[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24535-24543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0012]
RIN 2127-AM54


Side Underride Guards

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This ANPRM responds to Section 23011(c) of the November 2021 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly referred to as 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which directs the Secretary to 
conduct research on side underride guards to better understand their 
overall effectiveness, and assess the feasibility, benefits, costs, and 
other impacts of installing side underride guards on trailers and 
semitrailers. The BIL further directs the Secretary to report the 
findings of the research in a Federal Register notice to seek public 
comment. In addition, this ANPRM also responds to a petition for 
rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition 
(TSC).

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the 
docket receives them not later than June 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We 
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will 
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits 
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making 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.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate 
comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their 
name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names 
is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, 
all timely comments will be fully considered.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you must submit your 
request directly to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for 
confidentiality are governed by 49 CFR part 512. NHTSA is currently 
treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting 
confidential business information to the agency under part 512. If you 
would like to submit a request for confidential treatment, you may 
email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief 
Counsel at [email protected] or you may contact him for a 
secure file transfer link. At this time, you should not send a 
duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to DOT 
headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or documents 
provided to the agency constitute confidential business information 
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected from 
disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting 
information together with the materials that are the subject of the 
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of 
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting 
forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to 
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, Appendix A. In addition, you should submit 
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business 
information, to the Docket at the address given above.

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:

[[Page 24536]]

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Overview
    a. Side Underride Guards
    b. Petitions and Related Rulemakings
    c. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    d. GAO Recommendation
    e. Purpose of This ANPRM
III. Research, Benefits, and Costs
    a. Crash Data
    b. Side Underride Guard Effectiveness
    c. Benefits
    d. Costs
    e. Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
    f. Sensitivity Analysis
    g. Summary of Analysis
IV. Request for Comment
V. Rulemaking Analyses
VI. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

    This ANPRM responds to Section 23011(c) of the BIL that directs the 
Secretary to complete research on side underride guards to better 
understand their overall effectiveness, and to assess the feasibility, 
benefits, and costs of, and any impacts on intermodal equipment, 
freight mobility, and freight capacity associated with, installing side 
underride guards on new trailers and semitrailers. The BIL further 
directs the Secretary to report the findings of the research in a 
Federal Register notice to seek public comment. NHTSA is also issuing 
this ANPRM in response to a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Karth and 
TSC (the Petitioners) to begin studies and rulemakings on side 
underride guards and front override guards on trucks. NHTSA initiated 
research on side underride guards following a March 2019 Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) recommendation to conduct additional 
research on side underride guards to better understand the overall 
effectiveness and cost associated with these guards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GAO Report to Congressional Requestors, ``Truck Underride 
Guards--Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research 
Needed,'' March 14, 2019, (GAO-19-264), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ANPRM summarizes a 2022 NHTSA report that presents an analysis 
of the potential effects of a requirement for side underride guards on 
new trailers and semitrailers pursuant to Section 23011(c) of the BIL 
and the March 2019 GAO recommendation. The report, titled, ``Side 
Impact Guards for Combination Truck Trailers: Cost-Benefit Analysis,'' 
is referred to as the ``2022 NHTSA report'' in this ANPRM and is 
provided in the docket to this ANPRM.\2\ The report details analyses of 
crash databases for estimating annual fatalities and serious injuries 
in side underride crashes and NHTSA's analysis of the benefits and 
costs of requiring trailers to be equipped with side underride guards 
to mitigate injuries and fatalities resulting from side underride 
crashes involving light passenger vehicles and trailers and 
semitrailers. This report provides a preliminary estimate that would 
inform any benefit-cost analysis that NHTSA would conduct under E.O. 
12866 if the agency were to propose a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) to require side underride guards on trailers and semi-
trailers. NHTSA estimates that 17.2 lives would be saved and 69 serious 
injuries would be prevented annually when all trailers in the fleet are 
equipped with side underride guards. The discounted annual safety 
benefits when side underride guards are equipped on all applicable 
trailers and semitrailers are estimated to range from $129 million to 
$166 million at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. The total discounted 
annual cost (including lifetime fuel cost) of equipping new trailers 
and semitrailers with side underride guards is estimated to range 
between $970 million and $1.2 billion at 3 and 7 percent discount 
rates. The resulting cost per equivalent life saved is in the range of 
$73.5 million to $103.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The report may be obtained by downloading it or by 
contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number 
provided at the beginning of this document. Note that the report 
uses the term ``combination truck (CT)'' to mean ``tractor-
trailer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency requests comments that would help NHTSA assess and make 
judgments on the benefits, costs, and other impacts of side underride 
guards to increase protection for occupants of passenger vehicles in 
crashes into the sides of trailers and semitrailers. This ANPRM 
summarizes NHTSA's research and requests comment on the accuracy of the 
estimated benefits, costs, and other impacts of requiring side 
underride guards on heavy trailers and semitrailers.
    NHTSA requests comments on approaches to potentially mitigate or 
eliminate these horrific crashes given the disparity in vehicle size 
and crash outcome. Are there alternative engineering solutions to 
mitigate underride crashes into the sides of trailers? Are there non-
regulatory actions that could be taken to decrease side underride 
crashes? Public comment, with supporting data or analysis, is sought 
for advanced technologies and design solutions to reduce deaths and 
serious injuries resulting from underride crashes into the sides of 
trailers.

