either side of safety and energy 
conservation devices * * *'' but instead, ``* * * the agency simply 
invokes a need to harmonize the widths of commercial motor vehicles in 
order to advance the purposes of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA).'' Finally, the Advocates wrote that ``[i]t is 
crystal clear that Congress expects the agency to make an explicit 
safety finding whenever it exercises its discretion to permit or modify 
the size of safety or energy conservation devices that exceed the 
statutory maximum width of 102 inches for commercial vehicles * * *,'' 
and that, ``[a]lthough the addition of an inch of width for exclusive 
devices on each side of a commercial vehicle may appear to be a de 
minimis change, it in fact can have safety consequences for commercial 
motor vehicles, especially those with long trailers, offtracking on 
short radius curves on these substandard roads.''
    The purpose of this SNPRM, in addition to seeking comments on the 
revised language, is to solicit additional information from 
transportation stakeholders, government officials at all levels, and 
the general public on (1) the issues raised by the Advocates and other 
respondents to the NPRM, and (2) the effects of increasing the distance 
that non-property carrying devices may protrude from the sides of 
commercial motor vehicles.

Request For Information

    Following its analysis of comments, the FHWA sought to locate 
sources of information that would document the experience of others in 
(1) undertaking similar changes to vehicle width exclusion standards or 
(2) monitoring and evaluating vehicle crashes caused by contact with 
width exclusive devices. Sources were found to be very limited. As a 
result, the FHWA seeks additional public input on this topic. It asks 
respondents to this SNPRM to also consider the following in their 
review and comments:
    1. Safety effects of a width exclusion increase on the NN and 
reasonable access routes. The Transportation Research Board (TRB), in 
its Special Report 267,\2\ ``Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths 
of Commercial Motor Vehicles,'' 2002, referenced a 1941 study by the 
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) which sought to determine whether 
allowing greater size and weight would be compatible with highway 
safety. The TRB report said that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of this publication may be obtained from TRB by 
telephone (202) 334-3213, facsimile (202) 334-2519, mail at TRB, 500 
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001, e-mail: [email protected], 
or online at http.//www.trb.org and select ``online documents.''

    Studies of Federal policy conducted since 1941 have reached 
conclusions generally similar to the ICC's cautiously worded 
statement: available evidence does not show that size and weight, 
within the range of existing practices, are highly significant 
safety factors; lack of data may have prevented observation of 
hazards; and therefore research and monitoring should accompany 
regulation. It is a source of frustration that 60 years of research 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
has not yielded definitive conclusions on these questions.

    Another TRB publication, Special Report 223,\3\ ``Providing Access 
for Large Trucks,'' 1989, stated as follows on page 139:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Ibid.

    Although there appear to be no definitive guidelines for 
appropriate lane widths for STAA vehicles, two observations can be 
made. First, the modest increase of 6 inches in vehicle width [from 
96 to 102 inches] does not appear to have introduced any significant 
decrement in the safe operation of trucks on the highways. Second, 
minimum lane widths of 11 feet, and even wider on roads with sharp 
curves, appear to be desirable on roads with high volumes of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
commercial traffic, whether the trucks be 96 or 102 inches wide.

    As provided in 23 CFR 658.9(b)(5), NN routes must have lanes 
designed to be at least 12 feet wide or otherwise consistent with 
highway safety to be included within this category of roadways.
    Federal exclusion of devices from the measurement of a commercial 
motor vehicle's width applies only on the NN, or those vehicles using 
reasonable access routes for purposes other than access between the NN 
and terminals and facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest. 
Reasonable access routes are those between the NN and terminals and 
facilities for food, fuel, rest or repairs where States have determined 
that vehicles subject to Federal width requirements may safely operate. 
States are not required to allow such routes to be used for through 
traffic, but may do so if they wish.
    Respondents to this SNPRM should consider any information 
concerning the effect on safety on the NN and reasonable access routes 
of a one-inch increase in the allowable width of devices excluded from 
the measurement of the width of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).
    2. Not all excluded devices are inch-restricted. Current 
regulations at 23 CFR 658.16(b)(2)(ii) exclude from the measurement of 
vehicle width on the

[[Page 11999]]

