[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43663-43694]
[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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may contact
Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (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

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

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

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).

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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).

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

    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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           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.

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

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

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.

               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.

    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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------