[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67660-67663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11875; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AI04


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guard Labels

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
on rear impact guards (underride guards). Under the current 
requirement, rear impact guards must be permanently labeled with the 
guard manufacturer's name and address, the month and year in which the 
guard was manufactured, and the letters ``DOT.'' In response to 
petitions for rulemaking, the agency issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to allow manufacturers to place the label 
on the rear impact guard where it may be less exposed to damage, 
provided that the label does not interfere with the required 
retroreflective sheeting and is readily accessible for visual 
inspection. No comments were received. Thus, in this document, the 
agency is adopting the proposal as set forth in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 18, 2005.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by 
January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to DOT Docket No. 
NHTSA-2002-11875 and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Please see the Privacy Act heading under 
Regulatory Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Michael Huntley, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, (Telephone: 202-
366-0029) (Fax: 202-493-2739) (E-Mail: [email protected]).
    For legal issues, you may call Mr. George Feygin, Office of Chief 
Counsel, (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820) (E-Mail: 
[email protected]).
    You may send mail to either of these officials at: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On January 24, 1996, NHTSA published a final rule establishing two 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to address the problem 
of rear underride crashes.\1\ Underride occurs when a light vehicle, 
such as a passenger car, 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 under or ``underrides'' the 
rear end of the heavy vehicle such that the rear end of the trailer 
strikes and enters the passenger compartment of the light vehicle, 
resulting in passenger compartment intrusion (PCI). PCI can result in 
severe injuries and fatalities to the light vehicle occupants due to 
occupant contact with the rear end of the heavy truck. The final rule 
established two standards that operate together to reduce the number of 
injuries and fatalities resulting from underride crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 61 FR 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first standard, FMVSS No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,'' 
specifies performance requirements that rear impact guards (underride 
guards) must meet before they can be installed on new trailers. It 
specifies strength requirements and test procedures that NHTSA uses to 
determine compliance with those requirements. FMVSS No. 223 also 
requires the underride guard manufacturer to provide instructions on 
the proper installation of the guard. Finally, the underride guards 
must be permanently labeled with the guard manufacturer's name and 
address, the month and year in which the underride guard was 
manufactured, and the letters ``DOT''. The letters constitute 
certification by the manufacturer that the underride guard meets all 
the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 223. The standard requires 
manufacturers to place the label on the forward-facing surface of the 
horizontal member of the guard, 305 mm (12 inches) inboard of the right 
end of the guard, so that, as the guard is mounted on the vehicle, the 
label will be readily visible to Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) inspectors.
    The second standard, FMVSS No. 224, ``Rear impact protection, 
requires most new trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds) or more to be equipped with an underride guard meeting FMVSS 
No. 223. FMVSS No. 224 specifies requirements regarding the location of 
the underride guard relative to the rear of the trailer. It also 
requires that the underride guard be mounted on

[[Page 67661]]

the trailer in accordance with the instructions of the guard 
manufacturer.
    Both standards became effective on January 26, 1998.

II. Petitions

    On December 10, 1998, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from 
the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) requesting that the 
agency amend FMVSS No. 223 by eliminating the underride guard labeling 
requirement.\2\ TTMA argued that requiring a label on the underride 
guard is redundant for trailer manufacturers that manufacture their own 
guards because trailer manufacturers are already required to place a 
label on their trailers to certify their compliance with all FMVSSs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4367-24 at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm.
    \3\ 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5) requires manufacturers to affix to 
trailers a label containing the statement: ``This vehicle conforms 
to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect 
on the date of manufacture shown above.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 1998, NHTSA received a similar petition from the 
American Trucking Associations (ATA),\4\ and on January 18, 1999, 
another petition from Compass Transportation, Inc.\5\ Both petitioners 
argued that the underride guard labeling requirement is redundant and 
requested that the agency eliminate the labeling requirement from FMVSS 
No. 223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4376-2.
    \5\ See Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3342-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TTMA requested that if NHTSA declined to eliminate the guard 
labeling requirement, the agency should instead eliminate the 
requirement that the guard be labeled permanently. TTMA argued that it 
is unlikely that any label will remain on the guard for the life of the 
trailer. As a final alternative, TTMA requested that NHTSA allow 
manufacturers the flexibility to place the label where it may be the 
least exposed to damage from operational and environmental factors.

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    NHTSA published an NPRM responding to the three petitions for 
rulemaking on March 29, 2002.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 67 FR 15154 or Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11875.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Guard Labeling Requirement

    In the NPRM, the agency denied the petitioners' request to 
eliminate the labeling requirement. The agency reasoned that the 
separate equipment (FMVSS No. 223) and vehicle (FMVSS No. 224) 
standards allow a trailer manufacturer to install an underride guard 
produced by a guard manufacturer rather than by the trailer 
manufacturer itself. This regulatory scheme allows the trailer 
manufacturers to avoid the cost of developing compliant underride 
guards by purchasing pre-certified underride guards from underride 
guard manufacturers.
    In order to facilitate enforcement, NHTSA uses the guard 
certification label to determine whether an underride guard was 
manufactured and certified by the trailer manufacturer or purchased 
from an underride guard manufacturer who certified the guard prior to 
selling that item of equipment to the trailer manufacturer. If NHTSA 
did not require the underride guards to be labeled, our enforcement 
personnel would not be able to conclude readily which party certified 
an underride guard to the requirements of FMVSS No. 223.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, the manufacturer of a 
noncompliant item of motor vehicle equipment must recall that 
product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer. In 
addition, this manufacturer may become subject to civil penalties. 
Accordingly, it is in the best interest of trailer manufacturers to 
affix the label that would identify the party responsible for 
manufacturing a noncomplying product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the agency said that it did not believe that affixing the 
required label is a significant burden.

