43663 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 
40 CFR Part 52 
[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0759; FRL–9930–95– 
Region–3] 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington, DC–MD–VA 
Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
AGENCY : Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). 
ACTION : Proposed rule. 
SUMMARY : The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, the States). The submittals are comprised of the 2011 base year carbon monoxide (CO) emissions inventories for the Washington, DC–MD–VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the States’ SIP submittals as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule and EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action. The TSD is available in the Docket for this rulemaking action. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. 
DATES : Comments must be received in 
writing by August 24, 2015. 
ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, 
identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2014–0759 by one of the following methods: 
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
on-line instructions for submitting comments. 
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0759, 
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, 
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously- 
listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 
Instructions: Direct your comments to 
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 0759. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 
Docket: All documents in the 
electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although 
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002; the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : For 
further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register publication. 
Dated: July 10, 2015. 
William C. Early, 
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 
[FR Doc. 2015–17976 Filed 7–22–15; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration 
49 CFR Part 571 
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0070] 
RIN 2127–AL57 
Rear Impact Protection, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Single Unit Trucks 
AGENCY : National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. 
ACTION : Advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM). 
SUMMARY : NHTSA is issuing this 
ANPRM following a July 10, 2014 grant of a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition (petitioners) regarding possible amendments to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) relating to rear impact (underride) guards. The petitioners request that NHTSA require underride guards on vehicles not currently required by the FMVSSs to have guards, notably, single unit trucks, and improve the standards’ requirements for all guards, including guards now required for heavy trailers and semitrailers. Today’s ANPRM requests comment on NHTSA’s estimated cost and benefits of requirements for underride guards on 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
179 FR 39362. 
2SUTs are trucks with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kilograms (kg) 
(10,000 pounds (lb)) with no trailer. They are primarily straight trucks, in which the engine, cab, drive train, and cargo area are mounted on one chassis. SUTs are the most commonly used truck, and are used extensively in all urban areas for short-haul operation, generally 321.87 kilometers (km) (200 miles) or less. SUTs are often designed to perform a specific task. Common examples of SUTs are dump trucks, garbage haulers, concrete mixers, tank trucks, trash trucks, and local delivery trucks. 
3NHTSA is in the process of evaluating 
petitioners’ request to require side guards and front override guards by way of research and will issue a separate decision on those aspects of the petitions at a later date. single unit trucks, and for retroreflective 
material on the rear and sides of the vehicles to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to other motorists. Separately, NHTSA plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to upgrade the requirements for all guards. 
DATES : You should submit your 
comments early enough to ensure that the docket receives them not later than September 21, 2015. 
ADDRESSES : You may submit comments 
to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: 
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting 
comments. 
•Mail: Docket Management Facility, 
M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
•Hand Delivery or Courier: West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
•Fax: (202) 493–2251. 
Regardless of how you submit your 
comments, please mention the docket number of this document. 
You may also call the Docket at 202– 
366–9324. 
Instructions: 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://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. 
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy 
Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : For 
technical issues, you may contact Robert Mazurowski, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202–366–1012) (fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues, you may contact Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202–366– 2992) (fax: 202–366–3820). The address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction 
II. Overview III. Extending FMVSS No. 224, ‘‘Rear Impact 
Protection,’’ to SUTs a. 2013 NHTSA/UMTRI Study 
b. NHTSA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis 
(Overview) 
IV. Request for Comment on Extension of 
FMVSS No. 224 
V. Amending FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,’’ To Improve the Conspicuity of SUTs 
a. 2001 NHTSA Evaluation b. NHTSA’s Preliminary Estimate of Cost 
and Benefits of Requiring Tape on SUTs 
VI. Request for Comment on Requiring 
Retroreflective Tape on SUTs 
VII. Rulemaking Analyses VIII. Submission of Comments 
Appendix A to Preamble: Cost-Benefit 
Evaluation of Requiring Single Unit Trucks 
(SUTs) To Have CMVSS No. 223 Guards 
Appendix B to Preamble: Summary of 
IIHS’s Evaluation of Rear Impact Guards 
I. Introduction 
NHTSA is issuing this ANPRM 
following a July 10, 2014 grant1of a 
petition for rulemaking from petitioners 
Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition regarding possible amendments to the FMVSSs regulating underride guards. The petitioners request that NHTSA require underride guards on vehicles not currently required by the FMVSSs to have guards, notably, single unit trucks (SUTs),
2and 
improve the standards’ requirements for all guards, including guards now required for heavy trailers and semitrailers. 
The July 10, 2014 grant document 
announced that NHTSA would be pursuing possible rulemaking through two separate actions. The first action would be an ANPRM pertaining to rear impact guards for SUTs and other safety strategies not currently required for those vehicles. Today’s ANPRM completes that step, requesting comment on NHTSA’s estimated cost and benefits of requiring underride guards and estimated cost and benefits of requiring retroreflective material on the rear and sides of the vehicles to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to other motorists. In the near future, NHTSA will be issuing the second action, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade the FMVSSs for underride guards for vehicles subject to 
the current standards.
3 
II. Overview 
NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking to 
upgrade FMVSS No. 223, ‘‘Rear impact guards,’’ and FMVSS No. 224, ‘‘Rear impact protection,’’ which together establish rear underride protection for vehicles subject to the standards. This ANPRM comprises the first step of a larger agency initiative to upgrade the standards. 
Rear underride crashes are those in 
which the front end of a vehicle impacts the rear of a generally larger vehicle, and slides under the chassis of the rear- impacted vehicle. Underride may occur to some extent in collisions in which a small passenger vehicle crashes into the rear end of a large SUT or trailer because the SUT or trailer bed is higher than the hood of the passenger vehicle. In passenger compartment intrusion (PCI) crashes, the passenger vehicle underrides so far that the rear end of the struck vehicle strikes and enters the passenger compartment. PCI crashes can result in passenger vehicle occupant injuries and fatalities caused by occupant contact with the rear end of the struck vehicle. 
FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 were issued 
in 1996 to prevent PCI by upgrading then-existing underride guards to make them stronger but energy-absorbing as well. The agency was concerned that overly rigid guards may prevent PCI but could stop the passenger vehicle too suddenly, resulting in excessive occupant compartment deceleration forces which could harm passenger vehicle occupants. 
NHTSA established the two-standard 
approach to underride protection to reduce test burdens on small trailer manufacturers. FMVSS No. 223, an ‘‘equipment standard,’’ specifies performance requirements that rear impact guards must meet to be sold for installation on new trailers and semitrailers. The guard may be tested for compliance while mounted to a test fixture or to a complete trailer. FMVSS No. 224, a ‘‘vehicle standard,’’ requires most new trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or 
more to be equipped with a rear impact guard meeting FMVSS No. 223. The vehicle standard requires that the guard be mounted on the trailer or semitrailer in accordance with the instructions provided with the guard by the guard 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43665 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
4Excluded from FMVSS No. 224 are pole trailers, 
logging trailers, low chassis trailers (trailers where 
the ground clearance of the chassis is no more than 
560 mm (22 inches)), wheels back trailers (trailers with rearmost point of rear wheels within 305 mm (12 inches) of the rear extremity of the trailer), and special purpose trailers (trailers with equipment in the rear and those intended for certain special operations). The exclusions are based on practical problems with meeting the standard or an absence of a need to meet the standard due to vehicle configuration. 
5FMCSR 393.86(b) excludes SUTs in driveaway- 
towaway operations, low chassis vehicles (vertical distance between the rear bottom edge of the body and the ground is 762 mm or lower), wheels back vehicles (the rear of tires is less than 610 mm forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle), special purpose vehicles, and vehicles with equipment that reside in the area of the guard and provide the rear impact protection comparable to rear impact guards. 6Kahane, et al. ‘‘Fatalities in Frontal Crashes 
Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags—Review of All CDS Cases—Model and Calendar Years 2000–2007–122 Fatalities,’’ September 2009, DOT–HS–811102. 
7In addition, 15 (12 percent) were fatalities to 
vulnerable occupants (occupants 75 years and older), 4 (3.3 percent) were narrow object impacts, and 8 (6.6 percent) were other types of impact conditions. 
8Allen, Kirk ‘‘The Effectiveness of Underride 
Guards for Heavy Trailers,’’ October, 2010, DOT HS 811 375. 9Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Truck 
Crashes, 2008, DOT HS 811 652, August 2012. 
10Heavy-Vehicle Crash Data Collection and 
Analysis to Characterize Rear and Side Underride and Front Override in Fatal Truck Crashes, DOT HS 811 725, March 2013. 
11Details of the tests are in Brumbelow, M.L., 
‘‘Crash Test Performance of Large Truck Rear Impact Guards,’’ 22nd International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), 2011. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv22/22ESV-000074.pdf. manufacturer. Under this approach, a 
small manufacturer that produces relatively few trailers can certify its trailers to FMVSS No. 224 without feeling compelled to undertake destructive testing of what could be a substantial portion of its production. The two-standard approach provides a practicable and reasonable means of meeting the safety need served by an underride guard requirement. 
FMVSS No. 224 only applies to 
trailers and semitrailers with GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).
4The 
agency excluded SUTs from FMVSS No. 224 requirements because it was concerned that the variety, complexity, and relatively lower weight and chassis strength of many SUTs would require guards that are substantially more costly than the guards for trailers. Additionally, field data indicated that the rear end fatality problem was more prominent in trailers than in SUTs. While SUTs represented 72 percent of the registered heavy vehicle fleet, they only represented 27 percent of the rear end fatalities. 
However, there are Federal 
requirements now in place ensuring that SUTs provide some degree of rear impact protection. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) No. 393.86(b), ‘‘Rear impact guards and rear end protection,’’ (49 CFR 393.86(b), ‘‘FMCSR 393.86(b)’’) has rear impact protection requirements for certain SUTs utilized in interstate commerce.
5 
The regulation requires that the horizontal member of the rear impact guard be located such that its bottom surface is not more than 760 millimeters (mm) (30 inches) vertically above ground level (ground clearance), its rear surface is not more than 610 mm (24 inches) forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle, and that it laterally extends to within 460 mm (18 inches) of each side of the vehicle. The regulation requires the guard to be ‘‘substantially constructed and attached by means of bolts, welding, or other comparable means.’’ FMCSA’s regulation also ensures that carriers maintain the mandated device throughout the life of the vehicle. 
Current Work 
NHTSA’s interest in this rulemaking 
originated from the findings of a 2009 
NHTSA study
6to evaluate why 
fatalities were still occurring in frontal crashes despite high rates of seat belt use and the presence of air bags and other advanced safety features. NHTSA reviewed all cases of frontal crash fatalities to belted drivers or right-front passengers in model year (MY) 2000 or newer vehicles in the Crashworthiness Data System of the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS–CDS) through calendar year 2007. Among the 122 fatalities examined in this review, 49 (40 percent) were in exceedingly severe crashes that were not survivable, 29 (24 percent) were in oblique or corner impact crashes where there was low engagement of the striking vehicle’s structural members (a factor which would have resulted in the striking vehicle absorbing more of the crash energy), and 17 (14 percent) were underrides into SUTs and trailers (14 were rear underride and 3 were side underride).
7In survivable frontal 
crashes of newer vehicle models resulting in fatalities to belted vehicle occupants, rear underrides into large SUTs and trailers were the second highest cause of fatality. 
In 2010, NHTSA analyzed several 
data sources to determine the effectiveness of trailer rear impact guards compliant with FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 in preventing fatalities and serious injuries.
8While the agency’s 
analysis of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) could not establish a nationwide downward trend in fatalities to passenger vehicle occupants in impacts with the rear of trailers subsequent to the 
implementation of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, supplemental data collected in Florida and North Carolina showed decreases in fatalities and serious injuries. However, the observed decrease in fatalities in these two States was not statistically significant, possibly 
due to small sample sizes of the data. 
Following these studies, NHTSA 
undertook research to examine the agency’s underride protection requirements, highlighting this program as a significant one in the ‘‘NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011–2013 (March 2011).’’ 
One of the resulting research projects 
began in 2009, as NHTSA initiated research with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) to gather data on the rear geometry of SUTs and trailers, the configuration of rear impact guards on 
SUTs and trailers, and the incidence and extent of underride and fatalities in rear impacts with SUTs and trailers. UMTRI collected the supplemental information as part of its Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) survey for the years 2008 and 2009.
91 0 
These data enabled NHTSA to obtain national estimates of rear impact crashes into heavy vehicles that resulted in PCI. Details of the UMTRI study, completed in 2013, are discussed in detail below in the next section of this preamble. The findings with regard to SUTs particularly pertain to this ANPRM. 
More data were obtained in 2011 from 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which had petitioned NHTSA to upgrade FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224 to improve the strength and energy-absorbing capabilities of rear impact guards. IIHS provided analyses of data from DOT’s Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) and from a series of 56 kilometers per hour (km/h) (35 miles per hour (mph)) impact speed passenger car-to-trailer rear impact crash tests IIHS conducted. (We provide a discussion of the IIHS tests in Appendix B to this preamble.)
11IIHS 
believes that trailers with rear impact guards compliant with the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) for underride guards (CMVSS No. 223) were significantly superior to FMVSS No. 224 in mitigating PCI of the striking passenger car. The information submitted by IIHS is particularly pertinent to the upcoming NPRM which 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
12Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Truck 
Crashes, DOT HS 811 725, August 2012. Also 
available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Truck%20Underride, last accessed 
on November 24, 2014. 
13Heavy-Vehicle Crash Data Collection and 
Analysis to Characterize Rear and Side Underride and Front Override in Fatal Truck Crashes, DOT HS 811 725, March 2013. Also available at http://
www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Truck%20Underride, last accessed on July 24, 2014. 14‘‘Bobtail’’ and ‘‘tractor/other’’ configurations 
were combined into ‘‘others’’ category and ‘‘tractor/ 
trailer’’ and ‘‘straight trucks with trailer’’ were 
combined into ‘‘trailers’’ category. 
15UMTRI only evaluated the rear geometry to 
determine whether a SUT’s configuration qualified the vehicle as subject to FMCSR 393.86(b). It did not determine how the truck was operated and whether it was used in interstate commerce. 16Wheels back SUTs according to FMCSR 
393.86(b) is where the rearmost axle is permanently 
fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of tires is not more than 610 mm forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle. 
17Low chassis SUTs according FMCSR 393.86(b) 
is where the rearmost part of the vehicle includes the chassis and the vertical distance between the rear bottom edge of the chassis assembly and the ground is less than or equal to 762 mm (30 inches). 
18UMTRI categorized passenger cars, compact 
and large sport utility vehicles, minivans, large vans (e.g. Econoline and E150–E350), compact pickups 
(e.g., S–10, Ranger), and large pickups (e.g Ford 
F100–350, Ram, Silverado) as light vehicles. will propose upgrades to FMVSS No. 
223 and 224. 
Purpose of This ANPRM 
In this ANPRM, the agency requests 
comments that would help NHTSA 
assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts of strategies that increase the crash protection to occupants of vehicles crashing into the rear of SUTs and/or that increase the likelihood of avoiding a crash into SUTs. Strategies discussed in this ANPRM are possible amendments to the FMVSSs to: (a) Expand FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, to require upgraded guards on SUTs; and (b) amend FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,’’ to require the type of retroreflective material on the rear and sides of SUTs that is now required to be placed on the rear and sides of trailers to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to other motorists. 
III. Extending FMVSS No. 224, Rear 
Impact Protection, to SUTs 
a. 2013 NHTSA/UMTRI Study 
In 2009, the agency initiated an in- 
depth field analysis to obtain a greater 
understanding of the characteristics of underride events and factors contributing to such crashes. NHTSA sought this information to assess the need for and impacts of possible amendments to the FMVSSs to reduce severe passenger vehicle underride in truck/trailer rear end impacts. 
NHTSA published the first phase of 
the field analysis in 2012,
12and 
published the final report in March 2013. The reports analyze 2008–2009 data collected as a supplement to UMTRI’s TIFA survey.