II. Overview

a. Side Underride Guards

    Underride crashes are those in which the front end of a vehicle 
impacts a generally larger vehicle and slides under the chassis of the 
impacted vehicle. Side underride may occur in collisions in which a 
passenger vehicle crashes into the side of a large trailer or 
semitrailer (referred to in this ANPRM collectively as ``trailers'') 
\3\ because the trailer bed is higher than the hood of the passenger 
vehicle. In passenger compartment intrusion (PCI) crashes, the 
passenger vehicle underrides to the extent that the side of the struck 
vehicle intrudes into the passenger compartment. PCI crashes can result 
in passenger vehicle occupant injuries and fatalities caused by 
occupant contact with intruding components of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A trailer or semitrailer is typically drawn by another motor 
vehicle referred to as a ``tractor''. The combination of the trailer 
and the tractor is referred to as a ``tractor-trailer'' in this 
ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ANPRM focuses on side underride guards on trailers to prevent 
a passenger vehicle from sliding under the trailer in the event of a 
collision. The guard must be strong enough to withstand the forces of 
the crash. Other side structures that are sometimes installed on 
trailers and semitrailers include aerodynamic skirts, which are 
designed for fuel efficiency, and ``lateral protection devices,'' which 
are intended to prevent pedestrians or cyclists from falling in front 
of the trailer's rear wheels. Aerodynamic skirts and lateral protection 
devices are generally not strong enough to prevent underride of a 
passenger vehicle in a crash. Internationally, side underride guards on 
trailers to prevent vehicle underride are not required by any country, 
though some countries have a requirement for lateral protection 
devices.
    There are currently no Federal requirements for side underride 
guards on trailers. NHTSA specifies requirements for rear impact guards 
on trailers in Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 223 
and 224. FMVSS No. 223, an ``equipment standard,'' specifies 
performance requirements for rear impact guards on new trailers and 
semitrailers. FMVSS No. 224, a ``vehicle standard,'' requires most new 
trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 
kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)) or more to be equipped with a rear 
impact guard meeting FMVSS No. 223.

b. Petitions and Related Rulemakings

    NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth 
and the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) on

[[Page 24537]]

September 12, 2013, requesting that the agency increase the stringency 
and applicability of current requirements for rear impact (underride) 
guards and begin studies and rulemakings on side underride guards and 
front override guards on trucks. In response, NHTSA published an ANPRM 
on July 23, 2015, requesting comment on NHTSA's estimated costs and 
benefits of requiring rear impact guards and retroreflective tape on 
single unit trucks (SUTs).\4\ Additionally, NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 16, 2015 to increase the 
stringency of the current rear impact guard requirements by aligning 
with Transport Canada's rear impact guard standard that ensures 
protection to passenger car occupants in 56 kilometers per hour (km/h) 
(35 miles per hour (mph)) impacts into the rear of trailers and 
semitrailers.\5\ NHTSA completed this rulemaking by issuing a final 
rule on July 15, 2022 to upgrade FMVSS No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,'' 
and FMVSS No. 224, ``Rear impact protection,'' to improve occupant 
protection in crashes of passenger vehicles into the rear of trailers 
and semitrailers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 80 FR 43663, RIN 2127-AL57.
    \5\ 80 FR 78418, RIN 2127-AL58.
    \6\ 87 FR 42339, RIN 2127-AL58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the December 2015 NPRM, on February 4, 2021, Mr. 
Jerry Karth and Ms. Marianne Karth, along with 23 other signatories, 
submitted a ``Petition for Comprehensive Underride Supplemental 
Rulemaking'' requesting enhanced front, side, and rear underride 
protection on commercial motor vehicles. In response to the September 
2013 and February 2021 petitions for rulemaking regarding requirements 
for side underride guards, this ANPRM seeks comment on NHTSA's 
estimated costs and benefits of requiring side underride guards on new 
trailers and semitrailers.

c. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

    On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly referred to as the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL).\7\ Section 23011 of the BIL specifies 
provisions for underride protection measures for trailers and 
semitrailers. As discussed in detail below, the provisions direct the 
Secretary to conduct additional research on side underride guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 23011(c)(1)(A) of the BIL directs the Secretary to 
complete, not later than 1 year after enactment of the Act, additional 
research on side underride guards to better understand the overall 
effectiveness of the guards. Section 23011(c)(1)(B) requires the 
Secretary to assess, among other matters, the feasibility, benefits, 
and costs of, and any impacts on intermodal equipment, freight mobility 
(including port operations), and freight capacity associated with, 
installing side underride guards on new trailers and semitrailers with 
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. Section 
23011(c)(1)(C) requires consideration of the unique structural and 
operational aspects of intermodal chassis and pole trailers. Section 
23011(c)(1)(D) directs the Secretary to develop performance standards 
for side underride guards, if warranted.
    Section 23011(c)(3) of the BIL directs the Secretary to publish the 
results of the side underride guard assessment specified in Section 
23011(c)(1)(B) within 90 days of completion of the assessment and 
provide an opportunity for public comment. Section 23011(c)(4) then 
directs that, within 90 days from the date the comment period closes, 
the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the assessment 
results, a summary of comments received, and a determination whether 
the Secretary intends to develop performance requirements for side 
underride guards, including any analysis that led to that 
determination.

