Vol. 136, No. 40 — October 5, 2002

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Rear Impact Guard)

Statutory Authority

Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The Department of Transport proposes to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations by introducing section 223, "Rear Impact Guard." The purpose of this section is to reduce the injuries and deaths that occur when a passenger vehicle collides with the rear of a larger and heavier vehicle, such as a tractor-trailer. In such collisions, the passenger vehicle may slide underneath, or underride, the trailer to such an extent that the rear extremity of the trailer enters the passenger compartment. This amendment proposal is intended to prevent passenger compartment intrusion, which can cause severe injuries and death, by limiting the extent of rear underride.

This new section would require most trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or more to be equipped with a rear impact guard that meets specified dimensional, deflection, and energy absorption criteria. Section 223 defines a rear impact guard as "a device installed on or near the rear of a trailer so that, when the trailer is struck from the rear, the device limits the distance that the striking vehicle's front end can slide under the rear end of the trailer". In practice, a rear impact guard usually consists of a bumper, or horizontal member, that is attached to, or integrated into, the rear-end structure of a trailer by two or more vertical supports.

This proposal would also introduce an attendant test method, also called "Rear Impact Guard," which sets out the procedure to be used for conducting the required strength and energy absorption tests, in order to ensure consistency in testing. Test Method 223 allows the guard to be tested either as installed directly on a trailer or on a test fixture, provided the guard is installed on the test fixture in the same manner as it would be on a trailer.

Section 223 specifies four requirements governing the dimensions and geometric configuration of rear impact guards. The horizontal member of the guard must be at least 100 mm in height at any point along its width, its ends must extend to within 100 mm of the sides of the trailer, and it may not be mounted more than 305 mm forward of the rear of the trailer. In addition, the maximum ground clearance of the guard, which is the vertical distance from the ground to the bottom edge of the horizontal member, must be no greater than 560 mm. A ground-clearance limit of 560 mm is considered to be low enough to protect small vehicles and high enough so as not to impede normal trailer operations.

In order to ensure that the rear impact guard can withstand high-speed impacts, section 223 also sets out minimum strength requirements. A rear impact guard would be required to withstand a minimum force of 50,000 N applied at its centre and at a point located at a distance of 3/8 the width of the guard from the centre. In addition, the guard would be required to withstand a uniform test load of 350,000 N applied over its entire width. Combined, these three tests are intended to protect motorists from serious injury in collisions with speed differentials of 56 km/h and higher. According to the U.S. New Car Assessment Program, late-model motor vehicles are designed to withstand speed differentials of up to 56 km/h. (see footnote 1) 

The energy absorption capacity of the guard would be measured during the uniform load test, with the guard being required to absorb at least 20,000 joules of energy by plastic deformation, within the first 125 mm of deflection. Energy absorption is an important factor in maintaining impact forces at survivable levels in the striking vehicle. According to the results of research conducted by the Department, a rear impact guard should be capable of absorbing at least 20,000 joules of energy within the specified deformation, in order to protect vehicle occupants against severe injuries caused by an overly rigid rear impact guard. (see footnote 2) 

Section 223 would also require that, after the application of the uniform test load over the width of the guard, the ground clearance of the horizontal member not exceed 560 mm. The Department's research showed that some rear impact guards bent on impact, allowing the striking vehicle to travel an unsafe distance under the guard and endangering the passengers. A measurement taken after the test would effectively limit the extent of the underride.

The requirements of section 223 would apply to newly manufactured trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or more, with the following exceptions: pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, low-chassis trailers, wheels back trailers, trailers with temporary living quarters, and trailers with work-performing equipment located in, or moving through, the area that would be occupied by the horizontal member. These trailers, which are also exempt in the U.S., would be excluded, because their design does not permit the installation of a rear guard, their wheels or structure prevent or limit rear underride, or they rarely travel on public roadways.

Single-unit trucks would also be exempt, which is in harmony with the analogous requirements of the U.S. Both U.S. statistics and data taken from the Canadian Traffic Accident Information Database (TRAID) (see footnote 3)  indicate that single-unit trucks are rarely involved in fatal rear-end collisions. Furthermore, many single-unit trucks are equipped with rear hydraulic lift platforms, which would either exempt the trucks from the requirement for a rear impact guard or significantly increase the cost of its installation.

Since the mandate of the Department of Transport is restricted to newly manufactured motor vehicles, the requirements of section 223 would not apply to the rear impact guards of trailers manufactured before the effective date of this amendment.

