Wabash concurred that the design of the Manac guard reduced protection
in full overlap conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ In 2017, IIHS introduced the TOUGHGUARD award for trailers
that mitigate PCI in a 56 km/h (35 mph) crash of a Chevrolet Malibu
into the rear of the trailer in all three overlap conditions (full,
50 percent, and 30 percent). IIHS awarded the TOUGHGUARD to nine
North American trailer manufacturers that offer this feature on at
least some trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    Several commenters argued that fatal low overlap crashes occurred
more frequently than stated by NHTSA. IIHS believed that the data
underlying NHTSA's finding that 40 percent of light vehicle impacts
into the rear end of trucks and trailers in fatal crashes were offset
crashes were collected ``during phone interviews with someone who was
familiar with each crash but may not have been at the crash scene'' and
``took place 1-2 years after the crash.'' Advocates remarked that TIFA
survey data ``is known to consist of notoriously suspect crash data and
analysis.'' In response, NHTSA does not agree that the agency did not
accurately calculate the prevalence of low overlap crashes. The 2013
UMTRI Study forms the most scientific, comprehensive and valid data set
available to inform the agency and safety community on this issue.
    IIHS referred to its 2010 study of passenger vehicle crashes into
the rear of trailers and semitrailers in the Large Truck Crash
Causation Study (LTCCS) to argue that, ``guard deformation or complete
failure was frequent and most commonly due to weak attachments,
buckling of the trailer chassis, or bending of the lateral end of the
guard under narrow overlap loading.'' \66\ IIHS noted that there were
30 LTCCS cases in the study involving trailers with guards that met the
FMVSS No. 224 geometric requirements and among these 30 cases, 30
percent (n=9) were crashes in which less than half of the passenger
vehicle overlapped the trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Quoting from its study. Brumbelow, M.L., Blanar, L.,
``Evaluation of US Rear Underride Guard Regulation for Large Trucks
Using Real-World Crashes,'' Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 54,
November 2010, pp. 119-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the data used in the 2010 IIHS study comprised too
small a sample to generalize the extent of low overlap crashes in the
U.S. NHTSA notes that in 22 of the 30 cases, it was not clear whether
the rear impact guards on the trailers were compliant with FMVSS No.
223 and among the 9 low overlap crashes. Seven rear impact guards on
the trailer exhibited deformation similar to that in the IIHS 30
percent overlap crash tests (the lateral end of the guard bent forward
in the impact). In the other 2 cases, the rear impact guards
experienced failure at other locations likely due to the guards being
weak in general. Among the 30 LTCCS cases IIHS analyzed, only 8 were
crashes of passenger vehicles into the rear of trailers with FMVSS No.
223 compliant rear impact guards. Among these 8 trailers, 2 rear impact
guards showed no signs of failure, 3 rear impact guards failed at the
attachment to the trailer structure, 1 rear impact guard bent forward
due to localized loading from a low overlap crash, and 2 rear impact
guards were damaged too severely to determine the failure mechanism. In
other words, the 2010 IIHS study uses too small a data sample to
generalize the extent of low overlap crashes in the U.S. In contrast,
the 2013 UMTRI Study provides a scientific annual estimate of all fatal
crashes into the rear of trailers in the U.S., including offset crashes
and the extent and type of rear impact guard damage in crashes.
    Seven Hills said it did not understand why NHTSA was considering
the extent of guard damage, as a fatal collision involving major damage
to a guard should be treated the same as a fatal collision that did not
involve major damage. It also argued that minimal guard damage in fatal
offset impacts indicates that the problem is lack of adequate guard
strength on the outside edges of trailers. The commenter said that the
absence of a difference in the percentage of light vehicle crashes with
PCI in offset crashes and non-offset crashes shows a need to improve
the performance of rear impact guards in low overlap conditions,
particularly when such PCI is occurring in what Seven Hills viewed as
``otherwise non-injurious speed differences.''
    In response, NHTSA believes examining the extent of rear impact
guard damage, along with the occurrence of PCI, is important to
determine the utility of improving guards to protect against non-offset
crashes. Rear impact guards sustain more damage in non-offset crashes,
which suggests that non-offset crashes are potentially more harmful and
thus should be addressed first. Our statement that we found no
difference between the percentage of light vehicle crashes with PCI in
offset crashes and non-offset crashes was not meant to suggest that
offset crashes are not a concern. Rather, because (a) more fatal light
vehicle crashes into the rear of trucks and trailers are non-offset
crashes, (b) non-offset occur significantly more frequently than low
overlap crashes (crashes with 30 percent or less overlap of the
impacting vehicle with the rear of the trailer), and (c) non-offset
crashes appear more harmful of the two, NHTSA was explaining why it
decided to pursue this rulemaking on non-low overlap crashes at this
time.
    IIHS stated that guard damage is not an adequate metric for the
severity of underride and questioned whether NHTSA could accurately
calculate the extent of guard damage based on TIFA survey data. In
response, NHTSA notes that the damage to the guard was not used to
assess the severity of underride but was part of the information
collected to determine impact severity. The 2013 UMTRI Study used
enhanced data on the rear of the trailer to determine the extent of
guard damage. The severity of underride and the occurrence of PCI were
determined from the light passenger vehicle information.
    IIHS noted that the Manac rear impact guard was not the only design
that performed well in the 30 percent overlap crash and that other
designs such as the Vanguard rear impact guard also mitigated PCI in 30
percent overlap crashes. The agency agrees that other rear impact guard
designs that connect directly to the longitudinal frame rails of the
trailer through the vertical members are able to mitigate PCI in 30
percent overlap crashes without reducing protection against PCI in full
and 50 percent overlap crashes. However, as shown later in the section,
these guards add cost and weight to the trailer.
    TSC and Advocates stated that, even if the majority of fatal light
vehicle crashes into the rear of trucks and trailers were non-offset
crashes, this still meant that 40 percent were offset

