Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Notices 39899 

ACTION: Notice of the creation of the 

MMUCC Committee. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA has led the 

development of the Model Minimum 

Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) since 

the first edition was published in 1998. 

NHTSA announces that it will form a 

MMUCC Committee to inform the 

development and revision of the 

MMUCC Guideline, sixth edition. The 

MMUCC Committee’s objectives are: (1) 

to exchange views, information, and 

advice to further refine the collection of 

motor vehicle crash data and (2) to 

exchange views, information, and 

advice on institutional barriers 

preventing MMUCC implementation. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

bearing the Federal Docket Management 

System Docket ID NHTSA–2022–0047 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal rulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Send comments to: Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: Written comments may be 

faxed to (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: If you plan to 

submit written comments by hand or 

courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Please submit all comments to the 

Docket by September 6, 2022. 

Whichever way you submit your 

comments, please remember to mention 

the agency and the docket number of 

this document within your 

correspondence. Please note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comments (or signing the comments, 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 

19477–78) or you may visit https://

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information, please contact John Siegler, 

National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis, NHTSA (telephone: 202–366– 

1268 or email: john.siegler@dot.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

MMUCC Guideline identifies a 

voluntary, minimum set of motor 

vehicle crash data elements and their set 

of attributes that States can consider 

collecting and including on their law 

enforcement traffic crash report forms 

and in their electronic crash data 

systems. MMUCC promotes data 

uniformity within the highway safety 

community by creating a common 

foundation for State crash data systems 

to provide the information necessary to 

improve highway safety. Crash data is 

used to identify problems, determine 

highway safety messages and strategic 

communication campaigns, optimize 

the location of selective law 

enforcement, inform decision-makers of 

needed highway safety legislation, and 

evaluate the impact of highway safety 

countermeasures. NHTSA first 

published MMUCC with the Governors 

Highway Safety Association, Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, State and 

industry partners in 1998. The 

Guideline has been regularly updated to 

address emerging highway safety issues, 

with the most recent 5th Edition 

published in 2017. 

While MMUCC is a voluntary 

Guideline for States, the crash data that 

NHTSA obtains from the States feeds 

both the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) and the Crash Report 

Sampling System (CRSS), which are 

essential to traffic safety research by 

NHTSA as well as by other agencies. 

Therefore, it is critical that the 

recommended MMUCC data elements 

be designed with clarity, purpose, and 

efficiency. 

The MMUCC Committee will be 

comprised of employees of State, Local, 

or Tribal governments acting in their 

official capacity that collectively will 

represent government agencies that are 

stakeholders in the collection, 

management, and analysis of crash data. 

These employees will include law 

enforcement officers, data analysts, IT 

database administrators or managers, 

traffic records coordinating committee 

members, governors’ representatives for 

highway safety, and Federal liaisons. 

The MMUCC Committee will exist until 

NHTSA determines that it has fulfilled 

its mission, and Committee members 

will serve until they resign or are 

replaced by NHTSA. 

The intent of the MMUCC Committee 

will be for NHTSA to obtain information 

or viewpoints specific to the expertise of 

the Committee members on changes to 

the MMUCC Guideline. While MMUCC 

is a voluntary guideline for States, it is 

fundamental for NHTSA’s crash data 

programs and, therefore, important that 

MMUCC data elements and attributes 

agree with CRSS and FARS. NHTSA, in 

consultation with this Committee, 

intends to produce the next edition of 

the MMUCC Guideline. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 

2022 under authority delegated in 49 

CFR part 1.95. 

Chou-Lin Chen, 

Associate Administrator, National Center for 

Statistics and Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14240 Filed 7–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–055] 

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 

DP21–004 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

reasons for the denial of a petition 

submitted to NHTSA on September 14, 

2021, requesting that the agency 

investigate whether a defect related to 

motor vehicle safety exists in van-type 

or box semi-trailers due to a lack of side 

underride guards. On November 17, 

2021, NHTSA opened Defect Petition 

DP21–004 to evaluate petitioners’ 

request. After a review of the petition 

and other information, NHTSA has 

concluded that the issues presented by 

the petitioners will be examined in 

work undertaken pursuant to 

congressional direction under the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 

Accordingly, the agency has denied the 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Nate Seymour, Medium and Heavy Duty 

Vehicle Division, Office of Defects 

Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: 202–366–2069. Email: 

nate.seymour@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter 

dated September 14, 2021, Marianne 

and Jerry Karth, Eric Hein, and Lois 

Durso (petitioners) petitioned the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a 

defect investigation into van-type or box 

semi-trailers for a lack of side underride 

guards (SUGs). NHTSA’s Office of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
39900 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Notices 

1While petitioners allege that a lack of SUGs also 

poses a safety hazard to vulnerable road users (e.g., 

pedestrians), that results in death and injury, 

SUGs—the lack of which petitioners assert 

constitutes a defect here—are devices that are 

specifically intended to prevent a vehicle (not 

necessarily a vulnerable road user) from 

underriding a trailer. 