Implementation

This amendment would come into force one year after its registration by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and, for a period of two years thereafter, two compliance options would be available to trailer manufacturers and importers. Rear impact guards could conform to the requirements outlined above, or, they could conform to the requirements of the United States, as specified in section 571.223 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 (revised as of October 1, 2000), and as contained in Technical Standards Document No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection", which reproduces the requirements of section 571.224 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. During the interim implementation period, rear impact guards that conformed to the U.S. standards would be required to bear the label specified in section 571.223 of the Code of Federal Regulations, rather than a Canadian compliance label. After expiration of the two-year interim period, the rear impact guards of all subject trailers would be required to conform to the provisions of section 223.

Alternatives

While considering whether to impose a requirement for rear impact guards to be installed on newly manufactured trailers, and what such a requirement should consist of, the Department of Transport weighed several options. In particular, it considered leaving the existing situation unchanged, harmonizing its requirements with those of the U.S. or the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and imposing unique Canadian requirements. The Department also considered three implementation options and the use of a Memorandum of Understanding. The reasons why the Department decided to adopt requirements that differ in three important respects from those of the U.S., with a two-year interim implementation period, are outlined below.

Maintaining the Status Quo

At present, there is no federal Canadian requirement for trailers to be equipped with a rear impact guard. However, all trailers manufactured after January 26, 1998 that operate in the U.S. are required to have a rear impact guard that conforms to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 223 and 224, regardless of where the trailer was built or whether it is American- or foreign-owned. In addition, several Canadian provinces have dimensional requirements for rear impact guards on some trailers operating within their jurisdictions. As a result, many trailers that operate in Canada are already equipped with rear impact guards, many of which conform to the U.S. requirements. Since the majority of trailers is already equipped with rear impact guards, the Department decided it was necessary to set requirements governing them, in order to provide a consistent level of protection to all Canadian motorists in the event that a passenger vehicle collides with the rear of a trailer.

Harmonization with the U.S. Requirements

In order to facilitate trade and minimize the economic burden of compliance on the automotive industry, the Department attempts to harmonize its regulatory requirements with those of the U.S. and other jurisdictions, whenever possible. In this instance, however, the results of research conducted by the Department indicate that rear impact guards manufactured to comply with the standards of the U.S. would not adequately protect the front-seat occupants of compact and sub-compact automobiles from passenger compartment intrusion. (see footnote 4)  Statistical data indicate that the occupants of smaller vehicles are more vulnerable to injury in rear-end collisions than the occupants of larger vehicles. While compact and sub-compact automobiles represent approximately 35 percent of the light-duty fleet in Canada, Table 1 shows that their occupants account for almost half the deaths that occur in rear-end collisions of passenger vehicles with trailers.

Table 1: Rear-End Collision Fatalities in 1995 by Vehicle Category (see footnote 5) 

Due to a major difference in the composition of the U.S. and Canadian light-duty vehicle fleet, there is a greater need to protect the occupants of smaller vehicles in Canada. In both countries, compact vehicles make up approximately a quarter of the light-duty fleet, and account for about the same percentage of fatalities from rear-impact collisions. However, in Canada, sub-compact vehicles represent approximately 12 percent of the fleet, while in the U.S. they represent only about 2.5 percent. Furthermore, as Table 1 indicates, sub-compact vehicles account for a disproportionately high number of rear-impact fatalities, when compared to compact vehicles.

The Department's research also indicated that the requirements of FMVSS 223 were unlikely to prevent underride in collisions with speed differentials greater than 48 km/h. According to a study cited by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the severity of collisions involving underride shifts from non-fatal to fatal at speed differentials of 40 km/h and more, with no fatalities in collisions at relative speeds below 32 km/h, and very few in the 32 to 40 km/h range. (see footnote 6)  Graph 1 indicates that collisions involving underride with speed differentials greater than 40 km/h are invariably fatal.

Furthermore, the data cited by the NHTSA indicate that, of the fatal rear- and side-impact collisions involving underride between passenger vehicles and trailers that were analyzed, only 30 percent occurred when the speed differential was 48 km/h or less. An additional 27 percent occurred when the differential was between 48 km/h and 56 km/h, while the remaining 43 percent occurred at speed differentials greater than 56 km/h. According to these data, the U.S. requirements governing rear impact guards do not address a significant proportion of the fatal collisions involving rear underride that would be survivable, based on vehicle design alone.

Graph 1: Relative Distribution of the Incidence of Collisions as a Function of Speed Differential

Canadian accident reports do not record the speed differential of the colliding vehicles; however, the posted speed limit of the roadway on which the collision took place is provided. Statistics taken from the Traffic Accident Information Database indicate that, for the years from 1994 to 1999, the majority of fatal rear-impact collisions involving trailers occurred on roads with a posted speed limit of 80 km/h or more.