crashes. Other commenters also disagreed with NHTSA's decision to focus
this rulemaking on fatal non-low overlap crashes, despite that such
crashes occur more frequently than low overlap crashes. In response,
NHTSA notes that this final rule would afford protection to occupants
involved in 56 km/h (35 mph) crashes into the rear of trailers where
the impacting vehicle fully overlaps with the trailer rear, and in
offset crashes where 50 percent of the light vehicle front end overlaps
with the trailer rear, and in offset crashes where a load bearing
vertical member connecting the rear impact guard to the trailer is
engaged by the front end of the impacting vehicle. In response to the
comments, we reiterate some of the details provided in the NPRM and
provide further reasoning below for not proceeding with low overlap
performance requirements in this final rule.
Further Analysis on Requirements for Protection in Low Overlap Crashes
    Rear impact guards are designed to absorb energy and prevent PCI by
attaching to substantial structural elements of a trailer or
semitrailer, such as the chassis longitudinal frame rails, by way of
vertical support members. The test results from the initial testing at
IIHS reported in the NPRM show that many trailer rear impact guards
designed to CMVSS No. 223 met the proposed performance requirements in
the NPRM in full overlap and 50 percent overlap crashes but were unable
to prevent PCI in a 35 mph crash into the rear of the trailer where
only 30 percent of the width of the passenger vehicle front end
overlapped with the rear of the trailer. In these 30 percent overlap
crashes, only a small lateral portion of the rear impact guard (about
22 percent of the guard width) engaged with the front end of the
passenger vehicle. This small lateral portion typically did not include
a vertical support member of the guard, so when the passenger vehicle
struck this small lateral portion of the guard, the guard deformed
locally and did not prevent PCI.
    In the initial crash tests conducted by IIHS, only the Manac rear
impact guard was able to prevent PCI in the Chevy Malibu in the 56 km/h
(35 mph) full overlap, 50 percent overlap, and the 30 percent overlap
test conditions. Unlike most trailer designs, however, where the
vertical members of the rear impact guard attach directly to the
longitudinal frame rails of the trailer, the vertical members of the
Manac rear impact guard were located further outboard from the location
of the trailer longitudinal frame rails and attached to a reinforced
floor section of the trailer. While the more outboard vertical supports
of the Manac guard improved rear impact protection in low overlap
crashes of light vehicles into the rear of trailers, the further
outboard vertical supports appeared to reduce guard strength near the
center of the horizontal member of the rear impact guard. In the 56 km/
h (35 mph) full overlap crash tests of the Malibu, the greatest amount
of underride (1,350 mm) was in the test with the Manac trailer. In
contrast, the extent of the underride was 990 mm in the test with the
Wabash trailer.
    The full overlap IIHS crash test results raise the possibility that
for crash speeds greater than 56 km/h (35 mph), trailers that have the
main vertical supports for the guard more outboard may not perform as
well in full overlap crashes as trailers that have the vertical
supports more inboard. Since full and 50 percent overlap crashes are
more frequent than low overlap (30 percent or less) crashes, and
because most fatal light vehicle impacts into the rear of trailers are
at speeds greater than 56 km/h (35 mph), the agency is concerned that
such guard designs may reduce protection against PCI in the more
frequent higher speed full and 50 percent overlap crashes. NHTSA is
concerned about potential negative safety consequences accruing from a
rule that resulted in designs that moved the vertical members of rear
impact guards more outward laterally to prevent underride in a 56 km/h
(35 mph) 30 percent low overlap crash, if such a rule reduced
protection in full and 50 percent overlap crashes.
    NHTSA has estimated the potential benefits of adopting a 30 percent
overlap crash. The agency estimated the number of fatalities in 30
percent or lower overlap crashes in the field based on the available
information, estimated the effectiveness of the rear impact guards that
prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes, and estimated the lives
saved by a requirement for rear impact guards mitigating PCI in 56 km/h
(35 mph) 30 percent overlap crashes.
    The 2013 UMTRI Study found that 40 percent of light vehicle impacts
into the rear ends of trucks and trailers in fatal crashes met the
UMTRI definition of ``offset crashes,'' \67\ and that 60 percent were
non-offset impacts. However, for a typical trailer rear width of 2,600
mm, an offset crash defined in the 2013 UMTRI Study is when 867 mm of
the width of the trailer from its lateral edge is engaged by the
impacting vehicle. In contrast, as detailed in the 2015 NPRM, in the
IIHS 30 percent overlap crash of a Malibu with the rear impact guard of
a trailer, the Malibu interacted with only 637 mm of the rear of the
trailer (approximately a quarter of the trailer rear width) from its
lateral edge. This difference is important as it relates to how the
impacting vehicle engages the vertical members connecting the rear
impact guard to the trailer. On a typical 2,600 mm width trailer, the
vertical members connecting the rear impact guard to the trailer are
located at about 753 mm from the left and right lateral edge of the
trailer. Therefore, ``offset'' crashes in the 2013 UMTRI Study included
crashes in which a vertical member of the rear impact guard was
engaged. In contrast, in IIHS's 30 percent overlap crashes, the
vertical members of the rear impact guards were not engaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ UMTRI defined ``offset crashes'' as impacts with the outer
one-third or less of the rear plane of the trailer. For a 2,600 mm
wide trailer, one-third of the trailer width is 867 mm from the
lateral edge of the trailer, which includes the location of the
vertical member. In contrast, the IIHS 30 percent overlap crash test
is a 30 percent overlap of the impacting vehicle with the trailer
rear. For a 2,600 mm wide trailer, 30 percent overlap of a passenger
vehicle corresponds to 637 mm from the lateral edge of the trailer,
which does not include the location of the vertical member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stated differently, the definition of an offset crash in the 2013
UMTRI Study includes crashes that would not have been considered low
overlap crashes under IIHS's test program (as they had greater than 30
percent overlap of the front end of the vehicle). NHTSA reviewed a
sample of the crash cases which were identified as ``offset crashes''
in the 2013 UMTRI Study. Based on the damage to the rear impact guard
and the damage to the front end of the impacting vehicle in each of
these offset crash cases, NHTSA determined that in many crashes the
front end of the striking vehicle engaged the portion of the rear
impact guard containing the vertical member, and therefore were not
``low overlap'' crashes as would have been considered under the IIHS
protocol (crashes with 30 percent or less of the impacting vehicle
front end overlapping the rear width of the trailer). This review
indicated that a substantial number of cases identified as ``offset
crashes'' in the 2013 UMTRI Study were not ``low overlap'' crashes like
those in the IIHS 30 percent overlap crash test.
    The 2013 UMTRI Study found that there are annually 72 fatalities in
light vehicle crashes into the rear of trailers that result in PCI.
According to this study, almost 40 percent of the impacts by light
vehicles were ``offset,'' meaning that they occurred on the outer left
or right third of a trailer's rear. For trailers

