Fractured

The Advisory Committee on Underride Protections was created so that safety advocates and industry experts could come together to devise a plan for reducing highway fatalities.

However, the committee remained divided and failed to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with a unified list of recommendations.

In late June, the committee submitted a 410-page report that consists of recommendations from the majority of members and dissent from those in the minority.

The fractured report prompted the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association to write a letter to lawmakers. The July 10 letter called out the lack of a true consensus.

“NHTSA should not advance potential new underride standards until further research, analysis and testing is completed as directed in the bipartisan infrastructure law,” OOIDA wrote. “The only recommendations that garnered true consensus support among panel members generally involved enhancing research and reporting. As such, these are the only elements of the final report Congress and USDOT should take seriously.”

Background

Underride crashes most commonly occur when a car slides underneath a tractor-trailer. Regulations already require rear underride guards, but truck safety groups have long advocated for a side underride guard mandate.

The committee, which was mandated by Congress, was created with a natural divide. Three of the committee’s original 16 members had family members who died in underride-related crashes. In addition, several of the members have long lobbied for a side underride guard mandate. Doug Smith, an OOIDA board member, was the only truck driver on the committee. Other industry representatives also pointed out concerns regarding unintended consequences of side underride guards.

Opponents of requiring side underride guards pointed to NHTSA’s cost-benefit analysis that indicated a mandate could cost as much as $1.2 billion while saving fewer than 20 lives each year.

That divide often led to meeting time being spent on procedural motions rather than generating a unified plan. At the February meeting, the committee argued over the definition of a consensus. The members representing safety groups argued that a simple majority would suffice as a consensus even though previous Department of Transportation committees have required thresholds of 75% or higher.

Inexplicably, the committee was then able to use a simple majority vote to determine that the committee would need only a simple majority to include something in its “consensus” recommendations to the DOT. Explaining it another way, it would be as if Congress failed to meet the two-thirds threshold needed to override a presidential veto and then used a simple majority vote to lower the veto threshold.

“Over the course of these meetings, (the committee) failed to work in a collaborative and consensus fashion,” OOIDA wrote. “Safety advocacy representatives manipulated their numerical advantage in committee membership and approved a motion to define ‘consensus’ as a simple majority that minimized opposing viewpoints of other (committee) participants.”

Majority report

The committee’s majority report calls for the following:

All semitrailers and single-unit trucks should be equipped with side underride guards. The guards should additionally protect vulnerable road users.

• NHTSA’s rear underride guard rule should be amended to meet the ToughGuard standard or equivalent and apply to all trailers and single-unit trucks.
• FMCSA and NHTSA must expeditiously complete the heavy vehicle automatic emergency brake rulemaking for all classes of commercial motor vehicles.
• NHTSA should issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for front impact guards and harmonize with global front override regulations.
• FMCSA should issue stronger conspicuity tape requirements and have them apply to all classes of commercial motor vehicles, including single-unit trucks.
• DOT and NHTSA should prioritize additional research to prevent underride crashes, as recommended in the report.

In a news release issued by the Truck Safety Coalition, committee chairperson Lee Jackson lauded the majority’s recommendations.

“Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come,” Jackson said. “Preventing underride crash deaths and injuries is an exceedingly attainable goal. This report cuts through the noise and provides clear recommendations, that if followed, will undoubtedly save lives.”

However, OOIDA said the committee’s divisive approach led to impractical and cost-prohibitive recommendations.

“The majority report highlights these committee members’ shameless intention to ignore the Congressional directive to achieve consensus agreement,” OOIDA wrote. “The majority report goes on to include a wish list of cost-prohibitive, unfeasible recommendations that were approved by a slim majority of (committee) participants. These motions merited substantive opposition and should not be used as a foundation for policy development. Further, some sections of the majority report ventured beyond the authorized scope of the panel and often lacked empirical data or research to support inclusion.”

Minority report

The underride committee’s minority report advocates for objective and evidence-based studies before NHTSA adopts any comprehensive underride regulations.

“Regarding side underride guards, further investigation is needed to assess their effectiveness in preventing fatalities and injuries, as well as the specific crash scenarios leading to those outcomes,” the minority report stated. “Additionally, research should explore potential unforeseen consequences resulting from adopting side underride guard technology, such as additional fatalities or injuries resulting from damage to trailers, high centering and increased trips required by cargo displacement.”

In the letter, OOIDA stressed operational challenges regarding rail crossings, loading docks and low-ground clearances.

“NHTSA has considered numerous options involving side underride guards for decades but has consistently concluded federal mandates would be impractical,” OOIDA wrote.

What’s next

In 2023, NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that considered requiring side underride guards.

The agency is now expected to consider the underride committee report before deciding whether to move forward with a proposal.

According to the DOT’s latest regulatory agenda, the side underride guard rulemaking remains in the “analyzing comments” phase. LL