Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat Belts |
|---|
|
T.F. Scott Darling, III
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
7 June 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36474-36479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13099]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 392
[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0396]
RIN 2126-AB87
Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat Belts
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA revises the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) by requiring passengers in property-carrying commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) to use the seat belt assembly whenever the vehicles are
operated on public roads in interstate commerce. This rule holds motor
carriers and drivers responsible for ensuring that passengers riding in
the property-carrying CMV are using the seat belts required by the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs).
DATES: This rule is effective August 8, 2016.
Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than July 7, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, Director; Carrier,
Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards, Office of Policy, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at (202) 366-5370. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone (202) 366-9896.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions
Section 393.93(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR 393.93) requires every truck and truck
tractor manufactured on or after July 1, 1971, to comply with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), relating to
the installation of seat belt assemblies. They must also comply with
FMVSS No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), dealing with the installation of seat
belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS No. 207 (49 CFR 571.207),
addressing seating systems more generally. Under FMVSS No. 208, trucks
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1,
1990, are allowed by S4.3.2.1 an option to comply by providing a
``complete passenger protection system,'' but nearly all CMV
manufacturers choose the second compliance option (S4.3.2.2) and
install a ``belt system.'' This second option requires a seat belt
assembly ``at each designated seating position.'' In short, the FMVSS
and FMCSRs require seat belts at every seating position in a property-
carrying CMV.
In addition, 49 CFR 392.16 requires that a CMV that has a seat belt
assembly installed at the driver's seat shall not be driven unless the
driver has properly restrained himself or herself with the seat belt
assembly. In this final rule, FMCSA requires that motor carriers and
drivers ensure that passengers riding in property-carrying CMVs use
their seat belts when the vehicles are operated on public roads.
B. Benefits and Costs
As indicated above, NHTSA requires vehicle manufacturers to install
driver and passenger seat belts in large trucks. FMCSA already requires
drivers to use their seat belts. However, the FMCSRs were previously
silent on the use of seat belts by passengers in trucks. This final
rule requires that every passenger in a property-carrying CMV use a
seat belt, if one is installed. The only quantifiable cost of the final
rule is the value of the person's time necessary to buckle the seat
belt, which is negligible. The benefits of this rule are any fatalities
or injuries avoided or reduced in severity as a result of seat belt
use; these benefits are discussed later.
II. Rulemaking Documents
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
For access to docket FMCSA-2015-0396 to read background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or
to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
B. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This final rule is based on the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935
Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act). The 1935 Act
(49 U.S.C. 31502) authorizes FMCSA to prescribe requirements for the
safety of operation and equipment standards of for-hire and private
motor carriers. This final rule is directly related to safe motor
carrier operations. The 1984 Act (49 U.S.C. 31136) requires FMCSA to
adopt regulations to ensure, among other things, that ``commercial
motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely''
(sec. 31136(a)(1)). This rule will increase the safety, not only of
passengers, but also of CMV drivers whose control of the vehicle could
otherwise be affected by unsecured passengers potentially thrown about
the cab as a result of emergency steering or braking maneuvers.
A 2012 amendment to the 1984 Act requires FMCSA to ensure that CMV
drivers are not coerced to violate certain provisions of the FMCSRs
(sec. 31136(a)(5)). Coercion is now prohibited by 49 CFR 390.6. Given
the obvious value of this final rule and the ease of compliance, the
Agency believes that no one will be coerced not to wear a seat belt. It
should be noted that the 1984 Act also authorizes FMCSA to ``perform
other acts [the Agency] considers appropriate'' (49 U.S.C.
31133(a)(10)).
[[Page 36475]]
IV. Background
This final rule responds to a petition submitted by the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) on October 29, 2013 (available in the
docket to this rulemaking). CVSA requested that FMCSA require all
occupants in a property-carrying CMV to restrain themselves when the
vehicle is being driven. The petition referred to data available from
the Agency's Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) (available at
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/research/large-truck-crash-causation-study). Specifically, the petition noted that the 2011
LTCCS data indicate that 34 percent of truck occupants killed in fatal
crashes were not wearing seat belts.