required to have rear impact guards, there was no difference in the
extent of underride, including PCI, for offset and non-offset impacts
of light vehicles into the rear of trailers.\68\ Therefore, we
determined the number of annual fatalities in offset crashes with PCI
into the rear of trailers as the product of the annual number of
fatalities in light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of trailers
(72) and the percentage of offset crashes (40%). Accordingly, the
number of fatalities in offset crashes with PCI from the 2013 UMTRI
Study is 28.8 (=72 x 40%). Yet, as explained above, NHTSA reviewed a
sample of the offset crashes in the 2013 UMTRI Study and found that in
most of these offset crashes, there was more than 30 percent overlap of
the impacting vehicle with the rear of the trailer (demonstrated by the
impacting vehicle having engaged the rear impact guard at the location
of a vertical member). Thus, to estimate the benefit of a requirement
to prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes, NHTSA assumed 20 to 40
percent of these 28.8 annual fatalities \69\ were in crashes with 30
percent or less overlap of the front end of the impacting light vehicle
with the trailer. Therefore, NHTSA estimated that there are 5.8-11.5 (=
28.8 x 20% to 28.8 x 40%) annual fatalities in low overlap crashes into
the rear of trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Figure 5 in the 2013 UMTRI Study. 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,
infra.
    \69\ As explained above, NHTSA's review of a sample of offset
crashes into the rear of trailers in the 2013 UMTRI Study indicated
that a majority of these offset crashes were with more than 30
percent overlap of the impacting vehicle with rear of the trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 UMTRI Study also found that only 26 percent of crashes
into the rear of trailers were at relative impact speeds of 56 km/h (35
mph) or less. Though the 2013 UMTRI Study found that the crash speeds
in offset crashes were higher than those in non-offset crashes, NHTSA
used 26 percent to estimate the number of crashes into the rear of
trailers with 30 percent or lower overlap that were at crash speeds 56
km/h (35 mph) or lower. Rear impact guards may not be able to mitigate
all fatalities in crashes into the rear of trailers with relative
velocity of 56 km/h (35 mph) or less because some crashes may be due to
circumstances other than underride (i.e., unrestrained status of
occupants, elderly and other vulnerable occupants, post impact vehicle
kinematics that could expose vehicle to subsequent impacts \70\). For
the purpose of this analysis, NHTSA assumed that the incremental
effectiveness of rear impact guards (CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards
that also mitigate PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes) in preventing
fatalities in light vehicle impacts with 30 percent overlap into the
rear of trailers with crash speeds less than 56 km/h is 50 percent.
Therefore, NHTSA estimated the overall effectiveness of upgrading from
the final rule compliant guards to final rule compliant guards that
also prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes to be 13 percent (=26% x
50%). NHTSA estimates that the annual number of lives saved in low
overlap crashes into the rear of trailers at relative velocities of 56
km/h (35 mph) or less to be 0.75 to 1.5 (= 5.8 x 0.13 to 11.6 x 0.13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The IIHS tests showed that in 30 percent overlap crashes
where PCI is mitigated, the impacting light vehicle rotates during
the crash and therefore could be exposed to impact by vehicles
traveling in adjacent lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes, designs would have to
either: (a) add additional vertical members at the lateral edge of the
rear impact guard that connect to the trailer's transverse floor beam
and strengthen the transverse floor beam of the trailer to withstand
the loads transmitted from these vertical members at the edge of the
guard; or (b) considerably strengthen the rear impact guard member so
it would not deform locally in the 30 percent overlap crash. In these
circumstances all the loads will still be taken up by the longitudinal
chassis rails. This means that both these approaches would add
significant weight to the vehicles because they involve adding more
vertical members, strengthening the floor beams, or strengthening the
guard itself.
    Currently, there are 4 trailer manufacturers that offer rear impact
guards that prevent PCI in all three IIHS crash test conditions (35 mph
crash of a passenger vehicle with (1) full overlap, (2) 50 percent
overlap and (3) 30 percent overlap with the rear of the trailer) as
standard equipment. In 2020, the total trailer output of these 4
manufacturers is about 28 percent of the total number of trailers
produced in 2020 (211,807).\71\ Many other trailer manufacturers offer
rear impact guards that prevent PCI in the three IIHS crash test
conditions as optional equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ https://cdn.baseplatform.io/files/base/ebm/trailerbodybuilders/document/2021/04/TBB_Top_25_CY2020.6089da057e9d0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA reviewed the rear impact guard offerings in the trailer
industry. The incremental cost and weight increase of a trailer with a
rear impact guard that prevents PCI of passenger vehicles in all three
overlap conditions (full, 50 percent, and 30 percent overlap) compared
to an equivalent trailer by the same manufacturer with a rear impact
guard that meets the performance requirements of this final rule \72\
ranges from $100 to $1,000 and from 25 kg (55 lb) to 118 kg (260 lb),
respectively. The large range in cost and weight is because some
trailers need significant modifications to accommodate rear impact
guards with 30 percent overlap protection, the higher cost of high-
strength/light-weight materials for the guard, and other such factors.
The weighted average (weights based on trailers produced in 2020) \73\
of this incremental cost and weight increase of trailers with rear
impact guards which prevent PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes is $306
and 35 kg (77 lb), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ As noted previously, the final rule requirements ensure
preventing PCI in a 35 mph passenger vehicle crash with full and 50
percent overlap with the rear of a trailer.
    \73\ https://cdn.baseplatform.io/files/base/ebm/trailerbodybuilders/document/2021/04/TBB_Top_25_CY2020.6089da057e9d0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stoughton Trailer, a trailer manufacturer, produces trailers with
rear impact guards that prevent PCI in all three overlap conditions at
56 km/h (35 mph) as standard equipment and notes on its website that
its rear impact guards do not add additional weight, cost, or
negatively impact aerodynamics (presumably compared to rear impact
guards that would meet this final rule requirements).\74\ The Stoughton
rear impact guard, made of steel, includes two vertical supports on the
outer ends of the horizontal member that fasten to a robust
undercarriage of the trailer. It does not appear feasible engineering-
wise for the additional material (two steel vertical members on the
outer edge of the horizontal member that is bolted to a reinforced
undercarriage) not to add weight or cost to the trailer. Accordingly,
NHTSA decided not to include this guard design in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ https://www.stoughtontrailers.com/Portals/0/documents/Rear%20Underride%20Guard%20Sales%20Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are some unique rear impact guard designs that meet the
performance requirements in this final rule and are also able to
mitigate PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes without significant increase
in weight. However, these unique designs may have restrictions in
intermodal operations at loading docks \75\ and may not be practicable
for

all types of trailers covered by FMVSS No. 224. The benefit-cost
analysis assumes intermodal operability is maintained and so these
unique rear impact guard designs were not considered for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ In order to comply with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.26(d)), loading
docks have vehicle restraints that are designed to connect to rear
impact guards to prevent the vehicle from moving during loading and
unloading operations. Unique rear impact guard designs that are
wider than 7.5 inches, with unique profiles (such as pentagonal
shapes) have provided challenges to connect the vehicle restraints
to the rear impact guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are 211,807 trailers produced in 2020 \76\ among which 65
percent (137,675 = 211,806 x 65%) are required to be equipped with rear
impact guards, of which 28 percent are already equipped with rear
impact guards that meet the performance requirements of this final rule
and mitigate PCI in 30 percent overlap crashes. The annual average and
minimal incremental fleet cost of equipping all new applicable trailers
\77\ (99,126 = 137,675 x 72%) with rear impact guards that mitigate PCI
in 30 percent overlap crashes is $30.3 million (= 99,126 x $306) and
$9.9 million (= 99,126 x $100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Id.
    \77\ There were 211,807 new trailers produced in 2020, among
which 65 percent (137,675 = 211,807 x 0.65) are required to be
equipped with rear impact guards. Among applicable trailers, 21
percent are already equipped with guards that mitigate PCI in 30
percent overlap crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the average weight increase of 35 kg (77 lb) from
installing a guard that could mitigate PCI in a 30 percent overlap
crash would increase fuel consumption. With 192,000 class 8 truck
annual sales,\78\ the total average incremental lifetime fuel cost is
estimated to be $130 million undiscounted, $106 million with 3 percent
discounting, and $84 million with 7 percent discounting. If the minimum
weight increase of 25 kg (55 lb) is used instead, the total minimum
incremental lifetime fuel cost is estimated to be $93 million
undiscounted, $75 million with 3 percent discounting, and $60 million
with 7 percent discounting. The overall undiscounted cost increase
(material cost and lifetime fuel cost) is $161 million on average and
$103 million at a minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See statista for class 8 truck annual sales (https://www.statista.com/statistics/261416/class-3-8-truck-sales-in-the-united-states/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is required by Section 1 of Executive Order 12866 to conduct
a benefit cost analysis of any proposed regulatory requirements.\79\
The undiscounted cost per life saved using the average cost estimate
ranges from $107 million to $215 million, while that using the minimum
cost estimate ranges from $69 million to $138 million, which is
significantly greater than the value of a statistical life ($11.6
million).\80\ Therefore, a requirement for equipping all new applicable
trailers with rear impact guards that mitigate PCI in 30 percent
overlap crashes is not cost-effective.\81\ This indicates that total
costs of such a requirement exceed overall benefits. Detailed
calculations for the benefits, costs, and cost per life saved are
provided in the FRE accompanying this final rule.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ ``Significant'' regulatory actions are also subject to
Section 6 to assess potential benefits and costs.
    \80\ For more information on the value of a statistical life,
see a 2021 Office of the Secretary memorandum on the ``Guidance on
Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S.
Department of Transportation Analyses--2021 Update.'' https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
    \81\ Cost-effectiveness represents a measure of the average
monetary cost per unit of change (benefit). In regulatory analyses
for safety policies, cost-effectiveness generally measures the
average estimated change in total costs per unit improvement in
safety (e.g., cost per life saved). A policy alternative can be
considered cost-effective if the estimated cost per unit increase is
less than an appropriate benchmark. For example, a proposed safety
standard could be considered cost-effective if the average cost per
life saved equivalent (i.e., combining lives saved and injuries
avoided, weighted by the relative values of injuries to fatalities)
under the proposed standard were less than the comprehensive
economic cost of a fatality ($11.6 million in 2020 dollars). That
is, the proposed standard would yield safety benefits at a lower
cost than the benchmark value for those benefits.
    \82\ NHTSA has placed a copy of the FRE in the docket for this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, we have determined that an FMVSS that
requires vehicles to provide rear impact protection in 56 km/h (35 mph)
full-frontal, 50 percent overlap, and 30 percent overlap not to be
reasonable or practicable. We conclude that such a revision would not
meet the requirements of Section 30111(a) and (b) of the Safety Act for
issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, we
have decided to refrain from adopting a requirement for a 30 percent
overlap crash at this time.
    However, as explained above, the Federal standards act as a floor,
not a ceiling, to establish the minimum level of performance that meet
the safety needs presented by the data. FMVSS are written in terms of
minimum performance requirements for motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury and
death in crashes. Manufacturers have flexibility in design as long as
their products comply with applicable FMVSS. There are rear impact
guard designs in the current trailer and semitrailer market that
prevent PCI in all three crash conditions described in Section
23011(b)(1)(A) of BIL: (1) full overlap crash, (2) 50 percent overlap
crash, and (3) 30 percent overlap crash at 56 km/h impact speed. While
data do not support the agency's requiring these guards for all
vehicles, this final rule does not preclude these designs from being on
the trailer and semi-trailer market.
    Some commenters suggested design changes to rear impact guards that
they viewed as increasing protection in low overlap conditions. Network
requested that NHTSA require a barrier width within 100 mm of the
trailer's outer frame; Advocates similarly stated that if rear impact
guards were extended, protection against underride would be enhanced.
Network and Ms. Wood also suggested that rear impact guards have angled
struts attached to the ends of the guard. Batzer recommended that
guards have support at their corners, while Seven Hills stated that a
solution could be using three- or four-vertical support configurations.
The VT Group suggested that stronger material selection for the
horizontal member can improve a rear impact guard's load capability
during low overlap crashes.
    In response, NHTSA does not believe that it is reasonable, or
appropriate, to mandate in this rulemaking that rear impact guards have
designs of the specificity suggested by the commenters. The design of
rear impact guards is dependent on trailer geometry and structure and
we do not wish to unnecessarily restrict the flexibility of
manufacturers to design appropriate guards. NHTSA also does not believe
that it should mandate the materials used in constructing rear impact
guards, as our standards are performance oriented.\83\ Finally, this
issue was not proposed in the NPRM and is not within the scope of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Half-Guard Testing

