[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68937-68939]
[DOCID:fr06de07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56856; File No. SR-OCC-2007-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Delayed Start Options

November 28, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 9, 2007, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described
in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily
by OCC. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit
comments from interested persons and to grant approval of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would permit OCC to clear and settle
delayed start options (``DSOs'') by the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'').

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change--Purpose of Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to accommodate the
introduction of DSOs by the CBOE. Initially CBOE proposes to list DSOs
only on indexes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ File No. SR-CBOE-2007-26. The Commission recently issued an
order granting approval of SR-CBOE-2007-26 that allows CBOE to list
and trade DSOs. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56855 (November
28, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Product
    As described by CBOE, a DSO is identical to existing standardized
options with one exception: at the commencement of trading in a series,
DSOs of that series will not have a set exercise price. Instead, a DSO
will commence trading with a preestablished formula that the listing
exchange will use to fix the exercise price for the DSO on a specified
date prior to the DSO's expiration date (``exercise price setting
date''). The CBOE is currently proposing that an ``at-the-money'' DSO
on an index will be assigned an exercise price equal to the closing
value of the underlying index on the exercise price setting date,
rounded to the increment established by CBOE at the time the DSO
commences trading. CBOE has also indicated that it may introduce in- or
out-of-the-money DSOs. Those DSOs would, according to CBOE, have the
same terms as at-the-money DSOs except that the exercise price would be
set at a specified percentage either in- or out-of-the-money on the
exercise price setting date (e.g., 5% in-the-money or 5% out-of-the-
money).
    The listing exchange will specify the exercise price setting date
prior to the opening of each series of DSOs. According to CBOE, the
exercise price setting date for each series of DSOs traded on CBOE will
initially be three months prior to the DSO's expiration date. In other
words, each series of DSOs will trade without an exercise price until
three months prior to expiration. From the exercise price setting date
forward, all options terms will be fixed, and DSOs will be fungible
with any other option on the same underlying interest having the same
terms such as exercise price, expiration date, etc. An exchange may
determine to issue series of DSOs with more or less than three months
between the exercise price setting date and the expiration date.
    A DSO will not have an exercise price until the exercise price
setting date, and it will not be exerciseable until after that date.
Thus, an ``American-style'' DSO would be exerciseable only between the
exercise price setting date and the expiration date. A ``European-
style'' DSO, like any other European-style option, would be exercised
only on or near the expiration date.
Proposed Changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules
    In order to issue and clear DSOs, OCC needs to make several
definitional changes in its By-Laws. A definition of DSO would be added
to Article I of the By-Laws. OCC is also proposing to

amend the existing definition of ``American-style'' in Article I of its
By-Laws to make clear that unlike other American-style options, DSOs
could not be exercised beginning at the commencement time for the
options. Instead, American-style DSOs could only be exercised after
their exercise price is set. Additionally, OCC proposes to amend the
existing definition of ``series'' to provide that DSOs with the same
expiration date, unit of trading, exercise price setting date, and
exercise price setting formula will comprise the same series until
their exercise price is set. At that point DSOs with the same
expiration date, unit of trading and exercise price will, like other
options, comprise the same series. Similarly, OCC is proposing to amend
the existing definition of ``variable terms'' in Article I because DSOs
will not have an exercise price as one of their variable terms until
their exercise price setting date. Instead, DSOs will have both an
exercise price setting date and an exercise price setting formula as
variable terms until that time. OCC is proposing to add two definitions
to Article I as well. Both ``exercise price setting date'' and
``exercise price setting formula'' are needed to reflect the fact that
DSOs will not have an exercise price when they begin trading and to
describe when and how an exercise price will be fixed by the listing
exchange.
    OCC proposes amending Article VI of its By-Laws to clarify that an
exchange listing DSOs need not set the exercise price for such options
at the time each series is opened for trading but instead must set the
exercise price setting date and the exercise price setting formula, and
that an American-style DSO may not be exercised until after its
exercise price has been set. The proposed amendment to the definition
of ``series of options'' in Article XVII is similar to the amendment to
the definition of ``series'' in Article I and like that amendment is to
clarify that DSOs with the same expiration date, unit of trading,
exercise price setting date, and exercise price setting formula will
comprise the same series until their exercise price is set. The
amendments to Article XVII, Section 2(a) and to Rule 1802(a), like the
changes to the definition of ``American-style'' in Article I and in
Article VI, would prohibit holders of American-style DSOs from
exercising until the exercise price is set.
    Proposed amendments to Rule 401(a)(1) are to permit matched trade
reports for DSOs to contain the exercise price setting date and
exercise price setting formula rather than an exercise price until the
exercise price is set.
    The proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules are consistent with
the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act, as amended,
because they are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of transactions in DSOs, which are a new product
designed to allow customers to manage risk associated with the
volitility of an underlying interest. DSOs are very similar to existing
options currently cleared by OCC and would be governed by substantially
the same rules and procedures to which existing options are subject.
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of
OCC, including rules proposed to be amended.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\4\ The
purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend OCC's By-Laws and Rules
so that OCC may clear and settle DSOs. Accordingly, after careful
review the Commission finds that the proposed rule change meets the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act because the proposed
rule change should result in the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, specifically transactions in
DSOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has requested that the Commission approve the proposed rule
prior to the thirtieth day after publication of the notice of filing.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the thirtieth day after publication of notice because such
approval will allow CBOE to commence trading of DSOs without any
unnecessary delay.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OCC-2007-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2007-13. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/sr_occ_07_13.pdf.
 All comments received will be posted without change;