Today's final rule follows a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
with the same title, published in the Federal Register on December 10,
2015 (80 FR 76649). Although responding to CVSA's petition, the NPRM
slightly modified some of the petitioner's requests. FMCSA used the
word ``occupant'' in addition to ``passenger'' to make clear that the
regulation would apply to any person in the property-carrying CMV.
``Occupants'' would include instructors, evaluators, or any other
personnel who might be seated in a property-carrying CMV, regardless of
their status. FMCSA also proposed that this requirement be applicable
only if there is a seat belt assembly installed in the property-
carrying CMV.
V. Discussion of Comments and Responses
FMCSA received 17 unique comments to this rulemaking. Nine were
from individuals and one was from a motor carrier, Werner Enterprises
Inc. (Werner). The rest came from industry and safety organizations,
including the American Trucking Associations (ATA), Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), NAFA Fleet Management Association
(NAFA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA),
National Safety Council (NSC), the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), and CVSA.
Twelve of the 17 commenters, including all 7 industry and safety
organizations and the motor carrier, supported requiring passengers in
property-carrying CMVs to use a seat belt, though 2 of the 12 objected
to holding the motor carrier responsible for compliance. One commenter
asked a question, but did not state whether he supported the
rulemaking. Four of the nine individuals who submitted comments did not
believe a rulemaking was necessary or did not support the rulemaking
because they did not believe drivers should be responsible for a
passenger's seat belt use. The other four individuals supported the
rulemaking. Three commenters believed the rulemaking should be more
extensive.
A. Compliance Responsibilities
Comments: Three commenters opposed imposing a new responsibility on
drivers to ensure passenger compliance with a seat belt regulation. An
individual stated that neither the motor carrier nor the driver should
be responsible for requiring passengers to use the seat belts, and
mentioned that drivers deal with many other regulations already. Both
ATA and Werner stated that a motor carrier could not and should not be
responsible for the use of safety belts in CMVs, as they have no
practicable way to monitor it.
Two commenters stated that requiring a driver to ensure that
passengers were wearing their seat belts would be a distraction while
driving. Another commenter stated that the driver would be required to
police passengers. An individual thought that the Agency should enforce
existing regulations and rules rather than develop new ones, and
questioned whether this rule would actually save lives. One commenter
believed the rulemaking would be applicable to drivers of passenger-
carrying vehicles, which it is not.
ATA requested explicit clarification that the driver, not the motor
carrier, would be responsible for passenger compliance with this
regulation, stating that the NPRM correctly placed this burden on the
driver. ATA said it would be impossible for a carrier to monitor
actions of passengers and drivers in all of its vehicles. While
acknowledging that a carrier may have some leverage with its drivers,
ATA claimed it would have none over other occupants of a CMV. Werner
echoed that position because a motor carrier would not have the ability
to control a driver's or a passenger's use of seat belts. Werner
stated, ``Motor carriers should not be held liable for actions of an
occupant of a CMV.''
ATA also argued that the ``proposed rule does not establish how
carriers would be deemed to have `permitted' drivers to violate the
seat belt use requirement.'' ATA suggested that FMCSA seek a pattern of
this type of violation or an investigation into a carrier's policies
before taking action against a motor carrier over passengers not
wearing seat belts.
NAFA and NRECA stated that many of their members have policies that
require their passengers to use seat belt restraints. NRECA wrote that
the rulemaking is consistent with its culture of safety. Werner stated
that it has a policy requiring seat belt use as well.
FMCSA Response: Many States already hold automobile drivers
responsible for their passengers' seat-belt use. This rule extends that
principle to all property-carrying CMVs. Commercial drivers are already
required to satisfy themselves that the vehicle is in good working
order (49 CFR 392.7); requiring them to ensure that occupants have
fastened their seat belts is a minor additional requirement.
FMCSA disagrees with ATA's argument that motor carriers should not
be held responsible for the activities of their employees and any
authorized passengers (including employees and non-employees). Under 49
CFR 390.11, carriers have for decades been held responsible for their
drivers' regulatory compliance--for example with the hours-of-service
regulations and associated logbook requirements--even though the
carrier is not able to physically supervise the driver's performance of
these tasks. This rule adds a small burden (with significant potential
safety benefits) to the obligations of the carrier and driver.
