Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12593 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

Start Printed Page 11875 copy of the 

rule, to each House of the Congress and 

to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 6, 2022. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: February 28, 2022. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart GG—New Mexico 

■ 2. In § 52.1620 (e), the table titled 

‘‘EPA-Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the New Mexico SIP’’ is 

amended by adding the entry ‘‘2017 

Emissions Inventory and Emissions 

Statement for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS’’ 

at the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

2017 Emissions Inventory and 

Emissions Statement for the 

2015 Ozone NAAQS.

Sunland Park ozone nonattainment area.9/20/2020 3/7/2022 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

[FR Doc. 2022–04525 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 281 

[EPA–R09–UST–2022–0197; FRL–9571–01– 

R9] 

Approval of State Underground 

Storage Tank Program Revisions; 

Hawaii 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of final 

determination on the State of Hawaii’s 

application for final approval. 

SUMMARY: Hawaii has applied to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for updated approval of changes made 

to its Underground Storage Tank 

Program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, as 

amended, since the previous approval of 

Hawaii’s Underground Storage Tank 

Program in September 2002. The EPA 

has reviewed Hawaii’s application and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
12594 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

has determined that these changes 

satisfy all requirements needed to 

qualify for the requested updated 

approval. The EPA is correcting one 

citation identified as a result of public 

comment received on the proposal to 

approve Hawaii’s Underground Storage 

Tank Program that was published in 

August 2020. All other aspects of the 

August 2020 proposed State Program 

Approval remain the same. Therefore, 

the EPA is granting final approval to the 

State of Hawaii to operate its 

Underground Storage Tank Program for 

petroleum and hazardous substances. 

DATES: This final approval is effective at 

1:00 p.m. HST March 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lyndsey Tu, Underground Storage 

Tanks Program Office, U.S. EPA, Region 

9, Tu.Lyndsey@epa.gov, (415) 972–3269. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Approval of Revisions to Hawaii’s 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

A. Background 

Section 9004 of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, as 

amended, (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6991c, 

authorizes the EPA to approve a State 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) 

Program to operate in the State in lieu 

of the Federal UST program, subject to 

the authority retained by EPA in 

accordance with RCRA. Program 

approval may be granted by EPA 

pursuant to RCRA Section 9004(b), if 

EPA finds that the State program: (1) Is 

‘‘no less stringent’’ than the Federal 

program for the seven elements set forth 

at RCRA Section 9004(a)(1) through (7); 

(2) includes the notification 

requirements of RCRA Section 

9004(a)(8); and (3) provides for adequate 

enforcement of compliance with UST 

standards of RCRA Section 9004(a). 

Note that RCRA Sections 9005 (on 

information-gathering) and 9006 (on 

Federal enforcement) by their terms 

apply even in states with programs 

approved by EPA under RCRA Section 

9004. Thus, EPA retains its authority 

under RCRA Sections 9005 and 9006, 42 

U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

provisions to undertake inspections and 

enforcement actions in approved states. 

With respect to such an enforcement 

action, EPA will rely on Federal 

sanctions, Federal inspection 

authorities, and Federal procedures 

rather than the approved state analogues 

to these provisions. 

B. What decisions has EPA made in this 

approval? 

On October 8, 2018, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Hawaii 

submitted a complete program revision 

application seeking approval for its UST 

program revisions corresponding to the 

EPA final rule published on July 15, 

2015 (80 FR 41566), which finalized 

revisions to the 1988 UST regulations 

and to the 1988 state program approval 

regulations. As required by 40 CFR 

281.20, the State submitted the 

following: A transmittal letter from the 

Governor requesting approval, a 

description of the program and 

operating procedures, a demonstration 

of the State’s procedures to ensure 

adequate enforcement, a Memorandum 

of Agreement outlining the roles and 

responsibilities of EPA and the 

implementing agency, a statement of 

certification from the Attorney General, 

and copies of all relevant State statutes 

and regulations. EPA reviewed the 

Hawaii application for updated UST 

Program approval and, on August 14, 

2020 (85 FR 49611), issued a tentative 

determination that the revisions to 

Hawaii’s UST program are equivalent to, 

consistent with, and no less stringent 

than the corresponding Federal 

requirements in subpart C of 40 CFR 

part 281, and that the Hawaii program 

provides for adequate enforcement of 

compliance (40 CFR 281.11(b)). EPA 

received public comment on its 

tentative determination and, as a result, 

has made one correction to the scope of 

the approval as proposed, which is 

described in Section I.C. of this 

document, below. Therefore, EPA grants 

Hawaii approval to operate its UST 

program with the changes described in 

the program revision application as 

outlined in EPA’s August 14, 2020 

tentative determination and amended by 

this notification. Specifically, as noted 

below, EPA finds that Hawaii 

Administrative Rules (HAR) Section 11– 

280.1–67 is equivalent to and part of the 

approved Hawaii UST program, but 

HAR Section 11–280.1–65.1 is broader 

in scope than the Federal UST program 

and is not a part of the approved Hawaii 

UST program. 

C. Significant Public Comments and 

Responses 

EPA received one significant public 

comment on its proposed approval of 

the updated Hawaii UST program 

within the public comment period. 