d. GAO Recommendation

    In March 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published 
a Report to Congressional Requesters on Truck Underride Guards.\8\ 
Based on the findings of this report, GAO recommended that the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) take steps to provide a standardized 
definition of underride crashes and data fields, share information with 
police departments on identifying underride crashes, establish annual 
inspection requirements for rear impact guards, and conduct additional 
research on side underride guards. Specifically, regarding the 
research, recommendation 4 of the report stated that ``The 
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better 
understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these 
guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.'' 
The Department of Transportation (DOT) concurred with this 
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ GAO Report to Congressional Requestors, ``Truck Underride 
Guards--Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research 
Needed,'' March 14, 2019, (GAO-19-264), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Purpose of This ANPRM

    In this ANPRM, the agency discusses the research and analysis of 
side underride crashes detailed in its 2022 report and the potential 
effects of a requirement for side underride guards on new trailers, and 
requests comments on the information presented. The agency seeks 
information that would help NHTSA assess and make judgments on the 
benefits, costs, and other impacts of side underride guards to increase 
protection for occupants of passenger vehicles in crashes into the 
sides of trailers.

III. Research, Benefits, and Costs

    This section summarizes the analyses of crash data and estimates of 
benefits, costs, and cost effectiveness of a requirement for side 
underride guards on new trailers that is detailed in the 2022 NHTSA 
report pursuant to Section 23011(c) of the BIL and the March 2019 GAO 
recommendation.

a. Crash Data

    In order to estimate annual fatalities and injuries associated with 
side underride crashes, NHTSA analyzed crash data involving light 
passenger vehicles \9\ and tractor-trailers. The analysis focused on 
crashes in which the tractor-trailer received damage to the side or 
undercarriage and the passenger vehicle received damage to the front or 
top of the vehicle. In other words, the analysis considered side 
impact, sideswipe, and angled crashes between the two vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Light passenger vehicles include passenger cars, light 
trucks, and vans with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) of 10,000 
pounds or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data sources for this analysis included the Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS) 2008-2017, National Automotive Sampling System 
General Estimates System (GES) 2008-2015, National Automotive Sampling 
System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) 2006-2015, and Crash 
Report Sampling System (CRSS) 2016-2017.\10\ NHTSA used 2008-2017 FARS 
data to identify fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles and the 
sides of trailers. GES data from 2011 to 2015 and CRSS data from 2016 
and 2017 provided the general patterns of occupant injuries in crashes 
of passenger vehicles with the sides of trailers. NASS-CDS data from 
2006 to 2015 were used to estimate the relative velocity distributions 
associated with occupant injury severities in side underride crashes. 
The

[[Page 24538]]

effects of other crash factors on the number of fatalities and 
effectiveness of side underride guards were also considered in the 
analysis. In addition, the agency reviewed documents cited by the 
Petitioners in the context of side underride crashes for additional 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Information on NHTSA's databases are available at Crash 
Data Systems [bond] NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop a better understanding of vehicle underride into the 
side of tractor-trailers, NHTSA conducted a review of Police Crash 
Reports (PCRs) of all two-vehicle crashes involving a light vehicle 
crashing into the side of a tractor-trailer in 2017 FARS. In addition 
to the coded elements in the PCR, the review included the crash 
narrative, interviews, scene diagrams, and photographs. The PCR review 
provided details to determine the impact location on the tractor-
trailer, whether underride and/or PCI of the light passenger vehicle 
occurred, whether the impact speed was less than or equal to 64 km/h 
(40 mph), and whether side underride guards located between front and 
rear trailer wheels would have mitigated fatalities and injuries. For 
cases with insufficient information to determine underride, the agency 
conducted further investigations to obtain crash and vehicle damage 
details. Of the 184 PCRs reviewed in the 2017 FARS data files, NHTSA 
determined that 92 crashes of a light passenger vehicle into the side 
of tractor-trailers involved underride while FARS reported only 52 
crashes with underride. NHTSA also determined that among the 184 cases, 
105 light passenger vehicle fatalities occurred in crashes with 
underride while FARS reported only 59 fatalities in crashes with 
underride. Based on this information, NHTSA estimated that the actual 
number of fatalities associated with side underride was 78 percent 
higher than reported in FARS (= 105/59-1). As noted in the 2019 GAO 
report on underride, previous evaluations of underride data have 
indicated that vehicle underride is underreported in FARS. The PCR 
review provided a best estimate of the current underreporting of side 
underride crashes in the FARS data files. The agency's analysis of side 
underride crashes therefore adjusts for the level of underreporting in 
FARS.
    To obtain a more accurate estimate of fatalities associated with 
side underride crashes, NHTSA considered the extent of underreporting 
of side underride crash fatalities determined from the detailed review 
of PCRs of front-to-side crashes of a passenger vehicle and a tractor-
trailer identified in the 2017 FARS data together with results from an 
analysis of the 2008-2017 FARS data files. Analysis of the FARS data 
revealed that the annual average number of light passenger vehicle 
occupant fatalities in crashes with the sides of tractor-trailers was 
212, of which 50 fatalities (about 24 percent) were attributed to side 
underride crashes. NHTSA estimated, taking into account the 78 percent 
greater number of underride fatalities than that reported in FARS, that 
on an annual average, there are 89 (= 50 x 1.78) light passenger 
vehicle occupant fatalities in two-vehicle crashes with tractor-
trailers (trailer along with the vehicle with motive power drawing the 
trailer or semitrailer) where a light passenger vehicle strikes the 
side of a tractor-trailer and underrides it.
    From the analysis of NASS-GES 2011-2015 and the CRSS 2016-2017 data 
files, NHTSA estimated there are 230 serious injuries to light 
passenger vehicle occupants in underride crashes into the side of 
trailers. After applying the estimated 78 percent greater number of 
side underride fatalities than that in NHTSA databases to serious 
injuries, we estimate an average of 409 (= 230 x 1.78) serious injuries 
to light passenger vehicle occupants in underride crashes into the side 
of trailers annually.
    The agency reviewed additional documents cited by the Petitioners 
in the context of side underride crashes. In a 2012 paper, Brumbelow 
used the Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) \11\ data files for the 
three-year period from 2006 to 2008 and estimated that on an annual 
average, there are 530 passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in two-
vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle impacting the side of a 
truck.\12\ Brumbelow noted that 20 percent of the side-impacted trucks 
were straight trucks and the remaining were tractor-trailers or 
tractors without trailers. Brumbelow also noted that TIFA did not 
provide information on the impact location (impact with tractor, 
between tractor and trailer, between front and rear axles of the 
trailer, or behind the trailer rear wheels), and that not all of the 
fatalities and injuries in the crashes were due to underride. In a 2017 
news release, IIHS stated that in 2015, 301 passenger vehicle occupants 
were killed in two-vehicle crashes involving a passenger vehicle 
impacting the side of a tractor-trailer.13 14 Additional 
information on the data source and the percentage of crashes with 
underride was not provided in this 2017 news release. Since the data in 
these two documents cited by the petitioners are not specific to 
vehicle underride, the data could not be used to estimate fatalities or 
injuries in crashes involving vehicle underride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ TIFA contains records for all medium and heavy trucks that 
were involved in fatal traffic crashes in the 50 States of the 
United States and the District of Columbia for the years 1980 to 
2010. The TIFA database provides additional detail beyond that in 
the FARS data files. Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) and Buses in 
Fatal Accidents (BIFA) [bond] National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA).
    \12\ Matthew L. Brumbelow (2012) Potential Benefits of Underride 
Guards in Large Truck Side Crashes, Traffic Injury Prevention, 13:6, 
592-599, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2012.666595.
    \13\ IIHS News Release, ``IIHS crash tests reveal benefits of 
underride guards for the sides of semitrailers,'' 2017.
    \14\ IIHS also cited requirements in some U.S. cities for ``side 
guards on city-owned and/or contracted trucks.'' However, these are 
lateral protection devices for protecting pedestrian and bicyclists, 
and are unlikely to prevent vehicle underride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA used the available crash data along with the detailed PCR 
reviews to account for any underreporting of side underrides and 
associated fatalities. The data sources used form the most 
comprehensive set available to determine the number of fatalities and 
serious injuries to light vehicle occupants in side underride crashes 
with trailers and semitrailers. This ANPRM seeks comment on whether 
additional data sources provide information about the frequency of side 
underride crashes, injuries, and fatalities or whether the data sources 
on which NHTSA relied could be improved.

b. Side Underride Guard Effectiveness

    Side underride guards are not currently required on trailers by any 
country. At the time of this analysis, the agency is aware of only one 
side underride guard system intended to mitigate side underrides and 
PCI that has been crash tested by a third party and is available for 
installation on trailers in the United States. The AngelWing guard, 
manufactured by AirFlow Deflector, is largely constructed of steel and 
has an off-the-shelf weight of 450 to 800 pounds depending on the 
specific configuration.\15\ In 2017, the IIHS tested the AngelWing side 
underride guard. In the first evaluation, a midsize sedan struck the 
side of a trailer at 56 km/h (35 mph). The first crash was conducted 
with only an aerodynamic fiberglass side skirt on the trailer and 
resulted in vehicle underride. In the second crash, the trailer had the 
AngelWing device installed; the guard bent in the crash but the sedan 
did not underride the trailer. Another crash test was conducted by IIHS 
later in 2017 at 64 km/h (40 mph) with similar results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AirFlow Deflector, https://airflowdeflector.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Side underride guard designs that have not been finalized, tested, 
and

[[Page 24539]]