Furthermore, the contention that a carrier would have no control
over non-drivers riding in a truck contradicts the requirements of 49
CFR 392.60, which prohibits the transportation of anyone without
specific written authorization from the carrier. The motor carrier,
therefore, has knowledge of each occupant of the property-carrying
vehicle and can easily require that authorized passengers buckle up.
With regard to driver distraction, the rule does not require that
drivers continuously monitor the passenger(s) while the vehicle is in
operation. However, it is expected that the driver could observe
whether the seat belts were in use before the vehicle is operated on a
public road and remind the occupants seat belt usage is required if he
or she notices that the passenger has unfastened the seat belt.
B. Enforcement
Comments: Both NSC and ATA stated that this rule would cause the
States to adopt similar regulations shortly after a final rule, and
supported this outcome. NSC believed it is time to establish a new,
uniform national standard. It commented that such a standard for
property-carrying CMV occupants may further help improve seat belt use,
particularly among long-haul trucks that often travel through more than
one State.
ATA wrote that CMV enforcement officers would have the authority to
cite
[[Page 36476]]
large truck occupants for failing to wear a seat belt in all 50 States
and attributed increased seat belt usage to widespread enforcement of
existing seat belt laws. ATA stated their support for the adoption of
primary seat belt laws for all motor vehicles by all States and the
implementation of a variety of strategies to enhance the use of seat
belts.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees that enforcement has encouraged the
growing use of seat belts, but existing State laws are not uniform with
respect to seat belt use in trucks, especially where truck passengers
are concerned. This rule creates that uniformity and removes any
uncertainty about regulatory requirements that may exist among motor
carriers or different States. FMCSA believes that this rulemaking will
address those gaps in existing laws and inconsistent enforcement; and,
as a result, compliance and safety will increase even further.
C. Sleeper Berth Restraints
Comments: One individual mentioned that it would be difficult to
require restraints for the second driver of a team operation who is
resting in the sleeper berth. A different commenter believed that
sleeper berth belt use would be a good idea for a new rulemaking.
The NTSB stated that all the reasons occupants should wear seat
belts in the front of the CMV could be applied to the sleeper berth,
and that restraints should be required there as well. Advocates, on the
other hand, stated ``Other than co-drivers using a sleeper berth, all
CMV occupants and passengers seated in designated seating positions
should be properly belted.'' [Emphasis supplied.]
Werner stated that it has a policy requiring sleeper berth
restraints to be utilized.
FMCSA Response: The robust sleeper berth restraints required by 49
CFR 393.76(h) are designed to keep occupants from being ejected from
the CMV during a violent crash. That provision does not focus on the
essential function of sleeper berths, i.e., to allow drivers to sleep,
even while the CMV is in motion, and thus to avoid the fatigue that
contributes significantly to crash risk. Because FMCSA has no
information on the effectiveness of current sleeper berth restraints in
reconciling crash protection with fatigue prevention, and because
standard seat belts are not required to perform that dual function, the
Agency chose not to delay the benefits of the NPRM while attempting to
analyze the implications of requiring the use of sleeper berth
restraints. Commenters provided no information that would enable the
Agency to address that topic in this rulemaking.
D. Buses
Comments: A commenter believed the proposal would include
passenger-carrying vehicles, and stated that safety would be
compromised if a driver were held responsible for passengers' seat-belt
use. This commenter thought that law enforcement should take the lead
on compliance for passengers in a passenger-carrying CMV.
The NTSB stated that the logic for requiring non-passenger-carrying
CMVs to use seat belts is consistent with the logic for requiring seat
belt use in passenger-carrying CMVs, and requested additional action
for buses. The NTSB submitted several reports of crashes to illustrate
the need for an additional rulemaking focusing on passenger-carrying
CMVs. The NTSB suggested that the FMSCA address seat belt use for all
occupants of passenger-carrying CMVs that are equipped with seat belts
and stated, ``A rule to address all CMV passengers who have a restraint
available would improve the use of the protective equipment already in
place and save lives.''