National Network (NN) and reasonable access routes all non-property-
carrying devices, or components thereof, that do not extend more than 3 
inches beyond each side of 102-inch wide commercial motor vehicle. 
However, rear-view mirrors, turn signal lamps, handholds for cab entry/
egress, splash and spray suppressant devices, and load induced tire 
bulge are excluded under 23 CFR 658.16(b)(1) from the maximum width 
standard. It was explained in the March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15102), final 
rule that these devices had to extend far enough to serve their 
intended purpose. Thus, some excluded devices are already allowed to 
extend beyond the current 3-inch limit.
    Respondents to the SNPRM should consider how extending the width 
limit for devices excluded from the measurement of CMVs by one inch 
would affect safety differently than width devices, which are 
unrestricted as to length.
    3. States currently issue permits for over-wide vehicles. States 
may choose to grant special use permits to motor carriers when their 
vehicles or cargoes exceed 102 inches in width. As a result, States 
allow vehicles to exceed Federal width limits on the NN under 
conditions they impose, provided only that the States issue actual 
permits for these over-wide movements. In the absence of a Federal rule 
requiring States to allow NAFTA vehicles with up to a 4-inch width 
exclusion to operate on the NN, operators of vehicles containing the 
NAFTA-width excluded devices could apply for overwidth permits in each 
State where they might travel. It would be up to each State to expand 
their permit procedures to include carriers operating vehicles equipped 
with 4-inch width-exclusive devices.
    Respondents to this SNPRM should consider the likelihood that their 
States would issue overwide load permits to NAFTA vehicles equipped 
with excluded devices protruding no more than 4 inches beyond the 
sides, and how this issuance, if undertaken, would alter current 
permitting and motor carrier routing practices.
    4. Non-safety effects of a width exclusion increase. In considering 
the effects of allowing devices to extend an extra inch beyond the 
sides of vehicles, we ask respondents to consider what specific ways 
this change might also influence traffic flow and congestion as well as 
safety. For example, lane widths affect the amount of separation 
between vehicles as well as the potential encroachment of a vehicle 
into an adjoining lane on turns. The FHWA solicits information about 
how allowing an increased width exclusion might influence these 
particular issues.

Conclusion

    This SNPRM seeks to be responsive to the issues raised by the 
respondents to the NPRM. It offers some additional considerations 
regarding the factors that might affect the safety of allowing devices 
already excluded from the measurement of commercial motor vehicle width 
to extend an additional inch on each side of such a vehicle. The public 
is encouraged to offer responses to these and other issues of concern.
    Please note that the amended language of 23 CFR Part 658 that is 
proposed below differs slightly from the language presented in the 
NPRM. The NPRM contained revised language in section 658.16, 
``Exclusions from length and width determinations,'' that provided for 
the exclusion of devices that do not extend more than 4 inches beyond 
each side or the rear of the vehicle * * *.'' This SNPRM provides for a 
4-inch width exclusion, but retains the current 3-inch exclusion for 
moveable devices to enclose the cargo area of flatbed semitrailers or 
trailers, usually called tarping systems, that extend off the back of 
the vehicle when the vehicle is in operation. It was never the 
intention of the NPRM to propose a 1-inch increase for devices other 
than width exclusive devices. Rear-mounted excluded devices to enclose 
the cargo area of flatbed semitrailers or trailers would still have to 
adhere to the current 3-inch limit.
    Similarly, in the NPRM, Appendix D, paragraph 3(i), called for a 4-
inch exclusion for ``* * * load tarping systems where no component part 
extends farther than 4 inches from the sides or back of the vehicle 
when the vehicle is in operation.'' Again, it was not the intent of the 
FHWA to provide for a 1-inch increase for devices other than width 
exclusive devices. Accordingly, the 3-inch provision is retained in the 
SNPRM for rear-mounted excluded devices.
    The language in the NPRM dealing with the treatment of Recreational 
Vehicles (RVs) in Section 658.5, ``Definitions,'' and Section 658.15, 
``Width,'' is now included in the separate RV final rule printed 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The final rule removes RVs from 
the definition of commercial motor vehicle and authorizes States to 
allow RVs with appurtenances extending beyond 3 inches to operate 
without a special use over-width permit. In this SNPRM, we propose 
changing the distance from 3 inches to 4 inches for consistency with 
the other changes we are proposing.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We have determined that this proposed action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation 
regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic 
impact of this rulemaking would be minimal, since it would not require 
any additional action on the part of commercial vehicle operators or 
States. No additional action by commercial vehicle operators or States 
is necessary because this proposed rule would allow an additional inch 
on each side of a commercial motor vehicle for non-property carrying 
devices. Therefore, a regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on 
small entities and has determined that the proposed action would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposal would reduce the regulatory requirements with 
which commercial vehicle drivers must comply by reducing their need to 
apply for State overwidth permits. For this reason, the FHWA certifies 
that this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and 
it has been determined that this proposed action would not have a 
substantial direct effect or significant federalism implications on 
States that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program, Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.),