made available for purchase and installation on trailers have not been 
included in this analysis of guard costs and benefits because 
information needed for conducting the analysis are not available for 
these designs. For example, a ``lateral protection system'' made by 
Canadian firm PHSS Fortier for trailers in the United States was not 
included because test results, pricing information, and effectiveness 
data are unavailable.\16\ NHTSA requests information on side underride 
guards that have been fully developed and tested and are currently 
available for installation on trailers in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The system comprises multiple vinyl belts and weighs 
approximately 540 pounds (245 kg). The system is designed to 
function as a side underride guard, aerodynamic skirt, and 
pedestrian/cyclist guard. It reportedly has been tested by PHSS 
Fortier at impact speeds up to 35 mph. https://protectionlaterale.ca/en/our-product-lateral-protection/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the PCR review of 184 relevant cases in the 2017 FARS data 
files, NHTSA estimated that 19.9 percent of side underride fatalities 
occurred at impact speeds below 64 km/h (40 mph). For evaluating the 
benefits of side underride guards, the subset of crashes at impact 
speeds below 64 km/h (40 mph) are relevant because 64 km/h (40 mph) is 
the maximum impact speed at which the existing side underride guard 
considered in this analysis have demonstrated passenger vehicle 
occupant protection.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AngelWing side guard tested by the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety (IIHS) mitigated underride of light passenger 
vehicles in crashes into the side of trailers at impact speeds up to 
64 km/h (40 mph). https://airflowdeflector.com/angelwing_underride-1/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the effect of a side underride guard requirement on 
safety outcomes, we need an estimate of the effectiveness of side 
underride guards on trailers in mitigating fatalities and serious 
injuries. Based on NHTSA's PCR review and the available AngelWing side 
guard test data, NHTSA assumed (1) side underrides occur where a side 
guard would be located (between the fifth wheel/kingpin and rear 
axles), and (2) a zero-percent failure rate of side guards in 
preventing underride for vehicles that strike the side guards at impact 
speeds of 64 km/h (40 mph) or less. The agency also estimated the 
latent risk of fatality and serious injury when a side guard 
successfully transforms what would have been an underride into a 
frontal collision using a NHTSA analysis of fatality risk in frontal 
collisions as a function of change in velocity.\18\ Taking into account 
seat belt use along with the latent risk of fatality, the agency 
estimated a 3 percent fatality risk in mitigated side underrides. 
Subtracting this estimated fatality risk in mitigated side underrides 
yields a 97 percent effectiveness of side underride guards in 
mitigating fatalities in underride crashes into the side of trailers at 
impact speeds 64 km/h (40 mph) or less. A similar process was used for 
estimating the effectiveness of side underride guards in mitigating 
serious injuries. NHTSA estimated 85 percent effectiveness of side 
underride guards in mitigating serious injuries in underride crashes 
into the side of trailers at impact speeds 64 km/h (40 mph) or less. 
Details of the methods used for estimating effectiveness of side 
underride guards are provided in the 2022 NHTSA report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Wang, J.-S. (2021). MAIS (05/08) Injury Probability Curves 
as Functions of Delta-V. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Benefits

    Section 6 of Executive Order 12866 directs NHTSA to conduct a 
benefit/cost analysis of any proposed regulatory requirements.
    NHTSA estimated the benefits of equipping trailers with side 
underride guards by first calculating the total number of fatalities 
and serious injuries avoided if all trailers were equipped with side 
underride guards.
    NHTSA estimated that there are annually 89 light vehicle occupant 
fatalities and 409 serious injuries in two-vehicle crashes with 
tractor-trailers where a light passenger vehicle strikes the side of a 
tractor-trailer and underrides it. This estimate accounts for the 78 
percent higher number of underride fatalities than that in NHTSA's 
crash databases. Since only 19.9 percent of side underride crashes are 
at impact speed 64 km/h (40 mph) or less for which side underride 
guards would be effective, NHTSA estimates the target population for 
side underride guards as 17.7 (= 89 x 0.199) fatalities and 81 (= 409 x 
0.199) serious injuries. Using side underride guard effectiveness of 97 
percent for mitigating fatalities in crashes with impact speeds less 
than or equal to 64 km/h and 85 percent for mitigating serious 
injuries, NHTSA estimated that 17.2 (= 17.7 x 0.97) lives would be 
saved and 69 (= 81 x 0.85) serious injuries would be prevented annually 
when all trailers in the fleet are equipped with side underride guards.
    NHTSA uses a ``value of statistical life'' (VSL) to monetize 
benefits of lives saved and injuries prevented by regulations. The VSL 
for NHTSA's analysis is based on the 2021 Department of Transportation 
Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis,\19\ 
with a VSL of $11.9 million in 2020 dollars. NHTSA's analysis 
incorporates components of the economic costs of fatalities and 
injuries, including medical, EMS, market productivity, household 
productivity, insurance administration, workplace, legal, congestion, 
travel delay, and the nontangible value of physical pain and loss of 
quality of life (i.e., quality adjusted life years, QALYs).\20\ NHTSA's 
analysis applies the same process to estimate the economic costs of 
serious injuries associated with side underride crashes. Using these 
comprehensive costs of fatalities and injuries, NHTSA estimated that 
the discounted lifetime safety benefits in 2020 dollars when side 
underride guards are equipped on all applicable trailers and 
semitrailers would be $165.9 million at a 3 percent discount rate and 
$128.5 million at a 7 percent discount rate. This represents a benefit 
of approximately $640 per trailer or semitrailer at a 3-percent 
discount rate ($490 per trailer or semitrailer at a 7% discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in 
Economic Analysis [verbar] US Department of Transportation.
    \20\ The comprehensive economic costs of injury are detailed in 
the 2022 NHTSA Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates do not account for the potential effects of 
advanced driver assistance technologies (ADAS) such as automatic 
emergency braking, blind spot detection, and lane keeping technologies, 
which could reduce the number of crashes even without the presence of 
underride guards. ADAS is expected to help mitigate underrides by 
preventing collisions and mitigating impact speeds, which would reduce 
the number of fatalities and serious injuries relevant to this 
analysis, but NHTSA does not have sufficient data to account for this 
effect. Additionally, because side underride occurs predominantly at 
impact speeds above 40 mph, protective effects from ADAS above 40 mph 
could generate a large increase in the safety benefits. However, we do 
not have information available on the degree to which side underride 
guards may offer passenger vehicle occupant protection above the test 
speed of 40 mph. The agency requests data on additional factors that 
affect the estimated benefits of side underride guards on trailers and 
semitrailers.

d. Costs

    NHTSA used the existing AngelWing system as the basis for the 
price, weight, and installation costs of side underride guards on 
trailers. Initial hardware cost for the AngelWing was listed at $2,897