Comment: In the ‘‘Authorization of 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

Revisions: Hawaii’’ under H. ‘‘Where are 

the State’s revised rules different from 

the Federal rules,’’ the text reads: 

‘‘[Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR)] 

Section 11–280.1–67 requires public 

notification in the event of a confirmed 

release. This requirement is broader in 

scope than the Federal UST program, 

which only requires public notification 

when an implementing agency requires 

a corrective action plan.’’ This is not 

correct. HAR Section 11–280.1–67 is 

titled ‘‘Public participation for 

corrective action plans’’ and does NOT 

require public notification in the event 

of a confirmed release, but instead only 

when a corrective action plan is 

required. This is in line with EPA’s 

rules. 

Response: EPA agrees with this 

comment. HAR Section 11–280.1–67 

does not require public notification in 

the event of a confirmed release but 

does require public participation when 

a corrective action plan is required. This 

aspect of Hawaii’s program is not 

broader in scope than the Federal 

program and is in alignment with EPA’s 

rules. However, in its August 2020 

proposal, EPA cited HAR Section 11– 

280.1–67 incorrectly and should have 

cited HAR Section 11–280.1–65.1 

instead. HAR Section 11–280.1–65.1 

requires notification of members of the 

public directly affected by a confirmed 

release. See also Hawaii revised statute 

342L–35(4). There is no counterpart in 

the Federal regulations for HAR Section 

11–280.1–65.1. As a result, this final 

approval includes HAR Section 11– 

280.1–67, which has a counterpart at 40 

CFR 280.67. However, this final 

approval does not include HAR Section 

11–280.1–65.1, which EPA finds is 

broader in scope than the Federal 

program. 

Additionally, EPA received a set of 

comments outside of the public 

comment period. This set of comments 

was submitted by email to the 

Underground Storage Tanks Program at 

EPA Region 9 shortly after the comment 

period closed. The full text of this set of 

comments is included as a part of this 

docket to ensure the public has access 

to this set of comments as part of the 

record for this decision. The comments, 

which are focused on the State’s and 

EPA’s underlying requirements for fieldconstructed tanks, do not implicate 

EPA’s decision whether to approve 

Hawaii’s revised UST Program. UST 

State Program Approval is intended for 

states to obtain the authority to operate 

their programs in lieu of the Federal 

program and is not an opportunity to reopen comment on either the underlying 

Federal or state rules. The public 

comment period for the 2015 Federal 

UST regulations closed on April 16, 

2012, and the public comment period 

for the Hawaii UST regulations closed 

on June 5, 2018. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 12595 

II. Codification 

A. What is codification, and will EPA 

codify Hawaii’s UST program? 

Codification is the process of placing 

citations and references to the state’s 

statutes and regulations that comprise 

the state’s approved UST program into 

the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA 

does this by adding those citations and 

references to the approved state rules in 

40 CFR part 282. EPA is not codifying 

the approval of Hawaii’s changes at this 

time. However, EPA intends to amend 

40 CFR part 282, subpart B, to reflect the 

updated approval of Hawaii’s program 

changes at a later date. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

(E.O.) Reviews 

This action only applies to Hawaii’s 

UST Program requirements pursuant to 

RCRA Section 9004 and imposes no 

requirements other than those imposed 

by state law. It complies with applicable 

EOs and statutory provisions as follows: 

A. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory 

Planning and Review, Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action from 

the requirements of Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). This action approves state 

requirements for the purpose of RCRA 

Section 9004 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to review by OMB. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) 

regulatory action because actions such 

as this approval of Hawaii’s revised 

underground storage tank program 

under RCRA are exempted under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Because this action approves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538). For the same reason, and because 

there are no federally recognized Tribes 

within the State, this action also does 

not significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of tribal governments, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action will not have 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

approves state requirements as part of 

the State RCRA Underground Storage 

Tank Program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. 

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant, and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. 

F. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 12866. 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under RCRA Section 9004(b), EPA 

grants a state’s application for approval 

as long as the state meets the criteria 

required by RCRA. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state approval 

application, to require the use of any 

particular voluntary consensus standard 

in place of another standard that 

otherwise satisfies the requirements of 

RCRA. Thus, the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. 

H. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

As required by Section 3 of Executive 

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 

1996), in taking this action, EPA has 

taken the necessary steps to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. 

I. Executive Order 12630: Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

EPA has complied with Executive 

Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 

1988) by examining the takings 

implications of the action in accordance 

with the ‘‘Attorney General’s 

Supplemental Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the Executive order. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

‘‘Burden’’ is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Because this action approves preexisting state rules which are at least 

equivalent to, consistent with, and no 

less stringent than existing Federal 

requirements, and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law, and there is no 

anticipated significant adverse human 

health or environmental effects, the 

action is not subject to Executive Order 

12898. 

L. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801–808, generally provides that, 

before a rule may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. This action is not 

considered a ‘‘rule’’ within the meaning 

of 5 U.S.C. 804, since it does not 

substantially affect the rights or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
12596 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

obligations of non-agency parties. 

However, this action will be effective at 

1:00 p.m. HST March 7, 2022, because 

it is a final approval. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Sections 2002(a), 7004(b), and 

9004, 9005 and 9006 of RCRA, also known 

as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 

42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and 6991c, 6991d, 

and 6991e. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Hazardous substances, Petroleum, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, State program approval, 

Underground storage tanks. 

Dated: February 26, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04723 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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; Luke.Loy@

dot.gov. 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 § 393.5, that include ‘‘a fleetrelated 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 § 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 

§ 393.5 by revising the definition of 

vehicle safety technology to add 

technologies that had been granted 

temporary exemptions from § 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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES