Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: TarasPort Trailers, Inc.,
[Federal Register: January 13, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 2273-2274]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ja99-93]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-4966]
TarasPort Trailers, Inc.; Application for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224
TarasPort Trailers, Inc., of Sweetwater, Tennessee, has applied for a two-year temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 Rear Impact Protection, as provided by 49 CFR part 555. The basis of the application is that ``compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.'' Sec. 555.6(a).
We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in accordance with our regulations on temporary exemptions. This action does not represent any judgment by the agency about the merits of the application. We base the discussion that follows on information contained in TarasPort's application, submitted by its Vice President, Ms. Jeanne Isbill.
Why TarasPort Needs a Temporary Exemption
Located in the Sweetwater Industrial Park in Monroe County, Tennessee, TarasPort has been manufacturing trailers since April 1988. Standard No. 224 requires, effective January 26, 1998, that all trailers with a GVWR of 4536 Kg or more be fitted with a rear impact guard that conforms to Standard No. 223 Rear impact guards. TarasPort manufactured a total of 237 trailers in 1997, including ``two models of drop decks equipped with rear deck extenders.'' The extenders deploy in 1-foot increments, up to 3 feet, from the rear of the trailer. S5.1.3 of Standard No. 224 requires that the horizontal member of the rear impact guard must be as close as practicable to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but in no case farther than 305 mm. from it. TarasPort had asked NHTSA to exclude its two trailer models as ``special purpose vehicles,'' but we denied its request. We also determined that the trailers' rear extremity, with the extenders deployed ``would be the rearmost surface on the extenders themselves.'' In order to meet S5.1.3, TarasPort must redesign these models so that the rear face of the horizontal member of the guard will never exceed 305 mm from the rearmost surface on the extenders, when the extenders are in any position in which they can be placed when in transit. It has asked for a 2-year exemption in order to do so.
Why Compliance Would Cause TarasPort Substantial Economic Hardship
TarasPort employs 16 people, including its two working owners. An increasing amount of its sales is comprised of the two extended-deck trailers, from 55% in 1997 to 63% in the first two quarters of 1998. Using its existing staff, the company estimates that it needs 18 to 24 months of design and testing to bring the trailers into compliance with S5.1.3, and that the modifications required will cost $1800 to $2000 per trailer.
If the application is denied, TarasPort would have to discontinue production for 18 to 24 months, or hire an engineering consulting firm to possibly reduce that time, at a fee of $80 to $120 an hour. It would be forced to layoff a majority of its employees, and it would lose the market and established customer base that it has achieved as a niche producer over the 10 years of its existence.
According to its financial statements, TarasPort has had a small net income in each of its past three fiscal years, though the income each year has been substantially less than the year before. The net income for 1997 was $87,030.
How TarasPort Has Tried To Comply With the Standard in Good Faith
Most of TarasPort's trailers have low deck heights and rear ramp compartments ``which only compound rear impact compliance problems.'' Nevertheless, the company was able to bring its designs into compliance by Standard No. 224's effective date, with the exception of the two extender designs. These trailers comply when the extenders are not in use. The company tested mounting the guard directly on the extenders ``so it would move out and thus comply,'' but found that this method of mounting ``would not absorb the level of energy'' required by Standard No. 223. TarasPort hoped that NHTSA would consider the extenders to be load overhang or exempt as a special purpose vehicle, but NHTSA denied this request on May 22, 1998.
Why Exempting TarasPort Would Be Consistent With the Public Interest and Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety
A denial would adversely affect the company's employees, customers, and the local economy in Monroe County. The motor vehicle safety standards ``were created with the general public's well being in mind. Assisting our company to comply to those standards
[[Page 2274]]
only insures public safety. Compliance rather than enforcement is consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.''
How To Comment on TarasPort's Application
We invite you to comment on TarasPort's application. Send your comments, in writing, to: Docket Management, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, in care of the docket and notice number shown at the top of this document. It would be helpful if you provide us with 10 copies of your comments.
We shall consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date stated below. To the extent possible, we shall also consider comments filedafter the closing date. You may examine the comments in the docket in room PL-401 both before and after that date, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. When we have reached a decision, we shall publish it in the Federal Register.
Comment closing date: February 12, 1999.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.4.
Issued: January 7, 1999. L. Robert Shelton, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-686Filed1-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