[[Page 24540]]

per trailer at the time of data collection. We acknowledge that broad 
adoption of side underride guards would likely lead to considerable 
changes in the market, and thus it is feasible that the market would 
experience downward price pressure due to increasing returns to scale 
and competition from other potential suppliers. However, we do not have 
sufficient information to project the impact on prices, and thus apply 
the unadjusted price for this analysis. Installation is stated to 
require fewer than two hours for two people. We assumed an average of 
1.5 hours per person per trailer. With two people, we estimate 3 labor 
hours per trailer at $31 per hour \21\ for a total labor cost of $93 
per trailer. The average total cost of installing side underride guards 
on a trailer, including hardware and labor, was therefore estimated to 
be $2,990 in 2020 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for an 
automotive repair worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that a requirement for side underride guard would apply 
to 260,000 new trailers and semitrailers sold annually. Given these 
figures, the total annual initial cost for equipping all applicable new 
trailers with side underride guards would be approximately $778 
million. This cost estimate does not include any additional costs 
associated with reinforcing trailers to accommodate the side underride 
guards and any associated changes to trailer loading patterns. We 
acknowledge that such costs would add to total hardware, installation, 
and operating costs. However, we do not have sufficient information 
available to estimate these additional costs.
    We also calculated lifetime incremental fuel costs for applicable 
trailers in the fleet subject to a side underride guard requirement. 
With an estimated ratio of one Class 8 truck per two trailers, the 
equivalent of 130,000 trucks would carry new trailers equipped with 
side underride guards. We assumed that 40 percent of all applicable new 
trailers would be equipped with aerodynamic side skirts, which reduce 
per-mile fuel costs. With a weight increase of 450 to 800 pounds per 
trailer, requiring side underride guards is estimated to increase 
lifetime fuel costs for new trailers entering the fleet each year by 
approximately $250 million to $430 million at a 3 percent discount 
rate, and approximately $200 million to $340 million at a 7% discount 
rate. Incremental fuel costs represent between approximately one-fourth 
and two-fifths of estimated total costs, depending on the side 
underride guard weight and the discount rate.
    Under a side underride guard requirement, total annual costs for 
new trailers were estimated to increase by $1.02 billion to $1.20 
billion at a 3 percent discount rate, and $970 million to $1.12 billion 
at a 7 percent discount rate, depending on the weight of the guards. 
The cost per trailer would be approximately $3,930 to $4,630 at a 3-
percent discount rate, and $3,740 to $4,300 at a 7% discount rate. We 
assumed that the annual sales of trailers and semitrailers would remain 
the same in the future, and consequently the annual cost of equipping 
new trailers with side underride guards and the discounted lifetime 
fuel costs remain the same in future years.
    These estimated cost impacts do not include additional costs that 
accrue due to incremental wear and tear on equipped trailers. Side 
underride guards may impose non-uniform loads on trailer floors, adding 
stresses that decrease trailer lifetimes in the absence of repair. It 
is possible that side underride guards would obstruct proper safety 
inspections of the underside of the trailer. They may also strike or 
entangle with road structures and loading area components, leading to 
additional repair costs or restricted access to destinations. Another 
unquantified cost could result from restrictions on trailer axle 
configurations. The rear axles of trailers are commonly able to be 
moved fore and aft to adjust to loading conditions; losing this 
capability would add to operating costs. We seek comment on these 
potential effects of installing side underride guards. Furthermore, the 
estimated costs do not include any potential effects of side underride 
guards on port and loading dock operations and freight capacity, and on 
increased greenhouse gases and other pollutants resulting from 
increased fuel consumption. We seek comment on the practicability and 
feasibility of side underride guards regarding intermodal operations 
and effects of side underride guards on intermodal equipment, freight 
mobility, freight capacity, and port operations.

e. Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness

    The estimated benefits and costs discussed in the preceding 
sections were used to calculate the net benefits for a side underride 
guard requirement on trailers and semitrailers. The estimated annual 
benefits, costs, and net benefits are summarized in Table 1. The 
benefits and costs were also used to estimate the cost effectiveness 
(cost per equivalent life saved). These values are summarized in Table 
2.

    Table 1--Estimate of Annual Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Net
                                Benefits
 [Equipping 260,000 eligible new CT trailers with side underride guards,
                      in millions of 2020 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                Scenario                       rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits:
    Central Case........................          $165.9          $128.5
Total Costs:
    Low Cost Estimate: 450-Pound Side            1,022.5           972.7
     Guard Weight.......................
    High Cost Estimate: 800-Pound Side           1,203.8         1,117.2
     Guard Weight.......................
Net Benefits (total benefits less total
 costs):
    Low Cost Estimate, Central Case.....          -856.7          -844.2
    High Cost Estimate, Central Case....        -1,037.9          -988.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24541]]


            Table 2--Estimated Cost per Equivalent Life Saved
                      [in millions of 2020 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                Scenario                       rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Cost Estimate, Central Case.........           $73.5           $90.3
High Cost Estimate, Central Case........            86.6           103.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Sensitivity Analysis