In order to adequately protect the occupants of compact and sub-compact vehicles, and to ensure that rear impact guards would be able to withstand impact speeds of 56 km/h or more without failing, the Department decided to adopt the same terms, definitions, applicability exceptions, and configurational specifications as those of the U.S. It is, however, proposing different strength and energy absorption requirements.

Harmonization with the Requirements of the Economic Commission for Europe

Since Canada is a member of the United Nations World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, the Department examined the requirements of ECE Regulation No. 58, which governs "rear underrun protective devices" — the European term for rear impact guards. Although, to the Department's knowledge, trailers that conform to the requirements of Regulation No. 58 are not currently being imported into Canada, it considered allowing Regulation No. 58 to be used as a regulatory alternative.

Regulation No. 58, which was introduced in 1983 and revised once in 1989, specifies configurational requirements that are similar to those proposed here. The horizontal member, which is referred to as a cross-member in the Regulation, must not be less than 100 mm in height, and its ends may not bend to the rear. The width of the cross-member must not exceed that of the rear axle, as measured at the outermost points of the wheels, and the cross-member may be no more than 100 mm shorter. The ground clearance, as measured from the underside of the protective device, may be no higher than 550 mm, which is almost the same as the 560 mm required by this proposal. With regard to the location of the protective device, Regulation No. 58 specifies that it may be installed no more than 400 mm forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle, as compared to the proposed Canadian requirement of no more than 305 mm.

Regulation No. 58 also specifies strength tests, which may be conducted on a vehicle, on a part of the chassis of the vehicle type for which the protective device is intended, or on a rigid test bench. The first test requires that a horizontal force of a maximum of 100,000 N be applied at a height of less than 600 mm at two points located symmetrically on either side of the centre of the device, at a distance from 700 mm to 1 m apart. The second strength test subjects the protective device to a maximum horizontal force of 25,000 N to be applied at three additional specified points. After these tests, the ground clearance of the protective device may not exceed 600 mm, when the vehicle is unladen, and the distance between the rear of the device and the rear extremity of the vehicle may not exceed 400 mm at any point where a test load was applied. Regulation No. 58 specifies neither a uniform load test nor an energy absorption test.

The configurational requirements specified by Regulation No. 58 for rear underrun protective devices are sufficiently similar to those being proposed by this amendment that they might be acceptable in Canada. However, the absence of a uniform load test and an energy absorption test would not ensure that the device was capable of providing sufficient protection against passenger compartment intrusion, and absorbing enough energy by plastic deformation to allow the passengers in the striking vehicle to survive a high-speed impact. For these reasons, the Department decided that it would not be in the interests of safety to allow the use of ECE Regulation No. 58 as an alternative.

Adoption of Unique Canadian Requirements

The requirements contained in this proposal are the same as those of the U.S., with three exceptions. Like FMVSS 223, proposed section 223 requires every subject rear impact guard to resist a force of 50,000 N at its centre and at a point located at a distance of 3/8 the width of the guard from the centre. However, where the U.S. specifies a third point test to be conducted using a 100,000-N force, this proposal requires that the guard be capable of resisting a force of 350,000 N, applied uniformly across the width of the horizontal member, without deflecting more than 125 mm.

The purpose of the uniform load test is to provide a reliable estimate of the total load that the guard can withstand. Where a horizontal member is flexible, a point load test provides an assessment of the resistance provided by an individual support, not the resistance of the guard as a whole. Where a horizontal member is very stiff, a point load test provides an accurate assessment of the resistance of the overall guard, because all the supports will resist the force. The requirement for both uniform and point load tests would assure that adequate local and overall resistance is provided by every rear impact guard, regardless of individual design differences. Neither the U.S. nor the ECE require that a full-width load test be performed.

This proposed amendment also specifies that, after the uniform load test is performed, the ground clearance of the guard may not exceed 560 mm. Regulation No. 58 has a similar requirement, with a slightly higher limit of 600 mm. FMVSS 223 does not specify that the ground clearance be measured both before the load tests are conducted and after deformation has occurred. Research conducted by the Department indicates that, in order to limit the distance that a striking vehicle travels under the guard during an actual collision, the ground clearance of the horizontal member must be no more than 560 mm after testing. (see footnote 7) 

Canada's third differing requirement is that the guard be capable of absorbing at least 20,000 joules of energy by plastic deformation, an amount that is 3.5 times greater than the U.S. minimum of 5,650 joules. Energy absorption is key to limiting the extent of underride, and consequent passenger compartment intrusion, because the more energy the guard absorbs, the less energy the striking vehicle will absorb by deformation.