[[Page 12000]]

Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, 
or require through regulation. The FHWA has determined that this 
proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for 
the purposes of the PRA.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 
1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule would not result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 
U.S.C. 1532). What is being proposed would reduce the regulatory 
requirements with which commercial motor vehicle operators must comply.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This proposal is not economically significant and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.) and have determined that this proposed action would not have 
any effect on the quality of the environment.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action 
would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; 
would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 
summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that this proposal is not a 
significant energy action under that order because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a statement of Energy 
Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 658

    Grants Program-transportation, Highways and roads, Motor carrier--
size and weight.

    Issued on: March 8, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend 23 
CFR Part 658 as follows:

PART 658--TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT; ROUTE DESIGNATIONS--LENGTH, WIDTH 
AND WEIGHT LIMITATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 658 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111, 31112, and 
31114; 49 CFR 1.48(b)(19) and (c)(19).

    2. Revise Sec.  658.15(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  658.15  Width.

* * * * *
    (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other 
provision of law, the following are applicable:
    (1) A State may grant special use permits to motor vehicles, 
including manufactured housing, that exceed 102 inches in width; and
    (2) A State may allow recreational vehicles with safety and/or non-
cargo carrying appurtenances extending beyond 4 inches from the side of 
the vehicle to operate without a special use over-width permit.
    3. Revise Section 658.16(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  658.16  Exclusions from length and width determinations.

* * * * *
    (b)(2)(ii) That do not extend more than 4 inches beyond each side 
of the vehicle, or 3 inches beyond the rear of the vehicle, or,
* * * * *
    4. Amend appendix D to part 658 by revising item number 3 
introductory text and paragraph (i) in item 3 to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 658--Devices That Are Excluded From Measurement of 
the Length or Width of a Commercial Motor Vehicle

* * * * *
    3. Devices excluded from width determination, not to exceed 4 
inches from the side of the vehicle including, but not limited to, 
the following:
* * * * *
    (i) Movable devices to enclose the cargo area of flatbed 
semitrailers or trailers, usually called tarping systems, where no 
component part of the system extends more than 4 inches from the 
sides, or 3 inches from the back, of the vehicle when the vehicle is 
in operation. This exclusion applies to all component parts of 
tarping systems, including the transverse structure at the front of 
the vehicle to which the sliding walls and roof of the tarp 
mechanism are attached, provided the structure is not also intended 
or designed to comply with 49 CFR 393.106, which requires a 
headerboard strong enough to prevent cargo from penetrating or 
crushing the cab; the transverse structure may be up to 110 inches 
wide if properly centered so that neither side extends more than 4 
inches beyond the structural edge of the vehicle. Also excluded from 
measurement are side rails running the length of the vehicle and 
rear doors, provided the only function of the latter, like that of 
the transverse structure at the front of the vehicle, is to seal the 
cargo area and anchor the sliding walls and roof. On the other hand, 
a headerboard designed to comply with 49 CFR 393.106 is load bearing 
and thus limited to 102 inches in width. However, the ``wings'' 
designed to close the gap between such a headerboard and the movable 
walls and roof of a tarping system are width exclusive, provided 
they are add-on pieces designed to bear only the load of the tarping 
system itself and not integral parts of the load-bearing headerboard 
structure;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-5635 Filed 3-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P