    NHTSA also conducted a sensitivity analysis to consider the effects 
of changes in cost assumptions and the effects of a larger target 
population using the upper-bound underreporting factor from the FARS-
PCR analysis. The analytical inputs specified above in subsections a. 
through e. (e.g., underreporting rate, hardware cost, vehicle miles 
traveled) are the best representations of these values NHTSA could 
develop based on available information and that set of inputs is 
referred to as the ``central case.'' There is uncertainty in the 
analytical inputs, however. In the sensitivity analysis, we explored 
alternative values to identify the extent to which the relationship 
between benefits and costs associated with a side underride guard 
requirement changed as the inputs changed.
    NHTSA estimated 78 percent higher number of side underride 
fatalities than that reported in FARS. Increasing the percent higher 
number of side underride fatalities to that reported in FARS to 155 
percent \22\ yields lifetime safety benefits of approximately $185 
million to $240 million, at a 7 percent and 3 percent discount rate, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 155 percent is an upper bound of the higher number of 
underride crash fatalities than that reported in FARS identified in 
NHTSA's PCR review for crash speeds below 40 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the central case, we used a hardware cost equal to the assumed 
baseline price for the AngelWing system. A 20 percent reduction in the 
cost would reduce annual hardware costs by an estimated $151 million to 
$603 million. With no assumed change in installation costs, the total 
annual hardware and installation cost would be an estimated $627 
million, versus $778 million in the central case.
    We also considered a sensitivity case in which the trailer vehicle 
miles traveled (VMT) increased by five percent due to capacity and 
operational constraints under a side underride guard requirement.\23\ 
The additional fuel cost impacts involve the incremental costs of 
carrying all trailer weight (the original trailer weight plus the side 
underride guard weight) across the five percent increment of VMT. The 
resulting estimated incremental fuel costs dominate all other impact 
measures in both the central analysis and the sensitivity analysis; a 5 
percent increase in VMT would result in increased lifetime fuel costs 
of approximately $2.0 to $2.5 billion at a 7 percent and 3 percent 
discount rate, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The additional weight of side underride guards could 
potentially reduce cargo capacity due to weight limitations and 
shift some cargo to new truck trips that would not otherwise have 
taken place, leading to higher VMT and greater operational costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the estimates above, we were able to examine a variety of 
sensitivity cases. In all sensitivity cases, as in the analysis of the 
central case presented in subsection a. through e., the net benefits of 
a side underride guard requirement for all new trailers remain 
negative. In the best-case scenario (i.e., 155 percent greater number 
of fatalities than that reported in FARS and 20 percent lower hardware 
costs), the lifetime net benefits are still negative (approximately -
$630 to -$640 million at a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate, 
respectively). We seek comment on other factors that could affect the 
estimated net benefits of mandating side underride guards on trailers.

g. Summary of Analysis

    The analysis discussed in this document indicates that equipping 
all new trailers with side underride guards would reduce the number of 
fatalities and serious injuries for passenger vehicle occupants 
associated with side underride crashes into trailers. Equipping a new 
trailer with side underride guards is estimated to generate 
approximately $640 in lifetime discounted safety benefits at a 3 
percent discount rate under the central range of assumptions evaluated, 
or approximately $490 per trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. The 
total discounted lifetime costs of equipping new trailers with side 
underride guards are estimated to be approximately $3,930 to $4,630 per 
trailer at a 3 percent discount rate, or approximately $3,740 to $4,300 
per trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. On a per trailer basis, the 
total discounted lifetime costs of equipping new trailers and 
semitrailers with side underride guards is six to eight times the 
corresponding estimated safety benefits. The net benefits for a side 
underride guard requirement on trailers and semitrailers are estimated 
to be in the range of $844 million to $1,038 million. The cost per 
equivalent life saved is estimated to be in the range of $73.5 million 
to $103.7 million.
    The analysis considered a range of input assumptions to account for 
uncertainty in the size of the target population, hardware costs, and 
fuel consumption impacts. The target population of fatalities and 
serious injuries could increase if: (1) the baseline level of relevant 
fatalities and serious injuries is much larger than estimated; or (2) 
side underride guards provided some protection to passenger vehicle 
occupants at impact speeds above 40 mph. The PCR review offered a 
thorough analysis of one year's crashes and established a meaningful 
estimate of the rate of side underride underreporting in FARS. By 
basing our estimated target population on the underreporting rate from 
the PCR review, we are confident that we have represented the target 
population accurately. Side underride occurs predominantly at impact 
speeds above 40 mph, so protective effects above 40 mph could generate 
a large incremental improvement above the safety benefits estimated in 
this analysis. However, we do not have data available on the degree to 
which side underride guards may offer passenger vehicle occupant 
protection at impact speeds above 40 mph.
    The results of this study reflect existing side underride guard 
designs. It is possible that future designs may: mitigate side 
underride at higher speeds (increasing safety benefits); have lower 
hardware costs (reducing costs); or weigh less (reducing costs). There 
are also unquantified factors that would be expected to reduce net 
benefits. The safety benefits may be smaller than estimated due to 
decreases in crash risks associated with ADAS, leading to a smaller 
baseline level of side underride fatalities and serious injuries. Cost 
impacts may also be larger than estimated due to increased VMT. 
However, we do not have any data to support modified characteristics in 
place of our baseline assumptions.

[[Page 24542]]

    The analysis did not include any effects of side underride guards 
on port and loading dock operations and freight capacity. It did not 
take into consideration modifications to infrastructure, maintenance 
and practicability and feasibility of intermodal operations for 
trailers equipped with side underride guards.