FMCSA Response: The NPRM did not propose, nor does this final rule
require, the use of seat belts in passenger-carrying CMVs. The Agency
believes that, in the best interest of safety, this rulemaking should
be completed as proposed without further delay. For these reasons, this
final rule does not address seat belt use in passenger vehicles.
The Agency, however, is committed to passenger safety. FMCSA has
developed and distributed extensive pre-trip safety briefing materials,
available through its Web site.\1\ NHTSA published a final rule
requiring lap/shoulder belts for each passenger seat on newly
manufactured over-the-road buses and other larger buses, with certain
exclusions, effective November 28, 2016 (78 FR 70416, November 25,
2013). As a result of this rule, FMCSA is currently updating its
outreach materials to encourage seat belt use when seat belts are
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/passenger-safety/pre-trip-safety-information-bus-passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Horses and Articulated Trailers
Comments: One individual asked if people caring for horses in
trailers would be subject to this rulemaking.
FMCSA Response: Attendants who ride in horse trailers are not
protected by all of the safety requirements applicable to passengers in
the cab of a truck or truck tractor, or a bus. As such, they are not
subject to this final rule. Nonetheless, if there are designated
seating positions for attendants in horse trailers, and seat belts are
available, they should be used when the attendant is not moving about
the trailer to care for the horses.
F. Seat Belt Assembly Removed
Comments: Advocates stated ``Owners and drivers of CMVs who have
removed a seat belt assembly from the vehicle should not be able to
evade this regulation.'' Advocates voiced concern about seat belts
being removed in order to avoid compliance.
FMCSA Response: The likelihood that an operator of a vehicle
equipped with seat belts for all occupants would remove the belts
provided for non-drivers in order to avoid compliance with this rule is
very remote. The quantifiable burden of compliance is essentially nil,
and there is no obvious reason why anyone would remove the seat belts--
it would take more work to remove the seat belts than to instruct
drivers and authorized passengers to wear them.
G. Data
Comments: NSC believed the cost of the rule would be minimal, but
stated that benefits could be much higher than FMCSA states in the
proposal, and supported this conclusion with 2014 FARS data documenting
that:
. . . of the 337 large truck non-driver occupants involved in
fatal crashes who were wearing a lap and/or shoulder belt, 6 percent
were killed. Of the 186 non-driver occupants who were not wearing a
lap and/or shoulder belt, 20 percent were killed. About 32 percent
of these fatally injured unrestrained occupants were ejected from
the truck.
The FARS data cited by NSC are consistent with the 2013 FARS data upon
which FMCSA relied in its consideration of the potential safety
benefits of this rule. NSC commented that ``seat belt use is the most
effective countermeasure to prevent ejection. In one study of passenger
vehicles, complete ejection was reduced by a factor of about 600,
effectively eliminating complete ejections in those vehicles.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Funk JR, Cormier JM, Bain CE, Wirth JL, Bonugli EB, Watson
RA. Factors Affecting Ejection Risk in Rollover Crashes. Ann Adv
Automot Med. 2012 Oct; 56: 203-211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC also referred to the FMCSA Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor
Vehicle Drivers Survey, noting that while 83.7 percent of CMV drivers
[[Page 36477]]
utilize seat belts, only 72.9 percent of CMV passengers do.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 2013
Survey; Executive Summary p. V. (Available in docket for this rule)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVSA referred back to the data referenced in its original petition
that 34 percent of truck occupants killed in fatal crashes were not
wearing a seat belt (based on 2011 LTCCS data) and re-stated the
importance of this rulemaking.
ATA supported the use of seat belts and pointed to data from the
2013 Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Survey \4\
that show the use of seat belts is increasing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 2013 Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Belt Facts, Figures 1
and 2, available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Safety_Belt%20Factsheet_508.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates re-stated the 2013 NHTSA FARS data presented by FMCSA,
both in this final rule and the NPRM, to emphasize the ``grim'' nature
of the statistics involving fatal crashes, particularly with respect to
the ejection risk of unrestrained passengers.
