Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42339 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1356 

Adoption and foster care, Child 

welfare, Grant programs—social 

programs. 

Wilma M. Robinson, 

Deputy Executive Secretary, Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

Accordingly, 45 CFR part 1356 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 1356—REQUIREMENTS 

APPLICABLE TO TITLE IV–E 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1356 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 

670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1302. 

■ 2. Amend § 1356.60 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1356.60 Fiscal requirements (title IV–E). 

(a) Federal matching funds for foster 

care maintenance and adoption 

assistance payments. (1) Federal 

financial participation (FFP) is available 

to title IV–E agencies under an approved 

title IV–E plan for allowable costs in 

expenditures for: 

(i) Foster care maintenance payments 

as defined in section 475(4) of the Act, 

made in accordance with §§ 1356.20 

through 1356.30, section 472 of the Act, 

and, for a Tribal title IV–E agency, 

section 479B of the Act; and 

(ii) Adoption assistance payments 

made in accordance with §§ 1356.20 

and 1356.40, applicable provisions of 

section 473, section 475(3), and, for a 

Tribal title IV–E agency, section 479B of 

the Act. 

(2) Federal financial participation is 

available at the rate of the Federal 

medical assistance percentage as 

defined in section 1905(b), 474(a)(1) and 

(2), and 479B(d) of the Act as 

applicable, definitions, and pertinent 

regulations as promulgated by the 

Secretary, or the designee. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–15076 Filed 7–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0053] 

RIN 2127–AL58 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Rear Impact Guards, Rear 

Impact Protection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule upgrades 

NHTSA’s safety standards addressing 

rear underride protection in crashes of 

passenger vehicles into trailers and 

semitrailers by adopting similar 

requirements to Transport Canada’s 

standard for rear impact guards. 

Adopting these standards will require 

rear impact guards to provide sufficient 

strength and energy absorption to 

protect occupants of compact and 

subcompact passenger cars impacting 

the rear of trailers at 56 kilometers per 

hour (km/h) (35 miles per hour (mph)). 

Upgraded protection will be provided in 

crashes in which the passenger motor 

vehicle hits: the center of the rear of the 

trailer or semitrailer; and, in which 50 

percent of the width of the passenger 

motor vehicle overlaps the rear of the 

trailer or semitrailer. This rulemaking 

commenced in response to petitions for 

rulemaking from the Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety (IIHS) and from Ms. 

Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety 

Coalition (TSC). This final rule responds 

to and fulfills the rulemaking mandate 

of the November 2021 Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (BIL) that directs the 

Secretary to upgrade current Federal 

safety standards for rear impact guards. 

NHTSA is also issuing this final rule 

pursuant to DOT’s January 2022 

National Roadway Safety Strategy, 

which describes the five key objectives 

of the Department’s Safe System 

Approach: safer people, safer roads, 

safer vehicles, safer speeds, and postcrash care. One of the key Departmental 

actions to enable safer vehicles is to 

issue a final rule to upgrade existing 

requirements for rear impact guards on 

newly manufactured trailers and 

semitrailers. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This final rule is 

effective on January 11, 2023. 

Compliance date: July 15, 2024. 

Optional early compliance is permitted. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received no later than August 

29, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

and notice number set forth above and 

be submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, 

DC 20590. All petitions received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: DOT will post any 

petition for reconsideration, and any 

other submission, without edit, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice, DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS, accessible through https://

www.transportation.gov/individuals/ 

privacy/privacy-act-system-recordsnotices. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all submissions to any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the submission 

(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 19477–78). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues: Ms. Lina Valivullah, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, 

DC 20590 (telephone) 202–366–8786, 

(email) Lina.Valivullah@dot.gov. 

For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 

Building, Washington, DC 20590, 

(telephone) 202–366–2992, (email) 

Dee.Fujita@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

a. Overview 

b. NHTSA’s Statutory Authority and 

Response to BIL 

1. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act 

2. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 

3. Implementation of BIL 

c. DOT National Roadway Safety Strategy 

d. NTSB Recommendation 

e. Impacts of This Rulemaking 

f. No Significant Changes to the NPRM 

II. Background 

a. Current Requirements 

b. Petitions 

c. Summary of Proposed Changes 

III. Summary of Comments 

IV. Response to Comments on the Proposed 

Amendments 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42340 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1NHTSA established the two-standard approach 

to address compliance burdens on small trailer 

manufacturers, of which there is a significant 

number. Under FMVSS No. 223, the guard may be 

tested for compliance while mounted to a test 

fixture or to a complete trailer, at the 

manufacturer’s option. FMVSS No. 224 requires the 

guard to be mounted on the trailer or semitrailer in 

accordance with the instructions provided with the 

guard by the guard manufacturer. Under this twostandard approach, a small manufacturer that 

produces relatively few trailers can certify its 

trailers to FMVSS No. 224 with assurance without 

having to undertake destructive testing of what 

could be a substantial portion of its production. The 

two-standard approach was designed to provide 

small trailer manufacturers a practicable and 

reasonable means of certifying to FMVSS No. 224. 

2 80 FR 78417. 

3This final rule also adopts Transport Canada’s 

definition of ‘‘rear extremity’’ to define where 

aerodynamic fairings are to be located on a trailer 

to avoid posing a safety hazard in rear underride 

crashes. 

4NHTSA discussed the results of this study in 

detail in Appendix A of the NPRM. See 80 FR 

78447–78452. 

5Heavy-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, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ 

nhtsa.gov/files/811725.pdf. 

6The TIFA survey data contain data for all trucks 

with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) that 

were involved in fatal traffic crashes in the 50 U.S. 

States and the District of Columbia. 

a. General Strength and Energy Absorption 

Requirements 

b. Alternative Guard Designs 

c. 700 kN Energy Absorption Test Option 

d. Ground Clearance 

e. Requiring Attachment Hardware To 

Remain Intact 

f. Definition of Rear Extremity 

g. Low Chassis Vehicle Correction 

h. Technical Correction 

V. Response to Comments on Issues Not 

Proposed in the NPRM 

a. Vehicles Excluded From FMVSS No. 224 

b. Testing on a Trailer Rather Than a 

Fixture 

c. Low Overlap Crash Performance 

d. Half-Guard Testing 

e. Retrofitting 

VI. Lead Time 

VII. Benefit-Cost Analysis 

VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

I. Executive Summary 

a. Overview 

NHTSA is issuing this final rule to 

upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, ‘‘Rear 

impact guards,’’ and FMVSS No. 224, 

‘‘Rear impact protection,’’ which 

together provide protection for 

occupants of passenger vehicles in 

crashes into the rear of trailers and 

semitrailers. FMVSS No. 223, an 

equipment standard, specifies strength 

and energy absorption requirements in 

quasi-static force tests of rear impact 

guards sold for installation on new 

trailers and semitrailers. FMVSS No. 

224, a vehicle standard, requires new 

trailers and semitrailers with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 

kilogram (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or 

more to be equipped with a rear impact 

guard meeting FMVSS No. 223.1 The 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

preceding this final rule was published 

on December 16, 2015.2

Rear underride crashes occur when a 

passenger vehicle crashes into the rear 

end of a generally larger vehicle, and the 

front end of the passenger vehicle slides 

under (i.e., underrides) the rear end of 

the larger vehicle. Underride may occur 

in collisions between a passenger 

vehicle and the rear end of a large trailer 

or semitrailer (referred to in this rule 

collectively as ‘‘trailers’’) because the 

bed and chassis of the trailer is often 

higher than the front of the passenger 

vehicle. In extreme underride crashes, 

‘‘passenger compartment intrusion’’ 

(PCI) may occur when the passenger 

vehicle underrides the rear end of the 

trailer to such an extent that the rear 

end of the trailer strikes and enters the 

passenger compartment of the colliding 

passenger vehicle. PCI can result in 

severe injuries and fatalities to the 

occupants of the passenger vehicle. 

Rear impact guards are mounted on 

the rear of trailers to prevent underride 

and PCI. In a collision between a 

passenger vehicle and the rear of a 

trailer equipped with a rear impact 

guard, the rear impact guard engages the 

striking passenger vehicle and prevents 

it from sliding too far under the struck 

vehicle’s bed and chassis. FMVSS Nos. 

223 and 224 ensure a rear impact guard 

is configured low and wide to impede 

a striking passenger vehicle, is strong 

enough to withstand a 48 km/h (30 

mph) impact of the colliding vehicle, 

and has energy-absorbing capability to 

further mitigate harm to occupants in 

the striking vehicle. 

NHTSA designed FMVSS No. 223 and 

224 to work in conjunction with FMVSS 

No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ 

so that occupants are protected with 

seat belts and air bags in the underride 

crash—thus maximizing the likelihood 

of avoiding serious or fatal injury in the 

impact into the guard. When FMVSS 

Nos. 223 and 224 were issued in 1996, 

FMVSS No. 208 required passenger cars 

to provide crash protection in a 48 km/ 

h (30 mph) rigid barrier crash test. The 

agency designed the underride 

protection standards so that occupants 

would be reasonably protected in 

underride crashes up to 48 km/h (30 

mph). Since then, FMVSS No. 208’s test 

speed has been increased to provide 

high levels of occupant protection in a 

56 km/h (35 mph) frontal crash. 

With FMVSS No. 208 now providing 

crash protection up to 56 km/h (35 

mph), NHTSA is amending FMVSS Nos. 

223 and 224 to mandate the guards 

withstand crash velocities up to that 

speed. This final rule adopts 

requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 223, 

‘‘Rear impact guards.’’ 3 CMVSS No. 223 

requires rear impact guards with 

sufficient strength and energy 

absorption capability to protect 

occupants of compact and subcompact 

passenger cars impacting the rear of 

trailers at 56 km/h (35 mph). Under this 

final rule, the impacting vehicle’s 

FMVSS No. 208 occupant protection 

technologies could absorb enough of the 

crash forces from the impact to reduce 

significantly the risk of fatality and 

serious injury to occupants of the 

colliding vehicle. As the current 

requirements in FMVSS Nos. 223 and 

224 were developed with the intent of 

providing underride crash protection to 

occupants of passenger vehicles in 

impacts up to 48 km/h (30 mph), 

increasing the robustness of the trailer/ 

guard design such that it will be able to 

withstand crash velocities up to 56 km/ 

h (35 mph) represents a substantial 

increase in the stringency of our 

standards. There is a 36 percent increase 

in crash energy in a 56 km/h (35 mph) 

impact of a vehicle compared to a 48 

km/h (30 mph) impact of the same 

vehicle. 

This final rule is based on the best 

available science. The underlying field 

data used in the December 16, 2015 

NPRM and this final rule are from a 

2013 NHTSA-funded study conducted 

by the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute 

(UMTRI) to supplement UMTRI’s 

Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents 

(TIFA) survey data for years 2008 and 

2009. (The 2013 NHTSA-funded study 

is referred to in this preamble as the 

2013 UMTRI Study.) 4 5 The TIFA 

database had analyzed FARS data to 

obtain more detailed information on 

fatal large truck crashes, and had 

provided more detailed information 

than in FARS on the involved large 

trucks, motor carriers, and sequence of 

events leading to the crash.6 The 2013 

UMTRI Study supplemented these TIFA 

data by collecting specific data 

pertaining to trailer rear extremity 

crashes. In the 2013 UMTRI Study, 

UMTRI also determined whether a rear 

impact guard was required, and if not 

required, the criterion that had excluded 

the vehicle. The 2013 UMTRI Study 

collected detailed information on fatal 

vehicle crashes into the rear of trailers, 

the relative impact velocity, and the 

extent of underride in these crashes. 

The data from the 2013 UMTRI Study 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42341 

7 49 CFR 1.95. The Secretary also delegated to 

NHTSA the authority set out for Section 101(f) of 

Public Law 106–159 to carry out, in coordination 

with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administrator, the authority vested in the Secretary 

by subchapter 311 and section 31502 of title 49, 

U.S.C., to promulgate safety standards for 

commercial motor vehicles and equipment 

subsequent to initial manufacture when the 

standards are based upon and similar to a Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated, either 

simultaneously or previously, under chapter 301 of 

title 49, U.S.C. 

8 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

9 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). 

10 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 

11 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 

12 Id. 13Public Law 117–58. 

14There are also provisions relating to the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. 

enabled NHTSA to establish national 

estimates of rear impact crashes into 

heavy vehicles that resulted in PCI. 

Because of the detailed analysis and the 

supplemental information collected for 

each crash, the 2013 UMTRI Study 

forms the most comprehensive and 

valid data set available to inform 

NHTSA about crashes involving trucks 

and trailers and the incidence and 

extent of underride. 

b. NHTSA’s Statutory Authority and 

Response to BIL 

1. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act 

This final rule is issued under the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C. 30101 

et seq.). Under the Safety Act, the 

Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by 

delegation) 7 is responsible for 

prescribing motor vehicle safety 

standards that are practicable, meet the 

need for motor vehicle safety, and are 

stated in objective terms.8 ‘‘Motor 

vehicle safety’’ is defined in the Safety 

Act as ‘‘the performance of a motor 

vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in 

a way that protects the public against 

unreasonable risk of accidents occurring 

because of the design, construction, or 

performance of a motor vehicle, and 

against unreasonable risk of death or 

injury in an accident, and includes 

nonoperational safety of a motor 

vehicle.’’ 9 ‘‘Motor vehicle safety 

standard’’ means a minimum 

performance standard for motor vehicles 

or motor vehicle equipment.10 When 

prescribing such standards, the agency 

must consider all relevant, available 

motor vehicle safety information, and 

consider whether a standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the types of motor vehicles or motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed.11 The agency must also 

consider the extent to which the 

standard will further the statutory 

purpose of reducing traffic crashes and 

associated deaths.12

2. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 

On November 15, 2021, President 

Biden signed the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),13

commonly referred to as the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (BIL). Section 23011 

of BIL specifies provisions for underride 

protection measures for trailers and 

semitrailers. As discussed in detail 

below, the provisions direct the 

Secretary to upgrade current Federal 

safety standards for rear impact guards 

and conduct additional research, report 

to Congress on the effectiveness, 

feasibility, costs, and benefits of side 

guards, establish an advisory committee 

on underride protection, and implement 

the recommendations issued by the 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) on improved data collection, 

inspection and research of truck 

underride guards. 

Section 23011(b)(1)(A) of BIL states 

that, not later than 1 year after the date 

of enactment of the Act, the Secretary 

shall promulgate regulations that revise 

FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224 to 

require new trailers and semitrailers to 

be equipped with rear impact guards 

that are designed to prevent PCI from a 

trailer or semitrailer when a passenger 

vehicle traveling at 56 km/h (35 mph) 

makes an impact: (a) ‘‘in which the 

passenger motor vehicle impacts the 

center of the rear of the trailer or 

semitrailer’’ (full overlap with the rear 

of the trailer or semitrailer); (b) ‘‘in 

which 50 percent of the width of the 

passenger motor vehicle overlaps the 

rear of the trailer or semitrailer’’; and (c) 

‘‘in which 30 percent of the width of the 

passenger motor vehicle overlaps the 

rear of the trailer or semitrailer, if the 

Secretary determines that a revision of 

[FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224] to address 

such an impact would meet the 

requirements and considerations 

described in subsections (a) and (b) of 

section 30111 of title 49, United States 

Code’’ (i.e., the Safety Act). Section 

23011(b)(1)(B) states that the regulations 

promulgated under Section 

23011(b)(1)(A) shall require full 

compliance not later than two years 

after the date on which those 

regulations are promulgated. 

Section 23011(b)(2) of BIL directs the 

Secretary to conduct additional research 

on the design and development of rear 

impact guards that can: prevent PCI in 

cases in which the passenger motor 

vehicle is traveling at speeds of up to 65 

mph; and that can protect occupants 

against severe injury in crashes of 

passenger vehicles into the rear of 

trailers and semitrailers at speeds up to 

104.5 km/h (65 mph). Section 

23011(b)(3) directs that, not later than 5 

years after the date the regulations 

under Section 23011(b)(1)(A) are 

promulgated, the Secretary shall review 

and evaluate the need for changes to 

FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224 in 

response to advancements in technology 

and update the standards accordingly.14

Section 23011(c)(1)(A) of BIL directs 

the Secretary to complete, not later than 

1 year after enactment of the Act, 

additional research on side underride 

guards to better understand the overall 

effectiveness of the guards. Section 

23011(c)(1)(B) requires the Secretary to 

assess, among other matters, 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 new trailers and 

semitrailers within one year of 

enactment of BIL, and if warranted, 

develop performance standards for side 

underride guards. Section 23011(c)(3) 

also directs the Secretary to publish the 

results of the side underride guard 

assessment specified in Section 

23011(c)(1)(B) within 90 days of 

completion of the assessment and 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment. It also directs that, within 90 

days from the date the comment period 

closes, the Secretary shall submit a 

report to Congress on the assessment 

results, a summary of comments 

received, and a determination whether 

the Secretary intends to develop 

performance requirements for side 

underride guards, including any 

analysis that led to that determination. 

Section 23011(d) of BIL directs the 

Secretary to 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. This 

section also provides details on the 

membership of the advisory committee, 

frequency of meetings of the advisory 

committee, the Secretary’s support to 

the advisory committee, and details of a 

biennial report to Congress that the 

advisory committee is required to 

submit. 

Section 23011(e) of BIL directs the 

Secretary to implement the 

recommendations on truck underride 

guard data collection issued by the 

Government Accountability Office 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42342 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

15 GAO Report to Congressional Requestors, 

‘‘Truck Underride Guards—Improved Data 

Collection, Inspections, and Research Needed,’’ 

March 14, 2019, (GAO–19–264), https://

www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-264.pdf. 16At the time of enactment of BIL, the agency’s 

December 16, 2015 NPRM upgrading FMVSS No. 

223 and FMVSS No. 224 had been published and 

DOT’s work was close to completion on the final 

rule. BIL provides a very short timeframe (1 year) 

for issuance of a final rule. The short timeframe is 

indicative of Congress’s intent that a final rule 

based on the 2015 NPRM will complete the 

rulemaking proceedings specified in Section 

23011(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 17 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). 

(GAO) on March 14, 2019,15 within 1 

year after the date of enactment of the 

Act. 

3. Implementation of BIL 

This final rule fulfills the BIL 

rulemaking mandate to NHTSA set forth 

in Section 23011(b). As directed by 

Sections 23011(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), this 

final rule revises FMVSS Nos. 223 and 

224 to require trailers and semitrailers 

to be equipped with rear impact guards 

that prevent passenger compartment 

intrusion from a trailer or semitrailer 

when a passenger motor vehicle 

traveling at 35 miles per hour makes: (a) 

an impact in which the passenger motor 

vehicle impacts the center of the rear of 

the trailer or semitrailer; and (b) an 

impact in which 50 percent of the width 

of the passenger motor vehicle overlaps 

the rear of the trailer or semitrailer. 

This final rule fulfills these BIL 

rulemaking mandates of Sections 

23011(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) and achieves, 

effectively and expeditiously, the 

Congressional goal that focuses on 

improving rear impact guard 

performance. The 2015 NPRM proposed 

to adopt the Canadian quasi-static test 

requirements for rear impact guards, 

which ensure rear impact guards 

provide sufficient strength and energy 

absorption to protect occupants of 

compact and subcompact passenger cars 

impacting the rear of trailers at 56 km/ 

h (35 mph).16 The NPRM reported on 

crash tests conducted by IIHS that 

showed that rear impact guards 

installed on trailers that were designed 

to the proposed requirements were able 

to prevent PCI in 35 mph crashes of a 

passenger vehicle into the rear of the 

trailer where: (a) the front end of the 

passenger vehicle fully overlapped the 

rear of the trailer (full overlap crash); 

and (b) 50 percent of the width of the 

front end of the passenger vehicle 

overlapped the rear of the trailer (50 

percent overlap crash). These data show 

that trailers and semitrailers equipped 

with rear impact guards meeting the 

requirements of this final rule will have 

guards that are designed to prevent PCI 

when a passenger motor vehicle 

traveling at 35 mph impacts the center 

of the rear of the trailer or semitrailer, 

or makes impact in which 50 percent of 

the width of the passenger vehicle 

overlaps the rear of the trailer or 

semitrailer, in accordance with BIL. 

NHTSA’s work on this final rule also 

meets the BIL mandate in Section 

23011(b)(1)(A)(iii). In developing this 

rule, the agency considered a 

requirement that rear impact guards 

withstand a 56 km/h (35 mph) crash of 

a passenger vehicle into the rear of a 

trailer in which only 30 percent of the 

width of the passenger motor vehicle 

overlaps the rear of the trailer or 

semitrailer (30 percent overlap crash). 

After analyzing the issue, we 

determined such a standard would not 

meet the requirements and 

considerations of Sections 30111(a) and 

(b) of the Safety Act. Our consideration 

of this matter is discussed below. 

Sections 30111(a) and 30111(b) 

The provision at 49 U.S.C. 30111(a) of 

the Safety Act authorizes the Secretary 

(NHTSA, by delegation) to prescribe 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

that are practicable, meet the need for 

motor vehicle safety, and are stated in 

objective terms. ‘‘Motor vehicle safety’’ 

is defined in the Safety Act as ‘‘the 

performance of a motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment in a way that 

protects the public against unreasonable 

risk of accidents occurring because of 

the design, construction, or performance 

of a motor vehicle, and against 

unreasonable risk of death or injury in 

an accident, and includes 

nonoperational safety of a motor 

vehicle.’’ 17

The provision at 49 U.S.C. 30111(b) 

specifies that, when prescribing such 

standards, the Secretary must, among 

other things, consider all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 

information, consider whether a 

standard is reasonable, practicable, and 

appropriate for the types of motor 

vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for 

which it is prescribed, and consider the 

extent to which the standard will 

further the statutory purpose of 

reducing traffic crashes and associated 

deaths and injuries. NHTSA has 

considered the factors in Section 

30111(b) and concludes that available 

data do not show that a standard for a 

30 percent overlap crash at 35 mph 

would be reasonable, practicable, or 

appropriate for all the vehicles subject 

to FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. 

Accordingly, NHTSA cannot conclude 

that a Federal mandate for such a 

requirement for all trailers is warranted 

at this time. 

Rear impact guards are designed to 

absorb energy and prevent PCI by 

attaching to substantial structural 

elements of a trailer or semitrailer, such 

as the chassis longitudinal frame rails, 

by way of vertical support members. 