13The TIFA 
survey contains data for all the trucks with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) (‘‘medium and heavy trucks’’) that were involved in fatal traffic crashes in the 50 U.S. States and the District of Columbia. TIFA data contains additional detail beyond the information contained in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 
NHTSA contracted UMTRI to collect 
supplemental data for 2008 and 2009 as part of the TIFA survey. The supplemental data included the rear geometry of the SUTs and trailers; type of equipment at the rear of the trailer, if any; whether a rear impact guard was present; the type of rear impact guard; and, the standards the guard was manufactured to meet. For SUTs and trailers involved in fatal rear impact crashes, additional information was collected on: the extent of underride; damage to the rear impact guard; estimated impact speeds; and whether the collision was offset or had fully engaged the guard. 
NHTSA derived average annual 
estimates from the 2008 and 2009 TIFA data files and the supplemental information collected in the 2013 UMTRI study. The agency’s review of these files found that there are 3,762 SUTs and trailers involved in fatal accidents annually, among which trailers accounted for 2521 (67 percent), SUTs for 1080 (29 percent), tractor alone for 66 (1.5 percent), and unknown for the remaining 95 (2.5 percent).
14About 
489 SUTs and trailers are struck in the rear in fatal crashes annually, constituting about 13 percent of all SUTs and trailers in fatal crashes. Among rear impacted SUTs and trailers in fatal crashes, 331 (68 percent) are trailers, 151 (31 percent) are SUTs, and 7 (1 percent) are tractors alone. 
Presence of Rear Impact Guard on 
Heavy Vehicles 
UMTRI evaluated 2008 and 2009 
TIFA data regarding the rear geometry of the trailers and SUTs involved in all fatal crashes (not just those rear- impacted) to assess whether the vehicle had to have a guard under FMVSS No. 224 (regarding trailers) or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA’s) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) No. 393.86(b) (49 CFR 393.86(b), ‘‘FMCSR 393.86(b)’’) (regarding SUTs).
15Based on this 
evaluation, UMTRI estimated that 38 percent of the SUTs involved in fatal crashes were required to have rear impact guards (based on the truck rear geometry according to FMCSR 393.86(b)) (Table 1). However, only 18 percent of SUTs were equipped with rear impact guards (Table 1). It is likely that the remaining 20 percent of the SUTs that were configured such that they would be subject to FMCSR 393.86(b) based on vehicle design, but 
that did not have a guard, were not used in interstate commerce. Among the 62 percent of SUTs that were excluded from installing rear impact guards by the FMCSR, 27 percent were wheels back SUTs,
169 percent were low chassis 
SUTs,172 percent were wheels back and 
low chassis SUTs, and 16 percent had equipment in the rear that interfered with rear impact guard installation (see Table 1). UMTRI also estimated that 65 percent of trailers had to have a rear impact guard per FMVSS No. 224 and the remaining were excluded because of their rear geometry, equipment in the rear, or type of cargo or operation. 
TABLE 1—P ERCENTAGE OF SUT SB Y 
THEIR REAR GEOMETRY AND  
WHETHER A REAR IMPACT GUARD  
WAS REQUIRED ACCORDING TO  
UMTRI’ SEVALUATION OF SUT SIN-
VOLVED IN FATAL CRASHES IN THE  
2008–2009 TIFA D ATAFILES 
Type of rear geometry Percentage of 
SUTs 
Rear Impact Guard Re-
quired: 
Guard present ................... 18 
Guard not present ............. 20 
Rear Impact Guard Not Re-
quired: 
Excluded vehicle ............... 8 
Wheels back vehicle ......... 27 
Low chassis vehicle .......... 9 
Wheels back and low 
chassis vehicle .............. 2 
Equipment ......................... 16 
Since the data presented in Table 1 
takes into consideration all SUTs involved in all types of fatal crashes in 2008 and 2009 (total of 2,159 SUTs), we assume that the percentage of SUTs with and without rear impact guards in Table 1 is representative of that in the SUT fleet. 
Light Vehicle Fatal Crashes Into the 
Rear of Trailers and SUTs 
Among the types of vehicles that 
impacted the rear of trailers and SUTs, 73 percent were light vehicles,
1818 
percent were large trucks, 7.4 percent 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43667 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
19The extent of underride in this and subsequent 
figures and tables means the following: None means 
‘‘no underride’’; less than halfway means ‘‘underride extent of less than halfway up the hood’’; halfway+ means ‘‘underride extent at or more than halfway up the hood but short of the base of the windshield’’; windshield+ means ‘‘extent of underride at or beyond the base of the windshield’’ or PCI. were motorcycles, and 1.7 percent were 
other/unknown vehicle types. Since we do not expect trucks and buses to underride other trucks in rear impacts, the data presented henceforth only apply to light vehicles impacting the rear of trailers and SUTs. 
Underride Extent in Fatal Crashes of 
Light Vehicles Into the Rear of SUTs 
In the UMTRI study of 2008 and 2009 
TIFA data, survey respondents estimated the amount of underride in terms of the amount of the striking vehicle that went under the rear of the struck vehicle and/or the extent of deformation or intrusion of the vehicle. The categories were ‘‘no underride,’’ ‘‘less than halfway up the hood,’’ ‘‘more than halfway but short of the base of the windshield,’’ and ‘‘at or beyond the base 
of the windshield.’’ When the extent of underride is ‘‘at or beyond the base of the windshield,’’ there is PCI that could result in serious injury to occupants in the vehicle. Rear impacts into heavy vehicles could result in some level of underride without PCI when the rear impact guard prevents the impacting vehicle from traveling too far under the heavy vehicle during impact. Such impacts into the rear of heavy vehicles without PCI may not pose additional 
crash risk to light vehicle occupants than that in crashes with another light vehicle at similar crash speeds. 
The data show that about 319 light 
vehicle fatal crashes into the rear of trailers and trucks occur annually. UMTRI determined that about 36 percent (121) of light vehicle impacts 
into the rear of trailers and trucks resulted in PCI. Among fatal light vehicle impacts, the frequency of PCI was greatest for passenger cars and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) (40 and 41.5 percent, respectively) and lowest for large vans and large pickups (25 and 26 percent respectively), as shown in Figure 1 below. Since the extent of underride was also determined by the extent of deformation and intrusion of the vehicle, it was observed in a number of TIFA cases that large vans and large pickups did not actually underride the truck or trailer but sustained PCI because of the high speed of the crash and/or because of the very short front end of the vehicle. 
Fatallight vehicle crashes into the rear 
of trucks and trailers were further examined by the type of truck and trailer struck and whether a guard was required (according to FMCSR 393.86(b) for SUTs and FMVSS No. 224 for 
trailers) (Figure 2 and Figure 3). 
Among the 319 fatal light vehicle 
crashes into the rear of SUTs and trailers, 79 (25 percent) are into SUTs without any guards, 23 (7 percent) are into SUTs with guards, 115 (36 percent) 
are into trailers with guards, and 102 (32 percent) are into excluded trailers without guards and other truck/trailer type. (Figure 2). 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.000</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
20Underride extent was determined for 303 light 
vehicles, about 95 percent of the 319 light vehicle impacts into the rear of trailers and trucks. Unknown underride extent was distributed among 
known underride levels. 
Among these annual light vehicle 
fatal crashes, 121 result in PCI, among 
which 23 (19 percent) occur in impacts with SUTs without guards, 8 (7 percent) in impacts with SUTs with guards, 62 (51 percent) in impacts with trailers with guards, and 28 (23 percent) with excluded trailers and other truck/trailer type (Figure 3).
20 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.001</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43669 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
21Information included police estimates of travel 
speed, crash narrative, crash diagram, and witness statements. The impact speed was estimated from the travel speed, skid distance, and an estimate of 
the coefficient of friction. 
It is noteworthy that trailers with 
guards represent 36 percent of annual 
light vehicle fatal rear impacts but represent 51 percent of annual light vehicle fatal rear impacts with PCI. On the other hand, SUTs (with and without guards) represent 32 percent of annual light vehicle fatal rear impacts but represent 26 percent of annual light vehicle fatal rear impacts with PCI. The field data suggest that there are more light vehicle fatal impacts into the rear of trailers than SUTs and a higher percentage of fatal light vehicle impacts into the rear of trailers involve PCI than those into the rear of SUTs. Relative Speed of Light Vehicle Fatal 
Crashes Into the Rear of SUTs 
Using information derived by 
reviewing police crash reports,
21 
UMTRI estimated the relative velocity of fatal light vehicle crashes into the rear of SUTs and trailers. Relative velocity was computed as the resultant of the difference in the truck velocity and the striking vehicle velocity and could only be estimated for about 30 percent of light vehicle fatal crashes into the rear of trailers and SUTs. Most of the crashes (with known relative velocity) were at a very high relative velocity and many were not survivable. The mean relative velocity at impact into the rear of 
trailers and SUTs was estimated at 44 mph. Among fatal light vehicle impacts into the rear of SUTs that resulted in PCI, 70 percent were with relative velocity greater than 56 km/h (35 mph). Among the remaining 30 percent fatal light vehicle impacts into the rear of SUTs, 3 percent of the SUTs had rear impact guards, 10 percent of the SUTs could be required to have a guard based on rear geometry but did not have a guard, 3 percent were excluded from requiring a guard (wheels back, low chassis vehicles), and 14 percent had equipment in the rear precluding rear impact guards. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.002</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
22Thus, the 319 fatal crashes result in 362 
fatalities, or 1.13 fatalities per fatal crash. 
Fatalities Associated With Light Vehicle 
Crashes Into the Rear of SUTs and Trailers 
There are about 362 light vehicle 
occupant fatalities annually due to 
impacts into the rear of SUTs and trailers.
22Of these fatalities, 104 (29 
percent) are in impacts with SUTs, 125 (35 percent) are in impacts with trailers with guards, and 133 (37 percent) are in impacts with excluded trailers and other truck/trailer type (Figure 5). 
Among the 104 light vehicle occupant 
fatalities resulting from impacts with the rear of SUTs, 80 occurred in impacts with SUTs without rear impact guards while the remaining 24 were in impacts 
to SUTs with guards. PCI was associated with 33 annual light vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from impacts into the rear of SUTs; 25 of these fatalities were in impacts with SUTs without rear impact guards and 8 with SUTs with guards (see Figure 5). 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.003</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43671 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
23This figure presents the target population for 
SUTs and trailers for use in determining benefits. 
The data in this figure cannot be used to determine effectiveness of the current rear impact guards on SUTs since many SUTs that do not have guards have equipment in the rear, or are low chassis or wheels back vehicles. Such rear configurations would limit underride without the need for a guard. In other words, this table in itself does not provide sufficient information to conclude that current rear impact guards on SUTs are not effective in preventing PCI. There are no data that would enable us to compare fatality rates in crashes into the rear of SUTs with guards and crashes into the rear of SUTs that would have needed guards per rear geometry but didn’t have them. For this reason we did not make any inferences on the effectiveness of the current guards based on the data in Figure 5. 
24Some of the fatalities associated with PCI 
shown in Figure 2 may also be due to unrestrained status of the occupant. 
Amonglight vehicle occupant 
fatalities in impacts into the rear of 
SUTs, approximately 70 percent were in vehicles with no underride, underride less than halfway or underride up to the hood without PCI. The agency found that in a number of TIFA cases reviewed, fatalities occurred due to 
occupants being unrestrained, other occupant characteristics (e.g. age), and 
other crash circumstances. Additionally, as shown in Figure 4, only 30 percent of light vehicle impacts with PCI into the rear of SUTs had a relative velocity less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph). Since currently manufactured light vehicles are subject to FMVSS No. 208 requirements that ensure adequate occupant crash protection to restrained occupants in a 56 km/h (35 mph) rigid barrier frontal crash test, some light vehicle occupant fatalities in impacts into the rear of SUTs and trailers at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph) that resulted in PCI may be preventable if intrusion into the passenger compartment were 
mitigated.
24 
b. NHTSA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview) 
As part of its evaluation of whether an 
underride guard requirement should apply to SUTs, NHTSA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of equipping SUTs with rear impacts guards. The analysis is set forth in Appendix A of this preamble, and an overview is provided below. We are requesting comments on the analysis. 
Preliminary Estimate of Cost of 
Requiring CMVSS No. 223 Guards 
FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 
requirements were developed to prevent 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.004</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
25Using the 2008–2009 TIFA data files from the 
2013 UMTRI study, it is estimated that 38 percent 
of the SUTs were configured so as not to be considered among the vehicles excluded from FMCSA 393.86(b) based on vehicle design. However, UMTRI estimated that only 18 percent of these SUTs were equipped with rear impact guards. The remaining 20 percent of SUTs that appeared, based on vehicle design, not to be excluded from the requirement to have a guard but did not have one, was likely comprised of vehicles that were not used in interstate commerce. 
26Since the definition of wheels back and low 
chassis vehicles in 393.86(b) allows more vehicles to be excluded from requiring rear impact guards than CMVSS No. 223, when SUTs are required to comply with CMVSS No. 223, a larger percentage would need to have rear impact guards. This is further explained in Appendix A. 27Transport Canada testing of minimally 
compliant CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards 
indicated that such guards could prevent PCI in light vehicle impacts with full overlap with the guard at crash speeds up to 56 km/h. See Boucher 
D., Davis D., ‘‘Trailer Underride Protection—A Canadian Perspective,’’ SAE Paper No. 2000–01– 3522, Truck and Bus Meeting and Exposition, December 2000, Society of Automotive Engineers. 
28Overlap refers to the percentage of impacting 
vehicle front end width that engages the rear impact guard. IIHS’s test data showed that 8 of the 9 rear impact guards tested by IIHS could not prevent PCI in a 56 km/h crash with 30 percent overlap of the Chevrolet Malibu. 
29CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards 
may mitigate the severity of impact into the rear of SUTs at speeds greater than 56 km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this possible benefit at this time. We seek comment on this issue. 30This effectiveness estimate is based on current 
estimates of seat belt use in light passenger vehicles 
(about 87% per 2014 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS)) and on the IIHS test data which indicated that belted occupants of light passenger vehicles in 35 mph impacts into the rear of trailers with CMVSS No. 223 guards with 100 percent and 50 percent overlap would experience similar injury risk as that in 35 mph frontal crashes of two light passenger vehicles of similar size. 
31In the final regulatory evaluation for the 
January 24, 1996 final rule establishing FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 (61 FR 2004), NHTSA assumed an effectiveness range of 10 to 25 percent for rear impact guards in preventing fatalities in crashes with PCI (all speeds) into the rear of trailers. The 25 percent effectiveness estimated for the current analysis (based on 2008–2009 TIFA data and the IIHS crash test data) is the same as the higher value of the assumed effectiveness range of rear impact guards in the 1996 final rule. CMVSS No. 223 requires a higher level of performance than that required by the 1996 final rule, so NHTSA assumes the CMVSS will have an effectiveness level at least as high as our highest assumed rate for the FMVSSs. 
32The agency’s 2010 study—‘‘The Effectiveness 
of Underride Guards for Heavy Trailers,’’ October 2010, DOT HS 811 375—estimated an effectiveness of 27 percent from data collected in Florida and 83 percent from data collected in North Carolina for FMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards in preventing fatalities. These two estimates are considerably different and not statistically significant, possibly due to small sample size, and so associated with some uncertainty. Therefore, these effectiveness estimates were not utilized in the current analysis. Instead, the agency relied on real world crash data and the test data to estimate rear impact guard effectiveness. PCI in 48 km/h (30 mph) impacts of 
compact and subcompact passenger cars into the rear of trailers. CMVSS No. 223 performance requirements were developed to prevent PCI in 56 km/h (35 mph) impacts. The crash tests conducted by IIHS (see Appendix B) indicated the improved performance of rear impact guards designed to CMVSS No. 223 compared to guards designed to FMVSS No. 223. The rear impact guard geometric specifications in CMVSS No. 223 cover a larger portion of the truck rear extremity than those specified in FMCSR 393.86(b). Additionally, there are no strength specifications for rear impact guards in FMCSR 393.86(b). Since a high percentage of crashes into 
the rear of SUTs are at high speeds, it is unlikely that equipping all SUTs with FMCSR 393.86(b) would sufficiently mitigate light vehicle occupant fatalities in PCI crashes into the rear of SUTs. For these reasons, NHTSA estimated the cost and benefits of requiring SUTs to comply with the requirements of CMVSS No. 223. 