the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-
2007-13 and should be submitted on or before December 27, 2007.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2007-13) be and hereby
is approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23610 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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 proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA
estimates there to be 354 manufacturers of trailers in the U.S., 331 of
which are small businesses. The impacts of this proposed rule on small
trailer manufacturers would not be significant. This NPRM proposes
changes to the strength requirements applying to underride guards, but
would not be amending 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 an underride
guard requirement. This NPRM does not propose changing the method of
certifying compliance to the underride guard requirements of FMVSS Nos.
223 and 224.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed 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 proposed
rule would 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 this chapter, 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 this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
Sec.  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. Sec.  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 Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed 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
today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many
NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such,
NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort
law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers than that established by today's proposed rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict,
there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort
cause of action.

Civil Justice Reform

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a

petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding
before they may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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
Paperwork Reduction Act requirements associated with this proposed
rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (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 NPRM proposes to adopt requirements of CMVSS No. 223, as
discussed later in this section. 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),
Pub. L. 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). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2013
results in $142 million (106.733/75.324 = 1.42). This NPRM would not
result in a cost of $142 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this
NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

    The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part:
    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues.
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. 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. International regulatory cooperation can
also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in
regulatory requirements.
    This rulemaking is considering adopting requirements of CMVSS No.
223 to upgrade FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. In 2005, Transport Canada issued
upgraded rear impact protection requirements for trailers and
semitrailers. Given that passenger car models manufactured in 2005 and
later in Canada are required to provide adequate occupant protection to
restrained occupants in 56 km/h (35 mph) full frontal rigid barrier
crashes, Transport Canada requires rear impact guards to provide
sufficient strength and energy absorption to prevent PCI of compact and
subcompact passenger cars impacting the rear of trailers at 56 km/h (35
mph). FMVSS No. 208 has similar occupant protection requirements as
those applicable in Canada. NHTSA believes that the FMVSS Nos. 223 and
224 requirements can be upgraded to that required by CMVSS No. 223's
upgraded requirements for the same principles underlying the CMVSS No.
223 upgrade.
    CMVSS No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,'' is applicable to trailers
and semitrailers and has similar geometric specifications for rear
impact guards as FMVSS No. 224. CMVSS No. 223 specifies quasi-static
loading tests similar to those in FMVSS No. 223. However, CMVSS No. 223
replaced the 100,000 N quasi-static point load test at the P3 location
in FMVSS No. 223 with a 350,000 N uniform distributed load test on the
horizontal member.\65\ The guard is required to withstand this load and
absorb at least 20,000 J of energy within 125 mm of deflection, and
have a ground clearance after the test not exceeding 560 mm (22
inches). Similar to FMVSS No. 223, CMVSS No. 223 permits testing the
rear impact guard when attached, per manufacturer's instructions, to a
rigid test fixture or to a complete trailer. These requirements ensure
that compact and subcompact passenger cars would not have PCI when
rear-ending a CMVSS No. 223 compliant trailer at 56 km/h (35 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The load is applied uniformly across the horizontal member
by a uniform load application structure with length that exceeds the
distance between the outside edges of the vertical support of the
horizontal member and which is centered on the horizontal member of
the guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 13 presents a comparison of rear impact protection
requirements for trailers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

      Table 13--Comparison of Rear Impact Protection Requirements for Trailers in U.S., Canada, and Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Requirement                         U.S.                    Canada                   Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable standards.................  FMVSS No. 223/224......  CMVSS No. 223..........  ECE R.58.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Geometric requirements in unloaded condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground clearance.....................  560 mm.................  560 mm.................  550 mm.
Longitudinal distance from rear        305 mm.................  305 mm.................
 extremity.

