[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53505-53507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13957]



[[Page 53505]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0053]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear 
Impact Protection

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

ACTION: Response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition, submitted by Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety, the Truck Safety Coalition, Citizens for 
Reliable and Safe Highways, and Parents Against Tired Truckers, for 
reconsideration of a final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,'' and FMVSS No. 224, 
``Rear impact protection.'' The final rule, published on July 15, 2022, 
upgraded NHTSA's standards addressing rear underride protection in 
crashes of passenger vehicles into trailers and semitrailers by 
requiring rear impact guards to provide sufficient strength and energy 
absorption to protect occupants of compact and subcompact passenger 
cars impacting the rear of trailers at 56 kilometers per hour (km/h) 
(35 miles per hour (mph)).

DATES: June 28, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical issues: Ms. Lina Valivullah, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590, (telephone) (202) 366-8786, (email) 
[email protected].
    For legal issues: Ms. Callie Roach, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590, (telephone) (202) 366-2992, 
(email) [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The final rule addressing rear underride protection, which was 
published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2022,\1\ upgraded NHTSA's 
safety standards for rear underride protection in crashes of passenger 
vehicles into trailers and semitrailers by adopting requirements 
similar to Transport Canada's standard for rear impact guards. With 
this final rule, the standards now require rear impact guards to 
provide sufficient strength and energy absorption to protect occupants 
of compact and subcompact passenger cars impacting the rear of trailers 
at 56 kilometers per hour (km/h) (35 miles per hour (mph)). The final 
rule provides upgraded protection for crashes in which a passenger 
motor vehicle hits the rear of the trailer or semitrailer such that 50 
to 100 percent of the width of the passenger motor vehicle overlaps the 
rear of the trailer or semitrailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 87 FR 42339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA initiated this rulemaking in response to petitions for 
rulemaking from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and 
from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition. The final rule 
also responded to and fulfilled the rulemaking mandate of Section 
23011(b)(1)(A) of the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act, Public 
Law 117-58 (commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
or BIL), which directs the Secretary (by delegation, NHTSA) to upgrade 
the Federal safety standards for rear impact guards. NHTSA also issued 
the final rule in accordance with DOT's January 2022 National Roadway 
Safety Strategy, which describes the five key objectives of the 
Department's Safe System Approach: safer people, safer roads, safer 
vehicles, safer speeds, and post-crash care. One of the key 
Departmental actions to enable safer vehicles was to issue a final rule 
to upgrade existing requirements for rear impact guards on newly 
manufactured trailers and semitrailers.
    In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act,\2\ NHTSA's 
regulations specify, at 49 CFR 553.35, that any interested person may 
petition NHTSA for reconsideration of any final rule by filing a 
petition within 45 days after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. As required by 49 CFR 553.35(a), the petition must 
contain a brief statement of the complaint and an explanation why 
compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not 
in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 5 U.S.C. 553(e) requires that each agency provide interested 
persons the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 
of a rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received two petitions in response to the final rule. The 
first petition was submitted by Jerry and Marianne Karth, Aaron Kiefer, 
Eric Hein, Lois Durso-Hawkins, Andy Young, and Garrett Mattos and dated 
July 15, 2022.\3\ That petition did not meet the requirements in 49 CFR 
part 553 for a petition for reconsideration and NHTSA will instead 
treat and respond to it as a petition for rulemaking in a separate 
notice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0053-0003, document titled ``Petition 
for Reconsideration of the Rear Impact Guard Rule (July 2022)'', 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0053-0003.
    \4\ While it was submitted as a petition for reconsideration of 
the final rule, the petition did not explain ``why compliance with 
the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the 
public interest,'' as required by 49 CFR part 553. In addition, the 
petitioners did not assert that the requirements established by the 
final rule should be stayed or revoked. For these reasons, the 
petition does not meet the requirements in 49 CFR part 553 for a 
petition for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second petition, dated August 25, 2022, was submitted by 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the Truck Safety 
Coalition (TSC), Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), and 
Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT), referred to collectively as 
``Advocates et al.'' throughout this document.\5\ The petitioners 
disagreed with the data and analysis that the agency used for the final 
rule and asserted that NHTSA should require reinforced rear guards 
designed for the 30 percent overlap crash condition. The petitioners 
stated that the lesser requirements established by the final rule are 
``inadequate and dangerous'' and will increase market demand for weaker 
guards, leading to additional fatalities. The petitioners asserted that 
the final rule is not in the public interest and requested a stay of 
the effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0053-0004, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0053-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Petition

a. Crash Data and Underreporting

Petitioners' Assertions
    The petitioners claimed that NHTSA did not fully consider the 
available data on underride crashes. They cited statistics regarding 
the number of fatal large truck crashes in recent years, the cost of 
crashes involving trucks and buses, and the occupational hazards of 
truck driving. They asserted that NHTSA's data analysis was incorrect 
because it relied on a single University of Michigan Transportation 
Research Institute (UMTRI) study and did not account for underreporting 
of underride crashes. They claimed that the UMTRI study was faulty due 
to its use of police reports and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS), which they assert do not properly identify underride crashes. 
The petitioners also stated that NHTSA ignored recommendations from 
IIHS, the National Transportation Safety Board

[[Page 53506]]