We estimate
25that currently 18 
percent of SUTs in the fleet are equipped with rear impact guards meeting the FMCSR regulation, 49 CFR 393.86(b). A requirement for SUTs to comply with CMVSS No. 223, though, would require 59 percent of newly manufactured SUTs to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards due to that regulation’s greater coverage.
26 
The estimated incremental minimum to average cost of equipping new covered SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards ranges from $307 to $453 per vehicle (See Table A–7 in Appendix A for details). The total annual fleet cost of equipping new SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards ranges from $105 million to $155 million. The estimate of minimum to average additional weight of equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards is 76.8 kg (169 lb) to 95.5 kg (210 lb) per vehicle. The estimate of minimum to average additional fuel cost during the lifetime of the vehicle due to the additional weight of the guard 
ranges from $924.7 to $1,505.3. Therefore, the total minimum to average annual cost (including fuel costs) of requiring SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards is estimated to be $421 million to $669 million. 
Preliminary Estimate of Benefits of 
Requiring CMVSS No. 223 Guards 
For estimating the benefits of 
requiring SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards, NHTSA estimated the annual number of fatalities and injuries in light vehicle rear impact crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. Non-PCI crashes were not considered as part of the target population for estimating benefits. This is because the IIHS test data (see Appendix B to this preamble) show that when PCI was prevented, the dummy injury measures were significantly below the injury assessment reference values specified in FMVSS No. 208. In non-PCI crashes into the rear of SUTs and trailers, the IIHS test data indicated that the passenger vehicle’s restraint system would mitigate injury. 
Although CMVSS No. 223’s 
requirements are intended to mitigate PCI in light vehicle rear impacts at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph),
27we note that CMVSS No. 223 
guards may not be able to mitigate all fatalities in such crashes because some of the crashes may be low overlap (30 percent or less),
28and because some 
fatalities are not as a result of PCI but are due to other circumstances (e.g. unrestrained status of occupants, elderly and other vulnerable occupants). In those circumstances, we believe that a rear impact guard would not prevent the fatality.
29 
Preventing Fatalities 
For the purpose of this analysis, 
NHTSA assumed that CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards on SUTs would be able to prevent about 85 percent of light vehicle occupant fatalities with PCI in impacts into the rear of SUTs with crash speeds less or equal to 56 km/h.
30 
However, since only 30 percent of the target population of light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs are at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h, CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards would only be effective for a portion of the target population. Therefore, NHTSA estimated an overall effectiveness of 25 percent (approximately 30% x 85%) for CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards in preventing fatalities in light vehicle crashes into the rear of SUTs with PCI.
31 
We believe this is an upper estimate of CMVSS No. 223 guard effectiveness in preventing fatalities, because (1) there will be real-world crashes of light passenger vehicles into the rear of SUTs at low overlap (30 percent or less) for which IIHS test data indicates that the CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards would not be able to prevent PCI, (2) some restrained occupants of light passenger vehicles would be killed even if PCI were prevented due to other circumstances (e.g. elderly and other 
vulnerable occupants), and (3) our 
review of 2009 TIFA data files of light vehicle impacts with PCI into the rear of SUTs indicated that only 55 percent of the fatally injured occupants were restrained.
32 
The real world data indicated that 
there are annually 31 light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43673 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
33As noted earlier, CMVSS No. 223 compliant 
rear impact guards may mitigate the severity of 
impact into the rear of SUTs at speeds greater than 56 km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this possible benefit at this time. We seek comment on this issue. 34MAIS is the maximum severity injury for an 
occupant according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 
(AIS). MAIS 1 are minor injuries, MAIS 2 are moderate injuries, MAIS 3–5 are serious to critical injuries. 
35See http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/
docs/VSL%20Guidance _2013.pdf. The guidance starts with a $9.1 million VSL in the base year of 
2012 and then estimates a 1.07 percent increase in VSL each year after the base year to reflect the estimated growth rate in median real wages for the next 30 years. resulting in 33 light vehicle occupant 
fatalities. Since only 59 percent of SUTs would require rear impact guards, the target population is reduced to approximately 20 (=33 x 59%). 
Applying 25 percent effectiveness of CMVSS compliant guards, the upper bound on lives saved by CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards on SUTs is about 5. 
Preventing Nonfatal Injuries 
In our current analysis, we also 
assumed 20 percent effectiveness of 
CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards in preventing nonfatal injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. CMVSS No. 223 guards are effective in mitigating PCI in light vehicle impacts into the rear of SUTs at speeds less or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph), which is about 30 percent of all 
such impacts with PCI.
33Additionally, 
we expect the effectiveness of rear impact guards for preventing injuries to be lower than that for fatalities since occupant injuries could occur from interior vehicle contacts even if PCI were prevented. The 20 percent effectiveness estimate takes into consideration that some injuries are due to factors such as the unrestrained status of the occupants. An improved rear impact guard would not prevent such injuries. 
The agency analyzed the National 
Accident Sampling System— Crashworthiness Data System (NASS– CDS) data files for the year 1999–2012 
and estimated a total of 151—291 MAIS
341 to 5 severity nonfatal injuries 
to light vehicle occupants in PCI crashes into the rear of SUTs. Applying a 20 
percent effectiveness of rear impact guards in preventing nonfatal injuries, we estimate that 30—58 nonfatal injuries would be prevented annually. 
Cost Per Equivalent Lives Saved 
The benefits analysis in Appendix A 
estimates the equivalent lives saved 
(ELS) from a requirement for SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards. The ELS are approximately 5.7 to 6.3 lives. The cost per ELS (3 and 7 percent discounted) is $106.7 million to $164.7 million, for each equivalent life saved. A summary of the analysis estimating incremental costs using low and average estimates, benefits using average and 
high estimates, and cost per equivalent lives saved is shown below in Table 2. 
TABLE 2—E STIMATES OF MATERIAL , INSTALLATION , ANDFUELCOSTS OF EQUIPPING APPLICABLE SUT S(CLASS 3–8) 
WITHCMVSS R EAR IMPACT GUARDS , RESULTING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS OF LIVES SAVED AND INJURIES PRE-
VENTED , ANDCOST PER EQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED  
Material + Installation + Fuel Costs 
Minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guard per SUT ....................................... $307–$453 
Number of SUTs needing guards annually ........................................................................... 341,392 
Total minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guards in SUT fleet ...................... $104.9M–$154.6M 
Minimum to average incremental weight of CMVSS guard per SUT ................................... 169 lb–210 lb 
Minimum to average incremental lifetime fuel cost per SUT ................................................ $924.7–$1,505.3 
Minimum to average incremental fuel cost for SUT fleet ..................................................... $316M–$514M 
Total minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guards +fuel for SUT fleet ............ $421M–$669M 
Benefits Estimates 
Target Population (light vehicle occupant fatalities in crashes with PCI into the rear of ap-
plicable SUTs) average to high injury estimates.20 lives; 99–182 MAIS 1 injuries; 33–82 MAIS 2 and 
17–27 MAIS 3–5 injuries 
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS guards .......................................................................... 0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for injuries 
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted) average to high estimates ....................................... 5.7–6.3 
Equivalent lives saved (3% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 4.4–4.9 
Equivalent lives saved (7% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 3.3–3.7 
Cost/Benefit Analysis 
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3% discount) ..................................................................... $106.7M–$152. 9M 
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7% discount) ..................................................................... $113.9M–$164. 7M 
Guidance from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation35identifies $9.1 million 
as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to 
be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will not be 
cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million). 
Alternatives 
NHTSA further considered whether 
excluding Class 3 SUTs (GVWR 10,000 
lb to 14,000 lb) from a requirement to have CMVSS No. 223 guards would make the requirement more cost effective (see Table 3, below). (An exclusion of Class 3 SUTs may also be based on a practical matter, as the vehicles may be too small to withstand the loads imparted from impacts to 
CMVSS No. 223 guards.) NHTSA analyzed the cost and benefits of a requirement that would require only Class 4–8 SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards. Class 4–8 SUTs comprise approximately 60 percent of annual sales of SUTs. The total annual cost of CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards on Class 4 -8 SUTs is estimated to be $218 million to $348.5 million. The analysis was conducted with a 
conservative assumption of no 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
reduction in benefits by not requiring 
Class 3 SUTs to have the rear impact guards. Even with such a conservative assumption, the cost per ELS (3 and 7 percent discounted) was $55.2 million to $85.9 million, respectively. 
TABLE 3—E STIMATES OF MATERIAL , INSTALLATION , ANDFUELCOSTS OF EQUIPPING APPLICABLE SUT S(CLASS 4–8) 
WITHCMVSS R EAR IMPACT GUARDS , RESULTING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS OF LIVES SAVED AND INJURIES PRE-
VENTED , ANDCOST PER EQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED  
Material + Installation + Fuel Costs 
Minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guard per SUT ....................................... $307–$453 
Number of SUTs needing guards annually ........................................................................... 204,246 
Total incremental cost of CMVSS guards in SUT fleet ........................................................ $62.7M–$92.4M 
Minimum to average incremental weight of CMVSS guard per SUT ................................... 169 lb–210 lb 
Minimum to average incremental lifetime fuel cost per SUT ................................................ $759.9–$1,253.8 
Minimum to average incremental fuel cost for SUT fleet ..................................................... $155M–$256M 
Total minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guards +fuel for SUT fleet ............ $218M–$348.5M 
Benefits Estimates 
Target Population (light vehicle occupant fatalities in crashes with PCI into the rear of ap-
plicable SUTs) average to high injury estimates.20 lives; 99–182 MAIS 1 injuries; 33–82 MAIS 2 and 
17–27 MAIS 3–5 injuries 
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS guards .......................................................................... 0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for injuries 
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted) average to high estimates ....................................... 5.7–6.3 
Equivalent lives saved (3% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 4.4–4.9 
Equivalent lives saved (7% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 3.3–3.7 
Cost/Benefit Analysis 
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3% discount) ..................................................................... $55.2M–$79.7M  
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7% discount) ..................................................................... $59.0M–$85.9M  
As in the analysis for Class 3–8 SUTs 
shown in Table 2, the preliminary 
estimates for rear impact guards on Class 4–8 SUTs (minimum of $55.2 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million). 
IV. Request for Comment on Extension 
of FMVSS No. 224 
NHTSA requests comments that 
would help the agency assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts of requiring SUTs to have underride guards. In providing a comment on a particular matter or in responding to a particular question, interested persons are asked to provide any relevant factual information to support their opinions, including, but not limited to, statistical and cost data and the source of such information. For easy reference, the questions below are numbered consecutively. 
1. The injury target population was 
obtained from weighted NASS–CDS data files (1999–2012). Analysis was conducted with not only the weighted average estimates but also with the 
upper bound of the injury estimates. We seek comment on the estimated injury target population resulting from underride crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. 
2. The agency assumed 25 percent 
effectiveness of CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards in preventing fatalities in light vehicle crash with PCI into the rear of SUTs. We seek comment on this 
effectiveness estimate. 
3. The agency assumed 20 percent 
effectiveness of CMVSS No. 223 guards in preventing injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. We seek comment on this effectiveness estimate. 
4. In estimating benefits, the agency 
assumed that rear impact guards would mitigate fatalities and injuries in light vehicle impacts with PCI into the rear of SUTs at impact speeds up to 56 km/ 
h (35 mph), since the requirements of 
CMVSS No. 223 are intended to prevent PCI in impacts with speeds up to 56 km/ 
h (35 mph). We recognize, however, that 
benefits may accrue from underride crashes at speeds higher than 56 km/h (35 mph), if, e.g., a vehicle’s guard 
exceeded the minimum performance requirements of the FMVSS. NHTSA requests information that would assist the agency in quantifying the possible benefits of CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards in crashes with speeds higher than 56 km/h (35 mph). 
5. The percentage of SUTs requiring 
rear impact guards was determined by obtaining details of the rear extremity of SUTs involved in fatal crashes in the 2008–2009 TIFA data files. We seek any other information to corroborate these 
estimates. 
6. The cost-benefit analysis showed 
that requiring CMVSS No. 223 guards on SUTs would cost more than $100 million per equivalent life saved. The following information was not included in the analysis. NHTSA seeks the information so that the analysis is more complete. 
a. The additional cost to install 
CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards did not include the cost of strengthening the rear beams, frame rails, and floor of the vehicle. We seek information on the changes to SUTs to accommodate the CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guard and the additional costs resulting from these changes. 
b. The additional weight to install 
CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards did not include the weight of additional material needed to strengthen the rear beams, frame rails, and floor of the vehicle. We seek information on the changes to SUTs to accommodate the CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guard and the additional weight resulting from these changes. 
c. The cost-benefit analysis did not 
take into consideration the reduction in payload resulting from increased weight of the SUT due to installation of a CMVSS No. 223 guard. We seek comment on what type of SUT operations are affected by the increased weight and the associated cost impacts. 
d. The cost-benefit analysis did not 
take into consideration the aerodynamic effects of rear impact guards on fuel consumption due to paucity of information on this matter. We seek comment on whether aerodynamic effects due to the presence of a rear impact guard would increase or 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43675 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
36‘‘Heavy trailers’’ are at least 2032 mm (80 
inches (in)) wide and have a GVWR greater than 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb). 37http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/ _
layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-13-017. Last accessed on March 24, 2015. 
38This ANPRM assumes that tape would be used 
as the countermeasure on SUTs. 
39The requirement was not applied retroactively 
to vehicles manufactured before July 1, 1997. 40The document is available to the public 
through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. 
41A tractor-trailer combination was defined as a 
truck tractor pulling one or more trailers, i.e., tractor 
with semi-trailer, full trailer, or two trailers. decrease fuel consumption and by how 
much. 
7. The fuel economy for SUTs was 
obtained from a 2012 market report by Oakridge National Laboratories. However, this report did not distinguish the miles per gallon for different classes of SUTs. We seek more refined information on the fuel economy for different class SUTs so as to refine the cost-benefit analysis. 
8. SUTs with equipment in the rear 
(in the zone where the guard would be located) were excluded from the cost- benefit analysis of a requirement for the guard. We seek comment on whether rear impact guards can be accommodated in such SUTs. 
9. We seek information that would 
help us determine the feasibility, benefits, and costs associated with improving the performance of CMVSS No. 223 guards in low overlap crashes. ‘‘Overlap’’ refers to the portion of the striking passenger vehicle’s width overlapping the underride guard. 
V. Amending FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,’’ to Improve the Conspicuity of SUTs 
NHTSA seeks to improve safety not 
just when there is a crash but by reducing the likelihood of a crash occurring in the first place. This is especially important in preventing the types of fatal crashes that NHTSA is addressing in this ANPRM, where most of the fatalities occur in crashes that are either at high speeds that render the crash unsurvivable, or, conversely, involve comparatively minor to no underride but are nevertheless fatal because of other factors, most prominently the presence of unbelted occupants. One strategy relevant to the crashes addressed in today’s ANPRM, NHTSA has for years mandated that heavy trailers and truck tractors be equipped with red-and-white tape (‘‘retroreflective tape,’’ ‘‘conspicuity tape,’’ or ‘‘tape’’) under FMVSS No. 108. In this ANPRM, the agency requests comments that would help NHTSA assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts of amending FMVSS No. 108 to require retroreflective material on the rear and sides of SUTs to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to other motorists. The retroreflective material would be the same as tape now placed on the rear and sides of heavy trailers
36 
and the rear of truck tractors pursuant to FMVSS No. 108 (S8.2.3). This ANPRM is consistent with the National 
Transportation Safety Board recommendation (H–13–017)
37that the 
agency amend FMVSS No. 108 to include a conspicuity tape requirement for SUTs with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. 
