Document ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Rear Impact Protection, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Single Unit Trucks
Posted Date: 2015-07-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43663-43694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17973]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0070]
RIN 2127-AL57

Rear Impact Protection, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment, Single Unit Trucks

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is issuing this ANPRM following a July 10, 2014 grant of 
a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety 
Coalition (petitioners) regarding possible amendments to the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) relating to rear impact 
(underride) guards. The petitioners request that NHTSA require 
underride guards on vehicles not currently required by the FMVSSs to 
have guards, notably, single unit trucks, and improve the standards' 
requirements for all guards, including guards now required for heavy 
trailers and semitrailers. Today's ANPRM requests comment on NHTSA's 
estimated cost and benefits of requirements for underride guards on

[[Page 43664]]

single unit trucks, and for retroreflective material on the rear and 
sides of the vehicles to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to 
other motorists. Separately, NHTSA plans to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking proposing to upgrade the requirements for all guards.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the 
docket receives them not later than September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the 
docket number of this document.
    You may also call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking 
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Robert Mazurowski, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-
366-1012) (fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may contact 
Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax: 
202-366-3820). The address for these officials is: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Overview
III. Extending FMVSS No. 224, ``Rear Impact Protection,'' to SUTs
    a. 2013 NHTSA/UMTRI Study
    b. NHTSA's Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview)
IV. Request for Comment on Extension of FMVSS No. 224
V. Amending FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment,'' To Improve the Conspicuity of SUTs
    a. 2001 NHTSA Evaluation
    b. NHTSA's Preliminary Estimate of Cost and Benefits of 
Requiring Tape on SUTs
VI. Request for Comment on Requiring Retroreflective Tape on SUTs
VII. Rulemaking Analyses
VIII. Submission of Comments
    Appendix A to Preamble: Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Requiring 
Single Unit Trucks (SUTs) To Have CMVSS No. 223 Guards
    Appendix B to Preamble: Summary of IIHS's Evaluation of Rear 
Impact Guards

I. Introduction

    NHTSA is issuing this ANPRM following a July 10, 2014 grant \1\ of 
a petition for rulemaking from petitioners Ms. Marianne Karth and the 
Truck Safety Coalition regarding possible amendments to the FMVSSs 
regulating underride guards. The petitioners request that NHTSA require 
underride guards on vehicles not currently required by the FMVSSs to 
have guards, notably, single unit trucks (SUTs),\2\ and improve the 
standards' requirements for all guards, including guards now required 
for heavy trailers and semitrailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 79 FR 39362.
    \2\ SUTs are trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
greater than 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) with no 
trailer. They are primarily straight trucks, in which the engine, 
cab, drive train, and cargo area are mounted on one chassis. SUTs 
are the most commonly used truck, and are used extensively in all 
urban areas for short-haul operation, generally 321.87 kilometers 
(km) (200 miles) or less. SUTs are often designed to perform a 
specific task. Common examples of SUTs are dump trucks, garbage 
haulers, concrete mixers, tank trucks, trash trucks, and local 
delivery trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The July 10, 2014 grant document announced that NHTSA would be 
pursuing possible rulemaking through two separate actions. The first 
action would be an ANPRM pertaining to rear impact guards for SUTs and 
other safety strategies not currently required for those vehicles. 
Today's ANPRM completes that step, requesting comment on NHTSA's 
estimated cost and benefits of requiring underride guards and estimated 
cost and benefits of requiring retroreflective material on the rear and 
sides of the vehicles to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to 
other motorists. In the near future, NHTSA will be issuing the second 
action, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade the FMVSSs 
for underride guards for vehicles subject to the current standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA is in the process of evaluating petitioners' request 
to require side guards and front override guards by way of research 
and will issue a separate decision on those aspects of the petitions 
at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview

    NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 223, ``Rear 
impact guards,'' and FMVSS No. 224, ``Rear impact protection,'' which 
together establish rear underride protection for vehicles subject to 
the standards. This ANPRM comprises the first step of a larger agency 
initiative to upgrade the standards.
    Rear underride crashes are those in which the front end of a 
vehicle impacts the rear of a generally larger vehicle, and slides 
under the chassis of the rear-impacted vehicle. Underride may occur to 
some extent in collisions in which a small passenger vehicle crashes 
into the rear end of a large SUT or trailer because the SUT or trailer 
bed is higher than the hood of the passenger vehicle. In passenger 
compartment intrusion (PCI) crashes, the passenger vehicle underrides 
so far that the rear end of the struck vehicle strikes and enters the 
passenger compartment. PCI crashes can result in passenger vehicle 
occupant injuries and fatalities caused by occupant contact with the 
rear end of the struck vehicle.
    FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 were issued in 1996 to prevent PCI by 
upgrading then-existing underride guards to make them stronger but 
energy-absorbing as well. The agency was concerned that overly rigid 
guards may prevent PCI but could stop the passenger vehicle too 
suddenly, resulting in excessive occupant compartment deceleration 
forces which could harm passenger vehicle occupants.
    NHTSA established the two-standard approach to underride protection 
to reduce test burdens on small trailer manufacturers. FMVSS No. 223, 
an ``equipment standard,'' specifies performance requirements that rear 
impact guards must meet to be sold for installation on new trailers and 
semitrailers. The guard may be tested for compliance while mounted to a 
test fixture or to a complete trailer. FMVSS No. 224, a ``vehicle 
standard,'' requires most new trailers and semitrailers with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or 
more to be equipped with a rear impact guard meeting FMVSS No. 223. The 
vehicle standard requires that the guard be mounted on the trailer or 
semitrailer in accordance with the instructions provided with the guard 
by the guard

[[Page 43665]]

manufacturer. Under this approach, a small manufacturer that produces 
relatively few trailers can certify its trailers to FMVSS No. 224 
without feeling compelled to undertake destructive testing of what 
could be a substantial portion of its production. The two-standard 
approach provides a practicable and reasonable means of meeting the 
safety need served by an underride guard requirement.
    FMVSS No. 224 only applies to trailers and semitrailers with GVWR 
greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).\4\ The agency excluded SUTs from 
FMVSS No. 224 requirements because it was concerned that the variety, 
complexity, and relatively lower weight and chassis strength of many 
SUTs would require guards that are substantially more costly than the 
guards for trailers. Additionally, field data indicated that the rear 
end fatality problem was more prominent in trailers than in SUTs. While 
SUTs represented 72 percent of the registered heavy vehicle fleet, they 
only represented 27 percent of the rear end fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Excluded from FMVSS No. 224 are pole trailers, logging 
trailers, low chassis trailers (trailers where the ground clearance 
of the chassis is no more than 560 mm (22 inches)), wheels back 
trailers (trailers with rearmost point of rear wheels within 305 mm 
(12 inches) of the rear extremity of the trailer), and special 
purpose trailers (trailers with equipment in the rear and those 
intended for certain special operations). The exclusions are based 
on practical problems with meeting the standard or an absence of a 
need to meet the standard due to vehicle configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, there are Federal requirements now in place ensuring that 
SUTs provide some degree of rear impact protection. Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) No. 393.86(b), ``Rear impact guards 
and rear end protection,'' (49 CFR 393.86(b), ``FMCSR 393.86(b)'') has 
rear impact protection requirements for certain SUTs utilized in 
interstate commerce.\5\ The regulation requires that the horizontal 
member of the rear impact guard be located such that its bottom surface 
is not more than 760 millimeters (mm) (30 inches) vertically above 
ground level (ground clearance), its rear surface is not more than 610 
mm (24 inches) forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle, and that 
it laterally extends to within 460 mm (18 inches) of each side of the 
vehicle. The regulation requires the guard to be ``substantially 
constructed and attached by means of bolts, welding, or other 
comparable means.'' FMCSA's regulation also ensures that carriers 
maintain the mandated device throughout the life of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FMCSR 393.86(b) excludes SUTs in driveaway-towaway 
operations, low chassis vehicles (vertical distance between the rear 
bottom edge of the body and the ground is 762 mm or lower), wheels 
back vehicles (the rear of tires is less than 610 mm forward of the 
rear extremity of the vehicle), special purpose vehicles, and 
vehicles with equipment that reside in the area of the guard and 
provide the rear impact protection comparable to rear impact guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Work

    NHTSA's interest in this rulemaking originated from the findings of 
a 2009 NHTSA study \6\ to evaluate why fatalities were still occurring 
in frontal crashes despite high rates of seat belt use and the presence 
of air bags and other advanced safety features. NHTSA reviewed all 
cases of frontal crash fatalities to belted drivers or right-front 
passengers in model year (MY) 2000 or newer vehicles in the 
Crashworthiness Data System of the National Automotive Sampling System 
(NASS-CDS) through calendar year 2007. Among the 122 fatalities 
examined in this review, 49 (40 percent) were in exceedingly severe 
crashes that were not survivable, 29 (24 percent) were in oblique or 
corner impact crashes where there was low engagement of the striking 
vehicle's structural members (a factor which would have resulted in the 
striking vehicle absorbing more of the crash energy), and 17 (14 
percent) were underrides into SUTs and trailers (14 were rear underride 
and 3 were side underride).\7\ In survivable frontal crashes of newer 
vehicle models resulting in fatalities to belted vehicle occupants, 
rear underrides into large SUTs and trailers were the second highest 
cause of fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Kahane, et al. ``Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat 
Belts and Air Bags--Review of All CDS Cases--Model and Calendar 
Years 2000-2007-122 Fatalities,'' September 2009, DOT-HS-811102.
    \7\ In addition, 15 (12 percent) were fatalities to vulnerable 
occupants (occupants 75 years and older), 4 (3.3 percent) were 
narrow object impacts, and 8 (6.6 percent) were other types of 
impact conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, NHTSA analyzed several data sources to determine the 
effectiveness of trailer rear impact guards compliant with FMVSS Nos. 
223 and 224 in preventing fatalities and serious injuries.\8\ While the 
agency's analysis of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 
could not establish a nationwide downward trend in fatalities to 
passenger vehicle occupants in impacts with the rear of trailers 
subsequent to the implementation of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, 
supplemental data collected in Florida and North Carolina showed 
decreases in fatalities and serious injuries. However, the observed 
decrease in fatalities in these two States was not statistically 
significant, possibly due to small sample sizes of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Allen, Kirk ``The Effectiveness of Underride Guards for 
Heavy Trailers,'' October, 2010, DOT HS 811 375.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following these studies, NHTSA undertook research to examine the 
agency's underride protection requirements, highlighting this program 
as a significant one in the ``NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy 
Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011-2013 (March 2011).''
    One of the resulting research projects began in 2009, as NHTSA 
initiated research with the University of Michigan Transportation 
Research Institute (UMTRI) to gather data on the rear geometry of SUTs 
and trailers, the configuration of rear impact guards on SUTs and 
trailers, and the incidence and extent of underride and fatalities in 
rear impacts with SUTs and trailers. UMTRI collected the supplemental 
information as part of its Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) 
survey for the years 2008 and 2009.9 10 These data enabled 
NHTSA to obtain national estimates of rear impact crashes into heavy 
vehicles that resulted in PCI. Details of the UMTRI study, completed in 
2013, are discussed in detail below in the next section of this 
preamble. The findings with regard to SUTs particularly pertain to this 
ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Truck Crashes, 2008, DOT 
HS 811 652, August 2012.
    \10\ Heavy-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More data were obtained in 2011 from the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety (IIHS), which had petitioned NHTSA to upgrade FMVSS No. 
223 and FMVSS No. 224 to improve the strength and energy-absorbing 
capabilities of rear impact guards. IIHS provided analyses of data from 
DOT's Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) and from a series of 56 
kilometers per hour (km/h) (35 miles per hour (mph)) impact speed 
passenger car-to-trailer rear impact crash tests IIHS conducted. (We 
provide a discussion of the IIHS tests in Appendix B to this preamble.) 
\11\ IIHS believes that trailers with rear impact guards compliant with 
the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) for underride guards 
(CMVSS No. 223) were significantly superior to FMVSS No. 224 in 
mitigating PCI of the striking passenger car. The information submitted 
by IIHS is particularly pertinent to the upcoming NPRM which

[[Page 43666]]

will propose upgrades to FMVSS No. 223 and 224.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Details of the tests are in Brumbelow, M.L., ``Crash Test 
Performance of Large Truck Rear Impact Guards,'' 22nd International 
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), 2011. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv22/22ESV-000074.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose of This ANPRM

    In this ANPRM, the agency requests comments that would help NHTSA 
assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts of 
strategies that increase the crash protection to occupants of vehicles 
crashing into the rear of SUTs and/or that increase the likelihood of 
avoiding a crash into SUTs. Strategies discussed in this ANPRM are 
possible amendments to the FMVSSs to: (a) Expand FMVSS Nos. 223 and 
224, to require upgraded guards on SUTs; and (b) amend FMVSS No. 108, 
``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,'' to require the 
type of retroreflective material on the rear and sides of SUTs that is 
now required to be placed on the rear and sides of trailers to improve 
the conspicuity of the vehicles to other motorists.

III. Extending FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact Protection, to SUTs

a. 2013 NHTSA/UMTRI Study

    In 2009, the agency initiated an in-depth field analysis to obtain 
a greater understanding of the characteristics of underride events and 
factors contributing to such crashes. NHTSA sought this information to 
assess the need for and impacts of possible amendments to the FMVSSs to 
reduce severe passenger vehicle underride in truck/trailer rear end 
impacts.
    NHTSA published the first phase of the field analysis in 2012,\12\ 
and published the final report in March 2013. The reports analyze 2008-
2009 data collected as a supplement to UMTRI's TIFA survey.\13\ The 
TIFA survey contains data for all the trucks with a GVWR greater than 
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) (``medium and heavy trucks'') that were involved 
in fatal traffic crashes in the 50 U.S. States and the District of 
Columbia. TIFA data contains additional detail beyond the information 
contained in NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Truck Crashes, DOT HS 
811 725, August 2012. Also available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Truck%20Underride, last accessed on 
November 24, 2014.
    \13\ Heavy-Vehicle Crash Data Collection and Analysis to 
Characterize Rear and Side Underride and Front Override in Fatal 
Truck Crashes, DOT HS 811 725, March 2013. Also available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Truck%20Underride, last 
accessed on July 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA contracted UMTRI to collect supplemental data for 2008 and 
2009 as part of the TIFA survey. The supplemental data included the 
rear geometry of the SUTs and trailers; type of equipment at the rear 
of the trailer, if any; whether a rear impact guard was present; the 
type of rear impact guard; and, the standards the guard was 
manufactured to meet. For SUTs and trailers involved in fatal rear 
impact crashes, additional information was collected on: the extent of 
underride; damage to the rear impact guard; estimated impact speeds; 
and whether the collision was offset or had fully engaged the guard.
    NHTSA derived average annual estimates from the 2008 and 2009 TIFA 
data files and the supplemental information collected in the 2013 UMTRI 
study. The agency's review of these files found that there are 3,762 
SUTs and trailers involved in fatal accidents annually, among which 
trailers accounted for 2521 (67 percent), SUTs for 1080 (29 percent), 
tractor alone for 66 (1.5 percent), and unknown for the remaining 95 
(2.5 percent).\14\ About 489 SUTs and trailers are struck in the rear 
in fatal crashes annually, constituting about 13 percent of all SUTs 
and trailers in fatal crashes. Among rear impacted SUTs and trailers in 
fatal crashes, 331 (68 percent) are trailers, 151 (31 percent) are 
SUTs, and 7 (1 percent) are tractors alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Bobtail'' and ``tractor/other'' configurations were 
combined into ``others'' category and ``tractor/trailer'' and 
``straight trucks with trailer'' were combined into ``trailers'' 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of Rear Impact Guard on Heavy Vehicles
    UMTRI evaluated 2008 and 2009 TIFA data regarding the rear geometry 
of the trailers and SUTs involved in all fatal crashes (not just those 
rear-impacted) to assess whether the vehicle had to have a guard under 
FMVSS No. 224 (regarding trailers) or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's (FMCSA's) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation 
(FMCSR) No. 393.86(b) (49 CFR 393.86(b), ``FMCSR 393.86(b)'') 
(regarding SUTs).\15\ Based on this evaluation, UMTRI estimated that 38 
percent of the SUTs involved in fatal crashes were required to have 
rear impact guards (based on the truck rear geometry according to FMCSR 
393.86(b)) (Table 1). However, only 18 percent of SUTs were equipped 
with rear impact guards (Table 1). It is likely that the remaining 20 
percent of the SUTs that were configured such that they would be 
subject to FMCSR 393.86(b) based on vehicle design, but that did not 
have a guard, were not used in interstate commerce. Among the 62 
percent of SUTs that were excluded from installing rear impact guards 
by the FMCSR, 27 percent were wheels back SUTs,\16\ 9 percent were low 
chassis SUTs,\17\ 2 percent were wheels back and low chassis SUTs, and 
16 percent had equipment in the rear that interfered with rear impact 
guard installation (see Table 1). UMTRI also estimated that 65 percent 
of trailers had to have a rear impact guard per FMVSS No. 224 and the 
remaining were excluded because of their rear geometry, equipment in 
the rear, or type of cargo or operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ UMTRI only evaluated the rear geometry to determine whether 
a SUT's configuration qualified the vehicle as subject to FMCSR 
393.86(b). It did not determine how the truck was operated and 
whether it was used in interstate commerce.
    \16\ Wheels back SUTs according to FMCSR 393.86(b) is where the 
rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the 
rearmost surface of tires is not more than 610 mm forward of the 
rear extremity of the vehicle.
    \17\ Low chassis SUTs according FMCSR 393.86(b) is where the 
rearmost part of the vehicle includes the chassis and the vertical 
distance between the rear bottom edge of the chassis assembly and 
the ground is less than or equal to 762 mm (30 inches).

  Table 1--Percentage of SUTs by Their Rear Geometry and Whether a Rear
    Impact Guard Was Required According to UMTRI's Evaluation of SUTs
       Involved in Fatal Crashes in the 2008-2009 TIFA Data Files
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage of
                  Type of rear geometry                        SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear Impact Guard Required:
  Guard present.........................................              18
  Guard not present.....................................              20
Rear Impact Guard Not Required:
  Excluded vehicle......................................               8
  Wheels back vehicle...................................              27
  Low chassis vehicle...................................               9
  Wheels back and low chassis vehicle...................               2
  Equipment.............................................              16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the data presented in Table 1 takes into consideration all 
SUTs involved in all types of fatal crashes in 2008 and 2009 (total of 
2,159 SUTs), we assume that the percentage of SUTs with and without 
rear impact guards in Table 1 is representative of that in the SUT 
fleet.
Light Vehicle Fatal Crashes Into the Rear of Trailers and SUTs
    Among the types of vehicles that impacted the rear of trailers and 
SUTs, 73 percent were light vehicles,\18\ 18 percent were large trucks, 
7.4 percent

[[Page 43667]]

were motorcycles, and 1.7 percent were other/unknown vehicle types. 
Since we do not expect trucks and buses to underride other trucks in 
rear impacts, the data presented henceforth only apply to light 
vehicles impacting the rear of trailers and SUTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ UMTRI categorized passenger cars, compact and large sport 
utility vehicles, minivans, large vans (e.g. Econoline and E150-
E350), compact pickups (e.g., S-10, Ranger), and large pickups (e.g 
Ford F100-350, Ram, Silverado) as light vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Underride Extent in Fatal Crashes of Light Vehicles Into the Rear of 
SUTs
    In the UMTRI study of 2008 and 2009 TIFA data, survey respondents 
estimated the amount of underride in terms of the amount of the 
striking vehicle that went under the rear of the struck vehicle and/or 
the extent of deformation or intrusion of the vehicle. The categories 
were ``no underride,'' ``less than halfway up the hood,'' ``more than 
halfway but short of the base of the windshield,'' and ``at or beyond 
the base of the windshield.'' When the extent of underride is ``at or 
beyond the base of the windshield,'' there is PCI that could result in 
serious injury to occupants in the vehicle. Rear impacts into heavy 
vehicles could result in some level of underride without PCI when the 
rear impact guard prevents the impacting vehicle from traveling too far 
under the heavy vehicle during impact. Such impacts into the rear of 
heavy vehicles without PCI may not pose additional crash risk to light 
vehicle occupants than that in crashes with another light vehicle at 
similar crash speeds.
    The data show that about 319 light vehicle fatal crashes into the 
rear of trailers and trucks occur annually. UMTRI determined that about 
36 percent (121) of light vehicle impacts into the rear of trailers and 
trucks resulted in PCI. Among fatal light vehicle impacts, the 
frequency of PCI was greatest for passenger cars and sport utility 
vehicles (SUVs) (40 and 41.5 percent, respectively) and lowest for 
large vans and large pickups (25 and 26 percent respectively), as shown 
in Figure 1 below. Since the extent of underride was also determined by 
the extent of deformation and intrusion of the vehicle, it was observed 
in a number of TIFA cases that large vans and large pickups did not 
actually underride the truck or trailer but sustained PCI because of 
the high speed of the crash and/or because of the very short front end 
of the vehicle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.000

    Fatal light vehicle crashes into the rear of trucks and trailers 
were further examined by the type of truck and trailer struck and 
whether a guard was required (according to FMCSR 393.86(b) for SUTs and 
FMVSS No. 224 for trailers) (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The extent of underride in this and subsequent figures and 
tables means the following: None means ``no underride''; less than 
halfway means ``underride extent of less than halfway up the hood''; 
halfway+ means ``underride extent at or more than halfway up the 
hood but short of the base of the windshield''; windshield+ means 
``extent of underride at or beyond the base of the windshield'' or 
PCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the 319 fatal light vehicle crashes into the rear of SUTs and 
trailers, 79 (25 percent) are into SUTs without any guards, 23 (7 
percent) are into SUTs with guards, 115 (36 percent) are into trailers 
with guards, and 102 (32 percent) are into excluded trailers without 
guards and other truck/trailer type. (Figure 2).

[[Page 43668]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.001

    Among these annual light vehicle fatal crashes, 121 result in PCI, 
among which 23 (19 percent) occur in impacts with SUTs without guards, 
8 (7 percent) in impacts with SUTs with guards, 62 (51 percent) in 
impacts with trailers with guards, and 28 (23 percent) with excluded 
trailers and other truck/trailer type (Figure 3).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Underride extent was determined for 303 light vehicles, 
about 95 percent of the 319 light vehicle impacts into the rear of 
trailers and trucks. Unknown underride extent was distributed among 
known underride levels.

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

[[Page 43669]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.002

    It is noteworthy that trailers with guards represent 36 percent of 
annual light vehicle fatal rear impacts but represent 51 percent of 
annual light vehicle fatal rear impacts with PCI. On the other hand, 
SUTs (with and without guards) represent 32 percent of annual light 
vehicle fatal rear impacts but represent 26 percent of annual light 
vehicle fatal rear impacts with PCI. The field data suggest that there 
are more light vehicle fatal impacts into the rear of trailers than 
SUTs and a higher percentage of fatal light vehicle impacts into the 
rear of trailers involve PCI than those into the rear of SUTs.
Relative Speed of Light Vehicle Fatal Crashes Into the Rear of SUTs
    Using information derived by reviewing police crash reports,\21\ 
UMTRI estimated the relative velocity of fatal light vehicle crashes 
into the rear of SUTs and trailers. Relative velocity was computed as 
the resultant of the difference in the truck velocity and the striking 
vehicle velocity and could only be estimated for about 30 percent of 
light vehicle fatal crashes into the rear of trailers and SUTs. Most of 
the crashes (with known relative velocity) were at a very high relative 
velocity and many were not survivable. The mean relative velocity at 
impact into the rear of trailers and SUTs was estimated at 44 mph. 
Among fatal light vehicle impacts into the rear of SUTs that resulted 
in PCI, 70 percent were with relative velocity greater than 56 km/h (35 
mph). Among the remaining 30 percent fatal light vehicle impacts into 
the rear of SUTs, 3 percent of the SUTs had rear impact guards, 10 
percent of the SUTs could be required to have a guard based on rear 
geometry but did not have a guard, 3 percent were excluded from 
requiring a guard (wheels back, low chassis vehicles), and 14 percent 
had equipment in the rear precluding rear impact guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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.

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

[[Page 43670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.003

Fatalities Associated With Light Vehicle Crashes Into the Rear of SUTs 
and Trailers
    There are about 362 light vehicle occupant fatalities annually due 
to impacts into the rear of SUTs and trailers.\22\ Of these fatalities, 
104 (29 percent) are in impacts with SUTs, 125 (35 percent) are in 
impacts with trailers with guards, and 133 (37 percent) are in impacts 
with excluded trailers and other truck/trailer type (Figure 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Thus, the 319 fatal crashes result in 362 fatalities, or 
1.13 fatalities per fatal crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the 104 light vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from 
impacts with the rear of SUTs, 80 occurred in impacts with SUTs without 
rear impact guards while the remaining 24 were in impacts to SUTs with 
guards. PCI was associated with 33 annual light vehicle occupant 
fatalities resulting from impacts into the rear of SUTs; 25 of these 
fatalities were in impacts with SUTs without rear impact guards and 8 
with SUTs with guards (see Figure 5).

[[Page 43671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.004

    Among light vehicle occupant fatalities in impacts into the rear of 
SUTs, approximately 70 percent were in vehicles with no underride, 
underride less than halfway or underride up to the hood without PCI. 
The agency found that in a number of TIFA cases reviewed, fatalities 
occurred due to occupants being unrestrained, other occupant 
characteristics (e.g. age), and other crash circumstances. 
Additionally, as shown in Figure 4, only 30 percent of light vehicle 
impacts with PCI into the rear of SUTs had a relative velocity less 
than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph). Since currently manufactured light 
vehicles are subject to FMVSS No. 208 requirements that ensure adequate 
occupant crash protection to restrained occupants in a 56 km/h (35 mph) 
rigid barrier frontal crash test, some light vehicle occupant 
fatalities in impacts into the rear of SUTs and trailers at speeds less 
than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph) that resulted in PCI may be 
preventable if intrusion into the passenger compartment were 
mitigated.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This figure presents the target population for SUTs and 
trailers for use in determining benefits. The data in this figure 
cannot be used to determine effectiveness of the current rear impact 
guards on SUTs since many SUTs that do not have guards have 
equipment in the rear, or are low chassis or wheels back vehicles. 
Such rear configurations would limit underride without the need for 
a guard. In other words, this table in itself does not provide 
sufficient information to conclude that current rear impact guards 
on SUTs are not effective in preventing PCI. There are no data that 
would enable us to compare fatality rates in crashes into the rear 
of SUTs with guards and crashes into the rear of SUTs that would 
have needed guards per rear geometry but didn't have them. For this 
reason we did not make any inferences on the effectiveness of the 
current guards based on the data in Figure 5.
    \24\ Some of the fatalities associated with PCI shown in Figure 
2 may also be due to unrestrained status of the occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview)

    As part of its evaluation of whether an underride guard requirement 
should apply to SUTs, NHTSA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of 
equipping SUTs with rear impacts guards. The analysis is set forth in 
Appendix A of this preamble, and an overview is provided below. We are 
requesting comments on the analysis.
Preliminary Estimate of Cost of Requiring CMVSS No. 223 Guards
    FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 requirements were developed to prevent

[[Page 43672]]

PCI in 48 km/h (30 mph) impacts of compact and subcompact passenger 
cars into the rear of trailers. CMVSS No. 223 performance requirements 
were developed to prevent PCI in 56 km/h (35 mph) impacts. The crash 
tests conducted by IIHS (see Appendix B) indicated the improved 
performance of rear impact guards designed to CMVSS No. 223 compared to 
guards designed to FMVSS No. 223. The rear impact guard geometric 
specifications in CMVSS No. 223 cover a larger portion of the truck 
rear extremity than those specified in FMCSR 393.86(b). Additionally, 
there are no strength specifications for rear impact guards in FMCSR 
393.86(b). Since a high percentage of crashes into the rear of SUTs are 
at high speeds, it is unlikely that equipping all SUTs with FMCSR 
393.86(b) would sufficiently mitigate light vehicle occupant fatalities 
in PCI crashes into the rear of SUTs. For these reasons, NHTSA 
estimated the cost and benefits of requiring SUTs to comply with the 
requirements of CMVSS No. 223.
    We estimate \25\ that currently 18 percent of SUTs in the fleet are 
equipped with rear impact guards meeting the FMCSR regulation, 49 CFR 
393.86(b). A requirement for SUTs to comply with CMVSS No. 223, though, 
would require 59 percent of newly manufactured SUTs to be equipped with 
CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards due to that regulation's greater 
coverage.\26\ The estimated incremental minimum to average cost of 
equipping new covered SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards ranges from $307 
to $453 per vehicle (See Table A-7 in Appendix A for details). The 
total annual fleet cost of equipping new SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards 
ranges from $105 million to $155 million. The estimate of minimum to 
average additional weight of equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards 
is 76.8 kg (169 lb) to 95.5 kg (210 lb) per vehicle. The estimate of 
minimum to average additional fuel cost during the lifetime of the 
vehicle due to the additional weight of the guard ranges from $924.7 to 
$1,505.3. Therefore, the total minimum to average annual cost 
(including fuel costs) of requiring SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 rear 
impact guards is estimated to be $421 million to $669 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Using the 2008-2009 TIFA data files from the 2013 UMTRI 
study, it is estimated that 38 percent of the SUTs were configured 
so as not to be considered among the vehicles excluded from FMCSA 
393.86(b) based on vehicle design. However, UMTRI estimated that 
only 18 percent of these SUTs were equipped with rear impact guards. 
The remaining 20 percent of SUTs that appeared, based on vehicle 
design, not to be excluded from the requirement to have a guard but 
did not have one, was likely comprised of vehicles that were not 
used in interstate commerce.
    \26\ Since the definition of wheels back and low chassis 
vehicles in 393.86(b) allows more vehicles to be excluded from 
requiring rear impact guards than CMVSS No. 223, when SUTs are 
required to comply with CMVSS No. 223, a larger percentage would 
need to have rear impact guards. This is further explained in 
Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Estimate of Benefits of Requiring CMVSS No. 223 Guards
    For estimating the benefits of requiring SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 
guards, NHTSA estimated the annual number of fatalities and injuries in 
light vehicle rear impact crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. Non-
PCI crashes were not considered as part of the target population for 
estimating benefits. This is because the IIHS test data (see Appendix B 
to this preamble) show that when PCI was prevented, the dummy injury 
measures were significantly below the injury assessment reference 
values specified in FMVSS No. 208. In non-PCI crashes into the rear of 
SUTs and trailers, the IIHS test data indicated that the passenger 
vehicle's restraint system would mitigate injury.
    Although CMVSS No. 223's requirements are intended to mitigate PCI 
in light vehicle rear impacts at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h 
(35 mph),\27\ we note that CMVSS No. 223 guards may not be able to 
mitigate all fatalities in such crashes because some of the crashes may 
be low overlap (30 percent or less),\28\ and because some fatalities 
are not as a result of PCI but are due to other circumstances (e.g. 
unrestrained status of occupants, elderly and other vulnerable 
occupants). In those circumstances, we believe that a rear impact guard 
would not prevent the fatality.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Transport Canada testing of minimally compliant CMVSS No. 
223 rear impact guards indicated that such guards could prevent PCI 
in light vehicle impacts with full overlap with the guard at crash 
speeds up to 56 km/h. See Boucher D., Davis D., ``Trailer Underride 
Protection--A Canadian Perspective,'' SAE Paper No. 2000-01-3522, 
Truck and Bus Meeting and Exposition, December 2000, Society of 
Automotive Engineers.
    \28\ Overlap refers to the percentage of impacting vehicle front 
end width that engages the rear impact guard. IIHS's test data 
showed that 8 of the 9 rear impact guards tested by IIHS could not 
prevent PCI in a 56 km/h crash with 30 percent overlap of the 
Chevrolet Malibu.
    \29\ CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards may mitigate the 
severity of impact into the rear of SUTs at speeds greater than 56 
km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this possible benefit at this 
time. We seek comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preventing Fatalities
    For the purpose of this analysis, NHTSA assumed that CMVSS No. 223 
compliant guards on SUTs would be able to prevent about 85 percent of 
light vehicle occupant fatalities with PCI in impacts into the rear of 
SUTs with crash speeds less or equal to 56 km/h.\30\ However, since 
only 30 percent of the target population of light vehicle crashes with 
PCI into the rear of SUTs are at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h, 
CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards would only be effective for a portion of 
the target population. Therefore, NHTSA estimated an overall 
effectiveness of 25 percent (approximately 30% x 85%) for CMVSS No. 223 
rear impact guards in preventing fatalities in light vehicle crashes 
into the rear of SUTs with PCI.\31\ We believe this is an upper 
estimate of CMVSS No. 223 guard effectiveness in preventing fatalities, 
because (1) there will be real-world crashes of light passenger 
vehicles into the rear of SUTs at low overlap (30 percent or less) for 
which IIHS test data indicates that the CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards 
would not be able to prevent PCI, (2) some restrained occupants of 
light passenger vehicles would be killed even if PCI were prevented due 
to other circumstances (e.g. elderly and other vulnerable occupants), 
and (3) our review of 2009 TIFA data files of light vehicle impacts 
with PCI into the rear of SUTs indicated that only 55 percent of the 
fatally injured occupants were restrained.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ This effectiveness estimate is based on current estimates 
of seat belt use in light passenger vehicles (about 87% per 2014 
National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS)) and on the IIHS 
test data which indicated that belted occupants of light passenger 
vehicles in 35 mph impacts into the rear of trailers with CMVSS No. 
223 guards with 100 percent and 50 percent overlap would experience 
similar injury risk as that in 35 mph frontal crashes of two light 
passenger vehicles of similar size.
    \31\ In the final regulatory evaluation for the January 24, 1996 
final rule establishing FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 (61 FR 2004), NHTSA 
assumed an effectiveness range of 10 to 25 percent for rear impact 
guards in preventing fatalities in crashes with PCI (all speeds) 
into the rear of trailers. The 25 percent effectiveness estimated 
for the current analysis (based on 2008-2009 TIFA data and the IIHS 
crash test data) is the same as the higher value of the assumed 
effectiveness range of rear impact guards in the 1996 final rule. 
CMVSS No. 223 requires a higher level of performance than that 
required by the 1996 final rule, so NHTSA assumes the CMVSS will 
have an effectiveness level at least as high as our highest assumed 
rate for the FMVSSs.
    \32\ The agency's 2010 study--``The Effectiveness of Underride 
Guards for Heavy Trailers,'' October 2010, DOT HS 811 375--estimated 
an effectiveness of 27 percent from data collected in Florida and 83 
percent from data collected in North Carolina for FMVSS No. 223 
compliant rear impact guards in preventing fatalities. These two 
estimates are considerably different and not statistically 
significant, possibly due to small sample size, and so associated 
with some uncertainty. Therefore, these effectiveness estimates were 
not utilized in the current analysis. Instead, the agency relied on 
real world crash data and the test data to estimate rear impact 
guard effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The real world data indicated that there are annually 31 light 
vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs

[[Page 43673]]

resulting in 33 light vehicle occupant fatalities. Since only 59 
percent of SUTs would require rear impact guards, the target population 
is reduced to approximately 20 (=33 x 59%). Applying 25 percent 
effectiveness of CMVSS compliant guards, the upper bound on lives saved 
by CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards on SUTs is about 5.
Preventing Nonfatal Injuries
    In our current analysis, we also assumed 20 percent effectiveness 
of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards in preventing nonfatal injuries in 
light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. CMVSS No. 223 
guards are effective in mitigating PCI in light vehicle impacts into 
the rear of SUTs at speeds less or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph), which is 
about 30 percent of all such impacts with PCI.\33\ Additionally, we 
expect the effectiveness of rear impact guards for preventing injuries 
to be lower than that for fatalities since occupant injuries could 
occur from interior vehicle contacts even if PCI were prevented. The 20 
percent effectiveness estimate takes into consideration that some 
injuries are due to factors such as the unrestrained status of the 
occupants. An improved rear impact guard would not prevent such 
injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As noted earlier, CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact 
guards may mitigate the severity of impact into the rear of SUTs at 
speeds greater than 56 km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this 
possible benefit at this time. We seek comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency analyzed the National Accident Sampling System--
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data files for the year 1999-
2012 and estimated a total of 151--291 MAIS \34\ 1 to 5 severity 
nonfatal injuries to light vehicle occupants in PCI crashes into the 
rear of SUTs. Applying a 20 percent effectiveness of rear impact guards 
in preventing nonfatal injuries, we estimate that 30--58 nonfatal 
injuries would be prevented annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ MAIS is the maximum severity injury for an occupant 
according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). MAIS 1 are minor 
injuries, MAIS 2 are moderate injuries, MAIS 3-5 are serious to 
critical injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost Per Equivalent Lives Saved
    The benefits analysis in Appendix A estimates the equivalent lives 
saved (ELS) from a requirement for SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards. 
The ELS are approximately 5.7 to 6.3 lives. The cost per ELS (3 and 7 
percent discounted) is $106.7 million to $164.7 million, for each 
equivalent life saved. A summary of the analysis estimating incremental 
costs using low and average estimates, benefits using average and high 
estimates, and cost per equivalent lives saved is shown below in Table 
2.

     Table 2--Estimates of Material, Installation, and Fuel Costs of
  Equipping Applicable SUTs (Class 3-8) With CMVSS Rear Impact Guards,
  Resulting Incremental Benefits of Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented,
                   and Cost per Equivalent Lives Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Material + Installation + Fuel Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum to average incremental cost    $307-$453
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Number of SUTs needing guards          341,392
 annually.
Total minimum to average incremental   $104.9M-$154.6M
 cost of CMVSS guards in SUT fleet.
Minimum to average incremental weight  169 lb-210 lb
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental         $924.7-$1,505.3
 lifetime fuel cost per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental fuel    $316M-$514M
 cost for SUT fleet.
Total minimum to average incremental   $421M-$669M
 cost of CMVSS guards +fuel for SUT
 fleet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Benefits Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Population (light vehicle       20 lives; 99-182 MAIS 1 injuries;
 occupant fatalities in crashes with    33-82 MAIS 2 and 17-27 MAIS 3-5
 PCI into the rear of applicable        injuries
 SUTs) average to high injury
 estimates.
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS       0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for
 guards.                                injuries
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted)  5.7-6.3
 average to high estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (3%             4.4-4.9
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (7%             3.3-3.7
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Cost/Benefit Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3%    $106.7M-$152.9M
 discount).
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7%    $113.9M-$164.7M
 discount).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \35\ identifies 
$9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for 
Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of 
preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL 
in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary 
estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per 
equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will 
not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance_2013.pdf. The guidance starts with a $9.1 million VSL 
in the base year of 2012 and then estimates a 1.07 percent increase 
in VSL each year after the base year to reflect the estimated growth 
rate in median real wages for the next 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives
    NHTSA further considered whether excluding Class 3 SUTs (GVWR 
10,000 lb to 14,000 lb) from a requirement to have CMVSS No. 223 guards 
would make the requirement more cost effective (see Table 3, below). 
(An exclusion of Class 3 SUTs may also be based on a practical matter, 
as the vehicles may be too small to withstand the loads imparted from 
impacts to CMVSS No. 223 guards.) NHTSA analyzed the cost and benefits 
of a requirement that would require only Class 4-8 SUTs to have CMVSS 
No. 223 guards. Class 4-8 SUTs comprise approximately 60 percent of 
annual sales of SUTs. The total annual cost of CMVSS No. 223 compliant 
rear impact guards on Class 4 -8 SUTs is estimated to be $218 million 
to $348.5 million. The analysis was conducted with a conservative 
assumption of no

[[Page 43674]]

reduction in benefits by not requiring Class 3 SUTs to have the rear 
impact guards. Even with such a conservative assumption, the cost per 
ELS (3 and 7 percent discounted) was $55.2 million to $85.9 million, 
respectively.

     Table 3--Estimates of Material, Installation, and Fuel Costs of
  Equipping Applicable SUTs (Class 4-8) With CMVSS Rear Impact Guards,
  Resulting Incremental Benefits of Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented,
                   and Cost per Equivalent Lives Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Material + Installation + Fuel Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum to average incremental cost    $307-$453
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Number of SUTs needing guards          204,246
 annually.
Total incremental cost of CMVSS        $62.7M-$92.4M
 guards in SUT fleet.
Minimum to average incremental weight  169 lb-210 lb
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental         $759.9-$1,253.8
 lifetime fuel cost per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental fuel    $155M-$256M
 cost for SUT fleet.
Total minimum to average incremental   $218M-$348.5M
 cost of CMVSS guards +fuel for SUT
 fleet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Benefits Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Population (light vehicle       20 lives; 99-182 MAIS 1 injuries;
 occupant fatalities in crashes with    33-82 MAIS 2 and 17-27 MAIS 3-5
 PCI into the rear of applicable        injuries
 SUTs) average to high injury
 estimates.
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS       0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for
 guards.                                injuries
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted)  5.7-6.3
 average to high estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (3%             4.4-4.9
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (7%             3.3-3.7
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Cost/Benefit Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3%    $55.2M-$79.7M
 discount).
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7%    $59.0M-$85.9M
 discount).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the analysis for Class 3-8 SUTs shown in Table 2, the 
preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on Class 4-8 SUTs (minimum 
of $55.2 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that 
these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).

IV. Request for Comment on Extension of FMVSS No. 224

    NHTSA requests comments that would help the agency assess and make 
judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts of requiring SUTs to 
have underride guards. In providing a comment on a particular matter or 
in responding to a particular question, interested persons are asked to 
provide any relevant factual information to support their opinions, 
including, but not limited to, statistical and cost data and the source 
of such information. For easy reference, the questions below are 
numbered consecutively.
    1. The injury target population was obtained from weighted NASS-CDS 
data files (1999-2012). Analysis was conducted with not only the 
weighted average estimates but also with the upper bound of the injury 
estimates. We seek comment on the estimated injury target population 
resulting from underride crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs.
    2. The agency assumed 25 percent effectiveness of CMVSS No. 223 
rear impact guards in preventing fatalities in light vehicle crash with 
PCI into the rear of SUTs. We seek comment on this effectiveness 
estimate.
    3. The agency assumed 20 percent effectiveness of CMVSS No. 223 
guards in preventing injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into 
the rear of SUTs. We seek comment on this effectiveness estimate.
    4. In estimating benefits, the agency assumed that rear impact 
guards would mitigate fatalities and injuries in light vehicle impacts 
with PCI into the rear of SUTs at impact speeds up to 56 km/h (35 mph), 
since the requirements of CMVSS No. 223 are intended to prevent PCI in 
impacts with speeds up to 56 km/h (35 mph). We recognize, however, that 
benefits may accrue from underride crashes at speeds higher than 56 km/
h (35 mph), if, e.g., a vehicle's guard exceeded the minimum 
performance requirements of the FMVSS. NHTSA requests information that 
would assist the agency in quantifying the possible benefits of CMVSS 
No. 223 rear impact guards in crashes with speeds higher than 56 km/h 
(35 mph).
    5. The percentage of SUTs requiring rear impact guards was 
determined by obtaining details of the rear extremity of SUTs involved 
in fatal crashes in the 2008-2009 TIFA data files. We seek any other 
information to corroborate these estimates.
    6. The cost-benefit analysis showed that requiring CMVSS No. 223 
guards on SUTs would cost more than $100 million per equivalent life 
saved. The following information was not included in the analysis. 
NHTSA seeks the information so that the analysis is more complete.
    a. The additional cost to install CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear 
impact guards did not include the cost of strengthening the rear beams, 
frame rails, and floor of the vehicle. We seek information on the 
changes to SUTs to accommodate the CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guard and 
the additional costs resulting from these changes.
    b. The additional weight to install CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear 
impact guards did not include the weight of additional material needed 
to strengthen the rear beams, frame rails, and floor of the vehicle. We 
seek information on the changes to SUTs to accommodate the CMVSS No. 
223 rear impact guard and the additional weight resulting from these 
changes.
    c. The cost-benefit analysis did not take into consideration the 
reduction in payload resulting from increased weight of the SUT due to 
installation of a CMVSS No. 223 guard. We seek comment on what type of 
SUT operations are affected by the increased weight and the associated 
cost impacts.
    d. The cost-benefit analysis did not take into consideration the 
aerodynamic effects of rear impact guards on fuel consumption due to 
paucity of information on this matter. We seek comment on whether 
aerodynamic effects due to the presence of a rear impact guard would 
increase or

[[Page 43675]]

decrease fuel consumption and by how much.
    7. The fuel economy for SUTs was obtained from a 2012 market report 
by Oakridge National Laboratories. However, this report did not 
distinguish the miles per gallon for different classes of SUTs. We seek 
more refined information on the fuel economy for different class SUTs 
so as to refine the cost-benefit analysis.
    8. SUTs with equipment in the rear (in the zone where the guard 
would be located) were excluded from the cost-benefit analysis of a 
requirement for the guard. We seek comment on whether rear impact 
guards can be accommodated in such SUTs.
    9. We seek information that would help us determine the 
feasibility, benefits, and costs associated with improving the 
performance of CMVSS No. 223 guards in low overlap crashes. ``Overlap'' 
refers to the portion of the striking passenger vehicle's width 
overlapping the underride guard.

V. Amending FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment,'' to Improve the Conspicuity of SUTs

    NHTSA seeks to improve safety not just when there is a crash but by 
reducing the likelihood of a crash occurring in the first place. This 
is especially important in preventing the types of fatal crashes that 
NHTSA is addressing in this ANPRM, where most of the fatalities occur 
in crashes that are either at high speeds that render the crash 
unsurvivable, or, conversely, involve comparatively minor to no 
underride but are nevertheless fatal because of other factors, most 
prominently the presence of unbelted occupants. One strategy relevant 
to the crashes addressed in today's ANPRM, NHTSA has for years mandated 
that heavy trailers and truck tractors be equipped with red-and-white 
tape (``retroreflective tape,'' ``conspicuity tape,'' or ``tape'') 
under FMVSS No. 108. In this ANPRM, the agency requests comments that 
would help NHTSA assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and 
other impacts of amending FMVSS No. 108 to require retroreflective 
material on the rear and sides of SUTs to improve the conspicuity of 
the vehicles to other motorists. The retroreflective material would be 
the same as tape now placed on the rear and sides of heavy trailers 
\36\ and the rear of truck tractors pursuant to FMVSS No. 108 (S8.2.3). 
This ANPRM is consistent with the National Transportation Safety Board 
recommendation (H-13-017) \37\ that the agency amend FMVSS No. 108 to 
include a conspicuity tape requirement for SUTs with a GVWR greater 
than 10,000 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ``Heavy trailers'' are at least 2032 mm (80 inches (in)) 
wide and have a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb).
    \37\ http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-13-017. Last accessed on 
March 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of retroreflective tape is to increase the visibility 
of heavy trailers and truck tractors to other motorists, especially in 
the dark. At those times, the tape brightly reflects other motorists' 
headlights and warns them that they are closing on a large vehicle. In 
the dark, without the tape, many trailers and truck tractors do not 
become visible to other road users until motorists are dangerously 
close. The alternating red-and-white pattern identifies the vehicle as 
a large vehicle and at the same time helps other road users gauge their 
distance and rate of approach.
    FMVSS No. 108's conspicuity requirement for heavy trailers applies 
to vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1993. Two types of 
material are permitted by the standard: (a) retroreflective sheeting, 
or tape; and (b) reflex reflectors. A combination of the two types is 
also permissible. Retroreflective tape has been used almost exclusively 
for meeting the standard.\38\ Essentially, the retroreflective tape 
must outline the bottom of the sides of the trailers and the top 
corners, bottom and underride guard of the rear of the trailers. When 
the agency issued the final rule adopting the requirement, NHTSA 
estimated the requirement would be 15 percent effective in preventing 
nighttime fatalities and injuries resulting from crashes to the sides 
and rear of trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ This ANPRM assumes that tape would be used as the 
countermeasure on SUTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1996, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 108 to extend the conspicuity 
requirements to truck tractors manufactured on or after July 1, 
1997.\39\ Because truck tractors riding bobtail (without pulling a 
trailer) have poorer rear-end conspicuity compared to trailers, NHTSA 
used a 15 to 25 percent range to estimate fatality and injury-
prevention effectiveness for truck tractors to reflect a potentially 
greater effectiveness of a conspicuity countermeasure on the vehicles 
compared to trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The requirement was not applied retroactively to vehicles 
manufactured before July 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first part of this section, the agency discusses a 2001 
NHTSA evaluation that found conspicuity tape to be ``quite effective'' 
in reducing side and rear impacts by other vehicles into heavy trailers 
in dark conditions. In the second part, based on the findings of 
effectiveness of the 2001 evaluation and certain assumptions, NHTSA 
provides preliminary estimates of the cost and benefits of requiring 
new SUTs to have conspicuity tape. In the third part, the agency 
requests comments on the data collection techniques used in the 2001 
evaluation, NHTSA's assumptions in applying the findings of that 
evaluation to SUTs, and other issues.

a. 2001 NHTSA Evaluation

    In 2001, NHTSA issued an evaluation of the effectiveness of 
retroreflective tape in reducing side and rear impacts by other 
vehicles into heavy trailers during dark conditions. (``The 
Effectiveness of Retroreflective Tape on Heavy Trailers,'' March 2001, 
NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 222.\40\) Because the crash data at 
the time (FARS, NASS, or State files) did not identify whether crash-
involved heavy trailers had retroreflective tape, NHTSA entered into 
arrangements with the Florida Highway Patrol and the Pennsylvania State 
Police to collect data for an analysis. For a two-year period, each 
time these State agencies investigated a crash involving a tractor-
trailer combination \41\ and filed a crash report, they also filled out 
an ``Investigator's Supplementary Truck-Tractor Trailer Accident 
Report'' on every trailer in the crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The document is available to the public through the 
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 
22161.
    \41\ A tractor-trailer combination was defined as a truck 
tractor pulling one or more trailers, i.e., tractor with semi-
trailer, full trailer, or two trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Florida Highway Patrol collected 6,095 crash cases from June 1, 
1997, through May 31, 1999. The Pennsylvania State Police collected 
4,864 crash cases from December 1, 1997, through November 30, 1999. 
NHTSA's analysis estimated the reduction of side and rear impacts by 
other vehicles into conspicuity tape-equipped trailers in dark 
conditions, relative to the number that would have been expected if the 
trailers had not been equipped. The analysis tabulated and 
statistically analyzed crash involvements of tractor-trailers by three 
critical parameters: (1) whether the trailer was tape-equipped; (2) the 
light condition, i.e., dark (comprising ``dark-not-lighted,'' ``dark-
lighted,'' ``dawn'' and ``dusk'') versus daylight; and (3) relevant 
versus control-group crash involvements.
    Given that the tape can help the other driver see and possibly 
avoid hitting the trailer, NHTSA determined that relevant

[[Page 43676]]

crash involvements were those in which another vehicle crashed into the 
side or rear of a tractor-trailer combination. The control group 
consisted of single-vehicle crashes of tractor-trailers (where 
visibility of the tractor-trailer to other road users is not an issue 
at all) and impacts of the front of the tractor into other vehicles 
(where conspicuity of the side and rear of the trailer is also not an 
issue).
    The principal conclusion of the study was that retroreflective tape 
is quite effective, and that it significantly reduces side and rear 
impacts into heavy trailers in the dark.
    Other findings and conclusions are as follows:
     Annual benefits: When all heavy trailers have conspicuity 
tape, the tape will be saving an estimated 191 to 350 lives per year, 
preventing approximately 3,100 to 5,000 injuries per year, and 
preventing approximately 7,800 crashes per year, relative to a 
hypothetical fleet in which none of the trailers have the tape.
     Crash reductions by lighting conditions: In dark 
conditions (combining the subsets of ``dark-not-lighted,'' ``dark-
lighted,'' ``dawn,'' and ``dusk''), the tape reduces side and rear 
impacts into heavy trailers by 29 percent. The reduction is 
statistically significant (confidence bounds: 19 to 39 percent).
     The tape is by far the most effective in dark-not-lighted 
conditions. The tape reduces side and rear impacts into heavy trailers 
by 41 percent. The reduction is statistically significant (confidence 
bounds: 31 to 51 percent).
     In dark-lighted, dawn, and dusk conditions, the tape did 
not significantly reduce crashes. The tape also did not significantly 
reduce crashes during daylight.
    The following effectiveness estimates are the percentage reductions 
of various subgroups of the side and rear impacts into heavy trailers 
in dark conditions. As stated above, tape reduces these crash 
involvements by 29 percent, overall.
     Conspicuity tape is especially effective in preventing the 
more severe crashes, specifically, injury crashes. Impacts resulting in 
fatal or nonfatal injuries to at least one driver are reduced by 44 
percent.
     The tape is more effective when the driver of the 
impacting vehicle is under 50. The crash reduction is 44 percent when 
the driver of the impacting vehicle is 15 to 50 years old, but only 20 
percent when that driver is more than 50 years old. A possible 
explanation of this difference is that older drivers are less able to 
see, recognize and/or react to the tape in time to avoid hitting the 
trailer.
     The tape may be somewhat more effective in preventing rear 
impacts (43 percent) than side impacts (17 percent) into trailers; 
however, this difference is not consistent in the two States.
     The tape is effective in both clear (28 percent) and 
rainy/foggy weather conditions (31percent).
     The tape is especially effective on flatbed trailers (55 
percent). It could be that these low-profile vehicles were especially 
difficult to see in the dark before they were treated with tape.
     Dirt on the tape significantly diminished tape 
effectiveness in rear impacts. Clean tapereduces rear impacts by 53 
percent but dirty tape by only 27 percent.
    These findings are evidence that large trailers are difficult to 
see in dark not lighted conditions and that conspicuity tape improves 
their visibility and reduces crashes in a dramatic way. Large trailers 
and large SUTs share a common general appearance and standard lighting 
requirements (with the exception of tape, which is required on large 
trailers, but is optional on SUTs). As such, the agency believes that 
the dramatic increase in safety that has been observed in trailers 
because of conspicuity tape may also be realized for SUTs. However, 
while the general appearance and standard lighting equipment is similar 
for large trailers and large SUTs, the agency recognizes that 
differences in visibility may exist between the two vehicle types that 
could result in a different effectiveness for tape applied to SUTs than 
has been observed thus far in large trailers. The agency seeks comment 
on such potential differences and the best way to accurately estimate 
the effectiveness that tape can be expected to have on SUT crash risk.

b. NHTSA's Preliminary Estimate of Cost and Benefits of Requiring Tape 
on SUTs

    NHTSA has preliminarily examined the cost and benefits of requiring 
new SUTs (SUTs with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) to have 
and maintain retroreflective tape on the sides, rear, and upper corners 
of the vehicles, based on the findings of the agency's 2001 evaluation 
\42\ of the effectiveness of retroreflective tape on heavy trailers. In 
our analysis, we only considered vehicle crashes into the rear and side 
of SUTs in dark-not-lighted conditions and used the same effectiveness 
(41 percent) of retroreflective tape in dark-not-lighted conditions for 
heavy trailers. Our analysis is discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ ``The Effectiveness of Retroreflective Tape on Heavy 
Trailers,'' March 2001, NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 809 222, 
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To obtain a preliminary look at the potential value of conspicuity 
tape on SUTs, the agency examined fatal crashes involving SUTs over a 
four-year period (2010 through 2013). We estimate that there was an 
average of 34 fatalities annually in crashes into SUTs for which 
conspicuity tape could be an effective countermeasure in terms of 
assisting to avoid or mitigate these crashes. The 34 fatalities 
occurred in vehicle crashes in dark not lighted conditions into the 
rear and sides \43\ of SUTs. These are the conditions for which 
conspicuity tape was shown to be 41 percent effective in mitigating 
crashes into trailers. Among these 34 fatalities, 21 occurred in 
crashes where the front end of a vehicle impacted the rear end of an 
SUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Crashes into the rear and side of SUTs were identified by 
initial contact point (values ranging from 2 o'clock to 10 o'clock) 
and damaged area (left, right, and/or back) field in FARS data 
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, conspicuity systems on trailers were most 
effective in dark-not-lighted condition for side and rear impacts. The 
target population for the conspicuity systems can be established 
considering dark-not-lighted crashes for which the SUT is struck in the 
sides or rear. If we assume an effectiveness of 41 percent (based on 
the observed effectiveness of these systems on heavy trailers) to these 
fatalities, we can establish a rough estimate of 14 fatalities annually 
could be prevented by the application of conspicuity systems to SUTs.
Preliminary Estimate of Cost
    NHTSA made a preliminary estimate of the cost of requiring new SUTs 
to have conspicuity tape. The cost of installing the tape was 
calculated based on the cost of the material itself and the cost to 
install the tape.
    The cost of the material depends on the length of tape needed for 
SUTs, which depends on the vehicles' size. NHTSA evaluated data from a 
U.S. Department of Commerce ``Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey'' 
(VIUS),\44\ which is a random sample survey of physical and operational 
characteristics of private and commercial trucks and truck-tractors 
registered or licensed in the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 
Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. The survey sample includes about 
131,000 trucks surveyed to measure the characteristics of nearly 73 
million trucks registered in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1997 VIUS survey data, which is the most recent data available, 
indicates

[[Page 43677]]

that the weighted average length of SUTs from the front bumper to the 
rear of the vehicle is 1029 cm (33 feet (ft), 9 inches (in)). A survey 
of SUTs by NHTSA indicates that the average length from the front 
bumper to the end of the cab is 229 cm (7 ft, 6 in). Assuming a 
requirement would not apply conspicuity tape to the front cab length of 
SUTs, the average length that would be covered by conspicuity tape is 
800 cm (26 ft, 3 in). In addition, 244 cm (8 ft) of tape would be 
applied along the width of the SUT at the rear of the vehicle, and two 
pairs of 30 cm (1 ft) strips would be applied to outline the upper rear 
of the SUT. The total length of tape applied to an average SUT is 
estimated to be 1164 cm (38 ft, 2 in).
    We estimate that the 2-inch wide conspicuity tape can be purchased 
by SUT single-stage manufacturers for about $0.53 per linear foot. The 
distributors that sell the tape to smaller fleets mark up the cost of 
the tape from about 15 percent to 30 percent, which amounts to $0.61 to 
$0.69 per linear foot. NHTSA used $0.61 per linear foot for the cost 
(the average of $0.53 and $0.69) of the conspicuity tape.
    As for the cost to apply the tape, NHTSA estimated in the final 
regulatory evaluation for the FMVSS No. 108 conspicuity rulemaking that 
30 minutes is needed to apply conspicuity tape on all categories of 
trailers. NHTSA has also assumed that it would take 30 minutes to apply 
the tape to SUTs at an hourly rate of $22.20 per hour.
    This yields labor costs of $11.10 (for 30 minutes labor) to apply 
tape to 50 percent of the length of the sides and the entire rear width 
and upper rear corners of an average SUT (a total of 1164 cm (38 ft, 2 
in) of tape. Tape cost is estimated at $0.61 per linear foot (or per 
30.48 cm), resulting in an estimated cost of tape at $23.28 per SUT. 
The total cost for labor and materials is estimated at ($23.28 + 
$11.10) x 1.51 consumer markup = $51.91 per SUT. (1.51 is the standard 
markup NHTSA uses to go from variable costs (labor and material) to 
consumer costs. The 1.51 markup includes fixed costs, manufacturer 
profit and dealer markups.)
    NHTSA estimates that 578,631 new Class 3-8 trucks (GVWR greater 
than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) are sold annually. Thus, the total consumer 
costs required for applying conspicuity tape to new SUTS is estimated 
to be approximately $30.0 million annually ($51.91 x 578,631 = 
$30,036,735).

