[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25193]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[FHWA Docket No. MC-94-28]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Glazing and
Window Construction; Petition for Waiver To Permit Use of Automatic
Vehicle Identification Transponder
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of petition; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commonwealth of Kentucky, lead State for the ADVANTAGE I-
75 Program, and Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate, Inc. (HELP)
have requested, and the FHWA proposes to grant, a petition for a waiver
from the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to allow the use of an automatic vehicle identification (AVI)
transponder to be mounted near the upper border at the approximate
center of the windshields of commercial motor vehicles. The FHWA
proposes to grant the waiver to allow the use of the transponders in a
maximum of 30,000 commercial motor vehicles participating in the
ADVANTAGE I-75 ``beta tests'' and the HELP corridor programs during a
3-year period, subject to the proposed conditions described in this
notice.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 14,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. MC-94-28,
Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. All
comments received will be available for examination at the above
address from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Office of Motor
Carrier Standards, (202) 366-2981, or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are required to stop at highway
ports of entry (POE), weigh stations, and other checkpoints to be
weighed and to have their regulatory credentials (e.g., registration,
operating permits) checked by State officials. A CMV may be stopped
many times in the course of a single trip. Each stop can add a minimum
of 15 to 20 minutes to the length of a trip because of the time needed
to decelerate, stop, be weighed, have paperwork reviewed, undergo a
safety inspection, reenter the highway, and accelerate to mainline
speed.
CMVs that are in compliance with safety and size and weight
regulations and have their administrative paperwork in order have an
opportunity to greatly increase inspection efficiency and
effectiveness. Information on the status of a CMV's registration,
safety inspection, and operating permits, can be encoded and
transmitted to the POE as an electronic signal via an automatic vehicle
identification (AVI) transponder carried in the CMV. The POE's receiver
would decode the signal, and officials would review the CMV's status on
the spot. Drivers whose CMVs' safety status or administrative records
needed to be reviewed would receive a signal to enter the POE or weigh
station. Drivers whose CMVs are in compliance may receive a signal to
bypass the site. However, they may still be required to enter for a
safety inspection.
The outcome would be a more selective review process which would
enable POE officials to focus their resources to deal with vehicles
with safety and size and weight infractions or vehicles that are not in
compliance with other administrative requirements. Use of AVI
transponders would also provide economic benefits by saving motor
carriers time, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of
enforcement, reducing paperwork, and increasing uniformity of
enforcement. Environmental benefits would be gained from fuel savings
and reduced CMV emissions.
The goals of the ADVANTAGE I-75 and the HELP programs are to reduce
congestion, increase efficiency, and enhance the safety of users of
major highway corridors through the application of a network of
advanced highway, vehicle, and communications technologies. Both
programs are multi-State partnerships of public and private sector
interests. ADVANTAGE I-75, currently in progress, and HELP/CRESCENT,
completed in late 1993, were two of the first in a planned series of
operational tests within the Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO)
element of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Program
(formerly known as the Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS)
program). HELP builds on the foundation of the multistate,
multinational CRESCENT research effort to design and test a heavy
vehicle monitoring system that integrates automatic vehicle
identification, classification, and weigh-in-motion.
The ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP programs will allow CMVs which are
equipped with transponders, and which are in compliance with safety and
administrative requirements, to travel any segment of their respective
instrumented highways at mainline speeds with minimal stopping at
weight/inspection checkpoints. For ADVANTAGE I-75, electronic clearance
decisions at points along the corridor will be based on the information
obtained at the point on the corridor where the vehicle first enters,
as well as on computerized checking of operating credentials and safety
records in each State. For HELP, the electronic clearance decisions
will be based on data collected from weigh-in-motion devices embedded
in the mainline highway pavement or on bypass ramps, as well as on
computerized checking of operating credentials and safety records.
ADVANTAGE I-75 covers the entire length of I-75 and Canadian
Highway 401 (Ontario). The HELP/CRESCENT demonstration operated along
the I-5 and I-10 corridors in several western States from Washington to
Texas. Under HELP, the former CRESCENT highway corridors are being
expanded to include segments in Utah and Colorado.