    CMVSS No. 223 allows for compliance testing on half of a symmetric
rear impact guard through an application of a 175,000 N distributed
load at the P3 location. NHTSA determined that half guard testing was
not needed in FMVSS No. 223 and explained in the NPRM why it did not
propose the inclusion of half-guard testing in the proposal.
Comments Received
    Commenters on this issue all argued in favor of including an option
allowing for testing of half of the rear impact guard. TTMA, Strick,
and Mr. Young stated their general belief that testing on a half-guard
will produce the same result as testing on the full guard. They further
suggested that half-guard testing

is beneficial to manufacturers, as they can test one half-guard, make
any changes to the second half-guard, and then test the modified second
half-guard with less time and effort. TTMA also remarked that allowing
an option for half-guard testing would ensure maximum harmonization
with the Canadian standard CMVSS No. 223.
Agency Response
    NHTSA reviewed the comments and confirms its earlier decision that
a half-guard testing option is not needed in FMVSS No. 223. As noted in
the NPRM, CMVSS No. 223 allows for half-guard testing because at the
time the standard was written, guard manufacturers lacked the equipment
to apply a distributed force of 350,000 N as would be required in a
test of the full guard. CMVSS No. 223 thus allowed manufacturers to use
then existing equipment to certify rear impact guards through half-
guard testing. No commenter suggested that this rationale should be
applied to FMVSS No. 223 or that manufacturers presently lack the
capability to conduct tests on a full guard. Significantly, there is
also an absence of data showing that half-guard testing provides
results representative of full guard performance.
    NHTSA notes that the test procedures included in an FMVSS specify
the compliance tests that NHTSA conducts. Manufacturers may use other
reasonable methods to certify the compliance of their vehicles or
equipment, provided that their vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
complies. In other words, any changes to FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 would
not directly affect how manufacturers choose to structure their guard
development processes, as long as the vehicle or equipment complies. If
manufacturers believe that testing on half-guards will allow them to
better iterate designs, the standard does not prevent them from doing
so. The guard must meet the FMVSS when tested by NHTSA according to the
test procedures in the standard.

e. Retrofitting

    The NPRM did not propose to require used trailers be retrofitted
with CMVSS No. 223 compliant rear impact guards, as NHTSA had estimated
in the NPRM that the cost of retrofitting all applicable FMVSS
compliant trailers far exceeds the total benefits from such a retrofit
requirement.
Comments Received
    Many commenters disagreed with NHTSA's decision not to propose that
all trailers be retrofitted with newly compliant guards. Network
commented that older guards can be easily fixed. Messrs. Kiefer and
Young remarked that more lives would be saved if NHTSA required
retrofitting. TSC remarked that NHTSA underestimated the potential
benefits to requiring trailers be retrofitted. TSC stated that NHTSA
based its analysis on the number of light vehicle crashes into the rear
of trailers that resulted in PCI, which TSC claimed came from data
sources that often do not report on intrusion. Conversely, ATA stated
that retrofitting trailers will have a negative cost-benefit ratio,
stating that there are more than 11.7 million commercial trailers
registered in the states in 2012, many of which are not used on a
regular basis. ATA argued that retrofitting them would create
significant costs without any corresponding benefit.
Agency Response
    As further detailed in the Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE)
accompanying this final rule, NHTSA evaluated requiring all trailers to
be retrofitted with CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards. This evaluation
suggests that such a requirement would not be practicable or cost-
effective. Further, vehicle owners would need to assess each trailer-
guard combination individually to determine whether an upgraded guard
would be compatible with the used trailer, accounting for age and
condition of the vehicle. A used trailer may not be structurally
capable of accommodating a new upgraded guard without the addition of
unique parts. Owners may not have the technical expertise to know if an
upgraded rear impact guard installed on a used trailer would be able to
meet the intended performance level.

VI. Lead Time

    The NPRM proposed a lead time of two years following the date of
publication of a final rule. NHTSA received mixed comments on the
proposed lead time. Mr. Young and Network remarked that given most
trailers already meet the proposed requirements, a two-year lead time
was unnecessary. Mr. Young stated that NHTSA instead should require
immediate compliance. TTMA commented that, for ``nearly all trailer
models,'' TTMA members have the capability to manufacture to the
proposed standard but suggested that manufacturers of other models may
have to develop and test new rear impact guards. TTMA suggested a lead
time that provides for an optional early compliance date may be
worthwhile.
    Section 23011(b)(1)(B) of BIL provides that the regulations
promulgated under subparagraph (A) shall require full compliance with
each FMVSS revised pursuant to those regulations not later than 2 years
after the date on which those regulations are promulgated.
    After considering the comments and Section 23011(b)(1)(B) of BIL,
NHTSA is adopting a two-year compliance date. The agency estimates that
94 percent of new trailers sold in the United States subject to FMVSS
Nos. 223 and 224 already comply with the requirements of this final
rule. This means, however, that there remain many trailer manufacturers
who will need time and resources to design and produce new rear impact
guards that are compliant with this final rule. Establishing too short
a lead time will disadvantage these manufacturers, many of which may be
small manufacturers. NHTSA proposed a two-year lead time for the 1996
final rule and the agency believes this length of time is consistent
with BIL and remains appropriate. Manufacturers may choose to comply
with the new standards earlier.