   Table 4--Annual Cost of Applying Retroreflective Tape to the Sides,
                   Rear, and Upper Corners of New SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Per Vehicle............................  $51.91
Annual sales of Class 3-8 SUTs in 2012......  578,631
Total Cost All applicable new SUTs..........  $30.0 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Estimate of Benefits
    NHTSA made a preliminary estimate of the benefits of requiring new 
SUTs to have conspicuity tape. The benefit of the tape is a reduction 
in the number of crashes and severity of injuries, although in this 
preliminary analysis we examined fatal crashes only. While any future 
analysis by the agency would include injuries and property damage, our 
preliminary evaluation demonstrates the potential for conspicuity tape 
to be a cost effective solution in preventing and/or mitigating crashes 
involving SUTs.
    NHTSA analyzed the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data 
files for the years 2010 through 2013. The analysis determined that on 
average 34 lives per year are lost annually in vehicles striking the 
sides or rear of SUTs in dark-not-lighted conditions (see Table 5). If 
conspicuity systems are as effective in these crashes as they have been 
on heavy trailer crashes, there is a potential to prevent 14 fatalities 
a year.

      Table 5--Preliminary Benefits of Conspicuity Systems on SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Population...........................  34
Effectiveness...............................  41%
Fatalities Prevented........................  14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Cost Per Fatality Prevented
    The estimated costs per fatality prevented for a retroreflective 
tape requirement for SUTs are shown in Table 6.

                  Table 6--Cost per Fatality Prevented
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost..................................  $30 Million
Fatality Prevented..........................  14
Cost/Fatality Prevented.....................  $2.1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \45\ identifies 
$9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for 
Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of 
preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL 
in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary 
estimates for conspicuity systems on SUTs ($2.1 million per fatality 
prevented) is a strong indicator that these systems will be cost 
effective (current VSL $9.2 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance_2013.pdf. The guidance starts with a $9.1 million VSL 
in the base year of 2012 and then estimates a 1.07 percent increase 
in VSL each year after the base year to reflect the estimated growth 
rate in median real wages for the next 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Request for Comment on Requiring Retroreflective Tape on SUTs

    NHTSA requests comments that would help the agency assess and make 
judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts of requiring SUTs to 
have retroreflective tape. In providing a comment on a particular 
matter or in responding to a particular question, interested persons 
are asked to provide any relevant factual information to support their 
opinions, including, but not limited to, statistical and cost data and 
the source of such information. For easy reference, the questions below 
are numbered consecutively.
    1. The agency assumed retroreflective tape would be 41 percent 
effective in preventing side and rear crashes into SUTs in dark-not-
lighted conditions, based on the effectiveness NHTSA found for the tape 
in reducing side and rear impacts into heavy trailers. We seek comment 
on this effectiveness estimate. How effective are conspicuity systems 
at reducing crashes when applied to SUTs? Are there effectiveness 
studies specific to SUTs or statistical methods that could provide 
evidence that the effectiveness will be similar to that observed on 
heavy trailers?
    2. While some fleet operations may be voluntarily applying 
conspicuity tape to their SUTs, our current crash databases do not 
include information on whether an SUT involved in a crash has 
conspicuity tape. The agency seeks input on ways that our analysis can 
better account for the voluntary installation of tape on SUTs.
    3. Should all types of SUTs (box trucks, tow trucks, dual-wheeled 
pickups, etc.) be required to have conspicuity tape or only particular 
types of SUTs? What are the distinguishing characteristics of an SUT 
that make conspicuity tape needed?
    4. What would be the cost of applying conspicuity tape on SUTs, 
including installation and materials?
    5. Does conspicuity tape need to be replaced during the lifetime of 
the vehicle? How often and what sections of the vehicle need 
reapplication of conspicuity tape?

[[Page 43678]]

    6. Are there any reasons that the agency should consider different 
patterns of application for SUTs as compared to trailers (different 
colors or locations)?
    7. Should conspicuity tape be required on both the sides and the 
rear of the applicable SUTs, or should the agency consider application 
of the tape on the rear only?
    8. Should NHTSA consider requiring current vehicles to be 
retrofitted with conspicuity tape? In March 1999, the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) directed motor carriers engaged in interstate 
commerce to retrofit heavy trailers manufactured before December 1993 
with some form of conspicuity treatment by June 1, 2001. In 2000, the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was established to 
perform motor carrier safety functions and operations, and authority 
for issuing and enforcing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations was 
transferred to FMCSA. In 2000, NHTSA was delegated authority to 
promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment 
already in use when the standards are based upon and similar to an 
FMVSS. See 49 CFR 1.95.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ FMCSA is delegated the authority to promulgate safety 
standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment already in use 
when the standards are not based upon and similar to an FMVSS. 49 
CFR 1.87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive 
Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures.
    In this ANPRM, the agency requests comments that would help NHTSA 
assess and make judgments on the benefits, costs and other impacts, of 
strategies that increase the crash protection to occupants of vehicles 
crashing into the rear of SUTs and/or that increase the likelihood of 
avoiding a crash into SUTs. Strategies discussed in this ANPRM are 
possible amendments to the FMVSSs to: (a) expand FMVSS Nos. 223 and 
224, to require upgraded guards on SUTs; and (b) amend FMVSS No. 108, 
to require the type of retroreflective material on the rear and sides 
of SUTs that is now required to be placed on the rear and sides of 
heavy trailers to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to other 
motorists.
    The agency has made preliminary estimates of the costs and benefits 
of the two above strategies. NHTSA requests comments on these 
estimates. Information from the commenters will help the agency further 
evaluate the course of action NHTSA should pursue in this rulemaking on 
SUTs.

On Requiring SUTs to Have Underride Guards

    A requirement for SUTs to comply with CMVSS No. 223 would require 
59 percent of newly manufactured SUTs to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223 
rear impact guards.\47\ The estimated incremental minimum to average 
cost of equipping newly covered SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards ranges 
from $307 to $453 per vehicle. The total annual fleet cost of equipping 
new SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards ranges from $105 million to $155 
million. The estimate of minimum to average additional weight of 
equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards is 76.8 kg (169 lb) to 95.5 kg 
(210 lb) per vehicle. The estimate of minimum additional fuel cost 
during the lifetime of the vehicle due to the additional weight of the 
guard ranges from $316 million to $514 million. Therefore, the total 
minimum to average annual cost (including fuel costs) of requiring SUTs 
to have CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards is estimated to be $421 
million to $669 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Since the definition of wheels back and low chassis 
vehicles in 393.86(b) allows more vehicles to be excluded from 
requiring rear impact guards than CMVSS No. 223, when SUTs are 
required to comply with CMVSS No. 223, a larger percentage would 
need to have rear impact guards. This is further explained in 
Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For estimating the benefits of requiring SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 
guards, NHTSA estimated the annual number of fatalities in light 
vehicle rear impact crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. The real 
world data indicated that there are annually 33 light vehicle occupant 
fatalities in impacts into the rear of SUTs that resulted in PCI. Only 
30 percent of these impacts are at closing speeds less than or equal to 
56 km/h (35 mph) for which CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards 
could prevent PCI.
    The benefits analysis also included an estimate of the annual 
number of injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of 
SUTs. Non-PCI crashes were not considered as part of the target 
population for estimating benefits. This is because the IIHS test data 
(see Appendix B to this preamble) show that when PCI was prevented, the 
dummy injury measures were significantly below the injury assessment 
reference values specified in FMVSS No. 208. In non-PCI crashes into 
the rear of SUTs and trailers, the IIHS test data indicated that the 
passenger vehicle's restraint system would mitigate injury.
    The benefits analysis in Appendix A estimates the equivalent lives 
saved (ELS) from a requirement for SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 guards. 
The ELS are approximately 5.7 to 6.3 lives. The cost per ELS (3 and 7 
percent discounted) is $106.7 million to $164.7 million, for each 
equivalent life saved. A summary of the analysis estimating incremental 
costs, benefits, and cost per equivalent lives saved is shown below in 
Table 7.

     Table 7--Estimates of Material, Installation, and Fuel Costs of
  Equipping Applicable SUTs (Class 3-8) With CMVSS Rear Impact Guards,
  Resulting Incremental Benefits of Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented,
                   and Cost Per Equivalent Lives Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Material + Installation + Fuel Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum to average incremental cost    $307-$453.
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Number of SUTs needing guards          341,392.
 annually.
Total incremental cost of CMVSS        $104.9M-$154.6M.
 guards in SUT fleet.
Minimum to average incremental weight  169 lb-210 lb.
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental         $924.7-$1,505.3.
 lifetime fuel cost per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental fuel    $316M-$514M.
 cost for SUT fleet.
Total minimum to average incremental   $421M-$669M.
 cost of CMVSS guards +fuel for SUT
 fleet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 43679]]

 
                           Benefits Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Population (light vehicle       20 lives; 99-182 MAIS 1 injuries;
 occupant fatalities in crashes with    33-82 MAIS 2 and 17-27 MAIS 3-5
 PCI into the rear of applicable        injuries.
 SUTs) average to high injury
 estimates.
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS       0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for
 guards.                                injuries.
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted)  5.7-6.3.
 average to high estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (3%             4.4-4.9.
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (7%             3.3-3.7.
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Cost/Benefit Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3%    $106.7M-$152.9M.
 discount).
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7%    $113.9M-$164.7M.
 discount).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Requiring SUTs to Have Retroreflective (Conspicuity) Tape

    NHTSA made a preliminary estimate of the cost of requiring new SUTs 
to have conspicuity tape. The cost of installing the tape was 
calculated based on the cost of the material itself and the cost to 
install the tape. The total cost for labor and materials is estimated 
at $23.28 + $11.10 x 1.51 consumer markup = $51.91 per SUT. NHTSA 
estimates that 578,631 new Class 3-8 trucks (GVWR > 10,000 lb) are sold 
annually. Thus, the total consumer costs required for applying 
conspicuity tape to new SUTs is estimated to be approximately $30.0 
million annually ($51.91 x 578,631 = $30,036,735).
    NHTSA made a preliminary estimate of the benefits of requiring new 
SUTs to have conspicuity tape. The agency estimates that a requirement 
would prevent 14 fatalities. The estimated costs per fatality prevented 
for a retroreflective tape requirement for SUTs are shown in Table 8.

                  Table 8--Cost per Fatality Prevented
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 3 percent discounted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality Prevented..........................  14
Cost/Fatality Prevented.....................  $2.1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us 
with your views.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

VIII. Submission of Comments

How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this rulemaking?

    In developing this ANPRM, we tried to address the concerns of all 
our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rulemaking. 
We invite you to provide different views on options we discuss, new 
approaches we have not considered, new data, descriptions of how this 
ANPRM may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your 
views on all aspects of this ANPRM, but request comments on specific 
issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective 
if you follow the suggestions below:

    --Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
    --Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
    --If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the 
estimate.
    --Tell us which parts of the ANPRM you support, as well as those 
with which you disagree.
    --Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    --Offer specific alternatives.
    --Refer your comments to specific sections of the ANPRM, such as 
the units or page numbers of the preamble.

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging 
onto http://www.regulations.gov or by the means given in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this document.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

[[Page 43680]]

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. In addition, you should 
submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information to the docket. When you send a comment containing 
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should 
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our 
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the 
close of business on the comment closing date indicated in the DATES 
section. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that 
the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment 
too late for us to consider it in developing the next step in this 
rulemaking, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for 
future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address 
given in the ADDRESSES section. You may also see the comments on the 
Internet (http://regulations.gov).
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476 at 19477-78).

    Note:  the following appendices will not appear in the CFR.

Appendix A to Preamble--Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Requiring Single 
Unit Trucks (SUTs) to Have CMVSS No. 223 Guards

Introduction

    This appendix provides NHTSA's analysis of the cost and benefits of 
requiring new SUTs to have CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards. The 
analysis's findings, which are discussed in detail in this appendix, 
are summarized in the following Table A-1.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Earlier in the preamble, NHTSA requested comment on this 
analysis and posed a series of questions seeking information to help 
make the analysis more complete. For example, the agency noted that 
this analysis did not include the cost of changes to SUTs to 
accommodate CMVSS No. 223 guards, such as strengthening of rear 
beams, frame rails, and the floor of vehicles, or cost resulting 
from the reduction in payload resulting from increased weight of the 
SUT due to installation of a CMVSS No. 223 guard.