Under the auspices of the United Nations, world regulatory bodies have agreed to work together to develop common regulations, which are referred to as Global Technical Regulations. Canada intends to submit its proposed requirements governing rear impact guards to the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations for consideration, as the basis for a Global Technical Regulation.

Adoption of an Implementation Period

Because the proposed requirements of section 223 are more stringent than those of the U.S., the Department believes that the manufacturers and importers of trailers will need time in which to modify and show compliance of the rear impact guards to be installed on subject trailers. Consequently, this proposal makes provision for a one-year delay in its effective date, and an additional interim period of two years in which it will be permissible for rear impact guards to conform either to the U.S. requirements or to those of Canada.

Prior to adopting the two-year phase-in period, the Department considered both one-year and four-year interim periods. One year was rejected because it would not have provided the trailer manufacturing and importing industry with sufficient time in which to make the needed changes. On the other hand, a period of four years was considered to be unnecessarily long, given that trailers fitted with guards meeting the U.S. requirements would not be likely to provide sufficient protection to the motoring public.

The Department invites comments on the appropriateness of the proposed effective date, and the length of the interim period.

Signing of a Memorandum of Understanding

The Department considered introducing requirements governing rear impact guards in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which is a signed, voluntary agreement entered into between government and industry. The use of an MOU is most appropriate when an industry is small and its membership relatively homogeneous. Since the trailer manufacturing industry has many members, whose levels of production vary widely, a voluntary agreement would not have been appropriate in this instance.

Benefits and Costs

In order to estimate the potential benefit of mandating rear impact guards for trailers, data on the incidence of collisions causing death in which a passenger vehicle strikes the rear of a trailer are necessary. Unfortunately, the statistics on rear-end collisions contained in the Department's Traffic Accident Information Database are incomplete. Due to reporting differences between jurisdictions, information on this type of collision is lacking for Québec, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. In addition, TRAID data are limited to rear-end collisions involving only two vehicles. As such, the data available from TRAID provide a lower-bound estimate of the incidence of rear-end collisions, and are more useful in determining trends.

According to TRAID, between 1994 and 1999, the incidence of fatal collisions, deaths, and injuries due to rear-end collisions in which a passenger vehicle (see footnote 8)  struck a tractor-trailer changed very little. This relative stability makes it possible to base this benefit analysis on the results of an unpublished study conducted by the Department of fatal collisions that occurred in 1995 between heavy trucks and at least one passenger vehicle. (see footnote 9)  This benefit analysis estimates the monetary value of the reduction in deaths that would have accrued had the trailers involved in the rear-end collisions that occurred in 1995 been equipped with rear impact guards that met the requirements proposed by this amendment.

According to the data collected by the Department in its study, there were 23 fatal collisions in which passenger vehicles struck the rear of tractor-trailer combinations. Passenger vehicles, in this instance, include automobiles, minivans, pick-up trucks, and sport utility vehicles. These 23 collisions resulted in 23 deaths and the hospitalization of at least 10 people. For 15 of the collisions, photographic evidence showed that underride was present in 9 cases, or 60 percent, and that passenger compartment intrusion had occurred in 6 cases, or 40 percent. In 8 instances, photographs could not be obtained; consequently, it was necessary to estimate the incidence of underride and passenger compartment intrusion (PCI) for these collisions. If, in order to account for the unknown collisions, the 40 percent rate of PCI is applied to all 23 collisions, it can then be assumed that 9 of the fatal collisions (see footnote 10)  that occurred in 1995 involved passenger compartment intrusion.

This analysis presents two assessments, one that estimates the benefits of providing improved protection to the occupants of compact and sub-compact vehicles, and a second that includes the incremental benefit of increasing the strength of the guard to withstand impacts at speed differentials greater than 48 km/h. The first assessment is based on the evaluation made by the NHTSA in December 1995 of the potential effectiveness of the requirements of FMVSS 223 and 224. This evaluation estimated that fatalities due to passenger compartment intrusion would be reduced by about 10 percent to 25 percent. (see footnote 11)  In view of the greater protection that Canada's proposed provisions would provide to the occupants of compact and sub-compact passenger cars, a fatality reduction rate of 25 percent has been adopted for the first estimate.

The second estimate assumes a fatality reduction rate of 40 percent, which takes into account the fact that 27 percent of fatal rear- and side-impact collisions occur at speed differentials between 48 km/h and 56 km/h. (see footnote 12)  If it is assumed that the relative incidence of the two types of collisions is about equal, it may be argued that Canada's proposed requirements would reduce deaths due to passenger compartment intrusion by an additional 13.5 percent, over and above the reduction achievable by the U.S. provisions alone. When added to the expected 25 percent effectiveness rate of the first estimate and rounded upward, a 40 percent rate results.