IV. Request for Comment

    NHTSA requests comments that would help the agency assess and make 
judgments on the benefits, costs, and other impacts of requiring side 
underride guards on trailers. In providing a comment on a particular 
matter or in responding to a particular question, interested persons 
are asked to provide any relevant factual information to support their 
opinions, including, but not limited to, statistical and cost data and 
the source of such information. For easy reference, the questions below 
are numbered consecutively.
    1. The injury target population was obtained by reviewing crash 
data and estimating side underride underreporting in FARS through PCR 
reviews. We seek comment on the estimated injury target population 
resulting from underride crashes with PCI into the side of trailers.
    2. The agency assumed side underride guard effectiveness of 97 
percent for fatalities and 85 percent for serious injuries in light 
vehicle crashes with PCI into the sides of trailers at speeds up to 40 
mph. We seek comment on this effectiveness estimate.
    3. In estimating benefits, the agency assumed that side impact 
guards would mitigate fatalities and injuries in light vehicle impacts 
with PCI into the sides of trailers at impact speeds up to 40 mph. We 
recognize, however, that benefits may accrue from underride crashes at 
speeds higher than 40 mph. We seek information on quantifying possible 
benefits of side impact guards in crashes at speeds above 40 mph.
    4. Are there other benefits that NHTSA has not considered that 
could be used to justify a mandate for side underride guards? The 
agency seeks information and supporting rationale concerning these 
additional benefits of side underride guards.
    5. In estimating benefits, NHTSA did not account for the potential 
effects of advanced driver assistance technologies (ADAS) which could 
reduce the number of crashes independently of the presence of underride 
guards. The agency requests data on additional factors that affect the 
estimated benefits of side underride guards on trailers and 
semitrailers.
    6. In estimating costs, the agency did not include the cost and 
weight of strengthening the beams, frame rails, and floor of the 
trailer to accommodate side underride guards. NHTSA seeks information 
on changes that would be required and the additional costs resulting 
from these changes.
    7. NHTSA's cost estimates were based on the AngelWing side 
underride guard manufactured by Airflow Deflector. NHTSA seeks relevant 
information on side underride guards that have been fully developed and 
tested and are currently available for installation on trailers in the 
United States.
    8. NHTSA did not take into consideration the practicability and 
feasibility of side underride guards on trailer and semitrailer 
operations. Could side underride guards scrape or snag on the road 
surface when the vehicle travels over humped surfaces such as a 
highway-rail crossing, or when the vehicle enters a steep loading dock 
ramp? Could this interaction of side underride guards with the ground 
disable movement of the trailer and significantly damage the side 
underride guards, thereby requiring their replacement? We seek 
information on the effects of side underride guards on trailer and 
semitrailer operations.
    9. The analysis did not account for the effects of side underride 
guards on port and loading dock operations and freight capacity, and 
the practicability and feasibility of side underride guards in 
intermodal operations. We seek information on the effects of side 
underride guards on intermodal operations.

V. Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive 
Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 and the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures. In this ANPRM, the agency requests 
comments that would help NHTSA assess and make judgments on the 
benefits, costs and other impacts, of strategies that increase the 
crash protection to occupants of vehicles crashing into the side of 
trailers and semi-trailers. Strategies discussed in this ANPRM are 
possible requirements for the installation of side underride guards on 
new trailers and semitrailers. This ANPRM is significant under E.O. 
12866 and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    The agency has made preliminary estimates of the costs and benefits 
of the above strategy. Equipping a new trailer with side underride 
guards is estimated to generate approximately $640 in lifetime 
discounted safety benefits at a 3 percent discount rate under the 
central range of assumptions evaluated, or approximately $490 per 
trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. The total discounted lifetime 
costs of equipping new trailers and semitrailers with side underride 
guards are estimated to be approximately $3,930 to $4,630 per trailer 
at a 3 percent discount rate, or approximately $3,740 to $4,300 per 
trailer at a 7 percent discount rate. The net benefits for a side 
underride guard requirement on trailers and semitrailers are estimated 
to be in the range of -$844 million to -$1,038 million. The cost per 
equivalent life saved is estimated to be in the range of $73.5 million 
to $103.7 million.
    NHTSA requests comments on these estimates. Information from the 
commenters will help the agency further evaluate the course of action 
NHTSA should pursue in this rulemaking on side underride guards.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This ANPRM 
would not establish any new information collection requirements.

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.

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 document clearly stated?
     Does the document contain technical language or jargon 
that isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the document easier to understand?

[[Page 24543]]

     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 document easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    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.

VI. Submission of Comments

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

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

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

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you must submit your 
request directly to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel. Requests for 
confidentiality are governed by 49 CFR part 512. NHTSA is currently 
treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting 
confidential business information to the agency under part 512. If you 
would like to submit a request for confidential treatment, you may 
email your submission to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief 
Counsel at [email protected] or you may contact him for a 
secure file transfer link. At this time, you should not send a 
duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to DOT 
headquarters. If you claim that any of the information or documents 
provided to the agency constitute confidential business information 
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), or are protected from 
disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you must submit supporting 
information together with the materials that are the subject of the 
confidentiality request, in accordance with part 512, to the Office of 
the Chief Counsel. Your request must include a cover letter setting 
forth the information specified in our confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR 512.8) and a certificate, pursuant to 
Sec.  512.4(b) and part 512, Appendix A. In addition, you should submit 
a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business 
information, to the Docket.

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 the next step in this 
rulemaking, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for 
future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address 
given 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).

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

Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-08451 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