Lateral distance from side of vehicle  100 mm.................  100 mm.................  100 mm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Quasi-static load tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point load at P1 (outer edge of        50 kN..................  50 kN..................  25 kN.
 guard).
Point load at P2 (center of guard)...  50 kN..................  50 kN..................  25 kN.
Point load at P3 (at the guard         100 kN with no more                               100 kN with distance of
 supports).                             than 125 mm                                       rear impact guard from
                                        displacement, 5,650 J                             vehicle rear extremity
                                        energy absorption.                                of 400 mm after test.
Distributed load.....................                           350 kN with no more
                                                                 than 125 mm
                                                                 displacement and
                                                                 20,000 J energy
                                                                 absorption; guard
                                                                 ground clearance less
                                                                 than 560 mm after test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,'' specifies rear impact protection requirements for
trailers weighing more than 3,500 kg (7,716 lb). The dimensional and
strength requirements for rear impact guards in ECE R.58 are similar to
but less stringent than those specified in FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. ECE
R.58 specifies that both during and after the quasi-static force
application test, the horizontal distance between the rear of the rear
impact guard and the rear extremity of the vehicle not be greater than
400 mm. However, ECE R.58 does not specify any energy absorption
requirements.
    NHTSA has decided to propose 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 would 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).

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.

X. Public Participation

    In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this proposed
rule. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule, 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 proposal 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 proposal,
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory
sections.
     Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with
your comments.
    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 Sec.
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
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 above under
DATES. 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 a final rule (assuming that
one is issued), 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 above under ADDRESSES. 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). See Privacy Act
heading above under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as set forth below.

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. Amending S4 by adding a definition of ``ground clearance,'' in
alphabetical order;
0
c. Revising S5.2; S5.5(c); the introductory text of S6; the last
sentence of S6.1; S6.3; the introductory texts of S6.4, S6.4(a), and
S6.4(b);
0
d. Removing S6.4(c);
0
e. Revising S6.5 and S6.6;
0
f. Adding S6.7 through S6.9; and,
0
g. Revising Figures 1 and 2, and adding Figures 3 and 4.
    The added and amended text and figures 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.
* * * * *
    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 S6.6 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 complete separation of any portion of
the guard and guard attachments from its mounting structure.
    (a) A force of 50,000 N applied in accordance with S6.8 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 S6.8 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 S6.6 and in accordance
with S6.8.
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 S6.8(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 complete separation of
any portion of the guard and guard attachments from its mounting
structure; 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, 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 S6.8(b) of this
section, need not meet the energy absorption requirements of S5.2.2(a)
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.
    S6.1 * * * The hydraulic units are compressed before the
application of force to the guard in accordance with S6.8 of this
section and maintained in this condition throughout the testing under
S6.8 of this section.
* * * * *
    S6.3 Point Load Force Application Device. The force application
device employed in S6.8 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 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 2.
    S6.6 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 2 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.
    S6.7 Positioning of Force Application Device. Before applying any
force to the guard, locate the force application device specified in
S6.3 for the point load test location and that specified in S6.5 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 S6.6 of this section for the uniform
distributed load test location.
    (b) The longitudinal axis of the force application device passes
through the test location and is perpendicular to the transverse
vertical plane that is tangent to the rearmost surface of the guard's
horizontal member.
    (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.
    S6.8 Force Application. After the force application device has been
positioned, according to S6.7 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 S6.6 of this section, apply the loads
specified in S5.2 of this section. Load application procedures are
specified in S6.8 (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) Using the force application device, apply force to the guard in
a forward direction such that the displacement rate of the force
application device is the rate, plus or minus 10 percent, designated by
the guard manufacturer within the range of 2.0 cm per minute to 9.0 cm
per minute. If the guard manufacturer does not designate a rate, any
rate within that range may be chosen.
    (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 S6.5 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 3 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).
    (d) During each force application, the force application device is
guided so that it does not rotate. At all times during the application
of force, the location of the longitudinal axis of the force
application device remains constant.
S6.9 Ground Clearance Measurement
    (a) For the test device attached to a complete trailer as specified
in S6.2, 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
S6.8(b) or S6.8(c) of this section.
    (b) For the test device attached to a rigid test fixture as
specified in S6.2, 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 S6.8(b) or S6.8(c) of
this section and subtracted from the corresponding ground clearance
measured before the load application in accordance with S6.7(c). 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), to obtain the ground clearance after completion of the
uniform distributed load test.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.024