The purpose of retroreflective tape is 
to increase the visibility of heavy trailers and truck tractors to other motorists, especially in the dark. At those times, the tape brightly reflects other motorists’ headlights and warns them that they are closing on a large vehicle. In the dark, without the tape, many trailers and truck tractors do not become visible to other road users until motorists are dangerously close. The alternating red-and-white pattern identifies the vehicle as a large vehicle and at the same time helps other road users gauge their distance and rate of approach. 
FMVSS No. 108’s conspicuity 
requirement for heavy trailers applies to vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1993. Two types of material are permitted by the standard: (a) retroreflective sheeting, or tape; and (b) reflex reflectors. A combination of the two types is also permissible. Retroreflective tape has been used almost exclusively for meeting the standard.
38Essentially, the 
retroreflective tape must outline the bottom of the sides of the trailers and the top corners, bottom and underride guard of the rear of the trailers. When the agency issued the final rule adopting the requirement, NHTSA estimated the requirement would be 15 percent effective in preventing nighttime fatalities and injuries resulting from crashes to the sides and rear of trailers. 
In 1996, NHTSA amended FMVSS 
No. 108 to extend the conspicuity requirements to truck tractors 
manufactured on or after July 1, 1997.
39 
Because truck tractors riding bobtail (without pulling a trailer) have poorer rear-end conspicuity compared to trailers, NHTSA used a 15 to 25 percent range to estimate fatality and injury- prevention effectiveness for truck tractors to reflect a potentially greater effectiveness of a conspicuity countermeasure on the vehicles compared to trailers. 
In the first part of this section, the 
agency discusses a 2001 NHTSA evaluation that found conspicuity tape to be ‘‘quite effective’’ in reducing side and rear impacts by other vehicles into 
heavy trailers in dark conditions. In the second part, based on the findings of effectiveness of the 2001 evaluation and certain assumptions, NHTSA provides preliminary estimates of the cost and benefits of requiring new SUTs to have conspicuity tape. In the third part, the agency requests comments on the data collection techniques used in the 2001 evaluation, NHTSA’s assumptions in applying the findings of that evaluation to SUTs, and other issues. 
a. 2001 NHTSA Evaluation 
In 2001, NHTSA issued an evaluation 
of the effectiveness of retroreflective 
tape in reducing side and rear impacts by other vehicles into heavy trailers during dark conditions. (‘‘The Effectiveness of Retroreflective Tape on Heavy Trailers,’’ March 2001, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 222.
40) 
Because the crash data at the time (FARS, NASS, or State files) did not identify whether crash-involved heavy trailers had retroreflective tape, NHTSA entered into arrangements with the Florida Highway Patrol and the Pennsylvania State Police to collect data for an analysis. For a two-year period, each time these State agencies investigated a crash involving a tractor- trailer combination
41and filed a crash 
report, they also filled out an ‘‘Investigator’s Supplementary Truck- Tractor Trailer Accident Report’’ on every trailer in the crash. 
The Florida Highway Patrol collected 
6,095 crash cases from June 1, 1997, through May 31, 1999. The Pennsylvania State Police collected 4,864 crash cases from December 1, 1997, through November 30, 1999. NHTSA’s analysis estimated the reduction of side and rear impacts by other vehicles into conspicuity tape- equipped trailers in dark conditions, relative to the number that would have been expected if the trailers had not been equipped. The analysis tabulated and statistically analyzed crash involvements of tractor-trailers by three critical parameters: (1) whether the 
trailer was tape-equipped; (2) the light condition, i.e., dark (comprising ‘‘dark- 
not-lighted,’’ ‘‘dark-lighted,’’ ‘‘dawn’’ and ‘‘dusk’’) versus daylight; and (3) relevant versus control-group crash involvements. 
Given that the tape can help the other 
driver see and possibly avoid hitting the trailer, NHTSA determined that relevant 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
42‘‘The Effectiveness of Retroreflective Tape on 
Heavy Trailers,’’ March 2001, NHTSA Technical 
Report, DOT HS 809 222, supra. 43Crashes into the rear and side of SUTs were 
identified by initial contact point (values ranging from 2 o’clock to 10 o’clock) and damaged area (left, right, and/or back) field in FARS data files. 
44U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and 
Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. The survey sample includes about 131,000 trucks surveyed to measure the characteristics of nearly 73 million trucks registered in the U.S. crash involvements were those in which 
another vehicle crashed into the side or rear of a tractor-trailer combination. The control group consisted of single-vehicle crashes of tractor-trailers (where visibility of the tractor-trailer to other road users is not an issue at all) and impacts of the front of the tractor into other vehicles (where conspicuity of the 
side and rear of the trailer is also not an issue). 
The principal conclusion of the study 
was that retroreflective tape is quite effective, and that it significantly reduces side and rear impacts into heavy trailers in the dark. 
Other findings and conclusions are as 
follows: 
•Annual benefits: When all heavy 
trailers have conspicuity tape, the tape will be saving an estimated 191 to 350 lives per year, preventing approximately 3,100 to 5,000 injuries per year, and preventing approximately 7,800 crashes per year, relative to a hypothetical fleet in which none of the trailers have the tape. 
•Crash reductions by lighting 
conditions: In dark conditions (combining the subsets of ‘‘dark-not- lighted,’’ ‘‘dark-lighted,’’ ‘‘dawn,’’ and ‘‘dusk’’), the tape reduces side and rear impacts into heavy trailers by 29 percent. The reduction is statistically significant (confidence bounds: 19 to 39 percent). 
•The tape is by far the most effective 
in dark-not-lighted conditions. The tape reduces side and rear impacts into heavy trailers by 41 percent. The reduction is statistically significant (confidence bounds: 31 to 51 percent). 
•In dark-lighted, dawn, and dusk 
conditions, the tape did not significantly reduce crashes. The tape also did not significantly reduce crashes during daylight. 
The following effectiveness estimates 
are the percentage reductions of various subgroups of the side and rear impacts into heavy trailers in dark conditions. As stated above, tape reduces these crash involvements by 29 percent, overall. 
•Conspicuity tape is especially 
effective in preventing the more severe crashes, specifically, injury crashes. Impacts resulting in fatal or nonfatal injuries to at least one driver are reduced by 44 percent. 
•The tape is more effective when the 
driver of the impacting vehicle is under 50. The crash reduction is 44 percent when the driver of the impacting vehicle is 15 to 50 years old, but only 20 percent when that driver is more than 50 years old. A possible explanation of this difference is that older drivers are less able to see, recognize and/or react to the tape in time to avoid hitting the trailer. 
•The tape may be somewhat more 
effective in preventing rear impacts (43 percent) than side impacts (17 percent) into trailers; however, this difference is not consistent in the two States. 
•The tape is effective in both clear 
(28 percent) and rainy/foggy weather conditions (31percent). 
•The tape is especially effective on 
flatbed trailers (55 percent). It could be that these low-profile vehicles were especially difficult to see in the dark before they were treated with tape. 
•Dirt on the tape significantly 
diminished tape effectiveness in rear impacts. Clean tapereduces rear impacts by 53 percent but dirty tape by only 27 percent. 
These findings are evidence that large 
trailers are difficult to see in dark not lighted conditions and that conspicuity tape improves their visibility and reduces crashes in a dramatic way. Large trailers and large SUTs share a common general appearance and standard lighting requirements (with the exception of tape, which is required on large trailers, but is optional on SUTs). As such, the agency believes that the dramatic increase in safety that has been observed in trailers because of conspicuity tape may also be realized for SUTs. However, while the general appearance and standard lighting equipment is similar for large trailers and large SUTs, the agency recognizes that differences in visibility may exist between the two vehicle types that could result in a different effectiveness for tape applied to SUTs than has been observed thus far in large trailers. The agency seeks comment on such potential differences and the best way to accurately estimate the effectiveness that tape can be expected to have on SUT crash risk. 
b. NHTSA’s Preliminary Estimate of 
Cost and Benefits of Requiring Tape on SUTs 
NHTSA has preliminarily examined 
the cost and benefits of requiring new SUTs (SUTs with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) to have and maintain retroreflective tape on the sides, rear, and upper corners of the vehicles, based on the findings of the agency’s 2001 evaluation
42of the 
effectiveness of retroreflective tape on heavy trailers. In our analysis, we only considered vehicle crashes into the rear and side of SUTs in dark-not-lighted conditions and used the same effectiveness (41 percent) of retroreflective tape in dark-not-lighted conditions for heavy trailers. Our analysis is discussed in this section. 
To obtain a preliminary look at the 
potential value of conspicuity tape on SUTs, the agency examined fatal crashes involving SUTs over a four-year period (2010 through 2013). We estimate that there was an average of 34 fatalities annually in crashes into SUTs for which conspicuity tape could be an effective countermeasure in terms of assisting to avoid or mitigate these crashes. The 34 fatalities occurred in vehicle crashes in dark not lighted conditions into the rear and sides
43of SUTs. These are the 
conditions for which conspicuity tape was shown to be 41 percent effective in mitigating crashes into trailers. Among these 34 fatalities, 21 occurred in crashes where the front end of a vehicle impacted the rear end of an SUT. 
As described above, conspicuity 
systems on trailers were most effective in dark-not-lighted condition for side and rear impacts. The target population for the conspicuity systems can be established considering dark-not-lighted crashes for which the SUT is struck in the sides or rear. If we assume an effectiveness of 41 percent (based on the observed effectiveness of these systems on heavy trailers) to these fatalities, we can establish a rough estimate of 14 fatalities annually could be prevented by the application of conspicuity systems to SUTs. 
Preliminary Estimate of Cost 
NHTSA made a preliminary estimate 
of the cost of requiring new SUTs to 
have conspicuity tape. The cost of installing the tape was calculated based on the cost of the material itself and the cost to install the tape. 
The cost of the material depends on 
the length of tape needed for SUTs, which depends on the vehicles’ size. NHTSA evaluated data from a U.S. Department of Commerce ‘‘Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey’’ (VIUS),
44 
which is a random sample survey of physical and operational characteristics of private and commercial trucks and truck-tractors registered or licensed in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 
The 1997 VIUS survey data, which is 
the most recent data available, indicates 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43677 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
45See http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/
docs/VSL%20Guidance _2013.pdf. The guidance 
starts with a $9.1 million VSL in the base year of 
2012 and then estimates a 1.07 percent increase in VSL each year after the base year to reflect the estimated growth rate in median real wages for the next 30 years. that the weighted average length of 
SUTs from the front bumper to the rear of the vehicle is 1029 cm (33 feet (ft), 9 inches (in)). A survey of SUTs by NHTSA indicates that the average length from the front bumper to the end of the cab is 229 cm (7 ft, 6 in). Assuming a requirement would not apply conspicuity tape to the front cab length of SUTs, the average length that would be covered by conspicuity tape is 800 cm (26 ft, 3 in). In addition, 244 cm (8 ft) of tape would be applied along the width of the SUT at the rear of the vehicle, and two pairs of 30 cm (1 ft) strips would be applied to outline the upper rear of the SUT. The total length of tape applied to an average SUT is estimated to be 1164 cm (38 ft, 2 in). 
We estimate that the 2-inch wide 
conspicuity tape can be purchased by SUT single-stage manufacturers for about $0.53 per linear foot. The distributors that sell the tape to smaller fleets mark up the cost of the tape from about 15 percent to 30 percent, which amounts to $0.61 to $0.69 per linear foot. NHTSA used $0.61 per linear foot for the cost (the average of $0.53 and $0.69) of the conspicuity tape. 
As for the cost to apply the tape, 
NHTSA estimated in the final regulatory evaluation for the FMVSS No. 108 conspicuity rulemaking that 30 minutes is needed to apply conspicuity tape on all categories of trailers. NHTSA has also assumed that it would take 30 minutes to apply the tape to SUTs at an hourly rate of $22.20 per hour. 
This yields labor costs of $11.10 (for 
30 minutes labor) to apply tape to 50 percent of the length of the sides and the entire rear width and upper rear corners of an average SUT (a total of 1164 cm (38 ft, 2 in) of tape. Tape cost is estimated at $0.61 per linear foot (or per 30.48 cm), resulting in an estimated cost of tape at $23.28 per SUT. The total cost for labor and materials is estimated at ($23.28 + $11.10) x 1.51 consumer markup = $51.91 per SUT. (1.51 is the standard markup NHTSA uses to go from variable costs (labor and material) to consumer costs. The 1.51 markup includes fixed costs, manufacturer profit and dealer markups.) 
NHTSA estimates that 578,631 new 
Class 3–8 trucks (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) are sold annually. Thus, the total consumer costs required for applying conspicuity tape to new SUTS is estimated to be approximately $30.0 million annually ($51.91 x 578,631 = $30,036,735). TABLE 4—A NNUAL COST OF APPLYING  
RETROREFLECTIVE TAPE TO THE  
SIDES, REAR, AND UPPER CORNERS  
OFNEWSUT S 
Cost Per Vehicle ...................... $51.91 
Annual sales of Class 3–8 
SUTs in 2012.578,631 
Total Cost All applicable new 
SUTs.$30.0 million 
Preliminary Estimate of Benefits 
NHTSA made a preliminary estimate 
of the benefits of requiring new SUTs to 
have conspicuity tape. The benefit of the tape is a reduction in the number of crashes and severity of injuries, although in this preliminary analysis we examined fatal crashes only. While any future analysis by the agency would include injuries and property damage, our preliminary evaluation demonstrates the potential for conspicuity tape to be a cost effective solution in preventing and/or mitigating crashes involving SUTs. 
NHTSA analyzed the Fatality 
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data files for the years 2010 through 2013. The analysis determined that on average 34 lives per year are lost annually in vehicles striking the sides or rear of SUTs in dark-not-lighted conditions (see Table 5). If conspicuity systems are as effective in these crashes as they have been on heavy trailer crashes, there is a potential to prevent 14 fatalities a year. 
TABLE 5—P RELIMINARY BENEFITS OF  
CONSPICUITY SYSTEMS ON SUT S 
Target Population ..................... 34 
Effectiveness ............................ 41% 
Fatalities Prevented .................. 14 
Estimated Cost Per Fatality Prevented 
The estimated costs per fatality 
prevented for a retroreflective tape requirement for SUTs are shown in Table 6. 
TABLE 6—C OST PER FATALITY  
PREVENTED  
3 percent 
Total Cost ................................. $30 Million 
Fatality Prevented .................... 14 
Cost/Fatality Prevented ............ $2.1 million 
Guidance from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation45identifies $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to 
be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary estimates for conspicuity systems on SUTs ($2.1 million per fatality prevented) is a strong indicator that these systems will be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million). 
VI. Request for Comment on Requiring 
Retroreflective Tape on SUTs 
NHTSA requests comments that 
would help the agency assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts of requiring SUTs to have retroreflective tape. In providing a comment on a particular matter or in responding to a particular question, interested persons are asked to provide any relevant factual information to support their opinions, including, but not limited to, statistical and cost data and the source of such information. For easy reference, the questions below are numbered consecutively. 
1. The agency assumed retroreflective 
tape would be 41 percent effective in preventing side and rear crashes into SUTs in dark-not-lighted conditions, based on the effectiveness NHTSA found for the tape in reducing side and rear impacts into heavy trailers. We seek comment on this effectiveness estimate. How effective are conspicuity systems at reducing crashes when applied to SUTs? Are there effectiveness studies specific to SUTs or statistical methods that could provide evidence that the effectiveness will be similar to that observed on heavy trailers? 