The vertical members of the rear impact 

guard usually attach to the longitudinal 

frame rails so that impact loads are 

directly transmitted to the frame rails 

with minimal or no damage to the 

overall trailer structure. The test results 

from the initial testing at IIHS reported 

in the NPRM show that in the 30 

percent overlap crashes, only a small 

lateral portion of the rear impact guard 

(about 22 percent of the guard width) 

engaged with the front end of the 

passenger vehicle. This small lateral 

portion did not include a vertical 

support member of the guard, so when 

a Chevy Malibu test vehicle struck this 

small lateral portion of the guard, the 

guard deformed locally and did not 

prevent PCI. In these initial IIHS crash 

tests, only the Manac rear impact guard 

was able to prevent PCI in the Chevy 

Malibu in the 56 km/h (35 mph) full 

overlap, 50 percent overlap, and 30 

percent overlap crash test conditions. 

NHTSA believes the Manac performed 

this way because, unlike most trailer 

designs where the vertical members of 

the rear impact guard attach directly to 

the longitudinal frame rails of the 

trailer, the vertical members of the 

Manac rear impact guard were located 

further outboard from the location of the 

trailer longitudinal frame rails and were 

attached to a reinforced floor section of 

the trailer. 

While the more outboard vertical 

supports of the Manac guard could 

withstand the force from the 30 percent 

low overlap crash of the Malibu, data 

suggest the further outboard vertical 

supports may reduce guard strength 

near the center of the horizontal 

member of the rear impact guard. In the 

56 km/h (35 mph) full overlap crash 

tests of the Malibu, the greatest amount 

of underride (1,350 mm) was in the test 

with the Manac trailer. (In contrast, the 

extent of the underride was 990 mm in 

the test with the Wabash trailer.) 

NHTSA found this observation critical 

because it indicated that trailers that 

have the main vertical supports for the 

guard more outboard may not perform 

as well in full overlap crashes as trailers 

that have the vertical supports more 

inboard. This finding was of key 

concern because full and 50 percent 

overlap crashes are more frequent than 

low overlap (30 percent or less) crashes. 

NHTSA seeks not to amend FMVSS No. 

223 in a manner that could reduce 

safety in the more frequent crash 

conditions. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42343 

18 ‘‘Significant’’ actions are also subject to Section 

6’s requirements for a benefit-cost analysis. 

19There were 211,807 new trailers sold in 2020, 

among which 65 percent (137,675 = 211,807 × 0.65) 

are required to be equipped with rear impact 

guards. Among applicable trailers, 28 percent are 

already equipped with guards that mitigate PCI in 

30 percent overlap crashes. 

20For more information on the value of a 

statistical life, see a 2021 Office of the Secretary 

memorandum on the ‘‘Guidance on Treatment of 

the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. 

Department of Transportation Analyses—2021 

Update.’’ https://www.transportation.gov/officepolicy/transportation-policy/revised-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis. Circular A–4 provides OMB’s 

guidance to Federal agencies on the development of 

a regulatory analysis required under Section 6 of 

E.O. 12866. 

21Cost-effectiveness represents a measure of the 

average monetary cost per unit of change (benefit). 

In regulatory analyses for safety policies, costeffectiveness generally measures the average 

estimated change in total costs per unit 

improvement in safety (e.g., cost per life saved). A 

policy alternative can be considered cost-effective 

if the estimated cost per unit increase is less than 

an appropriate benchmark. For example, a proposed 

safety standard could be considered cost-effective if 

the average cost per life saved equivalent (i.e., 

combining lives saved and injuries avoided, 

weighted by the relative values of injuries to 

fatalities) under the proposed standard were less 

than the comprehensive economic cost of a fatality 

($11.6 million in 2020 dollars). That is, the 

proposed standard would yield safety benefits at a 

lower cost than the benchmark value for those 

benefits. 

Further, data indicate that most fatal 

light vehicle crashes into the rear of 

trailers are at speeds much higher than 

56 km/h (35 mph). The agency is 

concerned that adopting requirements to 

mitigate PCI in 30 percent low overlap 

crashes could result in rear impact 

guard designs that may reduce 

protection against PCI in higher speed 

crashes. NHTSA remains concerned 

about potential negative safety 

consequences if a final rule were to 

adopt requirements that result in 

moving the vertical members of rear 

impact guards more outward laterally to 

prevent underride in a 56 km/h (35 

mph) 30 percent low overlap crash, at 

the expense of protection against higher 

speed crashes. The agency believes this 

issue should be more fully explored 

before possibly adopting a 30 percent 

low overlap requirement. 

NHTSA has estimated the benefits 

and costs of adopting performance 

requirements to mitigate underride in 

low overlap (30 percent or lower 

overlap) crashes based on available 

information. We estimate 0.75 to 1.5 

fatalities would be prevented annually if 

this rule included requirements to 

mitigate PCI in 30 percent overlap 

crashes at 56 km/h (35 mph) impact 

speed. (This estimate does not account 

for the possible dis-benefits in full and 

50 percent offset crashes resulting from 

a low overlap requirement, discussed in 

the paragraph above.) The 0.75 to 1.5 

fatalities prevented is based on an 

estimated 5.8—11.5 annual fatalities in 

low overlap crashes into the rear of 

trailers (crashes where 30 percent or less 

of the front end of the impacting vehicle 

overlaps the rear of the trailer) and a 13 

percent effectiveness of rear impact 

guards with 30 percent overlap crash 

protection in mitigating fatalities. 

To prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap 

crashes, designs would have to either: 

(a) add additional vertical members at 

the lateral edge of the rear impact guard 

that connect to the trailer’s transverse 

floor beam and strengthen the transverse 

floor beam of the trailer to withstand the 

loads transmitted from these vertical 

members at the edge of the guard; or (b) 

considerably strengthen the rear impact 

guard member so it would not deform 

locally in the 30 percent overlap crash. 

Both these approaches would add 

significant weight to the vehicles 

because they involve adding more 

vertical members, strengthening the 

floor beams, or strengthening the guard 

itself. Additionally, some guard designs 

may have restrictions in intermodal 

operations at loading docks and may not 

be practicable for all types of trailers 

covered by FMVSS No. 224. 

NHTSA is required by Section 1 of 

Executive Order 12866 to conduct a 

benefit-cost analysis of any intended 

regulation.18 NHTSA estimates that the 

annual minimum and average 

incremental fleet cost of equipping all 

new applicable trailers 19 with rear 

impact guards that mitigate PCI in 30 

percent overlap crashes would be $9.9 

million and $30.3 million, respectively. 

The total minimum to average 

undiscounted incremental lifetime fuel 

cost due to increase in weight is 

estimated to be $93 million to $130 

million. The overall undiscounted cost 

increase (material cost and lifetime fuel 

cost) is a minimum of $103 million to 

on average $161 million. 

Using the estimate of 0.75 to 1.5 

fatalities that would be prevented 

annually, the undiscounted cost per life 

saved using the minimum cost estimate 

ranges from $69 million to $151 million. 

The undiscounted cost per life saved 

using the average cost estimate ranges 

from $183 million to $215 million. The 

Department of Transportation has 

recently updated the value of a 

statistical life, consistent with Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–4, to $11.6 million.20

Therefore, a requirement for equipping 

all new applicable trailers with rear 

impact guards that mitigate PCI in 30 

percent overlap crashes is not costeffective.21 This indicates that total 

costs of such a requirement exceed 

overall benefits. 

For the above reasons, NHTSA has 

determined that requirements to 

mitigate PCI in a 30 percent overlap 

crash at 56 km/h (35 mph) would not 

meet the requirements of Section 

30111(a) of the Safety Act. We have 

decided that an FMVSS that requires all 

covered vehicles (trailers and 

semitrailers) to provide rear impact 

protection in full-frontal, 50 percent 

overlap, and 30 percent overlap crashes 

at 56 km/h (35 mph) impact speed 

would not be reasonable or practicable 

for this FMVSS and would not meet the 

requirements of Sections 30111(a) and 

(b) of the Safety Act for issuance of 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

Accordingly, based on all available data, 

we have decided that a Federal mandate 

for a 30 percent overlap crash for all 

vehicles subject to FMVSS Nos. 223 and 

224 is not reasonable at this time. 

However, while NHTSA cannot 

conclude that the data and science 

currently available for agency decisionmaking support mandating installation 

of a rear impact guard that prevents PCI 

in all three overlap conditions (full, 50 

percent, and 30 percent overlap) on all 

vehicles, the Federal standards act as a 

floor, not a ceiling, to establish the 

minimum level of performance that 

meet the safety needs presented by the 

data. FMVSS are written in terms of 

minimum performance requirements for 

motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

equipment to protect the public against 

unreasonable risk of injury and death in 

crashes. Manufacturers have flexibility 

in design as long as their products 

comply with applicable FMVSS. There 

are rear impact guard designs in the 

current trailer and semitrailer market 

that prevent PCI in all three crash 

conditions described in Section 

23011(b)(1)(A) of BIL: (1) full overlap 

crash, (2) 50 percent overlap crash, and 

(3) 30 percent overlap crash at 56 

km/h impact speed. This final rule does 

not preclude these designs from the 

trailer and semitrailer market, as long as 

they meet all requirements of the 

FMVSS to ensure adequate protection in 

(1) and (2), above. 

In response to the research mandate 

in Section 23011(b)(2) of BIL, NHTSA is 

conducting additional research on the 

design and development of rear impact 

guards that can prevent underride and 

protect passengers in crashes into the 

rear of trailers at crash speeds up to 

104.5 km/h (65 mph). As part of this 

research effort, NHTSA will also 

evaluate potential cost-effective rear 

impact guard designs that could 

improve protection in the less-frequent 

30 percent low overlap crashes while 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42344 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

22https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/ 

files/2022-01/USDOT_National_Roadway_Safety_

Strategy_0.pdf. 

23 Id., p. 31. 

24The FRE may be obtained by downloading it or 

by contacting Docket Management at the address or 

telephone number provided at the beginning of this 

document. 

enhancing protection in full and 50 

percent overlap crashes at higher 

speeds. 

NHTSA is also working on 

implementing the other provisions of 

Section 23011 of BIL. 

c. DOT National Roadway Safety 

Strategy 

This final rule accords with DOT’s 

January 2022 National Roadway Safety 

Strategy to address the rising numbers 

of transportation deaths occurring on 

the country’s streets, roads, and 

highways.22 At the core of this strategy 

is the Department-wide adoption of the 

Safe System Approach, which focuses 

on five key objectives: safer people, 

safer roads, safer vehicles, safer speeds, 

and post-crash care. DOT announced it 

will launch new programs, coordinate 

and improve existing programs, and 

adopt a foundational set of principles to 

guide this strategy. The National 

Roadway Safety Strategy includes 

issuing a final rule to upgrade existing 

requirements for rear impact guards on 

newly manufactured trailers and 

semitrailers as a key Departmental 

action to enable safer vehicles.23

d. NTSB Recommendation 

This final rule accords with an April 

3, 2014 recommendation from the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) regarding tractor-trailer safety 

(H–14–004). NTSB recommended that 

NHTSA revise FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 

to ensure that newly manufactured 

trailers over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR 

provide adequate protection of 

passenger vehicle occupants from 

fatalities and serious injuries resulting 

from full-width and offset trailer rear 

impacts. In its recommendation, NTSB 

made favorable reference to IIHS’s 

petition for rulemaking (the petition is 

discussed below). 

e. Impacts of This Rulemaking 

NHTSA has issued a Final Regulatory 

Evaluation (FRE) that analyzes the 

potential impacts of this final rule. The 

FRE is available in the docket for this 

rule.24

NHTSA estimates that 94 percent of 

new trailers sold in the U.S. subject to 

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 are already 

designed to comply with CMVSS No. 

223. The agency estimates that about 

0.56 lives and 3.5 serious injuries would 

be saved annually by requiring all 

trailers covered by Standard No. 224 to 

be equipped with CMVSS No. 223 

compliant guards. The undiscounted 

equivalent lives saved are 1.4 per year. 

Considering that 94 percent of 

applicable trailers already have CMVSS 

compliant guards, the annual average 

incremental fleet cost of equipping all 

applicable trailers with CMVSS No. 223 

rear impact guards is estimated to be 

$2.10 million in 2020 dollars. In 

addition, the added weight of 48.9 

pounds per vehicle would result in an 

estimated annual fleet fuel cost of 

approximately $4.43 million and $5.59 

million discounted at 7% and 3%, 

respectively. As such, the total 

incremental cost would range from 

$6.54 million to $7.69 million 

discounted at 7% and 3%, respectively, 

as shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—COST OF THE FINAL RULE WITH AVERAGE INCREASE IN WEIGHT

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Discount rate Undiscounted 3% 7% 

Material * ...................................................................................................................................... $2.10 $2.10 $2.10 

Fuel .............................................................................................................................................. 6.90 5.59 4.43 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 9.00 7.69 6.54 

* Material costs are not discounted since they occur at the time of purchase 

The estimated equivalent lives saved 

(ELS) ranges from 0.90 lives to 1.14 lives 

discounted at 7% and 3%, respectively. 

The cost of the final rule is the 

regulatory cost and ranges from $6.54 

million to $7.69 million discounted at 

7% and 3%, respectively. The cost per 

ELS ranges from $6.77 million to $7.25 

million discounted at 3% and 7%, 

respectively, as shown in Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2—COST PER EQUIVALENT LIVES SAVED

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Discount rate Undiscounted 3% 7% 

Total cost ..................................................................................................................................... $9.00 $7.69 $6.54 

Equivalent lives saved ................................................................................................................. 1.40 1.14 0.90 

Cost per ELS ............................................................................................................................... $6.42 $6.77 $7.25 

The net benefit of the final rule is the 

difference between the comprehensive 

benefit and the total cost. The estimated 

net benefit ranges from $4.36 million to 

$6.04 million discounted at 7% and 3%, 

respectively, as shown in Table 3 below. 

TABLE 3—NET BENEFITS

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Discounted rate Undiscounted 3% 7% 

Comprehensive benefit ................................................................................................................ $16.96 $13.73 $10.90 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42345 

TABLE 3—NET BENEFITS—Continued 

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Discounted rate Undiscounted 3% 7% 

Total cost ..................................................................................................................................... 9.00 7.69 6.54 

Net benefit ............................................................................................................................ 7.96 6.04 4.36 

Table 4 summarizes the total costs, 

comprehensive benefits, and net 

benefits for both 3 and 7 percent 

discount rates. 

TABLE 4—COSTS AND BENEFITS

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Discount rate Material cost Fuel cost Total costs Comprehensive 

benefits Net benefits 

3% .......................................................... $2.10 $5.59 $7.69 $13.73 $6.04 

7% .......................................................... 2.10 4.43 6.54 10.90 4.36 

f. No Significant Changes to the NPRM 

After carefully reviewing the 

comments, NHTSA is adopting most of 

the proposed rule, while clarifying the 

wording that attachment hardware 

remain intact during quasi-static load 

tests in FMVSS No. 223. NHTSA is also 

making a technical correction to the 

citation referenced in the definition of 

‘‘temporary living quarters’’ in FMVSS 

No. 224. 

II. Background 

a. Current Requirements 

FMVSS No. 223 requires rear impact 

guards to meet the strength 

requirements and energy absorption 

requirements of the standard at certain 

specified test locations. Test locations 

P1, P2, and P3 are depicted in Figure 1. 

Test location P1 is 3/8th of the width of 

the horizontal member from the 

centerline on either side of the 

horizontal member. Test location P2 is 

at the centerline of the horizontal 

member. Test location P3 is 355 

millimeters (mm) (14 inches) to 635 mm 

(25 inches) from the horizontal member 

centerline. The strength tests are 

conducted separately from the energy 

absorption test. 

The strength requirements (S5.2.1) 

specify that the guard must resist the 

following force levels without deflecting 

by more than 125 mm (4.9 inches): 

• 50,000 Newtons (N) (or 50 

kiloNewtons (kN)) at P1 on either the 

left or the right side of the guard; 

• 50,000 N at P2; and, 

• 100,000 N at P3 on either the left or 

the right side of the guard. 

In the strength test, the force is 

applied by a force application device 

(rectangular rigid steel solid face of 203 

mm x 203 mm and thickness of 25 mm) 

until the force level is exceeded or until 

the displacement device is displaced at 

least 125 mm, whichever occurs first. 

The energy absorption requirements 

(S5.2.2) specify that a guard (other than 

a hydraulic guard) must absorb, by 

plastic deformation, within the first 125 

mm of deflection at least 5,650 Joules (J) 

of energy at each test location P3. In the 

test procedure, force is applied to the 

guard using the force application device 

until displacement of the device has 

reached 125 mm, recording the value of 

force at least 10 times per 25 mm of 

displacement. The force is then reduced 

until the guard no longer offers 

resistance to the force application 

device. A force versus deflection 

diagram is plotted with deflection 

(measured displacement of the force 

application device) along the abscissa 

(x-axis) and the measured force along 

the ordinate (y-axis), as shown in Figure 

2, and the energy absorbed by the guard 

is determined by calculating the shaded 

area bounded by the curve in the 

diagram. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42346 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

FMVSS No. 224 requires each vehicle 

to be equipped with a rear impact guard 

certified to FMVSS No. 223 and 

attached to the vehicle’s chassis in 

accordance with installation 

instructions that the guard manufacturer 

provided pursuant to FMVSS No. 223. 

Standard No. 224 specifies that the 

ground clearance (vertical distance of 

the bottom of the horizontal member 

from ground) of the rear impact guard be 

no more than 560 mm (22 inches) and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER15JY22.000</GPH> ER15JY22.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42347 

25After submitting its petition in 2011, IIHS 

conducted additional crash tests of a 2010 

Chevrolet Malibu at 56 km/h (35 mph) into eight 

guard/trailers: A 2011 Wabash, 2012 Manac, 2012 

Stoughton, 2013 Great Dane, 2012–2013 Hyundai, 

2013 Strick, 2013 Utility, and 2013 Vanguard, all 

of which were certified as complying with CMVSS 

No. 223. NHTSA included a summary of the IIHS 

tests in the December 16, 2015 NPRM. 80 FR 

78452–78460. All eight trailers were able to prevent 

PCI with 100 percent overlap. In the tests with 50 

percent overlap, apart from the 2013 Vanguard 

trailer, the remaining seven guard/trailers were able 

to prevent PCI. The rear impact guard on the 2013 

Vanguard failed at the attachments where the bolts 

sheared off during the crash resulting in PCI. 

26NHTSA responded to the Karth/TSC petition 

by issuing two separate notices, one of which was 

the NPRM preceding this final rule (July 10, 2014; 

79 FR 39362). The other was an advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published on 

July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43663) pertaining to the 

agency’s estimated benefits and costs of rear impact 

guards for single unit trucks (SUTs) and of an 

alternative of increasing the conspicuity of SUTs 

through conspicuity tape. FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated equipment,’’ 

requires retroreflective material on the rear and 

sides of trailers to improve the conspicuity of the 

vehicles to other motorists as a means of preventing 

underride crashes. The ANPRM analyzed estimated 

benefits and costs of requiring similar tape for 

SUTs. NHTSA will follow up on the ANPRM in a 

document separate from this final rule. 

27 In addition, we proposed a few housekeeping 

amendments. We proposed to add back ‘‘low 

chassis vehicles’’ into the list of vehicles excluded 

from FMVSS No. 224 in the applicability section 

(S3). The vehicles were excluded from the standard 

in the January 24, 1996 final rule establishing 

FMVSS No. 224 (61 FR 2035) but were 

inadvertently omitted from S3 when S3 was 

amended by a final rule responding to petitions for 

reconsideration (63 FR 3654, January 26, 1998). We 

also proposed to correct typographical errors in the 

standards. We make these changes in this final rule. 

located not more than 305 mm (12 

inches) forward of the rear extremity of 

the trailer and extend laterally to within 

100 mm (4 inches) of each side of the 

vehicle as shown in Figure 3. 

b. Petitions 

IIHS requested, among other things, 

that NHTSA upgrade rear impact guard 

strength requirements, reduce the 

number of exempted vehicles to provide 

occupant protection in higher speed 

crashes and move the P1 test location 

farther outboard to improve crash 

protection in low overlap conditions. 

IIHS requested that NHTSA require 

attachment hardware to remain intact 

for the duration of the quasi-static test 

or until reaching a force threshold 

‘‘much higher than that required for the 

guard itself.’’ 25 The Karth/TSC petition 

asked that NHTSA improve the safety of 

rear impact guards. In later 

correspondence with NHTSA, these 

petitioners state that if FMVSS No. 223 

were amended to be equivalent to 

CMVSS No. 223, injuries and fatalities 

could be avoided.26 We provided a 

detailed discussion of the petitions, and 

our response to them, in the NPRM 

preceding this final rule. 

c. Summary of Proposed Changes 

NHTSA proposed to adopt 

requirements of Transport Canada’s 

standard for rear impact guards, which 

require rear impact guards to provide 

sufficient strength and energy 

absorption to protect occupants of 

compact and subcompact passenger cars 

impacting the rear of trailers at 56 

km/h (35 mph). The NPRM proposed 

the following specific changes to 

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224.27

Performance Requirements 

NHTSA proposed that the loading and 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 223 adopt the specifications in 

CMVSS No. 223. Specifically: 

• The NPRM proposed to amend 

FMVSS No. 223 to require rear impact 

guards (except as noted below) to resist 

a uniform distributed load of 350,000 N 

without deflecting more than 125 mm, 

while absorbing at least 20,000 J of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER15JY22.002</GPH>
42348 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

28We sought to further harmonize FMVSS No. 

224 with CMVSS No. 223. 

energy by plastic deformation within 

the first 125 mm of deflection; 

• Alternatively, guards may resist a 

minimum uniform distributed load of 

700,000 N without deflecting 125 mm. 

• In accordance with CMVSS No. 

223, we proposed to require that rear 

impact guards be required to maintain a 

ground clearance after the energy 

absorption test not exceeding 560 mm. 

For rear impact guards with strength 

exceeding 700,000 N in the uniform 

distributed load test, the post-test 

ground clearance is measured after the 

uniform distributed load test. A 

definition of ‘‘ground clearance’’ would 

be added to FMVSS No. 223. 

• We proposed that FMVSS No. 223 

require that any portion of the rear 

impact guard and attachments not 

separate from their mounting structure 

after completion of FMVSS No. 223’s 

uniform distributed loading test and the 

energy absorption test. 

Definition of ‘‘Rear Extremity’’ 28

We proposed to replace the current 

definition of ‘‘rear extremity’’ in FMVSS 

No. 224 with that specified in CMVSS 

No. 223. The change was intended to 

ensure that aerodynamic fairings are 

located within a certain safe zone at the 

rear of the trailer. Aerodynamic fairings 

on the rear of trailers, also known as 

‘‘boat tails,’’ are rear-mounted panels on 

trailers that reduce aerodynamic drag 

and fuel consumption. The safety 

concern about boat tails is that they 

generally extend beyond the rear 

extremity of trailers and thus can negate 

the crash protection provided by rear 

impact guards. That is, there is a 

possibility that a boat tail can protrude 

so far rearward that it can intrude into 

the passenger compartment in a crash 

and cause injury, notwithstanding the 

presence of an upgraded rear impact 

guard. 

III. Summary of Comments 

NHTSA received fifty (50) comments 

on the NPRM.29 Ten comments were 

received from the three petitioners 

(IIHS, Ms. Marianne Karth (with her 

husband Mr. Jerry Karth), and the TSC), 

one comment was received from the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB), six comments were received 

from industry associations (the 

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 

(RVIA), the Truck Trailer Manufacturers 

Association (TTMA), the American 

Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA), the 

National Truck Equipment Association 

(NTEA), and the National Propane Gas 

Association (NPGA)), two comments 

were received from trailer 

manufacturers (Strick Trailers, LLC 

(Strick) and the Wabash National 

Corporation (Wabash)), seven comments 

were received from engineers (the 

Mechanical Engineering Underride 

Design Group at Virginia Tech (VT 

Group), Seven Hills Engineering, LLC 

(Seven Hills), Batzer Engineering, Inc. 

(Batzer), and Mr. Aaron Kiefer), two 

comments were received from attorneys 

(Mr. D.J. Young, III and Mr. Andy 

Young), ten comments were received 

from advocacy groups (e.g., Underride 

Network, Road Safe America (RSA), and 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

(AHAS)), and twelve comments were 

received from individual members of 

the general public. 

Comments were generally in favor of 

upgrading rear impact guard 

performance. The petitioners, NTSB, 

engineers, attorneys, advocacy groups, 

and individuals from the general public 

argued, however, for increasing the 

stringency of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 

beyond what was proposed in the 

NPRM. These groups also suggested that 

NHTSA take other actions suggested in 

the initial IIHS and Karth/TSC petitions 

that NHTSA had not proposed in the 

NPRM. The industry associations and 

trailer manufacturers were generally in 

favor of the proposed rule and opposed 

further changes to it. Comments also 

covered issues such as alternative guard 

designs, NHTSA’s benefit-cost analysis, 

the proposed lead time, retrofitting 

issues, and side and front guards. 

IV. Response to Comments on the 

Proposed Amendments 

a. General Strength and Energy 

Absorption Requirements 

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to 

harmonize FMVSS No. 223’s test and 

performance requirements to those 

specified in CMVSS No. 223 by 

replacing the current quasi-static point 

load test at the P3 location with a 

uniform distributed load test of 350,000 

N. Under this test, NHTSA proposed 

that the rear impact guard must resist 

the 350,000 N load without deflecting 

more than 125 mm, absorb at least 

20,000 J of energy within 125 mm of 

guard deflection, and have a ground 

clearance not exceeding 560 mm after 

completion of the test. 

Comments Received 

Commenters supported upgrading 

FMVSS No. 223’s requirements as 

proposed, but most also suggested that 

NHTSA issue requirements more 

stringent than those proposed. Multiple 

commenters argued that, because 93 

percent of trailers already comply with 

CMVSS No. 223 according to the NPRM, 

the proposed requirements would make 

little tangible difference and not prevent 

the underride injuries that are still 

occurring. The Underride Network 

(Network) stated that NHTSA’s proposal 

would only ‘‘upgrade the standard as 

basically existed in 1996,’’ without 

going further to include technological 

improvements made for rear impact 

guards. Wabash, on the other hand, 

suggested that even though most new 

trailers currently adhere to CMVSS No. 

223, there is still a benefit to the 

proposed requirements. Wabash argued 

that adopting the proposed 

requirements would both mandate that 

the remaining portion of the new trailer 

fleet adopt upgraded rear impact guards 

and allow NHTSA to take enforcement 

action against any company that fails to 

install upgraded rear impact guards. 

Some commenters also urged NHTSA 

not to adopt a proposal that only 

provides protection against underride at 

impact speeds up to 56 km/h (35 mph), 

stating that these crashes only represent 

a fraction of all rear underride crashes. 

These commenters remarked that 

NHTSA should do more to provide 

protections for underride crashes that 

occur at greater speeds. Some 

commenters suggested specific 

requirements that they believed NHTSA 

should adopt instead of those proposed 

in the NPRM. Network requested that 

the quasi-static loading tests use a force 

of 200 (kN) at the P1 and P2 test 

locations and 100 kN at the P3 test 

location. Mr. Kiefer suggested that rear 

impact guards should be quasi-statically 

tested to ‘‘at least 80% of reasonable 

crash pulse loadings.’’ Mr. Karth 

referenced what he called a ‘‘new 

Australian/New Zealand proposed rule’’ 

and asked NHTSA to use that as a basis 

for its standards. According to Mr. 

Karth, the Australian/New Zealand 

proposed rule states that current vehicle 

crashworthiness technology can protect 

passengers in collisions with a 

deformable barrier at impact speeds 

around 64 km/h (40 mph) and that 

energy absorbing rear impact guards 

could reduce injury at higher speeds. 

Ms. Karth echoed this point, stating that 

adopting the Australian/New Zealand 

proposed rule would save more lives 

than adopting standards based on 

CMVSS No. 223. These and all other 

relevant comments are address below. 

Agency Response 

After reviewing the comments, 

NHTSA is adopting the strength and 

energy absorption standards as 

proposed in the NPRM. NHTSA 

recognizes that many commenters have 

asked NHTSA to require rear impact 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42349 

30Roadside crash barriers, guardrails and other 

roadside safety features installed along U.S. 

highways undergo crashworthiness testing in 

accordance with the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). 

The AASHTO MASH was updated in 2016 and 

includes vehicle crash testing at 6 different test 

levels (TL–1 to TL–6) based on the type of crash 

attenuator, type of road, and traffic patterns. 

• TL–1: Cars and trucks—31 mph 

• TL–2: Cars and trucks—44 mph 

• TL–3: Cars and trucks—62 mph 

• TL–4: Cars, trucks, and single unit trucks—62 

mph and 56 mph respectively 

• TL–5: Cars, trucks, and tractor trailers—62 and 

50 mph respectively 

• TL–6: Cars, trucks, and tractor tank trailers—62 

and 50 mph respectively 

guards to provide protection against 

underride at impact speeds beyond 56 

km/h (35 mph). As discussed below, 

NHTSA is researching this area. 

However, based on available data, the 

agency does not believe that such 

increased requirements are reasonable 

or practicable at this time. Rear impact 

guards are meant to work with 

passenger vehicle safety features to 

protect occupants of the vehicle during 

a collision. For these passenger vehicle 

safety features to activate, the passenger 

vehicle must collide with the rear 

impact guard, and this collision itself 

poses risks to passenger safety. 

Currently, FMVSS No. 208 requires 

passenger vehicles to provide protection 

in front collisions at speeds up to 56 

km/h (35 mph). Even if a rear impact 

guard were to prevent PCI at impact 

speeds above 56 km/h (35 mph), a 

passenger vehicle in compliance with 

FMVSS No. 208 may not be able to 

protect the vehicle’s occupants at 

speeds above 56 km/h (35 mph) in a 

collision with a rear impact guard. 

Commenters did not provide data 

showing current passenger vehicle 

safety features would prevent injuries in 

underride collisions above 56 km/h (35 

mph). Accordingly, NHTSA concludes 

it is appropriate for this final rule to 

align the requirements in FMVSS Nos. 

223 and 224 with those in FMVSS No. 

208 and CMVSS No. 223, as proposed 

in the NPRM. This final rule adopts 

those proposed requirements. 

Further, the 56 km/h (35 mph) crash 

speed accords with Section 

23011(b)(1)(A) of BIL. BIL states that, 

not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall 

promulgate regulations that revise 

FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224 to 

require new trailers and semitrailers to 

be equipped with rear impact guards 

that are designed to prevent PCI from a 

trailer or semitrailer when a passenger 

vehicle traveling at 56 km/h (35 mph) 

makes an impact into the center of the 

rear of the trailer or semitrailer and in 

which 50 percent of the width of the 

passenger motor vehicle overlaps the 

rear of the trailer or semitrailer. This 

final rule’s adoption of the NPRM’s 

proposed test speed meets the BIL 

statutory mandate within the timeframe 

directed by the Act, and meets the 

requirements for FMVSSs required by 

the Safety Act. 

In response to the research mandate 

in Section 23011(b)(2) of BIL, NHTSA is 

conducting additional research on the 

design and development of rear impact 

guards that can prevent underride and 

protect passengers in crashes into the 

rear of trailers at crash speeds up to 

104.5 km/h (65 mph). After the 

completion of this research, NHTSA 

will evaluate potential requirements for 

rear impact guards for preventing 

underride and protecting occupants at 

impact speeds greater than 35 mph. 

Commenters also referred to guard 

designs and recommendations 

developed by third parties that claim to 

offer greater protection at higher impact 

speeds than guards currently in use. 

There is no evidence that any have been 

finalized, implemented, and proven 

feasible for commercial use. The 

Intelliguard/Impact Project, a design 

source cited by Mr. Karth, explicitly 

stated, ‘‘The guard needs, however, 

further optimization to become 

commercially feasible.’’ 

Network asked NHTSA to test rear 

impact guards ‘‘at real world speeds,’’ 

arguing that the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) tests crash 

attenuators at 100 km/h (62.2 mph) and 

that NHTSA should crash test rear 

impact guards at similar speeds. In 

response, NHTSA notes, first, that it did 

not propose to test at highway speeds in 

the NPRM and believes this request may 

be outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Further, NHTSA does not believe that 

Network’s comparison of rear impact 

guards and FHWA roadside crash 

attenuators is appropriate. Roadside 

crash attenuators are stationary barriers 

placed alongside roads that are designed 

to absorb a colliding vehicle’s energy 

and safely redirect the vehicle or bring 

it to a stop. A typical crash attenuator 

system is 50 feet long. In contrast, rear 

impact guards are structures attached to 

the rear of mobile trailers to mitigate 

underride of the impacting vehicle. 

Roadside crash attenuators, therefore, 

are designed for a different environment 

than a rear impact guard, have different 

performance requirements,30 and have 

fewer operational and practical 

restrictions on their size and weight 

versus rear impact guards. Similar 

performance for truck rear impact 

guards at highway speeds has not been 

shown to be technically feasible. 

In terms of specific standards 

suggested by commenters, these 

commenters unfortunately did not 

provide sufficient information to 

warrant modifying the proposed 

requirements. Commenters did not 

provide data showing the extent to 

which guards compliant with these 

various standards are superior to the 

Canadian guards. NHTSA notes that the 

‘‘Australian/New Zealand proposed 

rule’’ referenced by Mr. and Ms. Karth 

is not a regulatory requirement, but 

rather is an industry design guideline 

created by Standards Australia and 

Standards New Zealand. These 

guidelines do not provide information 

to warrant modifying NHTSA’s 

proposal. In terms of rear impact guards 

performing at impact speeds above 56 

km/h (35 mph), the guidelines only 

conjecture that guards could be 

developed that reduce serious injury to 

vehicle occupants at speeds above 70 

km/h; they do not provide instructions 

on how to design such guards or data 

regarding practicability, effectiveness or 

performance. Not enough is known 

about these standards to assess the need 

for them or whether adopting them 

would meet the requirements of the 

Safety Act. 

b. Alternative Guard Designs 

Based on tests conducted by 

Transport Canada showing that a 

CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard was 

able to prevent PCI in 56 km/h (35 mph) 

vehicle impacts into the rear of trailers 

with 100 percent and 50 percent 

overlap, NHTSA proposed to adopt 

CMVSS No. 223’s strength and energy 

absorption requirements. 

Comments Received 

NHTSA received many comments 

arguing that the proposed standards 

were inadequate because rear impact 

guards generally meet them already. 

Advocates and IIHS referred to a 2011 

Wabash guard, involved in the tests 

conducted by IIHS, to argue that the 

guard exceeded the CMVSS force 

requirements by more than 70 percent 

in quasi-static tests. Other commenters 

also mentioned that they believed it 

possible to design a rear impact guard 

that could provide protection for rear 

underride crashes at speeds greater than 

56 km/h (35 mph), several pointing to 

testing conducted by third parties to 

support these claims. Network and Mr. 

Karth stated that the Monash University 

Accident Research Centre (MUARC) 

tested energy-absorbing guards to 75 

km/h (47 mph) in the early 1990s. They 

also claimed that the Impact Project had 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42350 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

31A point load test applies a concentrated load 

to a focused point. The uniform distributed load 

tests specified in CMVSS No. 223 and this final rule 

apply the test load over a wider area. 

32The petitioners, the attorney commenters, UN, 

AHAS, Seven Hills, Aaron Kiefer, and Andy Young 

cited design testing conducted by the Intelliguard/ 

Impact Project, the VT Group, VC-Compat, MUARC, 

and Aaron Kiefer to support claims that guards with 

greater crash protection at higher impact velocities 

are feasible. 33Section 23011 (b)(1) of BIL requires a regulation 

revising FMVSS No. 223 and No. 224 not later than 

1 (one) year after the November 15, 2021, date of 

enactment of the Act. 34MUARC discussed its research in a 2001 

submission to the International Technical 

Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. 

Rechnitzer, G., Powell, C., and Seyer, K., 

‘‘Performance Criteria, Design, and Crash Tests of 

Rear Underride Barriers for Heavy Vehicles,’’ 

Proceedings of the Seventeenth International 

Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles, Paper No. 218, https://wwwesv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/17/00189.pdf. 

35Federal regulations in Australia for rear impact 

guards are similar to those in Europe and Australia. 

The MUARC recommendations are not used as 

performance requirements in Australian Federal 

standards and there are no manufacturers in 

Australia voluntarily designing their guards to meet 

the MUARC recommendations. 

tested energy-absorbing guards to 40 

mph with computer modeling showing 

that the guards might be able to perform 

at 50 mph or more. Mr. Young noted 

that the VC-Compat project is ‘‘currently 

proposing and recommending stronger 

rear impact guards to meet higher 

speeds.’’ 

Other commenters stated that they 

personally were either developing or 

had seen rear impact guards that were 

improvements over guards meeting the 

current and proposed standards. Mr. 

Karth pointed to a design developed by 

the VT Group which, he claimed, 

‘‘shows promise of greatly improving 

the current standard at a reasonable 

cost.’’ Mr. Kiefer stated that he had 

developed a rear guard system that will 

exceed the proposed standards. Mr. 

Karth stated that he was told by a Mr. 

Sicking that he ‘‘can design a system 

which will prevent underride guard 

failures’’ that occur ‘‘at much higher 

speeds.’’ 

Agency Response 

NHTSA has evaluated the data from 

IIHS and other research groups provided 

by the commenters and cannot agree 

that the information forms a technical 

basis for modifying the proposed 

requirements. Advocates and IIHS 

argued that rear impact guards could 

provide protection at speeds higher than 

56 km/h (35 mph) because the Wabash 

guard exceeded CMVSS No. 223 force 

requirements by ‘‘more than 70 percent’’ 

in tests conducted by IIHS. Our analysis 

of the comment, however, determined 

that IIHS’s tests were different than, and 

not comparable to, the CMVSS No. 223 

tests. IIHS conducted a point load test 

at P3, which is very different than the 

uniform distributed load specified in 

CMVSS No. 223 and this final rule.31 As 

the tests are not comparable, it cannot 

be concluded that the Wabash guard 

exceeded the CMVSS No. 223 force 

requirement by more than 70 percent. 

Additionally, the data do not show that 

the guard would provide better crash 

protection in dynamic impacts above 56 

km/h (35 mph). I.e., the data did not 

link IIHS’s quasi-static test values to 

evidence of actual dynamic crash 

performance at higher impact speeds. 

Section 1 of E.O. 12866 requires 

agencies to base their decisions on the 

best reasonably available scientific, 

technical, economic, and other 

information on the need for, and 

consequences of, the intended 

regulation. In accordance with the E.O., 

this final rule will complete the upgrade 

of Standard No. 223 to the Canadian 

standard as proposed, as it is based on 

the best information reasonably 

available at this time. However, while 

the commenters’ information does not 

form a comprehensive or complete basis 

for modifying the rear impact guard 

requirements above that which was 

proposed, NHTSA is continuing to 

research this area in response to BIL. 

Pursuant to the research mandate in BIL 

Section 23011(b)(2), NHTSA is 

conducting additional research on the 

design and development of rear impact 

guards that prevent underride and 

protect passengers in crashes into the 

rear of trailers at crash speeds up to 

104.5 km/h (65 mph). The results of this 

research and other information will 

provide more data and other 

information that can guide decisions 

about updating the rear impact guard 

standards at a future date. 

In response to commenters, NHTSA 

also reviewed guard designs and 

recommendations developed by third 

parties (MUARC, VT group, Aaron 

Kiefer, Sickling) that several 

commenters believed could offer greater 

protection at higher impact speeds than 

rear impact guards currently in use.32

As these guards have not been finalized, 

implemented, proven effective or shown 

feasible for commercial use in the 

industry, the agency could not 

reasonably include requirements for 

these guards in FMVSS Nos. 223 and 

224 at this time.33 Also, not enough is 

known about the rationale for various 

specifications of the experimental 

guards. For instance, MUARC, an 

organization favorably cited by many 

commenters, stated 34 that it had 

designed a guard which prevented PCI 

in a 75 km/h (46 mph) centered impact 

test and recommended that guards be 

able to absorb 50 kiloJoules (kJ) and 

quasi-static forces of 200 kN at the P1 

location, 100 kN at the P2 location, and 

200 kN at the P3 location. It is unclear 

how MUARC developed these quasistatic test recommendations and how 

these recommendations relate to 

dynamic crash test performance. 

Further, MUARC’s 50 kJ and the 100 kJ 

energy absorption recommendation does 

not specify the degree of deflection at 

which the guard must meet this energy 

absorption requirement, and the 

experimental guard designed by 

MUARC never advanced beyond the 

proof-of-concept phase.35 There is no 

information on the long term durability 

and costs of a MUARC guard since it is 

not available for purchase and 

installation, nor can NHTSA know if 

such a guard can be feasibly and 

effectively used for different types of 

trailers, such as those with unique 

geometry. 

NHTSA has the same concerns with 

the experimental guards described by 

the Impact Project, the VC-Compat 

project, the VT Group, Mr. Kiefer, and 

Mr. Sicking. Commenters did not 

provide information that the guards are 

effective at providing protection at 

impact speeds beyond 56 km/h (35 

mph) and failed to provide a verifiable 

relationship between the results of the 

dynamic crash tests and quasi-static 

specifications that NHTSA relies on in 

FMVSS No. 223. In the absence of such 

data, there is insufficient information 

supporting using these experimental 

guards to form the requirements for 

FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. As discussed 

above, however, NHTSA will continue 

researching guard performance in higher 

speed crashes in response to BIL and 

anticipates obtaining more 

comprehensive information about the 

performance and other features of 

potential guards designed for higher 

speed impacts. 

c. 700 kN Energy Absorption Test 

Option 

The NPRM proposed to include an 

option from CMVSS No. 223 permitting 

a rear impact guard not to meet the 

energy absorption requirements of the 

uniform distributed load test detailed 

above if it is able to resist 700,000 N 

(700 kN) of force without deflecting 

more than 125 mm and maintain a 

ground clearance of 560 mm after 

completion of the test. NHTSA noted in 

the NPRM that it did not believe that 

guards will likely be manufactured to 

this test but sought comment on 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42351 

36Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 138, No. 20, 2004– 

10–06, p. 1349. 

37Boucher, D., ‘‘Heavy Trailer rear underride 

crash tests performed with passenger vehicles,’’ 

Technical Memorandum No. TMVS–0001, 

Transport Canada, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle 

Regulation Directorate, July 2000. 

38NHTSA’s entire rationale is detailed in the 

NPRM for this final rule. See 80 FR 78424–78426. 

39See final rule, 61 FR 2004, 2017; January 24, 

1996. 

whether this alternative testing option 

should be included in FMVSS No. 223. 

Comments Received 

Commenters were divided in their 

support of the 700 kN test option. 

TTMA stated in support that keeping 

this as an option would allow TTMA 

members to retain needed flexibility. 

Batzer asserted in support that, since 

passenger vehicles have improved their 

energy absorbing characteristics since 

the 1996 final rule, NHTSA does not 

need to require that rear impact guards 

meet an energy absorption requirement 

as long as the guards can provide a 

certain level of resistance force. 

Network stated that this option ‘‘might 

make sense,’’ but also stated that rear 

impact guards must be able to absorb a 

minimum of 50 kJ, and preferred that 

guards be able to absorb 100 kJ. Ms. 

Wood agreed that rear impact guards 

must be able to absorb at least 50 kJ. The 

VT Group disagreed with including the 

700 kN test, stating that doing so would 

afford manufacturers the ability to omit 

a horizontal member from a rear impact 

guard. The VT Group claimed that 

without a horizontally distributing 

structure, ‘‘a minor impact more closely 

resembles a pole strike.’’ 

Agency Response 

NHTSA agrees with TTMA and Batzer 

and believes it appropriate to adopt the 

700 kN test option. Network and the VT 

Group expressed reservations about the 

option, but they did not provide data or 

other evidence demonstrating that this 

option would be detrimental to safety. 

They did not provide any further 

information supporting the request for a 

50 kJ or 100 kJ energy absorption 

requirement, nor did they explain how 

the 700 kN test option would allow 

manufacturers to omit a horizontal 

member. FMVSS No. 223 S5.1 specifies 

that the vertical height of the horizontal 

member must be at least 100 mm and 

FMVSS No. 224 S5.1 specifies geometric 

requirements for the rear impact guard 

that remain unchanged by this test 

option. 

Transport Canada developed the 700 

kN test option based on rigid barrier 

crash test results suggesting that a 

resistance to a uniform load of at least 

700 kN would help ensure that the rear 

impact guard will stay in place and 

prevent underride in an impact with a 

passenger car at impact speeds of 56 

km/h (35 mph).36 NHTSA concludes 

that the data from Transport Canada, 

cited in the NPRM, demonstrate the 

effectiveness and feasibility of this 

option in preventing underride at 35 

mph.37

d. Ground Clearance 

NHTSA proposed maintaining the 

current ground clearance requirement of 

560 mm (22 inches) (S5.1.2, FMVSS No. 

224) but also proposed updating FMVSS 

No. 223 to require rear impact guards to 

maintain a ground clearance of 560 mm 

(22 inches) after completion of the load 

application during the energy 

absorption test. Due to deformation that 

may occur upon loading, NHTSA noted 

that this requirement may correspond to 

an initial ground clearance on the trailer 

that is actually less than 560 mm (22 

inches). 