If the economic value of a life is estimated at $1.8 million, an effectiveness rate of 25 percent, when applied to the 9 fatalities that occurred in rear-end collisions involving passenger compartment intrusion in 1995, would have yielded a monetary benefit of $4.05 million. With a 40 percent reduction in fatalities, the monetary benefit would have been $6.48 million.

Because severe collisions involving rear underride occur more frequently in darkness, the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations were amended in 1996 to require that retroreflective sheeting be applied on the side and rear surfaces of trailers to make them more conspicuous. At the time, the Department estimated that retroreflective sheeting could reduce the incidence of rear- and side-impact collisions in Canada by as much as 20 percent in unlighted conditions. (see footnote 13)  Since the TRAID data indicate little change in the incidence of rear-impact collisions from 1994 to 1999, it was unnecessary to discount the potential benefits calculated above, in order to account for a reduction in rear-end collisions due to the introduction of mandatory retroreflective sheeting on tractor-trailers.

The costs that would be incurred by the introduction of section 223 will consist of a one-time expense for the design and testing of rear impact guards to meet the proposed Canadian requirements, and, in the case of trailers that operate in the U.S., an additional ongoing expense that represents the difference between a Canadian- and a U.S.-compliant guard. For trailers that do not travel in the U.S., the ongoing cost of this amendment would be the full cost of a rear impact guard that complies with the proposed Canadian requirements. Based on information provided by the Canadian Transportation Equipment Association, the Department estimates that the cost of upgrading the design and materials of rear impact guards would be between $100 and $200 per trailer. (see footnote 14)  At estimated annual commercial trailer sales of between 15,000 and 20,000 units, the cost of this proposed amendment would be from $1.5 to $4 million per year.

Comparing these costs to the benefits of between $4 to $6.5 million calculated above would result in a net benefit of $2.5 million, for both the higher and lower estimates.

Since rear impact guards are sometimes damaged during normal operations, the Department is concerned that the strengthening of the guard and its attachments that would be required by this proposal could increase the incidence of damage to the trailer chassis when the guard was struck during routine loading and unloading. The Department invites comments from manufacturers and operators on whether they anticipate an increase in repair costs as a result of the proposed requirements.

This amendment is not expected to have any impact on the environment.

Consultation

The Department has instituted a systematic and extensive consultation process that is intended to keep the automotive industry, public safety organizations, and the general public informed of planned and recently made changes to the regulatory requirements governing motor vehicle safety in Canada, and that provides a mechanism to comment on these initiatives. Three times a year, departmental representatives meet with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, whose members include DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc.; Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited; and General Motors of Canada Limited. The Department also meets three times a year with the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC), which represents international manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles.(see footnote 15)  In addition, once a year, the members of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) join the AIAMC meeting. The AAM is a trade association of 13 car and light-truck manufacturers whose members account for more than 90 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. (see footnote 16)  Semi-annual meetings are also held with the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council, the Rubber Association of Canada, and the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association. (see footnote 17) 

These automotive industry meetings allow manufacturers and importers to respond to proposed changes to the regulations for which the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate is responsible, to raise problems with the existing requirements, and to discuss any matters of concern to the member companies. On a quarterly basis, these associations receive a copy of the Directorate's Regulatory Plan, which outlines all contemplated changes to the governing safety requirements and tracks initiatives, as they are developed, published in the Canada Gazette, and as the new regulations come into force.

The Department also consults with the federal authorities of other countries and with Canada's provinces and territories. Since the harmonization of regulatory requirements between Canada and the U.S. is pivotal to trade between the two countries and to the competitiveness of Canada's automotive industry, semi-annual meetings are held with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These meetings provide a valuable opportunity to discuss future regulatory initiatives and problems of mutual interest.

The Department is also committed to the development of global regulations, which is being carried out under the auspices of the United Nations World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Along with members of other world regulatory bodies and public interest groups, Departmental representatives participate in 11 or more meetings a year as part of the initiative to develop Global Technical Regulations in order to simplify the regulatory process for automotive manufacturers who market their products internationally.

Consultation with the provinces and territories takes place mainly through the Department's membership in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). Its Board of Directors meets a minimum of twice a year, as do the three standing committees of the CCMTA, which are comprised of officials from each member jurisdiction who deal with a broad range of short- and long-term issues.