2. While some fleet operations may be 
voluntarily applying conspicuity tape to their SUTs, our current crash databases do not include information on whether an SUT involved in a crash has conspicuity tape. The agency seeks input on ways that our analysis can better account for the voluntary installation of tape on SUTs. 
3. Should all types of SUTs (box 
trucks, tow trucks, dual-wheeled pickups, etc.) be required to have conspicuity tape or only particular types of SUTs? What are the distinguishing characteristics of an SUT that make conspicuity tape needed? 
4. What would be the cost of applying 
conspicuity tape on SUTs, including installation and materials? 
5. Does conspicuity tape need to be 
replaced during the lifetime of the vehicle? How often and what sections of the vehicle need reapplication of conspicuity tape? 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
46FMCSA is delegated the authority to 
promulgate safety standards for commercial motor 
vehicles and equipment already in use when the standards are not based upon and similar to an FMVSS. 49 CFR 1.87. 47Since the definition of wheels back and low 
chassis vehicles in 393.86(b) allows more vehicles to be excluded from requiring rear impact guards than CMVSS No. 223, when SUTs are required to comply with CMVSS No. 223, a larger percentage would need to have rear impact guards. This is 
further explained in Appendix A. 6. Are there any reasons that the 
agency should consider different 
patterns of application for SUTs as compared to trailers (different colors or locations)? 
7. Should conspicuity tape be 
required on both the sides and the rear of the applicable SUTs, or should the agency consider application of the tape on the rear only? 
8. Should NHTSA consider requiring 
current vehicles to be retrofitted with conspicuity tape? In March 1999, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) directed motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce to retrofit heavy trailers manufactured before December 1993 with some form of conspicuity treatment by June 1, 2001. In 2000, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was established to perform motor carrier safety functions and operations, and authority for issuing and enforcing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations was transferred to FMCSA. In 2000, NHTSA was delegated authority to promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment already in use when the standards are based upon and similar to 
an FMVSS. See 49 CFR 1.95.
46 
VII. Rulemaking Analyses 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
The agency has considered the impact 
of this ANPRM under Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 and the Department of Transportation’s regulatory policies and procedures. 
In this ANPRM, the agency requests 
comments that would help NHTSA assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts, of strategies that increase the crash protection to occupants of vehicles crashing into the rear of SUTs and/or that increase the likelihood of avoiding a crash into SUTs. Strategies discussed in this ANPRM are possible amendments to the FMVSSs to: (a) expand FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, to require upgraded guards on SUTs; and (b) amend FMVSS No. 108, to require the type of retroreflective material on the rear and sides of SUTs that is now required to be placed on the rear and sides of heavy trailers to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to other motorists. 
The agency has made preliminary 
estimates of the costs and benefits of the two above strategies. NHTSA requests comments on these estimates. Information from the commenters will help the agency further evaluate the course of action NHTSA should pursue in this rulemaking on SUTs. 
On Requiring SUTs to Have Underride 
Guards 
A requirement for SUTs to comply 
with CMVSS No. 223 would require 59 percent of newly manufactured SUTs to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards.
47The estimated 
incremental minimum to average cost of equipping newly covered SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards ranges from $307 to $453 per vehicle. The total annual fleet cost of equipping new SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards ranges from $105 million to $155 million. The estimate of minimum to average additional weight of equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards is 76.8 kg (169 lb) to 95.5 kg (210 lb) per vehicle. The estimate of minimum additional fuel cost during the lifetime of the vehicle due to the additional weight of the guard ranges from $316 million to $514 million. Therefore, the total minimum to average annual cost (including fuel costs) of requiring SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards is estimated to be $421 million to $669 million. 
For estimating the benefits of 
requiring SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards, NHTSA estimated the annual number of fatalities in light vehicle rear impact crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. The real world data indicated that there are annually 33 light vehicle occupant fatalities in impacts into the rear of SUTs that resulted in PCI. Only 30 percent of these impacts are at closing speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph) for which CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards could prevent PCI. 
The benefits analysis also included an 
estimate of the annual number of injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. Non-PCI crashes were not considered as part of the target population for estimating benefits. This is because the IIHS test data (see Appendix B to this preamble) show that when PCI was prevented, the dummy injury measures were significantly below the injury assessment reference values specified in FMVSS No. 208. In non-PCI crashes into the rear of SUTs and trailers, the IIHS test data indicated that the passenger vehicle’s restraint system would mitigate injury. 
The benefits analysis in Appendix A 
estimates the equivalent lives saved (ELS) from a requirement for SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards. The ELS are approximately 5.7 to 6.3 lives. The cost per ELS (3 and 7 percent discounted) is $106.7 million to $164.7 million, for each equivalent life saved. A summary of the analysis estimating incremental costs, benefits, and cost per equivalent lives saved is shown below in Table 7. 
TABLE 7—E STIMATES OF MATERIAL , INSTALLATION , ANDFUELCOSTS OF EQUIPPING APPLICABLE SUT S(CLASS 3–8) 
WITHCMVSS R EAR IMPACT GUARDS , RESULTING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS OF LIVES SAVED AND INJURIES PRE-
VENTED , ANDCOSTPEREQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED  
Material + Installation + Fuel Costs 
Minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guard per SUT ....................................... $307–$453. 
Number of SUTs needing guards annually ........................................................................... 341,392. 
Total incremental cost of CMVSS guards in SUT fleet ........................................................ $104.9M–$154.6M. 
Minimum to average incremental weight of CMVSS guard per SUT ................................... 169 lb–210 lb. 
Minimum to average incremental lifetime fuel cost per SUT ................................................ $924.7–$1,505.3. 
Minimum to average incremental fuel cost for SUT fleet ..................................................... $316M–$514M. 
Total minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guards +fuel for SUT fleet ............ $421M–$669M. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43679 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE 7—E STIMATES OF MATERIAL , INSTALLATION , ANDFUELCOSTS OF EQUIPPING APPLICABLE SUT S(CLASS 3–8) 
WITHCMVSS R EAR IMPACT GUARDS , RESULTING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS OF LIVES SAVED AND INJURIES PRE-
VENTED , ANDCOSTPEREQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED —Continued 
Benefits Estimates 
Target Population (light vehicle occupant fatalities in crashes with PCI into the rear of ap-
plicable SUTs) average to high injury estimates.20 lives; 99–182 MAIS 1 injuries; 33–82 MAIS 2 and 
17–27 MAIS 3–5 injuries. 
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS guards .......................................................................... 0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for injuries. 
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted) average to high estimates ....................................... 5.7–6.3. 
Equivalent lives saved (3% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 4.4–4.9. 
Equivalent lives saved (7% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 3.3–3.7. 
Cost/Benefit Analysis 
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3% discount) ..................................................................... $106.7M–$152. 9M. 
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7% discount) ..................................................................... $113.9M–$164. 7M. 
On Requiring SUTs to Have 
Retroreflective (Conspicuity) Tape 
NHTSA made a preliminary estimate 
of the cost of requiring new SUTs to 
have conspicuity tape. The cost of installing the tape was calculated based 
on the cost of the material itself and the cost to install the tape. The total cost for labor and materials is estimated at $23.28 + $11.10 x 1.51 consumer markup = $51.91 per SUT. NHTSA estimates that 578,631 new Class 3–8 trucks (GVWR > 10,000 lb) are sold annually. Thus, the total consumer costs required for applying conspicuity tape to new SUTs is estimated to be approximately $30.0 million annually ($51.91 x 578,631 = $30,036,735). 
NHTSA made a preliminary estimate 
of the benefits of requiring new SUTs to have conspicuity tape. The agency estimates that a requirement would prevent 14 fatalities. The estimated costs per fatality prevented for a retroreflective tape requirement for SUTs are shown in Table 8. 
TABLE 8—C OST PER FATALITY  
PREVENTED  
3 percent 
discounted 
Fatality Prevented .................... 14 
Cost/Fatality Prevented ............ $2.1 million 
Regulation Identifier Number 
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. 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: 
•Have we organized the material to 
suit the public’s needs? 
•Are the requirements in the rule 
clearly stated? 
•Does the rule contain technical 
language or jargon that isn’t clear? 
•Would a different format (grouping 
and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? 
•Would more (but shorter) sections 
be better? 
•Could we improve clarity by adding 
tables, lists, or diagrams? 
•What else could we do to make the 
rule easier to understand? 
If you have any responses to these 
questions, please write to us with your views. 
Privacy Act 
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 
DOT solicits comments from the public 
to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in 
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 
VIII. Submission of Comments How can I influence NHTSA’s thinking 
on this rulemaking? 
In developing this ANPRM, we tried 
to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rulemaking. We invite you to provide different views on options we discuss, new approaches we have not considered, new data, descriptions of how this ANPRM may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects 
of this ANPRM, but request comments on specific issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: 
—Explain your views and reasoning 
as clearly as possible. 
—Provide solid technical and cost 
data to support your views. 
—If you estimate potential costs, 
explain how you arrived at the estimate. 
—Tell us which parts of the ANPRM 
you support, as well as those with which you disagree. 
—Provide specific examples to 
illustrate your concerns. 
—Offer specific alternatives. 
—Refer your comments to specific 
sections of the ANPRM, such as the 
units or page numbers of the preamble. 
Your comments must be written and 
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 your comments to the 
docket electronically by logging onto http://www.regulations.gov or by the 
means given in the 
ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this document. 
Please note that pursuant to the Data 
Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 
Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB’s guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
48Earlier in the preamble, NHTSA requested 
comment on this analysis and posed a series of 
questions seeking information to help make the analysis more complete. For example, the agency noted that this analysis did not include the cost of changes to SUTs to accommodate CMVSS No. 223 
guards, such as strengthening of rear beams, frame rails, and the floor of vehicles, or cost resulting from the reduction in payload resulting from increased weight of the SUT due to installation of 
a CMVSS No. 223 guard. 
49Pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, horizontal 
discharge trailers, and some other types of trailers 
are excluded. 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 in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION  
CONTACT section. In addition, you 
should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the docket. 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 
the docket receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated in the 
DATES section. To the 
extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider it in developing the next step in this rulemaking, 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 the docket at the address given in the 
ADDRESSES section. You may also see 
the comments on the Internet (http://regulations.gov). 
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. 
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 (65 FR 19476 at 19477–78). 
Note: the following appendices will not 
appear in the CFR. 
Appendix A to Preamble—Cost-Benefit 
Evaluation of Requiring Single Unit Trucks (SUTs) to Have CMVSS No. 223 Guards 
Introduction 
This appendix provides NHTSA’s 
analysis of the cost and benefits of 
requiring new SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards. The analysis’s findings, which are discussed in detail in this appendix, are summarized in the following Table A–1.
48 
TABLE A–1—E STIMATES OF MATERIAL , INSTALLATION , ANDFUELCOSTS OF EQUIPPING APPLICABLE SUT SWITHCMVSS 
REARIMPACT GUARDS , RESULTING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS OF LIVES SAVED AND INJURIES PREVENTED , AND COST 
PEREQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED  
Material + Installation + Fuel Costs 
Minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guard per SUT ....................................... $307–$453. 
Number of SUTs needing guards annually ........................................................................... 341,392. 
Total incremental cost of CMVSS guards in SUT fleet ........................................................ $104.9M–$154.6M. 
Minimum to average incremental weight of CMVSS guard per SUT ................................... 169 lb–210 lb. 
Minimum to average incremental lifetime fuel cost per SUT ................................................ $924.7–$1,505.3. 
Minimum to average incremental fuel cost for SUT fleet ..................................................... $316M–$514M. 
Total minimum to average incremental cost of CMVSS guards + fuel for SUT fleet .......... $421M–$669M. 
Benefits Estimates 
Target Population (light vehicle occupant fatalities in crashes with PCI into the rear of ap-
plicable SUTs) average to high injury estimates.20 lives; 99–182 MAIS 1 injuries; 33–82 MAIS 2 and 
17–27 MAIS 3–5 injuries. 
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS guards .......................................................................... 0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for injuries. 
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted) average to high estimates ....................................... 5.7–6.3. 
Equivalent lives saved (3% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 4.4–4.9. 
Equivalent lives saved (7% discounted) average to high estimates .................................... 3.3–3.7. 
Cost Per Equivalent Lives Saved 
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3% discount) ..................................................................... $106.7M–$152. 9M. 
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7% discount) ..................................................................... $113.9M–$164. 7M. 
Estimating the Population of Covered 
SUTs 
Currently, rear impact protection for 
SUTs is regulated by FMCSR regulation 49 CFR 393.86(b), which requires that certain SUTs used in interstate commerce have a guard if there is no 
vehicle parts or equipment within the area where the rear impact guard 
location is prescribed. (The bottom plane of the area is not more than 762 mm (30 inches) above the ground, the forward-most plane of the area is not more than 610 mm (24 inches) forward of the rear extremity, and the lateral 
planes of the area are not more than 457 mm (18 inches) from the side extremity 
of the SUT.) 
CMVSS No. 223 requires rear impact 
guards on trailers
49that do not have 
equipment or vehicle parts within the area where the rear impact guard is prescribed to be located. (The bottom plane of the area is not more than 560 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43681 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
50Heavy-Vehicle Crash Data Collection and 
Analysis to Characterize Rear and Side Underride 
and Front Override in Fatal Truck Crashes, DOT HS 811 725, March 2013. mm (22 inches) above the ground, the 
forward-most plane of the area is not more than 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the rear extremity, and the lateral planes of the area are not more than 100 mm (4 inches) from the side extremity of the trailer.) 
The geometric requirements for the 
guards in CMVSS No. 223 are similar to that in FMVSS No. 224. The contrast between the geometric requirements of 
the guards in FMCSR 393.86(b) and CMVSS No. 223 is shown in Figure A– 1. 
The various underride guard 
standards exclude certain vehicles from 
their requirements due to reasons such as impediments to equipping a guard in a specified area or because the design of the vehicle renders a guard unnecessary to prevent underride. FMVSS No. 224 and CMVSS No. 223 have similar exclusions of vehicles, in contrast to 
FMCSA 393.86(b). For example, in FMCSR 393.86(b), a ‘‘wheels back vehicle’’ is one where the vehicle’s rearmost axle is not more than 610 mm forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle, while in FMVSS No. 224 and CMVSS No. 223, a ‘‘wheels back’’ trailer is one where the rearmost axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle. Another example is definitions of a ‘‘low chassis’’ vehicle. In FMCSR 393.86(b), a ‘‘low chassis vehicle’’ is one where the ground clearance of the bottom edge of the chassis which extends to the rearmost part of the vehicle is less than or equal to 762 mm, while in FMVSS No. 224 and CMVSS No. 223, a low chassis trailer is one where the ground clearance of the bottom edge of the chassis which extends to the rearmost part of the vehicle is less than or equal to 560 mm. If NHTSA were to require SUTs to comply with CMVSS No. 223, then some SUTs that were previously 
excluded by the FMCSR from having guards because they were considered wheels back or low chassis vehicles under FMCSR 393.86(b) would no longer qualify as wheels back or low chassis vehicles under CMVSS No. 223. These vehicles therefore would have to be equipped with rear impact guards in accordance with CMVSS No. 223. 
