Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Authorized Windshield Area for the Installation of Vehicle Safety Technology
| Published date | 07 March 2022 |
| Citation | 87 FR 12596 |
| Record Number | 2022-03996 |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
| Court | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration |
Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12596-12604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03996]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0037]
RIN 2126-AC42
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Authorized
Windshield Area for the Installation of Vehicle Safety Technology
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to increase the area on the interior of commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) windshields where certain vehicle safety technology
devices may be mounted. In addition, FMCSA adds items to the definition
of vehicle safety technology. This final rule responds to a rulemaking
petition from Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA).
DATES: Effective May 6, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
(202) 366-0676; [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Dockets Operations at (202)
366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA organizes this final rule as follows:
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
B. Costs and Benefits
III. Abbreviations
IV. Legal Basis
V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
VI. Changes From the NPRM
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
B. Congressional Review Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)
D. Assistance for Small Entities
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of Information)
G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
H. Privacy
I. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
J. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2021-0037/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this final rule,
then click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting
Dockets Operations.
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits obstruction of the
driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield.
Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6
inches) below the upper edge of the windshield and must be outside the
driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety
technologies, as defined in Sec. 393.5, that include ``a fleet-related
incident management system, performance or behavior management system,
speed management system, forward collision warning or mitigation
system, active cruise control system, and transponder.'' Section
393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with vehicle safety technologies to
be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of
the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 175 mm (7
inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield
wipers, and (3) outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals.
The Agency modifies Sec. 393.60(e)(1)(ii) to increase from 100 mm
(4 inches) to 216 mm (8.5 inches) the distance below the upper edge of
the area swept by the windshield wipers within which vehicle safety
technologies may be mounted. The Agency also amends Sec. 393.5 by
revising the definition of vehicle safety technology to add
technologies that had been granted temporary exemptions from Sec.
393.60(e). The amendments do not impose new or more stringent
requirements, but simply codify the temporary exemptions granted
pursuant to 49 CFR part 381 that allow the use of the devices/
technologies in locations that would previously have been a violation
of Sec. 393.60(e)(1). More importantly, the amendments do not mandate
the use of any devices/technologies, but simply permit their voluntary
use while mounted in a location that maximizes their effectiveness
without impairing operational safety.
B. Costs and Benefits
The Agency expects that the final rule will generate cost savings
for both industry and the Federal Government by reducing the overall
time burden associated with the exemption request and approval process
associated with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) and the implementing regulations
under 49 CFR part 381. The Agency estimates this final rule will result
in total annualized cost savings of $10,903 at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates, respectively.
III. Abbreviations
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CE Categorical Exclusion
CIB Crash Imminent Braking
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
DOT Department of Transportation
DBS Dynamic Brake Support
DTNA Daimler Trucks North America
ECEC Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
ELD Electronic Logging Devices
E.O. Executive Order
FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
[[Page 12597]]
FR Federal Register
GS General Schedule
GPS Global Positioning System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIA Privacy Impact Assessment
PII Personally Identifiable Information
Secretary Secretary of Transportation
U.S.C. United States Code
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This final rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act,
1935 (1935 Act), the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act), and
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that ``[t]he Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum
hours-of-service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a
motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.''
(49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).
The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers,
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to
``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The
regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial
motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that--(1)
commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely .
. . ; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a
deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5)
an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor
carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a
commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under
this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.'' (49 U.S.C.
31136(a)).
Section 5301 of the FAST Act directs FMCSA to exempt voluntary
mounting of a vehicle safety technology on a windshield if that
technology is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved without the
exemption (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, Dec. 4, 2015). Section
5301(c) also specifies that any regulatory exemption for windshield-
mounted technologies in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act
``shall be considered likely to achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be
achieved absent an exemption. . . .''
This final rule is based in part on the 1935 Act, which allows the
Agency to regulate the ``safety of operation and equipment'' of a motor
carrier and the ``standards of equipment'' of a motor private carrier.
The requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), (2), and (4) of the 1984 Act
are also applicable to this rulemaking action. The Agency amends 49 CFR
part 393 to allow certain safety equipment to be mounted within the
area of the windshield swept by the windshield wipers. The Agency
believes that these changes will be welcomed by motor carriers and
drivers alike and that coercion to violate these revised provisions,
which is prohibited by Sec. 31136(a)(5), will not be an issue. The
final rule does not involve the physical condition of drivers under
Sec. 31136(a)(3).