In addition to the foregoing consultation mechanisms, which involve the automotive industry and other government agencies, the Department also holds meetings twice a year with national public safety organizations to consult with them on future regulatory changes, and to discuss emerging safety problems. Thirty or more such organizations are invited to each of these meetings, organizations that include drivers' and automobile associations, bus operators, the insurance industry, consumer associations, health and police organizations, the Canada Safety Council, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, the Canadian Automobile Association, MADD Canada, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These organizations also receive copies of the Directorate's Regulatory Plan on a quarterly basis.

In order to monitor public opinion and concerns, as well as to keep the public informed on road safety-related issues, the Department offers a free telephone information service that Canadians may access from across the country, and it publishes specific safety-related information on its Web site. The public may also make inquiries using the Department's Web site, and by using regular mail. In addition, a dedicated toll-free telephone line allows the public to notify the Department of safety-related defects, which are subsequently investigated by the Public Complaints, Recalls and Investigations Division. As part of its research program, the Department has established several teams of collision investigators that are affiliated with major universities, part of whose work is to monitor road safety issues. A system for training instructors on the proper installation of infant and child restraint systems has also been implemented, and the instructors advise the Department of the safety issues that arise.

This consultation process enables the Department to identify and respond to safety-related problems in a timely fashion. More importantly, it keeps the public, the automotive industry, and public safety organizations abreast of the Department's many regulatory initiatives, and provides opportunities for all concerned to participate in the development of new motor vehicle safety measures.

Because the proposed introduction of a requirement for rear impact guards would affect the trailer manufacturing and importing industry almost exclusively, the Department also consulted with the Canadian Transportation Equipment Association (CTEA) throughout the development of this proposal on both a formal and informal basis. The CTEA represents a large proportion of the trailer manufacturers in Canada, many of whom are small companies, and the Department recognized the need to ensure that its eventual requirements could be implemented by manufacturers of all sizes at minimal expense.

To this end, the Department and representatives of the CTEA collaborated in a research project to compare the performance of guards of different heights and strengths. The results of this research, conducted in conjunction with the Centre for Surface Transportation Technology of National Research Council Canada, was published as an SAE Technical Paper called "Trailer Underride Protection — A Canadian Perspective." This allowed the test results to be shared by other automotive engineers and the trailer manufacturing industry as a whole. More formally, Departmental representatives also attended the three most recent Annual General Meetings of the CTEA in order to keep the Association's members apprised of its progress in developing the regulation.

Once the Department's research was complete and a draft proposal had been finalized, individual meetings were held in the fall of 2001 with representatives of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which represents private truck operators in Canada, and the Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association (TTMA), which represents U.S. trailer manufacturers. After meeting with the Department, the TTMA expressed the opinion that Canada's requirements should be harmonized with those of the U.S. The Association also requested that the Department postpone implementing its proposal until the results of a study being carried out by the NHTSA to assess the effectiveness of the U.S. rear impact guard requirements could be evaluated.

In March 2002, the Department held an additional meeting with representatives of the CTEA. The attendees expressed concern that the adoption of unique Canadian requirements would place Canadian manufacturers and operators of truck-trailers at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis; their U.S. counterparts because only they would be legally bound to equip their vehicles with the Canadian-compliant guard. The Department acknowledges this problem; however, as mentioned earlier, the Canadian vehicle fleet has a significantly greater percentage of compact and sub-compact vehicles than the U.S. fleet, which makes it necessary to provide a higher level of protection for Canadian occupants. The ECE, whose rear impact guard requirements are similar to, but somewhat more stringent than, those of the U.S., is currently evaluating the effectiveness of its Regulation because the European vehicle fleet also contains a high proportion of small cars. The Department will assess the U.S. analysis of its rear impact standards when it becomes available, and will work with the NHTSA to develop harmonized requirements, if possible.

A consultation period of 75 days will follow the publication of this proposal in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Comments may be made by writing to one of the addresses given below or at any government-industry meeting. All responses will be taken into consideration in the development of the final amendment. In particular, the Department would like to receive comments on the following questions:

— the appropriateness of the proposed effective date and the length of the interim period, and

— whether the repair costs of the guard or the trailer chassis would increase as a result of the proposed requirements. Please provide details and supporting data.

Compliance and Enforcement

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. The Department of Transport monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport. If a vehicle does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer or importer is subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Contacts

For further information, please contact: Denis Brault, Regulatory Development Engineer, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 998-1964 (Telephone), (613) 990-2913 (Facsimile), braultd@tc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).

