Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 57381-57383 [2024-13956]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. § 117.307 ■ [Removed] 2. Remove § 117.307. Dated: July 07, 2024. Douglas M. Schofield, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Seventh District. [FR Doc. 2024–15233 Filed 7–12–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA–R04–RCRA–2024–0116; FRL–11972– 01–R4] North Carolina: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: North Carolina has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA has reviewed North Carolina’s application and has determined, subject to public comment, that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register, we are authorizing North Carolina for these changes as a final action without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 14, 2024. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– RCRA–2024–0116, at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jul 12, 2024 Jkt 262001 www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The EPA encourages electronic submittals, but if you are unable to submit electronically or need other assistance, please contact Leah Davis, the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Please also contact Leah Davis if you need assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in www.regulations.gov. For alternative access to docket materials, please contact Leah Davis, the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis; RCRA Programs and Cleanup Branch; Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960; telephone number: (404) 562–8562; fax number: (404) 562–9964; email address: davis.leah@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on North Carolina’s changes to its hazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. We have published a final action authorizing these changes in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the final action. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57381 If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the final action and it will not take effect. We would then address all public comments in a subsequent final action and base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes after considering all comments received during the comment period. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Dated: June 28, 2024. Jeaneanne Gettle, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2024–15116 Filed 7–12–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA–2024–0034] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petitions for rulemaking. AGENCY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking from Jerry and Marianne Karth, Eric Hein, and Lois Durso-Hawkins, requesting that NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 223, ‘‘Rear impact guards,’’ and FMVSS No. 224, ‘‘Rear impact protection,’’ to include additional requirements. The agency is denying the petition because it does not provide new or different information that would warrant initiation of a rulemaking at this time. This document also discusses NHTSA’s consideration of a similar petition from the same petitioners submitted to the docket of the July 15, 2022 final rule amending FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. DATES: July 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM 15JYP1 57382 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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) Lina.Valivullah@dot.gov. 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) Callie.Roach@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Petitions Received III. Petitions To Initiate Rulemaking IV. Agency Response V. Conclusion ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 I. Background The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (‘‘Safety Act’’) (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) 1 to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 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. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, ‘‘Rear impact guards,’’ and FMVSS No. 224, ‘‘Rear impact protection,’’ which together provide protection for occupants of passenger vehicles in crashes into the rear of trailers and semitrailers. On July 15, 2022, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register upgrading FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 by adopting requirements similar to Transport Canada’s standard for rear impact guards.2 The updated safety standards 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)). This final rule provides upgraded protection in crashes in which the 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. II. Petitions Received NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from Jerry and Marianne 1 49 2 87 CFR 1.95. FR 42339. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Jul 12, 2024 Jkt 262001 Karth, Eric Hein, and Lois DursoHawkins dated August 18, 2022, requesting that NHTSA initiate rulemaking ‘‘to require that Rear Impact Guards on van-type or box semitrailers are able to prevent underride by passenger vehicles at 35 mph in 30% offset crashes.’’ NHTSA received a similar submission from Jerry and Marianne Karth, Eric Hein, Lois Durso-Hawkins, Aaron Kiefer, Andy Young, and Garrett Mattos dated July 15, 2022, submitted as a petition for reconsideration of the July 15, 2022 final rule.3 That petition requested revision of the final rule to include additional requirements. The July 15, 2022 submission does not meet the requirements in 49 CFR part 553 for a petition for reconsideration.4 For this reason, the agency has decided to consider that submission as a petition for rulemaking. Due to the similarities in the issues raised in the August 18, 2022 petition and the July 15, 2022 submission, NHTSA is responding to both in this single document. III. Petitions To Initiate Rulemaking In the August 18 petition, the petitioners requested that NHTSA promptly initiate rulemaking to require that rear impact guards on trailers provide protection in 30 percent overlap crashes at 35 mph. The petitioners stated that this type of crash is known to result in death and significant injuries, including in collisions with rear impact guards designed to meet the requirements in the July 15, 2022 final rule. In support of their petition, the petitioners stated that NHTSA had been directed by Congress to ‘‘protect the safety of the driving public against unreasonable risk of death or injury’’ and claimed that the agency had failed to fulfill these directives.5 They noted 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/NHTSA2022-0053-0003. 