    Table A-1--Estimates of Material, Installation, and Fuel Costs of
   Equipping Applicable SUTs With CMVSS Rear Impact Guards, Resulting
Incremental Benefits of Lives Saved and Injuries Prevented, and Cost Per
                         Equivalent Lives Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Material + Installation + Fuel Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum to average incremental cost    $307-$453.
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Number of SUTs needing guards          341,392.
 annually.
Total incremental cost of CMVSS        $104.9M-$154.6M.
 guards in SUT fleet.
Minimum to average incremental weight  169 lb-210 lb.
 of CMVSS guard per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental         $924.7-$1,505.3.
 lifetime fuel cost per SUT.
Minimum to average incremental fuel    $316M-$514M.
 cost for SUT fleet.
Total minimum to average incremental   $421M-$669M.
 cost of CMVSS guards + fuel for SUT
 fleet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Benefits Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Population (light vehicle       20 lives; 99-182 MAIS 1 injuries;
 occupant fatalities in crashes with    33-82 MAIS 2 and 17-27 MAIS 3-5
 PCI into the rear of applicable        injuries.
 SUTs) average to high injury
 estimates.
Estimated effectiveness of CMVSS       0.25 for fatalities, 0.2 for
 guards.                                injuries.
Equivalent lives saved (undiscounted)  5.7-6.3.
 average to high estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (3%             4.4-4.9.
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
Equivalent lives saved (7%             3.3-3.7.
 discounted) average to high
 estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Cost Per Equivalent Lives Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per equivalent lives saved (3%    $106.7M-$152.9M.
 discount).
Cost per equivalent lives saved (7%    $113.9M-$164.7M.
 discount).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimating the Population of Covered SUTs

    Currently, rear impact protection for SUTs is regulated by FMCSR 
regulation 49 CFR 393.86(b), which requires that certain SUTs used in 
interstate commerce have a guard if there is no vehicle parts or 
equipment within the area where the rear impact guard location is 
prescribed. (The bottom plane of the area is not more than 762 mm (30 
inches) above the ground, the forward-most plane of the area is not 
more than 610 mm (24 inches) forward of the rear extremity, and the 
lateral planes of the area are not more than 457 mm (18 inches) from 
the side extremity of the SUT.)
    CMVSS No. 223 requires rear impact guards on trailers \49\ that do 
not have equipment or vehicle parts within the area where the rear 
impact guard is prescribed to be located. (The bottom plane of the area 
is not more than 560

[[Page 43681]]

mm (22 inches) above the ground, the forward-most plane of the area is 
not more than 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the rear extremity, and the 
lateral planes of the area are not more than 100 mm (4 inches) from the 
side extremity of the trailer.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, horizontal discharge 
trailers, and some other types of trailers are excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The geometric requirements for the guards in CMVSS No. 223 are 
similar to that in FMVSS No. 224. The contrast between the geometric 
requirements of the guards in FMCSR 393.86(b) and CMVSS No. 223 is 
shown in Figure A-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.005

    The various underride guard standards exclude certain vehicles from 
their requirements due to reasons such as impediments to equipping a 
guard in a specified area or because the design of the vehicle renders 
a guard unnecessary to prevent underride. FMVSS No. 224 and CMVSS No. 
223 have similar exclusions of vehicles, in contrast to FMCSA 
393.86(b). For example, in FMCSR 393.86(b), a ``wheels back vehicle'' 
is one where the vehicle's rearmost axle is not more than 610 mm 
forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle, while in FMVSS No. 224 
and CMVSS No. 223, a ``wheels back'' trailer is one where the rearmost 
axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the rear extremity of the 
vehicle. Another example is definitions of a ``low chassis'' vehicle. 
In FMCSR 393.86(b), a ``low chassis vehicle'' is one where the ground 
clearance of the bottom edge of the chassis which extends to the 
rearmost part of the vehicle is less than or equal to 762 mm, while in 
FMVSS No. 224 and CMVSS No. 223, a low chassis trailer is one where the 
ground clearance of the bottom edge of the chassis which extends to the 
rearmost part of the vehicle is less than or equal to 560 mm. If NHTSA 
were to require SUTs to comply with CMVSS No. 223, then some SUTs that 
were previously excluded by the FMCSR from having guards because they 
were considered wheels back or low chassis vehicles under FMCSR 
393.86(b) would no longer qualify as wheels back or low chassis 
vehicles under CMVSS No. 223. These vehicles therefore would have to be 
equipped with rear impact guards in accordance with CMVSS No. 223.
    UMTRI \50\ evaluated the rear geometry of SUTs involved in fatal 
crashes in the 2008 and 2009 TIFA data files and estimated that 38 
percent of SUTs were configured so as to be included under FMCSA 
393.86(b) based on vehicle design, as shown below in Table A-2. 
However, UMTRI estimated that only 18 percent of SUTs were equipped 
with rear impact guards. The remaining 20 percent of the SUTs that 
appeared, based on vehicle design, to be included in the requirement to 
have a guard but did not have one, likely were not used in interstate 
commerce and so not covered by FMCSR 393.86(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Heavy-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.

 Table A-2--Percentage of SUTs by Their Rear Geometry and Whether a Rear
    Impact Guard Was Required According to UMTRI's Evaluation of SUTs
       Involved in Fatal Crashes in the 2008-2009 TIFA Data Files
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                   Type of rear geometry                       of SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear Impact Guard Required:
  Guard present............................................           18
  Guard not present........................................           20
Rear Impact Guard Not Required:
  Excluded vehicle.........................................            8
  Wheels back vehicle......................................           27
  Low chassis vehicle......................................            9
  Wheels back and low chassis vehicle......................            2
  Equipment................................................           16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA examined the rear geometry of SUTs in the 2008 and 2009 TIFA 
data files from the 2013 UMTRI study to determine the vehicles that 
would need to have rear impact guards in accordance with CMVSS No. 223 
and the vehicles that would be excluded (as within an excluded type of 
vehicle, i.e., wheels back, low chassis, rear equipment, special 
vehicles). The examination (Table A-3) shows that 59

[[Page 43682]]

percent of SUTs would need rear impact guards according to CMVSS No. 
223.
    Since UMTRI's evaluation (Table A-2) indicates that only 18 percent 
of SUTs that had a rear geometry that did not outwardly qualify as an 
excluded vehicle under FMCSR 393.86(b) had guards,\51\ 18 percent of 
SUTs (those now with guards meeting FMCSR 393.86(b)) would need 
upgraded CMVSS No. 223 guards, and 41 percent (= 59 -18) of SUTs now 
without rear impact guards would need CMVSS No. 223 guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ UMTRI estimated that although 38 percent of the SUTs 
involved in fatal crashes were required to have rear impact guards 
(based on the truck rear geometry according to FMCSR 393.86(b)), 
only 18 percent were equipped with them. It is likely that the 
remaining 20 percent of the SUTs that were configured so as not to 
be considered among the vehicles excluded from FMCSA 393.86(b) based 
on vehicle design, but that did not have a guard, were not used in 
interstate commerce.

  Table A-3--Percentage of SUTs by Their Rear Geometry in the 2008-2009
   TIFA Data Files and Whether a Guard Would Be Required According to
       Current FMCSR 393.86(b) Specifications and to CMVSS No. 223
                             Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Classification
                                        per FMCSR        Classification
       Type of rear geometry            393.86(b)      per CMVSS No. 223
                                        (percent)          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear impact guard required........                 38                 59
Wheels back and/or low chassis                     38                 20
 vehicle..........................
Equipment in rear and/or excluded                  24                 21
 vehicle..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency evaluated SUTs of Classes 3 to 8 (SUTs with a GVWR 
greater than 10,000 lb) as shown in Table A-4 for upgrading to CMVSS 
No. 223 requirements. The annual truck sales for 2012 were obtained 
from the Ward's Automotive Yearbook 2013 by the Ward's Automotive Group 
\52\ and are presented in Table A-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Ward's Automotive group, ISBN Number 978-0-910589-31-4, 
Southfield, MI 2013. http://wardsauto.com/.

     Table A-4--SUT Classification and Examples 53--Weight Category
   Definitions From 49 CFR 565, ``Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)
                             Requirements''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Weight range
         Vehicle class                 (lb)               Examples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.............................  10,000-14,000....  Walk-In, Box Truck,
                                                    City Delivery, Heavy-
                                                    Duty Pickup.
4.............................  14,001-16,000....  Large Walk-In, Box
                                                    Truck, City
                                                    Delivery.
5.............................  16,001-19,500....  Bucket Truck, Large
                                                    Walk-In, City
                                                    Delivery.
6.............................  19,501-26,000....  Beverage Truck, Rack
                                                    Truck.
7.............................  26,001-33,000....  Refuse truck,
                                                    Furniture truck.
8.............................  33,001 and over..  Cement Truck, Dump
                                                    Truck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \53\ Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for 
Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge, TN http://cta.ornl.gov/vtmarketreport/heavy_trucks.shtml.

                 Table A-5--Annual Sales of SUTs in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        SUT Class                          Sales in 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................................         232,755
4.......................................................           9,431
5.......................................................          54,898
6.......................................................          39,978
7.......................................................          46,854
8.......................................................         194,715
                                                         ---------------
Total Class 3-8 truck sales in 2012 =...................         578,631
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total sales volume of SUTs of Class 3-8 in 2012 was 578,631. 
Assuming that the classification of SUTs in the 2008-2009 TIFA data 
files as shown in Table A-3 is representative of the SUT fleet, then 59 
percent of the SUTs sold annually would require CMVSS No. 223 guards. 
Therefore, applying CMVSS No. 223 to SUTs would affect approximately 
341,692 (= 0.59 x 578,631) SUTs sold annually.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ I.e., these vehicles would be required to be equipped with 
rear impact guards meeting CMVSS No. 223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs

Cost of Rear Impact Guards
    In 2013, NHTSA conducted a study to develop cost and weight 
estimates for rear impact guards on heavy trailers.\55\ Using the cost 
estimates for rear impact guards obtained from this study, in this 
section we estimate the cost of equipping SUTs with the guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Cost and weight analysis for rear impact guards on heavy 
trucks, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0066-0086, June 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2013 study, the researchers estimated the cost and weight of 
FMCSR 393.86(b) rear impact guards, FMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards, 
and CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards (Table A-6). All costs are 
presented in 2012 dollars. In estimating the cost and weight of guards, 
an engineering analysis of the guard system for each trailer was 
conducted, including material composition, manufacturing and 
construction methods and processes, component size, and attachment 
methods. We note, however, that the authors did not take into account 
the construction, costs, and weight changes in the trailer structure 
that would be needed to withstand loads from the stronger guards. Thus, 
a limitation of this analysis is the fact that the authors did not 
evaluate the changes in design of the rear beam, frame rails, and floor 
of the trailer when replacing a rear impact guard compliant with FMCSR 
393.86(b) with an FMVSS No. 224 compliant guard and then to a CMVSS No. 
223 compliant guard.

[[Page 43683]]

               Table A-6--Cost (2012 Dollars) and Weight of Different Types of Rear Impact Guards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Trailer model                    Installation
   Type of rear impact guard        year/Make     Guard assembly       cost         Total cost      Weight (lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSR 393.86(b)...............  1993 Great Dane.          $64.35          $41.31         $105.66              78
FMVSS No. 224.................  2001 Great Dane.          150.97          108.14          259.11             172
CMVSS No. 223.................  2012 Great Dane.          188.36          151.00          339.36             193
                                2012 Manac......          297.62          245.09          542.72             307
                                2012 Stoughton..          244.38          219.11          463.49             191
                                2012 Wabash.....          440.49          152.93          593.42             243
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average cost of a CMVSS rear impact guard is $485, which is 
$226 more than an FMVSS No. 224 guard and $379 more than an FMCSR 
393.86(b) guard. In comparing the Great Dane rear impact guards, the 
2012 Great Dane guard (the least expensive CMVSS No. 223 guard studied) 
is $234 more expensive than the 1993 guard (FMCSR 393.86(b) guard).
    NHTSA used the incremental cost of $234 to $379 \56\ (from Table A-
6) to estimate costs of upgrading SUTs presently with FMCSR 393.86(b) 
guards to CMVSS No. 223 guards. The agency used the incremental cost of 
$339 to $485 \57\ (from Table A-6) to estimate costs of equipping SUTs 
presently without guards with CMVSS No. 223 guards. These incremental 
costs do not take into account additional construction, costs, and 
weight changes needed in the SUT structure to withstand loads from the 
upgraded guards. Thus, the agency believes that the lower cost 
estimates may not represent the true incremental cost of equipping SUTs 
with rear impact guards. An analysis was therefore also conducted using 
the average incremental costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ $234 is the lowest incremental cost to upgrade from an 
FMCSR 393.86(b) guard to a CMVSS No. 223 guard and $379 represents 
the average incremental cost.
    \57\ $339 is the lowest incremental cost to upgrade from no 
guard to a CMVSS No. 223 guard and $485 represents the average 
incremental cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the new SUT fleet, 18 percent of the fleet now equipped with 
FMCSR guards would be upgraded to CMVSS guards, and 41 percent of the 
fleet now without guards would need CMVSS guards. Therefore, the 
weighted incremental cost of CMVSS guards for applicable SUTs is $307 
to $453, as shown in Table A-7.

 Table A-7--Estimating the Weighted Incremental Cost of Equipping CMVSS
                    No. 223 Guards on Applicable SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum cost of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a1) =....            $339
Average cost of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a2) =....             485
Incremental minimum cost of CMVSS guard over FMCSR guard             234
 (b1) =.................................................
Incremental average cost of CMVSS guard over FMCSR guard             379
 (b2) =.................................................
Percentage of SUTs that have FMCSR guards and would need             18%
 CMVSS guards (c1) =....................................
Percentage of SUTs that do not have guards and would                 41%
 need CMVSS guards (c2) =...............................
Weighted minimum cost per SUT to equip Canadian guard                307
 (c1*b1+c2*a1)/(c1+c2) =................................
Weighted average cost per SUT to equip Canadian guard                453
 (c1*b2+c2*a2)/(c1+c2) =................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these data, the agency estimated the total annual 
incremental material and installation cost of requiring new applicable 
SUTs to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards (shown in 
Table A-8).

     Table A-8--Annual Incremental Material and Installation Cost of
               Requiring CMVSS No. 223 Guards on New SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Lower bound          Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of SUTs Needing CMVSS
 Guards (a).......................                 341,692
                                   -------------------------------------
Incremental Cost of CMVSS Guard                  $307               $453
 (b)..............................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total cost for truck fleet (a        $104,942,055       $154,619,794
     x b).........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lifetime Fuel Costs
    Using the data in Table A-6, the average weight of a CMVSS No. 223 
compliant guard is 234 lb, which is 156 lb greater than an FMCSR 
393.86(b) guard. In comparing the Great Dane rear impact guards, the 
2012 Great Dane guard is 115 lb heavier than the 1993 Great Dane guard.
    In the new SUT fleet, 18 percent equipped with FMCSR guards would 
be upgraded to CMVSS guards and 41 percent without any guards would 
need CMVSS guards. The weighted incremental increase in the weight of 
SUTs was obtained in a similar manner as the weight incremental cost 
shown in Table A-9.

[[Page 43684]]

    Table A-9--Estimating the Weighted Incremental Weight Increase of
       Equipping CMVSS No. 223 Compliant Guards on Applicable SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weight (lb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum weight of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a1) =..             193
Average weight of CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard (a2) =..             234
Incremental minimum weight of CMVSS guard over FMCSR                 115
 guard (b1) =...........................................
Incremental average weight of CMVSS guard over FMCSR                 156
 guard (b2) =...........................................
Percentage of SUTs that have FMCSR guards and would need             18%
 CMVSS guards (c1) =....................................
Percentage of SUTs that don't have guards and would need             41%
 CMVSS guards (c2) =....................................
Weighted minimum weight increase per SUT to equip                    169
 Canadian guard (c1*b1+c2*a1)/(c1+c2) =.................
Weighted average weight increase per SUT to equip                    210
 Canadian guard (c1*b2+c2*a2)/(c1+c2) =.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the minimum to average increased weight of equipping 
CMVSS guards for applicable SUTs is 169 lb to 210 lb. The added weight 
would increase the fuel consumption costs during the lifetime of the 
vehicle, costs that have to be discounted to present rate to determine 
the total present value annual cost of equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 
223 rear impact guards.
    The vehicle miles of travel and the fuel economy for heavy vehicles 
is shown in Table A-10.