VII. Benefit-Cost Analysis

    For the NPRM, NHTSA developed a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation
(PRE) to estimate the benefits and cost of this rulemaking. We first
estimated the annual number of fatalities and injuries in light vehicle
crashes with PCI into the rear of trailers that could be prevented by
the rulemaking.\84\ We found that, annually, there are 72 light vehicle
occupant fatalities in crashes into the rear of trailers with rear
impact guards with PCI.\85\ About 26 percent of fatal light vehicle
crashes into the rear of trailers occur at speeds of 56 km/h (35 mph)
or less, the speeds at which this rule would be effective. Thus, the
agency estimated that there are 19 fatalities (= 72 x 0.26) that occur
in crashes with a relative velocity of 56 km/h (35 mph) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ NHTSA did not include non-PCI crashes into the rear of
trailers into the analysis of benefits of the final rule because the
agency assumed that the passenger vehicle's restraint systems, when
used, would mitigate injury.
    \85\ NHTSA only counted crashes into trailers with rear impact
guards as these would be the only trailers that NHTSA assumes would
equip upgraded rear impact guards and thus be affected by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CMVSS No. 223 guards may not be able to mitigate all fatalities in
crashes into the rear of trailers with relative velocity of 56 km/h (35
mph) or less because some crashes may involve low overlap (30 percent
or less) and some fatalities may be due to circumstances other than
underride (e.g., unrestrained status of occupants). NHTSA thus assumed
that the incremental effectiveness of CMVSS No. 223

compliant guards over FMVSS No. 224 compliant guards in preventing
fatalities in light vehicle impacts with PCI into the rear of trailers
with crash speeds less than 56 km/h (35 mph) is 50 percent.\86\ Since
only 26 percent of light vehicle crashes with PCI into the rear of
trailers are at relative velocity less than or equal to 56 km/h, NHTSA
estimated the overall effectiveness of upgrading to CMVSS No. 223
compliant guards to be 13 percent (= 26% x 50%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The estimation of rear impact guard effectiveness is
detailed in the FRE. Fatalities and injuries would also depend on
other factors such as occupant age, seat belt use, and crash
dynamics. Considering these factors, and using engineering judgement
we believe 50 percent is a reasonable estimate of the effectiveness
of CMVSS compliant rear impact guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since a number of vehicles currently meet CMVSS No. 223, this
benefit must be reduced by the proportion of new trailers already
compliant with CMVSS No. 223, which the agency estimated to be 93
percent. Assuming 13 percent effectiveness of these guards in fatal
crashes with PCI into the rear of trailers, the agency estimated that
about 0.66 (= 72 x (1-0.93) x 0.13) lives would be saved annually by
requiring all applicable trailers to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223
compliant guards. NHTSA estimated that a total of 2.7 serious injuries
would also be prevented annually with this rear impact guard rule.
Including fatalities and serious injuries, the agency estimated that
1.4 equivalent lives would be saved annually.
    To determine the costs of the final rule, NHTSA considered the
incremental fleet cost of equipping all applicable trailers with CMVSS
No. 223 rear impact guards and the increased fuel costs resulting from
the added weight CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards would place on
trailers.
    The average cost of a Canadian compliant rear impact guard was
estimated as $492. The incremental cost of equipping CMVSS No. 223
compliant rear impact guards on applicable new trailers (those that are
subject to FMVSS No. 223) was estimated as $229 per trailer. There were
243,873 trailers produced in 2013,\87\ among which 65 percent were
required to be equipped with rear impact guards. Of those, 93 percent
were already equipped with CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards. The annual
incremental fleet cost of equipping all applicable trailers with CMVSS
No. 223 rear impact guards was estimated at $2.5 million (= 243,873 x
0.65 x (1.0-0.94) x $229).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ https://trailer-bodybuilders.com/trailer-output/2014-trailer-production-figures-table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA determined that upgrading from the FMVSS No. 223 compliant
guard to the CMVSS No. 223 compliant guard would add an average
incremental weight of 22.2 kg (48.9 lb) to the trailer, thereby
reducing the overall fuel economy during the lifetime of the trailer.
The incremental increase in lifetime fuel cost for a 22.2 kg (48.9 lb)
weight increase of a trailer was estimated to be $1,042.2 and $927.7
discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The annual
incremental lifetime fuel cost of equipping all applicable trailers
with CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards was estimated as $9.2 million and
$8.2 million in 2013 dollars discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent,
respectively.
    The agency estimated that the net cost per equivalent lives saved
would be $9.1 million and $9.5 million in 2013 dollars discounted at 3
percent and 7 percent, respectively. At 3 percent discount rate, the
net benefit of the proposed rule would be $0.59 million. At 7 percent
discount rate, the net benefit of the proposed rule would be $0.13
million.
    Comments. NHTSA received several comments on the estimates provided
in the NPRM. A few commenters suggested NHTSA should not conduct a
benefit-cost analysis for a safety focused regulation in the first
place and/or should comply with Vision Zero and make saving human life
a priority over monetary issues. Some others believed that NHTSA's
benefit-cost analysis was fundamentally flawed because, they argued:
safety-related benefits should intrinsically outweigh costs related to
upgrading equipment, NHTSA should not shift the costs of its rule to
the public at the benefit of truckers, or that NHTSA should use costs
only to compare outcomes that involved a rear impact guard not failing
upon collision.
    Agency Response. NHTSA implements its regulatory, enforcement, and
oversight authority provided by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) (Safety Act) to protect all members
of the public. NHTSA's authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is set forth in sections 30111 of the Safety Act. Each safety
standard must be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety,
and be stated in objective terms. When issuing a safety standard, NHTSA
must consider, among other things, relevant motor vehicle safety
information, whether a standard is reasonable, practicable, and
appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment for which it is prescribed, and the extent to which the
standard will carry out section 30101 of the Act.\88\ NHTSA issues its
regulations in accordance with agency and Departmental regulations and
in conformity with Executive orders (E.O.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Section 30101 sets forth the purpose and policy of the
Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safety is of utmost importance, and NHTSA pursues such safety to
the degree possible in accordance with its statutory authority and as
instructed by Executive order. Under the Safety Act, the reasonableness
and practicability of a standard (both technologically and
economically) must be considered. Under E.O. 12866, agencies are
instructed to undertake a benefit-cost analysis to inform its
rulemaking decisions to ensure agency regulations protect and improve
the public's health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves
the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or
unreasonable costs on society. Thus, in response to commenters who urge
us to adopt safety standards without regard to costs, we cannot do so
under the Safety Act and the E.O.
    NHTSA also cannot measure safety-related benefits categorically
differently from costs, as requested by several commenters. Under E.O.
12866, as specified in OMB Circular A-4, agencies must quantify and
value safety impacts to compare them to the costs of the regulation.
Agencies do so by calculating the value of the loss of life using a
metric called the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). The VSL includes
costs such as medical care, reduced income, and the effects fatalities
and injuries may have on family members. NHTSA uses the VSL to
determine the monetary value of reducing fatalities and injuries, which
NHTSA then compares to estimated costs of a regulation. NHTSA cannot
arbitrarily increase the value of benefits outside of this framework.
    Some commenters also raised issues with what they viewed as
specific shortcomings in the PRE's benefit-cost analysis. Some believed
NHTSA did not properly consider all necessary variables in its
analysis. For example, Network stated that NHTSA did not consider new
technology or what it claimed to be the negative consumer choices
fueled by fear to adopt smaller and lighter fuel-efficient vehicles due
to increased crash incompatibility. Mr. Karth believed NHTSA should
consider ``what a parent would pay to protect their children,'' the
``impact upon a family if a bread-winner is injured or lost,'' and
``the medical expenses to care for a severely injured individual.'' Ms.
Karth believed NHTSA's benefit-cost