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
0
3. Section 571.224 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the second sentence in S3; and;
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Rear extremity'' in S4.
    The revised text reads 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 vehicle, road construction
controlled horizontal discharge trailers, special purpose vehicles,
wheels back vehicles, or temporary living quarters as defined in 49 CFR
529.2.
* * * * *
    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 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:
    (a) Tail lamps,
    (b) Rubber bumpers,
    (c) Hinges and latches, and
    (d) 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, while 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.
* * * * *

XI. Appendix A to Preamble: 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,\66\
and published the final report in March 2013. The reports analyze 2008-
2009 data collected as a supplement to UMTRI's TIFA survey.\67\ 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 FARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Truck Crashes, DOT HS
811 652, August 2012. Also available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashworthiness/Truck%20Underride, last accessed on March
6, 2015.
    \67\ 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 March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 67 percent, SUTs for 29 percent, tractors alone
for 1.5 percent, and unknown for the remaining 2.5 percent.\68\ About
489 SUTs and trailers are struck in the rear in fatal crashes,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ ``Bobtail'' and ``tractor/other'' configurations were
combined into the ``tractors'' category and ``tractor/trailer'' and
``straight trucks with trailer'' were combined into the ``trailers''
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence of Rear Impact Guard on Trailers and SUTs
    UMTRI evaluated 2008 and 2009 TIFA data regarding the rear geometry
of all 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), ``FMCSA
393.86(b)'') (regarding SUTs).\69\ Based on this evaluation, UMTRI
estimated that 65 percent of trailers had to have a rear impact guard
per FMVSS No. 224 (Table A-1). Among the 35 percent of trailers that
did not have a guard because they were excluded from FMVSS No. 224, 26
percent were wheels back trailers,\70\ 2 percent were low chassis
vehicles,\71\ 1 percent had equipment in the rear, and 6 percent were
excluded vehicles because of type of cargo or operation. 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 (Table A-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,\72\ 9 percent were low
chassis SUTs,\73\ 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 A-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 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.
    \70\ Wheels back trailers, defined in FMVSS No. 224, is a
trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and
is located such that the rearmost surface of tires is not more than
305 mm forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle.
    \71\ Low chassis trailers are defined in FMVSS No. 224, and are
trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the
rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that
meets the configuration (width, height, and location) requirements
for an underride guard.
    \72\ 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 the tires is not more than 610 mm forward of the
rear extremity of the vehicle.
    \73\ 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 A-1--Percentage of Trailers and SUTs by Their Rear Geometry and
Whether a Rear Impact Guard Was Required According to UMTRI's Evaluation
  of SUTs and Trailers Involved in Fatal Crashes in the 2008-2009 TIFA
                               Data Files
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Percentage of      Percentage of
       Type of rear geometry             trailers             SUTs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear Impact Guard Required
    Guard present.................                 65                 18
    Guard not present.............                  0                 20
Rear Impact Guard Not Required
    Excluded vehicle..............                  6                  8
    Wheels back vehicle...........                 26                 27
    Low chassis vehicle...........                  2                  9
    Wheels back and low chassis                     0                  2
     vehicle......................
    Equipment.....................                  1                 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the data presented in Table A-1 takes into consideration all
SUTs and trailers involved in all types of fatal crashes in 2008 and
2009 (total of 2,159 trucks and 5,231 trailers), we make the assumption
that the percentage of SUTs and trailers with and without rear impact
guards in Table A-1 is representative of that in the SUT and trailer
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,\74\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 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
Trailers and 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 trailers
and SUTs 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 A-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 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.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.025

