Stop Underrides Act 2.0
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 5, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to significantly reduce underride crash fatalities and injuries by mandating new safety standards for commercial vehicles and improving data collection and research.
What it actually does
This bill mandates new federal motor vehicle safety standards for side underride guards on trailers, semitrailers, and single unit trucks, requiring them to prevent passenger vehicle intrusion and impede vulnerable road users while contributing to fuel efficiency. It also reconvenes and expands the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection, mandates studies by NASEM and GAO on underride crashes and existing regulations, and requires NHTSA to improve underride crash data collection and provide training for law enforcement.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a critical and long-standing public safety threat, citing thousands of preventable deaths and injuries from underride crashes. They emphasize that the mandated side underride guards, combined with improved data and research, will lead to more survivable truck crashes and leverage aerodynamic benefits, fulfilling recommendations from safety experts and victim advocates.
Opponents contend
Opponents may contend that the new mandates will impose significant design, manufacturing, and acquisition costs on the trucking industry, potentially leading to increased freight prices and economic burdens. They might also raise concerns about the technical feasibility of meeting all performance standards, particularly the dual requirement for robust safety and fuel efficiency, within the proposed timelines.
The bill is relatively concise, allowing for a thorough review within typical legislative review periods.
Section 4
Standardizing Underride-Related Definitions
This section updates federal law by formally defining key terms like "passenger motor vehicle," "Secretary," "semitrailer," "side underride guard," "single unit truck," "trailer," and "Vulnerable Road User." These definitions are essential for the consistent application and enforcement of the new safety standards proposed in the bill, ensuring clarity across regulations related to underride protection.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clear, standardized definitions are fundamental for effective regulation and enforcement, preventing ambiguity that could hinder safety improvements.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional updates unless they are seen as overly broad or restrictive in a way that creates unintended burdens.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is ensuring definitions are precise enough to be effective without being so narrow as to exclude relevant vehicles or users.
Section 5, adding 49 U.S.C. 30130
Mandatory Side Underride Guard Standards
This section requires the Secretary of Transportation to finalize regulations within 18 months, mandating new or updated motor vehicle safety standards for side underride guards. These guards must prevent passenger vehicles from intruding into occupant survival space at speeds up to 40 mph, impede vulnerable road users from sliding underneath, and contribute to fuel efficiency through aerodynamic design. Full compliance is required within 2 years of finalization.
Section 6
Enhanced Advisory Committee on Underride Protection
This section requires the Secretary of Transportation to reconvene the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection within 180 days. It expands the committee's membership to include families of underride crash victims (both passenger vehicle occupants and Vulnerable Road Users). The committee's meeting frequency is increased to monthly (virtually) and annually in person until final regulations are issued, then annually in person thereafter, and its termination date is extended to September 30, 2031.
Section 7
Public Underride Safety Resource Website
This section mandates the Secretary of Transportation to create and maintain a publicly accessible website. This site will serve as a central repository for all underride-related resources, including DOT research on rear, side, and front underride guards, links to the Advisory Committee database, information on rulemakings, victim stories, and data collection documentation. The website must be updated at least quarterly.
Section 8
Independent Studies on Underride Crashes and Rule Implementation
This section directs the Secretary of Transportation to contract with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) for a study on front underride crashes, particularly their impact on Vulnerable Road Users, with a report due to Congress within 180 days of study completion. Concurrently, the Comptroller General (GAO) is mandated to study the implementation of NHTSA's 2022 final rule on rear impact guards, with a report and recommendations due to DOT and Congress within 180 days of study completion.
Section 9
Improved Underride Crash Data Collection and Law Enforcement Training
This section requires the Administrator of NHTSA to conduct a review of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) within one year to identify underreported underride crashes and recommend improvements for incident reporting by State and local law enforcement. Additionally, within 18 months, NHTSA must develop free, on-demand, web-based training for State and local law enforcement on how to properly identify and document underride crashes.
Requires the Secretary to calculate "net fuel savings" in the cost-benefit analysis for side underride guards, defined as the difference between the cost of fuel expected to be consumed by applicable motor vehicles as a result of the adoption of the performance standard and the cost of fuel estimated to be consumed at the existing rate of voluntary adoption of aerodynamic side skirts without underride guards.
Section 5(a)(3)(B)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to specify parameters for regulatory analysis, ensuring a comprehensive and specific evaluation.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures a comprehensive and fair assessment of the economic impact, recognizing potential fuel savings that could offset compliance costs for the trucking industry, thereby making the safety mandate more palatable.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a specific calculation could be complex to model accurately and might overstate potential savings or understate other costs, potentially skewing the overall cost-benefit analysis.
Estimated impact: Could significantly influence the perceived economic viability and overall cost-benefit ratio of the new underride guard regulations, affecting how the rule is justified and received by stakeholders.