analysis did not ``take into consideration the circumstances and costs
of the full extent of underride research.''
    NHTSA has prepared a Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) for this
final rule and has placed a copy of the FRE in the docket.\89\ The FRE
for this final rule discusses and explains the agency's final estimates
for the benefits and cost that would result from this rulemaking. The
analysis and findings are not significantly different from those of the
PRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ The FRE may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting
Docket Management at the address or telephone number provided at the
beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that it has properly calculated the applicable
benefits and costs to its rule using the appropriate variables. We
sought to estimate the benefits of the rule by determining the number
of lives and serious injuries it would prevent over the current
situation and then monetize that number using the VSL value. We then
compared these benefits with the cost of the rule, the increased
material and fuel costs that requiring rear impact guard upgrades would
necessitate. These variables encompass the benefits and costs that this
rule would impose. In the absence of sufficient information to quantify
changes in consumer behavior, we do not believe that factoring in
variables such as negative consumer choices resulting from the fear of
underride collisions is appropriate.
    Some comments remarked on what were perceived to be NHTSA's
overestimation of projected costs. Mr. Karth questioned NHTSA's
calculations as being overstated, particularly emphasizing that the
fuel costs NHTSA projected in the PRE did not turn out to be accurate.
The commenter also believed NHTSA's benefit-cost analysis is faulty
because manufacturers have been willing to ``provide a better rear
impact guard even without regulation.'' Ms. Karth commented that
customers have shown they are willing to pay for trailers to be safer,
and manufacturers have shown that they are willing to respond to that
demand and produce safer trailers. Network believed that NHTSA used
outdated costs when analyzing how much an upgraded rear impact guard
would cost. Mr. Brown indicated that the costs of the regulation could
``be distributed to many different people and products.''
    Agency Response. We disagree that we overestimated the costs of the
rule. We determined the incremental cost of installing CMVSS No. 223
compliant guards on all trailers that would need to upgrade to new
guards and the resulting increase in fuel costs such installation would
cause. While commenters pointed to factors they believed NHTSA should
have considered, we do not believe such considerations are appropriate.
For example, Mr. and Ms. Karth suggested that manufacturers have been
willing to provide a better rear impact guard and that consumers have
shown that they are willing to pay more for vehicles to have upgraded
rear impact guards. The fact, however, that some manufacturers and
consumers may be willing to accept increased costs is not relevant to
estimating the increased costs of the guards, which is a factor germane
to an analysis that seeks to quantify the costs of the rule and analyze
societal impacts. Similarly, while Network remarked that NHTSA's
estimates for the value of an upgraded rear impact guard were too high,
it did so by reflecting on what it thought the cost of a guard should
be. NHTSA determined this cost by looking to the average cost of CMVSS
No. 223 compliant guards on the market, which the agency believes
reflects a more realistic and accurate value.
    In response to Mr. Karth's comment regarding NHTSA's estimated fuel
costs from the PRE, NHTSA followed well established procedures to
estimate incremental fuel costs due to increased weight of the rear
impact guards and the most recent information on fuel price. NHTSA
considered the most up-to-date data in developing this final rule,
updated its variables where necessary in the FRE and used the most
current data available to inform this rulemaking.
    Some commentators stated that NHTSA underestimated the benefits of
improved rear impact guards. According to Advocates, NHTSA based its
calculation of the proposed rule's benefits on the agency's belief that
only 26 percent of light vehicle occupant fatal crashes into the rear
of trailers with rear impact guards that resulted in PCI occur at
speeds of 35 mph or less. Advocates believed that using this number
``significantly reduced the agency's estimate of the number of crashes
and occupants that could be aided by the upgrade in rear protection
guards'' because it is based on speed estimates, which Advocates
considers ``notoriously inaccurate.'' TSC similarly commented that
NHTSA derived speed estimates from ``inconsistent, unreliable sources''
and failed to count instances of PCI properly, resulting in NHTSA's
underestimating the benefits of the intended rule.
    Agency Response. NHTSA has analyzed the comments and believes it
has properly calculated the benefits of this rulemaking. The agency
determined the number of fatalities and serious injuries this rule
would prevent by analyzing the supplemented TIFA data from the 2013
UMTRI Study. This data source is the most accurate available to
determine the number of fatalities and serious injuries currently
caused by fatal light vehicle crashes into the rear of trailers with
PCI at speeds of 56 km/h (35 mph) or less--the crashes NHTSA is
targeting in this rule. We have used these data appropriately for
determining the target population and estimating the benefits and in
accordance with OMB Circular A-4 \90\ guidance on the development of
regulatory analysis. NHTSA also notes that, while commenters objected
to using data based on speed estimates and determinations of PCI, they
did not present any alternative data source they believed was more
reliable. The TIFA data have been thoroughly apprised for accuracy and
are the best data available for an analysis of benefits. NHTSA has
concluded the data are sufficient to proceed with quantifying the
benefits of this rulemaking and to proceed to a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Final Regulatory Evaluation
    The estimated benefits and costs of the FRE are along the same
lines as those in the PRE. In the FRE, NHTSA determined that 94 percent
of applicable new trailers are now equipped with rear impact guards
that are compliant with the updated FMVSS No. 223 requirements.
Additionally, NHTSA updated the value of statistical life (VSL) in
accordance with the March 2021 Department of Transportation revised
guidance regarding the treatment of the economic value of a statistical
life in U.S Department of Transportation regulatory analyses (2021
Update).\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ For more information, please see a 2021 Office of the
Secretary memorandum on the ``Guidance on Treatment of the Economic
Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation
Analyses--2021 Update.'' https://www.dot.gov/policy/transportation-policy/economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming 13 percent effectiveness of these guards in fatal crashes
with PCI into the rear of trailers, the agency estimates that about
0.56 (= 72 x (1-0.94) x 0.13) lives would be saved annually by
requiring all applicable trailers to be equipped with CMVSS No. 223
compliant guards. The agency also estimates that a total of 3.5 serious
injuries would be prevented annually with the rear impact guard final
rule. Including fatalities and serious injuries,

the rule would result in an estimated 1.4 equivalent lives saved
annually.
    NHTSA estimates the annual incremental fleet cost of equipping all
applicable trailers with CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards to be $2.1
million based on an average increase in cost of $254.35 per guard. The
annual incremental lifetime fuel cost, based on an average weight
increase of 48.9 pound per vehicle, is estimated to be $5.59 million
and $4.43 million discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
Therefore, the total cost of the final rule, including material and
fuel costs, is $7.69 million discounted at 3 percent and $6.54 million
discounted at 7 percent.
    The agency estimates that the cost per equivalent life saved is
$6.77 million and $7.25 million discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent,
respectively, as shown in Table 5. A summary of the regulatory cost and
net benefit of the final rule at the 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates are presented in Table 6. At 3 percent discount rate, the net
benefit of the final rule is $6.04 million. At 7 percent discount rate,
the net benefit of the final rule is $4.36 million.