    Fatal light vehicle crashes into the rear of trailers and trucks
were further examined by the type of trailer and truck struck and
whether a guard was required (according to FMVSS No. 224 for trailers
and FMCSR 393.86(b) for SUTs) (Figure A-2 and Figure A-3).
    Among the 319 annual fatal light vehicle crashes into the rear of
trailers and SUTs, 23 (7 percent) are into SUTs with guards, 79 (25
percent) are into SUTs without guards, 115 (36 percent) are into
trailers with guards, 44 (14 percent) into wheels back trailers, 15 (5
percent) into exempt trailers (due to equipment in rear, type of
operation, low bed), and 43 (13 percent) are other types of trucks
(Figure A-2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.026

    Among these light vehicle fatal crashes annually, 121 result in
PCI, among which 62 (51 percent) occur in impacts with trailers with
guards, 23 (19 percent) in impacts with SUTs without guards, 8 (7
percent) in impacts with SUTs with guards, 7 (6 percent) in impacts
with wheels back trailers, 4 (3 percent) with excluded trailers (by
type of cargo or operation), and 17 (14

percent) in impacts with other truck/trailer type (Figure A-3).\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 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] TP16DE15.027

    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 Trailers
and SUTs

    Using information derived by reviewing police crash reports,\77\
UMTRI estimated the relative speed of fatal light vehicle crashes into
the rear of SUTs and trailers. Relative velocity

was computed as the resultant of the difference in the trailer (truck)
velocity and the striking vehicle velocity and could only be estimated
for about 30 percent of light vehicle fatal crashes into the rear of
trailers and SUTs. 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
trailers that resulted in PCI, 74 percent were with relative velocity
greater than 56 km/h (35 mph) (Figure A-4). Among the remaining 26
percent fatal light vehicle impacts into the rear of trailers, 21
percent were trailers with guards and 5 percent were trailers excluded
from FMVSS No. 224 requirements. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 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] TP16DE15.028

Fatalities Associated With Light Vehicle Crashes Into the Rear of
Trailers and SUTs

    There are about 362 light vehicle occupant fatalities annually due
to impacts into the rear of trailers and SUTs. Of these fatalities, 191
(53 percent) are in impacts with trailers, 104 (29 percent) are in
impacts with SUTs, and 67 (18 percent) are impacts with an unknown
truck type (Figure 5).
    Among the 191 light vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from
impacts with the rear of trailers, 125 occurred in impacts with
trailers with rear impact guards while the remaining 66 were in impacts
to trailers without guards (trailers excluded from a requirement to
have a rear impact guard). PCI was associated with 86 annual light
vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from impacts into the rear of
trailers; 72 of these fatalities were in impacts with trailers with
rear impact guards and 14 with trailers without guards (see Figure A-
5).
    Among the 104 light vehicle occupant fatalities resulting from
impacts with the rear of SUTs, 80 occurred in impacts with SUTs without
rear impact guards while the remaining 24 were in impacts to SUTs with
guards. PCI was associated with 33 annual light vehicle occupant
fatalities resulting from impacts into the rear of SUTs; 25 of these
fatalities were in impacts with SUTs without rear impact guards and 8
with SUTs with guards (see Figure A-5).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.029

    Among light vehicle occupant fatalities in impacts into the rear of
trailers and SUTs, approximately 60 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 in non-PCI crashes into the rear of trailers and SUTs
occurred due to occupants being unrestrained, other occupant
characteristics (e.g. age), and other crash circumstances.
Additionally, as shown in Figure A-4, 26 percent and 30 percent of
light vehicle impacts with PCI into the rear of trailers and SUTs,
respectively, 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.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Some of the fatalities associated with PCI may also be due
to unrestrained status of the occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Appendix B to Preamble: Summary of IIHS's Evaluation of Rear
Impact Guards

    In 2010, IIHS completed a review of the Large Truck Crash Causation
Study (LTCCS) \79\ database to evaluate fatal crashes of vehicles into
the rear of heavy vehicles.\80\ IIHS reviewed 115 LTCCS