4 While it was submitted as a petition for reconsideration, 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. 5 The petition references report language accompanying the 2022 appropriations bill urging NHTSA to complete rulemaking to improve rear guards that 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, PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 NHTSA’s ‘‘acknowledg[ment] that [the final rule] is a minimum standard’’ but asserted that it ‘‘lacks a genuine commitment to the USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy.’’ The petitioners stated that there is much debate about the frequency of underride crashes, including those at the 30 percent offset, that 30 percent overlap crashes more often result in more severe injuries due to the failure of the guard and passenger compartment intrusion, and that the agency’s reasons for not adding a requirement are incongruous and unfounded. Citing rear impact guard testing by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and existing guard designs that have received the TOUGHGUARD award, the petitioners disagreed with NHTSA’s decision that additional research was needed before adding a 30 percent overlap requirement. The petitioners’ July 15 submission advanced essentially the same arguments, that NHTSA had failed to address the guard deficiencies for 30 percent overlap protection identified by IIHS and that the agency had ‘‘summarily dismissed’’ IIHS’s research in issuing the final rule. The petitioners also argued that the 2022 final rule did not address the concern that the attachments of the guards to the trailers were too weak. The petitioners noted that some manufacturers offered their redesigned guards as standard, while other manufacturers offered them only as an option, and that NHTSA ‘‘has demonstrated an unwillingness to require that all manufacturers install these stronger guards as Standard on new trailers’’ and has continued to allow unreasonable risk when there is ‘‘available and proven technology.’’ They asserted that the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP) should have been able to provide input before the final rule was issued. IV. Agency Response All NHTSA rulemaking actions establishing an FMVSS must meet the Safety Act’s requirements. The FMVSS must be practicable, it must meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and it must be objective, reasonable, 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 2022, Pub. L. 117–103). However, report language must be read in the context of the specific statutory requirements to which NHTSA is subject under the Safety Act. E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM 15JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. As explained in the preamble to the final rule (see 87 FR 42359–42360), analysis of the costs and weights for currently available trailers and rear impact guard designs led to the conclusion that a 30 percent overlap condition would not be reasonable or practicable for this FMVSS and would not meet the requirements of Sections 30111(a) and (b) of the Safety Act for issuance of FMVSS. NHTSA continues to research potential cost-effective rear impact guard designs that could improve protection in 30 percent overlap crashes while enhancing protection in full and 50 percent overlap VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:29 Jul 12, 2024 Jkt 262001 crashes at higher speeds. Issuance of the final rule does not preclude future rulemaking upon the completion of additional research. The agency will consider all input from ACUP’s complete report and will consider all views in any future rulemaking.6 V. Conclusion In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30162 and 49 CFR part 552, NHTSA is denying two petitions for rulemaking requesting 6 While Petitioners urged that the views of the ACUP should have been considered before issuing a final rule, we note that they do not seek revocation of the final rule. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 57383 that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 223, ‘‘Rear impact guards,’’ and FMVSS No. 224, ‘‘Rear impact protection,’’ to include additional requirements. NHTSA is denying these petitions because the petitioners did not provide new or different information that would warrant initiation of a rulemaking at this time. Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2024–13956 Filed 7–12–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM 15JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57381-57383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13956]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0034]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear 
Impact Protection; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Denial of petitions for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking from Jerry and 
Marianne Karth, Eric Hein, and Lois Durso-Hawkins, requesting that 
NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 223, 
``Rear impact guards,'' and FMVSS No. 224, ``Rear impact protection,'' 
to include additional requirements. The agency is denying the petition 
because it does not provide new or different information that would 
warrant initiation of a rulemaking at this time. This document also 
discusses NHTSA's consideration of a similar petition from the same 
petitioners submitted to the docket of the July 15, 2022 final rule 
amending FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224.