                                     Table 5--Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
                                          [In millions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Discount rate                            Undiscounted         3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost......................................................           $9.00           $7.69           $6.54
Equivalent Lives Saved..........................................            1.40            1.14            0.90
Cost per Equivalent Life Saved..................................           $6.42           $6.77           $7.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Table 6--Net Benefits
                                          [In millions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Discount rate                            Undiscounted         3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Benefit...........................................          $16.96          $13.73          $10.90
Total Cost......................................................            9.00            7.69            6.54
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Net Benefit.................................................            7.96            6.04            4.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information regarding the aforementioned cost and
benefit estimates, please reference the FRE that NHTSA placed in the
docket.

VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We have considered the impacts of this final rule under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
administrative rulemaking procedures. This final rule has been
determined to be nonsignificant under E.O. 12866 and was not reviewed
by OMB. We have discussed comments to the PRE and summarized the
estimated costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of this final rule in
the above section of this preamble, and in the FRE. NHTSA estimates
that this final rule will save approximately 1.14 and 0.9 equivalent
lives annually discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The
total cost of the final rule, including material and fuel costs, is
estimated to be $7.69 million discounted at 3 percent and $6.54 million
discounted at 7 percent. The net cost per equivalent lives saved is
$6.77 million and $7.25 million discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent,
respectively. NHTSA's FRE fully discusses the estimated costs,
benefits, and other impacts of this rule.
    Consistent with E.O. 13563, NHTSA is amending FMVSS Nos. 223 and
224 because of retrospectively analyzing the effectiveness of the
standards. NHTSA realized the merits of CMVSS No. 223 in addressing the
same safety need that is the subject of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 and
undertook this rulemaking to adopt upgraded strength and other
requirements of CMVSS No. 223.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
business, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this
certification.
    I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA estimates there
are 354 manufacturers of trailers in the U.S., 331 of which are small
businesses. The impacts of this final rule on small trailer
manufacturers would not be significant. This rule will make changes to
the strength requirements applying to rear impact guards but will not
affect the method by which small trailer manufacturers can certify
compliance with FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224.
    FMVSS No. 223, an equipment standard, specifies strength and energy
absorption requirements in quasi-static force tests of rear impact
guards sold for installation on new trailers and semitrailers. FMVSS
No. 224, a vehicle standard, requires new trailers and semitrailers
with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or more to be equipped with a rear
impact guard meeting FMVSS No. 223. NHTSA established the two-standard
approach to provide underride protection in a manner that imposes
reasonable compliance burdens on small trailer manufacturers.
    Under FMVSS No. 223, the guard may be tested for compliance while
mounted to a test fixture or to a complete trailer. FMVSS No. 224
requires that the guard be mounted on the trailer or semitrailer in
accordance with the instructions provided with the guard by the guard
manufacturer. Under this approach, a small manufacturer that produces
relatively few trailers can certify its trailers to FMVSS No. 224
without feeling compelled to undertake destructive testing of what
could be a substantial portion of its production. The two-standard
approach was devised to provide small manufacturers a

practicable and reasonable means of meeting the safety need served by a
rear impact guard requirement. This final rule does not change the
method of certifying compliance to the rear impact guard requirements
of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule
will not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under chapter 301, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under chapter 301. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding
the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this
end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule and
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum
safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this final rule
will preempt State tort law that would effectively impose a higher
standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this
rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law
would not conflict with the minimum standard in this final rule.
Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a
State common law tort cause of action.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, NHTSA notes as follows: The
preemptive effect of this final rule is discussed above in connection
with Executive Order 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Before
seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must provide a 60-day public
comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and
affected agencies concerning each collection of information
requirement. There are no PRA requirements associated with this final
rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTIAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    This final rule will adopt requirements of CMVSS No. 223. NHTSA's
consideration of CMVSS No. 223 accords with the principles of NTTAA, in
that NHTSA is considering

an established, proven standard, and has not had to expend significant
agency resources on the same safety need addressed by CMVSS No. 223.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). After analyzing the costs of
this final rule, it will not result in expenditures by any of the
aforementioned entities of over $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides
in part that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar
issues. The E.O. states that, in some cases, the differences between
the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. The E.O.
states that, in meeting shared challenges involving health, safety,
labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation, and that international regulatory cooperation can also
reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
    This final rule adopts requirements of CMVSS No. 223 to upgrade
FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. NHTSA recognizes that these requirements are
different from those in the European standard, ECE R.58, ``Rear
underrun protective devices (RUPD); Vehicles with regard to the
installation of an RUPD of an approved vehicle; Vehicles with regard to
their rear underrun protection.'' \92\ R.58 specifies requirements that
are similar to, but less stringent than, the current standards in FMVSS
Nos. 223 and 224. R.58 specifies a quasi-static loading test of 25 kN
at P1, 25 kN at P2, and 100 kN at P3. R.58 also does not specify any
energy absorption requirements. NHTSA has decided to adopt the strength
requirements of CMVSS No. 223 rather than ECE R.58 because the rear
impact protection requirements for trailers in Canada are more
stringent than that in Europe and more appropriate for the underride
crashes experienced in the U.S. Passenger vehicles in the U.S. are
required by FMVSS No. 208 to have frontal air bag protection and comply
with a full frontal 56 km/h (35 mph) rigid barrier crash test by
ensuring that the injury measures of crash test dummies restrained in
front seating positions are within the allowable limits. CMVSS No. 223
is designed to prevent PCI in full frontal 56 km/h (35 mph) crashes.
Together, FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 will significantly
reduce the harm resulting to occupants of passenger vehicles impacting
the rear of trailers in crashes of up to 56 km/h (35 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) R.58, ``Rear underrun
protective devices (RUPDs); Vehicles with regard to the installation
of an RUPD of an approved type; Vehicles with regard to their rear
underrun protection (RUP),'' February 2019, https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2017/R058r3e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plain Language

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

Privacy Act

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

Regulation Identifier Number

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 571.223 is amended by:
0
a. Revising S3;
0
b. Adding definitions of ``Ground clearance'' and ``Load path'' in
alphabetical order in S4;
0
c. Revising S5.2, S5.5(c), S6 introductory text, S6.3, S6.4
introductory text, S6.4(a) introductory text, and S6.4(b) introductory
text;
0
d. Removing S6.4(c);
0
e. Revising S6.5 introductory text and S6.5(a);
0
f. Adding S6.5(c);
0
g. Revising S6.6 introductory text, S6.6(b), and S6.6(c);
0
f. Adding S6.7 through S6.9;
0
g. Revising Figures 1 and 2; and
0
h. Adding Figures 3 and 4.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  571.223  Standard No. 223; Rear impact guards

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to rear impact guards for
trailers and semitrailers subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 224, Rear Impact Protection (Sec.  571.224).
    S4. * * *
    Ground clearance means the vertical distance from the bottom edge
of a horizontal member to the ground.
* * * * *
    Load path means a route of force transmission between the
horizontal member and the chassis.
* * * * *
    S5.2 Strength and Energy Absorption. When tested under the