Comments Received 

Many commenters suggested lowering 

the ground clearance requirement. 

These commenters generally argued that 

rear impact guards must align with the 

height of car bumpers and since NHTSA 

mandates that passenger car bumpers be 

16 to 20 inches (406.4 to 508 mm) off 

the ground, NHTSA must lower the 

ground clearance requirement to this 

level. The VT Group stated that 

NHTSA’s bumper standards in ‘‘49 CFR 

581 requires a light vehicle bumper 

height of 16 to 20’’ inches and that 

lowering ground clearance to this level 

‘‘could ensure proper initial engagement 

with light vehicle safety systems.’’ 

Batzer similarly stated that the most 

effectively designed rear impact guard 

‘‘would engage the bumper of the 

striking passenger vehicle.’’ 

Commenters also suggested that, 

because the average guard height for 

trailers currently is 18 inches (457.2 

mm), there is no need for NHTSA to 

allow for a higher ground clearance. Mr. 

D.J. Young, III and Mr. Andy Young 

stated that technology exists that can 

raise or lower rear impact guards, and 

therefore NHTSA should not be 

concerned that a lower ground clearance 

requirement could result in a rear 

impact guard scrapping or snagging 

along the ground. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA proposed amending FMVSS 

No. 223 to require that, after the energy 

absorption test where the guard is 

displaced 125 mm, the rear impact 

guard has to maintain a ground 

clearance not exceeding 560 mm (22 

inches) but did not propose to alter the 

560 mm (22 inches) ground clearance 

requirement in FMVSS No. 224. The 

NPRM explicitly stated that NHTSA was 

denying the request made by petitioners 

to lower the ground clearance 

requirement and NHTSA did not 

propose such a change in the NPRM. 

The suggestions to lower the ground 

clearance requirement are thus not 

within the scope of this rulemaking. 

Further, NHTSA included in the NPRM 

its rationale for denying the request to 

lower the ground clearance requirement, 

and, after reviewing the comments and 

other information, NHTSA has not 

changed its position on these points. In 

the interest of discussion, NHTSA will 

briefly repeat its reasoning here.38

Comments stating that NHTSA should 

modify the ground clearance 

requirement to align with NHTSA’s 

bumper standard (49 CFR part 581) 

misunderstood the purpose of the 

bumper standard and repeat a concern 

to which NHTSA responded in the 1996 

final rule establishing FMVSS Nos. 223 

and 224.39 The bumper standard under 

49 CFR part 581 is designed to prevent 

damage to a car body and its safety 

related equipment in impacts of 3.2 km/ 

h (2 mph) across the full width of the 

bumper and 1.6 km/h (1 mph) on the 

corners. The bumper standard is not, in 

other words, intended to provide 

occupant protection from crashes at 

injury-causing impact speeds. That 

function is instead performed by the 

vehicle’s chassis energy-management 

design and its energy-absorbing frame 

rails, which rely on the engagement of 

the vehicle’s major structural 

components with the rear impact guard. 

Nor is it the case that the major 

structural components of vehicles have 

been so lowered as to necessitate 

lowering the ground clearance 

requirement. To the contrary, the height 

of the top of the engine block appears 

to have increased since NHTSA 

promulgated the 1996 final rule that 

required the 560 mm (22 inches) ground 

clearance. Using engine block height as 

a suitable metric to represent a major 

structural element of the striking vehicle 

that would engage the rear impact 

guard, when NHTSA issued the 1996 

final rule, NHTSA determined the 

typical height of the top of the engine 

block as between 660 and 790 mm (26 

and 31 inches). 61 FR 2017. In contrast, 

as discussed in the 2015 NPRM for this 

final rule, data show that the current 

height of the top of the engine block is 

between 739 mm (29.1 inches) and 1300 

mm (51.2 inches), with an average 

height of 889 mm (35 inches) (80 FR 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42352 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

40 ‘‘Chassis’’ is defined in FMVSS No. 223, S4, as 

the load supporting frame structure of a motor 

vehicle. 

78425). Thus, passenger vehicle designs 

have changed in years since the 

establishment of the 560 mm (22 inches) 

ground clearance specification such that 

there is a greater likelihood of 

engagement of their major structural 

components with the rear impact guard. 

Further, NHTSA is concerned that 

some trailers may face operational 

issues if NHTSA lowered the ground 

clearance requirement. Trailers may 

snag and scrape at loading docks and 

steep railroad crossings, resulting in 

damage to the guard, if guards were 

required to be lower to the ground. The 

commenters advocating for a lower 

ground clearance requirement provided 

no data to show that this possible risk 

can be overcome or is offset by any 

potential benefits. Similarly, NHTSA 

does not believe it is appropriate to 

lower the ground clearance requirement 

and then force operators involved in 

intermodal operations to possess trailers 

with rear impact guards that can be 

raised and lowered. Doing so would 

unnecessarily burden the industry and 

raise costs, and commenters have not 

identified any associated benefits that 

would justify this decision. 

e. Requiring Attachment Hardware To 

Remain Intact 

The NPRM focused on ensuring the 

attachment hardware of the rear impact 

guard remained intact in the quasi-static 

loading tests. It proposed to prohibit the 

complete separation of any portion of 

the guard and the guard attachments 

from its mounting structure after 

completion of the quasi-static uniform 

distributed load test (proposed S5.2.1). 

NHTSA stated in the NPRM (80 FR at 

48429) that it was interpreting ‘‘‘any 

portion of the guard and the guard 

attachment completely separating from 

its mounting structure’ to mean the 

condition where any member of the 

guard becomes detached from any other 

member of the guard or from the trailer 

such that the joint is no longer 

mechanically bound together.’’ The 

agency further stated that it would not 

consider a partial separation of the 

members at a joint where there is still 

some degree of mechanical connection 

between the members as a ‘‘complete 

separation.’’ Id. NHTSA sought 

comment on this proposed performance 

criterion and whether its objectivity 

could be improved by, e.g., specifying 

the percentage of fasteners or welds that 

remain intact during the test. 

Comments Received 

Commenters had different views 

regarding the proposed requirement that 

attachment hardware remain attached 

throughout the quasi-static test. Notably, 

commenters in favor of such a 

requirement still asked NHTSA to refine 

the language used in the regulatory text. 

The NTSB stated that it supported 

developing performance criteria to 

determine objectively the degree of 

separation that may significantly reduce 

rear impact guard performance, but the 

commenter did not provide information 

on what the criteria should be. IIHS 

stated that the standard should require 

rear impact guards to withstand the 

quasi-static load tests without any 

separation between the guard and guard 

attachments rather than adopt the 

criterion of complete separation that 

NHTSA proposed. IIHS believed that 

NHTSA’s language in the preamble, 

stating that the agency would consider 

partial separation acceptable as long as 

there was still some degree of 

mechanical connection between the 

guard’s members, was vague. Due to this 

perceived ambiguity, IIHS questioned 

whether NHTSA would consider a joint 

where 3 of 4 bolts were sheared to 

constitute a partial separation. 

The TTMA, on the other hand, 

expressed concerns with making the 

standard overly complicated in trying to 

make it more objective, stating that 

setting specific requirements for 

numbers of welds or fasteners to remain 

intact ‘‘would unnecessarily complicate 

the standard compared to the Canadian 

equivalent, and could preclude the use 

of designs with components that may be 

designed to shear or tear as part of an 

energy mitigation strategy.’’ Seven Hills 

remarked that TTMA’s concerns could 

be alleviated by modifying the design of 

rear impact guards. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA agrees with the comments 

that FMVSS No. 223 should require 

attachment hardware to remain attached 

during the quasi-static load test. 

However, NHTSA does not agree with 

IIHS’s specific suggestion of a 

requirement that there be no separation 

at any point. Guards may be designed to 

have attachment hardware shear away 

from the guard during impact to absorb 

the impact energy. The agency does not 

find it necessary to prohibit these kinds 

of guards if they meet the criterion 

discussed below. 

While NHTSA requested comments 

on an objective criterion that would 

keep guards from separating from their 

attachment hardware (other than by 

prohibiting a ‘‘complete separation’’), 

the agency did not receive any data or 

bases to aid NHTSA on this issue. 

NHTSA agrees with commenters, 

though, that the language the agency 

used in describing the requirement in 

the NPRM could be clearer. NHTSA 

proposed in S5.2.1 that a tested guard 

must resist the force levels specified in 

S5.2.1(a) through (c) without deflecting 

by more than 125 mm and ‘‘without 

complete separation of any portion of 

the guard and guard attachments from 

its mounting structure.’’ This final rule 

replaces the phrase ‘‘without complete 

separation of any portion of the guard 

and guard attachments from its 

mounting structure’’ in proposed S5.2.1 

and S5.2.2(a)(1) with the phrase 

‘‘without eliminating any load path that 

existed before the test was initiated.’’ 

‘‘Load path’’ is a standard engineering 

term. The agency is defining ‘‘load 

path’’ to mean a route of force 

transmission from the horizontal 

member of the guard to the chassis.40

Load paths represent how forces 

applied to the guard will transmit 

through the guard to the chassis based 

on the geometry of the guard. For the 

purposes of FMVSS No. 223, NHTSA 

will determine load paths by visual 

inspection prior to conducting the 

quasi-static load tests. NHTSA will 

assess whether any load paths are 

eliminated after any force applied 

during the test using the force 

application device is removed. 

‘‘Eliminating a load path’’ means that a 

load path designed to transmit force 

from the horizontal member of the rear 

impact guard to the chassis, can no 

longer transmit the force. 

If two or more members in the load 

path are joined using multiple bolts, 

NHTSA will not consider each bolt to be 

an individual load path. For instance, if 

the vertical member of a rear impact 

guard was attached to the horizontal 

member by four bolts, NHTSA would 

not consider the load path to have been 

eliminated if one, two, or three of the 

bolts sheared off or otherwise became 

disconnected during testing. On the 

other hand, if all four bolts sheared off, 

or otherwise became disconnected, the 

agency would consider this to constitute 

an eliminated load path, even if the 

guard’s members remained in contact 

due to friction or the structural integrity 

of another portion of the guard. To use 

another example, if two members in a 

load path are connected by a single 

weld and if the weld developed one or 

more discontinuous cracks during 

testing, NHTSA would not consider this 

to constitute an eliminated load path. If, 

however, a continuous crack developed 

during testing along the entire length of 

the weld holding the two members 

together, this would constitute an 

eliminated load path as a route of force 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42353 

41A ‘‘low chassis vehicle’’ is defined in FMVSS 

No. 224 as a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis 

that extends behind the rearmost point of the 

rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets 

the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 

5.1.3 of Standard No. 224. 

42As discussed earlier in this preamble, the 2013 

UMTRI Study collected supplemental data to that 

collected in TIFA for the years 2008 and 2009. The 

supplemental survey data included details of the 

truck rear extremity, whether a rear impact guard 

was required, relative impact speed of the crash, 

and the extent of underride. 

43SUTs are trucks with a GVWR greater than 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) with no trailer. They are 

primarily straight trucks, in which the engine, cab, 

drive train, and cargo area are mounted on one 

chassis. As SUTs are not trailers, they are not 

subject to FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. 

44Braver, E.R.; Mitter, E.L.; Lund, A.K.; Cammisa, 

M.X.; Powell, M.R.; and Early, N. 1998. A 

photograph-based study of the incidence of fatal 

truck underride crashes in Indiana. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 235– 

243. 

45Blower D and Campbell K. 1999. Underride in 

Rear-End Fatal Truck Crashes, The University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute, 1999. 

transmission would have been 

eliminated even if the members 

remained in contact through friction or 

the structural integrity of another 

portion of the guard. When all 

mechanical connection along a route of 

force transmission from the horizontal 

member of the guard to the chassis is 

lost, we would consider this to be an 

eliminated load path. If the two 

members in a load path were connected 

by two welds and a continuous crack 

developed along the entire length of 

only one of the welds, this would not 

constitute an eliminated load path. 

f. Definition of Rear Extremity 

The NPRM proposed replacing the 

current definition of ‘‘rear extremity’’ in 

FMVSS No. 224 with the definition 

from CMVSS No. 223. NHTSA proposed 

this change to account for aerodynamic 

fairings, also known as ‘‘boat tails,’’ 

which are rear-mounted panels that 

reduce aerodynamic drag and fuel 

consumption. The proposed change to 

the definition of ‘‘rear extremity’’ was 

meant to ensure that aerodynamic 

fairings would be placed where, in a 

collision, they would not jeopardize the 

safety of occupants in vehicles striking 

the rear of the trailer. 

Comments Received 

Network, TTMA, and NTSB all 

supported NHTSA’s proposed change. 

The VT Group and Batzer raised 

concerns that aerodynamic fairings 

could pierce windshields in instances of 

partial underride and pose an 

impalement hazard. Batzer further 

suggested that NHTSA require every 

trailer manufacturer and/or user with a 

non-standard end profile to do a formal 

engineering analysis of their equipment 

to document that they have considered 

the safety implications of their design. 

Agency Response 

After reviewing the comments on this 

issue, NHTSA agrees with commenters 

supporting the proposal. The proposed 

definition for ‘‘rear extremity’’ is based 

on the Canadian definition, which 

Transport Canada arrived at after 

extensive research into aerodynamic 

fairings. While commenters raised 

concerns over impalement risks, 

aerodynamic fairings are typically 

lightweight structures and no 

commenter provided evidence showing 

a risk of vehicle occupant impalement 

by such fairings. NHTSA will continue 

to monitor rear impact collisions and 

revisit the definition if necessary. 

Requiring trailer manufacturers to do a 

formal engineering analysis on 

aerodynamic fairings, as Batzer 

suggested, is beyond the scope of the 

proposal. 

g. Low Chassis Vehicle Correction 

FMVSS No. 224 excludes several 

types of trailers from application of the 

standard (S3). As noted in the NPRM, 

low chassis vehicles 41 were originally 

excluded from FMVSS No. 224 in a 

1996 final rule establishing the standard 

(61 FR 2035) but NHTSA inadvertently 

did not list the vehicles in S3 in a 1998 

amendment that responded to petitions 

for reconsideration (63 FR 3654). The 

agency proposed to correct the omission 

and list low chassis vehicles back in S3. 

Although the NPRM did not propose 

to expand the applicability of FMVSS 

No. 224, NHTSA received many 

comments urging NHTSA to apply the 

standard to vehicles now excluded from 

it. We discuss these comments in 

Section V below. As to correcting S3 to 

add low chassis vehicles back into S3, 

NHTSA did not receive any comments 

opposed to the correction. Accordingly, 

this final rule corrects S3 as proposed. 

h. Technical Correction 

The NPRM’s proposed regulatory text 

for FMVSS No. 224 included restated 

current text in S3 that excluded vehicles 

with temporary living quarters ‘‘as 

defined in 49 CFR 529.2.’’ RVIA 

commented on this proposed wording, 

stating that the NPRM’s reference to 

‘‘temporary living quarters as defined in 

49 CFR 529.2’’ was an incorrect 

reference. RVIA suggested that the 

definition of temporary living quarters 

should point to 49 CFR 523.2. 

RVIA is correct that the NPRM’s 

reference to 49 CFR 529.2 as providing 

a definition for temporary living 

quarters was erroneous. The regulations 

at 49 CFR 529.2 do not include any 

definition for temporary living quarters. 

The preamble for the 1996 final rule 

properly referred to 49 CFR 523.2 (61 FR 

2022), but the regulatory text for the 

1996 final rule mistakenly referenced 49 

CFR 529.2 (61 FR 2035). NHTSA is 

taking this opportunity to make a 

technical correction to FMVSS No. 224 

and make clear that the definition of 

temporary living quarters is defined in 

49 CFR 523.2. 

V. Response to Comments on Issues Not 

Proposed in the NPRM 

NHTSA received a number of 

comments on aspects of FMVSS No. 223 

and 224 that the agency did not propose 

to change. Although these comments 

were beyond the scope of the 

rulemaking, we discuss them here to 

further our dialogue in this area. 

a. Vehicles Excluded From FMVSS No. 

224 

FMVSS No. 224 (S3) excludes pole 

trailers, pulpwood trailers, road 

construction controlled horizontal 

discharge trailers, special purpose 

vehicles, wheels back vehicles, or 

temporary living quarters (S3). NHTSA 

did not propose to remove any of these 

exclusions. We evaluated the exclusions 

when we were drafting the NPRM and 

decided not to change them (80 FR 

78426–78428). The decision was based 

on our analysis of data provided by the 

2013 UMTRI Study.42

Comments Received 

A number of commenters disagreed 

with NHTSA’s continued exclusion of 

various vehicles. Commenters raised the 

most concerns about the exclusions for 

single unit trucks (SUTs) 43 and wheels 

back trailers. 

SUTs. VT Group believed that 

regulating SUTs was necessary, citing 

data NHTSA included in the NPRM 

that, of the 121 light vehicle fatal 

crashes annually that result in PCI, 19 

percent occur in impacts with SUTs 

without guards. NTSB argued that the 

adverse effects of SUT crashes have 

been underestimated in the past 

‘‘because these trucks are frequently 

misclassified and thus undercounted.’’ 

Based on previous research findings 

portraying underride as underreported 

in FARS,44 45 Ms. Karth stated that 

NHTSA’s analysis for SUTs was skewed 

by what she believed to be inaccurate, 

underreported information about PCI 

from underride. Mr. Young commented 

that further consideration of ways to 

engineer guards for SUTs ‘‘is warranted 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

46Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Truck 

Crashes, 2008, DOT HS 811 652, August 2012, infra. 

47Heavy-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, infra. 

48 Information 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. 

49Heavy-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. 

50NTSB stated in a 2013 safety study, ‘‘The TIFA 

database provides more accurate classifications of 

large truck vehicle body types by using information 

from the vehicle identification number (VIN) and by 

collecting additional data for all fatal large truck 

crashes.’’ Crashes involving single-unit trucks that 

resulted in fatalities and injuries, National 

Transportation Safety Board Safety Study, NTSB/ 

SS–13/01, PB2013–106637, June 2013. 

51 79 FR 39362. 

52 80 FR 43663. 

53The NPRM provided data that wheels back 

vehicles account for 20 percent of fatal light vehicle 

impacts into the rear of trailers, and that 16 percent 

of fatal light vehicle impacts into wheels back 

trailers resulted in PCI. 

54 80 FR 78427–78428. 

despite the difficulties associated with 

those vehicles.’’ 

Agency Response. Because of prior 

research findings raising the possibility 

of underreporting of underride in FARS, 

NHTSA initiated research in 2010 with 

UMTRI that formed the basis of the 2013 

UMTRI Study. The purpose of this 

research was to gather accurate 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 the TIFA survey 

for the years 2008 and 2009.46 47 These 

data enabled NHTSA to obtain national 

estimates of rear impact crashes into 

heavy vehicles that resulted in PCI. 

Using information derived by reviewing 

police crash reports,48 UMTRI estimated 

the relative speed of fatal light vehicle 

crashes into the rear of SUTs and 

trailers. Because of the detailed analysis 

and the supplemental information 

collected for each crash, the 2013 

UMTRI Study forms the most 

comprehensive and valid data set 

available to inform the agency regarding 

crashes involving SUTs and trailers and 

the incidence and extent of underride. 

Regarding NTSB assertions that SUT 

crashes are underestimated in FARS 

because trucks are frequently 

misclassified, and with respect to Ms. 

Karth’s comment that underride and PCI 

are underreported in FARS, NHTSA did 

not use FARS data in developing this 

rulemaking and instead used TIFA data 

for the years 2008 and 2009 with 

supplemental information reported in 

the 2013 UMTRI Study.49 As explained 

earlier in this preamble, the TIFA 

database is supplemental to FARS, and 

has improved the accuracy of FARS data 

on fatal large truck crashes. It provides 

more detailed information than in FARS 

on the involved large trucks, motor 

carriers, and sequence of events.50 The 

TIFA and 2013 UMTRI Study comprise 

the best scientific data on underride 

crashes. Thus, this rulemaking used the 

most accurate estimate of SUT crashes, 

as determined by the best available 

scientific data in the area, and we do not 

believe SUT crashes were 

underestimated. 

With further regard to whether 

NHTSA’s data underreported underride, 

we believe that the data appear to 

include some crashes that did not 

actually result in underride. In the 2013 

UMTRI Study, the extent of underride 

was estimated 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 

striking 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.’’ NHTSA believes it is most 

relevant for this rulemaking to consider 

the relevant crashes to be as an 

underride that resulted in PCI beyond 

the base of the windshield. However, 

since the 2013 UMTRI Study 

determined the extent of underride by 

the extent of deformation and intrusion 

of the vehicle, there were a number of 

TIFA cases involving large vans and 

large pickups that did not actually 

underride the truck or trailer, but that 

had sustained PCI because of the high 

speed of the crash and/or because of the 

very short front end of the vehicle. 

Because these large striking vehicles did 

not underride the struck vehicle, 

NHTSA’s interpretation in the NPRM of 

PCI from the 2013 UMTRI Study 

potentially overestimated the 

occurrence of PCI due to underride. We 

believe, in other words, that NHTSA’s 

analysis using data in the 2013 UMTRI 

Study potentially overestimated PCI due 

to underride. 

NHTSA responded to the Karth/TSC 

petition by publishing two separate 

notices.51 NHTSA first published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) on July 23, 2015, pertaining to 

issues concerning rear impact guards for 

single unit trucks (SUTs), including 

whether to apply FMVSS No. 224 to the 

vehicle type and whether to apply 

FMVSS No. 108’s requirements for 

conspicuity tape.52 Second, NHTSA 

published the NPRM preceding this 

final rule upgrading rear impact guards 

on December 16, 2015. Comments 

relating to the application of FMVSS 

No. 224 to SUTs will be addressed in a 

follow up document to the 2015 

ANPRM and will not be addressed in 

this final rule. 

Wheels Back Vehicles. TSC opposed 

FMVSS No. 224’s exclusion of wheels 

back trailers. Similarly, Advocates 

suggested that the NPRM’s discussion of 

the involvement of wheels back vehicles 

in fatal crashes did not support the 

agency’s conclusion that excluding 

wheels back trailers ‘‘may not have 

significant safety consequences.’’ 53 The 

commenter criticized the 2013 UMTRI 

Study that NHTSA relied on, stating 

that the sort of speed estimates used in 

the study are notoriously inaccurate and 

that data generated in the TIFA database 

frequently depend on unreliable 

telephone interviews and post-crash 

interviews. IIHS similarly objected to 

NHTSA’s use of the supplemented TIFA 

data, stating that UMTRI had previously 

cautioned against defining degrees of 

underride, and that NHTSA’s use of 

estimated crash speeds was speculative. 

IIHS also noted that the 2008–2009 

TIFA survey found that one-half of 

wheels back trailers involved in fatal 

crashes were equipped with rear impact 

guards, which IIHS believed raised 

concerns ‘‘about the validity of the 

comparisons of underride severity by 

trailer type.’’ Network stated that, as 

modern cars require flat surfaces to 

interact with vehicle safety systems, the 

safety systems will not engage when a 

vehicle impacts the rear of wheels back 

trailers, as tires on a wheels back trailer 

present an uneven surface hazard. 

Network also stated that agricultural 

trucks in North Dakota have shown a 

net benefit from adding rear impact 

guards. 

Agency Response. NHTSA has 

considered the comments but does not 

believe available data support applying 

FMVSS No. 224 to wheels back 

trailers.54 In the UMTRI study, crashes 

into the rear of wheels back trailers 

accounted for 6 percent of all fatal light 

vehicle crashes into the rear of trucks 

and trailers that resulted in PCI. 

Detailed analysis of the fatal light 

vehicle impacts into the rear of wheels 

back trailers that resulted in PCI in 2009 

indicated that the crashes were 

generally at very high impact speeds 

that are considered unsurvivable. In all 

these crashes, it is unlikely that a rear 

impact guard designed to CMVSS No. 

223 would have prevented PCI into 

these vehicles. A rear impact guard 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42355 

55 80 FR 78428. 

56Heavy-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, supra. Also available at 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/ 

811725.pdf. 

57UMTRI estimated the relative speed of fatal 

light vehicle crashes into the rear of SUTs and 

trailers using all available information, including 

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. Relative velocity was computed as the 

resultant of the difference in the trailer (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. 

58 61 FR 2024. 

59 Id. Two crash tests involving wheels back 

trailers were conducted in support of the 1996 final 

rule. For these wheels back trailers, the rear tires 

were located about 100 to 205 mm (4 to 8 in) 

forward of the rear extremity of the trailer. In each 

test, in an offset crash in which a Chevrolet Impala 

struck the tires and in a centric crash in which a 

VW Rabbit struck the axle and other components 

between the tires, PCI was prevented at about 56 

kph (35 mph). 

60See 69 FR 67663, 67666. 61See 69 FR 64495, 64497. 

would not have prevented these 

fatalities.55

NHTSA has also analyzed comments 

criticizing the 2013 UMTRI Study as 

applied to wheels back trailers and 

believes that the data in the study are 

sound. The UMTRI data were enhanced 

specifically for trailer rear impact 

analysis and the study contains 

enriched data specific to impact 

performance. The 2013 UMTRI Study 56

was based on enhanced Trucks in Fatal 

Accidents (TIFA) data for the years 2008 

and 2009. The enhanced data included 

supplemental information, collected as 

part of the NHTSA funded study, on the 

rear-end configuration of SUTs and 

trailers and the incidence and nature of 

underride and associated fatalities in 

crashes into the rear of SUTs and 

trailers, and an estimate of the relative 

velocity of the light vehicle crash.57 The 

data from the 2013 UMTRI Study 

comprise the most accurate and 

complete dataset available for 

evaluating the incidence of underride 

and are appropriate for use for 

evaluating underride incidences in light 

vehicle crashes into the rear of wheels 

back trailers. While commenters made 

general statements that the variables 

used in this data set are unreliable, none 

presented alternative data that they 

considered more accurate. 

NHTSA also does not agree with IIHS 

that the presence of wheels back trailers 

with rear impact guards in the 2013 

UMTRI Study raises doubts about 

NHTSA’s conclusion there is an absence 

of a safety need for the guards. First, 

while IIHS references data from the 

TIFA data sets for 2008–2009 to claim 

that half of wheels back trailers 

involved in a fatal crash were equipped 

with rear impact guards, the data do not 

provide information on the guards 

equipped or the need for a guard. The 

data sets do not record if any of the 

guards were original equipment or were 

even compliant to a standard such as 

FMVSS No. 223. The presence of a rear 

impact guard that lacks sufficient 

strength and energy absorption 

characteristics specified in FMVSS No. 

223 would not mitigate PCI in light 

vehicles at impact speeds 30 mph or 

lower. 

Further, IIHS implies that the guards 

prevented underride rather than the 

wheels of wheels back trailers, but does 

not provide information to substantiate 

the claim that the guards had prevented 

underride rather than the wheels of the 

trailer. IIHS provided no data to suggest 

this interaction with the guard versus 

the wheels is occurring. In the 1996 

final rule that established FMVSS No. 

224, NHTSA determined that ‘‘a fixed 

rear axle with the tires mounted within 

305 mm [12 inches] . . . of the vehicle’s 

rear extremity constitutes an adequate 

substitute for a rear impact protection 

guard from the standpoint of preventing 

PCI.’’ 58 This is a straightforward 

conclusion and no information has been 

provided to change our conclusion on 

this issue. We similarly do not find 

Network’s statement that vehicle 

crashworthiness safety systems will not 

engage during impacts with the rear of 

wheels back trailers to be supported by 

any evidence. Network did not support 

its assertion, and it is contradicted by 

the results of past dynamic crash tests 

of light vehicles into the rear of wheels 

back trailers.59

Horizontal discharge trailers: NHTSA 

disagrees with TTMA and NTEA’s 

views that there should be a blanket 

exclusion of end-dump trailers from 

FMVSS No. 224. When we modified 

FMVSS No. 224 to exclude road 

construction controlled horizontal 

discharge trailers (S4), we received 

comments similar to those sent by 

TTMA and NTEA that requested us to 

exclude gravity feed end-dump 

trailers.60 In response, NHTSA noted 

that end-dump trailers are versatile 

vehicles that may not necessarily 

interact with equipment in a way that 

necessitates an exception, as many fall 

under the exception for wheels back 

trailers and many may also be able to 

accommodate a rear impact guard. For 

these reasons, we explained that we 

preferred to review the necessity of 

exempting end-dump trailers on a caseby-case basis in the context of 

temporary exemptions under 49 CFR 

part 555. NHTSA continues to believe 

this is the most appropriate approach to 

these vehicles. 

Trailers with lift gates: In response to 

Mr. Young’s comment that trailers with 

lift gates should not be excluded from 

the standard, trailers with lift gates are 

not currently excluded from FMVSS No. 

224, and NHTSA did not propose any 

changes in this regard.61 Trailers with 

certain kinds of lift gates may fall under 

the definition of ‘‘special purpose 

vehicle,’’ but the comment did not refer 

to such vehicles. 

b. Testing on a Trailer Rather Than a 

Fixture 

FMVSS No. 223 currently provides 

that NHTSA may test a rear impact 

guard when attached, per 

manufacturer’s instructions, to either a 

rigid test fixture or to a complete trailer, 

at the guard manufacturer’s option. As 

discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA denied 

the request from the petitioners to 

remove the option of testing on a rigid 

test fixture. The agency determined that 

the two tests are essentially equivalent 

and that requiring that guards be tested 

when attached to the trailer could be a 

significant cost burden to small trailer 

manufacturers. 

Comments Received 

Many commenters expressed a 

preference to NHTSA’s testing guards 

only when attached to a complete 

trailer. Ms. Karth and Network stated 

that rear impact guards and the trailers 

to which they are attached are a system 

and that compliance testing should be 

conducted with the guard attached to 

the trailers and/or a portion of the trailer 

that includes all structures to which the 

guard attaches. Batzer believed that 

testing rear impact guards on the trailer 

on which they will be mounted ‘‘would 

produce more confidence in the 

design.’’ IIHS and Advocates stated that 

testing on rigid test fixtures disregarded 

the fact that crash tests with rear impact 

guards attached to trailers resulted in 

deformation to the trailer. IIHS stated 

that allowing rear impact guards to be 

tested when attached to a rigid fixture 

rather than to an actual trailer is 

‘‘insufficient to guarantee underride 

prevention’’ because a guard certified to 

meet the standards of CMVSS No. 223 

may be attached to a trailer structure 

that does not have the demonstrated 

capability to resist the same force level. 

IIHS claimed that the relatively weaker 

structure of the trailer may deform 

during a crash, leaving ‘‘open the 

possibility that guards will be attached 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42356 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

62See 61 FR 2008, 2014. NHTSA’s testing showed 

that the maximum force measured in quasi-static 

tests of rear impact guards attached to a fixture is 

similar to the maximum force generated in dynamic 

crash tests with the rear impact guard installed on 

a trailer. Additionally, rear impact guards that were 

only ten percent stronger than the minimum level 

of strength necessary to pass quasistatic test 

requirements performed adequately in dynamic 

tests with the guard installed on a trailer. 

63Overlap is the percentage of the light vehicle 

width that interacts with the rear of the trailer in 

a collision. Offset means the centerline of the light 

vehicle is not aligned with the centerline of the 

trailer. Other organizations may use low overlap or 

offset to refer to different specified amounts of 

overlap. 

64 In IIHS’s 30 percent overlap crash test with the 

Chevrolet Malibu, the front end of the Malibu only 

contacted the portion of the rear impact guard 

lateral of the vertical support member. 

to trailer structures that are too weak to 

withstand the forces of a crash, in which 

case the strength of the guard itself is 

irrelevant.’’ Advocates also believed that 

‘‘significant issues with the performance 

of the guard and the attachment system 

would not be detected’’ if the guard was 

tested on a rigid test fixture. Some 

commenters also argued that the higher 

burdens to small manufacturers ‘‘is an 

insufficient justification.’’ TSC stated 

that NHTSA should require testing on a 

trailer as it reflects a real-world scenario 

‘‘even if the process is more costly.’’ 

Agency Response 

We considered the suggestion to 

remove the option for fixture testing 

when we evaluated the petitions and 

ultimately concluded not to include it 

in the proposed rule. Many of the 

commenters raise points NHTSA 

discussed in the NPRM and points 

NHTSA had discussed in the original 

1996 final rule. In the 1996 final rule, 

NHTSA explained that, even though 

testing on a trailer is desirable ‘‘because 

there is nothing more ‘appropriately 

configured’ for guard mounting on the 

actual trailer’’ and because such testing 

also tests the structural integrity of the 

trailer chassis, the agency’s data 

demonstrated that rear impact guards 

tested on rigid test fixtures performed 

similarly to their performance on an 

actual trailer.62 NHTSA reiterated this 

point in the NPRM for this final rule, 

and commenters did not provide any 

new information to suggest that testing 

on a rigid test fixture is no longer 

acceptable. NHTSA concludes that a 

guard shown to be compliant when 

tested on a rigid test fixture will perform 

to the same benchmark when attached 

to a trailer. 

NHTSA stated its view that a rear 

impact guard attached to a rigid test 

fixture would not have a trailer to 

absorb a portion of the load so the 

severity of the fixture test might be 

higher than a trailer test. IIHS and 

Advocates seemed to argue the opposite, 

stating that testing on rigid test fixtures 

disregarded the fact that crash tests with 

rear impact guards attached to trailers 

resulted in deformation to the trailer. 

NHTSA cannot conclude that trailer 

deformation itself indicates that the 

total resistance of a guard-attachmenttrailer system is lower than that of the 

guard alone on a rigid test fixture. The 

trailer structure may have deformed 

because it offered resistance to the 

dynamic loads. As stated in the NPRM, 

testing on a rigid test fixture has an 

advantage over trailer testing in its 

potential to show that the guard is 

capable of resisting all loads and 

absorbing all the energy. 

The commenters did not provide 

information showing that requiring each 

rear impact guard be tested on a trailer 

would offset the significant costs of 

doing so, especially for small trailer 

manufacturers with low sales volumes. 

As noted in the NPRM, if small 

manufacturers were to test the rear 

impact guard on the trailer, this testing 

could involve sacrificing what could 

constitute a substantial part of their 

overall trailer production. NHTSA does 

not believe there is a safety basis 

justifying these impacts on these 

manufacturers. 

Finally, NHTSA emphasizes the test 

specifications in the FMVSS reflect how 

NHTSA will perform tests to evaluate 

compliance; they do not limit how 

manufacturers certify compliance. 

Inserting a requirement into FMVSS No. 

223 specifying how manufacturers can 

certify their own compliance, as 

suggested by Batzer and VT Group, is 

not in accordance with the purpose and 

structure of the FMVSS. 

c. Low Overlap Crash Performance 

Both petitioners IIHS and TSC/Karth 

requested that NHTSA take steps to 

prevent underride in low overlap 

crashes (crashes with 30 percent overlap 

or less of the impacting vehicle with the 

trailer rear).63 IIHS’s petition asked 

NHTSA to evaluate relocating the quasistatic point load test at the P1 location 

further outboard toward the end of the 

guard horizontal member so that guards 

are tested for strength further outboard. 

IIHS suggested that, based on its 

interpretation of the crash tests of the 

2010 Chevrolet Malibu into the rear of 

the 2011 Wabash trailer, doing so would 

provide underride protection to full, 50 

percent, and 30 percent overlap 

crashes.64

NHTSA reviewed the requests in the 

petitions but did not propose to move 

the P1 location further outboard as a 

part of this rulemaking. The requests 

were not supported by sufficient 

information, as the petitioners did not 

explain why moving the P1 location 

further outboard would improve guard 

performance in low overlap crashes. 

NHTSA determined that the 

performance of rear impact guards in 

crashes other than low overlap should 

be enhanced before turning to 

performance specific to low overlap 

crashes. We analyzed the data collected 

in the 2013 UMTRI Study and found 

that underride crashes of 30 percent 

overlap or less represented a smaller 

portion of the rear underride fatality 

problem than non-low overlap crashes. 

We decided to focus the NPRM on 

crashes other than low overlap because 

those were the more prevalent fatal 

crashes. 

The data do not show that improving 

low overlap crash performance would 

improve non-offset crash performance. 

In fact, data indicate a potential negative 

consequence. NHTSA expressed a 

concern in the NPRM about a potential 

risk that bolstering performance in a 30 

percent overlap crash might degrade 

protection in 50 and 100 percent 

overlap crashes. The Manac rear impact 

guard features vertical supports towards 

the lateral edge of the trailer. While this 

guard was able to prevent PCI in the 56 

km/h (35 mph) 30 percent overlap 

condition during IIHS’s crash tests, in 

IIHS’s 56 km/h (35 mph) full overlap 

crash test, the Manac guard had the 

greatest amount of deformation (1,350 

mm) of any guard. NHTSA was 

concerned that these data indicated that 

rear impact guards designed like the 

Manac, with the main vertical supports 

for the guard more outboard, may not 

perform as well compared to other 

guards in full overlap crashes at crash 

speeds at or greater than 56 km/h (35 

mph). 

To summarize, data indicated that: (a) 

full and 50 percent overlap crashes are 

more frequent than 30 percent overlap 

crashes; (b) most fatal light vehicle 

impacts into the rear of trailers are at 

speeds greater than 56 km/h (35 mph); 

and, (c) improving performance against 

low overlap crashes could reduce 

performance of the guard in full and 50 

percent overlap crashes. Given those 

factors, we decided not to take an 

approach in this rulemaking that would 

improve guard performance in a 30 

percent overlap crash but that could 

lessen protection in 50 and 100 percent 

overlap crashes at higher speeds (speeds 

higher than the 35 mph speed on which 

the amended FMVSS No. 223 would be 

based). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42357 

65 In 2017, IIHS introduced the TOUGHGUARD 

award for trailers that mitigate PCI in a 56 km/h (35 

mph) crash of a Chevrolet Malibu into the rear of 

the trailer in all three overlap conditions (full, 50 

percent, and 30 percent). IIHS awarded the 

TOUGHGUARD to nine North American trailer 

manufacturers that offer this feature on at least 

some trailers. 

66Quoting from its study. Brumbelow, M.L., 

Blanar, L., ‘‘Evaluation of US Rear Underride Guard 

Regulation for Large Trucks Using Real-World 

Crashes,’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 54, 

November 2010, pp. 119–131. 

Comments and Agency Response 

Several commenters disagreed with 

NHTSA’s decision to refrain from 

pursuing rulemaking on low overlap 

crashes. Some commenters pointed to 

existing guards (e.g., the Manac guard) 

that they stressed provided protection 

against crashes with low overlap. Some 

disagreed with NHTSA’s concern that 

such a guard might not perform as well 

in crashes with full or 50 percent 

overlap at crash speeds greater than 56 

km/h (35 mph). Seven Hills stated that 

the extent of underride seen in the full 

overlap crash test with the Manac guard 

was due to the Chevrolet Malibu fitting 

‘‘just between both uprights contacting 

only the horizontal bar,’’ and that this 

scenario ‘‘represents an extremely small 

fraction of possible crash scenarios.’’ 

IIHS argued that the Manac design 

performed well and that it is not the 

only possible guard design; IIHS said it 

tested a 2015 Vanguard design that was 

also able to prevent severe underride at 

30 percent overlap.65 Conversely, 

Wabash concurred that the design of the 

Manac guard reduced protection in full 

overlap conditions. 

Agency Response 

Several commenters argued that fatal 

low overlap crashes occurred more 

frequently than stated by NHTSA. IIHS 

believed that the data underlying 

NHTSA’s finding that 40 percent of light 

vehicle impacts into the rear end of 

trucks and trailers in fatal crashes were 

offset crashes were collected ‘‘during 

phone interviews with someone who 

was familiar with each crash but may 

not have been at the crash scene’’ and 

‘‘took place 1–2 years after the crash.’’ 

Advocates remarked that TIFA survey 

data ‘‘is known to consist of notoriously 

suspect crash data and analysis.’’ In 

response, NHTSA does not agree that 

the agency did not accurately calculate 

the prevalence of low overlap crashes. 

The 2013 UMTRI Study forms the most 

scientific, comprehensive and valid data 

set available to inform the agency and 

safety community on this issue. 

IIHS referred to its 2010 study of 

passenger vehicle crashes into the rear 

of trailers and semitrailers in the Large 

Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) 

to argue that, ‘‘guard deformation or 

complete failure was frequent and most 

commonly due to weak attachments, 

buckling of the trailer chassis, or 

bending of the lateral end of the guard 

under narrow overlap loading.’’ 66 IIHS 

noted that there were 30 LTCCS cases in 

the study involving trailers with guards 

that met the FMVSS No. 224 geometric 

requirements and among these 30 cases, 

30 percent (n=9) were crashes in which 

less than half of the passenger vehicle 

overlapped the trailer. 

In response, the data used in the 2010 

IIHS study comprised too small a 

sample to generalize the extent of low 

overlap crashes in the U.S. NHTSA 

notes that in 22 of the 30 cases, it was 

not clear whether the rear impact guards 

on the trailers were compliant with 

FMVSS No. 223 and among the 9 low 

overlap crashes. Seven rear impact 

guards on the trailer exhibited 

deformation similar to that in the IIHS 

30 percent overlap crash tests (the 

lateral end of the guard bent forward in 

the impact). In the other 2 cases, the rear 

impact guards experienced failure at 

other locations likely due to the guards 

being weak in general. Among the 30 

LTCCS cases IIHS analyzed, only 8 were 

crashes of passenger vehicles into the 

rear of trailers with FMVSS No. 223 

compliant rear impact guards. Among 

these 8 trailers, 2 rear impact guards 

showed no signs of failure, 3 rear impact 

guards failed at the attachment to the 

trailer structure, 1 rear impact guard 

bent forward due to localized loading 

from a low overlap crash, and 2 rear 

impact guards were damaged too 

severely to determine the failure 

mechanism. In other words, the 2010 

IIHS study uses too small a data sample 

to generalize the extent of low overlap 

crashes in the U.S. In contrast, the 2013 

UMTRI Study provides a scientific 

annual estimate of all fatal crashes into 

the rear of trailers in the U.S., including 

offset crashes and the extent and type of 

rear impact guard damage in crashes. 

Seven Hills said it did not understand 

why NHTSA was considering the extent 

of guard damage, as a fatal collision 

involving major damage to a guard 

should be treated the same as a fatal 

collision that did not involve major 

damage. It also argued that minimal 

guard damage in fatal offset impacts 

indicates that the problem is lack of 

adequate guard strength on the outside 

edges of trailers. The commenter said 

that the absence of a difference in the 

percentage of light vehicle crashes with 

PCI in offset crashes and non-offset 

crashes shows a need to improve the 

performance of rear impact guards in 

low overlap conditions, particularly 

when such PCI is occurring in what 

Seven Hills viewed as ‘‘otherwise noninjurious speed differences.’’ 

In response, NHTSA believes 

examining the extent of rear impact 

guard damage, along with the 

occurrence of PCI, is important to 

determine the utility of improving 

guards to protect against non-offset 

crashes. Rear impact guards sustain 

more damage in non-offset crashes, 

which suggests that non-offset crashes 

are potentially more harmful and thus 

should be addressed first. Our statement 

that we found no difference between the 

percentage of light vehicle crashes with 

PCI in offset crashes and non-offset 

crashes was not meant to suggest that 

offset crashes are not a concern. Rather, 

because (a) more fatal light vehicle 

crashes into the rear of trucks and 

trailers are non-offset crashes, (b) nonoffset occur significantly more 

frequently than low overlap crashes 

(crashes with 30 percent or less overlap 

of the impacting vehicle with the rear of 

the trailer), and (c) non-offset crashes 

appear more harmful of the two, 

NHTSA was explaining why it decided 

to pursue this rulemaking on non-low 

overlap crashes at this time. 

IIHS stated that guard damage is not 

an adequate metric for the severity of 

underride and questioned whether 

NHTSA could accurately calculate the 

extent of guard damage based on TIFA 

survey data. In response, NHTSA notes 

that the damage to the guard was not 

used to assess the severity of underride 

but was part of the information 

collected to determine impact severity. 

The 2013 UMTRI Study used enhanced 

data on the rear of the trailer to 

determine the extent of guard damage. 

The severity of underride and the 

occurrence of PCI were determined from 

the light passenger vehicle information. 

IIHS noted that the Manac rear impact 

guard was not the only design that 

performed well in the 30 percent 

overlap crash and that other designs 

such as the Vanguard rear impact guard 

also mitigated PCI in 30 percent overlap 

crashes. The agency agrees that other 

rear impact guard designs that connect 

directly to the longitudinal frame rails 

of the trailer through the vertical 

members are able to mitigate PCI in 30 

percent overlap crashes without 

reducing protection against PCI in full 

and 50 percent overlap crashes. 

However, as shown later in the section, 

these guards add cost and weight to the 

trailer. 

TSC and Advocates stated that, even 

if the majority of fatal light vehicle 

crashes into the rear of trucks and 

trailers were non-offset crashes, this still 

meant that 40 percent were offset 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42358 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

67UMTRI defined ‘‘offset crashes’’ as impacts 

with the outer one-third or less of the rear plane of 

the trailer. For a 2,600 mm wide trailer, one-third 

of the trailer width is 867 mm from the lateral edge 

of the trailer, which includes the location of the 

vertical member. In contrast, the IIHS 30 percent 

overlap crash test is a 30 percent overlap of the 

impacting vehicle with the trailer rear. For a 2,600 

mm wide trailer, 30 percent overlap of a passenger 

vehicle corresponds to 637 mm from the lateral 

edge of the trailer, which does not include the 

location of the vertical member. 

crashes. Other commenters also 

disagreed with NHTSA’s decision to 

focus this rulemaking on fatal non-low 

overlap crashes, despite that such 

crashes occur more frequently than low 

overlap crashes. In response, NHTSA 

notes that this final rule would afford 

protection to occupants involved in 56 

km/h (35 mph) crashes into the rear of 

trailers where the impacting vehicle 

fully overlaps with the trailer rear, and 

in offset crashes where 50 percent of the 

light vehicle front end overlaps with the 

trailer rear, and in offset crashes where 

a load bearing vertical member 

connecting the rear impact guard to the 

trailer is engaged by the front end of the 

impacting vehicle. In response to the 

comments, we reiterate some of the 

details provided in the NPRM and 

provide further reasoning below for not 

proceeding with low overlap 

performance requirements in this final 

rule. 

Further Analysis on Requirements for 

Protection in Low Overlap Crashes 

Rear impact guards are designed to 

absorb energy and prevent PCI by 

attaching to substantial structural 

elements of a trailer or semitrailer, such 

as the chassis longitudinal frame rails, 

by way of vertical support members. 

The test results from the initial testing 

at IIHS reported in the NPRM show that 

many trailer rear impact guards 

designed to CMVSS No. 223 met the 

proposed performance requirements in 

the NPRM in full overlap and 50 percent 

overlap crashes but were unable to 

prevent PCI in a 35 mph crash into the 

rear of the trailer where only 30 percent 

of the width of the passenger vehicle 

front end overlapped with the rear of 

the trailer. In these 30 percent overlap 

crashes, only a small lateral portion of 

the rear impact guard (about 22 percent 

of the guard width) engaged with the 

front end of the passenger vehicle. This 

small lateral portion typically did not 

include a vertical support member of 

the guard, so when the passenger 

vehicle struck this small lateral portion 

of the guard, the guard deformed locally 

and did not prevent PCI. 

In the initial crash tests conducted by 

IIHS, only the Manac rear impact guard 

was able to prevent PCI in the Chevy 

Malibu in the 56 km/h (35 mph) full 

overlap, 50 percent overlap, and the 30 

percent overlap test conditions. Unlike 

most trailer designs, however, where the 

vertical members of the rear impact 

guard attach directly to the longitudinal 

frame rails of the trailer, the vertical 

members of the Manac rear impact 

guard were located further outboard 

from the location of the trailer 

longitudinal frame rails and attached to 

a reinforced floor section of the trailer. 

While the more outboard vertical 

supports of the Manac guard improved 

rear impact protection in low overlap 

crashes of light vehicles into the rear of 

trailers, the further outboard vertical 

supports appeared to reduce guard 

strength near the center of the 

horizontal member of the rear impact 

guard. In the 56 km/h (35 mph) full 

overlap crash tests of the Malibu, the 

greatest amount of underride (1,350 

mm) was in the test with the Manac 

trailer. In contrast, the extent of the 

underride was 990 mm in the test with 

the Wabash trailer. 

The full overlap IIHS crash test results 

raise the possibility that for crash 

speeds greater than 56 km/h (35 mph), 

trailers that have the main vertical 

supports for the guard more outboard 

may not perform as well in full overlap 

crashes as trailers that have the vertical 

supports more inboard. Since full and 

50 percent overlap crashes are more 

frequent than low overlap (30 percent or 

less) crashes, and because most fatal 

light vehicle impacts into the rear of 

trailers are at speeds greater than 56 km/ 

h (35 mph), the agency is concerned that 

such guard designs may reduce 

protection against PCI in the more 

frequent higher speed full and 50 

percent overlap crashes. NHTSA is 

concerned about potential negative 

safety consequences accruing from a 

rule that resulted in designs that moved 

the vertical members of rear impact 

guards more outward laterally to 

prevent underride in a 56 km/h (35 

mph) 30 percent low overlap crash, if 

such a rule reduced protection in full 

and 50 percent overlap crashes. 

NHTSA has estimated the potential 

benefits of adopting a 30 percent 

overlap crash. The agency estimated the 

number of fatalities in 30 percent or 

lower overlap crashes in the field based 

on the available information, estimated 

the effectiveness of the rear impact 

guards that prevent PCI in 30 percent 

overlap crashes, and estimated the lives 

saved by a requirement for rear impact 

guards mitigating PCI in 56 km/h (35 

mph) 30 percent overlap crashes. 

The 2013 UMTRI Study found that 40 

percent of light vehicle impacts into the 

rear ends of trucks and trailers in fatal 

crashes met the UMTRI definition of 

‘‘offset crashes,’’ 67 and that 60 percent 

were non-offset impacts. However, for a 

typical trailer rear width of 2,600 mm, 

an offset crash defined in the 2013 

UMTRI Study is when 867 mm of the 

width of the trailer from its lateral edge 

is engaged by the impacting vehicle. In 

contrast, as detailed in the 2015 NPRM, 

in the IIHS 30 percent overlap crash of 

a Malibu with the rear impact guard of 

a trailer, the Malibu interacted with 

only 637 mm of the rear of the trailer 

(approximately a quarter of the trailer 

rear width) from its lateral edge. This 

difference is important as it relates to 

how the impacting vehicle engages the 

vertical members connecting the rear 

impact guard to the trailer. On a typical 

2,600 mm width trailer, the vertical 

members connecting the rear impact 

guard to the trailer are located at about 

753 mm from the left and right lateral 

edge of the trailer. Therefore, ‘‘offset’’ 

crashes in the 2013 UMTRI Study 

included crashes in which a vertical 

member of the rear impact guard was 

engaged. In contrast, in IIHS’s 30 

percent overlap crashes, the vertical 

members of the rear impact guards were 

not engaged. 

Stated differently, the definition of an 

offset crash in the 2013 UMTRI Study 

includes crashes that would not have 

been considered low overlap crashes 

under IIHS’s test program (as they had 

greater than 30 percent overlap of the 

front end of the vehicle). NHTSA 

reviewed a sample of the crash cases 

which were identified as ‘‘offset 

crashes’’ in the 2013 UMTRI Study. 

Based on the damage to the rear impact 

guard and the damage to the front end 

of the impacting vehicle in each of these 

offset crash cases, NHTSA determined 

that in many crashes the front end of the 

striking vehicle engaged the portion of 

the rear impact guard containing the 

vertical member, and therefore were not 

‘‘low overlap’’ crashes as would have 

been considered under the IIHS protocol 

(crashes with 30 percent or less of the 

impacting vehicle front end overlapping 

the rear width of the trailer). This 

review indicated that a substantial 

number of cases identified as ‘‘offset 

crashes’’ in the 2013 UMTRI Study were 

not ‘‘low overlap’’ crashes like those in 

the IIHS 30 percent overlap crash test. 

The 2013 UMTRI Study found that 

there are annually 72 fatalities in light 

vehicle crashes into the rear of trailers 

that result in PCI. According to this 

study, almost 40 percent of the impacts 

by light vehicles were ‘‘offset,’’ meaning 

that they occurred on the outer left or 

right third of a trailer’s rear. For trailers 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42359 

68Figure 5 in the 2013 UMTRI Study. HeavyVehicle Crash Data Collection and Analysis to 

Characterize Rear and Side Underride and Front 

Override in Fatal Truck Crashes, DOT HS 811 725, 

March 2013, infra. 

69As explained above, NHTSA’s review of a 

sample of offset crashes into the rear of trailers in 

the 2013 UMTRI Study indicated that a majority of 

these offset crashes were with more than 30 percent 

overlap of the impacting vehicle with rear of the 

trailer. 

70The IIHS tests showed that in 30 percent 

overlap crashes where PCI is mitigated, the 

impacting light vehicle rotates during the crash and 

therefore could be exposed to impact by vehicles 

traveling in adjacent lanes. 

71https://cdn.baseplatform.io/files/base/ebm/ 

trailerbodybuilders/document/2021/04/TBB_Top_

25_CY2020.6089da057e9d0.pdf. 

72As noted previously, the final rule 

requirements ensure preventing PCI in a 35 mph 

passenger vehicle crash with full and 50 percent 

overlap with the rear of a trailer. 

73https://cdn.baseplatform.io/files/base/ebm/ 

trailerbodybuilders/document/2021/04/TBB_Top_

25_CY2020.6089da057e9d0.pdf. 

74https://www.stoughtontrailers.com/Portals/0/ 

documents/Rear%20Underride%20Guard%20Sales

%20Sheet.pdf. 

75 In order to comply with Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements 

(OSHA 29 CFR 1910.26(d)), loading docks have 

vehicle restraints that are designed to connect to 

rear impact guards to prevent the vehicle from 

moving during loading and unloading operations. 

Unique rear impact guard designs that are wider 

than 7.5 inches, with unique profiles (such as 

Continued 

required to have rear impact guards, 

there was no difference in the extent of 

underride, including PCI, for offset and 

non-offset impacts of light vehicles into 

the rear of trailers.68 Therefore, we 

determined the number of annual 

fatalities in offset crashes with PCI into 

the rear of trailers as the product of the 

annual number of fatalities in light 

vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of 

trailers (72) and the percentage of offset 

crashes (40%). Accordingly, the number 

of fatalities in offset crashes with PCI 

from the 2013 UMTRI Study is 28.8 (=72 

× 40%). Yet, as explained above, 

NHTSA reviewed a sample of the offset 

crashes in the 2013 UMTRI Study and 

found that in most of these offset 

crashes, there was more than 30 percent 

overlap of the impacting vehicle with 

the rear of the trailer (demonstrated by 

the impacting vehicle having engaged 

the rear impact guard at the location of 

a vertical member). Thus, to estimate 

the benefit of a requirement to prevent 

PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes, 

NHTSA assumed 20 to 40 percent of 

these 28.8 annual fatalities 69 were in 

crashes with 30 percent or less overlap 

of the front end of the impacting light 

vehicle with the trailer. Therefore, 

NHTSA estimated that there are 5.8– 

11.5 (= 28.8 × 20% to 28.8 × 40%) 

annual fatalities in low overlap crashes 

into the rear of trailers. 

The 2013 UMTRI Study also found 

that only 26 percent of crashes into the 

rear of trailers were at relative impact 

speeds of 56 km/h (35 mph) or less. 

Though the 2013 UMTRI Study found 

that the crash speeds in offset crashes 

were higher than those in non-offset 

crashes, NHTSA used 26 percent to 

estimate the number of crashes into the 

rear of trailers with 30 percent or lower 

overlap that were at crash speeds 56 

km/h (35 mph) or lower. Rear impact 

guards may not be able to mitigate all 

fatalities in crashes into the rear of 

trailers with relative velocity of 56 km/ 

h (35 mph) or less because some crashes 

may be due to circumstances other than 

underride (i.e., unrestrained status of 

occupants, elderly and other vulnerable 

occupants, post impact vehicle 

kinematics that could expose vehicle to 

subsequent impacts 70). For the purpose 

of this analysis, NHTSA assumed that 

the incremental effectiveness of rear 

impact guards (CMVSS No. 223 

compliant guards that also mitigate PCI 

in 30 percent overlap crashes) in 

preventing fatalities in light vehicle 

impacts with 30 percent overlap into the 

rear of trailers with crash speeds less 

than 56 km/h is 50 percent. Therefore, 

NHTSA estimated the overall 

effectiveness of upgrading from the final 

rule compliant guards to final rule 

compliant guards that also prevent PCI 

in 30 percent overlap crashes to be 13 

percent (=26% × 50%). NHTSA 

estimates that the annual number of 

lives saved in low overlap crashes into 

the rear of trailers at relative velocities 

of 56 km/h (35 mph) or less to be 0.75 

to 1.5 (= 5.8 × 0.13 to 11.6 × 0.13). 

To prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap 

crashes, designs would have to either: 

(a) add additional vertical members at 

the lateral edge of the rear impact guard 

that connect to the trailer’s transverse 

floor beam and strengthen the transverse 

floor beam of the trailer to withstand the 

loads transmitted from these vertical 

members at the edge of the guard; or (b) 

considerably strengthen the rear impact 

guard member so it would not deform 

locally in the 30 percent overlap crash. 

In these circumstances all the loads will 

still be taken up by the longitudinal 

chassis rails. This means that both these 

approaches would add significant 

weight to the vehicles because they 

involve adding more vertical members, 

strengthening the floor beams, or 

strengthening the guard itself. 

Currently, there are 4 trailer 

manufacturers that offer rear impact 

guards that prevent PCI in all three IIHS 

crash test conditions (35 mph crash of 

a passenger vehicle with (1) full overlap, 

(2) 50 percent overlap and (3) 30 percent 

overlap with the rear of the trailer) as 

standard equipment. In 2020, the total 

trailer output of these 4 manufacturers 

is about 28 percent of the total number 

of trailers produced in 2020 (211,807).71

Many other trailer manufacturers offer 

rear impact guards that prevent PCI in 

the three IIHS crash test conditions as 

optional equipment. 

NHTSA reviewed the rear impact 

guard offerings in the trailer industry. 

The incremental cost and weight 

increase of a trailer with a rear impact 

guard that prevents PCI of passenger 

vehicles in all three overlap conditions 

(full, 50 percent, and 30 percent 

overlap) compared to an equivalent 

trailer by the same manufacturer with a 

rear impact guard that meets the 

performance requirements of this final 

rule 72 ranges from $100 to $1,000 and 

from 25 kg (55 lb) to 118 kg (260 lb), 

respectively. The large range in cost and 

weight is because some trailers need 

significant modifications to 

accommodate rear impact guards with 

30 percent overlap protection, the 

higher cost of high-strength/light-weight 

materials for the guard, and other such 

factors. The weighted average (weights 

based on trailers produced in 2020) 73 of 

this incremental cost and weight 

increase of trailers with rear impact 

guards which prevent PCI in 30 percent 

overlap crashes is $306 and 35 kg (77 

lb), respectively. 

Stoughton Trailer, a trailer 

manufacturer, produces trailers with 

rear impact guards that prevent PCI in 

all three overlap conditions at 56 km/h 

(35 mph) as standard equipment and 

notes on its website that its rear impact 

guards do not add additional weight, 

cost, or negatively impact aerodynamics 

(presumably compared to rear impact 

guards that would meet this final rule 

requirements).74 The Stoughton rear 

impact guard, made of steel, includes 

two vertical supports on the outer ends 

of the horizontal member that fasten to 

a robust undercarriage of the trailer. It 

does not appear feasible engineeringwise for the additional material (two 

steel vertical members on the outer edge 

of the horizontal member that is bolted 

to a reinforced undercarriage) not to add 

weight or cost to the trailer. 

Accordingly, NHTSA decided not to 

include this guard design in this 

analysis. 

There are some unique rear impact 

guard designs that meet the performance 

requirements in this final rule and are 

also able to mitigate PCI in 30 percent 

overlap crashes without significant 

increase in weight. However, these 

unique designs may have restrictions in 

intermodal operations at loading 

docks 75 and may not be practicable for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42360 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

pentagonal shapes) have provided challenges to 

connect the vehicle restraints to the rear impact 

guard. 

76 Id. 

77There were 211,807 new trailers produced in 

2020, among which 65 percent (137,675 = 211,807 

× 0.65) are required to be equipped with rear impact 

guards. Among applicable trailers, 21 percent are 

already equipped with guards that mitigate PCI in 

30 percent overlap crashes. 

78See statista for class 8 truck annual sales 

(https://www.statista.com/statistics/261416/class-3- 

8-truck-sales-in-the-united-states/). 

79 ‘‘Significant’’ regulatory actions are also subject 

to Section 6 to assess potential benefits and costs. 

80For more information on the value of a 

statistical life, see a 2021 Office of the Secretary 

memorandum on the ‘‘Guidance on Treatment of 

the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. 

Department of Transportation Analyses—2021 

Update.’’ https://www.transportation.gov/officepolicy/transportation-policy/revised-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis. 

81Cost-effectiveness represents a measure of the 

average monetary cost per unit of change (benefit). 

In regulatory analyses for safety policies, costeffectiveness generally measures the average 

estimated change in total costs per unit 

improvement in safety (e.g., cost per life saved). A 

policy alternative can be considered cost-effective 

if the estimated cost per unit increase is less than 

an appropriate benchmark. For example, a proposed 

safety standard could be considered cost-effective if 

the average cost per life saved equivalent (i.e., 

combining lives saved and injuries avoided, 

weighted by the relative values of injuries to 

fatalities) under the proposed standard were less 

than the comprehensive economic cost of a fatality 

($11.6 million in 2020 dollars). That is, the 

proposed standard would yield safety benefits at a 

lower cost than the benchmark value for those 

benefits. 

82NHTSA has placed a copy of the FRE in the 

docket for this final rule. 83 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10). 

all types of trailers covered by FMVSS 

No. 224. The benefit-cost analysis 

assumes intermodal operability is 

maintained and so these unique rear 

impact guard designs were not 

considered for this analysis. 

There are 211,807 trailers produced in 

2020 76 among which 65 percent 

(137,675 = 211,806 × 65%) are required 

to be equipped with rear impact guards, 

of which 28 percent are already 

equipped with rear impact guards that 

meet the performance requirements of 

this final rule and mitigate PCI in 30 

percent overlap crashes. The annual 

average and minimal incremental fleet 

cost of equipping all new applicable 

trailers 77 (99,126 = 137,675 × 72%) with 

rear impact guards that mitigate PCI in 

30 percent overlap crashes is $30.3 

million (= 99,126 × $306) and $9.9 

million (= 99,126 × $100). 

In addition, the average weight 

increase of 35 kg (77 lb) from installing 

a guard that could mitigate PCI in a 30 

percent overlap crash would increase 

fuel consumption. With 192,000 class 8 

truck annual sales,78 the total average 

incremental lifetime fuel cost is 

estimated to be $130 million 

undiscounted, $106 million with 3 

percent discounting, and $84 million 

with 7 percent discounting. If the 

minimum weight increase of 25 kg (55 

lb) is used instead, the total minimum 

incremental lifetime fuel cost is 

estimated to be $93 million 

undiscounted, $75 million with 3 

percent discounting, and $60 million 

with 7 percent discounting. The overall 

undiscounted cost increase (material 

cost and lifetime fuel cost) is $161 

million on average and $103 million at 

a minimum. 

NHTSA is required by Section 1 of 

Executive Order 12866 to conduct a 

benefit cost analysis of any proposed 

regulatory requirements.79 The 

undiscounted cost per life saved using 

the average cost estimate ranges from 

$107 million to $215 million, while that 

using the minimum cost estimate ranges 

from $69 million to $138 million, which 

is significantly greater than the value of 

a statistical life ($11.6 million).80

Therefore, a requirement for equipping 

all new applicable trailers with rear 

impact guards that mitigate PCI in 30 

percent overlap crashes is not costeffective.81 This indicates that total 

costs of such a requirement exceed 

overall benefits. Detailed calculations 

for the benefits, costs, and cost per life 

saved are provided in the FRE 

accompanying this final rule.82

For the above reasons, we have 

determined that an FMVSS that requires 

vehicles to provide rear impact 

protection in 56 km/h (35 mph) fullfrontal, 50 percent overlap, and 30 

percent overlap not to be reasonable or 

practicable. We conclude that such a 

revision would not meet the 

requirements of Section 30111(a) and (b) 

of the Safety Act for issuance of Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards. 

Accordingly, we have decided to refrain 

from adopting a requirement for a 30 

percent overlap crash at this time. 

However, as explained above, the 

Federal standards act as a floor, not a 

ceiling, to establish the minimum level 

of performance that meet the safety 

needs presented by the data. FMVSS are 

written in terms of minimum 

performance requirements for motor 

vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to 

protect the public against unreasonable 

risk of injury and death in crashes. 

Manufacturers have flexibility in design 

as long as their products comply with 

applicable FMVSS. There are rear 

impact guard designs in the current 

trailer and semitrailer market that 

prevent PCI in all three crash conditions 

described in Section 23011(b)(1)(A) of 

BIL: (1) full overlap crash, (2) 50 percent 

overlap crash, and (3) 30 percent 

overlap crash at 56 km/h impact speed. 

While data do not support the agency’s 

requiring these guards for all vehicles, 

this final rule does not preclude these 

designs from being on the trailer and 

semi-trailer market. 

Some commenters suggested design 

changes to rear impact guards that they 

viewed as increasing protection in low 

overlap conditions. Network requested 

that NHTSA require a barrier width 

within 100 mm of the trailer’s outer 

frame; Advocates similarly stated that if 

rear impact guards were extended, 

protection against underride would be 

enhanced. Network and Ms. Wood also 

suggested that rear impact guards have 

angled struts attached to the ends of the 

guard. Batzer recommended that guards 

have support at their corners, while 

Seven Hills stated that a solution could 

be using three- or four-vertical support 

configurations. The VT Group suggested 

that stronger material selection for the 

horizontal member can improve a rear 

impact guard’s load capability during 

low overlap crashes. 

In response, NHTSA does not believe 

that it is reasonable, or appropriate, to 

mandate in this rulemaking that rear 

impact guards have designs of the 

specificity suggested by the 

commenters. The design of rear impact 

guards is dependent on trailer geometry 

and structure and we do not wish to 

unnecessarily restrict the flexibility of 

manufacturers to design appropriate 

guards. NHTSA also does not believe 

that it should mandate the materials 

used in constructing rear impact guards, 

as our standards are performance 

oriented.83 Finally, this issue was not 

proposed in the NPRM and is not within 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

d. Half-Guard Testing 

CMVSS No. 223 allows for 

compliance testing on half of a 

symmetric rear impact guard through an 

application of a 175,000 N distributed 

load at the P3 location. NHTSA 

determined that half guard testing was 

not needed in FMVSS No. 223 and 

explained in the NPRM why it did not 

propose the inclusion of half-guard 

testing in the proposal. 

Comments Received 

Commenters on this issue all argued 

in favor of including an option allowing 

for testing of half of the rear impact 

guard. TTMA, Strick, and Mr. Young 

stated their general belief that testing on 

a half-guard will produce the same 

result as testing on the full guard. They 

further suggested that half-guard testing 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42361 

84NHTSA did not include non-PCI crashes into 

the rear of trailers into the analysis of benefits of 

the final rule because the agency assumed that the 

passenger vehicle’s restraint systems, when used, 

would mitigate injury. 