Copies of proposed Test Method 223 "Rear Impact Guard" and proposed Technical Standards Document No. 224 "Rear Impact Protection" may be obtained on the Internet at www.tc.gc.ca/ RoadSafety/mvstm_tsd/index_e.htm. Copies may also be obtained by contacting the Regulations Clerk, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 998-1960 (Telephone), (613) 990-2913 (Facsimile), regsclerkcommis@tc. gc.ca (Electronic mail).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote a) , that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote b)  and subsection 11(1) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Rear Impact Guard).

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Denis Brault, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5. (Tel.: (613) 998-1964; fax: (613) 990-2913; E-Mail: braultd@tc.gc.ca).

Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.

Ottawa, September 24, 2002

EILEEN BOYD
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (REAR IMPACT GUARD)

AMENDMENTS

1. Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 18)  is amended by adding the following after item 222:

2. Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after section 222:

Rear Impact Guard (Standard 223)

Interpretation

223. (1) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section.

"ground clearance" means the vertical distance from the bottom edge of a horizontal member to the ground. (garde au sol)

"guard width" means, in respect of a rear impact guard that is installed on a trailer, the maximum horizontal guard dimension that is perpendicular to the longitudinal vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centreline of the trailer. (largeur du dispositif de protection)

"horizontal member" means the horizontal structural member of a rear impact guard. (pièce horizontale)

"hydraulic guard" means a rear impact guard designed to use fluid properties to provide a resistance force to deformation. (dispositif de protection hydraulique)

"low-chassis trailer" means a trailer that has a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and that has a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of subsections (7) to (9). (remorque à châssis surbaissé)

"outboard" means, in respect of a trailer, away from the trailer centreline and toward the side extremities of the trailer. (extérieur)

"pulpwood trailer" means a trailer that is designed exclusively to carry harvested logs or pulpwood and that is constructed with a skeletal frame with no means for attachment of a solid bed, body or container. (remorque pour bois à pâte)

"rear extremity" means the rearmost point on a trailer that is above a horizontal plane located above the ground clearance and below a horizontal plane located 1 900 mm above the ground when the trailer is configured as specified in subsection (8) and when the trailer's cargo doors, tailgate and other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the trailer is in motion, with non-structural protrusions such as tail lamps, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches excluded from the determination of the rearmost point. (extrémité arrière)

"rear impact guard" means a device installed on or near the rear of a trailer so that, when the trailer is struck from the rear, the device limits the distance that the striking vehicle's front end slides under the rear end of the trailer. (dispositif de protection arrière)

"rounded corners" means the outermost ends of a rear impact guard's horizontal member that curve upward. (coins arrondis)

"side extremity" means the outermost point on a trailer's side that is above a horizontal plane located above the ground clearance, below a horizontal plane located 1 900 mm above the ground, and between a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the trailer and a transverse vertical plane located 305 mm forward of that plane, with non-structural protrusions such as tail lamps, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches excluded from the determination of the outermost point. (extrémité latérale)

"vertical rise displacement" means the distance, measured in millimetres, from the lowest point of a rear impact guard's horizontal member, that the horizontal member rises in the vertical plane when a uniform test load is applied in accordance with subsection (11); (déplacement vertical du niveau atteint)

"wheels back trailer" means a trailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and located such that the rearmost surface of the rearmost tires of the size recommended by the trailer manufacturer for that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the trailer. (remorque à roues arrière reculées)

Application

(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to every trailer with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or more other than

(a) a pole trailer, a pulpwood trailer, a wheels back trailer or a trailer designed to be used as temporary living quarters;

(b) a low-chassis trailer; and

(c) a trailer with work-performing equipment that is located in or that moves through the area that would be occupied by a horizontal member that meets the requirements of subsections (7) to (9).

Rear Impact Guard Requirement

(3) Every trailer shall be equipped with a rear impact guard that, when measured and tested in accordance with Test Method 223 - Rear Impact Guard (December 2001), meets the requirements of subsections (6) to (13).

(4) Instead of conforming to subsection (3), a trailer may have a rear impact guard installed on it in accordance with Technical Standards Document No. 224 — Rear Impact Protection, as amended from time to time, that is labelled in accordance with section 571.223 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States, Title 49 (revised as of October 1, 2000).

(5) Despite subsection (4), beginning two years after these Regulations come into force, a trailer must conform to subsection (3).

Configuration Requirements

(6) The horizontal member of a rear impact guard shall have a cross-sectional vertical height of at least 100 mm at any point across the guard width when installed on a trailer.

(7) The outermost surfaces of the horizontal member shall extend outboard to within 100 mm of the longitudinal vertical planes that are tangent to the side extremities, but shall not extend outboard of those planes.