             Table A-10--Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel and Fuel Economy per SUT (2008 to 2011) \58\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2008            2009            2010            2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average miles traveled per SUT..................          15,306          14,386          13,469          13,239
Average fuel economy per SUT (mpg)..............             7.4             7.4             7.3             7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the base fuel economy of 7.3 miles per gallon (mpg) shown in 
Table A-10 for the year 2011, the reduced new fuel economy for Class 3-
8 SUTs due to the minimum to average added weight of 169 lb-210 lb (for 
CMVSS No. 223 guards) was computed (as shown in Table A-11) using the 
standard formula: \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Data from Oakridge National Laboratories (ORNL) market 
report at http://cta.ornl.gov/vtmarketreport/pdf/chapter3_heavy_trucks.pdf (see Figure 78 on page 100).
    \59\ This standard formula for estimating the impact of marginal 
weight increases on fuel economy is based on light vehicle data. 
However, it is the best available method for estimating changes in 
fuel economy due to weight increases at this time and so is used 
here for heavy vehicles.

New fuel economy = (base vehicle weight/[base vehicle weight + added 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
weight]) [supcaret]0.8* (base fuel economy)

    The average weight of Class 3, Class 4-6, Class 7, and Class 8 SUTs 
(shown in Table A-11) was estimated from Table A-4. The average weight 
of Class 4-6 SUTs was weighted by their respective sales volume shown 
in Table A-5. The average weight of Class 8 (weight range 33,001 and 
over) trucks was assumed to be 40,000 lb.

                                        Table A-11--Estimating New Fuel Economy (mpg) Using the Standard Formula
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             New fuel        New fuel
                        SUT Class                         Average weight  Average weight  Average weight     Base fuel     economy (+169   economy (+210
                                                               (lb)          + 169 lb        + 210 lb      economy (mpg)     lb) (mpg)       lb) (mpg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................................          12,000           12169           12210             7.3        7.218686        7.199288
4-6.....................................................           19418           19587           19628             7.3        7.249507        7.237390
7.......................................................           29500           29669           29710             7.3        7.266675        7.258652
8.......................................................           40000           40169           40210             7.3        7.275390        7.269455
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The method of deriving discount rates is presented in Table A-12 
for Class 3 SUTs as an example. The 3 percent and 7 percent discount 
rates for Class 3, Class 4-6, Class 7, and Class 8 SUTs are summarized 
in Table A-13.

[[Page 43685]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.008

[[Page 43686]]

    The overall discount rate for Class 3-8 SUTs was determined as the 
weighted average of the discount rates shown in Table A-13 (weighted by 
the sales volume shown in Table A-5).

   Table A-13--Discount Rates for Class 3, Class 4-6, Class 7, and Class 8 SUTs and the Discount Rates for the
                                               Aggregate Class 3-8
                                           [Weighted by sales volume]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Overall
                                                                                                   discount rate
          Discount rate               Class 3        Class 4-6        Class 7         Class 8       (Class 3-8
                                                                                                     weighted
                                                                                                     average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent.......................         0.79165         0.78643         0.77162         0.74705         0.77408
7 Percent.......................         0.61196         0.60759         0.58533         0.54827         0.58758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of diesel fuel during the lifetime of an SUT (2017 to 
2051) was obtained from the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 AEO2014 
worksheet in 2012 dollars.\60\ The tax for diesel fuel (estimated at 
$0.54 per gallon) was obtained from the American Petroleum Institute 
(API).\61\ The calculation for the incremental lifetime cost of fuel 
due to minimum increase in weight of the vehicle (169 lb) due to 
installing CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards is shown in Table A-14 for 
Class 3 SUTs as an example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Annual Energy Outlook 2014, U.S. Energy Information 
Administration, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
    \61\ http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/State_Motor_Fuel_Excise_Tax_Update.pdf.

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

[[Page 43687]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.009

    Tables A-15(a) and A-15(b) present the summary analysis for 
determining the total incremental lifetime fuel cost of equipping Class 
3-8 SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards that results in increase in SUT 
weight by a minimum of 169 lb to an average of 210 lb. The discounted 
incremental lifetime fuel cost per SUT for the different class SUTs 
shown in columns 2 and 3 of Table A-15(a) and Table A-15(b) was 
obtained as shown in Table A-14 for Class 3 SUTs. The annual number of 
SUTs in each class requiring CMVSS No. 223 guards was estimated to be 
59 percent (as shown in Table A-3) of the annual sales volume. The 
total minimum incremental fuel cost for each SUT class (last two 
columns of Table A-15(a)) is the product of the number of SUTs of the 
class requiring CMVSS No. 223 guards and the increased fuel cost per 
SUT for that Class of SUTs (e.g. for Class 3 SUTs with 169 lb weight 
increase, 3 percent discounted total minimum incremental fuel costs = 
$1,513.02 x 137,446). A similar analysis of total average incremental 
fuel cost for average weight increase of 210 lb is shown in Table A-
15(b).
    The total minimum incremental fuel cost for all SUTs (second to 
last row in Table A-15(a)) is the sum of the total

[[Page 43688]]

minimum incremental fuel cost for each SUT class shown in the last two 
columns of Table A-15(a). The average incremental fuel cost per SUT for 
all Class 3-8 SUTs (last row in Table A-15(a)) with 169 lb weight 
increase is obtained by dividing the total minimum incremental fuel 
cost for the annual SUT fleet by the total number of SUTs with CMVSS 
guards (e.g. for 3 percent discount, average incremental fuel cost per 
SUT (Class 3-8) = $1,212 = $414,129,456/341,692). The average 
incremental fuel cost per SUT for all Class 3-8 SUTs with 210 lb weight 
increase is shown in Table A-15(b).

Table A-15--Incremental Lifetime Fuel Costs per SUT, Sales Volume per SUT Class, Annual Number of SUTs Requiring CMVSS No. 223 Guards, Total Incremental
                  Fuel Costs by Class of SUT and for All SUTs Requiring CMVSS Guards, and the Incremental Fuel Cost per Class 3-8 SUTs
                                                          [(a) (For weight increase = 169 lb)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Increased minimum lifetime                                       Total minimum incremental
                                                             fuel cost per SUT (169 lb                       SUTs that      lifetime fuel costs (169 lb
                          Class                                  weight increase)          Annual sales     would have           weight increase)
                                                         --------------------------------     volume       CMVSS No. 223 -------------------------------
                                                             3 percent       7 percent                        guards         3 percent       7 percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................................       $1,513.02       $1,169.59         232,755         137,446    $207,958,428    $160,754,780
4-6.....................................................        1,345.48        1,039.50         104,307          61,595      82,875,115      64,028,366
7.......................................................        1,004.81          762.22          46,854          27,668      27,801,137      21,089,132
8.......................................................          830.51          609.53         194,715         114,983      95,494,776      70,085,316
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of SUTs with CMVSS guards =                                                                         341,692
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total minimum incremental fuel cost for Class 3-8 SUTs proposed to have CMVSS guards =                                       414,129,456     315,957,594
Average minimum incremental fuel cost per Class 3-8 SUTs proposed to have CMVSS guards =                                        1,212.00          924.69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                                                          [(b) (For weight increase = 210 lb)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Increased average lifetime                                       Total average incremental
                                                             fuel cost per SUT (210 lb                       SUTs that      lifetime fuel costs (210 lb
                          Class                                  weight increase)          Annual sales     would have           weight increase)
                                                         --------------------------------     volume       CMVSS No. 223 -------------------------------
                                                             3 percent       7 percent                        guards         3 percent       7 percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................................       $1,879.01       $1,452.50         232,755         137,446    $258,261,947    $199,640,105
4-6.....................................................        1,671.16        1,291.12         104,307          61,595     102,935,155      79,526,524
7.......................................................        1,248.11          946.78          46,854          27,668      34,532,905      26,195,655
8.......................................................        1,031.65          757.15         194,715         114,983     118,622,180      87,058,930
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of SUTs with CMVSS guards=                                                                          341,692
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total average incremental fuel cost for Class 3-8 SUTs proposed to have CMVSS guards=                                        514,352,187     392,421,214
Average incremental fuel cost per Class 3-8 SUTs                                                                                1,505.31        1,148.46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The weighted minimum incremental increase in lifetime fuel cost per 
SUT (for Class 3-8 SUTs) at 3 percent discounting is $1,212 and that at 
7 percent discounting is $924.7.\62\ The weighted average incremental 
increase in lifetime fuel cost per SUT (for Class 3-8 SUTs) at 3 
percent discounting is $1,505 and that at 7 percent discounting is 
$1,148.5. The total minimum incremental increase in lifetime fuel cost 
in the Class 3-8 SUT fleet is $414.1M a 3 percent discount rate and 
$315.9M at 7 percent discount rate. The total average incremental 
increase in lifetime fuel cost in the Class 3-8 SUT fleet is $514.3M a 
3 percent discount rate and $392.4M at 7 percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The incremental fuel costs at 3 percent and 7 percent 
discounting include tax for diesel fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table A-16 presents the total fleet incremental cost (sum of 
incremental equipment and installation cost in Table A-8 and fuel cost 
in Table A-15) to the new applicable SUTs to be equipped with CMVSS No. 
223 compliant rear impact guards.

Table A-16--Total Incremental Fleet Cost of Equipping Applicable New SUTs With CMVSS No. 223 Rear Impact Guards (Equipment/Installation Cost in Table A-
                                                          8 + Minimum Fuel Cost in Table A-15)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Equipment +                   Fuel cost                            Total costs
                                                              installation   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 costs                3%                 7%                 3%                 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Estimate.............................................       $104,942,055       $414,129,456       $315,957,594       $519,071,511       $420,899,649
Average Estimate.........................................        154,619,794        514,352,187        392,421,214        668,971,981        547,041,007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 43689]]

    NHTSA estimated an average maintenance and repair expense for a 
rear impact guard over the vehicle's lifetime of $15.\63\ This 
maintenance and repair cost is relatively small compared to the 
lifetime fuel cost and was not taken into consideration in the present 
analysis. Reduced revenue from reduced payload of commercial operations 
due to increase in vehicle weight was not taken into consideration 
because the percentage of SUTs that are currently operating at their 
GVWR limit is not known. Taking into consideration the reduced revenue 
that could result from increase in vehicle weight would further 
increase the cost of requiring rear impact guards on SUTs. Therefore, 
this analysis is a conservative estimate of the cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Allen, Kirk, ``An In-Service Analysis of Maintenance and 
Repair Expenses for the Anti-Lock Brake System and Underride Guard 
for Tractors and Trailer,'' March 2009, DOT HS 811 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits

    For estimating the benefits of requiring covered SUTs to be 
equipped with CMVSS No. 223 guards, NHTSA estimated the annual number 
of fatalities in light vehicle rear impact crashes with PCI into the 
rear of SUTs. Additionally, NHTSA estimated the annual number of 
injuries in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. Non-
PCI crashes were not considered as part of the target population for 
estimating benefits. This is because the IIHS test data (see Appendix B 
to the preamble) show that when PCI was prevented, the dummy injury 
measures were significantly below the injury assessment reference 
values specified in occupant crash protection standards. In non-PCI 
crashes into the rear of SUTs and trailers, the IIHS test data 
indicated that the passenger vehicle's restraint system would mitigate 
injury.
    Among the 104 light vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from 
impacts with the rear of SUTs, 80 occurred in impacts with SUTs without 
rear impact guards while the remaining 24 were in impacts to SUTs with 
guards. PCI was associated with 33 annual light vehicle occupant 
fatalities resulting from impacts into the rear of SUTs; 25 of these 
fatalities were in impacts with SUTs without rear impact guards and 8 
with SUTs with guards (see Figure A-2 below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.006

[[Page 43690]]

    As explained earlier in this analysis, if CMVSS No. 223 were to 
apply to SUTs, 59 percent of new SUTs would be required to have a CMVSS 
No. 223 guard (see Table A-3, supra). The 41 percent of SUTs that would 
be excluded from meeting CMVSS No. 223 requirements would be wheels 
back and low chassis vehicles that have vehicle structure in the rear 
that could prevent PCI or vehicles with equipment in the rear for which 
installing rear impact guards may not be practicable and may interfere 
with equipment operation. Since the extent of underride was determined 
by the extent of deformation and intrusion of the vehicle, based on our 
examination of TIFA cases it is likely that some light vehicle crashes 
into the rear of excluded SUTs that resulted in PCI did not actually 
underride the truck but sustained PCI because of other circumstances 
such as crash speed or short front end of the vehicle. Therefore, the 
target population of light vehicle occupant fatalities with PCI which 
may be addressed by equipping SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear 
impact guards is estimated to be 19.5 (=33 x 0.59).
    Approximately 30 percent of the impacts into the rear of SUTs with 
PCI are less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph) (See Figure A-3 below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23JY15.007

    While CMVSS No. 223 requirements are intended for mitigating PCI in 
light vehicle rear impacts at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h (35 
mph),\64\ CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards may not be able to mitigate 
all fatalities in such crashes because some of the crashes may be low 
overlap (30 percent or less).\65\ The IIHS data indicated that 8 of the 
9 CMVSS No. 223 guards were not able to prevent PCI in a 56 km/h crash 
with 30 percent overlap of a Chevrolet Malibu. Also, the guards may not 
be able to prevent fatalities even if PCI is prevented because some 
fatalities may not be a result of PCI but are due to other 
circumstances (e.g. unrestrained status of occupants, elderly and other 
vulnerable occupants) which would be unaffected by an improved rear 
impact guard.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Transport Canada testing of minimally compliant CMVSS No. 
223 rear impact guards indicated that such guards could prevent PCI 
in light vehicle impacts with full overlap of the guard at crash 
speeds up to 56 km/h. See Boucher D., David D., ``Trailer Underride 
Protection--A Canadian Perspective,'' SAE Paper No. 2000-01-3522.
    \65\ Overlap refers to the percentage of impacting vehicle front 
end width that engages the rear impact guard.
    \66\ CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards may mitigate the 
severity of impact into the rear of SUTs at speeds greater than 56 
km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this possible benefit at this 
time. We seek comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of this analysis, NHTSA assumed that CMVSS No. 223 
compliant guards on SUTs would be able to prevent about 85% of light 
vehicle occupant fatalities with PCI in impacts into the rear of SUTs 
at crash speeds less than or equal to 35 mph. However, since only 30 
percent of the target population of light vehicle crashes with PCI into 
the rear of SUTs are at speeds less than or equal to 56 km/h, CMVSS No. 
223 compliant guards would only be effective for a portion of the 
target population. Therefore NHTSA estimated an overall effectiveness 
of 25 percent ([ap]30% x 85%) for CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards in 
preventing fatalities in light vehicle crashes into the rear of 
SUTs.\67\ We believe this is an upper estimate of CMVSS No. 223 guard 
effectiveness in preventing fatalities.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The agency's 2010 study--``The Effectiveness of Underride 
Guards for Heavy Trailers,'' October, 2010, DOT HS 811 375--
estimated an effectiveness of 27 percent from data collected in 
Florida and 83 percent from data collected in North Carolina for 
FMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards in preventing fatalities. 
These two estimates are considerably different and not statistically 
significant, possibly due to small sample size, and so associated 
with some uncertainty. Therefore, these effectiveness estimates were 
not utilized in the current analysis. Instead the agency relied on 
real world crash data and the test data to estimate rear impact 
guard effectiveness.
    \68\ Review of 2009 TIFA data files of light vehicle impacts 
with PCI into the rear of SUTs indicated that only 55 percent of the 
fatally injured occupants were restrained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final regulatory evaluation for the January 24, 1996 final 
rule establishing FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 (61 FR 2004), NHTSA assumed an 
effectiveness range of 10 to 25 percent for rear impact guards in 
preventing fatalities in crashes with PCI (all speeds) into the rear of 
trailers. The 25 percent effectiveness estimated for the current 
analysis (based on 2008-2009 TIFA data and the IIHS crash test data) is 
the higher value of the assumed effectiveness range of rear impact 
guards in the 1996 final rule.
    To estimate the incidence and characteristics of nonfatal injuries 
to light vehicle occupants in impacts to the rear of SUTs resulting in 
underride, the