AVI Device
The AVI device proposed for use in both programs is an electronic
transponder designed to send and receive signals from a CMV to POEs and
safety inspection sites. The signals contain information such as the
identity of the motor carrier, the gross weight of the vehicle, and the
status of the vehicle's registration and fuel tax payments. The
transponder only transmits when it is in the immediate vicinity of a
licensed transmitter and is directed to do so by that licensed
transmitter under the provisions of 47 CFR 90.239.
When an inspection official decides whether the vehicle should
enter or bypass the POE, a signal is transmitted from the official's
workstation to the CMV. This is displayed to the CMV driver in the form
of a clearly visible signal from red and green lamps on the
transponder's face. The transponder also provides an audible signal to
the driver. The transponder measures 3.3 inches (84 mm) high by 4.4
inches (112 mm) wide by 1.5 inches (38 mm) deep.
In order to function effectively, the transponder must be able
properly to transmit and receive signals from the POE. The physical
location of the transponder is a critical factor in its operation
because CMVs are equipped with many other devices that transmit and
receive electronic signals of varying strengths and frequencies, such
as electronic engine monitors and citizens-band radios which could
affect the transponder's transmissions. In addition to these
internally-generated signals, there is also a possibility of external
interference from electrical power transmission lines running along
highway rights-of-way. Furthermore, the device must be placed to allow
drivers to read the enter/bypass indication displayed on the
transponder so they can respond appropriately.
Documentation of Device
The AVI transponder is clearly labelled in its lower right-hand
quadrant, on the side facing the driver, with the name of the
respective issuing program (``ADVANTAGE I-75 Driver Communications
Module'' and ``PRE-PASS, a transportation solution from HELP, Inc.'').
Two indicators, a red octagonal mark labeled ``STOP'' and a green
upward-pointing arrow labeled ``GO,'' also appear on that side. A nine-
pin RS-232 connector, not used for either the ADVANTAGE I-75 or the
HELP application, is on the bottom of the transponder. The device is
thus readily identifiable as a transponder issued by one of the two
programs, and no additional documentation need be carried on the
participating CMVs. The transponder's unique configuration and marking
distinguish it from other electronic devices, such as radar detectors.
Automotive Engineering Guidelines: Driver's Field of View
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practices are
the standard automotive design guidelines originally developed for use
by automotive manufacturers and their suppliers. They provide a common
language for vehicle and component design and the accommodation of
drivers. While the use of the SAE Recommended Practices is voluntary,
many, if not most, of them are adopted by automotive
manufacturers.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The SAE Technical Board for Rules and Regulations states:
``This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical
and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely
voluntary, and its suitability for any particular use, including any
patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of
the user.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A foundation reference for defining the ergonomic basis for cab
design is ``Motor Vehicle Driver's Eye Range,'' SAE Recommended
Practice (RP) J941, which establishes two-dimensional ``Eyellipses''
representing the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentile distributions of
driver eye locations for use in the design of the passenger cars,
trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. This RP was
initially approved in October 1965, and completely revised in October
1985. It has been recognized as an American National Standard by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). A method for describing
and measuring the driver's direct and indirect field of view, presented
in SAE RP J1050a, references RP J941.
Uniform test procedures for minimum performance of windshield wiper
systems for trucks, buses, and multipurpose vehicles are established in
SAE RP J198. This RP also references RP J941 for a statistical
representation of the driver's eye location, except for head-turn
considerations. The RP states that the specific areas on the windshield
glazing surface ``were developed as being compatible with viewing
requirements necessary to operate the types of vehicles listed in Table
1 [of the RP]''. The classification lists seven different types of
vehicles, and the corresponding areas described by the intersections of
planes defined by angles above, below, left, and right of the
horizontal axis of the Eyellipse. The RP defines 3 areas: a central
zone, Area C, an intermediate zone, Area B, and an outer zone, Area A;
all are delimited by the angles listed in Table 1.
The ``angle up'' for the outer zone of the windshield, Area A,
ranges from 10 degrees for a cab-behind-engine configuration with the
ground-to-H-point2 dimension of between 0 and 40 inches (0 to 1016
mm) to 5 degrees for a configuration with a ground-to-hinge-point
dimension of 50 inches (1270 mm) or greater. Angles-up for Area A in
other trucks, buses, and multipurpose vehicles listed ranges from 6 to
8 degrees. Angles-up for Areas B and C range from 1 to 5 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\H-point means hinge point: hip hinge point on an
anthropomorphic manikin, measured with the seat in the rearmost
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The upper, lower, extreme left, and extreme right borders of the
windshield are outside areas A, B, and C. The minimum percentage of
required wiped area described in the RP decreases from the central to
the outer zones. If installed as proposed, that is, within the upper
windshield border, the transponder should be located well outside Areas
A, B, and C.