procedures of S6 of this section, each guard shall comply with the
strength requirements of S5.2.1 of this section at each test location
and the energy absorption requirements of S5.2.2 of this section when a
distributed load is applied uniformly across the horizontal member, as
specified in S6.8 of this section. However, a particular guard (i.e.,
test specimen) need not be tested at more than one location.
    S5.2.1 Guard Strength. The guard must resist the force levels
specified in S5.2.1(a) through (c) of this section without deflecting
by more than 125 mm and without eliminating any load path that existed
before the test was initiated.
    (a) A force of 50,000 N applied in accordance with S6.6 of this
section at test location P1 on either the left or the right side of the
guard as defined in S6.4(a) of this section.
    (b) A force of 50,000 N applied in accordance with S6.6 of this
section at test location P2 as defined in S6.4(b) of this section.
    (c) A uniform distributed force of at least 350,000 N applied
across the horizontal member, as specified in S6.8 of this section and
in accordance with S6.6 of this section.
    S5.2.2 Guard Energy Absorption.
    (a) A guard, other than a hydraulic guard or one installed on a
tanker trailer, when subjected to a uniform distributed load applied in
accordance with S6.6(c) of this section:
    (1) Shall absorb by plastic deformation at least 20,000 J of energy
within the first 125 mm of deflection without eliminating any load path
that existed before the test was initiated; and
    (2) Have a ground clearance not exceeding 560 mm, measured at each
support to which the horizontal member is attached, as shown in Figure
4 of this section, after completion of the load application.
    (b) A guard, other than a hydraulic guard or one installed on a
tanker trailer, that demonstrates resistance to a uniform distributed
load greater than 700,000 N applied in accordance with S6.6(b) of this
section, need not meet the energy absorption requirements of S5.2.2(a)
of this section but must have a ground clearance not exceeding 560 mm
at each vertical support to which the horizontal member is attached
after completion of the 700,000 N load application.
* * * * *
    S5.5 * * *
    (c) An explanation of the method of attaching the guard to the
chassis of each vehicle make and model listed or to the design elements
specified in the instructions or procedures. The principal aspects of
vehicle chassis configuration that are necessary to the proper
functioning of the guard shall be specified including the maximum
allowable vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal
member of the guard and the ground to ensure post-test ground clearance
requirements are met. If the chassis strength is inadequate for the
guard design, the instructions or procedures shall specify methods for
adequately reinforcing the vehicle chassis. Procedures for properly
installing any guard attachment hardware shall be provided.
    S6. Guard Test Procedures. The procedures for determining
compliance with S5.2 of this section are specified in S6.1 through S6.9
of this section.
* * * * *
    S6.3 Point Load Force Application Device. The force application
device employed in S6.6 of this section consists of a rectangular solid
made of rigid steel. The steel solid is 203 mm in height, 203 mm in
width, and 25 mm in thickness. The 203 mm by 203 mm face of the block
is used as the contact surface for application of the forces specified
in S5.2.1(a) and (b) of this section. Each edge of the contact surface
of the block has a radius of curvature of 5 mm plus or minus 1 mm.
    S6.4 Point Load Test Locations. With the guard mounted to the rigid
test fixture or to a complete trailer, determine the test locations P1
and P2 in accordance with the procedure set forth in S6.4(a) and (b) of
this section. See Figure 1 of this section.
    (a) Point Load Test location P1 is the point on the rearmost
surface of the horizontal member of the guard that:
* * * * *
    (b) Point Load Test location P2 is the point on the rearmost
surface of the horizontal member of the guard that:
* * * * *
    S6.5 Positioning of Force Application Device. Before applying any
force to the guard, locate the force application device specified in
S6.3 of this section for the point load test location and that
specified in S6.7 of this section for the uniform distributed load test
location, such that:
    (a) The center point of the contact surface of the force
application device is aligned with and touching the guard test
location, as defined by the specifications of S6.4 of this section for
the point load test locations, and S6.8 of this section for the uniform
distributed load test location.
* * * * *
    (c) If the guard is tested on a rigid test fixture, the vertical
distance from the bottom edge of the horizontal member to the ground at
the location of each support to which the horizontal member is
attached, shall be measured.
    S6.6 Force Application. After the force application device has been
positioned according to S6.5 of this section, at the point load test
locations specified in S6.4 of this section or the uniform distributed
load test location specified in S6.8 of this section, apply the loads
specified in S5.2 of this section. Load application procedures are
specified in S6.6(a) through (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) If conducting a strength test to satisfy the requirement of
S5.2.1 or S5.2.2(b) of this section, the force is applied until the
forces specified in S5.2.1 or S5.2.2(b) of this section have been
exceeded, or until the displacement of the force application device has
reached at least 125 mm whichever occurs first.
    (c) If conducting a test to be used for the calculation of energy
absorption levels to satisfy the requirement of S5.2.2(a) of this
section, apply a uniform distributed force to the guard until
displacement of the force application device, specified in S6.7 of this
section, has reached 125 mm. For calculation of guard energy
absorption, the value of force is recorded at least ten times per 25 mm
of displacement of the contact surface of the loading device. Reduce
the force until the guard no longer offers resistance to the force
application device. Produce a force vs. deflection diagram of the type
shown in Figure 2 of this section using this information. Determine the
energy absorbed by the guard by calculating the shaded area bounded by
the curve in the force vs. deflection diagram and the abscissa (X-
axis).
* * * * *
    S6.7 Uniform Distributed Load Force Application Device. The force
application device to be employed in applying the uniform distributed
load is to be unyielding, have a height of 203 mm, and have a width
that exceeds the distance between the outside edges of the outermost
supports to which the tested portion of the horizontal member is
attached, as shown in Figure 3 of this section.
    S6.8 Uniform Distributed Load Test Location. With the guard mounted
to the rigid test fixture or to a complete trailer, determine the test
location in accordance with the following procedure. See Figure 3 of
this section. Distributed Force Test location is the plane on the
rearmost surface of the horizontal member of the guard that:

    (a) Is centered in the longitudinal vertical plane passing through
the center of the guard's horizontal member; and
    (b) Is centered 50 mm above the bottom of the guard.
    S6.9 Ground Clearance Measurement.
    (a) For the test device attached to a complete trailer as specified
in S6.2 of this section, the ground clearance of the guard at the
vertical supports to which the horizontal member is attached shall be
measured after completion of the uniform distributed load test in
accordance with S6.6(b) or S6.6(c) of this section.
    (b) For the test device attached to a rigid test fixture as
specified in S6.2 of this section, the vertical distance from the
ground to the bottom edge of the horizontal member at the vertical
supports to which the horizontal member is attached shall be measured
after completion of the uniform distributed load test in accordance
with S6.6(b) or S6.6(c) of this section and subtracted from the
corresponding ground clearance measured before the load application in
accordance with S6.5(c) of this section. The difference in ground
clearance before and after the load application is added to the
allowable maximum vertical distance between the bottom edge of the
horizontal member of the guard and the ground as specified in S5.5(c)
of this section, to obtain the ground clearance after completion of the
uniform distributed load test.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY22.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY22.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY22.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY22.006

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
0
3. Section 571.224 is amended by revising the second sentence in S3 and
the definition of ``Rear extremity'' in S4 to read as follows:

Sec.  571.224  Standard No. 224; Rear impact protection.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. * * * The standard does not apply to pole
trailers, pulpwood trailers, low chassis vehicles, road construction
controlled horizontal discharge trailers, special purpose vehicles,
wheels back vehicles, or temporary living quarters as defined in 49 CFR
523.2. * * *
    S4. * * *
    Rear extremity means the rearmost point on a trailer that is above
a horizontal plane located above the ground clearance and below a
horizontal plane located 1,900 mm above the ground when the trailer is
configured as specified in S5.1 of this

section and when the trailer's cargo doors, tailgate and other
permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the
trailer is in motion, with non-structural protrusions excluded from the
determination of the rearmost point, such as:
    (1) Tail lamps;
    (2) Rubber bumpers;
    (3) Hinges and latches; and
    (4) Flexible aerodynamic devices capable of being folded to within
305 mm from the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear most
surface of the horizontal member for vertical heights below 1,740 mm
above ground and, when positioned as they normally are when the trailer
is in motion, are located forward of the transverse plane that is
tangent to the rear bottom edge of the horizontal member and
intersecting a point located 1,210 mm rearward of the horizontal member
and 1,740 mm above the ground.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-14330 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P