This final rule rests in part on the intent of Congress expressed
in section 5301 of the FAST Act to exempt safety equipment mounted
within the swept area of windshields, provided such devices do not
degrade operational safety.
FMCSA must consider the ``costs and benefits'' of any proposal
before promulgating regulations (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A), 31502(d)).
V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Proposed Rulemaking
On July 6, 2021, FMCSA published in the Federal Register a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0037, 86 FR 35449)
titled ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Authorized
Windshield Area for the Installation of Vehicle Safety Technology.''
The NPRM proposed to modify 49 CFR 393.60(e) to allow certain vehicle
safety technologies to be mounted on the interior of the windshield of
a CMV, within a defined portion of the swept area of the windshield.
The NPRM also proposed to modify the definition of vehicle safety
technology in 49 CFR 393.5 to add technologies that had been granted
temporary exemptions from Sec. 393.60(e) since the 2016 final rule.
B. Comments and Responses
1. Responses to Questions Posed in NPRM
The comment period closed on August 5, 2021. The following 17
parties submitted comments: American Trucking Associations (ATA); Car
Couriers Inc.; Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA); EROAD;
Fastfreight Express; Lidar Coalition; Lytx, Inc.; Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA); Netradyne, Inc.; Omnitracs, LLC and
SmartDrive Systems; Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA); Samsara Inc.; Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA); United Motorcoach Association (UMA); ZF North America; and two
private citizens.
To assist in development of the proposed regulatory revisions, the
Agency requested responses to two specific questions.
Question 1: Does the definition of vehicle safety technology need
to be expanded further to address other potential technologies and/or
multifunction devices such as electronic logging devices that
incorporate technologies such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS) that
either require placement in the approximate middle of the CMV
windshield or would benefit driver safety by not diverting the CMV
driver's eyes from the road and would be subject to the positioning
requirements of Sec. 393.60(e)(1)?
Responses: Most commenters supported the proposed definition of
vehicle safety technology from the NPRM. Some commenters added that the
proposed definition does not need to be expanded further and should be
finalized as written.
Some commenters stated that the proposed definition of vehicle
safety technology provides adequate flexibility by not restricting the
definition to the listed safety technology examples. DTNA requested
FMCSA clarify that the list of technologies in the definition is not
exclusive. DTNA stated that this clarification could be made by
revising the definition of vehicle safety technology to read, in part,
``Examples of vehicle safety technology systems and devices include,
but are not limited to . . .'' and ``Vehicle safety technology includes
but is not limited to. . . .'' DTNA stated that this change to the
definition would clarify that the list is not all-encompassing, allow
for multi-function devices, and prevent the need for exemption requests
in the future for emerging technologies, while still ensuring that the
covered technologies would be limited to those that have an impact on
and promote vehicle safety.
Lidar Coalition proposed revising the first sentence of the
definition of vehicle safety technology to read as follows:
Vehicle safety technology includes systems, components, and
items of
[[Page 12598]]
equipment used to assist in managing any aspect of the dynamic
driving task (as defined in SAE J3016), or improve the safety of
drivers, occupants, and other road users (such as pedestrians or
cyclists).
Lidar Coalition stated that this revision would focus the definition on
Advanced Driver Assistance System technology and broaden the potential
beneficiaries of such technology to include all road users.
ATA agreed with the proposed definition and stated that FMCSA
should continue to update the definition of vehicle safety technology
in the future after evaluating new devices with sound data
demonstrating safety performance at and above the current standard.
Some commenters expressed general support for adding GPS and
Electronic Logging Device (ELD) systems to the definition of vehicle
safety technology, stating that these devices enhance safety. A few
commenters supported the addition of GPS devices to the definition of
vehicle safety technology so those devices can be positioned closer to
the driver's line of sight and the drivers do not need to look away
from the road to view them. Some commenters stated that ELDs do not
need to be mounted on windshields for the operation of the device and
that such placement would cause an unnecessary distraction. A few
commenters stated that GPS and ELD systems may be integrated with other
devices listed in the definition of vehicle safety technology that
could be placed on the windshield and therefore needed to be included
in the definition.