85NHTSA only counted crashes into trailers with 

rear impact guards as these would be the only 

trailers that NHTSA assumes would equip upgraded 

rear impact guards and thus be affected by this rule. 

is beneficial to manufacturers, as they 

can test one half-guard, make any 

changes to the second half-guard, and 

then test the modified second half-guard 

with less time and effort. TTMA also 

remarked that allowing an option for 

half-guard testing would ensure 

maximum harmonization with the 

Canadian standard CMVSS No. 223. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA reviewed the comments and 

confirms its earlier decision that a halfguard testing option is not needed in 

FMVSS No. 223. As noted in the NPRM, 

CMVSS No. 223 allows for half-guard 

testing because at the time the standard 

was written, guard manufacturers 

lacked the equipment to apply a 

distributed force of 350,000 N as would 

be required in a test of the full guard. 

CMVSS No. 223 thus allowed 

manufacturers to use then existing 

equipment to certify rear impact guards 

through half-guard testing. No 

commenter suggested that this rationale 

should be applied to FMVSS No. 223 or 

that manufacturers presently lack the 

capability to conduct tests on a full 

guard. Significantly, there is also an 

absence of data showing that half-guard 

testing provides results representative of 

full guard performance. 

NHTSA notes that the test procedures 

included in an FMVSS specify the 

compliance tests that NHTSA conducts. 

Manufacturers may use other reasonable 

methods to certify the compliance of 

their vehicles or equipment, provided 

that their vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment complies. In other words, 

any changes to FMVSS Nos. 223 and 

224 would not directly affect how 

manufacturers choose to structure their 

guard development processes, as long as 

the vehicle or equipment complies. If 

manufacturers believe that testing on 

half-guards will allow them to better 

iterate designs, the standard does not 

prevent them from doing so. The guard 

must meet the FMVSS when tested by 

NHTSA according to the test procedures 

in the standard. 

e. Retrofitting 

The NPRM did not propose to require 

used trailers be retrofitted with CMVSS 

No. 223 compliant rear impact guards, 

as NHTSA had estimated in the NPRM 

that the cost of retrofitting all applicable 

FMVSS compliant trailers far exceeds 

the total benefits from such a retrofit 

requirement. 

Comments Received 

Many commenters disagreed with 

NHTSA’s decision not to propose that 

all trailers be retrofitted with newly 

compliant guards. Network commented 

that older guards can be easily fixed. 

Messrs. Kiefer and Young remarked that 

more lives would be saved if NHTSA 

required retrofitting. TSC remarked that 

NHTSA underestimated the potential 

benefits to requiring trailers be 

retrofitted. TSC stated that NHTSA 

based its analysis on the number of light 

vehicle crashes into the rear of trailers 

that resulted in PCI, which TSC claimed 

came from data sources that often do not 

report on intrusion. Conversely, ATA 

stated that retrofitting trailers will have 

a negative cost-benefit ratio, stating that 

there are more than 11.7 million 

commercial trailers registered in the 

states in 2012, many of which are not 

used on a regular basis. ATA argued that 

retrofitting them would create 

significant costs without any 

corresponding benefit. 

Agency Response 

As further detailed in the Final 

Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) 

accompanying this final rule, NHTSA 

evaluated requiring all trailers to be 

retrofitted with CMVSS No. 223 

compliant guards. This evaluation 

suggests that such a requirement would 

not be practicable or cost-effective. 

Further, vehicle owners would need to 

assess each trailer-guard combination 

individually to determine whether an 

upgraded guard would be compatible 

with the used trailer, accounting for age 

and condition of the vehicle. A used 

trailer may not be structurally capable of 

accommodating a new upgraded guard 

without the addition of unique parts. 

Owners may not have the technical 

expertise to know if an upgraded rear 

impact guard installed on a used trailer 

would be able to meet the intended 

performance level. 

VI. Lead Time 

The NPRM proposed a lead time of 

two years following the date of 

publication of a final rule. NHTSA 

received mixed comments on the 

proposed lead time. Mr. Young and 

Network remarked that given most 

trailers already meet the proposed 

requirements, a two-year lead time was 

unnecessary. Mr. Young stated that 

NHTSA instead should require 

immediate compliance. TTMA 

commented that, for ‘‘nearly all trailer 

models,’’ TTMA members have the 

capability to manufacture to the 

proposed standard but suggested that 

manufacturers of other models may 

have to develop and test new rear 

impact guards. TTMA suggested a lead 

time that provides for an optional early 

compliance date may be worthwhile. 

Section 23011(b)(1)(B) of BIL provides 

that the regulations promulgated under 

subparagraph (A) shall require full 

compliance with each FMVSS revised 

pursuant to those regulations not later 

than 2 years after the date on which 

those regulations are promulgated. 

After considering the comments and 

Section 23011(b)(1)(B) of BIL, NHTSA is 

adopting a two-year compliance date. 

The agency estimates that 94 percent of 

new trailers sold in the United States 

subject to FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 

already comply with the requirements 

of this final rule. This means, however, 

that there remain many trailer 

manufacturers who will need time and 

resources to design and produce new 

rear impact guards that are compliant 

with this final rule. Establishing too 

short a lead time will disadvantage 

these manufacturers, many of which 

may be small manufacturers. NHTSA 

proposed a two-year lead time for the 

1996 final rule and the agency believes 

this length of time is consistent with BIL 

and remains appropriate. Manufacturers 

may choose to comply with the new 

standards earlier. 

VII. Benefit-Cost Analysis 

For the NPRM, NHTSA developed a 

Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation 

(PRE) to estimate the benefits and cost 

of this rulemaking. We first estimated 

the annual number of fatalities and 

injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI 

into the rear of trailers that could be 

prevented by the rulemaking.84 We 

found that, annually, there are 72 light 

vehicle occupant fatalities in crashes 

into the rear of trailers with rear impact 

guards with PCI.85 About 26 percent of 

fatal light vehicle crashes into the rear 

of trailers occur at speeds of 56 km/h 

(35 mph) or less, the speeds at which 

this rule would be effective. Thus, the 

agency estimated that there are 19 

fatalities (= 72 × 0.26) that occur in 

crashes with a relative velocity of 56 

km/h (35 mph) or less. 

CMVSS No. 223 guards may not be 

able to mitigate all fatalities in crashes 

into the rear of trailers with relative 

velocity of 56 km/h (35 mph) or less 

because some crashes may involve low 

overlap (30 percent or less) and some 

fatalities may be due to circumstances 

other than underride (e.g., unrestrained 

status of occupants). NHTSA thus 

assumed that the incremental 

effectiveness of CMVSS No. 223 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42362 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

86The estimation of rear impact guard 

effectiveness is detailed in the FRE. Fatalities and 

injuries would also depend on other factors such as 

occupant age, seat belt use, and crash dynamics. 

Considering these factors, and using engineering 

judgement we believe 50 percent is a reasonable 

estimate of the effectiveness of CMVSS compliant 

rear impact guards. 87https://trailer-bodybuilders.com/trailer-output/ 

2014-trailer-production-figures-table. 

88Section 30101 sets forth the purpose and policy 

of the Safety Act. 

compliant guards over FMVSS No. 224 

compliant guards in preventing fatalities 

in light vehicle impacts with PCI into 

the rear of trailers with crash speeds less 

than 56 km/h (35 mph) is 50 percent.86

Since only 26 percent of light vehicle 

crashes with PCI into the rear of trailers 

are at relative velocity less than or equal 

to 56 km/h, NHTSA estimated the 

overall effectiveness of upgrading to 

CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards to be 

13 percent (= 26% × 50%). 

Since a number of vehicles currently 

meet CMVSS No. 223, this benefit must 

be reduced by the proportion of new 

trailers already compliant with CMVSS 

No. 223, which the agency estimated to 

be 93 percent. Assuming 13 percent 

effectiveness of these guards in fatal 

crashes with PCI into the rear of trailers, 

the agency estimated that about 0.66 

(= 72 × (1¥0.93) × 0.13) lives would be 

saved annually by requiring all 

applicable trailers to be equipped with 

CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards. 

NHTSA estimated that a total of 2.7 

serious injuries would also be prevented 

annually with this rear impact guard 

rule. Including fatalities and serious 

injuries, the agency estimated that 1.4 

equivalent lives would be saved 

annually. 

To determine the costs of the final 

rule, NHTSA considered the 

incremental fleet cost of equipping all 

applicable trailers with CMVSS No. 223 

rear impact guards and the increased 

fuel costs resulting from the added 

weight CMVSS No. 223 compliant 

guards would place on trailers. 

The average cost of a Canadian 

compliant rear impact guard was 

estimated as $492. The incremental cost 

of equipping CMVSS No. 223 compliant 

rear impact guards on applicable new 

trailers (those that are subject to FMVSS 

No. 223) was estimated as $229 per 

trailer. There were 243,873 trailers 

produced in 2013,87 among which 65 

percent were required to be equipped 

with rear impact guards. Of those, 93 

percent were already equipped with 

CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards. The 

annual incremental fleet cost of 

equipping all applicable trailers with 

CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards was 

estimated at $2.5 million (= 243,873 × 

0.65 × (1.0¥0.94) × $229). 

NHTSA determined that upgrading 

from the FMVSS No. 223 compliant 

guard to the CMVSS No. 223 compliant 

guard would add an average 

incremental weight of 22.2 kg (48.9 lb) 

to the trailer, thereby reducing the 

overall fuel economy during the lifetime 

of the trailer. The incremental increase 

in lifetime fuel cost for a 22.2 kg (48.9 

lb) weight increase of a trailer was 

estimated to be $1,042.2 and $927.7 

discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, 

respectively. The annual incremental 

lifetime fuel cost of equipping all 

applicable trailers with CMVSS No. 223 

rear impact guards was estimated as 

$9.2 million and $8.2 million in 2013 

dollars discounted at 3 percent and 7 

percent, respectively. 

The agency estimated that the net cost 

per equivalent lives saved would be 

$9.1 million and $9.5 million in 2013 

dollars discounted at 3 percent and 7 

percent, respectively. At 3 percent 

discount rate, the net benefit of the 

proposed rule would be $0.59 million. 

At 7 percent discount rate, the net 

benefit of the proposed rule would be 

$0.13 million. 

Comments. NHTSA received several 

comments on the estimates provided in 

the NPRM. A few commenters suggested 

NHTSA should not conduct a benefitcost analysis for a safety focused 

regulation in the first place and/or 

should comply with Vision Zero and 

make saving human life a priority over 

monetary issues. Some others believed 

that NHTSA’s benefit-cost analysis was 

fundamentally flawed because, they 

argued: safety-related benefits should 

intrinsically outweigh costs related to 

upgrading equipment, NHTSA should 

not shift the costs of its rule to the 

public at the benefit of truckers, or that 

NHTSA should use costs only to 

compare outcomes that involved a rear 

impact guard not failing upon collision. 

Agency Response. NHTSA 

implements its regulatory, enforcement, 

and oversight authority provided by the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) 

(Safety Act) to protect all members of 

the public. NHTSA’s authority to issue 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 

set forth in sections 30111 of the Safety 

Act. Each safety standard must be 

practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and be stated in objective 

terms. When issuing a safety standard, 

NHTSA must consider, among other 

things, relevant motor vehicle safety 

information, whether a standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the particular type of motor vehicle 

or motor vehicle equipment for which it 

is prescribed, and the extent to which 

the standard will carry out section 

30101 of the Act.88 NHTSA issues its 

regulations in accordance with agency 

and Departmental regulations and in 

conformity with Executive orders (E.O.). 

Safety is of utmost importance, and 

NHTSA pursues such safety to the 

degree possible in accordance with its 

statutory authority and as instructed by 

Executive order. Under the Safety Act, 

the reasonableness and practicability of 

a standard (both technologically and 

economically) must be considered. 

Under E.O. 12866, agencies are 

instructed to undertake a benefit-cost 

analysis to inform its rulemaking 

decisions to ensure agency regulations 

protect and improve the public’s health, 

safety, environment, and well-being and 

improves the performance of the 

economy without imposing 

unacceptable or unreasonable costs on 

society. Thus, in response to 

commenters who urge us to adopt safety 

standards without regard to costs, we 

cannot do so under the Safety Act and 

the E.O. 

NHTSA also cannot measure safetyrelated benefits categorically differently 

from costs, as requested by several 

commenters. Under E.O. 12866, as 

specified in OMB Circular A–4, agencies 

must quantify and value safety impacts 

to compare them to the costs of the 

regulation. Agencies do so by 

calculating the value of the loss of life 

using a metric called the Value of a 

Statistical Life (VSL). The VSL includes 

costs such as medical care, reduced 

income, and the effects fatalities and 

injuries may have on family members. 

NHTSA uses the VSL to determine the 

monetary value of reducing fatalities 

and injuries, which NHTSA then 

compares to estimated costs of a 

regulation. NHTSA cannot arbitrarily 

increase the value of benefits outside of 

this framework. 

Some commenters also raised issues 

with what they viewed as specific 

shortcomings in the PRE’s benefit-cost 

analysis. Some believed NHTSA did not 

properly consider all necessary 

variables in its analysis. For example, 

Network stated that NHTSA did not 

consider new technology or what it 

claimed to be the negative consumer 

choices fueled by fear to adopt smaller 

and lighter fuel-efficient vehicles due to 

increased crash incompatibility. Mr. 

Karth believed NHTSA should consider 

‘‘what a parent would pay to protect 

their children,’’ the ‘‘impact upon a 

family if a bread-winner is injured or 

lost,’’ and ‘‘the medical expenses to care 

for a severely injured individual.’’ Ms. 

Karth believed NHTSA’s benefit-cost 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42363 

89The FRE may be obtained by downloading it or 

by contacting Docket Management at the address or 

telephone number provided at the beginning of this 

document. 

90https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4/. 

91For more information, please see a 2021 Office 

of the Secretary memorandum on the ‘‘Guidance on 

Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical 

Life in U.S. Department of Transportation 

Analyses—2021 Update.’’ https://www.dot.gov/ 

policy/transportation-policy/economy. 

analysis did not ‘‘take into 

consideration the circumstances and 

costs of the full extent of underride 

research.’’ 

NHTSA has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) for this 

final rule and has placed a copy of the 

FRE in the docket.89 The FRE for this 

final rule discusses and explains the 

agency’s final estimates for the benefits 

and cost that would result from this 

rulemaking. The analysis and findings 

are not significantly different from those 

of the PRE. 

NHTSA believes that it has properly 

calculated the applicable benefits and 

costs to its rule using the appropriate 

variables. We sought to estimate the 

benefits of the rule by determining the 

number of lives and serious injuries it 

would prevent over the current situation 

and then monetize that number using 

the VSL value. We then compared these 

benefits with the cost of the rule, the 

increased material and fuel costs that 

requiring rear impact guard upgrades 

would necessitate. These variables 

encompass the benefits and costs that 

this rule would impose. In the absence 

of sufficient information to quantify 

changes in consumer behavior, we do 

not believe that factoring in variables 

such as negative consumer choices 

resulting from the fear of underride 

collisions is appropriate. 

Some comments remarked on what 

were perceived to be NHTSA’s 

overestimation of projected costs. Mr. 

Karth questioned NHTSA’s calculations 

as being overstated, particularly 

emphasizing that the fuel costs NHTSA 

projected in the PRE did not turn out to 

be accurate. The commenter also 

believed NHTSA’s benefit-cost analysis 

is faulty because manufacturers have 

been willing to ‘‘provide a better rear 

impact guard even without regulation.’’ 

Ms. Karth commented that customers 

have shown they are willing to pay for 

trailers to be safer, and manufacturers 

have shown that they are willing to 

respond to that demand and produce 

safer trailers. Network believed that 

NHTSA used outdated costs when 

analyzing how much an upgraded rear 

impact guard would cost. Mr. Brown 

indicated that the costs of the regulation 

could ‘‘be distributed to many different 

people and products.’’ 

Agency Response. We disagree that 

we overestimated the costs of the rule. 

We determined the incremental cost of 

installing CMVSS No. 223 compliant 

guards on all trailers that would need to 

upgrade to new guards and the resulting 

increase in fuel costs such installation 

would cause. While commenters 

pointed to factors they believed NHTSA 

should have considered, we do not 

believe such considerations are 

appropriate. For example, Mr. and Ms. 

Karth suggested that manufacturers have 

been willing to provide a better rear 

impact guard and that consumers have 

shown that they are willing to pay more 

for vehicles to have upgraded rear 

impact guards. The fact, however, that 

some manufacturers and consumers 

may be willing to accept increased costs 

is not relevant to estimating the 

increased costs of the guards, which is 

a factor germane to an analysis that 

seeks to quantify the costs of the rule 

and analyze societal impacts. Similarly, 

while Network remarked that NHTSA’s 

estimates for the value of an upgraded 

rear impact guard were too high, it did 

so by reflecting on what it thought the 

cost of a guard should be. NHTSA 

determined this cost by looking to the 

average cost of CMVSS No. 223 

compliant guards on the market, which 

the agency believes reflects a more 

realistic and accurate value. 

In response to Mr. Karth’s comment 

regarding NHTSA’s estimated fuel costs 

from the PRE, NHTSA followed well 

established procedures to estimate 

incremental fuel costs due to increased 

weight of the rear impact guards and the 

most recent information on fuel price. 

NHTSA considered the most up-to-date 

data in developing this final rule, 

updated its variables where necessary in 

the FRE and used the most current data 

available to inform this rulemaking. 

Some commentators stated that 

NHTSA underestimated the benefits of 

improved rear impact guards. According 

to Advocates, NHTSA based its 

calculation of the proposed rule’s 

benefits on the agency’s belief that only 

26 percent of light vehicle occupant 

fatal crashes into the rear of trailers with 

rear impact guards that resulted in PCI 

occur at speeds of 35 mph or less. 

Advocates believed that using this 

number ‘‘significantly reduced the 

agency’s estimate of the number of 

crashes and occupants that could be 

aided by the upgrade in rear protection 

guards’’ because it is based on speed 

estimates, which Advocates considers 

‘‘notoriously inaccurate.’’ TSC similarly 

commented that NHTSA derived speed 

estimates from ‘‘inconsistent, unreliable 

sources’’ and failed to count instances of 

PCI properly, resulting in NHTSA’s 

underestimating the benefits of the 

intended rule. 

Agency Response. NHTSA has 

analyzed the comments and believes it 

has properly calculated the benefits of 

this rulemaking. The agency determined 

the number of fatalities and serious 

injuries this rule would prevent by 

analyzing the supplemented TIFA data 

from the 2013 UMTRI Study. This data 

source is the most accurate available to 

determine the number of fatalities and 

serious injuries currently caused by fatal 

light vehicle crashes into the rear of 

trailers with PCI at speeds of 56 km/h 

(35 mph) or less—the crashes NHTSA is 

targeting in this rule. We have used 

these data appropriately for determining 

the target population and estimating the 

benefits and in accordance with OMB 

Circular A–4 90 guidance on the 

development of regulatory analysis. 

NHTSA also notes that, while 

commenters objected to using data 

based on speed estimates and 

determinations of PCI, they did not 

present any alternative data source they 

believed was more reliable. The TIFA 

data have been thoroughly apprised for 

accuracy and are the best data available 

for an analysis of benefits. NHTSA has 

concluded the data are sufficient to 

proceed with quantifying the benefits of 

this rulemaking and to proceed to a final 

rule. 

Summary of the Final Regulatory 

Evaluation 

The estimated benefits and costs of 

the FRE are along the same lines as 

those in the PRE. In the FRE, NHTSA 

determined that 94 percent of applicable 

new trailers are now equipped with rear 

impact guards that are compliant with 

the updated FMVSS No. 223 

requirements. Additionally, NHTSA 

updated the value of statistical life 

(VSL) in accordance with the March 

2021 Department of Transportation 

revised guidance regarding the 

treatment of the economic value of a 

statistical life in U.S Department of 

Transportation regulatory analyses 

(2021 Update).91

Assuming 13 percent effectiveness of 

these guards in fatal crashes with PCI 

into the rear of trailers, the agency 

estimates that about 0.56 (= 72 × 

(1¥0.94) × 0.13) lives would be saved 

annually by requiring all applicable 

trailers to be equipped with CMVSS No. 

223 compliant guards. The agency also 

estimates that a total of 3.5 serious 

injuries would be prevented annually 

with the rear impact guard final rule. 

Including fatalities and serious injuries, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42364 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

the rule would result in an estimated 1.4 

equivalent lives saved annually. 

NHTSA estimates the annual 

incremental fleet cost of equipping all 

applicable trailers with CMVSS No. 223 

rear impact guards to be $2.1 million 

based on an average increase in cost of 

$254.35 per guard. The annual 

incremental lifetime fuel cost, based on 

an average weight increase of 48.9 

pound per vehicle, is estimated to be 

$5.59 million and $4.43 million 

discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, 

respectively. Therefore, the total cost of 

the final rule, including material and 

fuel costs, is $7.69 million discounted at 

3 percent and $6.54 million discounted 

at 7 percent. 

The agency estimates that the cost per 

equivalent life saved is $6.77 million 

and $7.25 million discounted at 3 

percent and 7 percent, respectively, as 

shown in Table 5. A summary of the 

regulatory cost and net benefit of the 

final rule at the 3 percent and 7 percent 

discount rates are presented in Table 6. 

At 3 percent discount rate, the net 

benefit of the final rule is $6.04 million. 

At 7 percent discount rate, the net 

benefit of the final rule is $4.36 million. 

TABLE 5—COST PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Discount rate Undiscounted 3% 7% 

Total Cost .................................................................................................................................... $9.00 $7.69 $6.54 

Equivalent Lives Saved ............................................................................................................... 1.40 1.14 0.90 

Cost per Equivalent Life Saved ................................................................................................... $6.42 $6.77 $7.25 

TABLE 6—NET BENEFITS

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Discount rate Undiscounted 3% 7% 

Comprehensive Benefit ............................................................................................................... $16.96 $13.73 $10.90 

Total Cost .................................................................................................................................... 9.00 7.69 6.54 

Net Benefit ............................................................................................................................ 7.96 6.04 4.36 

For further information regarding the 

aforementioned cost and benefit 

estimates, please reference the FRE that 

NHTSA placed in the docket. 

VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 

13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

We have considered the impacts of 

this final rule under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563, and the Department of 

Transportation’s administrative 

rulemaking procedures. This final rule 

has been determined to be 

nonsignificant under E.O. 12866 and 

was not reviewed by OMB. We have 

discussed comments to the PRE and 

summarized the estimated costs, 

benefits, and cost-effectiveness of this 

final rule in the above section of this 

preamble, and in the FRE. NHTSA 

estimates that this final rule will save 

approximately 1.14 and 0.9 equivalent 

lives annually discounted at 3 percent 

and 7 percent, respectively. The total 

cost of the final rule, including material 

and fuel costs, is estimated to be $7.69 

million discounted at 3 percent and 

$6.54 million discounted at 7 percent. 