B. Permanency Requirement

    In the NPRM, the agency also denied petitioners' request to 
eliminate the requirement that the guard label be permanent. The agency 
acknowledged that the permanency of the label is not significant for 
the purpose of NHTSA's compliance testing, since the agency only tests 
new guards for compliance with FMVSS No. 223. However, the agency noted 
that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recently amended its 
rear impact regulations to make them consistent with Standard Nos. 223 
and 224.\8\ \9\ The FHWA included a requirement for a permanent label, 
in part, ``to help motor carriers quickly determine if the underride 
device on a newly manufactured trailer meets NHTSA's requirements, and 
to assist State agencies responsible for enforcing motor carrier safety 
regulations.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 64 FR 47703 (September 1, 1999).
    \9\ This aspect of the former FHWA jurisdiction is now under 
FMCSA.
    \10\ See 63 FR 26759, (May 14, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also reasoned that Standard No. 223 does not specify a 
particular means (i.e., labeling, etching, branding, stamping, or 
embossing) by which the manufacturer must achieve permanency. Finally, 
the agency noted that none of the petitioners had provided any 
information documenting any problems trailer or guard manufacturers 
have experienced in meeting the requirement for a permanent label.

C. Label Location Requirement

    In the NPRM, the agency granted the petitioners' request to 
commence rulemaking to allow manufacturers to place the label where it 
may be least exposed to damage. The agency stated that the precise 
location of the guard label is of little significance to NHTSA 
personnel conducting compliance testing on new guards. Further, the 
agency stated that FMCSA representatives had indicated to NHTSA that 
the specific location of the guard label is not critical to trailer 
inspectors, so long as it is located somewhere on the horizontal member 
of the guard.
    However, to ensure that the label would not be hidden or obscured, 
the agency proposed to require that the label remain readily accessible 
for visual inspection, so that trailer inspectors would not have 
difficulty locating it.
    Finally, the agency proposed to require that the label not 
interfere with retroreflective sheeting placed across the full width of 
the rearward facing surface of the horizontal member of the underride 
guard, as required by S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108.
    Accordingly, the agency proposed to revise the third sentence of 
S5.3 of Standard No. 223 to read as follows:

``The label shall be placed on the forward or rearward facing surface 
of the horizontal member of the guard, provided that the label does not 
interfere with the retroreflective sheeting required by S5.7.1.4.1(c) 
of FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and is readily accessible for visual 
inspection.''

IV. Final Rule

    In the NPRM, NHTSA specified a 60-day comment period. The agency 
did not receive any comments on the proposal. Accordingly, the agency 
is adopting the proposal as set forth in the NPRM.

V. Costs and Benefits

    This final rule will not result in any additional cost burdens on 
any regulated parties and will not produce additional safety benefits.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This

[[Page 67662]]

final rule 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 expected impact of the final 
rule is so minimal that the final rule does not warrant preparation of 
a full regulatory evaluation. This rulemaking will not impose any new 
requirements or costs on manufacturers. Instead, this rulemaking allows 
more flexibility in the location of the certification label already 
required by FMVSS No. 223. Accordingly, the final rule will not result 
in any additional costs burdens on the manufacturer of underride guards 
or trailers equipped with underride guards.
    This rulemaking is not the subject of significant Congressional or 
public interest.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I hereby certify 
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking does not impose 
any new requirements or costs on manufacturers. Instead, this 
rulemaking allows more flexibility in the location of the certification 
label already required by FMVSS No. 223. Accordingly, the final rule 
will not result in any additional costs burdens on the manufacturer of 
underride guards or trailers equipped with underride guards.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that the 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in the Executive Order 13132, and has 
determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient Federal 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This final 
rule does 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. The final 
rule is not intended to preempt state tort civil actions.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This amendment will not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, 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. 30161 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.

F. 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 final rule 
does not have any new requirements that are considered to be 
information collection requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 
1320.

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 NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 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 NHTSA to provide Congress, through 
the OMB, explanations when it decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    There are no applicable voluntary consensus standards available at 
this time. However, NHTSA will consider any such standards if they 
become available.

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 
($120,700,000 as adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
    This final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in 
excess of $120,700,000 annually.

I. Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulatory 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. 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://www.dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Section 571.223 is amended by revising the third sentence of S5.3 
introductory text as follows:


Sec.  571.223  Standard No. 223; Rear impact guards.

* * * * *
    S5.3 Labeling. * * * The label shall be placed on the forward or 
rearward facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard, provided 
that the label

[[Page 67663]]

does not interfere with the retroreflective sheeting required by 
S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and is readily 
accessible for visual inspection.
* * * * *

    Issued: November 12, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-25704 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P