The Lidar Coalition supported inclusion of lidar in the proposed
definition, stating that such systems will provide multiple safety
benefits when mounted on the interior of windshields.
MEMA stated that the windshield space should be prioritized for
safety systems that require a clear and clean windshield to operate,
such as a forward-looking camera, and not systems that can function
from other positions, such as a GPS unit.
OOIDA expressed concern that the proposed definition of vehicle
safety technology includes some technologies that are proven to
increase the likelihood of crashes or need more research to determine
their effect on vehicle safety, such as speed management systems,
automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems, and equipment being deployed
on autonomous vehicles. OOIDA stated that FMCSA should not mandate use
of these technologies.
UMA commented that some States may have adopted laws that would
conflict with the proposed definition of vehicle safety technology and
provided an example of a California law that would be in conflict with
the proposed definition. The California law cited by UMA states that a
GPS device ``may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner
of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch
square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver''
and a video event recorder ``may be mounted in a seven-inch square in
the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver, in
a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the
driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, or in a five-inch
square mounted to the center uppermost portion of the interior of the
windshield.'' UMA requested that FMCSA ensure regulations integrate
with such State laws or address the preemptive intention of the final
rule.
FMCSA response: This final rule adopts the changes proposed in the
NPRM. It is consistent with the following previously issued Agency
actions permitting the placement of vehicle safety technology devices
on CMVs outside the driver's sight lines to the road, and highway signs
and signals: Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC 86 FR 17877 (Apr.
6, 2021), Netradyne, Inc. 85 FR 82575 (Dec 18, 2020), J.J. Keller &
Associates, Inc. 85 FR 75106 (Nov. 24, 2020), Samsara Networks, Inc. 85
FR 68409 (Oct. 28, 2020), Nauto Inc. 85 FR 64220 (Oct. 9, 2020), Lytx
Inc. 85 FR 30121 (May 21, 2020), Navistar Inc. 84 FR 64952 (Nov. 25,
2019), SmartDrive System, Inc. 84 FR 15284 (Apr. 15, 2019), Daimler
Trucks North America LLC 83 FR 4543 (Jan. 31, 2018), and Hino Motors
Manufacturing U.S.A. 82 FR 36182 (Aug. 3, 2017). All of the temporary
exemptions were granted for devices that meet the definition of vehicle
safety technologies except for the GPS device identified in the
Traditional Trucking Corp. exemption (83 FR 42552, Aug. 22, 2018). The
Agency also acknowledges that many devices such as ELDs may include GPS
technology. Under the final rule, any device that incorporates GPS is
included in the definition of vehicle safety technology.
When issuing the previous exemptions, the Agency asked interested
parties to provide FMCSA with any information demonstrating that motor
carriers operating CMVs equipped with vehicle safety technologies are
not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety. FMCSA has not
received any information to that effect.
As noted in the NPRM, the proposed amendment would not require the
use of any devices or technologies but would simply permit their
voluntary use when mounted in a location that maximizes their
effectiveness without impairing operational safety. FMCSA is unaware of
any evidence showing that installation of other vehicle safety
technologies mounted on the interior of the windshield has resulted in
any degradation in safety.
Regarding OOIDA's concern about speed management and AEB systems,
FMCSA sees no reason to remove ``speed management systems'' from the
definition of vehicle safety technology. The definition has included
``speed management systems'' since it was originally added to 49 CFR
393.5 (81 FR 65568, Sep. 23, 2016). In the absence of data to support
OOIDA's claims that these technologies are proven to increase the
likelihood of crashes or need more research to determine their effect
on vehicle safety, FMCSA sees no reason to revisit those technologies
inclusion in the definition. As to AEB, FMCSA notes that section 393.5
continues to include ``forward collision warning or mitigation system''
as one example of vehicle safety technology excepted from the
windshield obstruction prohibition in section 393.60(e). While AEB was
included in the definition proposed in the petition for rulemaking,
section 23010 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L.
117-56, Nov. 15, 2021) requires the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to complete a rulemaking on AEB and FMCSA to
complete a companion rulemaking. AEB technology ultimately might or
might not require placement within the swept area of the windshield
wipers. Under the circumstances, the Agency has decided that it would
be premature to address AEB in this final rule. Additionally, the NPRM
did not propose, and this final rule does not require, installation of
these technologies.