(NTSB), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding 
underride data collection, including the 2019 GAO recommendation \6\ to 
include underride in the Minimum Modal Uniform Crash Criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Government Accountability Office. 2019. Truck underride 
guards: Improved data collection, inspections, and research needed. 
GAO-19-264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The petitioners raised substantially similar points in comments 
they submitted during the rulemaking process. NHTSA carefully reviewed 
all information submitted by the petitioners and commenters throughout 
the rulemaking process to inform the final rule. The agency gave full 
consideration to the comments submitted in response to the NPRM, 
including those regarding underride crash data and underreporting. No 
new data was provided in this petition for reconsideration; the 
statistics cited by Advocates et al. are not specific to truck crashes 
with light passenger vehicles and do not provide information on 
underride. The concerns raised about the data on rear underride crashes 
used to inform rulemaking were addressed in the preamble to the final 
rule.
    As explained in the preamble (at 87 FR 42354), NHTSA's analysis did 
not rely on underride coding in FARS or in police reports, and instead 
used TIFA \7\ data with supplemental information reported in the 2013 
UMTRI Study. The TIFA database has greater accuracy than FARS for all 
medium and heavy trucks involved in fatal traffic crashes, providing 
more detailed information on the involved large trucks, motor carriers, 
and sequence of events. The 2013 UMTRI Study analyzed crash information 
to determine if the crashes might have been underride crashes even when 
they were not categorized as such in the police reports and in FARS. 
The study gathered additional information on the rear geometry of 
single unit trucks and trailers, the configuration of rear impact 
guards on trucks and trailers, and the incidence and extent of 
underride and fatalities in rear impacts with trucks and trailers. 
Because of the detailed analysis and the supplemental information 
collected for each crash, the 2013 UMTRI Study forms the most 
comprehensive and valid data set available to inform the agency 
regarding crashes involving trucks and trailers and the incidence of 
underride. The crash severity and occurrence of passenger compartment 
intrusion (PCI) were determined from the passenger vehicle information. 
Further, to avoid underestimating underride fatalities, the agency's 
analysis of the UMTRI study considered all crashes with PCI to be 
underride even though large striking vehicles may sustain PCI in 
crashes without underride due to high impact speed and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) database contains 
records for all trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater 
than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) that were involved in fatal traffic 
crashes in the 50 states and District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA acknowledges that there is undercounting of underride crashes 
in FARS and in police reports, which is partly why NHTSA did not rely 
on these sources in the final rule. NHTSA is taking steps to improve 
data collection to support future rulemaking. NHTSA and the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration have developed and provided 
educational materials to State and local police departments on 
identifying and recording underride crashes. An underride data element 
was also included in the recently published ``Minimum Modal Uniform 
Crash Criteria'' 6th Edition,\8\ as recommended in the 2019 GAO report. 
In addition to the education materials NHTSA provided to State and 
local police departments, NHTSA will continue to provide training and 
guidance resources to the law enforcement community to improve accuracy 
and consistency in the reporting of truck underride crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The'' Minimum Modal Uniform Crash Criteria'' 6th Edition was 
published on January 4, 2024, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/traffic-records/model-minimum-uniform-crash-criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. 30 Percent Overlap Protection

Petitioners' Assertions
    The petitioners claimed that NHTSA failed to fulfill what they 
describe as a BIL mandate to match IIHS TOUGHGUARD performance \9\ and 
that NHTSA did not address the guard deficiencies that IIHS previously 
identified for 30 percent overlap protection. The petitioners stated 
that some trailer manufacturers currently provide redesigned guards 
that meet the IIHS TOUGHGUARD requirements as standard, and that 
Stoughton's guard does not add weight or cost. They asserted that NHTSA 
set an unreasonably low standard and there will be an ``increase in 
deaths and injuries that will result from an increase in market demand 
for weaker guards'' due to the requirements in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BIL does not contain such a mandate. The petitioners may be 
referring to appropriations report language urging NHTSA to ``to 
complete rulemaking to improve rear guards in order to ultimately 
meet the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety standards for 
Toughguard awards.'' House Report No. 117-99 at p. 53; see also the 
Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2022 (Division L--Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development and Related Appropriations Act, 2022, Pub. L. 117-
103). This and similar report language must be read in the context 
of the specific statutory requirements to which NHTSA is subject 
under the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The section in the final rule titled ``NHTSA's Statutory Authority 
and Response to BIL'' \10\ described provisions of the Safety Act, 
relevant sections of the BIL, and fulfillment of BIL mandates in 
relation to the final rule. The BIL made clear that NHTSA was to adopt 
a standard for the 30 percent overlap condition if the standard met the 
Safety Act's requirements and considerations for a safety standard. The 
Safety Act requires, at 49 U.S.C. 30111, motor vehicle safety standards 
to be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be 
stated in objective terms. Further, when establishing new FMVSS 
requirements, NHTSA must consider whether a proposed standard is 
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the motor vehicle type for 
which it is prescribed. While a particular trailer model may include a 
more robust guard as standard, the agency must consider the effect of a 
mandate on all vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. As 
explained in the final rule (at 87 FR 42359-42360), NHTSA has decided 
that an FMVSS that requires all covered vehicles (trailers and 
semitrailers) to provide rear impact protection in full-frontal, 50 
percent overlap, and 30 percent overlap crashes at 56 km/h (35 mph) 
impact speed would not be reasonable or practicable and would not meet 
the requirements of Sections 30111(a) and (b) of the Safety Act for 
issuance of FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 87 FR 42341-42344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners also did not provide any evidence to support the 
claim that the requirements in the final rule may lead to market demand 
for weaker guards and a higher rate of fatalities and injuries in 
comparison to current statistics. Nor does the agency believe that 
manufacturers will cease selling guards that have received awards from 
IIHS. In the absence of sufficient information to quantify potential 
changes in consumer behavior, accounting for such claims in the 
regulatory analysis is not appropriate. As the requirements of the 
final rule are more stringent than the preceding requirements, the 
agency does not agree that it would be in the public interest to stay 
the final rule.

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying the August 
25, 2022

[[Page 53507]]

petition from Advocates et al. for reconsideration of the July 15, 2022 
final rule (87 FR 42339).

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2024-13957 Filed 6-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P