cases of vehicle underride into the rear of heavy vehicles and
documented the presence and type of underride guard and performance of
the guard in mitigating underride. Among the 115 cases reviewed, nearly
half of the passenger vehicles had underride classified as severe or
catastrophic. IIHS noted that for the cases involving trailers with
rear impact guards, guard deformation or complete failure of the guard
was frequent and commonly due to weak attachments, buckling of the
trailer chassis, and bending of the lateral end of the guard under low
overlap loading. IIHS stated that 57 percent of the heavy vehicles in
the 115 LTCCS cases were excluded from FMVSS No. 224 requirements by
the standard, among which a large proportion were wheels back vehicles
and single unit trucks (SUTs) such as dump trucks. IIHS was not able to
estimate the crash speeds in its review of the LTCCS cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Supra.
    \80\ Brumbelow, M.L., Blanar, L., ``Evaluation of US Rear
Underride Guard Regulation for Large Trucks Using Real World
Crashes.'' Proceedings of the 54th Stapp Car Crash Conference, 119-
31, 2010. Warrendale, PA, SAE International.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the review, in 2011, IIHS conducted an initial round of
crash tests in which the front of a model year (MY) 2010 Chevrolet
Malibu (a midsize sedan) impacted the rear of trailers equipped with an
underride guard.\81\ A 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy (HIII 50M)
was in each of the front outboard seating positions of the Malibu.
Three trailer/guard designs (2007 Hyundai, 2007 Vanguard, and 2011
Wabash trailers) were evaluated in various conditions. Each guard
design was certified to FMVSS No. 223 requirements, and two (Vanguard
and Wabash) also met the more stringent CMVSS No. 223 requirements. A
2010 Chevrolet Malibu was first crashed into a trailer at 56 km/h (35
mph) with full overlap (the overlap refers to the portion of the
Malibu's width overlapping the underride guard). If the rear impact
guard of a trailer model was successful in preventing passenger
compartment intrusion in the full overlap crash test, a new Malibu was
crashed into a new trailer of the same model with 50 percent overlap of
the Malibu. If the rear impact guard was successful in preventing PCI
in this case as well, a third test was performed with only 30 percent
overlap of the Malibu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 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. Last accessed on April 2, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test results showed that the full overlap 56 km/h (35 mph)
crash test of the Malibu with the guard of the Hyundai trailer (built
to only FMVSS No. 223 requirements) resulted in catastrophic underride
with PCI of the Chevrolet Malibu. The guard on the Vanguard trailer
that complied with the upgraded CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guard
requirements could not prevent PCI in a 56 km/h (35 mph) crash test
with 50 percent overlap of the Malibu because the attachments of the
guard to the trailer failed. The rear impact guard on the Wabash
trailer, also certified to meet CMVSS No. 223 requirements, prevented
PCI in 35 mph crash tests with full and 50 percent overlap of the
Malibu, but could not prevent PCI in the crash test with 30 percent
overlap.

Quasi-Static Load Testing of Rear Impact Guards

    To compare the static performance of the guards, IIHS conducted
quasi-static load tests using a 203 mm square force application device
(similar to that specified in FMVSS No. 223) at P1 and P3 locations of
the horizontal member of the rear impact guards on the Hyundai,
Vanguard and Wabash trailers. The load was applied at a rate of 1.3 mm/
sec until the force application device displaced 125 mm. Figure B-1
below shows the force-displacement curves for all three guards in the
quasi-static test at the P3 location.
    Deformation patterns of the underride guards varied substantially
in the quasi-static tests. In the test at P3 location on the Hyundai
guard, a peak force of 163,000 N was achieved and then the vertical
support member of the Hyundai guard was pulled slowly from some of the
bolts attaching it to the fixture, whereas the vertical member itself
deformed only minimally. In the test at P3 of the Vanguard guard, the
vertical member flexed for the first 50 mm of loading achieving a peak
load of 257,000 N and then the attachment bolts began to shear, causing
the measured force to drop below that measured for the Hyundai later in
the test. The Wabash guard reached its peak force of 287,000 N
earliest, and then the vertical member began buckling near its
attachment to the horizontal member. As the buckling continued, the
rear surface of the guard eventually bottomed out against the diagonal
gusset, causing the load to increase again late in the test. The
Hyundai rear impact guard absorbed 13,900 J of energy, the Vanguard
guard absorbed 14,000 J of energy, and the Wabash guard absorbed 22,100
J of energy in the P3 point-load tests.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.030

    Table B-1 summarizes the results of the initial five IIHS 56 km/h
(35 mph) crash tests. In the first test, the 2007 Hyundai guard was
ripped from the trailer's rear cross member early in the crash,
allowing the Malibu to underride the trailer almost to the B-pillar.
The heads of both dummies were struck by the hood of the Malibu as it
deformed against the rear surface of the trailer. Under the same test
conditions, the main horizontal member of the 2011 Wabash guard bent
forward in the center but remained attached to the vertical support
members, which showed no signs of separating from the trailer chassis.