The proposed transponder location would be near the top center of a
one-piece windshield or on the passenger side of a multipiece
windshield. This would place it well outside the area swept by wipers
pivoting from below the windshield.
SAE RP J382, Windshield Defrosting Systems Performance Guidelines--
Trucks, Buses, and Multi-Purpose Vehicles, provides a defrosting system
performance guideline. Among other things, it notes that the windshield
area to be defrosted ``was developed to be compatible with vision
requirements necessary to operate trucks, buses, and multi passenger
vehicles.'' This windshield area is based on SAE RP J941, March 1981
(Eyellipse), and SAE RP J826, April 1980 (Devices for Use in Defining
and Measuring Vehicle Seating Accommodation). In a fashion similar to
RP 198, this RP defines two areas: a central zone, Area C, and a
surrounding zone, Area A. Angles up, down, left, and right are also
defined, as in RP 198. The upper, lower, extreme left, and extreme
right borders of the windshield are outside both of these areas. If
installed as proposed, that is, within the upper windshield border, the
transponder should be located well outside Areas A and C, as defined in
this RP.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards
Two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) incorporate SAE
Recommended Practices similar to those discussed earlier in this
notice. FMVSS 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems,
references SAE RP J902, Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems.
FMVSS 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, references SAE RP
J903a, Passenger Car Windshield Wiper Systems. Both of the FMVSSs apply
to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.
(While the FMVSSs themselves have this broad range of applicability,
they do not reference the truck and bus versions of the SAE RPs.)
Research on Driver's Field of View
Four recent research papers discuss the issue of a driver's useful
field of view (FOV). The first, ``A Study of Driver's Forward Fields of
Direct View for Large Trucks,'' (N. Nagaike and Y. Hoshino, JSAE
Review, January 1989, pages 74-76), reviewed factors governing the
visible area directly ahead of large trucks. The research determined
necessary visibility areas, depicted by vertical and lateral angles in
a driver's forward field of view. Factors for determining these areas
included locations of traffic lights and directional signs, the
driver's ability to recognize stationary and moving objects, and the
braking deceleration of large trucks. Data were collected from traffic
accident records in Japan and from direct observation. While the
visible area for traffic signals and road signs was recorded at angles
above the driver's eye level, stationary objects, moving objects in the
vicinity of intersections, and oncoming vehicles and vehicles in front
of the CMV were shown to be located in visible areas below the driver's
eye level.
A second paper, ``Research on Forward Field of View of Trucks,''
(Y. Siosaka and N. Nagaike, 14th Annual Technical Conference on
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Munich, Germany, May 1994), presented a
study undertaken to determine the minimum forward field of view
required for driving in a straight line, in order more clearly to
define the area swept by windshield wipers. Data on braking distance
and merging behavior (specifically, gap acceptance) were collected from
drivers driving on Japanese rural roads, urban streets, and
expressways. The results indicated a ``driveable field of view''
extending from 5 degrees above horizontal to 5 degrees below
horizontal, referenced to the driver's eye point centerline.
Design conflicts between the need for driver visual perspective and
windshield optical distortion were examined by Makiguchi, et al. (``A
Human Factors Analysis of Optical Distortion for Automotive
Windshields,'' SAE Paper 940390, 1994). Field data were gathered during
straight-line driving. Based on drivers' fixation frequency and the
type of objects observed, the windshield was divided into four zones.
The G1 zone, with the highest fixation frequency, extended
17 degrees laterally and 8 degrees vertically from the
driver's line of sight. It included crucial driving information, such
as pedestrians, road signs and signals, and oncoming and nearby
vehicles. The fixation frequency was reported as exceeding 95 percent.
The G3 and G4 zones, with the lowest fixation frequencies, were noted
at approximately 100 to 200 mm from the edge of the windshield's
visible area. Drivers observe pedestrians and buildings in the zone
below 8 degrees horizontal; in the zone above 8 degrees horizontal,
they see the sky. A zone of middle fixation frequency, G2, was defined
as the area outside the G1, G3, and G4 zones.
Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a
report on accidents in four urban areas arising in part from visibility
problems in heavy trucks (``A Study of Fatal Crashes Involving
Pedestrians and Trucks in Four Cities,'' December 1992). It noted,
``Obstruction of truck driver visibility, caused by the design of
truck/tractor cabs, appears to be a major contributing factor in
crashes at intersections.'' However, the discussion of accident data
did not differentiate between conventional--cab behind engine--and cab-
over-engine tractor involvement. The report did not mention decals or
other items in CMV windshields as a potential concern.
After reviewing the reports on these studies, the FHWA believes
that the location of a transponder device near the upper margin of a
CMV's windshield is unlikely to have any effect on a driver's ability
to observe nearby objects, such as pedestrians.
Relationship to Sunvisors, Sunshades, and Rear-View Mirrors
Interior sunvisors are standard equipment in virtually every
vehicle on the road today. Exterior sunshades are available as optional
accessories from several truck manufacturers. Sunvisors are not
regulated by an FMVSS or an FMCSR, nor is there an SAE Recommended
Practice concerning their design. Sunvisors are not believed to have a
detrimental effect on a driver's safety-related vision. On the
contrary, blocking the sun's glare offers a clear safety benefit, and
the loss of a small visible area of the windshield, well outside the
range of the driver's field of view, is considered an acceptable
tradeoff.
Data obtained on 33 models of new Class 8 tractor cabs,
representing all seven of the major manufacturers serving the U.S.
market, indicate that sunvisors vary from 5.25 to 7.5 inches in height
and 19.75 to 34 inches in length.
The agency notes that the AVI transponder proposed to be used in
ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP is roughly 2 inches smaller than the smallest
sunvisor (which was only found on one cab model). The agency therefore
believes that a transponder mounted within the region of the windshield
that the sunvisor would cover would be extremely unlikely to have an
adverse effect on safety. The audible indicator that accompanies the
visible signal for the driver to enter or to bypass a POE would provide
the necessary information in the event that a sunvisor were to block
the driver's view of the transponder.
For windshields equipped with exterior sunshades, the transponder
is likely to fall at or above the portion of the underside of the
sunshade visible from the cab interior. Furthermore, while exterior
sunshades may limit the uppermost range of the driver's available field
of view, that area is also well out of the useful field of view as
reported by the research cited above.
The agency also notes that the AVI transponder would be located in
approximately the same relative position in the windshield of a CMV as
that of a rear-view mirror in a passenger car. The agency believes that
the transponder would have no more impact on safety than the presence
of such a mirror and its mounting.
History: Rule on Vision-Reducing Matter
Section 393.60(c) of the FMCSRs requires that no motor vehicle be
operated with any label, sticker, decalcomania, or other vision-
reducing matter covering any portion of its windshield or windows at
either side of the driver's compartment, except that stickers required
by law may be affixed to the bottom of the windshield, provided that no
portion of any label, sticker, decalcomania, or other vision-reducing
matter may extend upward more than 4.5 inches from the bottom of the
windshield.
A regulation dealing with Glazing and Window Construction, issued
by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1952 [54 Motor
Carrier Cases 337, 7 FR 4422, May 15, 1952], required that glazing in
specified openings conform to the requirements contained in the
``American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for
Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways, Z26.1 1950'' of the
American Standards Association, now called the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). (The Table of Glazing Requirements,
contained in Sec. 393.60(a)(2) of the FMCSRs, requires CMVs
manufactured on and after January 1, 1981, to comply with Z26.1-1966 as
supplemented by Z26.1a-1969.)
In December 1958 (23 FR 9608, December 11, 1958), the ICC proposed
to amend this rule, then codified at 49 CFR Sec. 193.60, by adding
paragraphs covering windshield condition (Sec. 193.60(b)) and use of
vision-reducing matter (Sec. 193.60(c)). The latter paragraph
prohibited the use of vision-reducing matter covering any portion of a
motor vehicle's windshield or windows at either side of the driver's
compartment, ``except 1 vehicle-inspection sticker issued by a State or
municipal authority, which shall be no larger than 3 inches by 5 inches
and shall be located in the lower right-hand corner of the
windshield.'' The ICC invited comment, but did not publish a report on
this proposal.