(8) When the trailer is resting on level ground, unloaded, with its full capacity of fuel, its tires inflated and its air suspension, if so equipped, pressurised in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, the ground clearance shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member. However, rounded corners may curve upward within 255 mm of the longitudinal vertical planes that are tangent to the side extremities.

(9) At any height above the ground clearance, the rearmost surface of the horizontal member shall be located as close as practicable to a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the trailer, and no more than 305 mm forward of that plane, as shown in Figure 1.However, the horizontal member may extend rearward of the plane.

Strength Requirements

(10) Every rear impact guard shall resist the following forces applied at the P1 and P2 test locations shown in Figure 2 by deflecting no more than 125 mm:

(a) 50 000 N at test location P1 on either the left or the right side of the guard if it is symmetrical, but both sides must be independently tested if the guard is not symmetrical; and

(b) 50 000 N at test location P2.

(11) Every rear impact guard shall, by not deflecting more than 125 mm, resist a uniform test load of 350 000 N, which shall be applied uniformly across the horizontal member by a uniform load application structure, as shown in Figure 3 of Test Method 223 — Rear Impact Guard (December 2001), centred on the guard.

(12) After conducting the test referred to in subsection (11), the horizontal member may be subject to a vertical rise displacement, as shown in Figure 3, but the ground clearance shall not exceed 560 mm.

(13) Every rear impact guard, other than a hydraulic guard, shall absorb at least 20 000 J of energy by plastic deformation, within the first 125 mm of deflection, when the uniform test load referred to in subsection (11) is applied.

COMING INTO FORCE

3. These Regulations come into force one year after the day on which they are registered.

[40-1-o]

Footnote 1 

Speed differential is the closing speed between two colliding vehicles.

Footnote 2 

Denis Boucher and Daniel B.T. Davis, "Trailer Underride Protection: A Canadian Perspective," SAE Technical Paper No. 2000-01-3522, p. 11.

Footnote 3 

The Traffic Accident Information Database comprises data provided annually to the Department by the provincial and territorial governments, and as such it constitutes a census of all reportable collisions in Canada since 1984.

Footnote 4 

Boucher and Davis, p. 10.

Footnote 5 

Table 1 is based on data collected by the Department as part of a study of fatal collisions that occurred in 1995 between heavy trucks and at least one passenger vehicle.

Footnote 6 

D.J. Minahan and J. O'Day, "Comparison of Michigan Fatal and Non-Fatal Cars-into-Truck Accidents," University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute, Report No. UM-HSRI-79-49, Final Report, November 1979, cited by the Office of Regulatory Analysis, Plans and Policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in its report titled: "Final Regulatory Evaluation of Rear Impact Guards, FMVSS No. 223, and Rear Impact Protection, FMVSS No. 224," December 1995, p. V-5.

Footnote 7 

Boucher and Davis, p. 11

Footnote 8 

Passenger vehicles include automobiles, vans, and light trucks.

Footnote 9 

This study, which is not yet complete, collected and examined police investigation reports and any other available information.

Footnote 10 

The 9.2 deaths were rounded down to 9.

Footnote 11 

NHTSA, "Final Regulatory Evaluation of Rear Impact Guards, FMVSS No. 223, and Rear Impact Protection, FMVSS No. 224," December 1995, p. V-5.

Footnote 12 

Ibid

Footnote 13 

SOR/96-366.

Footnote 14 

This cost estimate is based on data presented in the "Report on the Canadian Trailer Manufacturing Industry, 2000-2001," an unpublished survey of Canadian trailer manufacturers that was conducted by the Canadian Transportation Equipment Association in collaboration with Transport Canada and the Export Development Corporation.

Footnote 15 

The AIAMC represents the following automotive manufacturers and importers: BMW Canada Inc., Daewoo Auto Canada Inc., Honda Canada Inc., Hyundai Auto Canada, KIA Canada Inc., Mazda Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc., Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc., Nissan Canada Inc., Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., Subaru Canada Inc., Suzuki Canada Inc., Toyota Canada Inc., and Volkswagen Canada Inc.

Footnote 16 

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers represents BMW Group; Daimler-Chrysler; Fiat Auto R&D; USA; Ford Motor Company; General Motors; Isuzu Motors America, Inc.; Mazda North American Operations; Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.; Nissan; Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Toyota; Volkswagen of America, Inc.; and Volvo Car Corporation.

Footnote 17 

The Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association represents the manufacturers and importers of infant and child restraint systems.

Footnote a 

S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote b 

S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 351

Footnote 18 

C.R.C., c. 1038

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with hypertext language (HTML). Its content is very similar except for the footnotes, the symbols and the tables.

	Top of page
Maintained by the Canada Gazette Directorate	Important notices