Flurry of motions delay underride committee’s side guard discussion

Discussion of side underride guards was forced to wait as dozens of motions consumed the majority of the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection Meeting on Wednesday, March 13.

Twenty-six motions – many of which focused on committee procedures – took precedence for the committee, which is tasked with providing the U.S. Department of Transportation recommendations on how to reduce underride crashes. The committee didn’t get to the controversial topic of side underride guards, which had been on the meeting’s agenda.

Current regulations specify requirements for rear impact guards on trailers, but there are no federal requirements for side underride guards. NHTSA is considering a potential side underride guard mandate on tractor-trailers, and the committee’s recommendations could play a big role in how the agency decides to proceed.

That discussion, however, likely will have to wait until the underride committee’s next meeting on April 24.

The Wednesday, March 13 meeting spent much of the time debating motions – many of which illustrated the committee’s divide between representatives of safety groups and industry. Safety groups long have pushed for a side underride guard mandate, while many truckers and other industry representatives have pointed to unintended consequences and concerns regarding maintenance and practicability.

Extending the underride committee charter

The committee was granted a two-year charter in June 2022. However, it didn’t have its first meeting until May 2023.

A motion was made to extend the charter another two years to give the committee the necessary time to finish its tasks and make appropriate recommendations to NHTSA.

Given the late start, most of the committee agreed to request more time. The motion carried with a vote of 13-4 and one abstention.

However, committee member Jeff Bennett dissented, saying that rather than asking for an extension, the committee should be focused on tackling the main issues.

“I don’t think we need to ask for an extension,” Bennett said. “I think we should be working on the issues right now and pushing ahead. Again, we’re not spending as much time as I’d like to see on the real meat of the issues.”

If the extension is granted, the committee plans to submit its report by October. Its charter is currently scheduled to end in June.

Changing the quorum number

With the purported goal of not failing to conduct a meeting, a motion was made to reduce the percentage needed for a meeting quorum from 75% to 51%.

Committee Chair Lee Jackson suggested reducing the quorum requirement in order to expedite the process.

However, there were concerns that the changes to quorum and consensus are aimed at silencing the members of the committee with the minority opinion. At the February meeting, the committee argued over the definition of the consensus. The members, who are largely proponents of a side underride guard mandate, argued that a simple majority would suffice as a consensus. In a bit of a head-scratcher, the simple majority then voted to decide that a simple majority meets the definition of a consensus.

“We seem to be defining new words to meet our situation,” committee member and truck driver Doug Smith said. “A quorum is 75%. It’s not 50%. It’s not a new definition. And a consensus is not a simple majority.”

John Freiler, representing truck and trailer manufacturers, also voiced concerns about changing the definition of a quorum.

“I’m really concerned that there seems to be an urge to cut out more and more of the personnel here and the people who are involved in the committee,” he said. “You have motions to make it that a consensus is defined as 50% of the people, and then if you’re going to define a quorum as 50% of the people present, then you’re going to have motions pass with a quarter of the people present, possibly. It really seems to be stretching the definition of what we’re supposed to be doing and how we’re supposed to be coming together.”

Despite the opposition, the committee voted 11-6 to reduce the quorum requirement. Although the motion passed, it is pending an interpretation of the committee’s bylaws.

Dissenting report

Considering the level of disagreement already visible within the committee, a dissenting or minority opinion report also will be included within the final underride recommendations to DOT.

The dissenting report is expected to resemble when the Supreme Court issues a minority opinion.

Although many of the committee members appear motivated to recommend a side underride guard mandate, NHTSA’s research shows that a mandate would be costly.

“The committee’s decision to redefine consensus yesterday with various motions being approved despite vocal opposition,” said Jay Grimes, OOIDA’s director of federal affairs. “It’s clear that a dissenting report will be necessary to ensure that all (underride committee) members’ perspectives are conveyed to DOT.”

NHTSA estimates that a side underride mandate on all trailers and semitrailers would save 17.2 lives and reap up to $166 million in safety benefits annually. Meanwhile, the annual cost of the mandate would be up to $1.2 billion.

The resulting cost per equivalent life saved would fall in the range of $73.5 million to $103.7 million. 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. LL