On December 3, 1959 (24 FR 9674), the ICC adopted a final rule
amending Sec. 193.60(c) to remove the maximum dimension requirement for
the sticker while setting a limit of one sticker indicating compliance
with official mechanical inspection requirements of the State in which
the title or certificate of ownership is registered. The permissible
location was changed to ``a lower corner of the windshield.''
The language of Sec. 193.60(c) was amended again on April 19, 1961
(26 FR 3309), based on petitions for reconsideration from the Virginia
State Police, the New York State Public Service Commission, and the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. The resulting
amendment relaxed the rule to permit more than one label, sticker, or
decalcomania to be displayed, and added the requirement that no portion
of any label, sticker, decalcomania, or other vision-reducing matter
may extend upward more than 4.5 inches from the bottom of such
windshield. While the ICC did not provide an explanation for the
selection of a 4.5 inch dimension, most inspection decals range from
3.5 to 4 inches in size, and the dimension was apparently chosen to
allow for variations in the application of stickers and decalcomania.
(The water-activated adhesives used for decalcomania prior to the
availability of self-stick adhesives in the early 1960's tended to make
them somewhat difficult to position.)
The requirements of Sec. 393.60, particularly the 4.5 inch limit
specified Sec. 393.60(c), are independent of the physical dimensions of
windshields. CMV design has made significant strides since the time the
regulation was promulgated, in part because of research leading to a
better understanding of driver anthropometry and ergonomics. Improved
positioning of driving controls, availability of more effective
mirrors, enhanced adjustability of seats, and larger CMV windshields
are just a few of the design advances made since the 1950's and 1960's.
However, the requirements of Sec. 393.60(c) have not kept pace.
Advantage I-75 Alpha Test
To evaluate the performance and usability of the transponders, it
was necessary to assess various locations for mounting the devices
during an initial on-the-road ``alpha test.'' Plans called for the
transponders to be mounted near the upper and lower borders of the
windshields of CMV cabs. Approximately 200 vehicles, representing six
motor carriers' fleets, were to be equipped with electronic
transponders to transmit and receive information from CMV weigh
stations and ports of entry.
Although placing the transponders in the windshield was considered
the best solution from an engineering standpoint, some of the locations
would have conflicted with Sec. 393.60(c). The proposed lower-border
transponder location would have been just within the border area
permitted under this section. However, the upper-border location would
have been in violation.
On October 11, 1993, Don C. Kelly, Secretary of Transportation for
the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Chairman of the ADVANTAGE I-75 Policy
Committee, wrote to the FHWA, requesting a waiver of Sec. 393.60(c) for
the purpose of conducting the alpha test of these AVI transponders.
On November 15, 1993, the FHWA responded that the agency would not
apply, or require the States to apply, Sec. 393.60(c) to vehicles,
drivers and motor carriers participating in the alpha test from
November 15, 1993, to January 21, 1994, or whenever the test ended,
whichever was earlier. (The alpha test was originally scheduled to run
during this period. Because of poor weather and a number of engineering
changes to the transponder and the roadside communications devices, the
start of the test was delayed until March 7, 1994, and the agency's
enforcement moratorium was extended, first until August 31, 1994, and
eventually to March 31, 1995.
In granting temporary relief from the requirements of
Sec. 393.60(c), the FHWA expressly recognized the need for good
visibility, but acknowledged that the alpha test was a short-duration
trial involving a small number of trucks. The FHWA also noted that
participating motor carriers were volunteers that agreed to provide
their drivers with thorough orientation and training on the use of the
AVI devices, that the drivers had participated in focus groups in
preparation for these tests, and that they were made particularly aware
of the need for objective evaluations of any problems, including
reduced visibility, caused by the placement of the transponders.
Because there would have been no way to conduct a real-world evaluation
of AVI technology without operating in conflict with Sec. 393.60(c),
the FHWA decided not to require the enforcement of that provision for
the brief period needed to gather data in preparation for the
exhaustive beta phase of the test.
As a condition of this temporary relief from enforcement of the
provisions of Sec. 393.60(c), the FHWA required that the AVI
transponder be mounted outside the area swept by the vehicle's
windshield wipers, or outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs or signals. The following conditions also had to be met:
(1) a copy of the letter granting the temporary relief was to be
carried in each motor vehicle used in the AVI alpha test program; and
(2) a letter from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, on official letterhead,
clearly identifying any vehicle involved in the AVI alpha test program,
was to be carried in that vehicle. If any of the participating vehicles
were stopped for non-compliance with Sec. 393.60(c) during the test
period, the driver was to present a copy of both letters to the
enforcement official involved.