The net cost per equivalent lives saved 

is $6.77 million and $7.25 million 

discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, 

respectively. NHTSA’s FRE fully 

discusses the estimated costs, benefits, 

and other impacts of this rule. 

Consistent with E.O. 13563, NHTSA 

is amending FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 

because of retrospectively analyzing the 

effectiveness of the standards. NHTSA 

realized the merits of CMVSS No. 223 

in addressing the same safety need that 

is the subject of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 

224 and undertook this rulemaking to 

adopt upgraded strength and other 

requirements of CMVSS No. 223. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small business, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions), unless the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Agencies must also provide a statement 

of the factual basis for this certification. 

I certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

NHTSA estimates there are 354 

manufacturers of trailers in the U.S., 331 

of which are small businesses. The 

impacts of this final rule on small trailer 

manufacturers would not be significant. 

This rule will make changes to the 

strength requirements applying to rear 

impact guards but will not affect the 

method by which small trailer 

manufacturers can certify compliance 

with FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. 

FMVSS No. 223, an equipment 

standard, specifies strength and energy 

absorption requirements in quasi-static 

force tests of rear impact guards sold for 

installation on new trailers and 

semitrailers. FMVSS No. 224, a vehicle 

standard, requires new trailers and 

semitrailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or more to be equipped with 

a rear impact guard meeting FMVSS No. 

223. NHTSA established the twostandard approach to provide underride 

protection in a manner that imposes 

reasonable compliance burdens on 

small trailer manufacturers. 

Under FMVSS No. 223, the guard may 

be tested for compliance while mounted 

to a test fixture or to a complete trailer. 

FMVSS No. 224 requires that the guard 

be mounted on the trailer or semitrailer 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided with the guard by the guard 

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 was devised 

to provide small manufacturers a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42365 

practicable and reasonable means of 

meeting the safety need served by a rear 

impact guard requirement. This final 

rule does not change the method of 

certifying compliance to the rear impact 

guard requirements of FMVSS Nos. 223 

and 224. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments, or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule will not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under chapter 301, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under chapter 301. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision 

described above is subject to a savings 

clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with 

a motor vehicle safety standard 

prescribed under this chapter does not 

exempt a person from liability at 

common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 

Pursuant to this provision, State 

common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. However, the 

Supreme Court has recognized the 

possibility, in some instances, of 

implied preemption of such State 

common law tort causes of action by 

virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not 

expressly preempted. This second way 

that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA 

standards established by an FMVSS are 

minimum standards, a State common 

law tort cause of action that seeks to 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers will generally not 

be preempted. However, if and when 

such a conflict does exist—for example, 

when the standard at issue is both a 

minimum and a maximum standard— 

the State common law tort cause of 

action is impliedly preempted. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 

529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this final rule could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. The agency’s ability to announce 

its conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this final rule and finds 

that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, 

prescribes only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend that this final rule will preempt 

State tort law that would effectively 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers than that 

established by this rule. Establishment 

of a higher standard by means of State 

tort law would not conflict with the 

minimum standard in this final rule. 

Without any conflict, there could not be 

any implied preemption of a State 

common law tort cause of action. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

When promulgating a regulation, 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that the agency must make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies 

in clear language the preemptive effect; 

(2) specifies in clear language the effect 

on existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

NHTSA notes as follows: The 

preemptive effect of this final rule is 

discussed above in connection with 

Executive Order 13132. NHTSA notes 

further that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceedings before they 

may file suit in court. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. Before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must provide a 60-day 

public comment period and otherwise 

consult with members of the public and 

affected agencies concerning each 

collection of information requirement. 

There are no PRA requirements 

associated with this final rule. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTIAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., material 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) and the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when we 

decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

This final rule will adopt 

requirements of CMVSS No. 223. 

NHTSA’s consideration of CMVSS No. 

223 accords with the principles of 

NTTAA, in that NHTSA is considering 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42366 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

92Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) R.58, 

‘‘Rear underrun protective devices (RUPDs); 

Vehicles with regard to the installation of an RUPD 

of an approved type; Vehicles with regard to their 

rear underrun protection (RUP),’’ February 2019, 

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/ 

wp29/wp29regs/2017/R058r3e.pdf. 

an established, proven standard, and 

has not had to expend significant 

agency resources on the same safety 

need addressed by CMVSS No. 223. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted for inflation 

with base year of 1995). After analyzing 

the costs of this final rule, it will not 

result in expenditures by any of the 

aforementioned entities of over $100 

million annually. 

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation) 

The policy statement in section 1 of 

Executive Order 13609 provides in part 

that the regulatory approaches taken by 

foreign governments may differ from 

those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies 

to address similar issues. The E.O. states 

that, in some cases, the differences 

between the regulatory approaches of 

U.S. agencies and those of their foreign 

counterparts might not be necessary and 

might impair the ability of American 

businesses to export and compete 

internationally. The E.O. states that, in 

meeting shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues, 

international regulatory cooperation can 

identify approaches that are at least as 

protective as those that are or would be 

adopted in the absence of such 

cooperation, and that international 

regulatory cooperation can also reduce, 

eliminate, or prevent unnecessary 

differences in regulatory requirements. 

This final rule adopts requirements of 

CMVSS No. 223 to upgrade FMVSS Nos. 

223 and 224. NHTSA recognizes that 

these requirements are different from 

those in the European standard, ECE 

R.58, ‘‘Rear underrun protective devices 

(RUPD); Vehicles with regard to the 

installation of an RUPD of an approved 

vehicle; Vehicles with regard to their 

rear underrun protection.’’ 92 R.58 

specifies requirements that are similar 

to, but less stringent than, the current 

standards in FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. 

R.58 specifies a quasi-static loading test 

of 25 kN at P1, 25 kN at P2, and 100 kN 

at P3. R.58 also does not specify any 

energy absorption requirements. 

NHTSA has decided to adopt the 

strength requirements of CMVSS No. 

223 rather than ECE R.58 because the 

rear impact protection requirements for 

trailers in Canada are more stringent 

than that in Europe and more 

appropriate for the underride crashes 

experienced in the U.S. Passenger 

vehicles in the U.S. are required by 

FMVSS No. 208 to have frontal air bag 

protection and comply with a full 

frontal 56 km/h (35 mph) rigid barrier 

crash test by ensuring that the injury 

measures of crash test dummies 

restrained in front seating positions are 

within the allowable limits. CMVSS No. 

223 is designed to prevent PCI in full 

frontal 56 km/h (35 mph) crashes. 

Together, FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS 

Nos. 223 and 224 will significantly 

reduce the harm resulting to occupants 

of passenger vehicles impacting the rear 

of trailers in crashes of up to 56 km/h 

(35 mph). 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 require each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Has the agency 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 is not 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 the agency improve clarity by 

adding tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could the agency do to 

make this rulemaking easier to 

understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please send them to NHTSA. 

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. 

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 hearing at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Section 571.223 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising S3; 

■ b. Adding definitions of ‘‘Ground 

clearance’’ and ‘‘Load path’’ in 

alphabetical order in S4; 

■ c. Revising S5.2, S5.5(c), S6 

introductory text, S6.3, S6.4 

introductory text, S6.4(a) introductory 

text, and S6.4(b) introductory text; 

■ d. Removing S6.4(c); 

■ e. Revising S6.5 introductory text and 

S6.5(a); 

■ f. Adding S6.5(c); 

■ g. Revising S6.6 introductory text, 

S6.6(b), and S6.6(c); 

■ f. Adding S6.7 through S6.9; 

■ g. Revising Figures 1 and 2; and 

■ h. Adding Figures 3 and 4. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.223 Standard No. 223; Rear impact 

guards 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to rear impact guards for trailers 

and semitrailers subject to Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, 

Rear Impact Protection (§ 571.224). 

S4. * * * 

Ground clearance means the vertical 

distance from the bottom edge of a 

horizontal member to the ground. 

* * * * * 

Load path means a route of force 

transmission between the horizontal 

member and the chassis. 

* * * * * 

S5.2 Strength and Energy 

Absorption. When tested under the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42367 

procedures of S6 of this section, each 

guard shall comply with the strength 

requirements of S5.2.1 of this section at 

each test location and the energy 

absorption requirements of S5.2.2 of this 

section when a distributed load is 

applied uniformly across the horizontal 

member, as specified in S6.8 of this 

section. However, a particular guard 

(i.e., test specimen) need not be tested 

at more than one location. 

S5.2.1 Guard Strength. The guard 

must resist the force levels specified in 

S5.2.1(a) through (c) of this section 

without deflecting by more than 125 

mm and without eliminating any load 

path that existed before the test was 

initiated. 

(a) A force of 50,000 N applied in 

accordance with S6.6 of this section at 

test location P1 on either the left or the 

right side of the guard as defined in 

S6.4(a) of this section. 

(b) A force of 50,000 N applied in 

accordance with S6.6 of this section at 

test location P2 as defined in S6.4(b) of 

this section. 

(c) A uniform distributed force of at 

least 350,000 N applied across the 

horizontal member, as specified in S6.8 

of this section and in accordance with 

S6.6 of this section. 

S5.2.2 Guard Energy Absorption. 

(a) A guard, other than a hydraulic 

guard or one installed on a tanker 

trailer, when subjected to a uniform 

distributed load applied in accordance 

with S6.6(c) of this section: 

(1) Shall absorb by plastic 

deformation at least 20,000 J of energy 

within the first 125 mm of deflection 

without eliminating any load path that 

existed before the test was initiated; and 

(2) Have a ground clearance not 

exceeding 560 mm, measured at each 

support to which the horizontal member 

is attached, as shown in Figure 4 of this 

section, after completion of the load 

application. 

(b) A guard, other than a hydraulic 

guard or one installed on a tanker 

trailer, that demonstrates resistance to a 

uniform distributed load greater than 

700,000 N applied in accordance with 

S6.6(b) of this section, need not meet 

the energy absorption requirements of 

S5.2.2(a) of this section but must have 

a ground clearance not exceeding 560 

mm at each vertical support to which 

the horizontal member is attached after 

completion of the 700,000 N load 

application. 

* * * * * 

S5.5 * * * 

(c) An explanation of the method of 

attaching the guard to the chassis of 

each vehicle make and model listed or 

to the design elements specified in the 

instructions or procedures. The 

principal aspects of vehicle chassis 

configuration that are necessary to the 

proper functioning of the guard shall be 

specified including the maximum 

allowable vertical distance between the 

bottom edge of the horizontal member of 

the guard and the ground to ensure posttest ground clearance requirements are 

met. If the chassis strength is inadequate 

for the guard design, the instructions or 

procedures shall specify methods for 

adequately reinforcing the vehicle 

chassis. Procedures for properly 

installing any guard attachment 

hardware shall be provided. 

S6. Guard Test Procedures. The 

procedures for determining compliance 

with S5.2 of this section are specified in 

S6.1 through S6.9 of this section. 

* * * * * 

S6.3 Point Load Force Application 

Device. The force application device 

employed in S6.6 of this section 

consists of a rectangular solid made of 

rigid steel. The steel solid is 203 mm in 

height, 203 mm in width, and 25 mm in 

thickness. The 203 mm by 203 mm face 

of the block is used as the contact 

surface for application of the forces 

specified in S5.2.1(a) and (b) of this 

section. Each edge of the contact surface 

of the block has a radius of curvature of 

5 mm plus or minus 1 mm. 

S6.4 Point Load Test Locations. 

With the guard mounted to the rigid test 

fixture or to a complete trailer, 

determine the test locations P1 and P2 

in accordance with the procedure set 

forth in S6.4(a) and (b) of this section. 

See Figure 1 of this section. 

(a) Point Load Test location P1 is the 

point on the rearmost surface of the 

horizontal member of the guard that: 

* * * * * 

(b) Point Load Test location P2 is the 

point on the rearmost surface of the 

horizontal member of the guard that: 

* * * * * 

S6.5 Positioning of Force 

Application Device. Before applying any 

force to the guard, locate the force 

application device specified in S6.3 of 

this section for the point load test 

location and that specified in S6.7 of 

this section for the uniform distributed 

load test location, such that: 

(a) The center point of the contact 

surface of the force application device is 

aligned with and touching the guard test 

location, as defined by the 

specifications of S6.4 of this section for 

the point load test locations, and S6.8 of 

this section for the uniform distributed 

load test location. 

* * * * * 

(c) If the guard is tested on a rigid test 

fixture, the vertical distance from the 

bottom edge of the horizontal member to 

the ground at the location of each 

support to which the horizontal member 

is attached, shall be measured. 

S6.6 Force Application. After the 

force application device has been 

positioned according to S6.5 of this 

section, at the point load test locations 

specified in S6.4 of this section or the 

uniform distributed load test location 

specified in S6.8 of this section, apply 

the loads specified in S5.2 of this 

section. Load application procedures are 

specified in S6.6(a) through (d) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(b) If conducting a strength test to 

satisfy the requirement of S5.2.1 or 

S5.2.2(b) of this section, the force is 

applied until the forces specified in 

S5.2.1 or S5.2.2(b) of this section have 

been exceeded, or until the 

displacement of the force application 

device has reached at least 125 mm 

whichever occurs first. 

(c) If conducting a test to be used for 

the calculation of energy absorption 

levels to satisfy the requirement of 

S5.2.2(a) of this section, apply a uniform 

distributed force to the guard until 

displacement of the force application 

device, specified in S6.7 of this section, 

has reached 125 mm. For calculation of 

guard energy absorption, the value of 

force is recorded at least ten times per 

25 mm of displacement of the contact 

surface of the loading device. Reduce 

the force until the guard no longer offers 

resistance to the force application 

device. Produce a force vs. deflection 

diagram of the type shown in Figure 2 

of this section using this information. 

Determine the energy absorbed by the 

guard by calculating the shaded area 

bounded by the curve in the force vs. 

deflection diagram and the abscissa (Xaxis). 

* * * * * 

S6.7 Uniform Distributed Load Force 

Application Device. The force 

application device to be employed in 

applying the uniform distributed load is 

to be unyielding, have a height of 203 

mm, and have a width that exceeds the 

distance between the outside edges of 

the outermost supports to which the 

tested portion of the horizontal member 

is attached, as shown in Figure 3 of this 

section. 

S6.8 Uniform Distributed Load Test 

Location. With the guard mounted to the 

rigid test fixture or to a complete trailer, 

determine the test location in 

accordance with the following 

procedure. See Figure 3 of this section. 

Distributed Force Test location is the 

plane on the rearmost surface of the 

horizontal member of the guard that: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
42368 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(a) Is centered in the longitudinal 

vertical plane passing through the 

center of the guard’s horizontal member; 

and 

(b) Is centered 50 mm above the 

bottom of the guard. 

S6.9 Ground Clearance 

Measurement. 

(a) For the test device attached to a 

complete trailer as specified in S6.2 of 

this section, the ground clearance of the 

guard at the vertical supports to which 

the horizontal member is attached shall 

be measured after completion of the 

uniform distributed load test in 

accordance with S6.6(b) or S6.6(c) of 

this section. 

(b) For the test device attached to a 

rigid test fixture as specified in S6.2 of 

this section, the vertical distance from 

the ground to the bottom edge of the 

horizontal member at the vertical 

supports to which the horizontal 

member is attached shall be measured 

after completion of the uniform 

distributed load test in accordance with 

S6.6(b) or S6.6(c) of this section and 

subtracted from the corresponding 

ground clearance measured before the 

load application in accordance with 

S6.5(c) of this section. The difference in 

ground clearance before and after the 

load application is added to the 

allowable maximum vertical distance 

between the bottom edge of the 

horizontal member of the guard and the 

ground as specified in S5.5(c) of this 

section, to obtain the ground clearance 

after completion of the uniform 

distributed load test. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42369 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER15JY22.003</GPH>
42370 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER15JY22.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42371 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER15JY22.005</GPH>
42372 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

■ 3. Section 571.224 is amended by 

revising the second sentence in S3 and 

the definition of ‘‘Rear extremity’’ in S4 

to read as follows: 

§ 571.224 Standard No. 224; Rear impact 

protection. 

* * * * * 

S3. Application. * * * The standard 

does not apply to pole trailers, 

pulpwood trailers, low chassis vehicles, 

road construction controlled horizontal 

discharge trailers, special purpose 

vehicles, wheels back vehicles, or 

temporary living quarters as defined in 

49 CFR 523.2. * * * 

S4. * * * 

Rear extremity means the rearmost 

point on a trailer that is above a 

horizontal plane located above the 

ground clearance and below a 

horizontal plane located 1,900 mm 

above the ground when the trailer is 

configured as specified in S5.1 of this 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER15JY22.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 42373 

section and when the trailer’s cargo 

doors, tailgate and other permanent 

structures are positioned as they 

normally are when the trailer is in 

motion, with non-structural protrusions 

excluded from the determination of the 

rearmost point, such as: 

(1) Tail lamps; 

(2) Rubber bumpers; 

(3) Hinges and latches; and 

(4) Flexible aerodynamic devices 

capable of being folded to within 305 

mm from the transverse vertical plane 

tangent to the rear most surface of the 

horizontal member for vertical heights 

below 1,740 mm above ground and, 

when positioned as they normally are 

when the trailer is in motion, are 

located forward of the transverse plane 

that is tangent to the rear bottom edge 

of the horizontal member and 

intersecting a point located 1,210 mm 

rearward of the horizontal member and 

1,740 mm above the ground. 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.5. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14330 Filed 7–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 220–711–0152; RTID 0648– 

XB986] 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Adjustments to 2022 North and South 

Atlantic Swordfish Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS adjusts the 2022 

baseline quotas for U.S. North and 

South Atlantic swordfish based on 

available underharvest of the 2021 

adjusted U.S. quotas. This action is 

necessary to implement binding 

recommendations of the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by 

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 

(ATCA), and to achieve domestic 

management objectives under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action to 

adjust the quotas is only temporary and 

will be effective through December 31, 

2022. On January 1, 2023, the 

unadjusted annual baseline allocations 

of North and South Atlantic swordfish 

will renew and be available to harvest 

consistent with HMS regulations. 

DATES: Effective August 15, 2022, 

through December 31, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Supporting documents, 

including environmental assessments 

and environmental impact statements, 

as well as the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

and its amendments may be 

downloaded from NOAA Fisheries’ 

HMS Division website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-species. These 

documents also are available upon 

request from Erianna Hammond or 

Steve Durkee at the email addresses and 

telephone number below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erianna Hammond (erianna.hammond@

noaa.gov) or Steve Durkee 

(steve.durkee@noaa.gov) at 301–427– 

8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

HMS fisheries, including swordfish 

fisheries, are managed under the 

authority of ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments are implemented by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Section 

635.27(c) implements the ICCATrecommended quotas and describes the 

quota adjustment process for both North 

and South Atlantic swordfish. NMFS is 

required under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with 

a reasonable opportunity to harvest 

quotas under relevant international 

fishery agreements such as the ICCAT 

Convention, which is implemented 

domestically pursuant to ATCA. 

North Atlantic Swordfish Annual 

Quota and Adjustment Process 

Consistent with the North Atlantic 

swordfish quota regulations at 

§ 635.27(c), NMFS adjusts the U.S. 

annual North Atlantic swordfish quota 

for allowable underharvest, if any, in 

the previous year. NMFS makes such 

adjustments consistent with ICCAT 

limits and when catch information for 

the prior year is available. Under ICCAT 

Recommendation 16–03, as amended by 

Recommendation 21–02, the U.S. North 

Atlantic swordfish baseline annual 

quota for 2018 through 2022 is 2,937.6 

metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) 

(3,907 mt whole weight (ww)). The 

maximum underharvest that the United 

States may carry forward from one year 

to the next is 15 percent of the baseline 

quota, which equals 440.6 mt dw (586 

mt ww) for the United States. In 2021, 

the adjusted North Atlantic swordfish 

quota was 3,378.2 mt dw (2,937.6 mt dw 

baseline quota + 440.6 mt dw carried 

over from 2020). 

Preliminary total 2021 U.S. North 

Atlantic swordfish catch, which 

includes landings and dead discards, 

was 961.8 mt dw, which is an 

underharvest of 2,416.4 mt dw of the 

2021 adjusted quota. This underharvest 

exceeds the 440.6-mt dw underharvest 

carryover limit allowed under 

Recommendation 21–02. Thus, NMFS is 

carrying forward 440.6 mt dw, the 

maximum carryover allowed. The 

2,937.6-mt dw baseline quota is 

increased by the underharvest carryover 

of 440.6 mt dw, resulting in a final 

adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota 

for the 2022 fishing year of 3,378.2 mt 

dw (2,937.6 + 440.6 = 3,378.2 mt dw). 

From that adjusted quota, 50 mt dw will 

be allocated to the Reserve category for 

inseason adjustments and research, and 

300 mt dw will be allocated to the 

Incidental category, which covers 

recreational landings and landings by 

incidental swordfish permit holders, in 

accordance with regulations at 

§ 635.27(c)(1)(i). This results in an 

allocation of 3,028.2 mt dw 

(3,378.2¥50¥300 = 3,028.2 mt dw) for 

the directed category, split equally 

between two seasons in 2022 (January 

through June, and July through 

December) (Table 1). 

South Atlantic Swordfish Annual 

Quota and Adjustment Process 

Consistent with the South Atlantic 

swordfish quota regulations at 

§ 635.27(c), NMFS adjusts the U.S. 

annual South Atlantic swordfish quota 

for allowable underharvest, if any, in 

the previous year. NMFS makes such 

adjustments consistent with ICCAT 

limits when catch information for the 

prior year is available. Under ICCAT 

Recommendation 17–03 as amended by 

Recommendation 21–03, the U.S. South 

Atlantic swordfish baseline annual 

quota for 2018 through 2022 is 75.2 mt 

dw (100 mt ww) and the amount of 

underharvest that the United States can 

carry forward from one year to the next 

is 100 percent of the baseline quota 

(75.2 mt dw). Under Recommendations 

17–03 and 21–03, the United States 

continues to transfer a total of 75.2 mt 

dw (100 mt ww) to other countries. 

These transfers are 37.6 mt dw (50 mt 

ww) to Namibia, 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) 

to Coˆte d’Ivoire, and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt 

ww) to Belize. 

Since 2014, the annual U.S. adjusted 

South Atlantic swordfish quota has been 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1