States that accept Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)
funds from FMCSA must adopt laws or regulations compatible with the
rules in 49 CFR parts 390-397 within 3 years of the effective date of a
new rule (49 CFR 350.335(a)(2)) or risk the loss of such funds. That
MCSAP requirement would apply to States that have regulations on the
location of safety technologies in CMV windshields inconsistent with
this final rule.
Question 2: Would the proposed position of allowable vehicle safety
technologies (8.5 inches below the upper and 7 inches above the lower
edge of the swept area of the
[[Page 12599]]
windshield) be sufficient for current and developing devices?
Responses: Most commenters supported the dimensions proposed in the
NPRM as sufficient for current and developing devices. Some commenters
stated that existing technologies have been placed within the
dimensions proposed in the NPRM, under previous exemptions, without
obstructing the driver's view or causing any adverse safety impacts.
A few commenters stated that devices placed within the dimensions
proposed in the NPRM could obstruct the driver's view of pedestrians,
cars, and buildings. Some argued that the NPRM fails to account for
drivers of different heights and that taller drivers are more likely to
have their view obstructed by safety devices in the proposed areas of
the windshield. Fastfreight Express provided pictures showing how
safety devices on the windshield obstructed the view of cars and
buildings.
ATA stated that devices on the windshield could require more or
less physical space on the windshield in the future depending on how
technologies develop, but that these changes should not be incompatible
with the proposal.
A few commenters stated that the proposed position of allowable
vehicle safety technologies might not be sufficient for some vehicle
types covered by the regulations, such as tractors with split
windshields, refuse trucks, motorcoaches, over-the-road-buses, and
school buses.
UMA questioned whether limiting the number of devices on the
windshield is appropriate.
FMCSA response: FMCSA has granted temporary exemptions that allow
safety technologies to be placed 8.5 inches below the upper and 7
inches above the lower swept area of the windshield wipers, all without
objection from commenters. FMCSA acknowledges the concerns expressed by
several commenters that the sightlines of taller drivers could be
obstructed by safety devices mounted high on the windshield. Drivers
currently deal with a variety of visual obstructions from the seating
position, including the cab's A pillars on each side of the windshield,
the sun visor (when pulled down), and the external mirrors (which may
be larger than the minimum size required by NHTSA). All of these
obstructions are legal, and drivers adapt by moving their upper body
and head to obtain a clear sightline to their surroundings. FMCSA has
received no information that these obstructions or the safety devices
placed in the swept area of windshields under previously granted
temporary exemptions have created visual obstructions that cannot be
addressed by the driver's routine movements of the head or upper body.
Regarding the UMA comment on limiting the number of devices on the
windshield, the Agency has not received information from previously
granted temporary exemptions that a limitation on the number of devices
is necessary and therefore declines to make that change in this final
rule.
VI. Changes From the NPRM
The Agency is making one change to this final rule from the NPRM.
The Agency removes ``automatic emergency braking,'' from the definition
for vehicle safety technology.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section-by-section analysis describes the changes in numerical
order.
A. Section 393.5 Definitions
The definition for vehicle safety technology is revised by adding
more examples of vehicle safety technologies to those listed in the
definition.
B. Section 393.60 Glazing in Specified Openings
This section is revised by replacing ``100 mm (4 inches)'' with
``216 mm (8.5 inches)'' in paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A). Additionally, a new
paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(C) is added to read ``Outside the driver's sight
lines to the road and highway signs and signals.''
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
FMCSA has considered the impact of this notice of rulemaking under
E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review,
E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. The
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determined that
this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require
an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed it under that E.O.
As stated previously under our discussion of public comments, we
received 17 comments. Thirteen of these comments supported increasing
the area within which certain vehicle safety technology devices may be
mounted on the interior of the CMV windshields and the Agency proposal
to add items to the definition of vehicle safety technology.
There are two differences in this regulatory analysis from the
regulatory analysis in the NPRM that have a quantified monetary impact.
The NPRM used the most up-to-date wage data then available to estimate
cost savings to (1) motor carrier companies that would have to file
fewer periodic exemption requests, and (2) the Federal Government by
reducing the volume of exemption requests to be reviewed and processed.