[[Page 43691]]

agency analyzed the NASS-CDS data files for the years 1999-2012. 
Specifically, the cases examined were light vehicle frontal impacts 
into the rear of SUTs with a GVWR greater than or equal to 10,000 lb, 
where the light vehicle underrides the SUT resulting in PCI of the 
windshield or A-pillar of the light vehicle.
    The analysis showed that rear underride crashes of a light vehicle 
into the rear of SUTs with a non-fatal injury to light vehicle 
occupants represent only 0.3 percent of the population of all crashes 
involving SUTs. The analysis estimated annualized weighted injuries of 
different severity levels in light vehicle impacts into the rear of 
SUTs resulting in underride with PCI. Table A-17 presents the results 
of this analysis of 1999-2012 NASS-CDS data files. There were a total 
of 150 injuries of MAIS 1-5 severity.

    Table A-17--MAIS \69\ Injury Distribution and Annualized Weighted Estimates of Injuries to Light Vehicle
Occupants in Frontal Impacts Into the Rear of SUTs With Underride Resulting PCI. (1999-2012 NASS-CDS Data Files)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 95% confidence
                                                                  Annualized      interval for      Percent of
          MAIS level            Occupant count  Weighted count  weighted count     annualized          total
                                                                                 weighted count
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................              13           1,398              99  (17, 182).......              66
2.............................               5             459              33  (0, 82).........            21.7
3.............................               9             145              10  (1, 20).........             6.8
4.............................               2             105               7  sample too small               5
5.............................               0               0               0  sample too small               0
7.............................               1              11               1  sample too small             0.5
    Total.....................              30           2,118             151  (57, 245).......             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \69\ MAIS is the maximum severity injury for an occupant 
according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). MAIS 1 is of minor 
severity, MAIS 2 of moderate severity, MAIS 3-5 are serious to 
critical injuries, MAIS 7 are injuries of unknown severity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA examined each case individually to obtain more information 
about the injuries. The files showed that many of the injuries shown in 
Table A-17 were not directly attributable to PCI resulting from 
underride. For example, one case involved a passenger van with six 
separate injured occupants. Only two of these injured passengers were 
seated in the front row were subject to possible injury from PCI. Thus, 
we believe that Table A-17 likely provides an overestimate of the 
number of annual light vehicle occupant injuries resulting from SUT 
underride with PCI.
    NHTSA assumed 20 percent effectiveness in preventing injuries in 
light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of SUTs. CMVSS No. 223 
guards are effective in mitigating PCI in light vehicle impacts into 
the rear of SUTs at speeds less or equal to 56 km/h (35 mph), which is 
about 30 percent of all such impacts with PCI.\70\ Additionally, we 
expect the effectiveness of rear impact guards for preventing injuries 
to be lower than that for fatalities since occupant injuries could 
occur from interior vehicle contacts even if PCI is prevented. The 20 
percent effectiveness estimate takes into consideration that CMVSS No. 
223 requirements are intended for mitigating PCI in light vehicle rear 
crashes (with greater than 30 percent overlap) at speeds less than or 
equal to 56 km/h (35 mph). It also takes into account that some 
injuries are due to circumstances (e.g. unrestrained status of 
occupants, elderly and other vulnerable occupants) which would not be 
affected by an improved rear impact guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ As noted earlier, CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact 
guards may mitigate the severity of impact into the rear of SUTs at 
speeds greater than 56 km/h, but NHTSA is unable to quantify this 
possible benefit at this time. We seek comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table A-18 presents the target population (estimated fatalities and 
injuries addressable by CMVSS No. 223 guards on applicable SUTs), the 
effectiveness estimates, and the estimated benefits of equipping 
applicable SUTs with CMVSS No. 223 guards.

                                          Table A-18--Target Population, Effectiveness, and Benefits Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fatality         MAIS 1          MAIS 2          MAIS 3          MAIS 4          MAIS 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target population (a)...................................            19.5              99              33              10               7               0
Effectiveness (b).......................................            0.25             0.2             0.2             0.2             0.2             0.2
Benefits (a x b)........................................             4.9            19.8             6.6               2             1.4               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA monetized the benefits, converting nonfatal injuries into 
portions of a fatality to calculate the number of equivalent fatalities 
(equivalent lives saved) (ELS) that are prevented by SUTs with CMVSS 
No. 223 guards. This involves dividing the value of each injury 
severity category by the value of fatality to determine how many 
injuries equal a fatality. Comprehensive values, which include both 
economic impacts and loss of quality (or value) of life considerations, 
developed by NHTSA \71\ were used to determine the relative value of 
nonfatal injuries to fatalities. The comprehensive costs and the 
relative fatality ratio developed by NHTSA for each injury severity are 
listed in Table A-19. The reported costs are in 2000 dollars, but the 
relative values between injuries and fatalities would not change if 
costs are adjusted to present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Blincoe, L., et al., The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle 
Crashes, 2000, Washington, DC, DOT HS 809 446, May 2002

[[Page 43692]]

      Table A-19--Comprehensive Costs and Relative Fatality Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Comprehensive     Relative
             Injury severity              costs (2000 $)  fatality ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAIS 1..................................          15,017          0.0028
MAIS 2..................................         157,958          0.0436
MAIS 3..................................         314,204          0.0804
MAIS 4..................................         731,580          0.1998
MAIS 5..................................       2,402,997          0.6656
Fatality................................       3,366,388          1.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table A-20 presents the undiscounted ELS using the relative 
fatality ratios shown in Table A-19.

                     Table A-20--Undiscounted Equivalent Lives Saved (ELS) Using Average Number of Annualized Injuries in Table A-15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fatality         MAIS 1          MAIS 2          MAIS 3          MAIS 4          MAIS 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality/injury reduced.................................             4.9            19.8             6.6               2             1.4               0
Relative fatality ratio.................................               1          0.0028          0.0436          0.0804          0.1998          0.6656
ELS.....................................................             4.9          0.0554          0.2878          0.1608          0.2797          0.0000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total ELS...........................................            5.65  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since there is some uncertainty in the target population of 
injuries, the upper bound 95 percent confidence interval estimates of 
the weighted injury counts shown in Table A-17 were also considered in 
estimating benefits and total equivalent lives as shown in Table A-21.

        Table A-21--Target Population, Benefits, and Undiscounted Equivalent Lives Saved Using the Upper Bound of Injury Estimates in Table A-17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fatality          AIS 1           AIS 2           AIS 3           AIS 4           AIS 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality+max injury (a).................................            19.5             182              82              20               7               0
Effectiveness (b).......................................            0.25             0.2             0.2             0.2             0.2             0.2
Benefits (a x b)........................................             4.9            36.4            16.4               4             1.4               0
Relative fatality ratio.................................               1          0.0028          0.0436          0.0804          0.1998          0.6656
ELS.....................................................             4.9          0.1019          0.7150          0.3216          0.2797          0.0000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total ELS...........................................            6.29  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since fatalities and injuries occur during the lifetime of the 
vehicle, they are discounted to present value using the discount rates 
determined in Table A-13. The 3 percent and 7 percent discounted 
benefits in terms of ELS are presented in Table A-22.

                                   Table A-22--3 and 7 Percent Discounted ELS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Discount rate                            Undiscounted         3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Factors (from Table A-10)..............................  ..............          0.7741          0.5876
Total ELS from Table A-18 (using average injury estimates)......            5.65            4.37            3.32
Total ELS from Table A-19 (using upper bound of injury                      6.29            4.87            3.69
 estimates).....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost per equivalent lives saved was determined using the total 
costs in Table A-16 and the discounted ELS in Table A-22 and is 
presented in Table A-23. The cost per ELS is in the range of $106.7 
million to $164.7 million.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Note that this analysis uses low and average estimates of 
the costs, and average and high estimates of the benefits of 
equipping CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards on applicable SUTs.

[[Page 43693]]

   Table A-23--Costs per ELS at 3 Percent and 7 Percent Discount Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Benefits
                                        (average)       Benefits (high)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         3 percent discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost (low estimate).........       $118,658,542       $106,679,764
Total cost (average estimate).....        152,925,441        137,487,362
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         7 percent discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost (low estimate).........        126,755,433        113,959,260
Total cost (average estimate).....        164,743,353        148,112,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \73\ identifies 
$9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for 
Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of 
preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL 
in 2014 is $9.2 million. The cost per ELS of a rule to require SUTs to 
have CMVSS No. 223 guards ($106.7 million to $164.7 million) is far 
greater than the current VSL ($9.2 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance_2013.pdf. The guidance starts with a $9.1 million VSL 
in the base year of 2012 and then estimates a 1.07 percent increase 
in VSL each year after the base year to reflect the estimated growth 
rate in median real wages for the next 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B to Preamble--Summary of IIHS's Evaluation of Rear Impact 
Guards

    In 2011, IIHS published results of crash tests in which the front 
of a model year (MY) 2010 Chevrolet Malibu (a midsize sedan) impacted 
the rear of trailers equipped with a rear impact guard (full overlap of 
the rear impact guard with the front end of the Sedan).\74\ A 50th 
percentile male Hybrid III dummy (HIII 50M) was in each of the front 
outboard seating positions of the Malibu. Two trailer/guard designs 
(2007 Hyundai and 2011 Wabash trailers) were evaluated. The two guard 
designs were certified to FMVSS No. 223 requirements, and the Wabash 
also met the more stringent CMVSS No. 223 requirements. A 2010 
Chevrolet Malibu was crashed into a trailer at 56 km/h (35 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Details of the tests and test results are available at 
Brumbelow, M.L., ``Crash Test Performance of Large Truck Rear Impact 
Guards,'' 22nd International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles (ESV), 2011. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv22/22ESV-000074.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test results showed that the full overlap 56 km/h (35 mph) 
crash test of the Malibu with the guard of the Hyundai trailer (built 
to only FMVSS No. 223 requirements) resulted in catastrophic underride 
(underride almost to the B-pillar) with PCI of the Chevrolet Malibu. On 
the other hand, the rear impact guard on the Wabash trailer, also 
certified to meet CMVSS No. 223 requirements, prevented PCI in 35 mph 
crash tests.
    Table B-1 summarizes the results of the initial two IIHS 56 km/h 
(35 mph) full-width crash tests. In the first test, the 2007 Hyundai 
guard was ripped from the trailer's rear cross member early in the 
crash, allowing the Malibu to underride the trailer almost to the B-
pillar. The heads of both dummies were struck by the hood of the Malibu 
as it deformed against the rear surface of the trailer. Under the same 
test conditions, the main horizontal member of the 2011 Wabash guard 
bent forward in the center but remained attached to the vertical 
support members, which showed no signs of separating from the trailer 
chassis.

  Table B-1--Results of IIHS Initial Round of 56 km/h Crash Tests of the 2010 Chevrolet Malibu Into the Rear of
                                                    Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Max.
                                                                                                  longitudinal A-
            Conditions                   Trailer         Guard performance        Underride           pillar
                                                                                                    deformation
                                                                                                       (cm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% overlay.....................  2007 Hyundai.......  Attachments failed.  Catastrophic.......              80
                                   2011 Wabash........  Good...............  None...............               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

    Table B-2 summarizes the peak injury measures \75\ of the HIII 50M 
dummies in the front seating positions of the Malibu. For comparison 
purposes, Table B-2 also presents the HIII 50M dummy injury measures in 
the full frontal 56 km/h rigid barrier crash test of the 2010 Chevrolet 
Malibu conducted as part of NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). 
Head injury measures recorded by the dummies in the tests with severe 
underride were much higher than those reported for the Malibu's NCAP 
rigid wall test at the same speed. Chest acceleration and deflection 
measures were generally higher in tests without PCI than those with 
PCI.\76\ The driver and passenger injury measures in the Malibu full 
overlap crash test with the Wabash trailer (where the guard prevented 
PCI) was similar to the injury measures in the Malibu NCAP frontal 
crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ HII 50M dummy injury measures are those applicable to 
current model passenger vehicles as specified in FMVSS No. 208, see 
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=77e2aab5d088f2e9b46d15606090f9b0&node=se49.6.571_1208&rgn=div8.
    \76\ When PCI was prevented by the rear impact guard, the 
accelerations on the vehicle are higher which results in higher 
chest injury measures.

[[Page 43694]]

                                          Table B-2--IIHS Initial Round of Testing--Injury Measures of Dummies in Front Seating Positions of the Malibu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Test                                                Head resultant    Head injury        Chest           Chest        Left femur      Right femur
                                                                                                   acceleration    criterion (15     resultant     displacement     force (kN)      force (kN)
                                                                                                        (g)             ms)        acceleration        (mm)
                                                                                                                                  (3 ms clip, g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Assessment Reference Values..............................................................                             700            60 g           63 mm          10(kN)          10(kN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-width..............................  Hyundai...................  Driver....................             128             754              21              19             0.3             0.3
                                                                      Passenger.................             107             557              14              20             0.1             0.1
                                          Wabash....................  Driver....................              54             328              36              38             2.2             1.2
                                                                      Passenger.................              50             319              36              37             2.3             1.8
                                          NCAP (rigid wall).........  Driver....................              49             330              43              40             2.0             1.2
                                                                      Passenger.................              55             389              42              32             0.5             0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-17973 Filed 7-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P