FMCSA Response: Although commenters reference various sources
concerning seat belt use among truck occupants, FMCSA continues to rely
upon 2013 NHTSA FARS data that document the increased risk of fatality
and ejection involving unrestrained passengers to support the basis for
issuing a final rule, and those numbers fall within the range presented
by commenters. The data provided by commenters reinforces the societal
and safety benefits of this rulemaking as a measure that will ensure
increased seat belt use. Though the projected numbers of lives saved
vary in the data, all of the calculations involve no cost and a very
small amount of time spent complying with this rule.
VI. Today's Final Rule
This final rule makes no substantive changes to the 2015 NPRM.
Under this final rule, 49 CFR 392.16 is revised to include requirements
for seat belt usage by passengers in property-carrying CMVs.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and DOT policies and
procedures, FMCSA must determine whether a regulatory action is
``significant,'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the E.O. The Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities.
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another Agency.
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof.
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the E.O.
FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by
E.O. 13563, or significant within the meaning of Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This regulation will
not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
lead to a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant
adverse effects on the United States economy.
According to data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System,
available in the docket for this rulemaking,\5\ in 2013, 348 non-driver
occupants were in the truck at the time the vehicle was involved in a
fatal crash and were wearing a lap or shoulder belt. Seventeen of those
non-driver occupants were killed. Also in 2013, 122 non-driver
occupants of large trucks were involved in fatal crashes and were not
wearing a lap and/or shoulder belt; of these, 30 were killed. Sixteen
of the 30 were totally or partially ejected from the truck. The
fatality rate was five times lower for passengers who wore seat belts
versus those who did not. Table 1 below presents the data described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Restraint Use and Ejection for Large Truck Passenger
Fatalities in 2013,'' Docket # FMCSA-2015-0396-0002.
Table 1--Outcomes of Non-Driver Truck Occupants in Fatal Crashes
[Source: 2013 NHTSA FARS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality rate
N Fatalities (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Driver Occupants............................................ 470 47 10.0
Wearing Seat Belts.............................................. 348 17 4.9
Not Wearing Seat Belts.......................................... 122 30 24.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA believes that some of these fatalities involving occupants
not wearing seat belts could have been prevented if this regulation had
been in place. This conclusion is indirectly supported by a recent
study,\6\ published by the Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research
Center (KIPRC), which analyzed crash data from years 2000 to 2010. The
study finds that ``in a moving semi-truck collision, the odds for an
injury were increased by 2.25 times for both semi-truck drivers and
sleeper berth passengers who did not use occupant safety restraints''
compared to those who did, with a 95 percent confidence interval
ranging from an increased injury risk of 1.15 to 4.41 times to
unrestrained occupants. This study provides empirical support to the
safety benefits resulting from the use of occupant restraints by
drivers and sleeper berth passengers--to whom the rule does not apply.
FMCSA assumes that the safety benefits to passengers in property-
carrying CMVs would be of similar magnitude to those noted in the KIPRC
study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bunn, Slavova, Robertson. ``Motor Vehicle Injuries Among
Semi Truck Drivers and Sleeper Berth Passengers,'' Journal of Safety
Research 44 (2013) 51-55; available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2012.09.003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While all States but one have seat belt laws, failure to use a belt
may be either a primary or secondary offense and may not apply to a
truck passenger. Furthermore, there may be differences in the vehicle
weight threshold at which the law applies. Therefore, adopting a
Federal rule applicable to non-driver
[[Page 36478]]
occupants of property-carrying CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, will
provide a uniform national standard. To maintain eligibility for Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants, States would be required to
adopt compatible seat belt rules for non-driver occupants of property-
carrying CMVs within 3 years of the effective date of today's final
rule.