  Table B-1--Results of IIHS Initial Round of 56 km/h Crash Tests of the 2010 Chevrolet Malibu Into the Rear of
                                                    Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Max.
                                                                                longitudinal A-
            Conditions                   Trailer         Guard performance        Underride           pillar
                                                                                deformation
                                                                                (cm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% overlap.....................  2007 Hyundai.......  Attachments failed.  Catastrophic.......              80
                                   2011 Wabash........  Good...............  None...............               0
50% overlap......................  2007 Vanguard......  Attachments failed.  Severe.............              27
                                   2011 Wabash........  End bent forward...  None...............               6
30% overlap......................  2011 Wabash........  End bent forward...  Catastrophic.......              87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table B-2 summarizes the peak injury measures \82\ of the HIII 50M
dummies in the front seating positions of the Malibu. For comparison
purposes, Table B-2 also presents the HIII 50M dummy injury measures in
the full frontal 56 km/h rigid barrier crash test of the 2010 Chevrolet
Malibu conducted as part of NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Head injury measures recorded by the dummies in the tests with severe
underride were much higher than those reported for the Malibu's NCAP
rigid wall test at the same speed. Chest acceleration and deflection
measures were generally higher in tests without PCI than those with
PCI.\83\ The frontal air bag deployed in the 100, 50, and 30 percent
overlap crash tests of the Malibu into the rear of the Wabash trailer.
The driver and passenger injury measures in the Malibu full width crash
test with the Wabash trailer (where the guard prevented PCI) was
similar to the injury measures in the Malibu NCAP frontal crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ HIII 50M dummy injury measures are those applicable to
current model passenger vehicles as specified in FMVSS No. 208, see
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=77e2aab5d088f2e9b46d15606090f9b0&node=se49.6.571_1208&rgn=div8.
    \83\ When PCI was prevented by the rear impact guard, the
accelerations on the vehicle are higher which results in higher
chest injury measures.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.031

    Following the preliminary crash tests in 2011, IIHS conducted
similar crash tests of a 2010 Chevrolet Malibu sedan with eight
additional 2012 and 2013 model year trailers from various
manufacturers, including newly redesigned Hyundai and Vanguard models.
All guards in this round of testing were not only certified as
complying with FMVSS No. 223 but were also certified as complying with
CMVSS No. 223.
    Table B-3 presents certification data from trailer manufacturers
showing compliance with CMVSS No. 223. Only one trailer manufacturer
utilized an option in CMVSS No. 223 to test using half the guard with a
point load force application of 175,000 N at P3, while the other rear
impact guards were certified with the uniform distributed quasi-static
load application of 350,000 N on the full guard. All the rear impact
guards tested also complied with the CMVSS requirement that the ground
clearance of the guard after the test not exceed 560 mm.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.032

    The ground clearance of the bumper (vertical distance of the bottom
of the bumper from the ground) of the 2010 Chevrolet Malibu is 403 mm
and the vertical height of the bumper is 124 mm. Therefore, the Malibu
bumper is located at a vertical height between 403 mm and 527 mm above
the ground with its centerline located 465 mm above ground. The
vertical height of the top of the engine block from the ground is 835
mm. The ground clearance of the horizontal member of each rear impact
guard ranged between 400 mm and 498 mm (Table B-4).

                Table B-4--Trailer Guard Ground Clearance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Guard
                                                                ground
                           Trailer                             clearance
                                                                 (mm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Wabash.................................................         445
2012 Manac..................................................         498
2012 Stoughton..............................................         477
2013 Great Dane.............................................         400

2012-2013 Hyundai...........................................         409
2013 Strick.................................................         413
2013 Utility................................................         455
2013 Vanguard...............................................         452
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table B-5, Table B-6, and Table B-7 present the extent of
underride, deformation of the Malibu, performance of the guard, and
whether there was PCI in the 56 km/h (35 mph) frontal impact crash
tests of the Malibu into the rear of trailers with full overlap, 50
percent overlap, and 30 percent overlap of the Malibu, respectively.
    All the rear impact guards on the trailers that were compliant with
CMVSS No. 223 were able to prevent passenger compartment intrusion in
full overlap crashes. In the tests with 50 percent overlap of the
Malibu, all the guards except the 2013 Vanguard was able to prevent
PCI. The Vanguard rear impact guard failed at the attachments where the
bolts sheared off during the crash resulting in PCI of the Malibu. All
the rear impact guards tested except the 2012 Manac guard were not able
to prevent PCI in the 30 percent offset crash tests of the Malibu.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.034