UMTRI
50evaluated the rear geometry 
of SUTs involved in fatal crashes in the 2008 and 2009 TIFA data files and estimated that 38 percent of SUTs were configured so as to be included under FMCSA 393.86(b) based on vehicle design, as shown below in Table A–2. However, UMTRI estimated that only 18 percent of SUTs were equipped with rear impact guards. The remaining 20 percent of the SUTs that appeared, based on vehicle design, to be included in the requirement to have a guard but did not have one, likely were not used in interstate commerce and so not covered by FMCSR 393.86(b). TABLE A–2—P ERCENTAGE OF SUT S 
BYTHEIR REAR GEOMETRY AND  
WHETHER A REAR IMPACT GUARD  
WAS REQUIRED ACCORDING TO  
UMTRI’ SEVALUATION OF SUT SIN-
VOLVED IN FATAL CRASHES IN THE  
2008–2009 TIFA D ATAFILES 
Type of rear geometry Percentage 
of SUTs 
Rear Impact Guard Required: 
Guard present ....................... 18 
Guard not present ................. 20 
Rear Impact Guard Not Re-
quired: 
Excluded vehicle ................... 8 
Wheels back vehicle ............. 27 
Low chassis vehicle .............. 9 
Wheels back and low chassis 
vehicle ............................... 2 
Equipment ............................. 16 
NHTSA examined the rear geometry 
of SUTs in the 2008 and 2009 TIFA data 
files from the 2013 UMTRI study to determine the vehicles that would need to have rear impact guards in accordance with CMVSS No. 223 and the vehicles that would be excluded (as within an excluded type of vehicle, i.e., wheels back, low chassis, rear equipment, special vehicles). The examination (Table A–3) shows that 59 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.005</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
51UMTRI estimated that although 38 percent of 
the SUTs involved in fatal crashes were required to 
have rear impact guards (based on the truck rear geometry according to FMCSR 393.86(b)), only 18 percent were equipped with them. It is likely that the remaining 20 percent of the SUTs that were configured so as not to be considered among the 
vehicles excluded from FMCSA 393.86(b) based on vehicle design, but that did not have a guard, were 
not used in interstate commerce. 
52Ward’s Automotive group, ISBN Number 978– 
0–910589–31–4, Southfield, MI 2013. http://wardsauto.com/. 
53Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center 
for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge, TN http://cta.ornl.gov/vtmarketreport/heavy _
trucks.shtml. 
54I.e., these vehicles would be required to be 
equipped with rear impact guards meeting CMVSS 
No. 223. 
55Cost and weight analysis for rear impact guards 
on heavy trucks, Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0066– 0086, June 2013. percent of SUTs would need rear impact 
guards according to CMVSS No. 223. 
Since UMTRI’s evaluation (Table A– 
2) indicates that only 18 percent of 
SUTs that had a rear geometry that did not outwardly qualify as an excluded 
vehicle under FMCSR 393.86(b) had guards,
5118 percent of SUTs (those now 
with guards meeting FMCSR 393.86(b)) would need upgraded CMVSS No. 223 guards, and 41 percent (= 59 –18) of SUTs now without rear impact guards would need CMVSS No. 223 guards. 
TABLE A–3—P ERCENTAGE OF SUT SB Y THEIR REARGEOMETRY IN THE 2008–2009 TIFA D ATAFILES AND WHETHER A  
GUARD WOULD BEREQUIRED ACCORDING TO CURRENT FMCSR 393.86(b) S PECIFICATIONS AND TO CMVSS N O. 
223 S PECIFICATIONS  
Type of rear geometry Classification per 
FMCSR 393.86(b) 
(percent) Classification per 
CMVSS No. 223 
(percent) 
Rear impact guard required ..................................................................................................... .................... 38 59 
Wheels back and/or low chassis vehicle ......................................................................................... ............ 38 20 
Equipment in rear and/or excluded vehicle ...................................................................................... ........... 24 21 
The agency evaluated SUTs of Classes 
3 to 8 (SUTs with a GVWR greater than 
10,000 lb) as shown in Table A–4 for upgrading to CMVSS No. 223 requirements. The annual truck sales for 2012 were obtained from the Ward’s Automotive Yearbook 2013 by the Ward’s Automotive Group
52and are 
presented in Table A–5. 
TABLE A–4—SUT C LASSIFICATION AND EXAMPLES53—W EIGHT CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FROM 49 CFR 565, ‘‘V EHICLE  
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (VIN) R EQUIREMENTS ’’ 
Vehicle class Weight range 
(lb) Examples 
3 .............................. 10,000–14,000 ....................................... Walk-In, Box Truck, City Delivery, Heavy-Duty Pickup. 
4 .............................. 14,001–16,000 ....................................... Large Walk-In, Box Truck, City Delivery. 
5 .............................. 16,001–19,500 ....................................... Bucket Truck, Large Walk-In, City Delivery. 
6 .............................. 19,501–26,000 ....................................... Beverage Truck, Rack Truck. 
7 .............................. 26,001–33,000 ....................................... Refuse truck, Furniture truck. 
8 .............................. 33,001 and over .................................... Cement Truck, Dump Truck. 
TABLE A–5—A NNUAL SALES OF SUT S 
IN2012 
SUT Class Sales in 2012 
3 ............................................ 232,755 
4 ............................................ 9,431 
5 ............................................ 54,898 
6 ............................................ 39,978 
7 ............................................ 46,854 
8 ............................................ 194,715 
Total Class 3–8 truck sales 
in 2012 = ........................... 578,631 
The total sales volume of SUTs of 
Class 3–8 in 2012 was 578,631. Assuming that the classification of SUTs in the 2008–2009 TIFA data files as shown in Table A–3 is representative of the SUT fleet, then 59 percent of the SUTs sold annually would require CMVSS No. 223 guards. Therefore, applying CMVSS No. 223 to SUTs would affect approximately 341,692 (= 0.59 × 578,631) SUTs sold annually.
54 
Costs 
Cost of Rear Impact Guards 
In 2013, NHTSA conducted a study to 
develop cost and weight estimates for 
rear impact guards on heavy trailers.55 
Using the cost estimates for rear impact guards obtained from this study, in this section we estimate the cost of equipping SUTs with the guards. 
In the 2013 study, the researchers 
estimated the cost and weight of FMCSR 393.86(b) rear impact guards, FMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards, and CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards (Table A–6). All costs are presented in 2012 dollars. In estimating the cost and weight of 
guards, an engineering analysis of the guard system for each trailer was conducted, including material 
composition, manufacturing and construction methods and processes, component size, and attachment methods. We note, however, that the authors did not take into account the construction, costs, and weight changes in the trailer structure that would be needed to withstand loads from the stronger guards. Thus, a limitation of this analysis is the fact that the authors did not evaluate the changes in design of the rear beam, frame rails, and floor of the trailer when replacing a rear impact guard compliant with FMCSR 393.86(b) with an FMVSS No. 224 compliant guard and then to a CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43683 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
56$234 is the lowest incremental cost to upgrade 
from an FMCSR 393.86(b) guard to a CMVSS No. 223 guard and $379 represents the average 
incremental cost. 57$339 is the lowest incremental cost to upgrade 
from no guard to a CMVSS No. 223 guard and $485 
represents the average incremental cost. TABLE A–6—C OST(2012 D OLLARS ) ANDWEIGHT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF REARIMPACT GUARDS  
Type of rear impact guard Trailer model year/Make Guard 
assembly Installation 
cost Total 
cost Weight 
(lb) 
FMCSR 393.86(b) ............................. 1993 Great Dane ............................. $64.35 $41.31 $105.66 78 
FMVSS No. 224 ................................ 2001 Great Dane ............................. 150.97 108.14 259.11 172 
CMVSS No. 223 ............................... 2012 Great Dane ............................. 188.36 151.00 339.36 193 
2012 Manac ..................................... 297.62 245.09 542.72 307 
2012 Stoughton ................................ 244.38 219.11 463.49 191 
2012 Wabash ................................... 440.49 152.93 593.42 243 
The average cost of a CMVSS rear 
impact guard is $485, which is $226 
more than an FMVSS No. 224 guard and $379 more than an FMCSR 393.86(b) guard. In comparing the Great Dane rear impact guards, the 2012 Great Dane guard (the least expensive CMVSS No. 223 guard studied) is $234 more expensive than the 1993 guard (FMCSR 393.86(b) guard). 
NHTSA used the incremental cost of 
$234 to $379
56(from Table A–6) to 
estimate costs of upgrading SUTs presently with FMCSR 393.86(b) guards to CMVSS No. 223 guards. The agency 
used the incremental cost of $339 to $485
57(from Table A–6) to estimate 
costs of equipping SUTs presently without guards with CMVSS No. 223 guards. These incremental costs do not take into account additional construction, costs, and weight changes needed in the SUT structure to withstand loads from the upgraded guards. Thus, the agency believes that the lower cost estimates may not represent the true incremental cost of equipping SUTs with rear impact guards. An analysis was therefore also conducted using the average incremental costs. 
In the new SUT fleet, 18 percent of 
the fleet now equipped with FMCSR 
guards would be upgraded to CMVSS guards, and 41 percent of the fleet now without guards would need CMVSS guards. Therefore, the weighted incremental cost of CMVSS guards for applicable SUTs is $307 to $453, as shown in Table A–7. 
TABLE A–7—E STIMATING THE WEIGHTED INCREMENTAL COST OF EQUIPPING CMVSS N O. 223 G UARDS ON APPLICABLE  
SUT S 
Cost 
Minimum cost of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a1) = ........................................................................... ..................................... $339 
Average cost of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a2) = ........................................................................... ....................................... 485 
Incremental minimum cost of CMVSS guard over FMCSR guard (b1) = ................................................................ ........................... 234 
Incremental average cost of CMVSS guard over FMCSR guard (b2) = ................................................................ ............................ 379 
Percentage of SUTs that have FMCSR guards and would need CMVSS guards (c1) = ................................................... ............... 18% 
Percentage of SUTs that do not have guards and would need CMVSS guards (c2) = .................................................. .................. 41% 
Weighted minimum cost per SUT to equip Canadian guard (c1*b1+c2*a1)/(c1+c2) = .................................................. .................... 307 
Weighted average cost per SUT to equip Canadian guard (c1*b2+c2*a2)/(c1+c2) = .................................................. ..................... 453 
Based on these data, the agency 
estimated the total annual incremental material and installation cost of 
requiring new applicable SUTs to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards (shown in Table A–8). 
TABLE A–8—A NNUAL INCREMENTAL MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION COST OF REQUIRING CMVSS N O. 223 G UARDS ON  
NEWSUT S 
Lower bound Average 
Total Number of SUTs Needing CMVSS Guards (a) ................................................................................. 341,692 
Incremental Cost of CMVSS Guard (b) ............................................................................................ ........... $307 $453 
Total cost for truck fleet (a × b) ............................................................................................................ $104,942,055 $154 ,619,794 
Lifetime Fuel Costs 
Using the data in Table A–6, the 
average weight of a CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard is 234 lb, which is 156 lb greater than an FMCSR 393.86(b) guard. In comparing the Great Dane rear impact guards, the 2012 Great Dane 
guard is 115 lb heavier than the 1993 Great Dane guard. 
In the new SUT fleet, 18 percent 
equipped with FMCSR guards would be upgraded to CMVSS guards and 41 percent without any guards would need 
CMVSS guards. The weighted incremental increase in the weight of SUTs was obtained in a similar manner as the weight incremental cost shown in Table A–9. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
58Data from Oakridge National Laboratories 
(ORNL) market report at http://cta.ornl.gov/
vtmarketreport/pdf/chapter3_ heavy_ trucks.pdf (see 
Figure 78 on page 100). 59This standard formula for estimating the impact 
of marginal weight increases on fuel economy is based on light vehicle data. However, it is the best available method for estimating changes in fuel economy due to weight increases at this time and 
so is used here for heavy vehicles. TABLE A–9—E STIMATING THE WEIGHTED INCREMENTAL WEIGHT INCREASE OF EQUIPPING CMVSS N O. 223 C OMPLIANT  
GUARDS ON APPLICABLE SUT S 
Weight (lb) 
Minimum weight of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a1) = ......................................................................... .................................... 193 
Average weight of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a2) = ......................................................................... ..................................... 234 
Incremental minimum weight of CMVSS guard over FMCSR guard (b1) = .............................................................. ......................... 115 
Incremental average weight of CMVSS guard over FMCSR guard (b2) = .............................................................. .......................... 156 
Percentage of SUTs that have FMCSR guards and would need CMVSS guards (c1) = ................................................... ............... 18% 
Percentage of SUTs that don’t have guards and would need CMVSS guards (c2) = ................................................... .................... 41% 
Weighted minimum weight increase per SUT to equip Canadian guard (c1*b1+c2*a1)/(c1+c2) = ....................................... ............ 169 
Weighted average weight increase per SUT to equip Canadian guard (c1*b2+c2*a2)/(c1+c2) = ....................................... .............. 210 
Therefore, the minimum to average 
increased weight of equipping CMVSS 
guards for applicable SUTs is 169 lb to 210 lb. The added weight would increase the fuel consumption costs during the lifetime of the vehicle, costs that have to be discounted to present rate to determine the total present value annual cost of equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards. The vehicle miles of travel and the 
fuel economy for heavy vehicles is 
shown in Table A–10. 
TABLE A–10—A NNUAL VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL AND FUELECONOMY PER SUT (2008 TO2011)58 
2008 2009 2010 2011 
Average miles traveled per SUT ..................................................................... 15,306 14,386 13,469 13,239 
Average fuel economy per SUT (mpg) ............................................................ 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 
Using the base fuel economy of 7.3 
miles per gallon (mpg) shown in Table A–10 for the year 2011, the reduced new 
fuel economy for Class 3–8 SUTs due to the minimum to average added weight of 169 lb–210 lb (for CMVSS No. 223 guards) was computed (as shown in Table A–11) using the standard 
formula:
59 
New fuel economy = (base vehicle 
weight/[base vehicle weight + added weight]) 
∧0.8* (base fuel economy) 
The average weight of Class 3, Class 
4–6, Class 7, and Class 8 SUTs (shown in Table A–11) was estimated from 
Table A–4. The average weight of Class 4–6 SUTs was weighted by their 
respective sales volume shown in Table A–5. The average weight of Class 8 (weight range 33,001 and over) trucks was assumed to be 40,000 lb. 
TABLE A–11—E STIMATING NEWFUELECONOMY (MPG) USING THE STANDARD FORMULA  
SUT Class Average 
weight 
(lb) Average 
weight + 169 
lb Average 
weight + 210 
lb Base fuel 
economy 
(mpg) New fuel 
economy 
(+169 lb) 
(mpg) New fuel 
economy 
(+210 lb) 
(mpg) 
3 ............................................................... 12,000 12169 12210 7.3 7.218686 7.199288 
4–6 ........................................................... 19418 19587 19628 7.3 7.249507 7.237390 
7 ............................................................... 29500 29669 29710 7.3 7.266675 7.258652 
8 ............................................................... 40000 40169 40210 7.3 7.275390 7.269455 
The method of deriving discount rates 
is presented in Table A–12 for Class 3 SUTs as an example. The 3 percent and 
7 percent discount rates for Class 3, Class 4–6, Class 7, and Class 8 SUTs are summarized in Table A–13. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43685 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.008</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSTable A-12. Derivation of discount rates (for Class 3 SUTs as an example). 