FMCSA does not know how many trucks carry passengers or precisely
how many of those passengers fail to use existing seat belts, though
the Seat Belt Usage by CMV Drivers Survey indicates that, as of 2013,
73 percent of passengers in CMVs subject to this rule utilize existing
seat belts, leaving a 27 percent share that do not.\7\ However, given
that the only quantifiable cost of the proposal is the negligible
amount of time needed for occupants to buckle their seat belts,\8\ the
rule would benefit motor carrier employees and passengers. Seat belts
have been proven to save lives. While an estimate of the number of CMV-
related fatalities and injuries that could be avoided cannot be
provided based on the available data, FMCSA believes motor carriers'
and drivers' compliance with today's final rule requiring the use of
seat belts by non-driver occupants will save lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 2013
Survey; Executive Summary p. V. (Available in docket for this rule)
\8\ FMCSA acknowledges that there is a potential cost for the
lost freedom of choice to not wear a seat belt, for CMV passengers
in the states where no law currently requires them to use the
installed seat belts. FMCSA is unable to quantify this cost, but
believes that the safety benefits described herein weigh
overwhelmingly in favor of requiring the use of seat belts in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the data provided in the docket during the NPRM
stage of this rulemaking action, FMCSA received data from several
commenters, with more extensive claims about lives saved by the use of
seat belts.
FMCSA also became aware of another Federal survey on this topic,
conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH).\9\ The NIOSH survey found that 86 percent of long-haul truck
drivers self-reported regular use of seat belts, a result comparable to
the FMCSA Seat Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Survey
that estimated this value to be 83.7 percent. While the NIOSH study
does not speak to the frequency of passenger seat belt use, the
similarity in the estimated rate of seat belt use among drivers between
these surveys reinforces the Agency's confidence in the FMCSA survey's
estimates of passenger seat belt use. Additionally, this did not alter
the Agency's initial conclusions about data, as the final rule's
findings are consistent with the proposed rule's conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NIOSH National Survey of Long-Haul Truck Drivers; Injury and
Safety. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631642/pdf/nihms726279.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency believes the potential economic impact of this action is
positive, because it is likely that some lives will be saved at a cost
that would not begin to approach the $100 million annual threshold for
economic significance. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to
generate substantial congressional or public interest, as there were
relatively few comments to the proposed rule, and most were generally
positive. This proposed rule therefore has not been formally reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
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.
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.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L.
104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), FMCSA does not expect the rule
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. FMCSA believes the cost is minimal and poses no
disproportionate burden to small entities.
Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.),
that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155
million (which is the value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for
inflation to 2014) or more in any 1 year.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The
Agency determined that this rule will not create an environmental risk
to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
FMCSA reviewed rulemaking in accordance with Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications.
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law
or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA
has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and determined that
it does not have Federalism implications.
H. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it would 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. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or
[[Page 36479]]
require through regulations. No new information collection requirements
are associated with this final rule.
K. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act
FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004) that this action does not have any effect on the quality
of the environment. Therefore, this final rule is categorically
excluded (CE) from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA
Order 5610.1, paragraph 6(bb) of Appendix 2. The CE under paragraph
6(bb) addresses regulations concerning vehicle operation safety
standards. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available for
inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov.
FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.
L. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental
justice effects of this rule in accordance with the E.O., and has
determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this
rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would
result from its promulgation.
M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, the rule does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
N. E-Government Act of 2002
The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat.
2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a
privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology
that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an
identifiable form. FMCSA has not completed an assessment of the
handling of PII in connection with today's proposal because the final
rule does not involve PII.
O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards
to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the
Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing
voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a
separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not adopt its own
technical standards, there is no need to submit a statement to OMB on
this matter.
P. Privacy Impact Assessment
Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect
the privacy of individuals. This rule will not require the collection
of any personally identifiable information.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. This
final rule will not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of
Records for FMCSA.
List of Subjects for 49 CFR Part 392
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration amends 49 CFR part 392 as follows:
PART 392--DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
0
1. The authority citation for part 392 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; Section
112 of Pub. L. 103- 311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended by
sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 805 (2012); and 49 CFR
1.87.
0
2. Revise Sec. 392.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 392.16 Use of seat belts.
(a) Drivers. No driver shall operate a property-carrying commercial
motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver
to operate a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, that has a
seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat unless the driver is
properly restrained by the seat belt assembly.
(b) Passengers. No driver shall operate a property-carrying
commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or
permit a driver to operate a property-carrying commercial motor
vehicle, that has seat belt assemblies installed at the seats for other
occupants of the vehicle unless all other occupants are properly
restrained by such seat belt assemblies.
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-13099 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P