FMCSA expands windshield area for vehicle safety technology

In recent years, numerous companies have been granted individual exemptions that allow them to mount safety devices lower in the windshield than allowed by FMCSA’s regulations.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a final rule in the Federal Register on Monday, March 7, that will streamline the process. The rule, which will take effect May 6, was prompted by a petition from Daimler Trucks North America

FMCSA’s final rule increases the area on the interior of commercial motor vehicle windshields where certain safety devices can be mounted. In addition, the agency expanded the list of vehicle safety technology devices that qualify.

Current regulations require devices with vehicle safety technologies to be mounted no more than 4 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield. The agency is modifying the regulation to increase the allowable area to 8.5 inches.

Under the existing regulatory 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. The updated definition also would include braking warning systems, braking assist systems, driver camera systems, attention assist warning, GPS equipment, and traffic sign recognition. Vehicle safety technology includes systems and devices that contain cameras, lidar, radar, sensors and/or video.

The agency emphasized that the final rule does not mandate the use of any devices. Instead, it permits their voluntary use while mounted “in a location that maximizes their effectiveness without impairing operational safety.”

FMCSA estimates that the elimination of individual exemption requests will save the agency about $10,900 annually.

OOIDA comments

In August, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association told FMCSA that only proven safety technology should be included under the vehicle safety technology definition.

The notice of proposed rulemaking included automatic emergency braking in the definition, but it was removed from the final rule.

“Only technologies that have been proven to benefit highway safety should be added to the definition of ‘vehicle safety technology’ listed under 393.5,” OOIDA wrote. “The agency’s proposal still includes some systems that actually increase the likelihood of crashes and adds others that need more research. We have particular concerns regarding speed management systems, automatic emergency braking systems, and other equipment that is being deployed on autonomous vehicles, which are being tested and operated without sufficient oversight.”

Noting that the recently passed infrastructure bill requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and FMCSA to complete a rulemaking regarding automatic emergency braking technology, the agency decided it “would be premature to address automatic emergency breaking in this final rule.” LL