2Matthew L. Brumbelow, Potential benefits of 

underride guards in large truck side crashes, 13 

Traffic Inj. Prevention 592–99 (2012). 

Defects Investigation (ODI) assessed the 

information provided by the petitioners, 

as well as additional information that 

ODI gathered from other relevant 

sources. 

The petitioners allege there is a 

known safety hazard and defect where 

passenger vehicles or other vulnerable 

road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, or 

motorcyclists) collide with van-type or 

box semi-trailers resulting in death and 

significant injuries due to a lack of 

SUGs. The petitioners state that at least 

500 deaths and 5,000 serious injuries 

occur annually due to side underride 

crashes. They also say that a known 

solution is currently available. 

The subject vehicles are van-type or 

box semi-trailers operated in the United 

States. The trailers range from twentyeight feet (28′) to fifty-three feet (53′) in 

length. They are typically eight feet (8′) 

to eight and a half feet (8.5′) wide and 

up to thirteen and a half feet (13.5′) tall. 

Most have one fixed axle, or two axles 

mounted in tandem on a sliding rail 

system at the rear. This allows for 

proper axle weight distribution as per 

U.S. Bridge Laws, as well as increased 

maneuverability when needed. Gross 

Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWR) are 

typically up to 68,000 pounds. All 

subject vehicles are currently required 

to have rear underride protection as per 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) 224. The load floor height is 

approximately four feet (4′) above the 

ground. The space between the ground 

and floor is often used for sliding 

tandems (axles), fuel tanks, air hoses, 

spare tire carriers, and other optional 

fixtures. Additionally, many trailers are 

now equipped with lightweight skirts to 

improve aerodynamics to increase fuel 

efficiency. 

SUGs are intended to prevent a 

vehicle from underriding the trailer in 

the event of a collision (an ‘‘underride’’ 

crash).1 The concept is that a barrier of 

sufficient strength extends downward 

from the trailer side to fill the space 

between the trailer floor and the ground. 

ODI has received three (3) complaints, 

other than those from the petitioners, 

related to trailer underride. All three of 

these additional complaints involve 

vehicles older than Model Year 2006 

and were submitted by the same 

individual more than 11 years ago. 

Although NHTSA’s Early Warning 

Reporting (EWR) regulations do not 

have a specific code for underride, 

searching the Death and Injury (D&I) 

EWR data identified five (5) reports 

citing underride. The following table 

summarizes the report year and the 

Model Year of the semi-trailer involved. 

Year reported to NHTSA Model year of 

trailer 

2021 ...................................... 2019 

2021 ...................................... 2015 

2013 ...................................... 2007 

2006 ...................................... 1998 

2018 ...................................... Unknown 

In early December 2021, ODI sent an 

Information Request letter to eight (8) 

manufacturers asking for information 

related to side underride. Letters were 

sent to the following trailer 

manufacturers: Great Dane; Hyundai 

Translead; Kentucky Trailer; Stoughton; 

Strick Trailers; Utility Trailer 

Manufacturing; Vanguard; and Wabash. 

ODI received separate responses from 

each manufacturer by January 14, 2022, 

and a supplemental response from 

Hyundai Translead on April 14, 2022. 

Each manufacturer was asked about 

its market share of the subject vehicles. 

Most replied with a range, as the share 

varies from year to year. ODI concluded 

that the eight manufacturers surveyed 

represent nearly 100% of the subject 

vehicle population. Additionally, ODI 

asked each manufacturer for its 

assessment of the current in-service 

subject vehicle population. Based on the 

responses, the total vehicle population 

is estimated to be 2.45 million trailers. 

The responses from the eight 

manufacturers identified over 20 events 

that may relate to underride from 2006 

to 2022, including events that involved 

death or injury. ODI was able to locate 

19 of the events within its databases. 

Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 579 requires the 

trailer manufacturers to report whenever 

they receive an allegation that a defect 

resulted in a death or injury. The 

manufacturers responded that they are 

typically unaware of underride events 

unless legal action is brought against 

them, or as in one case, the trailer is 

brought in for repairs. 