Although the test was run on an instrumented segment of I-75 in
Kentucky, the FHWA noted that the participating vehicles would also
operate elsewhere. Since the transponders could be damaged by
repeatedly removing and re-installing them, participants in the alpha
test were allowed to leave the transponders on the windshields, no
matter where the vehicles traveled.
The alpha test is anticipated to be completed on October 20, 1994.
ADVANTAGE I-75 has informed us that no drivers reported any
difficulties with their vision being obscured as a result of the
placement of the transponder.
ADVANTAGE I-75 Beta Test and HELP Program
Both the ADVANTAGE I-75 and the HELP programs are currently
planning to expand the geographic coverage and scope of their initial
activities. The ADVANTAGE I-75 beta test is expected to involve up to
5000 CMVs in the I-75 and Canadian Highway 401 corridor. The purpose of
the beta test is to evaluate the actual operation of the transponders
and to assess their potential to be used as a part of everyday motor
carrier operations on a nationwide basis. HELP will deploy an ITS
information network for CMVs in the original HELP/CRESCENT States, as
well as in several additional ones. HELP is planning to equip at least
25,000 CMVs in its fee-for-service system by the end of 1995, and at
least twice that many a year later.
Motor carriers participating in the programs have to meet stringent
prequalification criteria set by ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP. For ADVANTAGE
I-75, these criteria include: (1) A Satisfactory safety rating from the
FHWA Office of Motor Carriers; (2) an acceptable record in all States
and/or Canadian Provinces in which the carrier intends to operate
(including registration and taxes, safety performance, and other
compliance items consistent with existing statutes); (3) agreement to
abide by the FMCSRs or the Canadian equivalent; (4) agreement to
participate in the project evaluation process; and (5) the carriers'
self-certification that their enrolled trucks will meet an inspection
protocol, at least quarterly, equivalent to the requirements of a
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Level 1 inspection. The beta test is
scheduled to commence in March 1995 and to continue for two years.
Criteria for participation in the HELP program differ slightly.
However, all States will require motor carriers to have a Satisfactory
safety rating from the FHWA Office of Motor Carriers and be in
compliance with administrative requirements (such as fuel tax and
registration). Inspectors in the HELP States can require that as many
as 5 percent of all electronically cleared CMVs enter inspection
stations to verify their safety and administrative status. The officer
at the inspection station can also override any bypass on a vehicle-by-
vehicle basis.
The FHWA received formal requests for a waiver of the requirements
of Sec. 393.60(c) from the Commonwealth of Kentucky on September 19,
1994, and from HELP on August 31, 1994.
Discussion of Proposal
The FHWA believes that both motor carriers and the travelling
public may derive substantial operational and safety benefits from the
use of ITS/CVO technologies. The Congress has made the ITS program the
centerpiece of a concerted effort to apply advanced technology to
America's highway transportation system. The ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP
programs are the first in a series of field trials of AVI devices for
commercial motor vehicles. In the relatively short term, this
technology could improve the productivity of both the trucking industry
and State enforcement personnel by reducing the need for repeated
vehicle inspections. It would also reduce fuel consumption and air
pollution, and may improve highway safety by reducing congestion,
particularly around inspection stations. It would also enable POE
officials to target their resources to deal with vehicles more likely
to be operating in noncompliance with safety and administrative
regulations.
While members of the ADVANTAGE I-75 Policy Committee have
informally expressed interest in petitioning the FHWA to change the
requirements of Sec. 393.60(c), it is the agency's belief that this
section should be subject to a more detailed review than is possible in
the short time remaining before the ADVANTAGE I-75 beta test and the
HELP program commence. The FHWA is therefore proposing to provide a
waiver from the requirements of Sec. 393.60(c) to the vehicles
participating in the beta phase of the ADVANTAGE I-75 project. Because
the HELP program proposes to use the same transponders as ADVANTAGE I-
75, the FHWA also proposes to provide a waiver to those participating
vehicles.