More up-to-date wage data are now available and utilized for this final
rule. Other than these two modifications, there are no substantive
changes to the requirements and calculations originally proposed in the
NPRM.
Baseline for the Analysis
The mounting of devices on the interior and within the swept area
of the windshield is prohibited under 49 CFR 393.60(e), unless they are
vehicle safety technologies. FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C.
31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request. FMCSA notes that the
burden associated with preparing an exemption request is not included
in a currently approved information collection request (ICR), and the
Agency is pursuing completion of that ICR outside of this rulemaking.
As originally enacted, 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) allowed an exemption from
a regulation (and a renewal) for no longer than 2 years from its
approval date. Section 5206(a)(3) of the FAST Act amended section
31315(b) to allow an exemption to be granted for no longer than 5 years
and to be renewed, upon request, for subsequent periods no longer than
5 years. 49 CFR 381.300(b).
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of
the driver's field of view by devices mounted on the interior of the
windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than
152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and outside
the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety technologies,
as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, including ``a fleet-
[[Page 12600]]
related incident management system, performance or behavior management
system, speed management system, lane departure warning system, forward
collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system,
and transponder.'' Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with
vehicle safety technologies to be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4
inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield
wipers, or (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of
the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight
lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
This final rule revises 49 CFR 393.60 to expand the area where
vehicle safety technologies (e.g., lane departure warning systems,
forward collision warning or mitigation systems, active cruise control
systems, and transponders) may be installed on the interior of
windshields of CMVs. The final rule will generate cost savings for both
industry and government and will achieve a level of safety equivalent
to, or greater than, the level achieved by the current regulation.
In table 1, we show a summary of the impacts of the final rule. As
a result of the previously discussed changes between this regulatory
analysis and the NPRM, the projected cost savings to industry and the
Federal government have increased. The annualized and 10-year cost
savings to industry, both discounted 7 percent, increased approximately
9 percent from the NPRM estimates of $568 and $3,992 to $621 and
$4,361, respectively. The annualized and 10-year cost savings to the
Federal government, both discounted 7 percent, increased approximately
1 percent, from the NPRM estimates of $10,137 and $71,197 to $10,282
and $72,214, respectively. As a result, the aggregated annual and 10-
year cost savings for both the private sector and the Federal
government, discounted at 7 percent, increased approximately 2 percent,
from $10,705 and $75,189 to $10,903 and $76,575, respectively.
Table 1--Summary of the Impacts of This Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability................ Revisions to 49 CFR 393.60 to expand the
area where vehicle safety technologies
may be installed on the interior
windshield of CMVs.
Affected Population.......... Potentially, all CMVs, as defined in 49
CFR 390.5.
Costs........................ There will be no costs to industry or the
Federal Government.
Industry Costs Savings ($, 7 10-year: $4,361, Annualized: $621.
percent discount rate).
Federal Government Cost 10-year: $72,214, Annualized: $10,282.
Savings ($, 7 percent
discount rate).
Total Cost Savings ($, 7 10-year: $76,575, Annualized: $10,903.
percent discount rate).
Benefits..................... This final rule will provide a greater
available area for the voluntary
deployment of windshield-mounted safety
technologies which have the potential to
reduce fatalities, injuries, and
property damages while maintaining a
level of safety equivalent to, or
greater than, the level achieved by the
current regulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost, Cost Savings, and Benefits
This final rule makes two changes to the Parts and Accessories
Necessary for Safe Operation regulations in 49 CFR part 393, subpart A
and subpart D.
Under the existing Sec. 393.5 Definitions, vehicle safety
technology includes a fleet-related incident management system,
performance or behavior management system, speed management system,
lane departure warning system, forward collision warning or mitigation
system, active cruise control system, and transponder. Under the final
rule, this definition will also include braking warning systems,
braking assist systems, driver camera systems, attention assist
warning, GPS, and traffic sign recognition. Vehicle safety technology
includes systems and devices that contain cameras, lidar, radar,
sensors, and/or video.