ODI reviewed additional sources to 

better understand the petitioners’ claim 

that at least 500 deaths and 5,000 

injuries occur annually due to side 

underride crashes. A 2012 article by 

Matthew Brumbelow titled ‘‘Potential 

Benefits of Underride Guards in Large 

Truck Side Crashes’’ included a 

statistical analysis of Trucks Involved in 

Fatal Accidents (TIFA).2 Between 2006 

and 2008, 7,250 passenger vehicle 

occupant deaths were recorded in twovehicle crashes with large trucks 

(tractor-trailers and single unit trucks). 

Using the 2006–2008 TIFA data, 

Brumbelow estimated that 

approximately 530 passenger vehicle 

occupants died annually in two-vehicle 

crashes in which the passenger vehicle 

struck the side of a large truck. 

Brumbelow noted that 20 percent of the 

side-impacted trucks were straight 

trucks, and those remaining were 

tractor-trailers or tractors without 

trailers. However, TIFA data files did 

not provide information on the impact 

location (impact with tractor, between 

tractor and trailer, between front and 

rear axles of the trailer, or behind the 

trailer rear wheels) and whether the 

passenger vehicle underrode the truck. 

Brumbelow noted that not all fatalities 

and injuries were due to vehicle 

underride and that not all injuries in 

crashes with side underride could be 

mitigated by side underride guards, 

because of the impact location, lack of 

restraint use, high deceleration levels, 

and other factors. Using 2008–2017 fatal 

crash data, NHTSA estimated that there 

were 212 light passenger vehicle 

occupant fatalities annually in crashes 

into the sides of tractor-trailers. 

In their petition, petitioners identify 

patents for side underride guards held 

by two semi-trailer manufacturers that 

they state indicates that the industry has 

already designed and tested a solution 

to the alleged defect. The petitioners 

further state that another underride 

guard, designed outside of the industry, 

has been successfully crash tested and 

proven to stop a car from going under 

a semi-trailer in a collision up to 40 

mph. Multiple manufacturers have 

conducted testing of various SUG 

devices, and some of the manufacturers 

queried by NHTSA tested that guard on 

their trailers. According to the 

manufacturers, in certain cases, either 

the trailers and/or the guard 

experienced structural damage when the 

guard was fitted to a trailer and 

subjected to the manufacturer’s 

validation testing. The guard failed the 

validation test, in other words. In one 

case, the testing was limited to a floor 

endurance test as defined by the Truck 

Trailer Manufacturers Association 

(TTMA) Recommended Practice 37–07 

(RP 37–07). The manufacturer reported 

that, while the guard-equipped trailer 

passed two of the three tests, it failed 

the overload portion. This manufacturer 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Notices 39901 

has had three customer inquiries about 

SUGs in the past ten years. The 

manufacturer stated that at a customer’s 

request it would install an SUG. One 

other manufacturer noted that it offers a 

prototypical side-impact guard as 

optional equipment where 

specifications are consistent with a sideimpact guard and it is determined the 

guard will not result in an unsafe 

condition. 

Multiple manufacturers also reviewed 

the IIHS crash test of the guard to which 

petitioners refer. Manufacturers 

expressed concerns over various aspects 

of testing. Manufacturer responses 

indicated that the trailer was not loaded 

in a typical manner, in that the load on 

the trailer was concentrated in the back 

instead of being evenly distributed 

across the entire floor (as it would be in 

a real-world operation). For comparison, 

FMVSS 223 testing for rear underride 

requires the test structure/trailer to be 

fixed so that it does not move. One 

manufacturer conducted a separate 

crash test of the guard on what it 

described as a properly loaded trailer, 

and noted the trailer was displaced 

approximately three inches (3′′) 

compared to over one foot (12′′) in the 

IIHS test scenario with the same make/ 

model crash vehicle and impact speed. 

The manufacturer described that in the 

IIHS test, energy was dissipated when 

the trailer flexed and slid (reducing the 

amount absorbed by the guard). The 

manufacturer had reservations about 

performance of the guard, given that the 

weighting and loading criteria in the 

IIHS test was not the same as that used 

for IIHS rear-impact tests, and also 

expressed concern about exposure to 

real-world conditions, including with 

regard to damage to the trailer and 

attendant safety risks. One manufacturer 

also noted that the IIHS test involved 

only a perpendicular impact at the 

center of the SUG. For comparison, 

FMVSS 223/224 requires testing along 

multiple locations of the rear guard. 