    Table Table B-8 presents the injury measures of crash test dummies
(HIII-50M) in the driver and front passenger seating positions in 56
km/h (35 mph) crash tests conducted by IIHS with 100 percent overlap of
the 2010 Malibu with rear impact guard.
    Table B-9 and Table B-10 present the injury measures for the HIII-
50M in the driver position in 56 km/h (35 mph) crash tests with 50
percent and 30 percent overlap of the 2010 Malibu with the rear impact
guard, respectively.
    The frontal air bags deployed in all the 100 percent and 50 percent
overlap crash tests of the Malibu into the rear of 2011-2013 model year
trailers. The air bag deployed in the 30 percent overlap crash tests of
the Malibu into the rear of 2011-2013 model year trailers except for
the tests into the rear of the 2012 Hyundai, 2013 Great Dane, and 2013
Strick trailer. When the Malibu experienced PCI in a crash test, the
dummy injury measures, specifically the head injury criterion (HIC) and
the neck injury criterion (Nij) generally exceeded the allowable Injury
Assessment Reference Values (IARV) of 700 and 1.0 set forth in FMVSS
No. 208, respectively, regardless of whether the air bag deployed.\84\
When PCI was prevented by the rear impact guard, the accelerations on
the vehicle are higher which results in higher chest deflection
measures, although well within the allowable level, indicating higher
acceleration loads on the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Except in the neck injury measure (Nij = 0.65) in the 50
percent overlap crash with the Vanguard trailer.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.035

Summary of the IIHS Test Data

    The test data, summarized in Table B-11 and Table B-12 below, show
that trailer guards compliant with FMVSS No. 223 were unable to
withstand an impact of the Malibu at 56 km/h (35 mph), which resulted
in PCI. The tests also demonstrated that trailers that comply with the
Canadian standard, CMVSS No. 223, were generally able to prevent PCI in
56 km/h (35 mph) impacts of the Malibu with full and 50

percent overlap with the rear impact guard. However, seven of the eight
rear impact guards compliant with the Canadian standard could not
prevent PCI when only 30 percent of the Malibu front end engaged the
rear impact guard.
    In a quasi-static test at P3 location of the Vanguard rear impact
guard, the attachments bolts sheared but still enabled the vehicle to
meet the load and energy absorption requirements of CMVSS No. 223.
However, in the 56 km/h (35 mph) crash test with 50 percent overlap of
the 2010 Malibu with the Vanguard trailer, the guard bolts sheared
resulting in PCI of the Malibu. In the tests where there was no PCI of
the Malibu, the injury measures of the restrained test dummies in the
Malibu were below the injury threshold levels used by the FMVSSs. When
PCI was prevented by the rear impact guard, generally higher chest
injury measures resulted compared to when PCI occurred, but the values
were well within the allowable limits.
    When the Malibu sustained PCI, the head and neck injury measures
were generally greater than the allowable threshold levels indicating
high risk of serious head and neck injuries, regardless of whether the
air bag deployed. The IIHS tests showed that when PCI occurs, air bag
deployment does not improve injury outcome.

  Table B-11--Occurrence of PCI in 35 MPH Crash Tests (Conducted by IIHS) of the 2010 Chevrolet Malibu Into the
                                                Rear of Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Trailer Model               Designed to         Full Width          50% overlap         30% overlap
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Wabash.....................  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  None..............  Yes.
2012 Manac......................  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  None..............  None.
2012 Stoughton..................  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  None..............  Yes.
2013 Great Dane.................  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  None..............  Yes.
2012-2013 Hyundai...............  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  None..............  Yes.
2013 Strick.....................  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  None..............  Yes.
2013 Utility....................  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  None..............  Yes.
2013 Vanguard...................  CMVSS No. 223.....  None..............  Yes *.............  N/A.
2007 Hyundai....................  FMVSS No. 224.....  Yes...............  N/A **............  N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachment of the guard to the trailer failed during impact.
** Since the guard was unable to withstand the loads in the first test, the second and third tests were not
  conducted.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE15.036

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-31228 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P