As a result, vehicle safety technologies will expand to cover new
devices and systems and better accommodate the advanced driver
assistance technologies. The change will have no cost. Benefits will
accrue through improved safety performance of CMVs via prevention or
reduction of fatalities, injuries, and property damage. For example,
lane departure warning systems are anticipated to prevent accidents
involving striking a car in an adjoining lane, which could either
involve ``sideswiping'' a vehicle traveling in the same direction or
hitting a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. Section
393.60(e)(1)(ii) notes that the prohibition on obstructions to the
driver's field of view in paragraph (e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle
safety technologies, as defined in Sec. 393.5, that are mounted on the
interior of a windshield. The change to Sec. 393.60(e)(1)(ii) expands
the area available for mounting vehicle safety technologies on the
interior of a windshield. Devices with vehicle safety technologies may
be mounted:
Not more than 216 mm (8.5 inches) below the upper edge of
the area swept by the windshield wipers;
Not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of
the area swept by the windshield wipers; and
Outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway
signs and signals.
The change will have no cost, but will result in an annualized cost
savings from reduced application and exemption processing. The cost
savings will be $10,903 at both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
[[Page 12601]]
Wage Rates
For this analysis, we calculated private sector wages using 2020
wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational
Employment Statistics for the Management of Companies and Enterprises
(North American Industry Classification System 551100). We used a
median hourly wage for Standard Occupational Classification Code 11-
2021--Marketing Managers, which is $71.87.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_551100.htm#11-0000
(last accessed Sept. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We added a load factor to the industry wages for Marketing Managers
using December 2020 wage and total compensation data from the BLS
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) survey, which accounts
for employee benefits. This load factor represents the total benefits
as a percentage of total salary.\2\ We multiplied the median hourly
wage by the load factor to get the full loaded wage of $103.49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We calculate the load factor for wages by dividing total
compensation by wages and salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS'
ECEC/Management, professional, and related occupations. Using
December 2020 data, we divided the total compensation amount of
$61.72 by the wage and salary amount of $42.95 to get the load
factor of 1.44 ($61.72 divided by $42.95). This data is found in
table 9 of the ECEC Historical Listing. Available at https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec/ececqrtn.pdf (accessed Sept. 2, 2021)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We utilized Federal Government employee wage rates based on the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2020 General Schedule (GS) pay for
the DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality for a GS-15 grade.\3\ Using OPM data, we
generated an hourly wage for a GS-15 Step 1 grade as $68.38.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2019/DCB.pdf.
\4\ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB publishes an object class analysis of the budget of the U.S.
Government.\5\ The object class shows that, in 2020, DOT spent $6,602
million in full-time permanent employee compensation and $2,590 million
in civilian employee benefits. Based on this, FMCSA estimated a fringe
benefit rate of 39.23 percent (2,590/6,602) for FMCSA personnel or
$26.82 ($68.38 x 39.23 percent). The fully loaded hourly wage for a GS-
15 Step 1 is $95.20 ($68.38 + $26.82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2022-OBJCLASS/pdf/BUDGET-2022-OBJCLASS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
Motor carriers, industry technological manufacturers, and drivers
will not incur any new costs associated with this final rule. Adopting
and using windshield-mounted technologies is purely optional. Those who
install and use windshield-mounted technologies will experience no
added burdens or costs as a result of this rule.
In CMVs, drivers sit in an elevated position that greatly improves
the forward visual field. When FMCSA previously granted exemptions, it
found that doing so would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the
exemption. As described in the NPRM, since issuing the first temporary
exemption from Sec. 393.60(e)(1) in 2009, FMCSA is unaware of any
crashes that have been attributed to the location of such devices.
The expanded location is expected to keep pace with technological
advances and further aid in meeting the statutory requirements of the
FAST Act. The expanded area is outside the driver's line of sight to
the road, highway signs, and signals.
Cost Savings
We anticipate that this final rule will generate cost savings to
(1) motor carrier companies that file fewer exemption requests, and (2)
the Federal government by reducing the volume of exemption requests to
be reviewed and processed.
Several manufacturers of windshield-mounted technologies have
requested exemptions from FMCSA. We estimate that completing each
exemption request takes about 2 hours of company time. FMCSA, on
average, receives three exemption applications that are impacted by
this rule per year. Table 2 provides the 10-year time horizon cost
savings stream based on the yearly undiscounted $621 (rounded to the
nearest whole dollar) cost savings to industry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Loaded Hourly wage x Number of Hours x Average number of
exemptions ($94.74 x 2 x 3).