Crash data also shows a significant 

number of real-world events involve 

collisions at acute and obtuse angles, 

and no such tests are known to have 

been conducted with this guard. 

The petitioners claim that since 2010, 

this guard has been installed on a small 

number of semi-trailers that logged over 

one million miles of use delivering 

loads without negative road clearance 

issues, structural deficiencies or issues 

with loading or unloading at docks. A 

manufacturer response indicated that 

this statement is based on one trailer 

operating a dedicated route. This is 

typical mileage for such an operation, as 

most trucks average 100,000 miles per 

year. A dedicated route means the 

trailer sees the same loading and 

unloading facilities and travels the same 

terrain. Furthermore, this manufacturer 

response stated that this unit is part of 

a multi-trailer fleet, and that the fleet 

has not added additional of these guards 

to the rest of its trailers. 

More broadly, certain manufacturers 

noted that SUGs may be compatible 

with some trailer and fleet operations, 

although there was the suggestion that 

a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach is not 

possible in the U.S. commercial vehicle 

market, where vehicles are designed and 

purchased for specific operations or for 

versatility necessitated by the fleet’s 

operation. Multiple manufacturers are 

working on SUG designs, and several 

manufacturers have filed patents for 

their designs, although trailer 

manufacturers pointed out challenges. 

One manufacturer noted it had not, to 

date, identified a feasible design to 

prevent underride while not 

compromising the structural or 

operational capabilities of the trailer. 

Another manufacturer developing a 

prototype observed that testing is 

scheduled, but cited potential material 

shortages and shipping delays. 

Furthermore, it appears there is a 

hesitancy on the part of at least some 

manufacturers in the industry to 

develop SUGs without research from 

NHTSA on their effectiveness and cost. 

NHTSA is authorized to issue an 

order requiring notification and remedy 

of a defect if the agency’s investigation 

shows a defect in the design, 

construction, or performance of a motor 

vehicle that presents an unreasonable 

risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9), 

30118. Factors the agency may consider 

when deciding whether to grant or deny 

a defect petition ‘‘include, among 

others, allocation of agency resources, 

agency priorities and the likelihood of 

success in litigation which might arise 

from the order.’’ 49 CFR 552.8. The 

above discussion illustrates that the 

complex issues that the petitioners 

present would benefit from additional 

information and data. NHTSA does not 

prescribe a specific remedy even where 

a safety defect is identified, but the 

agency may set performance standards 

for equipment—and recognizing a need 

for further research and evaluation of 

SUGs, Congress included in section 

23011 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure 

Law (BIL) (November 15, 2021) several 

provisions that relate to side underride 

issues. 

Among these is a requirement that the 

Secretary of Transportation ‘‘complete 

additional research on side underride 

guards to better understand the overall 

effectiveness of side underride guards’’ 

and, ‘‘if warranted, develop 

performance standards for side 

underride guards.’’ The Secretary is also 

required to publish findings of an 

assessment of the ‘‘feasibility, benefits, 

and costs of, and any impacts on 

intermodal equipment, freight mobility 

(including port operations), and freight 

capacity associated with, installing side 

underride guards on newly 

manufactured trailers and semitrailers 

with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

10,000 pounds or more,’’ and after 

taking public comment, submit to 

Congress a report that includes, among 

other things, ‘‘a determination as to 

whether the Secretary intends to 

develop performance requirements for 

side underride guards, including any 

analysis that led to that determination.’’ 

In addition, the Secretary must establish 

an Advisory Committee on Underride 

Protection ‘‘to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Secretary on 

safety regulations to reduce underride 

crashes and fatalities relating to 

underride crashes.’’ 

Based on the available information 

and agency experience, ODI believes the 

issues raised by the petitioners are best 

addressed through the congressionallydirected evaluation of SUGs under 

section 23011 of the BIL. As the issues 

presented by the petitioners are being 

addressed pursuant to such direction, 

NHTSA has decided not to open a 

defect investigation, and the petition is 

denied. The denial of this petition does 

not foreclose the agency from taking 

further action if warranted or making a 

future finding that a safety-related 

defect exists based upon additional 

information the agency may receive. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and 

501.8. 

Anne Collins, 

Associate Administrator, Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14165 Filed 7–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the names 

of one or more persons that have been 

placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List 

(SDN List) based on OFAC’s 

determination that one or more 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1