The FHWA notes that no safety concerns or complaints have been
reported by alpha test participants, nor by any other parties.
The petition for a waiver is being considered under section 206(f)
of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31136(e), formerly
49 U.S.C. app. 2505(f)) which authorizes waivers of any regulation
issued under the authority of that Act upon a determination that the
waiver is consistent with the public interest and the safe operation of
commercial motor vehicles.
Conditions of the Waiver
I. Location of the Transponder
As a condition of the waiver, the FHWA proposes that the
transponder be mounted at or near the top center of the windshield,
outside the area swept by the CMV's windshield wipers, or, at a
minimum, outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs
or signals. The FHWA believes that this location would have no
discernable effect on a driver's ability to operate the vehicle safely.
The AVI device would be placed in a position that would be within the
portion of the windshield covered by a sunvisor. It is also in
approximately the same relative position in the windshield of a CMV as
that of a rear-view mirror in a passenger car. There is no evidence
that sunvisors or rear-view mirrors pose a threat to safety by
obstructing a driver's vision, and thus, we have no reason to believe
that a transponder of the type and dimensions to be used in the test
would have a negative effect on safety.
II. Compliance With Wiring Requirements of the FMCSRs
The installation of the transponder would be required to comply
with Sec. 393.27, Wiring specifications, and Sec. 393.33, Wiring [and]
installation.
III. Duration of Waiver; Accident and Incident Monitoring
Although the requests indicated a 2-year period for the beta test,
the FHWA notes that the alpha test was delayed several times to resolve
technical matters. Since all research in a field environment is likely
to experience some start-up delays, the FHWA proposes to make the term
of the waiver 3 years for HELP and 3 years for ADVANTAGE I-75, or until
the beta test is completed, whichever occurs first. This would allow
for a continuous period of data collection once the programs were fully
underway. If the waiver is granted, this period would begin when the
FHWA publishes the final conditions of the waiver in the Federal
Register. Motor carriers participating in ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP would
be required to provide the FHWA's Office of Motor Carrier Standards
with information on accidents (as defined in Sec. 390.5 of the FMCSRs)
involving the vehicles equipped with the transponders. Accident reports
would be required to be submitted every 6 months, and would be required
to contain the information listed below:
1. A copy of all accident reports prepared and required by State or
other governmental entities or insurers.
2. Interview information with the driver and occupants of the CMV
involved. The information would be required to include specifically
whether the driver of the transponder-equipped vehicle believed that
the presence of the transponder was a factor in the accident. The
interview would be required to be conducted by a motor carrier employee
responsible for supervising the driver of the transponder-equipped
vehicle.
IV. State and Local Laws
The FHWA strongly encourages State and local authorities with
safety regulations that would prohibit the use of the proposed
transponders to accept the terms of the waiver.
V. Number of Vehicles To Be Equipped With Transponders
The number of straight trucks, tractors, and motorcoaches that may
be equipped with the transponders would be limited to no more than 5000
for ADVANTAGE I-75 and 25,000 for HELP. The names and USDOT numbers of
the motor carriers participating in the ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP
programs, as well as the number of transponder-equipped CMVs operated
by each carrier, would be required to be provided to the FHWA.
VI. Termination of Waiver
The transponders would be required to be removed from the CMVs
participating in the ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP projects (1) upon
completion of the 3-year period, or (2) upon completion of the project,
or (3) when required by the FHWA either at the completion of a semi-
annual review or at any time it is determined by the FHWA that the
continued use of the devices decreases the safe operation of the
vehicles on which they are used.
VII. Report
ADVANTAGE I-75 and HELP would be required to provide separate
reports at the conclusion of the program describing the transponder's
installation and use. The reports would be required to include
information obtained from the drivers on the device's effect on
visibility through the windshield.
Request for Public Comments
The FHWA requests public comment on the proposed waiver and on the
attendant conditions. Comments are also sought from State and local
enforcement officials relating to their experiences with windshield-
mounted electronic devices, such as those used in electronic toll-
collection systems.
The FHWA is also interested in comments on the projected impacts on
safety if windshield-mounted transponders were to be allowed under
Sec. 393.60(c) of the FMCSRs, without the conditions that would be
imposed under the waiver.
(49 U.S.C. 31136, 31502; 49 CFR 1.48)
Issued on: October 5, 1994
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-25193 Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910--22-P