Table 2--Total and Annualized Cost Savings to Industry \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
costs savings 7 Percent 3 Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022.......................................................... $621 $580 $603
2023.......................................................... 621 542 585
2024.......................................................... 621 507 568
2025.......................................................... 621 474 552
2026.......................................................... 621 443 536
2027.......................................................... 621 414 520
2028.......................................................... 621 387 505
2029.......................................................... 621 361 490
2030.......................................................... 621 338 476
2031.......................................................... 621 316 462
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 6,210 4,361 5,297
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.................................................... ................ 621 621
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal government employees who possess the technical knowledge
required to review windshield exemption applications are senior
engineers and attorneys at the GS-15 grade. A final approval letter for
an exemption is granted by the Associate Administrator at the Senior
Executive Service level.\8\ We estimate the total time from initial
exemption receipt to final approval to be 12 non-consecutive hours.
Table 3 provides the 10-year time horizon cost savings stream based on
the yearly undiscounted $10,282
[[Page 12602]]
(rounded to the nearest whole dollar) cost savings to the Federal
government.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ (Total Cost Savings in this table may not equal the sum
total of yearly cost savings due to rounding in underlying
calculations).
\8\ The Agency is assuming that an Associate Administrator at
the Senior Executive Service level is equivalent to a GS-15 grade
for the purpose of this analysis.
\9\ Loaded Hourly Wage x Number of Hours x Average number of
exemptions x Personnel ($95.20 x 12 x 3 x 3).
Table 3--Total and Annualized Cost Savings to the Federal Government \10\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
costs savings 7 Percent 3 Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022.......................................................... $10,282 $9,609 $9,982
2023.......................................................... 10,282 8,980 9,691
2024.......................................................... 10,282 8,393 9,409
2025.......................................................... 10,282 7,844 9,135
2026.......................................................... 10,282 7,331 8,869
2027.......................................................... 10,282 6,851 8,611
2028.......................................................... 10,282 6,403 8,360
2029.......................................................... 10,282 5,984 8,116
2030.......................................................... 10,282 5,593 7,880
2031.......................................................... 10,282 5,227 7,651
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 102,817 72,214 87,705
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.................................................... ................ 10,282 10,282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 provides the total 10-year time horizon cost savings stream
based on the yearly undiscounted cost savings of $10,903 (rounded to
the nearest whole dollar) for both industry and the Federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ (Total Cost Savings in this table may not equal the sum
total of yearly cost savings due to rounding in underlying
calculations).
Table 4--Total Cost Savings for Industry and the Federal Government \11\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total discounted
Year undiscounted -------------------------------
costs savings 7 Percent 3 Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022.......................................................... $10,903 $10,189 $10,585
2023.......................................................... 10,903 9,523 10,277
2024.......................................................... 10,903 8,900 9,977
2025.......................................................... 10,903 8,318 9,687
2026.......................................................... 10,903 7,773 9,405
2027.......................................................... 10,903 7,265 9,131
2028.......................................................... 10,903 6,790 8,865
2029.......................................................... 10,903 6,345 8,607
2030.......................................................... 10,903 5,930 8,356
2031.......................................................... 10,903 5,542 8,113
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 109,026 76,575 93,001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.................................................... ................ 10,903 10,903
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
The Agency was unable to identify literature that quantified the
benefits of increasing the allowable windshield area for the mounting
of vehicle safety technologies. In the absence of such analyses, the
Agency did not quantify benefits associated with the final rule, though
it believes that the rule has the potential to improve the safety of
CMV operations.12 13 The Agency also finds that CMVs
outfitted with vehicle safety technologies under current exemptions do
not present an increased safety risk compared to other CMVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ (Total Cost Savings in this table may not equal the sum
total of yearly cost savings due to rounding in underlying
calculations).
\12\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/4.
\13\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Alternatives
When preparing this final rule, FMCSA considered two alternatives.
In this section, we examine how the cost of the proposal would change
with each alternative.
Alternative 1
No Action.
Applying a ``no action'' alternative, FMCSA would accept the status
quo and not change the current exemption approval requirements. This
alternative currently limits the windshield area in which new safety
technologies can be mounted to not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below
the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers or not more
than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the
windshield wipers. This alternative does not favor innovation and
technological growth, nor does it reduce the overall burden to industry
of applying for, and to the Federal Government of reviewing,
exemptions. This alternative would maintain the approximately $10,903
(annualized, 7 percent discount rate) in annual costs associated with
the overall exemption request and approval process.