Age VMT 
1 30222 
2 29072 
3 27966 
4 26901 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 25878 24893 
23945 
23034 
22158 
21314 
20503 
19723 
18972 
18250 
17556 
16888 
16245 
15627 
15032 
14460 13910 
13380 
12871 12381 
11910 
11457 
11021 
10601 10198 
9810 
9437 
9077 
8732 8400 
8080 Surv. Wgt. VMT% of VMT 
1 30222 7.98% 
1 29072 7.67% 
0.997 
0.992 
0.983 
0.969 
0.951 
0.929 
0.901 
0.869 
0.832 
0.791 
0.746 
0.698 
0.648 
0.596 
0.543 
0.49 
0.438 0.388 0.339 
0.294 
0.251 0.212 
0.177 
0.146 
0.119 
0.095 0.075 
0.059 
0.045 
0.034 
0.025 
0.019 
0.013 27882 
26686 
25438 
24121 
22772 
21399 
19964 
18522 
17058 
15601 
14153 
12739 
11376 
10065 
8821 
7657 
6584 
5610 
4715 
3934 
3231 
2625 
2108 
1673 
1311 
1007 
765 
579 
425 
309 
218 
160 
105 
378907 7.36% 
7.04% 
6.71% 
6.37% 
6.01% 
5.65% 5.27% 
4.89% 
4.50% 
4.12% 
3.74% 
3.36% 
3.00% 
2.66% 
2.33% 
2.02% 
1.74% 
1.48% 1.24% 
1.04% 
0.85% 
0.69% 
0.56% 
0.44% 
0.35% 
0.27% 0.20% 
0.15% 
0.11% 
0.08% 
0.06% 
0.04% 
0.03% 
1.000 3% 
0.9853 
0.9566 
0.9288 
0.9017 7% 
0.9667 
0.9035 
0.8444 
0.7891 
0.8755 0.7375 
0.85 0.6893 
0.8252 
0.6442 
0.8012 0.602 
0.7778 0.5626 
0.7552 
0.5258 
0.7332 0.4914 
0.7118 0.4593 0.6911 0.4292 
0.671 0.4012 
0.6514 0.3749 
0.6324 0.3504 
0.614 0.3275 
0.5961 0.306 
0.5788 0.286 
0.5619 
0.2673 
0.5456 0.2498 
0.5297 0.2335 
0.5142 0.2182 
0.4993 0.2039 
0.4847 0.1906 
0.4706 0.1781 
0.4569 0.1665 0.4436 
0.1556 
0.4307 0.1454 
0.4181 0.1359 
0.4059 0.127 
0.3941 0.1187 
0.3826 0.1109 
0.3715 0.1037 
0.3607 0.0969 Weighted Weighted 
3% 
0.079 
0.073 
0.068 
0.064 
0.059 
0.054 
0.050 
0.045 
0.041 
0.037 
0.033 
0.029 
0.026 
0.023 
0.020 
0.017 
0.014 
0.012 
0.010 
0.008 0.007 
0.005 
0.004 0.003 
0.003 
0.002 
0.002 
0.001 0.001 
0.001 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.7917 7% 
0.077 
0.069 
0.062 
0.056 
0.050 
0.044 
0.039 
0.034 
0.030 
0.026 
0.022 
0.019 
0.016 
0.013 
0.011 
0.009 
0.008 
0.006 
0.005 
0.004 0.003 
0.002 
0.002 0.001 
0.001 
0.001 
0.001 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.000 
0.6120 43686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
60Annual Energy Outlook 2014, U.S. Energy 
Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/
forecasts/aeo/. 61http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/
State_ Motor_ Fuel_ Excise_ Tax_ Update.pdf. The overall discount rate for Class 3– 
8 SUTs was determined as the weighted 
average of the discount rates shown in Table A–13 (weighted by the sales 
volume shown in Table A–5). 
TABLE A–13—D ISCOUNT RATES FOR CLASS 3, C LASS 4–6, C LASS 7, ANDCLASS 8 SUT S AND THE DISCOUNT RATES  
FOR THE AGGREGATE CLASS 3–8 
[Weighted by sales volume] 
Discount rate Class 3 Class 4–6 Class 7 Class 8 Overall dis-
count rate 
(Class 3–8 
weighted 
average) 
3 Percent .............................................................................. 0.79165 0.78643 0.77162 0.74705 0.77408 
7 Percent .............................................................................. 0.61196 0.60759 0.58533 0.54827 0.58758 
The cost of diesel fuel during the 
lifetime of an SUT (2017 to 2051) was 
obtained from the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 AEO2014 worksheet in 2012 dollars.
60The tax for diesel fuel (estimated at $0.54 per gallon) was obtained from the American Petroleum Institute (API).
61The calculation for the 
incremental lifetime cost of fuel due to minimum increase in weight of the vehicle (169 lb) due to installing 
CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards is shown in Table A–14 for Class 3 SUTs as an example. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43687 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
Tables A–15(a) and A–15(b) present 
the summary analysis for determining 
the total incremental lifetime fuel cost of equipping Class 3–8 SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards that results in increase in SUT weight by a minimum of 169 lb to an average of 210 lb. The discounted incremental lifetime fuel cost per SUT for the different class SUTs shown in columns 2 and 3 of Table A–15(a) and Table A–15(b) was obtained as shown in Table A–14 for Class 3 SUTs. The annual number of SUTs in each class requiring CMVSS No. 223 guards was estimated to be 59 percent (as shown in Table A–3) of the annual sales volume. The total minimum incremental fuel cost for each SUT class (last two columns of Table A– 15(a)) is the product of the number of SUTs of the class requiring CMVSS No. 223 guards and the increased fuel cost per SUT for that Class of SUTs (e.g. for 
Class 3 SUTs with 169 lb weight increase, 3 percent discounted total minimum incremental fuel costs = $1,513.02 × 137,446). A similar analysis 
of total average incremental fuel cost for average weight increase of 210 lb is shown in Table A–15(b). 
The total minimum incremental fuel 
cost for all SUTs (second to last row in Table A–15(a)) is the sum of the total 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.009</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43688 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
62The incremental fuel costs at 3 percent and 7 
percent discounting include tax for diesel fuel. minimum incremental fuel cost for each 
SUT class shown in the last two columns of Table A–15(a). The average incremental fuel cost per SUT for all Class 3–8 SUTs (last row in Table A– 15(a)) with 169 lb weight increase is obtained by dividing the total minimum incremental fuel cost for the annual SUT fleet by the total number of SUTs with CMVSS guards (e.g. for 3 percent 
discount, average incremental fuel cost per SUT (Class 3–8) = $1,212 = $414,129,456/341,692). The average 
incremental fuel cost per SUT for all Class 3–8 SUTs with 210 lb weight increase is shown in Table A–15(b). 
TABLE A–15—I NCREMENTAL LIFETIME FUELCOSTS PER SUT, S ALES VOLUME PER SUT C LASS, ANNUAL NUMBER OF  
SUT SREQUIRING CMVSS N O. 223 G UARDS , TOTAL INCREMENTAL FUELCOSTS BY CLASS OF SUT AND FOR ALL 
SUT SREQUIRING CMVSS G UARDS , AND THE INCREMENTAL FUELCOST PER CLASS 3–8 SUT S 
[(a) (For weight increase = 169 lb)] 
Class Increased minimum lifetime fuel 
cost per SUT (169 lb weight in-
crease) Annual sales 
volume SUTs that 
would have 
CMVSS No. 
223 guards Total minimum incremental 
lifetime fuel costs (169 lb 
weight increase) 
3 percent 7 percent 3 percent 7 percent 
3 ............................................................... $1,513.02 $1,169.59 232,755 137,446 $207,958,428 $160,754,780 
4–6 ........................................................... 1,345.48 1,039.50 104,307 61,595 82,875,115 64,028,366 
7 ............................................................... 1,004.81 762.22 46,854 27,668 27,801,137 21,089,132 
8 ............................................................... 830.51 609.53 194,715 114,983 95,494,776 70,085,316 
Total Number of SUTs with CMVSS guards = 341,692 
Total minimum incremental fuel cost for Class 3–8 SUTs proposed to have CMVSS guards = 414,129,456 315,957,594 
Average minimum incremental fuel cost per Class 3–8 SUTs proposed to have CMVSS guards = 1,212.00 924.69 
[(b) (For weight increase = 210 lb)] 
Class Increased average lifetime fuel 
cost per SUT (210 lb weight in-
crease) Annual sales 
volume SUTs that 
would have 
CMVSS No. 
223 guards Total average incremental life-
time fuel costs (210 lb weight 
increase) 
3 percent 7 percent 3 percent 7 percent 
3 ............................................................... $1,879.01 $1,452.50 232,755 137,446 $258,261,947 $199,640,105 
4–6 ........................................................... 1,671.16 1,291.12 104,307 61,595 102,935,155 79,526,524 
7 ............................................................... 1,248.11 946.78 46,854 27,668 34,532,905 26,195,655 
8 ............................................................... 1,031.65 757.15 194,715 114,983 118,622,180 87,058,930 
Total Number of SUTs with CMVSS guards= 341,692 
Total average incremental fuel cost for Class 3–8 SUTs proposed to have CMVSS guards= 514,352,187 392,421,214 
Average incremental fuel cost per Class 3–8 SUTs 1,505.31 1,148.46 
The weighted minimum incremental 
increase in lifetime fuel cost per SUT 
(for Class 3–8 SUTs) at 3 percent discounting is $1,212 and that at 7 percent discounting is $924.7.
62The 
weighted average incremental increase in lifetime fuel cost per SUT (for Class 3–8 SUTs) at 3 percent discounting is $1,505 and that at 7 percent discounting is $1,148.5. The total minimum 
incremental increase in lifetime fuel cost in the Class 3–8 SUT fleet is $414.1M a 3 percent discount rate and $315.9M at 7 percent discount rate. The total average incremental increase in lifetime fuel cost in the Class 3–8 SUT fleet is $514.3M a 3 percent discount rate and $392.4M at 7 percent discount 
rate. 
Table A–16 presents the total fleet 
incremental cost (sum of incremental equipment and installation cost in Table A–8 and fuel cost in Table A–15) to the new applicable SUTs to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards. 
TABLE A–16—T OTAL INCREMENTAL FLEET COST OF EQUIPPING APPLICABLE NEWSUT SWITHCMVSS N O. 223 R EAR 
IMPACT GUARDS (EQUIPMENT /INSTALLATION COST IN TABLE A–8 + M INIMUM FUELCOST IN TABLE A–15) 
Equipment + in-
stallation costs Fuel cost Total costs 
3% 7% 3% 7% 
Low Estimate ......................................... $104,942,055 $414,129,456 $315,957,594 $519,071,511 $420,899,649 
Average Estimate ................................... 154,619,794 514,352,187 392,421,214 668,971,981 547,041,007 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43689 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
63Allen, Kirk, ‘‘An In-Service Analysis of 
Maintenance and Repair Expenses for the Anti-Lock Brake System and Underride Guard for Tractors and 
Trailer,’’ March 2009, DOT HS 811 109. NHTSA estimated an average 
maintenance and repair expense for a 
rear impact guard over the vehicle’s lifetime of $15.
63This maintenance and 
repair cost is relatively small compared to the lifetime fuel cost and was not taken into consideration in the present analysis. Reduced revenue from reduced payload of commercial operations due to increase in vehicle weight was not taken into consideration because the percentage of SUTs that are currently operating at their GVWR limit is not known. Taking into consideration the reduced revenue that could result from increase in vehicle weight would further increase the cost of requiring rear impact guards on SUTs. Therefore, this analysis is a conservative estimate of the 
cost. 
Benefits 
For estimating the benefits of 
requiring covered SUTs to be equipped 
with CMVSS No. 223 guards, NHTSA estimated the annual number of fatalities in light vehicle rear impact crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. Additionally, NHTSA estimated the 
annual number of injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. Non-PCI crashes were not considered as part of the target population for estimating benefits. This is because the IIHS test data (see Appendix B to the preamble) show that when PCI was prevented, the dummy injury measures were significantly below the injury assessment reference 
values specified in occupant crash protection standards. In non-PCI crashes into the rear of SUTs and trailers, the IIHS test data indicated that the passenger vehicle’s restraint system would mitigate injury. 
Among the 104 light vehicle occupant 
fatalities resulting from impacts with 
the rear of SUTs, 80 occurred in impacts with SUTs without rear impact guards while the remaining 24 were in impacts to SUTs with guards. PCI was associated with 33 annual light vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from impacts into the rear of SUTs; 25 of these fatalities were in impacts with SUTs without rear impact guards and 8 with SUTs with guards (see Figure A–2 below). 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.006</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
64Transport Canada testing of minimally 
compliant CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards 
indicated that such guards could prevent PCI in light vehicle impacts with full overlap of the guard at crash speeds up to 56 km/h. See Boucher D., David D., ‘‘Trailer Underride Protection—A Canadian Perspective,’’ SAE Paper No. 2000–01– 3522. 
65Overlap refers to the percentage of impacting 
vehicle front end width that engages the rear impact guard. 66CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards 
may mitigate the severity of impact into the rear of 
SUTs at speeds greater than 56 km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this possible benefit at this time. We seek comment on this issue. 
67The agency’s 2010 study—‘‘The Effectiveness 
of Underride Guards for Heavy Trailers,’’ October, 2010, DOT HS 811 375—estimated an effectiveness of 27 percent from data collected in Florida and 83 percent from data collected in North Carolina for FMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards in preventing fatalities. These two estimates are considerably different and not statistically significant, possibly due to small sample size, and so associated with some uncertainty. Therefore, these effectiveness estimates were not utilized in the current analysis. Instead the agency relied on real world crash data and the test data to estimate rear impact guard effectiveness. 
68Review of 2009 TIFA data files of light vehicle 
impacts with PCI into the rear of SUTs indicated that only 55 percent of the fatally injured occupants were restrained. As explained earlier in this analysis, 
if CMVSS No. 223 were to apply to 
SUTs, 59 percent of new SUTs would be required to have a CMVSS No. 223 guard (see Table A–3, supra). The 41 
percent of SUTs that would be excluded from meeting CMVSS No. 223 requirements would be wheels back and low chassis vehicles that have vehicle structure in the rear that could prevent PCI or vehicles with equipment in the 
rear for which installing rear impact guards may not be practicable and may 
interfere with equipment operation. Since the extent of underride was determined by the extent of deformation and intrusion of the vehicle, based on our examination of TIFA cases it is likely that some light vehicle crashes into the rear of excluded SUTs that resulted in PCI did not actually underride the truck but sustained PCI because of other circumstances such as 
crash speed or short front end of the vehicle. Therefore, the target population 
of light vehicle occupant fatalities with PCI which may be addressed by equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards is estimated to be 19.5 (=33 × 0.59). 
Approximately 30 percent of the 
impacts into the rear of SUTs with PCI 
are less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph) (See Figure A–3 below). 
While CMVSS No. 223 requirements 
are intended for mitigating PCI in light 
vehicle rear impacts at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph),
64CMVSS 
No. 223 rear impact guards may not be able to mitigate all fatalities in such crashes because some of the crashes may be low overlap (30 percent or less).
65The IIHS data indicated that 8 of 
the 9 CMVSS No. 223 guards were not able to prevent PCI in a 56 km/h crash with 30 percent overlap of a Chevrolet Malibu. Also, the guards may not be able to prevent fatalities even if PCI is prevented because some fatalities may not be a result of PCI but are due to other circumstances (e.g. unrestrained 
status of occupants, elderly and other vulnerable occupants) which would be unaffected by an improved rear impact 
guard.
66 
For the purpose of this analysis, 
NHTSA assumed that CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards on SUTs would be able to prevent about 85% of light vehicle occupant fatalities with PCI in impacts into the rear of SUTs at crash speeds less than or equal to 35 mph. However, since only 30 percent of the target population of light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs are at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h, CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards 
would only be effective for a portion of the target population. Therefore NHTSA estimated an overall effectiveness of 25 percent (≈30% × 85%) for CMVSS No. 
223 rear impact guards in preventing fatalities in light vehicle crashes into the rear of SUTs.
67We believe this is an upper estimate of CMVSS No. 223 guard effectiveness in preventing fatalities.
68 
In the final regulatory evaluation for 
the January 24, 1996 final rule establishing FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 (61 FR 2004), NHTSA assumed an effectiveness range of 10 to 25 percent for rear impact guards in preventing fatalities in crashes with PCI (all speeds) into the rear of trailers. The 25 percent effectiveness estimated for the current analysis (based on 2008–2009 TIFA data and the IIHS crash test data) is the higher value of the assumed effectiveness range of rear impact guards in the 1996 final rule. 
To estimate the incidence and 
characteristics of nonfatal injuries to light vehicle occupants in impacts to the rear of SUTs resulting in underride, the 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1
EP23JY15.007</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43691 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
69MAIS is the maximum severity injury for an 
occupant according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 
(AIS). MAIS 1 is of minor severity, MAIS 2 of moderate severity, MAIS 3–5 are serious to critical injuries, MAIS 7 are injuries of unknown severity. 70As noted earlier, CMVSS No. 223 compliant 
rear impact guards may mitigate the severity of 
impact into the rear of SUTs at speeds greater than 56 km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this possible benefit at this time. We seek comment on 
this issue. 