DATES: July 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

[[Page 57382]]

    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: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions Received
III. Petitions To Initiate Rulemaking
IV. Agency Response
V. Conclusion

I. Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Safety Act'') 
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation 
(NHTSA by delegation) \1\ to issue safety standards for new motor 
vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 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. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA issued Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,'' and 
FMVSS No. 224, ``Rear impact protection,'' which together provide 
protection for occupants of passenger vehicles in crashes into the rear 
of trailers and semitrailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2022, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register upgrading FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 by adopting requirements 
similar to Transport Canada's standard for rear impact guards.\2\ The 
updated safety standards 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)). This final 
rule provides upgraded protection in crashes in which the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 87 FR 42339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions Received

    NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from Jerry and Marianne 
Karth, Eric Hein, and Lois Durso-Hawkins dated August 18, 2022, 
requesting that NHTSA initiate rulemaking ``to require that Rear Impact 
Guards on van-type or box semitrailers are able to prevent underride by 
passenger vehicles at 35 mph in 30% offset crashes.''
    NHTSA received a similar submission from Jerry and Marianne Karth, 
Eric Hein, Lois Durso-Hawkins, Aaron Kiefer, Andy Young, and Garrett 
Mattos dated July 15, 2022, submitted as a petition for reconsideration 
of the July 15, 2022 final rule.\3\ That petition requested revision of 
the final rule to include additional requirements. The July 15, 2022 
submission does not meet the requirements in 49 CFR part 553 for a 
petition for reconsideration.\4\ For this reason, the agency has 
decided to consider that submission as a petition for rulemaking. Due 
to the similarities in the issues raised in the August 18, 2022 
petition and the July 15, 2022 submission, NHTSA is responding to both 
in this single document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Petitions To Initiate Rulemaking

    In the August 18 petition, the petitioners requested that NHTSA 
promptly initiate rulemaking to require that rear impact guards on 
trailers provide protection in 30 percent overlap crashes at 35 mph. 
The petitioners stated that this type of crash is known to result in 
death and significant injuries, including in collisions with rear 
impact guards designed to meet the requirements in the July 15, 2022 
final rule. In support of their petition, the petitioners stated that 
NHTSA had been directed by Congress to ``protect the safety of the 
driving public against unreasonable risk of death or injury'' and 
claimed that the agency had failed to fulfill these directives.\5\ They 
noted NHTSA's ``acknowledg[ment] that [the final rule] is a minimum 
standard'' but asserted that it ``lacks a genuine commitment to the 
USDOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy.'' The petitioners stated that 
there is much debate about the frequency of underride crashes, 
including those at the 30 percent offset, that 30 percent overlap 
crashes more often result in more severe injuries due to the failure of 
the guard and passenger compartment intrusion, and that the agency's 
reasons for not adding a requirement are incongruous and unfounded. 
Citing rear impact guard testing by the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety (IIHS) and existing guard designs that have received the 
TOUGHGUARD award, the petitioners disagreed with NHTSA's decision that 
additional research was needed before adding a 30 percent overlap 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The petition references report language accompanying the 
2022 appropriations bill urging NHTSA to complete rulemaking to 
improve rear guards that 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). However, report language 
must be read in the context of the specific statutory requirements 
to which NHTSA is subject under the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners' July 15 submission advanced essentially the same 
arguments, that NHTSA had failed to address the guard deficiencies for 
30 percent overlap protection identified by IIHS and that the agency 
had ``summarily dismissed'' IIHS's research in issuing the final rule. 
The petitioners also argued that the 2022 final rule did not address 
the concern that the attachments of the guards to the trailers were too 
weak. The petitioners noted that some manufacturers offered their 
redesigned guards as standard, while other manufacturers offered them 
only as an option, and that NHTSA ``has demonstrated an unwillingness 
to require that all manufacturers install these stronger guards as 
Standard on new trailers'' and has continued to allow unreasonable risk 
when there is ``available and proven technology.'' They asserted that 
the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP) should have been 
able to provide input before the final rule was issued.

IV. Agency Response

    All NHTSA rulemaking actions establishing an FMVSS must meet the 
Safety Act's requirements. The FMVSS must be practicable, it must meet 
the need for motor vehicle safety, and it must be objective, 
reasonable, 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

[[Page 57383]]

FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. As explained in the preamble to the 
final rule (see 87 FR 42359-42360), analysis of the costs and weights 
for currently available trailers and rear impact guard designs led to 
the conclusion that a 30 percent overlap condition would not be 
reasonable or practicable for this FMVSS and would not meet the 
requirements of Sections 30111(a) and (b) of the Safety Act for 
issuance of FMVSS. NHTSA continues to research potential cost-effective 
rear impact guard designs that could improve protection in 30 percent 
overlap crashes while enhancing protection in full and 50 percent 
overlap crashes at higher speeds. Issuance of the final rule does not 
preclude future rulemaking upon the completion of additional research. 
The agency will consider all input from ACUP's complete report and will 
consider all views in any future rulemaking.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ While Petitioners urged that the views of the ACUP should 
have been considered before issuing a final rule, we note that they 
do not seek revocation of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30162 and 49 CFR part 552, NHTSA is 
denying two petitions for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA initiate 
rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,'' and FMVSS 
No. 224, ``Rear impact protection,'' to include additional 
requirements. NHTSA is denying these petitions because the petitioners 
did not provide new or different information that would warrant 
initiation of a rulemaking at this time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2024-13956 Filed 7-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.