Alternative 2
Preferred Alternative--Revise 49 CFR 393.60 to expand the
windshield area where vehicle safety technologies could be installed on
CMVs and revise 49 CFR
[[Page 12603]]
393.5 to broaden the definition of vehicle safety technology.
Applying this preferred alternative, FMCSA would increase the
allowable windshield area for installation of vehicle safety
technologies. This would lead to an estimated $10,705 in annual cost
savings without any estimated cost increase or reduction in benefits,
as this analysis shows.
B. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808), OIRA
designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A ``major rule'' means any rule that OMB finds has resulted
in or is likely to result in (a) an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal agencies, State agencies,
local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic
and export markets (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\15\
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5
U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the
impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies
strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency expects that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities. The final rule will result in cost
savings to industry and the Federal government.
FMCSA expects the average costs to manufacturers of windshield-
mounted equipment associated with avoiding the need for exemption
applications will be reduced by $621 per year (annualized, 7 percent
discount rate). We calculate that 100 percent of small equipment
manufacturers impacted by this final rule will have a cost savings less
than 1 percent of their annual revenue. No small governmental
jurisdictions will be impacted by this final rule.
Consequently, I certify that the final action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this final rule would
have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to
the docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how
and to what degree this final rule would economically affect it.
D. Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\16\ FMCSA wants to assist small
entities in understanding this final rule so they can better evaluate
its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative.
If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $170 million (which is the value equivalent
of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2020 levels) or more
in any 1 year. Because this final rule will not result in such an
expenditure, a written statement is not required. However, FMCSA does
discuss the costs and benefits of this final rule in the preamble.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). FMCSA
notes that the burden associated with preparing an exemption request is
not included in a currently approved information collection request
(ICR), and the Agency is pursuing completion of that ICR outside of
this rulemaking.
G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O.
13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have
substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the
policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts
any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Impact Statement.
H. Privacy
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,\17\ requires the Agency
to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the
privacy of individuals. This final rule does not require the collection
of personally identifiable information (PII). Because this final rule
does not require the collection of PII, the Agency is not required to
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA). Section 208 of the E-
Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) requires Federal agencies
to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that
collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable
form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect,
maintain, or disseminate such information as a result of this rule.
Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5
U.S.C. 552a (Dec. 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment to
evaluate the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on collecting,
storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The DOT
Privacy Office has determined that this rulemaking does not create
privacy risk.
[[Page 12604]]
I. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
J. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
FMCSA analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action
is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA
Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2, paragraph 6.bb. The Categorical
Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6.bb. addresses regulations concerning
vehicle operation safety standards (e.g., regulations requiring:
Certain motor carriers to use approved equipment which is required to
be installed such as an ignition cut-off switch, or carried onboard,
such as a fire extinguisher, and/or stricter blood alcohol
concentration standards for drivers, etc.), equipment approval, and/or
equipment carriage requirements (e.g., fire extinguishers and flares).
The requirements in this rule are covered by this CE and the final
action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III, part 393 as follows:
PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5301 and 5524 of
Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
2. Amend Sec. 393.5 by revising the definition of ``Vehicle safety
technology'' to read as follows:
Sec. 393.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Vehicle safety technology. Vehicle safety technology includes
systems and items of equipment to promote driver, occupant, and roadway
safety. Examples of vehicle safety technology systems and devices
include a fleet-related incident management system, performance or
behavior management system, speed management system, lane departure
warning system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active
cruise control system, transponder, braking warning system, braking
assist system, driver camera system, attention assist warning, Global
Positioning Systems, and traffic sign recognition. Vehicle safety
technology includes systems and devices that contain cameras, lidar,
radar, sensors, and/or video.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 393.60 by revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 393.60 Glazing in specified openings.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section does not apply to vehicle
safety technologies, as defined in Sec. 393.5, that are mounted on the
interior of a windshield. Devices with vehicle safety technologies must
be mounted:
(A) Not more than 216 mm (8.5 inches) below the upper edge of the
area swept by the windshield wipers;
(B) Not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the
area swept by the windshield wipers; and
(C) Outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs
and signals.
* * * * *
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
Robin Hutcheson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-03996 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