71Blincoe, L., et al., The Economic Impact of 
Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000, Washington, DC, DOT 
HS 809 446, May 2002 agency analyzed the NASS–CDS data 
files for the years 1999–2012. Specifically, the cases examined were light vehicle frontal impacts into the rear of SUTs with a GVWR greater than or equal to 10,000 lb, where the light vehicle underrides the SUT resulting in PCI of the windshield or A-pillar of the 
light vehicle. 
The analysis showed that rear 
underride crashes of a light vehicle into the rear of SUTs with a non-fatal injury to light vehicle occupants represent only 0.3 percent of the population of all crashes involving SUTs. The analysis estimated annualized weighted injuries of different severity levels in light vehicle impacts into the rear of SUTs resulting in underride with PCI. Table A–17 presents the results of this analysis of 1999–2012 NASS–CDS data files. There were a total of 150 injuries of MAIS 1–5 severity. 
TABLE A–17—MAIS69INJURY DISTRIBUTION AND ANNUALIZED WEIGHTED ESTIMATES OF INJURIES TO LIGHT VEHICLE  
OCCUPANTS IN FRONTAL IMPACTS INTO THE REAR OF SUT SWITHUNDERRIDE RESULTING PCI. (1999–2012 NASS– 
CDS D ATAFILES) 
MAIS level Occupant 
count Weighted 
count Annualized 
weighted 
count 95% confidence interval for annualized weighted 
count Percent of 
total 
1 .................................... 13 1,398 99 (17, 182) ............................................................... 66 
2 .................................... 5 459 33 (0, 82) ................................................................... 21.7 
3 .................................... 9 145 10 (1, 20) ................................................................... 6.8 
4 .................................... 2 105 7 sample too small .................................................. 5 
5 .................................... 0 0 0 sample too small .................................................. 0 
7 .................................... 1 11 1 sample too small .................................................. 0.5 
Total ....................... 30 2,118 151 (57, 245) ............................................................... 100 
NHTSA examined each case 
individually to obtain more information 
about the injuries. The files showed that many of the injuries shown in Table A– 17 were not directly attributable to PCI resulting from underride. For example, one case involved a passenger van with six separate injured occupants. Only two of these injured passengers were seated in the front row were subject to possible injury from PCI. Thus, we believe that Table A–17 likely provides 
an overestimate of the number of annual light vehicle occupant injuries resulting from SUT underride with PCI. 
NHTSA assumed 20 percent 
effectiveness in preventing injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the 
rear of SUTs. CMVSS No. 223 guards are effective in mitigating PCI in light vehicle impacts into the rear of SUTs at speeds less or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph), which is about 30 percent of all such impacts with PCI.
70Additionally, 
we expect the effectiveness of rear impact guards for preventing injuries to be lower than that for fatalities since occupant injuries could occur from interior vehicle contacts even if PCI is prevented. The 20 percent effectiveness estimate takes into consideration that CMVSS No. 223 requirements are intended for mitigating PCI in light vehicle rear crashes (with greater than 30 percent overlap) at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph). It also takes into account that some injuries are due to circumstances (e.g. unrestrained 
status of occupants, elderly and other vulnerable occupants) which would not be affected by an improved rear impact guard. 
Table A–18 presents the target 
population (estimated fatalities and injuries addressable by CMVSS No. 223 guards on applicable SUTs), the effectiveness estimates, and the estimated benefits of equipping applicable SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards. 
TABLE A–18—T ARGET POPULATION , EFFECTIVENESS , ANDBENEFITS ESTIMATES  
Fatality MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 
Target population (a) ............................... 19.5 99 33 10 7 0 
Effectiveness (b) ...................................... 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
Benefits (a × b) ........................................ 4.9 19.8 6.6 2 1.4 0 
NHTSA monetized the benefits, 
converting nonfatal injuries into 
portions of a fatality to calculate the number of equivalent fatalities (equivalent lives saved) (ELS) that are 
prevented by SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards. This involves dividing the value of each injury severity category by the value of fatality to determine how 
many injuries equal a fatality. Comprehensive values, which include both economic impacts and loss of quality (or value) of life considerations, 
developed by NHTSA
71were used to 
determine the relative value of nonfatal injuries to fatalities. The comprehensive costs and the relative fatality ratio 
developed by NHTSA for each injury severity are listed in Table A–19. The reported costs are in 2000 dollars, but the relative values between injuries and fatalities would not change if costs are adjusted to present value. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43692 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
72Note that this analysis uses low and average 
estimates of the costs, and average and high estimates of the benefits of equipping CMVSS No. 
223 compliant guards on applicable SUTs. TABLE A–19—C OMPREHENSIVE COSTS AND RELATIVE FATALITY RATIOS  
Injury severity Comprehen-
sive costs 
(2000 $) Relative 
fatality ratio 
MAIS 1 ......................................................................................................................... ............................................ 15,017 0.0028 
MAIS 2 ......................................................................................................................... ............................................ 157,958 0.0436 
MAIS 3 ......................................................................................................................... ............................................ 314,204 0.0804 
MAIS 4 ......................................................................................................................... ............................................ 731,580 0.1998 
MAIS 5 ......................................................................................................................... ............................................ 2,402,997 0.6656 
Fatality ....................................................................................................................... .............................................. 3,366,388 1.0000 
Table A–20 presents the 
undiscounted ELS using the relative 
fatality ratios shown in Table A–19. 
TABLE A–20—U NDISCOUNTED EQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED (ELS) U SING AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANNUALIZED INJURIES IN  
TABLE A–15 
Fatality MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 
Fatality/injury reduced .............................. 4.9 19.8 6.6 2 1.4 0 
Relative fatality ratio ................................ 1 0.0028 0.0436 0.0804 0.1998 0.6656 
ELS .......................................................... 4.9 0.0554 0.2878 0.1608 0.2797 0.0000 
Total ELS .......................................... 5.65 ........................ ........................ ....................... . ........................ ........................
Since there is some uncertainty in the 
target population of injuries, the upper 
bound 95 percent confidence interval estimates of the weighted injury counts shown in Table A–17 were also considered in estimating benefits and total equivalent lives as shown in Table 
A–21. 
TABLE A–21—T ARGET POPULATION , BENEFITS , ANDUNDISCOUNTED EQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED USING THE UPPER BOUND  
OFINJURY ESTIMATES IN TABLE A–17. 
Fatality AIS 1 AIS 2 AIS 3 AIS 4 AIS 5 
Fatality+max injury (a) ............................. 19.5 182 82 20 7 0 
Effectiveness (b) ...................................... 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 
Benefits (a x b) ........................................ 4.9 36.4 16.4 4 1.4 0 
Relative fatality ratio ................................ 1 0.0028 0.0436 0.0804 0.1998 0.6656 
ELS .......................................................... 4.9 0.1019 0.7150 0.3216 0.2797 0.0000 
Total ELS .......................................... 6.29 ........................ ........................ ....................... . ........................ ........................
Since fatalities and injuries occur 
during the lifetime of the vehicle, they 
are discounted to present value using the discount rates determined in Table 
A–13. The 3 percent and 7 percent discounted benefits in terms of ELS are presented in Table A–22. 
TABLE A–22—3 AND7 PERCENT DISCOUNTED ELS 
Discount rate Undiscounted 3% 7% 
Discount Factors (from Table A–10) ........................................................................................... .. ...................... 0.7741 0.5876 
Total ELS from Table A–18 (using average injury estimates) .................................................... 5.65 4.37 3.32 
Total ELS from Table A–19 (using upper bound of injury estimates) ........................................ 6.29 4.87 3.69 
The cost per equivalent lives saved 
was determined using the total costs in Table A–16 and the discounted ELS in 
Table A–22 and is presented in Table A–23. The cost per ELS is in the range of $106.7 million to $164.7 million.
72 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43693 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
73See http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/
docs/VSL%20Guidance _2013.pdf. The guidance 
starts with a $9.1 million VSL in the base year of 
2012 and then estimates a 1.07 percent increase in VSL each year after the base year to reflect the estimated growth rate in median real wages for the next 30 years. 
74Details of the tests and test results are available 
at Brumbelow, M.L., ‘‘Crash Test Performance of Large Truck Rear Impact Guards,’’ 22nd International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), 2011. http://www- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv22/22ESV- 000074.pdf. 
75HII 50M dummy injury measures are those 
applicable to current model passenger vehicles as 
specified in FMVSS No. 208, see http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=77e2aab5d088f2e9b46d15606090f9b0&
node=se49.6.571_ 1208&rgn=div8. 
76When PCI was prevented by the rear impact 
guard, the accelerations on the vehicle are higher which results in higher chest injury measures. TABLE A–23—C OSTS PER ELS AT3 PERCENT AND 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES  
Benefits (average) Benefits (high) 
3 percent discount rate 
Total cost (low estimate) ...................................................................................................... ....................... $118,658,542 $106,679,764 
Total cost (average estimate) .................................................................................................. .................... 152,925,441 137,487,362 
7 percent discount rate 
Total cost (low estimate) ...................................................................................................... ....................... 126,755,433 113,959,260 
Total cost (average estimate) .................................................................................................. .................... 164,743,353 148,112,236 
Guidance from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation73identifies $9.1 million 
as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to 
be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. The cost per ELS of a rule to require SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards ($106.7 million to $164.7 million) is far greater than the current VSL ($9.2 million). 
Appendix B to Preamble—Summary of 
IIHS’s Evaluation of Rear Impact Guards 
In 2011, IIHS published results of 
crash tests in which the front of a model year (MY) 2010 Chevrolet Malibu (a midsize sedan) impacted the rear of trailers equipped with a rear impact 
guard (full overlap of the rear impact guard with the front end of the Sedan).
74 
A 50th percentile male Hybrid III 
dummy (HIII 50M) was in each of the front outboard seating positions of the Malibu. Two trailer/guard designs (2007 Hyundai and 2011 Wabash trailers) were evaluated. The two guard designs were certified to FMVSS No. 223 requirements, and the Wabash also met the more stringent CMVSS No. 223 requirements. A 2010 Chevrolet Malibu was crashed into a trailer at 56 km/h (35 mph). 
The test results showed that the full 
overlap 56 km/h (35 mph) crash test of 
the Malibu with the guard of the Hyundai trailer (built to only FMVSS No. 223 requirements) resulted in catastrophic underride (underride almost to the B-pillar) with PCI of the Chevrolet Malibu. On the other hand, the rear impact guard on the Wabash 
trailer, also certified to meet CMVSS No. 223 requirements, prevented PCI in 35 mph crash tests. 
Table B–1 summarizes the results of 
the initial two IIHS 56 km/h (35 mph) full-width crash tests. In the first test, the 2007 Hyundai guard was ripped from the trailer’s rear cross member early in the crash, allowing the Malibu to underride the trailer almost to the B- pillar. The heads of both dummies were struck by the hood of the Malibu as it deformed against the rear surface of the 
trailer. Under the same test conditions, the main horizontal member of the 2011 Wabash guard bent forward in the center but remained attached to the vertical support members, which showed no signs of separating from the trailer chassis. 
TABLE B–1—R ESULTS OF IIHS I NITIAL ROUND OF 56 KM/HCRASH TESTS OF THE 2010 C HEVROLET MALIBU INTO THE  
REAR OF TRAILERS  
Conditions Trailer Guard performance Underride Max. longitu-
dinal A-pillar 
deformation 
(cm) 
100% overlay ......................... 2007 Hyundai ......................... Attachments failed ................. Catastrophic ...... ..................... 80 
2011 Wabash ......................... Good ...................................... None ...................................... 0 
Table B–2 summarizes the peak injury 
measures75of the HIII 50M dummies in 
the front seating positions of the Malibu. 
For comparison purposes, Table B–2 also presents the HIII 50M dummy injury measures in the full frontal 56 km/h rigid barrier crash test of the 2010 Chevrolet Malibu conducted as part of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Head injury measures recorded by the dummies in the tests with severe underride were much higher than those reported for the Malibu’s NCAP rigid wall test at the same speed. Chest acceleration and deflection measures were generally higher in tests without PCI than those with PCI.
76The driver 
and passenger injury measures in the 
Malibu full overlap crash test with the Wabash trailer (where the guard prevented PCI) was similar to the injury measures in the Malibu NCAP frontal crash test. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS43694 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 141 / Thursday, July 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE B–2—IIHS I NITIAL ROUND OF TESTING —INJURY MEASURES OF DUMMIES IN FRONT SEATING POSITIONS OF THE  
MALIBU  
Test Head resultant 
acceleration 
(g) Head injury 
criterion (15 
ms) Chest 
resultant 
acceleration (3 
ms clip, g) Chest 
displacement 
(mm) Left femur 
force (kN) Right femur 
force (kN) 
Injury Assessment Reference Values ...... 700 60 g 63 mm 10(kN) 10(kN) 
Full-width ... Hyundai ..... Driver ........ 128 754 21 19 0.3 0.3 
Passenger 107 557 14 20 0.1 0.1 
Wabash ..... Driver ........ 54 328 36 38 2.2 1.2 
Passenger 50 319 36 37 2.3 1.8 
NCAP (rigid 
wall).Driver ........
Passenger49 55 330 389 43 42 40 
32 2.0 0.5 1.2 0.8 
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 
Raymond R. Posten, 
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 
[FR Doc. 2015–17973 Filed 7–22–15; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration 
50 CFR Part 300 
[Docket No. 150122068–5068–01] 
RIN 0648–BE84 
International Fisheries; Western and 
Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Effort and Catch Limits and Other Restrictions and Requirements 
AGENCY : National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 
ACTION : Proposed rule; proposed 
specifications. 
SUMMARY : NMFS proposes and seeks 
comments on a proposed rule and proposed specifications to be issued under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act). The proposed rule would establish a framework under which NMFS would specify limits on fishing effort and catches, as well as spatial and temporal restrictions on particular fishing activities and other requirements, in U.S. fisheries for highly migratory fish species in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). NMFS would issue the specifications as needed to implement conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission or WCPFC). The proposed rule also would require that certain U.S. fishing vessels operating in the WCPO obtain ‘‘IMO numbers.’’ The proposed rule also includes changes to regulations regarding tuna catch retention requirements for purse seine vessels, requirements to install and carry vessel monitoring system (VMS) units, daily reporting requirements, and other changes that are administrative in nature. 
Using the proposed regulatory 
framework described above, NMFS proposes restrictions on the use of fish aggregating devices by purse seine vessels in 2015. 
These actions are necessary to satisfy 
the obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, to which it is a Contracting Party. 
DATES : Comments on the proposed rule 
or proposed specifications must be submitted in writing by August 7, 2015. 
ADDRESSES : You may submit comments 
on the proposed rule, proposed specifications, and the regulatory impact review (RIR) prepared for the proposed rule and proposed specifications, identified by NOAA– NMFS–2015–0072, by either of the following methods: 
•Electronic submission: Submit all 
electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 0072, 
2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 
complete the required fields, and 
3. Enter or attach your comments. 
—OR— 
•Mail: Submit written comments to 
Michael D. Tosatto, Regional 
Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 
Instructions: Comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, might not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name and address), 
confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). 
An initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) prepared under authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in the Classification section of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY  
INFORMATION section of this document. 
Copies of the RIR and the 
programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) prepared for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes are available at www.regulations.gov or may be obtained 
from Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see address above). 
Written comments regarding the 
burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see address above) and by email to OIRA_ Submission@omb.eop.gov or 
fax to 202–395–7285. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Tom 
Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808–725–5032. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Background on the Convention 
The Convention on the Conservation 
and Management of Highly Migratory 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:18 Jul 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS